Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Really? When?

Oh, cool. My sister never travels, and so I've kind of arranged this trip. It's supposed to be... Oh, are we already there? Okay.

All right. Well, that's four minutes behind. Okay. Okay, the meeting will come to order. This is the Planning Commission, Tuesday, May 26, 2026. And Erica, could you start with a roll call and introduce staff and advise online listeners as to how they can participate?

absolutely um our planned absences for today are commissioner freeman and commissioner stoker so with us in the chambers we have chair silva here vice chair latasa here commissioner bluth here commissioner palmer here and commissioner paulie here sorry Our staff members present are Planning Manager Levi Hill, Principal Planner Fernanda Rovery, Principal Planner Christy Sabdo, Senior Associate Planner Chris Schmidt, Senior Associate Planner Matthew Bugert, and myself, Recording Secretary Erika Brera. Information on participating in this meeting and providing public comment, including remotely by Zoom or telephone, is on this meeting's agenda, which is online at monterey.gov forward slash agendas. Remote commenters will be muted until it's their turn to speak and a timer will be shown on the screen. If you're connected on Zoom, the timer is accurate with no delay. In the chamber, we recommend keeping phones and devices muted to prevent audio interference with the meeting. Thank you for participating in your city government.

thank you Erica and we will begin with the consent agenda this is going to be a bit unusual in the sense that we have a number of items on the consent however one of the items item number five has been pulled and we are going to split the vote so that items two three and four will be acted on separately from item number six because we have a recusal a member of the planning commission has a conflict of interest on number six so we will i uh do that one separately so is there anybody in chambers that wishes to speak about any of the items on the consent agenda that is items two three and four and seeing nobody anybody online erica there are no hands raised thank you we'll take this back to the committee any comments

Dave Kuntz, i'll make a motion to approve items number. Dave Kuntz, Two, three and four yes from the that's the minutes and. Dave Kuntz, The 2338 money and 580 full more so motion is to approve those three items.

second very good so we have a a motion to approve by commissioner latasa for items number two three and four seconded by commissioner palmer can we get a roll call please sure chair silva yes vice chair latasa yes commissioner blues yes commissioner palmer yes and commissioner paulie yes okay those consent items have been approved Thank you. Now we'll turn to item number six. And Justin, I think that you'll probably want to. Do I need to leave? Yeah.

And we won't work here is done.

It is. Thank you for your participation.

Yes.

All right. Very good. So, uh, we will continue with item number six, uh, on the consent agenda. Uh, is there anybody in chambers that wishes to pull this item or speak about it? Seeing nobody, anybody online, Erica, there are no hands raised. Uh, we'll take this back to the committee comments.

I'll move to approve, um, sign permit application SI 26 0 0 4 9 for the freestanding neighborhood sign on Castle Bridgeway in Portola.

I'll second. So we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Palmer and a second by Commissioner Bluth. Can we get a roll call, please?

Sure. Chair Silva?

Yes.

Vice Chair La Tassa? Yes. Commissioner Bluth?

Yes.

And Commissioner Palmer?

Yes.

That item is approved.

Thank you. OK. Now we'll turn our attention to general public comments. If there's anybody in chambers or online that wishes to speak to the Planning Commission regarding an item that is not on today's agenda, you may do so. And seeing nobody in chambers, is there any hand waves online, Erica?

There are no hands raised.

Very good. We'll close the general public comments and turn our item to our first public hearing, item number seven, 2456 Del Monte Avenue.

I'm sorry if I could, Chair. We would actually take item number five in the order of what was pulled from consent.

Oh, very good. Yeah, I skipped right over item number five.

And just for some background before Matthew presents this project, this item was requested by the applicant to be pulled from the consent agenda through a verbal conversation with staff earlier today. I believe there was some issue with the conditions of approval that were applied to the project. I'm not sure if that applicant is online, but if they are, okay. Just wanted to confirm before we go through the presentation. Thank you, Levi.

Matthew, would you like to give the committee a presentation, please?

Sure.

Let me share my screen.

Good afternoon, my name is Matthew Bugert with the City of Monterey's Planning Division, and today we're here to talk about 398 Fremont Street for sign permit SI 25-0277 for new signage at today's Planning Commission meeting. The recommendation from staff is that the Planning Commission adopt resolution approving sign permit SI-25-0277 for replacement of five signs and fuel dispenser signage with conditions. The subject property is located near downtown at the intersection of fremont street and a brago street zoning is Community commercial see to zoning with additional overlays and the general plan land use designation is commercial. Existing signage at the site. It's been updated slightly as they're going through construction. This is what was present on site, including these two canopy signs, a freestanding sign, various fuel dispenser signages, and food mart signage. Proposed signage is essentially the replacement of each of these items and with varying degrees of illumination. There are halo illuminated signs that is a opaque sign with background lighting on it so it doesn't shine through the front and those would be applied to the shell logos on the canopy over here on the freestanding sign and on the food mark. Additionally, there is proposed internal illumination. One of the features being a internally illuminated two inch red light strip that continues along the extent of the canopy. And then the other item being digital signage down here in the lower right. Findings required for the signage is that the proposal must achieve the purposes and objectives of the sign ordinance. And the signage serves to identify the gas station and convenience store business. It would not include extraneous signs that would be abnormal for a gas station, nor obscure the scenic qualities of the city of Monterey. The second finding is that the proposal must be found consistent with all applicable sign guidelines or be determined by the Planning Commission to better achieve the purpose and objectives of the sign ordinance. Here are the various inconsistencies of this project. The amount of signage that's proposed is greater than the maximum signage that's allowed for the site. Much of the signage over here is also associated with the gas station fuel dispenser signage. There is a 20 foot minimum setback required. The canopy does not adhere to the 20 foot setback and price signs are required by state law regardless. So they are being proposed on site. Shielded light source, the red strip and digital price signage are not explicitly consistent, however, are proposed to be consistent as conditioned, and I'll go into those conditions on the following slide. lighting is supposed to be focused on the sign again should be generally consistent with conditions indirect lighting or exceptionally designed lighting is preferred and staff did not find the red strip lighting to necessarily be exceptionally designed however understands that digital price signage is semi-normal for gas stations especially those outside of specific plan areas And finally, that roof signs are supposed to be placed on building faces, and the canopy does not actually meet the definition for a building face, so is also found inconsistent. The third finding that's required is that the proposal must be found consistent with any other adopted land use document, including but not limited to the general plan area or neighborhood plans design guidelines or specific plans. And the proposed signs were generally found consistent with the general plan as replacing signing signage that was on site. Three conditions are proposed for this project one that the applicant remove the red internally eliminated canopy band from the plans. To that the led fuel price signage shall incorporate glare reduction shielding. That is a veneer put over it to reduce glare from those leds and then the third that those revised plans be submitted to the planning division. With that, staff's recommendation is to adopt the resolution approving the sign permit application for new signage as conditioned. That concludes staff's presentation and the applicant is online.

Thank you, Matthew. And for the record, Commissioner Pawley has rejoined the committee for this one item. Does anybody have questions for Matthew?

I'm just curious, is the signage for square footage the same as the previous gas station that was using that location? Or is it increased?

Staff did not calculate what was there before. However, I'm just a visual looking at the red signage associated with the Exxon. It does look like it's tightened up a little bit, decreasing to the shell, and everything else was pretty much replaced in kind. They're even using the same wooden frame for the freestanding sign.

I think there was a net reduction in the canopy signage. However, there was an increase in the signage that's attached to the fuel dispensers themselves. So it was a little bit of a, probably a net, no change between the two of them.

Just one more time, can you explain the removal of the lighting?

The light band feature is a proposed internally illuminated feature. Internal illumination is supposed to be either exceptionally designed or found necessary, and staff could not make that finding of our own volition. There are other light bands that have been proposed at gas stations that have been approved administratively, that is LEDs facing down so that they're still shielded, but they still light up the paint color that's beneath them. An example is an 899 Hawthorne. But in this case, it is just a red bar across that is internally illuminated. That said, the applicant is also on the line who may be able to speak to that.

Okay. Let's have the applicant provide us with a brief presentation if they're available.

Sure. I'll go ahead and allow the applicant, Brian Collins, to unmute.

Good afternoon everyone.

Thank you, Matthew. Thank you for presenting. I can, I don't think I can share my screen, but just to touch base on the red light bar, like Matthew was saying, it is internally illuminated. The external face is red and the internal face is plastic meant to only illuminate the yellow fascia, shell fascia that's going on the canopy. It's not meant to project any lighting or illuminate the drive area by any means. It's just hopefully, exceptionally designed fully shielded with the red plastic being illuminated and directed back towards the canopy.

Thank you. Thank you, Brian. Any questions for the applicant, Bob?

So is the red lighting just decorative?

Yes, very much just like kind of what you see on Chevron canopies where the instead of it being mounted at the top facing back towards the blue and white fascia. This one is at the bottom portion of the canopy facing back towards. the fascia package, but I do want to make it clear that you will see the red portion be illuminated, but it's not meant to project light down to the customers below. It's just to illuminate the fascia package.

Questions? No.

Very good. Okay, thank you, Mr. Collins. We're going to open this up for members of the public, if there's anybody in chambers that wishes to speak. Seeing nobody, any hands waved online?

No hands raised.

Very good. We'll close the public hearing and bring this back to the committee. Comments? I'm gonna just go out and say I don't disagree with staff's analysis on this. You did what you had to do, working under the limitations of the sign ordinance, and I'm supportive of staff's conclusion with the conditions.

Yeah, it looks pretty much like a swap to me from the old signage from the previous company to the new one.

No comments?

No comments. All right. Well, Justin?

Yeah, no comments. I guess, just curious, does the Chevron across the street have one of those internally illuminated strips that we're asking these guys to remove? I'm just curious if it's something that's happening.

I don't believe that they do. Actually, in reviewing that site across the street, I believe they actually don't have any internally illuminated signage on the canopy structure. I believe they actually have external lights that are directed towards the signage in reviewing that.

I'm going to make a motion that we approve the application as conditioned by staff. And can I get a second, please?

I'll second.

So discussion? All right, so we have a motion by the chair to approve with conditions. And we have a second by Commissioner Palmer. Can we get a roll call, please?

Sure, Chair Silva. Yes. Vice Chair La Tassa.

Yes.

Commissioner Bluth. Yes. Commissioner Palmer.

Yes.

And Commissioner Pauley.

Yes.

Okay, that motion carries. And the decision is appealable within 10 days. We have applications within 10 days to our City Council. We have applications online or in our planning office.

Thank you, Erica. And for the record, Commissioner Pauley is recusing himself for the next item, which is item number seven. 2456 Del Monte Avenue approved architectural review permit application, ARP 260060 and variance application VA 260059 for exterior alterations to an existing commercial building associated site improvements, fencing exceeding the six foot maximum height, and unenclosed outdoor storage applicant justin polly for justin polly architects property owner hk sierra ventures and it is in a general commercial c3 d2 zone district commercial general plan land use designation and exempt from sequa levi Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, commission. As the chair mentioned, the next item before you is the architectural review permit and variance application at 2456 Del Monte Avenue. And I'll be presenting this item. Staff recommendation is to adopt a resolution approving architectural review permit application ARP 260060 and variance application V260059 with conditions of approval. So a little bit of background on the property and the subject project site. It is located with technically three frontages, even though it would have the appearance of four with Myers Street, even though that's not actually a functioning street, but it's bound by Del Monte Avenue, Virgin Avenue, and Encina Avenue on those three actual frontages of street right of way. It's located in the East Del Monte area plan and has a general plan land use designation of commercial. And of course, a C through D to zoning district. So as noted in the title that the Chair read off just a moment ago, the property involves a number of exterior improvements, particularly with facade improvements to the existing commercial structure, some portions of new perimeter fencing, the reconstruction and reconfiguration of the parking area, and the new landscape area along Del Monte Avenue, new outdoor lumber storage racks in the lumber yard portion, and then new accessibility improvements near the storefront of the structure and then of course new sidewalks as shown on the site plan that we'll get into in just a moment. So the slide on your screen right now shows you the existing conditions and is actually a demolition plan. And many of you probably recognize this site as the former M&S building supply site, as shown on the slide as the demolition of multiple storage structures throughout the property, and then also demolition of portions of the existing fence that are right up against the Del Monte Avenue street frontage, and then a portion right along the Virgin Avenue street frontage as well. Also shown here, as Sheldon read there, is the demolition of the existing parking lot, which is proposed to be reconstructed and reconfigured with part of this project. So on this slide is the proposed site plan. As you see here, near the corner or the intersection there of Del Monte Avenue and Virgin Avenue, the existing fence is being demolished and pulled back to incorporate a new landscape planted area. And then also near the access point along Del Monte Avenue is also the demolition of the existing fence there with the replacement of a new fence there shown in orange. This slide also shows the new parking area as reconfigured and does gain approximately three parking spaces with the reconfiguration. And then if you look to the left of your screen on the site plan, you'll see a series of rectangular shapes and that represents a series of a system of lumber storage racks that measure about 16 feet in height and are positioned throughout the lumber yard area of the site. As noted in the Project description of this application is both a architectural review permit and a variance. And the variance is required for a number of things, but one of those items being the unscreened outdoor storage of those racks. Seeing as how they are 16 feet tall, they would be visible from beyond the new fence that's being proposed. So we'll get into the actual building elevations and some of the improvements that are happening to the thought of the building. As you see here on the storefront side is new doors and new ADA access in the way of ramps and rails and then new concrete steps covered by a new wood trellis. Also being added to the building is a system of vertical wooden slats to provide some architectural interest to the property of what's kind of current if you're familiar with it as a rather uninviting industrial type building. So quite a few upgrades to the storefront side. Moving on to some additional upgrades to the other elevations. This, as you see, proposes a system of wire mesh that would actually have vegetated vines growing or established on that, as well as some company insignia that I'll note is actually required via signed permit of a separate application, but is still shown here for conceptual purposes. and then as you see here is also portions of the new fence that varies in height from six to eight feet with an average height of seven feet as noted earlier the variance also applies to the fence height that would extend beyond six feet and then this is the other side elevation as you see here this gives a pretty good vantage point of the lumber racks as would be visible from beyond the new proposed fencing So as noted earlier, the project does propose some additional landscaping and some site improvements along the streetscape of Del Monte and Virgin Avenue. As shown here, the fence would be pulled back that currently exists right along the sidewalk there along the Del Monte frontage and would be pulled back to make way for a new landscape area along the corner there. The project as a whole proposes nine new trees Monterey pines and then a system as noted earlier system of vines planted along that wire mesh on the Del Monte avenue portion. And this slide shows the elevation of the proposed fencing system that is a wood slat system with varying height, as noted earlier, to provide some architectural interest along the Del Monte frontage. It is, as noted earlier, of wood slats. And then, of course, as shown here is, again, the lumber racks that are visible from beyond. So this project required the findings to be made for both architectural review permit, as well as the variance findings for the fencing, as well as the exposed storage that's unenclosed. As shown here is a summary of those findings and that the improvements are primarily proposed as facade upgrades in existing commercial building within the commercially developed site, that the project will not unreasonably impair views, privacy, or the living environment currently enjoyed by properties in the vicinity, that the project is consistent with the General Plan and East Del Monte Area Plan, and that the proposed exterior features are appropriate for the project site, the immediate area, and the city. And as well for the variance findings that the property contains special circumstances that justify the granting of the variance, that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and that the request is consistent with the purposes of the ordinance and will not constitute a grant of special privilege. And as noted earlier, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving architectural review permit application ARP 260060 and variance application B260059 with conditions of approval. I'm happy to answer any questions. And we have the applicant is here as well.

Thank you, Levi.

Any questions?

I HAVE ONE. YOU MENTIONED THAT THE SIGN PERMIT WAS GOING TO BE A SEPARATE APPLICATION. AND I DO REMEMBER MAYBE ABOUT TEN YEARS AGO OR SO WHEN I WAS ON THE ARC AND WE HAD A FREESTANDING SIGN APPLICATION COME BEFORE THE ARC REGARDING THIS PROPERTY. and my if my memory serves correctly there was an incident where a car had crashed into an existing freestanding sign and the applicant wanted to replace it and i think we made them make it smaller or something my memory is hazy but out of curiosity is that freestanding sign going to eventually be part of the new sign application

I may defer that question to the applicant. We don't have a current sign application for this project at this point in time, but they'll probably have a better idea of what their future plans are as far as what they want to propose. Okay, thank you.

Well, let's hear from the applicant.

Good afternoon. I'm Mark Musgorski. I'm the president and CEO of Hayward Lumber. So we're excited to be here to share this project with you. We've been working with Rebecca and Justin at Justin Pauling Architects. As Levi has mentioned, M&S was the previous site. It operated there for about 60 years. I think everybody would agree that that site needs a lot of TLC. we have taken control of that site and are prepared to invest significantly to clean it up it will and reopen it as our 11th location um i don't know some of you probably know but hayward's been a member of the community for 107 years we were found in 1919 still owned by fourth generation haywards we currently have 10 locations in northern california and in the central coast two in monterey county We employ 275 employees. So, um, we're excited about opening. This is our 11th location. It'll be a small lumber yard in store. We'll operate it as kind of a hub and spoke, um, with Salinas and Pacific Grove. Um, we'll, uh, we won't, we don't have any plans to do deliveries out of the site. It'll come out of either our Salinas location or PG location. Um, inbound, uh, products will do the hub and spoke from Salinas. Um, We plan to have limited hours on the site. And different from how M&S operated, we're going to bring everybody into the site. So you're either coming into the store or you're coming into the yard. We won't do any loading or unloading on Encina, which was how the other operation operated. We'll bring everybody into the yard. So we're excited about this project. Looking forward to having a location in Monterey. happy to address any additional questions the question on the signage we our plan is to use that sign to rebrand it with with the hayward lumber uh but that's about as far as we've gotten so far on that part very good thank you and so i'll turn it over to rebecca

Hi, my name is Rebecca Scallon and I work with Justin Pauley. He had a presentation prepared, but was notified shortly before this meeting that he couldn't present. So I will do my best and keep it short. As Levi mentioned, our site improvements include over 2,600 square feet of pervious planter area that was transitioning to that from hardscape. And we are adding sidewalks along Virgin and Encina Avenue and also making accessible upgrades to the building, including sidewalks, ADA-compliant parking spaces, and entry ramps. On the architectural side, we are trying to beautify this building as it is part of the East Del Monte Avenue area plan. So that's part of one of the primary gateways into the city. We have been working with Weiland Workshop to design a undulating fence that shields partial of the lumber yard and the racks from the street. It will, the design idea is that it will be an evolution of wood from raw edge planks into dimensional framed framing elements as it goes down. In the building itself, we're going to also add to the gable end elevations Hayward Lumber graphics as super graphics, but that's a part of the signage application that I believe will be submitted later. And on either side of those graphics will be the vine structure that will go from ground to roof. And we also would like to paint the building a darker color so it recedes from the street and it doesn't stand out as much. On the parking lot side, we are proposing a wood trellis element to pronounce the primary pedestrian entrance to the building. We are also adding a wall of wood or composite slats as a backdrop for the company signage on the building that will face the parking lot. And Yeah, we appreciate staff support, and I'm here to answer any of your questions. Thank you, Rebecca.

The one thing I would add, too, that you did mention was we're pulling back the fence, right, and getting up some of the yard space to add vegetation to help kind of camouflage the density of the structure.

Very good. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Right. Well, we'll open up the public hearing if there's anybody in, no one in chambers apparently, but any hands waved online?

There are no hands raised.

Very good. We'll close the public hearing and take this back to the committee. Comments?

I'm in support of this item I'm so happy to see this site being renewed I was just driving by it a few days ago wondering what was going on and it's it's just such a great business and and you know a real resource for the city of Monterey except for that other big box down the street so I'm right in the teeth of it and I'm really happy to see you here

Bob looks like a great improvement. I can't wait for it to get done. A lot of people in Monterey will be happy.

I really appreciate the creativity. And as was mentioned, it's a gateway into our city. So pretty appreciate the pedestrian improved pedestrian experience, you know, as your people are walking on that street, it's more inviting. So thank you.

Yeah, I concur. I drive by this building every day, in fact, and have always kind of wondered in the back of my mind, how did that ever get approved in the first place? It's such an eyesore. And I'm really grateful that the applicant is doing the right thing here. So I'm going to make a motion to approve as presented.

I'll second that.

So we have any comments? We have a motion by the chair to approve as presented and a second by Commissioner La Tassa. Can we get a roll call, please?

Sure. Chair Silva. Yes. Vice Chair La Tassa. Yes. Commissioner Bluth. Yes. And Commissioner Palmer.

Yes.

That motion carries with a vote of four. The decision is appealable to the City Council within 10 days. We have applications online or in our planning office.

Thank you very much. All right. Congratulations. Well done. And if Justin's out there, he can come back in and join us, but he's probably not. Welcome back. All right. Commissioner comments.

I'll start. I'm just curious. On Franklin Street, just up from where the old law college, there's an empty parking lot. It's always empty. I'm just wondering, is that a city lot or who is it private?

I'm not sure I know which law you're talking about, so I may have to look into that.

So if you're going up Franklin, on the right-hand side, you'll pass the old... There's a State Farm office there now, but it used to be the old Monterey College of Law. And then just up from it is just a parking lot, which has been empty for...

As long as I can remember i'm just curious if it's a city lot or is it private property afterwards if i've got my map pulled up so if you want to show it to me afterwards, I can tell you okay yeah.

All right, well that's.

informational reports yeah. So as noted in the agenda packet, just to follow up from the May 19th City Council meeting, as may sound familiar to you, the City Council did adopt an ordinance carrying forward the Planning Commission's recommendation to ban roosters in the City of Monterey. So that did move forward, as well as they adopted an ordinance to provide the clarifications and the change of process for the reasonable accommodation regulations in the city's zoning ordinance. And then they also adopted the first reading of the zoning ordinance to prohibit vehicle storage in the IR and multifamily residential overlay areas. So both of those, all three of those got approved at the last council meeting. And as you also saw, it's tentatively scheduled for our June 9th planning commission meeting. We have two items, one on 2075 North Fremont, which is BAF repair. application and then a signed application on 245 Washington Street and of course informational presentation on the Planning Division's work program for the Commission. Will those two items be on the consent? I'm unsure about the 245 Washington Street, but the other one will likely be on consent.

Okay, very good. Well, everybody, thank you for your participation and meeting adjourned. Thank you.

name.