Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY Wednesday, January 15, 2020 4:00 PM – 5:30 PM 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Rath, Carter, Bluth, Conner, Pauly, Tregenza Members Absent: Hunter Staff Members Present: Senior Associate Planner Roveri, Associate Planner Sabdo, Administrative Assistant Salameh 1. Meeting Procedures CALL TO ORDER Chair Rath called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and welcomed new ARC Member Justin Pauly, who gave a brief introduction of himself. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 2. December 4, 2019 Action: Approved as submitted. On a motion by Committee Member Tregenza, seconded by Committee Member Bluth and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the minutes as submitted. AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Rath, Carter, Bluth, Tregenza NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Hunter ABSTAIN: 2 MEMBERS: Conner, Pauly RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Clyde Roberson expressed his gratitude for the ARC Members’ participation on the Committee. He also thanked staff and other commissioners for their time and participation with the City. He spoke about the new four-year term commitment for boards and commissions, and addressed some recently-mentioned public concerns. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 3. Confirm Annual Appointments for Chair and Vice Chair (Not a Project as Defined by CEQA CCR, Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 20, Section 15378 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061) Action: Confirmed annual appointments for Chair and Vice Chair, with Vice Chair Carter taking Chair and Committee Member Bluth taking Vice Chair.  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2020 Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions. None. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments ARC Committee Members confirmed annual appointments for Chair and Vice Chair, with Vice Chair Carter taking Chair and Committee Member Bluth taking Vice Chair. On a motion by Committee Member Rath, seconded by Committee Member Tregenza and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee confirmed annual appointments for Chair and Vice Chair, with Vice Chair Carter taking Chair and Committee Member Bluth taking Vice Chair. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Carter, Bluth, Conner, Pauly, Rath, Tregenza NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Hunter ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 4. Partially Approve 288 Pearl Street; Sign Permit Application SI-19-0383 for a Multi- Tenant Sign Program to Allow Two 7.5-Square Foot Directory Signs and Three Wall Signs; Applicant Phil Vanderkraats; Owner, Heidi Daunt, Agent for Owner; PC-D- ES Zoning District; Commercial General Plan Designation; CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 Action: Approved Sign Permit Application SI-19-0383 for a multi-tenant sign program to allow two 25-square foot directory signs and three wall signs at 288 Pearl Street, with no limit to font or graphics displayed on the two directory signs. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions. Associate Planner Sabdo presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Applicant Phil Vanderkraats, applicant, gave a brief overview of his company, which said has been in business for 38 years and has crafted many signs in the Monterey area. He noted that there was a lot of vehicular traffic near the subject site and that drivers would not be able to feasibly read 10 square-foot directory signs. He also noted that this building would serve as a multifunctional business space and therefore he sought to beautify it, in the tenants’ best interest. He offered to lessen the proposed area of the wall signs to 25 square feet apiece as a compromise and provided renderings. Vice Chair Bluth asked, having driven that street, if the Pearl Works sign would serve as the primary identifier for the building. He said that it would be difficult for drivers to safely read even a larger directory sign. Committee Member Pauly asked for clarification on whether or not tenants would be permitted to erect their own signs in lieu of the larger directory signs. Heidi Daunt, owner, shared her vision of the building being used as a community workplace for all tenants and said that good signage would be imperative for the tenants’ success, as well as 2 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2020 for enticing potential tenants to lease space there. She said that she would like larger directory signage, in order to avoid the potential for additional future signs, resulting in clutter. Committee Member Pauly said that he appreciated the use of the directory sign for tenant identification, as the building could become graphically confusing with the addition of more signs in the future. Chair Carter asked if the applicants would need to return to the ARC if they requested additional signage and Ms. Roveri explained that if the requested signage fell outside of the parameters of the approved multitenant sign program that ARC review would be required. Ms. Daunt said that the reason she wants larger signage is to avoid potential future changes. Committee Member Conner asked if each tenant would have control over their own sign or if there would be an overall uniformity to the directory signage, to which Ms. Daunt replied that it would be ideal to maintain some conformity. Ms. Sabdo noted that the ARC could condition that signage be uniform. Ms. Roveri further noted that the ARC could place conditions on sign colors and other details for the panels, but that conditions on content could not be made. Committee Member Pauly asked Ms. Daunt if it was her intention that the blue color of the signs be consistent with the blue on the building and Ms. Daunt said yes, that the blue that went with her theme and she felt that it was aesthetically pleasing. Committee Member Pauly asked for clarification on colors for the Treehouse Mortgage signage. Ms. Daunt said that they had not determined a color yet and that she would be willing to forego the Treehouse Mortgage signage on the building in order to have additional sign area for tenants. Mr. Vanderkraats said that he would hate to see Mr. Daunt lose her signage on the building, noting that it was appropriate for her business to have larger signage, as it would be the primary business onsite. He noted that the sign color would most likely be blue to match the color scheme. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Vice Chair Bluth commended the Pearl Works sign, noting that he felt it was artistic and referenced the building’s location. He said that he would be willing to support 25 square-foot directory signage, as it would address some of the proportion issues voiced by staff and the ARC. Committee Member Conner said that she felt the proposed 37 square-foot directory signage read a bit large for the building, but was pleased with the 25 square-foot compromise. She said that she would like to see a way to set consistency within the directory signs to avoid visual clutter. Vice Chair Bluth asked if the ARC could recommend that a specific font size and color be applied to all tenant slots on the directory signage, and Ms. Roveri replied that the ARC could make that a condition. 3 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2020 Committee Member Pauly said that he would support a reduction in the square footage of the directory signage, as the 37 square-foot size appeared to work against the building, as it appeared overwhelming in scale. He spoke in support of 25 square-foot directory signage with uniform font and color to avoid graphic clutter. Committee Member Rath said that she also liked Pearl Works as the identifier, but said that even 25 square-foot signage may encourage clutter, whereas smaller directory signs would prevent potential clutter. Chair Carter spoke in favor of two 25 square-foot directory signs, but said that if other signs were to be prohibited, tenants should be allowed to add their own graphics to the directory signs. Ms. Daunt noted that the two directory signs would be the only space in which tenants were allowed their individual graphics and therefore she did not wish to constrict tenants to limited font and color. Committee Member Rath said that she felt 25 square-foot directory signage with a mix of colors and graphics would be distracting. Vice Chair Bluth moved to approve proposed signage, with directory signs not to exceed 25 square feet apiece and with a condition that directory signage be uniform in font and size. The motion died for lack of a second. Committee Member Pauly noted that, if uniformity was the desired outcome, it would make sense that the approved directory signs should not exceed 10 square feet in size. Vice Chair Bluth moved to approve the proposed signage with a condition that the directory signs not exceed 10 square feet apiece and Committee Member Rath seconded. However, the motion died for lack of supporting votes. Committee Member Pauly motioned to approve the proposed signage with two 25 square-foot directory signs and no limitations on front and graphics. Mr. Vanderkraats said that he would review verbiage and make recommendations as appropriate to avoid graphic clutter on the two directory signs. On a motion by Committee Member Pauly, seconded by Chair Carter and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved Sign Permit Application SI- 19-0383 for a multi-tenant sign program to allow two 25-square foot directory signs and three wall signs at 288 Pearl Street, with no limit to font or graphics displayed on the two directory signs. AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Carter, Bluth, Conner, Pauly NOES: 1 MEMBERS: Rath ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Hunter ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 1 MEMBERS: Tregenza 4  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2020 5. Approve 2400 North Fremont Street; Sign Permit Application SI-19-0361 for Altering Two Internally-Illuminated Vehicle-Oriented Freestanding Signs; Applicant Gregory Tung; Owner Tony Sammut; PC-NF Zoning District; Commercial General Plan Designation; Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15301, Class 1 Action: Approved 2400 North Fremont Street; Sign Permit Application SI-19-0361 for altering two internally-illuminated vehicle-oriented freestanding signs with staff- recommended conditions of approval. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions. Senior Associate Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Applicant Gregory Tung, applicant, spoke on behalf of Chevron and said that the company was embarking on a statewide campaign to update fuel price signs from manual to electronic. He explained that the proposed signage was in compliance with the North Fremont Specific Plan, and that ultimately it would remove the additional task from gas station personnel to manually change price signs in inclement weather or unsafe conditions. He explained that the price displays would adjust according to ambient lighting and would be filtered to the warmer end of the Kelvin spectrum required by the City. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Rath said that she felt the proposed project would improve upon the existing signage and that she fully supported the proposal. On a motion by Committee Member Rath, seconded by Committee Member Conner and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved 2400 North Fremont Street; Sign Permit Application SI-19-0361 for altering two internally-illuminated vehicle-oriented freestanding signs with staff-recommended conditions of approval. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Carter, Bluth, Conner, Pauly, Rath, Tregenza NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Hunter ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 6. Deny 351 Fremont Street; Sign Permit Application SI-19-0305 for One Internally- Illuminated Vehicle-Oriented Freestanding Sign; Applicant Gregory Tung; Owner Chevron USA Inc; PC-D Zoning District; Commercial General Plan Designation; Exempt from CEQA Article 18, Section 15270 Action: Approved the application as submitted with findings that many other internally- illuminated signs existed within sight of the subject site, that denial based on confusing zoning of the area would be unfair to the applicant, that the signage would visually enhance and improve the overall aesthetics of the subject site, that the proposal is consistent with Downtown character, and with the special condition of approval that Kelvin temperature standards and lumen specifications meet Citywide Sign Guideline 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2020 requirements. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions. Senior Associate Planner Rover presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Committee Member Tregenza noted several adjacent and line-of-sight businesses that had permitted, internally-illuminated signage and asked for clarification as to why the subject site was not permitted to also have internally-illuminated signage. Ms. Roveri explained that the zoning which applied to the subject site prohibited internally- illuminated signage, whereas the zoning of neighboring sites had different requirements, some of which allowed internally-illuminated signage. Committee Member Tregenza said that it seemed unfair for neighboring properties to be allowed internally-illuminated signage while the subject site was prohibited from updating their signage as such. Applicant Gregory Tung, applicant, of Sign Designs spoke on behalf of Chevron and addressed the system-wide signage upgrade. He noted that he had researched City policy documents on internally-illuminated signage, and said that LED signage had only recently emerged. He said that he understood why older styles of internally-illuminated signage would be prohibited. He added that the subject site was on the border of the Downtown Specific Plan area and within plain sight of other businesses that were allowed internally-illuminated signage. Mr. Tung said that approval was requested to update the sign because it is a state-required law to display gas prices, in addition to maintaining the comfort and safety of staff. He noted that the digits would be microprocessor controlled relative to ambient light and would be warmly-colored. He said that because Fremont Street is a gateway for visitors to Monterey, it would be in keeping with the visitor economy to update the sign, as this gas station provides round-the-clock service while other nearby stations are not open. Committee Member Rath asked if there was a way to update the sign without internally illuminating the numbers. Mr. Tung said that Chevron did not have that specific type of sign within its approved inventory; that the older, current style or the proposed LED style were the approved sign types within the company’s inventory. Committee Member Pauly asked if the signage at Monterey Transit Plaza on Fremont Street was considered internally-illuminated and Ms. Roveri replied that it was, but it fell into a different type of sign category called digital display and may also be exempt. Public Comments None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Pauly said that he agreed with Committee Member Tregenza in that he did not want to set a precedent for allowing internally-illuminated signage where it was prohibited within the Downtown area, but that it was difficult to find a basis to deny the proposed signage. Committee Member Conner agreed and said she felt that there was an argument for an exception, noting that the proposed changes would elevate and modernize the subject sign. Committee Member Bluth agreed with Committee Members Pauly and Conner and said that 6  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2020 perhaps the meaning of internally-illuminated should be reassessed. He said that he would support this particular exception. Committee Member Rath said that while it was important to adhere to the Downtown Specific Plan guidelines, she felt that it would be appropriate to recommend approval due to the subject site’s location in proximity to other sites with permitted internally-illuminated signage. Committee Member Tregenza said that from an aesthetic standpoint, he felt the proposed signage would appear cleaner and more modern. He noted that he did not want to set a precedent for internally-illuminated signage within the Downtown area, but that the ARC existed to make recommendations as appropriate. Chair Carter agreed that the zoning for this specific area was complicated and that she felt it would be appropriate to recommend approval, in keeping with the approval for updated signage at 2400 North Fremont Street. On a motion by Committee Member Tregenza, seconded by Committee Member Bluth and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application as submitted with findings that many other internally-illuminated signs existed within view of the subject site, that denial based on confusing zoning of the area would be unfair to the applicant, that the signage would visually enhance and improve the overall aesthetics of the subject site, that the proposal is consistent with Downtown character, and with the special condition of approval that Kelvin temperature standards and lumen specifications meet Citywide Sign Guideline requirements. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Carter, Bluth, Conner, Pauly, Rath, Tregenza NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Hunter ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Chair Carter asked if internally illuminated signs could be included in Ms. Sabdo’s presentation to the ARC and Ms. Roveri replied that they could. Chair Carter asked if the ARC could receive notification of appealed projects, to which Ms. Roveri replied yes. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 5. Planning Office Update Update received. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:49 p.m. 7 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2020 Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Fernanda Roveri, AICP Chair Senior Associate Planner Architectural Review Committee 8