Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, June 17, 2015 4:00 pm - 5:30 pm 7:00 pm - 11:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Latasa, Freeman, Dawson, Kimzey, Searle, Silva, Abma Members Absent: None Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Cole, Senior Planner Hopper, Associate Planner Roveri, Community Services Director Bui-Burton, Recording Secretary Leinen CALL TO ORDER Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. CONSENT ITEMS Committee Member Silva made a motion to approve the Consent Items with amendments to the Minutes. 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 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. May 20, 2015 ACTION: Approved as amended. Committee Member Dawson said the word “changing” in the second to last paragraph on page 3 should be replaced with the word “changed.” Committee Member Dawson also requested that the word “in” be inserted in the two omitted places on page 10. Vice Chair Kimzey said that the word “he” should be added to the second sentence of the second paragraph on page 10. Other Consent Items 2. Consider 1221 Tenth Street; AR Permit 13-296 for Preliminary Architectural Review for a New Two-Story Addition, Exterior Alterations, and Site Improvements to a Two-Story Mixed-Use Building; Applicant Chuck Burket; Owner Thomas D. Williams; Zoning District C-2-D2; Exempt from CEQA ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving Preliminary Architectural Review with Conditions of Approval.  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 17, 2015 In response to Vice Chair Kimzey’s question regarding Special Condition #2 of the Resolution, Ms. Hopper said if any archeological resources are discovered during excavation the condition applies. In response to Vice Chair Kimzey’s question regarding when an archeological report is required, Fernanda Roveri said a report is necessary when the project falls in a high sensitivity area as designated by the City. She also said the archeologist did not find any resources but did cite a study which found resources within a few hundred feet. In response to Vice Chair Kimzey’s question, Ms. Hopper said if Native American remains are discovered the Native American Tribal Commission must be notified within 24 hours. ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS Sherna Stewart said she applied for three projects with the Neighborhood Improvement Program, which were all approved, and she looks forward to working with the ARC on the projects. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 3. Consider 1430 Mark Thomas Drive (Hyatt Regency Monterey); Sign Permit 15-121 for One Internally-Illuminated Pole Sign and One Internally-Illuminated Vehicle- Oriented Freestanding Sign; Applicant Steve McNally for Hyatt Regency Monterey; Owner Steve McNally for Hyatt Regency Monterey and Cheryl Burrell for Pebble Beach Company; VAF Zoning District; Exempt From CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving the sign permit with Conditions of Approval and added Special Conditions of Approval. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Ms. Hopper presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant Anthony Lombardo, attorney for Hyatt Regency Monterey, said the Planning Commission approved the appeal of the ARC’s decision due to new information presented which was a compromise of replacing one pole sign with a monument sign. He also said the Planning Commission confirmed this decision at their last meeting. Mr. Lombardo said they have met with a neighbor of the property and they agree with her suggestion to turn the sign to be more oriented to Mark Thomas Drive, and also said the proposed illumination for the monument sign is far less than the existing illumination. Mr. Lombardo said he respectfully requests support of staff’s recommendation but does not agree with the requirement of removing the pole sign if there is a future request to change the sign copy. In response to Committee Member Dawson’s question, Mr. McNally of Hyatt Regency Monterey said the Hyatt wants to start slowly with replacing the other existing rock signs down Mark Thomas Drive, but there is a good chance if replaced they would remain consistent with the other sign. In response to Chair Freeman’s question, Mr. Lombardo said lowering the monument sign two feet is acceptable. 2 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 17, 2015 Public Comments Sherna Stewart, neighbor of the property, said three to four cars will come up Castro Road in an hour and turn around after realizing it is not an entrance to the Hyatt. Ms. Stewart said she thinks that people may not see the arrow on the new sign and requested that they make the arrow more visible and suggested moving the sign off the apex of the corner. Ms. Stewart also questioned if the aluminum will be blinding to drivers in the afternoon. Committee Member Comments Vice Chair Kimzey said the vote is incorrect on attachment 3 to the Resolution in that the no and yes votes are flipped. Vice Chair Kimzey also requested that all binding points be listed in Resolutions going forward. Committee Member Silva said he is not as concerned about the sign’s directional function given navigation programs available, but he does not think the sign is any better than the previous one at directing people to the hotel. Committee Member Silva said the sign should be aesthetically pleasing as well as functional, and recommended redesigning the sign to be more functional. Chair Freeman said even with navigation programs it is reassuring to see the monument sign. She also said Ms. Stewart’s comments regarding orientation, shininess and size of the arrow are all helpful suggestions. Chair Freeman said the rock sign was almost invisible and complimented the applicant on the monument sign. In response to Committee Member Abma’s question regarding moving the sign two to three feet up Mark Thomas Drive, Ms. Hopper said if the ARC would like the sign placed as close to Mark Thomas Drive as possible she could work with the traffic engineer on location. Committee Member Latasa said he is concerned with the issue of reflectivity since the sign is facing directly west and suggested considering the sign’s material to ensure it is not reflective. Committee Member Dawson said the sign is bowed which could negate the reflectivity issue. Committee Member Dawson made a motion to adopt a Resolution approving the sign permit with the suggestion that a way-finding arrow is added to the corner and that in the future the rock signs on Mark Thomas Drive are changed to match. Committee Member Silva added that there will be consulting with the Traffic Engineer and the Planning Department for the final orientation of the monument sign. Chair Freeman restated the motion to adopt a Resolution approving the sign permit with Conditions of Approval and added Special Conditions of Approval as follows: 9. That the location of sign C will be approved with consultation with the City Traffic Engineer and the Planning Office before final placement and it is suggested that a way finding arrow be added to the sign and that in the future the signs along Mark Thomas Drive be change to match. On a motion by Committee Member Dawson, seconded by Committee Member Latasa, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee Adopted a Resolution approving the Sign Permit with Conditions of Approval and added Special Conditions of Approval: AYES: 7 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Dawson, Kimzey, Searle, Silva, Abma 3  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 17, 2015 NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 4. Consider Portola Plaza (Plaza Design); AR Permit 15-202 for Preliminary Architectural Review of Portola Plaza; Property Owners/Applicants City of Monterey; Visitor Accommodation Facility (VAF) Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA ACTION: Adopted a Resolution: 1) approving Preliminary Architectural Review for renovation of the Portola Plaza and to defer Final Architectural Review with direction to the applicant to increase the ratio of planting to pavers in the plaza, address the transition between the building and plaza, and address bus stop seating; and 2) eliminating the fountain from the project proposal. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Chair Freeman introduced the project and said on May 6th the ARC did initial design review and provided several suggestions for design refinement that will be reviewed tonight. She also said that the issue of signage has been deferred. Ms. Hopper presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Kim Bui-Burton, Community Services Director, said she is delighted to report that at the June 16, 2015 City Council meeting the Council voted to approve funding for the Conference Center project. Applicant Ms. Bui-Burton introduced the project team from Skidmore Owings & Merrill (SOM). The project team gave a presentation and answered Committee Members’ questions. Aaron Jensen, SOM, thanked the ARC and said since the last meeting the design team has met with stakeholders and refined the plaza design with the goal of creating a civic downtown space for Monterey. Mr. Jensen said goals for the plaza include:  Strengthening the relationship between the Conference Center, the Portola Plaza Hotel, Alvarado Mall, and the Wharf  Creating a simple, memorable, iconic space  Accommodating a larger amount of activity and serving as hub in the downtown  Using economical materials that are simple, elegant, and timeless  Providing a great public gathering space  Creating a safe environment that maximizes and isolates loading and unloading and separates auto from pedestrian traffic Gary Strang, SOM, said continuous trenches covered with soil at the low end of the plaza will replace the tree grates. He also said the bus stop on Del Monte Avenue will have a raised curb and be ADA compliant. Mr. Strang showed the ARC diagrams detailing configurations for vehicles, busses, emergency vehicles, semi-trucks, tents, movable furniture and one with traffic routes. Mr. Strang said that the entrance to the plaza will be 59 feet and six inches, equivalent to five lanes of traffic. Mr. Strang described the materials proposed and said the fountain proposed for the center will be a continuation of the paving, so when it is not in use the plaza will still be complete. He also said movable furniture is proposed for the flex zone along with lit prefabricated benches. Mr. Strang said lighting is not completely finalized and that the 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 17, 2015 team is working with the City Forester on tree selection. In response to Committee Member Latasa’s question regarding scheduling, Sam Phillips of Ausonio, Inc. said an application for a building permit for the Conference Center was submitted this week and construction drawings cannot be started until Architectural Review of the plaza is approved. Ms. Hopper provided staff analysis of the project and closed the presentation. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Searle said he supports the architecture but does not support the plan for several reasons, one of which being vehicular access and pedestrian access. He also said the transition between the building edge and plaza is very abrupt and modern. Committee Member Searle said there is an insufficient barrier for the surface level fountain and not enough bollards for vehicles. He said the hardscape of the court is not compatible with the City and that a fountain is not practical given the serious drought, and suggested grouping all the small planters as a central point instead. Committee Member Searle said he will be voting no on the project as proposed. Committee Member Silva concurred with Committee Member Searle and said fountains are superfluous and the proposed fountain does not fit with the spirit of Monterey. He also said the ARC should examine whether a fountain or green space would be better. Committee Member Silva said there is not enough balance between greenery and hardscape and he has a hard time accepting the plan for this reason. Committee Member Abma agreed and said replacing the fountain with a planted area or even low grass would be successful and provide space for seating. She also said she would like to see a little more planting to soften the area. Committee Member Latasa said he has been persuaded by his colleagues regarding the fountain, and that the plan is quite stark, needing more planting. He also said it seems car events are driving the design of the plaza. Vice Chair Kimzey said he has no problem with the fountain, that it is attractive, and that green space would take more water than the fountain. He also said if plants replaced the fountain the flexibility that the plaza was looking for is gone. Vice Chair Kimzey said he agrees that more green space is needed, but he would vote for the project as presented. Chair Freeman said she agrees with Vice Chair Kimzey and that the plantings currently in the middle of the plaza are not attractive. She also suggested replacing the proposed Equisetum, which is hard to maintain, with another plant like Dwarf Bamboo. Chair Freeman said her main comment is regarding the neutrality of the color of plaza and building materials. She said major civic plazas around the world are humanizing their spaces with brightly colored movable furniture, which reduces the neutrality of the ground plane without being permanent. Vice Chair Kimzey asked the applicant what aspects require approval to not interfere with scheduling. Mr. Philips said it would be helpful to have the layout and further details decided. Chair Freeman suggested approving Preliminary and Final Architectural Review while deferring the fountain in the middle and the size of planters. Committee Member Searle 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 17, 2015 said the project may not be ready for Final Review because there should be a cohesive plan for such a large social space. Ms. Hopper said the ARC could approve the organization of the plaza through Preliminary Architectural Review and continue Final Architectural Review. Committee Member Latasa said he is comfortable approving Preliminary Architectural Review. Committee Member Searle concurred. Chair Freeman said the items that the ARC would like the applicant to explore further are: planting area, the fountain, the bollards and their quantity, reduction of paving surface, and softening the center area of the plaza. Vice Chair Kimzey made a motion to adopt Resolution approving Preliminary Architectural Review for the renovation of the Portola Plaza and to continue Final Architectural Review with direction to the applicants to explore 1) the ratio of planting area to pavement; 2) the treatment of the center of the plaza and whether it should include a fountain; 3) the use and quantity of bollards; and 4) lighting, final landscaping, furnishing, materials, and fountain design if still applicable. Committee Member Silva said the motion is too vague with regards to the bollards, and that the ARC should decide as a committee whether or not the design should include bollards. Committee Member Latasa said the plinth issue needs to be discussed as well. Ms. Hopper restated the motion with the added direction to the applicant to pay attention to the transition between the plaza and the Conference Center. Committee Member Silva said he does not think fair direction is being given to the applicant and said the ARC may be giving too many different options. Ms. Hopper said the applicant has requested that the ARC vote on whether or not to have the fountain and whether or not to have the bollards. Committee Member Latasa made a motion to approve the bollards as presented in the project submittal. Committee Member Dawson seconded the motion. Committee Member Searle said he does not support the motion because there is the potential safety hazard of people driving into the building. On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member Dawson, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the bollards as presented in the project submittal: AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Dawson, Latasa NOES: 3 MEMBERS: Abma, Silva, Searle ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Committee Member Silva made a motion to eliminate the fountain from the project proposal. Committee Member Searle seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Searle, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee eliminated the fountain from the project proposal: AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Abma, Latasa, Searle, Silva NOES: 3 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Dawson 6  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 17, 2015 ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Ms. Hopper said the ARC could make another motion to approve Preliminary Architectural Review with Final Architectural Review deferred with guidance to the applicant to look at the transition between the building and the plaza and to explore the ratio of planting to paving. Committee Member Searle said the motion should not be to explore the amount of greenery but to add more. Committee Member Latasa said there is still the question of the plinth. Ms. Hopper said the plinth issue would be addressed as part of the Conference Center application. Vice Chair Kimzey said there was discussion regarding bus stop seating and asked if it should be included in the motion. The Committee concurred on including it in the motion. Vice Chair Kimzey made the motion to adopt a Resolution approving Preliminary Architectural Review for renovation of the Portola Plaza and to defer Final Architectural Review with direction to the applicant to increase the ratio of planting to pavers in the plaza, address the transition between the building and plaza, and address bus stop seating. 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 Preliminary Architectural Review for renovation of the Portola Plaza and to defer Final Architectural Review with direction to the applicant to increase the ratio of planting to pavers in the plaza, address the transition between the building and plaza, and address bus stop seating: 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 Committee Member Latasa excused himself from the meeting at 6:45 pm. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Chair Freeman congratulated the applicant and presentation team for the Portola Plaza project and said they have been very patient and come back several times, and progress has been made each time. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 5. Planning Office Update  Update received  Ms. Hopper said the agenda for the July 1st meeting will be large with ten items tentatively scheduled.  In response to Committee Member Dawson’s question, Ms. Hopper said it would not necessarily be beneficial for ARC members to attend the Parks and Recreation Commission discussion of the Waterfront Master Plan on July 18th because changes are still being made to the plan, but any members interested are welcome to attend. 7 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 17, 2015 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:48 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christine Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 8