Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, January 20, 2016 4:00 pm - 5:30 pm 7:00 pm - 11:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Theodore Members Absent: Searle, Abma, Mall, Pofahl Staff Members Present: Senior Associate Planner Bennett, Senior Associate Planner Hopper The Architectural Review Committee will not conduct a field trip to review the Wednesday, January 20, 2016 Architectural Review Committee Agenda. For information call (831) 646-3885. Date Posted: January 15, 2016 CALL TO ORDER Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes Approved 1. January 6, 2016 Motion to Approve January 6, 2016 Motion to Approve January 6, 2016 AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Silva NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 4 MEMBERS: Searle, Abma, Mall, Pofahl ABSTAIN: 1 MEMBERS: Theodore RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Other Consent Items 2. Consider 8 Upper Ragsdale Drive (CSU Monterey Bay); Sign Permit 15-478 for Two Refaced Vehicle-Oriented Freestanding Signs; Applicant Anjanette Adams for Monterey Signs, Inc.; Owner University Corporation – CSU Monterey Bay; I-R-50-D2; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 Motion to Approve Consider 8 Upper Ragsdale Drive (CSU Monterey Bay); Sign Permit  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 20, 2016 15-478 for Two Refaced Vehicle-Oriented Freestanding Signs; Applicant Anjanette Adams for Monterey Signs, Inc.; Owner University Corporation – CSU Monterey Bay; I-R- 50-D2; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 4 MEMBERS: Searle, Abma, Mall, Pofahl ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 3. Confirm Annual Appointments for Chair, Vice Chair, and Subcommittees (CEQA: Not a Project) Kimzey said thank you for the nomination to Chair and he is glad to have Silva as VC (5:00). On agenda for next meeting he would like to have proclamation for Freeman for great job. ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS Richard Ruccello invited wine and chocolate at library on Feb. 19. Said tix available at Ref desk. Kimzey said that item 4 pulled. Hopper said that storypole staking was necessary due to 10 days prior to public hearing. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 4. Consider 823 Pine Street; AR Permit 15-219 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a Two-Story Addition to a Two-Story Single Family Residential Building; Applicant Susan Bailey; Owner James and Catherine Spoto; R-1-5 Zoning District (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301) Continued to February 3, 2016 ARC meeting for updated storypole staking. Motion to Continue 5. Consider 2370 North Fremont Street; AR Permit 15-129 for Architectural Review of Parking Lot and Building Modifications; Sign Permit 15-130 for Revised Signage; Tree Removal Permit 15-131 for the Removal of Nine (9) Landscape Trees; Applicant Sandra Stephenson for In-Shape Heath Clubs, LLC; Owner Danbury Main, LLC c/o Safeway Inc; PC-NF Zoning Designation; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1, and Article 19, Section 15304, Class 4. Motion to Continue with a portion approved 2 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 20, 2016 Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Associate Planner Bennett gave presentation and took Committee Members’ questions. Silva asked if there’s a req for a photo plan for the lighting. Bennett said yes, for new development and that staff said that staff said these are smaller developments. After 5, it is very busy so staff sees that this is necessary. He said that staff thinks that LED fixtures would be necessary and that they are implementing portions of the north Fremont specific plan. Silva asked if (25) Bennett said that it’s his interpretation of the plan that in this case it would apply and that in this case they would be replacing 3 and adding 2. But in this case they did not meet the threshold. Silva said that he’s concerned with the height. Bennett said they’re 32 ft. Silva asked about light pollution. Bennett said that the application was not aware of residential light spillage but that they could retrofit. Freeman asked if this is new. Bennett said they’d been there for 6-7 years. Freeman said they were very big. Bennett said they were utilizing the interior space and they’re one of the largest buildings on Fremont. Freeman said sign total goes over max allowance. Is it fair to say that sign over front door goes over max allowed? Bennett said that it would be fair to say that 40-50% of that total sign area is background and not sign content. It’s original safeway and that In shape is using their structure. They’re updating the logo. Excess space is not being used but has to be incl in calculations. Latasa asked about calcs. Bennett said old way is regardless of how big sign background was, the sign content was counted. Current policy is that total area is calced. (30) Latasa said this is very similar to 2010 approval, so it would be strange to ask them to reduce area already approved. 3 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 20, 2016 Bennett said that (31) Latasa said there are 5 trees to be removed in center of parking lot. What about the perimeter trees. Bennett said that those tree removals would be more appropriately evaled as a landscape plan. Latasa said those aren’t a part of approval? Bennett said no, just the 5 trees in middle of parking lot. Applicant Sandra Stevenson thanked staff and committee for their time and consideration. She said that all had been very gracious. She said that they’re happy to be before ARC and thinks that the changes are for the better. The club is successful, and that a full congested parking lot is a good problem to have especially during these economic times. She said that they want the circulation to be better and to improve lighting because it’s not sufficient in the main part of the parking lot right now. She said they don’t want to change perimeter, but in the main area. She said that they want to utilize the space as best as possible. She said they want it to be a safe environment with no spillage and they’ve had a lighting consultant look at it, they’ll also address the issue if necessary. She said that regarding the trees, some along the perimeter appeared to be dead or dying. She noted that they wanted to include them in the application process because they were not in a good condition. She said that they tried to come up with a good compromise with staff and they’re familiar with the Fremont street plan and she knows that signage expensive and they would like to re-use the letters on the front of the building and they did re-design the logo to eliminate the illumination. She said that if it were only the signage, it would fit within the guidelines, but she thinks it looks sleeker and it pops more but that it’s going to be visible from Fremont. She said that the signage on the Fremont sign, there’s a recessed area that’s round and at one time it housed the Safeway logo. Now IS’s logo has changed, and they’re trying to work with the room that they have. She said that they’ve tried to cover that round space and the size is a result of that. She said that the freestanding sign is a result of what was there when Safeway was there. She said that they worked to find alternatives and concluded that any work may destroy it, so they would ultimately like to save it and try to save money. For now it seems to be a reasonable change in terms of cost. She said that they tried to do what they needed in terms of what IS needed and what the city wanted with guidelines. Freeman said that the tree removal plan sounded good but that there were 2 trees that were in great shape, (1 live oak at Casanova and a Cedar at the corner of the building). So she is worried about those being removed. She asked if those are the ones proposed for removal. Stevenson said she did not believe so, that the trees propped for removal are in the center of parking. After looking at a map of the property, she confirmed that they were not to be removed. She said that she had talked with staff before about phasing in the landscaping and she knows that it’s going to be an extensive project. She said that people coming and going in the project would not be conducive to business. She asked if the Committee would be comfortable with 2 years for the work to be done, rather than an 18 month period as recommended by staff. 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 20, 2016 Bennett clarified (45) Silva asked if there was a parking analysis. Stevenson said yes, this was based on the determination on company wide parking data. Average club of 77 operating club, this one has a slightly lower parking ratio to similarly operating clubs. She said that every time the executive team toured the club and they saw people circling and looking for spots. Silva said that’s a good problem to have as a business owner. Stevenson said there aren’t a lot of options, as the parcel is oddly shaped and that taking out the second driveway helps. Especially with the intersection. Theodore said she goes to this gym and that it’s hard to find parking. Latasa asked if the fire dept reviews the parking plan. Bennett said that Traffic Engineer will review with fire dept and that will be done thru bldg permit process (49). Their concern is that access is from street to bldg. Public Comment Kim Svetich Will 57 Melway Cir, member of CONA, said that in this case she is concerned about the plan. She said that there should be a traffic analysis done of the entrances and exits. She’s lived there for nearly 10 years. She’s happy they’re doing well and that business is good, but the traffic is an issue and she said that during rush hour, on Casanova on Fremont, it is very busy. She said at the entrance, someone is pulling out and not looking and she has to slam on her brakes often because people don’t pay attention. She said that the light is confusing (52) and people are not sure where to go at the intersection. She said that the entrance needs to be rethought and that it’s a very impacted intersection already. She said that she supports one of the intersections on N Fremont because it’s caused a lot of accidents. She said that she would prefer having someone look at the area or some other configuration. She thinks that others would speak about this as well if they knew about it. She said that in regards to the lights, but she said that the city should review PD records on break ins and assaults in the parking lot in order to add more lights. She said that she is in support of adding more lights and they don’t impact her as a resident. She said that some CONA members are concerned about the ill-health trees and would like to see healthy, bigger more beautiful trees especially with the image of Monterey in mind. They want to see that area of Monterey beautified. Freeman asked if it’s that the Casanova St driveway is directly opposite? Svetich-Will said yes, there are apartments, homes, and there are so many people driving in that area. It’s a funneling in that is causing confusion during rush hour. Richard Ruccello speaking as president of CONA said that they worked on the plan over 5 years and it was contested. He said that the future of Fremont needs to be walkable and mixed use. He said one of the most important entries is Canyon del Rey area. Ruccello said that many years ago, on the area at the PG&E site, many trees have been removed. He said that at Cypress Center, all of the trees are gone now, (1:00). He said that at the new Safeway site many full grown oak trees are gone and as a native Montereyan, he believes that there is a tree crisis and he thinks that they need to be replaced. He is concerned about the removal of trees on a large site. He said that the 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 20, 2016 replacement trees are 15 gallon trees and he is concerned about their chances of survival. He is also concerned about N Fremont becoming a mixed use pedestrian village. He said that he does not feel it is becoming as the plan defined. He asked the ARC to enforce the streetscape plan. He mentioned other businesses and asked the ARC to draw the line somewhere. He said that he believes the lighting causes a glare, especially during rain at night and that he cannot see pedestrians. He said that there was a fatality at Jiffy Lube a few years ago. Mike Dawson said that the light temperature seems to be pretty blue white and that 3500 is too hot, 2500-3000 would be more appropriate. He said that would be more of a yellow white like lights around town. Committee Member Comments Kimzey asked if Bennett had any comments on public remarks. Bennett said that in regards to the traffic, the cypress center driveway and the in shape driveways are not directly opposite, but he does understand that the area is very congested at certain times of the day. He said that it can become very confusing and that you have to take into consideration many factors when driving the area. He said that it’s his hope that the traffic engineer took those factors into consideration. In terms of lighting and glare, he said that there were two different comments involving adequate light for public safety. He said that shielding the light would be very important because it would prevent spillage especially in the rain. In regards to the LED, the 3500K, it’s not part of the N Fremont plan he asked Hopper for input. Hopper said that the downtown plan light standards vs n Fremont plan, the decided upon range was 2700K-3500K, which is in the yellow white range instead of blue, esp blue. She said that the 4-5000K is the very crisp blue. 2700K is a much yellower light. Bennett said there’s a pedi path adjacent to the monument sign and it’s intended for pedi access to the sign, and that illuminating one of the driveways would be an improvement. He said the ARC could look at requiring a modification to the plan and putting in a pedi path (1:14), recognizing that it’s difficult that it could result in a reduction of spaces. One of the elements to reconfig, is that there’s a marked path from Casanova and that will help with pedestrians. Finally, in regards to trees, all of us live in this area because we love the natural beauty. We’re designated a tree city and our forestry dept is very conservative. They also have stringent replacement requirements. He said that business owners may want to reduce the number of trees onsite if they reduce visibility, but that’s a balancing act for the ARC. What should the ARC consider in order to keep the site equitable? In regards to landmark trees, they do get older and they die. The cost of replacing trees can become high. Silva asked where the path of travel would be. Bennett said that he could show it. Latasa said in existing parking layout vs proposed, what’s net change in proposed area? Bennett said that was not shown in proposed landscape plan. The plan does not bump out to the existing parking lot to utilize existing landscape there now. Latasa said Ms Svetich mentioned a traffic study. What is Bennett’s opinion that a traffic study be done? 6 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 20, 2016 Bennett said that those are done at a use permit stage and there’s a potential for increasing the number of vehicles (1:20) to a property or to a new property. On the other side, having adequate parking, that would prevent people from parking other areas and crossing streets and impacting areas. He said there’s no prevention to having a traffic plan. Kimzey asked of ARC has auth to ask for traffic plan. Hopper said no. Freeman said she’s impressed with renovation aspect of this and to improve parking lot and repaint signs and spiff it up will add a lot to a very large area. With that said, a new parking lot plan it would be nice to see a drawing of the finished product. She also said that she would approve it but would add a footpath from Casanova to entrance. Latasa said that pkt page 67 is that a site plan? Silva said that he generally supports the app but he has concerns. He said he questions whether there’s adequate info. Said that site plan is hard to read and wants to know about path of travel. Said that when any project increases parking, he said that he would like to see parking analysis. As it relates to ARC, a traffic analysis may say that a driveway cut in on Casanova may not be the right spot. Silva said that a traffic analysis should have been done. He said that he wants to see effects of lights, if there’s spillage, if there’s adequate lighting for crime prevention, (1:27), etc. Theodore said there’s parking in triangle referenced in site plan. Kimzey said he is concerned with the compliance with the specific plan and especially the signage. He said he’s concerned with the legacy the ARC leaves with the signage and max allowed (1:29). He noted that all signs exceed the max allowed. He is concerned that the specific plan notes that a sign should be 50 sqft. He said that the sign on the building, a lot of the sqfootage excess comes from the background and that possibly by framing the letters themselves that would reduce the size of the sign. He said that the large blank background does not add to the attractiveness of the sign. And he would like to get closer to the specific requirements and at little cost to the applicant. He said it seems there’s a legacy and a precedence issue with a simple fix and that the sign could be fixed. Bennett modified the sign on the projection for ARC to view. Latasa said he thinks the applicant is doing a great job and improvement to the site is a great job. He understands that the tweaking the sign to meet mathematical requirements would work, but cedar shake shingles are ratty and they may not look nice on the sign. He said that since the approval the change to the plan has been changed, so the sign is out of conformation due to that. (1:35) He said that getting rid of the driveway on Casanova is a good idea. Possibly doing a traffic study would be a good idea. Bennett said that those are required at PC and CC. Hopper said that PC looks at parking analysis to look at environmental use. Hopper said if there’s an existing parking lot, they’re going to try to look at improvements that are possible. (1:36). If occupancy were to change, that’s when a traffic analysis would be 7 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 20, 2016 necessary. She said that at this point she would not see any legal mechanism to require ARC to ask for a traffic study. Latasa said that possibly this should be clarified because they need a better site plan with path of travel with lighting and better graffics. Freeman agreed. Latasa also said that box trees would be nice, rather than 15 gallon. Hopper said that nurseries, due to the drought, are very low in stock on box trees. Freeman said that we could approve w/ conditions, deny, or continue. Conditions are lighting with K’s, tree removal and replacements, pedi paths, and identifications of specific tree removals or we would continue to get a better site plan. Public Comment Stevenson asked if she could make a comment. She said that as far as the path of travel, she showed it on the proposed site plan. And regarding any sidewalk, they would be coming up sidewalk they would be approaching the building under trees. She said that it may involve removing parking spaces and they would have to walk behind cars. She said that using the path of travel that’s designated is the safest. As far as trees and landscaping, her sense of that is that she has 90 days to present a landscape plan that is consistent with the ordinance and she’s committed to being in compliance. She said that as far as removing trees, she understands that the ARC is in a difficult place and she understands their decision making process. She does not want to remove trees, but it has to happen in order to run a successful family friendly business, in order for the common good. She said there is just under 1700sqft of landscaping and there will be just under 2600sqft landscaping when it’s done. The reason the trees came up is because one fell against the building and they’re a public safety concern. She said they’re trying to take safety and property into account. She knows that whatever goes in has to meet a middle ground. Also regarding traffic, she knows that the removing the driveway will reduce traffic congestion. She wants to make sure that Casanova overall does not become involved with the traffic of the health club. Regarding lighting, she said that if some of the lighting needs to be left out, they will leave it out. They want to be a good community partner. They’ve put a lot of money in, so they want to do the right thing. Richard Ruccello stood again and said that he is concerned with pedestrian traffic and that they need to consider how the public walks from Fremont to the entrance. (1:50) He also said to consider ADA requirements and he said to consider that they saw document public had not seen. Kimzey asked about unseen doc. Hopper said that reproductions left a lot to be desired and that portion had not been included. She said that her rec was that a resubmittal be given with lighting and landscape. Kimzey asked about doc. Hopper said they could consider anything submitted, but they are not forbidden from approving. 8 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 20, 2016 Latasa said it would be wise to continue. Silva made motion (1:53) for photometric plan, request for traffic engineer, Freeman added to motion for pedi path Silva said that he thought that pedi path had been satisfied Latasa said can they approve signage. Bennett said paint, building, etc. Theodore said 2nd. Hopper said approve bldg modi incl windows, colors, signs as submitted, continue parking layout, tree removal, lighting with direction to applicant to req photometric plan, landscape plan, request traffic engineer (1:56). Kimzey said 90 days? Hopper said as long as not certain. Latasa said pay sp attention to legibility of submittals (11x17) Freeman said that plan is clear. Kimzey is conflicted. W/ regard to traffic, he said they don’t need to go through that again. Regard to lighting, staff is recommending that it will be shielded. He said that the way it is proposed, it’s a lot of smoke without much fire and the landscape will be covered. He thinks that staff did a fine job and he would have approved the entire thing. He reiterated his stance on Motion to Continue with portion approved CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS Stevenson asked if she could make a comment. She said that as far as the path of travel, she showed it on the proposed site plan. And regarding any sidewalk, they would be coming up sidewalk they would be approaching the building under trees. She said that it may involve removing parking spaces and they would have to walk behind cars. She said that using the path of travel that’s designated is the safest. As far as trees and landscaping, her sense of that is that she has 90 days to present a landscape plan that is consistent with the ordinance and she’s committed to being in compliance. She said that as far as removing trees, she understands that the ARC is in a difficult place and she understands their decision making process. She does not want to remove trees, but it has to happen in order to run a successful family friendly business, in order for the common good. She said there is just under 1700sqft of landscaping and there will be just under 2600sqft landscaping when it’s done. The reason the trees came up is because one fell against the building and they’re a public safety concern. She said they’re trying to take safety and property into account. She knows that whatever goes in has to meet a middle ground. Also regarding traffic, she knows that the removing the driveway will reduce traffic congestion. She wants to make sure that Casanova overall does not 9 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 20, 2016 become involved with the traffic of the health club. Regarding lighting, she said that if some of the lighting needs to be left out, they will leave it out. They want to be a good community partner. They’ve put a lot of money in, so they want to do the right thing. Richard Ruccello stood again and said that he is concerned with pedestrian traffic and that they need to consider how the public walks from Fremont to the entrance. (1:50) He also said to consider ADA requirements and he said to consider that they saw document public had not seen. Kimzey asked about unseen doc. Hopper said that reproductions left a lot to be desired and that portion had not been included. She said that her rec was that a resubmittal be given with lighting and landscape. Kimzey asked about doc. Hopper said they could consider anything submitted, but they are not forbidden from approving. Latasa said it would be wise to continue. Silva made motion (1:53) for photometric plan, request for traffic engineer, Freeman added to motion for pedi path Silva said that he thought that pedi path had been satisfied Latasa said can they approve signage. Bennett said paint, building, etc. Theodore said 2nd. Hopper said approve bldg modi incl windows, colors, signs as submitted, continue parking layout, tree removal, lighting with direction to applicant to req photometric plan, landscape plan, request traffic engineer (1:56). Kimzey said 90 days? Hopper said as long as not certain. Latasa said pay sp attention to legibility of submittals (11x17) Freeman said that plan is clear. Kimzey is conflicted. W/ regard to traffic, he said they don’t need to go through that again. Regard to lighting, staff is recommending that it will be shielded. He said that the way it is proposed, it’s a lot of smoke without much fire and the landscape will be covered. He thinks that staff did a fine job and he would have approved the entire thing. He reiterated his stance on legacy. 10  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 20, 2016 COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 6. Planning Office Update 150 Seafoam Sign program 724 Abrego & 731 Munras Proclamation Minutes ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:08 pm Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christy Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 11