Architectural Review Committee Meeting

DRAFT MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, December 2, 2015 AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY 4:00 pm - 5:30 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Freeman, Kimzey, Latasa, Theodore Members Absent: Silva, Abma Staff Members Present: Senior Associate Planner Hopper, Associate Planner Roveri, Recording Secretary Salameh CALL TO ORDER Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 4:02 pm. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. November 18, 2015 Action: Approved as amended. Committee Members recommended changes to the Minutes, including word placement on pages 6 and 7, the addition of a word on page 8, and a spelling correction on page 10. Other Consent Items 2. Consider 18 Sierra Vista Drive; AR Permit 15-427 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a Second-Story Deck Addition; Applicant John Moore of Moore Design; Owners Dave and Sue Leonard; R-1-10 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15303(e). Action: Approved as submitted. Vice Chair Kimzey asked if the deck had already been built and asked why the resolution had been written as if the deck addition had already taken place. Ms. Hopper explained that this was part of a larger building permit and the Resolution was written to reflect that the deck had been constructed. Committee Member Theodore asked why projects are being constructed before coming before the ARC. Ms. Hopper said that the deck was already constructed and an application was submitted to the Planning office when the applicant was made aware that architectural review was required.  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, December 2, 2015 On a motion by Committee Member Kimzey, seconded by Committee Member Theodore, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the Consent Agenda. AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Silva, Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS Sharon Dwight, President of the New Monterey Neighborhood Association, asked that the ARC consider parapets and cupolas when looking at newly-proposed buildings. She said that they majorly impact views when they extend beyond the maximum allowed height. She asked that the ARC consider what is placed on roofs because her neighborhood is directly uphill from the commercial district. Ms. Dwight also asked that the ARC consider the view impacts of front decks and porches as well as sloped parcels and deck projections that are higher than the grade of the street. She said that in certain instances, features extend into front yard setbacks and they become a prominent feature. She asked the ARC that when looking at plans, please consider the understory, the overall size, and the first floor. Committee Member Theodore asked Ms. Dwight if she was speaking on behalf of the New Monterey Neighborhood Association. Ms. Dwight said no. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 3. 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 per Article 19, Section 15303 (Continued from October 7, 2015 Meeting) Action: Approved as submitted. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Associate Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Chair Freeman said she thought the report was thorough and well-done. Committee Member Latasa agreed. Committee Member Theodore asked about the small windows that were shown on the 2 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, December 2, 2015 right side elevation of the house and if they had been reduced from their original size. Ms. Roveri said yes. Committee Member Theodore asked what room the windows are located in. Ms. Roveri said the windows are located in the kitchen. Mr. Tarr said that the windows are located above the kitchen cabinets primarily to provide more light. Applicant Matt Tarr, Applicant, thanked the ARC for their guidance and said that he believed he captured everything the ARC asked for in his resubmittal. Chair Freeman thanked Mr. Tarr for being receptive to the ARC’s suggestions and directions. Public Comments Sharon Dwight, President of the New Monterey Neighborhood Association, speaking on behalf of the Association, said that there is a difference of three feet between the street grade and the first floor grade of the house. She said that the house will be the tallest structure on its block and that the structures next to it will be dwarfed. She said that the house is within inches of the maximum height allowed, which is 25 feet. Ms. Dwight noted that the New Monterey Area Plan encourages windows that allow sunlight in due to the foggy Monterey weather. She mentioned that the second story view is beautiful, but she did not believe the design was taking full advantage of that potential. She said that she felt the living quality of the house needs to be enhanced by adding windows on the upper story. Committee Member Comments Vice Chair Kimzey said that he agreed with staff’s recommendations entirely and said that this was the second time the applicant had come before the ARC. He noted that the applicant was in compliance with all of the ARC’s recommendations. He said that he supported the application as submitted. He said that Ms. Dwight’s suggestions to the applicant should be considered advisory. Committee Member Latasa thanked the applicant for responding so thoroughly to the ARC’s recommendations and said that he thinks the design is very complete. He said that removing the stonework on the second floor was a vast improvement in the design. In response to Ms. Dwight’s comments, Committee Member Latasa said that lowering the house would require the entire lot to be re-graded. He said that he understood Ms. Dwight’s requests, but that it would be asking a lot of the applicant to make the changes she asked for. He said that the project should be approved as submitted, but that the applicant would be well-advised to consider views from the second story once the house is framed. Mr. Tarr said the deck and stairwell were being built in the areas Ms. Dwight had suggested for additional windows. Committee Member Theodore commended the applicant for being so responsive to the ARC’s suggestions. Chair Freeman concurred with the previous Committee Members’ comments. She said 3  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, December 2, 2015 that she saw the previous commercial business on the site and commended Mr. Tarr on improving the area with the building of his house. On a motion by Committee Member Kimzey, seconded by Committee Member Latasa, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application as submitted. AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Silva, Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 4. Receive Report on Lighthouse Specific Plan (CEQA - Not a Project) Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Planner Hopper presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ Questions. Vice Chair Kimzey asked if suggestions or editorial comments were appropriate. Ms. Hopper said yes and asked if lighting standards approved in the Downtown Specific Plan should be included in the Lighthouse Specific Plan. Vice Chair Kimzey said that the lighting standards should be included. Chair Freeman asked how the current meeting would differ from January’s meeting regarding the Lighthouse Specific Plan. Ms. Hopper said that this meeting is an introduction to the plan to allow the ARC a longer timeframe to review Chapter 4 and that no action would be taken during this meeting. Committee Member Latasa asked if the current zoning requires a use permit for three- story buildings. Ms. Hopper said yes. Committee Member Theodore asked if the Specific Plan would require three-story buildings to include public open space. Ms. Hopper said yes, that the community had requested to see that in the Lighthouse Specific Plan and it is for public benefit. Committee Member Theodore asked if the same applied to public art. Ms. Hopper said that was correct. Chair Freeman said that she saw three main issues that were not mentioned in the Lighthouse Specific Plan, but that she had seen mentioned several times on the Lighthouse Specific Plan Subcommittee that she and Vice Chair Kimzey served on:  Street and transportation configuration and specifically what City agency would be 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, December 2, 2015 working on that part of the Plan.  The specific height of buildings and whether the ARC would be working with that part of the Plan.  The issue of low rent attracting undesirable businesses and who would be addressing that. Vice Chair Kimzey said that when serving on the Lighthouse Specific Plan Subcommittee, he understood that his duty was to listen rather than provide opinions. Although, he understood that the public had the same concerns as he and Chair Freeman. Ms. Hopper said that the Planning Commission will discuss street configuration with a recommendation to the City Council. She noted members of the public are encouraged to attend Planning Commission and City Council meetings and make comments on the items. Ms. Hopper said that the ARC would address the issue of building height and that the Planning Commission would discuss uses. Chair Freeman noted that the purview of the ARC seems to be unclear at times. Ms. Hopper explained the purview of the ARC. Vice Chair Kimzey said that he was concerned with the safety on Lighthouse Avenue and that the Lighthouse Specific Plan does not rectify any of the safety issues at hand. He also said that during the community meetings he believed the ARC would have a more structured and significant role in the planning process. Ms. Hopper recommended that any comments on items that fall outside of the ARC’s purview be made as an individual and not as a Committee Member. Vice Chair Kimzey noted his concern regarding three-story buildings and that specific height requirements are not included in from the draft Lighthouse Specific Plan. He also said he was concerned with how an undesirable business could be kept from the Lighthouse Avenue area and then asked how an undesirable business was defined. Ms. Hopper explained the land use chart and the definition of specific uses. Vice Chair Kimzey asked if massage parlors are the only type of business that could be regulated. Ms. Hopper said yes at this point, in regards to the specific uses discussed, as well as adult entertainment. Public Comment Nancy Runyon, a resident of New Monterey said that she shops on Lighthouse Avenue often. She agreed that the three major issues were the ones that had been brought up by Chair Freeman. She said that she believed many restrictions had been removed from the Lighthouse Specific Plan and that she would like to see height limits put back in. She said that she is concerned with losing the hillside topography, the breezes, seaside views and sunlight. She said that she would like to see the Lighthouse Specific Plan include a condition that building height cannot exceed a reasonable three stories or 30 feet. 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, December 2, 2015 Patricia Domingo, a resident of Lower Monterey, said that her family has lived in the area for many generations and that the area has always been walker-friendly. She said that the increasing density is impacting the pedestrian experience. She said she likes the Lighthouse Specific Plan, but she would like to see it have more substance and thinks that many people care about the process and changes. She said that she would like to see a more specific height requirement for buildings. Sharon Dwight, President of the New Monterey Neighborhood Association, said that her main concern was the height of the buildings in the Lighthouse Avenue area. She said that she would like to see specific height requirements included within the Lighthouse Specific Plan and that she was opposed to form-based review—that she felt it had not been adequately discussed at prior meetings. She said that she would like to see quality design rather than excessive heights and that she believes the values in the area are based on views. Chair Freeman said that every ARC and Committee meeting is public and that the public is advised of and invited to speak at each meeting. She said that each conversation regarding form-based buildings had taken place at a public meeting. Ms. Dwight said that she would like to see more consistency within the document. She said that she feels the look of Lighthouse Avenue is being sacrificed because it should be kept to one- and two-story buildings. She said that this is mentioned on page 56, but not on page 47. She noted that page 51 mentions open space for pedestrians and then page 56 contradicts the mentioned use. She said that pages 64 and 65 mention trees and said that the photographs do not depict the trees mentioned. She said that cypress, pines, and live oaks are not appropriate for the commercial areas. She said that the ARC should devise a list of appropriate trees because the area is a microclimate that requires a very specific type of tree that will survive. Ms. Dwight also noted that the native trees listed are not the best-suited trees for the area. Chair Freeman said that Ms. Dwight’s point was well-taken. Ms. Dwight said that the parking spaces per unit are not adequate and should at least be equivalent to those for North Fremont Street, which is 1.5 spaces per unit. She asked the maximum coverage for window signs in the area as well. Ms. Hopper said that the window coverage for signs in the area would be in addition to Citywide Sign Guidelines. Ms. Dwight said that she was also concerned about the flow of traffic in the area. Carl Outzen said that 35 feet had been a standard maximum height in Monterey for many years, but now there are many requirements for air circulation within buildings. He said that now an elevator is a requirement for each floor for buildings over one story. Because of the elevator shaft, one has to consider the extra height at the top of the building in case of emergencies. He said that it is very difficult to build a structure at 35 feet while staying within current guidelines. Mr. Outzen said that over the years, each structure has been allowed 50% lot coverage and builders do not want to demolish if they cannot rebuild at two or three stories. He also said that Monterey is land-locked and that it is nearly impossible to provide housing in commercial areas due to the mixed-use requirement. Mr. Outzen said that regarding parking standards, he believes parking and safety are 6 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, December 2, 2015 issues that should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. He mentioned that parking lanes and spaces do not meet state standards. Mr. Outzen said he would like to see two feet removed from the sidewalks on Lighthouse Avenue in order to extend parking areas and allow better circulation. He said he also brought that item before the Planning Commission, and believes that is an issue of safety to consider for people getting in and out of parked cars. Mr. Outzen also said that in regards to the modulation of buildings, the windows should be placed next to the sidewalk so that they are easily visible to shoppers and passersby. He said this is an architectural feature that allows onlookers to view the inside of businesses. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Committee Member Latasa thanked Chair Freeman and Vice Chair Kimzey for their work on the subcommittees and said he appreciated their opinions regarding the information they brought back to the ARC, especially regarding the community input. Chair Freeman said that height and density were revisited by all Ms. Runyon, Ms. Domingo, Ms. Dwight, and Mr. Outzen. Chair Freeman asked if Hawthorne Street was considered a part of the Lighthouse Specific Plan and also said that she supports Ms. Dwight’s suggestions about street trees for the plan. Ms. Hopper said that Hawthorne Street was not within the Lighthouse Specific Plan planning area. Vice Chair Kimzey asked if the purview of the ARC was Chapter 4 of the Lighthouse Specific Plan. Ms. Hopper said yes, that the ARC was to specifically focus on Chapter 4 of the Lighthouse Specific Plan. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:08 pm. 7 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, December 2, 2015 Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christine Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 8