Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, August 19, 2015 4:00 pm – 7:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Freeman, Latasa, Kimzey, Searle, Abma Members Absent: Silva Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Elizabeth Caraker, Senior Planner Christine Hopper, Associate Planner Fernanda Roveri, Recording Secretary Alicia Salas CALL TO ORDER Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 3:59 pm. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. August 5, 2015 ACTION: Continued to next ARC meeting, September 2, 2015 for lack of quorum. Committee member Terry Latasa has recused himself from approving Item 5, 4 Zaragosa Views, on the minutes of August 5, 2015. Committee members Charles Kimzey, Renata Abma, and Don Searle have recused themselves as they were all absent from the August 5, 2015 meeting. ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS Mike Dawson, who is leaving Architectural Review Committee and was appointed to the Planning Commission, thanked the staff for making the Architectural Review Committee look good. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 2. Consider 300 Fremont Street; AR Permit 15-249 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of Exterior Alterations to Denny's Restaurant; Applicant John Giroux; Owner Fremont Land Company, LLC et. al.; C-2 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Approved as submitted Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Ms. Roveri presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 19, 2015 Applicant Not present. Public Comments None Committee Member Comments Committee Member Charles Kimzey said the red is brighter on screen than in actuality and he supports color choice. Committee Member Don Searle asked if the committee members could step outside to get a better look at the swatch in real light and not artificial light. The committee members stepped outside to look at the color swatches in the sunlight. Committee Member Terry Latasa said the swatch that was submitted is acceptable and agrees with Committee Member Kimzey. Committee Member Renata Abma said she agrees with the other members and thinks the color is appropriate. She said maybe less of the color on the trim would help. Committee Member Searle said he would defer due to a rod and cone disability. Chair Sandra Freeman said the color is a huge improvement. She said the sign on the side stands out in a good way and believes that the red “DENNY’s” lettering should be halo lit to avoid looking like a postage stamp and has no objections to the colors. Committee Member Kimzey asked, why a Condition of Approval regarding archaeological resources is in the Resolution if there is no construction. Planner Christine Hopper said it is standard procedure that is followed in high archeological areas. Chair Freeman asked for a motion. Committee Member Latasa made a motion to approve as submitted. Committee Member Abma seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member Abma, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee Approved Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of Exterior Alterations to 300 Fremont Street (Denny’s restaurant). AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Freeman, Latasa, Abma, Kimzey NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Silva ABSTAIN: 1 MEMBERS: Searle RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 2  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 19, 2015 3. Consider 601 East Franklin Street; Extending AR Permit 12-281 for an Additional Two Years and Amending AR Permit 12-281 to Eliminate Temporary Buildings and Associated Site Improvements, Retain Approval of a Permanent Fence and Allowing Retention of Temporary Fencing for One Year; Applicant Timothy Wong for Trinity Christian High School; Owner Tom & Joan Maher Trust; PC-D Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Approved as submitted and extend chain link fence until May 31, 2016. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Ms. Hopper presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Ms. Hopper stated that there was a correction in the Agenda Report on Packet page 28, under Discussion - Background; she said the date should be July 17, 2013. Applicant Timothy Wong said the original intention was to put up the fence and two modular buildings but at the last minute the owners decided not to install the modulars. Two classrooms were permanently installed instead. He said this is the reason the permanent fence was not installed as they ran out of money. Mr. Wong said that the school will be leaving this site in May 2016. He said the permanent fence is over $40,000.00 and the funds are not available at this time. He said they are concerned with safety and cost and that is why they are asking for the temporary fencing and a permit extension. Chair Freeman asked if the reason for the extension is cost. To which Mr. Wong agreed. Committee Member Abma asked if it was also because they had plans to leave the site. Mr. Wong agreed. Chair Freeman asked if they had a new lease that showed their intention to leave the site. Mr. Wong said he did not have a new lease but the current lease terminates on May 31, 2016. He said as of now he has not secured a new site. He went on to say that if the ARC would allow the temporary fencing until May 31, 2016, they would be willing to remove it that day. Chair Freeman asked if it would be detrimental to the owner and his future use of the site if the permanent fence were installed. Mr. Wong said he doesn’t believe it would be detrimental but he would prefer not to install the fence. He said they are open to any other solutions. Committee Member Latasa asked if fence company had other options for fencing that they could rent. Mr. Wong said they would be open to looking at that option. Ms. Hopper said a fence that would be consistent with the design objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan could be approved by staff and it would not have to come back to the ARC. Committee Member Latasa said the Building Department would need to concur with the assessment regarding the safety issue. Ms. Hopper said there is no building code that says a construction fence needs to come down by a certain period of time but there are safety concerns. 3 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 19, 2015 Committee Member Latasa asked if the timeframe could be modified. Ms. Hopper said the ARC could modify the date that the fence has to come down and have the applicant look into alternative fencing as well. Committee Member Kimzey asked if in the Resolution 24 months could be changed to 8 months to meet the needs of the applicant. Ms. Hopper said no because the 24 month expiration is part of the Architectural Review Ordinance. Committee Member Kimzey asked if the time to remove the fence could it be 8 months rather than 2 weeks. Ms. Hopper said that would be up to the ARC. Public Comments None Committee Member Comments Committee Member Abma asked for a continuance to allow the applicant to find a solution that is not a chain link fence. Chair Freeman said they have had two years already. Committee Member Searle said he didn’t want to see the applicant take the fence down without a substitute time frame for putting it back up. He went on to say that he would be moved to extend the fencing through May of next year and would not want to see the applicant incur such a financial hardship. He also said that safety for the student should be the most important thing. Committee Member Kimzey agreed with Committee Member Searle and did not feel that the school should not bear that kind of hardship and sees removing the fence as a safety issue. Committee Member Latasa does not agree with the other Committee Members. He said the fence is very unattractive and feels it poses a safety risk. He said they should find something that is more attractive and consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan. Chair Freeman agreed with Committee Member Latasa. Committee Member Kimzey made a motion to approve the permit extension as submitted and extend requirement to remove the temporary fence until May 31, 2016. Committee Member Searle seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Kimzey, seconded by Committee Member Searle, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee Approved Extending AR Permit 12-281 for an Additional Two Years and Amending AR Permit 12-281 to Eliminate Temporary Buildings and Associated Site Improvements, Retain Approval of a Permanent Fence and Allowing Retention of Temporary Fencing Until May 31, 2016. AYES: 3 MEMBERS: Searle, Abma, Kimzey NOES: 2 MEMBERS: Freeman, Latasa ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Silva ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None 4  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 19, 2015 RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 4. Consider 426 and 432 Alvarado Street; AR Permit 15-302 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a New Outdoor Beer Garden Pavilion, New Trash Enclosure and New Paint Colors at Rear of Building; Applicant John C. Hill; Owners John C. Hill and Mark Silacci for Silacci Family Investments LLC; PC-D-H2 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Approved as submitted and removal of the condition regarding paint color. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Ms. Hopper presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant John C. Hill, owner of site, said this project has always been a part of their plan. He said the parking spaces in the rear of the building are used by the staff of the business. He said the restaurant is a high energy space in the front of building with the bar up front as well. He went on to say the new portion will be for patrons who want to have a quieter experience. Mr. Hill said they wanted to create a presence on Calle Principal. He also said the trash enclosure is a problem with the birds so they want to resolve that issue with an enclosure. The feel will be a little more industrial outside and this will free up bar area up and move the growler sales outside. Committee Member Kimzey asked if they are concerned with security at night with the height of the side wall. Mr. Hill said it is lockable from the inside at night but they are also hoping the creeping fig will take over the wall. Committee Member Kimzey asked if they were concerned about nighttime “visitors.” Mr. Hill said the height of the fencing should resolve that issue. Committee Member Searle asked if the project has been approved by the Building Department and questioned if permits have been issued. Ms. Hopper said building permits have not yet been issued but the project has been reviewed by all the proper departments, including the Building Official. Committee Member Searle asked if they would be coming back for signage. Mr. Hill said the signage will be a separate application and that they are hoping to be open by Superbowl. Committee Member Latasa asked what the inspiration for this structure was. Mr. Hill said they tried to match the existing building and keep with the same colors and details of the interior. Committee Member Searle asked if they would use drip irrigation. Mr. Hill said it is required. 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 19, 2015 Committee Member Searle asked if because this is an open structure will they have to come back for another meeting and discuss furnishings. Mr. Hopper said no because almost everything is behind the fence and not visible off property lines. Committee Member Kimzey asked if the applicant has already agreed to the fence panel removal and if the colors are the final color selections. Committee Member Kimzey also asked whether it is necessary to have those provisions in the Resolution. Ms. Hopper said she thought it was necessary to keep the condition regarding the panels until a resubmittal is presented showing the panels removed but removal of the condition regarding the final colors is acceptable. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Searle said he supports the project and feels it is appropriate for the area and a positive contribution to the street. Committee Member Abma agrees with Committee Member Searle and supports the project. Chair Freeman said she agreed as well and feels it is needed at the site and the design is lovely. Committee Member Kimzey said this is a very nice addition to the Downtown area and he supports the project. Committee Member Latasa said he supports the project as well. He said this is a brilliant design and a great addition to Downtown. Committee Member Kimzey made a motion to approve as submitted and that the condition regarding final paint colors be removed. Committee Member Searle seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Kimzey, seconded by Committee Member Searle, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee Approved AR Permit 15-302 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a New Outdoor Beer Garden Pavilion, New Trash Enclosure and New Paint Colors at Rear of Building and Removing the Condition of Approval #3 Regarding Paint Color. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Freeman, Latasa, Searle, Abma, Kimzey NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Silva ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None The meeting recessed at 5:21 pm. The meeting reconvened at 5:26 pm 6  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 19, 2015 5. Consider 182 Herrmann Drive; AR Permit 15-246 for Preliminary Architectural Review of a Two-Story Addition, Guest House, and Exterior Alterations to a One-Story Single-Family Dwelling and Tree Permit 15-255 for the Removal of Seven Trees (One 10-Inch Pine Tree, One 29-Inch Multi-Stemmed Oak Tree, One 8-Inch and One 7-inch Oak Tree, One Two-Stem Acacia Baileyana Tree, and Two Fruit Trees); Applicant Derek Etow; Owner Joe Costa; R-1- 10 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Continued for redesign with special attention to the second floor mass, the decks and the tree removal near those decks. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Ms. Roveri presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant Derek Etow said he worked with the Planning Department to figure out what is front, side and rear of the house because this lot is strangely configured. He said the view is not blocked to the adjacent neighbors. He said it is a very large lot and we are well under the maximum lot coverage. Chair Freeman asked if the circular drive in front of the house will be kept. She said she sees people dropping off children for the high school and using that drive. Mr. Etow said they were considering keeping the drive. Committee Member Searle asked about the depth of the front face of the living room and master bedroom to the front of the deck. Ms. Hopper said it is eight feet. Committee Member Searle asked if there were slider doors and which portion of the deck will provide for an entrance and exit. Mr. Etow said there are slider doors on the front of the house. Committee Searle asked how the deck will be accessed from the master bedroom. Mr. Etow said there are only windows, no doors from the master bedroom. Public Comments Carol Olsen, neighbor at 1 Via Campana, said she is astounded at the size of the house. She said there are 8 cars everyday and a lot of people coming and going at that address. She said the guest house will change her view. Ms. Olsen said this house is going to look just like a house the Costas own down the street. She said she does not like either houses and does not want to look at it all the time. She said she is worried the guesthouse will become a rental. Nick Welschmeyer, neighbor at 75 Via Campana, said he was glad to hear something was going to be done with the property because he said it was mostly unattended. He is concerned about the large number of cars at the site and the fact that this is a rental could set precedent for more rentals in the area. He said there is no reassurance that this won’t happen and is very concerned that it will likely become a rental. Mary Jane Perna, owner of 238 Herrmann Drive, thanked the architect and staff for saving the two oak trees. She said the view of the bay and Monterey are affected and it will dwarf the buildings in the neighborhood if this is allowed to go forward. She said there are a few exception but most 7 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 19, 2015 homes are single story with two car garages within the neighborhood. She said Herrmann Drive has passerby exposure on all three sides. Ms. Perna said this home sits out in the open, unlike the others. She said she feels that this could create a precedent. Ms. Perna asked the ARC members how it would feel if it was their own neighborhood. Chair Freeman asked what the actual objection is with the project. Ms. Perna said it is the mass, the second story; the total package. Ms. Olsen asked how did the guest house get approved and not the rest of the project. Ms. Hopper said the Monterey Vista neighborhood is not a design review neighborhood and the Zoning Administrator approved the Use Permit. Mr. Etow said the house is design for the son of the owner who has lived out of the country and it will not be a rental. Kate Joshi, 71 Via Del Rey, said mansions ruin neighborhoods and she sees this in Silicon Valley where she works and hopes that this does set a precedent. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Latasa asked if the project was staked at the time that it went in front of the Zoning Administrator. Ms. Roveri said the project was not required to be staked. Committee Member Latasa said he felt concerned with this “hiccup” in the process. He said it is unfortunate that someone would lose their view because of the process and because the guest house was not staked. Committee Member Searle said he agrees with the neighborhood. He said he believes the house is massive beyond the scale of the neighborhood. He said the elevation drawings do not match the floor plans. Mr. Searle said the living room bay sticks out and is visually unsupported on the first floor and there are a lot of inconsistencies with a lot of up and no bottom. He said he thinks it is a ponderous mass for the neighborhood. Committee Member Latasa said it is a mini mansion and the east elevation is a big problem. He said the very large decks create bigger massing that would be viewable from Herrmann Drive and would be the most objectionable massing issue with this project. He said the structure needs a fair amount of reduction on the second floor and a change in design to the decks to make findings for approval with this design. He said he is skeptical that this structure could be built without meeting the demolition definitions the City has and believes the upper deck is encroaching and in order to support this project they would have to overhaul the project. Mr. Latasa said staking requirements need to be revised throughout the City so that neighbors do not lose views. Committee Member Kimzey said he is torn over this application. He said the applicant has met the requirements of the City but he is in agreement with the other members and the neighborhood and thinks the mass is a problem. Mr. Kimzey said he agrees with the other ARC members and he does not think, as proposed, this project is suitable for the neighborhood. Committee Member Abma agreed with other committee members and said there is a lack of coordination between drawings. Ms. Abma said she cannot support this project. 8 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 19, 2015 Chair Freeman said two stories are not setting precedent as there are a few two story homes on the street. She said this site is in desperate need of improvement was thankful to the owners to putting money into this site but said she cannot support this project. Ms. Freeman said a design where the building sets more comfortably into the lot is more appropriate. Committee Member Latasa said he is not opposed to a two story building on this lot as long as it designed well. Committee Member Searle said the appearance of a larger second floor balcony with a smaller first floor exists all throughout Monterey and there are lots of examples. Chair Freeman said we may ask for a redesign. Committee Member Abma asked if the guest house could be moved to the east to avoid removing trees. Ms. Hopper said that could be looked into further. Committee Member Kimzey said we could continue for redesign. Chair Freeman said we could deny the application allowing the applicant to appeal to the Planning Commission in lieu of continuing for redesign. Committee Member Searle asked if the applicant would incur additional costs if they appealed to the Planning Commission to which Ms. Hopper replied yes. Committee Member Latasa said usually it would be continued for redesign; and we could visit the neighbors being impacted and view the project from their properties. Committee Member Kimzey said we should continue so that we could have an influence on the outcome. Committee Member Abma agreed with the other ARC members. Committee Member Latasa said the redesign should come first then visit the neighbor’s properties. Committee Member Searle said a small simple visual 3D imagery would give a better idea of the design and would help allay the fears of the neighbors as well as give a better reconciliation between the elevations and the plan. He said this is a remarkable site and the building should be as well. Committee Member Latasa made a motion to continue for redesign. He said the second story massing needs to be moved back; the upper level needs to be redesigned and the decks need to be smaller and better integrated into the design. Mr. Latasa said he believes an approvable design would have less square footage on the second story. He also said, as part of the motion, the oak trees near the northern deck should be saved. Committee Member Kimzey suggested the language a mass reduction. Committee Member Searle also suggested a more thoughtful placement of the balconies/deck so as to not require the removal of the trees. 9  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 19, 2015 Chair Freeman summarized the motion as follows: the project is continued for redesign with special attention to the second floor mass, the decks and the tree removal near those decks. Committee Member Abma seconded the motion. Ms. Hopper said since the motion did not include a date certain then it would be up the applicant to resubmit when ready and that the ARC can visit concerned neighbors sites. Ms. Hopper said to alleviate the concerns of Committee Member Latasa; a letter from an engineer will be required to verify that the second story can be supported without a full demolition. On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member Abma, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee Continued for redesign with Special Attention to the Second Floor Mass, the Decks, and the Tree Removal Near the Decks. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Freeman, Latasa, Searle, Abma, Kimzey NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Silva ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Recessed at 6:26 pm Reconvened at 6:35 pm 6. Receive Report and Provide Comments on the Waterfront Master Plan Chair Freeman said developing a draft plan has been a long process and that the ARC’s to provide comments specific to Chapter 6, Land Use and Development. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Ms. Caraker presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. The following changes were suggested by the members of Architectural Review Committee that will be forwarded to the Planning Commission:  Committee Member Latasa said in the Development Standards section, the obstruction of views should be clarified to read, “In any public right-of-way.”  Committee Members Searle and Kimzey asked to eliminate the word “condemned status” in regards to the Coast Guard Pier and replace with other language to infer that the pier is occasionally closed but maintains public access.  Committee Member Latasa suggested the main pier is ok but the side section of the pier was condemned and that should be clarified.  Committee Member Kimzey suggested the Sea Scout Building and the Del Monte Beach House be labeled as one and the same.  Committee Member Kimzey said that K-Dock should be labeled and defined. 10 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 19, 2015 Public Comment was open due to time constraints. Public Comment Mary Alice Cerrito Fettis presented a parking lot plan prepared by Henry Ruhnke that was submitted to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Ms. Fettis said this plan will accommodate uses for all types of vehicles. She said more restrooms need to be available at the parking lot. She went on to say the plan a concept put together by the members of Fisherman’s Wharf. Committee Member Latasa asked Ms. Fettis’ opinion regarding the “Tyler Street Bridge.” Ms. Fettis said it could work but would like to see more study. Committee Member Latasa asked Ms. Fettis if the goal is to keep the parking a priority for the businesses. Ms. Fettis said in other areas such as Carmel, Pacific Grove, and Cannery Row parking is close to businesses. Committee Member Freeman asked Ms. Fettis about a sign that was approved a year ago that marked the entrance to Fisherman’s Wharf; Ms. Fettis said the sign was installed last week. Closed Public Comments Committee Member Questions The following changes were suggested by the members of Architectural Review Committee:  Ms. Caraker said even though the ARC asked for a graphic, the Planning Commission directed staff to take out the graphics regarding circulation and flow.  Chair Freeman and Committee Member Abma agreed the font color in the document needs to be changed in order for it to be read in black and white.  Ms. Caraker said there should be a better breakdown within the sections as well.  Committee Member Searle asked for more vibrant colors to better define the colors in the Character Area graphic.  Ms. Hopper suggested that the maximum sign projection could change that from 4 feet to 6 feet for consistency.  Chair Freeman said she likes the Standard regarding outside displays.  Ms. Hopper said currently every exterior alteration at Fisherman’s Wharf has to come before the ARC and that the Plan gives staff the ability to approve those projects that meet the Standards and Guidelines.  Committee Member Kimzey suggested that the “Goals” section should be clarified as “Goals, in no specific priority.”  Committee Member Kimzey said on page 54 berthing slips are not included and that it should be mentioned that there is a 5 year waiting list.  Committee Member Kimzey suggested that the buildings to be marked with 11 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 19, 2015 wayfinding signs should be clarified.  Committee Member Kimzey suggested on page 68, in the Objectives, O2.1 should be clarified.  Committee Member Kimzey suggested on page 69, G2.15, G2.17, G2.19, G2.21, and G2.22 should be Standards not Guidelines.  Committee Member Latasa agreed with all except G2.21.  G.2.30 – Remove  Ms. Caraker suggested alternative language on page 70 under Sign Design Guidelines, “signs should be oriented towards onsite patrons and pedestrians.”  G.2.36 Add corrugated siding.  Committee Member Kimzey said under Lighting Guidelines, on page 72 add the language “consistent average” as part of the overall objective.  Committee Member Abma suggested that the Lighting Guidelines, on page 72, G1.56 should be taken out as lighting level is in the Standards section.  Ms. Caraker suggested on page 73, under Fisherman’s Wharf staff can develop the Objective to meet the desired character.  It was agreed upon by the ARC that the Fisherman’s Wharf character will be utilitarian in form.  Ms. Hopper suggested removal of Guideline G3.38 on page 75.  Committee Member Kimzey suggested that G6.50 on page 77, should either be a Standard or the language should be softened. Ms. Hopper said a color copy can be printed for the next meeting but it would be restricted to Chapter 6. Committee Member Latasa suggested including a graphic and details of the parking and the parking area. Ms. Caraker suggested that the ARC make the graphic part of their recommendation to Planning Commission. Committee Member Abma suggested including a very generic graphic . Committee Member Latasa said the staff did a excellent job getting to this point and thanked them for a job well done. 12  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 19, 2015 COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS None. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 7. Planning Office Update ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:09. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christine Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 13