Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to Deny Goldenson11-2013.pdf

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

Ratings: (0)|Views: 164 |Likes:
Published by SebViz2
Carmel City Council Agenda Item
Carmel City Council Agenda Item

More info:

Published by: SebViz2 on Nov 02, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/08/2013

pdf

text

original

 
126
To: From: Submitted by: Subject:
CITY OF
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Council Report November
5,
2013 Honorable
Mayor
and Members
of
the
City Council Jason Stilwell, City Administrator
Rob
Mullane,
AICP,
Community Planning and Building Director Marc Wiener, Senior Planner Consideration
of
an
appeal
of
the
Planning Commission s decision
to
deny a Design Study Application
OS
13-33)
for the
replacement
of
an existing
wood
shingle
roof
with
composition shingles on a residence located on Dolores Street 4 parcels southeast
of
10th
Avenue, in
the
Single Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. The application
is
being appealed by
the
property owner, David Goldenson.
Recommendation:
Deny
the
appeal and uphold
the
Planning Commission s decision
to
deny
OS
13-33.
Executive Summary:
The project site is located on Dolores Street 4 parcels southeast
of
Tenth Avenue. The
property
is
developed
with
a
two story
residence
that
is
clad
with
board and batten siding and a wood shingle roof. The
roof
has rolled eaves with
wood
shingles
that
curve around the edges.
Analysis Discussion:
The appellant
is
proposing
to
replace
the
existing wood-shingle
roof
with composition shingles. A Design Study
OS
13-33) application
to
replace
the
roofing materials was considered by
the
Planning Commission on
May
1, 2013, and again on June 12, 2013. The proposal was unanimously denied by
the
Planning Commission
at
the meeting on June 12, 2013.
nitial
Staff
nalysis
and
Planning Commission Review
With
regard
to
roofing material, Section 9.8
of
the Residential Design Guidelines states:
1
 
127
9.8 Roof materials should
be
consistent with the architectural style
of
the building
nd
with the context
of
the
neighborhood. Wood shingles
nd
shakes are preferred materials for
most
types
of
architecture 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 t
of
wood
shingles
m y
be
considered
o
some
architectural styles characteristic
of
more recent eras.
This application was reviewed by
the
P
la
nning Commission at
two
separate hearings.
t the first
meeting on May 1, 2013,
staff
noted
that the
existing wood shingle
roof
is
a
prominent
architectural feature
of
the
residence, and the manner in which
the
wood
shingles curve around
the
edges
is
unique and represents skilled workmanship. Staff recommended
that
for
this particular residence,
wood
shingles
be
maintained over composition shingles. The applicant had indicated
that
replacing the
roof
with
wood
shingles
is
highly expensive and
not within
their
budget. The installation would require
that the
wood
shingles be soaked and bent on site by hand. The composition shingle roofing could bend around
the
eaves
without the
additional labor associated
with
a wood shingle
roof
. The applicant is proposing Presidential brand composition shingles,
wh
i
ch
is
considered a high-quality composition-shingle product. The Presidential brand composition shingles are thicker than standard composition shingles and have a staggered pattern, similar
to
the wood shingles on
the
existing residence.
On
May
1, 2013,
the
Planning Commission continued the application
with
a request
to
visit another project site in
the
City
that
had used
the
proposed Presidential brand composition shingles.
On
June 12, 2013,
the
Planning Commission
toured
the
Coachman
 s
Inn, which
is
located on
San
Carlos Street 2 parcels southeast
of
Seventh Avenue. The Coachman s Inn had recently replaced
their roof
with Presidential brand composition shingles identical
to
what
is
being proposed
for the
subject residence.
2
 
128
 t
the
Planning Commission s hearing on June 12, 2013, the Commission voted
to
deny
the
proposal
for
composition shingles. The primary basis
for
denial was
that the
proposed composition shingles did
not
convey a
te
x
ture
similar
to
wood,
as
recommend by Residential Design Guideline Section 9.8. The Commission was also concerned
that the
proposal
would
have a negative impact on
the
overall architecture and appearance
of
the
residence. The Planning Commission acknowledged
that
cost did
not
factor
into their
decision. The City
is
not
compelled
to
consider cost when reviewing Design Study applications.
Basis
for
ppeal
The appellant
is
concerned
with
the
cost
of
the
wood
sh
ingles, in particular
the
labor associated
with
applying the shingles around
the
rolled eaves. The appellant has also stated
that
there are several
other
residences in Carmel-by-the-Sea
that
have rolled eaves
with
composi
tion
sh
ingle
roof
ing. However,
as
of
the
date
of
thi
s staff report,
no
specific examples have been provided by
the
appellant.
Staff
nalysis
of
ppeal
On
January 25, 2012,
the
Planning Commission determined
that
all requests
for
replacement
of
wood
shingles/shakes
with
composition shingles should be reviewed by
the
Planni
ng
Commission. The Planning Commission wanted
to
ensure
that the
use
of
composition shingles
would
not
negatively impact
community
character.
In
some instances, proposals
to
replace wood shakes
or
shingles
with
composi
tion
shingles have been approved when it
is
determined
that the
proposal
is
not
detrimental
to
the
architecture
of
the
building
or
its appearance.
Each
project
is
treated based on its unique circumstances, and
for
this project, the Commission could
not
support the proposed composition-shingle roofing material. Staff concurs
with
the Planning Commission s decision, which
is
consistent
with
the
guidance in Residential Design Guideline Section 9.8 (see above).
Previous Council Action Decision History:
This Design Study
DS
13-33) application was considered by
the
Planning Commission on May
1,
2013, and on June 12, 2013. The request was unanimously denied by a 5-0 vote on June 12, 2013. The appeal was scheduled
for
the
October 8, 2013 City Council meeting.
t the

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->