Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, January 4, 2012 4:00 - 7:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBER, FEW MEMORIAL HALL OF RECORDS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Dawson, Davis, Finklea, Hill, Jacoubowsky, Latasa Members Absent: None Staff Members Present: Senior Planner Ebbs, City Forester Reid, Recording Secretary Abadilla CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Dawson called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM. CONSENT ITEMS Committee Member Comments: Committee Member Jacoubowsky abstained from the December 21, 2011 Minutes due to not being present at that meeting. On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member Finklea, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the CONSENT ITEMS: AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Dawson, Davis, Finklea, Hill, Latasa NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 1 MEMBERS: Jacoubowsky RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Approval of Minutes 1. December 21, 2011 ACTION: Approved the Minutes of December 21, 2011 as submitted. ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE Committee Member Davis moved to place Item 3 at the end of the agenda due to a conflict of interest. Committee Member Jacoubowsky seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-0. Committee Member Latasa moved to place Item 4 on the Consent Agenda. Committee Member Finklea seconded the motion. Due to a comment from the public, Committee Member Latasa withdrew his motion.  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 4, 2012 2. 2020 Del Monte Avenue; Architectural Review Application 11-142; Sign Permit Application 11-167; Applicant Christopher Perry for Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market; Owner Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market; C-2-D-2 Zoning District; Initial Study and Negative Declaration Pending Adoption January 3, 2012. Approve Preliminary and Final Architectural Review and Sign Permit Application for new commercial building. ACTION: Approved the application with the Conditions of Approval and adopted Findings for Decision. Conditions of Approval: 1. Preliminary and Final Architectural Review Application 11-142 for construction of a new commercial building and other site improvements is approved as substantially shown on the plans dated December 22, 2011 and presented to the Architectural Review Committee on January 4, 2012 with exceptions and/or modifications specified in these Conditions of Approval. 2. All development on the project property shall be constructed and thereafter maintained in accordance with the conditions of this approval. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any and all other permits for improvements to the site and building or operation of the proposed business including but not necessarily limited to Building Permits, State Permits, etc. 4. Any construction associated with this project shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals from the Permit & Inspection Services Division. 5. The project is subject to the categorical water allocation program approved by the City Council. The applicant proceeds at his/her own risk that water may not be available at the time he/she requests building permits. No building permits will be issued if water is not available for this project. 6. The Architectural Review approval and Sign Permit shall become null and void if a building permit is not issued within twenty-four (24) months of the date of granting by the Architectural Review Committee. It is the applicant’s responsibility to track the twenty-four (24) month expiration date and request permit approval extensions prior to the permit expiration date. No renewal notice will be sent to the applicant. 7. This approval is contingent upon the final approval of the Use Permit, Demolition Permit, etc. by the City Council at the Public Hearing on January 3, 2012. 8. The parking lot light fixtures shall be limited to a maximum height of sixteen (16’) feet. Further, the two fixtures immediately adjacent to the southern property line shall be modified to contain extended shields on the north, west and east sides of the fixtures to prevent incidental light projection onto the adjacent property. These shields shall extend a minimum of 12” below the lens of the fixture. 9. The applicant shall submit a final landscape plan to the Planning Office prior to initiation of the landscaping or occupancy of the building. This plan shall comply with all City Ordinances related to Drought Tolerant Landscaping, etc. and is subject to review by the City Forester or other staff to ensure plant vitality and suitability. 10. Prior to installation of the freestanding sign, the applicant shall secure a written and signed acknowledgement from the owner of the adjacent property at 2024 Del Monte Avenue that states that the installation of said freestanding sign shall preclude the future installation of a freestanding sign at 2024 Del Monte Avenue. 11. The freestanding sign shall be used only to identify Fresh & Easy, as indicated on the plan, and five tenants of the adjacent property at 2024 Del Monte Avenue. Any change to the function or assignment of these placards, beyond the above assignment, is subject to the 2  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 4, 2012 prior approval of a Sign Permit by the Architectural Review Committee. Further, these tenant placards shall be restricted to a single common background color and a single common text color. 12. The sign on the southeastern corner of the building shall only be illuminated during hours of operation of the grocery store, as defined in the Use Permit. 13. The proposed landscape planter areas, or those approved by the Architectural Review Committee, shall remain in place and in good repair for the life of the building. Any dead plants shall be promptly replaced. Failure to maintain these features may result in enforcement of this approval, as specified in the Municipal Code. 14. The applicant shall submit a photometric of the proposed lights and covers at the property line. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions: Senior Planner Ebbs presented the agenda report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant: Christopher Perry and Jennifer Daw were present. Ms. Daw explained the project with regards to the skylights, the 3 G’s of being green in construction, the geometry in the way the stores are setup and the usage of glass. She added that the trellises and columns were installed to enhance the building along with the stone veneer and ended by asking the ARC to support and approve the application. Both present answered questions regarding the noise and sound enclosure, the roof plan, the parapet wall, the loading dock, proposed landscaping, roof equipment, the color palette, the size of the signs, and the different sizes of the Fresh & Easy stores. Public Comments: None. Committee Member Comments: Committee Member Jacoubowsky stated that the proposed elements will help make the building more modulated and will soften it from the street. Committee Member Latasa stated that he is troubled by applications that come to the Committee after the fact and the proposed signage but will support the motion. On a motion by Committee Member Hill, seconded by Committee Member Davis, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application with the Conditions of Approval and adopted Findings for Decision AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Dawson, Davis, Finklea, Hill, Jacoubowsky, Latasa NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None Committee Member Davis left at 5:25 PM due to a conflict of interest. 3. Iris Canyon; Tree Removal Permit Application 8430; Applicant Ryan Leong; Owner VFS#2 LLC; R-1-20-D2 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements. Approve Tree Removal Permit for the removal of 22 trees. ACTION: Approved the applications with the Conditions of Approval and adopted Findings for Decision. 3 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 4, 2012 Conditions of Approval: 1. The applicant shall replant the trees at a ratio of 1:1 with identical or superior species, as directed by the City Forester. This replanting shall occur concurrently with the development of the site or within five (5) years, whichever occurs first. 2. This approval is for the removal of the 22 trees identified on the application form received by the City of Monterey on December 20, 2011. The City Forester may issue as many as 10 additional Tree Removal Permits to accommodate additional tree removal requests for the purpose of accommodating the three test wells. This approval does not authorize any grading. 3. The applicant, City staff and the City forester will work together to review the recommendations proposed by Mr. Rushkin as submitted in his report. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions: Senior Planner Ebbs presented the agenda report and both he and City Forester Reid answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant: Michael Groves, Aaron Berman and Bill Ruskin were present. Mr. Groves explained the project with regards to the location, the project site being surveyed, the area being taken over by oak trees, the proposed use for the project site, and the existing wells. Mr. Berman stated that he did a well site evaluation and came up with two sites that will not pump against one another and that will support the well drilling. Mr. Ruskin stated that he was asked to put together a proposal to show how many trees will be impacted with regards to the two well sites. He wrote up a protection plan that will help protect the surrounding trees that may be impacted by the well sites. All present answered questions regarding how many trees will be impacted by getting the equipment onto the site, cutting of the trees, and the disposal of dirt. City Forester Reid stated that he concurred with the report submitted by Mr. Ruskin and the site has been impacted by invasives. The site is in transit from a Pine forest into an Oak forest, it has homeless camps and added that it would be a good idea to replant with native Monterey Pines. Public Comments: None. Committee Member Comments: Committee Member Jacoubowsky stated that instead of replacing on a 3:1 replacement, a 1:1 replacement makes more sense and will give a lot more area for the trees to grow. On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member Jacoubowsky, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the applications with the Conditions of Approval and adopted Findings for Decision. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Dawson, Finklea, Hill, Jacoubowsky, Latasa NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Davis ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 4  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 4, 2012 4. 33 Cuesta Vista Drive; Architectural Review Application 11-310; Applicant James Smith; Owners Olga Ydrogo and Kathie Sherman; R-1-20 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements. Consider Preliminary Architectural Review for the construction of a second-story addition to an existing one-story single-family dwelling. ACTION: Approved the applications with the Conditions of Approval and adopted Findings for Decision. Conditions of Approval: 1. Preliminary Architectural Review Application 11-310 for the construction of a second story is approved as substantially shown in the plans dated December 12, 2011, and presented to the Architectural Review Committee on January 4, 2012 with exceptions and/or modifications specified in these Conditions of Approval. 2. All development on the project property shall be constructed and thereafter maintained in accordance with the conditions of this approval. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any and all other permits for improvements to the site and building including but not necessarily limited to Building Permits, State Permits, etc. 4. Any construction associated with this project shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals from the Permit & Inspection Services Division. 5. The project is subject to the categorical water allocation program approved by the City Council. The applicant proceeds at his/her own risk that water may not be available at the time he/she requests building permits. No building permits will be issued if water is not available for this project. 6. The Architectural Review approval shall become null and void if a building permit is not issued within twenty-four (24) months of the date of granting by the Architectural Review Committee. It is the applicant’s responsibility to track the twenty-four (24) month expiration date and request permit approval extensions prior to the permit expiration date. No renewal notice will be sent to the applicant. 7. The applicant shall submit a formal Final Architectural Review submittal to City staff for review. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions: Senior Planner Ebbs presented the agenda report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant: James Smith and Kathie Sherman were present. Mr. Smith explained the proposal with regards to the impact on the neighbor’s property, the window changes to the rear elevation on the first floor, the screening of the trash enclosure, and the colors matching the existing structure. Public Comments: Nancy Cox stated that since her house sits further from the street the new second story above the garage obstructs her view and she now sees the new roof line. Senior Planner Ebbs stated that the addition over the garage was actually approved two years ago by the ARC. A public hearing was held and notices were sent to the neighbors informing them of the project. 5  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 4, 2012 Committee Member Comments: Committee Member Dawson submitted photos he had taken from the neighbor’s rear yard showing the orange netting and the views. Committee Member Hill stated that he will abstain from the voting since he did not attend the field trip and was not able to view the impact. Committee Member Jacoubowsky stated that he will also abstain from the voting since he did not attend the field trip and was not able to view the impact. Committee Member Davis stated that he sees no view impact to the immediate neighbor. On a motion by Committee Member Davis, seconded by Committee Member Latasa, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application with the Conditions of Approval and adopted Findings for Decision. AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Davis, Dawson, Finklea, Latasa NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 2 MEMBERS: Hill, Jacoubowsky RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 5. Annual Election of Officers ACTION: Vice Chair Dawson was elected as Chair and Committee Member Hill was elected as Vice Chair. On a motion by Committee Member Davis, seconded by Committee Member Finklea, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee elected Vice Chair Dawson as Chair. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Dawson, Davis, Finklea, Hill, Jacoubowsky, Latasa NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None On a motion by Chair Dawson, seconded by Committee Member Latasa, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee elected Committee Member Hill as Vice Chair. AYES: 6 MEMBERS: Dawson, Davis, Finklea, Hill, Jacoubowsky, Latasa NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS None. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 6 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 4, 2012 Senior Planner Ebbs stated that new badges were made and handed out. He added that the Sign Ordinance is ready to be scheduled to go before the City Council. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:00 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Forrest Ebbs Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 7