Planning Commission Meeting

DocuSign Envelope ID: 88982FB8-80AB-4895-B688-1A379943624D DRAFTMINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MONTEREY Tuesday, August 24, 2021 4:00 PM – 5:30 PM COUNCIL CHAMBER AND ZOOM TELECONFERENCE MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Commissioners Present: Freeman, Reed*, Brassfield*, Dawson*, Fletcher, Latasa Commissioners Absent: Millich * Participated remotely by videoconference Staff Members Present: Community Development Director Cole, Chief Building Official Williamson, Recording Secretary Cleary CALL TO ORDER Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 4:08 p.m. Recording Secretary Cleary provided information on how to participate and provide public comment live during the meeting. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 2. July 27, 2021 ACTION: Approved as amended. Chair Freeman recommended litigation be changed to mitigation at the bottom of page seven of the Agenda Packet. On a motion by Vice Chair Reed, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved the July 27, 2021 PC Minutes as amended: AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Freeman, Reed, Brassfield, Dawson, Fletcher, Latasa NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Millich ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC HEARING 3. Consider Recommending an Ordinance to the City Council Amending Chapter 38 of the City of Monterey Code Related to Accessory Dwelling Units (Statutorily Exempt from CEQA per Article 18, Section 15282.h and Public Resources Code Section 21080.17) ACTION: Continued to September 14, 2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: 88982FB8-80AB-4895-B688-1A379943624D Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday August 24, 2021 Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Community Development Director Cole introduced Erin Lapeyrolerie, Legal Counsel for the City, then presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioner questions. Commissioner Fletcher asked if there is a limit regarding the number of parking stalls Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) can replace in multi-family zones. Ms. Lapeyrolerie explained no restriction is in place regarding the amount of parking ADUs can take over in multi-family zones, and specified that restrictions cannot be set to limit square footage. Commissioner Dawson asked if the number of units can be limited. Ms. Lapeyrolerie indicated that two detached ADUs are allowed at multi-family sites. Ms. Cole added that ground-floor parking can be converted to one ADU. Ms. Lapeyrolerie explained that for multifamily zones there is a limitation on the count but not the size. Chair Freeman inquired about square footage. Ms. Lapeyrolerie explained that 850 square feet is the proposed maximum size for an ADU with zero to one bedroom, but ADUs can be proposed with less square footage. Commissioner Latasa asked if ADUs could be built without a bathroom or a kitchen sink. Ms. Cole stated that JADUs can share a bathroom with the house but ADUs stand as independent living spaces, and added that a kitchen sink is required for both. Commissioner Latasa inquired about conversion of existing structures. Ms. Cole explained that the City is required to allow conversion of existing structures into ADUs. Chief Building Official Williamson provided details for fire ratings and building requirements, specifying that structures must be brought up to current safety standards when changing use from a utility room to residential. Commissioner Latasa asked about regulations in the Coastal Zone and whether the Coastal Commission will have to approve the Ordinance. Ms. Cole explained that every project in the Coastal Zone must go to the Coastal Commission for review. Commissioner Latasa referenced a public comment letter from Kathryn Avila. Ms. Cole shared that Ms. Avila questioned height standards and water meters. Ms. Avila asked if height rules should be less restrictive for ADUs due to topography and the desire to match existing roof slopes. Ms. Cole added that submeters are required because of a Cease and Desist order forbidding new water meters in Monterey. Regarding parking, Ms. Lapeyrolerie explained that if the JADU replaces an attached garage that replacement parking could be required. Ms. Cole provided examples. Commissioner Latasa asked if proposals have to go to Building Department for review. Ms. Cole explained that there is no planning process required for ADUs and JADUs but the Building Division does examine plans to determine if they comply with Building Code requirements. Commissioner Dawson inquired about adding new entrances to historic structures. Ms. Lapeyrolerie stated that it would have to be allowed because it is a State requirement. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday August 24, 2021 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 88982FB8-80AB-4895-B688-1A379943624D Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday August 24, 2021 Commissioner Brassfield asked if ADUs could be within four feet of the property line. Ms. Cole clarified they could. Commissioner Brassfield suggested allowing ADU height to reach existing rooflines. Ms. Cole provided examples of verbiage and stated requirements must be objective standards in checklist form. Commissioner Brassfield expressed concern for water, historic properties, and parking, suggesting these are diminishing resources and requesting further inspection. Chair Freeman summarized the discussion and indicated that current focus includes separate entrances, replacement parking requirements, water, setbacks, and maximum height. Ms. Cole provided examples of potential amendments to the draft Ordinance, and added that the Water District requires submeters but new meters are not allowed. Commissioner Latasa asked if there any consideration to setback issues for ADUs over a garage. Ms. Cole suggested that setbacks could be increased if more flexibility in height is provided, but requirements must be included on an objective standard checklist. Public Comments Rich Aiello suggested that impacted parking is most critical when dealing with proposed changes, and requested more height to allow flexibility on sloped lots. Susan Nine, president of Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association, stated that neighbors are most concerned about height and requested not going above 16 feet in any R-1 single-family residence. Ms. Nine cited concerns for views, air circulation, noise, and privacy, requested that State standards be maintained, and suggested maintaining the proposed maximum size for one- bedroom ADUs or JADUs. Kathryn Avila asked for more discussion in regards to allowing ADUs to match existing rooflines, and requested in lots that are larger, that larger ADUs be allowed as they have capacity for larger structures. Ms. Avila requested that Staff refine the Ordinance more before it goes to Council. Jean Rasch encouraged the City to be conservative because design review is prohibited, and spoke in support of 850 and 1,000-foot maximums and the 16-foot height limit, especially in R-1 areas. Ms. Rasch shared concern for owner occupancy requirements and recommended that Staff proceed with caution. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Fletcher suggested a main concern is minimizing impacts on residential single- family neighborhoods, stated that parking is an issue on most local streets, and suggested being conservative and cautious with regulations. Commissioner Latasa shared similar concerns and asked clarifying questions regarding the 2025 ownership deadline. Ms. Lapeyrolerie explained that after 2025 the City could require ADUs be owner-occupied. Ms. Cole asked if owner-occupancy would be retroactive to units already approved. Ms. Lapeyrolerie stated that she will research this question. Chair Freeman Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday August 24, 2021 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 88982FB8-80AB-4895-B688-1A379943624D Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday August 24, 2021 and Commissioner Latasa further inquired about owner occupancy. Ms. Lapeyrolerie clarified that either the ADU or the house could be occupied by the owner. Commissioner Latasa brought up view issues and size restrictions. Ms. Cole clarified that under existing State law a 16-foot high structure could be built that blocks 100% of somebody’s view. Chair Freeman suggested limiting the height to a one-story building. Commissioner Dawson stated that on Agenda Packet page twelve or rear is duplicated and expressed concern for ministerial approval, parking, and impacts to historic structures. Vice Chair Reed shared concerns for potential view and parking impacts. Vice Chair Reed inquired about preserving historic properties and how Mills Act contracts would be addressed, and suggested defaulting to State law and discussing matters further. Commissioner Brassfield suggested that the City should encourage maintaining parking because it is a finite resource, and suggested starting with a 20-foot height limit. Chair Freeman recommended stating that replacement parking structures are not required for ADUs. Ms. Cole stated that State law prohibits discretionary reviews. Chair Freeman asked about building and safety regulations. Ms. Cole explained that building and safety review are required to examine compliance with safety codes, but architectural or planning review cannot occur. Ms. Cole added that entrances to historic buildings are of concern, and asked for clarification regarding replacement parking concerns. Commissioner Fletcher stated that as long as replacement parking is not on the street it should be ok. Commissioner Brassfield, Chair Freeman, and Vice Chair Reed agreed. Regarding Mills Act contracts, Ms. Cole stated that either the City or the property owner could issue a notice of non-renewal that expires ten years after approval if the project violates the Secretary of Interior Standards. Ms. Cole asked for more direction on height. Commissioner Fletcher suggested allowing ADU height to match building height, adding that 25 feet would be appropriate for R-3 zones. Commissioner Fletcher, regarding larger ADUs on larger lots, asked how to identify where that would be appropriate. Commissioner Latasa spoke in support of the 850 and 1,000 square feet floor area limits. Chair Freeman suggested replacement parking and recommended creating a structure for graduated height limits based on zoning of residential neighborhoods, creating a structure for parking replacement, and answering questions regarding impacts on historic homes, specifically regarding extra entrances. Ms. Cole requested clarification for height comment regarding 25’ height in the R-3 District was acceptable and direction was provided to include options. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday August 24, 2021 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: 88982FB8-80AB-4895-B688-1A379943624D Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday August 24, 2021 On a motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Brassfield, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission continued this item to September 14, 2021: AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Freeman, Reed, Brassfield, Dawson, Fletcher, Latasa NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Millich ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 4. Consider 2101 North Fremont Street; Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approval of Use Permit UP-20-0227 to Redevelop an Existing 18-Room Hotel, Restaurant and Parking Lot Site with a New 42-Room Hotel and Parking Lot; Applicant Adriana Cook, Arris Studio Architects; Owner Lakshmi Hotel Partners Inc; Visitor Accommodation Facility Zoning District, Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation; Continued from the 7/27/21 PC Meeting - Recommended for Continuance to September 14, 2021 ACTION: Continued to October 12, 2021. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Community Development Director Cole introduced the item and announced that the applicant had requested to continue the item to October 12, 2021, rather than September 14, 2021 as initially requested. Applicant None. Public Comments Derric Oliver, legal representative for the Mahroom family, requested that the noise study, public comment letter, and lesson on history and applicability of the North Fremont Specific Plan be provided and published now to give the public more time to review the documents. Mr. Oliver also suggested providing the public with sufficient notice of the full size drawings as soon as possible. Neighbor Duane Peterson expressed concerns for parking, specifying that the Zoning Ordinance requires parking at one space per room with an additional loading space that does not seem to appear in the plans. Mr. Peterson suggested that operations be curtailed until spaces become available and requested that the Planning Commission limit impacts to neighbors. Neighbor Laila Mahroom suggested that the height restriction of the North Fremont Specific Plan was not met. Ms. Mahroom shared concerns for large massing and requested story poles be installed, citing the importance of examining height requirements and story poles. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday August 24, 2021 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: 88982FB8-80AB-4895-B688-1A379943624D Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday August 24, 2021 Commissioner Comments Commissioner Brassfield asked why story poles were not installed. Ms. Cole explained that story poles are required for architectural review but not at the Use Permit phase. Ms. Cole further explained that the Building Official has provided a letter stating that story pole staking would be unsafe at the height of the building as it is adjacent to a highly trafficked street. Commissioner Fletcher suggested putting up balloons to mark the project height. Commissioner Latasa suggested agendizing a discussion regarding story poles. Commissioner Fletcher supported the Building Official’s decision. Commissioner Latasa supported posting balloons if story poles cannot be installed. Commissioner Brassfield suggested posting a visual of the massing to the website. Chair Freeman stated that the applicant has been asked to provide photographs or renderings that show the building in context with surrounding properties and requested that be provided. On a motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by Commissioner Latasa and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission continued this item to October 12, 2021: AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Freeman, Reed, Brassfield, Dawson, Fletcher, Latasa NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Millich ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Update received. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:16 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Kimberly Cole, AICP Chair Community Development Director Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday August 24, 2021 6