Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY Wednesday, May 2, 2018 4:00 PM – 7:00 PM 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Rogers, Gorman, Williamson, Rath Members Absent: Freeman, Silva Staff Members Present: Community Development Director Cole, Recording Secretary Salameh, Associate Planner Schmidt Meeting Procedures CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Rath called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. April 18, 2018 Action: Approved as submitted. On a motion by Committee Member Williamson, seconded by Committee Member Gorman, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the minutes of April 18, 2018 as submitted. AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Rogers, Gorman, Williamson, Rath NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Freeman, Silva ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 2. Approve 878 Oak Street; AR Application ARP-18-0083 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a Second story Addition and Home Remodel; Applicant / Owner Jeffrey Tyndall; R-1-5 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Section 15301, Class 1 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 2, 2018 Action: Adopted Resolution approving Architectural Review Application 18-0083 for preliminary and final architectural review of a second story addition and home remodel at 878 Oak Street with the amendment of Finding 2. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Associate Planner Schmidt presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Vice Chair Rath and Committee Member Gorman asked questions regarding a brown house pictured in the project photos and an interior stairway, to which Mr. Schmidt replied. Applicant Jeff Tindall presented a 3D model of proposed project and mentioned several existing two-story homes in his neighborhood. He noted that he did not want to encroach onto neighboring properties for the addition. He said that he considered the neighbors’ privacy as he worked on the design as well, adding that he took great care to avoid any impacts. Committee Member Williamson asked about the installation of Spectrum doors on the second floor. Mr. Tindall said that the concept included Spectrum doors. Vice Chair Rath asked if the home behind them was visible from the back of the house. Mr. Tindall said yes, but that a fig tree would shield the area from view when in bloom. Public Comments J.R. Williams, owner of 880 Newton Street, read a prepared remark in opposition to the project at 878 Oak Street. He noted that he also spoke on behalf of the owners of 860 Newton Street, Mr. and Mrs. Glen Itano. He expressed concern that diminishment of views from his home would negatively impact his home’s resale value and also said he was worried that his privacy would be affected due to the large, second-story window proposed at 878 Oak Street. Committee Member Gorman said that he appreciated Mr. Williams’ comment and asked for clarification about whether he sought denial, noting that the applicant had a right to build a second story and that view-sharing would be considered. Committee Member Williamson asked Mr. Williams what he felt would satisfy both parties. Mr. Williams said that he felt if the ARC were to approve the project, they would be allowing the applicant to reduce 880 Newton Street’s home value, while increasing the value of 878 Oak Street. Mr. Williamson asked about the potential for lowering the proposed design. Mr. Williams said that he could see the potential for lowering the house, but that it would still take away from the Itanos’ view at 860 Newton Street. 2 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 2, 2018 Committee Member Rogers asked about the proposed large, circular window and what could be seen from it that would affect Mr. Williams’ privacy. Mr. Schmidt explained that the window overlooked a vaulted ceiling and the only area directly in its view path was an upper level family room that was setback quite far, making it difficult to see into or out of. ***Public Comment Reopened*** Mr. Tindall demonstrated that the oak trees in front of his property would grow over time, thus creating a larger view impact than the second-story addition. Committee Member Gorman asked over what area of the house the roof deck would extend. Mr. Tindall said that the roof deck would extend over a portion of the family room. Committee Member Williamson asked Mr. Tindall if he currently enjoyed bay views from his house. Mr. Tindall said that he could see portions of the bay from his house, but that he primarily had a valley view. Mr. Williams said that it would be inappropriate to equate a growing oak tree with a permanent structure because of the tree’s potential temporary nature. He reiterated that he felt his and the Itanos’ homes would lose privacy, bay views and overall value as a result of the proposed project. ***Public Comment Closed*** Committee Member Comments Vice Chair Rath asked if neighbors had been notified of the project. Mr. Schmidt said yes, that neighbors within a 100 foot radius were notified, per noticing standards. Ms. Cole further explained the notice process and added that the story pole procedure existed for those that were outside of the noticing radius, but still may see or be impacted by the project. Committee Member Rogers said that if the large circular window was downsized, it may not pose an impact on privacy. Committee Member Williamson asked about view-sharing and how much view was being taken from neighbors. Ms. Cole explained that the municipal code proposed that a project should not unreasonably impair views, but that no specific percentage was specified. She asked that the ARC consider the term “unreasonably impaired” when discussing view sharing. Committee Member Gorman said that he found the proposed project attractive and that he was struggling to understand the mentioned concerns. He noted that he felt the images presented demonstrated no privacy impacts and that although the project 3 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 2, 2018 reached nearly the maximum height allowance, he did not feel it would be appropriate to lower it. He asked about preliminary design guidelines. Mr. Schmidt clarified that mass and form were considered preliminary design elements. Vice Chair Rath said that the proposed project contributed nicely to the variety of houses in the neighborhood. She said that she did not feel that views were being tremendously impacted, but that she understood Mr. Williams and the Itanos felt differently. Mr. Williams asked about the cumulative effect this project may have. Mr. Schmidt said that the objective approach in reviewing the project by ordinance would allow a consideration of potential impacts, but that he did not feel this project would create a specific cumulative impact. Ms. Cole said that generally single family homes were exempt from CEQA subject to exceptions which were outlined in the Planning Staff report. She spoke of court cases regarding the cumulative impact of all homes within a subdivision, but noted that there was no reasonably foreseeable project that would trigger cumulative impact analysis within the subject neighborhood. Committee Member Gorman asked if each home in the subject neighborhood would be able to potentially add a second story. Ms Cole explained that each lot was considered on an individual basis and that zoning allowed a maximum of two stories, and a maximum of 25 feet in height. Vice Chair Rath moved to adopt a resolution approving preliminary and final architectural review of a second story addition and remodel at 878 Oak Street with staff-recommended conditions of approval. Committee Member Williams seconded the motion. Ms. Cole asked ARC to review the findings within the resolution, adding that she recommended amending the clause in Finding 2 of the resolution to remove the portion that stated no comments had been received prior to the public meeting. Vice Chair Rath amended the motion to strike the phrase, “no comments were received by the Planning Department prior to the public meeting” and Committee Member Williams seconded the amended motion. On a motion by Committee Member Rath, seconded by Committee Member Williamson, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved Architectural Review Application ARP-18-0083 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a Second story Addition and Home Remodel at 878 Oak Street, with the amendment of Finding 2 to remove the clause that no public comments had been received prior to the meeting. AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Rogers, Gorman, Williamson, Rath NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Freeman, Silva ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 4  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 2, 2018 COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS None. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 3. Planning Office Update Update received. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:59 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Elizabeth Caraker Chair Housing and Community Development Manager Architectural Review Committee 5