Planning Commission Meeting

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 28, 2016 4:00 pm - 5:30 pm 7:00 pm - 11:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Commissioners Present: Reed, Fletcher, Davis (4:05 p.m.), Dawson, Garden, Millich, Widmar Commissioners Absent: None Staff Members Present: Chief of Planning Engineering & Environmental Compliance Cole, Principal Planner Caraker, Senior Planner Hopper, Recording Secretary Leinen CALL TO ORDER Chair Reed called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Commissioner Garden made a motion to move item #3 to the Consent Agenda and approve the Consent Agenda with staff’s recommendations. Commissioner Dawson seconded the motion. Chair Reed opened public comment on item #3. Seeing no members of the public wishing to speak, Chair Reed closed public comment on item #3. On a motion by Commissioner Garden, seconded by Commissioner Dawson, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission moved item #3 to the Consent Agenda and approved the Consent Agenda with staff’s recommendations: AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Reed, Fletcher, Dawson, Garden, Millich, Widmar NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Davis ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Approval of Minutes 1. June 14, 2016 ACTION: Approved as submitted. Other Consent Items (Previously item #3) 2. Consider Monterey City Code Amendments to Sections 38-11, 38-15, 38-28, 38-29, 38- 30(B), 38-31, 38-32, 38-115, 38-138, and 38-139 to Require a Conditional Use Permit and Off-Street Parking for Massage Establishments; to Delete Water Efficient Landscaping Regulations and Defer Instead to Regional and State Regulations, and to Define and Regulate Temporary Structures (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19 Section 15305) ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda; Adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending M.C.C. Sections 38-11, 38-15, 38-28, 38-29, 38-30, 38-31, 38-32, 38-115, 38-138, and 38-139 to require a conditional use permit and off-street parking for massage establishments; to delete water  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 28, 2016 efficient landscaping regulations and defer instead to regional and state regulations; and that the Planning Commission consider regulations for temporary structures at a later date. ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARING (Previously item #2) 3. Consider 150 Seafoam Avenue; Appeal 16-258 of an Architectural Review Committee Decision on AR Permit 15-293 to Approve a New Two-Story Residence; Appellants Jayme Fields, Marc Cusenza and Alan Cleaves; Owner Dale Hogan Trust; R-1-6-D-1 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15303 ACTION: Adopted a Resolution denying Appeal 16-258 and approving AR Permit 15-293 for a new two-story residence, upholding the decision of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Christy Hopper presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Ms. Hopper said former Chair of the ARC, Sandy Freeman, is present to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Applicant/Appellants David Prew, project applicant, gave a history of the project and the modifications that have been made. Mr. Prew said the neighbors previously requested that the design be changed to a one story house, but this would still cause view impacts and take up most of the building envelope. Mr. Prew discussed a report from a soils engineer and explained why placing the driveway on Surf Way is not a viable option. He also spoke about concerns with the garage and access to the house, and said that making the garage any lower would not allow for an efficient garage door system. Mr. Prew summarized the concerns expressed by the neighbors and said the best option for the project was to push the house back and lower it. He also said the house is under the allowed building envelope, is well proportioned, and that moving the house any more would not make a difference overall. In response to Commissioner Millich’s question, Mr. Prew said pushing the house back any further was not a viable option due to City Code and financial restrictions. In response to Commissioner Davis’ question, Mr. Prew said the ARC’s direction was to keep the proposed design but incorporate more space, air, and light. Jayme Fields, appellant, 145 Spray Avenue, said her family chose their house because they wanted a view of the bay and had approved plans for a view window before the staking went up for the project at 150 Seafoam Avenue. She also said the primary reason for resistance to the changes proposed by the neighbors was the applicant’s concern for ADA access. Ms. Fields said she and concerned neighbors hired an architect to review the proposed plans and found a few small modifications that could be made to improve the overall design and the ADA access. Ms. Fields requested that the house be dropped by six inches and pulled back six feet to open up the view corridor from her window and to not obstruct the view from neighbor, Marc Cusenza’s, kitchen window. She said these proposed changes will also allow neighbor Alan Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 28, 2016 2 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 28, 2016 Cleaves to retain more of his airport view. Ms. Fields said that her architect also found that ADA access would be improved by placing the driveway on Surf Way. Marc Cusenza, appellant, 148 Seafoam Avenue, read from policy 3.4.e of the Del Monte Beach Local Coastal Land Use Plan regarding structural development and retaining coastal and hillside views for existing structures. Mr. Cusenza said that the compromise proposed by Ms. Fields would not be an additional cost for the applicant, would preserve the view from his bayview window, and would give Mr. Cleaves 18 more inches to see the airport. He said while 18 inches may not seem significant on paper, it means everything to the existing neighbors, and he asked the Planning Commission to find in his and the other appellants’ favor. Sandy Freeman, former Chair of the ARC, in response to Commissioner Dawson’s question, said that after reviewing the project the first time the ARC gave direction to mitigate view impacts of the house but left it up to the applicant to decide which direction to move the house. In response to Commissioner Garden’s question, Ms. Freeman confirmed that the ARC considered the Del Monte Beach Local Coastal Land Use Plan and the neighbors’ concerns when making their decision. Chair Reed provided the applicant, Mr. Prew, an opportunity for rebuttal. Mr. Prew said the ARC’s direction was to try to mitigate the neighbors’ concerns by reducing the height and to make more air and light space without changing the design. He also said the ARC took everything into consideration and made a fair decision, approving the design unanimously. Mr. Prew said even placing the most conservative house on the lot would impact views. In response to Vice Chair Fletcher’s question regarding the suggestions from the appellants’ architect, Mr. Prew said he does not support lowering the garage height to 7’ 6”, especially with a balcony above, and that the additional six inches gained would not improve the view. He said his clients should have the same rights to enjoy their house as the neighbors. Public Comments None. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Millich requested that the record reflect that five of the seven Planning Commissioners attended the field trip to the project site. Commissioner Dawson said the applicant did what was asked of him by the ARC by dropping the house down and moving it away from the neighbor’s house to expand the view cone. In response to Commissioner Millich’s question, Chair Reed clarified that the Planning Commission’s review of the appeal is considered a de novo hearing. Commissioner Garden said that in the City, the ARC is the body that makes the design arbitration, not the Planning Commission. He said for the Planning Commission to try to make design decisions that the ARC has already made would be a mistake going forward. Commissioner Garden said that the ARC made no error in their decision and made a motion to adopt a Resolution denying Appeal 16-258 and approving AR Permit 15-293 for a new two- story residence, upholding the decision of the ARC. Commissioner Millich seconded the motion. Commissioner Widmar said the Del Monte Beach Neighborhood is not an easy neighborhood to build in and often times there are multiple review processes, and unfortunately no one gets everything they want. He also said the applicant has made quite a few adjustments and he Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 28, 2016 3  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 28, 2016 supports the motion. Commissioner Davis said there is an added difficulty of being the last lot in the neighborhood to be built on. He also said the ARC made the right decision and he cannot make the determination that they erred. Chair Reed said he considers the hearing a true de novo hearing and does not think the ARC erred, and therefore supports the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Garden, seconded by Commissioner Millich, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution denying Appeal 16-258 and approving AR Permit 15-293 for a new two-story residence, upholding the decision of the ARC: AYES: 7 COMMISSIONERS: Reed, Fletcher, Davis, Dawson, Garden, Millich, Widmar NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Chair Reed adjourned the afternoon session at 4:55 p.m. RECONVENE ***Evening Session Agenda*** 7:00 – 11:00 pm Chair Reed called the evening session to order at 7:00 p.m. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARING 4. Consider Recommendation to the City Council to: 1) Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration; 2) Rezone the Lighthouse Specific Plan Area From Community Commercial (C-2), Public Semi Public/Open Space (O), and Residential (R-1-15 & R-3-5) to Planned Community Lighthouse (PC-L); 3) Amend Monterey City Code Section 38-114.G. and Section 32-67 to Delete the Lighthouse Area and New Monterey Parking Districts and Section 38-114.F to Reference the Downtown Parking District; 4) Repeal the Lighthouse Area Plan; and, 5) Adopt the Lighthouse Specific Plan ACTION: Continued to July 26, 2016, with the same draft of the Lighthouse Specific Plan brought back to the Planning Commission on this date, to allow adequate time for review of the draft. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Kimberly Cole presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioners’ questions. Public Comments Nancy Runyon, New Monterey resident, thanked staff and the ARC for their work. She questioned why Scholze Park does not have an open space overlay in the Lighthouse Specific Plan (Plan). Ms. Runyon requested that the Planning Commission approve staff’s Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 28, 2016 4 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 28, 2016 recommendation. In response to Commissioner Dawson’s question, Ms. Runyon said not everything requested by the neighborhood is represented in the Plan, but it is a compromise and the neighborhood is happy. Ann Bushey, New Monterey resident for 38 years, expressed concern regarding loosing resources the residents need, including Scholze Park, the fire department, Doctors on Duty, and Nob Hill. She also questioned whether a study has been conducted to determine whether current and future residents of Lighthouse Avenue will actually be using the public transit system. Ms. Bushey said she would like more review done on buildings constructed on Lighthouse Avenue to prevent them from looking like mausoleums. Patricia Domingo, New Monterey resident, thanked everyone involved in creation of the Plan and said she is very appreciative of the process. Ms. Domingo said the compromises written into the Plan will make both sides happy and that she is glad the parking in-lieu fee has been removed from the Plan. She said she does not support pavers being used in crosswalks due to the noise impact and she asked the Planning Commission to approve the Plan as proposed. Carl Outzen, property owner on Lighthouse Avenue, said Lighthouse Avenue has been neglected for many years and the only way to provide additional housing in the City is to build mixed-use buildings in commercial areas. Mr. Outzen expressed concern regarding the Plan’s requirements for a 12 foot third story setback, public art and public seating on private property, use of dated height requirements for three story buildings, the Plan boundary, the requirement regarding residential units per lot area, the narrowness of parking and driving lanes on Lighthouse Avenue, and the previous streetscape study not being incorporated in the Plan. Mr. Outzen said there is no parking issue in the area and that the roundabout on Highway 68 will not change traffic flow on Lighthouse Avenue. Frank Donangelo, Cannery Row Company and Foursome Development Company, expressed concern regarding removal of parking in-lieu fees from the Plan. He said the only way to improve Lighthouse Avenue is to remove some of the old buildings, and that many of these older buildings do not have parking, so repealing the parking in-lieu fee would be a mistake. Mr. Donangelo also said taking two or three feet off the sidewalks on each side of Lighthouse Avenue would allow for wider lanes. Brenda Webster, New Monterey resident, said she is concerned that a distinct image has not been defined for Lighthouse Avenue, and also that the current traffic situation may not support a new image. She suggested creating three wider inbound lanes to relieve congestion. Ms. Webster also suggested that Lighthouse Avenue become an international district, since there is already a diverse mix of restaurants and markets on the street and more could be encouraged. Sharon Dwight, New Monterey Neighborhood Association (NMNA) President, said she appreciates the public review process that contributed to the Plan. Ms. Dwight expressed concern about the Plan not sufficiently addressing preservation of older buildings in the area, retaining the one and two story character of Lighthouse Avenue, preserving ocean views for residents, employees and school buses parking in the neighborhood, the proximity of available parking to businesses, density in excess of 30 units per acre only for low-cost housing, Scholze Park not being designated as open space, vagueness of the mitigation measure regarding traffic impact fees, properties identified as D-2 zoning losing their overlay protection, and the wording of Guideline 2.3.6. Ms. Dwight also said that the NMNA did not intend to eliminate the entire parking district, but rather does not want in-lieu parking fees allowed for new construction. She said she does not support narrowing of the sidewalks or repealing the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 28, 2016 5 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 28, 2016 Lighthouse Area Plan. Ms. Dwight requested that the Planning Commission continue the item for at least two weeks to allow time for the public to read the latest draft. Terry Latasa said as a member of the ARC he was present for all the hearings regarding the Plan. Mr. Latasa said the ARC’s main focus was Chapter 4 regarding building and design issues, and that after extensive discussion it was decided to maintain a numerical height limit with exceptions for topographical, ADA and design issues. Regarding the requirement for public art, Mr. Latasa said it was a staff recommendation that was welcomed by the ARC. In response to Chair Reed’s question regarding the requirement for a 12 foot setback on the third story, Mr. Latasa said the ARC carefully considered the 12 foot setback and felt it was appropriate. In response to Commissioner Millich’s question regarding whether any exceptions to numerical height limits other than those listed under Standard S.3.3 would be allowed, Ms. Cole said the exceptions listed were the only ones discussed by the ARC. Sandy Freeman, Lighthouse Specific Plan Subcommittee member and ARC member, said she was present for all discussions on the Plan. She said an area of confusion tonight is that some of the issues being raised, such as traffic, undesirable businesses, and preserving the area, were outside of the ARC’s purview as they were limited to discussion on Chapter 4. Chair Reed requested that Ms. Cole respond to questions raised during public comment. Ms. Cole addressed concerns regarding Scholze Park, open space parcels, density requirements, outdoor seating, Plan boundaries, repealing of the parking in-lieu fees, architectural style, the 12 foot third story setback requirement, historic resources and overlays, contributions by developers for future transportation improvements, and the guideline to minimize airspace between buildings. Commissioner Garden said there have been many drafts of the Plan and it is important for the Planning Commission and the public to have adequate time to review the latest edition. In response to Commissioner Garden’s question regarding whether adequate time has been given for all parties to review the draft and whether the current draft should be continued as is, Ms. Cole said the primary changes to the Plan are outlined in the table in the Agenda Report, but she is fine with continuing the item if the Planning Commission would like additional time. In response to Commissioner Widmar’s question regarding whether the Plan would allow for outdoor dining on rooftop decks, Ms. Cole said she has not considered outdoor dining in this context before and will review the use chart. In response to Vice Chair Fletcher’s question, Ms. Cole gave an explanation of how form- based guidelines came about locally and said on a national level, planning codes are generally moving towards form-based codes. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Garden said improvement of driving and parking safety on Lighthouse Avenue is an issue that has been discussed at nearly all meetings, but that a solution that is acceptable to all stakeholders has not been identified yet. Commissioner Garden also said language was added to page 73 of the Plan stating that the “The City should amend the Citywide Transportation and Parking Study when the Holman Highway and Highway 1 Roundabout and Del Monte/Washington improvements are completed.” He said that this statement adds more triggers to the Plan, and he does not support it being part of the Plan. Ms. Caraker clarified that the Del Monte/Washington improvements refers to improving the flow through the tunnel by changing the pedestrian crossing from the east to the west side, making crossing time shorter. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 28, 2016 6 Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 28, 2016 Commissioner Dawson said he is troubled by the idea of eliminating the parking in-lieu fees because there are many small storefronts on Lighthouse Avenue and doing so may prevent them from adding onto their businesses in the future. Commissioner Davis said when it comes down to lot size, there needs to be some flexibility for special situations where the parking requirements will not work. Commissioner Widmar said all the issues need to be considered together and that there should be a more scalable system as opposed to simply having or not having parking in-lieu fees. Commissioner Millich suggested that taking away parking on one side of Lighthouse Avenue could be a way to gain more space to widen the parking and drive lanes. Commissioner Garden recommended continuing the item to July 26, 2016 with direction to staff to keep the parking in-lieu fee and provide one more option of how to solve the issue of parking, and to remove the language regarding the improvements at Washington and Del Monte Avenues. Chair Reed said at all prior meetings, other than ARC, there was no mention of a 12 foot third story setback, only the requirement that the third story is set back far enough to give the appearance of a two story building. Commissioner Davis said the ARC should have the flexibility to approve a setback less than 12 feet with exceptional design. Vice Chair Fletcher concurred with Commissioner Davis and said 12 feet seems appropriate, with the possibility of exceptions for modulation or exceptional design. Regarding Commissioner Millich’s concern regarding the wording on Standards S.3.2 and S.3.3 on pages 56 and 57, Commissioner Garden said the wording should be changed so the examples given for exceptions are not all inclusive. Ms. Cole recommended that if the item is continued that the current draft be kept as is and that specific changes requested at the next meeting by the Planning Commission be put into an errata sheet and incorporated into the draft forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Widmar made a motion to continue the item to July 26, 2016, with the same draft of the Lighthouse Specific Plan brought back to the Planning Commission on this date, to allow adequate time for review of the draft. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion. Commissioner Garden said that direction was given this evening regarding specific items and he hopes it does not get overlooked. On a motion by Commissioner Widmar, seconded by Commissioner Davis, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission continued the item to July 26, 2016, with the same draft of the Lighthouse Specific Plan brought back to the Planning Commission on this date, to allow adequate time for review of the draft: AYES: 7 COMMISSIONERS: Reed, Fletcher, Davis, Dawson, Garden, Millich Widmar NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Chair Reed called for a brief recess at 9:30 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:34 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 28, 2016 7  Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 28, 2016 COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Chair Reed said Commissioner Garden was appointed to the Planning Commission on June 15, 2004 and the City of Monterey is better off due to his contributions over the years. He also said he has learned a lot from Commissioner Garden and thanked him for his time on the Planning Commission. Commissioner Davis thanked Commissioner Garden for the years spent together on the Planning Commission and said the Commissioners all love the City, and although they have different opinions, they always respect each other and do what is best for the applicant and the City. Vice Chair Fletcher said during his time on the Commission he has been impressed with the consideration and intelligence of the commissioners, and Commissioner Garden has always exemplified these qualities. Commissioner Millich said in his short time on the Commission, Commissioner Garden has been an inspiration, and he thanked him. Commissioner Widmar thanked Commissioner Garden and said he appreciates the friendship they have developed over the years. He also said he and Commissioner Garden served on the ARC together and the City is a better place due to Commissioner Garden’s service. Commissioner Garden said he is honored to have had the opportunity to keep Monterey the great place he chose to call home 35 years ago. He also said the City is a better place now and he can leave the Planning Commission knowing he had a small part in making it that way. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 5. Planning Office Update  Update received.  Ms. Caraker said the July 12, 2016 meeting of the Planning Commission will likely be canceled.  Ms. Caraker also said Terry Latasa has been appointed to the Planning Commission and Hansen Reed and Ralph Widmar have been reappointed to the Planning Commission. Ms. Caraker said she will put a discussion item on the July 26, 2016 Planning Commission meeting agenda regarding placement of agenda items in the afternoon versus the evening and also a discussion to ensure that there is a vote for the chair and vice chair appointments. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:42 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Elizabeth Caraker, AICP Chair Principal Planner Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8