Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:00 pm – 7:00 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Placco, Rogers Members Absent: Abma, Rath Staff Members Present: Senior Associate Planner Bennett, Senior Associate Planner Hopper, Recording Secretary Salameh CALL TO ORDER Chair Kimzey called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. August 17, 2016 ACTION: Approved as submitted. 2. September 7, 2016 ACTION: Approved as amended. Other Consent Items 3. Consider 625 Pacific Street (Monterey Public Library); Sign Permit 16-312 for a Rotating Banner Program; Applicant City of Monterey Library Board of Trustees; Owner City of Monterey; CO Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301(a), Class 1 ACTION: Approved as submitted. 4. Consider 12 Thomas Owens Way; AR Permit 14-371 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review for a 128 Square Foot Second Story Addition to an Existing Office Building; Applicant Michael J. Avila; Property Owners Michael and Patty Avila and Steve and Ursula Avila; I-R-20-D2 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15303  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 21, 2016 ACTION: Approved as submitted. On a motion by Committee Member Placco, seconded by Committee Member Freeman, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the Consent Agenda items as submitted and the Minutes of September 7, 2016 as amended. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Placco, Rogers NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Abma, Rath ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS Public Comment Sharon Dwight, speaking on behalf of the New Monterey Neighborhood Association, expressed concern regarding the City’s notification process for certain items including tree removals and paint color changes. She said that she felt neighborhoods should be informed of such decisions. Chair Kimzey asked for Senior Planner Hopper’s input on the matter. Ms. Hopper explained current noticing procedures and said that the ARC had recently amended its noticing procedures for specific signs. She noted that tree removals are guided by the Tree and Shrub Ordinance, which does not require noticing. She said that at this point, the Planning office was not pursuing a change in noticing procedures but said that if the New Monterey Neighborhood Association had cost-effective suggestions, they would be taken into consideration. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 5. Consider 2149 N. Fremont Street; AR Permit 15-154 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a new Outdoor Patio Area; Tree Permit 15-153 for the Removal of One (1) 14-Inch California Pepper Tree; Applicant Mohammed Ali Norouzi; Owner Mike Marotta; Planned Community N. Fremont Street (PC-NF); Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15303 (August 5, 2015 Meeting) ACTION: Approved application with special condition of approval that good faith effort be made to relocate the California Pepper tree to another portion of property or offsite and increase the size of replacement trees to a 15 gallon minimum. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Associate Planner Bennett presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Vice Chair Silva asked if California Pepper trees were considered to be consistent with the North Fremont Specific Plan. Mr. Bennett said that the species was not recommended as a tree for the specific area. He also addressed Committee Members’ questions and concerns regarding the physical attributes of the tree, its water consumption, tree replacement mitigation, and safety surrounding the tree if it were to be maintained. 2 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 21, 2016 Chair Kimzey asked if the reasons for the tree removal had been given by the applicant or by staff. Mr. Bennett said that the reasons given were from the applicant. Committee Member Rogers asked the size of the proposed patio. Mr. Bennett said that it was 693 square feet. Applicant Greg Carey said he thought it would be a shame if the project did not take place because of the tree. He asked if the replacement tree size should be increased in order to approve the application. He complimented the Planning department on their work done regarding the project. Chair Kimzey asked the applicant how he would feel if the ARC denied the tree removal permit. Mr. Carey said that maintaining the tree would eliminate the project due to the roots causing damage to any pavers or concrete installed in the patio area. Vice Chair Silva asked if any consideration had been given toward using the material Lexan or a more contemporary design. Mr. Carey said that Lexan is not as easy to clean as tempered glass. He said that he was not opposed to changing the proposed material to Lexan and that he was amenable to changing components of the design. Vice Chair Silva asked Mr. Carey if he had considered creating a more contemporary design. Mr. Carey responded that he was open to suggestion, but felt that the patio blended well with the establishment. Public Comment Sharon Dwight said she felt that the North Fremont area needed help in maintaining and planting trees. She said that the California Pepper tree proposed for removal was a beautiful tree and that it appeared to be quite established, whereas a new tree would require consistent watering. She also asked if the patio could be placed at the back of the building, as she felt that exhaust fumes from North Fremont Street may discourage use of the patio at the front of the building. Mr. Carey said that he would consider relocating the tree, but said that relocating the patio to the back of the building would not be feasible because of loading docks and additional trees. He said that he would be willing to plant three 15 gallon trees to mitigate the removal of the California Pepper tree at the front of the property. Committee Member Comments Vice Chair Silva said that this was a good opportunity to introduce outdoor seating into the North Fremont Specific Plan in order to encourage more pedestrian activity. He noted that placing the seating in the rear of the restaurant may be counterintuitive because it may defeat the purpose of maintaining a public frontage. He noted that an outdoor seating area would outweigh the benefits of maintaining the California Pepper tree. He said that a 15 gallon minimum should be established for replacement trees and that this satisfied all items that were discussed at the August 5, 2015 ARC meeting regarding this project. Chair Kimzey agreed and said that outdoor seating on North Fremont Street was a 3  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 21, 2016 positive aspect, but that the tree was beautiful and that it may provide a nice canopy for outdoor seating. He said that despite certain concerns discussed, he felt the benefits would outweigh the negative aspects of maintaining it. He noted that the tree contributed to the aesthetics of North Fremont Street and asked the applicant to consider building the patio around it. Committee Member Freeman thanked the applicant for returning with complete plans that complied with the North Fremont Specific Plan and said that she favored the design, but added that replacement trees should be 15 gallon or 25 inch box trees. Committee Member Placco agreed with Committee Member Freeman. He said that becoming a more pedestrian-friendly location would benefit the establishment and the owner had done well in mitigating concerns of tree replacement. Committee Member Rath concurred with Committee Members Freeman and Placco. Vice Chair Silva said that he sympathized with some of the concerns regarding the tree, but said that he felt in order to achieve a workable patio, maintaining the tree in the existing space would not be feasible. On a motion by Vice Chair Silva, seconded by Committee Member Freeman, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application with a Condition of Approval that a good faith effort be made to relocate the tree on another portion of the property or offsite and to increase the size of two replacement trees to a 15 gallon minimum. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Placco, Rogers NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Abma, Rath ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 6. Consider 400 Drake Avenue; Referral of AR Permit 16-365 for Paint Color Change on a Residential Condominium Building; Applicant Tom Keeney; Owner New Zealand Holdings LTD; R-3-5 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 ACTION: Approved as submitted. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Planner Hopper presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Chair Kimzey asked how the complainant would have known about the administrative decision with regard to this project. Ms. Hopper explained that the complainant noticed the building was being painted and called the Planning department to inquire about permitting. She explained the process by which projects can be referred to the ARC by concerned members of the public. Committee Member Freeman noted that the City is not required to make decisions based on taste, but that this appeared to be a subjective color decision made by the property owner. Applicant Tom Keeney, Homeowners’ Association President and Chief Financial Officer for Presidio Hill Condominiums, gave a presentation regarding the condominiums and Building B, which had been painted. He said that the paint on the building had been 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 21, 2016 chipping and peeling prior to being painted and that the residents of the condominiums had voted on new paint, as well as the paint colors chosen, in order to revitalize the building. He noted that there was a variety of gray-colored buildings and homes throughout the neighborhood, as well as many buildings of various colors that did not seem to fit within any certain color palette or scheme. Chair Kimzey asked if there was a penalty for ignoring a stop work order. Ms. Hopper said that ignoring a stop work order could result in fines and explained the circumstances surrounding this particular situation. Chair Kimzey asked if the City had the authority to issue a stop work order in this case. Ms. Hopper said yes, because a significant paint color change had occurred. Public Comment Paul Soares said that he owned the adjacent property. He noted that there were only three houses on the same side of the block as 400 Drake, all of which he felt would be influenced by its drastic change in color from warm to cool. He expressed concern regarding the building being too monochromatic and said that it should not be tied to the commercial area of Lighthouse Avenue in the staff report, as it is a residential building. He suggested that a third color be added to the building to warm its tone and break up the color palette. Committee Member Freeman asked Mr. Soares if his basic opinion was that the paint color of the subject property was making his own property look inferior. Mr. Soares said no, that he planned on repainting his property; however he felt that the new color of 400 Drake Avenue did not fit well with the neighborhood. Chair Kimzey asked Mr. Soares what he thought a reasonable remedy to his objection would be. Mr. Soares said that he felt that adding a third color to the building would create a more visually-appealing look, or that warming the color palette would be an acceptable option. Sharon Dwight, speaking on behalf of the New Monterey Neighborhood Association, said that for a structure of its height, she feels that the building was too massive to be painted primarily one color. She said that the gray should be broken up by another color. She expressed concern regarding the notification system for this process, as no one had been notified that the paint color was being changed on the building. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Placco said that this seemed to be entirely a matter of opinion and that the Homeowners’ Association had voted to approve the change of paint colors; therefore he saw no reason for the project to come before the ARC, as the paint colors were neutral in tone. Committee Member Freeman said that compared to the previous color scheme of the condominiums, which was outdated, she felt this was a refined update. She said that if Mr. Keeney would like to add a third color, he should be able to without it being mandated. Vice Chair Silva agree with Committee Members Freeman and Placco and said that he felt that there was no harmony or particular color scheme within the neighborhood that was being broken. He said that he supported staff’s decision. Chair Kimzey said that he agreed with the rest of the Committee Members and said that it should be within the property owners’ discretion to make changes to the color scheme 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 21, 2016 of their property. He complimented Mr. Keeney on his presentation as well. On a motion by Committee Member Freeman, seconded by Committee Member Placco, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application as submitted. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Placco, Rogers NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Abma, Rath ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Vice Chair Silva said that he would still like to discuss the drafting of a resolution for Terry Latasa’s time spent on the ARC. The Committee Members discussed collection of thoughts for Mr. Latasa’s resolution. Chair Kimzey asked if sign regulations for canopies could be recommended for amendment in the Citywide Sign Guidelines. Ms. Hopper explained that based on amendments to the Citywide Sign Guidelines and how quickly previous amendments moved through City Council, it would be advantageous to gather more information for a group recommendation rather than sending one item to City Council at a time. She noted that the Planning office keeps track of items for possible recommendation. She also welcomed Committee Member Rath to her new position on the ARC. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Hopper said that the next meeting would consist of some mixed-use buildings for review. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:48 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Todd Bennett Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 6