CITY COUNCIL: Appeal of Design Review Board Decision Approval for Substantial Alteration of Existing Residence

Meeting Date: 3 February 2009
Prepared by: Marc Wiener, Assistant Planner

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Design Review Board’s decision to approve Design Study and Coastal Development Permit applications for the substantial alteration of an existing residence located on the east side of North Camino Real between 2nd & 4th Avenues. The appellants are Ron and Marian Wormser and Carol Bergere.

Description: The appellants request Council to overturn the DRB’s decision to approve the substantial alteration of an existing residence on the project site.

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

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

Important Considerations: CMC 17.10.030 establishes the regulations that apply to projects within the Single Family Residential (R-1) District. The Municipal Code and the Residential Design Guidelines encourage projects to be considerate of the privacy and views enjoyed by surrounding properties and encourage the mass and bulk of new construction to be consistent with other structures in the area.

Decision Record: The DRB approved this project on 17 December 2008. The first appeal (Wormser) was filed on 30 December and the Bergere appeal was filed on 31 December
2008.

Reviewed by:

__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date


CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: MARC WIENER, ASSISTANT PLANNER
DATE: 3 FEBRUARY 2009
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S DECISION TO APPROVE DESIGN STUDY AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR THE SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATION OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE LOCATED ON THE EASTR SIDE OF NORTH CAMINO REAL BETWEEN 2ND & 4TH AVENUES. THE APPELLANTS ARE RON AND MARIAN WORMSER AND CAROL BERGERE.

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Design Review Board’s decision.

BACKGROUND
This site is located on the east side of North Camino Real between 2nd and 4th Avenues. The site contains a one-story residence at the rear of the property and a detached garage at the front of the property. The site slopes from east to west at approximately 12% and contains eight significant trees. On 21 April 2008 the Historic Resources Board determined that the property does not qualify as an historic resource.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes to expand the existing residence by demolishing the north portion of the structure and constructing a new addition, a portion of which will be two stories. The applicant also proposes a 140-square-foot studio along the south side of the property. The main residence will include a 1,666-square-foot first floor, a 518-square-foot second floor and a 397-square-foot basement. There is a 260-square-foot detached garage at the front of the property that will remain.

PROJECT DATA FOR A 7,200-SQUARE-FOOT SITE:
Site Considerations Allowed Existing Proposed
Floor Area 2,779 sf (38.6%) 647 sf (10%) 2,999 sf (41%)*
Site Coverage 899 sf (13%)** N/A 891 sf (13%)
Trees (upper/lower) 3/1 trees 0/13 trees 0/13 trees
Ridge Height (1st/2nd) 18/24 ft. 12 ft. 6 in. 13 ft. 8 in. /20 ft. 3 in.
Plate Height (1st/2nd) 12 ft./18 ft. 8 ft. 9 ft. 6 in./17 ft.
Setbacks Minimum Required Existing Proposed
Front 15 ft. 72 ft. 34 ft.***
Composite Side Yard 15 ft. (25%) 24 ft. 15 ft. (25%)
Minimum Side Yard 3 ft. 3 ft. 3 ft.
Rear 3 ft. /15 ft. 23 ft. 10 ft. 6 in.
*Includes bonus basement space.
**Includes a 4% bonus if 50% of all coverage is permeable or semipermeable.
***Detached garage is 15’ from the front property line.

HEARING SUMMARY
Design Review Board: The Design Review Board reviewed this project on four
occasions. Below is a brief summary of these hearings.

First Concept Review: This project was originally heard by the Design Review Board on 23 July 2008 and continued with a request that the applicant revise the design to mitigate the view impact on the northeast neighbor (Wormsers).

Second Concept Review: The applicant revised the design by relocating the two-story
element to mitigate the view impact. On 24 September 2008, the Board reviewed the
revised plans and accepted the design concept with a request to reduce the height by one foot and to address the privacy concerns related to the bathroom windows.

First Final Review: On 22 October 2008 the Board reviewed the revised plans, which
included a reduction in height of the second story from 22.5 to 21.5 feet, and improved privacy screening of the bathroom on the lower level.

The Board reversed its previous decision and voted to deny the project based on its visual impact to the surrounding properties, primarily caused by the mass and location of the two-story element. After the decision staff consulted with the City Attorney and determined that the project needed to be re-heard due a procedural error that occurred during the hearing.

Second Final Review: The Final Review was re-heard on 17 December 2008. Prior to this hearing, the applicant made further changes to the project to address the concerns of the neighbors and the Board. The applicant lowered the height of the structure by an additional 15 inches, from 21.5 to 20.25 feet, and reduced the second story from 540 to 518 square feet. In consideration of these changes, the Board voted to approve the project.

Appeals were filed by Ron and Marian Wormser on 30 December and Carol Bergere on
31 December 2008.

EVALUATION
Basis for Appeal: The following summarizes the concerns raised by each appellant with a response from staff:

Wormser:
1. The proposed design presents excessive mass and bulk.
Response: At 20-feet, three inches, the proposed ridge is nearly four feet lower than the maximum allowed height. The property also sits lower than the neighbors to the east, which helps reduce the appearance of mass and height. Additionally, the use of basement space and detached structures, such as the studio and garage, minimize the mass of the main residence.

The property to the south and the two properties to the east are developed with two-story structures similar in scale and height to the applicant’s proposed design. Of the 18 homes on the east side of North Camino Real Street, 13 are two-story structures. Staff concludes that proposed structure is compatible with the neighborhood and does not present excessive mass and bulk to the neighbors or the public way.

Bergere:
1. The proposed design presents excessive mass and bulk.
Response: See response #1 above.
2. The addition boxes in the appellant.
Response: The proposed two-story element is located approximately 49 feet from the
appellant’s home. Staff concludes that there is adequate open space and access to light between the properties.
3. The proposed second story blocks the appellant’s view.
Response: The Design Guidelines encourage maintaining “some views through the site
from other properties.” The appellant currently enjoys unimpeded ocean views from the
living room and the second-story bedroom. The appellant also enjoys filtered views to
the west through the tree canopy from the family room. While the proposed project will impact a portion of the filtered views from the family room, a significant portion of the appellant’s ocean views will be maintained.

Summary: Since the first hearing with the Board on 23 July 2008 the applicant has
made the following revisions to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors and the
Design Review Board:
• Relocated the second-story.
• Reduced the square footage of the second-story.
• Reduced the height of the second-story.
• Removed the roof eaves from the second-story.
• Withdrew the proposal to plant two upper canopy trees.
• Relocated the studio.
• Frosted the upper second-story bathroom window.
These changes achieve a fair balance of view opportunities and maintain reasonable
privacy for all of the properties affected by the project as encouraged in the Design Guidelines. These changes also ensure that the building’s mass relates to the context of other homes in the area.

RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the appeal and uphold the Design Review Board’s decision.


CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
AGENDA CHECKLIST
MEETING DATE: 17 December 2008 BLOCK: LL LOT: 30
FIRST HEARING: 7/23/2008 CONTINUED FROM: N/A
ITEM NO: DS 08-76 OWNER: Baron/D’Angelo
STREAMLINING DEADLINE: 1/10/2009
SUBJECT:
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) and Archaeological Significance Overlay (AS) Districts.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Exempt (Class 3 – New Construction)

LOCATION: ZONING:
E/s North Camino Real between 2nd & 4th R-1, AS ISSUES:
1. 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. Staff Report dated 17 December 2008.
2. Application Materials.
3. Project Plans.

STAFF CONTACT: Marc Wiener, Assistant Planner

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
STAFF REPORT Adopted & Approved 12/17/08
APPLICATION: DS 08-76 APPLICANT: Baron/D’Angelo
BLOCK: LL LOT: 30
LOCATION: E/s North Camino Real between 2nd & 4th

REQUEST:
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) and Archaeological Significance Overlay (AS) Districts.

EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES:
1. South side-yard setback.

BACKGROUND:
This site is located on the east side of North Camino Real between Second and Fourth Avenues. The site contains a one-story residence at the rear of the property and a detached garage at the front of the property. The site slopes from east to west at
approximately 12% and contains eight significant trees.

The Design Review Board accepted the Design Concept for this project on 24 September
2008. The project went before the Board for a final review on 22 October 2008 and was denied. However, due to a procedural error the Final Review is being reheard.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is proposing to expand the existing residence by demolishing the north portion of the structure and constructing a new addition, a portion of which will be twostories.

The applicant is also proposing a 140 square foot studio along the south side of the property. The main residence will include a 1,666 square foot first floor, a 518 square foot upper level and a 397 square foot basement. There is a 260 square foot detached garage at the front of the property that will remain.
Site coverage includes the driveway, walkway, front and rear patios, outdoor shower and a hot tub at the southeast corner of the property.

PROJECT DATA FOR A 7,200 SQUARE FOOT SITE:
Site Considerations Allowed Existing Proposed
Floor Area 2,779 sf (38.6%) 647 sf (10%) 2,999 sf (41%)*
Site Coverage 899 sf (13%)** N/A 891 sf (13%)
Trees (upper/lower) 3/1 trees 0/13 trees 0/13 trees
Ridge Height (1st/2nd) 18/24 ft. 12 ft. 6 in. 13 ft. 8 in. /20 ft. 3 in.
Plate Height (1st/2nd) 12 ft./18 ft. 8 ft. 9 ft. 6 in./17 ft.
Setbacks Minimum Required Existing Proposed
Front 15 ft. 72 ft. 34 ft.***
Composite Side Yard 15 ft. (25%) 24 ft. 15 ft. (25%)
Minimum Side Yard 3 ft. 3 ft. 3 ft.
Rear 3 ft. /15 ft. 23 ft. 10 ft. 6 in.
*Includes bonus basement space.
**Includes a 4% bonus if 50% of all coverage is permeable or semipermeable.
***Detached garage is 15’ from the front property line.

EVALUATION:
Concept Review: This project was originally heard by the Design Review Board on 23
July 2008 and continued with a request that the applicant revise the design to mitigate the view impact on the northeast neighbor. The applicant relocated the two-story element to mitigate the view impact.

On 24 September 2008 the Board reviewed this project again. The Board accepted the
design concept with the condition that the applicant reduce the height of the two-story structure by one-foot. The applicant was also required to work with staff to address the bathroom window privacy concerns of the northeast neighbor.

Final Review: On 22 October 2008 the Board reviewed the revised plans that included
reducing the height of the second story from 22.5 to 21.5 feet and improved privacy
screening of the bathroom on the lower level.

The Board reversed its previous decision and voted to deny the project based on its visual impact to the surrounding properties, primarily caused by the mass and location of the two-story element. After the decision staff consulted with the City Attorney and determined that the project must be reheard due a procedural error that occurred during the hearing.

Since this is a new hearing, the Board should consider staff’s recommendations, along with public comment and testimony, and reach a decision regarding the project.

Project Changes: Since the last hearing the applicant has made further changes to
address the concerns of the neighbors and the Board. The applicant has lowered the
height of the structure an additional 15 inches, from 21.5 to 20.25 feet, and reduced the second story from 540 to 518 square feet. The width of the second story has been reduced by approximately one-foot six-inches and the roof eaves on the north and south elevations have been removed. The applicant has also indicated that the second-story bathroom window along the north elevation will be made of frosted glass.

Finish Details: Design Guidelines 9.5 - 9.8 encourage the “use of natural materials”
and “board and batten siding and shingles are preferred.”

The applicant is proposing cedar shingle siding, unclad wood doors and windows and
composition shingle roofing. The applicant is proposing a landscaped “green roof” on
the studio. The proposed materials are consistent with the Design Guidelines and
compatible with the neighborhood.

Landscaping: The applicant has submitted a landscape plan. The two lower canopy
trees were removed from the landscape plan as requested by the Board at the concept
review to accommodate views of the neighbors.

Exterior Lighting: The proposed exterior lighting is located in areas needed for safety and outdoor activity as recommended by the Design Guidelines. The applicant has indicated that the landscape lighting will not exceed 18 inches above the ground and 15 watts per fixture. The wall mounted lighting shall not exceed 25 watts per fixture as noted in Standard Condition #9.

Studio: The applicant has indicated that the studio will have a setback of six-feet from the significant tree in front of the studio. Staff had added a special condition to address this issue in the last staff report.

At the previous hearing the southern neighbor had expressed concerns about the location of the studio. The applicant has agreed to move the studio back five feet to address the concerns of this neighbor. Staff has added a special condition requiring the applicant to reflect this change on the set of plans submitted with the building permit application.

Archeological Significance Overlay District: Sites located in the Archeological
Significance Overlay District require an Archeological Survey. This is addressed in
standard condition #21.

Summary: Since the first hearing with the Board on 23 July 2008 the applicant has
made the following revisions to accommodate the concerns of the Board and neighbors:
• Relocated the second-story.
• Reduced the square footage of the second-story
• Reduced the height of the second-story.
• Removed the roof eaves from the second-story.
• Withdrew the proposal to plant two upper canopy trees.
• Relocated the studio.
• Frosted the upper second-story bathroom window.
These changes achieve a fair balance of view opportunities and maintain reasonable
privacy for all of the properties affected by the project as encouraged in the Design
Guidelines. These changes also ensure that the building’s mass relates to the context of other homes in the area. Based on the original concept acceptance and the additional changes that have been incorporated since the previous hearing, staff recommends approval of the project.

RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the application with the attached findings and conditions.

SPECIAL CONDITION:
1. The applicant shall move the detached studio 5 feet easterly along the southern
property line, with a maximum elevation gain of the top of the roof of 1 foot in order to keep the studio near grade. The current side-yard setback shall be maintained. The revised location shall be shown on the set of plans submitted with the building permit application.