consideration of an appeal of the planning commission's decision to deny project 09-10-13

7/29/2019 Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to Deny Project 09-10-13

1/18111

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEACouncil Report

September 10, 2013To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City CouncilFrom: Jason Stilwell, City Administ ratorSubmitted by: Rob Mullane, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director

Marc Wiener, Senior PlannerSubject: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to

deny an application (DR 13-21) to install a rooftop trellis at a restaurantlocated at the NE corner of Junipero Street and Six Avenue in the ServiceCommercial (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 hasbeen occupied by Vesuvio restaurant since April 2011. The restaurant ispermitted 98 interior seats and 46 exterior seats on the rooftop and hashours of operation from 9:00a .m. to 11:00 p.m.The applicant is proposing to construct a redwood trellis and retractablecover for a 1,872-square foot area of the 3,784-square foot rooftop. Thetrellis is approximately 11 feet in height and would give the building atotal height of approximately 26 feet as measured from the ground.The Planning Commission considered the Design Review application (DR13-21) at the Commission's meeting of 10 July 2013, and unanimouslydenied the request. The primary basis for the denial was that the trellisadded too much mass and height to the building. The project applicant,Richard Pepe, is appealing th is decision to the City Council. The appealwas filed on 18 July 2013.

Analysis/Discussion: The appellant has indicated that the grounds for appeal are that thePlanning Commission unfairly denied the application while two identicalapplications fo r restaurants at Village Corner and Basil were approved inrecent years.

1


2/18112

Initial StaffAnalysisIn the staff report prepared for the Planning Commission meeting, staffidentified several aspects of the design that are consistent with thecriteria established in the Commercial Design Guidelines (see attachedreport). The trell is is 11 feet in height and would have a height ofapproximately 26 feet as measured from the ground. The maximumallowed height fo r buildings in the SC District is 30 feet. However, staffwas concerned with the mass that the trellis would add to the buildingand fo r that reason, did not recommend approval.Staff noted that the subject building is one of the larger structures in theimmediate vicinity. One of the guidelines with which the applicationappeared to be inconsistent was Commercial Design Guideline Section A,which states that "Building forms should complement the rhythmsestablished by other buildings in the immediate vicinity. Such patterns asheight, number of stories, width of storefronts, scale of building forms,eave heights .."Planning Commission ReviewThe Planning Commission reviewed the request for the rooftop trell is andcover on 10 July 2013, and denied it on a 4-0 vote . The PlanningCommission's primary concern with the trellis was that it added too muchadditional mass and height to the building, particularly because thebuilding is the largest in the vicinity.AppealThe appellant has indicated that the Planning Commission's denial of theDesign Review request was not fair in light of recent approvals for VillageCorner and for Basil. An outdoor trellis/awning was approved fo r theVillage Corner restaurant in 2008, and fo r Basil restaurant in 2010. Theprimary difference between these two proposals and one for Vesuvio isthat both of these are at ground level and do not add any height to thebuilding.The appellant is also challenging a reference that was made to CMCSection 17.14.050. At the Planning Commission meeting, one of theCommissioners stated that one of the reasons fo r denial was that theexisting use was non-conforming based on this section of the Code andthat adding the trellis would be an expansion of the non-conformity. The

2


3/18113

cited section of the municipal code states that the second-story of acommercial building with an existing retail use may continue that use ,and the use may be replaced by another retail use. However, if the use ischanged to a service business or residential, or if the building is new, thesecond-story may not be used fo r retai l.StaffAnalysis ofAppealStaff's interpretation of the municipal code is that the existing use ofrooftop dining is permitted as an existing use, and therefore, the trelliswould not be an expansion of a non-conformity. Regardless, the primaryreason that the Planning Commission denied the application is because ofconcerns related to mass, height and neighborhood context as indicatedin the final motion, not the assertion that the building in non-conforming.

Previous CouncilAction/Decision History:

Design Review application DR 13-21 was unanimously denied by thePlanning Commission (4-0) on 10 July 2013.

Attachments: Attachment "A"- Appeal Application Attachment 118"- PC Staff Report dated 7/10/13 Attachment "C"- Project Plans Attachment 11D"- Draft Minutes ofthe 7/10/13 Planning Commission Meeting (relevant

excerpt)Reviewed by:City Administrator ~Asst. City Admin.Public Safety Dir

DD

City Attorney DDir of CPBLibrary Dir

DD

3

Admin istrative Services DDir of Public SvcsOther

DD


4/18114

Attachment "A" CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEAAPPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION

(FILING FEE: $295.00*)

Appellant: ___.1(_;c_h_;_....:.._(l_(J_rpe--'--..::C....--f-L-v;...._e_s_u_v_)u_'/S_v_;L_f.._JrJ_(rProperty Owner: _ 5 _ _ : _ / ' J _ _ _ : M : . . . . . . . : . _ ~ ________________Mailing Address: - ~ _ J___,X=-----___,9:__o_)_C.!A_:__ft_J_f!.._ L__,,,_> C _ - - - ~ . 9 9 . . _ 2 = - . . L . - 1_ _Phones: a y ~ ) ~ _rt.) -?6 3 )Fax : c ~ > n 61-6 - e ~ P ~

Evening: ( ) - =.S=/J_m;,.__:,_::l!.____Email: PtZft.?. @eefiZitlftt(l.{'l0\),.;/,( . ~ ~

Date Board heard the matter: .:Tv L ~ J tJ J ~ J ) 3Appeals to the City Co uncil must be made in writing in the office of City Clerk within10 working days following the date ofaction by the Planning Commission andpayingthe requiredfilingfee as established by City Council resolutionPhysical location ofproperty that is the subject of appeal:-l ---Je5v\J)o) CAJO.,NeiL uf.- 6"') c t : : J v N ~ ( J ' e f l . ALot(s): 7..-$' cT 2., 6 Block: - -= __:f::;___ APN: ___________ _COMMISSION ACTION BEING APPEALED:-----------V -e tJ A L \) E v ~ 0 Aw N ', "' &

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

(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)


5/18115

GROUNDS FORAPPEAL: (State the specific basis for your appeal, such as errors oromissions you believe were committed by the Commission in reaching its decision, etc.)? t - n r - ~ N \ & m m 5 - ~ ~ " r - ~ ( ~ > - ~ t N ) t i J1,u """'J"' lit/(:JrJ a v ~ J l . Q .' \ , , .n i 9. t ; ; ; (., nw . . , L ~ (J w t fl( t. t u J : ) VLtt,CP if\ Nel-- cT EM; L . !'ffv-(.

IJnU.IJf ( l ~ r ~ ~ ( l . . t O ), J e(l.fl))(\..1'-> o t w 9 ) t l t d J < . . t . ~ t l . J L / , r J S ' ~ IV .h;.f (1.(1/)/vtJs ~ &erdl\l (if / ) w r d ~ (.I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUEAND CORRECT:DATEDAT: cArLMel

$295.00 fee* received: (Stafflnitial) Receipt#:

ATIEST:

Heidi Burch, City Clerk

*Article 9, Section 7, of he Constitution of the State ofCalifornia authorizes a city toimpose fees. Also see California government Code, Section 54344.IMPORTANT: If 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

c l t v o < " l ~ r / . C(HUid/ . t. P _ILPU.N J; :_;FO!t\l.du


6/18116

Attachment "B"CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEAPLANNING COMMISSIONAGENDA CHECKLIST

MEETING DATE: 10 July2013FIRST HEARING: XITEM NO: DR 13-21

SUBJECT:

BLOCK: 58 LOTS: 25 & 26CONTINUED FROM: N/AAPPLICANT: Richard PepeBUSINESS: VesuvioSTREAMLINING DEADLINE: 8/31/13

Consideration ofa Design Review application for alterations to an existing buildinglocated in the Service Commercial (SC) District.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:Exempt (Class 3 - New Construction)

LOCATION: ZONING:NW Cor. Junipero and 6th (Vesuvio) 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


7/18117

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

STAFF REPORTAPPLICATION: DR 13-21 APPLICANT: Richard PepeBLOCK: 58 LOTS: 25 & 26LOCATION: NW Cor. Junipero and 61h (Vesuvio)REQUEST:Consideration of a Design Review application for alterations to an existing buildinglocated 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 theService Commercial (SC) District. The building has been occupied by Vesuviorestaurant since April 2011 . The restaurant is permitted 98 interior seats and 46 exteriorseats 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 therooftop since at least 1977. When staff approved the business license in 2011 theapplicant was required to submit a seating plan (see attached). Seating was approvedonly on the west halfof the roof, consistent with the previous pennits for the restaurant.On 14 March 2012 the Planning Commission approved some exterior changes to thebuilding including new exterior materials and a parapet railing around the rooftop seatingarea. On 8 August 2012 the applicant requested preliminary input from the Commissionon a concept that included expanding the use of he outdoor seating and installing a trellisand 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 expansionof the seating.The applicant has returned with a Design Review application only for the trellis andretractable awning, with no expansion of the seating. The trellis/awning structure wouldcover 1,872 square feet of the 3,784 square foot rooftop. The trellis is approximately 10feet tall and would give the building a total height of 25.5 feet as measured from theground.


8/18118

DR 13-21 (Vesuvio)10 July 2013StaffReportPage2EVALUATION:Design: The following is a list of applicable Commercial Guidelines followed by a staffresponse on how the project complies.

1. "Modifications to buildings should not create visual clutter that can arise from toomany or uncomplimentary design elements. "

Response: The propose trellis/awning is architecturally compatible with the building andappropriate given that there is outdoor seating on the rooftop. While the proposal doesadd an additional architectural element to the building, it does not appear visuallycluttered.

2. "Building materials and colors should respect the traditions already establishedin the commercial district. The use ofrichly 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. Theapplicant has provided photos showing what the trellis would look like. Staff finds thatthe proposed materials are consistent with the recommendations of the Guidelines. Asshown on the drawings, there is an existing planter around the trellis that provideslandscaping and helps soften the appearance.

3. "Buildingforms should complement the rhythms established by other buildings inthe immediate vicinity. Such patterns as height, number ofstories, width ofstorefronts, scale ofbuilding 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 thetrellis. The trellis is approximately five feet taller than the railing and has a height of25.5 feet from the ground. Staff notes that the maximum allowed height for buildings is30 feet in the SC District.The Commission should consider that the trellis has a "light" appearance and presentsless mass than a fully enclosed second-story. If the Commission is concerned about massit could only allow the trellis above the seating area. However, the applicant would like


9/18119

DR 13-21 (Vesuvio)10 July 2013StaffReportPage3to have it cover the entire roof to give the building an architecturally consistent anduniform appearance.

4. "Muted colors which blend with the natural surroundings are appropriate. Brightand primary colors should be avoided. Contrasting colors should be saturatedand earthen. "

Response: Staff has not yet been provided details on the color of the awning, but hasrequested that the applicant bring a sample of the awning material and color to thehearing. Staff recommends that the color be consistent with the above guidelines.Outdoor Seating: The restaurant has utilized outdoor seating on their rooftop since atleast 1977. The applicant is asking to install awnings over the seating and storage areasto provide some protection from fog and sun to extend the enjoyment of the outdoorseating area.One potential benefit of the cover is that it would help contain noise associated withoutthe outdoor seating. The current design of the railings and heavy plantings already helpcontain any associated noise. The awnings would further muffle patron noise and make amore intimate environment for diners. It should be noted that staff has not received anyrecent new complaints about the restaurant.Summary: The proposed project meets several aspects of the Commercial DesignGuidelines as indentified above. However, staff has not provided a recommendation onthis project due to concerns about the mass the trellis would add to the building. If theCommission chooses to approve this project staff recommends adding a special conditionrequiring the seating be confined to its current location. Any expansion of the seatingarea would require an amendment to the use permit.RECOMMENDATION:Determine the appropriate action.


10/18

120

s::~ia'5!

PROJECT DESCRIPTIONPROPOSAL INCLUDES THE ADDITION OF A OPENWOOD/BEAM TRELLIS OVER THE EXISTINGTOP AREA. TRELLIS TO INCLUDE A RETRACTABLE CAAWNING FOR PROTECTION (AS REQUIRED) FROM WEA

AREA TABULATIONS:(ElROOFTOP AREA (GROSS):(E AREA TO BE TRELLISED: 3784 sa FT1872 sa FT


11/18

121

(E) s - o ~SETBACK

1 i(E) STORAGE

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

IIIIIIIIIII

(E) ROOFTOP

(E) SEATING AREA

:: :: :: :: :: nII II I I I I 11 II:: II :: :: :: ::II lL :: If I I j j I!:: : :: :; l I l: ::_______________u _____________J___ - - - - , , ' ' ' ' ____________l L __ _________ lL_________ ..--+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n - - - - - - - 1 - - - - t ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - ~

' 1 IIII

(E} STORAGEAREA !I IIIIIIII IIII IIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIII------- ----- -_j_i__h I I I I I I : 01 I I I I : ' ,:H

FLOOR PLANNTS os.n.u

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ -

(E)MECH.OPENABOVE1


12/18

122

(E) 5'-0"

1:ETBACK1lI

J .- .. .~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~~ ~

- 4 / ( ,L I t < 'I -

I

---II

(E) EDGE OF ROOF DECK/PLANTER

OPEN TRELLIS W/RETRACTABLE AWNING

II oil

- - -OPEN W/ ----RETRACTABLE AWNING ----(E)FLAT ROOF0/ STAIR

(E) ROOF(E)MECH.

(E) SLOPEDROOF'

ROOF PLANNTS 05.27,U

(E)FlAT ROOF0 / BAR(TO BE REPlACED)

0E) Pm ~ nIll m


13/18

123

------ - - ---------. . -,ff'- ~ - - - - ~ ~ - o . : _ ~ G H T - ~ ~ -_______ ;;.,e___ _ --: Jt'"'' -------} ' --- .-11 -o

_1(-::Q':.____

' ~ .. . _, . .J\. ..1 , .t - ~ , . .. - - VL A - -I0 -. I I" ) -_I I B . ~ \ . \ ; ,. ___:_ : \ ' - ~ ' 1: ./ . ///:;-.:. -: . . .. ~ / : : ' . \ ' . : .... ; . t. . .,It')N

___ . - c Q ~ ~ - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - EXISTING PAINTED- - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ P - ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - -

JUNIPERO STREET ELEVATION311e 1'-o oe .zs.u


14/18

124

STREETPERSPECnVENTB 05.27.13


15/18125

Attachment "D" CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEAPLANNING COMMISSION -MINUTESJULY 10,2013

I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALLPRESENT: Commission Members: Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, Reimers, PatersonSTAFF PRESENT: Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner

Leslie Fenton, Administrative CoordinatorII. TOUR OF INSPECTION

The Commission toured the following sites: Hardy, Carmel Lodge, Pepe, Pimentel,Green, Ghazal, Hayward.III. ROLL CALLIV. 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 PlanningCommission 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 beforethe Commission.VII. CONSENT AGENDA

1. Consideration ofminutes from June 12 , 2013 .Commissioner LEPAGE moved to approve Consent Agenda item # 1, seconded byGOODHUE and carried by the following roll call vote:AYES:NOES:ABSENT:ABSTAIN:

Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, Reimers, PatersonNoneNoneNonePlanning Commission - MinutesJuly 10,20131


16/18126

9. DS 13-69Peter & Susan LoewySW Mission & 1stBlock 11, Lot(s) 1,3,5,7

Consideration of a zoning determination for aproperty located in the Single FamilyResidential (R 1) District.

Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Paterson openedthe public hearing at 8:42p.m. Steve Beals and Brian Congleton appeared before theCommission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at9:00p.m .Commissioner DALLAS moved to treat the property as one 16,000 square footbuilding site when determining the allowed floor area. Allowing the southern lot tobe treated separately would set a precedent for other properties that have a similarscenario, seconded by REIMERS and carried by the following roll call vote:AYES:NOES:ABSENT:ABSTAIN:

Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, Reimers, PatersonNoneNoneNone

10. DR 13-21Richard Pepe Consideration of a Design Review applicationfor exterior alterations to a building located inthe Service Commercial (SC) District.W Junipero & 6thBlock 58, Lot(s) 25

Commissioner Reimers re-cused herself from the discussion.Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Paterson openedthe public hearing at 9:08p .m. Braden Sterling, Barbara Livingston, Jonathan Sapp,Roberta Miller appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, thepublic hearing was closed at 9:22 p.m.Commissioner LEPAGE moved to deny the application, seconded by DALLAS andcarried by the following roll call vote:AYES:NOES:ABSENT:ABSTAIN:

Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, PatersonNoneReimersNone

Planning Conunission - MinutesJuly 10,20137


17/18127

Attachment "D"CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEAPLANNING COMMISSION- MINUTESJULY 10,2013

I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALLPRESENT: Commission Members: Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, Reimers, PatersonSTAFF PRESENT: Marc Wiener, Acting Senior PlannerLeslie Fenton, Administrative Coordinator

II. TOUR OF INSPECTION

The Commission toured the following sites: Hardy, Carmel Lodge, Pepe, Pimentel,Green, Ghazal, Hayward.III. ROLL CALLIV. 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 PlanningCommission meeting in August. One of the topics to be di scussed will be water.VI. APPEARANCES

Rudolph Schroeder, Dory Petit, Fred Skittina and Anthony Lombardo appeared beforethe Commission.VII. CONSENT AGENDA

1. Consideration ofminutes from June 12, 2013.Commissioner LEPAGE moved to approve Consent Agenda item# 1, seconded byGOODHUE and carried by the following roll call vote:AYES:NOES:ABSENT:ABSTAIN:


Planning Commission - Minu tesJuly 10,20131


18/18

9. DS 13-69Peter & Susan LoewySW Mission & 1stBlock 11, Lot(s) 1,3,5,7

Consideration of a zoning determination for aproperty located in the Single FamilyResidential (R-1) District.

Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Paterson openedthe public hearing at 8:42p.m. Steve Beals and Brian Congleton appeared before theCommission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at9:00p .m.Commissioner DALLAS moved to treat the property as one 16,000 sguare footbuilding site when determining the allowed floor area. Allowing the southern lot tobe treated separately would set a precedent for other properties that have a similarscenario, seconded by REIMERS and carried by the following roll call vote:AYES:NOES:ABSENT:ABSTAIN:


10. DR 13-21Richard Pepe

Consideration of a Design Review applicationfor exterior alterations to a building located inthe Service Commercial (SC) District.W Junipero & 6th

Block 58 , Lot(s) 25

Commissioner Reimers re-cused herself from the discussion.Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner, presented the staf f report. Chair Paterson openedthe public hearing at 9:08p.m. Braden Sterling, Barbara Livingston, Jonathan Sapp,Roberta Miller appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, thepublic hearing was closed at 9:22 p.m.Commissioner LEPAGE moved to deny the application, seconded by DALLAS andcarried by the following roll call vote:AYES:NOES:ABSENT:ABSTAIN:

Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, PatersonNoneReimersNone

PlaMing Commission - MinutesJuly 10 ,20137

consideration of an appeal of the planning commission's decision to deny project 09-10-13

Documents