Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY Wednesday, April 20, 2016 4:00 pm – 7:00 p.m. 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Placco Members Absent: Abma Staff Members Present: Senior Planner Hopper, Senior Associate Planner Bennett, Acting Urban Forester Morton, Recording Secretary Salameh CALL TO ORDER Chair Kimzey called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. April 6, 2016 ACTION: Approved as amended. 2. Consider 459 Alvarado Street; AR Permit 15-375 for Final Architectural Review of Outdoor Seating for a Mixed Use Development; Applicant George Ash, Architect; Owner Saucito Land Company; Planned Community - Downtown Zoning District (Infill Environmental Checklist - Finding of No Further Review for CEQA) ACTION: Moved to the Regular Agenda. Committee Member Latasa requested that the Item be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed on the Regular Agenda for discussion. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Freeman, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the Minutes as amended and Moved Item 2 to the Regular Agenda for Discussion. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Placco (abstained from Item 1) NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda***  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 20, 2016 PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 3. Consider 459 Alvarado Street; AR Permit 15-375 for Final Architectural Review of Outdoor Seating for a Mixed Use Development; Applicant George Ash, Architect; Owner Saucito Land Company; Planned Community - Downtown Zoning District (Infill Environmental Checklist - Finding of No Further Review for CEQA) ACTION: Approved as submitted Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Planner Hopper presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Committee Member Latasa said that the design appeared to be of high quality and said that he had asked to pull the Item to the Regular Agenda to discuss it in more depth. He asked what the guard rails and pavement would consist of as well as the design of the proposed bike rack. Ms. Hopper said that she would defer to the architect and property owner. Chair Kimzey asked if two parking spaces would be lost in the process of adding the outdoor seating area. Ms. Hopper said yes. Applicant George Ash, architect for the project, said he felt that Ms. Hopper had presented the project well. He said that the materials for the railing at Unit B would consist of an anodized bronze aluminum frame with stainless steel cable. He said that the design would incorporate planters at the corners. He said that the material for the railing at Unit C would consist of anodized bronze aluminum as well. He described the horizontal portions as six inches tall, and said that they would mimic a ribbon winding through the vertical rails. He noted that a positive aspect of anodized bronze was that it would never rust. He said that he would work with staff to design the bike rack and that it was intentionally left off of the plans for that purpose, noting that he would like to create something more unique. Committee Member Latasa asked about the design of the pavement. Mr. Ash said that the material for the railing for Unit C would feature brushed concrete. The other railings would be built on top of the existing brick sidewalk. He noted that all brick would match the existing sidewalk where the parking spaces were to be filled in. Vice Chair Silva asked if the aluminum pieces were to have sharp edges. Mr. Ash said no, that the edges would be burnished and smoothed out. Vice Chair Silva said that once anodized bronze aluminum is burnished, it may remove the anodized finish. He asked Mr. Ash if he had considered using a high performance 2  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 20, 2016 paint to smooth the edges of the aluminum pieces. Mr. Ash said that he would need to study that further and that he may consider a seamed edge. Committee Member Latasa asked if the bike rack would be reviewed by staff or the ARC. Ms. Hopper said that the bike rack would be reviewed by staff. Public Comment None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Latasa said that he had wanted to discuss the application in more depth and that he felt that this discussion had been useful. He said that he supported Vice Chair Silva’s suggestion regarding finishing the rails and that he would like to make a motion to approve the item as submitted. Committee Member Freeman said that she felt the appeal of the railing was a wonderful feature and it seemed that only a short time ago the City had a few experimental outdoor seating areas. Now she said sidewalk seating seemed to be a very popular feature. Vice Chair Silva said that he agreed with Committee Member Freeman and that he was in full support of the application. He said that he was in support of the outdoor seating program. Committee Member Freeman said that she felt Mr. Ash’s outdoor seating area was done very well considering the slope of the area. On a motion by Committee Member Latasa, seconded by Committee Member Silva, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the Application as submitted. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Placco NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 4. Consider 35 Cuesta Vista Drive; Tree Removal Permit 16-116 for the Removal of One Monterey Pine Tree; Applicant Harold Leffel; Owners Carl & Kathy Price; R-1- 20 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Section 15270 Action: Approved with condition added that one or more trees be planted in place of the tree removed. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Associate Planner Bennett presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Chair Kimzey asked about the Applicant’s expression of anxiety over the tree, specifically stated on page 28 of the packet. 3 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 20, 2016 Mr. Bennett said that the Applicant had not expressed concern over their personal health or safety, but that they had expressed concern regarding the security of the house and roof if the tree were to remain in place. Chair Kimzey asked the standard for review and if there was any evidence or testimony presented by the Applicant directly stating their concern. He asked Mr. Bennett if he felt that he had gone beyond the typical standards of review. Mr. Bennett said that he felt he had not gone beyond the typical standards of review. He said that when dealing with applicants, he felt that it was important to determine whether anxiety stemmed from concerns over personal safety or that of the property. Committee Member Latasa said that he had always considered anxiety to be an interesting matter when considering tree removals. Mr. Bennett said that anxiety was a unique standard to consider and that the matter was difficult to confirm in some instances if it had been expressed. Committee Member Latasa asked if it mattered to whom the extent of the anxiety was caused. Chair Kimzey asked Mr. Morton to remark on the matter. Stephen Morton, Acting Forester for the City of Monterey, presented photos of the tree in question at 35 Cuesta Vista Drive and said that it was the most prominent one on the site. He said that he assumed the ARC would allow the removal, but noted that he had judged the tree to be acceptable in its placement and health. He noted that regarding tree removal in general, the City had received 11,000 permits for tree removals in the last 22 years. He said that regarding this particular application, he understood the desire for convenience and ease of repair with the sewer line and deck. He asked that the ARC consider, for future tree removals, that tree by tree Monterey was being deforested as a result of so many tree removal applications being approved. Chair Kimzey said the ARC welcomed Mr. Morton’s comments and that they were interested in hearing what he had to say. He inquired about the chances of survival for a new tree to be planted considering the current canopy. Mr. Morton said that because of the site, there were a few places that a tree could be planted that would promote survival. He said that there were about five trees in decline on the property that would need to be removed in the near future, causing the canopy to be altered within the next two to five years. Chair Kimzey asked if any replacement tree could survive due to the forested nature of the site. Mr. Morton said that a coast live oak planted west of the tree to be removed or a pine planted on the site would do well. Vice Chair Silva said that Mr. Morton had mentioned 11,000 trees lost over the past 22 years. He asked Mr. Morton to estimate what percentage of the overall number of trees that made up within the City of Monterey. 4 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 20, 2016 Mr. Morton said that he was hoping to get an accurate number soon, but from an aerial review, it appeared to be about 25%. He said that many smaller trees had been lost because of the drought. He said that the pine forest on the Monterey Peninsula was a unique type of forest and that there are trees unique to it that grow nowhere else in the world. He said that it was composed of a large and complex ecosystem that held one of the last wild genetic pine species and he wanted to impress the importance of maintaining it. Vice Chair Silva thanked Mr. Morton for his input. Committee Member Latasa noted that when they had visited the site at 35 Cuesta Vista during the scheduled ARC field trip, the tree proposed for removal appeared to have pitch canker. Mr. Morton explained that the tree had sap running down its side and that it did not have pitch canker fungus, but that it was indeed a healthy tree. Committee Member Latasa asked Mr. Morton what he recommended as a number for replacement trees if this tree was voted to be removed. Mr. Morton said that he would not recommend burdening the property owner with multiple trees, but that one large tree would do. Committee Member Latasa asked if a 24 inch box pine or coast live oak would suffice. Mr. Morton said that the largest replacement pine he would recommend would be a 15 gallon. Applicant Harold Leffel said that his property line was adjacent to that of 35 Cuesta Vista and thanked Mr. Morton for his equitable presentation regarding the tree proposed for removal. He said that he and the property owners were concerned with the proximity of the tree to the house. He noted that the tree was not a threat to the house when the house was originally built, but said that he felt when the tree swayed in the breeze it came dangerously close to the roof of the home. He said that he saw what he believed to be pitch canker on the tree and that caused him to become even more concerned with the situation. He said that he believed the time of the remodel would be appropriate to remove the tree and that he was willing to re-plant in accordance with Mr. Morton’s recommendations. He noted that if the tree was not removed, its root system would be damaged when the sewer line was accessed for replacement. Public Comment None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Latasa said that when the ARC visited the site with Mr. Bennett, he felt that the tree was very close to the house and that he could sympathize with the applicant’s and homeowners’ anxious outlook regarding the tree. Committee Member Freeman said that in a high wind, she felt certain that the tree could even touch the roof of the house. She said over the past few years the ARC had heard many cases in support of tree removal that primarily fell into two categories, personal anxiety or for the betterment of the community. She said that she felt in this particular 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 20, 2016 case, the tree removal was for the betterment of the property. Vice Chair Silva said that he appreciated Mr. Morton’s presentation regarding the deforestation of the Monterey Peninsula. He said that he was not overly concerned with the complete deforestation of the area, but believed that over time the canopies would change. He noted that in the staff report there was written proof that the Applicant was concerned for their safety and for the safety of their house and that he was in support of removal of the tree. Committee Member Placco said that in addition to the ARC’s previously mentioned comments, he said that there were already many trees on the site and the Applicant’s offer to re-plant was generous. He said that he supported removal of the tree. Chair Kimzey said that also sympathized with the owners of the house. He said that he felt the tree was not exceptionally visually prominent and that its removal would not be a significant. He said that he supported the removal of the tree. Committee Member Silva made a motion to support removal of the tree with a condition that it be replaced with one or more trees as recommended by the City Forester. Chair Kimzey said that he would have supported the motion without the contingency to replant because he felt that it may place an undue burden on the homeowner. Committee Member Latasa said that he felt Mr. Morton did a wonderful job explaining the defoliation of Monterey and that the ARC would examine tree removals on a case-by- case basis. On a motion by Committee Member Silva, seconded by Committee Member Latasa, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the Application with the added condition that one or more trees would be planted in place of the tree removed. AYES: 5 MEMBERS: Latasa, Freeman, Kimzey, Silva, Placco NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 1 MEMBERS: Abma ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS None. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS Vice Chair Silva said that during the last ARC Meeting on April 6, 2016, Chief of Planning Engineering and Environmental Compliance Cole had mentioned that she would speak with the City Attorney’s Office regarding variances in a standard in the Lighthouse Specific Plan. He asked Ms. Hopper if she had an update on that conversation. Ms. Hopper said that she would confer with Ms. Cole and update the ARC when that information was available. Vice Chair Silva and Committee Member Latasa said that they would not be present at 6  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 20, 2016 the May 4, 2016 ARC Meeting and asked if it would be possible to move the Lighthouse Specific Plan Agenda Item to another date. Ms. Hopper said that she did not believe so because it had already been continued to a date certain. Chair Kimzey expressed concern regarding the formatting of the agenda used, specifically the Comments and Continued Public Comments Section. He asked if the formatting could be collapsed into an abbreviated version. Staff replied that the agenda used was a template that had been approved by the City Clerk’s Office and that it could not be altered, although the Continued Public Comments section was meant to be reflected as an even session item. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS 4. Planning Office Update  Updated Received ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:08 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Christy Hopper Chair Senior Planner Architectural Review Committee 7