Everybody ready?

Started.

Alright.

Good to go.

Alright, so with that, we'll uh call today's architectural review committee to order.

So first we'll uh open the consent agenda.

Yeah, we'll do it.

Vice Chair Palmer.

Here.

Chair Turgeon.

Present.

And committee member Sanders.

Staff present today.

Information on participating in this meeting and providing public comment, including it remotely by Zoom or telephone is on this meeting's agenda, which is online at Monterey.gov forward slash agendas.

Remote commons will be muted until it is their turn to speak, and a timer will be shown on the screen.

If you are connected on Zoom, the timer is accurate with no delay.

In the chamber, we recommend keeping phones and devices muted to prevent audio interference at the meeting.

Thank you for participating in your city government.

Thank you.

Okay.

Now we'll open the consent agenda.

Does any member of the public or committee have any comments they'd like to make for any agenda items?

Move to approve the consent agenda.

And just to confirm there are no attendees online with their hands raised.

Thank you.

Super.

All right.

All in favor?

I'm sorry, I don't know if we had a second on that motion.

Oh, all seven.

Okay.

Thank you.

You can still vote on the minutes if you've uh reviewed the minutes if you were the draft minutes.

Oh right.

Knew that you had.

Yeah.

Okay.

So the minutes were approved.

Um and then we will open public comment for any item not on the agenda.

There I know it attendees currently online.

Super.

Okay, then we'll move on to our first item.

Um so we're gonna consider 1599 Jocelyn Canyon Road, architecture review permit application ARP 24-0033, and tree removal.

Do we need to do this separately?

Okay.

And tree removal permit application ART 25-0062.

Thank you, Chair.

My name is Fernanda Roveri.

I will share my screen and give you a presentation.

Okay.

So as the chair mentioned, this project is at 1599 Jocelyn Canyon Road.

It's for a first and second story edition and a tree removal permit.

Staff's recommendation is that the ARC adopt a resolution approving the ARP and the true removal permit.

The subject property is shown here on this aerial photo.

1599 Jocelyn Canyon Road.

It's in the R120 Soning District.

So the single family residential district and the 20 means that the minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet.

The general plan land use designation is low density residential.

And the property is accessed by Quail Hill Drive.

So you can see Quail Hill Drive is this road that goes up, and it's a cul de sac.

The lot is 60 feet wide and almost 300 feet long.

And the lot slopes down toward Jocelyn Canyon Road.

So you can see that it's a long and narrow lot.

The applicant is requesting approval of a second story edition.

On the left here, you can see this is the second story edition on a site plan.

So the existing single family dwelling is 1,204 square feet.

And the addition consists of a living and bedroom edition.

So an expansion of the existing living, dining and kitchen area, and a master bedroom suite addition that includes a walk-in closet, a bathroom, and the master bedroom.

And a second story balcony that you can see here.

I'm pointing to.

And on the first floor, which is on the right side, there is a proposed uh new two-car garage next to an existing one-car garage.

And um space for a balcony that goes down to the ground floor and the driveway.

The this is uh proposed the proposed west elevation of the addition, showing the addition.

So on the left side is the existing garage, the one car garage, and on the right is the addition the additional garage, two cars, and above it is the um living, dining, and kitchen addition, and all the way to the right is the master bedroom.

Um, the addition follows the architectural style of the existing home.

The overall form is simple and streamlined with a focus on function over decorative detail.

This is the west elevation, and it features large windows for natural light and views.

And this is a 3D model provided in your in the exhibit as well, showing um again the one car garage next to the proposed two-car garage and the living dining kitchen addition above.

This also shows the balconies, and this is the east elevation.

This is facing the adjacent property at 1595 Justin Canyon Road.

Again, um, on the on this side is the master bedroom.

The north elevation is at toward the top of the hill, so it looks like a one-story home here, but on the south side, which is downhill, that's where you can see the two-story element.

Again, the south elevation features the large windows and the large balconies that are important to the applicant to enjoy the outdoor space.

This is again a 3D model of that south elevation, showing the balconies and the addition.

The architectural review committee must make four findings for approval of the architectural review permit.

The first finding is that the proposed siding, form mass, and architectural style are appropriate, and um staff found that due to the limited buildable area, the siding of the addition toward the front of the proper the property is appropriate.

The buildable area is limited to that area right in front of the home.

That's kind of a plateau area, and right if you continue going downhill, the slope gets a lot steeper.

Um, the form the proposed form is modulated by the variety of uh hipped roofs, so the various sizes and heights of the hipped roofs, and by the balconies, the the multi-level balconies and the railings, and uh the horizontal trim that would go along the entire facade would break up the two-story massing.

The architectural style is appropriate in that it focuses on function over detail and presents elements of visual interest, such as the variety of the roofs, the colors, and the construction materials.

The second finding is that the proposal will not unreasonably impair views, privacy or living environment.

And um, this property is located as mentioned on the downhill location of Quail Hill Drive compared to other homes, and so it would not have um impair views because of its location.

The applicant installed story poles and no view impacts were identified.

There are existing trees that separate 1599 and 1595 Jocelyn Canyon Road, and so that would limit any privacy or living environment impacts.

Also, the proposal meets all required setbacks and height restrictions, ensuring that privacy and living environment would not be impaired.

This shows the trees that line the property line between 1599 and 1595 Jocelyn Canyon.

You can see that the trees are greater than 20 feet tall and would block views of the addition.

The third finding is that the project substantially is substantially consistent with the city plans and guidelines.

Staff found that it's consistent with the general plan use because the use would remain low density residential.

The roof is broken up into smaller areas, reducing visual bulk.

And the addition is consistent with the single family design guidelines, in that the addition employs a variation of materials.

Provide contrast or provide uh separation of the massing.

There's also visual interest through through the use of trim details, changes in the wall plane, and a variety of exterior materials and contrasting but muted collars.

The fourth finding is that the proposed finish colors, materials, landscaping, lighting, fencing, and all other exterior features are appropriate.

The staff found that the finishes are consistent in that they would match the existing finishes of the home.

So the roofing would be charcoal, architectural shingle roofing, the windows, the garage doors, and the stucco would be a beige collar, and the trim and roof fascia and railings would be gray.

The um the ARC must make one finding in order to approve a true removal of a tree.

And that finding is that the tree application needs to be submitted with concurrent development plans, which it was.

And in situations where a healthy tree prevents reasonable development of permitted uses, the tree may be approved for removal.

Existing development on similar sites in the same zone and having similar topographic and vegetation characteristics shall be considered when determining reasonable development of permitted uses.

This shows the tree.

And it is in the footprint of the proposed addition.

As I mentioned earlier, this uh site has limited buildable area in that it is a narrow lot, and the only real buildable area is right um where this flat area is located next to the tree.

And here I'm showing that tree.

Um the canopy of the tree is right up next to the existing home, and the addition would be covering the the where the tree location is right now.

Right, immediately south of the tree is a very steep slope, which would uh make additions in that area very unfeasible.

Also, there are existing structures to the rear of the home, which would also make an addition there infeasible.

So, as I mentioned, the trees and the footprint of the proposed first and second story additions, given that there's limited buildable area due to the site's topography.

The proposal presents reasonable development of permitted uses and the trees warranted for removal.

Um, a condition was added to the resolution that a 15-gallon replacement cosli rogue tree is required to be planted on site.

With that, staff recommends that the ARC approve this resolution.

The owner and the project architect are here.

Anyone on the committee have questions?

Would the applicant like to make the presentation?

Just to say thank you for the point of the document.

Yeah.

I really didn't have it.

Yeah, yeah.

Comments are okay.

Your name, please.

Monique Caldi, owner and applicant.

I just want to say thank you so much to Fernanda.

She's been fantastic through this whole process.

It's been years that we've been trying to find a proper site, maximize our buildable area, and really minimize the impact on our lot, but this is just the only way to go.

So we have um multiple trees in the back and trees down on Jocelyn Canyon.

So we really look forward to being able to expand our home and have an opportunity for our elderly mother or our adult children to have a place to come home.

So thank you.

Uh anyone online, Spencer?

Any other comments from the public?

I don't see any attendees online, but I will remind anyone listening that information on participating remotely by Zoom or telephone is found at Monterey.gov forward slash agendas.

If you are joining by telephone, dial star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute.

There are still no attendees with their hands raised.

Okay.

Any discussion from the committee to be half.

No.

Would someone like to make a motion?

I move that we uh approve architectural review permit application ARP 24-0033 and the tree removal permit application ART-25-0062 for 1599 Jocelyn Road with the conditions outlined in the staff report.

Wonderful.

Second.

Oh second.

All in favor.

Hi.

Approved.

Congratulations.

That is appealable to the planning commission.

For form is available online in the planning office within 10 days.

Okay.

So then next we'll consider 66 98 Mar Vista Drive, sign permit application SI25-0107.

Okay.

Thank you for the patient.

Thank you, Chair and Commissioners.

My name is Christy Sabdo, principal planner with the City of Monterey.

I'll be presenting 6698 Marvista Drive, which is a sign permit application for retroactive approval of one freestanding sign at an existing multifamily apartment complex.

The recommendation to the architectural review committee is to approve the sign application for the retroactive installation of one freestanding sign at a multifamily apartment complex.

The general plan designation is medium density residential.

The zoning is R3 residential medium density multifamily dwelling, and it's located in the Monterey Vista neighborhood.

So as background, um the previous address sign met the requirements of uh what an address sign is for our sign guidelines.

Um has to be four square feet and 12 inches in height.

And it it was that was located in this uh in the right of way.

So um the sign was changed out without a sign permit.

Um the applicant had indicated um that the previous address sign was inadequate.

Um he received complaints from tenants that the UPS and Amazon couldn't find the delivery address for the apartment.

Um other residents were concerned that emergency services would not be able to locate on the property.

Um so the smaller address sign was replaced with a sign that includes larger address uh letters and numbers.

Uh the city's code compliance officer did send notification to the property owner on March 4th, indicating the sign permits required for the sign that was installed.

Uh it does not meet the uh requirements and the definition of an address sign.

Address signs are exempt for the um sign guidelines.

Um that would be 12 inches and a maximum of four square feet.

The sign installed is 11.7 square feet.

So um just according to the fire code, since this is a new um, it's considered a freestanding sign, even though it has the address on it.

Um according to the fire code, new and existing buildings are required to have address identification that is legible and placed in a position that is visible at all times from the street or road fronting the property.

Um the two 2022 California Fire Code covers uh premise identification or address identification.

Um, there's a number of requirements.

We did coordinate with uh Monterey Fire to make sure that the existing sign does meet these requirements, and it does.

Um, in addition, um they confirm that the proposed sign location and the size of the lettering 10 to 12 inches could be easily seen during an emergency response.

And they wouldn't want the lettering to be reduced any less than eight inches.

Um in staff's opinion, we thought that the lettering was a little big, and maybe there's an opportunity to request that the lettering be reduced.

Um, you know, a difference between 10 to 12 inches and eight inches is not a whole lot.

So uh we were not requesting that or proposing it.

Um this is the sign that was installed.

Uh it is uh located in the public right of way, requires an encroachment permit and uh specific encroachment permit findings to be approved by the architectural review committee.

So the applicant is proposing retroactive approval of this freestanding sign to identify the address of the property.

The new sign is 11.7 square feet.

It's a considered a freestanding sign according to our sign guidelines.

It's single-sided and non-illuminated.

The lettering of 6698 is 12 inches high.

Mar Vista is 10 inches high, and the sign is 11.7 square feet with a base, solid base.

So in reviewing the findings for a sign permit, the proposal is consistent with the purposes and objectives of the sign ordinance, and that the sign serves to identify the apartment complex along Marvista Drive.

The sign would complement the multifamily property with the purpose of identifying the building.

The proposal is consistent with all applicable sign guidelines or has been determined by the ARC to better achieve the objectives of the sign ordinance.

The proposal is consistent with the sign guidelines, except that it's located in the public right-of-way.

So an encroachment permit would be required.

We wrote in a special condition of approval requiring that.

The proposed sign is consistent with the medium density residential general plan land use designation and that it would support residential use.

And then I'm not going to read this whole thing, but this is the first encroachment permit finding.

Freestanding signs are required to be located on private property unless required encroachment permit findings are made.

Strict application of the requirement to install the freestanding sign on private property would deny this particular property the opportunity to clearly identify the address of this property.

So as shown in this figure, alternative location three would be on private property, but not be visible, uh would not provide the visibility needed.

And this is in coordination with Monterey Fire.

Alternative location two would be on private property, but would not be visible due to the fence in this location here.

Alternative one is in the public right-of-way, but there is a utility box in the ground, and therefore installation of a sign in that location would not be feasible.

Only feasible location would be the existing landscape planter located in the public right-of-way on Marvista Drive.

Clear identification of location of this apartment complex would help emergency vehicles and delivery trucks serving this site.

Monterey Fire has also confirmed their preference for this location due to its high visibility.

This finding is met.

The property owner would be required to meet the special condition of approval one, approval of an encroachment permit.

Also, the apartment complex adjacent to the subject site at 3862 Mar Vista with the same zoning as an existing address sign located in the public right-of-way along Mar Vista.

The proposed freestanding address sign would not be considered a grant of special privilege.

Encroachment permit finding three, a sign encroachment permit shall not be granted if the applicant's inability to post a sign on private property so that the message is viewable by the public could be avoided by an alternative development plan.

And then the rest are ORs.

So we're going with the top one.

This finding is met.

The proposed location of the sign in the public right-of-way is the most visible location for an address sign.

Any other location on private property would not be visible enough to serve the purpose of identifying the property's address.

As shown in the previous figure, an address sign in alternative location one would still be in the right-of-way and will be blocked by fencing.

The second location is on private property, but would not be the most visible and could be missed.

And alternative location three would be set too far back to be clearly visible.

Four, the following conditions shall be imposed on all sign permit or sign encroachment permits.

This finding is met.

The freestanding address sign has been reviewed in compliance with the Monterey City Code.

The city's public works department has reviewed the location of the new address sign and is confirmed there would be no traffic or safety hazards.

The proposed sign would be in compliance with um chapter 31.

Uh sign and sign guidelines as noted in the findings above.

Staff recommends that the architecture review committee approve the sign permit application for the retroactive approval of one freestanding sign at email the family apartment complex at Mar Vista Drive.

Um staff's available for questions.

I don't think the applicant is here.

Um, but they were you are okay.

Thank you.

Um I have one question.

Yes.

Um, I think the old sign was in a very similar location, right?

It was yeah, it was I mean, it was smaller, of course, but yeah, I mean I live way up the street on Marvista.

But anyway, so um okay, that's what I thought.

Any other questions?

Questions?

No.

Uh would you like to make a presentation?

Thank you.

On behalf of the owner, um, we want to thank I, I'm sorry, Victoria Oroya.

On behalf of the owner, Greg Zimmerman, I just want to thank city staff for reviewing this in great length.

I know it's been many, many months that we've been trying to work through this.

And um, we've tried to find so many different alternate places to place the sign.

And unfortunately, the options um with this parcel are very, very challenging.

Um, as staff mentioned, the challenges that we faced were the windy road um with no defined lanes, the blind corner at the top of the block.

The property being built over 60 plus years ago, um, with no setbacks, as you can see, uh, and only one egress into the property itself.

Um, the hardest challenge was uh the majority of the property is actually located at least 10 feet below street level, which making signage um very challenging, especially in one of the um the middle section there that was pointed out in in the plans.

Um we'd basically need to put up posts to erect a sign, and that would make it very indicative of a billboard.

Um so I just want to agree with city staff and Monterey Fire that the additional um optional proposed sites, they just don't work due to a myriad of different reasons.

And um I just want to thank you for your time and for your service and consideration of this project.

Um, we've got over 50 people living at this multi-residential complex.

And I, for one, would be very happy if everyone received their mail, their deliveries, and um we've certainly had um emergency response at this location um at least three times this calendar year alone.

So I thank you very much for your consideration.

Any public comments.

And there are no uh attendees currently online.

Okay.

Any discussion from the committee?

No.

Would someone like to make a motion?

Well, we'll move to approved sign permit application as uh-25-0107 for the retroactive approval of the free one freestanding address sign for uh the existing multi-family building.

All in favor?

Aye.

So approved.

That is approved and appealable to the planning commission with forms available online and in the planning office within 10 days.

Any updates from staff?

Sure.

So as uh yeah, just shortly uh as noted in the report.

We do have uh a couple items that are one item that's tentatively scheduled for our September 17th meeting, also noted in the packet.

Excuse me.

Is uh three administrative architectural review permits and one administrative sign permit that was issued in the month of August.

Um I did want to just while we do have this group here.

Um I believe we have one more meeting for the ARC scheduled in the month of September.

Uh Commissioner or committee member Hunter, I believe you're gonna be gone after that meeting.

You're leaving before that meeting.

Okay.

So thank you for letting us know.

And and so the reason I bring it up is because uh with that, we will be razor thin on a quorum.

We'll have four members left um, you know, available for meetings.

So what I will likely do uh probably after this meeting is I'll send out an email email since uh committee member Polly's not present right now.

But essentially, as you know, ARC meets twice a month uh with only four committee members available to meet in the upcoming months.

But essentially as you know ARC meets twice a month uh with only four committee members available to meet in the upcoming months uh it's gonna be uh you know obviously we don't want to schedule meetings if if we're not gonna be able to get a quorum so what I'll do is I'll send out the probably the over the next two months uh the meeting dates that we have and if we can get a consensus you know we're we're happy to consolidate projects to just one meeting a month since we're gonna be struggling to get a quorum for some of these other meetings so if we'll probably just send out an email if we can get just a little bit of a a poll of attendance and who's available to attend which meetings we'll see a staff which meetings we can move forward with and which ones don't really make sense to agendize items for um so and uh Ed do you know when you're gonna be back sure you told us well if you don't mind if that's fine uh I think we back good okay it would be that's correct on the 15th so hopefully hopefully your fellow committee members will be courteous enough to pick October first then for the October meeting then oh well then there you go you're you maybe you know we'll we'll just try to avoid it we'll we'll try to avoid that one since we know you're you're you know one one delayed flight away from not making that and then we already know the chair won't be present so we'll shoot for the October 1st meeting but I'll send all that out via email just wanted to give you guys yeah perfect just want to give you guys a heads up uh so that we can we can't kind of consolidate the agendas for to make make quorum happen.

So that's all we got.