Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY Wednesday, April 19, 2017 4:00 PM - 7:00 PM 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Freeman, Silva, Rogers, Catanzaro, Gorman, Williamson, Rath Members Absent: None Staff Members Present: Senior Associate Planner Bennett, Recording Secretary Salameh CALL TO ORDER Chair Silva called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. April 5, 2017 ACTION: Approved as amended. On a motion by Committee Member Gorman, seconded by Committee Member Williamson, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the Minutes of April 5, 2017 as amended. AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Silva, Freeman, Rogers, Catanzaro, Gorman, Williamson, Rath NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 2. Approve 371 Monroe Street: Architectural Review Permit 17-023 for Two-Story Addition to Single-Family Dwelling; Applicant/Owner John G. Davi, for DED General Partnership; R-3-6 Zoning District; (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19 Section 15301, Class 1) Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 19, 2017 ACTION: Approved preliminary review of the project with conditions of approval that doors, windows and lighting specifications and a landscape plan be brought back to the ARC for final review. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Associate Planner Bennett presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Chair Silva asked if a permit had been issued for the window replacement. Mr. Bennett explained that the homeowner had not been aware that the house may be historically significant and was also not aware that Building permits would be required. Vice Chair Freeman asked if the pepper tree would remain in the backyard, as well as if the historic assessment done on the property was binding. Mr. Bennett said that the pepper tree would remain in the backyard and explained that the historic assessment was not a binding document, but rather a report prepared by a qualified historian to evaluate the property’s overall historic significance. Vice Chair Freeman asked if changes were proposed for the two front windows and door. Mr. Bennett said that no changes would be made to those items. Chair Silva asked if the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) would need to review the project. Mr. Bennett explained that HPC review was not necessary because the home was in a design review neighborhood, which required ARC review, and that staff had determined the project did not require HPC review because the original structure was being maintained. Chair Silva expressed concern regarding the windows being replaced and asked if a threshold existed for HPC review. Mr. Bennett said that the original windows had already been removed and replaced and no record existed of the original windows to be drawn upon. He clarified that the changes to the windows had been made without staff, HPC or ARC approval. Applicant John Davi said that the windows had been recently replaced to due to some damage and added that he did not realize a permit was necessary for window replacement. He said that upon realization that review was necessary, the project was submitted for ARC review. Vice Chair Freeman asked if the owner desired an improvement in the appearance of the front windows. Mr. Davi said that he hoped the ARC would approve the current windows, as he did not currently wish to change them. Seth Bergstein, historic surveyor and owner of PAST Consultants, said that when he 2 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 19, 2017 evaluated the property, the window openings already existed. He noted that the original windows had already been replaced at the time of his survey and that when the history of a building was unknown, replacements were designed with the guidelines present in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. He said that if an assumption about the original window materials was made, that would essentially be falsifying history, therefore he felt the vinyl windows were acceptable in this case. Chair Silva asked Mr. Bergstein about his report and said that he felt it was conflicting with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for window replacement. He asked why the windows had not been replaced with wood rather than vinyl. Mr. Bergstein said that any window installation would be conjectural because there was no record of the original windows. Chair Silva and Mr. Bergstein discussed the merits of window replacement based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Chair Silva said that it was acceptable according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the windows to be replaced with wood clad or wood windows without falsification or conjectures. Mr. Bergstein reiterated that vinyl windows should be acceptable because no record existed for the original windows. Vice Chair Freeman asked that if installing wood windows was conjectural, would not vinyl or plate glass windows also be conjectural. Mr. Bergstein said that because there was no evidence of original wood windows, he wrote his report as he did and said that there were no original windows located anywhere in the house. He said that the process should be simplified by specific guidelines provided by the City. Public Comment None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Rogers said that she would like to see new wood windows on the house rather than the current vinyl windows. Vice Chair Freeman commended the applicant for improving the home and said that she felt the windows should return to the ARC for final review. Chair Silva said that he sympathized with the applicant’s situation, but would like to encourage more period-specific windows for the house. Committee Member Gorman noted that he appreciated the property owner’s interests in improvement of the house and said that he believed this project would contribute to the renewal of the neighborhood. Vice Chair Freeman asked the applicant if he would be willing to submit a landscape plan. Mr. Davi said that he could submit a landscape plan. He also remarked that he did not feel there was a significant difference between vinyl and wood windows in regard to their general appearance. Committee Member Williamson asked Mr. Davi if cost was the reason for replacing the 3  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 19, 2017 windows with vinyl-framed rather than wood-framed windows. Mr. Davi acknowledged that vinyl-framed windows were less expensive than wood- framed windows, but said that he made the decision to install vinyl windows based on his observations of other properties nearby. On a motion by Committee Member Freeman, seconded by Committee Member Catanzaro, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved preliminary review of the project with conditions of approval that doors, windows and lighting specifications and a landscape plan be brought back to the ARC for final review. AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Silva, Freeman, Rogers, Catanzaro, Gorman, Williamson, Rath NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 3. Approve 909 Wainwright; Architectural Review Permit 17-0194 for New Two-Story Single-Family Dwelling; Applicant John Moore, for Moore Design; Owners Mike & Tina Bruno; R-3-6 Zoning District; (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) ACTION: Approved as submitted with conditions of approval as added by City Staff. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Associate Planner Bennett presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Applicant The project designer John Moore said that Mr. Bennett did a great job of presenting the project. He described the design process and how materials were chosen. Chair Silva asked about the type of garage doors proposed and what type of materials would be used for the siding. Mr. Moore said that the garage doors would be barn-style and that five-eighths re-sawn plywood would be the base layer for board and batten. Chair Silva expressed concern over the choice of siding for the garage and asked that the applicant consider other options for the siding. He mentioned that shingles and fiber cement products were available that may create a more appealing look than the plywood base with board and batten. Public Comment None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Rath said that she felt the project was designed well and noted that preservation of the redwood, rather than its removal, was highly suggested. 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 19, 2017 Committee Member Rogers asked if fiber cement products were cost effective for the project. Chair Silva said that fiber cement is used on different projects with different price points. He noted that he felt fiber cement would be an appropriate choice of material for the neighborhood. Vice Chair Freeman commended the project and said that it would anchor the corner at its location and that she felt it would be a welcome improvement to the neighborhood. Committee Member Williamson asked if the applicant had a comment about the redwood tree near the sidewalk to the property. **REOPEN PUBLIC COMMENT** Mike Bruno, property owner, said that the two professionals had examined the tree and made note that, despite its good health, the root system was beginning to lift the sidewalk, thus creating a safety hazard. He said that because of the potential for further sidewalk damage, it was recommended that the tree be removed. He said that the oak trees in the front yard would be protected, however. **PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED** Committee Member Catanzaro said that the project would be an improvement to the neighborhood and noted that while he was in favor of tree preservation, the redwood should be removed if it created hazards. Committee Member Rath asked if a landscape plan had been submitted. Mr. Bennett said no, but that it was a condition of approval. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Williamson, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application as submitted with the conditions of approval added by City Staff. AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Silva, Freeman, Rogers, Catanzaro, Gorman, Williamson, Rath NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Committee Member Williamson thanked the ARC for being so welcoming and said that he looked forward to working with them. Chair Silva said that the ARC was excited to be reinvigorated with new members and voices. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Bennett said that there were several potential projects that would appear on the May 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 19, 2017 3, 2017 ARC agenda. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:17 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Todd Bennett Chair Senior Associate Planner Architectural Review Committee 6