Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, November 18, 2015 4:00 pm - 5:30 pm Retreat Immediately Following 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Theodore, Abma (arrived at 6:15 pm for retreat) Members Absent: None Staff Members Present: Senior Associate Planner Hopper, Senior Associate Planner Bennett, Recording Secretary Salameh CALL TO ORDER Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 4:04 pm. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. November 4, 2015 ACTION: Approved as amended. Chair Freeman asked if any Members had comments or corrections for the Minutes. Committee Member Latasa said he had no corrections. Chair Freeman said that on page 3, one superfluous line of dialogue could be removed for the discussion to make more sense. Vice Chair Kimzey requested that Consent Item 2 be moved to regular agenda. Ms. Hopper said that if there were any questions regarding Consent Item 2, she could answer them and if necessary it could be moved to the regular agenda. On a motion by Committee Member Theodore, seconded by Committee Member Latasa, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the Minutes of November 4, 2015 as amended: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Freeman, Latasa, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Abma ABSTAIN: 2 MEMBERS: Kimzey, Silva RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, November 18, 2015 Other Consent Items 2. Consider 30 Wharf #1 (Scales Restaurant); Sign Permit 15-395 for New Externally- Illuminated Signs; Applicant Kenneth Turgen for Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects; Owner City of Monterey; No Zoning; Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301(a), Class 1) ACTION: Moved to Regular Agenda. Vice Chair Kimzey asked what the Wharf Master Plan states in regards to signage versus the Citywide Sign Guidelines, and if the Citywide Sign Guidelines apply to the Wharf Master Plan. Ms. Hopper said that the Wharf Master Plan is governed by specific architectural and sign controls. Each concession within the Wharf Master Plan is permitted to have up to two square feet of sign per lineal foot of building frontage; whereas commercial buildings in the rest of the City may have up to one square foot of sign per lineal foot of building frontage. She said that the Wharf Master Plan also allows one main sign up to 80 square feet, a secondary sign up to 30 square feet, and any other sign proposed on the building had a maximum allowance of up to 8 square feet. Vice Chair Kimzey asked if there is a maximum number for signs allowed on the Wharf. Ms. Hopper said there is no maximum number for signs allowed on the Wharf. Vice Chair Kimzey said that 10 signs proposed for one building appears to be sign blight. Ms. Hopper said that if there is a concern the item can be moved to the regular agenda. Chair Freeman said that the application is entirely consistent with the Wharf Master Plan. Vice Chair Kimzey asked about consistency with the Citywide Sign Guidelines and sign blight within the Wharf Master Plan. He said he feels that this is excessive for one business. Ms. Hopper confirmed that the item could be pulled. Committee Member Latasa made a motion for the item to be heard first on the Regular Agenda. On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member Kimzey, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee removed Consent Item 2 to be placed as the First Item on the Regular Agenda. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 2  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, November 18, 2015 ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS Audrey Nolten spoke about her home in Monterey, regarding a large pine tree on her property near a retaining wall. The retaining wall near the tree has begun to crack and she fears the foundation is being damaged as well. She said she contacted the Forestry Department and that Robert Reid referred her to the ARC, so that is why she was presenting two photographs of the tree and her situation at this meeting. Chair Freeman recommended that she call the Planning office and that she would need to apply for removal of the tree. Ms. Hopper explained to Ms. Nolten that there is a checklist for the tree removal process and that the Planning office can assist her with the entire process. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 3. Consider 30 Wharf #1 (Scales Restaurant); Sign Permit 15-395 for New Externally- Illuminated Signs; Applicant Kenneth Turgen for Wald, Ruhnke & Dost Architects; Owner City of Monterey; No Zoning; Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301(a), Class 1) ACTION: Approved as submitted, with correction to typo in Condition 1. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Planner Hopper presented the item and took Committee Members’ questions. Ms. Hopper said that Scales Restaurant will contain their separate businesses under one ownership, including a gift shop, full service restaurant, fish market, and a bistro. Vice Chair Kimzey noted that Condition of Approval # 1 referred to only one projecting sign. Ms. Hopper said that was a typo on page 17. Vice Chair Kimzey said he was troubled with the fact that the application proposes 10 signs and that the number of signs constitutes sign blight. Committee Member Theodore asked what a double sided sign is. Ms. Hopper explained that a V-shaped has historically been considered on the Wharf. Committee Member Latasa asked why the application was not for a sign program. Ms. Hopper said that the building is considered one concession. She explained that sign programs are required when one lease holder has sub-leases and all businesses request signs. In the case of this application, the building has one business owner with four related businesses, therefore it does not require a sign program. 3  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, November 18, 2015 Applicant None present. Public Comment Mary Alice Cerrito Fettis, owner of the building, said that Scales has four business permits—one for each of its signs—and that it should be able to have its allowed signs per business permit. She said that although it seems there are many signs, there are several businesses there under one permit. Committee Member Comments Vice Chair Kimzey asked how many businesses would exist there under the permit. Ms. Hopper said there would be four: a gift shop, a fish market, a restaurant, and a bistro. Committee Member Theodore said she does not have a problem with the number of signs due to the fact that the building is so large. Committee Member Latasa said that he understands Committee Member Kimzey’s concern, but that it seems like a well-done and non-controversial application. Vice Chair Kimzey said that he thinks it is an excessive amount of signs, although the signs are well-done. Chair Freeman said that her opinion is that the application is very straightforward and that after visiting the site three times, this is an appropriate application and the signs contribute to the individuality of the restaurant and the Wharf. Committee Member Latasa made a motion to approve the application as submitted, with the typo in Condition 1 on page 17 corrected. Committee Member Theodore seconded. On a motion by Committee Member Theodore, seconded by Committee Member Latasa, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application as submitted with correction to number of signs in Condition 1. AYES: 3 MEMBERS: Freeman, Latasa, Theodore NOES: 1 MEMBERS: Kimzey ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 1 MEMBERS: Silva 4. Consider 2242 & 2252 North Fremont Street; Sign Permit 15-258 for a Multi-Tenant Sign Program; Applicant Robert J. Wecker of the Wecker Group; Owners Mary Alice Cerrito Fettis & Gloria Brown; PC-NF Zoning District; Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, November 18, 2015 ACTION: Approved with staff recommended Conditions of Approval. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Associate Planner Bennett presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Committee Member Silva asked about the standard that limits sign placement and its intent. Mr. Bennett said that the idea was to not have signs so far away from a business that it creates confusion to customers. Committee Member Silva said that it seems if a parking lot is adjacent to the street, these signs may not be relevant to the standard Mr. Bennett said that a wall sign needs to be within 16 feet of a business entrance, but that does not apply to free-standing signs. Chair Freeman said that in this case, it is the sign for Country Club Cleaners that is being discussed. Mr. Bennett said that the wall sign would be more appropriate for Country Club Cleaners. Committee Member Silva asked if an applicant would need to apply for a variance if a building’s setback was greater than 16 feet. Mr. Bennett said that it would not be a variance, but a sign application that is not wholly consistent with the Citywide Sign Guidelines. Ms. Hopper said that the ARC will be reviewing the sign guidelines at a later date. Committee Member Silva asked the reason for staff’s recommendation that the monument sign base be reduced by 3 inches. Mr. Bennett said that the monument sign base at its current proposed size could cause significant visual impairment and traffic obstruction. He said that Traffic Engineering recognized the aesthetic interest, but overall driver safety was taken into account. Committee Member Silva asked why the plants proposed in the middle of the monument sign would need to be substituted with brick. Mr. Bennett said that it is a possibility plants could become overgrown if not properly cared for, thus filling in the gap and negating their original purpose for driver visibility. Committee Member Silva asked if there was an irrigation plan proposed for the plants. Mr. Bennett said no. Chair Freeman said that if the height of the columns is lowered to 36 inches and the lower middle portion is elevated to the extent of the height of the pillars on either side, the vacant space in the middle would be filled in. That would eliminate the open space in the middle that would allow drivers to see oncoming traffic. 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, November 18, 2015 Mr. Bennett said that the traffic engineer thought the spacing was appropriate, but the columns should be no higher than 36 inches because any higher would obstruct the sightline of drivers and pedestrians. Vice Chair Kimzey asked about the inconsistency in the sign’s height and if any consideration was given to removing the sign’s decorative top. Mr. Bennett said that the sign was too high because of the tall base and the recessed can lights at the top. He said that removing the decorative elements could detract from the sign design. Vice Chair Kimzey said he believes that the functionality of the sign would not be affected by the aesthetics of it. Mr. Bennett said that he thought an attractive sign is more preferable to a bland sign in the eyes of a business owner. Vice Chair Kimzey asked if staff is concerned that an approval of a non-essential part of the sign would set a precedent for North Fremont Street. Mr. Bennett said that if other signs were placed in close proximity to the parking area, then that would be something for staff to consider. Applicant Robert Wecker from Wecker Group said that he understood the ARC’s concern about the sign’s size, but that if the sign were lowered he felt the businesses would be cheated. He said it is unfair for the applicant to have a smaller sign due to a safety issue. He said the applicant does not mind removing the plants, but the ultimate goal is to make the sign and the area more attractive. He said that on the proposed sign, it is easy to read the numbers and lettering. Mr. Wecker said that if the can lighting is removed, the sign would be reduced in height by one foot. He said he does not believe that the sign is big enough to say it is oversized. He said that he and the applicant went over several designs and ultimately tried to embody the theme of the Monterey area. Committee Member Latasa asked if the reduction in size of the base was acceptable to Mr. Wecker. Mr. Wecker replied yes. Committee Member Latasa noted that the existing sign is quite a bit higher than the currently proposed sign and asked if new bollards were being proposed with this application as well. Mr. Wecker said that yes, smaller bollards would be placed along the edges of this sign. Committee Member Silva asked what color the brick would be. Mr. Wecker said the brick would be a tan to gray-tan color, but that he did not bring a sample. He said that the applicant was open to suggestion, but they did not want an ordinary red brick. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Latasa complimented staff on the analysis of the sign and said that the cautious work evaluation was well done. He said he was happy with the proposal and believed 6 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, November 18, 2015 that the findings were well-done. He said he likes the planter box proposed within the sign as well, noting that it was the applicant’s liability. He said he was willing to approve the permit as conditioned. Committee Member Silva said that without an irrigation plan the plants would not survive and as for the design itself, the open space in the middle is necessary but he would recommend the brick columns on the sides be reduced in height for visibility purposes. Committee Member Silva also said that he believes the decorative wave on top of the sign creates an inconsistency with Citywide Sign Guidelines and that a more simplistic sign would be ideal. He said the sign height should be reduced to 8 feet and suggested gooseneck lighting fixtures in place of can lighting. Committee Member Latasa said he likes the wave on top of the design, noting that it is quirky and fun. He said he thinks the sign would be bland without it. Committee Member Theodore said that she agrees with Committee Member Silva about reducing the bricks in the center of the sign and said that she likes the decorative element on the top. Vice Chair Kimzey said that he is concerned with the inconsistency of the sign’s height, but the applicant is voluntarily removing a 19 foot sign and replacing it with a newly-designed sign instead. He said that by reducing the size of the sign to eight feet, the content of the sign would have to be shrunken down even further, causing possible illegibility. He said that a compromise would be to remove the 16 inch tall wave from the top. Vice Chair Kimzey said ultimately he would like to see the sign come closer to City standards, but he said he did not believe it was necessary to reduce the sign to eight feet. Committee Member Latasa said that a huge mitigation is that the applicant is replacing a 19 foot sign. Chair Freeman agreed with Committee Member Latasa and said that the North Fremont Specific Plan states that signs cannot sit on top of poles. She said the business is proposing a sign that adds class to the business and the area. She said that visibility is imperative on North Fremont due to the amount of traffic and that the application should be accepted as presented with the exception that the middle area of the sign should not be filled in higher than the height of the plants shown in the plans. Vice Chair Kimzey asked about the analysis about the safety of the sign. Mr. Bennett said that the Traffic Division’s analysis stated that the plants may cause a safety hazard because they may become unruly and overgrown, creating a visual impairment. Committee Member Latasa made a motion to approve the application with staff’s condition that center be an 18 inch brick element. On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member Theodore, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application as submitted with staff’s condition of approval. 7  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, November 18, 2015 AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Latasa, Theodore NOES: 1 MEMBERS: Silva ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 5.. Consider 647 Oak Street; AR Permit 15-433 to Modify Approved Height of Second- Floor Balcony; Applicant/Owner Shawn Rozsa; R-1-5 Zoning District; Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ACTION: Approved as submitted. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Todd Bennett presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Committee Member Latasa asked if the deck was staked when it was originally designed and approved. Mr. Bennett said yes, based upon the photographs that he took from the project. Chair Freeman asked if the deck had always been projecting outward on posts. Mr. Bennett said yes, and that the deck had never been cantilevered. Committee Member Silva asked how bay view would have been impacted for the neighbor at 650 Newton Street if the roof at 647 Oak Street had been built at a 5:12 pitch. Mr. Bennett discussed how the pitch of the roof would have significantly impacted the view of the bay if it were built to the original design. However, the owner of 647 Oak Street reduced the roof height by 2 feet 10 inches. He also said that by reducing the width of the second floor addition, the view of the bay did become more visible. However, the owner of the home at 650 Newtown Street had a more complete view prior. Applicant Shawn Rozsa and Melissa Davis Rozsa said that in order to reduce view impacts, they dug the foundation in by 15 inches as well as reducing a foot in the top ridge and changing the pitch of the roof. Mr. Rozsa said that the deck was not story poled originally and that they have worked very hard to keep neighborly relations and stay in good standing with the City throughout the entire building process. He said that in April when the upper floor was in the process of being framed, they realized one large window upstairs needed to be converted to two smaller windows due to privacy concerns. This also involved moving a door. Because the door was moved closer to the master bathroom, the door to the deck became higher as a result. Before the deck construction, they contacted the Planning office with their proposed plans. He said all the modifications were drawn in the plan, but there was a miscommunication about the height of the deck and he that he felt that the email that was received back from the Planning office meant their plans had been approved. He said that they were just informed that the ARC is the only entity that can grant approval of the deck height 8 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, November 18, 2015 change. He said he feels they are very minimally impacting their neighbor and they feel that the 12.5 inches does not make or break their neighbor’s views. Ultimately, he feels that making any large changes would create an unwanted financial burden. Chair Freeman asked for the dimensions of the deck. Mr. Rozsa said that the deck is approximately 8.5 by 11 feet. Chair Freeman asked if this is the City’s mistake. Ms. Rozsa said she did not realize the lack of communication and they mentioned the enlargement of the deck plans. However, in the drawing they did not specifically state the word “higher,” but in the picture the deck appeared higher. Therefore, they figured it would be a logical point. She felt they had been sensitive and they did not want neighbors to be upset over this. She said she felt the burden is on the City for not getting more information prior to the deck being built. Committee Member Theodore asked how neighbors were made aware of the deck’s construction if there was no story poling. Ms. Rozsa said that the neighbors received plans. Public Comments Theresa Ferrante, owner of 650 Newton Street, said that she would like to thank the City and said she wishes the issue would have been resolved five months ago. She said she compared the actual framing to the drawings she had and she felt they did not match. She said she would like the deck lowered because it impairs her view. She said she sees between the deck flooring and the roof pitch when she is on her first floor. She asked if the City has building procedures that residents must follow. She said that she did comment about the balcony in May via written letter and is concerned whether correct procedures are being followed. Committee Member Silva asked if she retained a copy of the correspondence she sent to the City. Ms. Ferrante said that she did not have it with her. Mr. Bennett said it should be in the address file for 647 Oak Street. Ms. Ferrante said the deck framing was not complete, but she could tell that there would be a visual impairment. Committee Member Silva asked how she could see through the framing if the deck was not complete. Ms. Ferrante said the inspector that came out at that time said he did not know why the elevation drawings were off. Committee Member Comments Vice Chair Kimzey asked why the Resolution makes the deck look like it has not already been constructed. Mr. Bennett said the wording in the Resolution can be corrected. 9 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, November 18, 2015 Mr. Bennett showed a picture in which he said represented the area he believed to be story poled. Mr. Bennett said that in regards to Ms. Ferrante’s letter, he contacted Permits and Inspections to verify that the balcony was at the correct height. A building inspector went to the site and measured the balcony, but they measured to the rafter tails from the bathroom area, which has a slighter higher roofline from the master bedroom, therefore giving an incorrect measurement. Committee Member Silva said that when he visited the home, the view impact was marginal from the balcony and that the foliage seemed to have a more severe impact. He said that the neighbor at 650 Newton Street benefited by the lowering of the roof pitch and there is nothing to see from the first floor. He said there is a small opening in the foliage and he believes that staff is correct in their analysis and in finding and that the raised deck does not unreasonably impair views. Committee Member Theodore said she is concerned that the deck was not built as approved. She said the deck impacts views of the neighbor at 650 Newton Street, but not in a dramatic manner. Vice Chair Kimzey said he is sympathetic with the neighbor at 650 Newton Street and that he does recognize there were mistakes made, although the impact was minimal. He said he agrees with Committee Member Silva’s observations, but that he does agree with staff’s analysis that view impacts are not severe. He said that he also agrees with staff recommendations. Committee Member Latasa said that the deck elevation does not create an unreasonable view impact and that he is chagrinned that the city process did not go more smoothly; although he is glad that the view impact is not more significant. He said that he is in support of the application. Chair Freeman said that she agrees with the other Committee Members. Committee Member Silva made motion to approve as submitted. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Kimzey, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application as submitted. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Latasa, Theodore, Silva NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Recessed at 5:38 pm. Reconvened at 6:15 pm. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS None 10  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, November 18, 2015 STUDY SESSION 5. Architectural Review Committee Retreat (Waterfront Community Room) The ARC held a retreat and discussed the organization of boards and commissions, roles and responsibilities, and the adopted list of major and minor projects COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS No committee or staff comments INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:46 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christine Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 11