Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, August 5, 2015 AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY 4:00 pm – 7:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Freeman, Dawson, Latasa, Silva Members Absent: Kimzey, Abma, Searle Staff Members Present: Senior Planner Hopper, Associate Planner Roveri, Recording Secretary Leinen CALL TO ORDER Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 4:02 pm. CONSENT ITEMS Committee Member Silva made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda with amendments to the Minutes. Committee Member Latasa seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Latasa, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the CONSENT ITEMS with amendments to the Minutes: AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Freeman, Dawson, Latasa, Silva NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 3 MEMBERS: Kimzey, Abma, Searle ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Approval of Minutes 1. July 15, 2015 ACTION: Approved as amended. Committee Member Dawson requested that the word “agree” be changed to “agreed” under item #6 on page four of the Minutes. He also requested that the omitted words “of” and “would” be added to the ninth paragraph of page six. Vice Chair Freeman requested that the spelling of “eave” be corrected on page two of the Minutes. Other Consent Items 2. Consider 751 Archer Street; AR Permit 15-224 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a One-Story Addition and Exterior Alterations to a One- Story Single-Family Dwelling; Applicant and Owner Doug Howe; R-1-5 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving Preliminary and Final Architectural Review with Conditions of Approval.  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 5, 2015 3. Consider 1299 Pacific Street; Sign Permit 15-240 for Pedestrian-Oriented Freestanding Sign; Applicant Adrienne Gaily; Owner Daily Gate LLC; R-3-AP-D2 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving the Sign Permit. ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 4. Consider 2149 N. Fremont Street; AR Permit 15-154 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a new Outdoor Patio Area; Tree Permit 15-153 for the Removal of One (1) 14-Inch California Pepper Tree; Applicant Mohammed Ali Norouzi; Owner Mike Marotta; Planned Community N. Fremont Street (PC-NF); Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Continued the application for redesign and for the applicant to submit more detailed information in better compliance with the submittal requirements for ARC and preferably prepared by a licensed design professional. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Ms. Hopper presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Committee Member Silva said the site plan is sketchy, does not meet the minimum requirements of an ARC application, and is lacking information regarding the floor plan, site plan, utility screen details, tree removal, the double doors, the salient aspects of the design, and the scale of the plan. Committee Member Latasa said he shares Committee Member Silva’s frustration and said a more detailed site plan is needed, especially with regards to the wall. Applicant Mohammed Ali Norouzi, applicant, thanked the ARC and said the proposed walls are all within the property line and will block the noise from the street. He also said the lights are mainly focus lights to highlight the tables, with a few lights leading up the sidewalk. Mr. Norouzi provided the ARC a handout regarding concerns with pepper trees in California and shared his concerns regarding the surface roots, branches, and debris given off by the tree proposed for removal. He also said the tree takes away from the beauty of the proposed patio. Mr. Norouzi said the patio design is based on the style of the building, will beautify the area and enhance the building’s capacity. In response to Committee Member Silva’s question, Mr. Norouzi said he has not considered any alternate designs for the perimeter wall and the glass material used, but is open to suggestions. In response to Chair Freeman’s question, Mr. Norouzi said he proposes to replace the pepper tree with an oak tree. He also said he does not want to replace the pepper tree with another pepper tree in the planting area near his sign because he plans to begin beautifying the sign next week and wants to keep the sign area clean and visible. In response to Chair Freeman’s second question, Mr. Norouzi said the large number of 2 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 5, 2015 patio lights is proposed because they are dim spotlights without much glare. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Dawson said he really likes the idea, but does not think the proposed number of tables will fit in the area since the drawings are not to scale. He said he would like to see drawings that are scaled and accurately represent the space in the patio. Committee Member Dawson also said he supports removal of the tree and likes the idea of outdoor seating on North Fremont Street. Committee Member Silva said he likes the additional outdoor seating, but is not sure how the traffic noise will impact the area, so he supports the use of a material other than tempered glass, such as Lexan. He also said he supports removal of the tree. Committee Member Silva said he does not want to take action on the application because the application materials are inadequate and he would like to see scale plans, preferably drawn by a licensed professional. Regarding the overall design, Committee Member Silva said it should be more contemporary, in keeping with the building. Committee Member Silva also said the ADA issues should be addressed early on. Committee Member Latasa said he likes the design, supports the tree removal and agrees that Lexan would be an improvement over tempered glass. He also said a more accurate plan is needed because the site plan shows a sharp angle in the patio area, however, the photo shows a different angle. Committee Member Latasa said he has concern regarding the design using 14 of the same light fixture, and said a variation of fixtures would be better. He also said the standard Condition of Approval directing the applicant to obtaining a building permit is missing from the Resolution. Chair Freeman summarized that what is being presented will be great for business and the area, but is still in the concept phase. She said that the ARC would like to see the drawings refined to incorporate elevations, a scaled site plan, furnishings to scale, the material differences between the carriage lights and the spotlights, and materials of the glass (tempered glazing versus Lexan). Chair Freeman said she would like to see a balanced approach that adds a second small tree to the front, near the parking lot entrance, to accent the entrance and balance the tree in the back of the lot. Silva made a motion to continue the application for redesign and for the applicant to submit more detailed information in better compliance with the submittal requirements for ARC and preferably prepared by a licensed design professional. Committee Member Latasa seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Latasa, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee continued the application for redesign and for the applicant to submit more detailed information in better compliance with the submittal requirements for ARC and preferably prepared by a licensed design professional: AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Dawson, Silva NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 3 MEMBERS: Kimzey, Searle, Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 3  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 5, 2015 Mr. Norouzi addressed the ARC and said the design he presented was a concept design and was not intended to be concise. He also said he has a professional working on the design. Committee Member Latasa recused himself from item #5 and took a seat in the audience. 5. Consider 4 Zaragosa Views; AR Permit 15-164 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a New Two-Story Addition; Applicant Terry Latasa (Architect); Property Owner William and Kathryn Parish; Zoning District R-2-20-D2, Exempt from CEQA (Continued from July 1, 2015) ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving AR Permit 15-164 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a new two-story addition at 4 Zaragoza Views. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Kimberly Cole presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant Terry Latasa, project architect, said he is joined by the property owners William and Kathryn Parish. Mr. Latasa said the proposed addition is reasonable and was placed at the rear of the property because it provides the best massing and prevents a three-story element, due to the existing ceiling structure. Regarding the Via Castanada neighbor, Mr. Latasa said he understands their concerns, but that there is no reasonable argument regarding view impacts, so the main issue is the privacy impact concerns raised by the downhill neighbor. Mr. Latasa said it is not reasonable to prohibit an addition in this location as privacy issues usually apply to things like windows facing each other, not rear yards, especially with such a great distance between the neighbors. Mr. Latasa said a plant screening wall could be added for privacy and offered to remove one window if the ARC sees fit. Mr. Latasa presented the ARC with a montage of the proposed project. In response to Chair Freeman’s question, Mr. Latasa confirmed that the project would increase the overall height of the building by 15 inches. Public Comments Deryck Nuckton, downhill neighbor, said he built the houses originally and worked very hard to gived all the houses a view and privacy. He also said of the six houses in the neighborhood, none have windows that are visible from the road. Mr. Nuckton said it is not reasonable to take a 7,000 square foot lot and add another 10% to the building. Nelson Vega, representative for the downhill neighbor, said the main thing he would like to convey is that everyone already has a shared view because of Mr. Nuckton’s design. He said he does not want to stop the project, but that Mr. Nuckton and other people’s privacy should not be impacted. Mr. Vega suggested the removal of one window and adding a skylight and a north-facing window, and also asked the applicant to consider a variance that would move the bank of windows 10 feet over. Mr. Vega provided a history of the development of the lots. Earline Arnold, downhill neighbor and wife of Mr. Nuckton, said the proposed project will be an invasion of their privacy and they will no longer be able to have privacy for their hot tub, which will be below the proposed windows. Steve Buck, owner of 51 Via Castanada, said his residence will be impacted by the 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 5, 2015 proposed addition. Mr. Buck also said before purchasing the property he was assured by several City of Monterey staff members that the houses were built to the max, and he would like the City to not go back on its word. Mr. Buck said the project should not be approved and if it is there will be a house and a half on the small lot. Regarding screening trees, Mr. Buck said trees would not help his view or his neighbor’s view and that there are already plenty of trees in the area. In response to Committee Member Silva’s question, Mr. Buck said he does not believe he has anything in writing from the City stating that the houses were built to the max. He also said he knows there are some Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding view impacts. Bill Parish, property owner, thanked the ARC for their review of the project. Mr. Parish said there are no CC&Rs related to the 6 units and that the major issue is whether or not there is an unreasonable interference with privacy. Mr. Parish said there is not an unreasonable privacy impact, and when building on a hill the back yards are not going to be private and will be visible to neighbors. Mr. Parish said the downhill neighbor’s patio can already be seen from his deck and asked the ARC approve the project. Committee Member Comments In response to Committee Member Dawson’s question, Ms. Hopper said there is no problem with the proposed floor area ratio of the project. Ms. Hopper informed the Committee that Mr. Vega provided her with a copy of a Grant of Easement and Declaration of Restrictions for the record. Ms. Cole said staff has not had a chance to review the document submitted by Mr. Vega, so the ARC could choose to continue the item to allow time for review by the City Attorney. Chair Freeman questioned if the ARC could render a decision and findings with the stipulation that all sides have been heard, and that the document can be reviewed to see if it has any bearing on the ARC’s decision. Committee Member Dawson said he agrees with the property owner’s comment that there can be no expectation of privacy in the backyards. He also said he does not think that windows 60 feet away from a neighboring property line are a problem. Committee Member Dawson said he does not see a view impact to the neighbor at Via Castanada because the existing view is of trees, and overall he does not see any potential view or privacy impacts from the project. Committee Member Silva said he concurs regarding a lack of view impacts. Regarding Mr. Buck’s concern about the project setting a precedent, Committee Member Silva said each application is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Committee Member Silva said the project does pose a privacy impact, but he does not think it is unreasonable, and that screening shrubs will go a long way towards lessening privacy impacts. Chair Freeman said there is potential for a privacy impact, but she does not think it will be unreasonable because when the ARC stood on the porch of the uphill residence on their field trip, two backyards below were visible. Chair Freeman said the proposal is a good design and it is good that it is at the back of the house and away from the freeway. Committee Member Dawson made a motion to adopt a Resolution approving AR Permit 15-164 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a new two-story addition at 4 Zaragoza Views. Committee Member Silva seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Dawson, seconded by Committee Member Silva, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee adopted a Resolution approving AR Permit 15-164 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a new two-story addition at 4 Zaragoza Views: 5  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 5, 2015 AYES: 3 MEMBERS: Freeman, Dawson, Silva NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 3 MEMBERS: Kimzey, Abma, Searle ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 1 MEMBERS: Latasa Committee Member Latasa returned to the ARC at the dais. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Committee Member Dawson gave an update on the O’Connell house in Pebble Beach and said the house is being “mothballed” and that the Alliance of Monterey Area Preservationists (AMAP) is upset about this. Chair Freeman said she and Committee Member Abma met with Principal Planner Elizabeth Caraker regarding the Waterfront Master Plan and she is concerned that the ARC will get the same information twice without a site plan presented. Ms. Hopper said it is perfectly acceptable for the ARC as a group to ask for a visual aspect of the plan, and could write a strongly worded letter to the Planning Commission. In response to Chair Freeman’s question, Ms. Hopper said she is not sure when the Portola Plaza will be back before the ARC, but the project will return once the design team submits plans. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 6. Planning Office Update  Update received ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:45 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christine Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 6