Architectural Review Committee Meeting

DocuSign Envelope ID: 80BDD5B9-FA80-432B-8A2F-5A96AA77BDC8 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, November 18, 2020 4:00 PM – 5:30 PM Teleconference MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Carter, Bluth, Conner, Hunter, Pauly, Schmidt, Tregenza Members Absent: None Staff Members Present: Assistant City Manager Rojanasathira, Community Development Director Cole, Senior Associate Planner Schmidt, 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 Cleary 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. October 21, 2020 Action: Approved as submitted. On a motion by Committee Member Hunter, seconded by Vice Chair Bluth, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the October 21, 2020 minutes as submitted: AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Carter, Bluth, Conner, Hunter, Pauly, Schmidt, Tregenza NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 3. Consider 751 Archer Street; Architectural Review Application ARP-20-0210 to allow a 2nd Story Addition; Applicant/Owners Douglas and Mary Jo Howe; R-1-5 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: 80BDD5B9-FA80-432B-8A2F-5A96AA77BDC8 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, November 18, 2020 Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Associate Planner Schmidt presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Chair Carter asked how often the loft stairwell would be used that potentially looked into the neighbor’s yard. Schmidt referred the question to the applicant for clarification. Applicant Applicant Doug Howe was available to answer Committee Member questions. Howe answered Chair Carter’s previous question and explained there is no view from the stairway itself. Chair Carter asked for clarification if there would be a view into the neighbor’s yard from the upper level. Howe said there is a partial view from the loft but there is no view impact in the stairwell itself. Committee Member Pauly asked if the staircase was legal and questioned if it could be approved by the Building Department. Howe explained it is an alternating stair that is allowed when the staircase is serving a space less than 200 square feet. Public Comments Lynn O’Neil and Cary Yeh, the owners of 750 Pine Street, commented on the project. O’Neil explained there was previous construction on the Archer Street property which impacted the view on their lower level. O’Neil also expressed privacy concerns about the rear window view since it looks into their bedroom. Chair Carter and Community Development Director Cole asked Senior Associate Planner Schmidt to show the photos of the story poles, rear elevation and a rendering of the rear window mentioned by O’Neil. Schmidt shared the requested images with the committee. Committee Member Schmidt asked if the window in question was above the staircase. Senior Associate Planner Schmidt confirmed that it was. Committee Member Comments Vice Chair Bluth commented that the applicant tried to minimize view impacts. Bluth also explained there was nothing that concerned him about this project and noted the view from the rear window would be at the ascent of the stairwell. Committee Member Pauly spoke in support of the project and commended the applicant for their assistance in the presentation. Pauly also noted that the window at the landing seems to be a different proportion and style of window and that he does not understand the need for such a large window. Pauly explained the light access could be achieved with a window that is half that size while having less view impact on the neighbor’s home. Vice Chair Bluth made an initial motion approving the project contingent upon the rear southeast window size being reduced. Committee Member Pauly asked about if we can ask the architect to change the windows at this point in the process. Chair Carter said yes and asked if the applicant would want to speak to reducing the window size. Doug Howe stated he would prefer not to change the window since it is a double hung window that matches the other windows in the house. Howe noted that privacy goes both ways and the neighbor’s view looks down into his yard. Howe also showed the drawing depicting the window and noted the window would be blocked by a tree. Community Development Director Cole interjected and reminded Chair Carter that since the public hearing had been reopened, public comment would also have to be reopened. 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 80BDD5B9-FA80-432B-8A2F-5A96AA77BDC8 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, November 18, 2020 Chair Carter re-opened public comment. Lynn O’Neil explained that due to bushes and trees they do not have visibility into their neighbor’s home, but based on the schematic shown, there will be some visibility into their bedroom from the addition, which is a privacy concern. O’Neil also referred to a question she entered in the Q& A about property values and if view impacts would cause there to be a new assessment of their property taxes. Committee Member Tregenza spoke in support of the project and complimented the differentiation in the siding and explained that this addition would help raise property values in the neighborhood. He suggested a committee member make a motion to align with the staff recommendation. On a motion by Vice Chair Bluth, seconded by Committee Member Tregenza, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved 751 Archer Street; Architectural Review Application ARP-20-0210 to allow a 2nd Story Addition. AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Carter, Bluth, Conner, Hunter, Pauly, Schmidt, Tregenza NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS None. 4. Consider 584 Munras Avenue; Sign Permit Application SI-20-0250 for Two Projecting Signs; Applicant Jon Mata, Monterey Signs; Owner Santa Cruz County Bank; PC-D-ES 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 Sabdo presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Committee Member Tregenza asked why the signs are more than 10 feet away from the entrance. Sabdo referred the question to the applicant. Applicant Jon Mata, the applicant, answered Committee Member Tregenza’s question and explained that sign distance is due to the odd shape of the building. Mata noted the blade signs on each corner allow pedestrians to see signage for the building. Tregenza confirmed the entrance is at a 45-degree angle setback on the corner. Public Comments Mary Ann Carson from Santa Cruz County Bank supported Mata’s comment, noted the indent at the entrance and reiterated why the sign distance is necessary and why two blade signs are being installed. 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 80BDD5B9-FA80-432B-8A2F-5A96AA77BDC8 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, November 18, 2020 Committee Member Comments Committee Member Tregenza supported a bank going back into this location and noted the applicant is doing a great job updating the façade of the building. Committee Member Pauly echoed Tregenza’s comments and spoke in favor of the project and modification to the building and stated the signs look fine. On a motion by Committee Member Hunter, seconded by Committee Member Conner, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved 584 Munras Avenue; Sign Permit Application SI-20-0250 for Two Projecting Signs AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Carter, Bluth, Conner, Hunter, Pauly, Schmidt, Tregenza NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Update received. Committee Member Conner mentioned she is moving out of Monterey and this will be her last meeting as a Committee Member. Community Development Director highlighted a couple of items from the Planning Office – ADUs, Cannabis and recent development proposals. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:02 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Kimberly Cole Chair Community Development Director Architectural Review Committee 4