Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY Wednesday, January 6, 2016 4:00 pm – 7:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Abma Members Absent: Theodore Staff Members Present: Senior Planner Hopper, Associate Planner Roveri, Recording Secretary Salameh CALL TO ORDER Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. December 16, 2015 Action: Approved as amended. Vice Chair Kimzey said that on page 8 he would like the minutes reworded to more accurately express what he was trying to say and asked if he could submit his corrections in writing. Senior Planner Hopper said that staff would need also listen to the audio recording of the minutes for the correct wording. Committee Member Latasa noted on the bottom of page 9 that “they ARC” should be changed to “the ARC.” Vice Chair Kimzey noted a typo in the address on page 17. Other Consent Items 2. Consider 431 Alcalde Avenue; AR Permit 15-468 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of Conversion of an Attic Space Into Habitable Area (2nd Story); Applicant Scott Naylor; Property Owner 431 Alcalde LLC.; R-1-6 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15303 Action: Approved with corrected address in Agenda Report. On a motion by Committee Member Kimzey, seconded by Committee Member Latasa, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the Consent Agenda as amended. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Abma NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 6, 2016 ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Theodore ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 3. Consider 211 Hoffman Avenue; AR Application 15-397 to Amend AR Permit 12-331 for Alternative Exterior Materials and Design; Applicant Luyen Vu for Eric Miller Architects, Inc.; Owner EGM Investors, LLC; C-2 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15302(b) Action: Adopted with Special Conditions of Approval 1, 2, and 3 and the removal of Special Conditions 4 and 5. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Planner Hopper presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ Questions. Committee Member Silva asked how staff differentiates between minor modifications to projects that could be approved by staff and major changes that should be presented to the ARC. Ms. Hopper explained the discretion that staff has in making a decision versus a modification that would need to be presented to the ARC. Committee Member Silva asked if this project was previously approved in 2012 and said that in his history with these types of projects, the Conditions of Approval are worded with more lenience to allow the builder discretion. Ms. Hopper said that the conditions have evolved since 2012 and that staff does have discretion over minor changes to plans. Vice Chair Kimzey asked if the glass door had been administratively approved with the first submittal in 2012. Ms. Hopper said that the ARC-approved plans had no door and that the 2014 change to the building plans included a glass and wood door. Chair Freeman asked what process the application had been through up until this point. Ms. Hopper said that the application was approved in 2012, the original building permit was issued in 2013 and the building plans were amended 2014. Vice Chair Kimzey said that the Resolutions need to be more clearly drafted to reflect that the ARC is being asked to ratify an already-constructed project. 2 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 6, 2016 Ms. Hopper said that staff is under general discussion regarding the matter. She said that the ARC should look at the item as if it were not constructed with the potential for modifications. Committee Member Silva asked why some Conditions of Approval were missing from the application that had been present on the 2012 application. Ms. Hopper said that over the past few years, resolutions have evolved to capture specific terms and that any change to approved plans should be submitted to the Planning office. Committee Member Silva asked which condition of the five conditions from 2012 the project violates. Ms. Hopper said that it violates the Architecture Review Section of the Zoning Ordinance that requires Architectural Review of amendments to an approved project. Applicant Eric Miller, owner, architect, and builder said that there was a long process involved in developing this property. After the water issues and recession, he said that he worked hard to make a beautiful building. He said that he wanted his building to capture both modern and traditional details, with elements from the Lighthouse area blended. He said that he believed the changes made were minor and that they did not need to be discussed with Planning staff prior to making them. He said that when his team looked at the original design for the door, it became clear that the design should be updated to meet ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) standards, which involved removing the wood and making it all glass and metal. He said that he was surprised at the staff report. He said that the intention was to make the building look like a true brick building, while making it earthquake safe. He apologized if he had presumed too much in the building process. Chair Freeman asked if Mr. Miller believed the artistic changes made were meritorious and if the changes and finishes should have been brought back to the staff and ARC during construction. Mr. Miller said that he was the Chair of the Planning Commission and served on the Architectural Review Committee in neighboring towns for several years, and that he understands staff’s concerns regarding changes—especially major. He said that he did not believe minor changes should be brought back to staff or the ARC. He said that ultimately he believed that the changes he made to the design were insignificant. He said that he also believes the artistic changes are meritorious he thought that these were things City would have approved. Committee Member Latasa asked why the brick appeared efflorescent. Mr. Miller said that the efflorescence should disappear after about four years of weather exposure. Public Comment None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Silva said that this is one of his favorite buildings in Monterey and 3 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 6, 2016 that he believes it is cleverly and skillfully designed. Committee Silva said he would like to congratulate the Applicant for his beautiful building. Committee Member Latasa said that he believes staff was correct in presenting this project to the ARC. He said that this building is a beautiful addition to Monterey and that agrees with what Silva said, but he does not think that Mr. Miller should change his design. He said that he believed that the project should be approved with conditions as submitted. Chair Freeman noted that this seemed to be more of a ratification than an approval. Committee Member Abma said that she agreed with Committee Member Latasa and that she thinks it is important that the project was presented to the ARC. She said that she likes the simpler design without tiles framing the windows and that she would approve the application as submitted. Vice Chair Kimzey said that he believed that the process was not followed and if the changes had been presented to the ARC as they were made, they would have been approved. He noted that one change alone would not be a cause for concern, but changes to the overall design and the appearance of the windows were large changes. He said that the integrity of the process should be maintained and that he supports that staff analysis and recommendations made. He also noted that the original ARC motion had been made under the impression that the building would be a Craftsman Style. Committee Member Latasa said the he would approve the building as constructed, but that he agreed with Vice Chair Kimzey in the principle of the matter that the application process was not properly followed. Chair Freeman said that she felt the artistic changes made were meritorious, but agreed with Vice Chair Kimzey on the issues that he noted and said that she would approve the building as constructed. Ms. Hopper said that the special conditions could be removed from the resolution for the motion. Committee Member Silva said that Monterey should rephrase its conditions in order to be more lenient for builders. Committee Member Silva made a motion to adopt the resolution with Special Conditions of Approval 1, 2, 3 and not Conditions 4 and 5. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Latasa and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the Application with the following amendments: that Special Conditions of Approval of 4 and 5 are removed from the Resolution. AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Silva, Abma NOES: 1 MEMBERS: Kimzey ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Theodore ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 4  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 6, 2016 4. Consider 823 Pine Street; AR Permit 15-219 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a Two-Story Addition to a Two-Story Single Family Residential Building; Applicant Susan Bailey; Owner James and Catherine Spoto; R-1-5 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301 Action: Continued to January 20, 2016 ARC meeting to allow for corrections to storypole staking. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Vice Chair Kimzey said that he would like to draft a Resolution honoring outgoing Chair Freeman for her leadership and that he would like to agendize a discussion of the format of the minutes. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Hopper said that ARC Chair and Vice Chair appointments would be agendized and the recommendation will be Vice Chair Kimzey as Chair and Committee Member Silva as Vice Chair. She asked the ARC to consider the recommendations. Committee Member Silva asked if any new Committee Members would be appointed. Ms. Hopper said that Committee Member appointments may be discussed at the January 19, 2016 City Council meeting and that she would have further information after that. Committee Member Latasa said that it is nice to have a committee with seven members, rather than a reduced number of five, especially regarding availability for quorums. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:05 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christy Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 5