Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, July 1, 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: 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 4:01 pm. CONSENT ITEMS Committee Member Latasa recused himself from the Consent Agenda due to a conflict of interest with item 4 and took a seat in the audience. Christy Hopper responded to Committee Member questions regarding items 3 and 6 of the Consent Agenda. Ms. Hopper also informed the Committee that a member of public requested to remove item 4 from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Chair Freeman requested that item 2 be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Committee Member Dawson made a motion to approve Consent Items 1, 3, 5, and 6 with amendments to the Minutes. Committee Member Silva seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Dawson, seconded by Committee Member Silva, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved consent Items 1, 3, 5, and 6 with amendments to the Minutes: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Abma, Dawson, Searle, Silva NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 1 MEMBERS: Latasa Approval of Minutes 1. June 17, 2015 ACTION: Approved as amended. Committee Member Dawson said the word “plan” should be changed to “plant” in the third paragraph from the bottom on page 5. He also said the word “given” should be changed to “giving” in the sixth paragraph on page 6.  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, July 1, 2015 Other Consent Items 2. Consider Northwest Corner of Tyler and Pearl Streets (City Right of Way); Sign Permit 15-231 for One Transit Sign for MST Charging Station; Applicant Glenn Johnson; Owner City of Monterey; No Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Removed from Consent; Discussed; Adopted a Resolution approving Sign Permit with added direction to staff. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Fernanda Roveri presented the Agenda report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Chair Freeman presented photos she took showing areas of concern. Applicant Hunter Horvath, Assistant General Manager of Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST), addressed questions raised by the Committee during staff’s presentation. He said the most objectionable utility boxes shown in Chair Freeman’s photos are on private property. He also said the proposed sign material has a seven year lifespan and any graffiti or damage would be addressed promptly. Regarding the bench, Mr. Horvath said it was intentionally placed and serves as a barrier between vehicles and the state-of-the- art charging box. In response to Committee Member Freeman’s question, Mr. Horvath said a wrap sign is only proposed for the largest box, but that MST would likely accommodate more wraps if requested by the City. Committee Member Silva said bollards should be considered instead of a bench to prevent injury. Ms. Hopper said the issue is currently under review with the City Traffic Engineer. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Silva said many cities have transformed their utility boxes through public art programs and he hopes the City of Monterey will be inspired to take the same approach. Chair Freeman said the individual sign as proposed is fantastic, but she is not sure that the ARC is ready for the sign proposal without including the other boxes in the area. She asked if one sign can be approved without consideration of the surroundings. Committee Member Dawson suggested approving the sign with direction to staff to work on improving the appearance of the other two boxes in the City right of way. Ms. Hopper said staff will follow up on maintenance of the corner. Committee Member Dawson made a motion to adopt a Resolution approving the Sign Permit with direction to staff to investigate improving the appearance of the other two boxes in the City right of way next to the box proposed for signage. Committee Member Silva seconded the motion. Chair Freeman suggested removing the bench from the area. Ms. Hopper said that removal of the bench cannot be conditioned as part of the Sign Permit. 2  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, July 1, 2015 On a motion by Committee Member Dawson, seconded by Committee Member Silva, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee adopt a Resolution approving the Sign Permit with direction to staff to investigate improving the appearance of the other two boxes in the City right of way next to the box proposed for signage: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Abma, Dawson, Searle, Silva NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 1 MEMBERS: Latasa 3. Consider 1000 Del Monte Center; Sign Permit 15-226 for One Halo-Lit Wall Sign; Applicant Ginni Cook; Owner Pacific Holdings LP Et Al; C-2-SC Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving sign permit 15-226 with Conditions of Approval. 4. Consider 4 Zaragosa Views; AR Permit 15-164 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a New Two-Story Addition; Applicant Terry Latasa (Architect); Property Owner William and Kathryn Parish; Zoning District R-2-20-D2, Exempt from CEQA ACTION: Removed from Consent; Discussed; Continued to August 5, 2015 to allow the ARC an opportunity to look at the property. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Kimberly Cole presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Ms. Hopper said because Mr. Latasa is the sole proprietor of the firm, he is permitted to present on the project. Applicant Terry Latasa, applicant, said he spoke with Nelson Vega, agent for the next door neighbors, and is agreeable to a continuance. He also said proposed addition is integrated into the residence as much as possible and does not exceed two stories. Mr. Latasa said he wishes he could move the addition towards the freeway to reduce privacy impacts, but this cannot be done because it would create three stories, which is prohibited. He also said that privacy issues are usually considered for distances shorter than 45 feet and that the neighbors on the other side and behind the property seem okay with the proposed project. In response to Committee Member Dawson’s question, Mr. Latasa said he is not aware of a problem with the current view room windows, however, the project adds additional windows. He also said the project is proposed due to a personal need for space and that the project meets the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Latasa said he will not be present on July 15, 2015, so if the ARC decides on a continuance it would have to be the first meeting in August. Public Comments Nelson Vega, representative for neighbors Deryck and Earline Nuckton, said Mr. Nuckton was the original developer of the neighborhood and he staggered the lots to prevent privacy issues. Mr. Vega also said there is a great deal of massing proposed in one area of the lot and he thinks the applicant should obtain a variance permit and place the addition on the other side of the house, closer to the freeway. Mr. Vega asked the ARC 3  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, July 1, 2015 to continue the project to allow for discussion between the applicant and neighbors, and to allow the ARC to take a field trip to the site to see the project’s impact and overall massing. Steve Buck, owner of 51 Via Castanada, said his house is one of the original houses built in 1951 and prior to purchasing the house he was told by the Planning and Building Departments that no redevelopment of the houses below his could occur. Mr. Buck said the project needs to be re-examined because it will take away his views and no one has contacted him to see the view impacts from his living room and deck. In response to Committee Member Silva’s question, Mr. Buck said he does not believe his house impacts the views of any surrounding houses because it is further back and set down. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Silva said he believes the neighbors have legitimate privacy concerns and would recommend continuing the project for redesign, followed by an ARC field trip. Vice Chair Kimzey said the ARC should go on a field trip to view the property before requesting that the applicant redesign the project. Committee Member Abma concurred. Committee Member Dawson made a motion to continue the project to August 5, 2015 to allow the ARC an opportunity to look at the property. Vice Chair Kimzey seconded the motion. Ms. Hopper said Ms. Cole will take down the telephone numbers of anyone wanting to be contacted to have the ARC look at view impacts from their property. On a motion by Committee Member Dawson, seconded by Committee Member Kimzey, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee continued the project to August 5, 2015 to allow the ARC an opportunity to look at the property: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Abma, Dawson, Searle, Silva NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 1 MEMBERS: Latasa 5. Consider 92 Twin Oaks Drive; AR Permit 15-203 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a New One-Story Guest House; Applicant Joseph Rock, Architect; Owners Norman and Lisa Naylor; R-1-20-D1 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving Preliminary and Final Architectural Review with Conditions of Approval. 6. Consider 855 Oak Street; AR Permit 15-206 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a One-Story Addition and New Roof Deck; Applicant/Owner Robert W. Anthony, Jr.; R-1-5 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving Preliminary and Final Architectural Review with Conditions of Approval. ***End of Consent Agenda*** 4  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, July 1, 2015 PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 7. Receive Report and Provide Comments on the Waterfront Master Plan ACTION: Received a report and provided comments. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Elizabeth Caraker presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Public Comments Chris Shake said he is concerned about the Wharf Parking lot and the current number of spaces not meeting minimum Municipal Code parking requirements. He also said removing spaces will create congestion and violate leases for Wharf tenants, and that the current number of spaces must be maintained or increased. Mr. Shake said the parking study of April 2014 should have been done during the summer. He also said reconfiguring the recreation trail would create unsafe pedestrian conditions. Mr. Shake said long range transportation plans may include light rail train service and this should be accounted for in the Waterfront Master Plan (the Plan). He asked the ARC to come observe the Wharf area on a field trip. Mary Alice Cerrito Fettis, Fisherman’s Wharf Association president, said she would like the reference in the Plan to the Stanton Center Theater corrected to say 90 seats, not 200 seats. She also said she reiterates everything Mr. Shake said. Ms. Cerrito Fettis said the pedestrian and bicycle traffic should remain separate and that adequate parking close to the Wharf businesses is needed for winter months. She also said many people who come to the Wharf do not arrive on bicycle and that an increase in businesses in the area needs to be addressed. Ms. Cerrito Fettis said removal of parking spaces is a huge concern to the lease-holders on Fisherman’s Wharf. Sam Rashkin, economic development consultant, said he has worked in the waterfront area as a consultant for the past two years and the main goal of the Plan at this point seems to be artistic enhancement. Mr. Rashkin said a discussion should be held with the public and the stakeholders to eliminate problems and that once parking is lost it is gone for good. He also said many visitors to the wharf are senior citizens and it is important to have accessible parking. Mr. Rashkin said many issues of homelessness have been left out of the Plan and that a community discussion is needed regarding the lack of a technological accommodation facility for visitors. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Dawson said it would have been helpful to see the concept map Ms. Caraker displayed in her presentation in the packet and that he would like to sit down individually with Ms. Caraker to discuss typos and other issues with the Plan. Ms. Caraker said the Planning Commission decided to remove the concept map to take the focus away from counting parking spaces and instead monitor capacity over time. Chair Freeman said she would love to see an illustration in the Plan showing pedestrian and bike circulation along the new contiguous waterfront. 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, July 1, 2015 Committee Member Latasa said his biggest concern is the visible blight of the Catellus site when entering the city. Ms. Caraker said a design is moving forward for boat storage in this area, which will greatly improve aesthetics. Vice Chair Kimzey said the waterfront cannot become a world class destination with the smell in the area and asked if there are any mitigation measures. Ms. Caraker said the smell is due to sea life in the area and that most waterfront areas have this issue. Committee Member Dawson said there are many issues that the ARC needs to become more informed on, including the concept map shown in Ms. Caraker’s presentation and the Tyler Street bridge. He also said the Plan does not address how it will help the public. Chair Freeman said additional graphics were shown at a prior Planning Commission Meeting and the Plan does not have as many illustrations as she would like. Ms. Caraker said some of the illustrations were conceptual and therefore are not included in the Plan, but can still be used for discussion purposes. Chair Freeman said including an illustration displaying how the waterfront area works for each type of user (pedestrian, bike, vehicle) would be helpful. Committee Member Searle said it would be helpful to include the concept map in the Plan along with a graphic of what currently exists so readers can get a better feel for the Plan, and he gave the example of a vibrancy plan created by the City of Salinas with many bold images. Committee Member Searle also said calling the proposed graphic a concept instead of a plan could make it less controversial. Committee Member Abma said there should be a visual connection and contiguous feel between the waterfront area and other civic plaza areas, such as Portola Plaza. Committee Member Searle agreed. Ms. Caraker said language could be added to the Plan regarding design consistency. Committee Member Latasa said he is concerned that a local architect, not a planner, was hired to draw the maps for an incredibly important planning document. Chair Freeman said the architect, Mr. Henry Ruhnke, stated at the Planning Commission that he was asked by the City to create the drawings to generate discussion. Ms. Caraker added that Mr. Ruhnke was charged with depicting the ideas generated from years of stakeholder meetings, public workshops, and community meetings, to display community ideas. Committee Member Silva said there should be consensus on programming the space and that all stakeholder ideas should be collected to come up with a viable plan. Ms. Caraker said the “Goals” chapter has evolved over 30 meetings and that the Planning Commission requested a sign off by the ARC on “Project Description” and “Environmental Analysis.” Ms. Caraker said the Plan will move forward with whatever minor additions and changes the ARC recommends. Committee Member Kimzey said after 30 public meetings the issues should have been addressed and analyzed. Ms. Caraker she said has a very thorough analysis. Ms. Caraker also said staff is not asking the ARC to weigh in on the parking issue as the Planning Commission looked at the program previously to ensure adequate parking. Chair Freeman summarized the recommendations of the ARC: a tour of the waterfront area by the ARC and any Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Members who are 6  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, July 1, 2015 able to attend, graphic depictions of what is proposed for the sites next to the two wharves, bids for traffic and site plans by urban planner, and a graphic depiction of how the area integrates with other urban areas in the City. Committee Member Latasa concurred. Committee Member Silva requested that the Plan become more form based in the Land Use and Development section. Ms. Hopper asked the Committee to thoroughly read the Land Use and Development Section prior to the tour to see if that is what they really want or if there is any consolidation that could be done. Chair Freeman said she appreciates all the public comments on the issue. Ms. Caraker asked the ARC to choose field trip date to tour the waterfront area. Chair Freeman said a walkthrough at a time when the area is highly utilized would be ideal. Chair Freeman proposed a field trip to the area on August 10, 2015 after the ARC’s regularly scheduled field trip. All members said they are able to attend except Vice Chair Kimzey and possibly Committee Member Searle. In response to Committee Member Searle and Committee Member Abma’s questions, Ms. Caraker said she hopes to have the Environmental Impact Report circulated by the end of this month and the project before City Council in October, 2015. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS None. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 8. Planning Office Update  Update received  Committee Member Searle asked when Final Architectural Review of Portola Plaza will be reviewed by the ARC. Ms. Hopper said it will likely be on the agenda in August. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:31 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christine Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 7