Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, October 7, 2015 AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY 4:00 pm – 7:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Freeman, Kimzey, Latasa, Searle, Silva, Abma, Theodore Staff Members Present: Senior Associate Planner Bennett, Senior Planner Hopper, Associate Planner Roveri, Recording Secretary Salameh CALL TO ORDER Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. August 19, 2015 ACTION: Approved as amended. The Committee requested that corrections be made to the minutes, specifically regarding a repeated word on page 4, as well as to correct the spelling of Committee Member Latasa’s name on page 4. On page 8, it was agreed that the word “precedent” should be used rather than “precedence” and on page 10, the word “summarized” should be used rather than “surmised.” The title ARC needed correction on page 10. 2. September 16, 2015 ACTION: Approved as amended. Vice Chair Kimzey requested that his reasons for voting no on 2 Portola Plaza (Portola Hotel); Sign Permit 15-320 for a Temporary Rotating Banner Program be more thoroughly recorded in the Minutes. Other Consent Items 3. Consider 2240 N. Fremont Street; Sign Permit 15-323 for One Hanging Sign; Applicant Annie Kim; Owners Mary Alice Cerrito Fettis & Gail Brown; PC-NF Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements. ACTION: Approved as amended. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Latasa and Chair Freeman said that they both agreed with the item’s placement on the Consent Agenda. Vice Chair Kimzey asked why the sign required review by the Architectural Review Committee. Ms. Hopper said that the application was brought before the ARC because the  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, October 7, 2015 sign was proposed to be internally illuminated. Ms Hopper said with the condition that internal illumination is removed, the sign complies with the Citywide Sign Guidelines. Public Comments None On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member Silva, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the consent items as amended. AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Freeman, Latasa, Kimzey, Searle (recused from Item 2 due to absence), Silva (recused from Item 1 due to absence), Abma, Theodore (recused from item 2) NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS None. ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC APPEARANCE 4. Consider 1221 Tenth Street; AR Permit 13-296 for Final Architectural Review of a New Two-Story Addition, Exterior Alterations, and Site Improvements to a Two- Story Mixed-Use Building; Applicant Chuck Burket; Owner Thomas D. Williams; Zoning District C-2-D2; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Approved as submitted. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Fernanda Roveri presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Committee Member Latasa asked about the combination of the existing clay barrel roof tiles, canopy tile roof, asphalt shingle tiles, and the relevance of their combination on the roof. Ms. Hopper said that the gabled roof behind the parapet is asphalt shingle, and the existing roof will be continued at the addition, and that the dissimilarity in materials already exists. Committee Member Theodore asked if the property backed up to the building adjacent to it. Ms. Hopper said yes. Ms. Roveri said that there are two buildings that back right up to the property line wall. Vice Chair Kimzey asked what the rules are surrounding trailer homes and their inhabitation. Ms. Hopper said that one cannot live in a recreational vehicle, but that a mobile home falls under a different set of rules. Applicant Jane Williams, applicant, asked about completing the application process and requested consideration for the timeline of project. Given the time of year, she said that she is 2  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, October 7, 2015 concerned with the coming rainy season and asked when a permit will be issued. Ms. Williams said the contractor erected story poles in June and she said she felt the waiting period had been so long. Ms. Hopper replied that if the ARC approves the project, the next step would be to apply for Building permits. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Vice Chair Kimzey said he supports the application as submitted because the ARC had already given Preliminary Architectural Review approval. Committee Member Latasa said that because the applicant had already completed the necessary steps for review by the ARC, the next important step is to prepare all necessary items for the Building Permit application and ensure it is ready for submittal the day the 10 day appeal period ends. On a motion by Committee Member Abma, seconded by Committee Member Silva, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the AR Permit 13-296 for Final Architectural Review of a New Two-Story Addition, Exterior Alterations, and Site Improvements to a Two-Story Mixed-Use Building as submitted. AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Searle, Silva, Abma, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 5. Consider 777 Taylor Street; AR Permit 15-171 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a New Two-Story Single-Family Residence; Applicant and Owner Matthew Tarr; R-1-5 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Continued for redesign with direction to applicant. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Fernanda Roveri presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Committee Member Latasa asked Ms. Roveri if she had done a verification of the floor areas and Ms. Roveri responded that yes, she had verified the floor area with an architectural scale. Committee Member Latasa asked if there was any comment from the Neighborhood Association, if a landscape plan would be required later, and whether a roof plan would be required to be submitted. Ms. Roveri and Ms. Hopper said that this application would be for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review, so landscaping would need to be taken into consideration. Ms. Roveri said the landscaping at the rear of the property would include bark, sand, and pea gravel and the front landscaping plans include bark cover as well. Committee 3 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, October 7, 2015 Member Latasa asked if the ARC could request that trees be planted in the yard. Ms. Hopper said that it would be appropriate to consider planting trees. Vice Chair Kimzey asked if a view obstruction would occur due to the second story of the house, and asked whether a single story building would impact views as well. Ms. Roveri responded that a single story would not impact views. Vice Chair Kimzey asked that if a notice is sent to a property owner and they do not state an objection if it is appropriate for staff to raise an objection. Ms. Hopper said that it is reasonable to consider impacts on behalf of property owners. Chair Freeman noted that due to the elevation of the lot behind the proposed building site, views could possibly not be impacted because of the differing property elevations. Ms. Hopper said there is a possible view impact and that verification of a view impact would require entering the adjacent properties. Applicant Matthew Tarr, applicant and property owner, thanked the ARC and staff on behalf of himself and his wife and said that this project is going to be their future retirement home. He said that in terms of material, he originally proposed rock because of its ease of care, but could change the siding and front of the house to wood instead of rock to meet ARC standards. He noted the proposed tree on the plans and said that he would like it to be an olive tree and they would like to plant camellia bushes as well, but they are taking watering limitations into consideration. Mr. Tarr said that he has a full set of roof plans and he will provide them. In terms of setbacks, he said that six months ago there was an existing noncompliant structure that occupied the majority of the lot and that it has since been demolished to build the new home that will be compliant with all objective written standards. He said that he does realize there is potential for view impact, but that the project complies with all development standards. Mr. Tarr noted that the back of the house is boxier because of his architect’s seismic strategy, but that he is willing to add architectural embellishment in order to become more compliant with ARC guidelines. He said that there is not an excess of windows in the back of the house in order to protect the neighbors’ privacy. Mr. Tarr noted that there are a few two-story homes in the neighborhood, including a two-story apartment complex. Vice Chair Kimzey asked if applicant was made aware of staff’s findings and objections prior to the meeting. Mr. Tarr said yes and Vice Chair Kimzey asked if he was aware of the problem of mass. Mr. Tarr replied yes, but that he did not think the house is disproportionately large. However, he would ask his architect to provide modulation if necessary. Vice Chair Kimzey asked how much of the structure’s mass and its compatibility with the neighborhood was discussed with the applicant’s architect. Mr. Tarr responded that he did not receive a lot of direction from staff in the way of mass. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Silva said that he is disappointed by the quality of the design because it appears the applicant maximized the development, at the detriment of charm or compatibility and while trying to skirt setbacks. He noted that the mass needs to be reduced and that the materials are arbitrarily applied. Committee Member Silva said that 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, October 7, 2015 the stonework should be grounded and the different materials used appear to be inept. He said that due to the overall design quality, he cannot support approval. Committee Member Searle agreed with Committee Member Silva and said that he does not see any traditional Monterey character in the design, especially in the stonework and quality of the windows. Committee Member Latasa said he agrees with Committee Members Silva and Searle and that the design lacks character and is too massive, particularly due to the covered decks on the second story. He noted that if the roofs were removed from the decks, the appearance of the home would be much less massive. Committee Member Abma said there is inconsistency with window design, also noting that the front door, garage door and sliders do not seem to go with the rest of the house or with each other. She also said that the rear elevation is too blocky. Vice Chair Kimzey said that he disagreed with other Committee Members for several reasons. He complimented the designer for meeting the zoning requirements and said he believes the architect did the right thing by meeting the proper requirements within his design. Vice Chair Kimzey noted that he did not find anywhere in the rules that “charm” has to be a part of the application. He also said that a homeowner should have the right to build the house that he wants, provided that it meets the standards defined. Vice Chair Kimzey said that the mass was too dominant for the neighborhood and that in regards to mass proposed, he supports continuance for redesign for that issue only. He said that the applicant and his architect complied with the rules and requirements. Vice Chair Kimzey also noted that the design meets all development standards. He noted that certain aesthetic guidelines had not been met, but that in other projects guidelines had not been applied, and that had not been an issue in approving prior permits. He also noted that the rear of the home does not have to be attractive because it is an element that few will see. Chair Freeman agreed with Vice Chair Kimzey and said that the mass was too dominant, but the fact that the applicant tore down a large building to build in its place was mentionable. She noted that the neighborhood is a small one and that it consists mainly of small homes that have detached buildings. She said that the stone wainscoting jumping to the second story as an embellishment detail is confusing, as it is usually something seen as a first-story feature on Monterey homes. Chair Freeman noted that the most specific design element issue is mass. Committee Member Latasa mentioned that the covered decks on the upper floor may be gloomy due to Monterey’s foggy weather, especially with the typical summers on the peninsula, and suggested redesigning the decks without roofs. He said that the interior of the home would also receive much more natural light that way. Committee Member Silva said that as a courtesy to the applicant, the ARC should extend the option of denial in order for applicant to appeal directly to Planning Commission with the project as submitted. Ms. Hopper explained the options to the applicant. Mr. Tarr said that he wants to make the ARC happy with his design, and that he would like to adhere to the Committee’s good guidance and specifics. 5  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, October 7, 2015 The Committee provided the following direction for the application regarding redesign: remove second story decks to reduce massing or remove the roofs covering the decks; reduce overall square footage; reduce second story mass; reduce the boxy quality; look at window design and placement; remove stone from second story; do not break similar materials at outside corners; bring roof plans to next meeting; look at how portions interact with each other; improve fenestration, alignment, materials, and placement. Committee Member Latasa asked if uncovering the back deck would change the rear elevation, over which Committee Members voiced their concerns. Committee Member Silva told the applicant to take another look at the way the portions interact with one another, noting that there needs to be a better balance—especially facing the street. He said that how a building engages the public realm is an important aspect of design. Ms. Hopper said that staff would make notes from the tape for the applicant, so he would be able to make the necessary changes. On a motion made by Committee Member Searle, seconded by Committee Member Theodore, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee continued the project for redesign with informal direction to the applicant. AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Latasa, Searle, Silva, Abma, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None The meeting recessed at 5:27 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 5:32 p.m. 6. Consider 1880 Prescott Avenue; AR Permit 15-119 for Preliminary Architectural Review of a New Two-Story Single-Family Residence; Applicant Paul W. Davis; Owner Monique R. Olsen; Zoning District R-1-5; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Approved project as submitted for Preliminary Architectural Review including a setback variation and adding a Condition of Approval extending expiration of Preliminary Architectural Review until two years after water becomes available. Staff Presentation/Commissioner Questions Christine Hopper presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Vice Chair Kimzey asked the period of time the applicant had requested for a permit extension. Ms. Hopper responded that the applicant would be happy with a five year extension beyond the typical two years and due to possible development standard changes, the situation may be nonconforming in the future. Ms. Hopper did note that some projects on the water waiting list have been extended until water becomes available. Committee Member Silva asked if there are some projects on the water waiting list for a specific number of years. Ms. Hopper said that in the early years of the water waiting list, there were projects with a certain number of years allotted to them. She continued on to say that the 6 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, October 7, 2015 applicant would like be added to the water waiting list because of the uncertainty of the time frame when water will be available and that many projects have been waiting since 2003. Committee Member Abma asked if Ms. Olsen applied for a water extension, would she have to go through another ARC review period. Ms. Hopper said that the application would have to go through Final Architectural Review, and as long as nothing significant with her design changed, her status on the water waiting list would not change. Committee Member Latasa asked if the open-ended approval for the water waiting list could be added to this application. Ms. Hopper replied that this was an option for this application. Committee Member Theodore asked if water didn’t become available, would the lot sit without any construction. Ms. Hopper said yes. Committee Member Abma asked if the setback variation required review from the Planning Commission first and Ms. Hopper said that it did not and that setbacks could be varied based on aesthetic design. Committee Member Theodore asked if the reason for the garage being on Alice Street opposed to Prescott Avenue was because of the heavier traffic on Prescott. Ms. Hopper explained that it was because of the traffic; but also because of setback requirements, it was difficult to have a viable garage and driveway on the Prescott side of the house. Ms. Hopper noted a condition of approval being recommended by staff that states no trees may be removed from the site until building permits are issued. Committee Member Silva asked if the provision of the ARC for discretionary approvals also provides for administrative extensions. Ms. Hopper referred to the guidelines, which state that if “a complete application for final review is not submitted within 2 years of the date of preliminary review of approval, the approval shall be null and void unless extended by the ARC or the City Manager or designee. To whomever granted the original approval, a request for extension shall be made in writing prior to the expiration date.” Vice Chair Kimzey questioned the order of “special” and “standard” conditions of approval and about other standard conditions that appear inconsistent between Preliminary and Final Resolutions. Ms. Hopper said that for consistency, the Preliminary and Final Architectural Review Conditions of Approval will be combined. Applicant Paul W. Davis, project architect, thanked the ARC and staff for the presentation and said that the lot is difficult to provide a livable space upon due to its size. To break up mass, it was necessary to provide two separate areas. He said that he worked within setback requirements, but asked for a variation to provide an appropriate driveway and side yard areas and that said that he ultimately tried to keep the design simple while providing breaks in the mass. He said that Monique Olsen, the applicant, would like to build on the lot for her future retirement home. She asked that the ARC consider for extending the permit expiration due to the uncertainty of when water will be available. Chair Freeman said that it is very brave to build on a small lot on a busy street. She asked if the second story view will be of power lines. Mr. Davis said yes, power lines will be visible. Monique Olsen, property owner and applicant, said that this property has sentimental value to her because she has been roaming it since she was a toddler and her family has owned it since 7  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, October 7, 2015 1938. She said that she would truly appreciate any efforts on the part of the ARC and staff in gaining a spot on the water waiting list. Committee Member Theodore asked Ms. Olsen if there was a home on the site previously. Ms. Olsen said that there was never a home and no water available—that her family split a larger lot which created this smaller lot in the 1980s. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Searle said that he is in complete support of the design of the project and the he supports the setback variation because it creates usability out of the site. He also supports open-ended expiration for the permit and that having a vision for the site is important. Committee Member Silva agreed with Committee Member Searle and noted that the design is clever, and that the project is charming. He said he supports the setbacks, the variation, and open-ended expiration for the permit as well. Chair Freeman commended the project. Committee Member Latasa said that he agrees with Committee Member comments and is in support of the applicant as well as in agreement with the open-ended permit expiration. Chair Freeman asked if anyone was opposed to removing the 24 month permit expiration. Ms. Hopper recommended that a time frame for permit expiration be added to the motion. On a motion made by Committee Member Theodore, seconded by Committee Member Abma, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the project as submitted for Preliminary Architectural Review including the setback variation and adding a condition of approval extending expiration of Preliminary Architectural Review until two years after water becomes available. AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Searle, Silva, Abma, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 7. Consider sending a letter to City Council regarding the Marriott bridge. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Committee Members Discussed: conducting a feasibility study to determine to current uses of the Marriott bridge; the bridge’s compliance with ADA; the bridge’s position over City property being a possible liability; the review of legal documents from the time of the bridge’s construction; the possibility of an abatement issue; testing the bridge for asbestos or lead and its safety in relation to the public; the bridge’s structural integrity because it will potentially be attached to the new conference center. On a motion made by Committee Member Theodore, seconded by Committee Member Latasa, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee requested 8 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, October 7, 2015 that Chair Freeman prepare a draft letter requesting assessment of the condition of the Marriott bridge. AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Latasa, Searle, Silva, Abma, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Vice Chair Kimzey asked a retreat that was mentioned at the previous meeting. Chair Freeman said she would check in with Kim Cole to get ideas for the retreat and make further plans. Committee Member Abma mentioned a Net Zero open house in Carmel and said that she would forward the information to Committee Members via email. Committee Member Silva said he received an email about a lecture at MIIS for modern architecture in Monterey and that he would also forward the information to Committee Members. Ms. Hopper said the next meeting agenda will include a sign program and consideration of revisions to the list of major and minor projects. 9 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, October 7, 2015 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:35. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christine Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 10