Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, September 7, 2011 4:00 - 7:00 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: Principal Planner Cole, Senior Planner Ebbs, Recording Secretary Abadilla CALL TO ORDER Chair McKenzie called the meeting to order at 4:01 PM. CONSENT ITEMS Committee Member Comments: Committee Member Hill corrected his statement under Committee Member Comments for Item 9 stating that after noticing the time, he asked for a continuance. Committee Member Dawson corrected the spelling of Mrs. Mercurio’s first name under Public Comments for Item 9. Chair McKenzie corrected his statement under Committee Member Comments for 842 Lighthouse by deleting his statement regarding the sign contrasting to the building. On a motion by Committee Member Davis, seconded by Committee Member Dawson, 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. August 17, 2011 ACTION: Approved the Minutes of August 17, 2011 as amended. ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 7, 2011 2. 700 Cass Street; Architectural Review Application 11-202; Applicant Edward Dooling; Owner Eureka Group Inc.; C-2 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements. Continue Architectural Review for new paint colors at an existing commercial building. ACTION: Approved the application with Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval: 1. The color for the second story of the building shall be toned down. 2. Staff will review and approve the second story paint color. 3. The equipment screening shall be painted to match the darker body color. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions: Senior Planner Ebbs presented the staff report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant: Edward Dooling was present. Mr. Dooling explained the project with regards to the colors proposed for the buildings at that location. He answered questions regarding the proposal for the other three buildings at the site and possible transition colors, the trellis, and the metal roof. Public Comments: None. Committee Member Comments: Committee Member Jacoubowsky stated that the color for the second floor should not be a highly saturated color. It is a dominant element and that color should be toned down. Committee Member Dawson stated that these colors resemble the Marriott hotel. It would be the most colorful building within a couple of blocks. Committee Member Davis stated that the second story could be within the same color palette but toned down. Committee Member Latasa stated the colors are fine for that intersection, as long as the applicant tones down the color for the second story. Committee Member Finklea stated that he likes the paint colors as proposed. Chair McKenzie stated that he disagrees with the motion and will not vote for it. He added that it is ill advice for staff to review the proposal and the ARC should give the approval even if the applicant is in a hurry. Committee Member Hill stated that it is respectful to the applicant who has a schedule to stick to for staff to be delegated final review and approval. On a motion by Committee Member Finklea, seconded by Committee Member Jacoubowsky, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application with Conditions of Approval: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Dawson, Davis, Finklea, Hill, Jacoubowsky, Latasa NOES: 1 MEMBERS: McKenzie ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None 2  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 7, 2011 ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 3. 812 Munras Avenue; Architectural Review Application 11-207; Applicant Charnel James for NSA Wireless; Owner Bhula and Pusha Patel; VAF Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements. Approve Architectural Review for exterior alterations to an existing hotel building. ACTION: Approved the application with the Conditions of Approval and adopted Findings for Decision. Conditions of Approval: 1. All trees shall be removed and replaced at a 1:1 ratio. 2. The applicant shall install a separation band 4 feet under the roof line to break the elements apart by using a dark color on the bottom and a light color on top. 3. The color shall be chosen by the applicant and approved by staff. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions: Senior Planner Ebbs presented the staff report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant: Charnel James and an AT & T representative were present. Ms. James explained the project with regards to the equipment being at the end of the building, painting the structure and the trees. She answered questions regarding the proposed colors, the height of the element, noise levels, the adjacent neighbor, staking, height limits in the VAF district and gutters. Public Comments: None. Committee Member Comments: Committee Member Jacoubowsky suggested adding a band to separate the elements. Committee Member Davis concurred by stating that adding trim could help break the elements. On a motion by Committee Member Jacoubowsky, seconded by Committee Member Davis, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application with Conditions of Approval and adopt 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 4. 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 (Continued from August 17, 2011). ACTION: Continued the application to the September 21, 2011 ARC meeting with the intent to deny and directed staff to return with Findings for Denial. 3 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 7, 2011 Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions: Senior Planner Ebbs presented the staff report by explaining the history of the project and the outcome of the August 17, 2011 meeting. He stated that due to cost, the applicant resubmitted the same proposal as before so staff prepared Findings for Denial. He answered Committee Members’ questions with regards to the specific language in Finding for Denial No. 4, and also clarified Findings 2, 3 and 5, the General Plan and the Old Town Area Plan. Applicant: Ray LaBonte was present. He explained that he agrees with the Finding for Denial and would like to proceed with the appeal process. He is the money man and stands by the project, there are insufficient funds for the project to be changed and it needs to go forward. He answered questions regarding not having the funds to change the project, the September letter from Mr. Lombardo stating that there is too much cost involved to change the project and clarified that Mr. Lombardo is the attorney for the contractor and not himself. Public Comments: Christine Kemp, representing Mr. & Mrs. Mercurio, encouraged the ARC to deny the application and handed out photos from the last meeting showing the white line that represented the proposed structure and showed an overlay of the two structures to show the view impact. She clarified that the structure has not been lowered, the staking was not done and the project has had problems from beginning to end. She stated that February 2011 is when the orange netting went up and phone calls were placed to the Planning office complaining about the view. She added that a denial is warranted and Findings 2, 3 and 5 should have stronger wording by inserting the word not in many places. She ended by stating that the ARC is not here to redesign the project but to preserve the view of the neighbor. Steve Mickel showed a set of plans of the addition with regards to the neighbor’s site and stated that he had hired a surveyor to prove that his drawings were correct and submitted a letter to that fact. He stated that the ridge is 10’-4” above the neighbors and if the contractor were to change the project to a 7’-6” plate height it could improve the view impact. He ended by stating that if the netting would have been installed correctly the project would have been brought to the Committee in the beginning. Vince Dorio, general contractor, stated that he built the Mercurio’s home 10 years ago and what he went through was a lot. He had to shorten and move the deck to preserve the neighbor’s view from their first story, not their second story. He added that cost has nothing to do with the ARC’s decision and should not be a part of it. The ARC needs to look at the project as if it had not been approved and he supports staff’s recommendation to have the project redesigned. Committee Member Comments: Committee member Dawson stated that he would be more comfortable with a quote from Resolution 94-01 which establishes the following Standard of Review, “that existing development and new construction should both have access to views.” He added that if it could be modified then it should. Committee Member Jacoubowsky stated that if the project would have come to the ARC in the beginning, the Committee would have gone out to the site, went to the neighbor’s house and saw the netting. A motion need to first be made then the ARC can discuss the findings. He added that talking about the findings at this point is jumping ahead, the view is the main issue with the project and the High Street elevation is not appropriate for the site. 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 7, 2011 Chair McKenzie stated that cost is not a decision for the ARC to consider, views and impact are issues they will look at and discuss. He read the View Impact Policy and stated there could have been changes to the design to have less of an impact to the neighbor’s property. Committee Member Hill stated that form and mass are distinct and both of these issues need to move forward. He compared the View Impact Policy to the General Plan and asked how to amend the Findings. Chair McKenzie stated that the form and mass is out of scope with the neighborhood. He clarified what the procedures would have been if the project had been changed and asked for clarification if the project could be approved or denied based on the view impact. Committee Member Davis stated that the issue is what would have been done to the house to protect the neighbors view and that view sharing should be input into Findings 2, 3 and 5. Committee Member Dawson stated that he would like to have the quote from the View Impact Policy read for the record. Senior Planner Ebbs read, “Changes in the design will be required if alternative approaches are identified that achieve the square footage and other project objectives with less view impact.” Committee Member Latasa asked if a motion could be made in 2 parts and stated that it was his understanding from the August 17th meeting was that the ARC continued the project and asked for a redesign. He asked Senior Planner Ebbs for a clarification of the findings and ended by stating that the roof over the garage is the area that needs to be changed. Committee Member Jacoubowsky moved to deny the project as submitted based on the view impact, the High Street elevation, form and mass. Committee Member Latasa seconded the motion. Under discussion, Committee Member Hill asked for clarification on what happens if the ARC denies the project and it gets appealed to the Planning Commission and City Council. Forrest clarified the appeal process and what would happen if the project gets sent back to the ARC to be reviewed for a second time. He read a modified version of the findings to accommodate the reasoning for the denial citing view impact, form and mass. After a discussion regarding the wording for the Findings for Denial, Committee Member Jacoubowsky withdrew his motion. Committee Member Dawson moved to continue the application to the September 21, 2011 ARC meeting with the intent to deny and directed staff to return with Findings for Denial. Committee Member Hill seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Dawson, seconded by Committee Member Hill, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee continued the application to the September 21, 2011 ARC meeting with the intent to deny and directed staff to return with Findings for Denial. AYES: 7 MEMBERS: McKenzie, Dawson, Davis, Finklea, Hill, Jacoubowsky, Latasa NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None 5  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 7, 2011 ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Chair McKenzie requested a 5 minute break at 6:25 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 6:30 p.m. 5. Chapter 31 of the Monterey Municipal Code, Sign Ordinance. Consider new Citywide Sign Ordinance. ACTION: Continued the Sign Ordinance to the September 21, 2011 ARC meeting. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions: Senior Planner Ebbs presented the staff report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Public Comments: None. Committee Member Comments: Comments were given regarding political, on-site, garage sale, electronic message boards and government signs. Committee Member Finklea excused himself at 6:50 p.m. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS None. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:03 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Forrest Ebbs Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 6