Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, May 21, 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, Searle, Silva, Sullivan Members Absent: None Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Cole, Principal Planner Kinison Brown, City Attorney Davi, Recording Secretary Nelson CALL TO ORDER Chair Latasa called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm. CONSENT ITEMS Vice Chair Freeman and Committee Member Silva recused themselves from the Minutes due to their absence from the May 7, 2014 meeting. 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: 7 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman (recused from item #1), Dawson, Kimzey, Searle, Silva (recused from item #1), Sullivan NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Approval of Minutes 1. May 7, 2014 ACTION: Approved as submitted. Other Consent Items 2. Consider 535 Webster Street; AR Permit 14-165 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review for a Front Property Line Wall Alteration to a Single Family Residential Property; Applicant/Property Owner Donald R. Mannix Jr.; PC-D Planned Commercial, Downtown Specific Plan; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving Preliminary and Final Architectural Review for a new perimeter fence, with Conditions of Approval. ***End of Consent Agenda***  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 21, 2014 PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 3. Consider 362 Cedar Street; Appeal 14-144 of City Forester Decision to Deny Tree Removal; Appellant Robert Williams, Attorney; Owner The Domus Patris Foundation; R-1-6 Single Family District; Exempt From CEQA Requirements (Continued from May 7, 2014) Committee Member Kimzey recused himself from item #3 due to the proximity of his residence from the subject property. NO ACTION: A tie vote of the ARC resulted in no action being taken. The decision of the Urban Forester stands. The applicant may appeal the action of the Urban Forester within 10 days of the ARC’s consideration of the matter. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Kimberly Cole provided a summary of the Agenda Report presented at the May 7, 2014 ARC Meeting and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant No applicant present. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Sullivan said on May 7, 2014, Urban Forester Reid was adamant that the tree is healthy and at final stages of growth, and that pruning and monitoring would be sufficient. Committee Member Searle said he is not satisfied with only the report of a geotechnical engineer and not a structural engineer, but said he might grant tree removal if the tree becomes ill or drops limbs in the future. Committee Member Silva said he would be more willing to support the appeal if additional evidence was provided from another arborist. Chair Latasa said he still supports the tree removal because the applicants have displayed sufficient anxiety and concern to meet Standard C. Committee Member Dawson said he also voted on May 7, 2014 to approve the appeal and remove the tree due to its unsafe appearance. Committee Member Searle said he worries a precedence will be set allowing for tree removal and degradation of the tree canopy. Chair Latasa said there is already precedence, and the ARC regularly approves tree removal when certain standards are met. Vice Chair Freeman said trees are reviewed by the ARC on a one by one basis and some are approved for removal while others are denied. 2  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 21, 2014 Committee Member Silva said Standard C of the City Ordinance has a low threshold and he would prefer requiring a report by a certified arborist to raise standards not set a precedence. Committee Member Searle made a motion to adopt a Resolution denying the appeal to remove one Monterey Pine tree. Committee Member Silva seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Searle, seconded by Committee Member Silva, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee moved to adopt a Resolution denying the appeal to remove one Monterey Pine tree: AYES: 3 MEMBERS: Searle, Silva, Sullivan NOES: 3 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Dawson ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 1 MEMBERS: Kimzey City Attorney Christine Davi clarified that a tied vote means no action is taken and the Urban Forester’s decision stands. She also confirmed the applicant can appeal to the Planning Commission within 10 days. 4. Consider 230 Lighthouse Avenue; AR Permit 14-067 for Preliminary and Final 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 Committee Member Searle recused himself from item #4 due to his absence from prior ARC Meetings where the project was discussed. Committee Member Silva recused himself from item #4 due to a conflict of interest. ACTION: Adopted a Resolution denying Preliminary and Final Architectural Review for 230 Lighthouse Avenue. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Taven M. Kinison Brown presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Ms. Cole and Ms. Davi were also present and answered Committee Members’ questions. In response to Committee Members’ questions, Ms. Davi said she would strongly advise against placement of story poles as City Building Official John Kuehl said there is the potential of danger. Ms. Cole said Mr. Kuehl’s decision was based on the adjacency of Lighthouse Avenue, the proposed building height, and wind and storm potentials. Applicant Henry Ruhnke, Wald, Ruhnke, and Dost, gave a summary of the prior discussions and actions taken on the project and said many people have come out in support of the project. He also clarified that photo simulations were required by City staff in lieu of story pole staking and that the sidewall along Carbone’s Bar will be set back, containing windows and balconies. Regarding the Foam Street building, Mr. Ruhnke said the third floor will be set back 15 feet from the property line, much of the lower level will be tucked underground, and that the exterior of the building will be broken up with varied exterior colors and materials. 3 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 21, 2014 Carl Outzen, property owner, said the proposed Foam Street building will have a two story appearance from Lighthouse Avenue and a three story appearance from Foam Street. He also said the building will be set back further than required from the sidewalk and will be eight feet lower than the present building. Mr. Outzen said the blank sidewalls are required as firewalls in the commercial district, and the concern of modulation of the walls has been addressed as much as possible. Public Comments Sal Carbone, owner of Carbone’s Bar, said he neither supports nor opposes the proposed project, but has concerns regarding the impact on his business and the proposed balconies hanging over the patio area of his bar. He also said he did not receive any public notice regarding the project. Mr. Carbone said there is a Bull Durham mural on the side of his business, facing the proposed project site, which may soon be authenticated by Bull Durham. Brendon McAlary, New Monterey Neighborhood Association Board Member, said his main concern is the public notice not stating that the proposed mixed-use development is three stories in height. He also said photo simulations are not sufficient for the project because they only show views from Lighthouse Avenue and not vantage points higher on the hill. Mr. McAlary said the neighborhood will not understand the impact of the project until it’s too late if story poles or a more substantial demonstration is not provided. Sharon Dwight, New Monterey Neighborhood Association President, said she feels angered and disrespected on behalf of the ARC since the project was brought back for review without addressing the requirements of the prior motion. She also said the roof elements that exceed 35 feet are illegal and not technically parapets. Ms. Dwight said she is concerned with the dark colors of the building, the minimal landscaping, and the view loss that is not reflected on the simulations. Committee Member Comments Chair Latasa said he received an unfavorable letter with a reprimanding tone from City Manager Michael McCarthy, so he met with him for discussion. Chair Latasa read and responded to several statements made in the letter, and said that Mr. McCarthy apologized and agreed that these statements were not accurate. Committee Member Sullivan said story pole staking could be safely installed, and that he agrees with members of the public that some demonstration other than photo simulations is needed to show loss of views. He also said that the “Background” section of the Agenda Report is missing mention of modification to the boundary of the third floor of Building A and reduction of the sidewall of Building A. Committee Member Dawson said the six foot setback on the Lighthouse Avenue building is adequate because from the curb the third floor cannot be seen. He also said he respects Mr. Kuehl’s opinion regarding the potential danger of story pole staking. Committee Member Kimzey said the project will make a substantial contribution to the blighted area, and that he sympathizes with the difficulties experienced by the applicant. He also said he is concerned that the ARC made findings appropriately and were subsequently chastised for them. Committee Member Kimzey said story pole staking could be safely installed by a competent developer and that he cannot support the application as the project is not appropriate with regard to mass and form. 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 21, 2014 Vice Chair Freeman said she concurs with all points made by Chair Latasa. She also said the project suits the continuation of buildings on Lighthouse Avenue and she will vote in favor of it, but she feels that the process was convoluted and the role of the ARC was not respected. Ms. Davi said the ARC had full scope review of the project and the City Council’s determination did not limit review to the third floor setback. Ms. Davi also said the role of the Planning Commission was Use Permit review and the role of the ARC was to reviewing of siting, bulk, mass and architectural style. Regarding story pole staking, Ms. Davi said under City Code, sole digression is given to the City Manager or his designee. Chair Latasa said the project is great in concept, but has excessive bulk and mass on the third floors. He also said he is disappointed that the project was continued and then brought back before the ARC for review with no changes made. Committee Member Sullivan said the style and character of the building need to be made more appropriate for the New Monterey area. Committee Member Dawson said the style of New Monterey is eclectic. Committee Member Dawson also said there are two new buildings similar to the proposed project at the other end of Lighthouse Avenue. Committee Member Freeman made a motion to adopt a Resolution approving Preliminary and Final Architectural Review for 230 Lighthouse Avenue with the added Condition of Approval as follows:  Lighting shall be reviewed before final occupancy is granted. 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 moved to adopt a Resolution approving Preliminary and Final Architectural Review for 230 Lighthouse Avenue: AYES: 2 MEMBERS: Freeman, Dawson NOES: 3 MEMBERS: Latasa, Kimzey, Sullivan ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 2 MEMBERS: Searle, Silva The motion failed. Committee Member Kimzey made a motion to adopt a Resolution denying Preliminary and Final Architectural Review for 230 Lighthouse Avenue with added recommendations as follows: 1. Ask for the City Building Official to reconsider story pole staking with a professional staker and allow the attachment of staking to existing buildings. 2. Review the roof elements to make sure that they meet the zoning ordinance in terms of allowed height. Committee Member Sullivan seconded the motion. 5  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 21, 2014 On a motion by Committee Member Kimzey, seconded by Committee Member Sullivan, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee Adopted a Resolution denying Preliminary and Final Architectural Review for 230 Lighthouse Avenue with added recommendations: AYES: 3 MEMBERS: Latasa, Kimzey, Sullivan NOES: 2 MEMBERS: Freeman, Dawson ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 2 MEMBERS: Searle, Silva COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Committee Member Kimzey thanked Chair Latasa for his comments made during the 230 Lighthouse Avenue discussion regarding the letter from the City Manager. Committee Member Searle said there will be a community work session on adaptive reuse of the old Salinas jail building, held on Wednesday May 22, at 5:00 pm at 168 East Alisal Street, and public input is needed. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 5. Planning Office Update  Received update  Mr. Kinison Brown said he will be working with Chair Latasa to determine a discussion item for the June 6, 2014 Mayor’s meeting ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:32 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Taven M. Kinison Brown Chair Principal Planner Architectural Review Committee 6