Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY Wednesday, February 17, 2016 4:00 pm - 5:30 pm 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Latasa, Freeman, Silva, Theodore Members Absent: Kimzey, Abma Staff Members Present: Principal Planner Caraker, Senior Planner Hopper, Associate Planner Roveri, Principal Engineer Krebs, Engineering Assistant Justin George, Assistant Urban Forester Stephen Morton, Recording Secretary Salameh CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Silva called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. February 3, 2016 Action: Approved as amended. On a motion by Committee Member Freeman seconded by Committee Member Latasa, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the Minutes of February 3, 2016 as amended. AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Silva, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Kimzey, Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 17, 2016 2. Consider Outdoor Lighted Basketball Court at the Corner of Foam and Cannery Row; AR Permit 15-171 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review for New Construction; Applicant and Owner City of Monterey; Zoning District: O; General Plan: Parks and Open Space; Exempt from CEQA Requirements Per Article 19, Section 15303 Action: Approved, with the following added to Conditions of Approval: the addition of a bicycle rack, fence height raised to eight feet, and the addition of two parking spaces, if possible, and the removal of an eight inch pine. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Principal Planner Caraker presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Applicant Principal Engineer Krebs said that with this project, his team’s goal was to locate an area for the residents of Monterey to play basketball free of charge and in an easily-accessible setting. He said that they tried to mitigate treatment of storm water, balance the removal and replanting of trees, and take parking into consideration. He also noted that two of the three trees proposed to be removed were in poor health. Committee Member Freeman asked if benches or bleachers would be placed onsite. Mr. Krebs said that an area would be allotted for the placement of benches. He said that the goal was to reduce the overall footprint of the court. Committee Member Latasa asked if staff was concerned that any errant basketballs may make their way to Foam Street due to the proposed fence height of six feet. Mr. Krebs said that because the lot is below Foam Street, he does not anticipate basketballs bouncing onto the street. Committee Member Latasa asked if the fence could be built higher. Mr. Krebs said that he believed eight feet would be a reasonable fence height. Committee Member Latasa asked Assistant Urban Forester Stephen Morton what his recommendations were for the Cypress trees proposed for removal. Mr. Morton said that the largest Cypress tree proposed to be removed was 24 inches in diameter, and that it did not currently provide much screening to the area. Committee Member Latasa asked if it would be possible to move a tree of that size. Mr. Morton said yes, but that it would be very costly and with no guarantee of success. Committee Member Latasa asked Mr. Morton’s recommendations on removal of the three trees. Mr. Morton said that the removal of the three trees would be mitigated by providing plenty of replacement trees that would screen the basketball court. He noted that the removal of the two diseased trees would be a benefit. 2 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 17, 2016 Vice Chair Silva asked if a bike rack could be installed. Mr. Krebs said that a bike rack could be installed near the recreation trail for easy access. Vice Chair Silva asked if it would be feasible to add more parking spaces. Mr. Krebs said that he may be able to add two more parking stalls by removing an eight inch pine. Vice Chair Silva asked if root barriers would be necessary for the replacement trees in order to prevent damage to the basketball court. Mr. Morton said no, that the two proposed replacement tree species were not aggressive rooters. Public Comment Richard Ruccello said that he sponsored this project through Monterey’s Neighborhood Improvement Program (NIP) and that he had received a lot of requests from young adults for night basketball at a City location because of affordability and scheduling. He noted that the availability of restrooms, parking, and lighting would be very important to the project. He said that the basketball court should be in a visible location in order to deter crime. He expressed concern over the loss of trees, but said that he hopes future tree loss can be recovered and that species can be identified that are resistant to the diseases and drought that are causing the decline of the tree population in Monterey. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Freeman said that the site plan seemed to be clear and that the engineering was well-done. She said that noise, light, and excitement should be taken into account and the site is visible and not near a residential area, which would be a positive factor. She said that she was in support of the application because it was a well- thought-out project. Committee Member Latasa agreed with Committee Member Freeman and said that he believed the area would be very well-lit due to being located next to the Coast Guard Pier. He also said that he thought that an eight foot fence would be a more suitable height. Vice Chair Silva said that he agreed with Committee Members Freeman and Latasa, and said that he thought that a bike rack should be located nearby, as well as the addition of two more parking stalls if possible. Committee Member Theodore said that she agreed with the other Committee Members regarding the eight-foot high fence, the addition of a bike rack, and two additional parking spaces. On a motion by Committee Member Freeman, seconded by Committee Member Theodore, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the Application with the following added to the Conditions of Approval: the addition of a bicycle rack, the fence height raised to eight feet, and the addition of two parking spaces, if possible, and removal of an eight inch pine. 3  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 17, 2016 AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Silva, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Kimzey, Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 3. Consider 800 Devisadero Street; AR Permit 15-419 for Preliminary and Final Architectural Review of a One-Story Garage Addition and Exterior Alterations to a One-Story Single-Family Dwelling; Applicant Nadia Pichko; Owner Pete Bassford; R-1-5 Zoning District (Exempt from CEQA Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3) Action: Approved as submitted. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Associate Planner Roveri presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Committee Member Theodore asked where the front door was currently located on the house. Ms. Roveri said that it was currently located on the Irving Avenue side. Committee Member Theodore asked if there was currently any covered or uncovered parking. Ms. Roveri said that the house currently had an uncovered parking pad. Ms. Hopper explained that the parking pad was accessed via an existing driveway. Applicant Pete Bassford, Applicant, said that he agreed with the recommendations made by staff. Public Comment None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Latasa said he believes this is an admirable application and they are giving the stucco home some nice character. He said that is appears to be a great improvement to neighborhood. Committee Member Freeman said that she appreciated the thoroughness of the application and the description of the materials to be used. Vice Chair Silva agreed with Committee Member Freeman and said that he was impressed with selection of materials for the home. He said that he believed the house would be an asset to the neighborhood as well. Committee Member Latasa made a motion to approve the item as submitted. On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member Freeman, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the 4  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 17, 2016 Application as submitted. AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Silva, Theodore NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 2 MEMBERS: Kimzey, Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 4. Consider Amending List of Major and Minor and Architectural Review Permits Action: Continued to March 16, 2016 Architectural Review Committee Meeting. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Planner Hopper presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. The ARC discussed amendment of the List of Major and Minor Architectural Review Permits with the following concerns:  Exterior alterations  Accessory structures, their size, type and the number of  View impacts  One story additions  Noticing process  Discretion involving the addition of second story decks and balconies  Little Free Libraries Public Comment Jeff Gorman said that he was on the Monterey Vista Neighborhood Association Board when he first moved to town, and that he learned to be very careful with design overlay as a part of the Association. He said that he had learned a lot from listening to the ARC during this particular meeting. Committee Member Comments Vice Chair Silva asked to continue the item to the March 16, 2016 Architectural Review Committee Meeting. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Committee Member Latasa asked if the view sharing ordinance was currently in process. Ms. Hopper said that it was not at the moment. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Hopper said that the next Architectural Review Committee Meeting Agenda would consist of the Lighthouse Specific Plan only. 5. Planning Office Update  Updated received. 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, February 17, 2016 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:37 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christy Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 6