Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, January 18, 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, Recording Secretary Abadilla CALL TO ORDER Chair Dawson called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM. CONSENT ITEMS On a motion by Committee Member Jacoubowsky, seconded by Vice Chair Hill, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the CONSENT ITEMS: 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 Approval of Minutes 1. January 4, 2012 ACTION: Approved the Minutes as submitted. Other Consent Items 2. Consider 459 Alvarado Street – Sign Permit for new mural for construction fence; Application 12-002; Applicant Kirk Probasco; Owner Saucito Land Company ACTION: Approved the application with the Conditions of Approval and adopted Findings for Decision. Conditions of Approval: 1. The applicant shall secure any necessary encroachment permits for any work performed from the City sidewalk. 2. Should the mural become damaged, faded, or vandalized such that it no longer is in the original condition, it shall be repaired or painted over within ten (10) days. ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None.  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 18, 2012 PUBLIC APPEARANCE 3. Consider 101 Fisherman’s Wharf No. 1 - Final Architectural Review of Exterior Alterations and Signs; Application 11-234; Applicant Jeffery W. Kilpatrick/Tony Rappa; Owner City of Monterey ACTION: Approved the application with the Conditions of Approval and adopted Findings for Decision. Conditions of Approval: 1. This approval is for Final Architectural Review for the plans dated December 30, 2011. 2. The work must be undertaken concurrently under the same Building Permit and the entire scope of work must be completed prior to approval of final occupancy. 3. The light bulbs in the marquee-style fixtures shall not exceed 25 watts. 4. The applicant shall acquire any necessary permits or approvals from the California Coastal Commission prior to commencement of the work. 5. All unauthorized light fixtures shall be removed from the entire building prior to issuance of a Building Permit for this project. The removal of these lights may require a separate Building Permit. 6. This approval includes only those signs shown on the plans dated December 30, 2011. Any signs not included on this plan are not permitted and shall be removed prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 7. Approval of the screens, etc. in the outdoor dining area does not suggest authorization from the City of Monterey Housing and Property Manager to use the outdoor space. 8. The approval of this project is conducted in accordance with Chapter 38 of the Monterey Municipal Code, which authorizes the Architectural Review Committee to impose conditions of approval and obligates the applicant to abide by such conditions of approval. Further, each lease on Fisherman’s Wharf No. 1 requires that the tenant abide by all local laws, including Chapter 38. As such, any violation of this approval may also constitute a violation of lease and any resulting action described in the lease and available to the City of Monterey, potentially including declaration of a breach of lease. In proceeding with this approval, the applicant acknowledges the imposition of conditions of approval, the importance of abiding by them, and any potential ramifications of violation of the approval. 9. The gooseneck lighting shall be shielded. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions: Senior Planner Ebbs presented the agenda report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant: Jeff Kilpatrick and Tony Rappa were present. Mr. Kilpatrick explained the proposal with respects to using the vertical siding on the parapet and the gooseneck light fixtures. Both men answered questions regarding lighting on the windscreen feature, mounting of the gooseneck fixtures, location of the raceway lights, and the proposed paint colors. Public Comments: None. Committee Member Comments: Committee Member Jacoubowsky stated that the gooseneck lights should be shielded. 2  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 18, 2012 On a motion by Committee Member Jacoubowsky, seconded by Vice Chair Hill, 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 Latasa moved to place Item 4 at the end of the Agenda due to two Committee Members having to excuse themselves due to a conflict of interest. Committee Member Finklea seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-0. Committee Members’ Davis and Jacoubowsky excused themselves at 5:07 pm due to a conflict of interest. 4. Consider 2 Via Joaquin - Sign Permit Application for new freestanding sign and wall sign for an existing commercial building; Application 12-003; Applicant Chris Jacobs for Dr. Eric Brown, DDS; Owner John Ishizuka ACTION: Approved the application with the Conditions of Approval and adopted amended Findings for Decision. Conditions of Approval: 1. Sign A is approved and may be installed as described on the approved plan. This sign is approved without any source of exterior lighting. Any future lighting is subject to further review and approval by the Architectural Review Committee. The applicant shall secure any necessary Building Permits for this sign. 2. Sign B is approved and will be installed on private property. Finding for Decision: 1. Via Joaquin is a small street with no other businesses. 2. Sign B is necessary to identify the building from Eldorado Street, which is more recognizable. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions: Senior Planner Ebbs presented the agenda report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant: Chris Jacobs, Tom Carr and Dr. Brown were present. Mr. Carr clarified that the proposed sign is further up Eldorado and not as close to the corner as shown on the photos. Mr. Jacobs explained the proposal with regards to the sign being installed on the public right-of-way and having it moved further up the street and out of the public area. Mr. Brown stated that he would like the second sign because patients have a hard time trying to find the address and with business being tough, having the sign on Eldorado would help. Public Comments: None. 3  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 18, 2012 Committee Member Comments: Committee Member Latasa stated that 52 inches seemed rather large for Sign B. On a motion by Committee Member Finklea, seconded by Vice Chair Hill, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application with the Conditions of Approval and adopted amended Findings for Decision. AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Dawson, Finklea, Hill, Latasa NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Davis, Jacoubowsky ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 5. Consider 2339 North Fremont Street - Preliminary and Final Architectural Review for new fence; Application 11-317; Applicant Hyangmi K. Mikhail for The Market Restaurant; Owner Su Y. Kim ACTION: Approved the application with the Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval: 1. The rear fence is approved. 2. The front fence shall remain at 3 feet. 3. The higher portion of the fence shall be lowered to be 1 foot higher than the existing lower fence and shall break at the first fence post past the sign along Hannon Avenue. 4. The fence shall have plank material on both sides. 5. The applicant may plant a taller hedge along Hannon Avenue. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions: Senior Planner Ebbs presented the agenda report and answered Committee Members’ questions. Applicant: Craig Holdren and the business owners were present. Mr. Holdren explained the proposal with regards to the height of the fence, the encroachment of the fence in the right-of-way, the aesthetics of the fence with other fences in the North Fremont area, the business being set back from the street, and car headlights shining into the proposed outdoor seating area. Mr. Holdren answered questions regarding the site plan, and the porch element. Public Comments: None. Committee Member Comments: Committee Member Latasa stated that the applicant has offered modifications to the fence by adding material to both sides, wrapping the fence around the sign and added that the ARC should approve the rear fence. Committee Member Jacoubowsky stated that the appearance of the corner with the bushes is the area of concern and the front fence should be lowered to the area where the hedges start along Hannon equal to the building wall. Committee Member Finklea asked about the type of bushes currently installed and if they will grow and block the proposed fence. He stated that there will be an issue with car headlights going over the proposed fence and into the front seating area if it is lowered to the height of the hedge. 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, January 18, 2012 Chair Dawson stated that the fence should be of a single height but the applicant does have an issue with headlights and a possible answer could be to plant taller shrubs. On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member Davis, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the application with the Conditions of Approval. 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 Committee Member Latasa asked the status of the stone canopy at the Professional Building on Franklin Street and 1001 Hellam Avenue. Vice Chair Hill asked about the gooseneck lighting being installed at 131 Lighthouse Avenue. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Senior Planner Ebbs stated that the Sign Ordinance will be heard before the City Council the second meeting in February. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:31 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Forrest Ebbs Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 5