Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY Wednesday, May 17, 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: Principal Planner Caraker, Senior Associate Planner Bennett, Associate Planner Roveri, Recording Secretary Salameh CALL TO ORDER Chair Silva called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. May 3, 2017 Action: Approved as submitted. On a motion by Committee Member Catanzaro, seconded by Committee Member Williamson, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the minutes of May 3, 2017 as submitted. 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 Mayor Clyde Roberson said that it had been his pleasure to interview the three newest members of the ARC and welcomed them. He thanked the incumbents as well and noted that the duty of the ARC was a difficult, yet rewarding one and commended the members on their service to the City. He spoke of the history of view sharing in Monterey and within the Del Monte Beach Neighborhood, and encouraged ARC members to inquire about each project in detail in order to come to the most informed decisions.  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 17, 2017 PUBLIC APPEARANCE 2. Consider 18 Dunecrest Avenue; Architectural Review Permit 17-0139 for New Two- Story Single-Family Dwelling; Applicants and Owners Steven R. and Sharon T. Platt; R-1-6-D1 Zoning District (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) Continued from the April 5, 2017 Architectural Review Committee Meeting Chair Silva recused himself from Item 2 and Vice Chair Freeman substituted as Chair. Action: Approved with conditions that: 1) Staff-recommended condition of approval for an additional two-foot reduction in height be eliminated 2) Prior to approval of the rough framing, the applicant shall receive verification from the Permits and Inspections Division that the structure height complies with approved plans 3) Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the building official a stockpiling plan for excavated sand during construction 4) The second floor balcony must be reduced so that it does not wrap around the sides of the house 5) The three Cypress trees furthest from the house must be removed. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Associate Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Vice Chair Freeman noted that the applicant had heeded the direction given by the ARC at the April 5, 2017 meeting and asked if the ARC was obligated to follow staff recommendations, in particular a recommendation to lower the house by another two feet. Ms. Roveri responded that the ARC was not obligated to follow staff recommendations, but that particular recommendation had been made based on consistency with view sharing guidelines of the Del Monte Beach Neighborhood. Vice Chair Freeman also noted that a lot of correspondence regarding the project at 18 Dunecrest Avenue referred to a goal of “getting the project down to 14 Dunecrest Avenue.” She asked if this was a recommendation made by the City. Ms. Roveri said no. Applicant Henry Ruhnke of Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects spoke about the specific recommendations made by the ARC and thanked them for the detail. He said that the four items the ARC directed for redesign had been addressed, noting that the roof overhangs had been reduced, the height of the house had been reduced by two feet, that he had submitted a landscaping plan, and that the balcony at the top story had been reduced. He said that he felt it was unreasonable to lower the house to a subterranean level due to potential water issues and noted that the design was within the necessary guidelines. He said that he felt the project was reasonable in view sharing and in design and said that he could not accept the second condition of approval, which would require the project to be lowered another two feet. Committee Member Catanzaro asked Mr. Ruhnke if he believed there was no feasible way to lower the project further. Mr. Ruhnke explained that lowering the project would create undesirable design implications and reiterated that he felt the design was reasonable. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mr. Ruhnke if any City staff members had suggested to him that 14 Dunecrest Avenue the basis for viable comparison for this project. Mr. Ruhnke said no. 2 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 17, 2017 Public Comment Eugene Hayden, a resident of Monterey and former ARC member, spoke about the sensitivity of view sharing projects within the city and noted that when views are lost, so is the bankable value of the home. He elaborated that taking a view would steal real estate value from a home owner. He encouraged the ARC to view the project from every aspect. Jayme Fields, 20 Dunecrest Avenue, spoke about the specificity of the ARC’s direction in height reduction for the project and said she felt that the house should be lowered further to be level with the ground level of her house in order to prevent drainage issues. She expressed concern regarding the wraparound balcony affording views of her great room space and asked that the ARC consider eliminating the wraparound portion of the deck. Committee Member Williamson asked Ms. Fields if the side balcony at 18 Dunecrest Avenue would overlook any area of her home other than the living room area. Ms. Fields said no, that the balcony did not overlook a bedroom or bathroom, but expressed concern regarding her overall privacy as she walked around inside of her home. Dave Duvall, 19 Dunecrest Avenue, gave a presentation on the potential height reduction of 18 Dunecrest Avenue and asked that the ARC give extensive consideration to the Del Monte Beach View Sharing Guidelines for this project, as this project would set a precedent for future developments. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mr. Duvall if he had originated the standard that 14 Dunecrest Avenue was the home by which all others should be measured and why other neighboring homes, including 12 Dunecrest Avenue, were not comparisons that he would like to make. Mr. Duvall said that he had been involved with the 14 Dunecrest Avenue project and that he had originated that standard. He also said that the home built at 12 Dunecrest Avenue was an overall improvement to the lot. Committee Member Williamson asked Mr. Duvall how he had determined that 50 percent of his view would be lost to 18 Dunecrest Avenue. Mr. Duvall explained that he based his view loss on the Del Monte Beach View Sharing Guidelines. Vida Strong, speaking on behalf of the Schwinn family at 140 Beach Way, encouraged the ARC to reference the Del Monte Beach Local Coastal Land Use Plan in regard to guidelines for view sharing. She noted that the view at 140 Beach Way would be unavoidably impacted, but suggested re-grading the lot and sinking the house further into the ground. She reiterated concerns that the project would set a precedent for future homes and said that the Cypress trees recently planted by the owner should be removed. Debbie Proctor, 17 Dunecrest Avenue, presented a PowerPoint slideshow and restated concerns that the project at 18 Dunecrest Avenue would impose avoidable view impacts and made suggestions to mitigate view loss. Christine Kemp, the attorney representing the Duvall, Schwinn and Proctor families said that while the families were happy to see the two-foot reduction in height, they would like the trees to be removed, the side portion of the wraparound deck to be removed, and the house to be lowered even further. Mike Brassfield spoke about his experience working in a career that involved assisting property owners with driveways below grade. He said that those types of driveways were dangerous and presented flooding hazards. He encouraged the ARC to practically consider the impacts of lowering the house further. 3 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 17, 2017 Henry Ruhnke addressed the neighbors’ concerns and noted that lowering the house further would cause a need for more retaining walls. He also noted that the neighbors would retain portions of their views, in accordance with the view sharing guidelines. Committee Member Comments Vice Chair Freeman said that the word “reasonability” was mentioned often in the guidelines and noted that if the ARC approved the project, the burden of proof would be with the neighbors to appeal the project and say it was unreasonable. She encouraged her fellow Committee Members to voice their honest opinions regarding the project. Committee Member Catanzaro spoke about the precedent to be set and said that it had the potential to financially and emotionally impact the neighbors. He said that he believed the project could be lowered another two feet. Committee Member Gorman noted that he did not expect to see the wraparound balcony on the revised plans. He also said that view sharing was perceptional and that a beautiful, panoramic view with a building in it was still view sharing, and that he hoped the neighbors could come to a compromise with the homeowner. Vice Chair Freeman said that it was unfortunate when a neighborhood ruptured because it usually would become impossible to fix. Committee Member Williamson said that regardless of the property height, he felt some of the neighbors’ frustration would still exist. He noted that the ARC had done its due diligence in directing revisions to the project to mitigate view impacts and it would not be advantageous for the ARC to require more of the applicant, despite all of his efforts. Vice Chair Freeman agreed. Committee Member Rath said that her biggest concern was that the project would set a precedent and future home remodels would affect the viewshed of nearby properties as well. She said that she felt more work could be done to address view loss and said that she believed the project could be lowered further still. Committee Member Rogers said that at the previous ARC meeting on April 5, 2017, it was not known for certain what a two-foot drop in height would look like and that another two-foot drop in height would be appropriate. She said that the Cypress trees should be removed as well to further alleviate view impacts. Committee Member Catanzaro agreed with Committee Member Rogers in that another two-foot drop in height would be feasible. Committee Member Williamson noted that if the house were lowered further, view loss would still occur and that the wraparound balcony did not overlook a bedroom or a bathroom, therefore it did not create a serious privacy issue. Vice Chair Freeman said that when the project was first presented to the ARC, it met all City requirements and when the ARC continued the project with direction for redesign, the applicant did exactly as he was asked. She asked what was considered reasonable regarding continued revisions of the plans and noted that the project still met all design guidelines. On a motion by Committee Member Gorman, seconded by Committee Member Williamson, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the project with conditions that: 1) Staff-recommended condition of approval for an additional two-foot reduction in height be eliminated 2) Prior to approval of the rough framing, the applicant shall receive verification from the Permits and Inspections Division that the height complied with approved plans 3) Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the building official a stockpiling plan for excavated sand during construction 4) 4  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 17, 2017 The second floor balcony must be reduced so that it does not wrap around the sides of the house 5) The three Cypress trees furthest from the house must be removed. AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Freeman, Rogers, Gorman, Williamson NOES: 2 MEMBERS: Rath, Catanzaro ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 1 MEMBERS: Silva ***RECESS 5:45 PM*** ***RECONVENE 5:50 PM*** 3. Approve 833-851 Wainwright Street; Application# ARP-17-0247 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a New Two-Story Duplex; Applicant and Owner Jon Rasmussen et. al.; R-3-6 Zoning District (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) Chair Silva returned for the remainder of the meeting. Action: Approved with condition of approval that the composite shingle roofing materials over the carport be replaced with Spanish tile roofing materials. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Associate Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Vice Chair Freeman asked if the composite shingles would be replaced. Ms. Roveri said that a condition of approval recommended that the composite shingles be replaced with Spanish red tiles. Chair Silva asked about the landscaping plan for the project. Ms. Roveri noted that the plan did not detail each plant, but said that if the ARC required more information, they could request that of the applicant. Committee Member Williamson asked about the trees creating a stability issue. Ms. Roveri explained that this project had previously been approved by the Planning Commission and that they had recommended that the City Forester evaluate its impact on existing tree roots. Applicant Jon Rasmussen, applicant, designer and owner, said that the staff report was well-done and discussed the history of the project. He said that the structure was designed for efficiency, but that high-end finishes had been added in hopes that the project would be an asset to the neighborhood. Chair Silva asked if all the windows would be trimmed and asked Mr. Rasmussen his thoughts on replacing the composite shingle roof with Spanish tile. Mr. Rasmussen said that all windows would be trimmed and that he could accommodate the change to Spanish tile. Chair Silva asked what material the tiles would consist of. Mr. Rasmussen replied that the tiles would be concrete. 5  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 17, 2017 Committee Member Rogers asked if the eyebrow along the side of the house would consist of tile as well. Mr. Rasmussen said yes. Public Comment None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Gorman said that the project was well done and the ARC agreed. Vice Chair Freeman said that this project would be an upgrade to the neighborhood and that it was in a well-placed spot with many other Spanish-style houses. Chair Silva commended the applicant on capturing the essence of the neighborhood’s character within an efficient design and the historic context. On a motion by Committee Member Williamson, seconded by Committee Member Catanzaro, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the project with a condition of approval that the composite shingle roof over the carport be replaced with a Spanish tile roof. 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 4. Approve 2191 North Fremont Street; AR Permit 15-289 for Preliminary Architectural Review of a Three-Story Mixed Use Building; Applicant Ron Brown, Architect; Property Owner Heydar A. Movahedi; PC-NF Zoning District; (Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) Project Will Not be Story- Poled Due to Safety Concerns Associated with Proximity to N. Fremont Street; Substituted with Combination of One Story Pole and Photo-Simulations Action: Denied with findings. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Associate Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Committee Member Catanzaro asked about the logistics of the suggested triangular bench in the staff report. Ms. Roveri explained that the bench would allow groups and individuals the choice to face each other or the street while seated. Committee Member Williamson asked about the intent of varying the ADA unit’s design style from the main structure. Ms. Roveri explained that the ARC’s decision at the November 16, 2016 ARC meeting to have the applicant consider difference in design, because they wanted to differentiate it from main building because of size and scale difference. 6 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 17, 2017 Chair Silva suggested that staff include background information on continuance projects in the future in order to minimize confusion. Applicant Ron Brown, architect for the project, spoke about the history and the development of the project and said that he felt the redesign was much more concise. He said that it was a difficult project because of the lot size and requirements. He discussed the bench design and said that it was proposed that way to encourage people to face outward, rather than the wall. He said that the property owner did not want to incorporate an open design with the bench in the interest of discouraging illicit activities and maintaining safety. He said that they would like to move forward with the project. Vice Chair Freeman asked Mr. Brown if he had considered extending the bench line outward so that it would enclose the row of walking space and trees. Mr. Brown said that was not possible due to the 12 foot setback. Chair Silva asked if any consideration had been given to evaluate the transparency of doors or windows that would benefit a retail establishment at the corner of Dela Vina Avenue and North Fremont Street, rather than the windowless planter wall. Mr. Brown explained that, originally, windows had been a part of the design for the corner, but as the project evolved and parking was placed below, the retail space became smaller and they felt that the space may be utilized as a storeroom. He said that light from the windows would illuminate the exterior at night. Chair Silva asked Mr. Brown if any other design solution had been considered to relieve the effect of the three-story white wall that faced the bowling alley. Mr. Brown said that various solutions had been discussed over the past few months, but that they did not want the building to emulate the bowling alley with a dynamic paint scheme as previously directed by the ARC, but rather have a design that fit their project. Therefore, he had redesigned the first floor to have a neutral gray paint scheme, rather than white. Public Comment Richard Ruccello, Neighborhood Association President for Casanova-Oak Knoll, said that he felt the proposed project was not consistent with the North Fremont Specific Plan (NFSP). He said that the neighborhood was concerned that this project would set a precedent for future projects and noted that he felt the commercial space was too small and that there were not enough parking spaces to support a healthy business. Luis Osorio said that as a former Planning Commissioner, he had spent time working to create the NFSP, which encouraged good architecture and walkability throughout the revitalized area. He said that the general idea was to transform North Fremont Street from the previous highway entrance to Monterey into a welcoming area with unique character. He said that he felt it was important to be conscientious about the precedent being set for future buildings, noting that the massing of the building was too much and the design was lacking. Parviz Mokhtari a civil engineer, said that the property owner was a relative of his and spoke about the North Fremont Street and Dela Vina Avenue corner being deeded to the City. He said that the deeded portion would be an advantage because it would allow for future safety and signal improvements. He said that, regarding the bench on the corner, public business could not take place on private property and private business could not take place on public property and that the government could not encourage the use of the bench to be for public use. He requested that the condition of approval regarding the public space bench not be included in the ARC’s decision making. Leslie Svetich, owner of Monterey Lanes and President of the North Fremont Business District, said that the neighborhood had never envisioned the bench at the corner as a part of the 7  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 17, 2017 project. She expressed concern that the bench would encourage homeless individuals to loiter on private property as well as that the commercial space was too small to adequately accommodate all mechanical requirements for the building. She reiterated that the site should be an anchor with strong design characteristics and said that she was disconcerted with the efforts in redesign, as well as the parking for the property. She said that she felt visitors to the mixed use building would be inclined to park in the lot of the bowling alley, something with which she already had difficulty controlling. Mike Brassfield, a board member of the Casanova-Oak Knoll Neighborhood Association, said that he had contributed to the creation of the NFSP as well. He said that he felt the plan in its final form had merit, but noted that the intention of the NFSP was to encourage people to walk and bike more often, rather than driving. He expressed concern that the commercial component was too small to allow for a successful business and noted that the image this building would represent may not speak to all of the goals the NFSP had intended. He said that he disagreed with the concept of the building’s design, noting the massing and the blank walls, as well as the viability of the ADA unit at the back of the property. David Wright, a resident of Monterey and active volunteer along the North Fremont Street area, said that he had worked on the North Fremont streetscape plan as well as the NFSP and said that the area had been stagnant and in need of revitalization for a long while. He said that the design of the building was too large for the lot and that a great precedent would be set, as this was the first mixed use structure to be built under the new NFSP. He encouraged the ARC to consider the design and said that with more work, it could become an appropriate anchor that would stand for generations to come. Mr. Brown explained that multiple opportunities existed for mechanical systems within the building. He said that the project was dynamic, with a lot of movement from the staggered balconies and projecting rooflines. He noted that it was unfair to the property owner to place such strong emphasis on such a small site, as the lot was only 8,000 square feet, and that they had worked diligently to create a design that would use the most of the space. Committee Member Comments Chair Silva asked if the items for deliberation at this meeting would be restricted to the six points given for redesign at the November 16, 2017 ARC meeting. Mr. Bennett said that the ARC was not constrained to discussing previous direction given. Vice Chair Freeman noted that Mr. Brown had presented the redesigned building, but the public had spoken about the overall appropriateness of the building for North Fremont Street. She noted that other designs would eventually be presented and built on North Fremont Street and asked if it was possible to wait until another building was proposed so that 2191 North Fremont Street would not be the only basis for comparison. Mr. Bennett noted that while preliminary discussions for new buildings existed, no projects had been formally submitted. Chair Silva said that he believed the ARC should stay within its purview of architectural review, despite the emotional charge of the project. He noted that the applicant had made an effort to satisfy some of the ARC’s concern, but that others were not addressed. He said that the project was not in accordance with Objective 3.7 of the NFSP, which stated that projects should contribute to a variety of height and mass along the streetface, noting that the roofline was consistent and not modulated. He said that he was troubled by the large expanses of planar surfaces that were not modulated in any way to visually reduce the effect of massive walls as well as the corner of the building at North Fremont Street and Dela Vina Avenue, where the applicant had proposed a blank wall with a planter bed. He said that the design of the ADA unit was commendable, but that the building itself was stark and poorly-detailed. Committee Member Gorman said that he was concerned by the large, blank wall at the west elevation and the excessive massing of the building. He also noted that the triangular bench at 8 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 17, 2017 the corner would encourage transient loitering and vagrancy. He said that glass doors at the corner would be sensible. Committee Member Catanzaro said that the blank wall at the west elevation was not aesthetically pleasing and mentioned that there were many artists in the area that could create an appealing solution for the wall. He also expressed concern regarding the triangular bench at the street corner. Committee Member Rogers agreed that the building was too large and too stark and noted that she disagreed with the separate ADA structure She said that the trees proposed along North Fremont were a nice touch, but noted that there was nothing else proposed to soften the structure. Chair Silva said that one of the guidelines within the NFSP spoke to Committee Member Rogers’ concerns, noting that G.3.4 encouraged new interpretations of traditional building styles. Mr. Bennett explained that due to the submittal date for the latest iteration of the project, the Permit Streamlining Act would prohibit the project from being continued once more unless the applicant waived his rights. Committee Member Gorman noted that he was sensitive to the parking issues presented by the project, but it appeared that the applicant had fulfilled requirements for parking regulations. This could be appealed. Chair Silva noted that parking generally fell under the purview of the Planning Commission. Committee Member Williamson asked if the ADA unit was necessary. Chair Silva explained that from his recollection of the November 16, 2017 ARC meeting, the accessibility could be achieved by the main structure alone, but that the separate unit was created for a sense of project completeness. Committee Member Williamson said that despite not being a member of the ARC at the previous meeting regarding 2191 North Fremont Street, he was inclined to support the project. He noted that he felt it was a good design and that if the applicant was amenable to compliance with staff regulations, he believed the project could go forward. Committee Member Rath noted that while she felt everything had been said, she was concerned with the massing of the building. Principal Planner Caraker said that if the ARC saw potential for denial, the applicant should be consulted on his preference of denial or to concede to the Permit Streamlining Act deadline and ask for a continuance with direction for redesign. Mr. Brown said that he would accept denial of the project. Chair Silva Made a motion to deny the project based on the applicant’s failure to comply with the NFSP with findings based on specific objectives and guidelines: O.3.7 The project contributes to a variety of height and mass along the streetface. G.3.4 New interpretations of traditional building styles are encouraged. G.4.5 Large panelized products and extensive featureless surfaces are discouraged. G.4.6 Incorporate changes in color, texture, and materials into the building design to help to define human scale. G.2.20 Usable open space may be composed of one of more of the following elements: 9 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 17, 2017  A courtyard  A patio  A landscaped yard (except fronting North Fremont)  A rooftop deck  A balcony Committee Member Gorman asked for further discussion on the motion, noting that the ARC had not discussed in depth the requirement for open space. Chair Silva replied to Committee Member Gorman that provisions he felt the project did not comply with could be attached to the motion. He noted that with a high-density project such as this, usable space was difficult to obtain and that there was a lack of it. On a motion by Chair Silva, seconded by Vice Chair Freeman, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee denied the application with findings that it did not comply with specific guidelines and objectives outlined within the North Fremont Specific Plan: O.3.7, G.3.4, G.4.5, G.4.6, G.2.20. AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Freeman, Silva, 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 Rath thanked staff for the thorough information included in the packet. Chair Silva encouraged new ARC members to access and familiarize themselves with the Downtown Specific Plan, North Fremont Specific Plan and the Lighthouse Specific Plan. Ms. Caraker said that the Planning Department hoped to schedule training regarding the specific plans and other relevant documents. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Bennett noted that currently, the agenda for the June 7, 2017 ARC meeting consisted of only 818 Grace Street. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Todd Bennett Chair Senior Associate Planner Architectural Review Committee 10