 Okay, great. Good evening and welcome to the capitol planning Commission meeting We are meeting via zoom because of the the cobit and there are several ways that the public can watch and participate On the screen now you should be able to see the several ways that you can join in the meeting by phone by the webinar and We welcome your participation If you are a zoom attendee raise your hand as a participant and then just wait to be recognized so with that we will call the Regular meeting of the capitol planning Commission to order. We have the role, please Edna. Oh, I'm sorry tonight on The meetings can be viewed live on the city's website and also on charter channel 71 and compas 25 and AT&T Uverse channel 90 and our technician tonight is noel copy Okay, roll call, please Edna. Yeah Here Thank you, Edna and now we'll start the meeting with the pledge of allegiance, please a pledge of allegiance We're getting better Okay, that brings us to item two on the agenda tonight, which is oral communications Katie or Matt. Are there any additions or deletions to the agenda? There are no additions or deletions to the agenda this evening Okay, thank you. Do we have any people standing by to make public comments? We do have a public comment for 307 McCormick, which was emailed in which I can read to the record Into the record when that item comes up Okay Looks like there is one hand raised right now These are for items that are not on the agenda I Believe this is the person who has the comment for 307 McCormick, but okay Well, we'll wait till we get to that particular item that if that they can hear us We'll be there in probably just a few minutes So we'll move on Any Commission comments tonight? This is commission will I have a comment? Okay So I don't want to open open debate on this topic But for the record, I would like to voice my disapproval of adding the color board in the applications for these proceedings That's my only comment Okay As noted, I'm sure it will be in the minutes any staff comments I'll have a directors report at the end of the meeting no staff comments at this time Okay Our next item in is the approval of the minutes from the regular meeting of March 4th 2021 I understand there is a correction to the minutes Commissioner Newman, did you have a correction? Yeah, I didn't catch it, but apparently the minutes reflect my approval of the color board Initiative which I do not approve of so that should be changed So for Edna that is the item for a In the last paragraph It's changing the name Ed Newman to make route. Thank you. Okay. Any other additions or corrections to the minutes? Hearing none is there a motion to approve Don't move Commissioner Wilk there a second. I'll second to a sure question Motion is second to approve the minutes as as modified May have the roll call please Edna And the motion carries the minutes are approved and that brings us to item for the consent calendar We have two items on the consent calendar tonight 1447th Avenue for a second story edition and 4850 towpads for a remodel of an existing three-story family residence Is there any one of these items any member of the Commission would like to pull for discussion This is a Commissioner Wilk. I'd like to pull Item B 4850 towpads Street just to get a question answered Okay Let's take item a first 1447th Avenue. Is there a motion to approve? No proof so much so moved Have a second you will Procedurally, I think we need to make sure no member of the public would like to pull an item off Prior to making a motion Okay, well, we do have the motion on the floor. So is there any member of the public who wishes to address? 47th Avenue or towpads Street in the zoom meeting None of the attendees are raising their hands and it looks like there's no public comment within our The public comment email, okay, so we're okay to proceed Yeah, we'll continue is there a second thing to the motion to approve 1447th Avenue When the motion is there a second all second reporting for our commissioner Christian They have a motion in the second all in favor. Oh, we need the roll call, please Ed. I'm sorry I am staying due to proximity 1447th Avenue is approved and let's go to 4850 towpads. Mr. Wilkes you had a question I did when I looked at the conditions of approval. That was a requirement for an eight foot fence the last two feet being lattice and I wanted to get an understanding of was that in fact buying any privacy and Sean Believe was maybe going to take a look at that and give me a response. Hey, did you get your response? No, I'm hoping I will get it right now Sean, yes, I'm here. Good evening commissioners to that question It I want to first state that it wasn't included as a condition of approval to have a Changed fence it was included as details in their color material board that they were proposing to modify their existing fence or replace it with a taller fence that included lattice so that it would be up to eight feet But it was not included in their conditions of approval And it was by the recommendation of staff as a mitigation measure. I don't have a visual for you on the rear yard, but It looks like they have an approximately six to seven foot fence there already. So that would be going up one to two feet From the existing fence height. Okay. Well, that's an allowable fence under our under our rules Right. So my concern was that that was a recommendation that came up during our concise and they They agreed to do it but my concern is that We did they feel perhaps undue pressure in order to try to get their whole building approved and willing to Accept things that are unnecessary. So I when I had I called Matt and I said, well, I was concerned about that if you know if the idea is to Add some privacy by all means But it's already a second story. I wasn't sure how adding another two feet Would add any privacy and was it a just a frivolous condition or a frivolous request by Arkansas? And I thought I was going to get a better answer then it's yeah, I know what does you know, so I Guess my concern would be I'd want to know if if They in fact would prefer to leave the fence alone or just have a six foot fence So perhaps if no one objects to that not being a condition If staff if everybody's okay with staff just contacting them saying that that is not a requirement and that And that the planning Commission does not require it as part of the application Then it's up to them whether or not they want to be a good neighbor or not Does that make any sense? Yeah, I understand what you're saying Makes sense to me. It's a be strictly voluntary on their part. Okay Would that be okay if that makes that communication to the applicants that We we can we do approve the application and that we review the sense requirement and determined It was not it was not something we particularly insisted on So I believe we actually do have someone with their hand raised. I'm not sure if it's the owner So that is one of the owners After discussion and questions we can open the public hearing and Okay, any other Questions for staff regarding this project on Topaz Street If not, then we'll open it up to the applicant if the applicants present you can Enter into the conversation now Mr. Sokolov I'm gonna go ahead and give him the ability to talk here. So All he has to do is unmute himself now Great, good evening everybody. Can you hear me? Okay? This is rock. So first Want to thank Commissioner Wilkes for his comment and consideration that meant a lot But the idea to go to a higher fence Is two-fold one is we do want to make sure we're sensitive to neighbors And we wanted higher fence The second Reason is because I'm six seven. I don't want them seeing me either. So It really is something that we choose to do not not feel like we have to Thank you then then then I move approval of this application Thank you, Mr. Sokolov. Do we have a second? Second There we have a motion and a second to approve the application at 4850 Topaz Street And then we have the roll call please Emotion carries. Good luck. Mr. Sokolov with your project That brings us to item five public hearings. We have one tonight at 307 McCormick Avenue This is a design permit for a first and second story addition and a variance request for the parking space dimensions and side yard setbacks Matt you're doing the presentation actually Sean Sean Good evening commissioners So the application before you is through a seven McCormick Avenue. It's a proposal to add 703 square feet in addition To the first story and a new second story to an existing 1148 square foot one story single-family residence The existing residence is as I mentioned a one-story single-family home. It's not conforming Due to proximity to the side setback it's located in Above Deepo Hill and it's in between Deepo Hill and Noble Gulch Park Start by one and two-story single-family homes Site plan orange indicates the enclosed first and second-story additions including the garage to the front The second-story deck is shown in green behind these are the existing and proposed Single-story floor plan This is the new second story with the deck. These are the existing and proposed front elevations Here's the rear. These are the existing proposed north elevations on the side to the right and these are the Elevations existing proposed to the left. The applicant has requested a variance to the required covered parking space dimensions and The required side yard setback both are in regards to the garage and the parking space within So into capital and municipal code the planning commission may grant a variance When it finds that one there is a special Circumstances applicable to the property that the private privilege is enjoyed by other Properties in the vicinity and to that a grant of variance would not constitute a grant a special privilege inconsistent with the limitation on other properties in the vicinity Variance requests will be analyzed on the following slide The code requires the proposed structure to have at least one on-site garage parking space That is 10 feet wide by 20 feet deep The garage must also be at least four feet from the side four feet 11 inches from the side property line Due to the location of the existing structure the applicant can only fit a nine foot wide covered parking space With the construction of it the new garage which is required Additionally the garage comes within four feet of the property line, which is 11 inches less than what is required for these setbacks In relation to variance finding a the subject property Is an irregularly shaped lot the rear property line is angled there for one side of the property is 16 feet shorter than the other In addition the structure through some McCormick Avenue as well as several surrounding properties are misaligned the property boundaries Due to the property shape and historical orientation of development on this lot and surrounding lots the strict applications of Development standards for parking space dimensions would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the city and Under identical zone classification in relation to variance finding B Staff reviewed characteristics and lot dimensions of 11 properties along the west side of McCormick Avenue between Park Avenue and Loma Avenue eight of the observed 11 properties have garages or carports and five of those garages and carports appear to have non-conforming size yard setbacks therefore a Grant of a variance would not constitute a grant of a special privilege because the multiple properties in the vicinity have Existing garages or carports that encroach into the required side setbacks and would not otherwise meet minimum parking dimensions If they had complied with all of their development standards Structure as mentioned before is is not conforming due to the south side The south side of the the structure on the single story Staff reviewed the proposal that it does not exceed 80% of the fair market value of the structure and Staff found that the alterations Constructed 55% of the present fair market value of structures. So the alterations are permissible With the approval of a variance for the garage setbacks and covered parking dimensions the projects otherwise complies with the parking requirements we also wanted to note that the existing structure on the encroaching south side has ease that actually extend over their property line because the proposal will include a Reconstruction of the roof the applicant has proposed removing ease on that south side so that they do not cross property lines any longer Municipal code allows for maximum driveway width of 40% of lot width and Currently the entire front yard is gravel and utilized for parking across the majority of the street frontage The proposed project will bring the landscape area into compliance with the maximum driver width and and Landscaping and will replace the gravel area between the new driveway and the south property line with regular landscaping to not be used by Additional parking To this condition number six requires the applicant to submit a landscape plan for approval by the community development director prior to issuance of a building permit With that staff recommends the planning commission approve the project based on the conditions and findings for approval Okay, thank you Sean. Are there any questions for staff? Yes, I do Mr. Newman, thank you. I Didn't understand the reason for two variances One being a small side yard variance on the north side and the other being a variance for the smaller size for the parking space why if you're gonna if we're gonna Approve a side yard variance. Why don't we do it for a standard size parking space? What's the right? What's the reasoning there if the applicant or owner are present? See if they'd like to explain that Don't see them. Oh I do see the owner. I don't know if he would like to to discuss though Well, if the staff doesn't have any thoughts on that we can let him address it in the when we open the public hearing I Can I can address that to some degree about why they they proposed it this way in short? They are trying to negotiate in between the the differences in Standards they wanted to maintain some level of setback from the adjacent properties So to that effect they wanted to maintain a four-foot buffer between properties But they also wanted to make sure the space inside the garage was was functional so they Went in between both Standards and apply for the variance that you've seen Okay, any other questions for staff? I have one And I'm curious if and I didn't see this in the Arkansite discussion Was the issue of privacy on the adjacent properties Addressed because of the second-story deck and also I'm curious as to why the west side of the second-story deck Is parallel to the property line on Bay Avenue? Why isn't it squared off because if there is a privacy issue even if we were to require Six-foot walls on each side of the deck to alleviate that problem We couldn't do it because of the way the deck is angled so I'm curious as to why that is To clarify that second question. Are you asking why the the rear deck is angled? Larger on one side than the other yeah, because if there are privacy issues They can't even be resolved with adding sidewalls to the deck on the on the north and south sides of the deck That doesn't appear that Arkansite even addressed the privacy issues the the deck there was angled as you see To comply with the second or the rear setbacks for the first day of story, okay? That makes sense. I could thought that might be the case It was It did come up briefly in the the planning for the Arkansite meeting As to the privacy impacts the our local architect did when he felt that this was a design that addressed that and built it into the the the setbacks relating to the neighboring property on the On the north face. There's a window above the stairwell, and that's that's it. There are no other windows facing that property the And the deck is as you see it it is as far towards the middle as it can be but I can I can let our One of the owners speak if they want to discuss that further Okay, thank you Sean Okay, so this is a public hearing and then it's time to open it up to the public is the owner Ready to speak. Yes. I see that they have raised their hand. Okay, mr. Rafferty and so if you unmute unmute your screen You'll be able to speak Okay, here I am. Can you hear hear me? Yes? We can okay? What would you like me to comment on? Well, this is your time to Respond to any concerns the Planning Commission had or to add any additional information to support your application No, I don't have anything further Okay, and if you have questions that be happy to answer them. Okay There any questions for the owner of the property? Hey have a question commissioner Christiansen Have the question go ahead I I'm curious with the along the lines of what commissioner Newman Was addressing the I was just curious why the four foot mark it seems like if you were to Just just push it to three foot passage. I mean I can understand why you want to have a nice passage on that side For your side set back because the other side seems to have none But if you I mean even if you were to square off your garage and create a three-foot passage It would you know enable you to have a regular shaped parking space I'm just curious why why are you going for both variances? Okay, so I If I'm still you can still hear me. I think we actually wanted to square off the garage And I thought that's actually what was going to be shown here Dennis is having trouble getting into the call the architect But I think we'd prefer actually have a squared off garage and after yes the single variants of Encouragement Right I Think with a square the way it's shown it doesn't encroach or it keeps well, I didn't know that I thought the setback was for being up for feet 11 inches, so Anyway, I'd go either way There's a personal reason but that was no no we'd prefer to have it square Any other questions for the property owner Someone had a comment or somebody else there was a comment Prior to the the meeting where you had a comment from email Wasn't for you that's that's the public comment for the meeting. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rations We'll bring it back to the To the Commission and can you read that email, please Matt? Look Katie has the Chair Ruth we actually have one more person hoping to speak this evening and you're muted Katie Well, that's not very helpful This evening we have one more member of the public who would like to speak Lisa Salvino and Sean if you can allow her to speak via zoom and miss Salvino. You'll have to unmute yourself. There you go Yep, I think I am. Can you hear me? Yeah, yes, right? Thanks My name's Lisa and my husband Jim's with me and We're the primary residents 309 McCormick, so we are on the north side next to this proposed plan and We purchased this house 22 years ago and razor we've raised our daughters here We have concerns about not only the variance but Nick as you mentioned privacy, so I was happy to hear you bring that up So the key things here If we talk about the variance We are concerned and we oppose it because the stepbacks are non-conforming Which is obviously why we're here It's not going to support the parking demands of this neighborhood. I would point out that we are We are not a permitted street. We are a highly used street for parking by employees Down in the village and also tourists Now that the outdoor dining is in place, which is wonderful that Esplanade parking is also no longer available Which has created higher demands Secondly talked about privacy. This is a big concern to us You know, I'm not an architect but in looking at the plan it appears to me that we will have a wall Except, you know nine feet away from us I To be quite honest the stairway window is not of a huge concern to me But we have a reverse floor plan. So our whole living area our kitchen our family room And our dining room are all upstairs The addition will put a wall nine feet from our dining room window our Kitchen and most importantly our deck. So when they're out on their deck They will be able to into on to our deck completely I mean I could toss the paper over to them in the morning as well as into our living room and our dining room Now I would I mean I am happy to invite a whole of you over to actually come upstairs and see what we're dealing with because you'll see it It's a very small space and we've lived here for 22 years. We haven't done any large modifications This is this is it. And so this is a huge encroachment to our privacy Then I also wanted to talk about kind of it on the issue of privacy Tom is never Thomas, you know, it owns the house for 20 years. We do know him He's never lived as a resident in that house outside of a couple months during the fires last fall He says tenants the whole time they have repeatedly over the last 20 years voice Concerns to us about his commitment to the duties he has with the landlord There have been two separate occasions that you can look up years ago Where the domestic violence was happening and police had to come this was two different sets of tenants where that's occurred The other thing That I want to point out is that we're talking about this garage and making sure they have a network for the garage There was a garage on this property. There was a car a carport the heat He walled up and created a non permitted room in back. So there was a garage there I mean the house as it sits today is size well for the lot. It's not a big lot When he walled in that garage There was no front entrance for visitors to the person who was back there We had on more than one occasion Drippers coming on down our side yard in the evening thinking they were going to see this gentleman next door You know, this was when our children really got so, you know, given the history We have no doubt that this is going to be a rental and we'll deal with the same things that we dealt with Parking, you know, I know there's going to be two spaces Three three bedroom house. I think it's just realistic for us to assume there will be three cars and I think in closing I just want to say that I really If someone know we've lived here are are for 22 years in this house We are active in the community We love this area and we're committed to the neighborhood and I would really urge you to put the needs of the owner occupied residence of the street and even the community when you're considering the proposal because I think it was sprung on us Literally we found out about this eight days ago and that's unfortunate So, thank you. That's any questions for me. I'm happy to answer Thank you. Mr. Salvino for mr. Salvino any questions for mr. Salvino. Yes, I Didn't quite understand the history of a prior parking Area that was walled in can you kind of explain to me where that is on the plans or was But you could show the plans Sean. I could probably point it pointed out There was a carport there. It was a covered carport It was of normal size. You could park of those. There were several tenants in the time We've lived here that parked their car in that carport Yeah, but I'm I'm trying to find out where it was John could you put the plan on the screen, please? So it's right where the proposed garage is there is where that's that's where the carport was It might have been a little bit it may have been actually a little further in towards the driveway actually Okay, and then you say that was closed in to make a room out of it Yeah, there was they closed it in I believe skip addressed it in his in his letter to that he wrote Okay, so that's currently a living space that's going to be turned into a garage Well, okay, here's what I can say there is a living space that was walled off the carport was taken out The carport was it was taken out at some point and the structure the room was walled up Does the walling up of that room affect your? I guess the existence but no truthfully it didn't it has not at all Because if you're on my deck today and you you can't actually see down into their yard because there is you know trees which I think you know are They were somewhere here, but there are trees there that do do prohibit us from seeing down I mean if anything they can look up yeah at us, but this is gonna put them face to face nine feet from Which is just It's a serious privacy issue for us especially as The expectation is that it will be renters you know, they tend to go in and out and Unfortunate for those that are primary residents Okay, any more questions from the Commission. We do have one additional public comment Okay, it's written Sean, can you no longer share your screen so that I can share mine? One moment so unfortunately my Read aloud feature is not working. So I will be reading this out loud to you for the record dear planning Commission our Family including myself have been residents of 310 McCormick across the street from the Rothschins home for 46 years We were surprised to receive notice 11 days ago by snail mail of the current plans for a major addition Invariances to 307 McCormick and wondered why we hadn't heard this before I will note that over the years I've watched the original garage on the north side of the Rothschins home converted to an unpermitted living space and ultimately walled in it seems Dissingenuous that now another garage will be built in front of the original garage This new garage will not fit without variances Our family opposes these theoretically Hardship variances as they move the new garage even closer to the next-door neighbor's property at 309 McCormick and Shift the hardship to them in addition a garage Narrowed to less than 10 feet is unusable by larger cars and SUVs and further Further is both the need for increased on-street parking by the residents and adds the possibility of a new garage will also become Interior living space as many garages in Capitola have become I know from the Online plans that there is also a planned roof deck overlooking the Rothschins backyard in 1992 when we applied for an upstairs addition at 310 McCormick including an 8 by 12 roof deck Overlooking our rear yard. We were told by planners and the Planning Commission that due to privacy issues Our roof deck was denied even though roof decks at that time were unmentioned in the building codes We appealed but the city stood firm My question is if rear roof decks impinge on next-door neighbors privacy Can it now be approved if not? We also oppose the rear yard deck Additions to the Rothschins plans no matter how small without sidewalks curbs and a narrow street parking on McCormick Ave is tight at best often used by village visitors and employees. We politely suggest to planning and architects that in cases where new construction may have Major impact on neighbors including privacy and parking that an initial requirement Be have you spoken with the neighbors? We were not afforded this courtesy Which I imagine would often save headaches and expense for future projects best regards skippin Marley Allen Marilee Allen Hey, thank you, Katie Do we have any other looming public comments? I'm gonna check. There's no way Dennis Norton can get in I Should like to hear from the architect He's not present in the zoom meeting Okay, well we'll close the public portion then and bring it back to the Commission I would like to say it was interesting for skip Allen's history on roof decks second-story decks because the council used to take a very hard line on those and not allow them and I think we've gotten lax on that and I need probably to Go back to how we used to handle them and not not allow them for privacy reasons So Let's bring it back to the to the Commission Any Commission wanting to make comments? suggestions Hi, this is the Commission Wilk I can chime in with just my general observation. I didn't I Didn't think this was going to be a problem when I looked at the how I And I saw that it was a single-story house and that there seemed to be a lot of Variances in the neighborhood over the years a lot of two-story houses flat-roofed houses different designs crazy angles this and that very narrow side yard and Yeah, I did notice that the Jason houses had these high decks and it occurred to me Well, this this applicant is just trying to make his house Are taking advantage of the same variances or what have you that that everybody else in the neighborhood has so I just thought In general without actually having stood on his roof and looked at the neighbor's yards that That he wasn't asking for anything that was unusual for the neighborhood Beyond that, I'm willing to listen to other arguments Commissioner Christensen you had a comment I I basically that's the Commissioner Wilk headed on the head. I just I mean I understand Actually, I need to formulate my words a little bit better If you could go to the next question, please Mr. Newman any comments? Yes, I do So To me this raises a general issue of the extensive use of variances in Capitola Which over my period of time on the planning commission. I've seen it then become more and more liberal The state law requires very strict adherence to the requirements for a variance We have been basically just seeing a flurry of Applications with variances with the idea that well, we've counted people on the street who have old houses who Sparking or side yard doesn't comply with the current Guidelines and therefore we should let this one build that way too, but I disagree with that And I've heard other council members expressed disagreement with that too because The idea of having design guidelines is to upgrade the community and the construction in the community and If the philosophy is to say well, there's a lot of old houses here that don't meet those guidelines So we should allow this one to build to not meet the guidelines There's really no point in having the guidelines So I have strong reservations About the variance. I heard some things tonight too that kind of disturbed me too Yeah, as you know, I'm kind of a rules guy and when someone illegally encloses a garage and then comes Before the planning commission with another garage that needs a variance That that I have a little trouble with that too as a Basis for a variance. So that's not the main Ration out for my Concern over this application. It's just basically that we should not be Overusing the variance process every time an application comes in because there's a lot of old houses that don't meet current standards Question ed This is uh commissioner wilk. So I understand what you're saying. It makes sense Uh, what is your feeling on this roof deck? Idea commissioner ruth was saying it it seems to Depend on which commissioners are sitting on the diet as to whether or not they're approved or not What is your opinion on that? Well, I agree with the commissioner ruth's history on this The cap again capitol has evolved on it We and it's hard for the public because we there's some things we clearly don't protect like ocean views and so forth but the the council and the planning commission has been very protective of privacy when it comes to decks and that has Taken the form of in some cases not allowing people to Get on to the decks By having a doorway and other cases by not allowing the decks So I think I think it is a One of the jobs of the planning commission to Look into that and it's a balancing because I mean both property owners have some rights there, but We have to balance those rights So your argument would be because of the neighbor has the high deck. That's the grandfathered in situation Uh, but a new bill especially in this extensive a remodel should meet the code because for your reasons Is we're trying to upgrade the neighborhood and not continue Them in less than optimum conditions I think that's a fair characterization Thank you Okay, commissioner christensen. Are you ready? I wanted yes. I just wanted to clarify so the um The letter that katie just wrote That there's The old garage or the old carport is where bedroom three is currently located. Is that right? Is that what I Like interpret that correctly Sean could you put up the floor plans, please? Existing I do want to offer to the commission that with the new information About possibly an illegal enclosure. You could also we could come back with additional information if so needed I think that would be a decent idea I just that was just something I wanted to clarify. I at first I thought that the um that the Garage was the proposed location for the garage was where the carport was located and I didn't if it was behind it then um I mean, I kind of agree with commissioner So could could I hear a stab? This is commissioner wilk again. Can I hear a staff? explanation for recommending approval of this variance then one more time Is that ideally I'd like to agree with staff whenever possible Sean yeah that handy or so did you want us to look at the the variance findings again? Yeah, so you You said well, you know the conditions they have to be you know an exceptional and kind of went through them Could you just even I wasn't paying close enough attention? But it seemed to me that that's worth going over again. Why your rationale for or why the variance is needed or acceptable I can share that on the screen from the staff report if you'd like Sean You'd like me to put that out? Sure Yeah, if you can stop I'll put it up there. I think reflecting back in the report the discussion of how the lot is shaped was one reason for the The variance the rear the rear lot is at an angle Um and then also the home itself when it was built Was not built um in alignment with the lot lines, but typically you're looking at the The lot itself is um not a it has a unique shape to it And it's not isolated to this property in the neighborhood either. There are multiple ones that are very Off in terms of orientation including the property to the north. Um, that is uh very non-conforming as well That that speaks to Ed's uh issue which is that that shouldn't be a reason for a variance, right? We're trying to improve the neighborhood not uh discontinued to allow non-conformances Just because the other houses I have non-conformances We want to make the neighborhood better get them all conforming because eventually every house will probably have to be remodeled one day Also, right I don't think this lot is that oddly shaped if you look at the site plan. I mean it's It's got square corners on both sides on mccormick avenue and there's just uh You know it's trapezoid, but it's not really that that weirdly shaped Not for a side yard setback variance. Yeah I mean, we have some weirdly shaped lots in capitol, but this is not one of them. Okay Have we got all the questions answered? I would like to point out one more thing Just when people were talking about the setback of that second story deck that the second story and the second story deck Not only comply with development standards, but by a long shot the setback is six feet nine inches and on one side It's nine feet and the other side is 15 feet. So We're not talking about a deck that did not comply with standards. It actually is Farther from the setbacks than it even needed to be so Hey, I have to add this is commissioner christensen. Um, I don't mean to interject but uh I do think that the north elevation I feel like they have paid attention to not putting, you know, overly large windows Um in that side so they don't stare into from their living space to the neighbor's living space Even though it's close proximity And I would agree that most of I mean capitol has Really small side yard setbacks So I I I agree that um We shouldn't further intensify those as you know a nice The standard but at the same time like I I like to ask myself when Some of these suggesting Doing something like this, you know, what what else would they do kind of thing like what else would we suggest they do, you know, so This garage is providing parking if if there is a point that they walled in existing parking that's An entirely different point but as it's drawn um I feel like that As it's drawn if we were just to give be given this context, it's a proper solution for covered parking It's a you know Regardless of whether or not it's in the setback or not. It's still providing more parking on their lot um I don't know that's that's kind of what i'm thinking I haven't made a comment yet I would like to see a redesign that Creates A deck that can afford privacy to the neighbors if there Is a necessity for a second-story deck if not, I'd like to see it eliminated And perhaps even redesign the garage so it can Be constructed without a variance Maybe we should just continue this item and that would be my suggestion. I concur also with mr. Rearman Uh, and a split boat would would uh result in a uh This pool Yeah, so I think that's probably the best this applicant's likely to get is the split boat I would I would move to continue Well continue to do and for them to do what? I would To get more on the garage I I mean it's kind of fair wouldn't you say? just to I mean katie or um, I'd like to ask staff what How would you how would you go about investigating something like that? Is that a thing that um That you could Yes, um, so we could we could take a look at what has been permitted on this site And see if there was previously a garage that was enclosed Sounds like it was a So we can do more history and look into the record It'd be helpful in this motion if you'd like to continue Um to provide direction to the applicant. So if if we were to find that The there's an illegal You know addition on the site just providing direction of do you have any direction regarding the second story? deck changes you'd like to see in an application that came back any direction towards um making sure there's a compliant we can bring back more information on any Any illegal conversions that took place? But if you do have the specific direction on the deck, this would be the appropriate time And I don't know that you'd be able to give direction on the parking until we bring back that The information for you on whether or not there was an illegal conversion I think you're with that. I'm sorry go ahead Katie can we deny this without prejudice so the applicant can submit a redesign and not have to pay the fees again You know, um, I think it would be less expensive for the applicant if you were to continue and have them and Review it at the next meeting with more information at this point. They're vested into a design and staff time so You could you could deny without prejudice Or Continue and we'll do our research and work with the applicant before we bring it back Well, I want to be clear that I just don't believe that the shape or any of the characteristics of this lot Satisfy the state requirements for a variance. So I don't want to mislead The applicant then to putting a lot of money into designing Making design changes that still require a variance when I don't think they can meet the requirements for a variance Man, I should I didn't realize this is going to be this difficult So the variances that you're concerned are are the side yard setback in the parking? That's the two they're asking for but to get any variance They have to meet the two requirements one of which is special circumstances by reason of the shape and et cetera of the lot and the property and they're They're telling me because one line of the lot that has nothing to do with the variance Area is slanted that that somehow creates Satisfies that requirement and I don't buy it So but what they said is that they they increased the setback of four feet thinking that that was acceptable But it's four feet 11 so Then they need a variance for that So if they were to come back with a four foot 11 clearance that would eliminate that variant that needs for that variance, correct If they had a proper size parking garage They had the proper size parking garage. They're asking for variance as the size as well as side garrants head back Yeah So so So in order to be compliant they would They would increase the side setback 11 inches that would squeeze the garage So they have to push the garage They'd have to widen the garage In and eat into their living space. Yeah, well if I could if I could interject here I don't think it's our job to redesign the project for them I think I think that is their obligation if we continue it and suggest that we're not going to approve the variance Uh, well, I'm trying to give them for Katie's instruction some guidance as to where our concerns are Right, so that's where I was going with that our concerns are strictly the variances Which is the garage is too small and the side yard setback is is too narrow Right and and the roof deck and the privacy encroachment on the neighbors But the the roof deck is not a They're not that's not a variance No So so we're mixing two concerns here. There's the variance which would probably satisfy ed And then there's the view shed your privacy issue Which is a whole nother topic, which is which is your concern. I don't know if that's a concern and it's a concern of the neighbors Well, it is but There's a lot of neighbors have a lot of concerns. I'm concerned about how this boat is going to go So I would like to someone attempt a motion Well, I Courtney moved to continuance, right? I'll second that Okay, we have a motion and a second then to continue this item to our next regularly scheduled meeting Or to the next meeting when the applicant is ready Uh, may the roll call please edna It's okay. Can we reopen discussion? No, we have a motion on the floor right now where the vote started. We have to finish it I vote no then Okay, I'll vote no I'll vote no Okay, commissioner newman. I think the ball is in your court Okay I'd like to move. This is not the entire application. I'd like to move to deny the variance requests There a second chair will second the motion May the roll call please edna the motion carries and the application is denied Or that was a motion to deny the variances Motion to deny the application. I guess it amounts to that. Yeah, so that brings us to the next item Which is the director's report? Katie any Any more information for us tonight? Yeah, I have some information for you So first I wanted to touch upon code enforcement that was brought up the last meeting We are going to take this I'm going to take a discussion on this to our city council Not next week, but that this will go on the 22nd of April So I'll be bringing that discussion forward and it will have to do with signs as well as outdoor displays and Just a lot of the stuff we're seeing around town Second I have really exciting news For someone who's been working on a zoning code update since she arrived in capitol The coastal commission we are on their agenda for April 12th and We received a letter from them A few weeks back Outlining their changes the letter was short. They had four changes for the overall code One has to do with Actually Three of the changes are regarding visitors serving And the monarch cove in they did not agree with the change to add r1 to that or single family to that site They also in our Mapping they've asked that we've removed the r1 from that site as well as the depot that in a depot hill site and then some of the Put notes that we had put in the visitors serving regarding monarch cove in that The exchange of allowing them to have single family there in exchange for an easement to a permanent view shed or nightly rental they've They'll be recommending to the coastal commission not to accept those staff changes The other change has to do with the village the future village hotel or the former theater site And on that site throughout the village There's always been commercial allowed on the ground floor and then residential on the any stories above the first floor And they have added a note to that site prohibiting residential any type of residential on the former theater site So I actually took this to city council last week The we drafted a letter in response to their changes asking them to accept The original document as proposed and as submitted We outlined some of the history of the monarch coven outlined some of the history of The former theater site And with that the council directed us to submit this the the letter to the coastal commission So the meeting is on the 12th The public hearings begin at 9 a.m. You're welcome to View it And speaking with rainy who's our representative she thinks will be on the agenda around 9 30 in the morning so I'm looking forward to that discussion and we've submitted the letter from the city council. So hopefully They hear our plea But it is exciting that that will be going in front Of the coastal commission and then after that any modifications that they do ask for will have to go back to our city council And in order for it to be certified and take effect in In capitolah, so those are my And the last change that they asked for was We're not substantive changes just regarding the language of protecting the views from the cliff above Looking down at the over the theater site. So those are my updates and I'll I look forward to giving you another update on our lcp submittal at the next hearing Hey, thank you katie. Are there any communications from any of the commissioners? Hearing none then looks like we're all done. We'll adjourn the meeting To our next regularly scheduled meeting in may Thank you katie. Thank you commissioners Thank you. Bye. Thank you