Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, September 21, 2011 4:00 - 7:00 PM EOC CENTER CITY OF MONTEREY MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: McKenzie, Dawson, Davis, Finklea, Hill, Jacoubowsky Members Absent: Latasa Staff Members Present: Senior Planner Ebbs, Recording Secretary Abadilla CALL TO ORDER Chair McKenzie called the meeting to order at 4:01 PM. CONSENT ITEMS 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: 6 MEMBERS: McKenzie, Dawson, Davis, Finklea, Hill, Jacoubowsky NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Latasa ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Approval of Minutes 1. September 7, 2011 ACTION: Approved the Minutes of September 7, 2011 as submitted. ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 2. 660 Cannery Row; Architectural Review Application 11-231; Applicant Frank P. Donangelo; Owner Cannery Row Company; CR Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements. Approve Preliminary Architectural Review for a new sculpture in Steinbeck Plaza. ACTION: Approved the application with the Conditions of Approval and adopted Findings for Decision. Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Conditions of Approval: 1. The applicant shall secure approval from the California Coastal Commission prior to the installation of the statue or modification to the site. 2. The applicant shall return to the Architectural Review Committee for Final Architectural Review. 3. The statue shall contain no commercial reference or message. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions: Senior Planner Ebbs presented the staff report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant: Frank Donangelo and Steven White were present. Mr. White explained the statue fixture with regards to how the statue came to be with John Steinbeck looking across Cannery Row and the figures that were key to Cannery Row depicted below. He answered questions regarding the stone, being an interactive sculpture, signage, the water feature, and having a historical sheet talking about it in the local shops. Frank Donangelo stated that his company is really excited about this statue but will still have to go through the Coastal Commission for approval. He added that the statue will be a great photo opportunity and won’t prohibit the view of the ocean. Public Comments: Marcia Hardy stated that she will be helping to raise funds for the project and added that this is an outstanding concept for the City of Monterey and wishes everyone will help out. Geraldine Lo Sabado stated that she is happy that the Chinese is being depicted on the statue and has been trying to help get the Chinese ancestry out in the community. Her mother was born on McAbee beach and her ancestors worked in the canneries on Cannery Row. She stated that she hasn’t had a place to bring family to show them the Chinese heritage and that this statue will help entice people to come and visit Monterey. Committee Member Comments: Committee Members’ Jacoubowsky and Davis both stated that the statue is very impressive and are very happy with the proposal. Committee Member Finklea stated that it will be a welcome addition in that area and thanked the people for bringing the item forward. On a motion by Committee Member Hill, seconded by Committee Member Davis, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application with the Conditions of Approval and adopted Findings for Decision. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: McKenzie, Dawson, Davis, Finklea, Hill, Jacoubowsky NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Latasa ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 2  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 21, 2011 3. 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 September 7, 2011). ACTION: Denied the application and adopted Findings for Denial as written. Findings for Denial: 1. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Article 19, Section 15301) because the project involves exterior alterations to an existing building/structure. 2. The proposed project will unreasonably impair the views and living environment currently enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and is inconsistent with the View Impact Policy established in Planning Commission and ARC Resolution No. 94-01. Although the project is consistent with all applicable development standards contained in Chapter 38-23 of the Monterey Municipal Code, the resulting view impact is inconsistent with the View Impact Policy, which establishes the following Standard of Review: “that existing development and new construction should both have access to views.” The ARC visited the project site on August 15, 2011 to observe the view impact from the adjacent property at 1007 Hellam Street. The ARC determined that the views from 1007 Hellam Street are of the Monterey Bay and that the views from the first floor of 1007 Hellam Street would be significantly blocked by the proposed project. At its August 17, 2011 meeting, the ARC determined that this view impact did not meet the standard of review established in the View Impact Policy. The ARC advised the applicant that lowering the ridge line and roof structure over the garage and den addition would greatly reduce the view impact, potentially to an acceptable level. The ARC then directed the applicant to revise the project to reduce the impact, as required by the View Impact Policy, which states “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.” At the September 7, 2011 meeting, the applicant did not submit a revised plan to reduce the view impact and, at the meeting, stated that he had no intention of redesigning the project. The applicant made no attempt to demonstrate that the view impact was reasonable or unavoidable. The ARC again considered the original plans and reaffirmed the view impact, finding it to be inconsistent with the Standard of Review contained in the View Impact Policy as existing development would not have access to views. Specifically, the ARC found that views currently enjoyed from the first floor of the house at 1007 Hellam Street would be lost if the project were to be approved and proceed. More so, the ARC determined that the view impact was also caused by an unnecessarily- steep pitched roof, the desire for an unnecessary storage area, and excessive plate heights. 3. The proposed siting is appropriate for the project site, the immediate area, and the City because the modifications and addition generally occur over the footprint of the existing building. The proposed architectural style is similarly appropriate because it introduces additional residential design elements to the existing house. The proposed form and mass, however, are not appropriate for the project site, the immediate area, and the City because the form and mass of the project contribute to the view impact described in Finding No. 2 (above). Specifically, the form and mass of the addition, with the 6:12 roof, 16’-11” interior height, and 12’ and 16’ plate heights, all elevate the ridgeline and roof volume. Similarly, the form and mass of the modified roof structure elevates the existing ridgeline and impacts views. The resulting form and mass are inappropriate because they unacceptably impact the views from 1007 Hellam Street. 3 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Additionally, the height of the structure, as viewed from High Street, and the long un- modulated wall facing High Street are inappropriate for the project site as they create the perception of a very tall and massive building. These specific conditions are a function of the form and mass of the building and, in particular, the modified roof structure and expanded front deck and walkway. 4. The proposed exterior finish, colors, materials, landscaping, lighting, fencing, and all other exterior features (excluding the form and mass of the building) are appropriate for the project site, the immediate area, and the City. The house will be painted a uniform and neutral tan/brown color upon completion and landscaping will be introduced into the western side yard, near the proposed addition. 5. The proposed project is consistent with the Monterey General Plan, as well as all applicable and adopted area or neighborhood plans. The project is located within the plan boundaries of the Old Town Area Plan. The existing house was not constructed before 1950 and, as such, it is not governed by the policies in the Old Town Area Plan that suggest preservation of such structures. As such, the project is consistent with the Old Town Area Plan. However, as described in Finding No. 2 (above) the project is inconsistent with the View Impact Policy, which may be considered a design guideline. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions: Senior Planner Ebbs presented the staff report by giving a brief history of the project and explained the modified Findings for Denial. He answered Committee Members’ questions with regards to the General Plan, Chapter 38, form and mass, and the View Impact Policy. Applicant: Mr. Ray LaBonte was present. Public Comments: Christine Kemp, representing Mr. & Mrs. Mercurio, showed a photo of 1007 Hellam before the addition at 1001 Hellam took place. She pointed out that the roofline of the garage is lower than the Mercurio’s wall and how much light and sky were coming into the first floor of their residence. She also showed five photos depicting the massiveness of the new addition and the impact to the Mercurio’s house with the loss of sky, trees and views. She went on to explain her suggested revisions by stating that in Finding 2, paragraph 2 it would be accurate to say that the house is consistent with "some", rather than "all" applicable development standards. In Finding 3, she pointed out that the first paragraph seemed like a Finding for Approval and not a Finding for Denial and suggested eliminating Findings 4 and 5 all together. She ended by asking the ARC to change the Findings to depict her suggested corrections. Committee Member Comments: Chair McKenzie stated that he is having a problem with the quote that is stated in Finding 2. He re-read the View Impact Policy and once clarified by Senior Planner Ebbs, stated that he has no problem with the quote. Committee Member Jacoubowsky stated that he doesn’t have a problem with the quote that is stated in Finding 2, second paragraph. After a brief clarification on the wording in the quote for Finding 2, Committee Member Hill moved to deny the project and adopt the Findings for Denial as written. Committee Member Jacoubowsky seconded the motion. 4  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 21, 2011 On a motion by Committee Member Hill, seconded by Committee Member Jacoubowsky, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee denied the application and adopted Findings for Denial as written. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: McKenzie, Dawson, Davis, Finklea, Hill, Jacoubowsky NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Latasa ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 4. Chapter 31 of the Monterey Municipal Code, Sign Ordinance. Consider new Citywide Sign Ordinance. ACTION: Continued the Sign Ordinance to the October 5, 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 sunset clauses, non-conforming signs, signs facing the highway, pole signs, internally illuminating signs, political signs, prohibited signs, electronic message signs, traffic control signs, and the sign area in a residential zone. Chair McKenzie went on record to say that he is opposed to electronic traffic signs. Committee Member Hill excused himself at 5:10 p.m. Committee Member Davis excused himself at 5:35 p.m. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS None. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Senior Planner Ebbs stated that there will be a window cover demonstration on October 10 at 4:00 p.m. and if any ARC members are interested in attending to please contact him for more details. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:45 PM. 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 21, 2011 Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Forrest Ebbs Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 6