Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY Wednesday, March 2, 2016 4:00 pm – 7:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Abma, Theodore Members Absent: Silva Staff Members Present: Interim Chief of Planning, Engineering, and Environmental Compliance Kimberly Cole, Recording Secretary Salameh CALL TO ORDER Chair Kimzey called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. February 17, 2016 Action: Approved as amended. On a motion by Committee Member Theodore, seconded by Committee Member Freeman, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the Minutes of February 17, 2016. AYES: 3 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Silva ABSTAIN: 2 MEMBERS: Abma, Kimzey RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS Patricia Domingo, a resident of New Monterey said that she was concerned with 625 Cannery Row, the new Monterey Bay Aquarium Education Center proposed to be built. Ms. Domingo said that she was concerned with the potential height and view obstruction that the building may create. She expressed apprehension over density, land use, and quality of life for the neighborhood. She expressed her love for Monterey and said that she does not want to see massive growth because it would be out of character for the area. Ms. Cole said that application for the Monterey Bay Aquarium Education Center had just been submitted and explained the permitting process. She said that meetings regarding the project had yet to be scheduled.  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 2, 2016 PUBLIC APPEARANCE 2. Consider Recommendation to the Planning Commission Regarding Chapter 4 (Land Use Objectives, Standards and Guidelines) of the Lighthouse Specific Plan (Mitigated Negative Declaration) ACTION: Continued to the April 6, 2016 Architectural Review Committee Meeting. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions No presentation was given. Ms. Cole said that a formalized chapter will be rewritten and presented at a future ARC meeting for comparison. She said that it would also be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. Committee Member Freeman noted that there was a misprint on page 56, as well as objective O.3.9 was missing part of the sentence. Chair Kimzey mentioned that objective O.3.10 should be included and that it was not in the draft that they had. Committee Member Freeman said that a principal issue was building height. She asked Ms. Cole if staff preferred that height should be form-based or based on a specific number of feet. Ms. Cole said that staff prefers form-based height because it gives the designer the flexibility. Public Comment Patricia Domingo, a resident of New Monterey, said that she would like to see a solid height limit of 25 feet for two-story structures and 35 feet for three-story structures added back into the guidelines. She said that she believes buildings will grow excessively and she thinks that opportunistic building may take place if form-based review becomes the new standard. She asked that the ARC consider the preservation of views and access and noted the importance of ocean breezes. Nancy Runyon, a resident of New Monterey, said that she has been active on the Lighthouse Specific Plan Subcommittee because of a specific new building that looms over the sidewalk. She said that she does not want to see that type of development occur again. She said that she believes that the third story should have a clear setback from the second story. She also expressed concern over density and losing ocean breezes. Committed Member Freeman asked Ms. Cole how many opportunity sites existed in the Lighthouse Specific area. Ms. Cole said that there are some restraints regarding an opportunity site including the availability of water and a building’s state of disrepair. Committee Member Latasa asked if the Lighthouse Specific Plan was projected to be long-term. Ms. Cole said yes. 2 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 2, 2016 Committee Member Comments Committee Member Theodore asked if buildings were previously reviewed by height rather than by number of stories. Ms. Cole said yes and that the current standard was that two-story buildings were to be no taller than 25 feet, and three-story buildings were to be no taller than 35 feet. She said that there tend to be greater challenges with properties on sloping lots and allowing room for mechanical equipment between floors of commercial buildings. Chair Kimzey said that he and Committee Member Freeman spent a lot of time on the Lighthouse Specific Plan Subcommittee and that they had received a lot of feedback from businesses and residences. He noted that residences universally asked for a specific number for height requirements and that businesses preferred form-based review. Committee Member Theodore asked if a number could be maintained for height limits, but changed to accommodate modern building requirements. Committee Member Latasa said that there should be a rationale for maximum height. Committee Member Freeman said that standard S.3.2 could be reworded to reflect the rationale. Committee Member Latasa said that the ARC should decide upon basic height requirements for buildings as well as numerical setbacks for second stories. Committee Members Freeman and Theodore agreed. Committee Member Abma said that she agreed with height limitations, but not with second story setbacks. She suggested that the ARC speak with John Kuehl, Chief Building Inspector, before proceeding with creating specific height restrictions for buildings. Committee Member Latasa also suggested that the ARC speak with commercial property owner Jerry Anderson. Committee Member Abma suggested that the ARC review case studies such as 459 Alvarado Street and 230 Lighthouse Avenue as examples of recent mixed-use developments in Monterey. She said that setting a hard number for the second story setback would put a limitation on the designer and that buildings may eventually become homogenous. She said that the ARC can evaluate a building’s mass and bulk at review. Ms. Cole said that prior to the next meeting, she may be able to arrange a field trip to 459 Alvarado Street for ARC members to see the inside of the mixed-use development. Committee Member Theodore said that the wording is vague for standard S.3.2 on page 56. Committee Member Freeman noted that the lighting guidelines were not included in October 2015 draft of the Lighthouse Specific Plan, but that it was given to the ARC as an addendum. She said that the Downtown Specific Plan’s lighting guidelines were used as an example and asked if the courtyard measurement for footcandles was accurate on 3 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 2, 2016 page 108. Ms. Cole said that the determination for footcandles on page 108 was correct. Chair Kimzey suggested that the word, “consistent” be used in lieu of, “average” when describing lighting requirements. Committee Member Abma said guideline G.1.3 and standard S.1.3 seemed to be conflicting. Chair Kimzey agreed. Ms. Cole explained the difference between uplighting and outlining buildings and the desired outcome. Committee Member Freeman suggested that the phrase, “uplighting of entire building faces” could be eliminated from G.1.3 and the wording, “with exception of certain historic building facades,” could be added. The ARC also made the following recommendations regarding lighting for the Lighthouse Specific Plan:  On page 106, add the term “energy” to O.6.4  On page 106, combine Objectives O.6.8 and O.6.10  On page 108, eliminate G.1.6  On page 108, eliminate G.1.8  On pages 107-108, create consistency between G.1.8 and S.1.2  On page 108, reword S.1.2 to read, “all lamps shall be directed downward unless highlighting historic buildings, architectural features, or landscaping.” Committee Member Latasa suggested that a lighting designer be consulted for standards on motion detectors. The ARC discussed Chapter 4 of the Lighthouse Specific Plan and made the following recommendations:  On page 47, Objective O.1.1, clarify the term “space” by changing the word to “building” or “storefront”  On page 47, remove superfluous “a” in the second paragraph  On page 47, change the word “support” to “justification” in the first paragraph, last sentence  On page 47, modify objectives O.1.1, O.2.2, and O.3.3 to specify that the plan will allow projects that include conditionally-permitted temporary uses  On page 50, add a sentence describing the chart  On page 50, Guideline G.2.3, change “upon grant” to “upon granting.”  On page 54, clarify where the 1,250 feet begins regarding off-site shared parking  In general, add a link that directs readers to Citywide Sign Guidelines  On page 50, Objective O.2.2, end at, “in terms of protecting views and privacy.”  On page 50, Guideline G.2.3 should be a standard and change “may” to “that.” Also change the verb tense.  On page 50, Guideline G.2.9, add “as feasible” to the end of the first sentence  On page 53, change Guideline G.2.27 to a standard regarding screening rooftop 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 2, 2016 equipment from view  On page 53, Guideline G.2.28, modify to read, “Paint rooftop equipment and vents to match the roof.”  On page 53, Standard S.2.5, add storefronts  On page 78, consider revising Liquid Amber as a preferred tree  Develop a streetscape plan  Consider adding a guideline for the New Monterey Center to allow the historic pole sign  Amend table of contents show chapter numbers Committee Member Freeman presented a newly-revised list of trees for the Lighthouse Specific Plan. She said that the prevailing winds are predominantly salty and blow west to east. In combination with poor soil, she said that this creates a very specific microclimate in which only specific species of trees will thrive. She said that safety is also a concern for trees being planted on the sidewalks, and reminded the ARC to take into consideration pedestrians and driver visibility. She suggested that trees should be divided into three categories, including very large parklands trees, sidewalk trees, and accent trees. She expressed the idea that healthy trees should be left in the ground and that compatible trees should be planted by block to replace unhealthy trees, in order to stay in character with the rest of the Avenue. She suggested the list of trees by leaf, look, and structure in order to add variety to the area. She noted that the local shrubs and flowers proposed in the draft should grow well in the Lighthouse Avenue area. Committee Member Abma said that she liked the idea of each block maintaining its own personality based on the trees planted there. Committee Member Freeman said that Associate Planner Roveri and Louis Marcuzzo, Park Operations Manager, had done a complete count of all the trees currently growing on Lighthouse Avenue. Chair Kimzey said that defining specific numbers for building height, lighting, landscape, and setback of third stories should be discussed at the next ARC meeting on April 6, 2016. On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member Theodore, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee Continued discussion of the Lighthouse Specific Plan to the April 6, 2016 Architectural Review Committee Meeting. 5  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 2, 2016 AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Abma, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Silva ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Committee Member Latasa asked for an update on the ARC’s letter written to the Marriott regarding the bridge to the Conference Center. Ms. Cole said that the Local Coastal Program workshop goal is to have a complete LCP to submit within one year. Committee Member Abma asked about the state of the Climate Action Plan. Ms. Cole said that the draft was complete and that the environmental document was nearly complete as well. Committee Member Theodore asked if a replacement ARC Member had been announced yet. Ms. Cole said that the announcement was tentatively scheduled for March 15, 2015. Chair Kimzey thanked the public and Committee Member Freeman for their input on the Lighthouse Specific Plan. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 3. Planning Office Update  Update Received ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:27 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christy Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 6