Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, March 6, 2013 AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY 4:00 pm - 7:00 pm FEW MEMORIAL HALL OF RECORDS, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Hill, Bartram, Davis, Dawson, Latasa, Sullivan Members Absent: Jacoubowsky Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Cole, Senior Associate Planner Hopper, Recording Secretary Halabi CALL TO ORDER Chair Hill called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM. CONSENT ITEMS On a motion by Committee Member Dawson, seconded by Committee Member Sullivan, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the CONSENT ITEMS: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Hill, Bartram, Davis, Dawson, Latasa, Sullivan NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Jacoubowsky ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Approval of Minutes 1. February 6, 2013. ACTION: Approved as submitted. Other Consent Items 2. Consider 331 Monroe Street; Tree Removal Permit 13-032 for Removal of One 22- inch Monterey Pine Tree; Applicants/Owner Roberta Myers; R-3-6 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements. ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving the Tree Removal Permit. 3. Consider 847 and 849 Abrego Street; Sign Permit 13-036 for a Multitenant Sign Program; Applicant Anjanette Adams for Monterey Signs, Inc.; Owner William Turnquist; C-2 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements. ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving the multitenant sign program. ***End of Consent Agenda***  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 6, 2013 PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 4. Consider 1375 Josselyn Canyon Road; Sign Permit 13-030 for a New Monument Sign; Applicant Daryl Hawkins, AIA; Owner Living Hope Church of the Nazarene; R-1-20 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements. ACTION: Continued the Sign Permit application to a date uncertain, to allow the City Attorney to provide legal guidance regarding the definition of a sign and for staff to draft findings for approval. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions: Christine Hopper presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Member questions. Kimberly Cole stated the committee must remain content neutral and consider only the time, place and manner of the sign. Applicant: Daryl Hawkins said the church is not visible from the street. He said the purpose of this project is to identify the church's presence to the public. Public Comments: None. Committee Member Comments: Committee Member Davis questioned whether the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) has the discretion to decide if the project in question qualifies as a sign. Committee Member Bartram said an alternative location that does not sign directly toward Highway 68 would be a superior approach. Committee Member Dawson said approving signage that faces toward Highway 68 would set a precedent for future signs. Committee Member Latasa said in all of his time serving on the ARC they have never approved a sign that faced a scenic way. He requested legal opinion and guidance from the City Attorney. Chair Hill said when a decision is made the resolution reflecting approval or denial must incorporate legal definitions and findings for decisions to ground the final decision. Committee Member Latasa made a motion to continue the item to a date uncertain to allow the City Attorney to provide legal guidance regarding the definition of a sign and for staff to draft findings for approval. Committee Member Davis seconded the motion. 2  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 6, 2013 On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member Davis, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee continue the item to a date uncertain to allow the City Attorney to provide legal guidance regarding the definition of a sign and for staff to draft findings for approval. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Hill, Bartram, Davis, Dawson, Latasa, Sullivan NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Jacoubowsky ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Committee Member Sullivan recused himself from item 5. 5. Consider 625 Cannery Row; AR Application 13-058 to Reopen Final Architectural Review 10-134 for Revisions to Approved Exterior Alterations to an Existing Commercial Building ; Applicant Shawn Capps of Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects; Owner Angelo Shake; CR Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements. ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving reopening of Final Architectural Review 10-134 for revisions to approved exterior alterations to an existing commercial building with Conditions of Approval. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions: Christine Hopper presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Member questions. Applicant: Shawn Capps said the original project received ARC approval in October of 2010. Shortly after approval they discovered the project was too costly. In attempts to reduce costs they want to replace the bay windows and utilize brick veneer. He said that the staff recommendation to brick the face of the deck at the back of the building would be cost prohibitive. Public Comment: None. Committee Member Comments: Vice Chair Bartram said it is not necessary to wrap the brick veneer around the back of the building. He also said brick veneer is compatible with historic materials used in the area. The Committee Members discussed the option of brick detailing on the third floor. In response to committee Members’ comments, property owner Angelo Shake stated adding brick veneer detail on the third floor would limit future design possibilities. Committee Member Latasa made a motion to adopt a resolution approving reopening of Final Architectural Review 10-134 for revisions to approved exterior alterations to an existing commercial building with Conditions of Approval. Committee Member Dawson seconded the motion. 3  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 6, 2013 On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member Dawson, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee Adopted a Resolution approving reopening of Final Architectural Review 10-134 for revisions to approved exterior alterations to an existing commercial building with Conditions of Approval. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Hill, Bartram, Davis, Dawson, Latasa NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Jacoubowsky ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 1 MEMBERS: Sullivan 6. Consider Letter from New Monterey Neighborhood Association Regarding Exterior Lighting ACTION: considered the letter from the New Monterey Neighborhood Association. . Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions: Kimberly Cole presented the Agenda Report along with Howard Foster, a representative of the New Monterey Neighborhood Association, and answered Committee Members questions. Public Comments: None. Committee Member Comments: Christine Hopper notified the Committee she received a phone call and email from Richard Ruccello prior to the meeting expressing concern about residential lighting issues. Chair Hill inquired about standards and guidelines implemented by other cities in regards to lighting. In answer to Chair Hill's question, Mrs. Cole said dark sky communities are a recent trend, but other cities have adopted various policies. Committee Member Bartram said he believes lighting issues fall in the Code Compliance realm and asked if the city had a nuisance ordinance. In response to Committee Member Bartram's comment, Mrs. Cole said at the moment there are not adequate resources for the part-time Code Compliance Officer to tackle this issue. Mr. Foster said lighting has been a minor issue for quite some time but he would like to control excessive lighting before it becomes a serious problem. 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 6, 2013 Committee Member Dawson said the ARC reviews lights as a segment of design review, approved projects contain conditions of approval that say the structure must be maintained as approved. Committee Member Davis said maintenance of an approved project is a Code Enforcement issue. He also said there is no way of enforcing lighting standards to properties that have not been through the ARC review process. Committee Member Sullivan said it is not in the purview of the ARC to review all exterior lighting. He said Mr. Foster should work in association with the other neighborhood groups and propose a solution to the City Council. Vice Chair Bartram concurred. Committee Member Dawson said he is interested in pursuing a dark sky ordinance. In response to Committee Member Dawson's comment, Mrs. Cole said they can request City Council to put a Dark Sky Ordinance in their work program. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Committee Member Dawson notified the ARC that the waterfront subcommittee recommended to City Council that the train depot move forward with the Trailside Cafe, however City Council overturned the position. He expressed concern at the recent addition of 13 light fixtures to the bakery across the street from the Sports Center. In response to the lighting concern, Ms. Hopper said approval of the awning and light fixtures were administratively approved. Committee Member Sullivan said as they reroofed the Bear Flag building, the slant of the roofing was reversed. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:00 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Chair Architectural Review Committee 5