Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, August 17, 2011 4:00 - 5:30 PM 7:00 - 11:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBER, FEW MEMORIAL HALL OF RECORDS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: McKenzie, Dawson, Davis, Finklea, Hill, Jacoubowsky, Latasa Members Absent: None Staff Members Present: Senior Planner Ebbs, Recording Secretary Abadilla CALL TO ORDER Chair McKenzie called the meeting to order at 4:02 PM. CONSENT ITEMS Committee Member Comments: Committee Members Hill and Finklea and Chair McKenzie abstained from the July 20, 2011 Minutes since they were not present at the meeting. Committee Member Latasa clarified under Committee Member Comments that he was disappointed in the process in which Committee Member Arellano was not reappointed to the ARC. On a motion by Committee Member Davis, seconded by Committee Member Jacoubowsky, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the Consent Items: AYES: 7 MEMBERS: McKenzie, Dawson, Davis, Finklea, Hill, Jacoubowsky, Latasa NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Approval of Minutes 1. July 20, 2011 ACTION: On consent, approved the Minutes of July 20, 2011 as amended. Other Consent Items 2. 84 Fisherman’s Wharf No. 1 (Monterey Bay Whale Watch Center); Sign Permit Application 11-054; Applicant Richard L. Ternullo; Owner City of Monterey; Exempt from CEQA Requirements. Approve an amendment to a Sign Permit application. ACTION: On consent, approved the application with the Conditions of Approval and adopted Findings for Decision.  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 17, 2011 Conditions of Approval: 1. The approval allows the display of a 36”x48”, 12 square-foot freestanding sign. The sign must be located within 6 linear feet of the building face and the applicant shall coordinate with the Housing and Property Management Division to have a white box painted on the decking to demarcate the approved location. 2. The approval of this project is conducted in accordance with Chapter 31 of the Monterey Municipal Code, which authorizes the Architectural Review Committee to impose conditions of approval and obligates the applicant to abide by such conditions of approval. Further, each lease on Fisherman’s Wharf No. 1 requires that the tenant abide by all local laws, including Chapter 31. As such, any violation of this approval may also constitute a violation of lease and any resulting action described in the lease and available to the City of Monterey, potentially including declaration of a breach of lease. In proceeding with this approval, the applicant acknowledges the imposition of conditions of approval, the importance of abiding by them, and any potential ramifications of violation of the approval. 3. 42 Fisherman’s Wharf No. 1 (Kokomo’s); ARC Application 11-183; Applicant Bob McIntyre; Owner City of Monterey; Exempt from CEQA Requirements. Approve Preliminary and Final Architectural Review for exterior alterations to an existing building. ACTION: On consent, approved the application with the Conditions of Approval and adopted Findings for Decision. Conditions of Approval: 1. This approval includes the exterior alterations identified on the plans dated July 8, 2011, with the following modifications and clarifications: a. The existing menu sign, wall sign and associated light are to be removed and the underlying siding shall be repaired, as applicable. Approval of this project does not suggest approval of any new location for these signs. Rather, a separate sign application is required for relocation of the existing signs or installation of a new sign. b. The existing tiki statue may remain. c. The bamboo-style trim shall be extended around the new opening. d. The applicant shall provide staff with a proposed color for the roll-up door that complements the existing wall color. The roll-up door may contain a sign if approved under a separate sign application. e. The ice counter and display may not contain signs unless approved under a separate sign application. 2. The project shall be completed concurrently and in its entirety. Any application for Building Permit shall include all components of the project and final approval of the Building Permit will not be given until all components of the project are completed. 3. The approval of this project is conducted in accordance with Chapter 31 of the Monterey Municipal Code, which authorizes the Architectural Review Committee to impose conditions of approval and obligates the applicant to abide by such conditions of approval. Further, each lease on Fisherman’s Wharf No. 1 requires that the tenant abide by all local laws, including Chapter 31. As such, any violation of this approval may also constitute a violation of lease and any resulting action described in the lease and available to the City of Monterey, potentially including declaration of a breach of lease. In proceeding with this approval, the applicant acknowledges the imposition of conditions of approval, the importance of abiding by them, and any potential ramifications of violation of the approval. 2  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 17, 2011 4. 316 Alvarado Street; Sign Permit Application 11-204; Applicant Dave Coberly for Starbucks Coffee; Owner Marotta Properties; PC Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements. Approve Sign Permit application for installation of new signs. ACTION: On consent, approved the application and adopted Findings for Decision. ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 5. 57 Fisherman's Wharf No. 1 (Abalonetti's / Fish and Chip's Cafe); Sign Permit Application 11-116; Architectural Review Application 11-033; Applicant Kevin Phillips; Owner City of Monterey; Exempt from CEQA Requirements (Continued from July 20, 2011). Approve Sign Application for new projecting signs and approve Final Architectural Review. ACTION: Approved the application with the Conditions of Approval and adopted Findings for Decision. Conditions of Approval: 1. This approval includes the exterior alterations identified on the plans dated June 22, 2011 and August 5, 2011. 2. Prior to final occupancy, the applicant shall replace the existing red peg-board menu board at the front entrance with a professionally-crafted menu cabinet that is designed for exterior application. The applicant shall consult with City Planning staff about the appropriate design. 3. The project shall be completed concurrently and in its entirety. Any application for Building Permit shall include all components of the project and final approval of the Building Permit will not be given until all components of the project are completed. The new signs may not be installed until all other exterior alterations are complete. 4. The approval of this project is conducted in accordance with Chapter 31 of the Monterey Municipal Code, which authorizes the Architectural Review Committee to impose conditions of approval and obligates the applicant to abide by such conditions of approval. Further, each lease on Fisherman’s Wharf No. 1 requires that the tenant abide by all local laws, including Chapter 31. As such, any violation of this approval may also constitute a violation of lease and any resulting action described in the lease and available to the City of Monterey, potentially including declaration of a breach of lease. In proceeding with this approval, the applicant acknowledges the imposition of conditions of approval, the importance of abiding by them, and any potential ramifications of violation of the approval. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions: Senior Planner Ebbs presented the staff report and answered Committee Members’ questions. 3  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 17, 2011 Applicant: Kevin Phillips was present. He explained the project with regards to the proposed lighting and answered questions regarding cameras in the rear of the building and lighting in the seating area. Public Comments: None. On a motion by Committee Member Dawson, seconded by Committee Member Jacoubowsky, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application with the Conditions of Approval and adopted Findings for Decision. AYES: 7 MEMBERS: McKenzie, Dawson, Davis, Finklea, Hill, Jacoubowsky, Latasa NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 6. 842 Lighthouse Avenue; Sign Permit Application 11-177; Applicant Tom Carr of Signworks; Owner Anthony Davi Sr.; C-2 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements (Continued from July 20, 2011). Consider Sign Permit application for new wall sign. ACTION: Approved the application and adopted Findings for Decision. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions: Senior Planner Ebbs presented the staff report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant: Tom Carr was present. He explained the project with regards to the changes made to the proposal since the original submittal with respect to the matte finish, lowering the sign and bringing this type of business to the City. He answered questions regarding the installation of the LED lights for the sign and if staff could review a sample of the sign letters before installation. Public Comments: None. Committee Member Comments: Chair McKenzie stated that he doesn’t agree with lowering the sign and having it off centered. Committee Member Finklea stated that the sign should be installed as proposed and that he is worried about the trees that are planted in front of the business. Committee Member Latasa stated that the background is static and by moving the sign down it improved the building proportion. Committee Member Jacoubowsky stated that by dropping it down took care of the previous concerns. 4  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 17, 2011 On a motion by Committee Member Davis, seconded by Committee Member Jacoubowsky, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved application and adopted Findings for Decision. AYES: 7 MEMBERS: McKenzie, Dawson, Davis, Finklea, Hill, Jacoubowsky, Latasa NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 7. 685 Cannery Row; Sign Permit Application 11-176; Applicant Mark Frank for Johnny Rockets; Owner Cannery Row Company; CR Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements (Continued from July 20, 2011). Approve Sign Permit application for installation of new signs. ACTION: Approved the application and adopted the amended Findings for Decision. Additional Finding for Decision: 1. The business is in a unique location as it is set back from the street at a lower grade. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions: Senior Planner Ebbs presented the staff report. Applicant: Vince Balestreri and Mike Chico were present. Mr. Chico explained the new proposal in regards to the back lighting, the brand identity, being consistent with other signs in the area. He answered questions regarding the umbrellas and tables. Public Comments: None. Committee Member Comments: A discussion was held with regards to amending the Findings for Decision to add that the business is in a unique location to warrant the signage. On a motion by Committee Member Hill, seconded by Committee Member Dawson, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application and adopted the amended Findings for Decision. AYES: 7 MEMBERS: McKenzie, Dawson, Davis, Finklea, Hill, Jacoubowsky, Latasa NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 8. 725 Belden Street; ARC Application 11-182; Applicant Susan J. Bailey; Owner Verdis and Jill Barnes; R-1-5 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements. Preliminary Design Review for a second-story addition. ACTION: Approved the application with the Condition of Approval. 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 17, 2011 Condition of Approval: 1. Final Design Review to be reviewed and approved by staff. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions: Senior Planner Ebbs presented the staff report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant: Susan Bailey was present. Ms. Bailey explained the project with regards to originally wanting to demolish the building, but modified the structure instead. She submitted a revised elevation of the house and explained the changes are based on the staff report and the recommendations. She answered questions regarding the deck, dormer and water usage. Public Comments: None. Committee Member Comments: Committee Member Jacoubowsky stated that the new proposal is a better solution. Committee Member Davis stated that the side entrance is fine and not uncommon. Committee Member Latasa stated that the dormer is a nice variation to the proposal. On a motion by Committee Member Davis, seconded by Committee Member Jacoubowsky, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application with the Condition of Approval. AYES: 7 MEMBERS: McKenzie, Dawson, Davis, Finklea, Hill, Jacoubowsky, Latasa NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None RECESS: 5:30 PM RECONVENE: 7:00 PM Members Present: McKenzie, Dawson, Davis, Finklea, Hill, Jacoubowsky, Latasa Members Absent: None Staff Members Present: City Attorney Mall, Chief of Planning, Engineering, and Environmental Compliance Rerig, Managing Principal Planner Cole, Senior Planner Ebbs, Recording Secretary Abadilla CALL TO ORDER Chair McKenzie called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 6  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 17, 2011 9. 1001 Hellam Street; Architectural Review Application 11-062; Applicant Enrique Eckhaus; Owner Ray and Liz LaBonte; R-1-6 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements. Approve addition and exterior alterations to an existing single-family dwelling. ACTION: Continued the application to the September 7, 2011 ARC meeting for redesign. 1. Directed the applicant to revise the plans to reduce the view impact. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions: Senior Planner Ebbs presented the staff report by giving a brief history of the application, explained the view impact policy, the different design guidelines that would be considered, and the impact the project would have on other properties. He answered Committee Members’ questions regarding the staking and flagging, if the loft area is figured in the floor area, height of the loft and if the loft will be habitable. He also answered questions with regards to the height of the ridge, if the lower elevation of the existing structure would remain the same, the overlay exhibits that were created by staff, the loft area in the garage, the definition of a one story, plate heights, development of a hillside property, requiring a view analysis for a proposal as a submittal requirement, and the setback and parking requirements. Applicant: Anthony Lombardo, Liz LaBonte and Anthony Balesteri were present. Ms. LaBonte explained the history of the residence by stating that she inherited it from her family. She wishes to keep the house for her kids and grandkids and is not going to sell it. She also apologized for the letter that was sent to the ARC by her husband. Mr. Lombardo handed out a sheet with additional signatures from neighbors in favor of the project. He stated that the central policy is to avoid complete loss of views with minimal impact to the neighbor. He read the view impact policy 1.1.3 and stated that the drawings depict the policy and reiterated that the project doesn’t block all the views of the upper home and that the houses are stepped going down the hillside. He added that this is not the first time that the City has looked at the View Impact policy. He read a letter that was written by the mother of Mrs. LaBonte in 2000 when Mr. & Mrs. Mercurio remodeled their house and added that the current project has a very minimal view impact compared to the previous one. He handed out photos of the views from different houses in the neighborhood that were recently approved and stated that the City did not have issues with the view sharing between the neighbors. He agreed with the staff report, stating that the view needs to be shared and the second floor view will remain on the neighbor’s house. He ended by saying that the property is at the maximum with regards to floor area but the owner could have demolished the house and built a two story that would have more of a view impact than the current proposal. Mr. Balesteri explained that this addition conforms to the existing house with regards to the pitch, that it will use the attic for storage, and he had four different proposals that all showed Craftsman style, but the current application was the one that was approved so it would conform with the setback requirements. He added that too much water drainage from the uphill residences would affect having the storage area in the garage, and by having the storage in the attic, ventilation would be required. All present answered questions regarding the reason that the applicant wishes for the current proposal, the height of the garage, if the storage space was calculated in cubic feet, and if there was a report that showed the total of the different architectural styles in the area. 7 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 17, 2011 Public Comments: Christine Kemp, representing Mr. & Mrs. Mercurio, handed out correspondence that was previously distributed to the ARC, and thanked the Chair for reading the View Impact Policy. She stated that the project is taking away the view from her client. The flagging didn’t occur and string was installed instead and Mr. Mercurio called when he noticed it. The Committee should treat this project like it is at ground zero. The storage area takes away the view and changes should be required since the loft area will be used differently than stated. She handed out photos that showed the impact on her clients and stated that they don’t like the roof and there is an air and light issue. She pointed out that on one picture, it estimated that the door is where the roofline was and explained that the photo shows an orange line and how high the roof has become. She stated that the living area is the primary view area and her clients want something done with the roof over the garage. It is okay to have to the attic space, but the project needs to redesigned to drop the roof back down like it was before since the Mercurios are going to live at their residence forever. Ms. Kemp stated that the City has policies and to please use them to redesign the area over the garage. She answered a question regarding the pink notation on one of the photos that she handed out earlier in her presentation by stating that it shows the ridge and where the height should be. David Crab, realtor, stated that he was asked to comment on the impact from a real estate point of view. He stated that the ARC needs to consider what is reasonable versus unreasonable. In his opinion, what was once a feeling of openness; people would now feel like the buildings are on either side of them and that could have a financial impact of over $100,000. Janelle Tringali stated that she was also asked her opinion from a real estate point of view. She stated that by having this project next to them, it could cost the seller $100,000 because buyers want the view and ocean views are more affordable. She added that she would list the house at $599, 000 without the view and having the house next door. George Lemon stated that he is speaking about the walkway saying that it was ugly in concept, it is ugly built and will be ugly after it is completed. He added that the attic space will eventually be an apartment and ended by stating that the person who installed the staking was trying to deliberately deceive people. Angeli Mercurio stated that she loves their home and spent a lot of money in fixing it up. The bottom floor is their primary living area and she misses the view of the ocean that she once had. She asked if the neighbor could possibly find another space for the storage. Sam Mercurio asked to see the letter that was written by his grandmother that was read at the beginning of the meeting. Chair McKenzie re-read the letter. He stated that everyone is here because of the view impact and added that he complained in February and asked why everyone did not get together to try and figure the situation out. The project should have been stopped a long time ago because it is costing a lot of time and money. He ended by stating that the deck is ugly, the house is ugly, the roof has to be a vendetta against him and he doesn’t want to live like this over an attic space. Both Messrs. Lombardo and Balesteri rebutted the public comments that were made with regards to the elevation being measured wrong and that it is two feet lower than shown on the plan submitted by Mr. Steve Mickel on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Mercurio. With regards to the photo with the orange detail that was shown earlier in public comments, Mr. Balesteri clarified that the actual height of the roofline is misrepresented and that it should be shown lower. Mr. Lombardo stated that the proposal does not completely block the neighbor’s view and that this project is no different than other approvals in the area. 8 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 17, 2011 Committee Member Comments: Committee Member Dawson stated that by adding drainage in the basement that would solve the water situation, than the storage could be moved to that area, which would lower the roofline. He added that the two realtors that came in and stated that this would be a $100,000 impact to the neighbor suggests that the applicant needs to change the design and finished by adding that a 2:12 roof will not leak. Committee Member Latasa asked staff if they have had a chance to review the plans drawn by Steve Mickel. Senior Planner Ebbs stated that he can’t confirm or deny the information since surveys usually have a stamp and added that the City has more documentation that is more credible. Committee Member Jacoubowsky stated that the loft area is the area of contention and since it is only for storage the applicant could investigate putting it elsewhere. He added that the applicant could add drainage and move it to the basement area that would then lower the roofline and the neighbor would again obtain a view. Committee Member Latasa stated that the view impact to the uphill house is the roof over the main part of the house. He added that the Committee probably would have asked the applicant to look at the roofline and possibly lower the ridge to try to lessen that impact on the neighbor. He added that Mr. Mercurio wouldn’t get all his view back but could get something that is reasonable. He stated that by changing the roof slope would not change the impact to the neighbor’s house and his recommended action would be to continue the application and ask for a redesign and for re-staking. Committee Member Davis stated that he would have required more information regarding the impact on the neighbors. He would like to see a compromise when dealing with the area in the attic taking in account the two feet that the applicant lowered. Committee Member Finklea stated that the house is stepped down and everyone in the neighborhood is sharing a view. He added that the attic area needs to be looked at and he didn’t know if it is viable to dig a drain or not in the basement for the storage area. Committee Member Hill, noticing the time, asked for a continuance. On a motion by Committee Member Davis, seconded by Committee Member Jacoubowsky, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee continued the application to the September 7, 2011 ARC meeting for redesign. AYES: 7 MEMBERS: McKenzie, Dawson, Davis, Finklea, Hill, Jacoubowsky, Latasa NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Committee Member Dawson passed out a photo that showed signage at 414 Adams. Committee Member Latasa asked about the photos that were due to the City Clerk office and complimented the Chair on running the evening portion of the meeting. 9 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 17, 2011 INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Senior Planner Ebbs announced that the Sign Ordinance will be coming back to the ARC at a later date. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:25 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Forrest Ebbs Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 10