Planning Commission Meeting

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9F904C7F-7B16-4F1C-9C12-3E9EBA15C83A MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MONTEREY December 13, 2022 4:00 PM – 5:30 PM 7:00 PM – 11:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBER AND ZOOMGOV TELECONFERENCE MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Commissioners Present: Fletcher, Millich*, Brassfield* (arrived at 4:09 p.m.), Dawson*, Freeman, Latasa Commissioners Absent: None Staff Members Present: Community Development Director Cole, Principal Planner Roveri, Associate Planner Sabdo, Associate Planner Buggert, Recording Secretary Cleary * Participated remotely by videoconference This meeting was held with a combination of in-person and teleconference attendance pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act, Calif. Government Code section 54953(e)(1)(C), and the Monterey City Council’s Resolution authorizing virtual participation in public meetings given the COVID- 19 pandemic. ***Afternoon Session Agenda*** 4:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Chair Fletcher called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. and Recording Secretary Cleary provided information to the public on how to participate and provide public comment during the meeting. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 2. Consider Providing Input on Updates to the Use Permit Public Handout and the Zoning Text or Map Amendment Public Handout (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) ACTION: Voted on with Item 3; approved as submitted 3. October 25, 2022 (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) ACTION: Voted on with Item 2; approved as amended Commissioner Latasa requested specific changes relating to the fact that he was absent during the October 25, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting and his name was noted incorrectly in the vote blocks for items six, seven, and eight. Vice Chair Millich moved to approve item two as submitted and item three as amended. Commissioner Freeman seconded the motion. DocuSign Envelope ID: 9F904C7F-7B16-4F1C-9C12-3E9EBA15C83A Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday December 13, 2022 On a motion by Vice Chair Millich, seconded by Commissioner Freeman, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved Item Two as submitted and Item Three as amended: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher, Millich, Freeman, Latasa, Dawson NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Brassfield RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARING 3. Consider Recommending a Resolution to the City Council Establishing Objective Design Standards for the Downtown and Lighthouse Specific Plans and Amending the Plans to Clarify Visitor Accommodation Facility District Requirements, Adding Massage Establishment Requirements and Definition, Adding Fence and Wall Requirements, Adding Makerspace Use Classification and Definition, Clarifying Residential Minor and Major (First Floor; Four Units or More) Requirements, Adding New Subdivision Minimum Lot Size and Width Requirements, Updating Streetscape Lighting Requirements, and Amending the Utility-Major Definition to Include Water Facilities (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15305, Class 5) (Continued from November 8, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting) ACTION: Continued the item to a date certain of January 24, 2023, with direction that Staff revise the Open Space portions to include better definitions of “Open Space” and exclude bench and artwork from that list, maintain the 12-foot third- floor setbacks on Lighthouse Avenue from property lines, include vaulted, round, and domed roof structures in the Roof Types list, and include that metal materials may be considered on walls Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Principal Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioner Questions. Commissioner Freeman inquired about feature requirements on corner lots. Ms. Roveri clarified. Legal Consultant Adam Lindgren was available to answer questions. Community Development Director Cole explained that because the City did not construct enough housing units to satisfy their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) quota, the State removed its ability for subjective discretion over new housing projects. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday December 13, 2022 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 9F904C7F-7B16-4F1C-9C12-3E9EBA15C83A Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday December 13, 2022 Commissioner Latasa asked questions regarding procedures and how easy the standards would be to change in the future. Ms. Roveri outlined the process. Chair Fletcher asked how changes would be initiated. Ms. Roveri provided details. Mr. Lindgren suggested it would not be changed until after applications are received and Staff learns more. Commissioner Latasa asked clarifying questions regarding requirements to apply. Ms. Roveri said if a project does not comply it must go before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Freeman commended separation of the Lighthouse and Downtown areas and asked when the deadline is for finalizing the Objective Design Standards. Ms. Roveri and Ms. Cole explained that as SB9 went into effect in 2018, there are no standards until objective standards are adopted. Commissioner Brassfield agreed with Commissioner Freeman and asked about makerspaces. Ms. Roveri provided insight. Ms. Cole added that the City defined Makerspace because other cities have this description and it could help streamline processes. Commissioner Brassfield asked clarifying questions regarding the Design Standards and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance. Ms. Cole and Ms. Roveri provided details. Commissioner Latasa asked about Open Space requirements for ground floor units. Ms. Roveri said ground floor residential units were approved in the Lighthouse District Plan with no Open Space requirements. Ms. Cole supplied examples. Commissioner Latasa inquired about parking requirements for mixed-use buildings in each area. Ms. Cole outlined the history of adopted Specific Plan standards for mixed-use buildings. Commissioner Latasa asked clarifying questions regarding the Objective Design Standards, providing examples for reference. Ms. Roveri and Ms. Cole discussed nuances and limitations of the examples Commissioner Latasa provided. Commissioner Dawson inquired about commercial parking requirements. Ms. Roveri said parking requirements were not changed and provided requirement details. Applicant None. Public Comments Sharon Dwight expressed concerns and asked questions regarding adding outdoor seating and public art, open space definitions and requirements, resident and employee parking plans, and setback size, and spoke against allowing planters at every corner. The three-minute timer sounded, and Commissioner Latasa suggested letting Ms. Dwight continue her comment. Chair Fletcher allowed it. Ms. Dwight suggested the maximum plate height should be 10 feet rather than the minimum and suggested reassessing fence perimeters and retaining wall height. Michaeleen Moraz spoke in support of Sharon Dwight’s commentary, emphasized concerns regarding the definition of Open Space including how it relates to outdoor seating and public Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday December 13, 2022 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 9F904C7F-7B16-4F1C-9C12-3E9EBA15C83A Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday December 13, 2022 artwork, and requested that items A, outdoor seating, and G, public artwork, be removed as qualifiers for Open Space. Commissioner Comments Referencing her submitted written comment, Commissioner Freeman asked what the density cap in the Downtown Specific Plan encompasses geographically and requested a definition of two-story districts. Ms. Cole said there is a map in the Specific Plan that defines locations of each district, then Ms. Cole and Ms. Roveri discussed district locations and names. Commissioner Freeman asked where four-story density cap overlays are allowed. Ms. Roveri estimated the density cap overlay goes over the Pearl District. Ms. Cole explained challenges developers have with developing in these areas and how City Council had encouraged additional housing units in that area. Commissioner Freeman suggested defining exact areas of the density cap overlays. Ms. Cole specified this would apply to Senate Bill 35 (SB35) projects only. Commissioner Freeman suggested that in the Lighthouse Specific Plan the third-floor setback should be 12 feet from the sidewalk edge and seven feet from the building front edge and expressed concerns regarding setbacks. Ms. Roveri clarified that should have been from the property line. Commissioners Brassfield and Freeman suggested changing that to be more specific. Commissioner Dawson shared concerns regarding open public space in first-floor commercial units and suggested moving the Open Space requirements into private areas on second- and third-story roofs and calling them private so the public cannot access apartment buildings. Commissioner Brassfield said only one bench dimension is noted under the Open Space requirements and suggested clarifying all measurements for benches. Ms. Roveri defined the Open Space measurement requirements made as a standard. Commissioner Latasa asked if there is a deadline to complete this item. Ms. Cole suggested continuing to the January meeting if the Commission prefers. Commissioner Latasa suggested further revising the Open Space portions, giving Staff direction regarding what is preferred there, and avoiding changes to the 12-foot setbacks. Chair Fletcher shared opinions on 12-foot setbacks and plate height limits on commercial versus residential spaces and recommended considering suggestions from this discussion that contribute to the process. Commissioner Latasa asked about the 12-foot third-story front setbacks, alleging they are not difficult to accommodate. Ms. Cole shared details regarding difficulties with the 12-foot setback and how the seven-foot limit was determined and stated housing requirements are a challenge there. Commissioner Freeman added that with corner lots, setbacks would have to be both from the front and the side. Commissioner Latasa asked if any of the Commissioners had a solution to the Open Space issue. Commissioner Freeman reiterated the suggestion of removing bench and artwork requirements and allocating a percentage of the building or frontage for a square footage requirement that does not include accessories like benches or artwork. Chair Fletcher agreed. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday December 13, 2022 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: 9F904C7F-7B16-4F1C-9C12-3E9EBA15C83A Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday December 13, 2022 Commissioner Brassfield suggested examining substandard-sized lots for ways to potentially maintain a visual aesthetic and address the lack of housing. Commissioner Latasa spoke in favor of continuing the item with instructions for Staff including requirements for employee parking plans. Commissioner Freeman agreed and suggested considering residential parking plans that require parking within a half mile. Ms. Cole said that standard currently applies to the Cannery Row District but not the Lighthouse Specific Plan. Vice Chair Millich asked if a residential parking plan would interfere with Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations. Ms. Roveri explained that these Objective Design Standards do not apply to ADUs, and any parking plan would need to be objective but that has proven difficult to create. Commissioner Freeman summarized that the issues needing more attention included an Open Space definition, plaza entrance size, third floor setback on Lighthouse, and commercial and residential parking plans. Commissioner Latasa asked about plate height. Chair Fletcher suggested a ten-foot-high commercial space may not be leasable. Commissioner Latasa motioned to continue the item with specific direction to Staff. Chair Fletcher advised researching further before making requests of Staff. Ms. Cole said one Commissioner could meet with Ms. Roveri but the whole Commission cannot meet in private per Brown Act regulations. Commissioner Latasa moved to continue the item with direction to Staff to revise the Open Space portions to include better definitions of Open Space and exclude bench and artwork from that list, maintain the 12-foot third-floor setbacks on Lighthouse Avenue from property lines, include vaulted, round, and domed roof structures in the Roof Types list, and include that metal materials may be considered on walls. Commissioner Brassfield asked if both Planning Commission architects could meet with Staff. Mr. Lindgren suggested requesting a temporary ad-hoc committee that could meet with Staff. Commissioner Freeman suggested adding a tighter definition of “entrance plaza”. Commissioner Latasa added the suggestion to the motion. Vice Chair Millich seconded the motion. Commissioner Latasa reiterated his motion to continue the item to a date certain of January 24, 2023, with stated directions for Staff. Vice Chair Millich accepted the modification to the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Latasa, seconded by Vice Chair Millich, and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date certain of January 24, 2023, with direction that Staff revise the Open Space portions to include better definitions of “Open Space” and exclude bench and artwork from that list, maintain the 12-foot third-floor setbacks on Lighthouse Avenue from property lines, include vaulted, round, and domed roof structures in the Roof Types list, and include that metal materials may be considered on walls: AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher, Millich, Brassfield, Dawson, Freeman, Latasa Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday December 13, 2022 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: 9F904C7F-7B16-4F1C-9C12-3E9EBA15C83A Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday December 13, 2022 NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECESS 5:30 p.m. ***End of Afternoon Session Agenda*** The Planning Commission recessed at 5:41 p.m. and reconvened at 7:00 p.m. with all Commissioners present. ***Evening Session Agenda*** 7:00 p.m. – 11:00 p.m. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 5. Introduction to the Monterey 2031-General Plan Update (Not a Project Under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and Under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) ACTION: Received and discussed presentation Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Associate Planner Sabdo introduced the City’s consultant Andrew Hill, with Dyett and Bhatia. Mr. Hill presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioner Questions. Chair Fletcher asked how the required housing amount was determined. Mr. Hill explained the methodology used by the State and Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) to find projected needs and allocate to jurisdictions within the region. Chair Fletcher asked if there has been any pushback from the other regions. Ms. Cole explained that after receiving public comment, the AMBAG Board voted for Monterey to receive this amount based on equity and income issues within the region. Vice Chair Millich asked who has ultimate approval of plans the City Council adopts. Ms. Cole explained the City would receive its own General Plan but it must be certified by the State. Vice Chair Millich asked if the goal is to have a plan to accommodate housing as opposed to actual units built. Ms. Cole explained the City must have adequate zoning and sites that meet specific criteria set by the State. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday December 13, 2022 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: 9F904C7F-7B16-4F1C-9C12-3E9EBA15C83A Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday December 13, 2022 Vice Chair Millich addressed issues with lack of water credits. Ms. Cole said building permits could not be issued without water supply and added that the City would increasingly lose zoning control until it meets its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Commissioner Freeman inquired about low-income housing. Mr. Hill provided details. Commissioner Latasa asked clarifying questions regarding the State-imposed penalty. Mr. Hill explained how the penalty works and provided examples, adding that the State’s goal is to move toward ministerial objective standards that allow for housing on land zoned only for commercial uses. Vice Chair Millich suggested considering housing domestic staff on premises where they worked. Ms. Cole said the City Council’s priority is to accommodate its housing needs and provided further details. Chair Fletcher asked what happens after the 8-year deadline. Mr. Hill said the State would use the same process to determine a new number. Commissioner Brassfield asked if any other cities are dealing with similar water issues. Mr. Hill confirmed other communities on the Peninsula are experiencing this issue. Commissioner Brassfield questioned the possibility of building on open land rather than building upward to three stories. Mr. Hill suggested that is being explored, along with other potential solutions, and supplied examples. Commissioner Freeman said City Council has suggested creating a database of housing units, which the landlords opposed, and inquired about feasibility and logistics. Mr. Hill and Ms. Cole spoke of benefits, processes, and challenges involving Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Commissioner Brassfield asked if ADUs have caused any negative impacts. Mr. Hill said the community had shared concerns especially involving parking, but they also suggested solutions. Commissioner Brassfield shared concerns regarding parking if density is increased. Public Comments On behalf of Housing Choices, Kalisha Webster said that as California is in a housing and homelessness problem there is a need for programs and policies that incentivize development of extremely low-income housing. Commissioner Comments Ms. Cole announced there will be a joint meeting with the City Council on February 21, 2023 to continue this discussion. Commissioner Latasa asked if this General Plan update only includes a Housing element. Mr. Hill said the Safety and Land Use elements are being updated as well. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday December 13, 2022 7 DocuSign Envelope ID: 9F904C7F-7B16-4F1C-9C12-3E9EBA15C83A Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday December 13, 2022 6. Consider Recommending to the City Council an Ordinance Amending Monterey City Code Section 38-112.6 “Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units” and Amending Section 38-11 “Definitions” (Statutorily Exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17.) ACTION: Adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Monterey City Code Section 38-112.6 “Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units” and amending Section 38-11 “Definitions”, with additions to include the attachments as stated in the Agenda Report and remind City Council that the Planning Commission would welcome discussing the six items of interest with them at a future date Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Principal Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioner Questions. Commissioner Latasa and Commissioner Freeman inquired about the approval timeline and process. Ms. Cole provided details. Commissioner Brassfield asked about sprinkler system requirements. Ms. Roveri explained new structures require fire sprinklers but existing structures without sprinkler systems are not required to be updated. Ms. Cole elaborated. Commissioner Dawson asked about owner occupancy, citing concerns for safety. Ms. Cole said owner occupancies can only be required on Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs). Applicant None. Public Comments None. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Freeman moved to adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Monterey City Code Section 38-112.6 “Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units” and amending Section 38-11 “Definitions”, with additions to include the attachments as stated in the Agenda Report and remind City Council that the Planning Commission would welcome discussing the six items of interest with them at a future date. Commissioner Brassfield seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Freeman, seconded by Commissioner Brassfield and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Monterey City Code Section 38-112.6 “Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units” and amending Section 38-11 “Definitions”, with additions to include the attachments as stated in the Agenda Report and remind City Council that the Planning Commission would welcome discussing the six items of interest with them at a future date: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday December 13, 2022 8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 9F904C7F-7B16-4F1C-9C12-3E9EBA15C83A Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday December 13, 2022 AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher, Millich, Brassfield, Dawson, Freeman, Latasa NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 7. Consider 246 Anita Street and 251 Clay Street; Lot Line Adjustment SD 22-0111 of a 7,200- Square Foot Parcel (APN 001-373-010-000) and a Variance VA 22-0122 for a Reduction of the Minimum Substandard Lot Size (Required 3,500 Square Feet; Proposed 3,047 Square Feet) and Reduction of the Rear Yard Setback (Required 14 Feet; Proposed 10 Feet); Applicant/Owner Dorothy E. Massey; R-3-6 Zoning District; Medium Density Residential General Plan Designation; Exempt from CEQA Requirements, Article 5, Section 15061(b)(3) ACTION: Approved Lot Line Adjustment SD-22-0111 of a 7,200 square-foot parcel (APN 001-373-010-000) and Variance VA-22-0122 for a reduction of the minimum substandard lot size (required 3,500 square feet; proposed 3,047 square feet) and reduction of the rear yard setback (required 14 feet; proposed 10 feet) at 246 Anita Street and 251 Clay Street as submitted, with an amendment to the Resolution to remove “and”, then end Condition of Approval 2.f with a period Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Community Development Director Cole provided background information, saying the Planning Commission saw and denied the item once and is reviewing it a second time. Associate Planner Sabdo presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioner Questions. Commissioner Millich requested clarification regarding a potential typo on Agenda Packet page 390, item 7’s Resolution, under Conditions of Approval. Ms. Sabdo explained what it was supposed to say. Vice Chair Millich suggested amending the Resolution to remove and then end 2.f with a period. Ms. Sabdo agreed to the amendment. Commissioner Latasa inquired about the difference between Subdivisions and Lot Line Adjustments. Ms. Sabdo explained that the lot line separating two lots is being adjusted. Applicant Applicant and project site owner Dorothy Massey said the lot line adjustment would enhance the character and setting of the neighborhood by creating two separate, more affordable properties for two separate families, and added that a current renter wants to purchase their rental home. Public Comments None. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Latasa motioned to approve the item as submitted. Vice Chair Millich requested that the findings amendments be added to the motion. Commissioner Latasa agreed to the suggested amendments. Vice Chair Millich Seconded. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday December 13, 2022 9 DocuSign Envelope ID: 9F904C7F-7B16-4F1C-9C12-3E9EBA15C83A Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday December 13, 2022 Commissioner Freeman commended Staff and the applicant for working until an appropriate solution was created. On a motion by Commissioner Latasa, seconded by Vice Chair Millich and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved Lot Line Adjustment SD-22-0111 of a 7,200 square-foot parcel (APN 001-373-010-000) and Variance VA-22-0122 for a reduction of the minimum substandard lot size (required 3,500 square feet; proposed 3,047 square feet) and reduction of the rear yard setback (required 14 feet; proposed 10 feet) at 246 Anita Street and 251 Clay Street as submitted, with an amendment to the Resolution to remove “and”, then end Condition of Approval 2.f with a period: AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher, Millich, Brassfield, Dawson, Freeman, Latasa NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 8. Consider 2500 Garden Road Use Permit UP-22-0124 to Allow Modifications to an Existing T-Mobile USA, Inc. Personal Wireless Facility on an Existing Church Building; Applicant Andrea Kohatsu Raskop, The CBR Group, Inc. on behalf of T-Mobile USA, Inc.; Owner: Shoreline Community Church of the Monterey Peninsula; Industrial Zoning District; Industrial General Plan Land Use Designation; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3 ACTION: Approved Use Permit UP-22-0124 to allow modifications to an existing T- Mobile USA, Inc. Personal Wireless Facility on an existing church building at 2500 Garden Road Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Wireless application consultant Jerry Hittleman, with Rincon Consultants Inc., presented the Agenda Report and answered Commissioner Questions. Commissioner Latasa asked if this equipment is Fifth Generation (5G). Mr. Hittleman confirmed this is a proposed upgrade from Fourth Generation (4G) to 5G. Applicant Applicant Andrea Kohatsu Raskop, with The CBR Group, Inc. on behalf of T-Mobile USA, Inc., described the project, introduced fellow applicants, and was available to answer questions. Commissioner Brassfield inquired about the height of the danger area. Wade Hojeij of Soteria RF Safety Consultants suggested the height spans from the center of the antenna to the top and bottom of the antenna and said most of the energy would come from the middle. Commissioner Brassfield requested further clarification. Mr. Hojeij provided details and discussed the issue with Commissioner Brassfield. Jerrold Bushberg from Soteria RF Safety Consultants supplied further information. Public Comments Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday December 13, 2022 10 DocuSign Envelope ID: 9F904C7F-7B16-4F1C-9C12-3E9EBA15C83A Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday December 13, 2022 Nina Beety alleged the application is incomplete and should be denied. She provided information supporting her claims and spoke of concerns with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Radio Frequency (RF) exposure, public safety and access, and information provided by the applicant. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Freeman stated that as this is an eligible services facilities request not substantially changing the dimensions of the existing structure, by Federal law the City of Monterey must approve it. Commissioner Freeman moved to approve the proposal as submitted. Commissioner Dawson seconded the motion. On a motion by Commissioner Freeman, seconded by Commissioner Dawson and carried by the following vote, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit UP-22-0124 to allow modifications to an existing T-Mobile USA, Inc. Personal Wireless Facility on an existing church building at 2500 Garden Road: AYES: 6 COMMISSIONERS: Fletcher, Millich, Brassfield, Dawson, Freeman, Latasa NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Chair Fletcher asked how Zoom is maintained for public access. Ms. Cleary explained Staff checks for updates and applies them when available and added that the City provides multiple call-in phone numbers on each meeting Agenda. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Update received. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Kimberly Cole Chair Community Development Director Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday December 13, 2022 11