Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, September 2, 2015 AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY 4:00 pm – 7:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Freeman, Kimzey, Searle, Silva, Theodore, Latasa (4:04 pm) Members Absent: Abma Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Cole, Principal Planner Caraker, Senior Planner Hopper, Recording Secretary Leinen CALL TO ORDER Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 4:02 pm. Chair Freeman introduced new Architectural Review Committee Member Susan Theodore. Committee Member Theodore gave a brief overview of her background and experience. CONSENT ITEMS Chair Freeman said there has been a request to remove items #4 and #5 from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Approval of Minutes 1. August 5, 2015 ACTION: Approved as submitted. Vice Chair Kimzey and Committee Member Searle recused themselves from voting on the minutes August 5, 2015 due to absence from the meeting. Committee Member Theodore abstained from voting due to appointment to the ARC after August 5, 2015. Committee Member Silva made a motion to approve minutes of August 5, 2015. Committee Member Latasa seconded the motion. Committee Member Latasa recused himself from item # 5 of the Minutes, 4 Zaragoza Views, due to a conflict of interest. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Latasa, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approve minutes of August 5, 2015: AYES: 3 MEMBERS: Freeman, Latasa (recused from item #5), Silva NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Abma ABSTAIN: 1 MEMBERS: Theodore RECUSED: 2 MEMBERS: Kimzey, Searle Other Consent Items  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 2, 2015 Committee Member Latasa made a motion of approve items #2 and #3 of the consent agenda. 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 approve items #2 and #3 of the Consent Agenda: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Latasa, Searle, Silva, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 2. Consider 690 Pine Street; AR Permit 15-280 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a Second-Story Addition to a Two-Story House; Applicant/Owner Steve C. Wilson; R-1-5 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving AR Permit 15-280 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a second-story addition to a two-story house with Conditions of Approval. 3. Consider 241 Alvarado Mall; Application 15-321 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of Outdoor Seating; Applicant Claire Sutton; Property Owner Custom House Hotel Company, Ltd.; Visitor Accommodation Facility (VAF); Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Adopted a Resolution approving Application 15-321 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of outdoor seating at 241 Alvarado Mall with Conditions of Approval. 4. Consider 1 Portola Plaza (Monterey Conference Center); Sign Permit 15-327 for Three New Externally-Illuminated Wall Signs; Applicant/Owner City of Monterey; PC-D Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Removed from Consent; Discussed; Adopted a Resolution approving the Sign Permit with Conditions of Approval. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Christy Hopper presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant In response to Vice Chair Kimzey’s questions, applicant John Hill said the sign letters will rest on a stainless steel shelf and that the sign on Pacific Street will be mounted on an exhaust vent and will not affect visibility. In response to Committee Member Searle’s question, Mr. Hill said a landscape architect was consulted during the design phase. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Latasa complimented the applicant on the beautiful signage concept. 2  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 2, 2015 Chair Freeman said the quality of materials is terrific. Vice Chair Kimzey said the size of the building warrants signage in excess of guidelines and he supports the application. Committee Member Searle made motion to adopt a Resolution approving the Sign Permit with Conditions of Approval. Committee Member Silva seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Searle, seconded by Committee Member Silva, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee adopted a Resolution approving the Sign Permit with Conditions of Approval: AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Latasa, Searle, Silva, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 5. Consider 1 Portola Plaza (Monterey Conference Center); AR Permit 15-172 for Review of Screen Panel Color at Portola Plaza Building Elevation; Property Owners/Applicants City of Monterey; Visitor Accommodation Facility (VAF) Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA ACTION: Removed from Consent; Discussed; Adopted a Resolution approving the screen panel color at the Portola Plaza. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Ms. Hopper presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant John Hill, applicant, said stainless steel screen panels were chosen over painted screen panels because they will reflect light in a warmer way. In response to Committee Member Latasa’s question, Mr. Hill said the fritted glass will be used in the clerestory windows. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Chair Freeman said this meeting is the tenth ARC meeting regarding the Portola Plaza. Vice Chair Kimzey said he does not think the stainless steel contributes to the warmth and overall appearance of the building as described in the Agenda Report. Vice Chair Kimzey said he will be voting against the proposal. Committee Member Latasa said he supports the application and that the final selection of materials complements the design. He also said a very admirable job has been done. Committee Silva said he still has his original objections regarding lack of historical context and Monterey style, but the stainless steel color complements the building 3  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 2, 2015 materials and he supports the proposal. Chair Freeman said the materials fit together on the building and that she supports the final materials. Committee Member Searle said supports the proposal and likes the simplicity and durability of the material and how it fits with the building architecture. Committee Member Theodore said the proposed material is lovely and will catch the light. Committee Member Searle made motion to adopt a Resolution approving the screen panel color at the Portola Plaza. Committee Member Theodore seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Searle, seconded by Committee Member Theodore, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee adopted a Resolution approving the screen panel color at the Portola Plaza: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Freeman, Latasa, Searle, Silva, Theodore NOES: 1 MEMBERS: Kimzey ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 6. Consider 503 Pearl Street; AR Permit 15-234 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a One-Story Garage Addition to a One-Story House; Applicant/Owner Patrick McNeill; PC-D Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Continued the project for redesign to allow the applicant to prepare a proposal with the garage set back in a way that allows six feet between the addition and the adjacent residence to the north, regardless of the property line, with direction to the applicant to inject more style into the exterior appearance of the building and consider eliminating the mansard roof. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Ms. Hopper presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant Pat McNeill, applicant, gave a background of the house’s history and provided the ARC with a PowerPoint presentation about the project. Mr. McNeil said the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) previously determined that the house qualified to remain on the Downtown Area Reconnaissance Survey as a potential contributor to a 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 2, 2015 possible historic district. He also said the objective of the project is to maintain historical character while enhancing the livability of the house through enlarging the master bedroom and adding a one car garage. Mr. McNeil also discussed solar panels and firewalls. In response to Committee Member Latasa’s question, Mr. McNeil said a five foot setback would take away from the bedroom expansion and potential area for solar panel mounting. Mr. McNeil said an eight foot separation between his wall and the neighbor’s wall may be a compromise. Jim Vocelka, architect, said the project was designed to have a wall parallel with the wall on the neighboring house, and that it may be wiser to discuss distance between the two walls as opposed to distance from property lines. Mr. Vocelka suggested having the building walls six feet apart. He also said pulling the wall back any further would affect the garage, bedroom, and space for solar panels. Mr. Vocelka discussed sun angles and said he does not expect the proposed addition to have much effect on shading the neighbor’s windows. Committee Member Silva inquired about the Secretary of the Interior standards on matching new building materials with original building materials on historic properties. Ms. Hopper responded that the standards require that new materials be differentiated from the old, yet remain compatible so that changes over time can be identified. In response to Committee Member Silva’s question regarding the solar panels, Mr. McNeil said solar panels would not be visible from the neighbor’s yard and would not cause light entering their house to be shaded. In response to Committee Member Latasa’s question, Mr. McNeil said if the committee feels strongly about having real wood for the siding, he would compromise. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Searle said the garage design is not compatible with the neighborhood and the roof form compromises the integrity of the original house. He also said the applicant should have the right to build to zero lot line. Committee Member Silva said that the mansard roof is not attractive and suggested a more modern design. He also said he appreciates the applicant’s endeavor to modernize the house and become a net-zero energy home, and that the property owner should not be punished because the neighboring house is close to the property line. Vice Chair Kimzey said he sympathizes with the applicant and cannot see why the applicant should be penalized due to the neighboring property sitting on the property line. He said that the application meets all guidelines set by the City and that it would be unfair to request that the applicant move his addition back from the zero lot line when the neighboring property takes full advantage of the lot line allowance. Vice Chair Kimzey said that the applicant’s argument for his living space and garage space is a valid one. He said he supports the application as submitted. Committee Member Latasa said he shares the concern with the mansard roof and said another roof form would be appropriate. He also said per state law, solar panels are not within the ARC’s purview. Committee Member Latasa said the applicant’s suggestion of having a three foot setback seems to be a reasonable compromise. 5  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 2, 2015 Committee Member Theodore concurred regarding the three foot setback. Chair Freeman said she would support a three foot setback if both buildings were six feet apart from front to back. Vice Chair Kimzey made a motion to approve Preliminary and Final Architectural Review as proposed in the Agenda Report with Conditions of Approval. The motion died for a lack of a second. Committee Member Silva made a motion to continue the project for redesign to allow the applicant to prepare a proposal with the garage set back in a way that allows six feet between the addition and the adjacent residence to the north, regardless of the property line, with direction to the applicant to inject more style into the exterior appearance of the building and consider eliminating the mansard roof. 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 continue the project for redesign to allow the applicant to prepare a proposal with the garage set back in a way that allows six feet between the addition and the adjacent residence to the north, regardless of the property line, with direction to the applicant to inject more style into the exterior appearance of the building and consider eliminating the mansard roof: AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Freeman, Latasa, Searle, Silva NOES: 2 MEMBERS: Kimzey, Theodore ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Chair Freeman confirmed with the applicant that the motion as stated by the ARC was clear. Chair Freeman informed the Committee that due to a request received the ARC will hear item #8 before item #7. 7. [Formerly Item 8] Consider 625 Cannery Row; Concept Review 15-271 of a New Building; Applicant/Property Owner Monterey Bay Aquarium; CR Zoning District; CEQA Not A Project ACTION: Received presentation and provided preliminary comments to the applicant on the proposed new building at 625 Cannery Row. Applicant Steve Lyon, Monterey Bay Aquarium, said a conceptual plan will be moving forward over the next few months for a new Ocean Education and Leadership Center. Mr. Lyon gave an overview of the uses of the proposed building and asked the ARC for their input on the design. He also introduced Kang Kiang of Mark Cavagnero and Associates. Mr. Kiang gave a presentation regarding the project and the challenges of the site. He said the project aims to have a consistent look and feel with the Aquarium by being very industrial and honest with lots of windows. Mr. Kiang said the proposed materials take cues from the design guidelines and the materials currently used on Cannery Row. He also said the project approach 6 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 2, 2015 is a box within box concept with public exhibit space on the exterior and the educational components on the interior. Mr. Kiang described the proposed uses of each floor, the exterior plaza on the recreation trail side, and the project’s natural ventilation and sustainable design. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Comments Kimberly Cole said the applicant is seeking concept review at this time and asked the ARC for their expertise on the architecture of the building. She also gave an overview of the Cannery Row Conservation District, the Cannery Row Design Guidelines, and Cannery Row architecture. Ms. Cole discussed the three themes that come into play with the project: new interpretations of traditional buildings, required view corridors, and outstanding design. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Silva said he completely supports the design, the box inside a box concept, and the high quality materials. He said his only suggestion would be to place the primary entrance at the corner as opposed to the side. Committee Member Searle said the proposed building will activate the corner and asked what will become of the existing bridge. Mr. Lyons said the bridge will come down for now but there is a hope to return it in the future once the floors are realigned. Committee Member Searle said his only concern is with the front balconies being contrived, particularly the one in the corner. Committee Member Latasa said the project is a great combination of cannery architecture and aquarium architecture and that he appreciates the generosity of the Aquarium with fixing up the property behind the building. He also said he likes the materials and massing, and that the project is off to a great start. In response to Committee Member Theodore’s question, Mr. Kiang said the balconies have been identified as design opportunities that have not been taken advantage of yet. Committee Member Theodore said she also prefers the door being placed at the corner and Mr. Kiang said this would require removing a floor due to the site’s elevation change. Regarding ventilation, Mr. Kiang said the project team would like automated windows and that natural ventilation would replace an air system in the lobby area. Chair Freeman said she likes the open space around the classrooms but does not love the two balconies that face Cannery Row because they take away from the integrity of the design. She also said all other aspects of the building, minus those two lower balconies, make the roof balcony even better. Vice Chair Kimzey said he does not find fault in the modern building itself but is troubled because he cannot link the building to Cannery Row because it is too modern. He suggested giving the building a more historic appearance, making the historic connection more obvious. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Committee Member Latasa said there was previous talk regarding recommending that the City Council write a letter to the Marriot Hotel regarding their bridge connected to the Conference Center and requested that the matter be agendized for discussion. 7  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 2, 2015 8. [Formerly Item 7] Consider Recommendation to the Planning Commission Regarding the Waterfront Master Plan ACTION: Adopted a Resolution recommending adoption of the Waterfront Master Plan with the amendments as discussed by the ARC and the recommendation that a visual depiction showing the elements be included with the Plan. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Elizabeth Caraker presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Public Comments Mary Alice Cerrito Fettis, president of the Fisherman’s Wharf Association, said parking in the Wharf area is already difficult with events in Monterey and that additional events will bring even more people to the area in the future. She also said the City should facilitate parking and restrooms and requested that an additional restroom and more parking be added near the Museum of Monterey. Ms. Cerrito Fettis said redesigning the parking lot would be wonderful and that the design presented by Henry Ruhnke was based on input of many people from the Wharf. She also said the recreation trail and bike trail should be separate to avoid congestion of the two elements. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Searle asked if the map should be included in the recommendation to the Planning Commission and encouraged using the term “concept.” Committee Member Silva said he supports having the map in the Plan to make it a complete document. Chair Freeman said a simple circulation plan without detail may be appropriate. Committee Member Latasa concurred with Committee Member Searle and said the graphics and word selection is key. Vice Chair Kimzey suggested and the ARC agreed upon the following changes:  Change language in last paragraph of page 65 to read “…if the overall project is determined to achieve the particular objective”  Add the word “uses” after “commercial visitor serving” on page 69  S.3.5 - Change language regarding A-frame signs on page 74 to “shall be allowed up to 9 sq. ft. A-frame sign” Committee Member Silva said he met with Ms. Hopper and Ms. Caraker before the meeting to discuss the Plan. He suggested and the ARC agreed on the following changes:  Page 70 – Change language of Standards from negative to positive tone  S.2.9 – Change language to read “only drought tolerant plants are permitted”  Reformat the margin for the section on the Catellus site  S.2.2 – Specify that chain link fencing is prohibited if viewable from public way or required public access  S.2.3 – Change from Standard to Guideline  S.2.4 – Match language used in the Downtown Specific Plan  G.2.10 and G.2.14 – Remove  Fishermans Wharf section 2.4 – Make a general Objective for all character 8 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 2, 2015 areas  O.2.3 – Add period after “wharf’ and strike words following “wharf”  G.2.17 – Match language used in the Downtown Specific Plan  G.2.18 – Remove  O.2.4 – Remove word “traditional”  G.2.19 – Remove  G.2.27 – Change from Guideline to Standard  G.2.33 – Eliminate the word “strongly”  G.3.5 through G.3.8 – Condense into one Guideline  G.2.41 - Remove  G.2.42 – Change language to “windscreens are discouraged”  G.2.43 – Remove from Plan and add to ARC checklist  G.2.45 & G.2.46 – Remove  G.2.47 – Change Language to “Outdoor accessories, such as furniture, benches, chowder carts, trash receptacles, etc., should be designed to complement the building and use complimentary colors and materials. Alternative...  G.2.53 – Change to a Standard and change “discouraged” to “prohibited”  G.2.55 – Remove  G.2.56 – Remove  O.3.1 – Change “integrated” to “compatible”  O.3.2 – Change “visual prominence of the sign” to “placement of signs”  O.3.4 – Change “lively” to “eclectic”  O.3.6 – Change “does not degrade” to “complement”  S.3.4 – Change to Guideline and change “prohibited” to “discouraged”  G.3.13 through G.3.16 – Condense to one guideline under one heading  G.4.3 – Remove  G.4.12 – Assign numbers to qualify warm light colors Ms. Hopper said per a City Council decision, S.4.7 will be changed to two foot candles. Chair Freeman excused herself at 7:28 p.m. due to a prior commitment and Vice Chair Kimzey assumed leadership of meeting.. Committee Member Silva made a motion to adopt a Resolution recommending adoption of the Waterfront Master Plan with the amendments as discussed by the ARC and the recommendation that a visual depiction showing the elements be included with the Plan. Committee Member Theodore seconded the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Theodore, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee adopted a Resolution recommending adoption of the Waterfront Master Plan with the amendments as discussed by the ARC and the recommendation that a visual depiction showing the elements be included with the Plan: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Kimzey, Latasa, Searle, Silva, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Freeman, Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 9  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 2, 2015 INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 9. Planning Office Update  Update received  Ms. Hopper said at their September 1, 2015 meeting the City Council adopted the National Historic Landmark District Lighting Standards and Guidelines section of the Downtown Specific Plan. She also said it was a three year project and she thanked all participants for their hard work. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:01 pm. 10 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 2, 2015 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:01 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christine Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 11