Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY Wednesday, August 2, 2017 4:00 PM – 7:00 PM 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Freeman, Silva, Rogers, Gorman, Williamson, Rath Members Absent: Catanzaro Staff Members Present: Interim Community Development Director Cole, Associate Planner Roveri, Recording Secretary Salameh CALL TO ORDER Chair Silva called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. July 19, 2017 Action: Approved as submitted. On a motion by Committee Member Gorman, seconded by Committee Member Rath, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the minutes of July 19, 2017 as submitted. 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 2. Review Meeting Protocol (Not a Project) Action: Committee Member Gorman moved to discuss Agenda Item 2 after Agenda Item 3. No further action was taken.  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 2, 2017 On a motion by Committee Member Williamson, seconded by Committee Member Gorman, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee determined that Agenda Item 2 would be discussed after Agenda Item 3. 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 Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Interim Community and Development Director Kimberly Cole presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. The ARC discussed the following items:  Roll call and roll call procedures  Meeting layout and timeline, including consent and regular agenda and how items are determined for each agenda, public comment and its importance, public appearance items, public hearing items, making motions, Committee Member comments  Introduction of City staff that may comment during ARC meetings  Public noticing and noticing requirements  Plan processing at the administrative level  The potential for training the ARC regarding rules and regulations  Appeals process  Staff Informational reports 3. Consider 636 Grace Street; Application ARP-17-0322 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a New Two-Story Single-Family Dwelling; Applicant Luis Lopez; Owners Liz and Ray Espinosa; R-1-5 Zoning District (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) Action: Approved with the following conditions: 1) That, prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Office revised plans showing a decrease in the length of the second story privacy wall and associated roof by approximately eight feet to retain existing ocean views for 620 Grace Street neighbor. 2) That, prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Office cut sheets and specifications for the proposed exterior lights facing Grace Street showing that the bulb would not be visible, the light would shine down (no uplighting), and the bulb Kelvin temperature would not exceed 3,500 and 3) That, prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Office for staff review revised plans to accurately show windows and downspouts. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Associate Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Vice Chair Freeman asked about the noticing process for the project. Ms. Roveri explained the notice process and said that two notices had been sent, according to proper procedures. 2 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 2, 2017 Vice Chair Freeman asked if the height of the privacy wall on the second floor was the same as that of the neighboring roof eave. Ms. Roveri deferred to the applicant. Applicant Luis Lopez of LML Designs said that he had been working on the project for a year and a half, but that the property owners had been working on it for a longer period of time. He spoke of challenges that they had faced during his time working on the project, as well as the reasons for the particular design and mitigations of view impacts for the neighbor at 620 Grace Street Chair Silva asked Mr. Lopez about the windows pictured in the plans, noting a discrepancy between the number of sliding wood windows on the elevations and the plans. Mr. Lopez noted that the windows pictured on the west elevation were hung windows and that the three windows on the north elevation were sliding. Chair Silva asked about downspouts for drainage, noting that he did not see any detailed in the plans. Mr. Lopez clarified that downspouts would exist, but that the roof plan did not indicate as such. Chair Silva asked Mr. Lopez how the second floor deck structure would be supported. Mr. Lopez explained that a girder beam would be used for additional support. Vice Chair Freeman asked if the neighbors had been notified of the project prior to City noticing. Mr. Lopez said that he did not notify neighbors, but that the property owner had spoken with them. Vice Chair Freeman asked how high the privacy wall on the second story deck would be. Mr. Lopez responded that the wall would be eight and a half feet high and that it would connect to the roof eave. Belinda Taluban, with Taluban Engineering said that it had been the Espinosas’ goal to move to Monterey. The Espinosas had sold their other home in a different town in hopes of making their goal a reality. She described drainage as a concern for 636 Grace Street and said that they would work to remedy the problem. She said that the design of the house would be fitting for the neighborhood and that they would work to mitigate view impacts, despite the tall shrubbery growing along the property line between 636 and 620 Grace Street. Committee Member Williamson asked Ms. Taluban if she felt that the neighbors’ views would be improved if staff recommendations for decreasing the length of the second floor privacy wall were complied with. Ms. Taluban said that she did not see an issue with compliance to staff recommendations regarding the second floor privacy wall. Public Comment 3 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 2, 2017 Michael Gordon of 620 Grace Street thanked the ARC for visiting his home during their field trip. He said that he and his partner greatly enjoyed views of the ocean from their home and he expressed concern that they would be lost with the addition of the second floor and deck area at the subject site. He said that he was not aware of the project until Mr. Espinosa mentioned it to him in June of 2017 and said that he felt his views from multiple rooms of the house would be negatively impacted. He said that not only would the views change, but the privacy and overall feel of his home would be negatively influenced as well, further noting that he felt his property value would decrease. The ARC asked Mr. Gordon questions about the hedge between the two properties and its maintenance. Mr. Gordon explained that the hedge was trimmed on a somewhat regular basis and that it had recently been trimmed by a hired service. He said that this was to preserve their views of the ocean and that he felt if the hedge grew to it maximum height potential, it would greatly shroud the views from his home. Committee Member Williamson asked Mr. Gordon if he felt that staff recommendations for the project were acceptable. Mr. Gordon said that the view was an easier compromise, whereas the privacy loss and the overall feel of his home changing were more difficult for him to handle. Ray Espinosa, property owner, thanked the ARC for their time and said that he was very busy due to his job and did not have a lot of time to extensively notify neighbors of the project. He noted that the most recent pruning of the hedge along his property line was not aesthetically pleasing and that he had not expected such a drastic change in the look of the hedge. He said that he would like the project to move forward, as he had spent a lot of time on it and was anxious to see the end result. Committee Member Gorman asked Mr. Espinosa what his plans were for the large deck space. Mr. Espinosa said that he planned to have social gatherings and relax on the decks. Mr. Lopez explained that due to the lot’s grading, the majority of landscaping area would be lost. Therefore, the deck space would substitute as outdoor yard space. Brett Garmin, a neighbor and friend of the Espinosas in San Juan Bautista, California, said that he felt the hedge did not allow a view of the ocean prior to pruning. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Rogers said that the hedge did not appear to be pruned well and that she did not see any issues with the project as proposed. Committee Member Rath agreed with Committee Member Rogers, noting that the only reason the ocean was visible was due to the drastically pruned hedges. She said that she did not see how solely retracting the privacy wall would allow for an ocean view. Vice Chair Freeman said that the view impact did exist and noted that the project could be continued for redesign in order to achieve a more desirable outcome for both neighbors. 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 2, 2017 Committee Member Gorman said that he felt it was reasonable to decrease the length of the privacy wall in order to allow for more view potential, but said that he was bothered by how the hedge had been so severely pruned. Chair Silva noted that the project was modern and ambitious, but said that he would like to have the missing items on the plans corrected to accurately reflect windows and downspouts. He said that in terms of privacy and views, he agreed with staff but noted that views from 620 Grace Street would not be obstructed in totality, with a large part of the view associated with the size of the hedge in question. On a motion by Committee Member Williamson, seconded by Chair Silva, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application with the following conditions: 1) That, prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Office revised plans showing a decrease in the length of the second story privacy wall and associated roof by approximately eight feet to retain existing ocean views for 620 Grace Street neighbor. 2) That, prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Office cut sheets and specifications for the proposed exterior lights facing Grace Street showing that the bulb would not be visible, the light would shine down (no uplighting), and the bulb Kelvin temperature would not exceed 3,500 and 3) That, prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Office for staff review revised plans to accurately show windows and downspouts. 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 COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS None. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Cole said that if the ARC would like additional training sessions to notify the Planning office or make an appointment with a Planner. Vice Chair Freeman said that after years, the downtown area was being revitalized and said that she would like to hear about all of the current projects. Ms. Cole said that an update on downtown could be provided. Chair Silva asked about the amendment process for specific plans. Ms. Cole explained the amendment process. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:49 p.m. 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 2, 2017 Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Todd Bennett Chair Senior Associate Planner Architectural Review Committee 6