Architectural Review Committee Meeting

DocuSign Envelope ID: 57CA5ADF-6387-4B70-AB82-18057D246D77 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, June 15, 2022 4:00 PM – 5:30 PM COUNCIL CHAMBER AND ZOOM TELECONFERENCE MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Bluth*, Ostovar*, Pauly*, Schmidt*, Tregenza Members Absent: Hunter, Carter *participated remotely via teleconference Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Roveri, Senior Associate Planner Schmidt, Associate Planner Sabdo, Recording Secretary Cleary This meeting was held with a combination of in-person and teleconference attendance, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act, Calif. Government Code section 54953(e)(1)(C) and Resolution No. 22-063 C.S. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bluth called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and 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. June 01, 2022 Action: Approved as submitted. Committee Member Tregenza abstained from the minutes due to absence from the June 01, 2022 Architectural Review Committee meeting. On a motion by Committee Member Pauly, seconded by Committee Member Schmidt, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the June 01, 2022 minutes as submitted: AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Bluth, Ostovar, Pauly, Schmidt NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Hunter, Carter ABSTAIN: 1 MEMBERS: Tregenza RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS None. OTHER CONSENT ITEMS DocuSign Envelope ID: 57CA5ADF-6387-4B70-AB82-18057D246D77 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 15, 2022 3. Consider 35 Sierra Vista Drive; Architectural Review Permit ARP-22-0054 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a Second-Story Addition at the Rear of an Existing Two-Story Single-Family Dwelling; Applicant Allen Robinson; Owner Richard B. Grahlman; R-1-10 Zoning District; Low Density Residential General Plan Designation (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ACTION: Approved Application ARP-22-0054 For Preliminary And Final Architectural Review Of A Second-Story Addition At The Rear Of An Existing Two-Story Single-Family Dwelling At 35 Sierra Vista Drive. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Associate Planner Schmidt was present to answer Committee Member questions. Applicant None. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments None. On a motion by Committee Member Tregenza, seconded by Committee Member Schmidt, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved application ARP-22- 0054 for preliminary and final Architectural Review of a second-story addition at the rear of an existing two-story single-family dwelling at 35 Sierra Vista Drive: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Bluth, Ostovar, Pauly, Schmidt, Tregenza NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Hunter, Carter ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None PUBLIC APPEARANCE 4. Consider 165 Via Gayuba; Application ARP-22-0062 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a Second-Story Addition and Setback Variation at an Existing Single-Family Residence; Applicant Salvador Jorgensen; Owner Salvador Jorgensen and Cheryl A Logan Trs.; R-1-8 Zoning District; Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ACTION: Continued to July 06, 2022, Architectural Review Committee Meeting. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Principal Planner Roveri recommended item be continued to July 06, 2022 because the required story poles had not yet been installed. Applicant None. 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 57CA5ADF-6387-4B70-AB82-18057D246D77 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 15, 2022 Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments None. On a motion by Chair Bluth, seconded by Committee Member Pauly, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee continued application ARP-22-0062 for preliminary and final Architectural Review of a second-story addition and setback variation at an existing single-family residence at 165 Via Gayuba to the July 06, 2022, Architectural Review Committee Meeting: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Bluth, Ostovar, Pauly, Schmidt, Tregenza NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Hunter, Carter ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 5. Consider 522 Larkin Street; Architectural Review Permit ARP-21-0211 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a Second-Story Accessory Dwelling Unit Addition above an Existing Garage, and Access Stair and Deck; Applicant Steve Mickel, Mickel Construction Inc.; Owner Richard Aiello Tr.; R-3-6 Zoning District; Medium Density Residential General Plan Designation (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ACTION: Approved Architectural Review Permit ARP-21-0211 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a Second-Story Accessory Dwelling Unit Addition Above an Existing Garage, and Access Stair and Deck at 522 Larkin Street, Pursuant to all Conditions of Approval Recommended by Staff. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Associate Planner Schmidt presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Committee Member Tregenza requested detailed photos of the site. Mr. Schmidt shared a street view on Google Maps to show and explain the context of the site. Applicant Steve Mickel, designer and general contractor, provided further details regarding the site and shared photos of similar sites in the neighborhood. Public Comments Property Owner, Richard Aiello, explained the project history and urged the ARC to take into consideration the amount of time spent on the project. Mr. Aiello expressed intent to create additional housing and keep the existing parking. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Pauly sympathized with the applicant and spoke in favor of the project. Committee Member Ostovar added we have an opportunity to increase density and add 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 57CA5ADF-6387-4B70-AB82-18057D246D77 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 15, 2022 housing but would advise a better design in the future. On a motion by Committee Member Tregenza, seconded by Committee Member Ostovar, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved Architectural Review permit ARP-21-0211 for preliminary and final architectural review of a second-story accessory dwelling unit addition above an existing garage, and access stair and deck at 522 Larkin Street pursuant to all Conditions of Approval recommended by Staff: AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Ostovar, Pauly, Schmidt, Tregenza NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Hunter, Carter ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 1 MEMBERS: Bluth 6. Consider 810 McClellan Avenue; Architectural Review Permit ARP-22-0015 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a New Two-Story Single-Family Dwelling; Applicant Thomas Clark; Owner Thomas E and Terri Ann Clark Trs.; R-1- 5 Zoning District; Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) ACTION: Approved Architectural Review Permit ARP-22-0015 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a New Two-Story Single-Family Dwelling at 810 McClellan Avenue Pursuant To Both Conditions Of Approval As Presented By Staff. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Associate Planner Schmidt presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Member questions. Committee Member Tregenza asked if there is a tree removal plan. Mr. Schmidt answered no trees are proposed for removal at this time but if they decide to remove roots or trees, they will need to submit a Tree Removal Application. Mr. Schmidt said staff tried to ensure trees would not need to be removed. Committee Member Ostovar expressed that a lot of grading and trimming has been done and asked if that’s typical to happen before ARC review. Mr. Schmidt said that it’s not atypical since they received a demolition permit to remove the home and that a tree removal permit is required if the tree is of a certain size. Committee Member Ostovar encouraged having a tree removal plan in place but didn’t see one here. Applicant Applicant David Clark, designer of project, stated they received a permit for trees that required it, but others did not meet the requirement. Mr. Clark clarified that an arborist was on site, the project was trenched along the grading lines, and it was determined no trees needed to be removed. Committee Member Ostovar asked for clarification on whether trenching had occurred. Mr. Clark said they were asked to dig a small trench to examine roots. Mr. Schmidt added they asked for trenching to determine size and location of roots. Committee Member Pauly questioned if grading and drainage plan was prepared by 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: 57CA5ADF-6387-4B70-AB82-18057D246D77 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 15, 2022 Landset Engineers. Mr. Clark stated he overlayed his own design over Landset Engineers’ template. Committee Member Pauly pointed out that using a licensed engineer’s plan and stamp can pose a legal issue. Committee Member Ostovar asked who the arborist is. Mr. Clark answered Frank Ono. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Ostovar expressed concerns over having that much work done on a site prior to ARC approval. Committee Member Ostovar stated the City’s standards for tree protection are out of date. Committee Member Ostovar recommended the City work on the tree protection standards. Committee Member Ostovar pointed out that a lot of modification already done can impact trees but supports Frank Ono being on the project. Chair Bluth suggested Principal Planner Roveri coordinate a staff presentation on the Forestry program. Public Comments: Neighbor, Salvador Francis, stated he lives at 880 McClellan Avenue and previously the home at 810 McClellan served as a racoon and rat nest due to the overgrown vegetation. Mr. Francis stated the owners have been diligent with putting markers up, clearing the vegetation, and supports the project. Neighbor, Joanne Crist, said that she and her husband live at 583 Archer Street and the property does not impact her sightline but shared concern over maintenance of remaining trees on the property, the applicant’s intent with the property, adequacy of the plans, and compatibility of the house with others in the area. Ms. Crist asked the City Forester to be present during all stages of development and a condition of approval to replace any tree removed with an identically sized tree. Ms. Crist inquired about the intent of the homeowners and pointed out the plans were drafted by an entity owned by the homeowner that is no longer in business. Ms. Crist asked the ARC and staff to address the issues of non-compatibility such as the house being larger in scale and the door and driveway being situated on Archer Street. Mr. Schmidt mentioned the staff recommendation regarding the trees is that the arborist be on site during grading. Mr. Schmidt addressed the qualifications for submitting a planning application by stating a licensed architect is not required to draft plans for a single-family dwelling. Mr. Schmidt said in terms of whether someone can come as a developer to build homes and sell them, the City has no requirement to monitor that. In working with the applicant, Mr. Schmidt understood the developer lives locally so the fact that they build homes elsewhere is a moot point because people do this for a living. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Tregenza questioned why the timeline of root cutting must occur between June and July. Mr. Schmidt speculated that outside the rainy season may be the optimal time. Committee Member Ostovar confirmed the timeline is correct and asked who will hold the applicant responsible to adhere to that. Mr. Schmidt added that since an arborist is onsite, we can leave it up to them and 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: 57CA5ADF-6387-4B70-AB82-18057D246D77 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 15, 2022 suggested the ARC can add conditions of regular check ins and progress photos. Chair Bluth declined to open public comment again. Committee Member Pauly questioned the integrity of allowing plans to be submitted by a company that is no longer a legal entity. Committee Member Pauly suggested it was a fair comment from Ms. Crist and asked who the responsible party is for the plans. Ms. Roveri explained that Planning relies on the Building department to check off any building requirements at the building stage. Ms. Roveri said that plans at the Planning stage are conceptual and may change at the building permit stage. The ARC is responsible for looking at the mass, form, siting, and architectural style. Ms. Roveri added that in the past we have accepted plans from non-licensed designers. Committee Member Ostovar asked for clarification. Ms. Roveri reiterated that the property owner is responsible for the submitted plans from a Planning perspective but then those plans get prepared for construction at the Building permit stage and that’s when the necessary licenses are needed. Committee Member Pauly questioned what the City’s rules regarding trimming of branches is and if there are rules regarding the diameter of branches trimmed. Ms. Roveri said that substantial tree trimming will require a permit and the applicant did obtain a tree trimming permit. Mr. Schmidt added he met with the City’s Forester at the site twice and he mentioned that pruning had been done with approval. Committee Member Tregenza added that the goal of ARC is to assess mass, scale, and staff recommendations and not who is licensed. Committee Member Ostovar countered that we need to be clear about the credibility and understand the process. Committee Member Pauly clarified the larger question is who is responsible for the plans and the plans submitted are from a company that doesn’t exist. Committee Member Schmidt asked for confirmation on what the Planning Department and ARC is looking at: zoning requirements, architectural standards. Structural integrity comes at the Building Department phase which we are not at yet. Ms. Roveri confirmed that’s correct. Chair Bluth noted that we didn’t get landscaping plans and suggested continuing or tabling the item to allow applicant to come back with them and address outstanding committee member questions. Ms. Cleary explained tabling vs continuing options. Ms. Roveri suggested we could separate the preliminary and final ARC review. Committee Member Ostovar said he is not suggesting tabling. Committee Member Ostovar said he is more concerned with the process that the City allows. Committee Member Pauly asked if a landscape plan is a requirement of final design review. Mr. Schmidt stated landscaping review is part of the final design but the degree to which the landscape plan is adequate is subject to the ARC or staff’s discretion. Committee Member Pauly stated that with each new month we’re seeing more and more incomplete plans and questioned why we’re even requiring landscape plans. Committee Member Ostovar added that a fence, large patios, and trees are something 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: 57CA5ADF-6387-4B70-AB82-18057D246D77 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 15, 2022 he’d like to see in landscape plans. Chair Bluth suggested asking for a motion that would address some of the issues. Committee Member Tregenza asked if fences have to meet ARC approval. Mr. Schmidt said fences are not a requirement for a new home and the City does not require fencing permits. Mr. Schmidt does not think the applicant is proposing a fence or patios. Committee Member Tregenza pointed out there is one neighbor in support and another neighbor who has a lot of questions, but the City does not require those questions to be answered. Committee Member Tregenza suggested moving forwarded with a motion to approve rather than being an entity that slows things down because we want more landscaping information. On a motion by Committee Member Tregenza, seconded by Committee Member Schmidt, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved Architectural Review Permit ARP-22-0015 for preliminary and final architectural review of a new two-story single-family dwelling at 810 McClellan Avenue pursuant to both Conditions of Approval as presented by Staff: AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Bluth, Ostovar, Schmidt, Tregenza NOES: 1 MEMBERS: Pauly ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Hunter, Carter ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 7. Consider 1042 Del Monte Avenue; Sign Permit Application SI-21-0214 for the Partial Internal-Illumination of One, Existing Vehicle-Oriented Freestanding Sign; Applicant Nigel Hearne; Owner Sea Breeze Peninsula Investments Inc.; C-2-ES Zoning District; Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 ACTION: Approved Sign Permit Application SI-21-0214 for the Partial Internal- Illumination of One, Existing Vehicle-Oriented Freestanding Sign at 1042 Del Monte Avenue. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Associate Planner Sabdo presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Committee Member Schmidt questioned if the recommendation applies to the redesign as submitted after the Staff Report was prepared. Ms. Sabdo answered yes. Chair Bluth inquired if the sign would be digital. Ms. Sabdo answered yes. Applicant Applicant, Nigel Hearne, said it’s a straightforward project, converting the price digits to LED, and that he has nothing else to add. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments 7 DocuSign Envelope ID: 57CA5ADF-6387-4B70-AB82-18057D246D77 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 15, 2022 Committee Member Tregenza suggested the sign ordinance needs to be updated because the old verbiage doesn’t address the newer technology. Committee Member Ostovar said he was ready to say no to this project until the applicant noted it’s already backlit. On a motion by Committee Member Tregenza, seconded by Committee Member Pauly, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved sign permit application SI-21-0214 for the partial internal-illumination of one, existing vehicle-oriented freestanding sign at 1042 Del Monte Avenue subject to the redesign presented and recommended by Staff to reduce illumination of the right side of the sign: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Bluth, Ostovar, Pauly, Schmidt, Tregenza NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Hunter, Carter ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Committee Member Ostovar read ARC’s role off the website and thinks it’s strange that we’ve been seeing less and less of those details on applications. Committee Member Pauly agrees with Committee Member Ostovar and thinks it’s our responsibility to point it out. Chair Bluth stated he saw three things that have come up more than once: quality of plans; forestry issues, and sign ordinance. Chair Bluth asked if we could have staff presentations and look at some of these issues. Ms. Roveri said submittal requirements were adopted in 2016 by the ARC and that nowhere in the submittal checklist does it refer to quality metrics. Ms. Roveri suggested revisiting the submittal checklist. Committee Member Pauly asked if landscaping plans were required for submittal, why we would recommend a project that didn’t have one. Ms. Roveri answered there is no requirement anywhere in the ordinance that requires landscaping for R-1 lots; they could just have dirt around their house. Ms. Roveri said when we do receive a landscaping plan like the owners submitted, we ask them to include plant species and location. Ms. Roveri pointed out that landscaping plans are required for multi-family projects on Garden Road. Chair Bluth questioned how we change the sign guideline checklist. Ms. Roveri recommended speaking with the Community Development Director to have it added to the work list. Committee Member Pauly suggested that before we get staff involved the Committee Members should review the submittal checklist and suggested a lot of what was submitted tonight would be rejected in other jurisdictions. Ms. Roveri said she will discuss with the Community Development Director and prepare an estimate of number of hours it could take to reevaluate the checklist. Committee Member Pauly asked if grading and drainage plan is required to be completed by a licensed civil engineer. Ms. Roveri answered no. Chair Bluth asked if the Forester would be available to present the tree protection 8 DocuSign Envelope ID: 57CA5ADF-6387-4B70-AB82-18057D246D77 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 15, 2022 standards at an upcoming meeting. Ms. Roveri said she would have to get approval but will ask for a presentation on the tree protection standards. Chair Bluth also asked if the sign ordinance could be looked at. Ms. Roveri said that would also be a work project that would require approval from the Community Development Director. Committee Member Tregenza provided clarification and said it’s an old standard that doesn’t exactly address modern technology Chair Bluth suggested discussing with Kim and reporting back. Committee Member Pauly wondered if it should be reviewed and whether more of these signage proposals could be approved at the Staff level without going to public hearing. Committee Member Ostovar added that he agrees with streamlining but at the same time there is a tendency for signage to start to go over the top. Committee Member Pauly suggested tightening the submittal requirements to reduce the amount of sign permits. Ms. Roveri stated at the time the previous ARC approved the sign guidelines they wanted to see all internally illuminated signs and that if it changes, it will reduce the amount of sign permits seen. Committee Member Ostovar suggested there seems to be a conflict or loophole in the submittal checklist because you can submit a plan with nothing on it. Committee Member Pauly agreed. Ms. Roveri said the submittal checklist is all-encompassing so not all projects are subject to all the submittal requirements. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Update received. Ms. Roveri included that we will rotate Chairs at the next ARC meeting on July 6, 2022. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:13 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Fernanda Roveri, AICP Chair Principal Planner Architectural Review Committee 9