Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY Wednesday, January 18, 2017 4:00 PM – 7:00 PM 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Silva, Placco, Freeman, Kimzey, Rath, Rogers Members Absent: None Staff Members Present: Senior Associate Planner Bennett, Associate Planner Roveri, Recording Secretary Salameh CALL TO ORDER Chair Silva called meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. January 4, 2017 Action: Approved as submitted. On a motion by Committee Member Kimzey, seconded by Committee Member Rath and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the Minutes of January 4, 2017 as submitted. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Placco, Rogers NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 2. Approve 1401 Munras Avenue; Sign Permit Application P-16-338 for Two Freestanding Vehicle-Oriented Signs and Six Gas Pump Signs; Applicant Promotion Plus Sign Co., Inc.; Owner United Oil, LLC; VAF Zoning District (Exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1) ACTION: Continued with direction to applicant for redesign with a Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 18, 2017 recommendation to consider elimination of sign A2. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Associate Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Chair Silva noted that some items within the application were not consistent with the Citywide Sign Guidelines and asked if the language within the Citywide Sign Guidelines required applicants to appear before the ARC for inconsistencies. Ms. Roveri explained that when the Citywide Sign Guidelines were amended by the ARC in 2016, the ARC had decided that all applications not wholly consistent with the guidelines would require ARC review. Committee Member Freeman expressed concern regarding the potential reaction of adjacent property owners that did not have as much signage on their own properties. Ms. Roveri explained that one of the reasons staff supported the application was due to the large distance between the two signs. She noted that the square footage outlined in the Citywide Sign Guidelines was exceeded slightly in the application, but that the applicant had asked for an exception. Committee Member Freeman asked Mr. Bennett for his input. Mr. Bennett said that because of the location of the sign at the exit from Highway 1 to Munras Avenue, those traveling in that direction were able to see the location of the gas station and assess their next driving maneuver. Without that sign, drivers would not be able to safely pull into the station. They would have to make a U-turn on the next street, Soledad Drive, thus potentially impacting traffic in an unsafe manner. He also noted that the hotel and the restaurant were one large structure located behind the gas station and without signage on the street face; it would be difficult to identify either of those locations. Vice Chair Placco asked about the ownership of the two lots. Mr. Bennett said that he believed the two lots were under the same ownership and that the Visitor Accommodation Facility (VAF) zoning designation for the gas station was a unique circumstance. He said that when considering the total sign area proposed, the applicant was actually penalized because of the VAF zoning, versus a typical commercial property with Commercial zoning. He explained that Commercial zoning would automatically allow more sign area, per the Citywide Sign Guidelines. He noted that if this property was zoned as a commercial property, its signage would be consistent. Public Comment None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Kimzey said that he felt the signs at the property created unnecessary clutter, and therefore violated the Citywide Sign Guidelines. He said that the 76 sign located at the Munras Avenue exit from Highway 1 was a safety issue because drivers may be enticed to brake abruptly in order to reach the gas station. He said that he felt it was the duty of the ARC to reduce sign clutter and he felt that could be remedied at this location by denying the proposal for sign A2. He noted the he did not want the first image of Monterey to be disorderly for visitors and residents and that he did 2 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 18, 2017 not object to other signs in compliance or to the height of the gas pumps. Committee Member Freeman asked if the applicant could increase the size of sign A1 if sign A2 was denied. Vice Chair Placco noted that increasing the size of sign A1 may create visibility issues for drivers and asked about the height restrictions for freestanding signs. Ms. Roveri said that vehicle-oriented signs could not exceed eight feet in height at this location. Chair Silva said that he agreed with Committee Member Kimzey in that it was the duty of the ARC as stewards of Monterey to not just enforce regulations, but also to consider the aesthetic impacts of approving an application considered “substantially” consistent, rather than wholly consistent. He said that he felt a proliferation of signs was detrimental to the city’s entrance. Mr. Bennett noted that the signage at the location had been previously approved by the ARC and that this was an application to reface already-existing signs. Committee Member Freeman concurred with Chair Silva and said that eliminating the sign on Munras Avenue would lessen the sign proliferation at the location. Committee Member Rath noted that when exiting onto Munras Avenue, it would be difficult to see the gas station if the signage did not exist. Ms. Roveri clarified that even if the ARC voted to deny the sign face change, the sign would still remain. Committee Member Kimzey asked if the ARC could give direction to the applicant to remove the sign. Mr. Bennett said that the signage was pre-existing, so the applicant could not be required to remove any of the signs, but that the ARC could give them direction to remove signage. Chair Silva said that the ARC could make a motion to deny re-facing of the signs, but approve the six gas pump signs. Mr. Bennett said that was an option, but that the ARC would remove its leverage for discretionary review in denying the re-facing of the sign, so long as the application met all requirements of the Citywide Sign Guidelines. He explained that it would be subject to administrative review. The ARC further discussed the merits of denying the application with direction to the applicant. Mr. Bennett explained that a continuation of the project was not appealable and that by state law, one sign must indicate pricing. On a motion by Committee Member Kimzey, seconded by Vice Chair Placco, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee continued the application with direction for redesign to the applicant with a strong recommendation to eliminate sign A2. 3 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 18, 2017 AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Silva, Placco, Freeman, Kimzey, Rath, Rogers NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Vice Chair Placco said that it had been a pleasure to serve on the ARC and that he felt the professionalism on the parts of board and staff was commendable. He thanked the Committee for including him. Chair Silva thanked Vice Chair Placco for his time on the Committee and noted that he had made valuable contributions during his service. Committee Member Kimzey concurred with Chair Silva. He then went on to submit his resignation from the ARC as well. He said that his time on with the Committee had provided him with a valuable learning experience and he thanked Committee Members and staff for their diligent work. The ARC wished Committee Member Kimzey the best, with Chair Silva noting that he had deep respect for Committee Member Kimzey. Committee Member Freeman added that Committee Member Kimzey provided valuable insight to projects and that his views would be missed. Mr. Bennett thanked Committee Member Kimzey for his participation and noted that he had also enjoyed his perspectives, as they had professionally benefitted staff members. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:58 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Todd Bennett Chair Senior Associate Planner Architectural Review Committee 4