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

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

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/appeal-of-the-planning-commissions-decision-boutin-10-08-13 1/68147

To:

From:

Submitted by:

Subject:

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Council Report

October 8, 2013

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

Jason Stilwell, City Administrator

Rob Mullane, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director

Marc Wiener, Senior Planner

Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to

approve Design Study (DS 12-68) and Coastal Development Permit

applications for the alteration of an existing residence located at the

northeast corner of San Antonio and Tenth Avenues, in the Single- Family

Residential (R-1) Zoning District. The application is being appealed by the

eastern property owners: Steve and Peter Boutin.

Recommendation: Deny the appeal, and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to

approve DS 12-68.

Executive Summary: The project site is located at the northeast corner of San Antonio and

Tenth Avenues, and consists of two legal lots of record . The property is

developed with a two-level Mediterranean-style residence that was

constructed in 1926. The existing residence is 2A29 square feet in size

and includes a partially sub-grade garage on the lower-level and the living

area on the main-level (second-level). The residence has a flat-roofed

design with stucco siding and wood windows and doors. A

Determination of Historic Ineligibility was issued on April 1, 2005, based

on a review by the City's Historic Preservation Consultant: Kent Seavey.

The applicant/property owner, Malcom Ghazal, is proposing a substantial

alteration of the residence that includes the following:

• A 475-square foot second-story (third-level) bedroom addition;

• A 471-square foot main-level (second-level) addition;

• A pitched roof over a portion of the existing flat roof;

• Exterior materials to include stucco, clay-tile roof, wood windows and

doors and some stone;

1



• Removal of 31 square feet of floor-area from the main-level and 98

square feet of floor-area from the basement; and

• Reduction of 686 square feet of site coverage.

As previously noted, the existing residence currently has two levels

referred to as the lower-level and second-level (main-level). The west

elevation of the residence, facing San Antonio Avenue, presents a two-

story appearance caused by the partially sub-grade garage and

basement. The residence presents a single-story appearance from other

elevations, including the south elevation facing Tenth Avenue.

The applicant is proposing to add a third-level to the residence. The

proposed third-level qualifies as a second-story, due its location on the

residence, and does no t violate any zoning requirements. For the

remainder of this report staff will refer to the proposed third-level

addition as a second-story.

This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on four separate

occasions between September 12, 2012 and August 14, 2013. The

primary issue with the design was the view impact to the eastern

neighbor that was created by the proposed second-story addition. After

several hearings, the project applicant identified a location fo r the

second-story addition designed to mitigate the view impact to the

eastern neighbor. On August 14, 2013, the Planning Commission

unanimously approved the Design Study (DS 12-68) application by a vote

of 4-0.

The Design Study approval is being appealed by the eastern property

owners : Steve and Peter Boutin. The Boutin residence is located on the

northwest corner of Carmela Street and Tenth Avenue, two parcels

directly behind the project site. There is an intervening parcel that is

developed with a one-story residence, between the project site and the

Boutin property. The owners of this intervening property did appear at

the Planning Commission hearing on February 13, 2013, to express some

concerns with the mass and bulk created by the project. However, thePlanning Commission determined that the impact to this neighbor was

minor. The owners of the intervening property are no t appealing the

project.

2



Analysis/Discussion:

Planning Commission Review and StaffAnalysis

This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on four separate

occasions between September 12, 2012 and August 14, 2013, and the

project was revised and scaled-back based on input from the PlanningCommission. The following is a summary of the four Planning

Commission hearings.

Planning Commission Hearing (9/12/12) -T he applicant had proposed a

503-square foot second-story addition. Staff noted that the second-story

of the Boutin residence had filtered ocean views that overlook the

subject property and concluded that the proposed second-story would

eliminate the majority of th is view. It was identified at the meeting that

shifting the proposed second-story addition farther south would

potentially mitigate the view impact.

Staff noted that the structure did not violate the zoning requirements fo r

the number of stories, but due to the slope of the site, three different

levels are visible from San Antonio Avenue. Staff noted potential

difficulties with a second-story addition on this site due to the view

impacts as well as effects on overall mass and bulk. For th is reason staff

recommended a continuance of the project.

The Commission was generally supportive of the design and style of the

proposed residence and did no t have any significant concerns with the

building mass. However, the Commission was concerned with the view

impact to the Boutin residence. The Planning Commission voted to

continue the application, with a recommendation that the applicant work

with the Boutins on view impacts. The minutes of the September 12,

2012 meeting are included as Attachment M.

Planning Commission Hearing (2/13/13) - In response to the view

concerns that were raised at the fi rst meeting, the applicant reduced the

width of the second-story from 26 to 20 feet. The square footage of the

second-story was also reduced from 503 to 447 square feet. The majority

of the reduction came from the north side of the structure.

In the staff report and prese ntation, staff noted that the revised second

story design was an improvement over the original proposa l, but still

impaired views from the Boutin residence to some extent. Staff noted

3



that were several ocean view corridors from the Boutin residence that

would not be impacted by the proposed second-story addition. Staff did

not provide a recommendation as to whether the design should be

accepted.

At the Planning Commission hearing on February 13, 2013, the applicant

had indicated that the primary purpose of the second-story addit ion was

to gain an ocean view. The Planning Commission visited the inside of

applicant's residence on the Tour of Inspection, and determined that the

ocean view from the main-level was limited.

The Planning Commission noted that the design was an improvement

over the previous one, but continued the application with a request for

further changes to mitigate the view impact, and requested that the

applicant work closely with the Boutins on the revised design and

location of the second-story. Minutes from that meeting have beenincluded as Attachment K.

Planning Commission Hearing (7/10/13) - At the third hearing, the

applicant presented an option that located the second-story four feet

farther south than the previous proposal, and a total of nine feet farther

south from the original proposa l.

Staff supported the proposed design and recommended th at the

applicant return with plans prepared fo r final approval. The Planning

Commission accepted the design concept with conditions, as reflected in

the minutes included as Attachment I.

Planning Commission Hearing (8/14/13) -The applicant returned with a

revised design that was consistent with that introduced as an option at

the July 2013 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission

approved the project with findings and conditions, as reflected in the

minutes included as Attachment G. The Planning Commission

determined that the proposed design did not create a significant impact

to the Boutin residence, and achieved an equitable balance of views.

Basis for Appeal

Below is a summary of the concerns raised by the appellant, along with

staff responses.

4



1. The Planning Commission's failure to adhere to the mandatory

("shall" is defined by section 1.04.010G as "mandatory") language in

Municipal Code section 17.10.010.8, C, D, and Eand 17.10.060, and its

failure to follow the express directives in section 17.10.010.K.

Response: The appellant is primarily referring to sections of the City

Municipal Code that establish design objectives that encourage good site

design and minimizing mass and bulk. The most relevant code section

cited by the appellant is CMC Section 17.10.010.K, which addresses the

issue of private views.

CMC Section 17.10.010.K states the following: "Designs should respect

view enjoyed by neighboring parcels. This objective is intended to

balance the private rights to views from all parcels that will be affected by

a proposed building or addition. No single parcel should enjoy a greater

right than other parcels except the natural advantages of each site'stopography. Buildings which substantially eliminate an existing

significant view enjoyed on another parcel should be avoided."

Throughout the design study process, the decisions made by the Planning

Commission included careful consideration of the design objectives cited

in CMC Section 17.10.010. The Planning Commission continued the

Design Study application (DS 12-68) three times, and directed the

applicant to redesign the project to mitigate potential view impacts to

the Boutin residence. On August 14, 2013, the Planning Commission

determined that the view impact had been adequately mitigated, and

that the proposed design would maintain a balance of view rights to all

parties involved consistent with CMC Section 17.10.010.K.

2. In spite of the Commission's February 13, 2013 direction to

"substantially" revise the proposed plan and to meaningfully negotiate

(and compromise) with Appellant, Dr. Ghazal failed to do so. He refused

to reduce the roof ridge or height of the floor plates by even on inch; he

reduced the bulk by only 5%, and he refused to further narrow or

minimize the bulk of the third floor.

Response: The appellant is correct that the size of the second-story was

only reduced by 5%, from 503 to 475 square feet and the height was no t

reduced when comparing th e original design to what was finally

approved. However, the applicant did reduce the width of the second

story addition from 26 to 20 feet, and located the addition 9 feet farther

south, which substantially reduced the impact to the view corridor from

5



the Boutin residence. The applicant also revised the roof from a flat-roof

design to a hipped-roof design, which reduced the building mass .

3. The Commission presumably relied on the Staff Summary that

the "applicant {Ghazal) is proposing a substantial alteration of the

residence that includes a 432 sq. ft . second l o o r when in fact Ghazal

was proposal a 474 sq. ft. third floor.

Response : At the third Planning Commission hearing on July 10, 2013,

the Commission considered two options for the location of the second

story. One option placed the second-story on the north side of the

residence and was 432 square feet in size. The second option placed the

second-story further south on the residence {9 feet further south than

what was originally proposed} and was 475 square feet in size . The

second option, which placed the second-story on the south end, was

ultimately approved by the Planning Commission.

At the Planning Commission hearing on July 10, 2013, a question was

raised about the floor area of each of the two-story proposals. However,

the issue was clarified by staff and the Planning Commission was given

the correct floor area fo r each two-story proposal. The staf f report for

the final Design Study {DS 12-68} approval considered by the Plan ning

Commission on August 14, 2013, identifies the floor area of the second

story as 475 square feet, which is correct.

4. The Commission 1s failure to consider the September 121 2012 Staff

Report which stated1 "there is adequate space on the site to achieve the

maximum allowable floor area without adding the upper-story

a d d i t i o n . ~ ~

Response: While the staff report noted that there was adequate space to

achieve maximum floor area without adding the second-story {third

level}, the Planning Commission did no t outright deny the proposal, and

rather directed the applicant to revise the design of the second-story to

mitigate the view impact to the Boutin residence.

The Planning Commission visited the in side of applicant's residence on

the Tour of Inspection on February 13, 2013. The Commission

determined that the ocean view from th e main-level (second-level} was

limited from the applicant's residence, which factored into the

Commission's decision to approve the final des ign.

6



5. The Commission failed to consider the unique {See section

17.010.108}, historic architectural integrity of this home built in 1926,

and thus compliance with State and federal regulations. The proposed

third floor has a pitched roof which is contrary to the integrity of the flat

roof Spanish Revival design, and otherwise destroys forever the historic

architectural integrity of the home.

Response: The Community Planning and Building Department issued a

Determination of Ineligibility on April 1, 2005. The determination was

based on a professional report submitted by the City's Historic

Preservation Consultant, Kent Seavey. It was determined that the

residence was no t a candidate to be placed the City's Historic Inventory

because of alterations that were made to the structure over time.

Pursuant to CMC Section 17.32.060.D, the Determination of Historic

Ineligibi lity expires every five years. Staff re-issued the determination onFebruary 21 , 2013, based on the original report prepared by Kent Seavey.

It was noted that a Determination of Ineligibility had been issued for the

property in the staff report prepared fo r the August 14, 2013, Planning

Commission hearing.

6. The Commission's approval of a "Landscape Plan" which

approved the inclusion of two new trees, based on a finding that the

trees, especially the more westerly one, would substantially impair,

especially in the future, our view corridor to the Ocean.

Response: Design Guideline 1.4 states an objective to "maintain a

forested image on the site where it is consistent with the neighborhood

context" and "plant new trees to reinforce the existing urban forest

character on site in each neighborhood where this character exists."

Design Study approvals for substantial remodels and additions are often

conditioned with a requirement to plant new upper and lower-canopy

trees per the recommendations of the City Forester. Construction

projects are one of the City's only opportunities to require trees to be

planted on private property, which is essential to maintaining the forest

character of the City.

It should be noted that the property currently contains 3 upper-canopy

trees and 2 lower-canopy trees. The City's recommended number and

ratio of trees fo r an 8,000-square foot property is 5 upper-canopy trees

and 4 lower-canopy trees. Staff recommends upholding the special

7



condition requi ring one new lower-canopy and one new-upper canopy

tree, which brings the property close to the recommended number and

ratio of trees.

The applicant is proposing two new trees on the north side of the

property. The City Forester has determined that the proposed locations

fo r both trees are appropriate to ensure the future health of the trees.

However, staff notes that there is an inconsistency between the site plan

and the landscape plan. The site plan notes one upper-canopy tree and

one lower-canopy tree, whi le the landscape plan notes two upper-canopy

cypress trees. A special condition has been drafted that the landscape

plan be revised to include one new upper-canopy tree and one new

lower-canopy tree, and that the trees be located on the north side of the

property as specified on the plan.

Summary of StaffAnalysis ofAppeal

With regards to protecting private views, Residential Design Guidelines

Sections 5.1 through 5.3 encourage: "maintaining views through a

property to natural features when feasible " and recommend "locating

buildings so they will not substantially blocks views enjoyed by others."

General Plan Policy P1 -65 recommends achieving "an equitable balance

of these design amenities among all properties affected by design review

decisions ."

After analyzing the issues presented by the appellant, staff concludesthat the proposed design is consistent with the above objectives, and

concurs with the Planning Commission's decision to approve DS 12-68.

Staff notes that the primary ba sis fo r approval was that the Planning

Commission determined that the view impact had been substantially

mitigated, and the proposed design allowed fo r an equitable sharing of

views between the applicant and the appellant.

This hearing is a de novo hearing, meaning that the City Council is

responsible for reviewing the entire project and is no t bound by the

decision of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission staff report,

findings and conditions for the approval of DS 12-68, dated August 12,

2013, are included as At tachment F, for the City Council's consideration.

Staff ha s provided project findings and conditions of approval, as

Attachments C and D respectively, fo r the City Council's consideration.

8



Previous Council

Action/Decision History:

This Design Study (DS 12-68) application was considered by the Planning

Commission on September 12, 2012; February 13, 2013; July 10, 2013;

and was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission {4-0 vote)

on August 14, 2013.

Attachments:

• Attachment A - Project Plans

• Attachment B - Site Photographs and Aerial Photograph

• Attachment C - Project Findings dated 10/8/13

• Attachment D - Conditions of Approval dated 10/8/13

• Attachment E- Appeal Application

• Attachment F-PC Staf f Report, Findings and Conditions date 8/14/13

• Attachment G - PC Minutes dated 8/14/13

• Attachment H -PC Staff Report dated 7/10/13

• Attachment 1- PC Minutes dated 7/10/13

• Attachment J - PC Staff Report dated 2/13/13

• Attachment K- PC Minutes dated 2/13/13

• Attachment L- PC Staff Report dated 9/12/12

• Attachment M - PC Minutes dated 9/12/12

• Attachment N -Historic Report and Determination

Reviewed by:

City d m i n i s t r a t o r ~ City Attorney ~ Administrative Services D

Asst. City Admin. D Dir ofCPB [)a: Dir of Public Svcs D

Public Safety Dir D Library Dir D Other D

9





1 5 7

I b ',I• ',I 'III

IIII

r -1II

\ .L

LOOIICAHOI'YMff'Ot,.Oit(Slnl

•

~ F ' / / ( / / ? , ' r > ' i t , i.._t.i':.J}-I j ~ I, \' .... ~ ! ' - .

•.,:r, . _\ r:r·· ; : · ; a ' " ) ." ,4;' ~ " - - - ~ : " " '\ / ~ · ~ ' 1 : : > ~ ~~ '('; \. . . . _/ '- I • f·

---·w;:, _ I,. ; ~ . - - . , . . ----.1 .

-;- -- - • '-J , I .__jJ ' )-·""1 - .,.___ ..!..., I 0 -..I '.. I .., =

; ~ ~ ~ # , ; • = ~ ! < T. ; ; > - ·;·- <':.,

"- .

- - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - 1\ I

I

' .

1/16"• 1' -a · ©ONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN



1 5 8

>-

:z;

~ (E)UVINCROOM17 '•2'11~

EXISTINGGUEST SUITE

, ....

MAIN LEVEL PLAN

H I- II I

I I~ A L L E R Y 1

I II I I II I I I

I I I I

i

KITCHEN,,.. .

EXISTINGBEDROOM-2

u 5•13

11

(E)COURTYARD

¥/."'% / " / , ~ 7

14"-..r- o·

....,...,

""'

EXERCISE RM." 1 • 13 10

•,-:?

N

0

\

r



1 5 9

r:J

__ _____ _ __

_ __ _j

1/4 "• 1' - 0"

H

0U P P E R L E V E L P LA N



1 6 0

II

Ll

LOWER LEVEL PLAN

( f ) P 1. .,..;Ril(. -l iJ C

• • • ! O J T F f O . ~ rt

: U : C n...,_

(E)GARAGE

1

__1 - -l

i'

I - - ~L-----r-l

, ------ - - - -

- - _ j

, - - - - - ~ ~ - -II

L,

II

I

IIIII

_ j

N

- 1 ' - 0 N ~



1 6 1

rII~IL

f-

II

f-"-OP<-4:12

J,

L________ _

ROOF PLAN

[J ?w

~

(£)F\.A1ROOf'• 2• Sl.OI'It

I J, I__ _ ____ _ _ ..J

(IE) 'tAT ltOOf'02 S Sl.CP(

' - ( ) e



1 6 2

*l.t.U. H[U!l Al\CMO e l? l.4 '

NOCE o 1t t . )'

~ ~ · M " " ' "

110.16' IC.F".

0 KTCH£.N .tLMHO R1.

~

SOUTH ELEVATION

-4 ~ ~ ~ O V I 0 ) 1 2 3 . --- -- - - ------ - - - --- - -- --- ---

~ ..

~ .J'oiiNGRi&.

l l

••

~ ~ w ~ . - - - - ~ - - - - - - ~ - - - -TREADS AH0 " IS[RS'-PAn::H NfO RU'NR

N ORTH ELEVATION

1/1"•1'-o ·

1 / • · , .



1 6 3

;;lt OCHT AU,OV!(D 0 123.4'

LltiO(I; 0 12:1.3

t ~ : r l £ V E L

EAST ELEVAT ION

1 / 4 -

\ NEST ELEVAT IO N

· - o -

-- ~ l t \ n

~U\1\HG Rr.t.



1 6 4

(E)LIVINGROOM

tc'-u"CLC. HT

EXISTINGGUEST SUITE

(E)MASTERBEDROOM

8' JM

C1.C HT

!

i4 c = - - -~ ===::e=> - - x - ~- - ,:- ::r·· ..n F M2-Z=== :oz- = -. """1,...., _j:<) ...,!1 [ _ ~ _ J II

b': ' - iiO o<'i f01'L -:/ 0 """"S_ . __, !£ , - ~ . , _

EXISTINGNOOK

. . / - 1 1 ~;-. , Cl" HT L..JI L"-1 (E)

,,, : : " ~ ' - ..J)' "FOYE/ 1 j '> CLC . , - ~ ·~ ~ ~ ; , . - r?-T = _ :r=t- ~ r;;;r-:y. I .,.y1 r"'--;1

'y l/...=-lJ .i..::.£!'"' L ' : . ' ! . ~ j

I

( E ) o t i ~ g " R 6 ~

?

EXISTINGBEDROOM -2

(E)GUESTBEDROOM-I

(E)COURTYARD

(E)GUESTBEDROOM- 2

ro-o·n.c- liT

N

MAIN LEVEL EX IST ING -DEMOL IT ION PLAN

0/4 "- t' -0 "



1 6 5

I (tjo. 0 1 . 1 ~ 0 _N 1Cit( 1: •.:U _ •

I ' !;( IOI I f rY<:l\l r ,10~ . . ; , ; ; ~ = 9 ''""'c" u

o

r1(E)GARAGE

111

0 ~ = = 1CRA'M._ SPJ.Ee-' r- ,- ~ ~ ~

-Y b . a ! ~ lfnlMEcH'1. , / (\11 ' \J:-- .ROOM

'- " 1::j 1(E)11'1NE RM. I t = = ~ Jl

= = = == = == 11==,,==

LO \NER LEVEL EX IST ING -DEMOL IT ION PLAN'

1/ ,.·· ,·-o· 0



1 6 6

1

H

HH~Hi UH

.

.-"

-

.

.

n•&!r •

.a .

tdtdu d1UIz

1·~~~~~ l

f

J

f

J

PI

1tfrhHlh

HH "

.n)

t

•f.u

l idt

f1{

I

JJu

,.Jh l!

r

i dHJi

1!1H ImH l

§

H!UBH

n~n iHI01

j

UiU!H UHf jU~t I

U~~ 0

rH

J

lit

1q

lt •

l

h

}

r~ i~ ]if

i:

i

Jt•d •

~ ~1! i p

~ 1i}I

~ I~ H

tH l!~!i

Q

0L-J!

1•

Cl}H §~)

!<

•

!

~·1

UJ

8:

Jl

~

••

f•

r

~ ;fJ

~~~

Cl

~ !1&I

i

8><,J

C)

zpz:s0U~ l~ J



Attachment B - Site Photographs

·ect Site - Front of residence facing east-.-::;-- .......

Project Site- Side of residence facing northeast



Project Setting

-{;:[ - Project Site

0 - Appellant's Residence



Attachment C - Project Finctings


FINDINGS FOR DECISION

DS 12-68 (Ghazal)

Northeast comer of San Antonio and 101h Avenues

Block V, Lots 18 & 20 APN: 010-277-007

CONSIDERATION:

Findings for the approval ofDesign Study (DS 12-68) and Coastal Development

Permit applications and for the denial of an appeal submitted by neighboring property owners:

Peter and Steven Boutin.

FINDINGS OF FACT:1. The subject property is located at the northeast comer of San Antonio and Tenth Avenues

and is developed with a two-story, Mediterranean-style residence that was constructed in

1926. The existing residence is 2,429 square feet in size and consists of a partially sub

grade garage on the lower level and the living area on the main level (second level). The

property owner/applicant is Malcom Ghazal.

2. A Determination ofHistoric Ineligibility was issued on April 1, 2005, based on a review

by the City's Historic Preservation Consultant, Kent Seavey. A Determination of

Historic Ineligibility was re-issued on February 21 , 2013, based on the original report

prepared by Kent Seavey.

3. The applicant submitted a Design Study (DS 12-68) application on July 18, 2012, for

alterations to an existing single-family residence, which included the addition of a second

story (third level).

4. The Design Study (DS 12-68) application was considered by the Planning Commission at

duly-noticed public hearings on September 12, 2012; February 13 , 2013; July 10, 20 13;

and on August 14, 2013. It was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission (4-0

vote) at the meeting on August 14, 2013.

5. The Design Study (DS 12-68) approval was appealed by neighboring property owners:

Peter and Steven Boutin, on August 28, 2013. The Boutin residence is located twoparcels east of the Ghazal residence.

6. The subject Design Study (DS 12-68) application is categorically exempt from the

requirements ofthe California Environmental Quality Act (Class 3 - New Construction

or Conversion of Small Structures).

7. Findings for denial of he appeal have been prepared for the City Council consideration

on October 8, 2013.



DS 13-68 (Ghaza1)

October 8, 20 13

Findings for Decision

Page 2

FINDINGS SUPPORTING DECISION:1. Finding: The design is in compliance with the zoning requirements.

Evidence:

-The subject residence is at the maximum floor area of 3,300 square feet.

-Pursuant to CMC Section 17.1 0.030.B, the proposed design does not exceed the

maximum allowance of two stories.

-The proposed second-story addition is approximately 1 foot below the allowable

maximum height of 24 feet.

-The subject residence is in compliance with all setback requirements.

2. Finding: With regards to potential view impacts, the proposed design is sensitive toeffects on views from neighboring properties, including from the Boutin residence, and is

consistent with CMC Section 17.10.0 IO.K.

Evidence:

CMC Section 17.10.01O.K states that "Designs should respect view enjoyed by

neighboring parcels . This objective is intended to balance the private rights to views

from all parcels that will be affected by a proposed building or addition. No single

parcel should enjoy a greater right than other parcels except the natural advantages of

each site's topography. Buildings which substantially eliminate an existing significant

view enjoyed on another parcel should be avoided. "

The Planning Commission continued the Design Study application (DS 12-68) three

times, and directed the applicant to revise the project to mitigate potential view impacts

to the Boutin residence. Throughout the design process, several changes were made to

the proposed design to mitigate the view impact. The width of proposed second-story

addition was reduced from 26 to 20 feet; the size was reduced from 503 to 475 square

feet; the proposed second-story was located 9 feet farther south than what was originally

proposed; and the roof design was modified from a flat roof to be a hipped roof to reduce

the building mass.

On July 10,2013, the Planning Commission visited the Boutin residence during the Tour

of Inspection, and viewed the potential impact based on the changes that had been made,as reflected by the story-poles on the project site. The Planning Commission determined

that the Boutin residence would retain a large percentage of ts ocean view, and that the

view impact had been adequately mitigated. The Planning Commission accepted the

design concept at the hearing on July 10, 2013.

On August 14, 2013, the Planning Commission approved the Design Study (OS 12-68)

application, based on the determination that the view impact had been adequately

mitigated and that the proposed design would maintain a balance ofview rights to all

parties involved, as recommended by CMC Section 17.10.01O.K.



OS 13-68 (Ghazal)

October 8, 2013

Findings for Decision

Page 3

FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR FINAL DESIGN STUDY APPROVAL {CMC 17.64.8 and

L UP Policy Pl-45)

For each ofthe required design study findings listed below, s taff has indicated whether the

submitted plans support adoption of the findings. For all findings checked "no" the staff report

discusses the issues to facilitate the Planning Commission decision-making. Findings checked

"yes" may or may not be discussed in the report depending on the issues.

Municipal Code Finding YES

1. The project conforms with all zoning standards applicable to the site, or has . Ireceived appropriate use permits and/or variances consistent with the zoning

ordinance.

2. The project is consistent with the City's design objectives for protection andenhancement of the urbanized forest, open space resources and site design. The

. Iproject's use of open space, topography, access, trees and vegetation will maintain or

establish a continuity of design both on the site and in the public right ofway that is

characteristic of the neighborhood.

3. The project avoids complexity using simple/modest building forms, a simple roof

plan with a limited number of roofplanes and a restrained employment of offsets and. I

appendages that are consistent with neighborhood character, yet will not be viewed as

repetitive or monotonous within the neighborhood context.

4. The project is adapted to human scale in the height of ts roof, plate lines, eave

lines, building forms, and in the size ofwindows doors and entryways. The

. Idevelopment is similar in size, scale, and form to buildings on the immediate block

and neighborhood. Its height is compatible with its site and surrounding development

and will not present excess mass or bulk to the public or to adjoining properties.

Mass of the building relates to the context ofother homes in the vicinity.

5. The project is consistent with the City's objectives for public and private views

and will retain a reasonable amount of solar access for neighboring sites. Through. I

the placement, location and size of windows, doors and balconies the design respects

the rights to reasonable privacy on adjoining sites.

6. The design concept is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies related to

residential design in the general plan.

. I7. The development does not require removal of any significant trees unless . Inecessary to provide a viable economic use of the property or protect public health

and safety_. All buildings are setback a minimum of6 feet from significant trees.

8. The proposed architectural style and detailing are simple and restrained in . Icharacter, consistent and well integrated throughout the building and complementary

to the neighborhood without appearing monotonous or repetitive in context with

designs on nearby sites.

NO



DS 13-68 (Ghazal)

October 8, 2013

Findings for DecisionPage4

9. The proposed exterior materials and their application rely on natural materials and

the overall design will as to the variety and diversity along the streetscape.

10 . Design elements such as stonework, skylights, windows, doors, chimneys and

garages are consistent with the adopted Design Guidelines and will complement the

character of the structure and the neighborhood.

11. Proposed landscaping, paving treatments, fences and walls are carefully designed

to complement the urbanized forest, the approved site design, adjacent sites, and the

public right ofway. The design will reinforce a sense ofvisual continuity along the

street.

12 . Any deviations from the Design Guidelines are considered minor and reasonably

relateto

good design principles and specific site conditions.

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS (CMC 17.64.B.l):

1. Local Coastal Program Consistency: The project conforms with the certified

Local Coastal Program ofthe City ofCarmel by the Sea.

2. Public access policy consistency: The project is not located between the first

public road and the sea, and therefore no review is required for potential public

access.

J

J

J

J

J

J



Attachment D - Conditions ofApproval dated 10/8/13

DS 12-68 (Ghazal)

October 8, 2013

Conditions ofApproval

Page 1

Approval Conditions

No. Standard Conditions

1. This approval constitutes Design Study and Coastal Development permits . /

authorizing the alterations to an existing residence. All work shall conform to the

approved plans of October 8, 2013 except as conditioned by this permit.

2. The project shall be constructed in conformance with all requirements of the local . /

R-1 zoning ordinances. All adopted building and fire codes shall be adhered to in

preparing the working drawings. If any codes or ordinances require design

elements to be changed, or if any other changes are requested at the time such

plans are submitted, such changes may require additional environmental review

and subsequent approval by the Planning Commission.

3. This approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of action unless . /

an active building permit has been issued and maintained for the proposed

construction.

4. All new landscaping shall be shown on a landscape plan and shall be submitted to . /

the Department of Community Planning and Building and to the City Forester

prior to the issuance of a building permit. The landscape plan will be reviewed for

compliance with the landscaping standards contained in the Zoning Code,

including the following requirements: 1) all new landscaping shall be 75%

drought-tolerant; 2) landscaped areas shall be irrigated by a drip/sprinkler system

set on a timer; and 3) the project shall meet the City ' s recommended tree densitystandards, unless otherwise approved by the City based on site conditions. The

landscaping plan shall show where new trees will be planted when new trees are

required to be planted by the Forest and Beach Commission or the Planning

Commission.

5. Trees on the site shall only be removed upon the approval of the City Forester or . /

Forest and Beach Commission as appropriate; and all remaining trees shall be

protected during construction by methods approved by the City Forester.

6. All foundations within 15 feet of significant trees shall be excavated by hand. If . /

any tree roots larger than two inches (2") are encountered during construction, the

City Forester shall be contacted before cutting the roots. The City Forester mayrequire the roots to be bridged or may authorize the roots to be cut. If roots larger

than two inches (2") in diameter are cut without prior City Forester approval or

any significant tree is endangered as a result of construction activity, the building

petmit will be suspended and all work stopped until an investigation by the City

Forester has been completed. Twelve inches (12") of mulch shall be evenly

spread inside the dripline of all trees prior to the issuance of a building permit.



DS 12-68 (Ghazal)

8 October 20 13

Conditions of Approval

Page 2

7. Approval of this application does not permit an increase in water use on the . /

project site. Should the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

determine that the use would result in an increase in water beyond the maximum

units allowed on a 8,000-square foot parcel, this permit will be scheduled forreconsideration and the appropriate findings will be prepared for review and

adoption by the Planning Commission.

8. The applicant shall submit in writing to the Community Planning and Building . /

staff any proposed changes to the project plans as approved by the City Council on

8 October 2013, prior to incorporating changes on the site. If the applicant

changes the project without first obtaining City approval, the applicant will be

required to either: a) submit the change in writing and cease all work on the

project until either the Planning Commission or staff has approved the change; or

b) eliminate the change and submit the proposed change in writing for review. The

project will be reviewed for its compliance to the approved plans prior to fmal

inspection.

9. Exterior lighting shall be limited to 25 watts or less per fixture and shall be no . /

higher than 10 feet above the ground. Landscape lighting shall be limited to 15

watts or less per fixture and shall not exceed 18 inches above the ground.

10. All skylights shall use nonreflective glass to minimize the amount of light and . /

glare visible from adjoining properties. The applicant shall install skylights with

flashing that matches the roof color, or shall paint the skylight flashing to match

the roof color.

11 . The Carmel stone fayade shall be installed in a broken course/random or similar . /

masonry pattern. Setting the stones vertically on their face in a cobweb patternshall not be permitted. Prior to the full installation of stone during construction,

the applicant shall install a 10-square foot section on the building to be reviewed

by planning staff on site to ensure conformity with City standards.

12. The applicant shall install unclad wood framed windows. Windows that have . /

been approved with divided lights shall be constructed with fixed wooden

mullions. Any window pane dividers, which are snap-m, or otherwise

superficially applied, are not permitted.

13 . The applicant agrees, at his or her sole expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold . /

harmless the City, its public officials, officers, employees, and assigns, from any

liability; and shall reimburse the Ci ty for any expense incurred, resulting from, orin connection with any project approvals. This includes any appeal, claim, suit, or

other legal proceeding, to attack, set aside, void, or annul any project approval.

The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any legal proceeding, and shall

cooperate fully in th e defense. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate in

any such legal action, but participation shall not relieve the applicant of any

obligation under this condition. Should any party bring any legal action in

connection with this project, the Superior Court of the County of Monterey,



DS 12-68 (Ghazal)

8 October 2013

Conditions ofApproval

Page 3

California, shall be the situs and have jurisdiction for the resolution of all such

actions by the parties hereto.

14 . The driveway material shall extend beyond the property line into the public right

of way as needed to connect to the paved street edge. A minimal asphaltconnection at the street edge may be required by the Superintendent of Streets or

the Building Official, depending on site conditions, to accommodate the drainage

flow line ofthe street.

15. This project is subject to a volume study.

16. Approval of this Design Study shall be vahd only with approval of a Variance.

17. A hazardous materials waste survey shall be required in conformance with the

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District prior to issuance of a

demolition permit.

18. The applicant shall include a storm water drainage plan with the working drawings

that are submitted for building permit review. The drainage plan shall include

applicable Best Management Practices and retain all drainage on site through the

use of semi-permeable paving materials, French drains, seepage pits, etc. Excess

drainage that cannot be maintained on site, may be directed into the City's storm

drain system after passing through a silt trap to reduce sediment from entering the

storm drain. Drainage shall not be directed to adjacent private property.

19. An archaeological reconnaissance report shall be prepared by a qualified

archaeologist or other person(s) meeting the standards of the State Office of

Historic Preservation prior to approval of a final building permit. The applicant

shall adhere to any recommendations set forth in the archaeological report. All

new construction involving excavation shall immediately cease if materials of

archaeological significance are discovered on the site and shall not be permitted to

recommence until a mitigation and monitoring plan is approved by the Planning

Commission.

20. The project plans submitted for building permit review shall comply with the

City's Green Building Ordinance (CMC Section 15.54) and obtain a minimum of

25 points based on the Residential Green Building Checklist.

21. Prior to the roof sheathing inspection, the applicant shall obtain a building height

certification from a California licensed surveyor.

Special Conditions

22. The applicant shall remove the stone wall encroachment from the right-of-way as

indicated on the plans and shall apply for an encroachment permit for any

remaining improvements in the City' s right-of-way. The area shall be replaced

with a natural surface and not paving materials.

. /

. /

N/A

J

. /

N/A

. /

. /

. /



DS 12-68 (Ghazal)

8 October 2013

Conditions of ApprovalPage4

23. The applicant shall plant one upper-canopy tree and one lower-canopy tree of

substantial size and caliber and of a species approved by the City Forester. The

landscape plan shall be revised to reflect this condition prior to building permit

submittal. The trees shall be located on the north side of the property, as indicated

on the plans.

24. A lot merger form shall be recorded with the County Recorder prior to the

issuance ofa building permit.

25 . The applicant shall work with staff and the southern neighbor to determine if the

height of the railing needs to be increased to mitigate the privacy impact of the

spa.

*Acknowledgement and acceptance of conditions of approval.

Property Owner Signature Printed Name Date

. /

. /

. /



Attachment E - Appeal Application


C: ty c.fGemle l-uy-the -SAUS 2 8 ;' 3

APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION e i v e d by City S l e r(FILING FEE: $295.00*)

Steve and Peter Boutin on behalf of th e Boutin FamilyAppellant: ·

P 0Frank, Charlotte, Peter, Suzanne, Linda and Steve Boutin

roperty wner: .c/o Stephen F. Boutin, Boutin Jones Inc. , 555 Capitol Mall, Suite

Mailing Address: Sacramento, CA 95814 - AND- c/o Peter Boutin, Keesal, Young & Lo

450 Pacific Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94133.(916) 321-4444 Steve Boutin (530) 758-5531 Steve Boutin

Phones: Day:(415)398-6000 Peter Bouti1£vening: ( 6 5 ~ 375-0219 Peter Boutin

[email protected] - AND -Fax:( ) Email:[email protected]

DateBoardheardthematter: August 14 , 2013

Appeals to the City Council must be made in writing in the office of he City Clerk within10 working days following the date ofaction by the Planning Commission andpayingthe required filing fee as established by City Council resolution.

Physical location ofproperty that .is the subject of appeal:

Northeast corner of San Antonio and lOth

Lot(s): _1_8_AND_ _o_ Block:- - - - -

v APN: _ _______ __

COMMISSION ACTION BEING APPEALED:-----------Accepting design concept

If you were NOT the original applicant or the applicant's representative, please state the

evidence that you are an aggrieved party: ----- ---- -------

Our home is to the east of the app licant ' s . T l i e p r o p 9 s e d additonal story

will block our centra l and primary view of the ocean and sunset.

(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)



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.)

1) The Planning Commission's fai lure to adhere to the mandatory ("shall"

i s defined by section 1.04.010 G as "mandatory") language in Municipal

Code sections 17.10.010 B, C, D, and E and 17 . 10.060, and i ts fa i lure to

follow the express directives in section 17.10.010 K. CONTINUED ON ATTACHED

PAGE •. ·*I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT Tiffi FOREGOING IS TRUE

AND CORRECT:

DATED AT: Sacramento, CA THIS 28th DAY OF August, 2013.

~ ~ ~ ·Signature of appellantStephen F. Boutin, on behalf of the Boutin Family

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

ATTEST:

Heidi Burch, City Clerk

*Article 9, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of California authorizes a city to

impose fees. Also see California government Code, Section 54344.

IMPORTANT: If the appellant wishes to submit materials for duplication and

inclusion in the City of a r m e l ~ b y ~ t h e ~ S e a ' s Council agenda packet, the materials must

be submitted to the City Clerk by working days after the decision of the

Commission. This matter is tentatively scheduled to be heard on



August 28, 2013

Boutin Family Grounds for Appeal of Decision (continued)

2) In spite ofthe Commission's February 13 , 2013 direction to "substantially" revise the

proposed plan and to meaningfully negotiate (and compromise) with Appellant, Dr. Ghazal

failed to do so. He refused to reduce the roof ridge or height of the floor plates by even one inch;

he reduced the bulk by only 5%, and he refused to further narrow or minimize the bulk of the

third floor.

3) The Commission presumably relied on the Staff Summary that the "applicant (Ghazal) is

proposing a substantial alteration of the residence that includes a 432 sq. ft . second floor, ' · when'

in fact Ghazal was proposing a 474 sq. ft. third floor.

4) The Commission's failure to consider the September 12, 2012 Staff Report which stated,

"there is adequate space on the site to achieve the maximum allowable floor area without adding

the upper-story addition."

5) The Commission failed to consider the unique (Sec section 17 .010.10 B), historic

architectural integrity of this home built in 1926, and thus compliance with State and federal

regulations . The proposed third floor has a pitched roof which is contrary to the integrity of the

flat roof Spanish Revival design, and otherwise destroys forever the historic architectural

integrity of the home.

6) The Commission 's approval of a "Landscape Plan" which approved the inclusion of two

new trees, based on a finding that the trees "appear to be out of the eastern neighbor's view

shed." In fact, those two trees, especially the more westerly one, would substantially impair,

especially in the future, our view corridor to the ocean.

556631.2



Attachment F - Staff Report, Approval Findings & Project Conditions

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEAPLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA CHECKLIST

MEETING DATE: 14 August 2013

FIRST HEARING: 9/12/12

ITEM NO: DS 12-68

SUBJECT:

BLOCK: V LOT: 18 & 20

CONTINUED FROM: 2/13/13

OWNER: Malcolm Ghazal

STREAMLINING DEADLINE: 7/21/13

Consideration ofDesign Study (Final) and Coastal Development Pennit applications for

the substantial alteration ofan existing residence located in the Single Family Residential

(R-1) District.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Exempt (Class 3- New Construction)

LOCATION: ZONING:

NE Cor. San Antonio & lOth R-1

ISSUES:

I. Does the proposed design comply with the Residential Design Objectives (CMC 17.10.1)

and the Residential 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:

Option #2 (Approve the application with special conditions.)

ATTACHMENTS:

1. StaffReport dated 14 August 2013.

2. Application Materials/Plans.

3. Correspondence.

STAFF CONTACT: Marc Wiener, Senior Planner




COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING

STAFF REPORT Amended & Approved 8/14/13

APPLICATION: DS 12-68

BLOCK: V

LOCATION: NE Cor. San Antonio & lOth

REQUEST:

APPLICANT: Malcolm Ghazal

LOT: 18 & 20

Consideration of Design Study (Final) and Coastal Development Permit applications for

the substantial alteration of an existing residence located in the Single Family Residential

(R 1) District.

EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES:

1. Plate height (exceeds 12'118')

2. Garden wall height (exceeds4')

BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

This project site consists of two legal lots of record and is developed with a two-story

Mediterranean style residence that was constructed in approximately 1926. The

residence is 2,429 square feet in size and consists of a garage on the lower level and the

living area on the main level. The residence has a flat-roofed design with stucco siding

and wood windows and doors. A Determination of Historic Ineligibility was issued in

April 2005 based on review by a professional historian.

The applicant is proposing a substantial alteration of the residence that includes the

following:

• A 475 square foot upper-story addition;

• A 471 square foot lower-level addition;


• Exterior materials to include stucco, clay-tile roof, wood windows and doors and

some stone; and


This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on three separate occasions

between September 2012 and July 2013. The primary issue with the design was the view

impact to the eastern neighbor created by the proposed second-story addition. After

several meetings the applicant identified a location for the second-story that would reduce

the view impact. The design concept was accepted by the Planning Commission on 10

July 2013. The primary basis for acceptance was that the view impact had been

substantially mitigated and the proposed design allowed for an equitable sharing of views

between property owners.



DS 12-68 (Ghazal)

14 August 2013

Staff Report

Page2

PROJECT DATA FOR A 8,000 SQUARE FOOT SITE:

Site Considerations Allowed Existing Proposed

Floor Area 3,300 sf(41.3%)* 2,429 sf (30%) 3,300 (41.3%)

Site Coverage 995 sf(12%)** 1,554 sf(19%) 868 sf(l1 %)

Trees (upper/lower) 514 trees 3/2 Trees 4/3 trees

Ridge Height (1 51/2nd) 18 ft./24 ft. 17 ft./21 ft. 17 ft./22 ft. 7 in.***

Plate Height (1 51/2nd) 12 ft./18 ft. 16 ft ./19 ft. 16 ft ./19 ft.***

Setbacks Minimum Required Existing Proposed

Front (San Antonio) 15ft. 16ft. 8 in. 16ft. 8 in.

Composite Side Yard 20ft. (25%) 24ft. (30%) 24ft. (30%)

Side Street (1 01h) 5 ft. 6 ft. 5 in. 6ft. 5 in.

Minimum Side Yard 3ft. 15ft.3in. 15ft. 3 in.

Rear 3115 ft. 5 ft. 5/32 ft.

*Includes 3% lot merger bonus per CMC 17.10.040 and a 100 sq ft basement bonus.

**Includes a 4% bonus i f 50% of a ll coverage is permeable or semipermeable and an additional 2.5% bonus fo r

lot merger.

***New additions comply with zoning requirements.

EVALUATION:Previous Hearings: In addition to revising the design of the second-story the applicant

also reduced the second-story terrace from 225 square feet to 80 square feet. The primary

concern with the terrace was the privacy impact that it could create for surrounding

properties. Staff is in supp011 of the terrace at the proposed size, but the Commission

should discuss whether it is appropriate to have an outdoor spa on the terrace. This issue

was raised in previous staff reports, but the focus of past hearings was typically on the

view impact created by the second-story and not the spa.

At the July hearing when the Commission accepted the design it also requested that the

applicant eliminate the retaining wall encroachment from the right-of-way and reduce the

width of the 27 foot wide driveway. The applicant has complied with these

recommendations by showing that the walls will be eliminated on the plans and reducing

the width of the driveway to 10 feet. A condition has been added requiring that the

encroachment be removed as a condition of approval.



DS 12-68 (Ghazal)

14 August 2013

StaffReport

Page 3

Mass & Bulk: Design Guidelines 7.1 - 7.6 encourage a building's mass to relate "to the

context ofother homes nearby" and to "minimize the mass ofa building as seen from the

public way or adjacent properties. "

The second-story addition has substantial setbacks from all property lines and only

accounts for approximately 15% of the total floor area on the site. The applicant is also

using a relatively low second-story plate height (8 ' ) and ridge height (22'). One issue

that has been raised throughout the hearing process is that the plans make it appear as

though the residence has a three-story appearance. It has been identified by staff and the

Planning Commission though site visits that the actual street view does not present a

three-story appearance because the second-story is set back on the lot and is partially

screen by the front building elements.

Building& Roof

Form: Design Guidelines 8.1- 8.3 encourage "simple roofforms " andstate that "basic gable and hip roofs are traditional and their use is encouraged." The

Guidelines also discourage "a sloping roof 'skirt ' that conceals a flat roof "

For the most part, the project utilizes simple roof forms with moderate to low pitches .

The applicant is proposing to replace a portion of the existing flat roofed structure with a

hipped roof that slopes back towards the new second-story addition. This would help

reduce some of the mass of the existing structure.

The second-story originally had a skirt to conceal a flat roof as discouraged by the

guidelines. At the Commission's request the applicant revised the second-story to give it

a hipped design.

Exterior Materials: Design Guideline 9.5 encourages the use of "natural" materials,

particularly wood for exterior siding. The Guidelines indicate that "ifstucco is proposed,

it should be used in conjunction with other natural materials and not be used to excess

along a block. " Finally, the Guidelines encourage stonework to appear structural and

authentic .

The proposed finish materials are consistent with the ex1stmg materials and are

compatible with the architectural style of the residence. The materials also meet the

Guideline recommendations for the use of stucco in conjunction with natural materials

such as wood, stone and clay tile roofing. In the original proposal staff had some

concerns with the proposed use of the stone. However, the applicant has significantly

reduced the amount of stone from what was originally proposed and all new stone will

match existing.





FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR CONCEPT AND FINAL DESIGN STUDY

APPROVAL (CMC 17.64.8 and LUP Policy Pl-45}

For each of the required design study findings listed below, staffhas indicated whether the

submitted plans support adoption of the findings. For all findings checked "no" the staff

report discusses the issues to facilitate the Planning Commission decision-making .

Findings checked "yes" may or may not be discussed in the report depending on the issues.

Municipal Code Finding YES NO

1. The project conforms with all zoning standards applicable to the site, or has. /

received appropriate use pennits, variances consistent with the zoning

ordinance.

2. The project is consistent with the City ' s design objectives for protection and. /

enhancement of the urbanized forest, open space resources and site design.

The project's use of open space, topography, access, trees and vegetation will

maintain or establish a continuity of design both on the site and in the public

rightof

way_ hat is characteristicof

the neighborhood.3. The project avoids complexity using simple/modest building forms, a

. /simple roofplan with a limited number of roof planes and a restrained

employment of offsets and appendages that are consistent with neighborhood

character, yet will not be viewed as repetitive or monotonous within the

neighborhood context.

4. The project is adapted to human scale in the height of its roof, plate lines,. /

eave lines, building forms , and in the size ofwindows doors and entryways.

The development is similar in size, scale, and form to buildings on the

immediate block and neighborhood. Its height is compatible with its site and

surrounding development and will not present excess mass or bulk to the

public or to adjoining properties. Mass of the building relates to the context of

other homes in the vicinity.

5. The project is consistent with the City's objectives for public and private. /

views and will retain a reasonable amount of solar access for neighboring sites.

Through the placement, location and size ofwindows, doors and balconies the

design res.2_ects the rights to reasonable privacy on adjoining sites.

6. The design concept is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies. /

related to residential design in the general plan.

7. The development does not require removal of any significant trees unless. /

necessary to provide a viable economic use of the property or protect public

health and safety. All buildings are setback a minimum of 6 feet from

significant trees.

8. The proposed architectural style and detailing are simple and restrained in. /

character, consistent and we11 integrated throughout the building and

complementary to the neighborhood without appearing monotonous or



repetitive in context with designs on nearby sites.

9. The proposed exterior materials and their application rely on natural. /

materials and the overall design will as to the variety and diversity along the

streetscape.

10. Design elements such as stonework, skylights, windows, doors, chimneys. /

and garages are consistent with the adopted Design Guidelines and will

complement the character of the structure and the neighborhood.

11. Proposed landscaping, paving treatments, fences and walls are carefully

designed to complement the urbanized forest, the approved site design,. /

adjacent sites, and the public right ofway. The design will reinforce a sense of

visual continuity along the street.

12 . Any deviations from the Design Guidelines are considered minor and. /

reasonably relate to good design principles and specific site conditions.

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS (CMC 17.64.B.l):

1. The project conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program of the City of Carmel bythe Sea.

2. The project is not located between the first public road and the sea and no review is

required for potential public access.

Standard R-1 Conditions

No. Condition

1. This approval constitutes Design Study and Coastal Development permits. /

authorizing the demolition and construction of a new residence. All workshall conform to the approved plans dated 14 August 2013 except as

conditioned by this permit.

2. The project shall be constructed in conformance with all requirements of the. /

local R-1 zoning ordinances. All adopted building and fire codes shal1 be

adhered to in preparing the working drawings. If any codes or ordinances

require design elements to be changed, or if any other changes are requested

at the time such plans are submitted, such changes shall require separate

approval by the Planning Commission.

3. This approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of action . /unless an active building permit has been issued and maintained for the

proposed construction.

4. All new landscaping shall be shown on a landscape plan and shal1 be

submitted to the Department of Community Planning and Building and to. /

the City Forester prior to the issuance of a building permit. The landscape

plan will be reviewed for compliance with the landscaping standards



contained in the Zoning Code, including the following requirements: 1) all

new landscaping shall be 75% drought-tolerant; 2) landscaped areas shall be

irrigated by a drip/sprinkler system set on a timer; and 3) the project shalJ

meet the City's recommended tree density standards, unless otherwise

approved by the City based on site conditions. The landscaping plan shall

show where new trees will be planted when new trees are required to be

planted by the Forest and Beach Commission or the Planning Commission.

5. Trees on the site shall only be removed upon the approval of the Forest and .,/

Beach Commission; and all remaining trees shall be protected during

construction by methods approved by the City Forester.

6. All foundations within 15 feet of significant trees shall be excavated by .,/

hand. If any tree roots larger than two inches (2") are encountered during

construction, the City Forester shall be contacted before cutting the roots .

The City Forester may require the roots to be bridged or may authorize the

roots to be cut. If roots larger than two inches (2") in diameter are cut

without prior City Forester approval or any significant tree is endangered as

a result of construction activity, the building permit will be suspended andall work stopped until an investigation by the City Forester has been

completed. Twelve inches (12") of mulch shall be evenly spread inside the

drip ine of all trees prior to the issuance of a building permit.

7. Approval of this application does not permit an increase in water use on the .,/

project site. Should the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

determine that the use would result in an increase in water beyond the

maximum units allowed on a 8,000 square foot parcel, this permit will be

scheduled for reconsideration and the appropriate findings will be prepared

for review and adoption by the Planning Commission.

8. The applicant shall submit in writing any proposed changes to the project .,/

plans as submitted on 14 August 2013 and approved by the Planning

Commission, prior to incorporating changes on the site. If the applicant

changes the project without first obtaining approval, the applicant will be

required to either: a) Submit the change in writing and cease all work on the

project until either the Planning Commission or staff has approved the

change; or b) Eliminate the change and submit the proposed change in

writing for review. The project will be reviewed for its compliance to the

approved plans prior to final inspection approval.

9. Exterior lighting shall be limited to 25 watts or less per fixture and shall be .,/

no higher than 10 feet above the ground. Landscape lighting shall be

limited to 15 watts or less per fixture and shall not exceed 18 inches above

the ground.

I0. All skylights shall use nonreflective glass to minimize the amount of light .,/

and glare visible from adjoining properties. The applicant shall install

skylights with flashing that matches the roof color, or shall paint the



skylight flashing to match the roof color.

11. The Carmel stone fa9ade shall be installed in a broken course/random or . /

similar masonry pattern. Setting the stones vertically on their face in a

cobweb pattern shall not be permitted. Prior to the full installation of stone

during construction, the applicant shall install a 10 square foot section on

the building to be reviewed by planning staff on site to ensure conformity

with City standards.

12. The applicant shall install unclad wood framed windows. Windows that . /

have been approved with divided lights shall be constructed with fixed

wooden mullions. Any window pane dividers, which are snap-in, or

otherwise superficially applied, are not permitted.

13. The applicant agrees, at its sole expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold . /

harmless the City, its public officials, officers, employees, and assigns, from

any liability; and shall reimburse the City for any expense incurred,

resulting from, or in cmmection with any project approvals. This includes

any appeal, claim, suit, or other legal proceeding, to attack, set aside, void,

or annul any project approval. The City shall promptly notify the applicant

of any legal proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense. The City

may, at its sole discretion, participate m any such legal action, but

participation shall not relieve the applicant of any obligation under this

condition. Should any party bring any legal action in connection with this

project, the Superior Court of the County of Monterey, California, shall be

the situs and have jurisdiction for the resolution of all such actions by the

parties hereto.

14. The driveway material shall extend beyond the property line into the public . /

right of way as needed to connect to the paved street edge. A minimalasphalt connection at the street edge may be required by the Superintendent

of Streets or the Building Official, depending on site conditions, to

accommodate the drainage flow line of the street.

15. This project is subject to a volume study. . /

16. Approval of this Design Study shall be valid only with approval of the Use N/A

Pennit.

17 . A hazardous materials waste survey shall be required in conformance with . /

the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District prior to issuance of

a demolition pennit.18. The applicant shall include a storm water drainage plan with the working drawings . /

that are submitted for building permit review. The drainage plan shall include

applicable Best Management Practices and retain all drainage on site through the

use of semi-permeable paving materials, French drains, seepage pits, etc. Excess

drainage that cannot be maintained on site, may be directed into the City's storm

drain system after passing through a silt trap to reduce sediment from entering the

storm drain. Drainage shall not be directed to adjacent private property.



19 . The project plans submitted for building permit review shall comply with the. /

City's Green Building Ordinance (CMC Section 15.54) and obtain a minimum of

60_points based on the Residential Green Building Checklist.

20. The applicant shall use a licensed surveyor during construction to verify the. /

building height. Building height shall be consistent with the presentations

submitted in the application and at the public hearings.



Attachment G - PC Minutes 8/14/13


PLANNING COMMISSION- MINUTES

AUGUST 14, 2013

I . CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL FOR TOUR OF INSPECTION

PRESENT: Commissioner Members: Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, Reimers, and

Paterson

STAFF PRESENT: Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner

Leslie Fenton, Administrative Coordinator

II. TOUR OF INSPECTION

The Commission toured the following sites: Ybarro, Johnson, McGowan, Old Mill

Properties, and Faxon.

III. ROLL CALL FOR REGULAR MEETING

IV. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Members of the audience joined Commission members in the pledge of allegiance.

V. ANNOUNCEMENTS/EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Wiener announced the following:

1. The new Planning Director's fust day will be August 26, 2013.

2. The Planning Commission will hold a Special Meeting on August 21, 2013, at

3:00p.m.

3. The City Council approved the Carmel Event Center project.

Commissioner Dallas requested that the Commission schedule a workshop with the new

Director sometime in September.

VI. APPEARANCES

None

VII. CONSENT AGENDA

1. Consideration ofminutes from July 10, 2013.

Commissioner LEPAGE moved to approve the Consent Agenda, seconded by

REIMERS and carried by the following roll call vote:



Commissioner LEPAGE moved to approve the application with staff's Special

Conditions #1,2,3; addition of Special Condition #4 -driveway shall be made of

permeable material, straight in design and a maximum width oflO', seconded byDALLAS and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

Reimers, LePage, Dallas, and Paterson

None

ABSENT: Goodhue

ABSTAIN: None

3. DS 12-68

Malcolm Ghazal

NE San Antonio & 1oth

Block V, Lot(s)18

&20

Consideration ofDesign Study (Final) and

Coastal Development Permit applications for

the substantial alteration of an existing

residence located in the Single FamilyResidential (R 1) District.

Commissioner Reimers recused herself from the discussion.

Mr. Wiener presented the staffreport. Chair Paterson opened the public hearing at

4:35 p.m. Jun Siliano appeared before the Commission. There being no other

appearances, the public hearing was closed at 4:40p.m.

Commissioner DALLAS moved to approve the application with staff 's Special

Conditions #1-4; addition of Special Condit ion #5 - applicant shall work with staff

and southern neighbor to determine i(it will be necessary to raise 2"J story spa deck

railing to 48", seconded by GOODHUE and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

Goodhue, LePage, Dallas, and Paterson

None

ABSENT: Reimers

ABSTAIN: None

4. DR 13-15

Old Mill Properties, LLC

WIs Mission 4 S 7th

Block 90, Lot(s) 11

Consideration of a Preliminary Design Concept

for the alteration of an existing multi-family

residential structure located in the Residential

and Limited Commercial (RC) District.

Commissioners Dallas and Reimers recused themselves from the discussion.

Mr. Wiener presented the staff report. Chair Paterson opened the public hearing at

4:51 p.m. Eric Miller and Rod Goya appeared before the Commission. There being no

other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 5:13p.m.

Planning Commission- Minutes

August 14 , 20 13

3



Attachment H - PC Staff Report 7/10/13


PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA CHECKLIST

MEETING DATE: 10 July 2013

FIRST HEARING: 9/ 12/1 2

ITEM NO: DS 12-68

SUBJECT:

BLOCK: V LO T: 18 & 20

CONTINUED FROM: 2/13 /13


STREAMLINING DEADLINE: 7/21 /13

Consideration ofDesign Study (Concept) and Coastal Development Permit applications

for the substantial alteration of an existing residence located in the Single Family

Residential (R-1) District.



LOCATION : ZONING:

NE Cor. San Antonio & 1Oth R-1

ISSUES:

1. Do es the proposed design comply with the Residential Design Objectives (CMC 17.10.1)


OPTIONS:

1. Accept the Design Concept as submitted.

2. Accept the Design Concept with special conditions.

3 . Continue the application with a request for changes.


RECOMMENDATION:

Options #2 (Accept the Design Concept with special conditions.)

ATTACHMENTS :

1. Staff Report dated 10 July 2013.


3. Correspondence.

STAFF CONTACT : Marc Wiener, Senior Planner





STAFF REPORT


BLOCK: V

LOCATION: NE Cor. San Antonio & 10

1

h

REQUEST:


LOT: 18 & 20

Consideration of Design Study (Concept) and Coastal Development Permit applications




1. Plate height (exceeds 12 'I 18 ' )

2. Garden wall height (exceeds 4 )3. Driveway width (in excess of 14' )

BACKGROUND:



residence is approximately 2,429 square feet in size and consists of a garage on the lower

level and the living area on the main level. The residence has a flat-roofed design with

stucco siding and wood windows and doors. A Detennination of Historic Ineligibility

was issued in April2005 based on review by a professional historian.

The applicant is proposing a substantial alteration of the residence that includes the

addition of a 432 square foot second-story. This project was first reviewed by the

Commission in September 2012 and once again February 2013. The primary issue with

the design is the view impact to the eastern neighbor created by the proposed second

story addition.

At the last meeting the applicant had attempted to address the view impact by locating the

second-story five feet further south. The Commission continued the application with a

recommendation that the applicant work directly with the eastern neighbor to further

mitigate the impact.

The applicant has revised the design in response to the direction provided at the meeting.

E-mail records indicate that the applicant has communicated with the neighbor, however,

an amicable agreement has not been reached about the design (see letter). Staff has

scheduled this application for a concept review to determine if the applicant can proceed

with submitting the proposed design for final approval. The only focus of this staff report

is whether the revised design adequately mitigates the view impact.



DS 12-68 (Ghazal)

10 July 2013

StaffReport

Page 2



Floor Area 3,300 sf(41%)* 2,429 sf (30%) 3,232 (40.4%)

Site Coverage 995 sf(l2%)** 1,554 sf(19%) 868sf(l1%)

Trees (upper/lower) 5/4 trees 3/2 Trees 4/3 trees

Ridge Height (1 st/2nd) 18 ft./24 ft. 17 ft./21 ft. 17 ft./22 ft. 7 in.***

Plate Height (1 51/2nd) 12 ft./18 ft. 16 ft./19 ft. 16 ft ./19ft.***

Setbacks MinimumRequired Existing Proposed

Front (San Antonio) 15ft. 16ft. 8 in. 16ft.8in.

Composite Side Yard 20ft. (25%) 24ft. (30%) 24 ft. (3 0%)Side Street (1 0

111) 5 ft. 6ft. 5 in. 6ft. 5 in.

Minimum Side Yard 3ft. 15ft. 3 in. 15ft. 3 in.

Rear 3115 ft. 5 ft. 5/32 ft.

*Includes 3% lot merger bonus per CMC 17 .10.040 and a I 00 sq ft basement bonus.

**Includes a 4% bonus if SO% of all coverage is permeable or semipermeable and an additional 2.5% bonus for

lot merger.


EVALUATION:Previous Hearing: The following is a 1ist of changes requested by the Planning

Conunission and a response on how the applicant has or has not complied:

1. The applicant shall revise the design to reduce the view impact to the easternneighbor.

Response: With regards to views, Residential Design Guidelines 5.1 - 5.3 encourage

"maintaining views through a property to natural features when feasible" and

recommend "locating buildings so they will not substantially blocks views enjoyed by

others. " General Plan Policy Pl -65 recommends achieving "an equitable balance ofthese design amenities among all properties affected by design review decisions ".

At the first hearing the Planning Conunission determined that the proposed second-story

would create a significant impact to the eastern neighbor 's ocean view. In response to

these concerns the applicant reduced the width of the second-story from 26 to 20 feet.

The square footage of the second-story was also reduced from 503 to 447 square feet and

the northern five feet of the structure was eliminated.



DS 12-68 (Ghazal)

10 July 2013

Staff Report

Page 3

With the latest design second-story has been located an additional four feet further south

from the last proposal and a total of nine feet south from the original proposal. The

benefit of locating the building element south is that it opens up more of the view shed

and is aligned with several trees that already block the ocean view. The revised secondstory is a substantial improvement over the last two designs.

The Design Guidelines states that "the desire to maximize view opportunities from one 's

own property must be balanced with consideration of respecting views of other. " Staff

concludes that the revised design mitigates the impact and provides balance between the

two property owners. The proposed second-story will impact the eastern neighbor's

ocean view to some extent, as almost any second-story addition would at this location.

However, much of the view is preserved in the west and southwest directions. Staff

recommends acceptance of the design concept.

It should be noted that the applicant has submitted a second proposal referred to as

"Option A", which places the second-story addition on the north side of the residence.

Staff recommends against this proposal as it appears to have a greater impact to the view.

The story-poles have been established to represent both options.

Summary: At the first hearing staff addressed other aspects of the design such as forest

character, mass and bulk, building and roof form, etc. The Commission was generally

supportive of the design and style of the residence, but was primarily concerned about the

impacts to neighboring properties.

In this report staff has only focused on neighborhood impacts. If the Commission

concludes that the impacts have been adequately mitigated it can direct the applicant to

proceed with developing this design and staffwill schedule the project for a fmal hearing.

RECOMMENDATION:

Accept the design concept with the following special condition.

SPECIAL CONDITION:

1. The applicant shall prepare detailed drawings and a landscape plan for final review

by the Planning Commission.



Attachment I- PC Minutes 7/10/13



JULY 10, 2013

I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL

PRESENT: Commission Members: Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, Reimers, Paterson

STAFF PRESENT: Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner



The Commission toured the following sites: Hardy, Carmel Lodge, Pepe, Pimentel,

Green, Ghazal, Hayward.

III. ROLL CALL


Members of the audience joined Commission Members in the pledge of allegiance.


Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner, announced that there will be a Special Planning

Commission meeting in August. One of the topics to be discussed will be water.

VI. APPEARANCES

Rudolph Schroeder, Dory Petit, Fred Skittina and Anthony Lombardo appeared before

the Commission.

VII. CONSENT AGENDA

1. Consideration ofminutes from June 12 , 2013.

Commissioner LEPAGE moved to approve Consent Agenda item # 1, seconded by

GOODHUE and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, Reimers, Paterson

None

None

None



5. DS 12-68

Malcolm GhazalNE San Antonio & 101

h

Block V, Lot(s) 18 & 20

Consideration ofDesign Study (Concept) and



residence located in the Single Family


Commissioner Reimers re-cused herself from the discussion.

Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner, presented the staffreport. Chair Paterson opened

the public hearing at 6:20p.m. Anthony Lombardo, Jun Siliano, Michael McClure, Peter

Boutin and Malcolm Ghazal appeared before the Commission. There being no other

appearances , the public hearing was closed at 6:46p.m.

Commissioner GOODHUE moved to app.rove the application with staff's Special

Conditions, seconded by LEPAGE and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

6. DS 12-111

Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, Paterson

None

Reimers

None

Bill & Adriana Hayward

SE Ocean & Carmelo

Block M, Lot(s) 2 & 4

Consideration of a Plan Revision application

for an approved Design Study at a property

located in the Single Family Residential (R-1)

District.

Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Paterson opened

the public hearing at 7:06p.m . Bill Hayward and Chris Boqua appeared before the

Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at

7:20p.m.

Commissioner REIMERS moved to continue the project and reguest applicant to

provide samples of the roofing material and decorative railing be eliminated,

seconded by DALLAS and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, Reimers, Paterson

None

None

None

Planning Comm ission - Minutes

July 10,2 0 13

5



Attachment J - PC Staff Report 2/13/13

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEAPLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA CHECKLIST

MEETING DATE: 13 February 2013

FIRST HEARING: X

ITEM NO: DS 12-68

SUBJECT:


CONTINUED FROM: N/A


STREAMLINING DEADLINE: 3115/13






LOCATION: ZONING:

NE Cor. San Antonio & 1Oth R-1

ISSUES:

1. Does the proposed design comply with the Residential Design Objectives (CMC 17.10.1)


OPTIONS:



3. Continue the application with a request for changes.


RECOMMENDATION:

Determine the appropriate action.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Staff Report dated 13 February 2013.


3. Correspondence.

STAFF CONTACT: Marc Wiener, Associate Planner





STAFF REPORT


BLOCK: V

LOCATION: NE Cor. San Antonio & 10

1

h

REQUEST:


LOT: 18 & 20

Consideration of Design Study (Concept) and Coastal Development Permit applications




1. Plate height (exceeds 12'/18 ' )

2. Garden wall height (exceeds 4 ')3. Driveway width (in excess of 14 ' )

4. Right-of-way encroachments

BACKGROUND:





stucco siding and wood windows and doors. The residence is not considered historically

significant.

On 12 September 2012 the Planning Commission reviewed this project and continued it

with a request for changes. The Commission directed the applicant to revise the design to

better mitigate the impact to neighboring properties, in particular the view impact to the

eastern neighbor. The applicant has revised the design in response to the direction

provided at the meeting. Staff has scheduled this application for a concept review to

detennine if the applicant can proceed with submitting the proposed design for final

approval.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The applicant is proposing the substantial alteration of the existing residence thatincludes:




• An elevator from the main level to the upper-level.



DS 12-68 (Ghazal)

13 February 2013

Staff Report

Page2

• Exterior materials to include stucco, clay-tile roof, wood windows and some stone;



Site Considerations Allowed Existing P r ~ o s e dFloor Area 3,300 sf(41%)* 2,429 sf (30%) 3,232 (40.4%)

Site Coverage 995 sf (12%)** 1,554 sf(19%) 868 sf(ll %)


Ridge Height ( 1 1/2nd) 18 ft./24 ft. 17 ft./21 ft. 17 ft./22 ft. 7 in.***

Plate Height (1 51/2nd) 12 ft ./18 ft. 16 ft./19 ft. 16 ft./19ft.***

Setbacks Minimum Required Existing P r ~ o s e dFront (San Antonio) 15ft. 16ft. 8 in. 16ft. 8 in.

Composite Side Yard 20ft. (25%) 24ft. (30%) 24ft. (30%)

Side Street (1 0111

) 5 ft. 6ft. 5 in. 6ft. 5 in.

Minimum Side Yard 3ft. 15 ft. 3 in. 15ft. 3 in.

Rear 3115 ft. 5 ft. 5/32 ft.

*Includes 3% lot merger bonus per CMC 17.10.040 and a 100 sq ft basement bonus.

**Includes a 4% bonus if 50% of all coverage is permeable or semipermeable and an additional 2.5% bonus for

lot merger.***New additions comply with zoning requirements.

EVALUATION:Previous Hearing: The following is a list of changes requested by the Planning

Commission and a response on how the applicant has or has not complied:

1. The applicant shall revise the design to reduce the view impact to the eastern

neighbor.

Response: At the first hearing the Planning Commission detennined that the proposedsecond-story would create a significant impact to the eastern neighbor 's ocean view. In

response to these concerns the applicant has reduced the width of the second-story from

26 to 20 feet. The square footage of the second-story has also been reduced from 503 to

447 square feet. The majority of the reduction came from the north side of the structure.



DS 12-68 (Gbazal)

13 February 2013

Staff Report

Page 3

At the first meeting the Commission suggested pushing the structure south in order to

open up more of the view corridor. By eliminating the northern five feet of the structure

the applicant has accomplished the effect of moving the structure south. The applicant

could still potentially move the structure south, but this would require designing aroundthe staircase, which has been located to preserve the existing lower level floor plan.

With regards to views, Residential Design Guidelines 5.1 - 5.3 encourage "maintaining

views through a property to natural features when feasible " and recommend "locating

buildings so they will not substantially blocks views enjoyed by others. " General Plan

Policy Pl-65 recommends achieving "an equitable balance of these design amenities

among all properties affected by design review decisions".

The revised second-story will still impact the neighbor's ocean view to some extent;

however, there are several view corridors of the ocean that will not be impacted. TheCommission should discuss whether the revised design successfully mitigates the impact.

Staff could potentially support the revised design, but has not provided a

rec01mnendation as to whether the design should be accepted.

I t should be noted that the eastern neighbor feels that the revisions have not gone far

enough to mitigate the view impact (see attached letter). The Commission will have

another opportunity to visit the site on the tour.

2. The applicant shall reduce or eliminate the terrace on the south side of the

residenceto

mitigate the impact to neighboring properties.

Response: With the first design the applicant had proposed a 225 square foot rooftop

terrace and spa on the south side of the second-story. The southern neighbor appeared at

the meeting to express concern about the privacy impact created by the terrace. The

Commission was also concerned about the potential privacy impact and directed the

applicant to address the situation.

With regards to privacy, Design Guidelines 5.0- 5.1 state to "maintain privacy of ndoor

and outdoor spaces in a neighborhood" and "organize functions on a site to preserve

reasonable privacy for adjacent properties ".

The applicant has reduced the size of the terrace to 108 square feet and it now only

provides space for the outdoor spa. Staff could support a small balcony or terrace on the

south side of the second-story. However, the primary concern with this proposal is the

activity level that would occur from the rooftop spa. Staff finds that the proposal will



DS 12-68 (Ghazal)

13 February 2013

Staff Report

Page4

create a privacy impact to neighboring properties and is inconsistent with the above

Guidelines. Staff recommends that the spa be eliminated from the design.

3. The applicant shall eliminate the flat roofdesign of he second-story.

Response: The applicant has eliminated the flat roof element from the roof. Theproposed roof has a hipped design and comes to a peak.

Summary: At the previous hearing staff addressed other aspects of the design such as

forest character, mass and bulk, building and roof form, etc. The Commission was

generally supportive of the design and style of the residence, but was concerned about the

impacts to neighboring properties.

In this report staff has only focused on neighborhood impacts. If the Commissionconcludes that the impacts have been adequately mitigated it can direct the applicant to

proceed with developing this design and staff will schedule the project for a final hearing.

If the Commission finds that the impacts have not been mitigated, then the project can be

continued with a request for changes.

RECOMMENDATION:Determine the appropriate action.



AttachmentK - PC Minutes 2/13/13



FEBRUARY 13, 2013

I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

PRESENT: Commission Members: LePage, Reimers, Goodhue, Paterson

ABSENT: Commission Members: Dallas (via phone for one item)

STAFF PRESENT: Marc Wiener, Associate Planner


II. TOUR OF INSPCETION

The Commission toured the following sites: Hayward, Ghazal, Casey (2), Graham,Barhnurst/Cushman, Pepe, Wagner.

Ill. ROLL CALL




Marc Wiener, Associate Planner, announced the following:

1. Special Meeting scheduled for March 6, 2013, at 4:00 p.m.

2. City Council denied the appeal ofDS 12-122.

3. City Council approved the funding for the beach restroom project.

VI. APPEARANCES

Barbara Livingston appeared before the Commission.

VII. CONSENT AGENDA

1. Consideration ofminutes from January 3, 2013, Special Meeting.

2. Consideration ofminutes from January 9, 2013, Regular Meeting.



IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS

I. SI 13-2

John WagnerW/s Lincoln 2 N 7th

Block 74, Lot(s) 11 & 13

Consideration of an application for a brushed

metal business sign at a site located in the

Central Commercial (CC) District.

(Kevin Milligan Gallery)

Margi Perotti, Code Enforcement, presented the staff report. Chair Paterson opened the

public hearing at 4:22 p.m. Kevin Milligan and Roberta Miller appeared before the

Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 4:26

p.m.

Commissioner LEPAGE moved to approve the sign as proposed, seconded by

GOODHUE and carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

LePage, Goodhue, Paterson

ReimersDallas

None

2. DS 12-68

Malcolm Ghazal






NW San Antonio & 1Oth

Block V, Lot(s) 18 & 20

Commissioner Reimers re-cused herself from the discussion.

Marc Wiener, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Paterson opened the

public hearing at 4:40p.m. Anthony Lombardo, Steve Boutin, JeffMalik and Barbara

Livingston appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the

public hearing was closed at 4:59p.m.

Commissioner GOODHUE moved to continue the project, seconded by LEPAGE and

carried by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:ABSTAIN:

LePage, Goodhue, Paterson

None

Dallas, ReimersNone

Planning Commission - Minutes

February 13, 20 13

2



Attachment L - PC Staff Report 9/12/13


PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA CHECKLIST

MEETING DATE: 12 September 2012

FIRST HEARING: X

ITEM NO: DS 12-68

SUBJECT:


CONTINUED FROM: N/A


STREAMLINING DEADLINE: 10/24112






LOCATION: ZONING:

NE Cor. San Antonio & 1oth R-1

ISSUES:

1. Does the proposed design comply with the Residential Design Objectives (CMC 17 .I 0.1)


OPTIONS:



3. Continue the application with a request for changes.


RECOMMENDATION:

Option #3 (Continue the application with a request for changes.)

ATTACHMENTS:

1. StaffReport dated 12 September 2012.


STAFF CONTACT: Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager




COMMUNITY PLANNINGAND BUILDING

STAFF REPORT


BLOCK: V

LOCATION: NE Cor. San Antonio & lOth

REQUEST:


LOT: 18 & 20

Consideration of Design Study (Concept) and Coastal Development Pennit applications




1. Plate height(exceeds 12 '118 ' )

2. Garden wall height (exceeds 4' )3. Driveway width (in excess of 14 ' )

4. Right-of-way encroachments

BACKGROUND:





stucco siding and wood windows and doors. The residence is not considered historically

significant.

The site slopes from east to west with approximately an eight percent slope and includes

three significant trees. Existing right-of-way encroachments include a stone retaining

wall and a brick pathway.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The applicant is proposing the substantial alteration of the existing residence that

includes:



• A wine cellar, foyer and staircase in the basement;


• An elevator from the main level to the upper-level.

• Exterior materials to include stucco, clay-tile roof, wood windows and doors and

some stone; and




DS 12-68 (Ghazal)

12 September 201 2

Staff Report

Page 2



Floor Area 3,300 sf(41%)* 2,429 sf (30%) 3,297 (41 %)

Site Coverage 995 sf(12%)** 1,554 sf (19%) 868 sf(ll%)


Ridge Height (1st/2nd) 18/24 ft. 17/21 ft. 17/22 ft. 7 in.***

Plate Height (1st/2nd) 12 ft./18ft. 16119 ft. 16/19 ft.***

Setbacks Minimum Required Existing Proposed

Front (San Antonio) 15ft. 16ft. 8 in. 16ft. 8 in.

Composite Side Yard 20ft. (25%) 24ft. (30%) 24ft. (30%)Side Street (101

h) 5 ft . 6ft. 5 in. 6ft. 5 in.

Minimum Side Yard 3ft. 15ft. 3 in. 15ft. 3 in.

Rear 3/15 ft. 5 ft. 5/32 ft.

*Includes 3% lot merger bonus per CMC 17 .10.040 and a 100 sq ft basement bonus.

**Includes a 4% bonus if 50% of all coverage is permeable or semipermeable and an additional 2.5% bonus for

Jot merger.


EVALUATION:Forest Character: Residential Design Guidelines 1.1 - 1.4 encourage maintaining "a

forested image on the site" and preserving existing upper and lower canopy trees. The

General Plan also requires that new construction maintain a six foot setback from the

trunk of any significant tree.

The proposed site alterations will not impact any significant trees and will maintain all

required setbacks. The applicant is proposing one upper and one lower canopy tree as

recommended by the City Forester.

Right-of-Way Character: Design Guideline 4.5 encourages maintaining ani ~ f o r m a l ,

planted edge in the right-of-way" and separating the front walkway from the driveway

when possible. The Guidelines also encourage driveways to generally be a single car

width and to minimize the amount of paving required for the driveway.

It its widest point, the existing driveway is approximately 27 feet wide. The applicant is

proposing to reduce its width to approximately 10 feet. This will be much more

consistent with the guidelines and will improve the right-of-way appearance. The



DS 12-68 (Ghazal)

12 September 2012

Staff Report

Page 3

applicant is also proposing to remove the existing brick walkway on the south side of the

property and replace it with decomposed granite. This will also improve the right-of-way

appearance.

The applicant is requesting to maintain a low Carmel stone retaining wall in the right-of

way on the west side of the property. The Commission should provide a

recommendation to the City Administrator on whether this encroachment should be

permitted to be retained.

Privacy & Views: Design Guidelines 5.1 - 5.3 encourage new designs to ''preserve

reasonable privacy for adjacent properties" and to "maintain view opportunities to

natural features that lie outside the property. " Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Section

17.10.010.K states, "Designs should respect views enjoyed by neighboring

parcels . . Buildings which substantially eliminate an existing significant view enjoyed onanother parcel should be avoided. "

Staff has not identified any significant privacy impacts. However, staff has identified

some significant view impacts. The neighbor located on the northwest comer of Canneloand 101h has filtered Ocean views over the subject property from their master bedroom

and second story deck. The proposed project substantially eliminates the majority of this

view. Staff cannot support the second-story addition as it is currently configured.

Mass & Bulk: Design Guidelines 7.1-7.6 encourage a building's mass to relate "to the

context ofother homes nearby" and to "minimize the mass ofa building as seen from thepublic way or adjacent properties. " The Guidelines also discourage buildings that

present a three-story appearance to the street

The second-story addition has substantial setbacks from all property lines and only

accounts for approximately 15% of the total floor area on the site. The applicant is also

using a relatively low second-story plate height (8') and ridge height (22'). However,

due to the slope of the site, the finished floor of the existing residence and its location on

a comer, the project does appear somewhat massive and out of scale with the

neighborhood.

Staff notes that the building also has a three-story appearance from the San Antonio

Avenue. The structure does not violate the zoning requirements for the number of

stories, but due to the slope of the site, three different levels are visible from San Antonio

Avenue. Due to the view impacts to the eastern neighbor, and the neighborhood

character impacts due to the mass and bulk, it may be difficult to achieve a second-story

addition on this site. Staff notes there is adequate space on the site to achieve the

maximum allowable floor area without adding the upper-story addition.



DS 12-68 (Ghazal)

12 September 2012

Staff Report

Page 4

Building & Roof Form: Design Guidelines 8.1- 8.3 encourage "simple roof orms " and

state that "basic gable and hip roofs are traditional and their use is encouraged. JJ The

Guidelines also discourage ''a sloping roof 'skirt' that conceals a flat roof "

For the most part, the project utilizes simple roof forms with moderate to low pitches.

The applicant is proposing to replace a portion of the existing flat roofed structure with a

hipped roof that slopes back towards the new second-story addition. This would help

reduce some of the mass of the existing structure.

The second-story addition does have a skirt roof that conceals a flat roof as discouraged

by the guidelines. This was done to reduce the overall height of the second-story. The

roof form could be completed to create a true ridge, but that would result in

approximately two feet more in height. If the Commission is supportive of the second

story, direction should be given on this issue.

Exterior Materials: Design Guideline 9.5 encourages the use of "natural" materials,

particularly wood for exterior siding. The Guidelines indicate that if stucco is proposed,

it should be used in conjunction with other natural materials and not be used to excess

along a block. Finally, the Guidelines encourage stonework to appear structural and

authentic.

A more in depth analysis will be provided on the exterior materials at the final hearing.

However, the Commission may want to provide some guidance to the applicant at this

hearing. The elevation drawings show two options for the north and west elevations.The first option includes a stone veneer around the garage door and on the full entry way.

The alternative option shows stone on just the base of the entry way. Staff prefers the

alternative option of less stone.

Lot Merger: CMC Section 17.1 0.040 allows for a three percent bonus in base floor area

and 2.5 percent bonus in site coverage for lots that are formally merged. The applicant is

proposing to formally merge the two existing legal lots of record lots and therefore

qualifies for these bonuses . As a condition of approval the applicant must record a lot

merger document prior to the issuance of a building permit.

RECOMMENDATION:

Continue the application with a request for the following change:

1) Redesign the project to either substantially reduce the size of the second-story

addition to accommodate neighboring views, or eliminate the second-story

addition completely.



Attachment M - PC Minutes 9/12/13



SEPTEMBER 12, 2012

I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL

PRESENT: Commission Members: Goodhue, LePage, Paterson, Dallas,

Reimers

STAFF PRESENT: Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager

Marc Wiener, Associate Planner



The Planning Commission toured the following sites: Tescher, Realmuto, 4th & SantaRita LLC, Aaron, Blair Vineyards, B&G Jewelers, Reimers, Byrne and Ghazal.

III. ROLL CALL




Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager, announced the following:

1. City Council adopted the 1st Reading of the Zoning amendments.

2. October lOth Regular Meeting has been re-scheduled to Tuesday, October 23, 2012.

3. Commissioner LePage will serve as Vice-chair starting the October meeting.

VI. APPEARANCES

None

VII. CONSENT AGENDA

1. Consideration ofminutes from August 8, 2012, Regular Meeting.

5. DS 12-55

Harry & Jane Herbst

E/s Santa Fe 2 E 5111

Block 61, Lot(s) 4

Consideration ofDesign Study (Final) and



residence located in the Single Family (R-1)

District.



2. DS 12-58

41h & Santa Rita LLC

26040 Ridgewood Drive

Block 46, Lot(s) 18

ConsiderationofDesign Study, Demolition

Permit and Coastal Development Permit

applications for the construction of a new

residence located in the Single FamilyResidential (R 1) District.

Commissioner Paterson and Dallas re-cused themselves from the discussion.

Marc Wiener, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Reimers opened the

public hearing at 4:35p.m. Dana Annereau, Linda Anderson and Roberta Miller

appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing

was closed at 4:45 p.m.

Commissioner LEPAGE moved to approve the application with staff's Special

Conditions #1-4 and addition of Special Condition #5- applicant shall work withstaff on fence for 4

1h Street side of residence which shall not exceed 4' and be

consistent with other fencing on property, seconded by GOODHUE and carried by

the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Goodhue, LePage, Reimers

None

Paterson, Dallas

None

3. DS 12-68

Malcolm Ghazal


Coastal Development Permit applications forthe substantial alteration ofan existing


Residential (R -1) District.

NW San Antonio & 101h

Block V, Lot(s) 1,3,5

Chair Reimers re-cused herself from the discussion.

Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager, presented the staff report. Vice

chair Dallas opened the public hearing at 4:55 p.m. Jun Siliano, Peter Boutan and

Michael McClure appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances,

the public hearing was closed at 5:09p.m.

Commissioner LEPAGE moved to continue the project and have applicant work with

neighbors on view issues, seconded by PATERSON and carried by the following roll

call votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Goodhue, LePage, Paterson, Dallas

None

Reimers

Planning Commiss.ion- Minutes

September 12.20122



t N Historic Report and Determinations

KENT L . S E AV EY

3 ]. 0 L IGJE - - 3 ITHOUSE A VEN U E

P A C I F I C GROV E, C A LJLJPORNIA 9 3 9 5 0

(8 31 ) 3 7 5 .- 8 73 9

March 17, 2005

Mr. Brian Roseth/Principal Planner

Carmel Planning & Building DepartmentCity of Carmel by-the-SeaP.O. Drawer GCarmel, CA 93921

Dear Mr. Roseth:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the historic status of

the residential proper ty on the NE corner of 1Oth and San Antonio

Blk V Lots 18 & 20 (APN# 010-277-007). According to Carmel

building records the subject property was constructed in 1926 for anowner named N.J . Walton by noted Carm el builder M.J . Murphy(CBP# 1675). A major change in the appearance of the property

occurred in 1970 when the garage , below ground level, was extended

and a full width open deck with a shed roof was added along thestreet elevation, and new steps and walls were built (CBR# 70-114).The simple, broad planar surface of the Mediterranean style residence

is no longer present.The Visual integrity of the subject property, as constructed in

1926, has been compromised by the 1970 deck addition which hasgiven the house a decidedly modern appearance. Because of the loss

of physical integrity the residence does not meet the criteria forinclusion in the California Register, nor does it meet the criteriaestablished in the Carmel Historic Preservation Ordinance. Therefore,it cannot be considered an historic resource , as defined by CEQA.

I f you have any questions, please call me at (831) 375-8739.

Respectfully Submitted,

~ d - 0 : : ~ ~ )

JE- f lSTOR IC P RES E RVAT ION l ' V : l l : U S E U ~ JLNTERPRET ATION



CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

NOTICE OF INELIGffiiLITY

For The Carmel Historic Resources Inventory

On I April 2005 the Department of Planning and Building detennined that the prope1ty

identified below does not constitute an historic resource.

Assessors Parcel Number: 010-277-007

Current Owner: Albert AlexanderBlock: V

Lot: 18 & 20Street Location: NE Cor. of 1oth & San Antonio

The basis for this detennination is:

CJ The property lacks sufficient age to be considered historic.

The property has substantially lost its historic integrity through alterations,

additions, deterioration, changes in the surrounding environment or other

causes.

)( The property does not relate to historic themes or property types established in

· the Historic Context Statement for Cannel-by-the-Sea.

0 The property has no association with important events, people or architecture

that are identified in the Historic Context Statement or that represent the

historical/cultural evolution of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

This determination shall remain valid for a period offive (5) years and shall expire on

1April 2010. ~ . ~Brian Roseth, Principal Planner



CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

NOTICE OF INELIGIBILITY

For The Carmel Historic Resources Inventory .

On 21 February 2013 the Department ofPlanning and Building d e t e r m i n ~ d that the

property identified below does not constitute an historic resource. -

Assessors Parcel Number: 010-277-007

Current Owner: Malcom GhazalBlock: V

Lot: 18 & 20

Street Location: NE Cor. Of 101h & San Antonio

The basis for this determination is:

0 The property lacks sufficient age to be considered historic.

~ The property has substantially lost its historic integrity through alterations,

additions, deterioration, changes in the surrounding environment or other

causes.

tiJ The property does not relate to historic themes or property types established in

the Historic Context Statement for Carmel-by-the-Sea.

0 The property has no association with important events, peo.ple or architecture

that are identified in the Historic Context Statement or that represent the

historical/cultural evolution ofCarmel-by-the-Sea.

Documents

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