P. 1
Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to Deny Project 09-10-13

Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to Deny Project 09-10-13

|Views: 8|Likes:
Published by L. A. Paterson
Carmel City Council Agenda Item
Carmel City Council Agenda Item

More info:

Published by: L. A. Paterson on Sep 12, 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

09/12/2013

pdf

text

original

111

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Council Report
September 10, 2013
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Jason Stilwell, City Administrator
Submitted by: Rob Mullane, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director
Marc Wiener, Senior Planner
Subject: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to
deny an application (DR 13-21) to install a rooftop trellis at a restaurant
located at the NE corner of Junipero Street and Six Avenue in the Service
Commercial (SC) Zoning District. The appellant is Richard Pepe.
Recommendation: Uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project.
Executive Summary: The project site is located at the northwest corner of Junipero and Sixth
Avenues in the Service Commercial (SC) Zoning District. The building has
been occupied by Vesuvio restaurant since April 2011. The restaurant is
permitted 98 interior seats and 46 exterior seats on the rooftop and has
hours of operation from 9:00a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
The applicant is proposing to construct a redwood trellis and retractable
cover for a 1,872-square foot area of the 3,784-square foot rooftop. The
trellis is approximately 11 feet in height and would give the building a
total height of approximately 26 feet as measured from the ground.
The Planning Commission considered the Design Review application (DR
13-21) at the Commission's meeting of 10 July 2013, and unanimously
denied the request. The primary basis for the denial was that the trellis
added too much mass and height to the building. The project applicant,
Richard Pepe, is appealing this decision to the City Council. The appeal
was filed on 18 July 2013.
Analysis/Discussion: The appellant has indicated that the grounds for appeal are that the
Planning Commission unfairly denied the application while two identical
applications for restaurants at Village Corner and Basil were approved in
recent years.
1
112
Initial Staff Analysis
In the staff report prepared for the Planning Commission meeting, staff
identified several aspects of the design that are consistent with the
criteria established in the Commercial Design Guidelines (see attached
report). The trellis is 11 feet in height and would have a height of
approximately 26 feet as measured from the ground. The maximum
allowed height for buildings in the SC District is 30 feet. However, staff
was concerned with the mass that the trellis would add to the building
and for that reason, did not recommend approval.
Staff noted that the subject building is one of the larger structures in the
immediate vicinity. One of the guidelines with which the application
appeared to be inconsistent was Commercial Design Guideline Section A,
which states that "Building forms should complement the rhythms
established by other buildings in the immediate vicinity. Such patterns as
height, number of stories, width of storefronts, scale of building forms,
eave heights ... "
Planning Commission Review
The Planning Commission reviewed the request for the rooftop trellis and
cover on 10 July 2013, and denied it on a 4-0 vote. The Planning
Commission's primary concern with the trellis was that it added too much
additional mass and height to the building, particularly because the
building is the largest in the vicinity.
Appeal
The appellant has indicated that the Planning Commission's denial of the
Design Review request was not fair in light of recent approvals for Village
Corner and for Basil. An outdoor trellis/awning was approved for the
Village Corner restaurant in 2008, and for Basil restaurant in 2010. The
primary difference between these two proposals and one for Vesuvio is
that both of these are at ground level and do not add any height to the
building.
The appellant is also challenging a reference that was made to CMC
Section 17.14.050. At the Planning Commission meeting, one of the
Commissioners stated that one of the reasons for denial was that the
existing use was non-conforming based on this section of the Code and
that adding the trellis would be an expansion of the non-conformity. The
2
113
cited section of the municipal code states that the second-story of a
commercial building with an existing retail use may continue that use,
and the use may be replaced by another retail use. However, if the use is
changed to a service business or residential, or if the building is new, the
second-story may not be used for retai l.
Staff Analysis of Appeal
Staff's interpretation of the municipal code is that the existing use of
rooftop dining is permitted as an existing use, and therefore, the trellis
would not be an expansion of a non-conformity. Regardless, the primary
reason that the Planning Commission denied the application is because of
concerns related to mass, height and neighborhood context as indicated
in the final motion, not the assertion that the building in non-conforming.
Previous Council
Action/Decision History:
Design Review application DR 13-21 was unanimously denied by the
Planning Commission (4-0) on 10 July 2013.
Attachments:
• Attachment "A"- Appeal Application
• Attachment
11
8"- PC Staff Report dated 7/10/13
• Attachment "C"- Project Plans
• Attachment
11
D"- Draft Minutes ofthe 7/10/13 Planning Commission Meeting (relevant
excerpt)
Reviewed by:
City Administrator ~
Asst . City Admin.
Public Safety Dir
D
D
City Attorney D
Dir of CPB
Library Dir
D
D
3
Administrative Services D
Dir of Public Svcs
Other
D
D
114
Attachment "A"
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
(FILING FEE: $295.00*)
Appellant: ___.1(_; c_h_;_ A....:.._(l_(J_rp _ e--'-- f..::C.... t--f-L-v,;...._ e_s_u_v_) u_'/S_v_; L_f.._J_rJ_(r
Property Owner: ________________ _
Mailing Address: _J___,X=-----___,9:__o_)_C _.!A_:__ft_«J_f!.. _L__,,,_> __
Phones: _rt.) -?6 3 )
Fax: 61-6
Evening: ( ) - =.S=/J_m;,.__:,_::l! :.__ __ _
Email: PtZft.?. @ eefiZitlftt(l.{'l£0\),.;/,( .
Date Board heard the matter: .:Tv J tJ J ) 3
Appeals to the City Council must be made in writing in the office of City Clerk within
10 working days following the date of action by the Planning Commission and paying
the requiredfilingfee as established by City Council resolution
Physical location of property that is the subject of appeal:
-l ---
\Je5v\J)o) CAJO.,NeiL uf.- 6"')
Lot(s): ·7..-$' cT 2., 6 Block: --=S__:f::;___
APN: ___________ __
COMMISSION ACTION BEING APPEALED:-----------
V -e tJ A L \) E v
0
A w N ', "' &
If you were NOT the original applicant or the applicant's representative, please state the
evidence that you are an aggrieved party: --------------
(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)
115
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: (State the specific basis for your appeal, such as errors or
omissions you believe were committed by the Commission in reaching its decision, etc.)
& J1,u """'J"' lit/(:JrJ
'\,, .. n i 9. t ;;; (., n w (J w t fl§( t.t u t J :) V ;Ltt,CP if\ Nel-- cT 'EM; L . !'ffv-(.
·'IJnU.IJf ),J e(l.fl))(\..1'-> IV .h;.f (1.(1/)/vtJ
&erdl\l (if (.
I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE
AND CORRECT:
DATEDAT: cArLMel
$295.00 fee* received: (Stafflnitial) Receipt#:
ATIEST:
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
*Article 9, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of California authorizes a city to
impose fees. Also see California government Code, Section 54344.
IMPORTANT: If the appellant wishes to submit materials for duplication and
inclusion in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea' s Council agenda packet, the materials must
be submitted to the City Clerk by ____ working days after the decision of the
Commission. This matter is tentatively scheduled to be heard on
C(HUid/. t. P _ILPU.N, J; :_;FO!t\l.du
116
Attachment "B"
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA CHECKLIST
MEETING DATE: 10 July2013
FIRST HEARING: X
ITEM NO: DR 13-21
SUBJECT:
BLOCK: 58 LOTS: 25 & 26
CONTINUED FROM: N/A
APPLICANT: Richard Pepe
BUSINESS: Vesuvio
STREAMLINING DEADLINE: 8/31/13
Consideration of a Design Review application for alterations to an existing building
located in the Service Commercial (SC) District.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Exempt (Class 3 - New Construction)
LOCATION: ZONING:
NW Cor. Junipero and 6th (V esuvio) sc
ISSUES:
1. Are the proposals consistent with the Design Guidelines and the Zoning Ordinance?
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:
Detennine the appropriate action.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. StaffReport dated 10 July 2013.
2. Application Materials.
STAFF CONTACT: Marc Wiener, Senior Planner
117
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION: DR 13-21 APPLICANT: Richard Pepe
BLOCK: 58 LOTS: 25 & 26
LOCATION: NW Cor. Junipero and 6
1
h (Vesuvio)
REQUEST:
Consideration of a Design Review application for alterations to an existing building
located in the Service Commercial (SC) District.
BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project site is located at the northwest comer of Junipero and Sixth avenues in the
Service Commercial (SC) District. The building has been occupied by Vesuvio
restaurant since April 20 11. The restaurant is permitted 98 interior seats and 46 exterior
seats with hours of operation from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
The building has a long history of use as a restaurant including outdoor seating on the
rooftop since at least 1977. When staff approved the business license in 2011 the
applicant was required to submit a seating plan (see attached). Seating was approved
only on the west half of the roof, consistent with the previous pennits for the restaurant.
On 14 March 2012 the Planning Commission approved some exterior changes to the
building including new exterior materials and a parapet railing around the rooftop seating
area. On 8 August 20 12 the applicant requested preliminary input from the Commission
on a concept that included expanding the use of the outdoor seating and installing a trellis
and awning system for a cover. Three Commissioners expressed support for the concept,
while two expressed were opposed to the concept. The primary issue was the expansion
of the seating.
The applicant has returned with a Design Review application only for the trellis and
retractable awning, with no expansion of the seating. The trellis/awning structure would
cover 1,872 square feet of the 3,784 square foot rooftop. The trellis is approximately 10
feet tall and would give the building a total height of 25.5 feet as measured from the
ground.
118
DR 13-21 (Vesuvio)
10 July 2013
Staff Report
Page2
EVALUATION:
Design: The following is a list of applicable Commercial Guidelines followed by a staff
response on how the project complies.
1. "Modifications to buildings should not create visual clutter that can arise from too
many or uncomplimentary design elements. "
Response: The propose trellis/awning is architecturally compatible with the building and
appropriate given that there is outdoor seating on the rooftop. While the proposal does
add an additional architectural element to the building, it does not appear visually
cluttered.
2. "Building materials and colors should respect the traditions already established
in the commercial district. The use of richly detailed wood, tile, moldings,
corbels, bricks, and stone as well as landscaping are encouraged. "
Response: The trellis structure would be constructed of redwood with 4 x 6 posts. The
applicant has provided photos showing what the trellis would look like. Staff finds that
the proposed materials are consistent with the recommendations of the Guidelines. As
shown on the drawings, there is an existing planter around the trellis that provides
landscaping and helps soften the appearance.
3. "Buildingforms should complement the rhythms established by other buildings in
the immediate vicinity. Such patterns as height, number of stories, width of
storefronts, scale of building forms, eave heights ... "
R e ~ o n s e : The subject building is one of the larger structures in the immediate vicinity.
Staff's primary concern with the project is the visual mass that will be added by the
trellis. The trellis is approximately five feet taller than the railing and has a height of
25.5 feet from the ground. Staff notes that the maximum allowed height for buildings is
30 feet in the SC District.
The Commission should consider that the trellis has a "light" appearance and presents
less mass than a fully enclosed second-story. If the Commission is concerned about mass
it could only allow the trellis above the seating area. However, the applicant would like
119
DR 13-21 (Vesuvio)
10 July 2013
Staff Report
Page3
to have it cover the entire roof to give the building an architecturally consistent and
uniform appearance.
4. "Muted colors which blend with the natural surroundings are appropriate. Bright
and primary colors should be avoided. Contrasting colors should be saturated
and earthen. "
Response: Staff has not yet been provided details on the color of the awning, but has
requested that the applicant bring a sample of the awning material and color to the
hearing. Staff recommends that the color be consistent with the above guidelines.
Outdoor Seating: The restaurant has utilized outdoor seating on their rooftop since at
least 1977. The applicant is asking to install awnings over the seating and storage areas
to provide some protection from fog and sun to extend the enjoyment of the outdoor
seating area.
One potential benefit of the cover is that it would help contain noise associated without
the outdoor seating. The current design of the railings and heavy plantings already help
contain any associated noise. The awnings would further muffle patron noise and make a
more intimate environment for diners. It should be noted that staff has not received any
recent new complaints about the restaurant.
Summary: The proposed project meets several aspects of the Commercial Design
Guidelines as indentified above. However, staff has not provided a recommendation on
this project due to concerns about the mass the trellis would add to the building. If the
Commission chooses to approve this project staff recommends adding a special condition
requiring the seating be confined to its current location. Any expansion of the seating
area would require an amendment to the use permit.
RECOMMENDATION:
Determine the appropriate action.
1
2
0
s::

i
a
'5
!
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROPOSAL INCLUDES THE ADDITION OF A OPEN SKY
WOOD/BEAM TRELLIS OVER THE EXISTING ROOF
TOP AREA. TRELLIS TO INCLUDE A RETRACTABLE CANVAS
AWNING FOR PROTECTION (AS REQUIRED) FROM WEATHER
AREA TABULATIONS:
(El ROOFTOP AREA (GROSS) :
(E AREA TO BE TRELLISED:
3784 sa FT
1872 sa FT

PROPOSED TRELLIS
FOR.
BY·
MR. RICHARD PEPE
VESUVIO RESTUARANT
Corner of 6th & Junipero
Carmel-by-the-Sea, Ca.
STERUMG-tiUDDl£SON
ARCHITECTURE
PH. 111 . iH. 4l61
Poot Offtce. Box 221092
C•"fomia 93923

05. 27.13
PRELIMINARY/CONCEPTUAL
1
2
1
(E)
SETBACK
1 i
I
(E) STORAGE
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I
(E) ROOFTOP
(E) SEATING AREA
:: :: :: :: :: n
II II I I I I 11 II
:: II :: :: :: ::
II lL :: If I I j j I!
:: : :: :; l I l: ::
_______________ u ______________ J___ ---- , , '' '' ____________ l L ____________ lL _________ ..--+11- 1

'
1
II
II
(E} STORAGE AREA ! J
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
------- ------_j_i __ h I I I I I I :
0
1 I I I I : ' ,:H
FLOOR PLAN
NTS os.n.u

(E)MECH.
OPEN
ABOVE
10
D
PROPOSED TRELLIS
Cornor of 6111 & Juniporo
Carmol-by-tho-Saa, Co.

... RCHITECTU RE
PH..I31.824 . -43t13
1
2
2
(E) 5'-0"
1
:ETBACK
1
l
I
J .-.. , .




-4/•(,L

I'-
•I
---II
(E) EDGE OF ROOF DECK/PLANTER
OPEN TRELLIS W/
RETRACTABLE AWNING
II
oil
---OPEN W/ ----
RETRACTABLE AWNING ----
(E)
FLAT ROOF
0/ STAIR
(E) ROOF
(E)
MECH.
(E) SLOPED
ROOF'
ROOF PLAN
NTS 05.27,U
(E)
FlAT ROOF
0/ BAR
(TO BE REPlACED)
0
(E) Pm
n
Ill
m
D
PROPOSED TRELLIS
Comer of 8th & Junipero
Ca.

ARCH I TECTU RE
PH, I3 1. 824 . .4383
1
2
3
-----------------
.. . -,ff'-
_______ ;;.,e ___ --: Jt'"'' -----------
}' f • --- <il> • . ----
.- --
11 ·-o·
OPEN TRELLIS/AWNING
_1(-::Q':._ __ _
(N) PLANTS
'
.. .
_, .
.J\. .. ..1 , •••• ·.·t . ..
-

VL A
·- -
...

0
I
0 -
. I •
I") -
_I I \; l,. ___:_ ·' 1:···./ · . .///:;-.:. -: .. .· .. ··' .
\
' . . : .... ; . ··t. . ., .. · . . .4-(E) STUCCO
It')
N
___
EXISTING PAINTED

JUNIPERO STREET ELEVATION
311e ·· 1'-o· oe.zs.u
PROPOSED TRELLIS

ARCHITECTURE
PH. a:n.o24 . .C3B:S
1
2
4
STREETPERSPECnVE
NTB 05.27.13
PROPOSED TRELLIS
Comer of 6th & Juniporo
Cl .
.-rERLING-IIUDDLEliON
ARCHITECTURE
PH. 1:11.1Zo4.43fl3
125
Attachment "D"
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION -MINUTES
JULY 10,2013
I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Commission Members: Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, Reimers, Paterson
STAFF PRESENT: Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner
Leslie Fenton, Administrative Coordinator
II. TOUR OF INSPECTION
The Commission toured the following sites: Hardy, Carmel Lodge, Pepe, Pimentel,
Green, Ghazal, Hayward.
III. ROLL CALL
IV. 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 there will be a Special Planning
Commission meeting in August. One of the topics to be discussed will be water.
VI. APPEARANCES
Rudolph Schroeder, Dory Petit, Fred Skittina and Anthony Lombardo appeared before
the Commission.
VII. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Consideration of minutes from June 12, 2013.
Commissioner LEPAGE moved to approve Consent Agenda item # 1, seconded by
GOODHUE and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, Reimers, Paterson
None
None
None
Planning Commission - Minutes
July 10,2013
1
126
9. DS 13-69
Peter & Susan Loewy
SW Mission & 1st
Block 11, Lot(s) 1,3,5,7
Consideration of a zoning determination for a
property located in the Single Family
Residential (R -1) District.
Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Paterson opened
the public hearing at 8:42p.m. Steve Beals and Brian Congleton appeared before the
Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at
9:00p.m.
Commissioner DALLAS moved to treat the property as one 16,000 square foot
building site when determining the allowed floor area. Allowing the southern lot to
be treated separately would set a precedent for other properties that have a similar
scenario, seconded by REIMERS and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, Reimers, Paterson
None
None
None
10. DR 13-21
Richard Pepe
Consideration of a Design Review application
for exterior alterations to a building located in
the Service Commercial (SC) District. NW Junipero & 6th
Block 58, Lot(s) 25
Commissioner Reimers re-cused herself from the discussion.
Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Paterson opened
the public hearing at 9:08p.m. Braden Sterling, Barbara Livingston, Jonathan Sapp,
Roberta Miller appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the
public hearing was closed at 9:22 p.m.
Commissioner LEPAGE moved to deny the application, seconded by DALLAS and
carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, Paterson
None
Reimers
None
Planning Conunission - Minutes
July 10,2013
7
127
Attachment "D"
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION- MINUTES
JULY 10,2013
I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Commission Members: Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, Reimers, Paterson
STAFF PRESENT: Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner
Leslie Fenton, Administrative Coordinator
II. TOUR OF INSPECTION
The Commission toured the following sites: Hardy, Carmel Lodge, Pepe, Pimentel,
Green, Ghazal, Hayward.
III. ROLL CALL
IV. 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 there will be a Special Planning
Commission meeting in August. One of the topics to be discussed will be water.
VI. APPEARANCES
Rudolph Schroeder, Dory Petit, Fred Skittina and Anthony Lombardo appeared before
the Commission.
VII. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Consideration of minutes from June 12, 2013.
Commissioner LEPAGE moved to approve Consent Agenda item# 1, seconded by
GOODHUE and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, Reimers, Paterson
None
None
None
Planning Commission - Minutes
July 10,2013
1
128
9. DS 13-69
Peter & Susan Loewy
SW Mission & 1st
Block 11, Lot(s) 1,3,5,7
Consideration of a zoning determination for a
property located in the Single Family
Residential (R -1) District.
Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Paterson opened
the public hearing at 8:42p.m. Steve Beals and Brian Congleton appeared before the
Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at
9:00p.m.
Commissioner DALLAS moved to treat the property as one 16,000 sguare foot
building site when determining the allowed floor area. Allowing the southern lot to
be treated separately would set a precedent for other properties that have a similar
scenario, seconded by REIMERS and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, Reimers, Paterson
None
None
None
10. DR 13-21
Richard Pepe
Consideration of a Design Review application
for exterior alterations to a building located in
the Service Commercial (SC) District. NW Junipero & 6th
Block 58, Lot(s) 25
Commissioner Reimers re-cused herself from the discussion.
Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Paterson opened
the public hearing at 9:08p.m. Braden Sterling, Barbara Livingston, Jonathan Sapp,
Roberta Miller appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the
public hearing was closed at 9:22 p.m.
Commissioner LEPAGE moved to deny the application, seconded by DALLAS and
carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, Paterson
None
Reimers
None
PlaMing Commission - Minutes
July 10,2013
7

You're Reading a Free Preview

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