Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, April 6, 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, Abma, Theodore Members Absent: None Staff Members Present: Senior Associate Planner Hopper, Associate Planner Roveri, Recording Secretary Salameh CALL TO ORDER Chair Kimzey called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. March 16, 2016 2. Consider 2354 Garden Road; Sign Permit Application P-13-514 for a Freestanding Vehicle-Oriented Sign in City Right of Way; Applicant Amanda Holder; Owner The Community Foundation for Monterey County; I-R-130-RA Zoning District (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) 3. Consider Updates to Architectural Review Handout and Submittal Checklist (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) On a motion by Committee Member Abma, seconded by Committee Member Freeman, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the Consent Items as submitted. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Silva (recused from Item 2), Abma, Theodore (abstained from Item 1) NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS Alan Cleaves said that he lived at 147 Seafoam Avenue in the Del Monte Beach Neighborhood. He asked if it would be a good time to comment on the project at 150  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 6, 2016 Seafoam Avenue. Chair Kimzey asked him to defer his comments to the opening for public comment on 150 Seafoam Avenue. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 4. Consider 150 Seafoam Avenue; AR Permit 15-293 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a New Two-Story Single-Family Residence; Applicant David Prew; Owner Dale Hogan Trust; R-1-6-D-1 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15303 (Continued from February 3, 2016 Architectural Review Committee Meeting) Action: No Action taken. Item heard and discussed by ARC Members. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Planner Hopper presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. She mentioned that the Applicant had requested that the ARC conceptually review the revised plans that that no action be taken until the story pole staking was revised. Committee Member Freeman asked if the Applicant had adjusted the driveway slope. Ms. Hopper said yes, that the driveway had been adjusted to an 8.66% slope and that the house had been lowered two and a half feet in the new design. Committee Member Abma asked if the Applicant had moved the building 11 feet to the north in the new design. Ms. Hopper said yes and that the face of the garage door was meeting the 20 foot required setback for garages. Applicant Dave Prew, Applicant and designer, said that he moved the position of the house two feet towards Surf Way. He said that his goal was not to sacrifice the water view down the street and that the second floor would move approximately 30 inches into the setback. He said that if he had designed a single story house on this substandard lot, it would end up covering approximately 96% of the usable area and destroy the character of the lot. Instead he said that he chose to design a two-story house to maintain some of the character of the lot. Mr. Prew said that his clients were concerned with accessibility to the house and also noted that part of the concern in the design was that neighboring views were maintained. He said that he walked the neighborhood in order to see how many single story homes were in the area and he counted only a small amount. He said that he believed that lowering the home six feet would create egress issues and that the land use plan suggested view sharing. He noted that it would be costly to move the storypole netting around as well. He said that the netting was currently wearing out because it had been in place since August of 2015. Committee Member Abma asked what the proposed ceiling heights were. 2 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 6, 2016 Mr. Prew said that the upper level would be eight feet, the lower level would be nine feet, and the garage would be eight feet. Public Comment Alan Cleaves of 147 Seafoam, the property across the street from 150 Seafoam Avenue, said that he appreciated that Mr. Prew lowered the roofline by two and a half feet. However, he said that he felt that he was losing his view of the airport completely and that he would be losing much of his view of the hills. He said he never thought the lot at 150 Seafoam Avenue was a fully-functional lot because of the slope and that he was quite surprised to come back from another state to see storypoles in place. He said that he would like to see the roofline be lowered even further in order to maintain sight of the airport, which he enjoyed viewing in the evenings. He expressed concern that the home appeared to be a three-story design and that it did not fit in with the character of the neighborhood. He noted that he was pleased with the overall design of the home and that it had a flat roof. He said that he appreciated that ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) was being taken into consideration with the design of the home, but expressed concern over a sloped garage creating accessibility problems for future occupants. He suggested that a backup generator should be considered for the elevator so that the occupants would be able to exit the home in the event of an emergency. Committee Member Latasa asked Mr. Cleaves if he enjoyed views of the bay from his property. Mr. Cleaves said yes that he could see the bay from a balcony on the other side of his home that faced the ocean, and that was separate from the balcony where he could view the airport. Jayme Fields of 145 Spray Avenue said that she purchased the house that where she currently lived for the ocean view and that the photo shown in staff’s presentation did not accurately represent the view she was concerned with losing. She encouraged the ARC to lower the building envelope, noting that she hoped the house would be lowered a total of six feet. She said she believed that moving the building forward would sacrifice any views neighbors might have. She expressed concern that the house would be eradicating neighboring views without gaining any of its own and said that she would like to see its position shift back to the south. She said that although it technically was not a three-story house, it gave the impression of one. She said that she did not feel as though the view was being equally shared. Marc Cusenza of 148 Seafoam Avenue, said that he did not believe that 150 Seafoam was developable due to a lack of water credits. He expressed concern that the proposed development at 150 Seafoam Avenue was box-like and massive. He mentioned that he appreciated that ADA compliance was being taken into account, but did not want the project to turn into a profitable enterprise. He said that he would like to see the development of the lot follow more closely with the character of the neighborhood. He expressed worry that many of the photos in the staff’s presentation showed perspectives that were not at the best angle to demonstrate what views the neighbors were truly losing and said that perspective truly is the key. Committee Member Freeman asked Mr. Cusenza who had told him that the lot was unbuildable. Mr. Cusenza said the listing real estate agent and the appraiser that had been managing the lot told him the lot would not be developable. He said that the lot was sold in 3 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 6, 2016 conjunction with the house at 149 Spray Avenue. Committee Member Freeman asked if anyone from the City of Monterey told Mr. Cusenza that the lot was unbuildable. Mr. Cusenza said no, but that he could obtain paperwork to show that the trust and the listing service said that the lot was unbuildable. He said that the trustee could also note that the property was not meant to be divided. Applicant Mr. Prew said that he was unaware of the details regarding the sale or value of the lot, but noted that if there was a vacant lot in the area, it would eventually be developed. He said that land is too precious on the Monterey Peninsula. He said that Mr. Cleaves’ views were a concern to him, noting that he had tried to mitigate view impacts. He said that his clients should not be discriminated against for being the last ones on the block and that they deserved to have a nice living space and high-quality architecture. He said that he chose the 8.66% slope for the driveway because it was a center slope and although it was not perfect, it would make an accessible house with a good design. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Theodore asked for clarity on 145 Spray Avenue and the view impact that Ms. Fields was concerned with. Ms. Fields explained the view and said that she planned to build a deck and an area with interior windows that would further allow a view of the bay. She said that looking east, not north, one can see the ocean over the rooftops on Surf Way. Committee Member Latasa noted that the maximum height limit was 25 feet. He asked what the maximum height limit proposed for the house at 150 Seafoam Avenue was. Ms. Hopper said that it was 24.8 feet. She also explained that at no point does the house incorporate a three-story element. She said that the house steps up the hill, so there was no portion above two stories. Committee Member Freeman said that she believed that an architect’s first duty was to satisfy the client and that Mr. Prew had gone to some length to satisfy both the neighborhood and his client. She said that she did not believe that the neighbors could expect to keep the lot vacant forever, and in an attempt to mitigate view impacts, it seems that Mr. Prew had done an outstanding job. She said that she felt the house design was superior, as well. She noted that Mr. Cusenza’s point that the real estate agent’s and trustee’s misrepresentation of the lot’s availability to be built upon was serious and any litigation should not be brought against the City but against those parties. She said that she supported the changes in design. Chair Kimzey said that he believed the Applicant had followed the ARC’s guidance and that he would support going forth with the storypole staking. Committee Member Latasa said that he agreed with Chair Kimzey. He said that he felt the Applicant had heeded the ARC’s requests for change in design. He noted that the nature of residential neighborhoods was for the lots to eventually fill in and said that he felt the Applicant had responded in a positive way. Committee Member Abma said she believed that the Applicant responded in a positive 4  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 6, 2016 way as well. She noted that she did not believe Mr. Prew could have made many changes involving lowering the building height while maintaining a successful design. Committee Member Latasa said he would like to see staff verify building height issues. Ms. Hopper said that technical data would be included in the staff report at the ARC meeting at which the item was on the agenda. Chair Kimzey thanked residents that gave their input and participation. 5. Consider Amending Citywide Sign Guidelines (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions No presentation was given by Staff. Chair Kimzey requested to continue the Item. On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member Theodore, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee tabled Amending Citywide Sign Guidelines. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Theodore, Kimzey, Silva, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None RECONVENE ***Evening Session Agenda*** 7:00 - 11:00 p.m. Members Present: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Abma, Theodore Members Absent: None Staff Members Present: Interim Chief of Planning, Engineering and Environmental Compliance Cole, Chief of Inspections Services Kuehl, Recording Secretary Salameh CALL TO ORDER Chair Kimzey called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS Sharon Dwight said that she noticed there were some fences that exceeded the four foot height limit permitted in setback limitations. She asked if the City was going to enforce the ordinance. She said that it did not fit within the character of the neighborhood. Chair Kimzey said that enforcement was not within the purview of the ARC and that he 5  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 6, 2016 would defer to Interim Chief of Planning, Engineering and Environmental Compliance Cole. Ms. Cole said that the City enforced on fence height regulations and if there were specific sites reported, the Code Compliance Coordinator would respond to those cases. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 6. Consider Recommendation to the Planning Commission Lighthouse Specific Plan - Regarding Chapter 4 (Land Use Objectives, Standards and Guidelines) and Portion of Chapter 5 (Streetscape) (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Ms. Cole presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Vice Chair Silva asked about the use chart at beginning and said that there were a number of uses categorized. He said that he would like clarity on which uses the ARC would review. Ms. Cole said that uses were not typically an issue that the ARC would consider, but that they were within the purview of the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Silva asked if the types of projects listed in the Lighthouse Specific Plan would be administratively approved. Ms. Cole said possibly, but if they did not meet guidelines they would be presented to the ARC. Vice Chair Silva asked Mr. Kuehl if there would be ways of diminishing the interior mechanical space between floors in a mixed-use building such as 459 Alvarado Street. Mr. Kuehl said that would depend on the situation but in order to provide maximum flexibility, intermediate supports could be shortened. Committee Member Latasa asked if staff recommended form-based review rather than a numerical standard for the Lighthouse Specific Plan. Ms. Cole said that the ARC should give design guidelines. She said that certain site conditions lend to more flexibility throughout the design rather than set numerical standards. She said that views are a very valid concern and that the goal was to maintain shared views as well as provide modulation to protect views. She said that she had worked with many architects in various types of construction and that when they adhered to a specific numeric height requirement, they could not always produce as unique of a product. Committee Member Latasa said that three-story buildings tended to have the most impact with view, height, and setback. He asked if buildings of that height were still required to have use permits. Ms. Cole said that the uses listed on page 48 would trigger a use permit. She said that staff tried to create a more appropriate and more form-based method for the ARC to be able to guide applicants and developers with regards to the design of buildings. She noted that the goal with this was to prevent multiple meetings and public hearings. 6 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 6, 2016 Committee Member Latasa said that some of the correspondence received from concerned citizens had requested that parking spaces per unit be considered. He asked Ms. Cole if that was within the purview of the ARC. Ms. Cole said that parking standards were not within the purview of the ARC. Committee Member Freeman noted that in several iterations of the Lighthouse Specific Plan, many concerned citizens had stated that they were concerned with heights exceeding 35 feet. Ms. Cole said that design guidelines and context of the street would need to be taken into consideration. Committee Member Abma said that some residents seemed to be concerned that form- based review would cause developers to push the limits and she noted that 459 Alvarado was a case that proved developers did not do that at all. Rather, the building was designed well without excessive mass. Public Comment Jon Hill, a former Chair of the ARC, said that he had served on several boards and that he would like to argue that the ARC should state specific measurable standards because it ultimately came down to the whole notion of mass. He said by giving themselves specific numbers to work with, the ARC would allow a method of direct conversation at each meeting. Nancy Runyon, a resident of New Monterey, said she was thankful that view-sharing had been put back into the standards. She said that preserving air and light was important and expressed concern over what would happen to the design of buildings once water was available if form-based review became the new method rather than adopting specific height requirements. She said she that hoped to see smaller, more energy-efficient buildings in the future and that she was in support of specific height limits. Lev Milaychev, a resident of New Monterey, said that not placing a limit on building heights seemed preposterous to him and that he was strongly in favor of building height limitations. He said the Lighthouse Specific Plan should not be left open for form-based review because he was concerned that structures would grow higher and higher in the area, ultimately blocking views, air, and light. He said that and that he believed that guidelines should be put into place so that developers would not have free reign with design. He said that he would be in favor of keeping 25 foot and 35 foot maximum height standards. He said that if the numbers needed to be increased a bit to accommodate modern architecture and mechanics, that was understandable, so long as definite numeric standards were in place. Valentina Milaychev, a member of the New Monterey Neighborhood Association, said she felt that many coastal landscapes had disappeared into cities because of increased building heights. She said that perhaps three-story buildings by exception should be allowed. She said that spatial feeling should not be a decision for the height of the floors in a commercial space. Sharon Dwight, president of the New Monterey Neighborhood Association, said that she believed apartments being built with eight foot ceilings over commercial space had a good 7 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 6, 2016 amount of height. She expressed concern that she thought the original intent of the Lighthouse Specific Plan was to create worker housing and said that builders have been able to stay within 25 foot height requirements by stepping down the hillside for many years. She said that Old Town no longer enjoyed an ocean view, but that New Monterey was trying to preserve its views and noted that Lighthouse Avenue has a different character with views to be lost. Ms. Dwight said that developer Carl Outzen had tried to stay within the character of Lighthouse when building 230 Lighthouse Avenue, but no matter what was built, architectural features were added to further maximize height. She said that having been involved since the 1980s, it seemed as though builders had often pushed maximum height limitations in their designs. She said that there must be a height limit. She said that as far as form-based setbacks for third stories, a standard should exist as well. She said that she did not believe seven feet was a good setback because the third story would still be visible. She said that the landscaping work done delighted her, and she was very pleased to see it. Carl Outzen thanked the ARC for their time visiting his project at 230 Lighthouse Avenue. He said that his intention when developing a building was not to go as high as possible, but to create quality designs. He said that because only 50% lot coverage was allowed, he tried to maximize the usage as much as possible, taking into account parking and square footage for commercial use. He said that 35 foot and 25 foot height limits worked well for apartments and houses, but in mixed-use buildings, those limits do not work because of necessary mechanical equipment. He said that when mixed-use buildings were first discussed in Monterey in 1985, a 35 foot height limitation was reasonable because building mechanics were different then. Mr. Outzen said that now air conditioning, earthquake standards, elevator standards, and air ducts must be taken account. He said that there were new laws regarding fire safety and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance to consider as well. He said that considering all of these items, the height of buildings should increase. He noted that there must be at least six air conditioning units, which are approximately four feet tall placed across the roof. He suggested that if the ARC were to consider a specific height requirement, the three-story maximum should be 39 feet high, and that the two-story maximum should be 29 feet high in order to accommodate all mechanical equipment in between floors. He said that he would like to see standards and that there should be some flexibility for an architect to work within 39 feet of height. Chair Kimzey asked if parapets were allowed in addition to the maximum building height. Ms. Cole said yes, that mechanical equipment and parapets were allowed. Katherine Dexter, a Monterey resident of 23 years said that it had been wonderful to see the changes throughout the City, but expressed concern with the possibility of too much change. She said that she did not want Lighthouse to transform into a large wall of buildings, but that she understood the need for an increase in height limits due to ADA compliance. She expressed her love of the coastal views from her home, but said that the traffic was concerning at rush hour. She said that she would not go outside because of the noise of traffic. She said that staying with height limits would be appreciated and that while she valued the view, she believed that the quality of life was even more precious. She noted that building large structures contrasted starkly with the tradition of old Monterey and that she hoped to see Lighthouse Avenue remain true to its roots. Diana Galbraith, a resident of Monterey for the past 20 years, said that over the past four 8 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 6, 2016 years she had refused to drive towards Monterey on Lighthouse Avenue after 2 p.m. because the traffic was so heavy. She said that she felt that all of the new structures take away from the small, happy community Monterey once was and that the atmosphere had become overwhelming. She expressed concern that buildings were being constructed on Lighthouse Avenue solely for financial gain and said that if boundaries were not created, buildings would continue to grow higher and higher. She said that she was in support of a 25 foot to 35 foot maximum height standard. Andy Cardinale said that he was born and raised in Monterey and that he believed one thing the locals desired was to keep tradition and historic Monterey character alive. He asked the ARC to consider tradition and he said that uniqueness is important. He noted that the importance of seeing Monterey from a local perspective, not just a hotel room. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Freeman noted that on page 51 of the Lighthouse Specific Plan there was an unfinished sentence. Vice Chair Silva said that the fear of the unknown seemed to be pervasive. He noted particular points throughout the Lighthouse Specific Plan that he believed should mollify the fear that some had regarding developers building structures of great heights. He said that he believed form-based review allows innovative and quality design, noting ADA and building code issues benefit from form-based review. He said that one day, buildings may not fit into a 35 foot high envelope and that should be taken into consideration. Committee Member Latasa suggested that numerical guidelines should be set with exceptions to come before the ARC. He noted that grading seemed to be an issue. Chair Kimzey said that views should be considered. He said that there was no guidance toward preservation of views. Ms. Cole referenced Standard S.2.3 on page 50, in consideration of New Monterey views, and said that previous ARC discussions had opted to change the wording in the standards and guidelines regarding views. Committee Member Freeman said that she believed there was wisdom in removing height from the standards and creating a guideline instead. She noted that based on community comment, a numeric requirement for building height would be appreciated. Chair Kimzey said that because parapets and mechanical equipment were allowed on top of the maximum height of a structure, he felt that based on prior public comment, the community may not trust the process in the future if the numeric height for buildings was increased. Committee Member Freeman suggested that a standard could be created stating that a building could be two stories by rule and three stories by exception. Vice Chair Silva said that whether it was a guideline or a standard, it would allow for modifications. For legitimate purposes, it would allow the ARC to protect standards and projects should be allowed to come before the ARC for discussion. Committee Member Latasa said he believed it was a good idea to have a numeric reference for a touchstone. 9 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 6, 2016 Committee Member Theodore said that she agreed with Vice Chair Silva. Chair Kimzey said that he believed a standard with an absolute number should be created, rather than a guideline. He said that after many meetings and testimonies, he had heard from residents at several meetings that wanted a definite number included in the Lighthouse Specific Plan as a height requirement for buildings. He said that he did not support form-based review. Vice Chair Silva said that he concurred with Chair Kimzey and noted that language should be included to allow for issues to be brought before ARC. Chair Kimzey said that he would like to see a 25 foot to 35 foot height standard, with a four foot parapet standard as well as accommodations for ADA mentioned. Vice Chair Silva said that he felt it was imperative to include clarifying language under the standards that would permit modifications under review by the ARC. Chair Kimzey asked about the process involved in making modifications to a standard. Ms. Cole said that typically if an exception were to be made to a standard, one must go through a variance process. She said that would take the decision out of the hands of the ARC, and by law a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission would be held. She noted that the nuance built into the standard that the ARC shall review the exceptions may be permitted by the City Code, but she said that she would need to confer with the City Attorney’s Office before stating that was a possibility. Vice Chair Silva expressed concern that the variance procedure may be harmful in some instances because there may be viable grounds for making valid modifications that may not enable findings for a variance Ms. Cole noted that the findings of variances fall under state law and in order for a variance to be found, a property must feature a unique attribute warranting that it is different from other properties. Vice Chair Silva said that if the City Attorney’s Office did not recommend that the ARC review exceptions, he would like to see the item come back before the ARC for further discussion and recommendation. Committee Member Abma said that she was having a difficult time with the issue because she had originally believed that there were two options, which were to assign a specific number for maximum building height or to allow building review to be form-based. She said that it would be complicated to predict what would happen with construction technology in the next 10 years and that she felt it was a matter of adjustment based on the building site or technology. The ARC made the following changes to the Lighthouse Specific Plan:  Standard S.3.1, One and two story (25 foot maximum height) buildings are preferred subject to the objectives of this section.  Standard S.3.2, Three story buildings (35 foot maximum height) may be permitted subject to the objectives of this section and must include the following:  The third story of a new three story buildings shall be set back 12 feet from the second story. 10 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 6, 2016  The project must include public open space in the form of a pedestrian plaza, courtyard or pedestrian refuge  The project must include public art approved by the City in an area that can be viewed from the street or contribute to a public art project in the area.  Standard S.3.3, Exceptions to numerical limits may be permitted subject to review by the Architectural Review Committee. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Theodore, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee modified Standard 3.1, Standard 3.2, and Standard 3.3 of the Lighthouse Specific Plan to include height and setback limits for buildings. 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 On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Freeman and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee continued further discussion of the Lighthouse Specific Plan to the May 4, 2016 Architectural Review Committee Meeting. 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 COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Chair Kimzey thanked Committee Member Theodore for her time on the Committee and wished her well in her future endeavors. Committee Member Abma said that April 11, 2016 through April 15, 2016 is Architecture Week and that the local AIA chapter would be holding an event every day. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Cole said that the Local Coastal Program Workshop would be taking place on April 27, 2016 at 6:30 p.m. at the Youth Center, 777 Pearl Street in Monterey. Ms. Cole also said that the Sea Level Rise walk would take place on Saturday April 23, 2016 at 10 a.m. and that it would depart from the Youth Center at 777 Pearl Street in Monterey. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m. 11 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 6, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christy Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 12