Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, April 18, 2012 4:00 - 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBER, FEW MEMORIAL HALL OF RECORDS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Dawson, Hill, Bartram, Davis, Jacoubowsky, Latasa Members Absent: Finklea Staff Members Present: Senior Planner Ebbs, Recording Secretary Abadilla CALL TO ORDER Chair Dawson called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM. CONSENT ITEMS Committee Member Comments: Committee Member Latasa made a correction to Item 6. On a motion by Committee Member Jacoubowsky, seconded by Committee Member Davis, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the CONSENT ITEMS: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Dawson, Hill, Bartram, Davis, Jacoubowsky, Latasa NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Finklea ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Approval of Minutes 1. April 4, 2012 ACTION: Approved the Minutes as amended. ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE Committee Member Davis recused himself due to a conflict of interest at 4:03 PM. 2. Consider 889 Jefferson Street; Architectural Review 11-262 for the construction of a 219 square-foot addition with a side yard setback variation (4' required; 18" proposed); Applicant Merritt Palminteri of Paul Davis Partnership; Owner Jim and Carrie Barry; R-1- 6 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements. Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 18, 2012 ACTION: Adopted Resolution approving the construction of a 219 square-foot addition with a side yard setback variation. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions: Senior Planner Ebbs presented the agenda report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant: Paul W. Davis, Merritt Palminteri and Carrie Barry were present. Mr. Davis explained the proposal with regards to the lot being substandard and the potential of the house being historic. He stated that the owner wanted to fill in the gap between the house and garage and deal with the historic value by varying the side setback then one would see the difference between the historic house and the addition. Mr. Davis added that the wall facing the neighbor’s property would make the property more private and the owner offered to build a plaster wall that would tie into their neighbor’s house. He ended by stating that the owner met with Mrs. Aiello and she indicated that she had no problems with the project and finished by requesting a variance for the setback. Mr. Davis answered questions regarding why the setback variation is more important than the standard 4 feet, the hedge being removed, constructing a firewall, having a historic report completed and replacing the windows. Public Comments: Joseph Aiello stated that he grew up in the neighbor’s house and is not happy with the changes occurring. He added that the setback should be at 4 feet and is opposed to the addition as submitted. He stated that he use to have good neighbors and no problems with privacy but now it seems like someone is hiding something and now wanting to build right on the property line. He asked the questions if the existing garage was built on the property line and if the applicant could find the square footage elsewhere on the property. He ended by stating that there was no talk about the addition only the fence when the applicant came to talk to his mother and now she is opposed to the project as submitted. Committee Member Comments: Committee Member Bartram stated that the neighbor’s house does step back at the point of the wall but he still has a problem with the 18 inches and is more inclined to have the applicant reduce the impact by moving the setback variation to a different part of the house. Committee Member Jacoubowsky stated that it would be more appropriate to go with a minor setback at 2’-6” but not 1’-6”. Committee Member Latasa stated that he is happy with a foot and half setback and is willing to approve the project as submitted. Chair Dawson stated that the French doors could collide if the project is moved east on the property. On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Vice Chair Hill, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee adopted Resolution approving the construction of a 219 square-foot addition with a side yard setback variation. AYES: 3 MEMBERS: Dawson, Hill, Latasa NOES: 2 MEMBERS: Bartram, Jacoubowsky ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Finklea ABSTAIN: 1 MEMBERS: Davis RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 2  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 18, 2012 Committee Member Davis returned at 5:34 PM. 3. Consider 409 Alvarado Street; Architectural Review 12-071 for Preliminary Architectural Review of Sidewalk Cafe Improvements in the Public Right-of-Way; Applicants Henry Ruhnke and Mike Marotta; Owner City of Monterey; Exempt from CEQA Requirements. ACTION: Tabled Resolution for sidewalk cafe improvements in the public right-of- way until a comprehensive plan is developed to address the broader use of these sidewalk cafes. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions: Senior Planner Ebbs presented the agenda report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant: Mike Marotta and Matt Nohr were present. Mr. Nohr stated that the project is exciting because after a year of working on the downtown plan this proposal is actually happening. The proposal will invite people to hang out and see other people. He added that the area will have new landscape furniture, lighting fixtures, trees and showed samples of the proposed inlaid pavers. He added that he has worked with the traffic engineer to discuss drainage issues and ended by stating that the fence along Alvarado would be installed along the sidewalk to prevent furniture moving into public right of way. Mr. Marotta stated that this project will not be all up and down the street. His family is doing this to jump start the downtown and get things going. He wishes the ARC would look at it in a different light and this proposal could get the downtown active again. Both men answered questions regarding the fence being installed along Alvarado between pedestrians and vehicles, the reasoning behind the design of the proposed pavers, sealable pavers, circulation between the tables, yellow strips being installed in the bricks, the curve of the curbs, and the material around the trees and parking. Public Comments: Mr. Aiello stated that doesn’t like the concept or idea. In the 1980’s, planters and benches were removed for the installation of parking and newspaper racks. He added that possible seating areas could be placed in front of Rosine’s and the adobes. He doesn’t want to take away more parking spaces and wants to go back to the way things were. Mr. Aiello stated that businesses suffer because of the Farmers Market on Tuesday and wants to keep the present parking spaces in place. He ended by stating that the intent is good but this is old Monterey and there are other places for seating to be added. Committee Member Comments: Committee Member Bartram stated that his concerns are the inner railing and the pavers not relating to all the buildings on Alvarado. Committee Member Jacoubowsky stated that he has concerns with the fence and the use of planters would be better to make it feel like a garden area. He asked who would be allowed to use the space and stated that he has concerns with separating the walkway with a band of different colors pavers. He ended by stating that the whole project should have been proposed first and then come to the ARC with the details at a later date. Committee Member Latasa agreed with Committee Member Jacoubowsky and the ARC would really like to review the materials and neighborhood impacts. 3  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 18, 2012 Committee Member Davis stated the proposal is a good idea but is too early to be making decisions for the downtown and where this proposal should occur along Alvarado. He added that he would like to see the whole downtown plan before making a decision. Vice Chair Hill stated that he has concerns with a partial approval of a project. Chair Dawson stated that this would be a valuable addition to the downtown and is a super idea but some of the proposed materials could be done better. On a motion by Vice Chair Hill, seconded by Committee Member Bartram, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee tabled Resolution for sidewalk cafe improvements in the public right-of-way until a comprehensive plan is developed to address the broader use of these sidewalk cafes. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Dawson, Hill, Bartram, Davis, Jacoubowsky, Latasa NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Finklea ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 4. Consider 101 Fisherman’s Wharf No. 1; Architectural Review 11-234 to approve paint colors and phasing of previously-approved project; Applicant Jeffery W. Kilpatrick/Tony Rappa; Owner City of Monterey; Exempt from CEQA Requirements. ACTION: Continued Resolution for paint colors to the May 2, 2012 ARC meeting with direction. 1. Paint out a 4’x8’ section of the proposed base paint and trim paint on the building. 2. Paint out a similar 4’x8’ section of an alternative base paint and trim paint that is substantially different from the yellow/gold and rust/red colors proposed. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions: Senior Planner Ebbs presented the agenda report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant: Jeffery W. Kilpatrick and Tony Rappa were present. Mr. Rappa handed out a new color palette and stated that he wants to change the colors other than what was submitted because they are too bright and does not want the proposal appealed. Mr. Kilpatrick stated that he thought the paint colors were already approved and the actual proposal before the ARC is the phasing of the project. Public Comments: Tony Lombardo, Chris Shake and Tene Shake were present. Mr. Lombardo stated that a lot of the buildings on the wharf are yellow and if you look at the proposal compared to the Shake building they are very similar. He added that the Shake’s are not opposed to the project but would like Mr. Rappa to come up with new colors that are not as similar and ended by asking for a continuance. Mr. Joe Aiello asked to see the images of the signs for the project. Senior Planner Ebbs stated that he can come into the Planning office to see the approved signs. 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 18, 2012 Committee Member Comments: A discussion was held regarding phasing the project to keep the building permit active and if the paint colors were ever discussed and approved. On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member Davis, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee continued Resolution for paint colors to the May 2, 2012 ARC Meeting with direction. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Dawson, Hill, Bartram, Davis, Jacoubowsky, Latasa NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Finklea ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS None. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:00 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Forrest Ebbs Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 5