Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, November 4, 2015 4:00 pm - 5:30 pm 7:00 pm - 11:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Latasa, Freeman, Abma, Theodore Members Absent: Kimzey, Searle, Silva, Mall, Pofahl Staff Members Present: Code Compliance Coordinator Wright The Architectural Review Committee will conduct a field trip Monday, November 2, 2015 to review the Wednesday, November 4, 2015 Architectural Review Committee Agenda. The Architectural Review Committee will depart from the field behind Colton Hall at 4:00 PM. For more information please call (831) 646-3885. Date Posted: October 30, 2015 CALL TO ORDER Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 4:02 pm. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. October 21, 2015 Theodore said pg 2, due to Theodore, page 3 garage reduced under applicant Freeman will read through and communicate as necessary On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member> Latasa, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee ______ed the October 21, 2015: AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Abma, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 5 MEMBERS: Kimzey, Searle, Silva, Mall, Pofahl ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, November 4, 2015 None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 2. Consider 48 Wharf #1 (Chris’ Fishing & Whale Watching); Sign Permit 15-345 for One New Externally Illuminated Projecting Sign; Applicant Phil Vanderkraats for Signs by Van; Owner City of Monterey; No Zoning; Exempt from CEQA Requirements On a motion by Committee Member Abma, seconded by Committee Member Latasa, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee ______ed the Consider 48 Wharf #1 (Chris’ Fishing & Whale Watching); Sign Permit 15-345 for One New Externally Illuminated Projecting Sign; Applicant Phil Vanderkraats for Signs by Van; Owner City of Monterey; No Zoning; Exempt from CEQA Requirements: AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Abma, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 5 MEMBERS: Kimzey, Searle, Silva, Mall, Pofahl ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Ms. Hopper gave presentation and took committee members’ questions. Theodore asked if the standing sign will say whale watching only and the other signs will say fishing and whale watching. Hopper said we don’t look at content. Abma asked if it matters what sign is taken down by .13ft. Hopper said A-frame has already been constructed. Wall sign already exists. Applicant Phil Vanderkraats said the sign could be reduced a few inches, but the owner is limited so he asks that the ARC consider the extra room and that they allow the extra size. He said he loves Monterey and that the area is beautiful, that one of his desires was never to take away from Monterey, but to enhance the beauty of the area. Spoke of the signs that he had in the area already and wants to speak to the area with his sign work, wants people to remember the area and the Wharf for its distinct characteristics. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Latasa asked since the recommendation was made to stay with the guideline, what did Staff/Hopper recommend? Hopper said it has to comply based on the wharf master plan and that there is no wiggle 2  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, November 4, 2015 room. The city wide sign guideline allows for wiggle room, but the wharf master plan does not. Latasa said he could come in to office and change measurements. Hopper said yes. Abma said that the sign is beautifully designed, that she likes the creative bracket. Latasa asked what kind of whale. Vanderkraats said that it’s a humpback, that the flippers will be coming off the A-frame so they won’t be broken. Freeman said that the benefit of adhering to rules on the wharf is that the high level of business owner competition is supported by city policy. She said that the thinks an inch does not effect artistry. Renata made a motion to approve with staff recommendations Latasa seconds. 1st: Renata 2nd: Latasa Yes: all No: none Absent: 3. Consider 60 Wharf #1 (Crab Shack); Sign Permit 15-344 for One New LED Neon and Externally Illuminated Projecting Sign; Applicant Phil Vanderkraats for Signs by Van; Owner City of Monterey; No Zoning; Exempt from CEQA Requirements On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member> Abma, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee ______ed the Consider 60 Wharf #1 (Crab Shack); Sign Permit 15-344 for One New LED Neon and Externally Illuminated Projecting Sign; Applicant Phil Vanderkraats for Signs by Van; Owner City of Monterey; No Zoning; Exempt from CEQA Requirements: AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Abma, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 5 MEMBERS: Kimzey, Searle, Silva, Mall, Pofahl ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ACTION: approve project with staff recommendation Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Ms. Hopper gave presentation and took committee members’ questions. Freeman asked that there’s not any other business where the sign projects over 3 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, November 4, 2015 roofline? And 8ft is required so ppl can walk beneath? Hopper said correct. That this is an area where they have discretion. This could set a precedence. More people would want to go higher and higher. It’s a matter of being equitable. Abma asked what would it look like if the sign was smaller (by 3 ft). Freeman asked the size of the sign. Hopper explained that the sign would be reduced from 11.5 to 8.5 ft. Freeman asked if there’s a roof height limit. Hopper said no. That rooftop signs are discouraged, that there used to be a lot and one had to be removed. Historically, they have all been within the face of the front or side elevation. Freeman asked if blank spaces on roofs could be used, specifically the space on Harbor House. Hopper said that’s the guidance. Applicant Vanderkraats said that this was an exciting project to design and that the owner’s concerns include that he’s the last restaurant on the wharf (and the neighboring restaurant has a huge sign). He wants his restaurant to be visible. The intent was not to go higher. The intent was to design a sign that looked nice with a crab on top of the sign and to fit the character of the area. Walking down the wharf, you see many restaurants on either side and you have no idea what is at the end. From the perspective of a sign designer, you want to draw customers in and draw people in to the wharf. He said that a big restriction was to consider that it had to be 8ft from the ground, and that he believes reducing it by 3ft will make it very hard to read, if at all. He said it’s not real neon-but LED neon. That the LED is encompassed in a mold and the lights are not obnoxiously bright, but that it is a design characteristic. That’s why the external lights exist as well. He said it’s not your typical sign, like in a typical city. He said that the crab is HDU and it will be bas relief and very detailed, and the lights themselves will illuminate the crab, giving character to the wharf—not just adding to all the signage in the area. He said that the lights on either sign will have glare-reduction. He said that from his perspective as a designer, people will not see the sign and think that it is a big monstrosity and that it will be an object that highlights the look. The sign is well within the linear guidelines of the wharf master plan for the size of the restaurant. He said that there is no request for signage on the other side of the restaurant at the other side. He thinks it’s an enhancement. Freeman asked is there a restriction on how far the sign can go out into the walkway. Hopper said not at this particular area. Theodore asked if the “seafood grill” portion be moved to the side. Vanderkraats said that would ruin the flow of the sign. From the perspective of the 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, November 4, 2015 people on the wharf, he said others love it. Latasa said he loves it and it seems that he’s losing a foot due to the “claws” on the top, but could he make letter spacing and font work in the favor of making the size smaller? Vanderkraats said that is a possibility. Freeman said one of his trademarks is his 3D signs and that the crab could possibly grab the sign from the side, rather than from the top in order from the top. Vanderkraats said that he is concerned with the engineering of the crab at the side and the wind at the wharf. He said possibly reducing the height of the sign in that regard is feasible. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Latasa said that he’s mixed because the applicant makes a persuasive case, that he’s a talented designer and that the sign is very proportioned. He also said that it looks like it is sticking up above the roof and that it could cause precedence issues. He believes that Phil is a very talented designer and could come up with a new design in order to meet guidelines. Abma said that she is worried about proliferation of very tall signs at the wharf if they allow this sign to go forward with sticking up above roof. Theodore said that it needs to be at roofline, rather than lowered just a little bit. Freeman said that they have seen very artistic signs in the past year that have managed to be seen without sacrificing any view impact. She asked if the crab is lost above the roofline in the sky. She wants to know if the crab can be moved in order to maintain the full impact of the sign. She made the point that the roof façade could be raised. Hopper said that would be a pretty big hurdle: PC, CC, ARC, CC, Coastal Commission. Abma said that the crab would be nice in front of the building in order to see the contrast. Freeman said it seems the crab would be lost in the sky, but that it would be beautiful if seen contrasted against the building. Latasa said he believes the applicant can make the design work at the lowered height. He said that it’s a spectacular design and that it will be noticeable. He said he’s not convinced that the sign will be illegible. He asked of staff if the applicant feels very strongly and wants to appeal, can the applicant appeal an approval? Hopper said yes, he would be able to appeal on any point. Theodore asked if the concern is the equity to other restaurant owners. Would 5  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, November 4, 2015 other restaurant owners want the same? She said it should be lowered to the roofline. Freeman said they can approve as amended or deny so he could appeal to PC as is. Latasa said they could, but for applicant’s benefit they would be better off approving. Hopper explained options (40:00) Freeman said there is plenty of acreage to increase size of sign. Freeman said it’s urban art. Vanderkraats said they could redesign, without having to come back and would be happy to work with staff. Latasa made motion to approve project with staff recommendation Abma seconded motion 1st: Latasa 2nd: Abma Yes: all No: none Absent: 4. Consider Sending a Letter from the Architectural Review Committee to the Monterey City Council Regarding the Monterey Marriott Bridge Committee Members discussed the letter… Freeman said they should call it the Marriott Hotel Bridge Latasa asked if anyone from the Marriott had commented or had come. Hopper said no one had come, no one had said anything. Freeman asked if Hopper would like to talk about the letter. Hopper said it’s coming from ARC and not staff. Freeman said jump to Committee Comments. Theodore said the letter is excellent. Latasa said it’s an excellent letter but recommends taking Searle’s name off. Abma said she likes the last paragraph, but said primary façade is Portola Plaza rather 6 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, November 4, 2015 than Del Monte (second sentence, first paragraph). Theodore said you can see “most visible” instead. Freeman asked if it would be the focus of the driver. Theodore said it could say, “A major view” Latasa: “a primary view… (50:00) Abma asked if we should explain why the bridge does not contribute to the vision in the 2nd paragraph. Freeman asked if that’s because it’s above the walking space. Abma said that it does not engage pedestrians. Latasa said his biggest complaint is the aesthetic appearance and that it does not match anything in its surroundings. It has an aesthetic disconnect. He said that it will not look attractive attached to the new building. Abma said that is will not relate to anything once the new conference center is built. Latasa said that they should add a line about the aesthetics creating a disruption with new building. Theodore said it’s visually disruptive. Freeman said it’s a building element that does not fit the surroundings (55:00) Hopper said letter is sent straight from Freeman to CMO, after final is voted on. Latasa made motion to finalize letter as suggested and send to CMO with Freeman’s signature on ARC’s behalf Theodore seconded motion 1st: Latasa 2nd: Theodore Yes: all No: Absent: Recessed at 5:03 Reconvened at 5:05 On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member> Theodore, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee ______ed the Consider Sending a Letter from the Architectural Review Committee to the Monterey City Council Regarding the Monterey Marriott Bridge: 7  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, November 4, 2015 AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Abma, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 5 MEMBERS: Kimzey, Searle, Silva, Mall, Pofahl ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 5. Discussion of Architectural Review Committee Retreat Topics Hopper asked where they’d like to have it. Suggested Waterfront community room. Said it’s nice, big, with kitchen. Not available on 2nd and 17th. Said it could be held in place of meeting. Freeman said she’s worried about agenda items coming up. Latasa asked how much time. Hopper said 2 hours, after 5. Possibly starting at 6:30. She said she would prefer not weekend. Theodore said she’s gone first 2 weeks in December. Hopper said it’s important for all to be there. Especially since there’s going to be a change in Chair. Freeman asked about dates for Abma. Abma and Latasa said they’re open. Hopper said 3rd week in December would be good. Freeman said what about next week and Kimzey is coming back next week, to suggest the 16th 5-7. Hopper said to suggest going after the field trip on Nov. 16th, with an agenda and to make sure the public knows about it. 5:30-7:30. Topics to be discussed: see handout from Silva Latasa said that he thought those were good topics. He said to review the municipal code’s description of their mandate. Theodore said she would like to understand relationship btwn PC, CC, ARC, and HPC, as well as other organizations. Hopper said KC put a powerpoint together that explains roles and responsibilities of ARC and other organizations. Freeman said individual opinion on policy vs implementation of policy. Constant dialogue questioning policies should be discussed. 8 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, November 4, 2015 Latasa said conduct/rules and responsibilities of Chair Abma said training for new members, suggesting a 2-3 page handout for new members to train them Abma said ARC submittal guidelines, checklists, what is given to the applicant Freeman said the way committee members speak to applicants. Put together an excel spreadsheet of average costs to go to ARC, PC, CC and how it is very important to people and how much they have to pay. Committee member conduct. Hopper said major/minor list Latasa said signs, tree removals, staking requirements, difference between wharf, specific plans, zoning codes, rec trail area plans, general plan Theodore said how many master plans, how were they created CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Hopper said no current applicants yet, but Paul Davis’ office had sent a letter to all AIA members. Hopper said city may close around holidays. Sp. Last week btwn Christmas and NY Theodore asked if that happens every year. Hopper said it started last year. ADJOURNMENT Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christine Hopper Chair Senior Planenr Architectural Review Committee 9