Architectural Review Committee Meeting
Regular MeetingMonterey, CA · March 15, 2023
Minutes
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9BB1B8FE-57DE-4F10-AD86-0F2A57D1596A
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
Wednesday, March 15, 2023
4:00 PM – 5:30 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBER AND ZOOM TELECONFERENCE
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Members Present: Hunter, Tregenza, Carter, Ostovar, Pauly, Schmidt
Members Absent: None
Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Roveri*, Senior Associate Planner Schmidt,
Associate Planner Sabdo, Recording Secretary Barrera
*Participated via teleconference
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Hunter called the meeting to order at 4:01 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. March 01, 2023
3. March 03, 2023
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 March
01, 2023, and March 03, 2023, minutes as submitted:
AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Hunter, Tregenza, Ostovar, Schmidt
NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 2 MEMBERS: Carter, Pauly
RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None
***End of Consent Agenda***
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
PUBLIC HEARING
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9BB1B8FE-57DE-4F10-AD86-0F2A57D1596A
Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 15, 2023
4. Consider 484 Laine Street; Permit Amendment Application PA-22-0194 for
Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of an Increase in the Second-Story
Roof Height to a Maximum of Twenty Five Feet, Modification of the Second-Story
Roof Form, and Exterior Alterations to an Existing Two-Story Single-Family
Dwelling; Applicant and Property Owners Michael Richardson and Caitlin
Richardson; R-3-5 Zoning District; Medium Density Residential General Plan Land
Use Designation (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1)
Action: Approved Permit Amendment Application PA-22-0194 for Preliminary and
Final Architectural Review of an Increase in the Second-Story Roof Height
to a Maximum of Twenty-Five Feet, Modification of the Second-Story Roof
Form, and Exterior Alterations to an Existing Two-Story Single-Family
Dwelling at 484 Laine Street.
Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions
Associate Planner Sabdo presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee
Members’ questions.
Vice-Chair Tregenza asked to see the letter of opposition from the neighbor. Committee
Member Carter asked for clarification on the grade requirements. Committee Member
Ostovar pointed out the new gable seems higher than the existing gable. Ms. Sabdo
shared the letter of opposition, clarified grade requirements, and shared a photo of the
proposed front view.
Chair Hunter asked for clarification on the gable height. Vice-Chair Tregenza asked if it
was possible to lower the peak to the existing roof line. Committee Member Carter
questioned if any other homes have split height. Senior Associate Planner Schmidt
stated he was aware of a similar roof line nearby that was approved by the Architectural
Review Committee (ARC). Committee Member Pauly asked if there was an existing roof
plan. Ms. Sabdo displayed an image of the existing roof and the proposed roof.
Applicant
Michael Richardson, owner and applicant, made himself available for questions.
Public Comments
None.
Committee Member Comments
Committee Member Ostovar observed it may be difficult to lower the gable but it’s
possible. Committee Member Ostovar added he is more concerned about visibility of the
gable rather than the height.
Vice-Chair Tregenza spoke in favor of the project and noted a small percentage of the
neighbor’s view would be impeded but it’s not unreasonable. Committee Member Pauly
and Committee Member Schmidt agreed.
Architectural Review Committee Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, March 15, 2023
2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9BB1B8FE-57DE-4F10-AD86-0F2A57D1596A
Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 15, 2023
On a motion by Committee Member Carter, seconded by Committee Member Pauly, and
carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved Permit
Amendment Application PA-22-0194 for preliminary and final architectural review of an
increase in the second-story roof height to a maximum of twenty-five feet, modification of the
second-story roof form, and exterior alterations to an existing two-story single-family dwelling
at 484 Laine Street:
AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Hunter, Tregenza, Carter, Ostovar, Pauly, Schmidt
NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None
RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None
5. Consider 902 Lighthouse Avenue; Architectural Review Application ARP-22-0171 for
Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of Exterior Alterations and 1.5’ to 2’ Building
Height Increase to an Existing One-Story Commercial Building and Site; Applicant Greg
Borchardt, PM Design Group, Inc.; Owner Beck Julie Work Tr Et Al; PC-LH Zoning
District; Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation; Exempt from CEQA
Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1; and, Consider 902 Lighthouse
Avenue; Sign Permit Application SI-22-0188 for a 15 Square-Foot Replacement Vehicle-
Oriented Freestanding Sign, 35 Square-Foot Roof Sign, and 21.5 Square-Foot Internally-
Illuminated Digital Menu Sign (Freestanding Sign); Applicant David Ford, All Sign
Services; Owner Beck Julie Work Tr Et Al; PC-LH Zoning District; Commercial General
Plan Land Use Designation; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section
15301, Class 1
Action: Tabled Architectural Review Application ARP-22-0171 for Preliminary and
Final Architectural Review of Exterior Alterations and 1.5’ to 2’ Building
Height Increase to an Existing One-Story Commercial Building and Site at 902
Lighthouse Avenue.
Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions
Senior Associate Planner Schmidt presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee
Members’ questions.
Committee Member Pauly asked for confirmation that there would be no additional lighting to
illuminate the rooftop signs and if the menu would be a hard painted sign. Mr. Schmidt
confirmed there would not be and that staff recommends no lighting is approved unless the
applicant comes back with a permit amendment. Mr. Schmidt said staff is unsure what the
applicants propose for their menu sign.
Committee Member Carter asked if the business next door has internally illuminated signs.
Vice-Chair Tregenza commented that the menu signs seem internally illuminated. Mr.
Schmidt answered he is unsure.
Committee Member Schmidt asked if they are proposing another illuminated sign and if what
is there or what is proposed will create more of a light impact. Mr. Schmidt said an internally
illuminated sign couldn’t be approved but they can maintain the existing sign.
Committee Member Ostovar inquired about the color scheme. Mr. Schmidt answered the
Architectural Review Committee Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, March 15, 2023
3
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9BB1B8FE-57DE-4F10-AD86-0F2A57D1596A
Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 15, 2023
Committee can request alternate colors.
Vice-Chair Tregenza questioned the parapet height increase, how much the sign is being
increased and if it is within the sign guidelines. Committee Member Carter asked for
clarification on halo lit versus internally lit. Mr. Schmidt suggested referring to the applicant
and halo lit is not considered internally lit.
Applicant
Steve Rosenbloom, applicant with National Sign, shared the intent of the project, confirmed
the existing menu board is internally lit, and added that the proposed sign is less than half of
the lumens of the existing sign. Mr. Rosenbloom noted that surrounding businesses have
digital menus.
Vice-Chair Tregenza asked how the existing wall sign is lit. Mr. Rosenbloom stated it is
below a soffit that is lit.
Public Comments
None.
Committee Member Comments
Vice-Chair Tregenza spoke disapprovingly of the proposed parapet height. Committee
Member Ostovar agreed and added the scale, size, material, and color are not fitting for the
area. Committee Member Schmidt shared concerns about the proposed drive-thru sign and
how it will be mounted. Vice-Chair Tregenza suggested using more natural materials.
Committee Member Pauly suggested giving specific direction if the ARC is asking the
applicant to come back and asked if the parapet is corrugated fascia. Mr. Schmidt answered
yes. Committee Member Ostovar agreed with Committee Member Pauly.
Mr. Schmidt agreed with Committee Member Pauly and suggested the ARC recommend a
specific height increase and suggested reopening public comment so the applicant can
waive the permit streamline requirement.
Vice-Chair Tregenza stated he doesn’t have an issue with the menu sign and other two
signs.
Ms. Roveri clarified that internally illuminated signs are prohibited by the Lighthouse Specific
Plan; therefore, staff cannot make a finding that it is consistent with the land use document.
Committee Member Carter asked what kind of signage is used at the Starbucks across the
street. Mr. Schmidt stated that sign was installed before the Lighthouse Specific Plan was
drafted and adopted.
Chair Hunter questioned how a translucent panel illuminated from behind is different from a
plasma screen. Ms. Roveri answered internally illuminated is any internal bulb or source of
lighting within a sign that shines through a transparent or semitransparent surface.
Committee Member Carter suggested the project isn’t a traditional internally illuminated sign
and it is less light that would be put out than a traditional sign and asked for flexibility.
Committee Member Ostovar proposed discussing the role of ARC with Planning and left the
Architectural Review Committee Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, March 15, 2023
4
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9BB1B8FE-57DE-4F10-AD86-0F2A57D1596A
Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 15, 2023
meeting at 5:27 p.m.
Committee Member Schmidt stated the alternative solutions contradict the Sign Guidelines
and Committee Member Pauly asked if the applicants can apply for a variance. Ms. Roveri
said they can apply for a text amendment to change the Lighthouse Specific Plan.
Chair Hunter allowed Mr. Rosenbloom to speak. Mr. Rosenbloom clarified the roof sign
dimensions, the existing and proposed menu board dimensions, and stated the project
architect and franchisee are available for questions.
Vice-Chair Tregenza asked what the steps are to change the sign guidelines and Lighthouse
Specific Plan. Ms. Roveri gave information on how to change it.
Greg Borchart, project architect, provided additional information on the design and materials.
Committee Member Pauly asked where the idea for the materials originated. Mr. Borchart
said it was given to them from Carl’s Jr.
Vice-Chair Tregenza pointed out the old building needs updates, but the new design may not
match the neighborhood.
David Farnum, franchise owner, appreciated the comments from ARC and included their
intention is to improve the look of the restaurant and generate business.
Mr. Schmidt detailed the process for a text amendment to the Lighthouse Specific Plan as
well as the appeal process.
Chair Hunter closed public comment and entertained a motion. Committee Member Schmidt
questioned the applicant’s ability to redesign around corporate. Committee Member Pauly
inquired about the process for a text amendment. Committee Member Carter asked if the
applicants could go directly to City Council for an exemption or if the Planning Commission
(PC) has more authority than the ARC. Mr. Schmidt outlined the text amendment process
and said PC does not have more authority than ARC.
Vice-Chair Tregenza suggested giving the applicant time to come up with alternative options
and come back to the ARC.
Chair Hunter reopened public comment.
Mr. Borchardt stated he would like to have the project continued and asked if they can do
interior improvements while waiting for Planning approval. Mr. Schmidt answered yes.
Mr. Rosenbloom stated he would like to have the project continued and clarified that the
Starbucks across the street has digital and static menu boards. Mr. Rosenbloom said they
are using 40-watt equivalent bulbs.
Architectural Review Committee Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, March 15, 2023
5
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9BB1B8FE-57DE-4F10-AD86-0F2A57D1596A
Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 15, 2023
On a motion by Committee Member Carter, seconded by Committee Member Schmidt, and
carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee tabled Architectural Review
Application ARP-22-0171 for preliminary and final architectural review of exterior alterations
and 1.5’ to 2’ building height increase to an existing one-story commercial building and site at
902 Lighthouse Avenue:
AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Hunter, Tregenza, Carter, Pauly, Schmidt
NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Ostovar
ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None
RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None
COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS
None.
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS
Update Received.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:03 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted, Approved,
Fernanda Roveri, AICP Chair
Principal Planner Architectural Review Committee
Architectural Review Committee Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, March 15, 2023
6
Agenda
Architectural Review Committee Committee Members
Meeting Agenda Ed Hunter, Chair
Patrick Tregenza, Vice Chair
Zoe Carter
Wednesday, March 15, 2023 Payam Ostovar
Justin Pauly
4:00 PM – 5:30 PM Shelly Schmidt
Council Chamber, 580 Pacific St.,
and ZoomGov Teleconference
Monterey, California
How to participate in this meeting:
Written comment: Members of the public may submit comment(s) to
planning@monterey.org until ½ hour before the start of the meeting. These messages
are not read aloud during the meeting but are made available to the meeting body and
public at https://monterey.org/submitted-comments. All comments received become part
of the record.
In-Person: Please see the meeting location listed above. Wearing a mask is
recommended and encouraged.
Remote via ZoomGov Webinar:
o Join on a computer or smartphone: https://monterey-
org.zoomgov.com/j/1619149563. An up-to-date version of the Zoom software
must be used.
o Or join by telephone: Dial 833-568-8864 (Toll Free), 669-254-5252 (Campbell,
CA) or 646-828-7666 (NY). If one number doesn’t work, please try another.
Enter Webinar ID: 161 914 9563 #
If prompted to enter a participant ID, press #
To “raise your hand,” dial *9. Once called upon, dial *6 to unmute
o Need help using or updating Zoom? Read our Zoom Meeting Instructions (PDF)
This meeting will also stream live for viewing only on youtube.com/cityofmonterey (10
second delay) and on Comcast Channel 25 (up to 90-second delay).
FIELD TRIP
The Architectural Review Committee will not conduct a field trip to review the March 15,
2023 ARC meeting agenda. The field trip will depart from the lawn behind Colton Hall at
4:00 p.m. For more information, call (831) 646-3885. Date Posted: March 10, 2023
***Afternoon Session Agenda Only***
CALL TO ORDER
1. Meeting Procedures
CONSENT ITEMS
CONSENT ITEMS allow for a review of those items recommended for approval on
consent or recommended to be continued, tabled or withdrawn, etc. Consent items
consist of those items which are routine and for which a staff recommendation has been
prepared. A member of the public or a Committee Member may request that an item
recommended for approval on consent be heard on the regular agenda for further
discussion.
Approval of Minutes
2. March 01, 2023 (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and
under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
3. March 03, 2023 (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and
under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061)
***End of Consent Agenda***
PUBLIC COMMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENTS. At this time, the public may speak for a maximum of three minutes
on any subject which is within the jurisdiction of the Monterey Architectural Review
Committee and which is not on the agenda. Any person or group desiring to bring an
item to the attention of the Committee may do so during Public Comments or by
addressing a letter of explanation to the Committee, City Hall, Monterey, CA 93940.
Public Comments are taken during the afternoon session and continued at the evening
session. Individuals may choose to speak once for up to three minutes at either session,
but not both.
PUBLIC APPEARANCE
PUBLIC APPEARANCE items are reports on action or informational issues that might
stimulate public discussion, but that do not require formal noticing as public hearings.
You are welcome to offer your comments after being recognized by the Chair. The Chair
may limit the time allocated to each speaker.
4. Consider 484 Laine Street; Permit Amendment Application PA-22-0194 for
Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of an Increase in the Second-Story
Roof Height to a Maximum of Twenty Five Feet, Modification of the Second-
Story Roof Form, and Exterior Alterations to an Existing Two-Story Single-
Family Dwelling; Applicant and Property Owners Michael Richardson and
Caitlin Richardson; R-3-5 Zoning District; Medium Density Residential
General Plan Land Use Designation (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19,
Section 15301, Class 1)
5. Consider 902 Lighthouse Avenue; Architectural Review Application ARP-22-
0171 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of Exterior Alterations
and 1.5’ to 2’ Building Height Increase to an Existing One-Story Commercial
Building and Site; Applicant Greg Borchardt, PM Design Group, Inc.; Owner
Beck Julie Work Tr Et Al; PC-LH Zoning District; Commercial General Plan
Land Use Designation; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19,
Section 15301, Class 1; and, Consider 902 Lighthouse Avenue; Sign Permit
Application SI-22-0188 for a 15 Square-Foot Replacement Vehicle-Oriented
Freestanding Sign, 35 Square-Foot Roof Sign, and 21.5 Square-Foot
Internally-Illuminated Digital Menu Sign (Freestanding Sign); Applicant David
Ford, All Sign Services; Owner Beck Julie Work Tr Et Al; PC-LH Zoning
District; Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation; Exempt from CEQA
Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1
COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS
COMMITTEE MEMBERS may ask a question for clarification, make a brief
announcement or make a brief report on his or her activities. In addition, a Committee
Member may provide a referral to staff or other resources for factual information, request
staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any City matter, or
direct staff to place a request to agendize a matter of business on a future agenda. (G.C.
54954.2)
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS
Architectural Review Committee
3/15/2023 4:00:00 PM
2
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS supply information on activities or
announcements and may request clarification or direction regarding the scheduling of
meetings and study sessions.
6. Planning Office Update
ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT — The general policy of the Architectural Review Committee is that the
Afternoon Session will end no later than 5:30 p.m. and the Evening Session will end no later than
11:00 p.m. Any public agenda items that have not been completed within the designated
adjournment time may be formally extended by the Committee, or continued to the next regularly
scheduled Architectural Review Committee Meeting, or continued to a Special Meeting.
Agenda packets may be reviewed by the public in the Monterey Public Library, in the Planning Office,
or on the web at http://www.monterey.org beginning late Friday afternoon prior to the date of the
meeting.
Members of the public have the right to address the Committee on any Agenda items. The Chair will
formally open the floor for public comment. However, if you wish to speak to items during "Consent
Agenda" or "Staff Informational Report," please advise the staff or the Chair prior to the action on that
item and you will be recognized. Notification as much in advance as possible is appreciated.
Information distributed to the Committee at the meeting becomes part of the public record. A copy of
written material, pictures, etc. should be provided to the Secretary for this purpose.
Architectural Review Committee decisions may be appealed within ten (10) days from the date of the
decision on forms available in the Planning Division during business hours. When the tenth day falls
on a weekend or a holiday, the appeal deadline date is the next working day following the holiday or
weekend. An appeal fee will apply. For more agenda information, call the Planning Office at 831-646-
3885.
CITY OF MONTEREY'S 24-HOUR SUGGESTION HOTLINES:
Voicemail: 831-646-3799
FAX: 831-646-3793
Email: suggest@monterey.org
WebPage: http://www.monterey.org
The City of Monterey is committed to including the disabled in all of its services, programs
and activities. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special
assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (831) 646-
3935. Notification 30 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title
II]. Later requests will be accommodated to the extent feasible. For communication-related
assistance, dial 711 to use the California Relay Service (CRS) to speak to City offices. CRS
offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services 24 hours a day, 7
days a week. If you require a hearing amplification device to attend a meeting, dial 711 to use
CRS to talk to the City Clerk's Office at (831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a device.
MORE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE BY CALLING 646-3885
Architectural Review Committee
3/15/2023 4:00:00 PM
3
Get email alerts for Monterey
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.