Architectural Review Committee Meeting

DocuSign Envelope ID: E1398515-D18B-4BC0-9815-CF402B864339 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, July 15, 2020 4:00 PM – 5:30 PM Teleconference MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Chair Carter, Vice Chair Bluth, Conner, Pauly, Rath, Tregenza Members Absent: Hunter Staff Members Present: Community Development Director Cole, Principal Planner Flower, Property Manager Jana Aldrete, Senior Associate Planner Roveri, Associate Planner Sabdo, Recording Secretary Cleary, Recording Secretary Ziel CALL TO ORDER Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. Recording Secretary Ziel provided information to the public about how to participate by calling in to give public comment on the live web meeting. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 2. July 1, 2020 Action: Approved as submitted. On a motion by Committee Member Conner, seconded by Committee Member Bluth, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the July 1, 2020 minutes as submitted: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Bluth, Conner, Pauly, Rath, Tregenza NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Hunter ABSTAIN: 1 MEMBERS: Carter RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 3. Consider 2137 San Vito Circle; Architectural Review Application ARP-20-0107 to Allow a 527 square foot 2nd Story Addition to a Single-Family Residence; Applicant Samuel Pitnick; Owner Lyndon and Vicki Schutzler; R-1-12 Zoning District; Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation; Exempt from CEQA Requirements Per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 Action: Approved as submitted. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions DocuSign Envelope ID: E1398515-D18B-4BC0-9815-CF402B864339 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, July 15, 2020 Associate Planner Sabdo presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Committee Member Tregenza asked if any letters or photos were received from neighbors’ perspective with story poles in place. Christy Sabdo said no communication had been received from neighbors. Applicant Project Architect Samuel Pitnick provided information on the project and clients, explaining they are lifelong residents and aim to provide living space for their growing family. Mr. Pitnick confirmed the applicants did reach out to the neighbors, though he did not believe the second story addition would impact neighbor views. He further explained all windows are on west, north, and east elevation to preserve privacy. The Architect stated the stairs would provide access on the east side and be enclosed with stucco, then suggested the style would complement the existing home and break up the mass of the house. Committee Member Pauly inquired if the client directly discussed the project with the neighbor or contacted with no further correspondence. Mr. Pitnick stated he understood the applicants did have direct communication with the neighbor and suggested the neighbor understood the applicants had a right to build. Committee Member Pauly asked if the neighbors are full-time residents and had seen the flagging. Mr. Pitnick confirmed they are full-time residents and have seen the flagging. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Vice Chair Bluth said it looks like a nice addition to the neighborhood, stated he liked the stairway, and said the project does not seem to have any view impacts and will fit in with the neighborhood. Committee Member Tregenza stated he does not typically like obvious second story additions, but they have done well to make it not look like a room was pasted on top of the garage. Committee Member Pauly said the project feels a bit top-heavy over the garage but the design elements of the trellises and shutters help alleviate this. Committee Member Conner agreed with previous comments and said she appreciates efforts made to include interesting elements in the façade. The Committee Member agreed with moving forward with the project. Committee Member Rath spoke in support of the project and agreed with previous Committee Member comments. On a motion by Committee Member Rath, seconded by Vice Chair Bluth, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved Architectural Review Application ARP-20-0107 to allow a 527-square-foot 2nd story addition to the single-family residence at 2137 San Vito Circle. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Carter, Bluth, Conner, Pauly, Rath, Tregenza NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: E1398515-D18B-4BC0-9815-CF402B864339 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, July 15, 2020 ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Hunter ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 4. Consider 25 Wharf #1; Architectural Review Application ARP-20-0139 for a Change of Paint Colors from Beige to Yellow to an Existing One-Story Commercial Building (Crabby Jim’s); Applicant Dennis Joshi; Owner Monterey Wharf Concession No. 3, LLC and City of Monterey; PC-W Zoning District; Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 Action: Approved with modifications. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Associate Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant Applicant Dennis Joshi said he will do what Staff recommends. Committee Member Rath asked if the applicant looked at any colors that differed from neighboring Wharf buildings, such as a green or white. Mr. Joshi said he previously had a white color but had not looked at other colors. Chair Carter asked why the applicant did not follow proper procedure before painting. Mr. Joshi explained that during the pandemic other businesses started putting up banners. The applicant alleged he could not do the same and stated he had no other choice but to do something for his business and decided to paint. Chair Carter asked Mr. Joshi if he was aware of City procedures regarding exterior paint. Mr. Joshi said he was, but the City was closed and he had the application ready when Code Enforcement arrived. He said he was told by the inspector how to submit online. Chair Carter inquired if there was anyone he could call in the Planning office and Mr. Joshi said he could only contact the inspector. Chair Carter asked if he had considered another color. Mr. Joshi said he likes the way it looks but if it is too complicated he will go back to original color. Chair Carter asked again if he considered another color before painting. Mr. Joshi said no because yellow is good luck in his religion. He also said he didn’t consider other colors because he didn’t have space for a banner at his business so he painted instead. Mr. Joshi reiterated that he is willing to go back to beige if needed. Committee Member Rath asked if Mr. Joshi would be willing to consider a different color if he wanted something other than beige. Mr. Joshi stated he really likes yellow and does not want another color. Committee Member Tregenza clarified with Mr. Joshi that Staff did not choose the yellow and Mr. Joshi did, and confirmed Staff has recommended to let the yellow remain with added trim modifications. Chair Carter inquired if Mr. Joshi thought there would be conflict with the color when he chose it. Mr. Joshi said no and chose yellow due to his Hindu religion and the yellow in the City of Monterey logo, and he said he is not trying to copy anyone. Public Comments 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: E1398515-D18B-4BC0-9815-CF402B864339 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, July 15, 2020 Mr. Anthony Lombardo, attorney for Fisherman’s Grotto, shared a PowerPoint presentation, explaining the goal of the Waterfront Plan is to have diversity, and Fisherman’s Grotto is next door to Crabby Jim’s and is bright yellow. Mr. Lombardo explained that the City of Monterey has policies on colors for a reason and showed photos of different locations around the world exhibiting an array of color schemes in similar cities. He stated Monterey’s Master Plan promotes diversity of colors, not mimicking or copying the colors of other buildings. Mr. Lombardo alleged painting the exterior yellow was no accident and was done in attempts to capture customers. Mr. Lombardo asked that the applicant propose a new color to not mimic others, and asked the ARC to deny the request and return the exterior to its original color. Mr. Chris Shake, neighboring business owner, shared that his family opened the Fisherman’s Grotto nearly 70 years ago and explained that it is an iconic restaurant. Mr. Shake stated the yellow paint could confuse customers who aim to go to the Grotto. He mentioned the businesses are only 21 feet apart and said he hopes the Committee will consider his concerns and encourage the applicant to choose another color that aligns with the Master Plan. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Rath explained that while a couple of buildings on the Wharf are yellow, she understands the intent of the Wharf’s Master Plan to encourage other color uses which adds to the interest of the area. She suggested either another color be selected or the applicant revert to the original color. The Committee Member suggested looking to the City logo, or Crabby Jim’s sign or awning for other colors. Committee Member Tregenza stated he does not think anyone will mistake Crabby Jim’s for Fisherman’s Grotto, explaining the Grotto is two stories and the buildings look totally different. He said the bright yellow clashes with the awning, and he did not feel it was the most tasteful choice, but Committees have to follow bylaws and City statutes in the Wharf Master Plan. Vice Chair Bluth stated he enjoys seeing separation of different colors on the Wharf. He explained that having diversity of color and impact of colors brings a unique look to the Wharf. Since it wasn’t approved in the initial process, the Vice Chair said that he supports reevaluating the color. Vice Chair Bluth recommends the owner pick something different that stands out and makes his location more unique since it is next to a yellow building. Committee Member Tregenza affirmed there is a storefront between the two restaurants. Committee Member Pauly stated this is a tough situation with permitting since it is a difficult time for restaurant owners and he understands the applicant is trying to draw attention to the building. The Committee Member stated he would have a problem if the buildings were directly next to each other but the Grotto is a duller yellow. Committee Member Pauly thinks the staff-recommended white trim will help and does not see the need in making him repaint the whole building. Committee Member Conner said she struggles with this decision due to the applicant circumventing the process but understands other buildings are yellow. She agrees with Staff recommendations and said the white helps significantly. The Committee Member expressed concern that color options could get limited if other businesses feel a new color is too similar to theirs. 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: E1398515-D18B-4BC0-9815-CF402B864339 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, July 15, 2020 Chair Carter stated she does not support Staff recommendation and that circumventing the process is a problem. The Chair said the yellow will fade and the buildings will look the same in a matter of months, and reiterated she does not support the recommendation. Committee Member Rath suggested amending the motion to continue the topic for a redesign with a new color or return to the old color, explaining that if the applicant wants a new color, he will have to resubmit the application to ARC. Chair Carter spoke in support of the revised motion. Community Development Director Kimberly Cole recommended a condition of approval about timing since this is a Code Compliance issue, and suggested the applicant needs to submit a new application or re-paint the building within ten days. On a motion by Committee Member Rath, seconded by Chair Carter, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee continued Architectural Review Application ARP-20-0139 for a change of paint colors from beige to yellow to an existing one-story commercial building for a redesign or revert to the original color within 10 days at 25 Wharf #1. AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Carter, Bluth, Conner, Rath NOES: 2 MEMBERS: Pauly, Tregenza ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Hunter ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Vice Chair Bluth inquired about an appeal of a second-story project that had been previously approved by the ARC. Principal Planner Ande Flower reported that the appeal was denied, and the ARC decision was upheld. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Update received. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:04 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Ande Flower, AICP Chair Principal Planner Architectural Review Committee 5