Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY Wednesday, May 18, 2016 4:00 pm – 7:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Latasa, Kimzey, Silva, Abma, Placco Members Absent: Freeman 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 4:02 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. May 4, 2016 Action: Approved as amended. On a motion by Committee Member Placco, seconded by Committee Member Abma, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the Consent Agenda as amended. AYES: 3 MEMBERS: Kimzey, Abma, Placco NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Freeman ABSTAIN: 2 MEMBERS: Silva, Latasa RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 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 May 4, 2016) ACTION: Approved recommendation of Chapter 4 (excluding the land use table) and the Streetscape Portion of Chapter 5 of the Lighthouse Specific Plan to the Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 18, 2016 Planning Commission. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Planner Hopper mentioned that the ARC had reviewed the issue of height at the previous ARC meeting on May 4, 2016 and that the Lighthouse Specific Plan had been continued for more members of the ARC to be present to discuss and vote. Chair Kimzey said that the main focus of public comment seemed to be the issue of building height. He expressed concern that if a 35 foot, three-story building that met all guidelines set forth in the Lighthouse Specific Plan, it could be administratively approved. He said that the public had requested that three-story buildings be reviewed by the ARC. Ms. Cole said that the current draft established guidelines and if the project was compliant with the Plan, a project would be eligible for staff review. However, any project could be referred to the ARC. Public Comment Patricia Domingo, a resident of New Monterey, said that there should be more extensive review for a three-story building than for one- or two-story buildings. She said that the Lighthouse Avenue area was characterized as a walkable, mixed-use area and she believed that all of the new development would detract from that because it will create large, massive buildings everywhere. She asked why a mixed-use building could not be two-story and asked if there was any way to restrict the number of three-story buildings in the area in order to prevent the street from becoming dominated by them. She noted that she was in favor of ARC review, rather than staff-review of three-story buildings and said that, as a resident, she has been experiencing cable and internet degradation as a result of the population increase along Lighthouse Avenue. She said that there are other quality of life issues as well and listed water, increase in traffic, and cost of living as examples. Carol Hayter, a resident of New Monterey, supported what Ms. Domingo said. She said that New Monterey was essentially against the idea of three-story buildings, and would like to have the option for public review of them. Committee Member Comments Chair Kimzey asked Ms. Cole if it would be possible to limit the number of three-story buildings in a specific area. Ms. Cole said that is not a possibility on a site-by-site basis, but it could be considered for the entire area. She said that all sites would require the same consideration under the law. Committee Member Abma asked if limiting three-story buildings in specific areas would require legal counsel. Ms. Cole said yes. Chair Kimzey asked if it would be reasonable to discuss affordable housing within the Lighthouse Specific Plan because that issue had been previously raised by concerned members of the public. Ms. Cole said that the issue of affordable housing would fall within the purview of the Planning Commission. 2 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 18, 2016 Chair Kimzey asked if it would be reasonable to limit the percentage of third stories within the Lighthouse Specific Plan. Ms. Cole said that would be an alternative to consider, although the Planning office had been working to discourage numerical requirements because they inhibited exceptional design. She said that many cities were moving toward form-based code because it provided more flexibility. Chair Kimzey asked for staff’s recommendation. Ms. Cole said that the staff recommendation was included in the plan and that it could be reviewed on a yearly basis. She said that the ultimate goal was to create guidelines that would define the City’s goals. Committee Member Latasa asked if other areas in the code would reflect mandatory review for three-story projects. Ms. Cole said no, due to the rezoning of the Lighthouse area. Ms. Hopper explained that the Lighthouse Specific Plan would contain all Architectural Review requirements for the specific area. Vice Chair Silva asked what action a member of the public would need to take in order to appeal administrative approval of a three-story building. Ms. Cole said that staff decisions are appealable. Vice Chair Silva asked what the financial burden of an appeal would be on the appellant. Ms. Hopper explained the various appeal fees. She said that in the list of major and minor projects, any project could be referred to the ARC. She explained the noticing process as well. Ms. Cole said that any new building would require noticing; therefore, the public would be made aware of the process. Committee Member Abma asked if the building height would affect the noticing requirements. Ms. Cole said no, that all new buildings were noticed regardless of height. Chair Kimzey asked if the project would require noticing and staking. Ms. Cole explained that there was a safety concern regarding staking along Lighthouse Avenue, because poles may fall into the public right of way. She said that there were currently alternate methods of staking, such as modeling, being used. Chair Kimzey asked Ms. Cole if she could explain the review process for three-story buildings by the Planning Commission. Ms. Cole explained the current process and said that the ultimate goal was to eliminate any inconsistencies in the review process between the ARC and the Planning 3 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 18, 2016 Commission regarding height, mass, and bulk of buildings. She said that the Lighthouse Specific Plan would designate the design of buildings to the ARC. Chair Kimzey asked how the use permit process would apply once the Lighthouse Specific Plan went into effect. Ms. Cole said that three-story buildings would no longer require a use permit and would only be reviewed by the ARC. Committee Member Latasa asked if the Planning Commission reviewed parking in some instances. Ms. Cole said yes. Committee Member Latasa asked for clarification on Guideline G.2.33 that referred to minimizing gaps along the street. Committee Member Placco noted that the plan encouraged a continuous street frontage and that the word choice in the guidelines should support that. Ms. Cole explained that the goal of the plan was to encourage building design with parking in the rear or on the side of buildings, rather than in the front of buildings and to minimize the overall view of parking from the street. She said that the desire was for minimal gaps between buildings and a strong urban aesthetic that supported pedestrians. Vice Chair Silva said that he felt that if staff chose to administratively review three-story buildings rather than refer them to the ARC review, the public would respond upon receipt of notice. Ms. Cole said that had not been the case in other districts, although that may be the case along Lighthouse Avenue. Vice Chair Silva said that he believed the best course of action would be to refer the review of three-story buildings to the ARC in order to allow the opportunity for public input. Committee Member Latasa agreed and said that the nature of this type of review process was to encourage public input. Chair Kimzey agreed with Committee Member Latasa. Ms. Cole noted that the change to the process regarding the review of three-story buildings would appear on page 98 of the Lighthouse Specific Plan. Committee Member Abma said the she felt the noticing process was sufficient and if a group was concerned with a decision on a particular project, they could follow the process to appeal it. She said the most practical solution was to refer three-story buildings to the ARC for review, however. Chair Kimzey asked Ms. Cole if Committee Member Placco could comment and vote on the Lighthouse Specific Plan. 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 18, 2016 Ms. Cole said that Committee Member Placco had reviewed all staff reports and records and therefore could comment and vote. Committee Member Placco said that he understood what the ARC had discussed regarding referral of three-story buildings for review, but asked what a potential investor or developer would need to go through in order to get a project approved. Committee Member Abma asked if a use permit would still be required for three-story buildings on Lighthouse Avenue. Ms. Cole said no. Vice Chair Silva asked if an exception could be made to the Citywide Sign Guidelines for illuminated signs. Ms. Cole said that many years were spent developing consistency with the Citywide Sign Guidelines regarding illuminated signs and to allow illuminated signs by exception would be undoing many years of work. She explained that halo or indirect lighting was preferred for signage. Vice Chair Silva asked about illuminated cabinet signs. Ms. Cole said that cabinet signs would require definition and that all internally illuminated signs would require ARC review. Ms. Hopper said that all internally-illuminated signs would require noticing if the City Council adopted the ARC’s recent amendments to the list of major and minor signs. Ms. Cole said that the ARC may have difficulty in the future deciphering what constituted an exceptional design. Vice Chair Silva said that the nature of the board was to be discretionary. Chair Kimzey asked if an applicant with a truly exceptional design would be allowed to have an illuminated sign on Lighthouse Avenue. Ms. Cole said no with the proposed Lighthouse Specific Plan language. Chair Kimzey said that he was inclined to support staff’s position regarding illuminated signs. He said he felt by not allowing illuminated signs on Lighthouse Avenue; it would inspire sign makers to work creatively toward unique signs. Committee Member Abma agreed with Chair Kimzey. Committee Members Latasa and Placco agreed as well. Chair Kimzey expressed concern regarding specific businesses such as smoke shops, head shops, and tattoo parlors along Lighthouse Avenue and said that he would like to modify the definition of Retail Major. He said that he would like the option to conditionally approve businesses under these categories. Ms. Hopper said that a new State law would be established on June 16, 2016 that would limit the use of indoor vaping. She said that the implications regarding vape businesses 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 18, 2016 were still unclear, but that vape products would be treated like tobacco products. Committee Member Latasa asked if that was more of a use issue than a design issue. Ms. Cole said yes and explained that the ARC had authority over design, but not use. She said that the ARC’s authority did not include the use chart in Chapter 4 of the Lighthouse Specific Plan. Committee Member Latasa said that he believed that the Planning Commission should have authority over uses in the Lighthouse Avenue area. Vice Chair Silva agreed. Chair Kimzey said that he said he would like it noted that the ARC does not have authority to approve issues of use that were included in the use chart for Chapter 4. Chair Kimzey asked if encroachments for outdoor seating would require a seven-foot clearance. He referred to Guideline G.2.3 on page 50 and asked if it should it be a standard due to safety issues. Ms. Cole said that in terms of safety, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) established that a four-foot clearance was adequate. She said that the seven-foot recommendation had been determined from an aesthetic standpoint. Chair Kimzey asked about the Guideline G.2.33 that had previously appeared on page 53 regarding satellite dishes. Ms. Cole said that particular portion was removed because the Federal Government maintained control of small satellite dishes and therefore the City of Monterey had no jurisdiction over them. Chair Kimzey asked if there would be any value to include recommendations on satellite dishes in the plan. Ms. Cole said no, due to lack of City control. The ARC agreed with staff’s recommendation. Chair Kimzey asked about the wording on page 62, Standard S.6.10, regarding lighting. Ms. Hopper explaining that this portion regarding lighting had been drawn directly from the Downtown Specific Plan. Vice Chair Silva asked if this referred to the requirement of a photometric plan. Ms. Hopper said that photometric studies may be required and said that they were helpful, especially when applied to parking lots. The ARC also made the following changes to Chapter 4 of the Lighthouse Specific Plan:  On page 51, Guideline G.2.17, add, “and decks.”  On page 53, Objective O.3.5, change wording to, “neighboring” rather than, “adjacent.”  On page 54, Guideline G.2.33, change wording to, “Minimize gaps 6 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 18, 2016 between buildings along street.”  On page 54, create new guideline to, “Minimize visual impact of parking between buildings.”  On page 57, Guideline G.3.2, change wording to, “…de-emphasize large, sloped roof areas.”  On page 60, Objective O.6.5 eliminated  On page 62, Guideline G.6.12, add to wording, “…per Building Department requirements.”  On page 64, Guideline G.6.2, change wording to, “Exceptions will be granted for unusual or historic circumstances. For example, the New Monterey Center sign is a unique feature to the district. Proposed exceptions to the Citywide Sign Guidelines will be reviewed by the ARC.” Recess 5:51 p.m. Reconvene 5:54 p.m. Chair Kimzey asked if the resolution could be updated because the ARC did not have jurisdiction over the use chart in Chapter 4. Ms. Cole said yes. Ms. Cole said that the environmental report would be released and presented to the Planning Commission in July of 2016. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Latasa, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved recommendation of Chapter 4 (excluding the land use table) and the Streetscape Portion of Chapter 5 of the Lighthouse Specific Plan to the Planning Commission. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Latasa, Kimzey, Silva, Abma, Placco NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Freeman ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Committee Member Latasa remarked on the previous meeting’s minutes and the adoption of the removal of the 16 foot height guideline for wall signs. Chair Kimzey noted that at the last meeting, Committee Member Freeman had spoken about the letter the ARC had written to the City Council regarding the Marriott bridge and said that she had since received a letter from Dino Pick on May 16, 2016 regarding the matter, which he read. The ARC discussed the letter and decided to pursue the matter no further. Chair Kimzey noted that the ARC had previously been asked if a member would like to join the North Fremont Business District and asked Committee Members to reconsider. 7 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, May 18, 2016 Ms. Cole said that Chair Kimzey could appoint a member to represent the ARC outside of the meeting or the item could be placed on the agenda for formal discussion, but that discussion of it could not formally occur at this afternoon’s meeting. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Hopper said that Local Channel 25, AMP, would like to extend live recording to ARC and Historic Preservation Commission meetings. Chair Kimzey asked if that was a firm decision. Ms. Cole said that seemed to be the way the City would like to proceed. Chair Kimzey asked if Ms. Cole knew the start date for filming. Ms. Cole said that recording would most likely begin in June or July of 2016. Ms. Hopper asked for ARC Members’ schedules for the upcoming summer months and said that the June 15, 2016 may be canceled. She said that the next meeting on June 1, 2016 would have a larger agenda, including 150 Seafoam Avenue. Vice Chair Silva said that he would need to recuse himself from 150 Seafoam Avenue. Chair Kimzey thanked Patricia Domingo for her time and effort regarding the Lighthouse Specific Plan. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:16 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christy Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 8