Planning Commission Meeting

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 10, 2014 AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY 4:00 pm - 7:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Commissioners Present: McCrone, Osorio (4:07pm), Davis, Garden, Stocker, Reed Commissioners Absent: Widmar Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Kimberly Cole, Principal Planner Taven Kinison Brown, Chief of Planning, Deputy City Manager Plans and Public Works, Dino Pick, Engineering and Environmental Compliance Chip Rerig, Recording Secretary Joyce Halabi CALL TO ORDER Chair McCrone called the meeting to order at 4:03 pm. CONSENT ITEMS On a motion by Commissioner Garden, seconded by Commissioner Stocker, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved the consent items with amendments: AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: McCrone, Osorio, Davis, Garden, Stocker, Reed * NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Widmar ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None *Commissioner Reed abstained from the vote on the May 13, 2014 Minutes. Approval of Minutes 1. May 13, 2014 ACTION: Approved with Amendments. Commissioner Garden said the minutes should be altered to reflect that Commissioner Davis voted in favor of the second motion for the Waterfront Master Plan. 2. May 27, 2014 ACTION: Approved with Amendments. Commissioner Stocker provided staff with the following changes to the minutes prior to the meeting: The vote on 1430 Mark Thomas should reflect four commissioners voted in favor of the motion, one Commissioner against and two commissioners were absent. Planning staff made these changes prior to the meeting.  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 10, 2014 ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 3. Appeal Of Staff Determination That A Proposed New House To Be Constructed At 6 Loma Vista Place Is A One-Story Structure Versus A Two-Story Structure; Appellants Alan And Arlene Haffa; Applicant And Property Owner Steven River Gurtin And Diana Case-Gurtin; R-1-8 Zoning District; Monte Vista Neighborhood; Not a Project Under CEQA. ACTION: Denied the appeal of the staff determination that a proposed new house to be constructed at 6 Loma Vista Place is a one-story structure. Staff Presentation/Commissioner's Comments: Taven Kinison Brown presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners' questions. Kent Turgen, independent consultant on behalf of Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects, said the building meets the standards and requirements of the Monterey City Code. He said his calculations reflect that 39.66% of the building perimeter is four feet above grade and therefore, the proposed building falls short of the 40% code requirement to classify the structure as a two story residence. In response to Commissioner Stocker, Mr. Turgen said the applicant could reduce the building elevation, reducing the percentage of building perimeter four foot above grade. Applicant: Arlene Haffa, appellant, said the figures submitted by the applicant miscalculated the four foot above grade measurement by more than 16 inches and therefore the property exceeds the 10 inch maximum to be classified as a one story structure. Mrs. Haffa said the placement of the door within the crawl space causes this area to be defined as habitable space, further reflecting the proposed project is a two story residence. She also said the slope is 16.8%. Mrs. Haffa proceeded to share calculations and methodologies for calculating slope. Mrs. Haffa also said there was an error in calculations made by staff and the consultant agreed. Mr. Haffa, appellant, said the proposed property is well above the 10 inch maximum, the consultant did not provide enough facts and background information to justify his determination that the proposed project is a one story structure, and the slope was not calculated according to City Code. Mr. Haffa said the proposed structure qualifies as a two story residence and if the Planning Commission has any questions, the project should be sent back to the Architectural Review Committee for further discussion. Commissioner Stocker said the project plans illustrate bumps in the slope, which were not calculated in the projections submitted by the appellant. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 10, 2014 2 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 10, 2014 In response to Commissioner McCrone's question, Mrs. Haffa said she hopes the approval of the appeal will allow the Gurtins and the Haffas to discuss other options, such as flipping the floor plan, to lower the house, and ensure it falls within the standards of a one story house. Applicant: Steven River Gurtin, applicant, said the project site presented significant design challenges and the intent of the project was to create a one story residence that would accommodate he and his wife as they grow older. Dropping the house height any further would create a steep ramp that would not be ADA compliant. Mr. Gurtin said he has worked with the Haffa’s to alleviate concerns, but many of the Haffa's suggestions have been economically infeasible. He said he has redesigned the project multiple times over the past year and he is looking for closure. In response to Commissioner Stocker, Mr. Gurtin said the primary motivator of creating a one story building is to avoid the increased side yard setbacks that apply to the second story. Public Comment: Luke Ingram, designer of the project at 6 Loma Vista, said Mrs. Haffa's calculations of the slope were not accurate. He said he did not include the Carmel stone patio point when calculating the slope. In response to Commissioner Garden's question, Mr. Ingram said the Carmel stone will be removed. In response to Luke Ingram's questions, Ms. Cole said there are very few examples where the linear perimeter measurement comes this close to the requirement. Ms. Cole also said the consultant recalculated the figures and confirmed the slope is below 15%. Commissioner Stocker said the Planning Commission’s function is to determine if the proposed project classifies as a two story structure. He said the slope is not a factor under consideration of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Comments: Commissioner Osorio said staff, the applicant and the appellant need to come together and discuss the measurement and come to an agreeable solution. Commissioner Stocker said engineers are licensed to provide correct information about the site and the third party has confirmed that the information submitted by the engineer correlates to the plans. He said the real matter at hand is if the project meets the 40% requirement. Commissioner Stocker made a motion to deny the appeal of the staff determination that a proposed new house to be constructed at 6 Loma Vista Place is a one-story structure. Commissioner McCrone seconded the motion. Commissioner Garden said he supports the motion and there has been evidence to show that the information submitted was accurate. Commissioner Davis said he supports the motion. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 10, 2014 3  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 10, 2014 Commissioner Reed said there is significant evidence to show that the proposed project falls under the criteria of a one story home. Commissioner McCrone said he supports the motion and the calculations done by the appellant do not reflect the curvature in the site. On a motion by Commissioner Stocker, seconded by Commissioner McCrone, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission denied the appeal of the staff determination that a proposed new house to be constructed at 6 Loma Vista Place is a one-story structure: AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: McCrone, Osorio, Davis, Garden, Stocker, Reed NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Widmar ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Commissioner Garden said there will be two community meetings regarding the Lighthouse Specific Plan on June 12, 2014 . He said the meetings will be held at 9:00 am-11:00 am at the Scholtz Park Center and at 6:30 pm -8:30 pm at the Hilltop Park Center. Commissioner McCrone said he attended the Mayor's Meeting and discussed the struggle of educating the public on the Citywide Transportation and Parking Study. He suggested the Planning Office update the parking study and asked for figures on parking revenue and cost of parking garage operation and upgrades. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 4. Planning Office Update  Report Received ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:00 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Kimberly Cole, AICP Chair Principal Planner Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 10, 2014 4