Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY Wednesday, May 4, 2016 4:00 pm - 7:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Freeman, Kimzey, Abma, Placco Members Absent: Latasa, Silva Staff Members Present: Chief of Planning Engineering & Environmental Compliance Cole, Senior Planner Hopper, Recording Secretary Salameh CALL TO ORDER Chair Kimzey called the meeting to order at 4:00p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1 April 20, 2016 Committee Member Freeman On a motion by Committee Member Placco, seconded by and carried by the following vote , the Architectural Review Committee approved the Consent Agenda. AYES: 3 MEMBERS Freeman, Kimzey, Placco NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Latasa, Silva ABSTAIN: 1 MEMBERS: Abma RECUSED 0 MEMBERS : None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS Sharon Dwight said that at a previous meeting she had asked about enforcement of the fence ordinance, and asked for a follow up regarding that conversation. She mentioned a few locations that she was concerned with and asked about the City's policy on fence enforcement. Chair Kimzey said that he would defer to staff and that the ARC does not have the ability to address the issue of fence height enforcement. Senior Planner Hopper said that staff was aware of the instances Ms. Dwight had mentioned and that they were currently working to address the issue. Committee Member Freeman asked who addressed the issue of fence height. Ms. Hopper said that residential fences do not require design review, but that there was a fence height standard in the zoning code.  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 4, 2016 PUBLIC APPEARANCE 2. 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) (Continued from April 6, 2016) ACTION: Continued to the May 18, 2016 Architectural Review Committee Meeting. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Chief of Planning, Engineering, and Environmental Compliance Cole presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members' questions. Committee Member Freeman said that Ms. Cole's report was very straightforward and asked if they could further define Standard S.3.3. Ms. Cole said yes, that the ARC could further define those parameters. Chair Kimzey noted that one- and two- story buildings were preferred in the Lighthouse Specific Plan and asked if a 35 foot, three-story building would be automatically approved or if it would be subject to ARC review. He said that the reason he mentioned this point was because it had been a subject of public concern. Ms. Cole said that all buildings in the Lighthouse Specific Plan would be subject to architectural review, but that if buildings met all of the parameters within the plan, they could be administratively approved. She noted that many of the letters the Planning office had received from the public had suggested that three-story buildings should go to the ARC for review. Committee Member Freeman asked the process for review of a 35 foot two-story building. Ms. Cole said that those exceptions would need to be reviewed by the ARC. Committee Member Abma asked if the ARC would automatically review all 35 foot or three-story buildings. Ms. Cole said that staff approval was not automatic and that the ARC would review buildings with given design guidelines and objectives . She noted that buildings would need to meet all objectives, standards, and guidelines in order to be administratively approved and if they did not meet all of these parameters, they would go to the ARC for review. Public Comment Greg Dexter, a resident of New Monterey, said that he was in agreement with one- and two-story buildings and believed that three-story buildings should be an exception. He asked that the ARC consider senior housing for 75 percent of the third story for all three- story buildings, with the remaining 25 percent used for open space. He said that there was a growing need for low-cost housing in this community, especially for senior citizens. Patricia Domingo, a resident of New Monterey, thanked the ARC for their previous vote on height limitations. She expressed concern regarding the review process and said that 2 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 4, 2016 it was still unclear to her. She also expressed concern with the third story review process and said that she had reservations about exceptions. Nancy Runyon thanked the ARC for listening to the public and said that she was appreciative of their support. Sharon Dwight, President of the New Monterey Neighborhood Association, said that she had reviewed the existing land use plan and expressed concern over substituting a land use plan for a specific plan. She noted that there was no policy in the current draft of the document regarding the use of existing buildings and said that the character of this noteworthy area should be preserved, especially the retention of older structures. She said that new buildings should be designed to fit within the character of the area. She expressed concern over more two-bedroom residential units being included in the plan, as well as usable open space for residents, not only pedestrians. She noted that three- story buildings matter enough to the community for them to want public hearings regarding their design. She said that Monterey should not become a city that blocks the view of its own residents. Carol Hayter, a resident of New Monterey, said that she was struck with the vagueness of the wording in the Lighthouse Specific Plan and said that she felt that what was not preferable should be included in the document as well. She said that anyone reading the document should be able to comprehend its meaning. Brenda Webster, a resident of New Monterey, said that she was concerned with the phrase, "exceptional building design," and asked who determined what was exceptional. She said that she felt public input was very important and that she was concerned with buildings of a more generic style being erected, rather than the Spanish Colonial Revival style that was characteristic of the area. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Placco asked if he could not contribute to the discussion because he was abstaining from the vote. Ms. Cole said that she would need to confer with the City Attorney's Office in order to answer. Recess 4:49 p.m. Reconvene 4:51 p.m. Ms. Cole said that she had consulted with the City Attorney's Office and that Committee Member Placco could comment as a member of the public, but not as a member of the ARC regarding the issue of the Lighthouse Specific Plan. Chair Kimzey said that he was troubled that many of the ARC members were not present at this meeting to vote and that he would like to postpone further discussion until a later time. Committee Member Freeman mentioned that they had discussed the Lighthouse Specific Plan at many meetings and that they seemed to be centered on one specific issue. Chair Kimzey said that he would like to discuss other issues as well. 3  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 4, 2016 Committee Member Abma suggested that they delay discussion of the Lighthouse Specific Plan until a later date. Ms. Hopper said that they it would be preferable for the ARC to discuss the item in May in order to stay on schedule. Ms. Cole said that discussion of the item in June or July may cause scheduling issues. Chair Kimzey made a motion to continue the Lighthouse Specific Plan to the May 18, 2016 Architectural Review Committee Meeting . Committee Member Abma asked if they would still discuss the item at the present meeting. Committee Member Freeman asked what other issues Chair Kimzey was concerned with. Chair Kimzey said that he believed whether or not the ARC would review the third story was a major issue that he would like to discuss further . He also said that he would like to have more members present at the meeting in order to vote because he believed it would present a stronger overall vote. On a motion by Committee Member Kimzey , seconded by Committee Member Abm a, and carried by the following vote. the Architectural Review Committee continued discussion of Chapter 4 and the Streetscape Portion of Chapter 5 of the Lighthouse Specific Plan to the May 18, 2016 Architectural Review Committee Meeting. AYES: 3 MEMBERS : Freeman, Kimzey, Abma NOES: 0 MEMBERS : None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Latasa, Silva ABSTAIN: 1 MEMBERS : Placco RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS : None 3. Consider Amending the List of Major and Minor Signs and Consider Recommending that the City Council Adopt a Resolution Approving Amendments to the Citywide Sign Guidelines (Not a Project under CEQA per Article 20, Section 15378 and under General Rule Article 5, Section 15061) ACT ION: Approved with the following modifications: 1) Retain the building setback requirements for freestanding signs 2) Remove the 16 foot height guideline for wall signs 3) Add sign definitions to the end of the Citywide Sign Guidelines 4) Move lists of exempt and prohibited signs to after the introduction as recommend that the City Council amend Chapter 31 of the Signs of the City Code and recommended by staff with the additional recommendation to require noticing for exceptions to freestanding signs and all internally-illuminated signs. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Planner Hopper presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members' Questions. Chair Kimzey asked the guidelines by which the Traffic Engineer made decisions . 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 4, 2016 Ms. Hopper explained that the Traffic Engineer has sightline review standards that must meet strict safety requirements. Chair Kimzey noted that any setback could be arbitrary and asked why these specific numbers presented in the Agenda Report had been chosen. Ms. Hopper said that was true, however the numbers presented in the Agenda Report had been thoughtfully considered and that she had received minimal negative feedback from sign makers regarding them. Committee Member Freeman asked about the policy for political campaign signs. Ms. Hopper explained the City process for temporary ground-mounted signs. Committee Member Abma asked if the number of voting signs was restricted. Ms. Hopper said that the amount was not restricted, but the permitted locations were codified. Chair Kimzey asked if signs on City-owned property would require architectural review. Ms. Hopper said yes, that any sign on City-owned property would require architectural review. Public Comment Sharon Dwight expressed concern over the public notification process for sign review before the ARC. She said that she would like the public to be notified regarding appeals and reviews on a more regular basis regarding sign design and asked the ARC to consider the process by which they notify the public. She also expressed concern regarding the signage along Cannery Row and said that it was confusing for drivers. She said that simplifying signage would be positive for both locals and visitors. She asked that language be added to the document to address glare and light overspill. She noted that she felt it was unnecessary for directory signs to be placed on roofs as well. Committee Member Comments Ms. Hopper thanked Ms. Dwight for her input and asked the ARC for their input on amending the list of major and minor signs. Chair Kimzey asked for staff's recommendation regarding freestanding signs . Ms. Hopper said that current guidelines suggest that freestanding signs should only be installed on sites where the building was set back from the sidewalk. She said that the current guideline stated that pedestrian-oriented signs require a 10-foot setback and that vehicle-oriented signs require a 20-foot setback. She said that the ARC could maintain the current guideline, noting that it had worked for quite some time. Chair Kimzey asked if applicants would be required to come before the ARC if the current guideline was maintained. Ms. Hopper said that the guideline could be maintained as recommended in the draft revision, but that staff had wanted to present options to the ARC in an effort to streamline the process. 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 4, 2016 Chair Kimzey said that he would keep the guideline as it is currently adopted, with pedestrian-oriented signs requiring a 10-foot building setback and vehicle-oriented signs requiring a 20-foot building setback. The ARC agreed with Chair Kimzey . Ms. Hopper asked if wall signs should be restricted to 16 feet above grade. Chair Kimzey asked for staff's recommendation. Ms. Hopper said that staff recommended removal of this guideline and that if a sign went above that height, it could be considered a roof sign, which would require ARC review. Committee Member Placco asked if the intent was to reduce the appearance of billboards on roofs. Ms. Hopper explained that signs could not directly sign to a highway or over another property and other areas of the sign code pertaining to Committee Member Placco's inquiry. Chair Kimzey said that he would be willing to remove that guideline as well. The ARC agreed . Committee Member Freeman said that she believed the staff presentation was well- thought-out. Chair Kimzey asked about the noticing process regarding staff decisions. Ms. Hopper said that the sign ordinance did not currently require noticing for any signs. She explained that the Architectural Review ordinance has noticing for new floor area or increases in height and noted that they could discuss noticing requirements for specific types of signs. Committee Member Abma mentioned that the ARC should consider triggers for sign noticing. Ms. Hopper said that internal illumination had always been a concern with the public as well as height and visibility. She said that, considering those factors , the ARC could suggest noticing for internally-illuminated signs and monument signs. Committee Member Abma asked if the noticing radius would be within 100 feet of the subject property. Ms. Hopper said yes and explained that it would be presented to the City Council to adopt the suggested noticing policy requiring noticing of property owners within 100 feet of subject properties for free-standing signs or requiring exceptions for internally- illuminated signs. Chair Kimzey asked if the new noticing requirement would cause a considerable cost burden for staff. Ms. Hopper said that would involve added administrative costs. 6 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 4, 2016 Chair Kimzey asked if that would outweigh the benefits of the noticing. Ms. Hopper said not necessarily, because it may reduce the amount of projects that come before the ARC. Chair Kimzey asked Ms. Hopper about various scenarios pertaining to the sign code. Ms. Hopper discussed the sign code at length and how it would apply to the various scenarios that Chair Kimzey had mentioned. Chair Kimzey asked if Ms. Hopper believed adding sign definitions would be beneficial to be included in the Citywide Sign. Ms. Hopper said that would be acceptable. She also said that a list of prohibited and exempt signs could be moved to just after the introduction of the Citywide Sign Guidelines, per her discussion with Chair Kimzey. Chair Kimzey asked if the sign guidelines would permit an applicant to have their project approved if they had requested all sign types available. Ms. Hopper said not necessarily and explained that if a project did not meet the purpose and objectives of the sign ordinance, it may not be approved by staff. Committee Member Freeman moved to amend the list of major and minor signs per staff recommendation and recommend that the City Council amend the Citywide Sign Guidelines with the following modifications: • Retain the building setback requirements for freestanding signs • Remove the 16 foot height guideline for wall signs • Add sign definitions to the end of the Citywide Sign Guidelines • Move lists of exempt and prohibited signs to after the introduction of the Citywide Sign Guidelines On a motion by Committee Member Freeman, seconded by Committee Member Abma, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved amendments to the list of Major and Minor signs with the following modifications : 1) Retain the building setback requirements for freestanding signs 2) Remove the 16 foot height guideline for wall signs 3) Add sign definitions to the end of the Citywide Sign Guidelines 4) Move lists of exempt and prohibited signs to after the introduction as recommend that the City Council amend Chapter 31 of the Signs of the City Code and recommended by staff with the additional recommendation to require noticing for exceptions to freestanding signs and all internally illuminated signs. AYES: 4 MEMBERS : Freeman, Kimzey, Abma, Placco NOES: 0 MEMBERS : None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS : Latasa, Silva ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS : None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS 7 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 4, 2016 Committee Member Freeman said that Chief Building Inspector John Kuehl had called her regarding the letter that the ARC had written to the City Council on November 4, 2015 about the Marriott bridge. She said that Mr. Kuehl had read the letter to the City Council and had asked what the ARC's concerns were with the bridge. She said that Mr. Kuehl told her that the City Council had made it a condition that the Marriott build a bridge to extend over the street because of its height when it was first designed. Chair Kimzey said that he lives in Old Monterey, and that the Eagle Scouts were rebuilding the stairs in the park near his home. He said he felt that was an outstanding project within the community. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Ms Hopper said that she had removed the Planning Office Update in order to reduce confusion. She said that the Planning Office is busy and that the ARC should expect many projects for review soon. She also noted that Ms. Cole had been officially appointed as the Chief of Planning, Engineering, and Environmental Compliance. The ARC wished her congratulations on her new position. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:40p.m . Respectfully Submitted, Approved , Chair Architectural Review Committee 8