Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, October 1, 2014 AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY 4:00 pm - 7:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Freeman, Dawson, Kimzey, Searle, Silva Members Absent: Latasa Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Cole, Senior Associate Planner Bennett, Senior Associate Planner Hopper, Recording Secretary Leinen CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. CONSENT ITEMS Committee Member Dawson made a motion to approve the Consent Items with amendments to the Minutes. Committee Member Searle seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Dawson, seconded by Committee Member Searle, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the CONSENT ITEMS: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Freeman, Dawson, Kimzey, Searle, Silva NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Latasa ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Approval of Minutes 1. September 17, 2014 ACTION: Approved as amended. Committee Member Silva requested that the name “Peter Sullivan” be corrected to “Jim Sullivan” on page one. Vice Chair Freeman requested that the phrase “…is excited to change the elevation…” on page four be changed to “…is excited to change the façade…” Committee Member Freeman also requested that the word “bulbout” on pages four and five be changed to “bulb-out.” ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None.  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, October 1, 2014 PUBLIC APPEARANCE 2. Consider 2252 N. Fremont Street; AR Permit 14-282 for a Multi-Tenant Sign Program; Applicants/Owners Mary Alice Cerrito Fettis & Gloria Brown; PC-NF Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopted a Resolution denying the proposed Multi-Tenant Sign Program. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Todd Bennett presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant Mary Alice Cerrito Fettis, applicant and partial owner of 2240, 2242, 2250, and 2252 North Fremont Street, said the businesses on her property are set back from the street making them difficult to be seen by passing motorists. Ms. Cerrito Fettis said she values her tenants and a lack of visible signage would have economic repercussions on them. She also said she is excited for the future of N. Fremont Street, but the economy is of the street is not yet strong. In response to Vice Chair Freeman’s question, Ms. Cerrito Fettis said a new monument sign may be sufficient signage once the infrastructure of the street is improved, but not at the current time. Young Ho, tenant of 2242 N. Fremont Street and owner of Country Club Cleaners, said when he started his business over 25 years ago he had a large, visible sign. He also said the business is 20 yards back from the street and a smaller sign would devastate his business. Mr. Ho said the City should help small business owners, not hurt them. Sheila Smith, tenant of 2250 N. Fremont Street and owner of Mercury Insurance Agency, said she moved her office from Pacific Grove to N. Fremont Street because of the signage, and that her sign brings in 35-40% of her business each month. She also said she wants to be part of the future N. Fremont Street, but does not know if this is possible without her signage, and asked ARC to keep the current pole sign. Shirley Mao, new tenant of 2252 N. Fremont Street and owner of Monterey Bay Foot Massage, said she was attracted to the area due to the current business signage and that the neighboring restaurant and trees block views of her business from the street. Ms. Mao said customers are having trouble finding her and that she has not had much business in her first two months at this location. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Vice Chair Freeman said that per City Sign Guidelines, every business in Monterey wanting a sign must obtain a permit. Committee Member Dawson said he is in favor of allowing the current sign to remain, but the Sign Guidelines state that legal non-conforming signs “shall” be removed so ARC findings are necessary to allow the sign to remain. Committee Member Silva said he is troubled that the Guidelines do not specify a timeframe for removal of non-conforming signs. Vice Chair Freeman said the request to 2 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, October 1, 2014 keep the pole sign is based on the street’s beautification, not a specific timeframe. She also said the applicant should be allowed to re-face the sign once for the new business because the street is still undergoing review and improvement. In response to Committee Member Kimzey’s question, Mr. Bennett confirmed that the sign has not been re-faced since the implementation of the North Fremont Specific Plan. Committee Member Silva said he sympathizes with the property owners and respects staff’s analysis, and that a fair compromise would be to allow re-facing of the sign with a review in two years. Christine Hopper said once a sign is permitted by the City it cannot have a timeframe for review placed upon it. Committee Member Kimzey said impact on the tenants must be considered, however current planning sacrifices will benefit the area in the long term, so he supports staff’s recommendation. Committee Member Searle concurred with Committee Member Kimzey and said implementation of the Plan will ultimately support the betterment of the street. Committee Member Dawson made a motion to allow the sign face to be replaced one time only in accordance with Guideline G.6.4 of the North Fremont Specific Plan with the finding that the pole sign may remain due to its unique location. Vice Chair Freeman seconded the motion. Committee Member Silva said he does not support the motion because it will set a precedent for other business owners and tenants on N. Fremont Street. Committee Member Kimzey concurred and said he does not see the uniqueness of the situation. On a motion by Committee Member Dawson, seconded by Committee Member Freeman, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee moved to allow the sign face to be replaced one time only in accordance with Guideline G.6.4 of the North Fremont Specific Plan with the finding that the pole sign may remain due to its unique location: AYES: 2 MEMBERS: Freeman, Dawson NOES: 3 MEMBERS: Kimzey, Searle, Silva ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Latasa ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None The motion failed. Committee Member Silva made a motion to adopt a Resolution denying the proposed Multi-Tenant Sign Program. Committee Member Kimzey seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Kimzey, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee adopted a Resolution denying the proposed Multi-Tenant Sign Program: AYES: 3 MEMBERS: Kimzey, Searle, Silva NOES: 2 MEMBERS: Freeman, Dawson ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Latasa ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 3  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, October 1, 2014 3. Consider 2338 Del Monte Avenue (Mobil Gas Station); Sign Permit 14-268 for Two Free Standing Vehicle Oriented Signs and Decals and AR Permit 14-344 for Minor Exterior Modifications; Applicant Ahmand Ghaderi (A&S Engineering); Owner Tesoro Sierra Properties LLC.; C-3-D2 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Continued Sign Permit 14-268 for two free standing vehicle oriented signs and decals for 120 days with guidance to the applicant that one externally illuminated sign on an encroachment is sufficient and approved AR Permit 14-344 for minor exterior modifications: Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Kimberly Cole presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant Ahmand Ghaderi, AMS Engineering on behalf of Tesori, said the project proposes a one- time replacement of sign faces to change company branding from USA to Mobile. He also said it is not physically possible to relocate the signs due to setbacks, visibility constraints, current site vegetation, underground pumps and Weights and Measures regulations. In response to Committee Member Kimzey’s question, Mr. Ghaderi said his signs are required to be visible on both sides with six inch numbers and three inch letters. In response to Committee Member Dawson’s question, Ms. Hopper said the ARC could table the application until the new encroachment regulations are considered by City Council. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Vice Chair Freeman said the two signs could be moved to the corner of the property near the planter, with one sign facing Del Monte Avenue and one sign facing Hannon Avenue. Mr. Ahmad said the property line and underground tanks prevent him from placing the signs in or near the planter. He also said he is agreeable to a project extension and waiving permit streamlining, but would like permission to temporarily re-face the signs with a banner while the other issues are settled. Ms. Cole said that the City’s Banner Policy requires temporary banner signs to be placed flat against a building, however the ARC could approve temporary wraps around the existing signs for 120 days. Committee Member Dawson said the second sign near the highway is not effective and said a corner sign would be more visible. Committee Member Dawson made a motion to continue Sign Permit 14-268 for two free standing vehicle oriented signs and decals for 120 days, with guidance that the applicant return before the ARC in 120 days for decision on external illumination, height, and encroachment; to allow a banner wrap for both of the existing signs for 120 days; and to approve AR Permit 14-344 for Minor Exterior Modifications. Committee Member Silva seconded the motion. 4  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, October 1, 2014 Committee Member Kimzey said there are many issues to resolve with the sign permit, and that the item should be continued as a whole as opposed to continued with specific statements about design and with approved banner wrap signs. Committee Member Dawson amended his previous motion and made a motion to continue Sign Permit 14-268 for two free standing vehicle oriented signs and decals for 120 days with guidance to the applicant that one externally illuminated sign on an encroachment is sufficient and that AR Permit 14-344 for minor exterior modifications is approved. Committee Member Silva agreed to the motion. Ms. Hopper confirmed that the motion does not include approval of two banner wraps for the existing signs. Vice Chair Freeman said that the previous motion was reduced and that the banner signs are no longer part of the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Dawson, seconded by Committee Member Silva, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee continued Sign Permit 14-268 for two free standing vehicle oriented signs and decals for 120 days with guidance to the applicant that one externally illuminated sign on an encroachment is sufficient and approved AR Permit 14-344 for minor exterior modifications: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Freeman, Dawson, Kimzey, Searle, Silva NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Latasa ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 4. Discuss Possible Amendments to Citywide Sign Guidelines ACTION: Received public comment and provided direction to staff on possible amendments to the Citywide Sign Guidelines. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Ms. Hopper presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Public Comments Robert Wecker, the Wecker Group, said Ms. Hopper did a great job of covering many of his concerns. Mr. Wecker said he does not agree with the City’s requirement that signs must be six feet from a building entrance, and said they should instead be placed where they best serve the public. He also said he supports free standing signs as opposed to the required monument signs. Phil Vanderkraats, Signs by Van said he supports all suggestions made by staff because they will help expedite sign projects. He also said many of the current codes are arbitrary and not applicable to all projects, which creates frustration for applicants and City staff. Tom Carr, SignWorks, said he supports all of staff’s proposals. He said his main concerns with the Sign Guidelines are setbacks and line of site issues. Mr. Carr agreed with Mr. Wecker that many signs are more attractive on two posts rather than a solid base. He also said an inequity between businesses is created when new signs must conform to current setback standards and existing signs do not. Mr. Carr said Monterey should streamline their sign processing and address fees since his customers end up paying high costs. Ms. Hopper said that the City Council sets fees a new administrative 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, October 1, 2014 review fee will reduce the price for signs reviewed administratively by $900. Sal Saia, All Around Sign and Display, said he concurs with the statements of his colleagues. He also said his experience working with staff and the ARC over the years has been positive. Mr. Saia said, however, it is disheartening when he tells a client they must cover the cost of a multi-tenant sign program, and asked if the burden should fall on the tenant or property owner. Mr. Carr echoed Mr. Saia’s concerns. Ms. Hopper said staff reaches out to property owners in cases where applicants are in a difficult position, and that the current multi-tenant sign program allows for administrative approval of conforming signs, making the process faster in the long run. Committee Member Dawson asked Mr. Wecker, Mr. Vanderkraats, Mr. Carr and Mr. Saia for their biggest concern regarding the Citywide Sign Guidelines. Mr. Carr said he would like to see harmony between sign-makers and the City to improve speed, efficiency, and costs. Mr. Vanderkraats said it is frustrating to pay a higher permit fee due to minor deviations from the Sign Guidelines, and said fees should be reassessed. He also said large permit fees take away from the quality of the signs because customers often cannot afford to pay both the permit fee and his design fee. Mr. Wecker said a system is needed to oversee the quality and design of signs. Ms. Cole suggested that the sign-makers take note of signs that are not visually pleasing in the community and report back to the ARC for added guidance on future signs. Committee Member Kimzey asked the sign-makers if they had any objections to staff’s recommendations. Mr. Wecker said he supports all the proposals made by staff. Mr. Vanderkraats concurred and said he and is very pleased with the progress of the meeting. Committee Member Comments In response to Committee Member Kimzey’s question, Ms. Hopper said in many cases Monterey’s permit fees are less than other local cities, and are set based on full cost recovery. Committee Member Silva said form based codes are superior to codes with prescribed designs when it comes to signs. He also suggested that the sign-makers contribute design tips and standards to help guide applicants. Mr. Wecker said he will create a list of tips and pointers for applicants and forward it to fellow sign-designers for input. Mr. Vanderkraats said he will get input from Merry Trucksis and Snow Signs, who were unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Vanderkraats also said sign function is an important aspect to include in the Sign Guidelines. Committee Member Kimzey asked staff to provide the ARC with a breakdown of quantitative data showing the 80%-90% of sign applications not conforming to the Sign Guidelines. Committee Member Kimzey said fees appear to be the priority issue surrounding signs, and suggested a more cost effective process similar to the City of Carmel’s review process. Mr. Wecker said that Carmel’s system may not be suitable for Monterey because it is more of a one-size fits all process for the small city. Committee Member Freeman concurred that the tighter restrictions of Carmel may not work for Monterey. 6  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, October 1, 2014 Vice Chair Freeman said she would like to examine the positioning of signs in relation to the property line versus the public right of way, and possibly create a different standard to measure from. Regarding illumination, Committee Member Dawson said a visual example of 100 luxes would be helpful for the Committee. Committee Member Kimzey requested that staff identify and suggest resolution of conflicts within the Citywide Sign Guidelines specifically pertaining to the conflicts discussed with the previous project at 2252 N. Fremont Street, and also resolve internal conflicts within all sections of the Guidelines. Ms. Hopper said a more formal meeting will be held in the future for the ARC to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Committee Member Kimzey complimented Vice Chair Freeman on leading the ARC meeting for the first time in Chair Latasa’s absence. Committee Member Dawson said he attended a meeting regarding the Cooper Molera Adobe that and it appears there will be a positive outcome for the building. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 5. Planning Office Update  Received update  Ms. Hopper said the Architectural Review Committee will have an afternoon training session with Nore Winters and an evening session regarding the NHL Design Guidelines at their October 15, 2014 meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:19 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christine Hopper Chair Senior Associate Planner Architectural Review Committee 7