Planning Commission Meeting

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 24, 2014 4:00 pm - 5:30 pm 7:00 pm - 11:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Commissioners Present: McCrone, Osorio, Garden, Stocker, Reed, Widmar Commissioners Absent: Davis Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Cole, Principal Planner Caraker, Building Official Kuehl, City Attorney Davi, Recording Secretary Nelson CALL TO ORDER Chair McCrone called the meeting to order at 4:01 pm. CONSENT ITEMS Commissioner Widmar abstained from voting on the Consent Items due to his absence from the June 10, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. On a motion by Commissioner Stocker, seconded by Commissioner Osorio, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved the CONSENT ITEMS: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: McCrone, Osorio, Garden, Stocker, Reed NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Davis ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Widmar RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Approval of Minutes 1. June 10, 2014 ACTION: Approved as submitted. ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 2. Receive Report on the Waterfront Master Plan and Consider Providing Additional Direction to Staff ACTION: Received report and provided additional direction to staff to: 1) create an up to date parking and circulation study for the Waterfront Area that includes current existing parking, the best estimate for future parking and all calculated spaces that satisfy needs in the Waterfont and Downtown Areas, to be conducted summer 2014; 2) change the language in G.1.7 and G.6.7. regarding chain link fences from “discouraged” to “prohibited,”; 3) remove the historic photographs from Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 24, 2014 pages 10 through 12 of the Plan as they are not appropriate guidelines for future Wharf development, while leaving the Design Guidelines in place; and 4) keep the changes already made to C.1.B and C.1.A. regarding to how open space is characterized. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Elizabeth Caraker presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Henry Ruhnke, Wald, Ruhnke & Dost gave a presentation on the Waterfront Master Plan parking study and answered Commissioner’s questions. Public Comments Clyde Roberson, former Mayor and City of Monterey resident, said the Waterfront Master Plan is unrealistic for today’s economy and contains contradictory concepts. He also said the current parking works and questioned how a tax increase will be justified when a costly parking study is being proposed. Dan Albert, former Mayor and City of Monterey resident, said the town will not support a parking garage at the waterfront, and the goal should be to make visual enhancements to current parking and the Wharf. He also said a delicate balance is needed between the Wharf businesses and the natural resources of the area. Sam Rashkin, economic development consultant and representative of the Waterfront Business Area, said stakeholders are strongly opposed to the Waterfront Master Plan and this should raise a red flag. He also said the problem with the plan is its complex uses in a very small area, and that other serious problems, including under utilization of Customs House Plaza, directional signage and area restrooms, should be addressed first. Matthew Sundt, Monterey business owner, said Cannery Row and Sand City were able to improve their coastal areas by removing fuel tanks and landfills from the waterfront. He said the Waterfront Master Plan should aim to move parking away from the waterfront and expand the Window on the Bay area. Sharon Dwight, Monterey resident, said the Plan does not accomplish several of the goals requested by the public in preliminary meetings. She also said area access could be improved with only a pedestrian/bike bridge, and that the parking study does not take into account permitted spaces that have already been sold, East and West Garage spaces that will soon be filled, and parking impacts of the Sports Center. Anthony Lombardo, on behalf of the Shake family, said current parking standards for the Wharf are not being met and the proposed Plan creates a problem by removing parking and relocating it to a place where it is not needed. He also said the Plan will create more traffic congestion and places for transients to sleep, and that efforts for beautification of the Wharf should be made instead. Bob Massaro, Monterey Commercial Property Owners Association (MCPOA) said that MCPOA is strongly opposed to the loss of parking in the Waterfront Area and asked the Planning Commission to honor staff’s recommendation to continue the discussion until more data is available. Commissioner Comments Chair McCrone said the Planning Commission needs to provide staff with direction for an additional survey in July or August and suggest wording changes. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 24, 2014 Vice Chair Osorio said he agrees with many of the public comments about the Plan losing some of its initial objectives, and that more focus is needed. He also suggested re-establishing a bike and pedestrian connection between Spanish Plaza and the Wharf. Commissioner Garden said the Planning Commission is ready to vote on the following three aspects of the Waterfront Master Plan:  Changing the language in G.1.7 and G.6.7. regarding chain link fences from “discouraged” to “prohibited,”  Removing the historic photographs from pages 10 through 12 of the Plan, as they are not appropriate guidelines for future Wharf development, while leaving the Design Guidelines in place, and  Keeping the changes already made to C.1.B and C.1.A. regarding to how open space is characterized. Chair McCrone made a motion recommending to staff that the City undertake a traffic and parking study during the months of July or August, 2014 and incorporate the results with the existing parking study. The motion died for a lack of a second. Commissioner Garden made a motion directing staff to create an up to date parking and circulation study for the Waterfront Area that includes current existing parking, the best estimate for future parking, and all calculated spaces that satisfy needs in the Waterfont and Downtown Areas, to be conducted in summer of 2014. Commissioner Widmar seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Garden, seconded by Commissioner Widmar, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission directed staff to create an up to date parking and circulation study for the Waterfront Area that includes current existing parking, the best estimate for future parking and all calculated spaces that satisfy needs in the Waterfont and Downtown Areas, to be conducted summer 2014: AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: McCrone, Osorio, Garden, Stocker, Reed, Widmar NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Davis ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Commissioner Garden made a second motion directing staff to change the language in G.1.7 and G.6.7. regarding chain link fences from “discouraged” to “prohibited,” to remove the historic photographs from pages 10 through 12 of the Plan, as they are not appropriate, while leaving the Design Guidelines in place, and to keep the changes already made to C.1.B and C.1.A. regarding how open space is characterized. Commissioner Widmar seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Garden, seconded by Commissioner Widmar, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission directed staff to change the language in G.1.7 and G.6.7. regarding chain link fences from “discouraged” to “prohibited,” to remove the inappropriate historic photographs from pages 10 through 12 of the Plan Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 24, 2014 3  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 24, 2014 while leaving the Design Guidelines in place, and to keep the changes already made to C.1.B and C.1.A. regarding to how open space is characterized: AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: McCrone, Osorio, Garden, Stocker, Reed, Widmar NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Davis ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Commissioner Stocker said the Plan, as proposed, will never gain community support and he hopes staff will present a less ambitious, less aggressive plan in the future. Commissioner Widmar said the Waterfront Master Plan has not garnered the support and excitement that the Downtown Specific Plan did, and therefore a more incremental approach should be taken to make realistic achievements. Commissioner Reed said he has observed that the East garage seems to be increasingly busy. He also said the proposed plan includes a large amount of asphalt with loss of parking, and that he will never support a garage in the proposed parking lot area. Chair McCrone said when Plan comes back before the Planning Commission he would like to see a written report from City Parking Superintendent Wayne Dalton regarding costs and revenues. He also said the task at hand is to find an appropriate amount of parking and to create a world class waterfront park. Vice Chair Osorio said business owners on the Wharf should engage the Plan, and that the proposed Plan needs to work for both the City and the Wharf. The afternoon session adjourned at 5:56 pm. RECONVENE ***Evening Session Agenda*** 7:00 - 11:00 p.m. Chair McCrone reconvened the meeting at 7:02 pm. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARING 3. Appeal 14-227 of the Architectural Review Committee Decision Denying AR Permit 14-067 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a Mixed Use Development at 230 Lighthouse Avenue; Appellant, Property Owner and Applicant Carl Outzen; C-2 Community Commercial Zoning District; Infill Environmental Checklist - Finding of No Further Review for CEQA; Visual Simulations Have Been Provided in Lieu of Staking ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving the appeal and approving Preliminary and Final Architectural Review. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 24, 2014 4 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 24, 2014 Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Kimberly Cole presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Applicant Henry Ruhnke, Wald Ruhnke Dost, on behalf of appellant, gave a summary of the prior discussions and actions taken on the project. Mr. Ruhnke said at the April 16, 2014 ARC meeting the applicant requested, but was not granted, denial and he stated he would not make any changes to the project. Mr. Ruhnke also said when the applicant returned before the ARC he brought additional information, but the ARC had concerns regarding story pole staking, third floor modulation, and the wall facing Carbone’s, and denied the project. Mr. Ruhnke said the applicant has faced great scrutiny and has been very responsive, and that the proposed building will be a consistent fit in the neighborhood. In response to Commissioner Garden and Chair McCrone’s questions, Mr. Ruhnke said a neighboring building is very close in height to the proposed Lighthouse building and that there is a three story building across the street from the proposed Foam Street building. Public Comments Terry Latasa, Architectural Review Committee (ARC) Chair, the project is great for the blighted area and that he is not personally opposed to it. Regarding the ARC’s denial at the May 21, 2014 meeting, Mr. Latasa said the decision was based on the direction from the Planning Commission and City Council to reduce mass of the third floor because the ARC had found the third floors of both buildings to have excessive mass. Regarding story pole staking, Mr. Latasa said the ARC felt that view impacts could not be ruled out without some type of staking. Mr. Latasa also said the ARC included building height in the motion so the Planning Commission could confirm that living space within parapets is allowed. In response to Commissioner Stocker’s question, Mr. Latasa said nothing is codified in the City Code stating that a Committee is required to grant a request for denial, and that in this case, the request for denial came after a motion was made and seconded. Frank Pierce, agricultural engineer, said he served on a design review board in Salinas and that leaving blank walls on buildings allows opportunity for the neighboring buildings to be built up. He also said the project should consider utilizing rainwater by making the roof a rainwater collector. Rick Johnson, Administrator for New Monterey Business Association (NMBA), said the NMBA continues to support the project and he has not received a single complaint from any business owner on Lighthouse Avenue. Mr. Johnson said Mr. Outzen’s contributions over the past 14 years have greatly improved the street. Jessie Sillaci, Monterey resident and business owner, said he lives across the street from the proposed project, and having a nice building to replace the blight will make up for any loss of views. He also said the area has been blighted for decades, and without Mr. Outzen the site could remain blighted for much longer. Brendan McAlary, New Monterey Neighborhood Association (NMNA) Board Member, said many neighbors of the project live on a slope above Lighthouse Avenue, and a qualified builder should be able to create story pole staking that is both safe and effective in showing view impacts. He also said the City’s mailed notice did not specify that the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 24, 2014 5 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 24, 2014 project is a three story building. Sharon Dwight, NMNA, said the ARC did not err in their decision because they could not find that the project does not cause unreasonable view impacts. She also said the ARC was very particular in their deliberations because the Planning Commission and City Council both directed the applicant to avoid blank sidewalls, and because the parapets are above the height limit and contain livable space. Ms. Dwight said renters were not notified of the project as mailed notification from the City only went to property owners. Nancy Runyon, New Monterey resident, said the ARC did not err in their decision and were correct in addressing the bulk and mass of the building. She also said that the second story projection will hit the existing sidewalk trees and cause the third floor to be set back only 4.5 feet, and access for the property is needed on Foam Street. Howard Fossler, New Monterey resident, said the ARC was given contradictory guidance from the Lighthouse Area Plan and the City Council/Planning Commission. He also said the plan does not have sufficient parking, will not be affordable, and needs more thought and consideration to become a great project. Bob Massarro, Monterey Commercial Property Owners Association (MCPOA), said MCPOA is very supportive of the mixed-use aspect of the proposed project and urged the Planning Commission to approve the appeal. Carl Outzen, appellant, said he wants to create the highest quality building for the site, but the process has been frustrating. He also said it was not his decision to do visual simulations in lieu of story pole staking, and that he has completed all tasks requested of him by the City. In regards to Foam Street, Mr. Outzen said the proposed building will be six feet lower than the current building. Commissioner Comments In response to Commissioner Widmar’s question, City Attorney Christine Davi said City Code requires notice to be sent to property owners, not renters, and that notice is also posted on site, on the City’s website, and outside the Council Chambers. In response to Commissioner Garden’s question, City Building Official John Kuehl said the determination to not allow story pole staking at the site was based on several factors including, location, height, wind, ability of poles to be braced, and the condition of the existing buildings. Mr. Kuehl also said the potential negative effects of staking far outweigh the potential positive effects. In response to Chair McCrone and Commissioner Stocker’s questions regarding view impacts, Ms. Cole said City Code states that a project cannot unreasonably impair views, and that the ARC can make minor changes to roof elements after the Planning Commission approves building height. Commissioner Stocker said the ARC made an egregious error in their motion in regards to story pole staking because the determination of the City’s Building Official should be respected by all boards and commissions. He also said the City Council gave very clear direction to the ARC regarding modulating the building. Mr. Stocker said he is appalled that the ARC did not grant the applicant’s request for denial because it is punitive requiring the applicant to return when they strongly disagree with the ARC’s decisions. He also said the ARC erred by not working within the direction given by the Planning Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 24, 2014 6  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 24, 2014 Commission and City Council. Commissioner Stocker made a motion to adopt a Resolution approving the appeal and approving Preliminary and Final Architectural Review. Commissioner Widmar seconded the motion. Chair McCrone concurred with Commissioner Stocker’s comments and said the project is clearly in accordance with the Lighthouse Area Plan. He also said a Committee or Commission should ask an applicant whether denial is preferred before continuing a project, and suggested a change to the City Ordinance that would prevent an applicant from being asked the same question by three different hearing bodies. Vice Chair Osorio said the City Council gave the ARC clear direction regarding the project that was not followed. He also said he supports the motion. Commissioner Garden said he supports the motion and concurs that significant errors were made by the ARC. He also said many final determinations of a project are made by the ARC, but once the building height and footprint are approved, style and architectural modulation are what the ARC should look at. Commissioner Reed thanked the ARC for all the hard work they do for the City. He also said he supports motion and believes the ARC erred in their decision. On a motion by Commissioner Stocker, seconded by Commissioner Widmar, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution approving the appeal and approving Preliminary and Final Architectural Review: AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: McCrone, Osorio, Garden, Stocker, Reed, Widmar NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Davis ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Commissioner Stocker said he will not be present for the July 22, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Garden asked staff for a written update regarding dates and details of the Climate Action Plan. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 4. Planning Office Update  Received update  Ms. Cole said the Planning Commission meeting on July 8, 2014 will likely be limited to an afternoon session and not require a field trip.  Ms. Cole also said the next Lighthouse Specific Plan Subcommittee meetings are tentatively set for July 10 and July 24, 2014. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 24, 2014 7 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 24, 2014 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:01 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Kimberly Cole, AICP Chair Principal Planner Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 24, 2014 8