Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, February 4, 2015 4:00 pm - 5:30 pm 7:00 pm - 11:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Freeman, Kimzey, Abma, Dawson, Latasa, Searle, Silva Members Absent: None Staff Members Present: Senior Planner Hopper, Principal Engineer Harary, Construction Project Manager Williamson, Community Services Director Bui- Burton, Conference Center General Manager Cowdrey, Recording Secretary Leinen CALL TO ORDER Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes Vice Chair Kimzey requested that additional detail be added to page 8 of the Minutes clarifying that he stated nine of the signs proposed in the Sign Program exceed the allowable size by 2 to 2.5 times and four signs are smaller, and that Committee Member Latasa said there is consistency in the flexibility of ARC’s decisions when unique situations are present, such as the large buildings in the proposed Sign Program. Vice Chair Kimzey also requested that “amicable” be struck from page 8 under Committee Member Comments. Committee Member Dawson made a motion to approve item #1 of the Consent Agenda, the minutes, as amended. Committee Member Latasa seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Dawson, seconded by Committee Member Latasa, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved item #1 of the Consent Agenda, the minutes, as amended: AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Abma, Dawson, Latasa, Searle, Silva NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 1. January 21, 2015 ACTION: Approved as amended. Other Consent Items Committee Member Silva recused himself from items #2 and #3 of the Consent Agenda.  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 4, 2015 2. Consider 39 Wharf #1; Wharf Permit 14-243 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review for a 98.8 Square Foot Second-Story Storage Addition on the Bay Side of an Existing Structure; Applicants Chris Shake/Dennis Hodgin; Owner City of Monterey; Exempt from CEQA ACTION: Adopted a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve Preliminary and Final Architectural Review for a 98.8 square foot second- story storage addition on the bay side of an existing structure at 39 Wharf #1. 3. Consider 625 Pacific Street; AR Permit 15-018 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review for a Kitchen Addition and New Site and Building Lighting and Tree Removal Permit 15-044 for the Removal of Two Olive Trees at the Monterey Public Library; Applicant/Owner City of Monterey; Exempt from CEQA ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving Preliminary and Final Architectural Review for the kitchen addition and the removal of two olive trees (8-in and 10-in) at 625 Pacific Street with Conditions of Approval and added language to the Resolution regarding the City Forester. Vice Chair Kimzey said packet page 23 states that City Code Section 37-10.C.3 requires input from both city staff and the City Forester to make findings for tree removal, and asked if comments of the City Forester should be included in the Agenda Report. Ms Hopper the City Forester usually does not have input for applications of this nature, with non-prominent trees and no opposition. Vice Chair Kimzey requested that language be added to the Resolution stating that the City Forester was consulted with and had no comment on the project, in order to be compliant with City Code Section 37-10.C.3. Committee Member Dawson made a motion to approve items #2 and 3 of the Consent Agenda, with added language to the Resolution of item #3 regarding the City Forester. Committee Member Latasa seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Dawson, seconded by Committee Member Latasa, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved items #2 and 3 of the Consent Agenda, with added language to the Resolution of item #3 regarding the City Forester: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Abma, Dawson, Latasa, Searle NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 1 MEMBERS: Silva ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 2  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 4, 2015 4. Consider 6 Wharf #1; AR Permit 14-515 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review for Exterior Alterations Including a New Gable Roof, Outdoor Seating, Windscreens, Trellis and Lighting; Applicant Dennis Hodgin; Owner City of Monterey; Exempt from CEQA ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving Preliminary and Final Architectural Review for exterior alterations with Conditions. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Christine Hopper presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant Dennis Hodgin, project architect, provided the ARC with two drawings detailing the trellis and various components of the project. Mr. Hodgin said he is agreeable to removing the wind screen on the south side of the building, and said that the trellis is a new feature being developed to provide shade in lieu of awnings. He also said the current building does not really attract people, so the project aims to create balance for the building and create a more attractive, Wharf-like character. Mr. Hodgin said Pullman type lights installed around the trellis are proposed and that the sign program will come at a later date. In response to Chair Freeman’s question, Mr. Hodgin said that only five over head lights under the trellis are proposed since there is no need for additional lights along the building line where there is no seating. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Searle said he is trying to be sympathetic with the owner of the building and is having a hard time rationalizing why the tables could not be there because the effective width on the end of the side deck is fairly narrow, so the new tables would maintain the same deck width along the entire south side. Committee Member Silva said it is not really a matter of egress, but more a matter of public access, and despite the fact that there is a non-conforming condition, any project would have to comply with the public access requirements. Chair Freeman said that the whole design is intended to pull people down to the restaurant and to the end of the deck, and if seating was present it would stop the eye. Committee Member Dawson said he is sorry the added seating has to go but that the project must comply with the Coastal Plan, and that he likes the proposal and supports the modified application. Committee Member Dawson made a motion to adopt a Resolution approving Preliminary and Final Architectural Review for exterior alterations with Conditions. Vice Chair Kimzey seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Dawson, seconded by Committee Member Kimzey, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee adopted a Resolution approving Preliminary and Final Architectural Review for exterior alterations with Conditions: AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Abma, Dawson, Latasa, Searle, Silva NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None 3  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 4, 2015 ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 5. Consider Restroom at Municipal Wharf II; AR Permit 14-415 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of Exterior Alterations; Applicant/Owner City of Monterey; Exempt from CEQA Requirements (Continued from December 3, 2014 Meeting) ACTION: Adopted a Resolution Approving AR Permit 14-415 for Preliminary Architectural Review of Exterior Alterations at the Municipal Wharf II Restroom, and deferred Final Architectural Review with colors, materials and finishes to a later date. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Ms. Hopper presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant In regards to questions regarding the Coastal Permit, Bob Harary, Principal Engineer, said an application has been prepared, but not yet submitted, pending completion of the scope of work and the project budget. He also said the Coastal Permit application will likely qualify for administrative approval. Lori Lynn Williamson, Construction Project Manager, said the proposed wave wall has a painted finish, and the building has a stucco finish. She also said the wave wall is the most inexpensive aspect of the project, so scaling it down would save only approximately $1,000, while the estimated cost of a backflow preventer screen is $30,000. Ms. Williamson said leaving the existing wing walls in place and stuccoing them and that the cost estimates received for stone work and stucco were essentially the same. In response to Chair Freeman’s question, Ms. Williamson said an additional wave wall to shield the backflow preventer was not considered due to the heavy, permanent nature of the wave wall, which could restrict access to the utility. In response to Vice Chair Kimzey’s question, Ms. Williamson said the estimated cost for the wave wall is $3,700, and the estimated cost for a screen with gates around the backflow preventer is around $28,000, although estimates are still being collected. Mr. Harary said that since the last time the project was before the ARC, new issues have arisen, including plumbing repair, asbestos paint, slab work, and ADA requirements, putting the project $70,000 - $80,000 over budget. He also reiterated that a backflow preventer screen was not part of the NIP’s scope of work for the project. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Chair Freeman summarized that the applicants have completed three of the four requests made by the ARC in December, minus the backflow preventer screen, due to budgetary constraints. Committee Member Silva said the wave is still garish and that he would prefer the wave to have scored lines and be painted in monolithic colors to match the building. Committee Member Searle said that the revised design is not garish enough, and if the backflow preventer cannot be covered, then its ugliness should be celebrated through the use of several colors. He also suggested painting the walls of the restroom with colors to match the backflow preventer to achieve a more garish, “1960’s love bus” feel for the restroom. Committee Member 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 4, 2015 Searle said he initially supported a stone finish that would blend in with the surroundings, but if that is not possible he supports the opposite approach, and does not want to delay the project any further. In response to Chair Freeman’s question, Ms. Williamson said the length of the wave wall prevents maintenance issues by keeping sand from being tracked or blown into the restroom. Ms. Williamson also agreed that she would love a “garish” celebration theme for the bathroom. Committee Member Abma agreed that the restroom should either be toned down or made more fun and colorful. Ms. Williamson said that she envisioned the wave wall being a two stage process, first being functional, and later a possible mosaic with sea elements. Committee Member Abma suggested that the City look into partnering with the Aquarium or CalAm for additional funding. Committee Member Silva said an alternate approach would be to reach out to local schools looking for volunteer opportunities. In response to Vice Chair Kimzey’s question, Mr. Harary said he is concerned that further delay could cause the project to be more expensive with rising construction costs, and that he is reasonably confident funding will be obtained from the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in July. In response to Chair Freeman’s question, Mr. Harary said the benefit of obtaining the ARC’s approval would be to have the project shelf ready and to aid in obtaining additional funding. Committee Member Silva made a motion to continue the project for redesign with the direction to the applicant that the design is too middle ground, meek, and not satisfactory; and that the design should be “all out” or less. Ms. Hopper asked the ARC to clarify the specific direction for the applicants, with regards to the wave wall, for example. Committee Member Searle said all aspects of the project need to be taken into context and looked at together. Vice Chair Kimzey seconded the motion for a continuance of the project with direction for redesign. Ms. Hopper said that the applicant has formally requested a denial of the project if no decision is made by the ARC. Committee Member Latasa said because the bathroom is so visible, he is nervous about giving direction to make it more garish, and would prefer a more long term option such, as a local shale treatment. He also said if the project is denied, a comment to the Planning Commission should be included stating the reason for denial. Committee Member Silva withdrew his motion for a continuance of the project with direction for redesign, and moved to grant the applicant’s request for denial of the project. Committee Member Searle seconded the motion. Chair Freeman said Preliminary Architectural Review of the project could be approved for a plain stucco building and stucco wall, and the Final Architectural Review with paint colors and details could be deferred, since the main issues are the backflow preventer and building colors. Mr. Harary said he supports this approach, as the project needs to be completed and without an approval it is difficult to move forward. Committee Member Silva withdrew his motion for denial of the project. Chair Freeman made a motion to adopt a Resolution Approving AR Permit 14-415 for Preliminary Architectural Review of Exterior Alterations at the Municipal Wharf II Restroom, and deferred Final Architectural Review with colors, materials and finishes to a later date. Committee Member Silva seconded the motion. 5  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 4, 2015 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 AR Permit 14-415 for Preliminary Architectural Review of Exterior Alterations at the Municipal Wharf II Restroom, and deferred Final Architectural Review with colors, materials and finishes to a later date: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Abma, Dawson, Latasa, Silva NOES: 1 MEMBERS: Searle ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None RECONVENE ***Evening Session Agenda*** 7:00 - 11:00 p.m. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 6. Consider 1 Portola Plaza (Monterey Conference Center); AR Permit 14-502 for Preliminary Architectural Review for Monterey Conference Center Renovation; Property Owners/Applicants City of Monterey; Visitor Accommodation Facility (VAF) Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA ACTION: Adopt a Resolution approving the general siting, form, mass and architectural style (Preliminary Architectural Review) for the renovation of the Monterey Conference Center with added direction to the applicant. Introduction Ms. Hopper introduced the format of the evening’s meeting on Preliminary Architectural Review and introduced the following participants in the Conference Center upgrade:  Aaron Jensen and Michael Duncan of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM)  Sam Phillips, John Hill, and Dustin Connor of Ausonio Inc.  Kim Bui-Burton, Community Services Director; Bob Cowdrey, Conference Center General Manager; and Lori Lynn Williamson, Construction Project Manager of the City of Monterey. Ms. Bui-Burton gave a brief background of the Monterey Conference Center. She said while the Conference Center has been quite successful over the past 30 years in bringing group business to town, over 14 million dollars’ worth of upgrades are needed for the building. Ms. Bui-Burton said in 2007, the City Council made the decision to upgrade the conference center within the existing site and footprint, funded by the Conference Center Facilities District. She also said the upgraded Conference Center needs a sense of presence and a sense of light, with all the amenities and upgrades for the 21st Century. Applicant Michael Duncan, SOM, thanked the ARC and introduced the project and a 3-D model displaying the form and massing of the building in context. Mr. Duncan discussed the main goals of the Conference Center Renovation, including: 6 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 4, 2015  The three goals of the renovation – serving existing users and attracting new users, creating a building that engages with the city, and creating a a destination in the heart of the City.  Creating a gateway to connect the downtown to the waterfront  Having continuity between the Downtown Area and the Conference Center  Giving the Conference Center its own identity  Capitalizing on the great 3rd floor views  Using simple, straight forward Monterey Style Architecture  Updates to the building such as a clear glass front door, pulled back escalators, a view of the street from inside, double-high spaces, a third floor 10,000 square foot ballroom, an enlivened front façade, outdoor spaces, a circular ceiling cut to mimic the circular form of the plaza, squared off appendages on the building’s northwest corner and translucent shutters with a lit up interior.  Relocation of the existing mural to face Pacific Street In response to Vice Chair Kimzey’s question, Mr. Duncan said there will be multiple areas for loading at the Conference Center without overwhelming the Portola Plaza, including the first and third floors and the unloading zone on Del Monte Avenue. In response to Committee Member Latasa’s question, Mr. Duncan said the louvers on Del Monte Avenue will be a perforated material that allows for visibility and natural, defused light. In response to Committee Member Silva’s question, Mr. Duncan said an earlier rendering showed louvers on the entire length of the building’s front, but the current design has been developed further to have louvers on either side of circular ceiling cut out. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Ms. Hopper provided an analysis of the project from the City’s point of view, presented the Agenda Report, and she and Mr. Duncan answered Committee Members’ questions. In response to Searle’s question, Mr. Duncan said that the lot line was squared off adding a little more area to the building than the previously presented plans. In response to Committee Member Abma’s question, Mr. Duncan said that rooftop uses and skylights have been discussed a fair bit, but the current budget does not allow for rooftop uses, and that additional skylights in public spaces and a pop-up section to allow light from two sides will be considered. In response to Committee Member Latasa’s questions, Mr. Duncan said the rectangular parapet on the roof screens mechanical equipment and also forms part of the ceiling. In response to Vice Chair Kimzey’s question, Mr. Duncan said the louvers will have a veil-like, see through quality and will be positioned permanently to diffuse the sun while giving a view out. Mr. Duncan also said the louvers on the front of the building and the Del Monte Avenue side of the building will be similar, but not identical. Public Comments Bud Evenson said the Conference Center design is a great design, with lots of work put into it. He recommended maintaining the design as proposed, as opposed to softening up the building. Mr. Evenson proposed that a glass sculpture of a wave be positioned over the elliptical opening in the roof that could light up, welcome the community, serve as a possible icon for the Conference Center and provide a vertical accent to the horizontal building. Mr. Evenson provided staff with a drawing of his proposal. 7 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 4, 2015 Tony Tollner, longtime resident and Downtown business owner, thanked the architect and everyone in the City for the work that has been done. Mr. Tollner said the Conference Center is a huge economic driver for the City, and that the proposed design gives the building a sense of presence and is a significant architectural accomplishment compared to the existing building. He also said that Alvarado Street has always been the popular street and he appreciates anything done to acknowledge Calle Principal’s presence in the downtown. Rick Johnson, Executive Director of the Old Monterey Business Association (OMBA), said the history of Monterey and the Downtown Area is so tied to the adobes and OMBA is very protective of them. He said there was great concern that the new Conference Center design would mimic the adobes, however this is not the case and the proposed design is beautiful, innovative, practical, and bold, like the adobes were. Mr. Johnson urged the ARC to approve the project and move forward to allow the Downtown Area to grow and succeed. Michele Pearce, Director of Event Planning at the Monterey Marriott, said many opinions have been expressed on the form and function of the new Conference Center, but to her, the design is not as important as the hundreds of people who work in her department whose livelihood depends on the success of the Conference Center. She said for hospitality workers, having a state of the art Conference Center is very important, and asked the ARC to keep these employees in mind when considering the form and structure of the building. Dan Vitanza, business owner in the Alvarado Mall for the past 24 years, said the proposed Conference Center is a beautiful structure that states that Monterey is serious about business in the Downtown Area. Mr. Vitanza said that conference groups will be pleased seeing a very nice facility that was created for them, and that it will keep the business district lively. He also said when he first saw the proposed conference center it reminded him of Lincoln Center, and that SOM did a fantastic job working with the building. Mr. Vitanza said he hopes the Conference Center will be completed sooner, rather than later, in order to continue the success of the businesses in the Downtown Area. Doug Roberts, local architect and part owner of JHW Architects said he fully supports staff’s recommendations hopes the ARC will do the same. Mr. Roberts also said Jody Hansen, President of Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, sent a letter in support of the project and that it is very important that the business serving people benefit from the Conference Center update. Mr. Roberts said he appreciates the building’s strong face on the Plaza, its abstractive character and its view to the outside for visitors to see Monterey. Sherna Stewart, Monterey resident, said the front glass of the Conference Center is wonderful and glassing in of the terraces is a sensible thing to do, but she is concerned about the Pacific Street rooflines. Ms. Stewart said sloped roofs on Pacific Street is more appropriate given the Conference Center’s proximity to Casa Soberanes and California’s First Theatre, and that flat roofs are not iconic Monterey. Ms Stewart said she supports bringing out the corners of the building and closing the terraces, and that the mural should be pedestrian oriented, located somewhere indoors and possibly lit up at night. Sharon Dwight, Monterey resident, said she, like everyone else, wants success and increased technology for the Conference Center, but appreciates the existing building and feels that its angles, walls, roof, and the way it steps up to one story create a fascinating building, while the proposed building is boxy, and unlike any other on the block. Ms. Dwight expressed concern regarding excessive temperatures in the building without air-conditioning, a loss of parking, loss of pedestrian space and uses in the plaza, traffic flow, and relocation of the mural. Ms. Dwight suggested placing a marquee on the building, replacing the glass portion with supports to allow for pedestrian activity, retaining the building’s diagonal corners, and taking into consideration the large amount of cars that use the plaza. 8 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 4, 2015 Ryan McCormick, Monterey resident, thanked the architects for the fantastic work they have done. He also said he is very excited about the proposed Conference Center, because it will allow people outside to see the action occurring inside, unlike the current building. Mr. McCormick urged the ARC to approve this portion of the project in order to allow it to move forward. Tom Hood, local architect, said a building cannot be designed by a committee and the architect needs to be allowed the freedom to design the building, within the guidelines presented. He also said modernizing the building to attract business is the number one, key issue, and the exterior aesthetic decisions should be left up to the architect, contractor, and the City. Mr. Hood said the proposed building is an honest expression the Monterey Style, and attempting to keep the sloped roofs would be a dishonest expression. John Narigi, Monterey Plaza Hotel General Manager, said the main issue with the Conference Center is its versatility, not the exterior design. He said the current Conference Center is very dysfunctional, so the hoteliers worked together for three years to come up with a formula to pay for a renovation. Mr. Narigi said the building will be high tech and able to handle three or four groups per day, be the anchor tenant of the Downtown Area, make Monterey memorable, and generate additional TOT revenue for the City. Gary Cursio, chairman of Monterey County Hospitality Association, urged the ARC to accept staff’s recommendation and approve the project tonight. He said the intention of remodeling the building is to increase group business in Monterey, and that the Conference Center cannot be booked out to groups until a firm timeline is given on how and when the building will be completed. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Silva said the project architects are heading in the right direction and have overcome many obstacles to create a tremendously improved Conference Center that is transparent and will bring the outside in. Committee Member Silva said, however, he is not completely convinced that the veranda is Monterey Style, without a sloped roof, and that he is not quite ready to endorse the project with the current roofline. Committee Member Searle said he really likes the flat roof design because it’s not a residential look, it draws attention, and is unique to the area. He also said the view of the building from Del Monte Avenue is reminiscent of other grand, iconic buildings, and that this Conference Center will not look back into the past, but will look forward and create an icon for the future. Committee Member Searle said the first and second floors are slightly too symmetrical, but the overall approach with transparency is favorable and he is quite satisfied with the project in general. Committee Member Latasa complimented the architects and the City Council on their process, programmatically and aesthetically, and said he is very encouraged by the project’s thoughtful, great design. He said he does not agree with the sloped roof idea, and that the existing Conference Center is bland and lacking character, while the proposed building will bring character. Committee Member Latasa gave the following suggestions to the applicant for final Architectural Review: add articulation and interest to the roof parapet, look into LEED certification and roof-top solar panels, incorporate the wall mural with planters and lighting for a clever design to enhance the Pacific Street elevation, and work closely with the City Traffic Engineer on the traffic turn out. Vice Chair Kimzey said the ARC’s decision on the project is critically important and will affect Monterey for years to come. He said he understands the urgency of the renovation from a business standpoint and that the architect has done a great job with the internal details. Vice Chair Kimzey also said the project meets the sitting and mass criteria for the ARC, but not the 9  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 4, 2015 architectural style criteria of relating to the historic setting of Monterey, embracing colonial heritage and historic architecture, preserving the Downtown Architectural Character of Old Monterey, and promoting structures that complement the City’s strong architectural heritage, as stated in the Downtown Specific Plan. Vice Chair Kimzey said he supports the idea of a sloped roof and would encourage additional effort to make the project properly align with the Downtown Specific Plan. Committee Member Dawson said the project’s mass, style and sitting are appropriate, but he does not like the project’s form. He said, however, that the ARC must think about building’s audience, the conference goers, and how they will benefit from the building. Because of this, Committee Member Dawson said he feels good about approving the project. Committee Member Abma said she likes the design, and that the ARC must be careful in how they look at historic buildings and the new history of Downtown Monterey. She also said changing some elements, and keeping others may take too much control from the architect, creating a “Frankenstein” building. Committee Member Abma said the project is going in the right direction, and does not need to be a literal interpretation of historic, but can be historic by being different. Chair Freeman said while she initially felt that the new Conference Center design would not fit with its surroundings, the 3-D model helped her see the context of the surrounding buildings and their box-like shapes. She also said the new Conference Center will be a little jewel that fits perfectly in the middle of its surroundings. Chair Freeman said she is in complete support of the project. Committee Member Latasa made a motion to adopt a Resolution approving the general siting, form, mass and architectural style (Preliminary Architectural Review) for the renovation of the Monterey Conference Center with added direction to the applicant to further examine the parapet design on the roof, the truck entrance turn out, the mural on Pacific Street, possible signage and a marquee, skylights and clearstory windows. Committee Member Abma seconded the motion. Committee Member Dawson said he really does not personally like the design of the building, however, he will support the motion because it will directly benefit the target audience. On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member Abma, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee adopted a Resolution approving the general siting, form, mass and architectural style (Preliminary Architectural Review) for the renovation of the Monterey Conference Center with added direction to the applicant to further examine the parapet design on the roof, the truck entrance turn out, the mural on Pacific Street, possible signage and a marquee, skylights and clearstory windows: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Freeman, Abma, Dawson, Latasa, Searle NOES: 2 MEMBERS: Kimzey, Silva ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS None. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 7. Planning Office Update 10 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 4, 2015  The meeting adjourned prior to receipt of the Planning Office Update. A written copy of the Planning Office Update was provided to ARC Members as part of their weekly packet. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:13 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christine Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 11