Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision 09-10-13

7/30/2019 Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision 09-10-13

1/15129

To:From:Submitted by:

Subject:

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEACouncil Report

September 10, 2013

Honorable 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 an application for a Plan Revision (DS 12-111} to install a metal roofon a residence located at theSE corner of Ocean Avenue and CarmeloStreet and Sixth Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1} ZoningDistrict. The applicant is Bill Hayward.

Recommendation: Determine the appropriate action.Executive Summary: The project site is located at the southeast corner of Ocean Avenue and

Carmelo Street. On 13 February 2013, the Planning Commissionapproved the construction of a new 3,418-square foot residence at thesubject location. The residence was approved with wood shingle siding, astone veneer, unclad wood windows and a wood shake roof.

Analysis/Discussion:

The project applicant subsequently, on 30 May 2013, submitted a PlanRevision application to change the roofing material from wood shake tozinc. The Plan Revision request was considered by the PlanningCommission on 10 July 2013, and again on 14 August 2013. At the 14August 2013 Planning Commission meeting, a motion to approve the PlanRevision failed on a split 2-2 vote.

Initial StaffAnalysis and Planning Commission ReviewThis application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at twoseparate hearings. Th e initial staff recommendation was fo r denial of thePlan Revision request because of the proposal's inconsistency withDesign Guideline 9.8, which states that "metal, plastic and glass roofs are

1


2/15130

inappropriate in all neighborhoods," and because of potential glareimpacts of the metal roof on neighboring properties.At the first meeting on 10 July 2013, the applicant indicated that one ofthe primary purposes fo r the zinc roof wa s to capture dew water thatcould be used fo r irrigation. The Commission expressed some opennessto the proposal and continued the item so that the applicant couldprovide additional information on the roofing material and bettersamples of what the material would look like. The applicant hadproposed options of a diamond shaped pattern or shingle pattern for theroof.The Planning Commission's second meeting on the Plan Revision was on14 August 2013. At that meeting, the applicant returned withinformation on the roof and a la rge sample of the diamond shapedpattern. The shingle pattern sample was incomplete and did no t providea good representation of roofing material. The entire Commission hadconcerns w ith the appearance of the diamond shaped pattern: primarilythat it appeared too decorative and that the scale was inappropriate forresidential use.The Commission indicated that it could potentially approve the shinglepattern, but would need to see a better sample. However, theCommission was mixed on whether the application should be continuedand consequently denied the request on a 2-2 vote. The twoCommissioners that voted against the metal roof were generallyconcerned with the appearance it would have at a prominent cornerwhere the building is located. The two Commissioners that supportedthe application did not want to rule out the roof because of the waterharvesting benefits.AppealThe appellant maintains that the zinc roofing material is appropriate andis critically important to capture fog and dew for use in irrigation on theproperty.Staff Analysis ofAppealRegarding Design Guideline 9.8, the City has approved a few metal roofsover the past several years with a standard being set that the roofmaterial is a natural metal that will patina over time as opposed to a

2


3/15131

painted metal alloy. The zinc roof meets the standard of a natural metalroof. However, each project is treated based on its uniquecircumstances, and fo r this project, the Commission was generallyuncomfortable with approving a metal roof at a prominent and highlyvisible location.Similar to the Commission, staff could not support the diamond-shapedpattern because it appears busy and overly decorative, which goesagainst the Residential Design Guidelines. Staff could potentially supportthe shingle pattern if it has a simple appearance that would not impactthe overall character of the building.

Previous CouncilAction/Decision History:

This Plan Revision request was considered by the Planning Commissionon 10 July 2013, and on 14 August 20143 . The request received a 2-2vote at the 14 August 2013 Planning Commission meeting and as such,was denied. One Commissioner abstained from voting.

Attachments: Attachment "A"- Appeal Application Attachment "B"- PC Staff Report dated 7/10/13 Attachment "C"- Roof Information Attachment "D" - Project Plans

Reviewed by:City Administrator ~ C i t y Attorney DAsst. City Admin. D Dir of CPB DPublic Safety Dir D Library Dir D

3

Administrative Services 0Dir of Public Svcs DOther D


4/15132

CITY OF CARN.IEL-BY-THE-SEAAttachment "A"

PEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION(FILING FEE: $295.00*)

Appellant: S T D ~ e - J a . ..&- A L t A ~ ~ CoN.5[AAt:flw-/ / c l t l f t . J ~ B ( ) ~ c . . v tIProperty Owner: Bn ..L ..J-. A ~ \ A ~ k HA"'ri.!Mp.oMailing Address: ~ ~ - 'S 'ft11ti"'Ot;VIU.E CT. tftoNTEI:Ey ~ f/.31'/0Phones:Day:(8 J I) 37$ - 1816 Evening:( )______Fax: (t$3 l) 37S, - IL/80 Email: CBeaA'-4'- e T4(.MB( t ( A u i i E . ~Date Board heard the matter: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ' T /L/. 2 01 .3Appeals to the City Council must be made in writing in the office of he City Clerk within10 workingdays following the date ofactron by the PlanningCommission andpayingthe required iling fee as established by City Council resolution.Physical location ofproperty that is the subjectof appeal:

Lot(s): 2 .;'f Block:__ __ APN: 010 - 2( . ( - -O J3COMMISSION ACTION BEINGAPPEALED:----------~ , . _ , I Il l L o'F" THE u.se oF" ; : z . , r ~ c , RooFi.N Gr Tl ..e. o.N' /Z.E.biDfaNC

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

(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)


5/15133

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.)u ~ I " ' ~ S ~ I / J N \Jil$ QtVIQfD dNt> H,o A 'TlE.l> yore \ . I J . ~ ~ e . y l.n> 74 J?f'HidL,

~ E 71lt=t \./ell.l! Nor'S/,IIZ& IF ~ " " ' - WAS AN AMii>PiliA11; ,.IUrEAJ.ft... '" ' Utb\EL..iHe ~ N C P 6 ~ " " 4 IS ep.,mut'- ~ ~ ,-." +- Dev VA1f1l. o t ~ t 'i o ~ roKeee 11\RW"tOd /I'IOEf"?MMNr ~ AIINJc.JML, ktttE& 7WI$ r/lu BE TH6 F i ~OF" ITS I ( ,H l ; ) IN T1fe C:l't'r' O f ' ~ ~ , A""D rioPEFM.u..'( Se-r A- 71lt:r/t> To #lt!.t-P"tfJi_ e - - J I . ' r , _ ~ , M f . . . K _ t(1t ~ / H I T ' s k r l l : f ' ~ 'To O ~ V E U > r A l , ~ N & , nM $4UIT1M'I ro1 ~ m . . , ~ l m o E i t P N ~ l ' f o F P ~ Y ffiAT TIIE FoREGOING rs TRUEAND CORRECT:

. nns l l e ~ D A Y O F Aukt


6/15134

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

MEETING DATE: 10 July 2013 BLOCK: M LOTS: 2 & 4FIRST HEARING: XITEM NO: DS 12-111 (Plan Revision)

SUBJECT:

CONTINUED FROM: N/AAPPLICANT: Bill & Adriana HaywardSTREAMLINING DEADLINE: N/A

Consideration of a Plan Revision application to an approved Design Study for thedemolition ofan existing residence and the construction of a new residence located in theSingle Family Residential (R 1) District.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Exempt (Class 3 - new construction)LOCATION: ZONING:

SE Cor. Ocean & Cannelo 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 conditions.3. Continue the application with a request for changes.4. Deny the application.RECOMMENDATION:Option #4 (Deny the application.)

ATTACHMENTS:1. StaffReport dated 10 July 2013.2. Application Materials.3. Project Plans. STAFF CONTACT: Marc Wiener, Senior Planner


7/15135

CITYOF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEACOMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDINGSTAFF REPORT

APPLICATION: DS 12-111 APPLICANT: Bill & Adriana HaywardBLOCK: M LOTS: 2 & 4LOCATION: SECor. Ocean& Carmelo

REQUEST:Consideration of a Plan Revision application to an approved Design Study for thedemolition of an existing residence and the construction of a new residence located in theSingle Family Residential (R-1) District.BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION:This project site is located at the southeast comer ofOcean Avenue and Carmelo Street.On 13 February 2013 the Planning Commission approved the construction of a new 3,418square foot residence at the subject location. The residence was approved with woodshingle siding, a stone veneer, unclad wood windows and a wood shake roof.On 30 May 2013 the applicant submitted a plan revision application that included minormodifications to the window design, a trellis on the front porch, the installation of a newrailing around the deck and a zinc metal roof. Staff approved the revisions to the windowdesign and the trellis because the changes were relatively minor and consistent with theDesign Guidelines. However, staff has forwarded the decision about the guardrail andmetal roof to the Planning Commission for review.EVALUATION:Metal Roof: Design Guideline 9.8 states that "metal, plastic and glass roofs areinappropriate in all neighborhoods. "The applicant is proposing to use diamond pattern zinc metal roof (see attached photo).In limited circumstances the City has approved metal roofs. The two main criteria arethat the applicant uses a natural metal that will patina over time and that the roof wouldnot negatively impact neighboring properties.Staffs primary concern with this proposal is the impact that it could have on the easternneighbor. The eastern neighbor has an ocean view that looks directly over the applicant 'sproperty. The proposed roofmg could create glare and possibly impact this neighbor.Staffhas contacted this neighbor and they are not in support of the metal roof.


8/15136

DS 12-111 (Hayward)10 July 2013StaffReportPage 2

Another concern is that the diamond pattern creates a decorative appearance. Staff notesthat the roofing material will be visible from Ocean Avenue and Cannelo Street. Staffrecommends that the Commission deny the request for the metal roof. The applicantwould be required to use wood shakes as originally approved.Guardrail: Design Guideline 9.2 recommends avoiding "overly ornate details. "Design Guideline 11.2 (fences) states that "ornate, Victorian wrought iron ... isinappropriate. "The residence was originally approved with an open wood guardrail. One concern withthe revised design is that the proposed iron railing has an ornate appearance and addsdecoration to the residence. Another issue is that the solid guardrail walls increase thevisual mass of a home that already appears relatively large to the street. The Commissionshould discuss whether the revised guardrails should be approved.RECOMMENDATION:1. Deny the proposal for the metal roof.2. Determine the appropriate action for the guardrails.


9/15137

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEAPLANNING COMMISSIONAGENDA CHECKLISTMEETING DATE: 14 August 2013 BLOCK: M LOTS: 2 & 4FIRST HEARING: XITEM NO: DS 12-111 (Plan Revision)

SUBJECT:

CONTINUED FROM: N/AAPPLICANT: Bill & Adriana HaywardSTREAMLINING DEADLINE: N/A

Consideration of a Plan Revision application to an approved Design Study for thedemolition of an existing residence and the construction of a new residence located in theSingle Family Residential (R-1) District.ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Exempt (Class 3 - new construction)LOCATION: ZONING:

SE Cor. Ocean & Cannelo 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 conditions.3. Continue the application with a request for changes.4. Deny the application.RECOMMENDATION:Determine the appropriate action.ATTACHMENTS:1. StaffReport dated 14 August 2013.2. Application Materials.3. Project Plans. STAFF CONTACT: Marc Wiener, Senior Planner


10/15138

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

STAFF REPORTAPPLICATION: DS 12-111 APPLICANT: Bill & Adriana HaywardBLOCK: M LOTS: 2& 4LOCATION: SECor. Ocean & Cannelo

REQUEST:Consideration of a Plan Revision application to an approved Design Study for thedemolition of an existing residence and the construction of a new residence located in theSingle Family Residential (R-1) District.BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION:The project site is located at the southeast comer of Ocean A venue and Carmela Street.On 13 February 2013 the Planning Commission approved the construction of a new 3,418square foot residence at the subject location. The residence was approved with woodshingle siding, a stone veneer, unclad wood windows and a wood shake roof.On 10 July 2013 the Planning Commission reviewed a Plan Revision application for azinc metal roof. Staff had recommended denial due to concerns about the potential forglare and the decorativeness of the proposed diamond shaped pattern. At the hearing theapplicant indicated that the purpose of the roof was to capture moisture from air thatwould drain off the roof into a catchment device. The applicant also brought samples ofthe metal roof showing that the material had a matte ftnish. It was also indicated that thematerial would patina over time to create a more natural finish.The Commission was generally supportive of the proposal, but requested that theapplicant return with larger samples of the roof, with patina, to better evaluate thematerial and the pattern. The Commission requested that the applicant provide bothdiamond and shingle shaped patterns. The Commission also directed the applicant toreturn with color samples of the house so that the roof could be reviewed in the context ofthe other colors.In addition to the material sample, the Commission also requested that the applicantprovide scientific information on the dew harvesting properties of the roof. The applicanthas provided information on the roof material.The Plan Revision application also included a proposal to revise the open wood railing tobe solid with decorative wrought iron at the top. The Commission directed the applicantto return with a simplified design.


11/15139

DS 12-111 (Hayward)14 August 2013Staff ReportPage2EVALUATION:Metal Roof: The applicant has provided staff with photographs of the proposed roofmaterial and will bring larger samples to the hearing. The zinc roof would come in eithera diamond or shingle (rectangular) pattern, in colors of gray or dark red. Of the twooptions the dark red appears the most muted and earth toned and is also the mostcompatible with the colors of the house, which will be painted tan with off-white trim.The Commission will have the option to review the roof materials and paint samples forthe home at the hearing. Staffnotes that the applicant made an effort, but was not able toobtain a sample with patina for this particular roofing material.With regards to the scientific information, the property owner, Bill Hayward, hasprovided what appears to be a private study indicating that the zinc material radiates heatat night which would allow for condensation of the moisture in the air. It was also notedthat the slick surface of the metal will assist in channeling water of f the roof and into thecatchment system. The applicant has not provided any published studies on this roofingmaterial.The Planning Commission's decision should be primarily based on whether the roofmaterial is appropriate for the site and consistent with the Design Guidelines. Staff notesthat the residence is located on a prominent comer and will be visible to the street. Thesamples will be important in evaluating this proposal.Deck Railing: The residence was originally approved with an open wood guardrail. Atthe last meeting the applicant proposed to revise the design to be solid with decorativewrought iron at the top. The Commission directed the applicant to simplify the design.The design has been amended and now the top 18 inches of the railing consists of simplevertical iron rails.RECOMMENDATION:Determine the appropriate action.


12/15140

Attachment "C"

Benefits ofZinc Roofing forDew Water Capture

Carmel City Planning Commissioners,Adriana and [ are seeking to build a house that can capture enough moisture from the nightair onto the roof to provide the landscaping water for the house year around.Carmel has a uniquely wet "dewy" climate. On most evenings the dew point (temperatureat which moisture in the ambient air condenses forming liquid water) is just a few degreesbelow the ambient temperature. By utilizing a roofing material that will radiate its heatinto the night sky, the roof will lower its temperature beyond the dew point thus causingwater to condense, run off and flow into our underground cistern.This requires a surface with the proper radiant characteristics and a smooth enoughsurface to allow small amounts of condensed water to flow into the catchment system. Thebest choice is a white painted metal roof. Clearly this surface is not acceptable from anaesthetic standpoint. The next best alternative is a zinc roof. It has the right radiantcharacteristics and is smooth enough to allow the condensed water to flow efficiently intocatchment system. The zinc's ability to lose heat into the night sky improves as it patinas.Quickly achieving the patina will be quite important to us.We have studied and tested different types of metal in order to come to this conclusion.Please see the attached "Roof Material Night Sky Radiant Cooling Results" let ter preparedby Ben& Ty Newell dated 3/22/13, which provides a description and results of the study.Unfortunately both composite and wood shingles do not work for dew water capture. Theydo not radiate their heat to the night sky efficiently and they absorb a great deal ofmoisture before any sheds to the catchment system.The existing house with it's current landscaping and dated irrigation system is using onaverage of 5,000-6,000 Ga. of water a month. Our estimate is that we will be able tocapture about 3,000-4,000 Ga. of dew water a month along with any rainwater. This alongwith drought tolerant planting, and updated water efficient irrigation system we should beable to provide water for landscaping year round with minimal demand on the city watersystem.We believe this is an exciting project for the future of Carmel and our water needs. Bycreating a working solution that is water self generating for the landscaping we will createsolutions to insure that Carmel has enough water to keep all those beautiful gardensblooming and our hotel rooms full.Sincerely,Bill Hayward


13/15141

Roof Material Night Sky Radiant Cooling Resu ltsBen Newell &Ty Newell; 3/22/2013

Four samples cut from the zinc coated steel roofing sample were prepared fo r night sky radiant testingas fo llows:1) Sample l le f t n original condition2) Sample 2 was painted black3) Sample 3 was painted white4) Sample 4 was coated with an aluminized plastic film

Thermocouple temperature sensors we re fixed to the back of each sample. An ambient air temperaturesensor was placed behind the foam board sample plate and sh ie lded from night sky and solar radiation.Samples 2, 3, and 4 should behave in the following manner, providing a comparison basis fo r theperformance of the original zinc coated steel.Sample 2 (black paint): Should have high emittance (absorptance) at both short (solar) wavelengths andlong (infrared, earth temperature) wavelengths. This should result in high temperatures during the daywith solar energy absorption, and cold temperatures at night due to night sky cool ingSample 3 (wh ite paint): White pa int is a "selective" surface that has low emittance (absorptance) atshort wavelengths and high emittance {absorptance) at long wavelengths. White pa int should have alow temperature during the day, relative to black paint, and low temperature equivalent to black paintat night due to night sky radiant cooling.Sample 4 (aluminum film coat ing): Polished aluminum should have low emittance (absorptance) at bothshort and long wavelengths. During t he day, it should be the coolest of all surfaces with a minimum ofsolar energy absorption, and it should be the warmest of ali surfaces during the night due w it h thelowest night sky radiant cooling. If coated with frost or water during the night, its emissivity willIncrease.


14/15142

Results SummaryA plot showing temperatures fo r the samples collected every 10 minutes over a 24 hour period during aday with relatively low wind (wind reduces night sky cooling effect) and clear sky daytime.During the day, the zinc coated steel roof material has a temperature that slightly exceeds thetemperature of the black paint coated roof sample. This indicates that the original sample has aselective surface characteristic with relatively high solar spectrum absorptivity with a somewhat lowerlong wavelength emittance. Note that the white paint and aluminum film coated samples aresignificantly lower temperatures during th e day due to low solar energy absorption.The second plot focuses on the nighttime temperatures. The aluminum sample has the highestnighttime temperature as expected. The black and white samples are similar with the lowesttemperatures.The zinc coated steel sample initially has a temperatu re that is intermediate between t he aluminumsample and t he white/black paint samples. This indicates a somewhat intermediate long wavelengthem ittance fo r the zinc steel sample, howeve r it decreases to a temperature equivalent to that of theblack and white samples later In the night. Most likely, the additional temperature drop is due to waterf reezing on the surface. Water, in both liquid and frost phases, will increase the surface emittance to alevel equivalent to black and wh ite paint.Based. on these results, the original zinc steel roof material has good characteristics for night sky coolingwith properties that are sufficiently close to ideal night sky rad iant surfaces. Once the surface becomeswetted or f rosted, the surface is further improved and will be an effective night sky radiator.


15/15

Photos of the four roof samples: original, black pa int, w hite pa in t and aluminum film coated.

Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision 09-10-13

Documents

Transcript of Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision 09-10-13