Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY Wednesday, August 3, 2016 4:00 pm – 7:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Kimzey, Silva, Placco, Rogers Members Absent: Freeman, Abma Staff Members Present: Senior Associate Planner Hopper, Associate Planner Roveri, Principal Engineer Krebs, Recording Secretary Salameh CALL TO ORDER Chair Kimzey called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. July 6, 2016 On a motion by Committee Member Placco, seconded by Committee Member Silva, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the Minutes as submitted. AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Kimzey, Silva, Placco, Rogers NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Freeman, Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Other Consent Items 2. Consider 511-541 Tyler Street; Sign Permit Application 16-114 for a Multi-Tenant Sign Program; Applicant Lisa K. Loftus; Owner Anastasia D. Rutenberg and Linda A. Schenck; PC-D Zoning District (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301 and 15331, Class 1 and 31) Action: Approved as submitted. 3. Consider Lower Presidio Historic Park; AR Application 16-288 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of Park Improvements and Sign Permit Application 16- 317 for a Freestanding Vehicle-Oriented Sign; Applicant City of Monterey; Owner U.S. Army; PC-W (Planned Community - Waterfront) Zoning District (Negative Declaration and Finding of No Significant Impact Filed) Action: Approved as submitted. On a motion by Committee Member Placco, seconded by Committee Member Rogers, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the Consent Agenda as submitted.  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 3, 2016 AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Kimzey, Silva, Placco, Rogers NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Freeman, Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 4. Consider 715 Foam Street (Casa de Amigos); Sign Permit P-16-285 for New Wall Signs; Applicant Anjanette Adams for Monterey Signs; Owner Barbara Johnson- Wallis; C-2 Zoning District (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ACTION: Approved with a modification to the wording on Special Condition 3 to read, “That the applicant has the option of proposing a sign on the front of the property, not to exceed 50 square feet in area, that can be submitted to and reviewed by the Planning office.” Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Planner Hopper presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Vice Chair Silva asked if Special Condition 3 took into account the existing awning sign above the entrance. Ms. Hopper said no, that the awning sign was not included in the proposal, but that Special Condition 3 would give the owner the opportunity to add the awning sign back into the sign proposal. Chair Kimzey asked if the intent of the language for Special Condition 3 would be for the Planning office to approve changes to the sign permit. Ms. Hopper said that the language in Special Condition 3 could be corrected to include the stipulation that the Planning office would be the deciding body. Chair Kimzey asked if the Planning office had the authority to approve the permit. Vice Chair Silva asked if the phrase, “subject to approval” could be added to Special Condition 3. Ms. Hopper said that the Planning office could approve the permit and that Special Condition 3 can be reworded accordingly. Applicant Shawn Adams of Monterey Signs, said that the owner of Casa de Amigos would like to retain wall sign B and obtain approval for wall sign A. He noted that not all signs sensibly 2 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 3, 2016 fit within the Citywide Sign Guidelines and asked the ARC to consider the special circumstances for the sign. He explained that the business was difficult to locate from Lighthouse Avenue, which is where most of its clients travel from. He also noted that the business owner had made an effort to remove less attractive signs in favor of replacing them with more visually-appealing signs. Public Comment None. Committee Member Comments Vice Chair Silva said that he agreed with staff’s recommendation and that that he would like to ensure that Citywide Sign Guidelines were consistently met. He noted that he felt that making an exception in this case would not be precedent-setting. He said that despite a compelling argument by applicant, he felt that it would be best if the ARC upheld the Citywide Sign Guidelines. Committee Member Placco agreed. Committee Member Rogers said that she was familiar with the business and that it was difficult to determine its location from Lighthouse Avenue, so she sympathized with the owner’s desire for more noticeable signage. She noted that ultimately, the sign located at the rear of the business would not be aesthetically appealing. Chair Kimzey said that he was sympathetic to the owner of the business, noting that if he were in that position, he would want a sign in that same location as well. He agreed with Vice Chair Silva and expressed concern that if another 50 square feet of signage was allowed per Special Condition 3, there could be an oversized sign approved. He asked that staff consider conditioning future signage to not exceed maximum allowable size or the 50 square foot limitations outlined in this project. Ms. Hopper said that staff would review any sign proposed by the applicant and that the Sign Ordinance and Citywide Sign Guidelines would apply to the front of the building. Chair Kimzey expressed concern regarding future sign applications that could take advantage of the Prescott Avenue frontage and the 50 square foot sign allowance for the current project. Ms. Hopper explained that as the Lighthouse Area Plan is written, an applicant has one square foot of signage per linear foot of building frontage, and in this case it would apply to the Foam Street frontage, making the business’s sign allowance only available for 10 square feet on Prescott Avenue. She explained that the sign allowances were not transferable from the Foam Street frontage to the Prescott Avenue frontage. Chair Kimzey noted that if the ARC approved this project, the sign on Prescott Avenue would be a permanent approval. Ms. Hopper confirmed that it would be permanent and said that if a new sign were proposed for the Foam Street frontage of the building, it would not impact the approval of the sign on Prescott Avenue. Vice Chair Silva made a motion to approve the application with staff recommendations and reword Special Condition 3 to read, “that can be submitted to, reviewed, and approved by the Planning office.” 3  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 3, 2016 On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Placco, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application with a modification to the wording on Special Condition 3 to read, “That the applicant has the option of proposing a sign on the front of the property, not to exceed 50 square feet in area, that can be submitted to and reviewed by the Planning office.” AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Kimzey, Silva, Placco, Rogers NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Freeman, Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 5. Consider 398 Fremont Street; Sign Permit Application P-16-147 for a Freestanding Vehicle-Oriented Sign, Awning Signs, a Wall-Mounted Sign, and Gas Pump Signs; Applicant Sign Development Inc.; Owner Gurdish Kumar; C-2 Zoning District (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ACTION: Approved, following staff’s recommendation that the two types of “Synergy” signs (free-standing and projecting) and ad signs on the canopy posts are removed from the project. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Planner Hopper presented Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Chair Kimzey asked if the three square feet shown on one side of each pump would be identical on the opposite sides of the same pumps. Ms. Hopper said that the pumps are considered a double-sided sign, similar to a monument sign and that only one sign face is counted toward sign area. She said that ad signs were mounted on both sides of each pole and are counted twice. Chair Kimzey asked if that was the typical case for a gas pump and asked about staff’s analysis on canopy signs. Ms. Hopper said yes and explained that this was a unique situation and that there was not a specific category for canopy signs within the Citywide Sign Guidelines. She said that service station signs had been approved in this way prior to this application. She noted that in this case, the canopy was appropriate and provided cover for gas pumps. Chair Kimzey asked if canopies should be included in the Citywide Sign guidelines. Ms. Hopper said that if the ARC would like to include regulations on canopies in the Citywide Sign Guidelines, they would need to amend their recommendation to the City Council. She noted that these unique types of signs did not come before the ARC often. Chair Kimzey said that he felt this situation was likely to occur again and he felt that the Citywide Sign Guidelines should address it. Ms. Hopper said that she would research the matter. 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 3, 2016 Applicant Elizabeth Schmidt with Sign Development said that she understood staff’s presentation and recommendation. She said that the blade signs would be consistent with Citywide Sign Guidelines, other than not being located near the entrance to the building. She asked that the ARC consider leniency regarding the blade signs because they were consistent in all other aspects. Vice Chair Silva asked what the “Synergy” logo referred to that was featured on many of the signs. Ms. Schmidt explained that it was a fuel technology similar to Chevron’s “Techron.” Chair Kimzey asked if the bollard sign pictured in the staff presentation would be included in the actual project. Ms. Hopper said no, that it was a photo example from another site. Chair Kimzey clarified that the bollard sign was not applied for and therefore would not be approved. Ms. Hopper said that was correct. She said that the blade signs being referred to in the application could be oriented towards Fremont Street and said that the direction of the signs would need to be determined prior to finalization. Chair Kimzey asked if the blade signs would be over the maximum allowance if they were reconsidered and added back into the calculated area. Ms. Hopper said that the signs would be 3.8 feet each, and that it would be very close to the maximum allowed square footage. Public Comment None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Placco expressed concern over the sheer number of signs and confusion that they would project once the project was complete. He said that staff recommendations were valid and that they made a significant contribution to the overall design. Vice Chair Silva agreed with Committee Member Placco said that gas stations were a unique case due to their typical abundance of signs. He said that he felt the wave concept proposed by the applicant was an attention-getting device and noted that the sign ordinance has restrictions against such things. He said that he fully supported staff’s recommendation. Committee Member Rogers agreed. Chair Kimzey agreed as well and said that he did not want to see sign proliferation or pollution. He said that he felt staff had done well with the presentation and recommendation. On a motion by Committee Member Placco, seconded by Committee Member Rogers, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, August 3, 2016 application following staff’s recommendation that the two types of “Synergy” signs (free- standing and projecting) and ad signs on the canopy posts are removed from the project. AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Kimzey, Silva, Placco, Rogers NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Freeman, Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Chair Kimzey said that he would like the ARC to consider writing a letter of appreciation to Terry Latasa for his years of service on the ARC. He said that former ARC Member Latasa had been a great contributor and that he wanted to wish him well in his new position on the Planning Commission. Committee Member Placco said he thought that was a great idea. Vice Chair Silva said that he supported the idea as well and that former ARC member Latasa had possessed a uniquely mellow, yet wise way of conveying his thoughts. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Hopper said that the Portola Plaza fountain would be on the agenda for the August 17, 2016 ARC meeting and noted that it already appeared to be a fairly full agenda. Committee Member Placco said that he would not be able to attend the August 17, 2016 meeting. Ms. Hopper announced that the seventh seat for ARC still needed to be filled and that the current recruitment was about to close. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:49 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christy Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 6