Architectural Review Committee Meeting

MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AFTERNOON SESSION ONLY Wednesday, June 7, 2017 4:00 PM – 7:00 PM 580 PACIFIC STREET, COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA Members Present: Freeman, Rogers, Catanzaro, Williamson Members Absent: Silva, Gorman, Rath Staff Members Present: Senior Associate Planner Bennett, Associate Planner Roveri, City Forester Morton, Recording Secretary Salameh CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Freeman called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. CONSENT ITEMS Approval of Minutes 1. May 17, 2017 Action: Approved as amended. Other Consent Items 2. Deny 2191 North Fremont Street; AR Permit 15-289 for Preliminary Architectural Review of a Three-Story Mixed Use Building; Applicant Ron Brown, Architect; Property Owner Heydar A. Movahedi; PC-NF Zoning District; (Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 18, Section 15270) Project Will Not be Story-Poled Due to Safety Concerns Associated with Proximity to N. Fremont Street; Substituted with Combination of One Story Pole and Photo-Simulations Action: Approved as submitted. 3. Approve 340 Tyler Street (East and West Parking Garages); Application PA-17-0326 to Amend Sign Permit 16-228 for a Temporary Rotating Banner Program; Applicant Wayne Dalton; Owner City of Monterey; PC-D Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301 Action: Approved as submitted. On a motion by Committee Member Catanzaro, seconded by Committee Member Williamson, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee approved the Minutes of May 17, 2017 as amended and the Other Consent Items as submitted. AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Freeman, Rogers, Catanzaro, Williamson NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 3 MEMBERS: Silva, Gorman, Rath ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 7, 2017 RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None ***End of Consent Agenda*** PUBLIC COMMENTS None. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 4. Deny 818 Grace Street; Application ART 17-0222 Appeal of Forester's Denial of a Tree Removal Permit; Applicants and Owners Sean & Jennifer Foreman; R-1-5 Zoning District; (Exempt from CEQA Review per Article 19, Section 15304, Class 4) ACTION: Continued to the June 21, 2017 ARC meeting. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Comments Senior Associate Planner Bennett presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Vice Chair Freeman asked if this was the first time this project had come before the ARC. Mr. Bennett said yes. Applicant Sean and Jennifer Foreman said that they had lived in the home for 12 years and that they had been having difficulty with the tree for the majority of that time. They described how the root system had broken a clay pipe and that over the years, the sidewalk, driveway, and the adjacent fence had all lifted as a result of the tree roots. They expressed concern regarding the crack in the sidewalk creating a tripping hazard. They said that although the tree was aesthetically pleasing, it had become a financial burden and noted that they would be open to mitigation measures. Vice Chair Freeman asked the Foremans if they had replaced their driveway. Mr. Foreman said no, that the driveway was cracked and lifting, but that they were waiting for a determination from the City regarding the tree. Committee Member Williamson asked if the entire fence had been shifted. Mr. Foreman said that the top board was beginning to buckle. Vice Chair Freeman asked the age of the house prior to any renovations. Mr. Foreman said that the house was built in 1974 and that when they purchased it, the trees were not in good condition. He noted that they took pride in their home and wanted to ensure that it was well-kept. Committee Member Rogers asked what they would replace the tree with if it was removed. Mr. Foreman said that they would choose a native, drought resistant shrub due to the small lot size. 2 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 7, 2017 Committee Member Rogers asked if the Foremans had constructed the planter box around the tree, and if they had used rebar to stabilize it. Mr. Foreman said that he had constructed the planter box with paver stones, cinder blocks and rebar. Steve Morton, Urban Forester for the City, said that he realized some trees could create nuisances and that he was sympathetic to the concerns of the Foremans, but that there were larger issues at hand. He said that not many trees exist in New Monterey and that this one was special, as it was about 20 years old. He said that there were many solutions to fix the issues created by the root system, which included pruning the roots, installing a protective sleeve within current plumbing lines, and pruning the tree. He asked that if the tree’s removal was approved, the Foremans consider replacing it with another tree appropriate for the lot size. Vice Chair Freeman asked if the damaged sidewalk was the responsibility of the property owners or the City. Mr. Morton responded that the sidewalk would be the responsibility of the property owners due to State-mandated regulations, but that due to the sensitivity of the issue, the City may assume responsibility. Committee Member Rogers asked what root pruning would entail and how tall a pepper tree could ultimately grow. Mr. Morton said that he had seen wild pepper trees reach approximately 45 feet in height. He explained that pruning the roots would entail the planter box being dismantled and an excavation to determine the necessary roots to be pruned. He noted that the roots of pepper trees were typically shallow and that they generally would not cause such extensive damage. Committee Member Rogers asked if the planter should be removed for the health of the tree. Mr. Morton replied that from the surface, it would be difficult to determine, but that the tree would inevitably overgrow some portions of the cinder blocks. Public Comment None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Williamson asked the Foremans if they would be willing to replant a tree if the pepper tree was removed. Mr. Foreman said that they would consider replanting, but that their lot was already fully planted and he was not sure where another tree could be placed. Mr. Bennett confirmed that, after a site visit, there was little room on the lot to plant a significant tree. The Foremans noted that they took great care of their house and landscaping and that they would be willing to plant a tree on City property or in a park in lieu of replanting in their yard. 3 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 7, 2017 Mr. Bennett said that if a location could not be determined for replanting on their property, the option to pay an in-lieu fee to plant a tree within the City’s urban forest was available. Committee Member Williamson asked if the City had priority areas for planting. Mr. Morton said that this was a rare occurrence, but that the City was in the process of tree selection and site preparation. Committee Member Rogers said that the tree was beautiful and that she would like to see the planter removed and the roots pruned. Committee Member Catanzaro said that he sympathized with both the property owners’ perspective and the staff report, but that ultimately if the tree were to be removed, he would be in favor of a replacement tree being planted elsewhere in the city. Committee Member Williamson agreed with Committee Member Catanzaro and said that he was inclined to be in favor of the property owners’ request, as he wanted them to have flexibility with their land. Vice Chair Freeman said she could see that damage had occurred, but that the City had offered viable solutions. She noted the importance of trees and said that pepper trees had an extensive history in the area. She said that she would advise removal of the planter and trying to save the tree. She noted that if improvement was not made, then the application could be revisited in a year. Committee Member Catanzaro asked how expensive pruning the tree would be. Committee Member Rogers said that once the roots had been pruned, they should not grow back, therefore not creating an additional expense for the owners. Vice Chair Freeman noted that the sidewalk and driveway would cost money to repair. Committee Member Rogers made a motion to deny the tree removal appeal and request that the applicant prune the tree roots, remove the surface planter and come back within a year to report on the status of the tree. Vice Chair Freeman seconded the motion. Mr. Bennett explained that conditions could not be placed on a denial, but that the ARC could make findings that it may be beneficial for the planter to be removed and the roots pruned with further direction from Mr. Morton. He said that if the applicant still felt the tree presented problems within the year, they could reapply for removal. The ARC discussed the denial further and Committee Member Williams asked if the ARC could condition that an arborist be consulted. Mr. Bennett noted that if the appeal was granted with approval to remove the tree with the stipulation to consult an arborist, additional fees would be incurred for that consultation. Committee Member Williamson made a motion to grant the appeal of the City Forester’s decision with a condition that a tree be planted elsewhere in the city in lieu of a replacement tree at the subject property. Committee Member Catanzaro seconded the motion. Vice Chair Freeman and Committee Member Rogers were not in favor of the motion and 4  Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 7, 2017 therefore an amended motion was made to continue the item to the next ARC meeting on June 21, 2017. On a motion by Committee Member Freeman, seconded by Committee Member Williamson, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee continued the application to the June 21, 2017 ARC meeting. AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Freeman, Rogers, Catanzaro, Williamson NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 3 MEMBERS: Silva, Gorman, Rath ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None 5. Approve 601 Wave Street (Cannery Row Garage); Application SI-17-0327 for a Temporary Banner Program; Applicant Wayne Dalton; Owner City of Monterey; C-2 Zoning District; Exempt from CEQA Requirements per Article 19, Section 15301. Action: Approved as submitted. Staff Presentation/Committee Member Questions Senior Associate Planner Bennett presented the Agenda Report and took Committee Members’ questions. Committee Member Rogers asked about the seasonal capacity of the City’s garages. Wayne Dalton, Parking Superintendent for the City, said that the garage at Cannery Row reached capacity on a regular basis. He said that the garage served as a primary parking location for visitors to the Monterey Bay Aquarium and that because it only had one entrance, it was easy to miss. He said that the banners should help drivers navigate to the garage entrance and that in the future, the garage would be beautified and have permanent signage. Applicant Barbara Meister of the Monterey Bay Aquarium said that they were trying to find a solution for the traffic congestion on Cannery Row, as well as direct aquarium visitors to parking. Public Comment None. Committee Member Comments Committee Member Catanzaro said that he had witnessed how congested the parking situation could become on Cannery Row and that the banner program should help to alleviate that problem. Committee Member Rogers agreed and said that permanent signage in the future would be helpful as well. On a motion by Committee Member Williamson, seconded by Committee Member Catanzaro, and carried by the following vote, the Architectural Review Committee 5 Architectural Review Committee Minutes Wednesday, June 7, 2017 approved the application as submitted. AYES: 4 MEMBERS: Freeman, Rogers, Catanzaro, Williamson NOES: 0 MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 3 MEMBERS: Silva, Gorman, Rath ABSTAIN: 0 MEMBERS: None RECUSED: 0 MEMBERS: None COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS None. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS & STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Bennett said that the tentative ARC meeting agenda for June 21, 2017 included about seven items and thanked the ARC for their work at the prior meeting. He also noted that it was not appropriate to discuss agenda items prior to meetings. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:16 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Todd Bennett Chair Senior Associate Planner Architectural Review Committee 6