Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, April 1, 2015 AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY 4:00 pm – 7:00 pm COUNCIL CHAMBERS 580 PACIFIC STREET MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Freeman, Kimzey, Searle, Silva Members Absent: Latasa, Dawson, Abma Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Caraker, Senior Planner Hopper, Associate Planner Roveri, Urban Forester Reid, Assistant Urban Forester Morton, Sustainability Coordinator Terrasas, Housing & Property Manager Marvin, Recording Secretary Leinen CALL TO ORDER Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 4:13 pm (meeting start time delayed due to technical difficulties). CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. March 18, 2015 ACTION: Approved as amended. Committee Member Searle said the ninth paragraph on page 2 should say “In response to Committee Member Silva’s question…” not “In response to Committee Member Searle’s question…” He also requested to strike the extra letter “a” before the words “dimmer switch” on page 2. Committee Member Searle said “glaze” on page 5 should be changed to “glazing” and that the word “at” should be added between the words “looks” and “and” in the fourth paragraph of page 6. Chair Freeman asked that page 2 of the minutes under the applicant’s comments be corrected to say that the “Big Fish” sign will have a blue tube light around the perimeter and eyeball, and not around the letters. Committee Member Searle made a motion to approve item #1 of the Consent Agenda as amended. Committee Member Silva seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Searle, seconded by Committee Member Silva, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved item #1 of the Consent Agenda as amended: AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Searle, Silva NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 3 MEMBERS: Latasa, Dawson, Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 1, 2015 Other Consent Items Committee Member Searle requested to remove item #2 from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Chair Freeman requested to remove item #4 from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Committee Member Silva made a motion to approve #3 of the Consent Agenda and remove items #2 and #4 from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Vice Chair Kimzey seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Kimzey, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved item #3 of the Consent Agenda and removed items #2 and #4 from the Consent Agenda for discussion: AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Searle, Silva NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 3 MEMBERS: Latasa, Dawson, Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 2. Consider 8 Alta Mesa Circle; Preliminary and Final Architectural Review Permit 15- 029 for Remodeling and External Alterations to a Two-Story Single Family Dwelling; Applicant/Owner Jennifer and Brendan Connolly; R-E-20-D1 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements (Continued from March 18, 2015, Meeting) ACTION: Removed from Consent Agenda, Discussed, Continued to April 15, 2015 per request of the applicant. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Christy Hopper informed the ARC that the applicant was unable to attend the meeting and requested a continuance to the next scheduled ARC meeting on April 15, 2015. Applicant No applicant present. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Silva said the submittal exhibits do not match the new proposed floor plan in terms of window placement. Committee Member Searle said the ARC previously asked for colored elevations, which were not included in the Agenda packet. Committee Member Silva made a motion to continue the item to the next scheduled ARC meeting on April 15, 2015 per request of the applicant. Committee Member Searle seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Searle, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee continued the item to the next scheduled ARC meeting on April 15, 2015 per request of the applicant: 2  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 1, 2015 AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Searle, Silva NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 3 MEMBERS: Latasa, Dawson, Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 3. Consider 39 Wharf #1 (Old Fisherman's Grotto); AR Permit 15-075 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review for Exterior Alterations; Applicant Dennis Hodgin; Owner City of Monterey; No Zoning; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving AR Permit 15-075 for preliminary and final architectural review for exterior alterations with Conditions of Approval. 4. Consider 2201 North Fremont Street; AR Permit 15-011 for a New Two-Story 9,003 Square Foot Mixed Use Building; Applicant Nelson Vega; Owner Lucille Ruth Hammond, Co-Trustee; PC-NF Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Removed from Consent Agenda, Discussed, Adopted a Resolution approving Preliminary Architectural Review for 2201 North Fremont Street. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Ms. Hopper presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant Paul E. Davis, architect, introduced himself and the applicant, Nelson Vega. Mr. Davis said staff has done a good job of analyzing and presenting the project. He also said the issue of sound mitigation inside the proposed building will be addressed by a sound engineer. In response to Chair Freeman’s question regarding the trash enclosure, Mr. Davis said the nine foot, six inch stucco wall is on the property line and is intended to provide a simple, clean wall to screen the structure. Nelson Vega, applicant, said he manages the neighboring property and that the house adjacent to the trash enclosure is at an age where in 10-15 years it could be redeveloped. He asked the ARC not to make a decision based only on the current neighboring property. He also said the design of the trash enclosure is necessary for the safety of the drivers and that having a trash enclosure at the back for the property would hamper future access to adjacent properties. Mr. Vega said the current tenant of the neighboring property is a renter, not a permanent property owner. Mr. Davis said he was not part of the design of the trash enclosure, but it could possibly be reduced in height to eight feet, six inches. Mr. Vega said he is not against redesigning the enclosure as long as the location does not change. Mr. Vega also said the project was eligible for staff review but he brought the application before the ARC because he wanted to create a project that was not controversial and within the format of what he heard the neighborhood wanted. Public Comments None. 3  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 1, 2015 Committee Member Comments Committee Member Silva said if the project required ARC’s review he would have comments and recommendations, however he respects the administrative process and supports approval of the project. Committee Member Searle said the proposal is an all around great project with nice massing and an excellent window pattern. He said the trash enclosure may not have been looked at as closely as the rest of the project, but it is fine as it stands. Committee Member Kimzey complimented the applicant for looking to the North Fremont Specific Plan in the design process and making a clear effort to comply with the rules, and said the project is proof that the City’s Planning process works. Committee Member Kimzey made a motion to adopt a Resolution approving Preliminary Architectural Review for 2201 North Fremont Street. Committee Member Searle seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Kimzey, seconded by Committee Member Searle, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee adopted a Resolution approving Preliminary Architectural Review for 2201 North Fremont Street: AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Searle, Silva NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 3 MEMBERS: Latasa, Dawson, Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 5. Consider 1278 Pacific Street; Tree Removal Permit 15-069 for the Removal of Two Monterey Pine Trees; Applicant Adrian Lopez; Owners Eric and Stacey Johnson; R-1-8 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving Tree Removal Permit 15-069 for the removal of the one 20-inch Monterey pine tree with Conditions of Approval and the following findings: 1) Sufficient concern and anxiety regarding safety was expressed by the applicants; 2) That there is broad support of the neighborhood for the tree’s removal; and 3) That the location of the tree makes it difficult to develop and grade the property. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Fernanda Roveri presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. City Forester, Robert Reid, was also present and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant Eric Johnson, property owner, said he and his wife have been residents of Monterey for 10 years, love the community, and would like to continue to make improvements to their property. Mr. Johnson said his architect has created beautiful plans for the driveway and a new courtyard for added privacy and noise reduction, but the tree conflicts with the 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 1, 2015 proposal. He also said the tree prevents proper grading and drainage of the yard. Mr. Johnson said they would only like to remove the tree closest to the house at this time, and not both trees. In response to Vice Chair Kimzey’s question, Mr. Johnson confirmed that he would like to modify the application to only request removal of one tree, not two. Stacey Johnson, property owner, said it was a dream come true to buy a house in Monterey, but she did not realize the challenges she would face including lack of sound protection, lack of privacy, and safety concerns. Ms. Johnson also said there are seven nice trees on the property and only one is in the way of the improvements they propose to address the sound, privacy, and safety concerns. In response to Vice Chair Kimzey’s question about having to move if the tree is not removed, Ms. Johnson said she wants to be comfortable in her home and not have to be scared. Adrian Lopez, designer, said the property is an atypical, sloped lot that does not offer many options. He said the home owners would like to develop a courtyard to create a buffer and this requires grading of the yard. Mr. Lopez also said removal of one tree is more reasonable than removal of two trees, and that the property owners are willing to plant a replacement trees. He said the tree proposed for removal has two stumps and he thinks one may give out in the future. Public Comments Marlene Torrente, resident of Mar Vista Drive, said she also has two large pine trees growing on her property and sympathizes with the applicant. Ms. Torrente said all the roots of the pine trees are at the surface of her yard, preventing anything from growing in the area. Ms. Torrente said the pine roots can also cause trouble with the plumbing. Committee Member Comments Vice Chair Kimzey said he sympathizes with the applicant. He also said the tree is not that visually prominent, clearly interferes with the proposed improvements, and that the nine neighbors supporting the tree’s removal show that the neighborhood is not concerned about impacting aesthetics or lowering property values. Vice Chair Kimzey said he is in favor of the removal of one tree. Committee Member Silva said he agrees with Vice Chair Kimzey and supports removal of one tree. He also said he knows the difficulties of going through the tree removal process for a tree in the way of a project. Committee Member Searle asked for clarification of the size of tree proposed for removal. Chair Freeman asked the designer to come forward. Mr. Lopez said the tree proposed for removal is the 20 inch tree closest to the house. Committee Member Searle said he supports removing one tree. Committee Member Searle made a motion to adopt a Resolution approving Tree Removal Permit 15-069 for the removal of the one 20-inch Monterey pine tree with Conditions of Approval and the following findings: 1) Sufficient concern and anxiety regarding safety was expressed by the applicants; 2) That there is broad support of the neighborhood for the tree’s removal; and 3) That the location of the tree makes it difficult to develop and grade the property.. Committee Member Kimzey seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Searle, seconded by Committee Member Silva, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee adopt a Resolution approving Tree Removal Permit 15-069 for the removal of the one 20-inch Monterey pine tree with Conditions of Approval and the following findings: 1) Sufficient concern and anxiety regarding safety was expressed by the applicants; 2) That there is broad support of the neighborhood for the tree’s removal; and 3) That the location of the tree makes it difficult to develop and grade the property: 5  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 1, 2015 AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Searle, Silva NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 3 MEMBERS: Latasa, Dawson, Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Chair Freeman said normally she would not approve a tree removal and would support the City’s findings, but she has been persuaded by the applicant’s testimony. Committee Member Silva said it is also compelling that there is broad support from the immediate neighbors. 6. Consider 601 Terry Street; Tree Removal Permit 15-022 for the Removal of One Redwood Tree; Applicants and Owners Eric and Susan Morgan; R-1-5 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving tree removal permit 15-022 for the removal of one 17-inch redwood tree with Conditions of Approval and the following findings: 1) The tree is not visually prominent or an aesthetic contribution to the site; 2) That neighbors do not object to the tree’s removal; 3) That the owner has expressed credible anxiety regarding the tree; and 4) The tree causes a threat to and competition with the surrounding oak trees. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Ms. Roveri presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Assistant City Forester, Steven Morton, was also present and answered Committee Members’ questions. Mr. Morton clarified that his report did not state that the roots are not damaging the sewer pipes, but said the problem could be fixed by sleeving the pipe. He also said that he does not see that the tree has needle cast disease, but sees stress and needleminers. Mr. Morton said his main concern is that many oaks in the area are not surviving the drought but the tree proposed for removal has a good chance of survival. In response to Committee Member Kimzey’s question Mr. Morton said redwoods and oaks can typically co-exist. Applicant Eric Morgan, applicant said he and his wife have lived at the residence for two years and love the location. Mr. Morgan said he has a degree from Cal Poly in forestry and said he is comfortable with local trees. He said there are several things in the City’s report that he does not agree with, including the health of the tree after being topped, whether or not the tree has needle cast disease, and the damage the roots are causing to the sewer pipes. Mr. Morgan said he is concerned with the effect of the redwood tree on the oaks and the unnatural appearance of the redwood from continual topping. He also said the ARC should not worry about precedent setting, but should make decisions on a case-by case basis. In response to Committee Member Searle’s questions, Mr. Morgan said he would prefer to remove the tree than continually top it, and that the tree is causing problems with the other trees in the yard. Susan Morgan, applicant, said she has spoken to all the neighbors and they fully support removal of the redwood tree. She also said the property has many beautiful native trees and she would like to remove the redwood tree and plant a smaller, more appropriate tree. Ms. Morgan said removing the tree would improve the aesthetic view of the area and would prevent anxiety regarding costly sewage bills. 6  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 1, 2015 Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Silva said he is in favor of removing the tree and agrees with the applicant’s testimony. He said he is mainly concerned with the visual aesthetics of the site and the redwood competing with the oaks. Vice Chair Kimzey agreed and said the tree is not attractive due to being topped and that it is crowding and having an influence on the oaks. He said he understands the anxiety of the applicants regarding the possibility of an $8000 sewer repair bill. Committee Member Searle said he is in favor of the removal. Chair Freeman said the house has been designed to incorporate the oak trees, the redwood tree has been ruined by the topping, and that the redwood tree takes away from the view of the oak trees. She said she supports removal of the tree. Vice Chair Kimzey made a motion to adopt a Resolution approving tree removal permit 15-022 for the removal of one 17-inch redwood tree with Conditions of Approval and the following findings: 1) The tree is not visually prominent or an aesthetic contribution to the site; 2) That neighbors do not object to the tree’s removal; 3) That the owner has expressed credible anxiety regarding the tree; and 4) The tree causes a threat to and competition with the surrounding oak trees. Committee Member Silva seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Kimzey, seconded by Committee Member Silva, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee adopt a Resolution approving tree removal permit 15-022 for the removal of one 17-inch redwood tree with Conditions of Approval and following findings: 1) The tree is not visually prominent or an aesthetic contribution to the site; 2) That neighbors do not object to the tree’s removal; 3) That the owner has expressed credible anxiety regarding the tree; and 4) The causes a threat to and competition with the surrounding oak trees: AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Searle, Silva NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 3 MEMBERS: Latasa, Dawson, Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 7. Receive Report and Public Input on Final Design for Van Buren Affordable Senior Housing Project Located at 613 - 669 Van Buren Street; Owner City of Monterey; Applicant Mid Peninsula The Farm; General Plan Land Use: Residential; Zoning: Downtown Specific Plan ACTION: Received report and public input. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Elizabeth Caraker presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant Betsy Wilson, Mid Pen Housing Corporation, introduced fellow staff members Ashley Schweickart and Carlos Jurado, architect Peter Silva of Wald, Ruhnke & Dost, and civil engineer Andy Hunter of Whitson Engineers. Ms. Wilson said Mid-Peninsula The Farm, 7 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 1, 2015 Inc. is a community housing development affiliated with Mid-Pen Housing Corporation, with the mission of building and maintaining affordable housing. She also said Mid-Pen The Farm, Inc. was named after a project in Soquel named “The Farm.” In response to Chair Freeman’s question, Ms. Wilson said all the properties Mid-Pen owns are subsidized for low-income families, seniors, and those with special needs, but Mid-Pen does not have 100% Section 8 housing and the majority of the families served are working families. In response to Committee Member Kimzey’s question, Ms. Wilson said the City owns the land and leases it to Mid-Pen for a minimum of 55 years, during which time Mid-Pen manages and maintains the property. Peter Silva, Wald Ruhnke & Dost, said the project began over two years ago with the goal of the creating a design concept to attract non-profit developers. He also said the project will merge 10 contiguous parcels into one final parcel and will consist of a 19 unit development with parking in the northern area. Mr. Silva said the primary challenges of the project were making a large two-story building fit in with a low-scale residential neighborhood and maintaining the large oak tree on the property. In order to accommodate these challenges, the building was split up into two wings and each wing was given its own architectural identity, with the north wing being a Spanish Mediterranean style and the South wing being an Arts and Crafts style. Mr. Silva said he hopes to move the project forward administratively, have review and approval by the Planning Commission, complete construction documents and then get the project out to bid for construction. In response to Chair Freeman’s question, Mr. Silva confirmed that the breezeway between the two buildings will be covered by a roof. In response to Vice Chair Kimzey’s question, Mr. Silva said a portion of the north wing would have a street setback slightly greater than one foot, but there would still be 4.5 feet of right of way allowing for administrative approval of the project. Public Comments Vincent Torrente, Monterey resident, said he has attended a couple of the Van Buren Senior housing community meetings and feels that building a senior housing project in a residential area could be a mistake. Mr. Torrente said he is concerned about the additional noise that will be caused by fire trucks servicing the facility that will have to back up to exit Van Buren Street. In response to Mr. Torrente, Mr. Silva the noise factors are an existing condition. Ms. Wilson said the project team will discuss with the fire department whether access could be gained from the back side of the building, and said the facility will be independent living as opposed to assisted living, so the increase of service calls may not be that significant. In response to Mr. Torrente’s question, Rick Marvin, Housing and Property Manager, said the land was purchased in the early 2000’s with a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and developing the property as single family houses would not be consistent with the original intention of the CDBG funds. He also said the land was purchased specifically to meet a community need. Marlene Torrente asked if the residents living in the area were notified when the property was purchased that the area would be used for low-income housing. Mr. Marvin said when the decision was made to use CDGB funds to purchase the property, it was made clear that it was for the concept of developing affordable housing on the property, and after it was purchased the city recorded declarations of affordable housing on the property, so the properties were all deed restricted for affordable housing. 8 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 1, 2015 Mr. Torrente said he is concerned about the property at 593 Van Buren Street, which was previously owned by his parents, then purchased by the City to build a civic center, and now is boarded up. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Searle said he understands the two different color approaches, but encouraged Mr. Silva to consider choosing one building style for both wings. He also said the Spanish style building appears much larger than the Arts and Crafts style building, creating a lack of proportionality. Committee Member Searle said making the entire building an Arts and Crafts style could be a good counterpoint for the large Spanish style building on the other side of the street, and would also tie in with the existing playground. He also said he loves the bridge and break between the buildings, but would like to see what the project looks like with only one style. In response to Committee Member Kimzey’s questions, Mr. Silva said the parking at the rear of the building is a city lot and nothing prohibits tenants from parking there. Mr. Silva also said the two handicapped spaces provided are based on the ratio of spaces, not the size of the building. Chair Freeman said the project is wonderful and will complement the very well-kept houses in the neighborhood. In response to Chair Freeman’s question, Mr. Silva said the closest bus stop is within a quarter mile, and Ms. Wilson said projects generally cannot garner a new bus route. Mr. Silva asked the Committee for comments regarding the exterior style of the building, and whether two styles or a homogonous style is preferable. Vice Chair said he agrees with Committee Member Searle and prefers the Arts and Crafts style, but also agrees with the objective of breaking up the building to prevent a homogenous style. He said he would also like to see more architectural interest in the north wing. In response to Committee Member Kimzey’s question, Mr. Silva said the building has an elevator and all rooms are fully accessible. Chair Freeman said she does not have an opinion either way, but if she had to choose between the two styles she would prefer the Craftsman style. In response to Chair Freeman’s question, Mr. Silva said the area in front of the first floor windows on the north wing are not private patios but areas with plaster trim applied to reduce the building massing. Committee Member Searle said the doors to the right of the community room should be screened. Mr. Silva said the two doors are required egress doors and screening them with a tree has been proposed but is not shown on the present plans. In response to Committee Member Searle’s question, Mr. Silva confirmed that the balconies are faux balconies. Committee Member Searle said so much has been done already with the facade and the roofscape that two styles may not be necessary, and the project could take the appearance of two buildings that have been connected. Mr. Silva said the project is still in the design stage and the project team hopes to glean from the ARC’s feedback which direction to take aesthetically. Chair Freeman said the point of transition between the two buildings is the only part she would suggest looking at. Mr. Silva said he wanted the bridge between the two buildings to be a neutral zone with its own character. 9  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 1, 2015 COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Committee Member Silva said it is an exciting time in Monterey with several projects in process including the church on Abrego Street, Santa Catalina’s science building, Cibo’s mixed-use project, Anthony Davi’s project on Calle Principal and the Work site project. Ms. Hopper said there is also exciting development happening on North Fremont Street. Ms. Hopper said staff will poll the ARC members before the April 15, 2015 meeting to ensure that there will be a quorum. Committee Member Silva said he previously voted to deny the permit for the Portland Loo at Simoneau Plaza, but the Portland Loo looks perfectly fine in its location and he realizes that his decision may have been the wrong one. In response to Committee Member Kimzey’s question regarding cancelation of ARC meetings, Ms. Hopper said Permit Streamlining Law requires planning applications to be head and decisions rendered within 60 days. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 8. Planning Office Update  Update received ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:01 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christine Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 10