Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, December 16, 2015 AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY 4:00 pm – 7:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Abma, Theodore Members Absent: None Staff Members Present: Senior Planner Hopper, Associate Planner Roveri, Recording Secretary Salameh CALL TO ORDER Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 4:03 pm. Approval of Minutes 1. December 2, 2015 Action: Approved as amended. The ARC asked that the following corrections be made to the Minutes:  Vice Chair Kimzey said that on page 5, he would like to see more included in the Minutes regarding two ARC Members serving on Lighthouse Specific Plan Subcommittees, as well as their comments regarding the scope of the Plan.  Committee Member Latasa asked that the wording “community input” be corrected on page 7.  Chair Freeman asked that the identity of the public speakers be clarified on page 7.  Add the title “Chair” to “Freeman” on page 7. OTHER CONSENT ITEMS 2. Consider 653 Jessie Street; AR Permit 15-434 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a One-Story Addition and Exterior Alterations to a One- Story Single-Family Dwelling; Applicant Chris Boqua; Owner Larkin Larry C & Tanya L (J T); R-1-5 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19 Section 15303 Action: Approved as submitted. On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member Theodore, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the Consent Items as amended. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Theodore, Abma (Abstain, Item 1), Silva (Abstain, Item 1)  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, December 16, 2015 NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None PUBLIC APPEARANCE 3. Consider 2222 North Fremont Street; AR Permit 15-449 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of Exterior Alterations to a One-Story Commercial Building; Applicant Nick Avila; Owner Patricia S Work Tr Et Al; PC-NF Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19 Section 15301 Action: Approved as submitted Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Associate Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Chair Freeman asked if this item needed to come before the ARC. Ms. Roveri said that this item was eligible to be administratively approved, but a concerned member of the community requested that the item be reviewed by the ARC. Committee Member Latasa asked if the ARC needed to see the letter from the concerned citizen. Committee Member Silva asked if this was the procedure for the public and if anything could be referred to the ARC. Senior Planner Hopper said that the ARC is not required to see the letter, and that the ARC adopted list of major and minor projects allows anyone from the public to refer an application to the ARC for review. Committee Member Silva asked if the Applicant was required to pay additional fees for ARC review. Ms. Hopper said no. Committee Member Theodore asked if the ductwork is currently encased. Ms. Roveri said no. Committee Member Theodore asked if this item had been previously seen by the ARC. Ms. Roveri clarified that this is the first time the ARC had seen the project. 2 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, December 16, 2015 Chair Freeman asked if this project had already been built. Ms. Roveri said yes. Chair Freeman asked if an enclosure could be built around the ductwork. Committee Member Silva asked what type of enclosure would be appropriate. Ms. Roveri explained the components of proposed enclosure. Vice Chair Kimzey asked why the ARC would be ratifying an item that had already been installed. Ms. Hopper referred Committee Members to packet page 30 for further details on the application. Vice Chair Kimzey asked if the Resolution should reflect that the ARC is ratifying a previously-built item. Ms. Hopper said that there is additional work to be completed on the proposed project. Vice Chair Kimzey asked if new plans would need to be submitted if it is not made clear that the construction is already complete. He also questioned if the Applicant would have to apply for a building permit. Ms. Hopper said that the Applicant did need to apply for a building permit for anything not previously approved as part of the existing building permit. Vice Chair Kimzey asked if the resolution should be clarified as a ratification. He said that it does not seem clear, because they ARC is being asked to ratify an act that has already taken place, yet there is still work to be done. Ms. Hopper said that Vice Chair Kimzey’s point is taken. Committee Member Silva asked if, in staff’s opinion, the ductwork should be approved without encasement. Ms. Roveri said that staff would not recommend approval. Committee Member Silva asked with what findings. Ms. Roveri said that the back of the building would be too utilitarian and the guidelines that equipment be screened from view would not be met. Applicant Mike Avila, contractor for the Dollar Tree, thanked planning staff for their diligence and open communication during the project, as well as the neighborhood for working with him. He said that his goal is to make sure the neighborhood is satisfied with the end result. He said that initially he believed the neighborhood was not happy with the four vertical ducts, so he tried to build a textured structure. He said that ultimately the Dollar Tree and his firm want to make sure the neighborhood is satisfied. 3  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, December 16, 2015 Public Comment None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Latasa said that while this project seems tedious, it was handled well by those involved. Committee Member Silva said that he concurs with Committee Member Latasa’s point of view. He mentioned that he likes the industrial look of the exposed ductwork and that it is a very honest approach to what a building is all about. Chair Freeman said that she concurs with what Committee Member Latasa said and she appreciates that Mr. Avila is trying to please the surrounding neighborhood. On a motion by Committee Member Kimzey, seconded by Committee Member Silva, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application as submitted. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Abma, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 4. Consider 724 Abrego Street and 731 Munras Avenue; Sign Permit Application 15- 420 for a Multi Tenant Sign Program; Applicant Phil Vanderkraats; Owner Cypress Plaza Center LLC; C-2 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301 Action: Continued for redesign with the following direction to the Applicant: reduce overall square footage, eliminate some extraneous signs, offer samples of materials that are more descriptive and include pictures. Consider splitting the tenants facing streets and the parking lot into three sub-sign programs. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Associate Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Chair Freeman said that if the directory was eliminated, the total sign area would equal 84 square feet, which would be close to the Citywide Sign Guidelines. She said that the directory counts against individual tenants because it takes away from the square footage that is allowed for their own signs. She asked how an exception could be made, because without it some businesses would be virtually invisible. Ms. Hopper said that the ARC may modify allowed sign areas as long as it does not result in a proliferation of signs. Committee Member Latasa asked if there is a possible finding that a lot of smaller businesses in a limited linear footage are contributing to the problem. He also said that staff has done an excellent job of presenting a complicated problem. He asked if it was the physical layout of the site causing the problem. He asked if staff expects street 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, December 16, 2015 frontage totals to be brought down to between 88 and 98 square feet. Ms. Roveri said that staff understands tenants will want to have a sign in the back parking lot, but a 96 square feet vehicle-oriented sign is not necessary. Chair Freeman asked if Ms. Roveri was speaking of the directory or of individual signs. Ms. Roveri said that some signs may be bigger than the minimum allowed. Vice Chair Kimzey asked if individual sign designs should be included in the project application. Ms. Roveri said no. Vice Chair Kimzey said because there are no illustrations of what the signs will look like at completion, the ARC would be unable to make a decision based on exceptional design. He thanked Ms. Roveri for her presentation and asked if the back parking lot is considered building frontage. Ms. Roveri said no. Vice Chair Kimzey asked if the back parking lot is considered public right of way. Ms. Hopper said that it is private parking. Chair Freeman said that tenants C, D, E, and F are penalized because they are located at the back of the building and they cannot get adequate signage. Ms. Hopper said that project may exceed recommended sign requirements, but the program needs to be more cohesive for this difficult area. Committee Member Silva said that he would like to see the final look of the sign and noted that it is difficult to make a decision without seeing what the signs will look like. Ms. Roveri referred Committee Members to the application for height, width, materials. Committee Member Silva asked if all signs will be rectangular panels. Ms. Hopper said that staff was not given that information with the application. Chair Freeman said that this is a sign program for a single building, but with three locations. She asked if there is an order of importance based on rent paid to the owner of the building to determine sign size and placement. Ms. Roveri said no. Committee Member Theodore asked if the parking lot is always included in linear footage. Ms. Roveri said no. Committee Member Theodore asked if businesses that have signs proposed for the front and back of the building have entrances at both locations. 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, December 16, 2015 Ms. Roveri said that the Thai restaurant and one other business have two entrances, but the other businesses do not. Committee Member Theodore asked if the businesses did not have entrances at the front and back of the building, why they would need to have signs at the front and back of the building. Ms. Roveri said that the Applicant believed they needed signs at both of those locations. Committee Member Latasa asked if the existing Cypress Plaza Sign would be removed. Ms. Roveri said yes. Vice Chair Kimzey asked the meaning of a sign being addressed to the adjacent parcel. Ms. Roveri said that staff believes that the Great Wall sign is intentionally visible over the adjacent parcel to identify the business from Fremont Street. Committee Member Latasa asked whether the entire parking lot façade would be visible to adjacent parcels. Ms. Roveri said yes. Applicant Phil Vanderkraats, Applicant and owner of Signs by Van, said that he has a long history with this location and that Bob Quigley Senior had contacted him, noting that the tenants do not have proper signage. He said that he worked on the Cypress Tree sign at the plaza and that it exists to direct vehicular traffic. He noted the necessity to show the businesses in that location, and that the tenants need to be identified. Two years ago, he spoke with Pamela Burns of Wild Plum and she asked for a new sign. He said at that time the City told him about the multitenant sign program. He said that in the future, his goal is for the property to fit well into the area. He said that after hearing the ARC’s questions and frustrations, he wants to solve the problems that had been mentioned. He asked that the ARC look at the parking lot as a viable frontage. He also asked that the ARC look at the larger purpose of the project and to look at the signage as necessary for the tenants. He said that he does not believe in over-proliferation and that he believes in supporting the beauty of the Monterey area. He would like to continue to contribute to the area’s beauty and ultimately see the tenants succeed in finding the best solution to their signage needs. He said that he would like the 235 square feet of parking lot signage to be allowed and he believes that was grandfathered in by the City. He said that he wants to help Mr. Quigley improve his location and help the businesses succeed. Committee Member Latasa asked if the existing vehicle-oriented directory sign is eight feet by 12 feet. Mr. Vanderkraats said yes, but he believes the top could be deemed art. Committee Member Latasa said the sign does not appear eight feet wide, and that the art would still count as part of the sign. Committee Member Silva asked if projecting signs for the back parking lot are necessary because the information is duplicated on wall signs. 6 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, December 16, 2015 Mr. Vanderkraats said the projecting signs are not completely necessary and that signs are individual. He noted that businesses are individual as well and it is important for identification. Chair Freeman said that projecting signs are normally for the benefit of people and vehicles passing by. Vice Chair Kimzey asked why Mr. Vanderkraats had not submitted designs of the signs including colors and textures. Mr. Vanderkraats said he did not believe he needed to do that with this application. Ms. Hopper said that the City does not have linear criteria for submittal requirements, but that acceptable colors, materials, sizes, and locations should be submitted. She said that representative types should be submitted as well. Vice Chair Kimzey asked if Mr. Vanderkraats’ approval for a sign program would be affected if he submitted design ideas with his signs. Ms. Hopper said that would help the completeness of the application. Mr. Vanderkraats said that he takes pride in his signs and his designs. Vice Chair Kimzey asked if street-facing or parking lot signs would be more appropriate for businesses with street entrances. Mr. Vanderkraats said he believes both types of signs would be important. Vice Chair Kimzey asked what would be more effective. Mr. Vanderkraats said that signs have different functions. He said that people did not know businesses were in those locations due to the sign placement. He said from a logical approach, people need a monument sign as well as wall signs. Chair Freeman asked if the problem is in the numbers and wanted to know if the program could be broken down into three separate programs with three separate tenants specified. She said that the breakdown of the businesses is not fair and tenants C, D, E, and F are being penalized because of their location and sign allotment. She asked if the businesses could be broken down into sub-tenants. Ms. Hopper said that the property visually contains three separate buildings. She said that the ARC could find that the property technically contains three separate buildings and that way the ARC could take a more creative approach in approving signs for the businesses. Mr. Quigley said that he just wants the tenants to be successful. Chair Freeman said that she wants the success of the businesses as well. Chair Freeman also suggested the parking sign could be a simple “P” rather than a directory parking sign in order to save square footage. Vice Chair Kimzey asked if the grandfathered approval was still relevant. 7 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, December 16, 2015 Ms. Hopper said it depends on when the sign was approved. She said that if the approval occurred after 2011, it would have to be taken into consideration. Vice Chair Kimzey said that was important and asked if the two signs would still need to be included in the program. Ms. Hopper said yes that the ARC should evaluate all signs on the property. Committee Member Latasa asked if the intention was to keep both directory signs. Mr. Vanderkraats said yes, that he did not design the original one, but he can redo it in a better-looking fashion. Public Comment None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Silva said that they should continue with staff’s recommendation and have the Applicant eliminate some extraneous signs. He suggested that the Applicant also reduce the overall square footage and provide samples of what the finished signs will look like. He said that a sub-multitenant program would be a good idea with tenants facing the street and parking lot divided. Chair Freeman concurred with Committee Member Silva. Mr. Vanderkraats asked what signs would appear on the side streets. Chair Freeman and Committee Member Silva said it would be the Applicant’s discretion. Vice Chair Kimzey thanked the staff for their work on a complicated project. He said that he agrees in principle with the staff recommendation of limiting signs to the sign guidelines and specifications. He said that looking at the businesses facing the parking lot, he did not even know that two of them existed. He said that signs are important for businesses to be successful. Vice Chair Kimzey said that normally he would agree with limiting sign areas to the guidelines, but he believes this to be a unique case and an exception for increased signage would apply. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Theodore, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee continued the Application for redesign with the following direction to the Applicant: reduce overall square footage, eliminate some extraneous signs, offer samples of materials that are more descriptive and include pictures. Consider splitting the tenants facing streets and the parking lot into three sub-sign programs. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Abma, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Recessed at 5:47 pm 8  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, December 16, 2015 Reconvened at 5:52 pm 5. Consider 182 Herrmann Drive; AR Permit 15-246 for Preliminary Architectural Review of a Second-Story Addition to a One-Story Single-Family Dwelling and Tree Permit 15-255 for the Removal of Six Trees (One 7-Inch, One 8-Inch, and One 9- 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 per Article 19, Section 15303 (Continued from August 19, 2015, meeting) ACTION: Approved Preliminary Architectural Review. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Associate Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Vice Chair Kimzey said that stated in the resolution, a tree is proposed for removal due the construction of a guest house. However, the guest house is not subject to architectural review. He asked if that would allow the ARC to approve the tree removal. Ms. Hopper said yes. She said that the Use Permit issued was for the concept of the guest house. She noted that the ARC could modify the location of the guest house to save the tree if an appropriate location exists. She said that the Zoning Administrator does look at location, but that the location on the site is within the ARC’s jurisdiction. Vice Chair Kimzey said the Forester states trees must be replaced within 30 days and asked the reason for that rule. Ms. Roveri said that the Forester says 30 days, but staff is giving the Applicant more time in order to complete the building process and then plant the required trees. Ms. Hopper said that staff did not want the Applicant to replace trees in middle of construction. Vice Chair Kimzey asked if there is a penalty for not replacing trees. Ms. Hopper said that it could be considered a citable violation of the Municipal Code, but that the Planning office prefers voluntary compliance. Applicant Derek Etow, from Etow Architects, said that in redesign they took to heart the neighbors’ concerns and that they reduced the massing of the second floor to 24 percent, as well as pushed it toward the center of the house. He said they were also careful to not place decks near the sides of the building and to preserve older trees. Rather, they eliminated a younger oak tree. He said he feels as though he followed ARC’s direction. Committee Member Latasa asked if the vinyl windows were proposed for budgetary reasons. Mr. Etow said they would install wood clad windows if they ARC found them to be more presentable. Committee Member Latasa said that would be good. 9  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, December 16, 2015 Public Comment Carol Olsen, a neighbor from 1 Via Campana, said that the redesign looks very nice and that she appreciates the City’s efforts throughout the process. She requested that the house be an adobe style texture on the outside of the building. Chair Freeman said that her comments would be entered into the record, as this is Preliminary Architectural Review. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Theodore said they did a remarkable job trying to adhere to the ARC’s suggestions and that it looks completely different than before. She said that the redesign is attractive. Committee Member Latasa said he agrees with Committee Member Theodore. He said that the house was top-heavy before and now it is nicely-modulated. He said that the massing is more appropriate and he complimented the Mr. Etow for a nice redesign. Chair Freeman complimented the Applicant, saying that this design was a nice difference between before and after. On a motion by Committee Member Kimzey, seconded by Committee Member Abma carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved Preliminary Architectural Review. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Abma, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 6. Consider 920 Drake Avenue; AR Permit 13-409 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a One-Story Addition to a Single-Family Residence and Detached Garage; Applicant/Owner Eriksen Digman; R-1-5 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15303 and 15331 ACTION: Approved as submitted with modification of Condition 6, that the existing shed in the front yard setback be relocated on the site. The location, size and design of the shed may be administratively approved if it meets all development standards and is properly noticed in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Planner Hopper presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Chair Freeman asked, in regards to the Drake Avenue driveway, if an exception could be made for disabled access from the garage to the home. Ms. Hopper said the Zoning Administrator could look at that possibility, but two sections of the Municipal Code prevent the ARC from being able to approve parking in the front 10 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, December 16, 2015 yard setback. Committee Member Theodore asked if it was a requirement of a residence to have covered and uncovered parking. Ms. Hopper said yes. Committee Member Theodore asked if the driveway leading to the garage is considered uncovered parking. Ms. Hopper said that parking in the side yard setback is not restricted, and that the proposed project is compliant with the parking requirements. Committee Member Theodore asked if the purpose of the uncovered space was to eliminate on-street parking. Ms. Hopper said yes. Committee Member Latasa asked if it would be feasible for an Applicant to match their addition to the original material, rather than adhering to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Ms. Hopper said that meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards is required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City Ordinance. A finding must be made that the project is consistent with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards in order for the project to be exempt from CEQA requirements. Then it can be exempt. She also noted that if a property is over 50 years old, it is considered historic until there is evidence that proves otherwise. Committee Member Latasa asked if the Applicant could change the roof pitch, but match the siding and remain in compliance. Vice Chair Kimzey asked how the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards can be met. Ms. Hopper explained the different ways the Standards could be met. Committee Member Abma asked if the roof color could be different. Ms. Hopper said no, but that the Applicant did not know for budgetary reasons if they could replace the entire roof. Vice Chair Kimzey asked if staff recommended that the roof match. Ms. Hopper said yes. Committee Member Abma asked if the old and new roof need to be differentiated in order to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. Ms. Hopper said no. Applicant Allen Robinson, architect with Sienna Company, requested that the shed remain on the 11 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, December 16, 2015 property. He noted that the owners found an environmentally-friendly roof and would be replacing the roofing in a gray or brown shade. He said that they would like to make the project as simple as possible and meet staff recommendations. In regards to the shed, he thought they could move it elsewhere onsite. Ms. Hopper said that if it moved elsewhere within the setbacks the shed would still require architectural review and notices would need to be sent because it is a design review neighborhood. Committee Member Latasa asked if the ARC could conditionally approve the shed with staff follow-up. Ms. Hopper said that administrative review with ARC direction was an option. Mr. Robinson thanked Chair Freeman for her empathy regarding disabled access and said that the covered space is 16 steps uphill to the home. He said that he had been speaking with staff regarding the answer to that problem. He said that his clients, the Digmans, would like to have their application as well as the curb cut approved simultaneously. Chair Freeman said that the ARC could not approve the curb cut because that was under the authority of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Robinson said that he understood, and asked if a continuance of the application would be a good idea. Ms. Hopper said that a continuance would not be advised, as the curb cut and parking do not affect the Architectural Review application or the ARC’s decision as long as the front yard setback is not over 50 percent paved. Committee Member Latasa asked if the ARC could approve the application with the driveway and curb cut change. Ms. Hopper said that in order for the curb cut to be approved, the application would need to be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Robinson said that they hoped to clear the roof color and shed with the ARC. Vice Chair Kimzey said that the roof color mentioned is appropriate. Public Comment None. Committee Member Comments Vice Chair Kimzey said that he liked Committee Member Latasa’s suggestion to approve the application, rather than continuing it. Committee Member Silva asked if the new location for the shed needed to be shown on the site plan. Ms. Hopper asked the Digmans where they would prefer the shed to be located on their property. 12 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, December 16, 2015 Owner, Crystal Digman, said they were not planning on removing the shed, but would like to move it six feet over and reorganize the area. They wanted to have options regarding the shed and were not entirely sure on its location. Committee Member Latasa said that they may have to move both sheds to meet the Zoning Ordinance. Committee Member Silva suggested that the Digmans work with staff to ensure all building codes and ordinances are met. Ms. Hopper said that the ARC could leave the site open to having a shed and deferring administrative review to staff with proper noticing. Committee Member Silva asked if the Digmans should appeal to the Planning Commission. Ms. Hopper said that would not be necessary. Committee Member Theodore asked why the Digmans wanted to retain the curb cut. Ms. Digman said that they have older relatives and it’s important in order for them to be able to reach a parking spot more easily, as well as it being a matter of convenience. Committee Member Theodore asked if the curb cut was to accommodate a current disability. Ms. Digman said that no one living in the home has a disability. Committee Member Theodore asked if the grade difference between the garage and the house was so great that a ramp could not be placed there. Ms. Digman said that 16 stairs, a landing, and then an additional 7 stairs could be placed in that location, which was a lot. Committee Member Silva said that the architect did a nice job with his design. Chair Freeman said they did a nice job as well and that she supports the parking courtyard. Committee Member Latasa said in regards to the application to the Zoning Administrator, he supports the parking pad. Committee Member Silva said that he recognizes the lack of on-street parking at the site. On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member Silva, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the Application with Modifications to Condition 6 as follows: that the existing shed in the front yard setback be relocated on the site. The location, size and design of the shed may be administratively approved if it meets all development standards and is properly noticed in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Abma, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None 13 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, December 16, 2015 ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS None INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS The ARC members commended Chair Freeman for a job well done as Chair throughout 2015. Ms. Hopper explained that Vice Chair Kimzey would take the next Chair place pending ARC approval in January of 2016. Ms. Hopper said that the next few months will be busy with applications and meetings. Ms. Hopper confirmed that a quorum would be present on the January 6, 2016 meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:00 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christine Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 14