Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, April 16, 2014 EVENING SESSION ONLY 7:00 pm - 11:00 pm FEW MEMORIAL HALL OF RECORDS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 580 PACIFIC STREET MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Latasa, Freeman, Dawson, Kimzey, Sullivan Members Absent: Searle, Silva Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Cole, Principal Planner Kinison Brown, Recording Secretary Nelson CALL TO ORDER Chair Latasa called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm. CONSENT ITEMS Committee Member Kimzey asked to remove item #2 from the Consent Agenda for discussion due to concerns regarding the wall signs exceeding the allowable Sign Guidelines size. Committee Member Dawson made a motion to approve Consent Items #1, 3, and 4 and remove Item #2 from the Consent Agenda. Committee Member Sullivan seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Dawson, seconded by Committee Member Sullivan, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved Consent Items #1, 3. and 4 and removed item #2 from the Consent Agenda: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Dawson, Kimzey, Sullivan NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Searle, Silva ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Approval of Minutes 1. April 2, 2014 ACTION: Approved as amended (with Committee Member Kimzey abstaining). Committee Member Kimzey abstained from voting on the minutes due to his absence from the April 2, 2014 meeting. Vice Chair Freeman requested that the last five words under Public Comment on Item #3 be struck so the sentence reads “He also said all parties previously agreed to a family room, and requested that the ARC remove the additional door from the plans to ensure that a rental apartment will not be added to the property in the future.”  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 16, 2014 Vice Chair Freeman also requested that the spelling of “plumbing” on page 3 be corrected. Other Consent Items 2. Consider 561 Tyler Street; Sign Permit 14-090 for Two Wall Signs and One Hanging Sign; Applicant Reuben Timineri (Mythic Games Monterey); Owner Anastasia Rutenberg and Lina Schenck; PC-D Planned Community Downtown Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Removed from Consent Agenda; Discussed; Adopted a Resolution approving two wall signs and one hanging sign. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Kimberly Cole presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant Ruben Timineri, applicant, said the proposed replacement sign is equal in size to the existing wall sign of the prior business and is small compared to the long length of the building. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Dawson said the new signs should be in the same location and of the same size as the existing ones. Vice Chair Freeman concurred. Committee Member Kimzey said he does not object to the location of the signs, only the size of the wall signs as they are double what is allowed by the Sign Guidelines. Vice Chair Freeman said the size of the former wall signs seems appropriate and that it would make it easy for the applicant to install new signs if they were allowed to be the same size. Committee Member Sullivan said the side wall sign could be decreased in area and that it faces a parking lot that does not service the business. Chair Latasa said he supports staff’s recommendation because the signs will replace existing approved, non-conforming signs. Vice Chair Freeman made a motion to adopt a Resolution approving two wall signs and one hanging sign. Committee Member Dawson seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Freeman, seconded by Committee Member Dawson, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee adopted a Resolution approving two wall signs and one hanging sign: AYES: 3 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Dawson NOES: 2 MEMBERS: Kimzey, Sullivan ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Searle, Silva ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 2  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 16, 2014 3. Consider 401 Pearl Street (Jacks Park) and 777 Pearl Street (Sollecito Park); Architectural Review Permit 14-131 and 14-132 for Bulletin Boards; Applicant Cindy Vierra (City of Monterey); Owner City of Monterey; Planned Community Downtown (PC-D) and Open (O) Space Zoning Districts; Exempt from CEQA ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving bulletin boards at 401 and 777 Pearl Streets. 4. Consider 150 Del Monte Avenue (Bay of Pines); Sign Permit 13-341 for a Sign Program and AR Permit 14-124 for Exterior Changes (Paint, Windows); Applicants Anjanette Adams and Dana Mills Helman; Owner Chan Associates, LLC; PC-D Planned Community Downtown Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopted Resolutions approving the Sign Program and Final Architectural Review for exterior changes including paint and windows. ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 5. Consider 230 Lighthouse Avenue; AR Permit 14-067 for Preliminary Architectural Review of a Mixed Use Development; Applicant/Owner Carl Outzen; C-2 Community Commercial Zoning District; Infill Environmental Checklist - Finding of No Further Review for CEQA; Visual Simulations Have Been Provided in Lieu of Staking ACTION: Continued the project to modify the boundary of the third floor of Building A, to reduce the sidewall on the east side of Building A and the west wall of Building B, to set the third floor back sufficiently on Building B so a flat façade is not presented on Foam Street, and to add story pole staking, as feasible, for 35 feet of height along the front of the site on Lighthouse Avenue. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Taven M. Kinison Brown and Kimberly Cole presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant Henry Ruhnke, Wald, Ruhnke and Dost Architects, said he has been working with owner/applicant Carl Outzen on the project for the past year and has received many positive reviews of Mr. Outzen’s other mixed-use and office developments. Mr. Ruhnke said Mr. Outzen has worked with the City for several months, met with the Neighborhood Association, and participated in a joint meeting with the ARC and PC to find an acceptable proposal, and that concern regarding bulk and mass of the building was not raised until the January 28, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Ruhnke also said the plans presented to the ARC this evening reflect a seven foot setback on the third floor of the building, conforming to the City Council’s requirement from the appeal 3 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 16, 2014 hearing. Regarding the project’s modulation, Mr. Ruhnke said there are several properties in Monterey with second floors extending over the property line into the public right of way. He also said the project will work with the surrounding buildings and the architectural fabric on Lighthouse Avenue. Public Comments Sharon Dwight, President of the New Monterey Neighborhood Association, said 32 housing units and 6200 square feet of commercial units is a significant development. She also said the City Council did not discuss the second floor of the project projecting over the sidewalk. Ms. Dwight said the Neighborhood Association is still concerned with the height of the parapets and whether they are necessary, the balcony enclosures coming across as a third floor element, and the Foam Street building not being set back six feet. Ms. Dwight said the lack of inquiries regarding the project may be due to the project being noticed as mixed-use and not a three story building. In regards to the Lighthouse Area Plan, Ms. Dwight said many of the Goals and Policies are not achieved by the project. She also said the project creates too much bulk and massing visible from the street and she hopes the ARC will seriously look at the third floor, inconsistencies with the surrounding buildings, the flat roofs, and the view impacts. Carl Outzen, owner/applicant, said he, the City, the City Council and the Planning Commission are all very excited about the project. Regarding Building B on Foam Street, Mr. Outzen said there is only a two foot height difference between the previous building and the proposed building and that the sidewalls are required per Building Code and will not be visible from the street. Regarding the Seaview Apartments, Mr. Outzen said the units face each other, not the ocean, and that there have been no inquiries from residents regarding view impacts. Mr. Outzen said the plans currently before the Architectural Review Committee are the same as what was presented to the City Council, except for the third floor modulation. He also said the Lighthouse Area Plan was created in 1987 when there was 100% lot coverage without on-site parking, and now there is 50% lot coverage with on-site parking. Mr. Outzen said this will be the fourth mixed-use building on Lighthouse Avenue, and that the City Traffic Engineer found insignificant impact from the project. Committee Member Comments Vice Chair Freeman said it is wonderful to fill a blighted space on Lighthouse Avenue and Wave Street with such a quality building. Committee Member Dawson said he took a close look at the third floor setbacks, and the third floor cannot be seen when standing at the curb. Committee Member Sullivan said the building is over-modulated and over-mixed with materials and still has a three-story look from the street, and questioned whether the third floor should be pushed back more. Committee Member Kimzey said the area is blighted and needs economic stimulation, but the proposed building seems out of place and would tower over surrounding buildings as the proposal does not achieve the feel of a two story structure. Committee Member Sullivan said he is disappointed that story poles were not installed to give a meaningful comparison with the surrounding buildings. Chair Latasa said the Committee could request installation of story poles in a manner that would not cause liability. 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 16, 2014 Vice Chair Freeman said she would like to see the third floor of Building B eliminated. In response to Committee Member Kimzey’s question, Ms. Cole said the ARC has the authority to work with modulation and offsets, but not the ability to remove the third story as the overall building height and envelope have been set. Vice Chair Freeman made a motion to continue the project for modification of the third floor of Building A, with attention to sidewalls, and building B with attention to the sidewalls and the setback from the street. Committee Member Kimzey asked if the motion maker would consider adding the overall mass and bulk of Building A to the motion. Committee Member Sullivan said the ARC is obligated to allow the third floor of the building, however if one of the units across the front was removed there would be additional second story space allowing the building to be set back in, modulation and reduction of sidewalls. Committee Member Dawson said he disagrees as the seven foot setback on the third floor is more than required and the third floor cannot be seen from the street. Chair Latasa said the setbacks on the third floor of the Lighthouse Avenue building are sufficient but a similar setback is needed on the Foam Street building and sidewalls need to be addressed. Vice Chair Freeman amended the motion to continue the project to modify the boundary of the third floor of Building A, to reduce the sidewall on the east side of Building A and the west wall of Building B, and to set the third floor back sufficiently on Building B so a flat façade is not presented on Foam Street. Committee Member Sullivan seconded the motion. Chair Latasa asked the motion maker if an attempt to stake the project should be added to the motion. Vice Chair Freeman said it would be a good idea with the community’s interest in mind. Committee Member Kimzey said staking would give a much better representation of mass and bulk. Mr. Kinison Brown informed the Committee that the applicant requested a formal denial in lieu of a continuance. Vice Chair Freeman made a second amendment to the motion to continue the project to modify the boundary of the third floor of Building A, to reduce the sidewall on the east side of Building A and the west wall of Building B, to set the third floor back sufficiently on Building B so a flat façade is not presented on Foam Street, and to add story pole staking, as feasible, for 35 feet of height along the front of the site on Lighthouse Avenue. The seconder agreed to the amendment. Ms. Cole said generally if an applicant asks for a formal denial, the Committee grants it. Therefore staff recommends the denial as a formal request has been made by the applicant and the applicant has stated they will make no changes to the project if it is continued. Committee Member Dawson said he does not support the motion as the applicant’s request for denial should be granted. 5  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 16, 2014 On a motion by Committee Member Freeman, seconded by Committee Member Sullivan, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee continued the project to modify the boundary of the third floor of Building A, to reduce the sidewall on the east side of Building A and the west wall of Building B, to set the third floor back sufficiently on Building B so a flat façade is not presented on Foam Street, and to add story pole staking, as feasible, for 35 feet of height along the front of the site on Lighthouse Avenue: AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Sullivan NOES: 1 MEMBERS: Dawson ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Searle, Silva ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Committee Member Sullivan said he participated in a free tour of Ed Rickets Lab put on by the Museum and Cultural Arts Division on Saturday, April 12, 2014, and recommended that everyone attends when the tour is given again. Vice Chair Freeman said she will be absent from the May 7, 2014 ARC meeting. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 6. Planning Office Update  Received update  Mr. Kinison Brown said new ARC Member Don Searle will join the ARC Members on May 7, 2014 for his first meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:49 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Taven M. Kinison Brown Chair Principal Planner Architectural Review Committee 6