Planning Commission Meeting

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY Tuesday, February 24, 2015 4:00 pm – 7:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Commissioners Present: McCrone, Osorio, Davis, Garden, Stocker, Reed Commissioners Absent: Widmar Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Kim Cole and Recording Secretary Alicia Salas CALL TO ORDER Chair McCrone called the meeting to order at 4:01 pm. CONSENT ITEMS On a motion by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner McCrone and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved the CONSENT ITEMS. 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 Approval of Minutes 1. January 13, 2015 ACTION: Approved as submitted ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS Darryl Kenyon a commercial property owner in Monterey stated he had a meeting with Dr. Scott McQueary, PHD, a civil engineer from Santa Cruz regarding the Marina water project which is currently taking place. He said Dr. McQueary stated the project will not move forward using the slant well drilling as this type of drilling has not worked anywhere in the world and in all likelihood would not work here either. He said he will attend a hearing with the Public Utilities Commission and ask them to abandon the project to save the tax payers about five or six million dollars and to share Dr. McQueary’s data that states the project will be unsuccessful. He went on to say he was hopeful that at least one City Council member would start attending the meetings regarding the Marina water project.  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, February 24, 2015 PUBLIC HEARING 2. Consider 550 and 560 Monroe Lot Line Adjustment 13-202 to Adjust the Lot Line between the Properties; Variance 15-007 for 550/560 Monroe Creating Lots Less than 60' Wide; Variance 15-008 Reducing Rear Yard Setback for 560 Monroe to Less than 20'; Owners/Applicants Domenica Gianino and Roseanna Amato; R-1-6 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopt Resolutions Approving (1) Lot Line Adjustment 13-202 Between 550 and 560 Monroe and (2) Approving Variance Creating a Lot Less Than 60’ Wide for 550/560 Monroe and Reducing the Rear Yard Setback to Less Than 20’ at 560 Monroe. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Kim Cole presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Applicant Anthony Lombardo, Esq. said his client; Ms. Gianino (560 Monroe) was not an owner at the time the map was recorded by the City. He said the owner of both properties at the time the map was recorded was Ms. Amato (550 Monroe). He went on to say the owner of 550 Monroe sued the owner of 560 Monroe. In 2011, Superior Court Judge Villareal ruled that the house did not have to be moved or relocated as it was impractical and/or impossible. Mr. Lombardo said the City recorded the map and it was a mistake because the conditions of approval had not been met. Mr. Lombardo said he came here today to try to rectify the major issues of contention. The three issues are the lot line adjustment; verifying permits that legalize the use and construction on 550 Monroe; no record at the County Assessor’s office; and the fact that the sewer line crosses over the property line. Mr. Lombardo said without an easement or an agreement between the property owners, the situation with the sewer line is a problem. He said that he would like the City to agree to separate the lines as this should have been done at the time the subdivision was approved. Mr. Lombardo said he would like to see conditions added that each parcel have its own sewer connection. He feels that if these issues were to be resolved it would reduce the opportunity for conflict. Commissioner McCrone asked Mr. Lombardo who should cover the cost of separating the sewer line and if Mr. Lombardo was of the opinion that the City should determine who should cover the cost. Mr. Lombardo said he believes the cost should be covered by someone other than his client as she was not one of the owners at the time the map was recorded, and he believes that the person who needs the new sewer line should be the one to pay for it which is 550 Monroe. He stated that the decision is ultimately up to the Commission to make that determination. Commissioner McCrone asked if that issue was covered in the staff Resolution to which Mr. Lombardo said not at all but he believes it should be as it is a large part of the controversy. He said that without an easement or a maintenance agreement between the owners, a very hostile situation is kept ongoing, and that it should have been resolved before the map was recorded. Chair Osorio asked if Mr. Lombardo’s client is willing to agree to an easement. Mr. Lombardo said that his client is not willing to grant an easement because the position of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 24, 2015 2 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, February 24, 2015 the lot is a more favorable condition for 550 Monroe and not for his client at 560 Monroe. He said Ms. Gianino (560 Monroe) feels that she has given in enough to a problem that she did not create. Chair Osorio asked if Mr. Lombardo was asking the Commission to add two conditions to the Resolution to which Mr. Lombardo replied yes. He went on to say the conditions should be that the building permit was granted for the work done at 550 Monroe and the second should be to require that each property have its own sewer connection. Elizabeth Gianola, Esq representing Ms. Amato (550) said her client asked Ms. Gianino to remove the encroachment but she refused at which point a lawsuit was filed. Ms. Gianino entered into a settlement agreement where she agreed to remove the encroachment but she never complied with the agreement. When they went to have the settlement agreement enforced, Ms. Gianino presented evidence that the structure could not be moved. The Judge agreed with her and said the structure did not have to be moved. After several attempts to try to resolve this issue through many different avenues we agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice. Ms. Gianola stated that even after Ms. Gianino presented evidence that the structure would crumble she continued to renew her building permit. The Judge ruled in her favor in 2011 and the permit expired in 2014. As a result, Ms. Gianola said that they waited around but nothing happened. Ms. Gianola said that one of her conditions would be that the title is recorded at the same time so as make sure that everyone is on the same page. She went on to say that as far as the sewer line goes, 550 Monroe should not bear the cost. Chair Osorio asked if they are willing to agree with the conditions set forth by Mr. Lombardo. Ms. Gianola said that they are not willing to agree with the conditions regarding the sewer line. She said that they are not willing to pay for it as 560 is the property red tagged by the City. Commissioner McCrone asked who has been “red tagged”? Ms. Cole said the actual name of the violation is an administrative order and it was issued against 560 Monroe because the house crossed over the property line. Commissioner McCrone asked if they had an enforceable order since they dismissed the lawsuit. Ms. Gianola stated that they do not have an enforceable order. Public Comments: Dominica Gianino, owner of 560 Monroe Street said she has been in a lawsuit for a very long time to resolve the matter the right way with many visits and meeting with various City officials. She went on to say that in 2013 she and Ms. Amato entered into an agreement that stated the sewer line would be removed from her property at the expense of Ms. Amato. She said that the settlement agreement was suppose to be drawn up by Ms. Gianola and according to Ms. Gianino that was never done. Commissioner Garden asked Ms. Gianino if she wanted the lot line adjustment. Ms. Gianino emphatically stated that she wanted the lot line adjustment and the sewer line removed from her property at the expense of Ms. Amato. Commission Member Comment: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 24, 2015 3 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, February 24, 2015 Commissioner Reed asked if the sewer issue could even be put as a condition on the Resolution and if it could what would be the parameters. Karin Salameh, Assistant City Attorney, said that this is a discretionary permit and the Planning Commission can attach conditions. The City’s position and general practice regarding the sewer line is that the City will not inject itself into that dispute. She said that because this is an old city and sewer lines do cross property lines often. Ms. Salameh said she would urge the Planning Commission to resolve the zoning code issue and leave the sewer issue to be resolved by the parties. Commissioner Stocker asked when new lots are made is it a requirement by the City to have two separate lines? Ms. Salameh stated it is not a requirement and it was not a requirement in this case either unless there was future development. Commissioner Stocker asked if moving the house would be considered future development. Ms. Cole stated that the previous proposal to move the house and the substantial addition that was suggested would constitute new development. No new development is proposed at this time. Commissioner McCrone stated that he could live with the shape of the lots but is having a hard time with making a finding to grant the Variance. Chair Osorio said the language surrounding the Variance is not proper and believes that the “special circumstance” was created simply by a mistake. He said that the basis for the “special circumstance” should be that fact that a mistake was made which resulted in the lot line adjustment. Commissioner Davis stated he thought the “special circumstance” should be the court decision to which Commissioner McCrone said the case was dismissed and there was no final judgment. Commissioner Garden stated that he could not support a finding for a Variance that would not allow this property to have unique and unusual special conditions that other properties in this area wouldn’t have. He went on to say that the conditions needed to be worked on or he would not be able to support that Variance. Commissioner Garden stated that he too had trouble with the language in the Resolution. Commissioner Stocker said the City did make a mistake when they recorded the map. He then said that was the past and how do we resolve the problem now. The City cannot let this go on forever and it is clear that the two parties cannot resolve the matter. He said that he agrees the lots have to stay the same size that they were. He disagrees that the lots in the City are all regular and irregularities exist in this City. He disagrees with the concept of the sewer lines and thinks that when the lots were severed there should have been separate sewer lines. He went on to say that he did not believe that the lot line was a special privilege. He said a paragraph that states why/how the situation occurred and that we are not allowing oddly shaped lot all over the City. Commissioner Davis said at this point we need to solve the problem. He did not feel that the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 24, 2015 4  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, February 24, 2015 Commission was granting a special privilege and said he did not think that anyone else would want this type of lot. He said he could support the Resolution and the language in them but thought that verification regarding the building permits was necessary. Chair Osorio said he could support the Variance with two changes. He said the “special circumstances” resulted from errors and the special privilege finding should say the Variance for the reconfiguration of the lots is necessary for the specifics of this particular case. Chair Osorio said on the Resolution for the Variance, the 4th “Whereas” from the bottom, the following language should be added to the paragraph, “…crosses the property line due to the recordation of the map for the subdivision in error.” And in the 2nd “Whereas” from the bottom, add the following language, “…because the Variance for the configuration is necessary for this specific set of circumstances.” Chair Osorio made a motion to approve the changes to the Resolution. Commissioner Garden seconds the motion. Chair Osorio said that he wants to leave the situation with the sewer out of the Resolution. Ms. Salameh asked if the motion set forth included Ms. Cole’s additional conditions of simultaneous recording and lender approval. Chair Osorio said he would add that to his motion, to which Commissioner Garden again seconds the motion. Commissioner Davis asked if the City staff was comfortable that the work had been done and permits were verified to which Ms. Cole said that she would check with the Building Division and if the Commission wanted to add that as a condition they could do so as well. Commissioner McCrone said he did not feel that recording a map is a reason to grant the lot line adjustment and he would not be supporting the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Osorio, seconded by Commissioner Garden, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved the project with added language to the Resolution to support the Variance. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Osorio, Reed, Garden, Stocker, Davis NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: McCrone ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Widmar ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 3. Consider 1221 Tenth Street; Use Permit 15-015 for Mixed-Use and Lot Coverage (57% Proposed, 50% is Standard), Parking Adjustment 15-052 (One Off-Street Commercial Space Required, None Provided), and Setback Variance 15-051 (20' Setback for Parking from Ninth Street, 7' - 0" Proposed); Owner/Applicant Dr. Thomas Williams, DVM; C-2-D2 Zoning Designation; Exempt from CEQA Requirements Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 24, 2015 5 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, February 24, 2015 ACTION: Adopt Resolutions Approving (1) Use Permit 15-015 For Te Existing And Expanded Mixed-Use And Lot Coverage Of 57%; (2) Approve Parking Adjustment 15-052 For One Off-Street Parking Space; And (3) Approving Setback Variance 15-031 For A 7’- 0’ Setback From Ninth Street For Parking. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Kim Cole presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Applicant Mr. Darren Davis, project designer, said the goal of the project is to modernize the dwelling unit on the second floor, modernize the first floor which is the clinic to accommodate new equipment and an employee break room and finally to create two residential parking spaces. He said that they would install an electric gate which would deter people from parking behind the gate. He said that they are in agreement with staff with the exception of item 2. He said that the residence upstairs does not have parking and by creating these two spots for the residence that will alleviate the parking on the street by two spots. Commissioner Garden asked if there is an interior stair between the residence and the clinic. Mr. Davis said there is a proposed stairwell that will take you from outside to the residence but as of today there is not a stairwell connecting inside to inside. Commissioner Davis asked if the exterior vestibule and staircase was included in the 517 sq. ft. that is proposed, to which Mr. Davis said that it is not included. Commissioner Davis asked if removing the storage area was, in essence, to enhance and create the space that the vet office needs to do what they are currently doing and to bring the facility up to standard to accommodate the new equipment, to which Mr. Davis replied yes that is correct. Chair Osorio asked Mr. Davis if he was willing to reduce the square footage on the first floor in order to reduce the parking adjustment. Mr. Davis said he would as long as everyone was in agreement to credit of 240 ft. towards the demolition, which would put the expansion at 249 sq ft. of commercial space. Chair Osorio asked Ms. Cole if the exterior stair case was not counted. She replied that it will be counted twice because the count includes to exterior wall. She then went on to say that it would be a significant error to count storage area toward the floor area of the building. because if someone has a single family residence and it is at maximum FAR we still allow them to build their small storage area, it has never been counted towards the gross floor area at the site. If we decided to start counting that it would be a significant change to how we have been calculating floor area. Dr. Thomas Williams said he is trying to help the neighborhood with making the building look more residential on Ninth Street and make the building look more professional. He said that the staff will enjoy a break room and they would be able to build a handicap restroom for his clients. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 24, 2015 6 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, February 24, 2015 Commission Member Comment: Commissioner McCrone asked what finding do we need to make in order to approve the parking adjustment. Commissioner Reed said it would appear that you could just make a finding that there is an over abundance of parking and we do not need to allocate one space. Commissioner Garden said he would like to verify in the Zoning Ordinance that the parking requirements are calculated correctly and there is not a special requirement that requires two parking spaces for veterinary hospitals. Ms. Cole stated that in the parking code the requirement for animal hospitals is one for every 500 sq. ft. Commissioner Stocker said this is why a Planning Commission is needed because we are citizens representing the community trying to make sense of this entire situation. He said staff has done a great job but so many of these issues do not make sense. He went on to say the reason we are here is to look at the things that don’t make sense and determine what is reality. Commissioner Stocker made a motion to approve. Commissioner McCrone seconds the motion but asked for added language for the findings to parking adjustment. Commissioner Stocker said this is the kind of thing that benefits the neighborhood on both the residential and commercial side. Commissioner Stocker said this is a Mixed use project and it is exactly what we wanted in that the owner of the commercial portion lives upstairs. On a motion by Commissioner Stocker, seconded by Commissioner McCrone, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved the Use Permit for Mixed Use and Lot Coverage, Parking Adjustment with added language, and the Setback Variance. AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: McCrone, Osorio, Garden, Stocker, Reed, Davis NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Widmar ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Commissioner McCrone said he attended the City Council meeting regarding the project at 520- 522 Fremont. He said the sooner we get to the parking ordinance we will be able to normalize such things as shared parking. He went on to say that as a Commission we hung the Variance for the project on the water and it was viewed as risky and in the future we may want to go back to a more traditional ground for a Variance. Commissioner McCrone said he had a conversation with Mayor Roberson who said that the policy of the City Council is that the Commission can have subcommittees but will not contain any City Council members. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 24, 2015 7  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, February 24, 2015 Chair Osorio said he asked staff to address the issue of the subcommittees but he said he was under the impression that the City Council tabled the discussion and would have further discussion involving the commissioners. Ms. Cole said the City Council did table the discussion and she spoke with her supervisor for an update. At this time he did not have any new information but said she would keep the commissioners informed. Commissioner McCrone said that he would hate to lose momentum on Lighthouse Specific Plan. Ms. Cole said they are not losing momentum on the Lighthouse Specific Plan. Commissioner Garden said that we need to move forward with the planning issues that are in the work program. Ms. Cole said the work program is on the tentative Agenda for the next meeting and she would be meeting with her supervisors to discuss the program as new projects were added and they need to be shared with the Planning Commission. Chair Osorio said that he wants to see a work program that is practical and realistic. He said he is looking to staff to figure out what is realistic to accomplish over the next year, not just a list of 20 items that we will not be able to address. Commissioner Garden said his time as a Planning Commissioner was not being fully utilized when there are canceled Planning Commission meetings and there are so many issues with the Zoning Ordinance that need to be fixed and addressed. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 4. Planning Office Update  Update received. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:18 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Kimberly Cole, AICP Chair Principal Planner Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 24, 2015 8