CITY COUNCIL: Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision to Approve a Project with Special Conditions for the Demolition of Existing Residence & Construction of New Residence

Meeting Date: 7 February 2012
Prepared by: Marc Wiener, Associate Planner

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a project with special conditions for the demolition of an existing residence and the construction of a new residence located on Monte Verde, 3NE of Third Avenue. The appellant is Claudio Ortiz Design Group on behalf of Plum Holdings, LLC.

Description: The Planning Commission approved the project with 10 special conditions. The appellant is requesting that three of the special conditions for the project approval be removed. The project is located on Monte Verde 3 NE of Third A venue (Block 31 Lot 14).

Staff Recommendation: Grant the appeal but revise the special conditions.

Important Considerations: The Planning Commission is the decision making body for Track Two Design Review project. CMC Section 17.54.040.C indicates that Commission decisions can be appealed to the City Council. Council Member Burnett lives within 500 feet of this property, so must recuse himself from considering this appeal.

Decision Record: On January 11, 2012 the Planning Commission unanimously approved this project with special conditions.

Attachments:
• Attachment "A" Summary of PC Special Conditions
• Attachment "B" Appellant Letter
• Attachment "C" PC Staff Report (1/11/12)
• Attachment "D" Reduction Plans
• Attachment "E" Correspondence

Reviewed by:

Jason Stilwell, City Administrator, Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
THROUGH: JASON STILWELL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: MARC WIENER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: 7 FEBRUARY 2012
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A PROJECT WITH SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE. (THE APPELLANT IS CLAUDIO ORTIZ DESIGN GROUP ON BEHALF OF PLUM HOLDINGS, LLC.)

BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This site is located on Monte Verde Street three northeast of Third Avenue and is developed with a one-story residence, a detached garage and a subordinate unit. The subject property slopes from east to west at approximately 23%. The property contains 12 trees, six of which are significant.

The applicant is proposing to construct a new two-story residence with a guesthouse. The proposed residence has three levels, but is designed so that no portion of the building qualifies as three stories. The residence includes a 1,341 square foot main (upper) floor, a 1,088-square-foot middle floor (367 sq. ft. devoted to guesthouse) and a 670 square foot basement that includes a garage with tandem parking.

The Planning Commission reviewed this project on three separate hearings and on January 11, 2012 unanimously approved the project with ten special conditions (see attachment “A”). The property owner is appealing three of these conditions.

PROJECT DATA FOR A 7,515 SQUARE FOOT SITE:
Site Considerations-- Allowed--Existing--Proposed
Floor Area 2,853 sf (41%) NA 2,853 sf (41%)*
Site Coverage 928 sf (12.3%) NA 914 sf (12.2%)
Ridge Height (/) 18/24 ft. NA 18 ft./21 ft.
Plate Height (/) 12 ft./18 ft. NA 12 ft. /18 ft.
* Project includes 391 sq. ft. located in basement. Total floor area is 3,098 sq. ft. when factoring basement bonus

PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW

During the design review process several changes were made to the design at the request of the Commission in order to improve the project. Below is brief summary of some of the more prominent changes.

• The Commission was concerned that the residence had a three-story appearance. To address this concern the property owner moved the garage 12 feet closer to the street and proposed a green roof above the garage. The width of the garage was also revised from a two car garage door to a single car garage door. These revisions allowed the garage to blend more naturally with the site, limited the three story appearance, and reduced the width of the driveway.

• The Commission was concerned with the number and prominence of the retaining walls. The applicant had originally proposed 6-7 foot tall retaining walls on the sides of the driveway, but revised the design to reduce the height of the walls to approximately three feet.

• The applicant had originally proposed stone on portions of the residence and on the retaining walls. However, the Commission had concerns about the use of stone on the residence and the similarity of the stonework to the neighboring homes. The applicant eliminated the stone from the design to address these concerns.

On January 11, 2012 the Commission outlined the following findings prior to the adoption of the special conditions:

The Residential Design Guidelines encourage projects to:

• Maintain a forested image on the site (Guideline 1.4).
• Maintain an informal image to residential streets in Carmel (Guideline 1.5).
• Maintain a landscaped edge where it exists and avoid adding new pavement that would widen street (Guideline 2.2).
• Minimize footprint of building on a steep slope (Guideline 3.1).
• Minimize the visual impact of garden walls and retaining walls (Guideline 3.3).
• Maintain a forest foreground image at front of properties (Guideline 4.0).
• Minimize the amount of paved surface area for any driveway (Guideline 6.3).
• Avoid expanses of paving that are visible from the street (Guideline 6.3).
• Building shall appear to be no more than two-stories (Guideline 7.7).
• Using low plate heights is encouraged (Guideline 7.7).
• Avoid buildings that are monumental and formal (Guideline 8.2).

The Commission then went on to state that it was difficult for the project to accomplish these guidelines due to the style of building, the square footage of the building and the context of surrounding buildings. Furthermore, the building should be different from adjacent buildings in materials and site planning.

The Commission then adopted 10 special conditions in order to bring the project more into compliance with the sections of the Design Guidelines stated above. The applicant indicated that he understood the special conditions.

APPEAL
The property owner’s representative filed an appeal on January 11, 2012. The property owner is only appealing special conditions 5, 6 and 10. The appellant has provided a letter outlining the basis for the appeal (see attachment “B”).

EVALUATION
This hearing is considered a de novo hearing, meaning the Council is not limited to discussing only those issues raised by the appellant. However, staff recommends focusing on just the three special conditions being appealed. Below is a list of the three special conditions that are being appealed followed by a brief response from staff.

Special Condition #5: The applicant is only permitted to install retaining walls for the driveway and rear patio. The driveway retaining walls shall taper down to the ground as they approach the street.

Response: As presented at the January 11, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, the project included a three foot tall retaining in the public right-of-way at the front of the property running north from the driveway. A three foot tall retaining wall on the property line running south of the driveway was also proposed that would replace an existing retaining wall in roughly the same location. The purpose of the retaining walls was to limit soil erosion and to stabilize the slope.

The Commission was concerned with the excessive use of retaining walls on the property and added special condition #5 to prohibit any walls at the front of the property other those needed for the driveway. The property owner has agreed to eliminate the front wall located to the north of the driveway. However, the applicant is requesting to be allowed to replace the existing retaining wall south of the driveway.

Staff supports the Commission’s overall objective of limiting the use of retaining walls on this site. However, staff is also sympathetic to the need for a retaining wall south of the driveway as referenced in the staff report to the Planning Commission. Removing this wall would create difficulties in stabilizing the soil at this corner and could undermine the wall on the adjacent property. Staff notes that the Building Official
reviewed the property after the appeal was filed and recommends that a wall be maintained at this location. The applicant has already agreed to provide landscaping to screen the wall. Staff would recommend amending Special Condition #5 to allow for a wall at this location provided it
is screened with landscaping to the extent possible.

Special Condition #6: The applicant shall reduce the ridge height by two feet while maintaining the 6:12 roof pitch.

Response: The Planning Commission had concerns regarding the mass of the building and after much discussion recommended that the applicant lower the height by two feet without changing the roof pitch. Reducing the building height two feet could be accomplished in a number of ways including lowering the plate heights and/or further excavating the site. The property owner would strongly prefer to maintain the height as
currently proposed, but has indicated a willingness to reduce the height by 12 inches, rather than the 24 inches required by the Commission.

At approximately 21 feet, the residence is already three feet below the maximum allowed height. Staff notes that the mass of the residence is consistent with the context of other structures in the neighborhood and is 14 feet lower than the neighboring residence to the south. The proposed ridge height is only slightly higher than the ridge height of the existing building on the site. The applicant has stepped the floor plan and is proposing a fair amount of sub-grade space to help minimize the mass. Finally, the existing forest canopy also provides a significant amount of screening from the street.

However, staff notes that the slope of the site does contribute to a more massive appearance for this building than otherwise would be the case on a less steep lot. Reducing the height of the building by 12 inches, as suggested by the appellant, would appear to accomplish the Commission’s goal of reducing the mass of the building without significantly compromising the appellant’s design. Staff recommends amending special
condition #6 to require a height reduction of one foot.

Special Condition #10: Any external changes to the project shall be brought before the Planning Commission for review.

Response: All design review projects are approved with the following standard condition:

“The applicant shall submit in writing any proposed changes to the project plans as submitted on ______ 2012 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.”

It is not uncommon for applicants to request revisions during the construction process. Typically revisions such as minor changes to windows/doors, site coverage, landscaping, etc. would be approved at the staff level. More significant revisions such as material changes, alteration to the building or roof forms, introduction of new elements, etc. would be referred back to the Planning Commission.

Special Condition #10 would require the appellant to return to the Commission for even the most minor of revisions and could add unnecessary project delays. Staff agrees that most revisions should require Planning Commission review, but some flexibility should be maintained for minor revisions. Staff recommends amending Special Condition #10 to reflect the standard condition that is typically used for design review projects.

RECOMMENDATION

Grant the appeal but revise Special Conditions 5, 6 and 10 as follows:
5. The applicant is only permitted to install retaining walls for the driveway, and rear patio, and south of the driveway to replace the existing retaining wall in roughly the same location. The driveway retaining walls shall taper down to the ground as they approach the street. The final landscape plan shall include plantings that will screen the retaining wall running south from the driveway to the extent possible
and no new paving shall be added between the street edge and the wall.
6. The applicant shall reduce the ridge height by two feet one foot (1’) while maintaining the 6:12 roof pitch.
10. Any external changes to the project shall be brought before the Planning Commission for review. The applicant shall submit in writing any
proposed changes to the project plans as approved by the Planning Commission on 11 January 2012 and revised by the City Council on 7 February 2012, 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.”

Attachment "A" Special Conditions
1. The applicant shall plant one upper-canopy tree of substantial size and caliber and of a species approved by the City Forester. The tree shall be planted onsite located approximately 10 feet from any building and shown on the final landscape plan submitted with the building permit application.
2. The guesthouse shall not be used as a subordinate unit or permanent living facility.
3. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for all encroachments into the right of way prior to the issuance of a building permit.
4. The walkway opening on the lower floor shall remain unenclosed.
5. The applicant is only permitted to install retaining walls for the driveway and rear patio. The driveway retaining walls shall taper down to the ground as they approach the street.
6. The applicant shall reduce the ridge height by two feet while maintaining the 6:12 roof pitch.
7. The applicant shall revise the front entry stairs so that they follow the natural grade.
8. The applicant shall eliminate the front portion of the crawlspace that extends beyond the footprint of the house.
9. The soil on the green roof above the garage shall be sloped and not terraced as shown on the plans.
10. Any external changes to the project shall be brought before the Planning Commission for review.

Attachment "B" Appellant letter and exhibits

CODG
Claudio Ortiz Design Group, Inc.
S/W Co. of Dolores and Fifth
P.O. Box 3775
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
(831) 626-4146 off
(831) 626-4544 fax

www.codginc com

November 24, 2008

Mrs. Sue McCloud, Mayor
Community Planning and Building Department
Post Office Drawer G
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921

Ref: DS 11-100 (Plum Holdings LLC)
Monte Verde 2 NE of 3rd.
BLK 31, Lots 14 APN 010-221-012
Planning Commission Hearing January 11th, 2012

Dear Mayor McCloud and Members of the City Council:

I write this letter on behalf of Plum Holdings, LLC, and managing partner Mr. Fred Kern, who resides at Monte Verde 2 N/E of 3rd street. The Planning Commission approved the project with nine conditions. We are appealing the following three conditions:

• The applicant is only permitted to install retaining walls for the driveway and rear patio. The driveway walls shall taper to the ground as they approach the street.

This project has been reviewed by the Planning Commission three times. The first two times the Commissioners approved a retaining wall concept. The
original concept had two staggered retaining walls on one side to the garage and three staggered retaining walls on the opposite side of the garage. The Commissioner's input at the first hearing was to minimize the impact of the walls. We then proposed to build a green wall with plants that would camouflage it. Thus keeping with the Carmel look and feel. At the second hearing, we provided a simple sketch on how we would approach the green wall concept. We also reduced the retaining walls to one on each side of the driveway. At the second hearing, the Commissioners instructed us to reduce the height of the walls, which we did (proposing to keep the wall between two-feet to three-feet high). At the third Planning Commission hearing, we were simply told not to propose any retaining walls on the front yard. This was quite the surprise to us, as we had done everything to comply with the first two hearing's requests. More importantly, Mr. Kern who lives at this address and makes a strong effort to accommodate any neighborly concerns, spends a significant amount of time clearing the gutter due to the erosion after every rain. This issue also addresses the lack of parking in this narrow street. Again, Mr. Kern is willing to address this concern by improving the safety for emergency vehicles and creating more space for vehicles to park. The retaining walls serve to control the erosion and provide the safety that this street currently lacks. The Planning Commission seems unable (or unwilling)
to hear our requests or the voices of those fifteen neighbors who signed a
petition and those residents who have expressed their concerns at every
hearing. We have met with engineers and the City Forester who both support
the retaining walls on the front yard of the property. There are also three oak trees that are undermined by the erosion taking place and as the trees grow, the portion of the hill which is only a few feet away from the street will simply give away in time. The southwest portion of the site contains a three-foot retaining wall, from the corner of the property to the driveway. If we were to remove it, it would create drastic cuts to the hill. Therefore, we feel that a retaining wall in this location is the best solution to maintain the integrity of the hill.

• The applicant shall reduce the height by two feet while maintaining the 6:12 roof pitch.

A comment was raised at the second hearing about the height of the building. This was addressed by me, stating that we would study it and return with options. After careful analysis and consideration my alternative was to reduce the overall height of the building by ten-inches. We determined to reduce the roof pitch to 5:12 instead of the 6:12 as designed. Two of my visual observations in reducing the pitch created a negative impact in the overall design. Firstly, the low pitch resembled a flat roof since you would be looking at the underside of the overhang and therefore would not see much roof at all. Secondly, from street level looking back at the building at a distance of 100 feet, a ten-inch or twelve-inch elevation change of the ridge height would be negligible, however, the individual living in the house would be significantly adversely impacted by the design change. More importantly, my decision to keep the height of the building as proposed was based on the following facts:

1. The building is currently three feet below the maximum ridge height
allowed.
2. The plates (wall heights) meet the allowed height limit. In only a small area are we at the limit on a single-story portion of the building. On the twostory portions of the building, we are under the allowable limits by sixinches. Ninety percent of this house is well under the plate height limit allowed.
3. The building meets the volume allowed and is under the limit by 6,300 cu. ft. (under by 18.4%).
4. The house is designed on a hill and the floor levels are designed at an
elevation to minimize the cut on the hill. In other words, the house is
designed to accommodate the terrain and the slope of the hill.
5. The design does not impose on the neighbors' views or sunlight. In fact
the surrounding neighbors are in favor of the design and project.
6. The house is fourteen feet lower than the house next-door to the south.
7. The highest ridge of our project is below the finished floor of the house behind us, to the east.

For the past eleven years working with the City of Carmel, I have never seen such contradictory opinions that appear to manipulate the design of our buildings to the personal whims of the Planning Commission. During the last hearing, one of the commissioners indicated that we should reduce the ridge height by lowering the roof pitch. After my explanation, their mind was changed. They then turned the focus to reducing the highest ridge to meet an adjacent ridge that is two and one-half feet lower. This was impossible to accommodate, and after much debate, the commission settled with a two-foot reduction (which, incidentally, makes it increasingly difficult to maintain the overall project concept). The concern here is that most of their decisions were based on last minute input without any technical or design analysis on their part. I had to explain how the ridge heights varied to each other and even drew a diagram to inform the commission of the span of a building and how given roof pitches determines ridge height.

I honestly believe that we should not need to reduce the building height based on my observation detailed above. There is no justification to lowering the ridge; however, we would prefer to maintain the height as initially proposed, but are willing to lower the building one-foot if necessary. Regardless, previous hearing bodies would not have imposed such conditions after hearing the above stated facts, in addition to having fifteen neighbors speak in favor of the project.

• Any external changes to the project shall be brought before the Planning
Commission for your review.

Is this how the City of Carmel wants to be portrayed or would like to be
represented at a public hearing? The Planning Commission is supposed to
uphold the "code", "interpret the guidelines", and just as importantly, be the "voice for the neighbors". I am severely disappointed with the lack of professionalism displayed on the current Planning Commission. In current
form, they do not appear to represent the voice of the people with any sense of integrity or respect that one would expect from a city like Carmel. This last condition placed on this project is discriminatory and it singles out my client in order for the commission to make a point to control and/or intimidate him. Again, in my entire career, I have never seen such authoritarianism.

If my client elects to change a window size by six inches, or change the
windows from wood to steel windows, or even move a door over twelve inches,
he has to have it approved by the Planning Commission. Where does this leave working with the planners and staff? Where is the sense of commitment and trust that should be synonymous with City and all of those
who deign to represent it? This is definitely a new voice that the City has adopted. But, understand that Mr. Fred Kern is the first one to have such condition placed on his project.

In the end, we all want/need to work together to improve upon the City of Carmel. We make accommodations for changes accordingly to the input from our neighbors, committees, planning staff, and owner of the property. My previous experience has been that a collaborative endeavor produces a finer project, or better yet, a house that the owner enjoys. Overall, this house complies with the codes, meets the guidelines, and the neighbors are at peace with it. More importantly, Mr. Kern will have a house that he will enjoy for his retirement. While, on the other hand, the Planning Commission has abused its authority and strong armed us, in many cases, to make changes that are basically their own biases - which is not conducive to building strong relationships or projects. I am hopeful that common sense will prevail and that the Planning Commission will cease and desist with biases and opinions and hold to the code, and that we will reach a consensus that will justify what my client and all his neighbors have
been trying to express.

For the above reasons, Plum Holdings, LLC, and Mr. Fred Kern, respectfully request that the City Council overturns the Planning Commission's conditions.

Thank you very much for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,


Claudio Ortiz Design Group, Inc.



Claudio Ortiz, Principal

Attached:
- Neighbors Petition (exhibit A)
- Elevations showing the plate and ridge height (exhibits B & C)
-Photos showing the erosion on the hill and ridge height (exhibits 01-08)

Attachment "C" PC Staff Report
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA CHECKLIST
MEETING DATE: 11 January 2012 BLOCK: ll LOT: 14
FIRST HEARING: 1119/11
ITEM NO: DS 11-100/UP 11-19
SUBJECT:
CONTINUED FROM: 12/12/11
APPLICANT: Plum Holdings LLC
STREAMLINING DEADLINE: 2/5112
Consideration of Design Study, Use Permit, Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a new residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1), Beach and Riparian (BR), Archaeological Significance (AS) and Very High Fire Hazard Severity (VHFHSZ) Overlay Districts.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Exempt (Class 3- new construction)

LOCATION: ZONING:
Monte Verde 2 NE of3rd R-1, BR, AS, VHFHSZ

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 11 January 2012.
2. Application Materials.
3. Project Plans.

STAFF CONTACT: Marc Wiener, Associate Planner

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
STAFF REPORT Amended & Approved 1111112
APPLICATION: DS 11-100/UP 11-19
BLOCK: 31
LOCATION: Monte Verde 2 NE of3rd
REQUEST:
APPLICANT: Plum Holdings LLC
LOT: 14
Consideration of Design Study, Use Pennit, Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a new residence located in the Single Family Residential (R-1), Beach and Riparian (BR), Archaeological Significance (AS) and Very High Fire Hazard Severity (VHFHSZ) Overlay Districts.

ADDITIONAL REVIEW:
1. Planning Commission 11/9/11.
2. Planning Commission 12/12/11.

BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This site is located on Monte Verde Street two northeast of Third Avenue and is developed with a one-story residence and a detached garage and subordinate unit. The subject property slopes from east to west at approximately 23%. The property contains twelve trees, six of which are significant.

The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing residence and construct a new twostory residence and guesthouse. The proposed residence has three levels, which includes a 1,341 square foot main (upper) floor, a 1,088 square foot middle floor (367 sq. ft. devoted to guesthouse) and a 670 square foot lower floor and basement that includes a garage with tandem parking.

The Planning Commission reviewed this project on two occasions and both times continued it with a request for changes. At the first hearing the Commission requested that the materials on the front fa9ade be treated differently and that the applicant consider alternatives that would push the garage further forward to help mitigate the appearance of a three-story building. The Commission also approved the use permit for the guesthouse, contingent upon the applicant receiving design approval.

The applicant made several revisions in order to comply with the requests made at the first hearing, such as removing the stone veneer, pushing the garage forward 12 feet, and revising the parking design to be tandem as opposed to side-by-side. The Commission felt that the changes were an improvement, but still had some issues with the design and continued the application with a request for further revisions.

PROJECT DATA FOR A 7,515 SQUARE FOOT SITE:
Site Considerations--Allowed--Existing--Proposed
Floor Area 2,853 sf(41%) NA 2,853 sf ( 41 %)*
Site Coverage 928 sf (12.3%)** NA 914 sf(12.2%)
Trees (upper/lower) 5/4 trees 2110 trees 3/8 trees
Ridge Height (1st/2nd) 18/24 ft. NA 18 ft./21 ft.
Plate Height (1st/2nd) 12 ft./18 ft. NA 12ft. /18ft.

Setbacks--Minimum Required--Existing--Proposed
Front 15ft. 45.5 15ft.
Composite Side Yard 18ft. 9 in. (25%) 16ft. (26%) 21 ft. 2 in. (28%)
Minimum Side Yard 3 ft./5 ft. (street) 1 0 ft./6 ft. (street) 4ft. 3 in.
Rear 3ft. 3ft. 3ft. 2 in.
*Project includes 391 sq. ft. located in basement. Total floor area is 3,098 sq. ft. when factoring basement bonus
** Includes a 4% bonus if 50% of all coverage is permeable or semi-permeable

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 better preserve the natural slope and reduce the appearance of the retaining walls.

Response: The applicant previously proposed to terrace the retaining walls on both sides of the driveway. There were three stepped walls on the north side of the driveway and two on the south side. By working with the grade, the applicant has eliminated the number of retaining walls so that there is now only a single short wall on both sides of the driveway. The result is a substantial improvement to the front elevation that will eliminate the appearance of retaining walls as recommended by the Commission.

The applicant is still proposing a three foot tall wall that would run across the front of the property. The portion of the wall located north of the driveway encroaches into the public right-of-way by approximately three feet. The location of the wall is consistent with the properties to the north. Public works has reviewed the plans and does not have any issues with the proposed encroachment.

The purpose of the wall in the right of way is to help mitigate the soil erosion that occurs at this area of the property. Staff met with the City Forester to review the option of grading this area to provide better slope stability as opposed to using a wall. The Forester has concerns with any grading that would occur around the cypress tree. Landscaping
would help the issue of soil erosion, but would not be as effective as a wall.

There is currently a retaining wall on the south side of the driveway that is approximately four feet tall and is located behind the property line. The applicant is proposing to replace this wall with a three foot wall that is located on the property line. The slope on this half of the property is less gradual than on the northern half and would benefit from maintaining a retaining wall.

With the last plan the applicant proposed to use a green wall, which is designed to allow plants to grow out of the wall. The applicant is now proposing to use a simple plaster wall. The applicant believes that because the wall is only three feet tall, landscaping above and below the wall would provide adequate screening.

2. The applicant shall reduce the size of the deck.

Response: The applicant has substantially reduced the deck so that it is now only located on the rooftop portions of the middle level. The previous deck was approximately 572 square feet while the revised deck is 344 square feet. The reduced deck is an improvement over the last proposal and reduces the mass of the building.

The applicant is proposing a wood trellis in front of the deck to provide an architectural element on the front elevation. Both the railing and the trellis provide visual interest on the front elevation and help break up the mass of the middle and upper stories. Staff supports the deck revision.

3. The applicant shall reduce the floor area of the upper level to bring the project into compliance.

Response: In the last staff report it was noted that the residence exceeded the allowed floor area by 1 71 square feet. The floor area of the main level has been reduced by 86 square feet, which gives the applicant two times this amount (172 sq. ft.) to be used in the basement as part of the bonus incentive. The project is now in compliance with the floor
area requirements.

4. The applicant shall remove the portion of the crawlspace that extends beyond the building footprint.

Response: The purpose for requesting that the crawlspace be removed was so that more area could be provided for landscaping above and to minimize the exposure of the wall on the north side of the garage door. The applicant is still proposing to maintain the crawlspace for storage purposes, but has revised the design to address these two issues.

The comer of the crawlspace has been curved and the roof above has been stepped down to four and-a-half feet tall so that it can be buried beneath the grade. As a result there is soil above the crawlspace that provides room for landscaping and the wall on the north side of the garage door is no longer visible. The issues created by the crawlspace have been mitigated by these revisions. However, if the Commission is still concerned staff would recommend that the crawlspace be reduced by 23 feet so that it does not extend beyond the front wall.

5. The applicant shall relocate the guesthouse door so that it is not on the front elevation and shall eliminate the walkway that leads to the door.
Response: The door has been relocated to the south side of the guesthouse and the walkway has been eliminated. There is now a window on the front elevation in place of the door.

6. The applicant shall use the wood headers consistently above all the windows and doors.

Response: The applicant previously proposed wood headers above three of the windows on the front elevation and above the garage door. Windows and doors that did not have headers were either arched or there was no space above the window for a header. The applicant has chosen to remove all of the headers in order to address the Commission's request for consistency. Staff supports the previous proposal because it incorporated more wood into the finish materials, but could also support the current proposal if the Commission is still concerned about consistency.

7. The applicant shall evaluate options for reducing the building height.

Response: At the previous meeting the Commission requested that the applicant explore options for reducing the height to provide a more "nestled" appearance. The applicant did explore the option of reducing the roof pitch from 6:12 to 5:12, but was concerned that it would negatively impact the architecture while only providing a height reduction
of eight to ten inches. The applicant could also potentially reduce the plate height by one foot, but would prefer not to.

The Commission should discuss whether the applicant should make any of the above changes in order to reduce the height by one to two feet. Such a small reduction in height would likely only have a minor effect on reducing the appearance of mass. It is also important to note that the height of the proposed residence is consistent with other homes in the neighborhood as evident on the street elevation. However, if the Commission is concerned with the height staff would recommend reducing the pitch to 5:12.

8. The applicant shall propose two upper-canopy trees on the property.
Response: The City Forester met with the applicant on site to determine where these trees could be planted. One location is on the south side of the property as indicated on the site plan. The Forester had difficulty in finding an adequate location for the second tree and recommends that the site only be required to plant one upper-canopy tree. Staff notes that with the proposed project there would still be eleven trees on the property and an additional oak tree at the front of the property in the right-of-way. The City Forester will be at the hearing to answer any questions about the trees.

Covered Walkway: CMC 17.70 defines floor area as "the total gross square footage included within the surrounding exterior walls of all floors contained within all enclosed buildings on a building site. "

In the last report staffs interpretation of the Code was that the covered walkway should not count as floor area because it is not fully enclosed, but should be counted as site coverage. Staff noted that the property would exceed the allowed site coverage if the walkway were included in the calculations and for this reason recommended that it be removed. However, the applicant expressed a strong desire to maintain the walkway in
order to have exterior access to the lower level, and reduced the size of the rear patio to gain the necessary site coverage for the walkway.

In the last report staff also raised an issue with the large opening that the walkway created on the south side of the garage. The applicant has reduced the size of the opening and created more of an arched doorway. The doorway provides more enclosure to the walkway, but is a visual improvement over the last the proposal. Staff has added a special condition that the doorway shall remain unenclosed.

Summary: The applicant has made several revisions to the design in order to address the concerns raised by the Commission. As a result the project is a substantial improvement over the original proposal. The following is a list of the improvements that were made:

• The garage was pushed forward 12 feet. The revisions make it appear more as though the garage is located in front of the residence as opposed to below, which helps reduce the three-story appearance.
• The prominence of the retaining walls has been reduced. This was accomplished by pushing the garage forward, which allowed for shorter walls that are not as long. The number of retaining walls has also been reduced.
• The applicant eliminated the stone from the residence and the retaining walls. As a result the residence is consistent in its use of materials and is adequately differentiated from the neighboring homes.
• The size of the deck has been reduced and the rooftop deck above the garage has been replaced with a landscaped green roof.
• The applicant has revised the crawlspace so that it is below grade.
• The entrance to the guesthouse has been relocated.
• The entrance to the walkway has been reduced in size.

RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Design Study application with special conditions.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant shall plant one upper-canopy tree of substantial size and caliber and of a species approved by the City Forester. The tree shall be planted onsite located approximately 10 feet from any building and shown on the final landscape plan submitted with the building permit application.

2. The guesthouse shall not be used as a subordinate unit or permanent living facility.

3. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for all encroachments into the right of way prior to the issuance of a building permit.

4. The walkway opening on the lower floor shall remain unenclosed.

5. The applicant i only pennitted to install retaining walls for the driveway and rear patio. The driveway retaining walls shall taper down to the ground a they approach the street.

6. The applicant hall reduce the ridge height by two feet while maintaining the 6:12 roof pitch.

7. The applicant shall revise the front entry tairs so that they follow the natural grade.

8. The applicant shall eliminate the front pOition of the crawlspace that extend beyond the footprint of the house.

9. The soil on the green roof above the garage shall be sloped and not tenaced as shown on the plans.

10. Any external changes to the project hall be brought before the Planning Commission for review.

Monte Verde 2 N.E of 3rd

To the Planning Commission of the City of Carmel-by-the-sea in
reference to:

Proposed Action: Consideration of Design Study, Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for a new residence located
in the Single family Residential (R-1), Beach and Riparian (BR), Archaeological Significance (AS) and Park (P) Overlay Districts.

Property located : Monte Verde 2 N.E of 3rd

Parcel Description : Block 31, lot(s) 14

Applicant : Plum Holdings, LLC

Date of Notice : October 24, 2011

File#: DS 11-100

I acknowledge that I have looked through the drawings of the proposed home and approve of the proposed action in regards to the above property. I feel that this would be a good improvement and enhancement to the neighborhood.

I am in support of approving this project.

Address

Years

Email

Phone

Print Name

Signature