Architectural Review Committee Meeting

DocuSign Envelope ID: 85F18646-A0CF-4BAB-A60C-692D43414F41 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY Wednesday, March 4, 2020 4:00 PM – 5:30 PM 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Carter, Bluth, Hunter, Pauly, Rath, Tregenza Members Absent: Conner Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Flower, Senior Associate Planner Roveri, Administrative Assistant Salameh, Administrative Assistant Cleary 1. Meeting Procedures CALL TO ORDER Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 2. February 5, 2020 Action: Approved as submitted. On a motion by Committee Member Tregenza, seconded by Committee Member Bluth, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the February 5, 2020 minutes as submitted. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Carter, Bluth, Hunter, Pauly, Rath, Tregenza NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Conner ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 3. Consider 381 and 400 Cannery Row (Monterey Plaza Hotel & Spa); Sign Permit Application SI-19-0322 for a Multi-Tenant Sign Program; Applicant Phil Vanderkraats; Owner Cannery Row Company; Visitor Accommodation Facility Zoning Designation; Commercial General Plan Designation (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) Action: DocuSign Envelope ID: 85F18646-A0CF-4BAB-A60C-692D43414F41 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 19, 2019 Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions. Senior Associate Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Tregenza: do we know the time period when fin signs went up without permits? Roveri: I only found the 1993 sign program approval, which is attached to your packet. I did not find permits afterwards for individual signs. Pauly: on window signs, sometimes things like that are done to conceal a TI project. Is that happening? Roveri: deferred to applicant Tregenza: I think that’s where employee entrance is. Pauly: two non compliant hanging signs; those were within inches of being compliant based on your analysis? Roveri: clarified signs – Tidal projecting sign and Wine Experience sign. Vanderkraats: this project has gone on for almost a year. Clarified that the Tidal coffee sign was installed on corner and could explore redoing the sign as appropriate. The Wine Experience sign is an inch difference in height allowance, and did not appear to create a hazard according to my measurements. Roveri clarified sign requirements for the sign program. Vanderkraats: European Jewelers sign was badly designed and didn’t fit look and feel of plaza and would like to redesign, but a new tenant will move into that space and we can design a sign as appropriate. Carter: new market sign is supposed to be 12.5 SF – we’re going to ask them to reduce? Roveri: yes, because they’re a future tenant, they will need to reduce to 10 SF, also clarified that Alchemy could retain their existing sign, despite it being slightly over 10 SF Applicant Vanderkraats said that he appreciated Roveri’s assessment. Said that it’s nice to know that there’s a coffee store ahead and would request that the A frame Tidal Coffee sign remain as placed, 100 feet from the business. Bluth: do you know about the purpose for Schnooners window signs? Vanderkraats: I can make a phone call and update you on why those signs exist. Rath: an alternative would be to place curtains if signs were not allowed. Tregenza: we don’t want to set a precedent with the Tidal A frame sign. Public Comments None. 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 85F18646-A0CF-4BAB-A60C-692D43414F41 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 19, 2019 Committee Member Comments Bluth: in the reso, #7 isn’t listed. Do we need to spell that out when we make a motion? Roveri: yes, you add that to your motion. Explained conditions of approval, as recommended by staff. **REOPEN PUBLIC COMMENT** Vanderkraats: if for some reason Schooners would like to make their presence known, could they place 15% window signs? Flower clarified that a permit would not be required for a 15% coverage window sign. **CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT** Rath: I think the approval as written is fine and I think the Tidal A Frame is extraneous. Everything else looks good to me, including removing Schooners signage in windows. Roveri: please make finding for third awning sign in your motion. This was discovered during your field trip and is not included in your report. You can add this to the special conditions of approval. Bluth moved to approve the application as submitted with staff recommended conditions of approval with addition that awning sign for tidal coffee and wall signs be retroactively approved and that schooners window signs be removed within one month of approval. Pauly 2nd. On a motion by Committee Member Bluth, seconded by Committee Member Pauly, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application as submitted with staff recommended conditions of approval with addition that awning sign for tidal coffee and wall signs be retroactively approved and that schooners window signs be removed within one month of approval. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Carter, Bluth, Hunter, Pauly, Rath, Tregenza NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Conner ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 7. Consider 260 Laine Street; Architectural Review Permit ARP-19-0228 for a Two- Story Addition with a Eight-Foot Variation to the Second-Story Setback for an Existing Potentially Historic Single Family Dwelling; Applicants and Owners Jon & Donna Wagner; R-3-5 Zoning District; Medium Density Residential General Plan Designation; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 Action: Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions. 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 85F18646-A0CF-4BAB-A60C-692D43414F41 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 19, 2019 Principal Planner Flower presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ question. Hunter: at beginning of presentation, you said this was being treated as a separate dwelling unit? How would you differentiate between the two? Flower explained differences between separate and combined dwelling units. Tregenza: will it get its own address? Flower: that is a question for Building department. Rath: I want to make sure I understand that covered area between two houses will not be there in final, approved plans? Flower: correct Tregenza: does city have policy to promote secondary over auxiliary housing because of lack of housing? Flower: I will be leading ADU discussion to allow additional flexibility to encourage additional housing. Noted that most often parking requirements cause issues with ADUs. Carter: where is water coming from? Flower: deferred to applicant Pauly: from looking at floor plan, there’s no requirement that secondary dwelling unit have a secondary cooking unit? Flower: I imagine that the previously used art unit will house a cooking sink. Hunter: so the plans in packet are not final submission? Flower: unless you’d like to continue and review final plans. Hunter: as far as neighbor impacts, is that what we’re seeing in our packet? Flower: there would be slight reduction in sides. Pauly: is that a requirement that a kitchen exist in secondary unit? Flower: in the building requirements, yes. It’s up to committee if you want to see the secondary kitchen prior to building review or not. Tregenza: latest view with the lower floor connection deleted is enough for me. Applicant Jim Sullivan, Architect thanked the ARC for their time. Gave a brief history of the project and the property owners. Said that the owners saw the property’s potential, despite many problems with the home. It had not been changed since 1910. Discussed the overall layout of the floorplan of the house and how it was odd and eerie. Said that renovating the garage was always part of the owners’ plan for the home. Spoke about the evolution of the project with the 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: 85F18646-A0CF-4BAB-A60C-692D43414F41 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 19, 2019 Planning office and the many variations of the project in order to allow shared neighbor views. Addressed separate pitches in roof, and said that he opted for the story and a half look, which was in character with the original house. Noted that the neighbors across the street still may have concerns, which he felt were justifiable and that the story poles closer to house were leaning a foot closer than they should be and would be open to moving the design over in order to accommodate a larger view, which in combination with a tree removal, would recapture a large amount of the view. Also noted that the garage walls would become flush with reduction in square footage to meet FAR. Public Comments Claire Erickson at 237 Laine Street said she felt the design was excellent and that she felt shared ocean view corridors are very important. I think the shifting of gable improves a lot and we can see ocean on either side. I had a hard time identifying how story poles work, as they are sagging. As long as there are openings on either side of gable, I feel it’s a shared view corridor. Steve Kelley, 261 Laine Street said that the storypoles block their primary ocean view from across the street. I don’t know what laws and building codes are on ocean views, but I feel that 90% of my ocean view will be blocked. Mr. Sullivan showed photos of the new story poles and explained their placement. Rath: will walkway roof be removed? Sullivan: yes. Said that he could slightly move the addition to the right – 12 rather than 10 ft further away from main residence-to accommodate views of across-the-street neighbors. Said that he would like to make sure everyone maintains some view of the ocean. Demonstrated placement of tree and its impact on view. Noted that the tree would ultimately be removed, affording more of an ocean view. Erickson said that shifting to the right will place it into only view she has. Committee Member Comments Pauly: thank you for staff and applicant presentations and work done to date to try to appease everyone interested. The issue of views is ongoing in any coastal community and as we seek to increase density, this will continue to return. I think applicant has done a good job of respecting notion of view as a shared asset. While I do see impacts, I don’t feel anyone has completely lost their view as a result of this project. Architecture goes nicely with existing residence and scale is appropriate. Good design. Hunter: I feel the tree takes up large portion of current view and I think the impact of moving the design further right will impact the 237 Laine neighbor view severely. I think this is a good compromise and fits with style of house and neighborhood. Tregenza: thank you staff and applicant. Again I think removing the tree will make huge impact and open views that don’t currently exist. The applicant and owners care about view shed and are spending their resources to come up with solutions to appease view concerns. I commend owner on the amount of care they’ve put into house and I feel it’s helping property values to increase. This will be a gem on the street and boost overall look and feel of neighborhood. The view will come up repeatedly and I understand it’s difficult to be impacted, but the owner of 260 Laine has done due diligence to address neighbor concerns. Bluth concurred with previous comments and said he felt that view issues were being appropriately addressed. Noted that the removal of the tree would improve the views. Also very 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: 85F18646-A0CF-4BAB-A60C-692D43414F41 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 19, 2019 impressed with what owner has done to restore a historic home and will hopefully seek H2 zoning. Rath concurred with rest of committee. Carter: concurred, you’ve done a great job and house is beautiful. Hunter: move to approve, with staff recommended conditions. Rath 2nd On a motion by Committee Member Hunter seconded by Committee Member Rath and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application as submitted with staff recommended COAs. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Carter, Bluth, Hunter, Pauly, Rath, Tregenza NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Conner ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Pauly: drawings on the dais screens are distorted – ***ISD*** INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 8. Planning Office Update  Update received. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:22pm Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Ande Flower, AICP Chair Principal Planner Architectural Review Committee 6