Architectural Review Committee Meeting

DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D79DE9-603C-468E-93BC-AC24DD9891B9 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, April 7, 2021 4:00 PM – 5:30 PM Teleconference MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Carter, Bluth, Ostovar, Schmidt, Tregenza Members Absent: Hunter, Pauly Staff Members Present: Interim Principal Planner Roveri, Senior Associate Planner Schmidt, Associate Planner Sabdo, Recording Secretary Cleary, Recording Secretary Ziel 1. Meeting Procedures CALL TO ORDER Chair Carter called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 2. March 3, 2021 Action: Approved as submitted. On a motion by Committee Member Bluth, seconded by Committee Member Schmidt, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the March 3, 2021 minutes as submitted: Carter, Bluth, Ostovar, Schmidt, Tregenza AYES: 5 MEMBERS: NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Hunter, Pauly ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARING 3. Consider 832 Hellam Street; Architectural Review Permit ARP-20-0241 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a Single-Story Addition to an Existing One-Story Single-Family Dwelling; Applicant/Owner Kelly Locke; R-3-6 Zoning District; Medium Density Residential General Plan Designation (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) Action: Approved as submitted. DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D79DE9-603C-468E-93BC-AC24DD9891B9 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 7, 2021 Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Associate Planner Schmidt presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Member questions. Committee Member Bluth inquired if the Old Town Neighborhood Association had written anything noting their objections to the plans. Chair Carter and Senior Associate Planner Schmidt confirmed there was an email in the agenda packet outlining the association’s concerns. Chair Carter asked how the neighborhood association determined they did not approve of the plans. Schmidt stated he spoke to two board members and they did not clarify if a formal neighborhood association board decision was made about the proposed project. Committee Member Bluth followed up by asking if the neighborhood association would be presenting at the meeting and Schmidt confirmed they would not be presenting. Committee Member Tregenza spoke in favor of the proposed design and noted he did not like the appearance of the neighborhood association’s suggested changes. Tregenza stated the proposed design from the applicant would be a nice addition to the neighborhood. Tregenza followed up by asking if the only reason the ARC was reviewing the design is because of the concerns of the neighborhood association. Schmidt confirmed this was correct and noted the Old Town Neighborhood Association could also appeal the potential ARC decision. Committee Member Schmidt asked if the Old Town Neighborhood Association reviewed the color scheme of the design. Senior Associate Planner Schmidt confirmed the association had only reviewed the previous color scheme. Committee Member Schmidt spoke in favor of the design but stated she was concerned about the color scheme. Senior Associate Planner Schmidt commented that the association was more concerned with the overall form of the building and did not have any comments about the color scheme. Applicant Presentation Owner/Applicant Kelly Locke presented the project proposal and answered Committee Member questions. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Bluth spoke in favor of the project and supported Committee Member Tregenza’s previous comments. Bluth stated the Committee should support the plans as is. Committee Member Tregenza stated he felt the proposed design is a nice addition to the neighborhood. Chair Carter commented that the design is beautiful and will add more character to the neighborhood. Committee Member Tregenza asked staff for guidance on the approval process since the design has not been approved. Interim Principal Planner Roveri stated that the ARC can make a motion to approve, deny or continue the project. Roveri suggested the ARC talk about the Old Town character and make a finding to support item 3 that the project is consistent with applicable plans. Roveri stated that after these findings are stated, staff will bring forward an official resolution on the next meeting’s consent agenda. DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D79DE9-603C-468E-93BC-AC24DD9891B9 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 7, 2021 Committee Member Ostovar commented that he appreciated the thorough presentations from staff and the applicant. Ostovar asked if there were any additional neighbor complaints. Senior Associate Planner Schmidt stated that one neighbor brought forth a concern about privacy that was addressed by moving a window and making minor modifications to the floor plan. Ostovar further commented that the project added edginess and design character to the neighborhood while still fitting the general character of the neighborhood. Ostovar did express minor concerns about the layout of the trellis and asked the applicant to comment further on the decision behind that design. Applicant Kelly Locke stated he liked the idea of extending the trellis to soften the façade and provide shade from southern light while tying together the proposed design. Locke also stated the design looked more like a porch and aligned with the style of porches in the existing neighborhood. Committee Member Ostovar noted that the concerns from the neighborhood association had about the design could be due to the trellis being more visible than the building. Ostovar further explained the trellis could be hiding the design of the building and suggested creating some sort of hierarchy with the entry of the trellis and porch to appease neighborhood concerns. The applicant stated he liked the continuance frame but would be willing to lighten up areas of the trellis. Ostovar concluded his comments by speaking in favor of the project, the design, color scheme and noted the trellis was the only area that he thought the association may be concerned about. Committee Member Tregenza stated the project fits with the Old Town Area Plan because the design has a 1950, mid-century modern style. Committee Member Ostovar asked if there was a way to approve the proposed project while suggesting that the applicant modify the project to appease the neighborhood association’s concerns. Interim Principal Planner Roveri explained that the ARC could approve with conditions but stated that the conditions needed to be concrete and actionable. Roveri also stated that if the ARC wanted to propose and see modifications that a continuance of the item would be more appropriate. Committee Member Tregenza asked if the Old Town Neighborhood Association asked for anything specific to be done with the design. Roveri stated the association suggested the symmetrical, gable roof. Committee Member Ostovar also mentioned that the neighborhood association’s suggested design did not include a trellis. Ostovar further noted he was looking to accommodate concerns but felt the proposed design has good character and should be approved. Committee Member Tregenza stated he understood Ostovar’s interest in appeasing neighborhood concerns but felt the ARC should approve the project. Committee Member Bluth supported Tregenza’s statement and stated that the association did not provide much detail and noted the association could appeal the decision if they had any concerns. Senior Associate Planner Schmidt clarified that the association members he spoke with could not attend the meeting due to prior engagement but did have concerns about the roof design. Interim Principal Planner Roveri clarified that if the ARC provides a resolution of approval for the next meeting, the Old Town Neighborhood Association could pull the item from consent and discuss it. Chair Carter commented that there is gray area with the objection from the Neighborhood Association. Committee Member Tregenza stated they should approve it as is. DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D79DE9-603C-468E-93BC-AC24DD9891B9 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 7, 2021 Committee Member Ostovar agreed about approving the project but encouraged the applicant to make any minor changes that may appease the neighborhood. Committee Member Schmidt asked for clarification on if the neighborhood association saw the trellis and stated she felt the trellis broke up the slant of the roof. Senior Associate Planner Schmidt confirmed the trellis design was sent to the neighborhood association. Committee Member Schmidt also spoke in favor of the project and the design. On a motion by Committee Member Bluth, seconded by Committee Member Tregenza and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved 832 Hellam Street; Architectural Review Permit ARP-20-0241 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a Single-Story Addition to an Existing One-Story Single-Family Dwelling. The Architectural Review Committee found that the design is high quality, is harmonious with surroundings, consistent with the general plan as well as the Old Town Neighborhood Plan with regard to the roof line and the rest of the overall design. The Architectural Review Committee also determined the design is consistent with the findings in the staff report. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Carter, Bluth, Ostovar, Schmidt, Tregenza NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Hunter, Pauly ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None PUBLIC APPEARANCE 4. Consider 1 Old Golf Course Road; Sign Permit Application SI-21-0006 for the Replacement of One Vehicle-Oriented Freestanding Sign; Applicant Chris Merrell, Northwest Signs; Owner FWREF Monterey, LLC DBA Hyatt Regency Monterey Hotel and Spa; VAF Zoning District; Commercial General Plan Designation; Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 Action: Approved as submitted. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Associate Planner Sabdo presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Member questions. Committee Member Ostovar asked for clarification if the committee was approving one sign or six. Sabdo clarified only one sign was being replaced. Chair Carter asked if this was the sign at the main entrance. Sabdo confirmed that the proposed sign is the one at the main entrance. Committee Member Ostovar asked Sabdo to show the photo of the proposed sign to provide clarification on the sign location. Committee Member Ostovar asked the applicant to clarify what materials were being used on the signage. Applicant Chris Merrell explained the back of the sign is a painted aluminum cabinet. Committee Member Ostovar asked the applicant why the sign was not updated with recent updates that were done to the entrance. The applicant did not know why the signs were not updated when the previous modifications were made. DocuSign Envelope ID: 10D79DE9-603C-468E-93BC-AC24DD9891B9 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 7, 2021 Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Ostovar commented that the design would be more consistent if it were approved and integrated with the initial modifications to the entrance design. Ostovar also asked if the design was mandated by the hotel or if the hotel had specific recommendations. The applicant noted there were no specific recommendations from the hotel. Ostovar asked if the sign could be integrated into the entry wall to meet the needs of the organization. Applicant Chris Merrell explained it is hard to install a level sign on a rock wall and there is also a power issue with signage on a rock wall. Committee Member Ostovar asked if the image of the sign by the entrance could be pulled up to show the context. Interim Principal Planner Roveri showed the image to the Committee. On a motion by Committee Member Bluth, seconded by Committee Member Tregenza and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved 1 Old Golf Course Road; Sign Permit Application SI-21-0006 for the Replacement of One Vehicle- Oriented Freestanding Sign AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Carter, Bluth, Ostovar, Schmidt, Tregenza NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Hunter, Pauly ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 5. Planning Office Update  Update received. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:39 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Fernanda Roveri Chair Interim Principal Planner Architectural Review Committee