Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, March 18, 2015 AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY 4:00 pm – 7:00 pm COUNCIL CHAMBERS 580 PACIFIC STREET MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Freeman, Kimzey, Dawson, Latasa, Silva, Searle (4:05 pm), Abma (4:11 pm) Members Absent: None Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Cole, Senior Planner Hopper, Senior Associate Planner Bennett, Associate Planner Roveri, Recording Secretary Leinen CALL TO ORDER Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 4:02 pm. CONSENT ITEMS Committee Member Dawson made a motion to approve item #1 of the Consent Agenda. 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 approved item #1 of the Consent Agenda: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Dawson, Latasa, Silva NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Abma, Searle ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Approval of Minutes 1. March 4, 2015 ACTION: Approved as submitted. Other Consent Items Committee Member Latasa requested that item #3 be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion and made a motion to approve item #2 of the Consent Agenda and remove item #3. Committee Member Dawson seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member Dawson, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved item #2 of the Consent Agenda and remove item #3: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Dawson, Latasa, Searle, Silva NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 18, 2015 2. Consider 1500 Mark Thomas Drive (Santa Catalina School); Preliminary and Final Architectural Review Permit 15-004 for New Two-Story Head of School House; Applicant Richard Patterson; Owner Santa Catalina School; R-1-20 Zoning District; Mitigated Negative Declaration Adopted ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving Architectural Review Permit 15-004 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a new two-story head of school house at 1500 Mark Thomas Drive. 3. Consider 101 Wharf #1; Sign Permit 15-014 for New Internally Illuminated Business Sign; Applicant Kevin Phillips; Owner City of Monterey; No Zoning; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Removed from Consent; Discussed; Adopted a Resolution approving Sign Permit 15-014 for a new internally illuminated business sign. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Kimberly Cole presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant Kevin Phillips, applicant, said the restaurant has been re-opened for nearly one year and the new sign with the new name will reflect the casual, fun environment of the new restaurant. Mr. Phillips also said the existing marquee lights will be removed and that the new sign will be beautiful and scaled to fit in the existing inset portion of the building. In response to Committee Member Latasa’s question, Mike Terron of Northwest Signs said a blue tube light will run around the perimeter of the sign and the eyeball, while the rest of the sign consist of painted and vinyl graphics. In response to Committee Member Dawson’s question, Mr. Phillips and Mr. Terron said if the sign turns out too bright, it will be turned down. In response to Committee Member Silva’s question, Mr. Phillips said the fish on the sign was intended to be a rock fish. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Dawson said a Condition of Approval for a dimmer switch is not necessary because the applicant will want to turn down the sign lighting if too bright. Committee Member Latasa concurred and said he supports the application. Chair Freeman said with a balance between the yellow letters and the neon outline, the sign will be easy to read. She also said the sign simplifies the look of the restaurant and will fit perfectly in the existing shadow box space. Committee Member Searle said he is a big supporter of the Big Fish sign. 2  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 18, 2015 Committee Member Latasa made a motion to adopt a Resolution approving Sign Permit 15-014 for a new internally illuminated business sign. Committee Member Searle seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member Searle, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee adopted a Resolution approving Sign Permit 15-014 for a new internally illuminated business sign: AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Abma, Dawson, Latasa, Silva, Searle NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 4. Consider 917 Pacific Street; Sign Permit 14-134 for New Vehicle Oriented Freestanding Sign and New Wall Sign; Applicant Dylan Rivera of Sign Works; Owner Robert Tybor & Laurel Hinton, Trustees; C-O Zoning Designation; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving Sign Permit 14-134 with Conditions of Approval. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Todd Bennett Presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant Dylan Rivera of Sign Works, applicant, said the goal of the application was to make the business more visible from the street. He also said the building and property line are set so far back that the sign needs to be located where it currently is in order to be seen. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Dawson said he had never previously noticed the building and that the monument sign is necessary for people to find the business. Committee Member Abma concurred and said it is great to have the monument sign where it is. Chair Freeman also concurred and said the proposed signage is necessary for safety and way finding reasons. 3  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 18, 2015 Committee Member Silva made a motion to adopt a Resolution approving Sign Permit 14-134 with Conditions of Approval. Vice Chair 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 approving Sign Permit 14-134 with Conditions of Approval: AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Abma, Dawson, Latasa, Silva, Searle NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Committee Member Latasa and Committee Member Searle complimented Mr. Bennett on his clear and thorough report of the project. 5. Consider 8 Alta Mesa Circle; Preliminary and Final Architectural Review Permit 15- 029 for Remodeling and External Alterations to a Two-Story Single Family Dwelling; Applicant/Owner Jennifer and Brendan Connolly; R-E-20-D1 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Continued the application to April 1, 2015 for redesign to allow the applicant to explore different fenestration options more consistent with the Monterey Style, including exploring the vertical proportion of the windows, and to balance the solid to void relationship. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Fernanda Roveri presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant Adam Jeselnick, project architect, said the front elevation of the house does not have an entryway. He also said the first goal of the project was to change the contemporary appearance of the house to make it more in keeping with the neighborhood and the Monterey Colonial style. Regarding the windows, Mr. Jeselnick said small windows were preferable for the east and west elevations to maintain privacy for the bedrooms. He also said the proposed additions are in scale and are intended to take advantage of the existing house and lot. In response to Vice Chair Kimzey’s question, Mr. Jeselnick said the north elevation shown in the packet is the proposal that is going forward, not the conceptual drawing shown in staff’s presentation. In response to Chair Freeman’s questions, Mr. Jeselnick said eliminating the door on the west elevation will prevent confusion regarding the front entry, and that a master bedroom with French doors and a window sits behind the top floor balcony. Mr. Jeselnick also said an existing decomposed granite pathway leading to the entry will remain in place. In response to Committee Member Silva’s question, Mr. Jeselnick said the sill height of the windows in the bedrooms is eight feet. 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 18, 2015 Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Silva said that the preliminary design is charming, has proportionate windows and an appropriate solid to void ratio, while the current design has awkward window proportions, an awkwardly balanced façade and a solid to void ratio with an area for glazing far lower than the appropriate 15-35 percent. Committee Member Searle said the front and side elevations do not match and that the project appears to still be in development, so he does not support the project. Vice Chair Kimzey said he supports the application as proposed and that the applicant should not be penalized for showing the initial design concept. He also said the siting, form, mass and architectural style were found to be appropriate by staff, and the homeowner should be able to build the house as he wishes, so long as it is within the guidelines. Committee Member Latasa said he shares Committee Member Silva’s concerns and that part of the ARC’s responsibility is to consider the context of the project and its impact on neighbors. He also said staff was correct in asking the ARC to look at the east and west elevations. Committee Member Silva suggested that the project be continued for redesign to allow the applicant time to make the windows more vertically proportional and to strike a balance between the solid and void ratio. Committee Member Searle concurred and said more continuity is needed between the front and sides of the house. Committee Member Latasa said the basic massing of the project is present, and now it is just a matter of fenestration. Chair Freeman re-opened Public Comment to allow the property owner an opportunity to speak. Brendan Connolly, property owner, said the early project rendering was presented to show the ARC the starting point, material palette, and feel of the project. He also said the rendering was only a street view, and the design of the house was approached from the inside out, based on room configuration. Mr. Connolly said he wanted to capture what he could of the existing house and not take on greater expenses. Regarding the windows, Mr. Connolly said nearly all of the existing windows are horizontal and that he would prefer casement windows to rake windows. Regarding the east elevation, Mr. Connolly said there is an unmitigated view between the master bedroom and the neighbor’s house, so he prefers not to have 30% of this elevation be windows. Chair Freeman closed Public Comment. Vice Chair Kimzey said neither the east nor west elevations are visible from the street. Committee Member Silva said he does not have an issue with the massing of the project, but with the fenestration and the departure from the original design. Committee Member Silva made a motion to continue the application to April 1, 2015 for redesign to explore different fenestration options more consistent with the Monterey Style, including exploring the vertical proportion of the windows, and to balance the solid to void relationship. Committee Member Searle seconded the motion. 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 18, 2015 Chair Freeman confirmed with the applicant and owner that they would like to return for review at the next ARC meeting to be held on April 1, 2015. Vice Chair Kimzey said the motion is the wrong way for the ARC to go because redesigning the house is inappropriate and not allowed by the ARC’s rules, and because there is no requirement that the house be a traditional Monterey Style. Committee Member Searle said if the homeowner does not have a clear picture of the Monterey Style, it is the ARC’s responsibility to direct the design at the applicant’s request. He also said the ARC is tasked with determining the outside elements including fenestration, materials, and colors. Committee Member Latasa concurred and said fenestration is typically a critical part of what the ARC looks at and that the ARC is not requiring the Monterey Style, but looking for consistency in the project. Committee Member Latasa said the continuance is a routine action and the ARC is only asking for minor changes to the building. Committee Member Searle suggested that the applicant present a colored elevation showing the end result of the project at the next meeting. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Searle, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee continued the application to April 1, 2015 for redesign to allow the applicant to explore different fenestration options more consistent with the Monterey Style, including exploring the vertical proportion of the windows, and to balance the solid to void relationship: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Freeman, Abma, Dawson, Latasa, Silva, Searle NOES: 1 MEMBERS: Kimzey ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Committee Member Silva said the Mobil gas station project on Del Monte Avenue appears to be in progress, but the secondary sign Conditioned for removal by the ARC is still in place. Ms. Hopper said Ms. Cole will follow up on the project. Committee Member Latasa said the environmental determination included in the 1500 Mark Thomas project Resolution was short, and asked how to make all environmental determinations this short. Ms. Hopper said a Negative Declaration was adopted for that particular project, so the usual recitals were not needed, but that Planning Staff is working on shortening the language and making it easier to read. Committee Members Dawson, Latasa, and Abma said they will not be present at the April 1, 2015 ARC Meeting. Vice Chair Kimzey said he will not be present at the April 15, 2015 ARC Meeting. Committee Member Silva said he will provide an informational presentation on the Van Buren Senior Housing development at the April 1, 2015 ARC Meeting. Chair Freeman said the Historic Preservation Commission will be presenting the Cooper Molera Master Plan on March 19, 2015 at 4:00 pm in the Council Chambers. She also 6  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 18, 2015 said the Lighthouse Specific Plan Subcommittee will be holding a meeting on March 24, 2015 from 10:00 am – 12:00 pm in the Council Chambers to review the draft Lighthouse Specific Plan Draft. Vice Chair Kimzey asked if the issue of Councilmembers, Commissioners, and Committee Member serving on subcommittees has been settled. Ms. Hopper said the issue is on hold at the moment. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 6. Planning Office Update  Update received  Ms. Hopper said she is working on an ARC training schedule and asked the ARC Members to continue to think about possible topics.  Ms. Hopper also said on April 7, 2015 the City Council will hold a discussion on Citywide Sign Guidelines. Vice Chair Kimzey requested a copy of the analysis prepared by Ms. Hopper for the Council’s discussion. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:35 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christine Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 7