Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves urgent Croman retaining wall, defers gate and garden wall design
Summary
Faced with a failing slope and homeowner safety concerns, the commission authorized replacement of a failing retaining wall on Mission Street but removed the proposed 3-foot garden wall, driveway gate and arch from approval; staff and applicants will return with revised design details for the frontage elements.
The Carmel-by-the-Sea Planning Commission on July 23 approved, by a 5-0 vote, removal and replacement of a failing retaining wall on Mission Street but declined to approve the proposed garden wall and driveway-arch/gate as part of the same action.
The property owner, Jordan Crum, and landscape architect Scott Hall told the commission the existing retaining wall was failing and moving toward the house above. Staff's presentation described a steep slope and a structure that needs immediate repair; a structural engineer proposed a pier-based foundation system with piles down roughly 13.5 feet to stabilize the slope.
Why it matters: staff and applicants described the retaining-wall replacement as a safety and stability priority. The commission's action authorizes a new engineered retaining wall system that will exceed standard staff-level height allowances where necessary to protect the slope; commissioners emphasized urgency because ongoing movement threatens the house above the wall.
Discussion and decision: architects and engineers present explained that replacing the wall involves deep excavation and specialized construction methods; Scott Hall said contractors with San Francisco-area experience were selected because of the tight site and complex footing work. The approved work will be stucco-faced concrete to match the residence; staff included a condition requiring landscaping consistent with the park overlay after construction.
Owners also requested a decorative stone garden wall and a driveway gate with an accompanying stone arch for privacy and security from the adjacent park. The front-yard garden wall as originally proposed would have been 3 feet tall in the park-facing setback; the driveway gate and arch included painted-metal gate details. Commissioners and staff raised concerns about material consistency, gate height and fit with the house's character. Several commissioners said the stone arch and gate design needed more detail and a clearer material palette and suggested the applicants rethink the frontage elements to better match the house.
The commission's motion removed the garden wall and driveway-gate elements from the resolution, approving only the retaining-wall replacement at this meeting and directing the applicant to return with revised frontage designs. "The retaining wall is not optional," Commissioner Kara Petcoff said; others echoed that the wall must be repaired promptly but frontage elements can be redesigned and processed separately, either at staff level if consistent with guidelines or returned to the commission if not.
The commission's amended resolution included a requirement for root exploration where proposed foundations approach significant trees and required story poles be corrected for the garage area. The vote on the revised motion was unanimous.
Next steps: staff will finalize working drawings and conditions for the retaining-wall work for building-permit submittal and will coordinate with neighboring property owners regarding construction access and utilities. The applicant will return with revised front-yard design drawings for staff review or commission referral if the materials or heights exceed staff approval authority.
