Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, September 5, 2018 4:00 PM – 7:00 PM 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Freeman, Carter, Gorman (4:30 p.m.), Rogers, Silva, Williamson Members Absent: Rath Staff Members Present: Housing and Community Development Manager Caraker, Urban Forester Morton, Associate Planner Roveri, Associate Planner Schmidt, Contract Planner Sabdo, Recording Secretary Salameh CALL TO ORDER Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. August 15, 2018 On a motion by Committee Member Williamson, seconded by Committee Member Silva, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the August 15, 2018 minutes as submitted. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Freeman, Carter, Rogers, Silva, Williamson NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Rath, Gorman ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Other Consent Items 2. Approve 551 Foam Street; Architectural Review Permit Application ARP-18-0283 for Exterior Modifications to an Existing Residential Building; Applicant Luyen Vu; Owners Scott Liming and Elizabeth Sanchez; PC-LH Zoning District; Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 Action: Approved Architectural Review Application ARP-18-0283 for exterior modifications to an existing residential building at 551 Foam Street. On a motion by Committee Member Williamson, seconded by Committee Member Silva, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved Architectural Review Permit 18-0283 for exterior modifications to an existing residential building at 551 Foam Street. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Freeman, Carter, Rogers, Silva, Williamson  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 5, 2018 NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Rath, Gorman ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS PUBLIC APPEARANCE 3. Approve 900 Lighthouse Avenue; Sign Permit Application SI-18-0221 for Two Halo- Lit Wall Signs and One Rebranded Mural Sign; Applicant Brian Schneider; Owner Julie Work Beck Trust; PC-LH Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 Action: Approved Sign Permit Application SI-18-0221 for two halo-lit wall signs and one rebranded mural sign at 900 Lighthouse Avenue with Special Conditions of Approval: 1) That sign B shall be redesigned not to exceed 50 square feet and shall be shifted over to the middle or left portion of the wall 2) That applicant shall provide lighting specifications that are wholly consistent with the sign guidelines prior to installation of signs 3) The applicant shall work directly with staff to redesign Sign C with consideration for ARC’s concerns regarding the background color and location of the rebranded logo on Sign C, including choosing a more complementary color, not in such contrast to the mural and deciding the location of the rebranded logo, either by the sea otter or other location. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Contract Planner Sabdo presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Chair Freeman asked Ms. Sabdo if she had discussed the staff-recommended changes to the mural with the applicant, to which Ms. Sabdo confirmed that she had. Applicant Brian Schneider of JSJ Electrical said that it had been a pleasure to work with Ms. Sabdo on this project. He went on to express concern regarding staff-recommended changes to the mural, noting that a painted halo-effect may obscure the lettering. He also said that he would be willing to reduce the sign area for wall sign B on David Street, in order to meet guidelines. Chair Freeman asked if the black and green lettering was brand-mandated and Mr. Schneider said yes, that it was trademarked. Chair Freeman then asked if the lettering on the mural could potentially be another color or bordered with a red outline and Mr. Schneider said that it could potentially be outlined in another color. Committee Member Silva noted that Signs B and C were very close in proximity and asked if the applicant would consider moving one, to which Mr. Schneider replied that the signs could be moved accordingly. He also noted that he would be willing to move sign B, so the tree planted in front if its proposed location would not be affected. Public Comments Urban Forester Stephen Morton asked about the trees that had been removed from the 2  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 5, 2018 subject site. Property Owner Jerry Anderson said that all trees missing as of present were dead and removed over a year ago, with permission. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Rogers said that she liked the idea of the project with the recommended changes, moving sign B to center or left alignment and blending Wall Sign C background with the mural. The ARC discussed sign placement and colors and agreed that sign B should be moved to center or left alignment and that wall sign C should blend in with the colors of the mural in order. *** Open Public Comment *** Mr. Schneider clarified that Sign C would not be illuminated, but rather a painted graphic. The ARC discussed potential mitigation efforts for Sign C with Mr. Schneider. *** Close Public Comment *** On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Williamson, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved Sign Permit Application SI-18-0221 for two halo-lit wall signs and one rebranded mural sign at 900 Lighthouse Avenue with Special Conditions of Approval: 1) That sign B shall be redesigned not to exceed 50 square feet and shall be shifted over to the middle or left portion of the wall 2) That applicant shall provide lighting specifications that are wholly consistent with the sign guidelines prior to installation of signs 3) The applicant shall work directly with staff to redesign Sign C with consideration for ARC’s concerns regarding the background color and location of the rebranded logo on Sign C, including choosing a more complementary color, not in such contrast to the mural and deciding the location of the rebranded logo, either by the sea otter or other location. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Freeman, Silva, Rogers, Carter, Gorman, Williamson NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Rath ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 4. Deny 71 and 81 Cuesta Vista Drive; Permit Amendment Application PA-18-0208 to Amend Application AP-17-0347 to Change the Replacement Tree Requirement from Five 36-Inch Box Trees to Zero Trees; Applicant and Owner Elizabeth Todd; R-1-20 Zoning District; Low Density Residential General Plan Designation; Statutorily Exempt from CEQA per Article 18, Section 15270 (Continued from August 1, 2018) Action: Denied Permit Amendment Application PA-18-0208 to amend application AP-17-0347 to change the replacement tree requirement from five 36-inch box trees to zero trees at 71 and 81 Cuesta Vista Drive. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions 3 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 5, 2018 Associate Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Chair Freeman asked if the ARC would be determining its findings based on the four findings listed in the 2017 resolution and whether the applicant had 10 days to appeal at that time, to which Ms. Roveri responded in the affirmative. Applicant Elizabeth Todd gave a presentation, citing financial burden, poor soil and lack of space to properly plant the required replacement trees. She offered to plant 15 gallon replacement trees in lieu of 36” box trees, noting that the stumps from the removed eucalyptus trees had not been removed from the ground and this made planting space scarce. She said that the properties were already planted with 35 mature trees, which housed many bird species and began to flourish once the eucalyptus were removed. The ARC asked Ms. Todd questions regarding replacement tree size, her application for tree removal in 2017, when she removed the eucalyptus trees, and why she had waited a full year to appeal or amend the decision. Ms. Todd responded to the ARC’s questions, citing her concerns with planting replacement trees that may disturb existing tree roots. She said that she had not been aware of the burden replacement planting would be until months after the appeal period had already ended. She explained that she had removed the eucalyptus in August of 2017, and said that rather than not planting replacements at all, she wanted to go about the process of amending her original permit in an honest way. She offered to allow scrub oaks on the 81 Cuesta Vista property to grow, as a mitigation effort. Public Comments Ms. Todd’s sister in law, Theresa Todd said that the home at 71 Cuesta Vista Drive had belonged to Ms. Todd’s parents and therefore was of great significance to Ms. Todd. She added that Ms. Todd took great care of the garden area and that the property had benefitted from the eucalyptus trees’ removal. She asked that the ARC consider letting the existing 35 trees continue to flourish. Urban Forester Morton clarified that there would be ample replanting room if the eucalyptus stumps had been entirely removed. He presented several potential locations for replacement trees, including options on City property, adding that there was plenty of space. He said that the stand of pines near the street demonstrated low vigor and might not survive; therefore planting replacement trees near them should not be an issue. He emphasized that planting trees was not always easy and inexpensive, but that it was necessary. Committee Member Rogers asked about suggested tree species for replacement planting. Mr. Morton said that he originally recommended oak trees, but that he could be flexible as long as the tree canopy was back in place. Committee Member Williamson asked Mr. Morton for his opinion on allowing the previously mentioned scrub oaks to grow. Mr. Morton said that the scrub oaks appeared to have been cut off and therefore their growth would be stunted. He said that overall, they did not have the potential to become 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 5, 2018 viable trees. Committee Member Gorman asked Mr. Morton for his thoughts on the number of trees suitable for a quarter acre of land. Mr. Morton emphasized that the residential neighborhood had been carved out of an oak and pine forest and that replacement trees would give the two properties at 71 and 81 Cuesta Vista Drive a much-needed division from one another. He said that there was no firm number for a quarter acre, but that his suggestions for replanting should be sufficient. Committee Member Carter asked how long replacement trees would take to mature into canopy trees, to which Mr. Morton replied. Committee Member Williamson asked Mr. Morton about the City’s monitoring requirements for replacement trees, to which Mr. Morton replied. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Carter said she felt that there was plenty of space for replacement trees to be planted. Committee Member Gorman expressed empathy toward the property owner, but said that an agreement had been made to replace removed trees. He said that he would be willing to give leeway for replacements, however. Committee Member Silva noted that the ARC had heard many comments regarding feasibility of replacing the trees and expressed sympathy with the property owner. However, he said, no appeal process took place and that a suitable solution for replacement trees could be established. He said that because of this, he was inclined to deny the permit. Chair Freeman concurred. Committee Member Williamson said that while he wanted to support the property owner’s rights to their property, he was inclined to support staff’s recommendation with leeway for planting 24” box trees where 36” box trees were infeasible. Committee Member Rogers said that she was inclined to deny the permit, as there were numerous locations for replacement trees. Chair Freeman agreed, adding that the conditions to plant replacement trees were reasonable, based on Mr. Morton’s expertise. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Gorman, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee denied Permit Amendment Application PA-18-0208 to amend Application AP-17-0347 to change the replacement tree requirement from five 36-inch box tree to zero trees. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Freeman, Silva, Rogers, Carter, Gorman, Williamson NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Rath ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 5  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 5, 2018 5. Concept Review for 200 Glenwood Circle: Review of a New 4-Story, 40-Unit Senior Independent Living Apartment Building on the Property of The Park Lane; Applicant Douglas Roberts, AIA; Owner P Monterey LP; Planned Community Zoning District; Medium Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Contract Planner Sabdo presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. The ARC asked questions regarding parking, setbacks, water credits and occupancy, to which Ms. Sabdo replied. Applicant Doug Roberts, JHW Architects, explained the project timeline and said that water credits were available through changes of ownership. He discussed parking, setbacks, tree replacements, and proposed materials for the project. Chair Freeman thanked Mr. Roberts for being available for a concept review and asked about anticipated issues for the project. Mr. Roberts said that he hoped there would be no issues, as the tree removals had been reviewed by an arborist and they would be replaced with redwoods. He said that his main concern was that the building form was not typical of Monterey and asked for input. Committee Member Silva said that he believed this was in keeping with Monterey’s style and referenced the newly renovated Conference Center as an example of modern architecture in Monterey. He asked that Mr. Roberts reconsider the color palette, as the proposed colors appeared institutional. He suggested contrasting the colors of vertical elements with the recessed elements. Chair Freeman concurred. Committee Member Rogers asked Mr. Roberts if he had considered underground parking and including more greenbelt. Mr. Roberts said it had been a consideration, but ultimately underground parking was not part of the program at the facility and that the driveway in front of the structure was a fire and utilities easement, therefore making underground parking impractical. He noted that the existing scenic easement would remain. Chair Freeman asked if the current residences were fully occupied. Rick North, representing the property owner, said that the residences were fully occupied and that they would remain as a continual care entity. He also noted that one of the project goals was to maintain an appropriate number of trees, as deemed by Urban Forester Morton. Committee Member Silva asked Mr. Roberts if noise impacts were anticipated due to the project site’s proximity to the highway, to which Mr. Roberts said yes. Committee Member Silva noted that Lexan may be a more suitable choice for balconies because it has noise attenuation properties. He noted that it would be difficult to 6  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, September 5, 2018 maintain, as would glass, and recommended considering a different railing choice. Mr. Roberts said that he would discuss railing options with ownership. Public Comments None. 6. Discuss Sidewalk Seating in the Downtown Action: Tabled. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS None. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 7. Planning Office Update  Update received. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Elizabeth Caraker Chair Housing and Community Development Manager Architectural Review Committee 7