Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision Pepe 10-08-13

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

1/16113

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 Director, andMarc Wiener, Senior PlannerConsideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision toDeny an Application (DR 13-21) for the Installation of a Rooftop Trellis atVesuvio Restaurant located at the Northwest Corner of Junipero Streetand Sixth Avenue in the Service Commercial (SC) Zoning District. TheAppellant is Richard Pepe.

Recommendation: Uphold the Planning Commission's decis ion to deny t he project (DR 13-21).

Executive Summary: The project site is located at the northwest corner of Junipero and SixthAvenues in the Service Commercial (SC) District . The building has beenoccupied by Vesuvio Restaurant since April 2011. The restaurant ispermitted 98 interior sea ts and 46 exterior seats on the rooftop withhours of operation from 9:00a.m . to 11:00 p.m.The applicant is proposing to construct a redwood trell is and retractableawning to provide cover to the rooftop dining. The tre llis/awningstructure would cover 1,872 square feet of the 3,784-square footrooftop. The trellis is approximately 11 feet tall and would give thebuilding a total height of approximately 26 feet as measured from theground.The Planning Commission unanimously denied the application on July 10,2013. The primary basis for the denial was that the trellis added toomuch mass and height to the building. The project appl icant, RichardPepe, is appealing this decision to the City Council. The appeal was filedon July 18, 2013. This item was scheduled fo r the City Council 's meetingof September 10, 2013, but was continued by the Council at theappellant's request.


2/16114

Analysis/Discussion: The appellant has indicated the grounds for appeal are that the PlanningCommission unfairly denied the application while two very similarapplications, those for the Village Corner and Basil restaurants wereapproved in recent years.In 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 AttachmentB). However, staff was concerned with the mass that the trellis wouldadd to the build ing, and for that reason did not recommend approval.Commercial Design Guideline Section A states that: "Building formsshould complement the rhythms established by other buildings in theimmediate vicinity. Such patterns as height, number of stories, width ofstorefronts, scale of building forms, eove heights .."In addition, it should be noted that the Commercial Design Guidelinescite General Plan Land Use Policy Pl-69, which states: "Continue tocontrol the scale and mass of both one and two story buildings throughdesign review. Guidelines should retain design flexibility, should not be sorestrictive that all buildings would look alike, and should recognize that incertain areas, the absence of setbacks is positive and contributes to thecharacter of Carmel."The subject building is one of the larger structures in the immediatevicinity. The Planning Commission's primary concern with the trellis isthat added too much additional mass and height to the building,particularly because the building is the largest in the vicinity. The rooftop trellis is 11 feet in height, and with the addition of the trellis, thebuilding would have a height of approximately 26 feet as measured fromthe ground. While this is within the maximum allowed height forbuildings in the SC District is 30 feet, the Planning Commission wasconcerned with the size and bulk of the building in relation to othernearby buildings.The appellant has indicated that the decision was not fair in light ofrecent approvals for Village Corner and Basil. An outdoor trellis/awningwas approved fo r the Village Corner restaurant in 2008, and another wasapproved fo r Basil restaurant in 2010. The primary difference betweenthese tw o projects and one proposed fo r Vesuvio is that the VillageCorner and Basil trellises are at ground level and do not add height to thebuilding.


3/16


4/16116

Attachment "A" CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEAAPPEAL OF PLANNING C011MISSION DECISION

(FILING FEE: $295.00*)

Appellant: ----'1 t _ L _ _ _ , , , _ ) C . . . . . : . _ f t _ - - ~ . - - = 1 : : . . . . _ 9 / _ _ 2 = - - . J _ J__Phones: Day:( g.-} b S Z....) - ?63 )

F a x ( ~ J I ) 6 L . 6 . ; 8 ~ P ~Evening: ( ) _ . S = . ! . . . / J m ~ t ! = - - - - - - - -Email: ft!_f2@ f ~ ( ' j t f } e ( l . f ' l t " J \ ) t l / 1 ( ~ f t \

Date Board heard the matter: .:::::f0 L ~ t u J '7..--J )3Appeals to the City Council must be made'in writing in the office o f t h ~ City Clerk within10 working days following the date ofaction by the Planning Commission and payingthe requiredfilingfee as established by City Council resolution.Physical location ofproperty that is the subject of appeal:\J e 50\ ) ) 0 ) C,Q (l.. N e p_.. IJ f- Dn dSv 'J 6' e lALot(s): "2...$'d- 2- 6 Block: --=S-'!=----- APN: ________________COMMISSION ACTION BEING APPEALED:- - -- -------J) e tJ I A L i) E u n0 (j Aw r/ )1-t &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)


5/16117

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.)?L.n tN ) f i lhiJ ' i t i ~ J I J l/tl{:uJ k.lhJLQ.

~ - ~ ' n ; 9.. t ~ ; l d, nw ,.,i,. 'J w t f i G ( ~ HI :/ VU.t,(, Nett d-/11}/J' L . fffv-f..--vnU.I,J ( l . , ~ ( \ . 4 . ~ )rJ e C Z M t \ . . 1 ' ~ O f ' . ; . , , ~ , . ~ t l ~ t1.J1,cJJ'\) ru ( l f f ) /uN

'SA- lfeN)/1(. of ) w f ' l ) ~ (.I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTYOF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUEAND CORRECT:DATED AT: cAnn" e THIS1.8_ DAY OF 3u L1

$295.00 fee received: (Staff Initial) Receipt#:

ATTEST:

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 the appellant wishes to submit materials for duplication andinclusion in the City ofCarmelby-theSea'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

ohiaOntCW/fd/. 1. P L PLAN.U' J FORJJ.ti:Je


6/16118

Attachment "B"

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEAPLANNING COMMISSIONAGENDA CHECKLIST

MEETING DATE: 10 July 2013FIRST HEARING: XITEM NO: DR 13-21

SUBJECT:

BLOCK: 58 LOTS: 25 & 26CONTINUED FROM: N/AAPPLICANT: Richard PepeBUSINESS: VesuvioSTREAMLINING DEADLINE: 8/31113

Consideration of a 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 applicationwith a request for changes.4. Deny the application.RECOMMENDATION:Determine the appropriate action.ATTACHMENTS:1. StaffReport dated 10 July 2013.2. Application Materials. STAFF CONTACT: Marc Wiener, Senior Planner


7/16119

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 6th (Vesuvio)REQUEST:Consideration of a Design Review application for alterations to an existing buildinglocated in the Service Commercial (SC) DistrictBACKGROUND 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 permits 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.


8/16120

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. "Building forms should complement the rhythms established by other buildings inthe immediate vicinity. Such patterns as height, number of tories, width ofstorefronts, scale o fbuilding forms, eave heights ... "Response: The subject building is one of the larger structures in the inunediate 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


9/16121

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 appJicant 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, staffhas 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.


10/16

s:~ie'5Gl~

PROJECT DESCRIPTIONPROPOSAL INCLUDES THE ADDITION OF A OPEN SWOOD/BEAM TRELliS OVER THE EXISTING ROTOP AREA. TRELLIS TO INCLUDE A RETRACTABLE CANVAWNING FOR PROTECTION (AS REQUIRED) FROM WEATH

AREA TABULATIONS:(E) ROOFTOP AREA (GROSS):(E) AREA TO BE TRELLISED: 37U SQ FT1872 SQ FT


11/16

123

(E) s-oSETBACK~ - - / - -1 {E) STORAGE - k--- (E) ROOFTOP\

IIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIII"IIIIIIII IIIIIIII I"I

II

IIIIII

1

(E) SEATING AAEA

I I , , :t --------: .. ! != ------ j' I_____________u___________ ___ _ _

(E) STORAGE AAEA

l i"I"III"IIIIIIIIIIII

FLOOR PLANNT8 0!.27.13

.-4". . :1: .-4". nPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I--------iL--- --- ---1;-1

(E)MECH.OPENN>E 'D


12/16

124

(E) s-o1:ETBACK1lI

~ ' . . - , 1 1 ! - ',v,_lfi~ '

B"' .....

CNNASAWNING

(E) EDGE Of' ROOF DECK/PLANTER

OPEN TRElliS wRETRACTABLE AWNING

IllII I ' ": I I I "

,,, I Ir ( 'I~...____,,

----OPEN W/ --___RETRACTABLE AWNING ---

{E) IloCECH.(E) ROOF

GHT

(E)FlAT ROOF0 / STAIR-

{E) SLOPEDROOF~ YUGHT

ROOF PLANN a OI.Z7. ta

F l A T ( ~ O O F0 / BAR(TO BE REPLACED)

0 ~ ~


13/16

125

I

-------

g l ~ IioN

--------- - -----

JUNIPERO STREET ELEVATION. , , . . t.e oa. .n


14/16

126


15/16127

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

D. TOUR OF INSPECTIONThe 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. APPEARANCESRudolph Schroeder, Dory Petit, Fred Skittina and Anthony Lombardo appeared beforethe Commission.

VII. CONSENT AGENDA1. Consideration of minutes 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 Commi ssion - MinutesJuly 10, 2013

1


16/16

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 aUowed floor area. AUowing the southern Jot 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 PepeNW Junipero & 6thBlock 58, Lot(s) 25

Consideration of a Design Review applicationfor exterior alterations to a building located inthe Service Commercial (SC) District.

Commissioner Reimers re-cused herself from the discussion.Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Paterson openedthe public hearing at 9:08 p.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 Corruni ssion - MinutesJuly I0, 20137

Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision Pepe 10-08-13

Documents

Transcript of Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision Pepe 10-08-13