appeal of the planning commission's decision goldenson 10-08-13

7/27/2019 Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision Goldenson 10-08-13

1/18129

To:From:Submitted by:

Subject:

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEACouncil Report

October 8, 2013Honorable Mayor and Members of the City CouncilJason Stilwell, City AdministratorRob Mullane, AICP, Community Planning and Building DirectorMarc Wiener, Senior PlannerConsideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision todeny a Design Study Application (DS 13-33) for the replacement of anexisting wood shingle roof with composition shingles on a residencelocated on Dolores Street 4 parcels southeast of lOth 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 denyDS 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 appellant is proposing to replace the existing wood-shingle roof withcomposition shingles. A Design Study (DS 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.

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

1


2/18130

9.8 Roof materials should be consistent with the architectural style ofthe building and with the context of the neighborhood. Wood shingles and shakes are preferred materials for most types of

architecture typical of Carmel (i.e., Arts and Crafts, English Revivaland Tudor Revival).

Composition shingles that convey a color and texture similar to thatof wood shingles may be considered on some architectural stylescharacteristic ofmore recent eras.

This application was reviewed by the Planning Comm ission at twoseparate hearings. At 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 fo r 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,which is considered a high-quality composition-shingle product. The'Presidential' brand composition shingles are th icker than standardcomposition 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 'Pre sidential' brandcomposition shingles identical to what is being proposed for the subjectresidence.

2


3/18131

At the Planning Commission's hearing on June 12, 2013, the Commissionvoted to deny the proposal for composition shingles. The primary basisfo r 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 didno t factor into their decision. The City is not compelled to consider costwhen reviewing Design Study applications.AppealThe appellant is concerned with the cost of the wood shingles, inparticular the labor associated with applying the shingles around therolled eaves. The appellant has also stated that there are several otherresidences in Carmel-by-the-Sea that have rolled eaves with compositionshingle roofing. However, as of the date of th is staff report , no specificexamples have been provided by the appellant.StaffAnalysis ofAppealOn January 25 , 2012, the Planning Commission determined that allrequests for replacement of wood sh ingles/shakes with compositionshingles should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The PlanningCommission wanted to ensure that the use of composition sh ingleswould 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, the Commission could not support the proposedcomposition-shingle roofing material. Staff concurs with the PlanningCommission's 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.

3


4/18132

Attachments: Attachment "A"- Appeal Application Attachment "B"- PC Staff Report dated 6/12/13 Attachment "C"- PC Minutes dated 6/12/13 Attachment "D" - PC Staff Report dated 5/1/13 Attachment "E"- PC Minutes dated 6/1/13 Attachment "F" - Photographs

Reviewed by: ~ity Administrator ~ City Attorney Administrative Services 0Asst. City Admin. D Dir of CPB ~ Dir of Public Svcs 0Public Safety Dir D Library Dir 0 Other 0

4


5/18133

Attachment "A" - Appeal ApplicationCITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION(FILING FEE: $295.oo)

~ 5 2 - { l - { 3ro( u;(r?

Appellant: bqv1J.. ~ . C/Jei!1.(0it1Property owner: 1avtR. "\ ~ . r;;Ve11 "-P/.1Mailing Address: (Jo .&ox t f ~ t : : j 7 1 ( ~ NY ;J.{lJS.Phones:Day${J)p.J-: fcfp{?" E v e n i n ~ ) 7/# -.(lfc./-Fmc: ( ):-.--..!:H:L..f{'-=-'t;,____ E m a i l : & i . ~ t.(jdie.U.biA @61JJ.i.J. ~ MDate Board heard the matter: 'JUkll.- 11- 21; I 3.Appeals to the City Council mu.st be made in wrilfng in the office of he City Cleric within10 workingdllp foUowing lite dllM of ldion by 1M Plllnning Commission and payingthe requiredfilingfoe as established by City Council resolution.Physical location ofproperty that is the subject of appeal:~ S:"(/P'IttGl-H lJolores

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

(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)


6/18134

GROUNDS FOR APPEAL:. (State the specific basis for your appeal, such as errors oromissions you believe were committed by the Commission in reaching its decision, etc.)~ ~ ~ R ~ ~I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY TIIATTim FOREGOING IS TRUEAND CORRECT:DATEDAT: ~ tJj , T i n S -AYOF r,;l'fl= ,;.err-;p/3

\ ~ ' ) Q J L . . _S i g n a ~ ofappellantM J S2\t-\1

- - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - = - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -295 .00 fee received: (Staff Initial) Receipt #:

AITEST:

Heidi Burch, City ClerkArticle 9, Section 7, of he Constitution of he State ofCalifornia authorizes a city toimpose fees. Also see California government Code, Section 54344.IMPORTANT: If the appellant wishes to submit materials for duplication andinclusion in the City of Cannel-by-the-Sea's Council agenda packet, the materials mustbe submitted to the City Clerk by working days after the decision of heCommission. This matter is tentatively scheduled to be heard on


7/18135

Grounds for Appeal ofdenial ofDesign Study No. DS13-33 on June 12, 2013My roof, needing replacement, has wood shingle rolled eaves. Due to the expense, Iwant to replace wood shingles with a composite material comparable in 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 is incorrect and I will furnish photos of thesehomes.My roofing contractor has photos of houses in Carmel with rolled eaves of compositematerial in Carmel. This gives me the impression that previous requests for this changehave been approved. I will furnish photos of hese houses,We have owned this bouse for over 20 years. I take pride in my home and would not doanything that would detract from its appearance.


8/18136

Attachment "B" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated 6112113CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEAPLANNING COMMISSIONAGENDA CHECKLIST

MEETING DATE: 12 June 2013

FIRST HEARING: XITEM NO: DS 13-33

SUBJECT:

BLOCK: 116 LOT: ~

CONTINUED FROM: N/AOWNER: David GoldensonSTREAMLINING DEADLINE: 5116/13

Consideration of a Design Study application for the replacement ofan 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 of 10111 on Dolores R-1ISSUES: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


9/18137

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEACOMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING

STAFF REPORT Project Denied by the Planning Commission on 6/12/13APPLICATION: DS 13-33BLOCK: 116LOCATION: 4 SE of 101h 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 ofTenth Avenue. The propetty 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 of where this typeof roofing was used so that the Commission could evaluate its use on an entire roof asopposed to only viewing a small sample. Since then it has been identified that the sametype of 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 of 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 of 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.

DS 13-33 (Goldenson)


10/18138

DS 13-33 (Goldenson)12 June 201 3StaffReportPage2The 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 of the compos1t10n shingle roofing if it can bedemonstrated that it would present an appearance similar to the existing wood shakes andwould not be detrimental to the appearance of the residence. The Commission will havethe opportunity to visit the Coachman's Inn on the tour so that it can view the proposedroofing.RECOMMENDATION:Review the sample and determine if the material is appropriate.


11/18139

Attachment "C" - Planning Commission Minutes 6/ 12/ 13CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

PLANNING COMMISSON-MINUTESJUNE 12, 2013I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

PRESENT: Commission Members: Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, Reimers,PatersonSTAFF PRESENT: Marc Wiener, Acting Senior PlannerLeslie Fenton, Administrative Coordinator

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

ill. ROLLCALLIV. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Members of the 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 the wine 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.


12/18140

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 landscaping areas,seconded by GOODHUE and carried by the following roll call vote:AYES:NOES: Goodhue, LePage, PatersonNoneABSENT:ABSTAIN: Dallas, ReimersNone4. DS 13-33David Goldenson

E/s Dolores 4 S 1O'hBlock 116, Lot(s) 8

Consideration of a Design Study applicationfor the replacement of an existing wood shakeroof with composition shingles 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 6:33 p.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 611Block 63, Lot(s) 14

Consideration ofDesign 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 staff report. Chair Paterson openedthe public 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 - MinutesJune 12, 20136


13/18141

Attachment "D" - PC Staff Report dated 5/1/ 13CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEAPLANNING COMMISSIONAGENDA CHECKLIST

MEETING DATE: 1 May 2013 BLOCK: 116 LOT: B_

FIRST HEARING: XITEM NO: DS 13-33

SUBJECT:

CONTINUED FROM: N/AOWNER: David GoldensonSTREAMLINING DEADLINE: 5116/13

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

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

4 SE of 1Oth on Dolores R-1ISSUES:I. 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 conditions.3. Continue the application with a request for changes.4. Deny the application.RECOMMENDATION:Determine the appropriate action.ATTACHMENTS:1. StaffReport dated 1 May 2013.2. Photograph.

STAFF CONTACT: Marc Wiener, Senior Planner


14/18142

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEACOMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDINGSTAFF REPORTAPPLICATION: DS 13-33BLOCK: 116LOCATION: 4 SE of l01h on DoloresREQUEST:

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 of wood 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 Roofmaterials should be consistent with the architectural style o f hebuilding and with the context o f he neighborhood.

Wood shingles and shakes are preferred materials for most types ofarchitecture typical o fCarmel (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 stylescharacteristic 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.


15/18143

DS 13-33 (Goldenson)1 May 2013StaffReportPage 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 to review. Staff recommends approval if thecomposition shingle roofing if it can be demonstrated that it would present an appearancesimilar to the existing wood shakes.RECOMMENDATION:Review the sample and determine if the material is appropriate.


16/18144

Attachment "E" - Planning Commission Minutes 5/1113CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

PLANNING COMMISSION -SPECIAL MEETING MINUTESMAY 1, 2013

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALLPRESENT: Commission Members: Goodhue, LePage, Reimers, PatersonABSENT: Commission Members: DallasSTAFF PRESENT: Marc Wiener, Acting Senior PlannerLeslie Fenton, Administrative Coordinator

Mike Branson, City ForesterII. TOUR OF INSPECTION

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

lli . ROLL CALLIV. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Members of the audience joined Commission Members in 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.VII. CONSENT AGENDA

1. Consideration of minutes from April 10, 2013, Regular Meeting.2. SI 13-10OWRF Cannel LLCMission/Junipero bt. Ocean & 7tll

Block 78, Lot(s) All

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


17/18145

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 1OthBlock 116, Lot(s) 8

Consideration ofa Design Study applicationfor the replacement of an existing wood shakeroofwith 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. DS13-12

Goodhue, LePage, Reimers, PatersonNoneDallasNone

Barbara Siebert/Chery! HeyermannE/s Dolores 5 S 10111Consideration ofDesign Study (Final),Demolition Permit and Coastal DevelopmentPermit applications for the construction of anew residence located in the Single FamilyResidential (R-1) District.Block 116, Lot(s) 12

Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner, presented the staff report. 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 5:11p.m.Commissioner REIMERS moved to approve the application with staff's SpecialConditions with recognition of protecting the view shed from the east, seconded byLEPAGE and carried by the following roll call vote:

Planning Commi ssion - Special Meeting MinutesMay I, 20133


18/18

Attachment "F" - Photographs ofGoldenson ResidenceFront of residence facing southeast

Front of residence facing northeast

appeal of the planning commission's decision goldenson 10-08-13

Documents