Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to Deny Goldenson11-2013.pdf

8/14/2019 Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to Deny Goldenson11-2013.pdf

1/18126

To:From:Submitted by:

Subject:

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEACouncil Report

November 5, 2013

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City CouncilJason Stilwell, City AdministratorRob Mullane, AICP, Communi ty Planning and Building DirectorMarc Wiener, Senior PlannerConsideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission s decision todeny a Design Study Application OS 13-33) for the replacement of anexisting wood shingle roof with composition shingles on a residencelocated on Dolores Street 4 parcels southeast of 10th Avenue, in theSingle Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. The application is beingappealed by the property owner, David Goldenson.

Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission s decision to denyOS 13-33.

Executive Summary: The project site is located on Dolores Street 4 parcels southeast of TenthAvenue. The property is developed with a two story residence that isclad with board and batten siding and a wood shingle roof. The roof hasrolled eaves with wood shingles that curve around the edges.

Analysis Discussion:

The appel lant is proposing to replace the existing wood-shingle roof withcomposition shingles. A Design Study OS 13-33) application to replacethe roofing materials was considered by the Planning Commission onMay 1, 2013, and again on June 12, 2013. The proposal wasunanimously denied by the Planning Commission at the meeting on June12, 2013.

nitialStaff nalysis and Planning Commission ReviewWith regard to roofing material, Section 9.8 of the Residential DesignGuidelines states:

1


2/18127

9.8 Roof materials should be consistent with the architectural style ofthe building nd with the context of the neighborhood.

Wood shingles nd shakes are preferred materials for most types ofarchitecture typical of Carmel i.e., Arts and Crafts, English Revival

nd Tudor Revival .Composition shingles th t convey a color and texture similar to th tof wood shingles m y be considered o some architectural stylescharacteristic of more recent eras.

This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at twoseparate hearings. t the first meeting on May 1, 2013, staff noted thatthe existing wood shingle roof is a prominent architectural feature of theresidence, and the manner in which the wood shingles curve around theedges is unique and represents skilled workmanship. Staff recommendedthat for this particular residence, wood shingles be maintained overcomposition shingles.The applicant had indicated that replacing the roof with wood shingles ishighly expensive and not within their budget. The installation wouldrequire that the wood shingles be soaked and bent on site by hand. Thecomposition shingle roofing could bend around the eaves without theadditional labor associated with a wood shingle roof.

The applicant is proposing Presidential brand composition shingles,wh ich is considered a high-quality composition-shingle product. ThePresidential brand composition shingles are thicker than standard

composition shingles and have a staggered pattern, similar to the woodshingles on the existing residence.On May 1, 2013, the Planning Commission continued the application witha request to visit another project site in the City that had used theproposed Presidential brand composition shingles. On June 12, 2013,the Planning Commission toured the Coachman s Inn, which is located onSan Carlos Street 2 parcels southeast of Seventh Avenue. TheCoachman s Inn had recently replaced their roof with Presidential brandcomposition shingles identical to what is being proposed for the subjectresidence.

2


3/18128

tthe Planning Commissions hearing on June 12, 2013, t he Commissionvoted to deny the proposal for composition shingles. The primary basisfor denial was that the proposed composition shingles did not convey atexture similar to wood, as recommend by Residential Design GuidelineSection 9.8. The Commission was also concerned that the proposalwould have a negative impact on the overall architecture and appearanceof the residence. The Planning Commission acknowledged that cost didnot factor into their decision. The City is not compelled to consider costwhen reviewing Design Study applications.Basis for ppealThe appellant is concerned with the cost of the wood sh ingles, inparticular the labor associated with applying the shingles around therolled eaves. The appel lant has also stated that there are several otherresidences in Carmel-by-the-Sea that have rolled eaves with compos itionsh ingle roofing. However, as of the date of th is staff report, no specificexamples have been provided by the appellant.Staff nalysis of ppealOn January 25, 2012, the Planning Commission determined that allrequests for replacement of wood shingles/shakes with compositionshingles should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The PlanningCommission wanted to ensure that the use of composit ion shingleswould not negatively impact community character.In some instances, proposals to replace wood shakes or shingles withcomposition shingles have been approved when it is determined that theproposal is not detrimental to the architecture of the building or itsappearance. Each project is treated based on its unique circumstances,and for this project, t he Commission could not support the proposedcomposition-shingle roofing material. Staff concurs with the PlanningCommissions decision, which is consistent with the guidance inResidential Design Guideline Section 9.8 (see above).

Previous CouncilAction Decision History:

This Design Study DS 13-33) application was considered by the PlanningCommission on May 1, 2013, and on June 12, 2013. The request wasunanimously denied by a 5-0 vote on June 12, 2013. The appeal wasscheduled for the October 8, 2013 City Council meeting. t the


4/18


5/18130

Attachment A -Appeal ApplicationCITY OF CARMEL-BY-mE-SEA

APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION( F ~ I N G FEE: $295.00)

Appellant: hflvtl . C / } e v . ~ O l - 1Property owner: 1avtR .&;UeJIJ C2'1Mailing Address: Jo . it:J )( 4 - ~ W f 7 { ~ PY /.l{ J.S.Phones: Day [J J r: f t ? ~F X: ). k / ~ ~ - -

E v e n i n ~ J 711 -f 1.B m a l : & : i ~ l . t p i J e . u . o u @IUJ.iJ &.,.Date Board heard the matter: u f.ll-... l 21;13.Appeals to the City Council must be made in writfng m he office of he City Clerk within10 working days oUowing tile d4U of ICiio11 by 1M P11111ning Commission and payingthe required ilingfoe as established by City Council resolution.

Physicalloc&tionofproperty that is the subject of appeal:4 . ; (lf :Ht 1 f1 lJo/ores.

Ifyou were NOT the original applicant or the applicant's representative, please state theevidence that you are an aggrieved party: .

(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)


6/18131

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL:. (State the specific basis for your p ~ such as errors oromissions you believe were committed by the Commission in reaching its decision, etc.)Tb.tJJJe, J } j f , ~ p

ip if appellantM S2\L-\~ ~ ---------------------295.00 fee received: (StaffInitial) Receipt :

AITEST: .

Heidi Burdl, City ClcrlcArticle 9 Section 7, of he Constitution of he State ofCalifomiaauthorizes a city toimpose fees. lso see California government Code Section 54344.IMPORTANT: f he appellant wishes to submit materials for duplication andinclusion in the City ofCarmel-by-the-Sea s Council agenda packet, the materials mustbe submitted to the City Clerk by working days after the decision of theCommission. This matter is tentatively scheduled to be heard on


7/18132

Grounds for Appeal ofdenial ofDesign Study No. DS13-33 oo une 12,2013My roof, needing replacement h s wood shingle rolled eaves. Due to the expense, Iwant to replace wood shingles with a composite material comparable n thickness andcolor. This composite material is designed to give the appearance ofwood shingles. Ialso understand that the composite roof provides better protection against fire hazard.I was unable to attend the meeting and watched the video. The Board heard commentsagainst the proposal from a person Roberta ?) in the audience who saidhouses on both sides ofmine have wood shingles and that most of he houses in myimmediate area have wood shingles. This s incorrect and I will furnish photos of hesehomes.My roofing contractorhas photos of houses in Cannel with rolled eaves ofcompositematerial in Carmel. This gives me the impression that previous requests for this changehave been approved. I will furnish photos of hese housesWe have owned this house for over 20 years. I take pride in my home and would not doanything that would detract from its appearance.


8/18133

Attachment B - Planning Commission Staff Report dated 6/12113CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEAPLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA CHECKLISTMEETING DATE: 12 June 2013FIRST HEARING: XITEM NO: DS 13-33

SUBJECT:

BLOCK: 116 LOT:CONTINUED FROM: NIOWNER: David GoldensonSTREAMLINING DEADLINE: 5/ 16/ 13

Consideration ofa Design Study application for the replacement of an existing woodshake roofwith composition shingles on a residence located in the Single FamilyResidential (R-1) District.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:Exempt (Class 3 -New Construction)

LOCATION: ZONING:4 SE of1 01h on Dolores R1

ISSUES:1. Does the proposed design comply with the Residential Design Objectives (CMC 17 1 0.1)and the Residential Design Guidelines?OPTIONS:1 Approve the application as submitted.2 Approve the application with special conditions.3. Continue the application with a request for changes.4 Deny the application.RECOMMENDATION:Determine the appropriate action.ATTACHMENTS:1 StaffReport dated 12 June 2013. 3 Photographs (Coachman' s Inn).2 Photographs (House).

STAFF CONTACT: Marc Wiener, Senior Planner


9/18134

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEACOMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDINGSTAFF REPORT Project Denied y the Planning Commission on 6/ 2/ 3

APPLICATION: DS 13-33BLOCK: 116LOCATION: 4 SE o IO h on Dolores

REQUEST:

APPLICANT: David Go1densonLOT: 8

Consideration o a Design Study application for the replacement o an existing woodshingle roo with composition shake on a residence located in the Single FamilyResidential (R -1) District.BACKGROUND PROJECT DESCRIPTION:This site is located on Dolores Street four southeast o Tenth Avenue. The property isdeveloped with a two story residence clad with board and batten siding and a wood shakeroof. The roof has rolled eaves and the wood shakes curve around the edges. Theapplicant is proposing to replace the existing shakes with a composition shingle roof.This project was reviewed at the Planning Commission meeting on 1 May 2013. TheCommission continued the application so that more information could be provided on theproposed roofing material and other available products. Staff notes that the applicant wasunable to attend the last meeting to answer questions.EVALUATION:Roofing Material: The applicant is proposing Presidential Shake brand compositionshingles. At the first meeting staff agreed to find an example in town o where this typeo roofing was used so that the Commission could evaluate its use on an entire roo asopposed to only viewing a small sample. Since then it has been identified that the sametype o roofing was recently approved by the Planning Commission to be used on theCoachman s Inn.The applicant has indicated that the Presidential Shake brand roofing is one o the highestquality composition shingle products. The shingles are thicker than standard shingles andwould have a staggered pattern, similar to the shingles on the existing residence.At the first meeting it was noted that the existing wood shake roof is a prominentarchitectural feature o the residence. The manner in which the shakes curve around theedges is unique and represents skilled workmanship. The installation would require thatthe shakes be soaked and bent on site by hand.


10/18135

DS 13-33 (Goldenson)2 June 2013Staff ReportPage 2

The current wood shakes are superior to the proposed composition shingles . However,the applicant has indicated that is not within their budget to duplicate the existing roof.Staff notes that the Planning Commission is not supposed to consider cost when makingdecisions about a project.Staff only recommends approval o the compositiOn shingle roofing i it can bedemonstrated that it would present an appearance similar to the existing wood shakes andwould not be detrimental to the appearance o the residence. The Commission will havethe opportunity to visit the Coachman s Inn on the tour so that it can view the proposedroofing.RECOMMENDATIONReview the sample and determine i the material is appropriate.


11/18136

Attachment C - Planning Commission Minutes 6/12/13CITYOF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEAPLANNING COMMISSON - MINUTES

JUN 12, 2013I CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

PRESENT: Commission Members: Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, Reimers,PatersonSTAFF PRESENT: Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner

Leslie Fenton, Administrative Coordinator. TOUROF INSPECTION

The Commission toured the following sites: Faxon, Nelson, Forest Hill Park, Goldenson,Mitchell/Lewis, Wulff, Michiels, Smith, Massa.

II I. ROLL CALLIV. PLEDGEOF ALLEGIANCE

Members of he audience joined Commission Members in the pledge of allegiance.V ANNOUNCEMENTS/EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS

Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner, announced that Council granted the appeal for DR12-26 (Kimball/Campbell) and that thewine sub-committee had met.Commissioner Reimers announced that she would like to agendize for a future meeting adiscussion on what is closing time.

VI APPEARANCESBarbara Livingston appeared before the Commissioner.


12/18137

Commissioner LEPAGE moved to continue the application and have applicant returnwith a revised parking plan.Motion withdrawn.Commissioner LEPAGE moved to approve the application and have applicant workwith staff on revised parking plan to incorporate more open landscapin2 areas,seconded by GOODHUE and carried by the following roll call vote:AYES:NOES: Goodhue, LePage, PatersonNoneABSENT:ABSTAIN: Dallas, ReimersNone4. DS 13-33

David Goldensonls Dolores 4 S 1 tbBlock 116, Lot s) 8

Consideration of a Design Study applicationfor the replacement of an existing wood shakeroofwith composition shingles on a residencelocated in the Single Family Residential R-1)District.

Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner, presented the staffreport. Chair Paterson openedthe public hearing at 6:33p m. Don Cox and Roberta Miller appeared before theCommission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at6:40p mCommissioner LEPAGE moved to deny the application, seconded by GOODHUE andcarried by the following roll call vote:AYES:NOES: Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, Reimers, PatersonNoneABSENT: NoneABSTAIN: None5 DS 13 -17 Faxon)Jag Real Estate HoldingsE/s Guadalupe 4 N 6th

Block 63, Lot s) 14

Consideration of Design Study Concept),Demolition Permit and Coastal DevelopmentPermit applications for the construction of anew residence located in the Single FamilyResidential R 1) District.

Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner, presented the staffreport. Chair Paterson openedthe pubJic hearing at 6:54p m Adrienne Lopez, Joe Faxon, Lorna Clairbond, JimWilcox, Barbara Brooks, Lynette Zimmerman and Barbara Livingston appeared beforethe Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at7:30p m

Planning Commission- Minutesune 12 20136


13/18138

Attachment D - PC Staff Report dated 5/ 1113CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEAPLANNING COMMISSIONAGENDA CHECKLIST

MEETING DATE: 1 May 2013 BLOCK: 116 LOT: ]FIRST HEARING: XITEM NO: DS 13-33

SUBJECT:

CONTINUED FROM: N/AOWNER: David GoldensonSTREAMLINING DEADLINE: 5/16/13

Consideration of a Design Study application for the replacement of an existing woodshake roof with composition shingles on a residence located n the Single FamilyResidential (R-1) District.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Exempt (Class 3 - New Construction)LOCATION : ZONING:

SE of Oth on Dolores R 1ISSUES:1. Does the proposed design comply with the Residential Design Objectives (CMC 17 .10.1)and the Residential Design Guidelines?OPTIONS:1. Approve the application as submitted.2. Approve the application with special condjtions.3. Continue the application with a request for changes.4. Deny the application.RECOMMENDATION:

Determine the appropriate action.ATTACHMENTS:1. Staff Report dated 1 May 2013.2. Photograph.

STAFF CONTACT: Marc Wiener, Senior Planner


14/18139

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEACOMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDINGSTAFF REPORT Continued y PC on 5/111 3

APPLICATION: DS 13-33BLOCK 116LOCATION: 4 SE of lOth on Dolores

REQUEST:

APPLICANT: David GoldensonLOT: 8

Consideration of a Design Study application for the replacement of an existing woodshingle roof with composition shake on a residence located in the Single FamilyResidential (R-1) District.BACKGROUND PROJECT DESCRIPTION:This site is located on Dolores Street four southeast of Tenth Avenue. The property isdeveloped with a two story residence clad with board and batten siding and a wood shakeroof. The roof has rolled eaves and the wood shakes curve around the edges. Theapplicant is proposing to replace the existing shakes with a composition shingle roof.On 25 January 2012 the Planning Commission determined that all requests forreplacement ofwood shingles/shakes with composition shingles should be reviewed bythe Commission. The Commission wanted to ensure that the use of composition shingleswould not negatively impact community character.EVALUATION:Section 9 8 of the Residential Design Guidelines states the following:

9 8 oofmaterials should be consistent with the architectural style of hebuilding and with the context of he neighborhood. Wood shingles and shakes are preferred materials for most types of

architecture typical ofCarmel i.e., Arts and Crafts, English Revival andTudor Revival). Composition shingles that convey a color and texture similar to that ofwood shingles may be considered on some architectural styles

characteristic ofmore recent eras.The existing wood shake roof is a prominent architectural feature of the residence. Themanner in which the shakes curve around the edges is unique and represents skilledworkmanship. Staff would prefer the use of wood shakes over composition shingles forthis style of residence. However, the applicant has indicated that replacing the roof withwood shakes is highly expensive and not in their budget. The installation would requirethat the shakes be soaked and bent on site by hand.


15/18140

DS 13-33 GoldensonI May 2013Staff ReportPage 2

The composition shingle roofing can bend around the eaves without the added laborassociated with a wood shake roof. The applicant will bring a sample of the roofingmaterial to the meeting for the Commission t review. Staff recommends approval if thecomposition shingle roofing if it can be demonstrated that it would present an appearancesimilar to the existing wood shakes.RECOMMENDATIONReview the sample and determine if the material is appropriate.


16/18141

Attachment "E" :- Planning Commission Minutes 5/1113CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEAPLANNING COMMISSION -SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES

MAY 1, 2013

I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALLPRESENT: Commission Members: Goodhue, LePage, Reimers, PatersonABSENT: Commission Members: DallasSTAFF PRESENT: Marc Wiener, Acting Senior PlannerLeslie Fenton, Administrative CoordinatorMike Branson, City Forester

ll TOUROF INSPECTIONThe Commission toured the following sites: Heyermann/Siebert, Goldenson, Green,Vais, Fiallo/Martinez, Moresco and Lazarre.

Ill ROLL CALLIV. PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE

Members of the audience joined Commission Members n the pledge of allegiance.V ANNOUNCEMENTS/EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS

Commissioner Paterson announced that he would like to recommend that the Wine Policysub-committee reconvene and review the current policy.VI. APPEARANCES

Barbara Livingston appeared before the Commission.Vfi. CONSENT AGENDA

1 Consideration ofminutes from April I0, 2013, Regular Meeting.2. SI 13-10

OWRFCannel LLCMission Junipero bt. Ocean thBlock 78, Lot(s) All

Consideration ofan application for a metalbusiness sign at a site located in the CentralCommercial (CC) District.


17/18142

Mike Branson, City Forester, presented the staff report. Chair Paterson opened the publichearing at 4:50 . There being no appearances, the public hearing was closed at 4:50p.m.Commissioner LEPAGE moved to recommend that Council adopt the Ordinance,seconded by REIMERS and carried by the following roll call vote:AYES:NOES:ABSENT:ABSTAIN:2. DS 13-33

Goodhue, LePage, Reimers, PatersonNoneDallasNone

David GoldensonE/s Dolores 4 S 1 tbBlock 116, Lot(s) 8

Consideration of a Design Study applicationfor the replacement of an existing wood shakeroof with composition shingle on a residencelocated in the Single Family Residential (R-1)District.

Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Paterson openedthe public hearing at 4:53. There being no appearances, the public hearing was closed at4:53p.m.Commissioner REIMES moved to continue the application, seconded by LEPAGE andcarried by the following roll call vote:AYES:NOES:ABSENT:ABSTAIN:3. DS 13-12

Goodhue, LePage, Reimers, PatersonNoneDallasNone

Barbara Siebert/Chery HeyermannE/s Dolores 5 S 1 tbConsideration ofDesign Study (Final),Demolition Permit and Coastal DevelopmentPermit applications for the construction ofanew residence located in the Single FamilyResidentiaJ R 1 District.

Block 116, Lot(s) 12

Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner, presented the staffreport. Chair Paterson openedthe public hearing at 5:00p.m. Craig Holdren and Ron Brown appeared before theCommission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 5:p.m.Commissioner REIMERS moved to approve the application with staff's SpecialConditions with recognition of protecting tbe view shed from the east, seconded byLEPAGE and carried by the following roll call vote:

Planning Commission - Special Meeting MinutesMay I, 20133


18/18

Attachment F - Photographs o Goldenson ResidenceProject i te n Dolores Street facing east

Project Site n Dolores Street facing east

Documents

Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to Deny Goldenson11-2013.pdf