Architectural Review Committee Meeting

DocuSign Envelope ID: F95437CC-D431-4CC5-924F-3C9D04B50AC1 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, July 20, 2022 4:00 PM – 5:30 PM COUNCIL CHAMBER AND ZOOM TELECONFERENCE MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Hunter, Tregenza, Carter*, Ostovar*, Pauly*, Schmidt* Members Absent: Bluth *Participated remotely via teleconference Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Roveri, Senior Associate Planner Schmidt, Associate Planner Buggert, Recording Secretary Barrera 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. 22-089 C.S. CALL TO ORDER Chair Hunter called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and Recording Secretary Barrera 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 06, 2022 Action: Approved as submitted. On a motion by Vice-Chair Tregenza, seconded by Committee Member Ostovar, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the July 06, 2022, minutes as submitted: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Hunter, Tregenza, Carter, Ostovar, Pauly, Schmidt NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Bluth ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 3. Consider 1300 Munras Avenue; Architectural Review Application ARP-22-0035 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a Detached Shed; Applicant Mike Patel; Owner Diya Properties LLC; VAF Zoning District; Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F95437CC-D431-4CC5-924F-3C9D04B50AC1 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, July 20, 2022 ACTION: Approved Architectural Review Application ARP-22-0035 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a Detached Shed at 1300 Munras Avenue. Committee Member Pauly recused himself from this item stating he lives two doors down, cannot comment on the item in any way shape or form, and logged off the Zoom meeting. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Associate Planner Buggert presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Committee Member Ostovar asked what the nature of the neighbor’s complaint was. Mr. Buggert answered that it was an informal complaint in the form of a phone call to Code Compliance. Vice-Chair Tregenza inquired when the shed was installed. Mr. Buggert replied November of 2021. Committee Member Carter questioned why the project is coming to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). Principal Planner Roveri stated Planning reviewed the shed after the complaint and determined it required a permit. Ms. Roveri said a Building permit is not required but a Planning permit is. Senior Associate Planner Schmidt added Visitor Accommodation Facilities (VAF) have specific zoning in the City and some permits for hotels might have more requirements than what is required for a residential or commercial property. Committee Member Carter asked when a project requires an ARC permit but not a building permit. Ms. Roveri stated the shed is less than 120 sq. ft, has no electrical, and is not intended to be occupied so it does not require a building permit. Mr. Buggert reiterated that the VAF zone has more requirements. Vice-Chair Tregenza questioned if the applicant came to the building department and was told they did not need one. Mr. Buggert said there was no paper record. Vice-Chair Tregenza expressed the need for a better understanding of policies among staff to prevent excess money being spent by applicants. Committee Member Carter agreed. Committee Member Schmidt asked if there were any public comments after noticing went out. Mr. Buggert confirmed there were no comments received. Applicant None. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Vice-Chair Tregenza added that the shade structure covers most of the visibility of the shed and the applicant came to the City for a permit and were told they did not need one. 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: F95437CC-D431-4CC5-924F-3C9D04B50AC1 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, July 20, 2022 Ms. Roveri clarified that the shade structure needs a permit and there will be follow up. Vice-Chair Tregenza reiterated that he prefers the shade structure and added that closer attention should be paid to what is installed on a main street in the City. Committee Member Carter agreed and pointed out that there needs to be better communication since this project is almost a year old and the ARC is trying to retroactively approve it. Committee Member Carter included that if applicants ask questions, we shouldn’t throw additional roadblocks in their way. Chair Hunter agreed. Committee Member Ostovar echoed a similar comment and added that there are several roof types and structures at this site. Committee Member Ostovar said it may not have been approved beforehand but it’s not necessarily bad enough to ask that it be removed. On a motion by Vice-Chair Tregenza, seconded by Committee Member Carter, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved Architectural Review application ARP-22-0035 for preliminary and final architectural review of a detached shed at 1300 Munras Avenue: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Hunter, Tregenza, Carter, Ostovar, Schmidt NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Bluth ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 1 MEMBERS: Pauly 4. Consider 700 Grove Street; Architectural Review Permit ARP-22-0049 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of Exterior Alterations, including a Replacement Carport and Balcony Above, New Workshop, and New Gable Roof at the Second story at an Existing Two-Story Single-Family Dwelling; Applicant Mark Edwin Norris; Owner Ann Louise and Salvatore P Ferrante Trs.; R-1-8 Zoning District; Low Density Residential General Plan Designation (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ACTION: Approved Architectural Review Permit ARP-22-0049 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of Exterior Alterations, including a Replacement Carport and Balcony Above, New Workshop, and New Gable Roof at the Second story at an Existing Two-Story Single-Family Dwelling at 700 Grove Street. Committee Member Pauly logged back into the Zoom meeting. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Associate Planner Schmidt presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Committee Member Ostovar asked if a tree survey had been done. Mr. Schmidt stated it had not. Vice-Chair Tregenza questioned why the applicant is not building a garage. Mr. Schmidt said the original intent was to build a garage, but it didn’t meet the floor area ratio 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: F95437CC-D431-4CC5-924F-3C9D04B50AC1 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, July 20, 2022 standard. Committee Member Pauly questioned if there is continuous footing near the trees. Mr. Schmidt clarified the proposed site plan is small, but the tree located at the corner on the left-hand side is directly adjacent to the footing. Mr. Schmidt suggested clarifying with the designer. Applicant Mark Norris, designer, clarified the intention is continuous footing and post footing that will support lights and that the tree in the drawing has a single trunk. Mr. Norris added that an arborist will have a say on if the footing will have gaps or if an engineer needs to make modifications. Vice-Chair Tregenza questioned the owner’s goals with the trees. Mr. Norris stated the goal is to retain all trees. Committee Member Pauly asked if all the footings in the framing section are new. Mr. Norris answered yes. Public Comments Molly Erickson spoke in favor of addition. Committee Member Comments Vice-Chair Tregenza shared that the project will be a nice addition to the neighborhood and spoke in favor of the design. Chair Hunter agreed and added it will be better suited for the neighborhood than what is currently there. On a motion by Committee Member Carter, seconded by Committee Member Schmidt, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved architectural review permit ARP-22-0049 for preliminary and final architectural review of exterior alterations, including a replacement carport and balcony above, new workshop, and new gable roof at the second story at an existing two-story single-family dwelling at 700 Grove Street: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Hunter, Tregenza, Carter, Ostovar, Pauly, Schmidt NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Bluth ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 5. Consider 351 Watson Street; Architectural Review Permit ARP-21-0162 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of Exterior Alterations, including a Two- Story Addition and Roof Deck at an Existing Two-Story Single-Family Dwelling; Applicant Anthony Zavitsanos; Owner Edrees Rohina and Nilofar Hayat et al.; R-3- 6 Zoning District; Medium Density Residential General Plan Designation (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ACTION: Continued Architectural Review Permit ARP-21-0162 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of Exterior Alterations, including a Two- Story Addition and Roof Deck at an Existing Two-Story Single-Family Dwelling at 351 Watson Street. 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: F95437CC-D431-4CC5-924F-3C9D04B50AC1 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, July 20, 2022 Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Associate Planner Schmidt recommended continuing the item to a date uncertain. Committee Member Ostovar questioned why the project was presented if it’s recommended to be denied. Mr. Schmidt answered that when the project was first reviewed, it met all objective design standards, but the subjective design standards were not met. Committee Member Pauly expressed confusion in seeing a presentation on an item that is recommended to be continued and asked if the goal is to provide comments on a potential redesign. Mr. Schmidt said yes. Committee Member Pauly suggested it is incumbent on the applicant to redesign and bring back. Mr. Schmidt stated it’s not mandatory to take comments. Vice-Chair Tregenza inquired if the home was previously historic but removed due to modifications. Mr. Schmidt confirmed the historic report that was done recommended removal, but the owner has not applied for that. Chair Hunter asked if the removal goes through the Historical Preservation Commission. Mr. Schmidt said yes. Committee Member Pauly questioned if the property has not been removed, do the additions have to be consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards and if so, is it the ARC’s job to ensure they are consistent. Mr. Schmidt confirmed yes but it is typically left to a Historian to determine consistency. Chair Hunter asked if the home was removed would the ARC be responsible to determine if the project meets the Secretary of Interior Standards. Mr. Schmidt clarified that it’s not a requirement to remove it from the list, but it is still a requirement to make sure it’s consistent. Mr. Schmidt stated if the ARC doesn’t have specific comments, then a motion can be made to continue the project. Committee Member Pauly noted this is the second upper-level roof deck the ARC has seen and asked if the City has any guidelines on roof decks. Mr. Schmidt confirmed there are no specific guidelines, and the ARC will have to determine if they are a privacy impact. Committee Member Carter suggested roof decks should be a larger conversation with the City. Committee Member Pauly agreed. Committee Member Ostovar asked if grading is an issue for ARC. Ms. Roveri explained that grading and drainage issues with slopes more than 15% require Architectural Review however most grading concerns are handled at the building permit stage unless they impact the siting of the structure or tree removals. Mr. Schmidt shared that additional public comments were submitted that expressed support to deny the application. Applicant Edrees Rohina, applicant and owner, explained the purpose of the project is to add on for 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: F95437CC-D431-4CC5-924F-3C9D04B50AC1 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, July 20, 2022 his parents. Mr. Rohina stated the addition will be in the back of the home and not visible from the street and asked for recommendations from the ARC. Public Comments Molly Erickson spoke on behalf of her mother and sister who live nearby. Ms. Erickson stated that they do not support the project but are sympathetic to the reason for the project. Ms. Erickson said the design is inconsistent with the neighborhood and it is up to the applicant, not the ARC, to design the project. Ms. Erickson expressed a desire for the applicant to discuss the redesign with the neighbors before resubmitting. Ms. Erickson suggested that the HPC review the project first and that the report that was submitted with the application suggested the home is eligible to be removed from the historic list due to alterations made by the owner. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Carter reminded staff and Committee that there is a time limit for public comments. Ms. Roveri said it’s up to the Chair to establish the time limit. Chair Hunter allowed applicant to speak. Mr. Rohina stated that all alterations that have been made have been done with a permit except for a window replacement which did not require a permit. Committee Member Schmidt stated she drove by the residence and expressed similar concerns as neighbors and staff. Committee Member Schmidt thanked Mr. Rohina for his willingness to work with staff and neighbors on his redesign. Committee Member Ostovar suggested clarity is needed to ensure misunderstandings aren’t continued in the future. Vice-Chair Tregenza said he looked forward to a redesign. On a motion by Committee Member Carter seconded by Vice-Chair Tregenza, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee continued architectural review permit ARP-21-0162 for preliminary and final architectural review of exterior alterations, including a two-story addition and roof deck at an existing two-story single-family dwelling at 351 Watson Street: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Hunter, Tregenza, Carter, Ostovar, Pauly, Schmidt NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Bluth ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 6. Receive Report and Hold Discussion Regarding Architectural Review Submittal Checklist Public Handout (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) ACTION: Received Report and Held Discussion Regarding Architectural Review Submittal Checklist Public Handout Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Associate Planner Buggert presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Member questions. 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: F95437CC-D431-4CC5-924F-3C9D04B50AC1 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, July 20, 2022 Committee Members discussed and determined they will make comments for staff before the next ARC meeting. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Report received. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:15pm Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Fernanda Roveri, AICP Chair Principal Planner Architectural Review Committee 7