Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY Wednesday, March 16, 2016 4:00 pm – 7:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Abma Members Absent: Theodore Staff Members Present: Senior Planner Hopper, Associate Planner Roveri, Recording Secretary Salameh CALL TO ORDER Chair Kimzey called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS 1. March 2, 2016 Action: Approved as amended. Other Consent Items 2. Consider 595 Munras Avenue; AR Permit 16-095 for Final Architectural Review for the Construction of a New Mixed-Use Building and Associated Site Improvements; Applicant Carl Outzen; Owner City of Monterey; PC-D Zoning District; Mitigated Negative Declaration Action: Approved with revisions as submitted. Senior Planner Hopper said that the Applicant had supplied additional material regarding fencing and roofing that was available for ARC Members to review. She said that the Applicant had agreed to install a more decorative fence, rather than a chain link fence at the back of the property. She noted that Conditions of Approval had been added to the Resolution providing for the differences in fencing and roofing. Committee Member Freeman asked to move the Item to the Regular Agenda with those changes in mind. Ms. Hopper noted that the Applicant had agreed to make the revisions in order to meet Architectural Review requirements. Chair Kimzey said that the Applicant is proposing an eight foot plate height for the second story, as well. The ARC Members agreed to keep the Item on the Consent Agenda.  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 16, 2016 3. Consider 231 Dunecrest Avenue; AR Permit 16-027 for Preliminary Architectural Review of a Two-Story Addition to a One-Story Single-Family Residence; Applicant Terry Latasa, Architect; Owner Janet Holmes; R-3-10-S Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301(e) Action: Approved as submitted. 4. Consider 2600 Sand Dunes Drive (Monterey Tides Hotel); Sign Permit 16-022 for One New Halo-Lit Vehicle-Oriented Freestanding Sign; Applicant Mark Robinson for Monterey Tides Hotel; Owner SWVP Monterey LLC; VAF Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 Action: Approved as submitted. On a motion by Committee Member Freeman, seconded by Committee Member Abma, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the Consent Agenda. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Latasa (recused from Item 3), Freeman, Kimzey, Silva (abstained from Item 1), Abma NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Theodore ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 5. Consider 550 Wave Street; Sign Permit 16-003 for a Multi Tenant Sign Program; Applicant Josephine Ortega; Owner Hakim-Baba Yaghoob Tr.; C-2 Zoning District (Exempt from CEQA Article 18, Section 15270) Action: Continued with direction to the Applicant to simplify the sign program, place the directory sign that faces the Recreational Trail in a neutral location, and convey the Recreational Trail sign standards. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Associate Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions and noted that the Applicant had revised the sign proposal after the ARC packet was published. Vice Chair Silva asked for an explanation on the tenant signs shown on the multitenant kiosk. Ms. Roveri said that many of the signs already in place had been approved in 1995 and that they were not part of a specific sign program. She said that the pedestrian-oriented 2 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 16, 2016 sign meets the Citywide Sign Guidelines in its new placement at 10 feet from the property line Committee Member Freeman asked if the sign would only list street-side tenants. Ms. Roveri said that all tenants would be listed on the lower level directory. She said that on the top level, pedestrian-oriented sign, only the tenants at that level would be listed. She noted that the Applicant had resubmitted the proposed program six times; however the proposal remains out of compliance with the sign guidelines and recreation trail standards. Committee Member Abma asked why the Applicant was not present. Ms. Roveri said that the Applicant believed the meeting was on Monday, March 14, 2016. Chair Kimzey asked Ms. Roveri if the Item should be continued due to the recent resubmittal. Ms. Roveri said that in light of the number of resubmittals, she did not believe that a continuance would be a good idea. Committee Member Silva said he believed it would be beneficial for the sign summary table to be updated to reflect the latest resubmittal. He expressed confusion with the entire project. Ms. Hopper said that it had been a complicated process to receive a compliant sign program submittal. Committee Member Latasa said that it seemed as though the Applicant was struggling with creating a cohesive sign program and that they may benefit from some direction. He noted that it would be logical for tenants’ signage to be seen on both the upper and lower levels. Ms. Hopper said that it would be logical to continue the Item, particularly if the ARC had direction for redesign. Committee Member Freeman said that the guidance should include that there are six businesses facing the street that could be included on the monument sign, with the reduction of the space used for Wave Street Café. Chair Kimzey said that the proposed monument sign did not capitalize on allowed signage. He asked if the monument sign was prohibited from being a vehicle-oriented sign. Ms. Roveri said that setback requirements are larger for a vehicle-oriented sign and that the building would need to be set back 20 feet from the front property line. Chair Kimzey asked if it would be possible to find that would be reasonable for the Applicant to need a vehicle-oriented sign to accommodate all of the tenants’ signage. Ms. Roveri said yes, that the ARC could make that finding. Committee Member Freeman said that the signs within Steinbeck Court appeared to be 3 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 16, 2016 in poor shape while the sign at the entrance to Steinbeck Court looked well-maintained. She said that with the Recreation Trail rules being as such, she was surprised to learn that a panel sign was not proposed for the side near Wave Street Café in addition to the fin signs. Ms. Hopper said that the trellis is not considered part of the building elevation and the standards do not permit hanging signs. Chair Kimzey asked if a directory could be attached to the Steinbeck Court placard sign. Ms. Roveri said that according to the Citywide Sign Guidelines, if the sign was mounted flush against the wall and did not project more than four inches in length, then it could be attached to the Steinbeck Court placard sign. She noted that a directory sign for that location had been previously approved in 2000. Committee Member Freeman said that the building itself enhanced the Recreation Trail, and she believed that the sign program should be equally as good. Committee Member Abma asked if the placard sign approved in 2000 could be approved today. Ms. Roveri said yes. Chair Kimzey said that the Applicant should resubmit their application with the ARC’s direction. Applicant Not present. Public Comment None. Committee Member Comments Vice Chair Silva said that he believed the ARC should continue the Item with focus on a staff report that better aligned with the newly-submitted information as well as for the Applicant to continue to work with staff to simplify the sign program. He said signage should be kept simple and direct. Committee Member Freeman said that the directory sign should be in a neutral area and not located directly over one particular business. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Abma, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee continued the item with direction to the Applicant to simplify the sign program, place the directory sign that faces the Recreational Trail in a neutral location, and convey the Recreational Trail sign standards. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Abma NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Theodore ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 4  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 16, 2016 6. Consider Amending List of Major and Minor and Architectural Review Permits (Continued from February 17, 2016 meeting) Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Planner Hopper presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Vice Chair Silva noted that the chart in the packet did not include Administrative Review items for non-design review areas. Ms. Hopper said that was correct. Vice Chair Silva said there seemed to be a need for an administrative process for non- design review areas. Ms. Hopper said that there currently was no administrative process for non-design review areas. She said that the only types of projects in non-design review areas that require Architectural Review are two-story houses, second-story additions, and new or additions to non-residential buildings and to multi-family buildings. Committee Member Freeman asked if buildings in non-design review areas will come before the ARC for any of the four previously-mentioned reasons. Ms. Hopper said yes. Committee Member Freeman said she thought that it would be a good idea for second story additions to be reviewed. Ms. Hopper said that with proper noticing and story pole staking of second-story additions in non-design review areas, staff could conduct administrative review as long as all required findings were made. Vice Chair Silva asked if parking lot restriping required ARC review. Ms. Hopper said no. Ms. Hopper said that the Planning office had recently seen an increase in water tanks and generators. She said that they will need to be addressed when the Architectural Review Ordinance is updated. Vice Chair Silva said that cell towers and television antennas had previously come before the ARC. He asked if it could be assumed that water tanks and the like would fall under the same category as utility structures. Ms. Hopper said that utility structures were included under the Minor category. She said that conditions of approval could be added under the Minor Non-Structural category in order to address smaller utilities. Chair Kimzey asked if a broadened description would be recommended rather than devising scenario-specific language. Ms. Hopper said that in special circumstances, certain projects would need to be 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 16, 2016 recommended to the ARC for review. Committee Member Abma asked why signs were not addressed in the list of Major and Minor Projects. Ms. Hopper said that signs were addressed in a different section of City Code and that the Planning office was working on updates to the Citywide Sign Guidelines as well as potential changes to the sign ordinance in the future. Committee Member Silva asked if exterior alterations should be included under the Minor ARC category. Ms. Hopper said that exterior alterations would be covered under the Minor Administrative category. Committee Member Silva asked what the process would entail if an exterior alteration deviated from the Minor Administrative sub-categories listed. Ms. Hopper said that the project would then be referred to the ARC. Chair Kimzey said that the ultimate goal of updating the list of Major and Minor Projects was to simplify the process and reduce the burden on the homeowner. He said that he believed that Ms. Hopper was conservative in revising the list and that the objective was to reduce the project review times and lower the cost for the citizens of Monterey. He suggested that new, two-story single family residences in non-design review areas could be categorized as Major Administrative Review items rather than Major ARC Review items. He noted that staff could evaluate applications as appropriate. Public Comment Janet Holmes, a Monterey resident of nearly three years, said that she was thrilled to see local government in action. She said that she really appreciated that the ARC and staff had been working together to find the best process to serve the public. She said that she believed it was important for government to be flexible and fluid. Committee Member Comments Ms. Roveri noted that under the Minor Administrative Review category, the stipulation “and eight feet or less in height” would need to be added to Accessory Buildings/Structures. Vice Chair Silva agreed with Chair Kimzey that new, two-story single family residences in non-design review areas should be categorized as Major Administrative Review items rather than Major ARC Review items in order to ease the application process on citizens. On a motion by Committee Member Freeman, seconded by Committee Member Silva, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the List of Major and Minor Projects with the editorial changes to categorize new, two-story single family residences in non-design review areas as Major Administrative Review Items and to stipulate that Accessory Buildings/Structures should be less than 120 square feet and eight feet in height or less under Minor Administrative Review. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Abma NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Theodore 6  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 16, 2016 ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Committee Member Latasa noted that the Conference Center appears to be well under way. Vice Chair Silva asked if a fountain had been designed yet to replace the one that had been removed at Custom House Plaza. Ms. Hopper said that funding the fountain is being explored. Committee Member Freeman said that the building currently being constructed at the corner of Munras Avenue and Webster Street appeared to be a nice design. Committee Member Latasa agreed and said that it was an appropriate design. Committee Member Abma asked if anything was planned for the fenced-in area located outside of Peet’s Coffee & Tea. Ms. Hopper, yes that plans were currently being devised for that location. Vice Chair Silva asked if a new member had been selected for the ARC Ms. Hopper said yes and presented information regarding the new member. Chair Kimzey asked if a field trip could be arranged to visit 230 Lighthouse Avenue and 459 Alvarado Street in regards to the Lighthouse Specific Plan. Ms. Hopper said that she would speak with Ms. Cole and update with ARC regarding a field trip. She also said that a clean copy of the Lighthouse Specific Plan with the ARC’s edits would be provided at the next ARC meeting on April 6, 2016. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 7. Planning Office Update  Update Received ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:57 p.m. 7 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, March 16, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christy Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 8