Planning Commission Meeting

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 28, 2014 4:00 pm - 5:30 pm 7:00 pm - 11:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Commissioners Present: McCrone, Osorio (7:00 pm), Davis, Garden, Stocker, Reed, Widmar Commissioners Absent: None Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Cole, Principal Planner Taven Kinison Brown, Recording Secretary Joyce Halabi CALL TO ORDER Chair McCrone called the meeting to order at 4:04 pm. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. January 14, 2014 ACTION: Adopted the January 14, 2014 minutes as amended. Commissioner Davis requested the minutes be altered to reflect he recused himself from item #2. Commissioner McCrone said , on page 3, the spelling of "Sam Teil" should be corrected to "Sam Teel." Commissioner McCrone said the language in the approval of item #3, 1430 Mark Thomas drive, must be altered to clarify that the Planning Commission directed the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) review one pole sign next to the driveway entrance and the second pole sign must be removed. In response to Commissioner McCrones comment, Commissioner Stocker suggested altering the language from “…and referring revised sign proposal for the pole sign and new monument sign to the Architectural Review Committee” to “…and referring revised sign proposal for one pole sign and new monument sign to the Architectural Review Committee.” Commissioner Reed made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Commissioner Stocker seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Stocker, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved the January 14, 2013 minutes of Consent.  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, January 28, 2014 AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: McCrone, Widmar, Davis, Garden, Stocker, Reed NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Osorio ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 2. Consider 720 Via Mirada Use Permit 13-150 Six Month Review; Applicant/Owner Monterey Museum of Art; R-E-20-D-1-H-1 Zoning District (Exempt from CEQA) ACTION: Accepted the six-month review. Commissioner Garden made a motion to accept the six-month review on consent. Commissioner Reed seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Garden, seconded by Commissioner Reed, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission accepted the six-month review. AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: McCrone, Widmar, Davis, Garden, Stocker, Reed NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Osorio ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** *RECESS* Commissioners Present: McCrone, Osorio (7:00 pm), Davis, Garden, Stocker, Reed, Widmar Commissioners Absent: None Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Cole, Principal Planner Taven Kinison Brown, Traffic Engineer Rich Deal, Recording Secretary Joyce Halabi Chair McCrone called the evening session to order at 7:02 pm. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS Planning Commission 2 Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 28, 2014 2 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, January 28, 2014 None. PUBLIC HEARING 3. Consider 230 Lighthouse Avenue; Use Permits and Parking Adjustment 13-285 for Mixed Use; Density Above 30 Units/Acre; Coverage Above 50%; and for Building Height Above 25 Feet; Applicant/Owner: Carl Outzen; C-2 Zoning District; Infill Environmental Checklist - Finding of No Further Review for CEQA. ACTION: Adopted Resolutions adopting a finding of No Further Review (for Infill Development); approving a Use Permit for Mixed Use Development, a Use Permit to exceed density of 30 Units/Acre; a Use Permit for coverage exceeding 50%; and a Use Permit for building height exceeding 25 feet; and approving a Parking Adjustment with added Conditions of Approval. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Taven Kinison Brown presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Applicant Henry Ruhnke, Wald Ruhnke and Dost Architects, said the project proposal incorporates suggestions from the ARC, PC and members of the community. He said the third floor has been setback and he would be willing to work with the ARC to further articulate the wall facing Foam Street. He said they have received positive feedback on the project. In response to Commissioner Widmar’s question, Mr. Ruhnke said there were three parking lots on the original project site. In response to Commissioner Osorio’s question, Mr. Ruhnke said the current design complies with the parking policies. He said they experimented with different parking locations and the proposed parking location was a superior solution to relieve queuing concerns and work with difficulties on the site. In response to Commissioner Osorio’s question, Mr. Ruhnke said the number of units on the site is based on the property’s capacity. In response to Commissioner Garden’s question, Mr. Ruhnke said the design strategy was similar to the French Glass shop. The intention was to remain flexible to provide spaces for smaller or larger uses, and the concept of two buildings was an attempt to create modulation. Public Comment Rick Johnson, New Monterey Business Association, said the Association is in support of the project and urged the Commission to support the staff recommendation. Brian Bodie, Oya Salon, said the project will be a beneficial addition to the Lighthouse area and New Monterey Business District. He expressed his support for the project. Dan Clark, adjacent property owner, said at the onset of the project he had concerns with Planning Commission 3 Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 28, 2014 3 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, January 28, 2014 the height, modulation of the third floor and the location of the driveway. He said Mr. Outzen has addressed a majority of his concerns but he has continued concern with the parking situation. He said the proposed two adjacent parking lots may appear as a large gap on Lighthouse Avenue. Sharon Dwight, President of New Monterey Neighborhood Association, said the Association is in support of a mixed use building at 230 Lighthouse Avenue. She said they are not in support of more than a 50% density bonus in a high traffic area and said the Lighthouse Area Plan calls for medium density (30 acres/units). Ms. Dwight said the project does not qualify for the General Plan affordable housing incentives because only 6.25% of the units would be considered moderate income housing. She said a three story building is not compatible with the adjoining buildings and said there is not one three story building on the waterfront side of Lighthouse Avenue. Ms. Dwight said the density was 30 units/acre Building A would be a two story building and building B would be eliminated allowing an entrance on Foam. She said the neighborhood is concerned with losing views and requests that story poles be put up. Carl Outzen, developer of 230 Lighthouse Ave, said he received support for the project at the January 13, 2014 New Monterey Neighborhood Association meeting. Mr. Outzen said this project was allocated water through the Economic and Environmental Sustainability Water Allocation Request for Proposal process due to the project’s ability to enhance economic development and through the process he altered the proposal to include 18% affordable housing. Mr. Outzen said the the parking location was a result of lack of accessibility of the Waste Management District to the site, and the scale and mass of the building is similar to 131 Lighthouse Avenue. He said the traffic study showed the project would not result in a significant increase in the traffic. In response to Commissioner Garden’s question, Mr. Outzen said he has renters in other mixed use developments that do not utilize their provided parking space. In response to Commissioner Widmar’s question, Mr. Outzen said he is looking into solar heating for lighting and electricity and said he is interested in incorporating two electric car charging stations. In response to Commissioner Osorio’s question, Mr. Outzen said he has seen the preference of one bed room apartments and wanted to incorporate this size unit into the project. In response to Commissioner McCrone’s question, Ms. Cole said changes to inclusionary housing are a result of the courts’ determination that it constitutes rent control. Mr. Deal said the driveway, located on the north end of the site, results in a smaller queuing impact than if the driveway was positioned on the south side. He said altering the location of the parking to the center of the site would be an option because the BMP is low. Ms Cole said the Reeside Avenue and Lighthouse Avenue intersection is pivotal because all traffic from New Monterey, Lighthouse Avenue, Cannery Row and Pacific Grove move through this intersection. She said the City worked with the applicant to create parking on the site that would not cause significant queuing. Planning Commission 4 Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 28, 2014 4 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, January 28, 2014 In response to Commissioner Garden’s question, Ms. Cole said new construction is required to provide parking on site and if the applicant cannot meet that standard they can apply for a parking adjustment. In response to Commissioner Garden’s question, Ms. Cole said there is no regulation in the Lighthouse Area that prohibits decoupling of the parking and rental unit cost. In response to commissioner Reed’s comment, Ms. Cole said in this case the in lieu parking fee is required. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Osorio said this project is beneficial for the Lighthouse area. He said the findings for approval must be refined and illustrate the project’s consistency with the General Plan goal of developing mixed use districts. He said the findings in the Resolution approving building height above 25 feet must be altered to decouple water and building height because they are unrelated. Commissioner Osorio suggested adding a finding to the Resolution explaining that alternatives were considered and why the proposed location was preferred. Commissioner Osorio said the height of the building is appropriate and helps achieve the intent of the General Plan. Commissioner Stocker said the modulation, massing and set back of the third story are not appropriate and do not meet the Planning Commission’s original intent. In response to Commissioner Stocker’s comments, Commissioner Garden said the original intent of the Planning Commission was to ensure that three story buildings do not look like three story buildings at the street front. He said although this policy is no longer valid it is an important element to consider. He questioned if the building could be pushed back further. Commissioner Garden said he would like to find a way to ensure the building be set back, the view issues be resolved and the building be staked. Commissioner Widmar said modulation is vital and unrelieved 3 story slabs of stucco are not desirable. He said the design can be improved. Commissioner Reed said he is in support of the project and inclusion of multiple one bedroom units. He said he is not in support of in lieu fees due to the vast parking supply. Commissioner McCrone said he is in support of the project, the density is appropriate and the issue of modulation should be discussed at the ARC review of the project. Commissioner McCrone made a motion to adopt Resolutions adopting a finding of No Further Review (for Infill Development); approving a Use Permit for Mixed Use Development, a Use Permit to exceed density of 30 Units/Acre; a Use Permit for coverage exceeding 50%; and a Use Permit for building height exceeding 25 feet; and approving a Parking Adjustment with added Conditions of approval as follows: Planning Commission 5 Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, January 28, 2014 Special: 12. The Planning Commission directs that the ARC scrutinize the application to have it include further modulation of the third floor elements of Building A. Comissioner Garden seconded the motion. Commissioner Davis and Commissioner Garden requested the Conditions of Approval provide the ARC more guidance and require that they review the building façade. The motion maker and seconder agreed to accept the Conditions of Approval as follows: Special: 12. The Planning Commission directs that the ARC scrutinize the application to have it include further modulation of the third floor elements of Building A, and notes that the structure should not look monolithic or massive from Lighthouse Avenue. Direction was also given to address the large unrelieved wall and building sides along the Foam Street Building B. Commissioner Stocker said he will not support the motion because approving the bulk and mass of the building will leave the ARC little room to set the third story back. He said this is a radical departure from the Planning Commissions original intent for three story buildings. Commissioner Osorio said he will support the motion but requested the following language be removed from the Resolution: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Project’s building height above 25 feet (and not exceeding 35 feet) is acceptable. The City of Monterey General Plan prioritizes new residential development in mixed use developments in three areas of the City, including the Cannery Row/Lighthouse Avenue Area (Map 4 of the General Plan, showing Mixed-use Neighborhoods) (adopted by resolution). Additionally, through the City’s review of Requests for Proposals for Economic and Environmental Sustainability Water, the Project was awarded1.358 acre feet to make the difference from the credited historical water uses on the subject properties (also adopted by resolution). The increased height allows for the applicant to provide 13 apartments on the third story. The building façade is modulated and designed to be compatible in scale and materials with the buildings along Lighthouse Avenue, broken up into small elements that are in scale with the rest of the small stores along Lighthouse Avenue. The Planning Commission finds the increased building height to 35 feet in compliance with the Lighthouse Area Plan policies and (subject to Architectural Review Committee Review) City design guidelines. The motion maker and seconder agreed. On a motion by Commissioner McCrone, seconded by Commissioner Garden, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission adopt Resolutions adopting a finding of No Further Review (for Infill Development); approving a Use Permit for Mixed Use Development, a Use Permit to exceed density of 30 Units/Acre; a Use Permit for coverage exceeding 50%; and a Use Permit for building height exceeding 25 feet; and approving a Parking Adjustment. (pg 26 Staff Report) with added Conditions of Approval. Planning Commission 6 Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 28, 2014 6  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, January 28, 2014 AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: McCrone, Widmar, Davis, Garden, Osorio, Reed NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Stocker ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC APPEARANCE Commissioner Davis recused himself from item #4. 4. Consider Height Calculations for Commercial Buildings Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Kimberly Cole presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Public Comment Paul E. Davis said height can be interpreted in a different way. He said a commercial building does not have any side yards or a method to a plum measurement. He asked if the center wall could act as a dividing point and said although discouraged , counting the garage level is a common practice in the commercial areas. Commissioner Comments The Commissioners discussed the issue. . COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Commissioner Stocker said policies set in place by the Planning Commission that were revoked due to incorrect adoption procedures must come back to the Commission to be adopted through the proper procedure. Commissioner Garden said the Waterfront Subcommittee met on January 24, 2014. He displayed the two design options for the Waterfront area. The first option proposed a bridge to solve dilemma at the intersection of Del Monte, and the second option included digging out the tunnel. The subcommittee requested fiscal information of for digging out the tunnel or building the bridge. He said staff indicated a draft could be prepared in two months. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 5. Planning Office Update Planning Commission 7 Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 28, 2014 7 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, January 28, 2014  Received update ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:24 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Kimberly Cole, AICP Chair Principal Planner Planning Commission Planning Commission 8 Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8