Architectural Review Committee Meeting

DocuSign Envelope ID: D0F01962-BD57-40D9-BF60-22D155035952 MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, February 1, 2023 4:00 PM – 5:30 PM COUNCIL CHAMBER AND ZOOM TELECONFERENCE MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Tregenza, Bluth, Ostovar*, Pauly* (4:03 p.m.), Schmidt* Members Absent: Hunter, Carter *Participated remotely via teleconference Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Roveri, Senior Associate Planner Schmidt, 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 Vice-Chair Tregenza called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. 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. January 18, 2023 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 January 18, 2023, minutes as submitted: AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Tregenza, Bluth, Pauly, Schmidt NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Hunter, Carter ABSTAIN: 1 MEMBERS: Ostovar RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE DocuSign Envelope ID: D0F01962-BD57-40D9-BF60-22D155035952 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 1, 2023 3. Consider 179 Seeno Street; Architectural Review Permit ARP-22-0184 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a Second-Story Accessory Dwelling Unit above an Existing Garage, and Second-Story Deck; Applicant Darren Davis, Draftect; Owners Joseph and Teresa Machado; 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-22-0184 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a Second-Story Accessory Dwelling Unit above an Existing Garage, and Second-Story Deck at 179 Seeno Street Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Associate Planner Schmidt presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Committee Member Bluth asked clarifying questions about the layout of the neighboring home. Vice-Chair Tregenza questioned the parking. Mr. Schmidt clarified the existing garage and carport will be maintained. Committee Member Bluth observed the garage seems too small to park a car in. Committee Member Pauly asked what the minimum garage requirements are and if the French doors are glass. Mr. Schmidt gave the minimum requirements and stated it’s not a requirement to increase the size of the existing garage. Mr. Schmidt suggested referring to the applicant for information on the door material. Applicant Darren Davis, applicant and project designer, confirmed you can park a car in the garage and the doors are carriage doors. Mr. Davis assured the home and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) will have a parking space. Mr. Davis outlined the layout of the project and cited privacy as the reasoning for a solid balcony railing. Public Comments Providence Crivello, neighbor (191/195/199 Seeno Street), expressed concern over her impacted view. Ms. Crivello stated she is in favor of the ADU but asked the Committee to reduce the living space. Ms. Crivello stated she has safety concerns about parked cars blocking the sidewalk. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Schmidt asked if there was a photograph taken from the neighbor’s property. Vice-Chair Tregenza requested to see a photograph from the neighbor’s bathroom window in hopes of seeing the impacted view. Vice-Chair Tregenza stated the ground level bay view does not seem to be impacted and that the parking is existing and does not seem to be a concern. Committee Member Pauly agreed with Vice-Chair Tregenza regarding parking and added that although no one wants to lose a view from any windows, reducing the size of the ADU may not be a fair ask of the applicant. Committee Member Bluth suggested Ms. Crivello’s concern about parked cars blocking 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: D0F01962-BD57-40D9-BF60-22D155035952 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 1, 2023 the sidewalk is a parking enforcement issue, separate from Architectural Review. Committee Member Bluth agreed that some views of the bay will be lost. Vice-Chair Tregenza questioned if this project poses an unreasonable loss of view. Ms. Crivello shared a photo taken from her bathroom window and Ms. Roveri suggested public comment should be reopened. Vice-Chair Tregenza reopened public comment. Public Comments Reopened John Aliotti, neighbor (680 Scott Street), expressed concern over loss of privacy and asked clarifying questions about the dimensions of the south facing balcony, how close the unit will be to the back property line, and where the stairs lead to. Mr. Schmidt confirmed dimensions and setback and confirmed the boundary of the netting is an eave, not a wall. Mr. Schmidt stated the stairs lead towards a walkway. Committee Member Questions Committee Member Pauly asked clarifying questions about the fencing. Mr. Schmidt explained there are two fences. Committee Member Ostovar questioned where the adjacent window lands in comparison to the upper-level reading room. Mr. Schmidt said it’s hard to tell but the addition would go past it. Committee Member Pauly asserted that the view from the neighbor’s bathroom would be gone and it’s up to the Committee to decide if that’s fair. Committee Member Pauly stated there is enough remaining view to justify the addition. Mr. Schmidt added that if you looked out of the window at an angle, you may still be able to see the view. Vice-Chair Tregenza asked if Ms. Crivello could make another public comment. Ms. Roveri stated one public comment per person is allowed. Vice-Chair Tregenza said he would have liked to have seen a photo from Ms. Crivello’s bathroom with the story poles installed. Committee Member Bluth suggested bringing it back with a better photo of the obstructed view. Committee Member Pauly pointed out that the view is obstructed regardless. On a motion by Committee Member Pauly seconded by Committee Member Bluth, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved architectural review permit ARP-22-0184 for preliminary and final architectural review of a second-story accessory dwelling unit above an existing garage, and second-story deck at 179 Seeno Street: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Tregenza, Bluth, Ostovar, Pauly, Schmidt NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Hunter, Carter ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 4. Consider 2600 Garden Road; Study of Site Plan Alternatives for Information Gathering Purposes; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15306, Class 6 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: D0F01962-BD57-40D9-BF60-22D155035952 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 1, 2023 Action: Received presentation and held discussion. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Principal Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Vice-Chair Tregenza asked if the porte cochere is still planned. Ms. Roveri confirmed it is not. Committee Member Bluth asked if the town home layout stayed the same when the number of units were reduced and if the water credits would change. Ms. Roveri stated the units are the same and the water is allotted on a fixture count. Committee Member Pauly asked clarifying questions about the site plans. Ms. Roveri explained the additional lines are easements. Committee Member Ostovar questioned what connects to the back of the project site. Ms. Roveri stated they have two easements that will have access to the property in the back. Committee Member Ostovar asked what the parking requirements are. Ms. Roveri answered each unit requires 2.5 parking spaces. Committee Member Pauly asked what the unit count was on the previously approved project. Ms. Roveri said 57. Applicant Brad Slama, applicant, explained recycled water is no longer allowed; therefore, the number of units needed to be reduced. Mr. Slama said that the town home style is more desirable than the previously approved two- and three-story garden rise apartments. Mr. Slama explained the goal is to purchase the property behind the project and three design considerations are presented to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to gain their opinion and guidance. Committee Member Schmidt inquired why the units’ backside faces Garden Road. Mr. Slama cited safety and setback requirements. Mr. Slama pointed to the planned landscape and shrubbery and stated a bigger buffer from Garden Road would be created with the back of the units facing Garden Road. Vice-Chair Tregenza asked if there are any deck or backyard guidelines for tenants and questioned the density of the greenbelt. Mr. Slama answered most of the tree mitigation would go into the backyards, if approved. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Vice-Chair Tregenza thanked the applicant for presenting three different options and spoke in favor of 36 units. Committee Member Schmidt spoke in favor of 40 or 36 units and stated she would like to see consideration put into fencing and requirements to what homeowners can put in their 4 DocuSign Envelope ID: D0F01962-BD57-40D9-BF60-22D155035952 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 1, 2023 backyards. Committee Member Pauly spoke in favor of 36 units due to the amount of open space and amenities. Committee Member Ostovar agreed with other Committee Members but spoke disapprovingly of the amount of parking spaces. Committee Member Ostovar added that whether the applicant acquires the adjacent property will determine what will work best. Committee Member Bluth agreed with Committee Member Ostovar and Committee Member Pauly. Vice-Chair Tregenza questioned if each unit will have curb side pickup or dumpster and if they will have a central mailbox. Ms. Roveri answered it’s not clear yet, but it will have to be worked out with an Architectural Review submittal. Vice-Chair Tregenza stated he prefers Option C but can see Option B working. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS None. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Roveri updated the Committee on the project at 2000 Garden Road. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Fernanda Roveri, AICP Vice-Chair Principal Planner Architectural Review Committee 5