CITY COUNCIL: Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision to Require Property Owner to Remove Stone Veneer Applied to Residence Without Approval

Meeting Date: 14 September 2010
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Plng & Bldg Services Manager

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to require a property owner to remove a stone veneer that was applied to a residence without approval. The property location is on the southeast corner of Third and Torres. The appellant and property owner is James Ardaiz.

Description: The property owner installed a stone veneer on portions of an existing residence. The Planning Commission allowed some of the stone to remain but required that two small strips of stone be removed. The appellant is requesting that the stone be allowed to remain.

Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A

Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.

Important Considerations: The City’s Design Guidelines encourage stonework to appear structural and authentic and to avoid a purely gratuitous or decorative appearance. Stone applied around only windows or doors as ornamentation is also discouraged.

Decision Record: The Planning Commission required that the applicant remove a portion of the stone veneer on 12 May 2010. The property owner submitted an appeal on 26 May 2010.

Reviewed by:

__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR MCCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLNG & BLDG SERVICES MANAGER
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: 14 SEPTEMBER 2010
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO REQUIRE A PROPERTY OWNER TO REMOVE A STONE VENEER THAT WAS APPLIED TO A RESIDENCE WITHOUT APPROVAL. THE PROPERTY LOCATION IS THE SE CORNER OF TORRES STREET & THIRD AVENUE. THE APPELLANT AND PROPERTY OWNER IS JAMES ARDAIZ.

BACKGROUND
This site is located on the southeast corner of Torres Street and Third Avenue and is developed with a one-story residence. A Track One Design Study application was previously approved by staff for exterior alterations to the residence. The approval included an addition of approximately 150 square feet to accommodate a new primary entry, a new dining area and a hallway with French doors. A building permit was issued for the project on 27 May 2008.

The dining area projection was approved with a stone veneer, while the remainder of the addition was approved with board and batten wood siding only. During an inspection, it was identified that the applicant had installed a stone veneer on the primary entry and on both sides of the French doors along the hallway. Staff was concerned that the additional stonework was not consistent with the Design Guidelines and therefore referred the matter to the Planning Commission for review.

The Planning Commission reviewed this issue on 12 May 2010 and approved the stone veneer on the primary entry but required the stone to be removed from either side of the French doors along the hallway and be replaced with board and batten siding.

APPEAL
The property owner filed an appeal with the City Clerk on 26 May 2010. The appellant is requesting that the Council overturn the Planning Commission’s requirement to remove the stone from the sides of the French doors (see attached letter).

EVALUATION
Residential Design Guideline 9.10 states, “The application of stone should appear structural and authentic. A gratuitous or purely decorative appearance should be avoided.” Guideline 9.10 further states:

“The application of stone around only windows or doors as ornamentation is
discouraged” and “The use of stone on the full exterior of individual building element is encouraged. The use of stone on just one elevation, the street façade for example, is discouraged.”

The appellant contends that the stone does appear structural as it gives the impression of two stone columns rising from a stone pediment that runs under the French doors and supporting the beam the runs along the hallway.

Staff does not concur with the appellant. As originally approved, the stone on the dining room projection was consistent with the Guidelines, as it appeared structural and authentic. The stone wrapped around an entire building projection, rather than being applied on a flat surface of one elevation. The stonework that was added on either side of the French doors is inconsistent with the Guidelines as it is applied on only one elevation and does not wrap around an entire building element. The stone appears more decorative rather than giving the impression of stone pillars or columns. The stone also transitions to wood siding for no apparent structural reason.

Staff does note that the Guidelines are designed to assist in the decision making process for projects that affect the appearance of individual properties and the character of the community as a whole. The Guidelines are not intended to be inflexible nor used like an ordinance and therefore do allow for some discretion. Staff also notes that the stonework is not readily visible from the street due to the elevation of the residence above the street, the fence along the property line and the existing tree canopy.

RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.