Planning Commission Meeting

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 28, 2013 AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY 4:00 pm - 5:30 pm FEW MEMORIAL HALL OF RECORDS, COUNCIL CHAMBERS 580 PACIFIC STREET MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Commissioners Present: Garden, McCrone, Davis, Osorio, Stocker, Reed, Widmar Commissioners Absent: None Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Cole, City Engineer Reeves, Sr. Engineer Krebs, Principal Engineer Harary, Recording Secretary Lebda CALL TO ORDER Chair Garden called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS On a motion by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Widmar, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved the CONSENT ITEMS: AYES: 7 COMMISSIONERS: Garden, McCrone, Davis, Osorio, Stocker, Reed, Widmar NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Approval of Minutes 1. May 14, 2013 ACTION: Approved as submitted. ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARING 2. Consider 560 Munras Avenue; Use Permit 13-198 for a Formula Fast Food Restaurant and Outdoor Seating; Applicant Brett Gray; Owner City of Monterey; C- 2 Zoning District (Exempt from CEQA) ACTION: Adopted Resolution approving Use Permit 13-198 for a Formula Fast Food Restaurant and Outdoor Seating.  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, May 28, 2013 Staff Presentation/Commission Questions Kim Cole presented the staff report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Applicant Heather Pearson, Chipotle representative, said they are excited to add to Monterey’s downtown vibrancy and they are favored in all communities where currently located. She said they believe the additional vehicular traffic won’t be too heavy, but there is also foot and bicycle traffic. She said the small outdoor area with awning and tables will be a good addition to the downtown as well as the neighborhood. In answer to Commissioners’ questions, she said perhaps 60-70% of the customers take out versus dine-in and no alcohol is allowed on the patio, but there is alcohol served inside of which is only about 2% of their sales. She said she will take under advisement the idea of extending evening hours to 10:00 pm to add to the nighttime livability. Public Comments None Commissioner Comments Commissioner Stocker said that he will agree with staff and move for approval. Commissioner Widmar seconded the motion. Answering Commissioners’ questions regarding staying open until 10:00 pm, Ms. Cole said there is no specific time limit in the Conditions of approval and they can stay open later without amendments to the use permit. Commissioner McCrone said this is a welcome activity and he will support the motion. He commented that there could have been a better explanation on the diagrams where this particular building was located within the complex. On a motion by Commissioner Stocker, seconded by Commissioner Widmar, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution approving Use Permit 13-198 for a Formula Fast Food Restaurant and Outdoor Seating. AYES: 7 COMMISSIONERS: Garden, McCrone, Davis, Osorio, Stocker, Reed, Widmar NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC APPEARANCE 3. Recommend 2013/2014 Capital Improvement Program and Neighborhood Improvement Program Consistency with the General Plan, Neighborhood Plans, Area Plans, and Coastal Plans to the City Council ACTION: Adopted Resolution recommending the 2013/2014 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and Neighborhood Improvement Program (NIP) is consistent with the General Plan, Neighborhood Plans, Area Plans and Coastal Plans. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, May 28, 2013 Staff Presentation/Commission Questions Kim Cole opened the presentation and introduced City Engineer Reeves, Sr. Engineer Krebs, and Principal Engineer Harary. Mr. Reeves reported on the NIP/CIP projects. Mr. Krebs reported on the streets, storm drain, and sewer system. Staff answered Commissioners’ questions regarding the Wharf, waterfront, and sewer system projects and funding. In answer to Commissioner McCrone’s question, Ms. Cole said she did not believe it is the Planning Commission’s discretion to add to the resolution discontinuance of spending the City’s General Funds for improvements on the waterfront and Wharfs. She said the Planning Commission’s role is only to review for plan conformance and that comments of how projects are funded could be individually voiced at the City Council meeting. Public Comments None. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Widmar moved to pass on to Council that the CIP/NIP reporting is consistent with all said City’s plans. He thanked and acknowledged city staff for working so hard on the programs and commented that the City is very good at doing what they can with less and less. Commissioner Osorio seconded the motion. Commissioner McCrone said that it is unfortunate that the Planning Commission does not have a juncture to have some input on the funding of these programs. He said Wharf and waterfront improvements are being funded by the City’s General Fund and suggested restructuring the leases to create a separate District so the General Fund is not used for those improvements. He said he will vote in favor because it is according to the Plans, but this concept should be revisited. On a motion by Commissioner Widmar, seconded by Commissioner Osorio, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution recommending the 2013/2014 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and Neighborhood Improvement Program (NIP) is consistent with the General Plan, Neighborhood Plans, Area Plans and Coastal Plans. AYES: 7 COMMISSIONERS: Garden, McCrone, Davis, Osorio, Stocker, Reed, Widmar NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None The Afternoon Session ended at 5:05 pm RECONVENE ***Evening Session Agenda*** 7:00 - 11:00 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, May 28, 2013 3  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, May 28, 2013 Commissioners Present: Garden, McCrone, Davis, Osorio, Stocker, Reed, Widmar Commissioners Absent: None Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Cole, Assistant City Attorney Salameh, Sr. Associate Planner Hopper, Recording Secretary Lebda CALL TO ORDER Chair Garden called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARING 4. Consider 50 Wharf #1 (Dominico's on the Wharf); Appeal 13-204 of Wharf Permit 13-113 for Exterior Alterations for the Placement of Two King Crab Pots; Appellant Chris Shake; Applicant Sam Mercurio for Mercurio Bros., Inc; Owner City of Monterey; Exempt from CEQA Requirements. ACTION: Adopted a Resolution granting Appeal 13-204 and denying Wharf Permit 13-113. Staff Presentation/Commission Questions Christy Hopper presented staff report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Applicant Anthony Lombardo, Attorney, speaking on behalf of the appellant, said that the City Code states that the City cannot issue any discretionary permit in violation of the City Code and this applicant is in direct violation of their 2007 and 2010 use permit conditions of approval such as their outdoor seating area and non-permitted signs. He handed out a picture of the 14 signs at the applicant’s business that are still in place. He said the king crab pots have nothing to do with the Monterey Bay and handed out an email response from Del Mar Sea Foods stating these crab pots are strictly used for king crab fishing in Alaska and Canada and that Monterey Bay traps are much smaller. He said he disagrees with classifying the crab pots as “decorations” and the City Code does not have a standard, definition or example for the term “decoration”. He said even the ARC findings state that the placement of the crab pots is to attract visual interest and attraction for the tourists, which attracts them to the business and that is no different than any other sign. In addition, he said, the pots loom over the seating area of Isabella’s and should be moved away from that vicinity. He said non-permitted signs, crab pots and hawkers are not going to improve the standings of Monterey or its Wharf. He distributed a picture of a Wharf in another city that does not have hawkers, king crab pots, or a proliferation of signs. In closing he said they request that this hearing be continued until the staff has time to investigate the violations before approving any more permits. Leigh Rodriguez, Attorney, speaking on behalf of the Mercurio Brothers, said that he Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, May 28, 2013 objects to the allegations that there are gross violations at the site. He said if at all they are fixable, minor or de minimis, and easily treatable. He said staff recommended a condition that before the crab pots are placed on the property Dominico’s is to remove all unpermitted signs and improvements and they are willing to follow all the recommendations. He said anything can be interpreted as being used for the purposes of communicating a message or attracting attention to the premises, but this is only a crab pot, it is not a sign. To clarify, Mr. Mercurio interjected that it is not a crab pot, it is a fish trap used for catching cod and that they are built in California. Mr. Rodriguez said they can be easily modified for fishing in Monterey. He said that they request the Planning Commission follow staff recommendations and Dominico’s will abide by any further recommendations for placing the crab pots at restaurant. Sam Mercurio, co-owner of Dominico’s said he is a commercial fisherman and that is his passion. He said he sells a lot of seafood in his restaurant and to have opportunity to have crab pots where people take pictures and talk about it is a great thing for the whole Wharf. He said that they run a clean business and have never had a health department violation or been fined. Public Comments John Pisto said he is the former owner of Dominico’s and other restaurants on the Wharf. He said that Sam Mercurio uses more king crab than anyone else selling crab from Alaska not from Russia, being conscientious of quality. He said that signs come and go on the Wharf almost by the minute, Mr. Mercurio has the same right to compete as anyone else, and it is not good business if a business can’t put up a sign indicating what they offer. He said everyone knows where this is coming from and he hopes the Commission will make a very good decision regarding this matter. Anthony Lombardo said it is irrelevant whether or not they believe they need to follow the conditions because they do and he is stunned that no one at the City told them they had a problem because the condition of approval says they need to remove the illegal signs. He said that the violations are flagrant. He said if this is the message being sent to the people in the City of Monterey, he does not know how you can enforce anyone’s permit as this is the third time they have been notified of non-compliance. He again requested that the Planning Commission not act on this matter tonight and continue it until staff has time to investigate the violations and they are corrected. And, if the crab pots are approved, that they be approved as signs and be consistent with the sign ordinance, and that they not be placed where they are looming over Isabella’s. Commissioner Comments In answer to previous Commissioners’ questions, Ms. Hopper said that the Wharf is not zoned and therefore Chapter 38 Zoning Ordinance does not apply but Municipal Code Chapter 31 Sign Ordinance does apply. Commissioner McCrone said he agrees with Mr. Pisto that this is an internecine dispute that has gone on for a long time. He said he believes this to be both a sign and a statue. He said enforcing use permit conditions like illegal signs requires both staff and time, but when an applicant comes to staff with a new proposal, conditions should be reviewed as a matter of routine. He said the interpretations here are not correct. This is not decoration, it is a statue and a sign, and this appeal should be granted for those reasons and the various violations. He said this is a privilege that should not be allowed unless the business is in compliance. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, May 28, 2013 Commissioner Stocker said the other signs need to be removed and it is frustrating because the applicant applies for more permits, but the signs still exist. He said he won’t vote for or against this until the Planning Commission knows that the previous conditions are being met; therefore, this item should be continued. He said he believes the crab pots do meet the definition of ‘attention getting device’ as there is no other reason they are there, and he too would not want to sit right next to them. Commissioner Widmar said the City has allowed the Wharf to be what it is and there is a certain amount of that which gives that area its own personality. He said the crab pots from the Time Bandit are compelling attention getting devices. He said competition is good for business, but what is down at the Wharf needs to be dealt with before the permit proceeds. He said once the non-compliant signs are removed he might be open for a sign for Dominico’s and a crab pot, but he does not think there is enough information to make that conclusion tonight. He said he tends to support the idea to continue this until all is cleaned up, but it would actually be tabled rather than continued as the continuance would not be to a date specific. Commissioner Davis said he recognizes the definition of a sign is discretionary, but he would rather keep the discretion with the Architectural Review Committee, rather than bringing it to the Planning Commission. He said he strongly supports the ARC decisions on the Wharf just for a hopeful commitment of consistency on their part. He said general words like ‘attracting attention’ make it tough to arrive at a decision. Commissioner Osorio said the Wharf Master Plan is vague as there are many interpretations as to what ‘interesting’ means. He said every business owner has their own idea what the Wharf is to be and it seems the statute should have a better way of enforcement. He said he believes this is an attention getting device and he believes the ARC erred in their subjective interpretation of a sign; however, he is willing to vote for continuance. Commissioner Reed said his first thought in reviewing the project is they are signs attracting people to the business, so whether or not they clean up their other issues, it is still a sign. He said by rough math, if five of the Commissioners think it is a sign, then what is the point to continuing the item? He said postponing the decision will not accomplish anything and that the ARC very much erred. Commissioner McCrone said he agrees with Commissioner Reed that even if continued, it would come back with the question--is it a sign or a statue? He said to the extent that ARC accepted it then they erred in their decision. He said this is a sign or a statue and there is a limit to how many a business can have and whether this particular crab pot is used in Monterey or not is a ‘red herring’. In answer to Chair Garden’s question, Ms. Salameh said the project cannot go back to the ARC. Commissioner Stocker said the issues on the site should be cleaned up and staff should determine which signs and improvements are legal and not legal. He moved to continue this item for one month so staff has the opportunity to understand what is legal or illegal on the site and not come back until site is cleaned up with the previous conditions of approval. Commissioner McCrone seconded the motion. Commissioner Widmar agreed with Commissioner Reed that a decision should be made Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, May 28, 2013 6  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, May 28, 2013 tonight since nothing can be gained by waiting one month. He said that will clear the path for either party to appeal to City Council or clean up the violations anyway. He said there ought to be one crab pot called a statue and all other violations cleaned up and they have a responsibility to do this in an expeditious manner. Commissioner Stocker withdrew his motion to continue this item for one month. Commissioner Osorio said there are two issues, one is the compliance of the property with prior permits which is not the subject of this hearing; rather, the subject is to consider the appeal and continuing is not going to give the Planning Commission the opportunity to deal with the appeal. He said if Mr. Mercurio reconsiders what he is proposing, then that is a revised project. He said this is a sign as it is an attention getting device. Commissioner Widmar moved to grant the appeal because the ARC erred in the definition of a sign and statue. Commissioner McCrone seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Widmar, seconded by Commissioner McCrone, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution granting Appeal 13-204 and denying Wharf Permit 13-113. AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Garden, McCrone, Osorio, Stocker, Reed, Widmar NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Davis ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 5. Consider 1375 Josselyn Canyon Road; Appeal 13-210 of Sign Permit 13-030 for a New Vehicle-Oriented Freestanding Sign; Appellant City of Monterey; Applicant Daryl Hawkins, AIA; Owner Living Hope Church of the Nazarene; R-1-20 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopted a Resolution granting the Appeal 13-210 and denied Sign Permit 13-030. Staff Presentation/Commission Questions Ms. Hopper presented report and staff answered Commissioners’ questions. Applicant Daryl Hawkins, Architect, said the cross was designed three years ago and he met with Mr. Ebbs who said he loved it and that as long as no words were on the cross then it is not a sign. Mr. Hawkins said he then met a second and third time with the same Planner who said to go ahead and design the working drawings. Mr. Hawkins said the design is a prototype of the larger Cypress Church cross. He said in the history of the church, the landscaping, as well as in the design of the cross they work to maintain the park like setting around the church. He handed out photographs of other crosses in Monterey and said the fourth page is of the Steinbeck plaza sculpture. Barry Kennard, Senior Pastor, said their intention was not to install a sign that Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, May 28, 2013 disseminates information, rather a cross that elicits emotion and feelings. He said the broad Sign Code defines that a sign draws attention to itself for a purpose and the cross is being called a sign, but the cross was designed for people to remember there is a God of hope in times when people need hope. He said he applauds the Sign Ordinance and for the very reason the ARC saw to approve the cross and he believes allowances can be made for approval. He said the ordinance reads ‘should’ instead of ‘shall’, indicating it is not a hard fast rule and discernment is to be used when determining what could be allowed. He said this sign is appropriate for the property and an allowance for this sign does not establish a precedent because the corner has a unique frontage. He said the cross is an excellent design taking into consideration the tall Monterey pines and the height and minimalistic size is actually only 14 sq ft of cross itself. He said it is enhancing the entry into the city as it is placed around many wires, lights and boxes, an already existing blight. He said he does not believe it was the intent of the ordinance to regulate the design of a cross, especially as it has been pointed out by staff that the ordinance is silent to religious signs and symbols and the content of a sign cannot be regulated. Thereby, he said, an allowance is given as it is a religious symbol and a cross by its very nature is content in its entirety. The cross is a symbol but not wholly unique to this property as it can be placed anywhere and say the same thing. He said there are strong grounds and allowances for approval of this cross with such an excellent design. Public Comments Eric McMullan, resident and member of the church, pointed out the two crosses in the painting behind the dais and said they are most likely above grade and greater than 20 square feet in total area. He said this town was founded by a missionary and they brought crosses into Monterey. He said this kind of sign conveys, not to say come to this church or at this time, that it is a universal symbol and appropriate to the origin of our city. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Osorio said he is puzzled that the Architectural Review Committee found a way to measure the sign that is not consistent with how the ordinance directs signs to be measured. On that ground, he said, he believes they made an error. Commissioner Davis said there is flexibility in the ordinance, the same as at the Cannery Row Brewing Company in that because of the size of the building more signs were permitted. He said the ARC used the same findings for this and the ordinance is written with the word ‘should’ instead of ‘shall’. Personally, he said, it is not a sign it is a symbol, just like the City Council determined the horses (at PF Chang’s) is a symbol, and he accepts the ARC decision classifying the cross as a sign. Commissioner Reed said if the Planning Commission makes the decision to deny or to accept the appeal, we need to go through the decisions made and make decisions on each of the findings. Commissioner Widmar said he is intrigued by the AR’s interpretation of negative space. He questioned if you look at it, not as a cross but as four rectangular solid panels with the cross as negative space, the cross could be a sculpture and not a sign. If done that way with solid panels, it is much more visually offensive and would look too big in that case. He said we can’t use the negative space as a way to measure the sign. Commissioner Reed said that negative space is an issue because you can make all Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, May 28, 2013 kinds of signs with negative space, but it is a sign that clearly is bigger than the actual surface area, but the ARC found an exception to the rule. Commissioner Stocker said the cross is a sign on our scenic highway, intended to and is conveying a message and identifies a location. He said the other crosses pointed out are not on the scenic highway. He said it is a beautiful cross, but still it is a sign and would be a mistake to approve this sign on a scenic highway that is double the size than is allowed. It would be a third monument sign. He said ARC erred and he does not believe the Planning Commission can look at it differently. He said it should be a smaller element and the ARC should evaluate the location to see if another sign is appropriate. Commissioner McCrone said that he continues to be troubled with the definition of a sign versus symbol, statue, or structure. He said if this had a name on it or some sort of neon message it would be a sign. He said given the unique location that it does not set a precedent. It attracts attention to itself, not the church that is barely visible from that vantage point. He said the ARC made the wrong interpretation and it should have been evaluated as a statue, looking at alternatives in terms of height and perhaps showing some sort of netting on the site. But, he said, he does not think the appeal should be granted, rather it should be denied. Commissioner Davis moved to deny the appeal. Commissioner McCrone seconded the motion. Commissioner Osorio said he does not agree with how the ARC found a special way for the size of the cross to fit in with the ordinance. On a motion by Commissioner Davis, seconded by Commissioner McCrone, to deny the appeal of the ARC sign permit failed by the following vote: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Davis, McCrone, Reed NOES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Garden, Osorio, Stocker, Widmar ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Commissioner Osorio moved to grant the appeal as ARC erred in their decision, the sign does not abide with the Sign Ordinance size limitations, and by the way the negative space measured. Commissioner Stocker seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Osorio, seconded by Commissioner Stocker and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved a Resolution granting Appeal 13-210 and denied Sign Permit 13-030. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Garden, Osorio, Stocker, Widmar NOES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Davis, McCrone, Reed ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, May 28, 2013 Chair Garden called for a Break at 9:20 pm. Commissioner McCrone recused himself from the 458 High Street hearing and dismissed himself for the rest of the meeting. The meeting reconvened at 9:25 pm. 6. Consider 458 High Street; Use Permit 12-365 for Historic Incentive to Allow Reduced Corner Side Setback for a Garden Shed and Variance Application 13-211 for Height of Accessory Structure in Excess of Allowed 12 Feet; Applicant Henry Ruhnke; Owner Geoff Hunziker; R-1-6-H2 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopted a Resolution denying Use Permit 12-365 for a historic incentive for a reduced corner side setback and denying Variance 13-211 for an increase in allowed height for an accessory structure. Staff Presentation/Commission Questions Ms. Hopper presented the staff report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Applicant Henry Ruhnke of Wald, Ruhnke and Dost Architects, said he did not design the shed, but is presenting on behalf of the applicants. He said that little had been done to the historic property until the current owners purchased it in 1999, and they have been progressively updating and improving the house to its current condition. He said the owners obtained information from the City and they were under the impression they were doing right with the shed and it is aesthetically one of the finest garden sheds, but it has been red tagged. He said this is the only lot in the neighborhood with three front yards and the shed will contribute to the preservation of the historic residence as it will house tools and equipment required to preserve home and property. He said as an H-2 incentive, findings could be made by the unique and unusual circumstance of the setbacks. He said there are no health or safety impacts on the community, and this is not a special granting of privilege because the City has granted other historic incentives. He said the shed is shielded by trees and is not that visible. He requested the Planning Commission support the Historic Preservation Commission findings as they were very deliberate about their decision to allow for the reduced setback. Tammy Hunziker, co-owner of the property, said the house is phenomenal, but it is like living in a fishbowl as there is no solid fence as they opted not to put up a fence because the old fence is see-through and they wanted to keep the integrity of the house. She said the shed is tucked into the corner of the yard nestled in trees to be unobtrusive and to maintain the openness of the property and this new shed replaces an old shed that needed to be brought down. In answer to Chair Garden’s question, she said there is no building permit because they were under the impression the shed was smaller than what was required for a building permit. Geoff Hunziker said he had looked into whether a building permit was required and the City guidelines spelled out that if less than 120 square feet, that no permit was needed. He said he researched with City Forester Reid how to place the shed in the corner to prevent blocking the neighbors’ views and not harm the trees. Public Comments Tom Bruno, neighbor, said he submitted a letter to the City in disagreement with the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, May 28, 2013 shed. He asked if the shed has full utilities does that have an impact on it being a shed. He said it looms above the street. Trees and plants will grow but one can’t assume foliage will be there forever. He said he is concerned for future owners of his home who might ask why the shed is there as it occupies the view. Susan Ricketson, neighbor, said she too submitted a letter and supports what Mr. Bruno said. She said if it is exceeding the height limits, they should have mitigated it earlier on. Pansy Belacci, neighbor, said the shed is where their carport is and it blocks the view from backing out. She said rules and regulations are on the books for everyone to follow and she is protesting this building. Henry Ruhnke clarified that there are no utilities in the structure. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Stocker said he is hoping to grant the variance and use permit, but he does not see any findings. He said the shed is taller than zoning allows and the building is within the setbacks and there is a lot of room on the site where the shed could be built. He moved to deny the Variance for the height and deny the Use Permit for Historic Incentives for reduced setbacks. Commissioner Widmar seconded the motion. Commissioner Reed said the owners are fantastic stewards to this property. He said no matter where the shed is moved on the site the neighbors will not be satisfied. Commissioner Davis said the only finding on the setback issue was for future development on the site, but questioned what other development could occur. To answer Commissioner Davis’ questions, Ms. Hopper said other development could occur on the property such as a guest house with a use permit and other incentives for additional uses, as well as a possible lot split in the future. Chair Garden said although he appreciates the time and effort put into this by the Historic Preservation Commission, he will support the motion to deny the historic incentive and the variance for the setback. On a motion by Commissioner Stocker, seconded by Commissioner Widmar and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution denying the Historic Incentive Use Permit 12-365 for reduced corner side setbacks and denying the Variance 13-211 for height of accessory structure in excess of allowed height. AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Garden, Davis, Osorio, Reed, Stocker, Widmar NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 1 COMMISSIONERS: McCrone COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS  Commissioner Stocker commented that the 458 High Street site plan does not have setbacks marked and it is important to have them readable. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, May 28, 2013  Commissioner Widmar said that he will not be able to attend the June 11, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 7. Planning Office Update Report received. New Comments:  As noted in the Planning Office Update, Ms. Cole said that the June 11, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting will be a joint meeting with Architectural Review Committee to receive a report on the Van Buren Senior Housing project.  She said the Council Chamber is going through an upgrade that should be completed by Monday, June 10. She said public seating will remain the same; the dais will be extended to accommodate the recording secretary station, the public speaking area and ADA seat; the technical cart will be removed and audio/visual equipment will be upgraded; monitors will be placed on the Dais in front of each seat; and a ramp will be installed for accessibility to the Dais. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Kimberly Cole, AICP Chair Principal Planner Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, May 28, 2013 12