Architectural Review Committee Meeting

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3C47816E-A58A-4C48-A941-2F7BBCD07B5C MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, September 21, 2022 4:00 PM – 5:30 PM COUNCIL CHAMBER AND ZOOM TELECONFERENCE MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Hunter, Tregenza*, Bluth, Ostovar*, Pauly* (4:06pm), Schmidt* Members Absent: Carter *Participated remotely via teleconference Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Roveri, Senior Associate Planner Schmidt*, Associate Planner Buggert*, Administrative Assistant Cleary, 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 the Monterey City Council’s Resolution authorizing virtual participation in public meetings given the COVID-19 pandemic. CALL TO ORDER Chair Hunter called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. and Administrative Assistant 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. September 07, 2022 Action: Approved as submitted. On a motion by Committee Member Bluth, seconded by Committee Member Pauly, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the September 07, 2022, minutes as submitted: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Hunter, Tregenza, Bluth, Pauly, Schmidt NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Carter ABSTAIN: 1 MEMBERS: Ostovar RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE DocuSign Envelope ID: 3C47816E-A58A-4C48-A941-2F7BBCD07B5C Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 21, 2022 3. Consider 351 Watson Street; Architectural Review Permit ARP-21-0162 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of Exterior Alterations, including a Two- Story Addition at an Existing Two-Story Single-Family Dwelling; Applicant Anthony Zavitsanos; Owner Edrees Rohina; R-3-6 Zoning District; Medium Density Residential General Plan Designation (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ACTION: Tabled Architectural Review Permit ARP-21-0162 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of Exterior Alterations, including a Two- Story Addition at an Existing Two-Story Single-Family Dwelling at 351 Watson Street. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Associate Planner Schmidt presented the Agenda Report and recommended continuing the item to address public comment. Committee Member Schmidt questioned when the rear retaining wall and grading occurred. Mr. Schmidt answered it existed before the survey that was done in January of this year. Committee Member Pauly inquired the reasoning behind continuing the item. Mr. Schmidt clarified to ensure window is in correct location and address public comments. Committee Member Pauly spoke against continuing the item due to windows alone but is comfortable continuing the item to address public comments. Committee Member Pauly observed significant grading has been done and asked for details on the materials used under the artificial turf and what the City requirements are on grading permits. Mr. Schmidt explained that according to the applicant, crushed rocked was used and has improved drainage. Mr. Schmidt added when the work was done, a building permit wasn’t required but the accessory structure was done after January of this year. Ms. Roveri interjected there is no evidence that a staff member from building visited the rear yard. Committee Member Pauly called attention to the amount of work that has been done in the rear yard and asked if the only issue staff has is the covered car area. Mr. Schmidt confirmed there isn’t a height concern for this project. Ms. Roveri added that installation of turf does not require a planning or building permit. Chair Hunter asked for clarification on the height and requirements of the retaining wall. Ms. Roveri stated there are no height issues but is unclear if the steps were meant to retain dirt or if they follow the natural grade. Committee Member Pauly asserted that the natural grade was not followed, and neighbors are upset about the amount of work that has been done. Committee member Pauly said there appears to be an issue with lack of enforcement and it should be decided whether to debate or continue. Committee Member Ostovar suggested some of the items do not fall under Architectural Review Committee (ARC) purview and asked if it is possible to discuss only those items. Ms. Roveri explained ARC has requested to see complete plans and since the elevation 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3C47816E-A58A-4C48-A941-2F7BBCD07B5C Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 21, 2022 missed some windows it was suggested to continue the item until there are complete plans. Ms. Roveri said if the ARC would like to approve the project, they can implement conditions to be followed at the building stage. Applicant Edrees Rohina, applicant and owner, maintained that the work done in the rear yard is legal. Mr. Rohina stated the neighbor complained and building department came and said there was no permit needed. Mr. Rohina said the carport is not permitted but can be removed if it is a problem. Mr. Rohina noted the slope was unsafe and he installed a retaining wall that didn’t exceed 48”. Mr. Rohina said he can provide information on which building staff member inspected the property. Public Comments Molly Erickson spoke on behalf of her mother who lives next door and suggested more information is needed from applicant and asked staff to make a site visit. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Pauly asked for clarification on staff’s position of the legality of work done in the rear yard. Ms. Roveri clarified that from staff’s point of view no permit was needed. Vice-Chair Tregenza commented the issues with grading not come to the ARC. Committee Member Pauly agreed and added it could be a Code Enforcement issue. Committee Member Pauly appreciated Staff pointing out incompleteness of drawings but thinks windows can be visualized and should not continue the project. Committee Member Ostovar agreed but believes ARC should address the issues in the rear yard. Mr. Schmidt asked ARC to determine consistency of the window. Vice-Chair Tregenza spoke disapprovingly of sky lights and questioned if the existing foundation under the garage will be demolished. Committee Member Ostovar asked if story poles had been installed and Mr. Schmidt replied yes. Community Development Director Cole asked Mr. Schmidt to illustrate new footings. Mr. Schmidt explained the new grade would be lowered a little bit on the area with existing turf. Committee Member Ostovar and Committee Member Pauly discussed grading plan and questioned how it would be executed with existing structures. Ms. Cole asserted a French drain or structure would need to be installed to catch water and Building could require removal of artificial turf. Ms. Cole stated the project can be approved or continued but nuance of draining is caught at the Building level. Committee Member Pauly agreed and expressed concern over the floor plan changing. Ms. Cole acknowledged this is a tough project and continuance was recommended so Staff had more time to investigate some of these issues. Chair Hunter and Committee Member Bluth agreed, suggesting a site visit would be helpful. Committee Member Pauly disapproved of the windows. 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3C47816E-A58A-4C48-A941-2F7BBCD07B5C Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 21, 2022 Committee Member Ostovar asked if grading issues are resolved before coming to ARC. Ms. Roveri stated grading is a part of the submittal checklist and that sometimes it can only be conceptual until it gets to the Building permit stage. Committee Member Schmidt asserted the sky lights may not be appropriate for the neighborhood. On a motion by Committee Member Bluth, seconded by Vice-Chair Tregenza, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee tabled Architectural Review permit ARP- 21-0162 for preliminary and final architectural review of exterior alterations, including a two-story addition at an existing two-story single-family dwelling at 351 Watson Street: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Hunter, Tregenza, Bluth, Ostovar, Pauly, Schmidt NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Carter ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 4. Consider 585 Cannery Row; Sign Permit Application SI-22-0144 for Four Wall Signs and Two Awning Signs; Applicant Douglas Roberts; Owner Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation (Representative Mark Ambers); Cannery Row Zoning District (CR); Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ACTION: Approved with Conditions Sign Permit Application SI-22-0144 for Four Wall Signs and Two Awning Signs at 585 Cannery Row. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Associate Planner Buggert presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Committee Member Bluth questioned if the structure above the wall sign was for a hanging sign. Mr. Buggert answered yes and added that it will be removed. Mr. Buggert said both wall signs would have an arch lighting feature that will be consistent with code. Committee Member Ostovar received confirmation from Mr. Buggert that only two wall signs will be illuminated. Vice-Chair Tregenza asked for confirmation that the color of the mural will not change. Mr. Buggert stated the specific color is not listed but can be added as a condition of approval. Committee Member Schmidt asked what color the proposed lighting will be, and Mr. Buggert confirmed the color. Ms. Roveri included that the applicant can submit the exact color to be used. Committee Member Ostovar asked for an explanation on proposed lighting and clarification on the design of the logo. Applicant Doug Roberts, architect and applicant, confirmed the proposed colors of the mural and said the lighting is intended to be small, traditional, and fitting for Cannery Row. Mr. 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3C47816E-A58A-4C48-A941-2F7BBCD07B5C Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 21, 2022 Roberts said the letters of the logo will be free standing and pinned to the wall. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Ostovar expressed concern over the light but spoke in favor of the project overall. Vice-Chair Tregenza affirmed the project has an industrial feel, fitting for Cannery Row, provided the color stays the same. Chair Hunter agreed. Committee Member Bluth suggested having conditions, so the light variation and shading stay the same. On a motion by Vice-Chair Tregenza, seconded by Committee Member Bluth, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved, with conditions that the mural color remains consistent with drawings, SI-22-0144 for four wall signs and two awning signs at 585 Cannery Row: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Hunter, Tregenza, Bluth, Ostovar, Pauly, Schmidt NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Carter ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Committee Member Ostovar asked if the order of the roll call vote is ever changed. Ms. Roveri said it is not, but Staff can try a different template at the next meeting. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Report received. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:34pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Fernanda Roveri, AICP Chair Principal Planner Architectural Review Committee 5