Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, June 4, 2014 4:00 pm – 7:00 pm AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY 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 Kinison Brown, Urban Forester Reid, Recording Secretary Nelson CALL TO ORDER Chair Latasa called the meeting to order at 4:01 pm. CONSENT ITEMS Taven M. Kinison Brown informed the Committee that the flag pole proposed in item #2 will be the standard stainless color, not black as presented in the Agenda Report. Chair Latasa requested that the Minutes of May 21, 2014 be amended to reflect Vice Chair Freeman and Committee Member Silva as recused from voting on the Minutes of May 7, 2014. 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 with amendments to the Minutes: AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Dawson, Kimzey, Searle, Silva, Sullivan NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Approval of Minutes 1. May 21, 2014 ACTION: Approved as amended. Other Consent Items 2. Consider 600 Pacific Street (Monterey Police Station); AR Application 14-216 for a New Flag Pole; Applicant/Property Owner City of Monterey; Planned Community Downtown (PC-D); Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving AR Application 14-216 for a new flag pole.  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 4, 2014 ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS Phil Vanderkraats, Signs by Van, suggested holding a workshop with ARC Members, local sign designers, and staff to discuss fees, roadblocks, and issues regarding the City’s Sign Code to in order to allow staff more leeway in sign application approvals, reduce staff’s workload and lessen the frustration and cost incurred by applicants. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 3. Reconsider 98 Via Del Pinar; Appeal 14-050 of City Forester Decision to Deny Tree Removal Within a Single Family Residential Property; Applicants/Owners David & Barbara Morrison; R-1-10 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving the applicant’s request to overturn a City Forester decision to deny a tree removal permit with Amended Special Conditions of Approval. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Mr. Kinison Brown presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Urban Forester Reid was also present and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant David Morrison, property owner, said he is happy the arborist’s report confirmed his suspicions the tree proposed for removal damaging the property. He also said his greatest concern is still liability and the safety of his tenants. Mr. Morrison said the tree will continue to crowd the garage as it grows, and that he is willing to plant a replacement tree in a more responsible area on the property. Urban Forester Reid said the roots damaging the garage appear to belong to the three Pine trees on the property and no specific damage caused from the roots of the Redwood tree is apparent. He also said, based on his experience, the Redwood tree will likely cause damage to the property as it continues to grow. Brian Jacobson of Smith Tree Service, on behalf of the applicant, said the roots of the Redwood tree are doing many things, including protruding under the slab and affecting the retaining walls. He said cutting the roots to replace the driveway will require sheering off an entire side near the trunk, making the tree unstable. Mr. Jacobson said he supports replacement of the Redwood tree with a small, drought tolerant species no larger than 15 gallons. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Silva said staff should require an arborist’s report with all tree removal applications to substantiate the requests. Committee Member Dawson said the tree is one of the best looking Redwoods in the area, but he supports removal because the tree is lifting the garage and driveway. Committee Member Kimzey said he is sympathetic with the applicant and supports removal of the tree as sufficient concern and anxiety have been demonstrated. 2  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 4, 2014 Committee Member Freeman said requiring an arborist’s report for tree removal applications would set a good standard and allow the ARC to make informed, efficient decisions. Committee Member Silva said he supports staff’s recommendation and findings, and thinks the applicant should also be allowed to cut back the roots of the Pine trees. Committee Member Sullivan said he appreciates the arborist’s report but that it is not sufficient proof the damage to the garage is not from another source. He also said the tree is a dynamic tree that should be worked with. Committee Member Searle said he supports the appeal as the applicant has exercised due diligence and more evidence has been provided demonstrating a serious issue with the tree. Chair Latasa said the applicants have shown great effort and that he supports the appeal. Committee Member Kimzey said the tree removal standards allow for removal based on evidence or testimony expressing anxiety and concern, and always requiring an arborist’s report is the wrong direction to go. Committee Member Searle said he disagrees because anxiety can be had about anything, but the decision to remove a tree should be based on facts, not emotions. Committee Member Kimzey made a motion to adopt a Resolution approving the applicant’s request to overturn a City Forester decision to deny a tree removal permit with amended Special Conditions of Approval follows: 3. That the Coastal Redwood tree approved for removal will require a one-for-one replacement in consultation with the City Forester for size (container size and/or diameter of tree) and location. Committee Member Dawson seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Kimzey, seconded by Committee Member Dawson, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee adopted a Resolution approving the applicant’s request to overturn a City Forester decision to deny a tree removal permit with amended Special Conditions of Approval: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Dawson, Kimzey, Searle, Silva NOES: 1 MEMBERS: Sullivan ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 4. Consider 1010 Munras Avenue (Munras Inn) Sign Permit 14-205 for New Signs; Applicant Phil VanderKraats; Owner Monterey Hospitality; Visitor Accommodation Facility Zoning District (VAF); Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving signs at 1010 Munras Avenue with amended Special Conditions of Approval. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Mr. Kinison Brown presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Member’s questions. 3 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 4, 2014 Applicant Phil Vanderkraats, Signs by Van, said the current hotel signs are too small and that the property is actually more than 84 feet across due to its “L” shape. He also said the proposed sign will serve both as a sign and an art piece with a pleasant design that will improve the appearance of the City. Mr. Vanderkraats said the ARC should have final say in determining whether the signs are appropriate for the City. Committee Member Searle said the large wall sign is attractive, but confusing, since it is one of two signs placed near a non-entrance door. In response to Committee Member Searle’s question, Mr. Vanderkraats said there is not currently a business sign near the office, but a small sign on brackets could be used to help identify the entrance. Mr. Kinison Brown confirmed that small accessory signs under three square feet in size are allowable and exempt from ARC review. Bob Patel, manager of the Vagabond Inn, said there is currently a directional sign pointing to the Office entrance, which is to the right of the three large windows on the property. In response to Committee Member Sullivan’s question, Mr. Vanderkraats said the smaller wall sign was proposed in the same size and location to replace a current sign, but that it may be a good idea to move it and make it an office identification sign. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Silva said he likes the design and size of the monument sign and the larger wall sign, but having the smaller wall sign is redundant. Committee Member Dawson said the larger sign should go over the office door, as City Code states signs on buildings should indicate entrances. Committee Member Sullivan said the smaller wall sign is redundant and should be eliminated. He also said negative space should not be used in calculating total sign area because it will hurt the property given the building’s large size. Committee Member Searle suggested that an accessory sign in the same range as the proposed signs be added closer to the office door. He also said he would support the large wall sign if it were made slightly smaller, but that it should not be too small as that may make it no longer match the monument sign. In response to Chair Latasa’s question, Mr. Vanderkraats said the existing sign lighting will remain the same. Committee Member Kimzey said the signs should not exceed what is allowed by the Sign Guidelines since there are no extraordinary circumstances to justify an exception. Committee Member Sullivan said the size requirement creates a hardship for the applicant due to the difficult shape of the building. Committee Member Dawson said findings could be made to support a sign larger than what is allowed by the Sign Guidelines, as signs that are too small will be ineffective and cause a hardship for the property. 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 4, 2014 Committee Member Freeman made a motion to adopt a Resolution approving signs at 1010 Munras Avenue with amended Special Conditions of Approval as follows: 5. The vehicle oriented monument sign on Munras Avenue is approved as presented, (not to exceed 20 square feet). Only one wall mounted sign is approved for the building façade. The 5’ x 8’ wall mounted sign shall be reduced to have a height not exceeding 4’ and the horizontal dimension reduced proportionately (to approximately 25.6 square feet). 6. Informational signs directing persons to the Office or other areas of the property shall be kept at 3 square feet in area or less, meeting the criteria for being exempt. Optimally, these signs would complement the approved signs in color, materials and finish. Committee Member Silva seconded the motion. Vice Chair Freeman said that the motion is supported by the ARC’s findings that the application is a special case due to the short frontage of the building being disproportionate to the rest of the buildings on the block and the exceptional design of the signs. On a motion by Committee Member Freeman, seconded by Committee Member Silva, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee adopted a Resolution approving signs at 1010 Munras Avenue with amended Special Conditions of Approval: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Dawson, Searle, Silva, Sullivan NOES: 1 MEMBERS: Kimzey ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Committee Member Dawson said he was aghast at City of Monterey permit costs of over $1000 for putting in a water tank and said that he was unaware it is so costly for review of a project. Mr. Kinison Brown said the Planning Office is working on a new over the counter permit application that will be cheaper for the applicant and more expedient for staff to process. Chair Latasa asked Mr. Kinison Brown for a report on the current status of fees and requirements for permits processed by the Planning Office. Committee Member Kimzey introduced audience member Dr. Lou Alfeld, a trained architect and lawyer visiting from New Zealand who served for ten years as Chairman of the Urban Design Committee of Queensland New Zealand. Chair Latasa said he will be attending the Mayor’s Meeting on Monday, June 9, 2014 and will discuss the projects on Alvarado Street and Lighthouse Avenue, the lack of guidance in the City Code regarding an applicant’s request for a denial at an ARC Meeting, and the ARC’s newest member Don Searle. Committee Member Searle said he chose to live in the area because of the trees and feels very strongly about tree preservation. Vice Chair Freeman said the public process of discussing tree removal is a great way to keep the public engaged. 5  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 4, 2014 INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 5. Planning Office Update  Received update  Mr. Kinison Brown said two Lighthouse Specific Plan meetings will be held on June 12, 2014; the first from 9:00 am – 11:00 am at Scholze Park Center and the second from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm at Hilltop Center. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:57 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Taven M. Kinison Brown Chair Principal Planner Architectural Review Committee 6