Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, February 21, 2024 4:00 PM 5:30 PM COUNCIL CHAMBER AND ZOOM TELECONFERENCE MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Tregenza, Hunter, Ostovar, Palmer, Schmidt, Members Absent: Pauly, Turgen Staff Members Present: Planning Manager Hill, Principal Planner Roveri, Senior Associate Planner Schmidt, Recording Secretary Arganbright CALL TO ORDER Chair Tregenza called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Recording Secretary Arganbright provided information to the public about how to participate by calling in to give public comment on the live web meeting. Committee Member Ostovar arrived at 4:02 p.m., in time to participate in the consent item portion of the agenda. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 2. February 07, 2024 (Not a project under CEQA per Article 20 Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5 Section 15061) No Comments. Action: Approved as submitted. On a motion by Committee Member Hunter, seconded by Committee Member Schmidt, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the CONSENT ITEMS as submitted: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Tregenza, Hunter, Ostovar, Palmer, Schmidt NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Pauly, Turgen ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None RECUSED: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 21, 2024 3. Consider 2000 Garden Road; Soliciting Design Feedback for a New 30-Unit Multifamily Residential Condominium Building; Solicitors Paul W. Davis, The Paul -R-130-RA-ES- MF Zoning District; Industrial General Plan Designation (Exempt from CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Action: Feedback given for a New 30-Unit Multifamily Residential Condominium Building at 2000 Garden Road. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Associate Planner Schmidt presented the Agenda Report and answered regarding parking, unit number, tree replacement requirements, and a clarification on the plans for tree removal. Principal Planner Roveri also assisted with a question regarding adjacent transportation and Property Owner Representative Brad Slama assisted with the number of currently proposed units versus previously proposed units. Applicant Architect Paul Davis stated the previous project plans were attempting to fit more units in. Davis asked for the Committee to weigh-in on parking versus open space. Slama stated that the project did not have enough water credits for the previous number of units. The Committee asked for clarification on the height of the project and Slama responded that le from Garden Road as some of the height is sub-terranean and the view from Highway 68 is hidden. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments The Committee noted parking was an issue on Garden Road closer to the airport, but that street parking was less of an issue where the project was located. The Committee expressed gratitude for the housing units, a desire to have the building screened by trees, and native trees at that, and a preference for fewer parking spaces and to avoid parking spaces in front of the building. The Committee asked for clarification on what crime prevention design means to staff and the applicant. Staff responded that it has to do with elements such as building placement, lighting in relation to both landscaping and parking lot, and avoiding blind spots. Davis and Slama responded in kind and added examples regarding the garage and shared space closer to Garden Road. The Committee expressed an understanding of crime prevention by design to mean building community, shared space, and safety from that. Committee Member Ostovar succinctly stated afety comes from [a] sense of community. The Committee appreciated the new placement of the dumpster. Architectural Review Committee Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 21, 2024 2  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 21, 2024 The Committee requested clarity on the amount of open space per unit and if the proposed decks for the units were included. Senior Associate Planner Schmidt confirmed and added that the current figure is closer to 500 square feet per unit than previously stated. Schmidt also noted that the prior project had parking in front to fit the required parking spaces, so staff was supportive of increasing the open space to the front of the address and decreasing the parking. The Committee asked if there was an opportunity to plant trees towards the back of the property near Highway 68. Senior Associate Planner Schmidt stated there are a number of trees near Highway 68, but that there was room for more. Schmidt then also relayed that screening the project from Highway 68 could be a good topic of Committee discussion. The Committee discussed story poles and related options for relaying building height and bulk. The Committee asked and Slama responded regarding the footprint of the building and the potential for further units. The Committee restated a desire to have the view of the building from Highway 68 shielded. Senior Associate Planner Schmidt informed the Committee that the open space requirement is dependent on the zoning and for the multi-family overlay 600 square feet are required. Principal Planner Roveri pointed out that the site plans have a 100-foot setback from the Highway 68 planned right-of-way. Senior Associate Planner Schmidt responded that the adjacent length of H labeled as a scenic highway, so in speaking with the previous Planning Manager and Director it was believed the 100-foot setback did not apply. Planning Manager Hill clarified that the State of California designates State Scenic requirement would not apply. Hill also reaffirmed that the State would not raise issue with the setback as it is the City that set the requirement for properties adjacent to Scenic Highways. The Committee discussed shared space uses to avoid clutter on tenant balconies. The Committee also commented on the need for housing and revitalization especially in this area. 4. Consider 2560 and 2600 Garden Road; Soliciting Design Feedback for 18 New Duplexes (36 Units); Solicitors Paul W. Davis, The Paul Davis Partnership, LLP and -R-130-RA-ES-MF Zoning District; Industrial General Plan Designation (Exempt from CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378, and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Architectural Review Committee Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 21, 2024 3 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 21, 2024 Action: Feedback given for 18 New Duplexes (36 units) at 2560 and 2600 Garden Road. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Principal Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee parking, setbacks, lot sizes, coverage, density, and Property Owner Representative Brad Slama assisted with a question regarding adjacent buildings. Applicant Slama explained the main concerns for the project are removal of trees and the retaining wall at the bottom towards Highway 68. Architect Paul Davis described how the city sewer line goes through the middle of the plots which makes building on the plots difficult. Davis explained that they workshopped multiple different access ways and settled on the center for increased safety. The project was designed to create a community to fit in with the urban forest of the area. Slama explained the units would lose usability if they increased the density since the plots do not have the necessary water credits. Slama stated in essence the site could accommodate 65 one-bedroom units. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments The Committee asked the applicants questions about setbacks from Highway 68, parking, and storage, and the applicants responded and clarified. The Committee expressed appreciation for the variety of unit layouts. The Committee then asked for clarification on the staff report regarding incentives for affordability. Principal Planner Roveri explained the State gives incentives and waivers if and when developers provide a certain number of affordable units and Roveri provided examples of incentives and waivers. Roveri also explained that the project is mandated by the City to have at least 20% affordable housing and with that the project is on track to receive 1 or 2 incentives. Planning Manager Hill also added that the project could go over the 20% minimum and receive more incentives. Hill also corrected a previous statement by saying that Highway 68 was designated by the State of California as a Scenic Highway back in 1968, and the Garden Road projects are thus not exempt from the 100-foot setback requirement. The Committee put into question the proposed setbacks and asked if the reduced setback would create a precedent. Roveri said staff would encourage the applicant to apply for side setback and height waivers since the projects will have to include affordable housing. Roveri said the front setback could require multiple waivers and therefore more discussion with the applicant is needed. Architectural Review Committee Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 21, 2024 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 21, 2024 The Committee asked for clarification on the building height and why it is considered from current grade and not post-development, to which Roveri responded that the code defines the height from the lowest point, existing or proposed. The Committee then asked the applicant why the style and specifically the density/type of building was chosen and current plan for tree replacement. Slama explained that the goal is to build all types of units and referred to the other 2000 Garden Road and 2300 Garden Road projects which have 2-bedroom units and 1- bedroom units, respectively. Slama stated they would like to meet at least a 3-to-1 replacement ratio for trees, both on and off site. The Committee appreciated the diverse types of units the planned projects provide and appreciated the updated information regarding the project at 2300 Garden Road. The Committee asked more specific timeline and building questions and Slama responded. The Committee asked if the applicant wanted more feedback and Slama said the main items they wanted addressed were the setbacks, trees, and retaining wall, which had been discussed. The Committee expressed interest in seeing the project unfold and asked for clarification on the setback requirements. Planning Manager Hill stated the zoning for the area is industrial, and in 2019 the City Council adopted a multi-family overlay for the area to facilitate residential development but did not change the setbacks. In response to potential industrial noise and proximity to the airport, Slama noted that the units will be able to mitigate enough external sound to exceed the sound transfer requirements. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS None. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Received update. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Principal Planner Chair Architectural Review Committee Architectural Review Committee Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 21, 2024 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 21, 2024 Architectural Review Committee Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 21, 2024 6