Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, February 18, 2015 AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY 4:00 pm – 7:00 pm COUNCIL CHAMBERS 580 PACIFIC STREET, MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Freeman, Kimzey, Abma, Dawson, Latasa, Searle, Silva Members Absent: None Staff Members Present: Chief of Planning, Engineering, and Environmental Compliance Rerig, Senior Planner Hopper, Senior Associate Planner Bennett, Principal Engineer Harary, Recording Secretary Leinen CALL TO ORDER Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 4:01 pm. CONSENT ITEMS On a motion by Committee Member Kimzey, seconded by Committee Member Dawson, 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, Abma NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Approval of Minutes 1. February 4, 2015 ACTION: Approved as amended. The ARC requested the following amendments be made to the Minutes:  Correct the spelling of “sloped” in the first paragraph of page 10.  Clarify Mr. Hodgin’s statement in the fourth paragraph of page 3 by changing the wording from “…Pullman type lights that will travel around the trellis…” to “…Pullman type lights installed around the trellis…”  Change the word “but” to “and” and clarify the last sentence in the seventh paragraph on page 3 so it reads “….so the new tables would maintain the same deck width along the entire south side.”  Change “a continued energy” to “continuity” at the third bullet on page 7.  Add the word “at” to the first paragraph below the bullet points on page 7 so the sentence reads “…there will be multiple areas for loading at the Conference Center…” Chair Freeman thanked Recording Secretary Leinen for her clear summary of the names and comments of everyone who spoke during Public Comment on item #6, the Conference Center.  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 18, 2015 Vice Chair Kimzey made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Committee Member Dawson seconded the motion. ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 2. Consider Restroom at Municipal Wharf II; AR Permit 14-415 for Final Architectural Review of Exterior Alterations; Applicant/Owner City of Monterey; Exempt from CEQA ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving Final Architectural Review of exterior alterations with Conditions of Approval and the added caveat that the City make a good faith effort to explore additional funding for screening of the backflow preventer. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Christine Hopper presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant Chip Rerig, Chief of Planning, Engineering, and Environmental Compliance, said the City took the ARC’s comments to heart and tried to find a way to highlight the building as a restroom, while also making it blend in with the natural surroundings. Mr. Rerig also said CalAm has confirmed that the backflow preventer can be painted to blend with the building, but the fire riser must remain red for visibility. Mr. Rerig said he hopes to obtain ARC approval for the project, and that the muted colors and palette will contribute to the waterfront area and allow possible artistic improvements in the future. In response to Vice Chair Kimzey’s question regarding screening of the backflow preventer, Mr. Rerig said there are no safety reasons preventing a screen, however there is not funding to build an appropriate, well designed screen. Mr. Rerig said the City is looking to the alternative of painting the backflow preventer, and this does not preclude the possibility of screening it in the future. In response to Vice Chair Kimzey’s question regarding funding, Mr. Harary confirmed that the project is still $70,000 to $80,000 over budget. Mr. Harary also said that the City intends to return to the Neighborhood Improvement Program (NIP) to seek additional funding to complete the project before the summer season, and if NIP funding is denied, the City will seek funding through the annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in July, deferring construction until after the summer season. In response to Vice Chair Kimzey’s question regarding the NIP’s support of the screen wall, Mr. Rerig said that the NIP’s intention for the project was to clean up the restroom to make it functional and approachable, and that funding is short for this. Mr. Rerig also said he would be happy to include a backflow preventer screen as part of the NIP nomination, but asked that the ARC does not require it as a Condition of Approval. Mr. Harary confirmed that testimony was received from an NIP representative in support of the screen wall, but said the spokesperson also made it clear that there was no more NIP funding for it. In response to Vice Chair Kimzey’s question regarding the ARC waiting to approve the 2 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 18, 2015 project until funding is obtained to approve the project, Mr. Rerig said there is an incredible need for a well maintained bathroom facility at the waterfront, and that he is confident from a staff prospective that the additional funds required to complete the project can be found without delay. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Dawson said the City has done everything asked by the ARC, with the exception of screening the backflow preventer. He said painting the backflow preventer is a good solution which will make it less visible and that he supports the project as proposed. Committee Member Latasa said the project will improve the facility and that he supports the application. Committee Member Silva said he supports the project and likes the direction in which it is heading. In response to Vice Chair Kimzey’s question, Mr. Rerig said the City is requesting additional custodial staff to maintain the restroom. Mr. Harary said the sewer lateral will be reconstructed, which will also help with maintenance issues. Committee Member Abma said she supports the project and likes the revision to the design. She also said the need for a public bathroom supersedes the screening of the backflow preventer, and that it is encouraging that the backflow preventer screen and artistic improvements can come back for review at a later date. Chair Freeman said the ARC’s job is to review the building’s architecture, not maintenance and engineering. She also said city staff project manager originally envisioned a colorful mosaic wall, but coming back to the basic structure is a good idea since the building can be added to and improved upon in the future. Committee Member Silva made a motion to adopt a Resolution approving Final Architectural Review of exterior alterations with Conditions of Approval and the added caveat that the City make a good faith effort to explore additional funding for screening of the backflow preventer. Committee Member Latasa seconded the motion. Committee Member Dawson asked if the added caveat regarding the backflow preventer would be a Condition of Approval. Ms. Hopper said as presented it would not be a Condition of Approval, but that the request will be memorialized in the minutes. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Latasa, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee adopted a Resolution approving Final Architectural Review of exterior alterations with Conditions of Approval and the added caveat that the City make a good faith effort to explore additional funding for screening of the backflow preventer: 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 3  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3. Consider 1033 Johnson Street; AR Permit 15-003 for a Two-Story Addition to an Existing One-Story, Single Family Dwelling and a Setback Variation for the Second-Floor Addition (7' -0" Sideyard Setback Required, 6' - 8" Proposed); Applicant Mark Porter for Solartecture; Owners Mr. & Mrs. David Nabhan; R-1-6 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving AR Application 15-003 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review for a two-story addition to the existing one-story, single family dwelling with amended Special Conditions of Approval. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Todd Bennett presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Mr. Bennett also said since publication of the packet, the applicant revised the plans to include a seven foot setback that meets all relevant development standards and the minimum setback requirement for a second story addition. Additionally, Mr. Bennett said documentation that the lots have been merged has been provided by the applicant. Applicant David Nabhan, applicant, was present but did not address the ARC. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Latasa said the proposed project is very straight forward. Chair Freeman made a motion to adopt a Resolution approving AR Application 15-003 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review for a two-story addition to the existing one- story, single family dwelling with amended Special Conditions of Approval as follows: 5. That Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 001-334-025 & 001-334-026 be merged, with documentation confirming the merger submitted to Planning staff, prior to issuance of building permits. 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 AR Application 15-003 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review for a two-story addition to the existing one-story, single family dwelling with amended Special Conditions of Approval: 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 4  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 18, 2015 4. Consider 55 Camino Aguajito; Sign Permit Application 14-142 for a Multi-tenant Sign Program; Applicant Don Desai; Owner William Gamble; VAF Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements (Continued from September 3, 2014 meeting) ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving the Multi-Tenant Sign Program with Conditions of Approval and added Special Condition of Approval. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Ms. Hopper presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant Don Desai, applicant and hotel manager, said that the owner of the hotel has made it clear that the hotel will never be sold and will always be the Monterey Bay Lodge. Because of this, Mr. Desai said the current sign will remain and he asked staff what is allowed for sign maintenance. Ms. Hopper said she will provide the applicant with the language from the Sign Ordinance regarding maintenance. In response to Chair Freeman’s question, Mr. Desai said he does not have a preference between the two sign shapes, but agrees with Ms. Hopper that the rectangle sign seems to be the better fit for the building’s architecture. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Dawson agreed that the rectangle sign fits the building better, but said the arched sign looks better because there is less empty space. Committee Member Silva said that he does not have a preference between the two sign shapes and that the decision should be left up to the applicant. Committee Member Abma concurred. Chair Freeman said placing the sign on the awning and reducing the font is reasonable and appropriate for the site. She also said she likes the two wall signs because they help indicate the locations of the driveway and restaurant. Committee Member Abma made a motion to adopt a Resolution approving the Multi- Tenant Sign Program with Conditions of Approval and added Special Condition of Approval as follows: 8. That the shape of the wall signs are at the discretion of the applicant. Vice Chair Kimzey seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Abma, seconded by Committee Member Kimzey, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee adopted a Resolution approve the Multi-Tenant Sign Program with Conditions of Approval and added Special Condition of Approval: 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 5  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 18, 2015 COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Committee Member Silva said construction has begun at the Work site on Alvarado Street. In response to Committee Member Silva’s question, Ms. Hopper said the large project visible from Highway 68 is on airport land and the City has no jurisdiction over it. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 5. Planning Office Update  Update received  Ms. Hopper thanked the ARC for their hard work on the Conference Center project. She also asked the ARC to think about topics for future training sessions.  In response to Committee Member Dawson’s question, Committee Member Silva gave a status of the project at the Cibo’s site on Alvarado Street.  In response to Committee Member Abma’s question, Ms. Hopper said the Specific Plans are posted online to save money in printing costs, but printed copies are available for viewing in the Planning Office.  In response to Chair Freeman’s question, Ms. Hopper said the finalization of the Downtown Specific Plan lighting guidelines is under staff review and revision, and will hopefully be reviewed by Planning Commission in March and City Council in April.  Chair Freeman requested that an informational session be held to discuss opportunity sites on Calle Principal.  In response to Committee Member Latasa’s question, Ms. Hopper gave a summary of the appeals for 2252 North Fremont and 520-522 Fremont Street, heard by City Council on February 3, 2015. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:39 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christine Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 6