Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, June 21, 2017 4:00 PM - 5:30 PM 7:00 PM - 11 PM 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Freeman, Silva, Rogers, Gorman, Williamson, Rath Members Absent: Catanzaro Staff Members Present: Senior Associate Planner Bennett, Associate Planner Roveri, Recording Secretary Salameh The Architectural Review Committee will conduct a field trip on Monday, June 19, 2017 to review the Wednesday, June 21, 2017 Architectural Review Committee agenda. The field trip will depart from the field behind Colton Hall at 4 PM. For more information, please call (831) 646-3885. Date Posted: June 16, 2017 CALL TO ORDER CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. June 7, 2017 On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member> Freeman, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee ______ed the June 7, 2017: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Freeman, Silva, Rogers, Gorman, Williamson, Rath NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Catanzaro ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Other Consent Items 2. Approve 816 Jessie Street; Architectural Review Application 17-0257 for Preliminary and Final to Allow a Second Story Addition to Existing Two-Story Single Family Dwelling; Applicant Samer Girgis; Owner Ealea Maximous; R-1-5 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1(e) 3. Approve 989 Jefferson Street; Architectural Review Application ARP-17-0235 for a First and Second Story Addition; Applicant Paul W. Davis; Owner Tim Olson; R-1-6 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1(e) and Section 15331, Class 31  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 21, 2017 On a motion by Committee Member Freeman, seconded by Committee Member> Freeman, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee ______ed the Approve 989 Jefferson Street; Architectural Review Application ARP-17- 0235 for a First and Second Story Addition; Applicant Paul W. Davis; Owner Tim Olson; R-1-6 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1(e) and Section 15331, Class 31: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Freeman, Silva, Rogers, Gorman, Williamson, Rath NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Catanzaro ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 4. Approve 899 Hawthorne Street; Sign Permit Applications SI-17-0187 and SI-17-0264 for One Freestanding Vehicle-Oriented Sign and Three Wall Signs; Applicants Neptune Oil LLC and Anjanette Adams; Owner Monterey Neptune LLC; C-2 Zoning District (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) Approved with COAs. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Associate Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Silva: elaborate why it’s before ARC if it’s consistent with CW guidelines and meets goals and objectives. Roveri: not consistent with CWSG because internal illumination is not encouraged and a part of vehicle oriented sign is internally illum, (8) over amount of signs allowed, setback Silva: is it really consistent or should it be substantially consisten? Roveri: consistent with general plan and CWSG, explained consistency in staff report in relation to CWSG. With findings, it will be Freeman: was there ever a suggestion by signmaker or owner that the shape of vehicle oriented sign be triangular instead of quadrangular Roveri: it was never discussed to be 3 sides Gorman: I’m familiar with site and the corner can be nicely landscaped. Could we address the baron landscaping of the lot? 2 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 21, 2017 Roveri: not within jurisdiction of sign approval. Bennett: you can encourage business owner to maintain the landscaping to the benefit of city an dproperty Gorman: I’ll encourage nice landscaping Applicant Shawn Adams, owner of Monterey Signs. Intention was to beautify the corner. Want to reduce clutter and debris at corner, only the Neptune oil portion is illum, we considered multiple shapes for sign. If it was triangular, one direction of traffic would compromise its visibility. We want all traffic to see sign. Silva: can you elaborate on triangular shape being compromising? Adams: we took aerial shot and looked at different angles the sign faced when looking at traffic. We want anything facing traffic to have max vis. If triangular, the sign would face the traffic at angle. We can do 3 sided and bring back. Gorman: interior signs are not aesthetically pleasing. What are you considering at interior? Adams: to get sign permit for the one sign, we have to get permits for all signs located on the front. Personally, most of those signs should be gone because they’re ad posters. Gorman: what are we specifying about signs? Roveri: there are 4 ad signs, the prop from someone other than Monterey Signs said they wanted 3 of those wall signs to advert products. This is what we’re presenting today. Public Comment None Committee Member Comments Freeman: I think we’ve seen a number of gas station signs in last 3 years and we’ve been very particular that these signs all meet city standards. To allow an exception is not a good idea. While quadrangular shape meets intersection requirements, the internal illum was denied for the last applications proposing something similar. Rogers:: I would love to see less of the ad posters. Perhaps 2 instead of 3. Rath: I have a problem with the 3 posters. They’re in the back, not visible from street. Silva: gas station sign applications, in my opinion the pumps themselves are the worst offenders of signs. At every gas station, there is a proliferation of them and advertising. For this application, I would not contest staff opinion and I don’t take that much objection to the quadrangular sign, will defer to expertise of sign maker.if this is substantially consistent with sign program, I will support it. Freeman: I would not support internal illumination 3  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 21, 2017 Williamson: I’m ok with four sided sign, was bothered by the ad signs because of what can be displayed. Im inclined to support their request. When we move forward with motion, can we condition that 74.1 sqft as a max threshold. Gorman: trying to see what we’re requiring on paper signs at back wall. They don’t fit in with standards. Inclined to defer to staff’s guidelines. Concerned that there may be acceptance of them in here. Williamson: it’s my understanding that the lottery sign falls under different laws. If they want to remove, that’s fine, but it should be kept out of motion. Move to approve sign permits for 1 freestanding and 3 wall signs that lighting temp should be 2700-3500K, and all existing signs not propped, shall be removed prior to building issuance, keep sign area at or below 74.1 sqft 1: Williamson 2: Gorman (LISTEN) Yes: Gorman, Williamson, Silva, Rath, Rogers No: Freeman? Absent: Catanzaro On a motion by Committee Member Williamson, seconded by Committee Member> Gorman, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee ______ed the Approve 899 Hawthorne Street; Sign Permit Applications SI-17-0187 and SI-17-0264 for One Freestanding Vehicle-Oriented Sign and Three Wall Signs; Applicants Neptune Oil LLC and Anjanette Adams; Owner Monterey Neptune LLC; C-2 Zoning District (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1): AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Freeman, Silva, Rogers, Gorman, Williamson, Rath NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Catanzaro ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None On a motion by Committee Member Williamson, seconded by Committee Member> Gorman, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee ______ed the Approve 899 Hawthorne Street; Sign Permit Applications SI-17-0187 and SI-17-0264 for One Freestanding Vehicle-Oriented Sign and Three Wall Signs; Applicants Neptune Oil LLC and Anjanette Adams; Owner Monterey Neptune LLC; C-2 Zoning District (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1): 5. Approve 1086 Hellam Street; Application ARP-17-0226 for a Home Remodel and Second Story Addition and Tree Removal; Applicant Eric Wynkoop; Owner Corey and Robert Brunson; R-1-6 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1, Section 15304, Class 4 and Section 15331, Class 31 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 21, 2017 Approved with conditions. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Associate Planner Chris Schmidt presented Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Freeman: when we went on field trip, one of the trees was projecting into orange storypole. One went into projected house. Is it one trunk or both of the tree? Schmidt: it’s just the one trunk projecting into site Silva: the addition would be compatible yet have different materials to comply with SOI standards, looking at elevations, it appears that existing house has painted texture style stucco and addition would use smooth stucco, colored smoothly to existing. When looking at stucco on existing house, it appeared to be smooth. Will we get that differentiation? The different between smooth stucco and what it on the house may not be very different at all. Schmidt, to me, the home looked more like a rough stucco texture. If there’s a different style that exists the ARC could condition that. Silva: it doesn’t really bother me, but I don’t necessarily agree with that SOI standard. Just raising my observation. Williamson: because of other trees removed, they need to plant 12? Schmidt: yes, explained the replacement requirements for tree removals. Said arc could determine the number Silva: we would need opinion from city forester to determine the right amount Schmidt: I did get a chance to briefly speak with Morton, didn’t seem to have opinion on how many trees needed to be replaced. He knows there’s a lot of vegetation on site. If you want a rec, I would say one per tree. Bennett: you could also make determination to defer to forester Williamson: I would like to hear from forester, I think that’s the best decision Gorman: asked for clarification on tree removal Schmidt: explained that the tree removal had been requested Applicant Owner said that there are many trees on property and they were all choked out by ivy. In terms of canopy, if the tree was cut near the building, it would be a stump. Amenable to trees. Designer Erik Wynkoop, labor of love – family’s third gen on property, said house was not cared for for a while and said they’re now putting effort into restoring the property. We 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 21, 2017 have to make every effort to avoid the structure affecting the trees. Want to consider original home’s architecture, explained drawings on north elevation. Set the addition inward so as not to see it from street in order to showcase original home. Removing 80s addition. We’re doing more to respect and present the original, historic home. Defer to arc expertise. There is a unique stucco texture, so I will not incorporate any texture to the stucco on the addition. Silva to Morton: how should the lot be replanted? The arc is not qual for that. Morton: it’s been a while since I saw this prop and the tree replacement was a one for one on the previous removal. The trees in question are large enough to where we need to do more or larger trees. Should replace one for one with larger more mature trees. 36” box replacement. I think the main issue is to screen presidio at back, preserve the canopy of oaks. As long as trees are installed correctly. Williamson: clarify tree replacement Morton: 1 for 1 36” box trees, so two total for this tree removal Rogers: how large would a tree in 36” box be? Morton: they will vary from 4ft above to 5ft above box grade Public Comment None Committee Member Comments Freeman: what a beautiful design., enchanted by circular deck and window into the forested backyard. To preserve home like this is admirable and should be complimented. Gorman agreed, was curious about seasonal creek that goes through property. I saw concerns about stormwater during construction, but what’s the plan for stormwater? Schmidt: there’s a plan to install a (49) that will address stormwater Bennett: designer, will develop a new seasonal water course. Culvert will be replaced further back on propr and will maintain current capacity Wynkoop, will include details regarding stormwater in construction docs. New foundation will be in construction drawings. We do have to include somewhere. ‘ Silva: well designed house and it’s very befitting of the woodland nature of the backyard, I can see the beauty of that deck. In terms of trees, we should alter condition, say city forester’s rec 1:1 36” Williamson: should we stipulate the tree replacement so it’s clear in the motion? Silva said Morton had mentioned smaller multiples Rath: beautiful plan, I love that you can’t see addition from street Rogers: it’ll be beautiful, as far as trees, the lot was very full already 6  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 21, 2017 Freeman: approve with conditions: owner work with city forester on tree replacement plan 1: Freeman 2: LISTEN Yes: All No: None Absent:Catanzaro On a motion by Committee Member Freeman, seconded by Committee Member> Williamson, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee ______ed the Approve 1086 Hellam Street; Application ARP-17-0226 for a Home Remodel and Second Story Addition and Tree Removal; Applicant Eric Wynkoop; Owner Corey and Robert Brunson; R-1-6 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1, Section 15304, Class 4 and Section 15331, Class 31: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Freeman, Silva, Rogers, Gorman, Williamson, Rath NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Catanzaro ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 6. Approve 2456 Del Monte Blvd; Application SI-17-0290 for a Vehicle Oriented Freestanding Sign; Applicant Steven Caldeira; Owner Kay McCann; C-3-D2 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 On a motion by Committee Member Williamson, seconded by Committee Member> Silva, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee ______ed the Approve 2456 Del Monte Blvd; Application SI-17-0290 for a Vehicle Oriented Freestanding Sign; Applicant Steven Caldeira; Owner Kay McCann; C-3-D2 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Freeman, Silva, Rogers, Gorman, Williamson, Rath NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Catanzaro ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 7. Deny 818 Grace Street; Application ART 17-0222 Appeal of Forester's Denial of a Tree Removal Permit; Applicants and Owners Sean & Jennifer Foreman; R-1-5 Zoning District; (Exempt from CEQA Review per Article 19, Section 15304, Class 4) Continued from the June 7, 2017 Architectural Review Committee Meeting 7 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 21, 2017 On a motion by Committee Member Williamson, seconded by Committee Member> Silva, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee ______ed the Deny 818 Grace Street; Application ART 17-0222 Appeal of Forester's Denial of a Tree Removal Permit; Applicants and Owners Sean & Jennifer Foreman; R-1-5 Zoning District; (Exempt from CEQA Review per Article 19, Section 15304, Class 4) Continued from the June 7, 2017 Architectural Review Committee Meeting: AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Silva, Rogers, Gorman, Williamson NOES: 2 MEMBERS: Freeman, Rath ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Catanzaro ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Gorman: I appreciate that you stood by your principles Williamson: I appreciate all of you and I’m starting to feel more comfortable and our discussion was very beneficial Bennett: all are becoming more comfortable and I’m pleased with the experience curve on the ARC and looking forward to future Freeman: looking forward to August 22 training session. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Bennett: july 5, 3 tentative items for that meeting. Our recent field trips have been lengthy, but this last Monday was longer than necessary and staff will make a better effort to minimize number of sites necessary to visit. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:32pm 8 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 21, 2017 Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Todd Bennett Chair Senior Associate Planner Architectural Review Committee 9