EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant proposed the replacement of the wood shake roof of a two-story single-family residence with a vertical standing seam metal roof at a single-family residence (DS 24203, 24216, 24217 (Faia)) on a 12,000 square-foot building site. The project was referred to the Planning Commission for review due to the Residential Design Guidelines 9.8 stating that “Metal, plastic, and glass roofs are inappropriate in all neighborhoods”. The Planning Commission approved the permit with special Condition of Approval No. 30, requiring the applicant submit revised plans for review and approval by the Planning Division, identifying an alternate roofing material. The applicant filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s action for consideration by the City Council in accordance with Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Code (CMC) Section 17.54.040.C.
BACKGROUND/SUMMARY
The residence was designed by Ted Fehring and constructed in 1951 by the Lunts Brother, contractors from Salinas. Neither the Lunts Brother nor Ted Fehring are currently listed in Carmel’s Historic Context Statement. On August 24, 2024, the property was reviewed for historic significance. It was determined to be ineligible for the Carmel Historic Inventory due to a lack of association with important events, people, builders, designers, or architects in the Historic Context Statement and the loss of integrity due to alterations. The property is comprised of three 4,000-square-foot lots at the Northeast corner of Torres Street and 2nd Avenue. The two parcels on 2nd Avenue (APNs 010-101-021-000 and 010-101-020-000) were reoriented in 2005 as part of a Lot Line Adjustment (LA 05-01). The three parcels make up one building site with the setbacks required of a resubdivided corner lot.
In 2013, BP# 13-151R was issued for interior remodeling, new doors, removing the brick surrounding the front entry and chimney, and site improvements. The site improvements included removing brick planters and the installation of timber railroad ties to replace the front staircase. Carmel stone was permitted to be installed around the front entry and on the chimney but was never installed.
A new standing seam metal roof was proposed, among other site changes, at the October 9, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. After consideration, public testimony and deliberation, the Planning Commission approved the Design Study and adopted Resolution 2024-087-PC (Attachment 3) incorporating Special Condition of Approval #30, requiring the applicant work with staff to identify an alternate roofing material that could be horizontal standing seam metal roof or complies with the City’s code and guidelines. The staff report from the October 9, 2024 Planning Commission meeting provides a detailed analysis for the decision (click here for the October 9, 2024 Staff Report). The video of the hearing is also available online (click here for YouTube link).
After this decision, the applicant worked to find a horizontal standing seam metal roof that they believed would appropriately fit the style of the house and meet the affordability needs for incorporation into this project. Despite their efforts, the applicant has stated that they were not able to find a roof that meets their requirements. However, the applicant has proposed a modified vertical standing seam roof that has lowered the SRI below 25 (Was SRI of 31, now SRI of 22), is a more muted, brown/gray color (Sheffield “Vintage”), and which has a non-standard pattern for the height of the seam (was 1 ½”, now 1”) and the width of the ‘pan’ between seams (was 12” now 18”).
The project went back to the Planning Commission with the modified vertical standing seam metal roof because the applicant couldn’t find a horizontal standing seam metal roof that met their roofing needs. After consideration, public testimony and deliberation, the Planning Commission approved the Design Study and adopted a revised Resolution 2024-087-PC (Attachment 4) modifying Special Condition of Approval #30 requiring the applicant work with staff to identify an alternate roofing material that could be metal shingles or complies with the City’s code and guidelines. The staff report from the December 11, 2024 Planning Commission meeting provides a detailed analysis for the decision (click here for the December 11, 2024 Staff Report). The video of the hearing is also available online (click here for YouTube link).
On January 29, 2025, Brandi Faia submitted a timely appeal (refer to Attachment 5) appealing the Planning Commission’s decision on the metal roof (including Condition #30).
STAFF ANALYSIS
Design Guidelines and Zoning Standards
Residential Design Guideline 9.8 states, “Metal, plastic, and glass roofs are inappropriate in all neighborhoods”. CMC Section 17.58.060.D covers the approval process for projects that deviate from the Residential Design Guidelines. It states,
“Findings Required for Approval of Deviations from Design Guidelines. In addition to any other findings required by this code, before approving any project in the single-family residential (R-1) district that deviates from the City’s applicable adopted design guidelines, the Director, Historic Preservation Board, or the Planning Commission shall adopt specific findings based on information in the record to show how the proposed deviation from the design guidelines achieves all of the applicable design objectives of CMC 17.58.010, Purpose and Applicability, as well as, or better than, would be achieved by adherence to the adopted design guidelines. (Ord. 2009-07 Att. A, 2009; Ord. 2004-02 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 § 1, 2004).”
The Design Objective in CMC Section 17.58.010 are,
1. Promote design that maintains the City’s intimate and human scale and complements, rather than overrides, natural constraints;
2. Ensure that the design of new homes, residential additions, and exterior alterations preserves the traditional characteristics of scale, good site design, and sensitivity to neighboring properties;
3. Encourage the construction of residences that are diverse and innovative in design yet compatible with the City’s forest setting as well as the site design and materials used in surrounding structures;
4. Promote residential design that respects the privacy, solar, access, and private views of neighboring properties;
5. Maintain a tradition of architectural diversity that enhances the character of the commercial district and adds a lively sense of history to Carmel’s village ambiance by promoting commercial building design that respect these traditions; and
6. Encourage originality and invention so long as the results encompass the unifying values of human scale and the use of natural materials and their role in preserving village character and avoid out-of-scale or bizarre building forms or incompatible design.
After discussion, the Commissions motion passed with a unanimous vote in favor of adopting the resolution with Condition of Approval #30 from the resolution.
Appeal
The Appellant has provided their grounds for their appeal in the appeal application (refer to Attachment 5 and 6). They stated, “standing seam metal roofs have been approved for similar homes but not mine.”
The project applicant was provided with the opportunity to discuss the merits of the project at two noticed public hearings, October 9, 2024 and December 11, 2024, held by the Planning Commission. In addition, testimony provided by staff, the project applicant, and homeowner were considered and discussed by the Planning Commission. No new information has been presented as part of the appeal that was not previously considered by the Planning Commission. Therefore, staff recommends the Council deny the appeal and uphold the Commission’s decision (see Attachment 2, draft resolution denying the appeal).
Alternatives
The architecture of the existing residence is ranch style, which a vertical standing seam metal roof would be architecturally appropriate. Therefore, Council could approve the style of roof proposed by the applicant. During the previous hearings, the Planning Commission considered two reroof permits for vertical standing seam metal roofs from the applicant. At a separate hearing, the Planning Commission talked at length during the roofing materials discussion agenda item about alternate roof designs; metal shingles, synthetic roofing, composite shingles, etc. The Council could direct the applicant to replace the existing wood shake roof with one of these alternate materials.
If the Council wishes to explore options for permitting a vertical standing seam metal roof, staff recommends providing specific findings and evidence supporting deviating from Residential Design Guidelines 9.8, how the project meets the Design Objectives contained in CMC Section 17.58.010 and modification of Condition of Approval #30 (see Attachment 1, draft resolution granting the appeal).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff recommends the project be found categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA guidelines, and local environmental regulations, pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1) – Existing Facilities. Class 1 exemptions include minor alterations to private structures involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The existing use is a single-family residence on a 7,409-square-foot building site. The project involves the replacement of the wood shake roof of a two-story single-family residence with a vertical standing seam metal roof at a single-family residence. The project will not change or expand the existing use of the property as a single-family residence.
The proposed project does not present any unusual circumstances that would result in a potentially significant environmental impact, and no exceptions to the exemption exist pursuant to section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines.