Meeting Date: 6 November 2012
Prepared by: Marc Wiener, Associate Planner
City Council
Agenda Item Summary
Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny an awning on a storefront located on the east side of Dolores between Ocean and 7th Avenues. The appellant is Alex Agacanyan, owner of B&G Jewelers.
Description: The appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's denial of the awning.
Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's unanimous denial.
Important Considerations: Commercial Design Guideline Section A states that:
"Modifications to building should respect the history and traditions of the architecture of the commercial districts. Basic elements of design integrity and consistency throughout each building should be preserved or restored. "
Decision Record: On 12 September 2012, the Planning Commission unanimously denied the project with a vote of 4-0.
Attachments:
• Attachment "A" Appeal Application/Letter & Attachments.
• Attachment "B" PC Staff Report (9/12/12).
Reviewed by:
Jason Stilwell, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
THROUGH: JASON STILWELL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: MARC WIENER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: 6 NOVEMBER 2012
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY AN AWNING ON A STOREFRONT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF DOLORES BETWEEN OCEAN AND 7TH AVENUES. THE APPELLANT IS ALEX AGACANYAN, OWNER OF B&G JEWELERS
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is a commercial building located on the east side of Dolores Street between Ocean and Seventh avenues. The subject building is listed on the City’s Historic Inventory and is occupied by a retail store, B&G Jewelers. The appellant, Alex Agacanyan, is the owner of the store.
The appellant is proposing to install an awning on the storefront. The proposed awning has the dimensions of 72” x 30” x 28” (l x w x h). The appellant originally proposed a yellow awning, but is now proposing burgundy. The appellant has indicated a willingness to work with the City on the color.
PC Review: On 12 September 2012, the Planning Commission reviewed the application and denied it by a unanimous 4-0 vote. The primary concern of the Commission was that the proposed awning would detract from the architecture and appearance of the building.
One concern was that the proposed awning would disrupt the symmetry of the front arched windows.
EVALUATION
Basis for Appeal: Below is a summary of the concerns raised by the appellant followed by a staff response.
1. The front awning is needed to protect the merchandise from the sun.
Response: The proposed awning would only project 30” from the back wall and does not appear to provide much coverage to the storefront bay window. Many shops and jewelry stores in Carmel have display windows that are without an awning. Staff concludes that the above argument does not provide sufficient reason to allow for an awning at this location.
2. There was previously an awning on this storefront.
Response: The City issued an approval for a new awning at the subject location in 1983. There has been no awning at this location for at least the past one to two years. The fact that there once was an awning at this location does not grandfather in all future proposals. This is considered a new application and is subject to discretionary review by the City.
Summary: Commercial Design Guideline Section A states that “Modifications to building should respect the history and traditions of the architecture of the commercial districts. Basic elements of design integrity and consistency throughout each building should be preserved or restored.”
In the original staff report, the focus was primarily on the color of the awning. The Commission, however, raised some valid concerns about whether an awning would be appropriate for the building. Staff concurs with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the application. The proposed awning does not complement the architecture of the building and creates an inconsistency between the two arched windows, as discouraged by the above Guideline.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous denial.
Attachment "A" Appeal Application/Letter & Attachments
APPEAL OF PLANNlNG COMMISSION DECISION
(FITJNG FEE: $295.00*)
B&G ESTATE JEWELERS
Dolores Between Ocean & 7th Ave.
P.O. Box 7265
Carmel, CA. 93921
Phone 831 625-5710
Fax (831) 625-8693
heatherbgieweler@gmail.com
September 17, 2012
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Community Planning And Building Department
Post Office Drawer G
Carmel, Ca 93921
Regards: DR 12-18(B&G Jewelers)
E/s Dolores between Ocean & 7th
Blk 76, Lot 12 APN: 010-146-011
Dear Mr. Marc Wiener
We have grounds to appeal the decision to deny our application for an awning at the last City Council meeting on 12 September 2012.
We have a jewelry business license for fine jewelry in Carmel. When we purchase this business establish in 1971 from James Giles, "Giles of Carmel", the business had an existing Awning designed and installed by the same company," Acme Awning" Owner Gale Rawitzer (831) 372-3539. The former owner ofthe business James Giles had his awning up for years until it was worn with age. He did not proceed to replace due to the
new prices to replace his awning.
We are a high-end fine jewelry establish business 40 years in the business. Our inventory is consists of fine rare Emeralds, Opals, Tourmaline, Diamonds set into Platinum, 18kt and 14kt gold, including high-end 18kt gold watches.
The following above rare, expensive gemstones cannot be in environment of high temperature's. Tourmalines, Tanzanite's, Emeralds will thermo shock, which means, (facture into cracks thru out the stones). We will lose precious inventory and the ability to display our precious jewelry in our front window display without the following exiting awning the was formally installed previous.
Our 14kt and 18kt gold Jewelry and Fine Watches hold the high ,130 degree and above, dangerous temperatures, from the heat in the window due to the missing awning. Our customers and employees have complain of bums from touching the fine jewelry pieces.
We are very concern of a lawsuit filed against our business due to serious injuries. Also The expensive jewelry display melt and fade due to the direct sun light and heat without the protection of the previous installed awning.
The store front still has the previous awning brackets installed we would like to replace the exact same style and dimension of the original awning. We are willing to change the color to suit the city's approval and replace the color of the store front.
We would be interested in having the owner of the Acme Awning Company, "Gale Rawitzer'', and I meet with you on the fine details on the specks of the awnings size and color. The picture of the awning that was presented to the City Council did not show in great detail the size and depth. The original awning did not cover the buildings bricks. The awning is installed under the store front's arch.
Sincerely,
Alex Agacanyan, owner
831-625-5710
Attachment “B” – PC Staff Report
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA CHECKLIST
FIRST HEARING: X CONTINUED FROM: N/A
ITEM NO: DR 12-18 APPLICANT: Ohannes Agaranyan
BUSINESS: B & G Jewelers
STREAMLINING DEADLINE: 10/16/12
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Design Review application for the installation of an awning on a storefront located in the Central Commercial (CC) District.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Exempt (Class 3 – New Construction)
LOCATION: ZONING:
E/s Dolores bet. Ocean & 7th CC
ISSUES:
1. Do the proposed awning and storefront colors comply with the Commercial 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:
2. Approve the application with special conditions.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report dated 12 September 2012.
2. Application Materials.
STAFF CONTACT: Marc Wiener, Associate Planner
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
STAFF REPORT Awning Denied; Paint Approved 9/12/12
APPLICATION: DR 12-18 APPLICANT: Ohannes Agaranyan
BLOCK: 76 LOT: 12
LOCATION: E/s Dolores bet. Ocean & 7th
REQUEST:
Consideration of a Design Review application for the installation of an awning on a storefront located in the Central Commercial (CC) District.
BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project site is a commercial building located on the east side of Dolores Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues. The business space is occupied by a retail store named “B & G Jewelers”. The subject building is listed on the City’s Historic Inventory.
The applicant is proposing to install a yellow awning on the storefront that includes the business name. The proposed awning has the dimensions of 72” x 30” x 28” (l x w x h). Staff has scheduled this application for review by the Planning Commission to evaluate the color.
As a separate issue, the wood trim on the storefront was painted metallic gold by the applicant without a permit. The trim was painted approximately 1-2 years ago and according to the applicant is consistent with the previous trim color. The City does not have a record of the previous color. Staff has included an evaluation of the paint to determine whether it should be permitted.
EVALUATION:
Awnings/Color Guidelines: Section E of the Guidelines state that “Muted paint colors, which blend with the natural surroundings, are appropriate. Bright and primary colors should be avoided. Contrasting colors should be saturated and earthen.”
The Commercial Design Guidelines do not specifically address awnings, but do address the use of color. Staff is concerned that the proposed awning color would appear “bright” and is inconsistent with the Design Guidelines. Staff recommends approval of the awning with a condition that the applicant work with staff on determining an appropriate color for the awning. The revised color should be muted and more consistent with the Guidelines.
Staff supports the proposal to place the business name on the front of the awning. However, the name does qualify as a sign and the applicant would be required to remove the existing blade sign from above the door. A special condition has been added to address the signage.
Storefront Paint: The applicant painted the storefront metallic gold approximately 1-2 years ago. While the color has a metallic finish, it appears somewhat dull and muted. The color also is compatible with the tan colored Carmel stone on the building. Staff could support the existing gold paint as long as the color of the awning is muted and does not draw any more attention to the storefront.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the application with the attached special conditions. (Awning Denied)
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant is permitted to install an awning on the front of the building, but shall work with staff on finding a more muted color that is also consistent with the storefront color.
2. The applicant shall remove the existing blade sign in place of the awning sign.
No comments:
Post a Comment