Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, February 3, 2016 4:00 pm - 5:30 pm 7:00 pm - 11:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Abma, Theodore Members Absent: None Staff Members Present: Senior Planner Hopper, Associate Planner Roveri, Recording Secretary Salameh CALL TO ORDER Chair Kimzey called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. January 20, 2016 Action: Approved as amended. On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member Freeman and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the Consent Agenda as amended. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Latasa, Kimzey, Freeman, Silva, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 1 MEMBERS: Abma RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 3, 2016 2. Consider Adopting a Resolution Recognizing Committee Member Sandy Freeman for Her Service as Chair of the Architectural Review Committee for the Year of 2015 Action: Approved as submitted. Staff Christy Hopper presented the Agenda Report and Resolution to Committee Members. Vice Chair Silva said that he was grateful for all of Committee Member Freeman’s work and dedication, noting that she deserved the Certificate of Appreciation. Committee Member Freeman said that she would humbly accept the Certificate. Public Comment Sharon Dwight said that she was pleased to see Committee Member Freeman being recognized and that she believed that the ARC had made a lot of progress as a committee because of Committee Member Freeman’s involvement. On a motion by Vice Chair Silva, seconded by Committee Member Abma and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee adopted a Resolution recognizing Committee Member Sandy Freeman for Her Service as Chair of the Architectural Review Committee for the Year of 2015. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Latasa, Kimzey, Freeman, Silva, Abma, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 2  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 3, 2016 3. 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 per Article 19, Section 15301) (Continued from January 20, 2016 Meeting) Action: Approved the application as submitted with a modification to the first Condition of Approval that the Applicant provide an all weather surface area of 8.5 feet by 16 feet allowing a vehicle to park behind the front yard setback. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Associate Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Committee Member Abma asked if the material for the driveway would need to be specified. Ms. Roveri said that the material would only need to be an all-weather surface. Ms. Hopper noted that decomposed granite or gravel are not permitted because these materials can easily wash into storm drains. She said that it is required by Municipal Code that all parking areas be composed of all-weather materials. Committee Member Latasa asked if the two-car parking requirement could be a tandem design with uncovered parking behind the covered parking. He said that he thought uncovered parking could be in the front yard setback area. Ms. Hopper said that parking is required to be located outside of front the yard setback, but that would not preclude one from parking on a driveway located with in the front yard setback. Chair Kimzey asked if the garage meets the covered space requirement. Ms. Roveri said yes. Chair Kimzey suggested that the uncovered parking be moved to the left of the garage. Applicant James Spoto, property owner, said that it would be nice if they had the flexibility to position the parking area and satisfy the parking requirements. He said that they would like to widen the space to allow two-car parking, rather than have tandem parking. He said that they are not prepared to change the application and that they may need to make changes once they begin construction. Chair Kimzey asked if the language on the proposed resolution would need to be changed to accommodate flexibility for the application. Ms. Hopper said no, other than the first condition. Vice Chair Silva asked Mr. Spoto if he had considered how he would be getting out of the extra parking space and driveway. Mr. Spoto said that he had and that it would be a bit difficult, but that it should not be a problem. Public Comment 3  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 3, 2016 Sharon Dwight, speaking as the President of the New Monterey Neighborhood Association, said that the Association is supportive of the two-story addition and that they are in favor of shielded lights due to the severity of fog in the area. She said the Association does not want houses to look like parking lots with wide driveways and they believe that a good solution would be for the parking area to parallel the garage. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Freeman said that by removing the phrase, “parallel to the street” from the Conditions of Approval, this gives the Applicant the option to choose whether the parking is parallel to the street or to the garage. Committee Member Latasa said that he agreed with Committee Member Freeman. Committee Member Latasa made a motion to approve the application as submitted with a modification to the first Condition of Approval that the phrase “and parallel to the street” would be removed and that the condition be reworded to read “an all weather surface area of 8.5 feet by 16 feet allowing a vehicle to park behind the front yard setback.” On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member Theodore and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application as submitted with a modification to the first Condition of Approval that the Applicant provide an all weather surface area of 8.5 feet by 16 feet allowing a vehicle to park behind the front yard setback. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Silva, Abma, Kimzey, tTheodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 4. Consider 150 Seafoam Avenue; AR Permit 15-293 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a New Two-Story Single-Family Residence; Applicant David Prew; Owner Dale Hogan Trust; R-1-6-D-1 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15303 Action: Continued to a date uncertain with direction to the Applicant to provide options in building siting, height, and location to mitigate view impacts. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Planner Hopper presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ Questions. Committee Member Theodore asked if lowering the structure six feet would impact the driveway slope. Ms. Hopper said that would need to be analyzed, but that lowering the house into the site appears to allow a driveway with an appropriate slope. She said the house would need to be moved back on the site in order to achieve a 15% slope. Committee Member Theodore asked if the driveway could be sloped at 20%. 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 3, 2016 Ms. Hopper said yes, however it would be difficult for some vehicles to access the garage at that slope. Committee Member Latasa asked if the idea of locating a driveway off of Surf Way had been discussed and whether or not the site has water credits. Ms. Hopper said water credits would be transferred to 150 Seafoam Avenue from 149 Spray Avenue. Committee Member Freeman asked if the proposed setback could be moved further back on the lot. Ms. Hopper said yes. Committee Member Freeman asked if the proposed elevator required roof equipment. Ms. Hopper said that was not a requirement for residential elevators. Chair Kimzey asked if the Applicant would be required to replant the lot with native vegetation. Ms. Hopper said that because the site is a natural dune, replanting it would be difficult and the Applicant would not be required to meet the recommended 85% revegetation. Applicant Dave Prew, designer of the project, said that his clients originally bought the house at 149 Spray Avenue which included the lot at 150 Seafoam Avenue. He said that the water fixtures were reduced at 149 Spray Avenue so they could transfer credits to 150 Seafoam Avenue. He said that he and his clients thought it would be best to create an eclectic design to complement the neighborhood and they would like it to be accessible for aging occupants. He said that is a goal to try to maintain the views of the neighbors as best as possible. He said that due to sand retention, pulling the home back on the lot would create a more expensive project. He said that they wanted to leave the land as natural as possible. He noted that sinking the structure by six feet would cause the garage to dip underground, making it impossible to use the driveway. He said that he intentionally worked to retain the neighbor, Marc Cosenza’s, window view. He expressed concern that lowering the house seemed impractical, and that they had gone to great lengths to preserve views of the surrounding neighbors. Committee Member Abma asked if lowering the house by four feet would cause severe design and functionality problems. Mr. Prew said that he believed so. Committee Member Theodore asked if the lot would be re-graded if the house was lowered by four feet. Mr. Prew said that the site would be left intact with the topography remaining as is. Committee Member Abma asked if the house was situated as far back on the lot as possible based on the rear yard setback. Mr. Prew said yes, in order to preserve the neighbors’ views. 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 3, 2016 Committee Member Freeman said that each one of the houses along the block is set back a certain distance back from each other one, but that his design appears to be forward of the others in line. Mr. Prew said that if he moved the house back, he felt he would be moving it higher on the slope and thus impacting neighbors’ views. Public Comment Mark Cosenza of 148 Seafoam Avenue said that a as neighbor of the homeowner of 149 Spray Avenue, he was under the impression that the lot could not be developed at 150 Seafoam Avenue until water was available. He expressed concern that the majority of the gradient was closer to his house, and noted that he felt if the house was moved back and toward Surf Way the gradient would be minimized. Jamie Fields of 145 Spray Avenue said that she purchased her house specifically for the view and she did not believe that the lot at 150 Seafoam Avenue could be developed. She noted that many of the homes in the area have retaining walls and that it may be a consideration for the project at 150 Seafoam Avenue. She said that in the past, builders of homes had moved their structures to mitigate view impacts on neighboring homes. She said this project appears to be a three-story structure, while others in the area are two-story structures. She asked that the Applicant consider lowering the house six feet in consideration of neighbors’ views. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Latasa asked if the house could be pushed further back on the lot. Ms. Hopper said it could be pushed back to zero lot line; however that would not be ideal. Committee Member Freeman expressed concern that moving the site toward Surf Way may not be a good idea. Committee Member Latasa said that placing the driveway on the Surf Way side would involve redesigning the house. Mr. Prew said that he could lower the overall height of the building two feet without interrupting the driveway or floor levels because the ceilings were currently proposed at nine feet. Committee Member Latasa asked Mr. Cosenza if he felt that his view would be improved if the house was moved back on the lot. Mr. Prew said that he was trying to be sensitive to Mr. Cosenza’s privacy. Mr. Cosenza said that he felt the house should be moved a bit towards Spray Avenue in order to mitigate the view impact. Committee Member Freeman noted that many of the houses in this neighborhood have retaining walls. Chair Kimzey asked if the natural terrain is sloping upward from the street. Ms. Hopper said yes, that it slopes up from the corner about 16 feet. 6 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 3, 2016 Chair Kimzey said that he is sympathetic to neighbor concerns, but that a four foot reduction would not improve the view. He said that he believed lowering the house six feet would mitigate view impacts. He said that he would like to see different options for the lot, but did not want to see Mr. Prew’s work destroyed in the process. Committee Member Latasa said that a good compromise would be to lower the the house two feet and lower the ceilings two feet, thus lowering the house a total for four feet. Chair Kimzey said that he believed the house would need to be lowered six feet. Committee Member Latasa said that only one of three neighbors was asking for the house to be lowered six feet. He said that he believed the building was beautifully designed and that the height could be reduced. Committee Member Abma made a motion to continue the item to a date uncertain with direction to the Applicant to provide options in building siting, location, and height to mitigate view impacts. Ms. Hopper suggested that the Applicant could mark on storypoles where the building height had been reduced. On a motion by Committee Member Abma, seconded by Committee Member Theodore and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee Continued the Application to a date uncertain with direction to the Applicant to provide options in building siting, height, and location to mitigate view impacts. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Abma, Kimzey, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 1 MEMBERS: Silva RECESS 5:49 pm RECONVENE 7:01 pm Members Present: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Theodore Members Absent: Abma Staff Members Present: Managing Principal Planner Cole, Recording Secretary Salameh CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 7  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 3, 2016 5. Consider Recommendation to the Planning Commission Regarding Chapter 4 (Land Use Objectives, Standards and Guidelines) of the Lighthouse Specific Plan (Mitigated Negative Declaration) Action: Continued to the March 2, 2016 Architectural Review Committee Meeting. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Managing Principal Planner Cole presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Committee Member Latasa asked what standards had changed. Ms. Cole explained the changes in standards in the Lighthouse Specific Plan and suggested that the ARC focus on guidelines regarding building height. Chair Kimzey asked if the objectives on page 47 were within the purview of the ARC. Ms. Cole said those issues were not typically within the purview of the ARC, unless the Committee saw design issues within that realm. Committee Member Freeman noted that a new section on lighting had been added since the October 2015 draft. She asked if that would be included in the latest draft. Ms. Cole said yes and that those sections would be added as supplements rather than amendments for the time being. Public Comment Sharon Dwight, President of the New Monterey Neighborhood Association, thanked the ARC for their time and said that on page 47 specifically, that the project is mixed use and wanted to suggest adding the word “if” to the phrase “the project is mixed use.” She said that incentives need to be provided for affordable housing. She said she felt that by intensifying the already heavy traffic, if not for affordable housing, then the proposed housing may not be necessary. She said that providing worker housing, rather than luxury condominiums, should be a feature in the Lighthouse Specific Plan. She said she felt the Lighthouse Specific Plan is generally incomplete. She noted that the character of the lighthouse district is one- and two-story buildings with Spanish Colonial style of architecture; however nothing is said about those features in this section of the plan. She expressed concern over new architectural styles and a mixture of building heights, saying that buildings should not exceed 35 feet in height. Nancy Runyon, a resident of New Monterey, said that she is puzzled by the plan and said that she feels it is nonspecific. She noted that she believes there are two major problems: traffic and height limits not being specified. She asked the ARC to consider both of those items. She said that the plan should state that buildings should be two stories, with three- story buildings being an exception. Committee Member Freeman asked the definitions between major and minor specified in the plan. Ms. Cole explained the differences between major and minor, as well as where the definitions section was located in the Lighthouse Specific Plan. 8 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 3, 2016 Vice Chair Silva asked if it was within the ARC’s jurisdiction to recommend on building height. Ms. Cole said that was within the ARC’s jurisdiction. She noted that three-story buildings should offer something special and went over the unique stipulations. Vice Chair Silva noted that one of the comments Ms. Dwight addressed was to offer affordable housing incentives. Ms. Cole said that issue was typically within the purview of the Planning Commission. Chair Kimzey asked if the ARC could make recommendations regarding affordable housing. Ms. Cole said not typically, that the ARC’s purview deals with design. Chair Kimzey asked if the ARC would need to make comments on public housing. Committee Member Latasa said that would be out of their purview. Patricia Domingo, a resident of New Monterey, thanked the ARC, Committee Member Freeman, Chair Kimzey, and Ms. Cole for their work on the Lighthouse Specific Plan. She said she liked the design standards and that she was in favor of the design guidelines. However, she would like to see definite numbers for building heights, specifically between 25 feet and 35 feet. She expressed concern over the use of pavers at crosswalks, noting the possibility of noise increase as cars cross them. Sharon Dwight, speaking as President of the New Monterey Neighborhood Association, said in regards to page 51 that the open space area referred to should be a usable, natural, open space. She expressed concern over a proposed open space being used as a walkway or means of pedestrian use, rather than a courtyard or area of outdoor enjoyment. She asked that the ARC consider the following changes:  On page 53, Guideline G.2.33 – the phrase, “consider minimizing” be changed to “minimize.”  On page 53, Objective O.2.6 – reword to “projects must meet parking requirements”.  On page 55, Guideline G.2.42 – She noted that the guideline is incomplete.  On page 56, Objective O.3.7 – rewrite to include definite height standards 25 feet to 35  On page 56, Objective O.3.8 – She asked that Foam and side streets be included.  On page 56, Objective O.3.9 –She noted that the guideline is incomplete.  On page 57, Objectives O.3.10-O.3.12 – She noted that these are gone in the latest draft and set as standards.  On page 57, Standard S.3.2 – consider including that a three-story building must be of outstanding design  On page 57, Guideline G.3.3 – consider including guidance on using one type of material for a roof  On page 57, Guideline G.3.8 – consider including guidance on preserving and restoring original architectural features of existing buildings  On page 58, Guideline G.3.18 – omitted from the newest draft  On page 60, Guideline G.4.3 – reword to read “Use durable materials that will perform well in Monterey climate.” 9 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 3, 2016  On page 63, Objective O.7.3 – she asked that the ARC consider the City’s Master Plan in regards to street trees for trees and shrubs that would thrive in the microclimate of the Lighthouse Specific Plan area  On page 65 – She noted that a more specific variety of trees and shrubs should be pictured, rather than the wide range recommended for Citywide projects. Vice Chair Silva asked for clarification on Standards and Objectives set forth in the Lighthouse Specific Plan. Ms. Cole explained the definitions of Standards, Objectives, and Guidelines. Ms. Runyon said in regards to page 50 that she would like the height limit to be moved from Guidelines to Standards to make it more enforceable. Recess 8:16 pm Reconvene 8:20 pm Committee Member Comments The ARC made the following recommendations regarding Chapter 4 of the Lighthouse Specific Plan:  On page 50, Objective O.2.2 – insert the words “and sensitive” after “design is high quality”  On page 50, Guideline G.2.1 – should be reworded to read that the building should be built along the sidewalk  On page 50, Guideline G.2.2 – use the word “encouraged” rather than “appropriate” and “discouraged” rather than “inappropriate”  On page 50, Guideline G.2.5 – break down into two guidelines: 1) Multifamily entrances may be set back from the back of sidewalk to accommodate a front yard to landscaped area 2) On side streets, set back building to maintain residential character.  On page 50, Guideline G.2.7 – reword to “provide buffers or building modulation such as landscaping, parking, sidewalks, and open space where necessary to reduce impacts to adjacent properties.”  On page 50, Guideline G.2.9 – the word “preserve” is too strong and the guideline should become Standard S.2.3: “Development projects shall consider New Monterey residential views. If there are view impacts, the view should be shared between the properties.”  On page 51, Objective O.2.3 – wording should be changed from “it incorporates” to “it shall incorporate”  On page 51, Objective O.2.4 – wording should be changed from “increases the walkability” to “promotes” or “contributes to the walkability”  On page 51, Guideline G.2.21 – replace the word “appropriate” with the phrase, “pedestrian connections may include the following:”  On page 52, Guideline G.2.22 – remove the phrase “that is adequate in size” from “provide pedestrian access” and replace the phrase with “provide safe pedestrian access”  On page 52, Guideline G.2.23 – “Locate walkways” should replace “Locate a walkway”  On page 52, Guideline G.2.24 – “path” should be replaced with “internal walkway”  On page 53, Guideline G.2.26 – reword to read, “Service areas shall be onsite and away from public sight lines when feasible.” 10 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 3, 2016  On page 53, Guideline G.2.28 – reword to read “paint rooftop equipment to match the color of the roof.”  On page 53, Guideline G.2.30 – add the phrase “where feasible”  On page 53, Guideline G.2.31 – remove the word “appropriate”  On page 53, Guideline G.2.32 – reword to read, “Trash enclosures made with durable materials that complement the main structure’s building design shall be encouraged.”  On page 54, Guideline G.2.33 – omit this guideline Committee Member Theodore moved that the ARC Continue the Item to the March 2, 2016 ARC Meeting. On a motion by Committee Member Theodore, seconded by Committee Member Freeman and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee continued the Item to the March 2, 2016 Architectural Review Committee Meeting. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Silva, Abma, Kimzey NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Committee Member Freeman said that she liked the process of having one Committee Member lead the rest of the Committee in reviewing the Lighthouse Specific Plan. Vice Chair Silva said that he would like to thank Chip Rerig for a job well done, as well as for his excellent service to the City of Monterey. He also said that he would like to congratulate Kim Cole on her new position during the interim. Chair Kimzey said that he will be absent at the February 17, 2016 meeting. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:28 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christy Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 11