Planning Commission Meeting

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:00 pm - 5:30 pm 7:00 pm - 11:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Councilmembers Present: Roberson, Barrett, Downey, Haffa, Smith Commissioners Present: Reed, Fletcher, Davis, Garden, Widmar, Dawson Commissioners Absent: Millich Staff Members Present: City Manager McCarthy, Principal Planner Cole, Principal Planner Caraker, Senior Planner Hopper, Associate Engineering Surveyor Green, Recording Secretary Leinen CALL TO ORDER Mayor Roberson called to order the joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission at 4:01 pm. ***Joint Session of the City Council and Planning Commission*** PRESENTATION 1. Ceremonial welcome to the visiting Nanao, Japan sister city delegation Mayor Roberson introduced the Planning Commissioners, the City Council Members, and City Manager and welcomed delegates from Nanao, Japan. He said the City received a plaque for Monterey’s Sister City Park from the delegation to celebrate the 20th anniversary of being sister cities. Mayor Roberson thanked all those involved in the sister city relationship and gave a summary of the delegates’ itinerary. Mr. Yoshimasa Obayashi provided Japanese translation for the delegation. Commissioner Davis shared his experiences with the Junior Wings program in Nanao and said it is a professional exchange as well as a social and cultural exchange. Councilmember Downey said she appreciates the 22 delegates visiting and thanked Nanao for allowing Monterey to be their sister city. Councilmember Haffa said he deeply appreciates all the visitors from Nanao and that he is very proud of Monterey’s relationship with Nanao. He also said he deeply respects Japan’s art and culture and hopes to visit Nanao in the future. Councilmember Barrett said the sister city relationship over the past 20 years has been great but we must also look to the future and find more ways to work together. He also gave thanks to the many people in Monterey and Nanao who have made the beneficial relationship possible. Councilmember Smith said he had a wonderful time meeting the delegation and thanked them for coming so far. He said he looks forward to meeting with the delegation again in the future and visiting Nanao. The President of the Board of Education, Kazuyoshi Omi, spoke on behalf of Mayor Toyokazu Fushima. Mr. Omi expressed thanks and appreciation to Mayor Roberson, the City Council, and the residents of Monterey for their warm welcome, and said 88 different organizations from Nanao and 1130 Nanao citizens have visited Monterey. He also said Nanao has used Monterey as an example to create its own Fisherman’s Wharf and Monterey Jazz Festival in Nanao. Mr. Omi said he hopes the strong sister city relationship will become stronger and wishes Monterey success, happiness, and growth.  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2015 Takao Kinoshita, Nanao City Councilmember, said this is his fourth visit to the City of Monterey. Mr. Kinoshita read a letter on behalf of the Chairman of the Nanao City Council expressing pride and gratitude for the 20 year relationship between Nanao and Monterey and detailing the direct results of the relationship. Mayor Roberson concluded the ceremony and presented a book of historic buildings in Monterey, a pen, and a pin to the delegation. Mr. Dana Russell displayed a banner celebrating the 20 year of sister city relationship. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Roberson adjourned to the regular Planning Commission Meeting and Chair Reed took the gavel at 4:52 pm. ***Adjourn to Regular Planning Commission Meeting*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Dawson recused himself from item #2 due to having previously reviewed the project as an ARC member and from item #3 due to a conflict of interest. Commissioner Widmar recused himself from item #2 due to being acquainted with the appellant. Commissioner Dawson and Commissioner Widmar left the room. 2. Consider 4 Zaragosa Views; Appeal 15-314 of AR Permit 15-164 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a New Two-Story Addition; Appellant Deryck Nuckton; Property Owner William and Kathryn Parish; Zoning District R-2-20-D2; Exempt from CEQA ACTION: Adopted a Resolution denying Appeal 15-314 and approving AR Permit 15-164, upholding the ARC’s decision, for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a new two-story addition located at 4 Zaragoza Views with added Condition of Approval. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Comments Kimberly Cole presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Appellant Nelson Vega, on behalf of appellant Deryk Nuckton, said Mr. Nuckton objects to the large amount of massing in the corner of the lot, which exceeds FAR criteria, per the lot line adjustment. Mr. Vega provided a copy of the CC&Rs and said the design goes against the CC&Rs and that the current addition to the house is illegal. Mr. Vega suggested putting the addition in a different location to prevent an impact on Nr. Nuckton’s privacy. He presented depictions showing the addition over the living room and the garage, requiring a variance. Mr. Vega said the CC&Rs have to be considered in order to make conditions equitable for all neighbors. He asked for redesign of the addition, which would create more square footage while allowing for privacy. Mr. Nuckton said he is the original developer of the neighborhood and he gave details regarding the driveway and freeway access. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2015 2 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2015 Terry Latasa, project architect, said owners Bill and Kathy Parish are present. He asked that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the ARC approval of the project. He said that Mr. and Ms. Parish have not done any previous work to the house. Mr. Latasa showed a diagram and said that placing the view room in the southwest corner is the best place with regards to architecture, aesthetics, massing, and City guidelines. He also said he is not aware of the City ever approving a three-story addition to a house and that privacy matters are usually considered in relation to windows and interior spaces, not privacy impacts on backyards. Regarding the appellant’s letter, Mr. Latasa said the 1987 Use Permit does not indicate that an amendment to the Conditions of Approval is necessary for the addition, and also said if the easement and FAR were taken into account, essentially all the houses on the street would be non-conforming. In response to Vice Chair Fletcher’s question, Mr. Latasa said the owners would consider reducing the size of the windows if necessary, but would prefer to keep the windows as proposed. In response to Commissioner Garden’s question, Mr. Latasa said the proposed design is preferred by the owners, but if the Commission sees clerestory windows as critical to approving the project they would be willing to consider the idea. Public Comments Earine Arnold, wife of Mr. Nuckton, said she and her husband enlarged their deck a few years ago and plan to place a hot tub on the deck, off the dining area. She said if the hot tub is placed in this area and the proposed project is approved, there will be windows looking down on it, taking away privacy. In response to Chair Reed’s question, Ms. Arnold said the hot tub has not been purchased yet. Steve Buck, 51 Via Castaneda, said three years ago before purchasing his home he spoke with Todd Bennett and Christy Hopper in the Planning Office on two separate occasions and was reassured that the houses in the planned community below his house could not be built on. He also said he bought the property because of the view and would not have purchased it knowing the houses could be expanded. Mr. Buck said the City is obligated to deny the addition, which would make the house three stories, and that he would like an apology from the City if the project is approved. In response to Commissioner Garden’s question, Mr. Buck said his main concern is a precedent being set if the project is approved, and the fact that he was told an addition could not occur. Bill Parish, property owner, said the proposed project will not affect anyone’s view and the issue of privacy is being blown out of proportion. He also said all the houses in the neighborhood are built on a hill, so none of the backyards have privacy. Mr. Parish said the proposed project cannot possibly constitute an unreasonable impact on privacy. In regards to switching the addition to front, Mr. Parish said this is not an architecturally sound proposal and it would be a three story house that could not be approved due to earthquake risks. Mr. Parish also said he worked with well known architect to minimize project impacts and asked the ARC to deny the appeal. Mr. Nuckton said when he first purchased the property the zoning was R-20, requiring a Use Permit and Architectural Review prior to building. He questioned what the zoning is today and said if the zoning still requires Architectural Review, then the Use Permit should still apply to the proposed project. Mr. Nuckton also said staff should recalculate the floor area figures to ensure accuracy. Mr. Vega said the unit upstairs on the house is illegal and that he believes the applicants Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2015 3 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2015 are trying to make it legal through the ARC process. He also said the ARC discussed placing windows facing another direction or making the windows opaque, and that the CC&Rs run with the land. Mr. Vega said no use can occur that impairs the rights of another person. With the time being 5:30 pm, Chair Reed asked if the Commission would to take a recess. Commissioner Garden said the application should be settled first. Committee Member Comments In response to Commissioner Garden’s question regarding new evidence presented, Ms. Cole said the ARC did not consider the information regarding the Use Permit. Ms. Cole also said the FAR still meets current standards and, if the easement was subtracted from the lot size, the existing building would not comply with current FAR standards. Commissioner Garden said he is inclined to agree with the ARC’s decision, if the applicant reduces the two end bedroom windows to clerestory windows, preventing a view down to the neighbor’s deck. This way, he said, he can find the ARC did not err. In response to Commissioner Davis’s question, Ms. Cole confirmed that the Use Permit does not have to be revisited and that the proposed project complies with height standards. Commissioner Davis said the point has been made that the distance between the addition and the neighboring deck is over 50 feet, so it is hard to make the case for a privacy impact. He also said because the proposed widows are in a bedroom there is much less potential for looking out the windows for extended periods of time. Vice Chair Fletcher said in situations like this there should be a spirit of cooperation and compromise, and that he agrees with Commissioner Garden that a compromise is needed for the bedroom windows. Chair Reed asked about the lot line adjustment and Ms. Cole referred the question to City Surveyor, Norm Green, who showed a map displaying the easement line. In regards to Chair Reed’s question about CC&Rs, Ms. Cole said they are privately enforced and that she has reviewed the CC&Rs and does not see any conflict. Regarding Chair Reed’s question on the existing addition, Ms. Cole said the building as proposed meets building standards. Ms. Cole also described the process for obtaining a Variance and said staff would recommend denial in this case since the site could be designed to meet Zoning Standards. Commissioner Garden made motion to adopt a Resolution denying Appeal 15-314 and approving AR Permit 15-164, upholding the ARC’s decision, for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a new two-story addition located at 4 Zaragoza Views with the added findings that the Planning Commission has considered new evidence presented. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion. Chair Reed said he does not think there would be a major privacy impact, but there will be an impact on backyard privacy, especially since screening trees cannot be added according to the CC&Rs. Chair Reed said he would like to see recognition that there will be an impact on privacy, but thinks the applicant should be able to build the view room complying with zoning ordinances. Commissioner Garden suggested that the applicants strongly consider the impact on the neighbors and alternatives to the one window in the bedroom, which has the strongest impact. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2015 Commissioner Davis said he supports a compromise, worked out with the architect, and having the ARC review an alternative design proposal. Chair Reed concurred. Ms. Cole said a potential resolution would be to ask the applicant if they would accept clerestory windows. Mr. Latasa confirmed that clerestory windows would be acceptable. Chair Reed asked for a vote on the previously stated motion. On a motion by Commissioner Garden, seconded by Commissioner Davis, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission moved to adopt a Resolution denying Appeal 15-314 and approving AR Permit 15-164, upholding the ARC’s decision, for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a new two-story addition located at 4 Zaragoza Views with the added findings that the Planning Commission has considered new evidence presented: AYES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Garden NOES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Reed, Fletcher, Davis ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Millich ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Widmar, Dawson The motion failed. Commissioner Davis made a motion to adopt a Resolution denying Appeal 15-314 and approving AR Permit 15-164, upholding the ARC’s decision, for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a new two-story addition located at 4 Zaragoza Views with added Condition of Approval as follows: 1. The two proposed bedroom windows (north elevation) shall be clerestory. Vice Chair Fletcher seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Davis, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution denying Appeal 15-314 and approving AR Permit 15-164, upholding the ARC’s decision, for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a new two-story addition located at 4 Zaragoza Views with added Condition of Approval: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Reed, Fletcher, Davis, Garden NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Millich ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Widmar, Dawson Commissioner Garden made a motion to continue item #3 to the evening session at 7:00 pm. Vice Chair Fletcher seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Garden, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission continued item #3 to the evening session: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Reed, Fletcher, Davis, Garden Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2015 5  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2015 NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Millich ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Widmar, Dawson The afternoon session adjourned at 6:03 pm. RECONVENE ***Evening Session Agenda*** 7:00 - 11:00 p.m. Chair Reed reconvened the evening session at 7:01 pm. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARING 3. Consider 492 Clay Street; HP Application 15-332 for H-2 Historic Zoning; Applicants/Owners Michael and Melanie Cervi; R-3-6 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance to rezone the property as a City Historic Resource from R-3-6 to R-3-6-H-2. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Ms. Cole presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Applicant No applicant present. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Commissioner Davis made a motion to adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance to rezone the property as a City Historic Resource from R-3- 6 to R-3-6-H-2. Commissioner Garden seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Davis, seconded by Commissioner Garden, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission Adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance to rezone the property as a City Historic Resource from R-3-6 to R-3-6-H-2: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Reed, Fletcher, Davis, Garden, Widmar NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Millich ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Dawson Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2015 6  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4. Consider Recommendation to the City Council to Repeal the Wharf Master Plan; Repeal Resolution 9000; Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration; Rezone the Planning Area to Planned Community - Waterfront; and Adopt the Waterfront Master Plan ACTION: Adopted a Resolution recommending to the City Council to repeal the Wharf Master Plan; repeal Resolution 9000; adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration; rezone the Waterfront Master Plan Planning Area to Planned Community – Waterfront; and adopt the Waterfront Master Plan with revisions to the language in Project F.1.a on page 54 and Project G.2.a. on page 55. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Elizabeth Caraker presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Public Comments In response to earlier questions from the Commission, Councilmember Libby Downey said the City owns the road on the Wharf and the property on the Wharf is owned by the lessees until their leases expire, at which point the property reverts to the City. In response to Commissioner Garden’s question regarding inclusion of clarifying language regarding ownership in the Waterfront Master Plan, Councilmember Downey said it is clear to the City Council, but could be included if it helps the Planning Commission understand. Luis Osorio, former Planning Commissioner, said his six and a half years of service on the Commission were very rewarding and he thanked the Commissioners and staff for their efforts. Regarding the Waterfront Master Plan, Mr. Osorio said it is worth remembering how the Plan began six years ago and the ideas that came from the subcommittee. He also said the main focus of the Plan became parking and loss of parking, and now the Wharf tenants would like more parking. Mr. Osorio said the Planning Commission must make a statement to the City Council as part of the findings that the Waterfront Master Plan still includes a sea of parking. He also suggested placing a transit plaza in the area north of Del Monte Avenue between Park Street and Sloat Avenue. Regarding the Scott Street extension, Mr. Osorio said the Commission needs to be cognizant of whether or not they want vehicle traffic through the plaza. Committee Member Comments Commissioner Garden said the Waterfront Master Plan is a document that shows what the waterfront could look like within the next 20 years. He also said the issue of how much parking may be lost has not been solved, but this will be addressed in the future and the Plan is the best possible agreement to satisfy the needs for parking in the future. Commissioner Garden said the maps and pictures that were once proposed by staff may or may not represent how the waterfront will look within the next 20 years. He also said this Master Plan, like the other Specific Plans, does a great job of guiding its implementation. Commissioner Garden said his concern regarding text in the Plan stating that the City owns the property is not a large concern because the ownership situation is understood by the Planning Commission and City Council. He said the Plan has greatly evolved and he has seen staff and the subcommittee incorporate the wishes of the public and stakeholders, and he could not be happier with the outcome. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2015 7 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2015 Commissioner Davis said the Planning Commission should be proud of this Plan and also the other two Plans that have been approved. He thanked staff for assisting the Planning Commission and City Council for the efforts. Commissioner Davis said we have gone through an era of major planning for the future of the City and as long as the parking garages are correctly named he supports the Plan. Commissioner Widmar said it is useful to view the Plan as a framework of visions and goals instead of blueprint. He also said the Plan has been thoroughly discussed with a huge amount of public input, and although not everyone is happy with everything in the Plan, it is close to where it should be and is ready for recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Dawson said the Plan has been a community effort from the start and has come very far. He said he likes most of the Plan, but does have some basic problems with the parking. He also said he does not think the perfect solution has been reached yet, even with the proviso to build parking if there is not enough. Commissioner Dawson said being that the Plan is a living document, the issues can be addressed as they arise. Vice Chair Fletcher said he approaches Master Planning documents knowing that there will always be a degree of fluidity, and this Plan gives great guidance and direction with room to evolve over time. Vice Chair Fletcher said he supports staff’s recommendation. Chair Reed thanked staff for the great amount of time they put into the document and for listening to the Commission’s comments and making changes when reasonable. He also said he agrees with Commissioner Widmar that the Plan is a framework and a living document. Vice Chair Reed said the Plan is should forwarded to the City Council for approval. Commissioner Garden made a motion to adopt a Resolution recommending to the City Council to repeal the Wharf Master Plan; repeal Resolution 9000; adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration; rezone the Waterfront Master Plan Planning Area to Planned Community – Waterfront; and adopt the Waterfront Master Plan with revisions to the language in Project F.1.a on page 54 and Project G.2.a. on page 55 as follows: Project F.1.a Create a Waterfront Fund financial structure that ties costs of implementation and maintenance to revenues generated within the Waterfront Planning Area and minimizes impacts on the General Fund. Project G.2.a. Identify a sustainable funding source (such as Transient Occupancy Tax and lease revenues) to fund waterfront capital projects to avoid negative impacts to the General Fund. Possibly retain a financial consultant to assist with building a sustainable funding program for implementation, operations, and maintenance. Vice Chair Fletcher seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Garden, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending to the City Council to repeal the Wharf Master Plan; repeal Resolution 9000; adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration; rezone the Waterfront Master Plan Planning Area to Planned Community – Waterfront; and adopt the Waterfront Master Plan with revisions to the language in Project F.1.a on page 54 and Project G.2.a. on page 55: AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Reed, Fletcher, Davis, Garden, Widmar, Dawson Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2015 8  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2015 NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Millich ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Commissioner Garden said he is waiting for the next subcommittee meetings and staff has prepared a calendar of the meetings. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 5. Planning Office Update  Update received.  Ms. Cole said the October 13, 2015 meeting may be canceled, depending on whether any projects are ready for review.  Ms. Cole also said the Lighthouse Specific Plan will be before the Planning Commission for review soon. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:48 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Kimberly Cole, AICP Chair Principal Planner Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2015 9