Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, October 21, 2015 AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY 4:00 pm - 5:30 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Latasa, Freeman, Silva, Abma, Theodore Members Absent: Kimzey Staff Members Present: Senior Planner Hopper, Associate Planner Roveri, Recording Secretary Salameh CALL TO ORDER Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm. Chair Freeman announced the resignation of Committee Member Searle from the ARC and Committee Members expressed their disappointment over the matter. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. October 7, 2015 ACTION: Approved as amended. The Committee requested that corrections be made to the minutes, specifically regarding word usage on page 4, word order and word usage on page 5, use of the word “roofs” on page 6, and word order on page 6. Other Consent Items 2. Consider 865 Lighthouse Avenue (Starbucks Coffee); Sign Permit 15-148 for One New Externally-Illuminated Pedestrian-Oriented Freestanding Sign; Applicant Sharon Fulgencio for Superior Electrical Advertising, Inc.; Owner Barsotti Properties; C-2 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Approved as submitted. Chair Freeman said that the proposal was clean and easy to understand and thanked the applicant. 3. Consider 30 Fisherman's Wharf #1 (Scales Restaurant); AR Permit 15-404 for Final Architectural Review for New Paint and Roof Colors and New Wall Tile; Applicant Ken Turgen; Owner City of Monterey; Wharf Master Plan Area; Exempt from CEQA ACTION: Approved as submitted. On a motion by Committee Member Abma, seconded by Committee Member Latasa, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the consent items as submitted, with amendments to the minutes.  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, October 21, 2015 AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Silva (Recused from Item 3), Abma, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Kimzey ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** Public Comments None PUBLIC APPEARANCE 4. 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 (Continued from September 2, 2015 Meeting) Action: Approved as submitted with recommendation to the Applicant to work with staff on design details Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Planner Hopper presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Committee Member Silva asked if the proposed siding was vertical board and batten and wanted to know if the material was intentionally different from the horizontal siding that were already in place on the sides of the existing garage. Ms. Hopper said that to be consistent with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, new material must differentiate from the original material when adding on to a historic resource. Committee Member Silva asked if the ARC had any jurisdiction to modify the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Ms. Hopper replied no. Chair Freeman asked about the side door entrance into the kitchen and garage areas and what specifically that door accessed. Committee Member Theodore asked if the only difference in the siding material is that the addition would have vertical board and batten. Ms. Hopper replied yes. Committee Member Abma said that it seems the north elevation proposes three levels of wood fascia. She asked if it was meant to be a transition. Ms. Hopper said that due to the two-dimensional nature of the elevation drawings, the fascia appears to have three levels. Committee Member Latasa asked about the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards regarding siding, wanting to know what the exact requirements would entail for an addition. He asked if the siding boards could be made wider and be horizontal, rather than vertical. Ms. Hopper said that the original proposal requested wider boards, and clarified that the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards state that original and new materials must be differentiated. 2 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, October 21, 2015 Applicant Patrick McNeill thanked the ARC and staff for their time and said that he would do his best to answer all of their questions. He said that the height of the garage was reduced to respond to a neighbor’s concerns. He said he liked the design of the board and batten and believes it adds interest to the façade and that it draws inspiration from the traditional character of the Monterey and Pacific Grove areas. Committee Member Silva noted a difference in the design of the large picture window in the exhibits versus in the provided rendering. Mr. McNeill said that the window in the rendering is preferable. Committee Member Silva asked if Mr. McNeill would consider increasing the height of the door to be eight feet and removing the transom window. Mr. McNeill said he had not considered that, but he that he had no objection and that it would provide same light. Chair Freeman asked if the purpose of the transom window was to provide ventilation when the front door was not open. Committee Member Silva suggested taking inspiration from other homes around town and refining the parapet and cornice details. Mr. McNeill said he is open to the idea and that he tried to keep the lines simple and that he preferred for the design to not be too ornate. Committee Member Silva suggested a wood bevel trim along the fascia. Chair Freeman said all of the topics mentioned were good suggestions for the design, but that they did not impact the ARC’s final decision. Mr. McNeill asked if the small design elements could be discussed later, outside of the meeting. Chair Freeman said yes, that would be more appropriate. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Latasa said that he is happy with the revised design and that he thinks Committee Member Silva makes good points about the small changes. He said that if Mr. McNeill would like to make minor changes, the ARC would be happy to assist him, but that the applicant has done exactly what was asked. Committee Member Latasa said that he appreciates the effort and supports the project. Committee Member Abma said that she agrees with Committee Member Silva about removing the transom window above the door and would like to see the door extended to 8 ft in height, but thinks the project is great overall. Committee Member Silva noted the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and said that he does not agree with a break in materials at the outside corner. He said he will support application with the caveat that the applicant takes the ARC’s suggestions to heart. 3  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, October 21, 2015 Chair Freeman pointed out that there was cooperation amongst neighbors in the compromise of the design. She complimented Mr. McNeill on a very clean design. She said the addition looks as it should and that it does not need to have a prominent material used on the back of the building because that is an area few will see. Committee Member Silva made a motion to approve as submitted with a recommendation to work with staff to refine some of the details discussed. 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 approved the application as submitted with recommendation to applicant to work with staff on design details. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Silva, Abma, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Kimzey ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 5. Consider 654 Cannery Row; Sign Permit 14-438 for a Multi-Tenant Sign Program, One Internally-Illuminated Wall Sign, One Halo-Lit Wall Sign, One Externally Illuminated Wall Sign, Two Hanging Signs, and One Awning Sign; Applicant Patrick Ottone; Owner Inns of Cannery Row - Spindrift; VAF Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements ACTION: Approved as submitted with Condition that the hanging sign for Tenant A is removed and allowing up to 10 square feet of awning sign for Tenant A Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Fernanda Roveri presented the Agenda Report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Chair Freeman asked what signs Spindrift Inn would have left if the awning not above the entrance was taken away. Ms. Roveri said that Spindrift Inn would have two wall signs on either side of the building, one blade sign in the middle of the building, and one awning sign. Chair Freeman asked if it was correct that the proposal includes three blade signs—one for each tenant, as well as one awning for Spindrift Inn, one awning for Lalla Oceanside Grill, and two wall signs at either end of the building for Spindrift Inn. Ms. Roveri clarified that the proposal did not include wall signs, but hanging signs. Ms. Hopper referred Committee Members to the proposal in the packet for clarification on the signs requested. She said that Spindrift Inn signs would total five proposed signs. Committee Member Theodore asked for clarification on what a blade sign is. Ms. Roveri 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, October 21, 2015 said that a blade sign is a hanging sign. Committee Member Latasa asked if staff is suggesting approval of the internally- illuminated Lalla Oceanside Grill wall sign, despite its inconsistency with City Guidelines, because of its high-quality design. Committee Member Latasa said it seems as though there are other internally-illuminated signs on Cannery Row. Ms. Roveri responded that she does not know if the Planning office has recently approved any other internally- illuminated signs in that area. Ms. Hopper said Cooper’s has an approved internally- illuminated sign. Chair Freeman said that the Lalla Oceanside Grill awning is a smart black and white color that matches the overhang and asked if there is any proposed color change for the Spindrift Inn awning and sign. Ms. Roveri said no. Committee Member Abma asked if the tenants were okay with removing the lettering from one awning. Ms. Roveri replied that tenants wanted to come before the ARC to have any deviations from the Guidelines approved. Chair Freeman asked if both awnings would stay but only one would bear the name of the hotel. Ms. Roveri said yes and Ms. Hopper said that there is no requirement for a change at this time. She said that in the event that Spindrift Inn changed their sign, the additional awning sign would have to be removed. Committee Member Theodore asked if both awnings were located above entrances. Ms. Roveri said that one awning was located above an entrance and one awning was located above windows. Committee Member Theodore asked if staff recommend removing lettering on the window awning. Ms. Roveri said yes. Applicant Anjanette Adams with Monterey Signs said she wanted to clarify that the six square foot, double-sided blade sign was proposed to give Spindrift Inn an option as well as to promote consistency for all three tenants to have equally good signage. She said that if a sign was to be removed from the proposal, they would prefer to lose a blade sign and not an awning. She asked that Spindrift Inn be able to retain a total of 10 square feet of awning space for signs. Committee Member Latasa asked about the stainless steel letters and glass face within the letters for the Lalla sign. Chair Freeman asked how the menus would be supported. Craig Riddell brought a sample of sign case material for Committee Members to view and 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, October 21, 2015 explained how the lights would be placed behind a diffuser and glass to create a soft glow. He also explained how magnets would hold menus in place on the menu board and sliding glass would protect menus from the elements. Frank Donangelo, on behalf of Cannery Row Company, said that he would like ARC to take into consideration the property as a whole and how excited they are about the things that are taking place there. He spoke about how Monterey was once an industrial area and how the tenants are striving to maintain that character through the diversity of the buildings along Cannery Row. He also mentioned that part of the draw for a lot of visitors is the uniqueness of the Cannery Row area. He said that he is asking for flexibility of just five square feet, and that he would greatly appreciate that. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Latasa confirmed that the applicant had requested to eliminate the blade sign and to set aside 10 square feet on the awnings for future use. Chair Freeman asked if that meant Spindrift Inn would still be able to utilize two awning signs, for a total of 62 square feet for all signs for the building. Ms. Hopper said that was up to ARC’s discretion, but that allowing the 10 square feet of awning signs would be equitable. Committee Member Latasa asked for a review of the math for the total square footage of the signs with the substitution of the awning sign for the blade sign. Ms. Roveri explained that if the tenants were given the additional 10 square foot awning allowance and removed the blade sign, it would be a total of 62 square feet, making the square footage two square feet over the City’s Sign Guidelines. Committee Member Theodore asked if the awning signs would be 10 square feet each. Ms. Roveri said that the signs would be up to five square feet each. Committee Member Theodore said that she supports keeping the two awning signs and removing the blade sign; that she thinks it is equitable. Committee Member Silva said he loves signs and believes that on Cannery Row and Fisherman’s Wharf, it is all about experience and tourism. He said that signs contribute to the experience; however, if the applicant is willing to work with staff to remove the blade sign, then he supports the decision. Committee Member Latasa said that signs get very competitive at Fisherman’s Wharf and Cannery Row. Chair Freeman said that she likes the equity of the Spindrift Inn having two large signs on either sign of the building, the two blade signs, Lalla having the internally illuminated wall sign and awning sign, and Mashka’s wall sign. She added that the Spindrift Inn should have the double awning as well. Committee Member Abma agreed with Chair Freeman and said that would create a well- 6  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, October 21, 2015 balanced sign program. She said that she supports the application without the blade sign for a total of 62 square feet for the building. On a motion by Committee Member Abma, seconded by Committee Member Theodore, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee adopted a Resolution approving the Sign Permit as submitted with a Condition of Approval that the hanging sign is removed for Tenant A and allowing up to 10 square feet of awning sign for Tenant A. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Silva, Abma, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Kimzey ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Committee Member Comments Committee Member Silva reiterated that Committee Member Searle had stepped down and Ms. Hopper explained the process of appointing a new ARC Member. Chair Freeman said she will distribute a draft letter on behalf of the ARC to the City Council regarding the Marriott Bridge for the ARC’s consideration and that discussion of the letter will be added to the Agenda of the November 4, 2015 meeting. Committee Member Latasa asked about the plaza in front of Peet’s Coffee and its current status. Ms. Hopper updated Committee Members on the status of the plaza and said that the Council is discussing a modification of the lease agreement in order to modify allowed uses of the plaza. Chair Freeman mentioned the retreat during which items of procedure will be discussed. She said that the retreat and its topics will be discussed in detail during the November 4, 2015 meeting and asked Committee Members to bring items of concern to Ms. Hopper. Ms. Hopper asked Committee Members to bring items they would like to discuss at the retreat to the November 4, 2015, as well as what dates would work best. She said that the retreat will be a public meeting that will be held in an accessible location, if off-site. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 6. Planning Office Update  Update received ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 pm. 7 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, October 21, 2015 Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christine Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 8