Architectural Review Committee Meeting

DocuSign Envelope ID: 06986F4A-1579-4A6A-85F2-E413566CD958 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, June 17, 2020 4:00 PM – 5:30 PM Teleconference MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Carter, Bluth, Conner, Hunter, Pauly, Rath, Tregenza Members Absent: None Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Flower, Senior Associate Planner Roveri, Associate Planner Sabdo, Recording Secretary Cleary CALL TO ORDER Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Recording Secretary Cleary provided details on how to phone in to the meeting to participate and provide public comment. CONSENT ITEMS On a motion by Committee Member Tregenza, seconded by Vice Chair Bluth, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the CONSENT ITEMS. AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Carter, Bluth, Conner, Hunter, Pauly, Rath, Tregenza NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 1. Consider 1225 David Avenue; Architectural Review Application ARP-20-0044 for a First-Story Addition and Remodel to an Existing One-Story Single-Family Dwelling and Garage, and a 20-Foot Setback Variation for the Modified Garage; Applicant Chanelle Simpson; Owner Derek Steere and Lauren Cohen; R-1-5 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 Action: Approved as submitted. Committee Member Tregenza stated there are only garages and no houses fronting Withers Avenue, and mentioned the street is more an alley than a street especially on the block in question. Committee Member Rath agreed to the garage placement and alleyway similarities. Both Committee Members spoke in support of the project design and setback variation. Approval of Minutes 2. June 03, 2020 Action: Approved as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS DocuSign Envelope ID: 06986F4A-1579-4A6A-85F2-E413566CD958 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 17, 2020 None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 3. Consider 15 Soledad Drive (Elroy's Fine Foods); Architectural Review Permit ARP 20-0112 for New Exterior Paint and Sign Permit Application SI-0128 for One Roof/Wall Sign, Two Wall Signs, and Window Signage; Applicant Jon Rasmussen; Owner Maiorana Family Partnership; C-1 Zoning District; Commercial General Plan Designation; Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 Action: Approved as submitted. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Associate Planner Christy Sabdo presented the agenda report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Committee Member Rath inquired about how the color fits the architectural style. Ms. Sabdo suggested the building style is modern and the color appears to fit the architectural style. Committee Member Hunter asked for clarification on coloring and windows. Ms. Sabdo referenced a photo of the front elevation, indicating which areas would be painted and which would remain as glass windows, because the plans were not accurate. The Committee Member asked whether the eves of the roof are proposed to be painted. Ms. Sabdo deferred to the applicant. Chair Carter asked how Staff measures signs, stating the rectangle measurement technique creates unused space around each letter and does not reflect the true amount of sign square footage. Principal Planner Flower mentioned the ARC has previously requested consideration into changing design guidelines to more accurately reflect negative space, which was not pursued. Mr. Flower affirmed signs are commonly measured using the smallest rectangle possible around a sign area and it is in ARC’s purview to consider the negative space. Applicant Applicants Jay and Chloe Dolata presented their project, providing information regarding the proposed design and history of the building. Committee Member Pauly suggested that the community is highly anticipating this business development and spoke in support of elongating the windows down to the bris- soleil type structure. The Committee Member asked for clarification on the door-frame coloration, to which applicants responded they chose silver because the black doors would not have arrived on time. Committee Member Pauly mentioned the original structural expression, suggesting the architect would have wanted the dark vertical elements to continue down the bottom to create color consistency. The applicants stated the black beams in question are window frames, and that the architectural style is continued in the interior with dark wooden beams throughout. Committee Member Hunter spoke in support of the project and agreed with Committee Member Pauly in that the dark mullions would be more aesthetically and architecturally fitting. 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 06986F4A-1579-4A6A-85F2-E413566CD958 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 17, 2020 Public Comments Architect and neighbor James Smith spoke in strong support of the project design, signage allowance, coloring, and business addition in this area. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Rath mentioned similar signs in the area and stated there is no issue with the signage as the building is so setback. The Committee Member shared concern with the coloring, claiming the photos exhibit differently on different devices. Expressing further concern, Committee Member Rath stated other buildings in the area are not as bright and this coloring could potentially stand out much more than neighboring buildings. Committee Member Tregenza spoke in support of adding this business to this strip mall and also shared concern for the coloring and modern design, but mentioned it could work to bring the design up to the 21st century. Committee Member Conner spoke in support of the market addition to this neighborhood, stating the color is of concern but could make the signs and building pop more, potentially bringing in more consumers. Chair Carter stated the yellow is very bright, though that may not be a bad thing, and spoke in support of the project. On a motion by Committee Member Conner, seconded by Committee Member Pauly, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved Sign Permit SI-20- 0128 to allow one roof wall sign, two wall signs, and window signage at 15 Soledad Drive. AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Carter, Bluth, Conner, Hunter, Pauly, Rath, Tregenza NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None On a motion by Committee Member Conner, seconded by Committee Member Tregenza, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved Architectural Review Permit ARP-20-0112 for new exterior paint at 15 Soledad Drive. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Carter, Bluth, Conner, Hunter, Pauly, Tregenza NOES: 1 MEMBERS: Rath ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 4. Consider 258/270 Foam Street: Architectural Review Application ARP-19-0201 to allow access to the Recreation Trail; Applicant Rik Sagin, Owner Glen Yonekura; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 Action: Approved with conditions. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Principal Planner Ande Flower presented the agenda report and answered Committee Members’ questions. 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 06986F4A-1579-4A6A-85F2-E413566CD958 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 17, 2020 Committee Member Rath asked about the decorative metal mesh and whether the motion would need to contain that as a condition. Mr. Flower confirmed this is a new addition and recommended it be added as a condition of approval. Committee Member Tregenza asked about the access width and scope of this ARC discussion. Mr. Flower stated the main focus is the width and whether or not the ARC will approve it. Applicant Applicant James Smith presented the project and answered Committee Member questions. Addressing previous Committee Member questions, Mr. Smith asserted the width and massing can be reduced. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Tregenza asked if a feasibility study was performed regarding how many people use the Recreation Trail daily, adding to the crossflow of traffic between the parking lot and 300 Cannery Row. Mr. Flower stated a study was not performed because the project was not considered onerous to trigger such a study. Committee Member Tregenza suggested the Recreation Trail can be dangerous and stated this project could potentially add to the hazards of using the trail. Vice Chair Bluth asked if the intersection into the Recreation Trail is blind, voicing concerns for children running into the street with lack of situational awareness and visibility from both sides. Committee Member Rath suggested there is another set of stairs to the west and declared it is a rather straight and visible portion of the trail. Mr. Flower referenced site plans, suggesting they allow for an alcove area for safety. Committee Member Tregenza asked if any other alternatives had been considered regarding visibility and access to the Recreation Trail. Mr. Flower suggested the ADA improvements had already been approved in the past and if they were altered it would require a second hearing. Committee Member Pauly referenced the ADA path of travel guideline, suggesting there is a distance limitation and swinging the trail entrance to one direction or another may not be feasible. The Committee Member expressed concern in proposing a path of travel across a vehicular corridor without any proposed striping, raised ADA bumps, or other safety measures, and asked if people with blindness or deafness had been considered because they are at risk as well. Mr. Smith suggested the path of travel issue has been reviewed and that he was unaware that the Rec Trail would be considered a vehicular corridor. Further, the Applicant declared he aims to make the trail access as safe as possible. Mr. Flower stated this project would need Building permit review, a process which would review ADA details. Committee Member Tregenza stated the use of electronic bikes have been on the rise, which can weigh about 45 pounds and travel around 20 miles per hour. Committee Member Rath suggested there are many other access points to the Recreation Trail without rails or ADA bumps, and said it would be interesting to learn if these issues have arisen in the other areas. Chair Carter and Committee Member Rath agreed with Committee Member Pauly, citing the need to protect individuals with disabilities. 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: 06986F4A-1579-4A6A-85F2-E413566CD958 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 17, 2020 On a motion by Committee Member Rath, seconded by Committee Member Hunter, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved for Architectural Review Permit ARP-20-0210 for preliminary and final architectural review to allow access to the Recreation Trail as submitted, with the added condition of decorative metal mesh screening to allow for safety. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Carter, Bluth, Conner, Hunter, Pauly, Rath NOES: 1 MEMBERS: Tregenza ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS None. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Update received. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:21 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Kimberly Cole, AICP Vice Chair Community Development Director Architectural Review Committee 5