Architectural Review Committee Meeting

DocuSign Envelope ID: F2D50926-E10F-4203-BD37-921A5174561E MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, April 3, 2019 4:00 PM - 5:30 PM 7:00 PM - 11:00 PM 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Silva, Rogers, Gorman, Rath, Carter, Bluth Members Absent: None Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Flower, Recording Secretary Salameh CALL TO ORDER Chair Rath called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. March 20, 2019 Action: Approved as submitted. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Carter, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the March 20, 2019 minutes as submitted: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Silva, Rogers, Gorman, Rath, Carter, Bluth 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 200 Glenwood Circle; Architectural Review Permit ARP-18-0411 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a New 4-Story, 40-Unit Senior Independent Living Apartment Building at The Park Lane Property, and Tree Removal Permit ART-18-0261 for Removal of Trees Necessary for Improvements and Onsite Tree Replacement; Applicant Douglas Roberts, AIA; Owner: P Monterey LP; Planned Community Zoning District; Medium Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation; Mitigated Negative Declaration Adopted DocuSign Envelope ID: F2D50926-E10F-4203-BD37-921A5174561E Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 3, 2019 Action: The Architectural Review Committee continued Architectural Review Permit ARP- 18-0411 and Tree Removal Permit ART-18-0261 with the request for the applicant to submit updated plans to include color renderings, specific parking calculations and current data on parking needs for caregivers, visitors and residents, a landscape plan, and floor plans. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Principal Planner Flower presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Committee Member Silva expressed concerns about the field trip on Monday and asked questions regarding color copies of packets, the colors shown for the project online versus in the staff presentation, whether floor plans existed, depth of balconies, the need for a landscaping plan, and adequacy of on-site parking. Vice Chair Gorman also questioned the adequacy of on-site parking. Chair Rath asked questions regarding the size of replacement redwood trees to be planted onsite. Ms. Flower responded to questions, deferring to the applicant team for additional details when necessary. Applicant Doug Roberts of JHW Architects said that changes had been made based on the ARC’s input at their September 2018 meeting. He spoke briefly about the project’s history. He addressed project colors and balcony materials, as well as parking adequacy, noting that all parking requirements had been met. He answered questions regarding wayfinding signage, depth of balconies, parking concerns, rooftop access concerns, density, and a planting plan—noting that all recommendations made by the Urban Forester would be followed. Abbie Hawkins, speaking on behalf of property owner Pacifica Monterey LP, noted that the Planning Commission had also been concerned with onsite parking, but that a new plan had been implemented to address parking concerns and it had gained the support of the neighborhood homeowners association. Landscape Architect Cathy Rasmussen addressed tree protection practices for the subject site and said that a licensed arborist would be onsite during digging near the two landmark trees. Chair Rath asked Ms. Rasmussen about the size proposed for replacement redwood trees and Ms. Rasmussen said that 36-inch box trees had been specified for replacement. She added that trees of that size would grow well and root quicker compared to larger sizes. In response to further questions from the ARC, Ms. Rasmussen clarified that the trees would not grow to the size depicted in the renderings for many years and therefore may not fully screen the project from highway view for some time. Public Comments None. 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: F2D50926-E10F-4203-BD37-921A5174561E Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 3, 2019 Committee Member Comments Committee Member Silva expressed frustration with the application, noting that the packet appeared incomplete. He said that it was lacking floor plans, a planting plan, and updated renderings. In light of that he said that he would recommend continuing the application and asking the applicant to submit the missing items. Vice Chair Gorman concurred with Committee Member Silva, adding that he felt the proposed structure was too dense and bulky for Monterey, as well as too close to the highway. He also cited parking as a concern. Committee Member Bluth urged the applicants to supply specific parking calculations to include daily attendance of supplemental support to residents of the facility. He also encouraged the applicants to consider conservative tree protection standards for the construction process. Committee Member Carter said that she shared in the frustrations expressed about the project, noting that she would like to see a planting plan and additional remedies for parking. Chair Rath agreed with concerns expressed by Committee Members. Ms. Flower noted that while the Parking Management Plan may be adjusted, this particular property stood in excess of numerical parking requirements. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Carter, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee continued Architectural Review Permit ARP-18-0411 and Tree Removal Permit ART-18-0261 with the request for the applicant to submit updated plans to include color renderings, specific parking calculations and current data on parking needs for caregivers, visitors and residents, a landscape plan, and floor plans. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Silva, Rogers, Gorman, Rath, Carter, Bluth NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None *** RECESS 5:16 PM *** ***RECONVENE EVENING SESSION, 7:00 PM*** Members Present: Silva, Rogers, Gorman, Rath, Carter, Bluth Members Absent: None Staff Members Present: Housing & Community Development Manager Caraker, Principal Planner Flower, Recording Secretary Salameh CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F2D50926-E10F-4203-BD37-921A5174561E Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 3, 2019 3. Recommend Planning Commission Use Permit Approval to Allow 42 Dwelling Unit per Acre Density at 2200 & 2210 North Fremont Street: Advisory Review of a New 3- Story, 40-Unit Mixed-Use Building ARP-19-0044; Applicant Paul W. Davis; Owner, Susan W. Ward; Planned Community – North Fremont Zoning District (PC-NF); Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation (Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Chapter 4.2 Section 21155.4). As provided by MMC Section 38- 189.D.4., because the installation of story poles poses a safety concern, story poles will be erected on Saturday, March 30th for viewing on Sunday, March 31 only. Additional alternative means of illustrating the project in the form of visual simulations shall be provided at the Planning Commission meeting. Action: The Architectural Review Committee recommended use permit approval to the Planning Commission to allow 42 dwelling units per acre density at 2200 & 2210 North Fremont Street: Advisory Review of a New 3-Story, 40-Unit Mixed-Use Building ARP-19- 0044 with staff-recommended conditions of approval and special condition of approval that parapets shall not exceed 39 feet in height. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Principal Planner Flower presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Committee Member Silva complimented Ms. Flower’s presentation and asked questions regarding parking for the project, potential installation of a mural and street corner art, density, and storm water filtration in the courtyard, to which Ms. Flower replied. Committee Member Gorman asked questions regarding the City’s responsibility to provide affordable housing, to which Ms. Flower and Ms. Caraker replied. Committee Member Bluth asked if a traffic analysis had been conducted, citing concerns that the new project would impact an already congested area, and Ms. Flower replied that the applicant had submitted a traffic analysis. Committee Member Carter asked about sound remediation, as the area tended to be loud during rush hour. She also asked about the potential for the community to be involved in the mural design process. Ms. Flower replied that an acoustical engineer had determined that the interior sound could be lowered to 45 decibels. She added that it was her understanding that the neighborhood would be welcome to contribute to the mural design. Chair Rath asked about landscaping plans for Bruce Lane and Ms. Flower explained that trees were proposed, as well as vines planted on the wall adjacent to the sidewalk. Applicant Architect Paul W. Davis thanked the ARC for their time and gave a presentation on the project. He addressed storm water filtration, noise attenuation, utilities services, potential uses for the commercial business spaces, key elements of the design, and materials and colors. He answered Committee Members’ questions on construction mitigation and staging, noise mitigation, materials, parking, the potential for apartments to become individually-owned condominiums in the future, bedroom windows, and trash and recycling disposal areas. Public Comments Casanova Oak-Knoll Neighborhood Association (CONA) President Richard Ruccello spoke in opposition to the project, citing concerns of massing—especially noting that a 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F2D50926-E10F-4203-BD37-921A5174561E Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 3, 2019 third story was too much for this particular area—and increased parking congestion. He noted that every neighborhood should share in the affordable housing supply, not just North Fremont. Government Affairs Liaison for the Monterey Chamber of Commerce spoke in favor of the project, noting the need for housing in Monterey and adding that a mixed use project was much more appealing than the vacant lot at the site. Louis Osorio, a former ARC, NIP, and PC Member spoke on behalf of the project, urging the ARC to consider the project’s design and its compatibility with the North Fremont Specific Plan (NFSP). He said that the city was culturally evolving and that the North Fremont corridor would benefit from a revival such as this. James Nichols, resident of 213 Dundee Drive, cited concerns of home devaluation, overcrowded parking, and shadowing due to the project. He said that he felt the project was fraught with conflict and that a mixed use building should not be constructed directly adjacent to a neighborhood of single family residences. CONA Member Lisa Duggan said that she appreciated the issues and questions raised by Mr. Davis, but said that she was concerned this particular building would be the beginning of an urban canyon down North Fremont Street. She named safety and parking concerns as reasons for her opposition. Claire Nichols said that she felt the affordable housing to be offered at the subject site was not, in fact, affordable. She spoke in opposition to the project, listing privacy concerns, view obstruction, and noise during early morning hours as causes for concern. CONA resident Debra Maxwell spoke on behalf of her family, stating that parking was a concern and suggested an underground parking garage as a solution to the parking problems in the area. She said that while she recognized that the vacant lot needed to be addressed, the proposed project may not be the answer. Ashley with Monterey Bay Economic Partnership (MBEP) spoke in support of application, noting the different affordability levels of housing to be offered. She said that despite emotional and cultural contention in the face of such projects, change was inevitable and that increasing the housing supply was necessary. She said that MBEP had collected 18 letters in support of the project and asked the ARC to consider recommending the project to the Planning Commission for approval. Angelo Gonzales, a student at Middlebury Institute of International Studies, said that he has lived in the area since August 2018 and noticed that housing was an issue since his arrival. He spoke in support of the project, noting that it met NSFP requirements and that onsite management could address parking needs. He added that it was vital to a successful community for housing to exist near places of work. Steve Griffith said that as a new Monterey resident, he was very excited. He said that he had moved from a larger metropolitan area and that one of the things that made Monterey so special in his eyes was the small town sense of community. He spoke against the three-story building, noting that two stories would be much more appropriate for the neighborhood. CONA resident Diana Jones spoke in opposition to the project, mentioning its large size and lack of parking. She expressed worry that neighborhood concerns were not being 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: F2D50926-E10F-4203-BD37-921A5174561E Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 3, 2019 heard and suggested that the number of units proposed be reduced or more adequate parking provided. Wendy Brickman spoke in favor of the project, noting that as a renter, she realized the housing situation in Monterey was critical. She said that a mixed use building was an excellent solution for the site and said she had observed that many young people opted not to have cars, so she felt that parking would not be of concern. She also added that she felt that property values would increase due to increased interest in the subject site. Mary Lea Horton, a resident of Melway Circle, spoke in opposition to the project, citing parking concerns, the growing traffic congestion of North Fremont Street, and that it seemed the project would be inward facing and self-serving—not mixed use and open for neighborhood enjoyment. Kala Fossum, President of Villa Del Monte Neighborhood Association and Homeowners Association said that while she was sympathetic to the residents of Bruce Lane, she supported the project. She noted that while she was not speaking officially on behalf of her neighborhood or homeowners association, she had heard from many members that supported the project. She said that the project met NFSP standards and asked the ARC to recommend the project to the Planning Commission for approval. Leslie Svetich, President of the North Fremont Business District and owner of Monterey Lanes said that despite opposition, the project created a vision for the NFSP by creating a multi-use village that would add visual aesthetics to the neighborhood. She advocated for the work done by the applicant, noting that mitigation efforts had taken place, that requirements were met, and that the design was exceptional. Esther Malkin spoke in favor of the project, noting that ridding the neighborhood of blight by construction of projects such as this one would be a benefit. She suggested future consideration of parking structures to remedy parking issues in the area and said that traffic mitigation should include affordable housing opportunities for workers to live near their places of employment. Mark Watson said he felt the proposed structure was too tall, that parking was a concern and that the affordable units were still too expensive for many. Ms. Marcus said that while the design was beautiful, she felt that it did not fit with the area. She spoke in favor of two stories rather than three and expressed concerns regarding parking as well. Robert Going, a resident of Euclid Avenue, spoke in opposition to the project, citing concerns with an increased population in the area, especially during events such as the Monterey Jazz Festival. He said that this caused traffic issues. He also said that he would prefer to see a two-story rather than a three-story structure. Alan Sparkman, a resident of Lerwick Drive, said that he appreciated ARC efforts and asked the ARC to consider community balance and practicality when reviewing the project. He said that he felt quality of life would be impacted if the project was approved. Committee Member Comments Chair Rath thanked the public for attending the meeting and sharing their input. She noted that the ARC is a discretionary body that allows for public input, but that the ARC’s job was to review the outside appearance of projects, landscape areas, onsite circulation 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: F2D50926-E10F-4203-BD37-921A5174561E Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 3, 2019 and the like. She reminded the public that if an item was not addressed that had been previously mentioned during public comment, it was because it did not fall within the purview of the ARC. Committee Member Bluth said he felt the location was unique and there was a buffer road between it and single family residences. He said that the architect had done well with the design and height mitigation. He said that while concerns regarding parking were valid, he felt that an on-site manager should be able to ensure that parking does not become an issue, and added that he felt the project would be a successful and safe investment. Committee Member Carter remarked that as the sole millennial on the Committee, she appreciated the work put into the project and felt that it was a beautiful building and an excellent first step in the revitalization of North Fremont Street. She said that the need for housing was serious and this was the way to prepare for the future. Vice Chair Gorman expressed sympathy to the neighbors in the immediate vicinity of the project and said he did not want to see the loss of Monterey’s small town character as a result of state-mandated regulations. He commended the design and said that the ARC’s task was to determine its suitability in terms of City guidelines—and it was suitable to recommend to the Planning Commission. Committee Member Silva noted that it was remarkable that the owners and applicant had the opportunity to remove two units and avoid the public hearing process, but they took the extra risk. He said that the project not only met, but exceeded guidelines and objectives and that they had worked hard to address public concerns. He said that he felt this project would be the springboard for future North Fremont revitalization and spoke in favor of the three-story design, noting that other areas of town such as Alvarado Street have three story buildings and were perfectly pleasant. Committee Member Rogers spoke in favor of the project, commending the design and said that she understood the issue of parking, as it was prevalent throughout Monterey. She added that this particular structure had addressed most issues and it would be a suitable place for people to live. Chair Rath said that she sympathized with the concerns mentioned during public comment, but said that the project would improve the appearance of North Fremont Street, that it was exceptional in design, and that it met the criteria of the NFSP; therefore, it would be a catalyst for future development in the area. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Carter, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee recommended use permit approval to the Planning Commission to allow 42 dwelling units per acre density at 2200 & 2210 North Fremont Street: Advisory Review of a New 3-Story, 40-Unit Mixed- Use Building ARP-19-0044 with staff-recommended conditions of approval and special condition of approval that parapets shall not exceed 39 feet in height. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Silva, Rogers, Gorman, Rath, Carter, Bluth NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 7 DocuSign Envelope ID: F2D50926-E10F-4203-BD37-921A5174561E Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 3, 2019 COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Chair Rath said that she would not be at the April 17, 2019 ARC meeting. Committee Member Silva mentioned that required submittal documents were listed on the City’s Planning webpage and suggested that ARC Members visit the site for a refresher on requirements. Ms. Salameh said that she would email the link to Committee Members the following day. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 4. Planning Office Update  Update received Ms. Flower said that a presentation on tree removals would be given at an ARC meeting in the near future. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Ande Flower, AICP Chair Principal Planner Architectural Review Committee 8