Meeting Date: 5 June 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 Design Study, Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a new residence located on Fifth A venue two northwest of Lincoln Street. The property owner is Pot D'or LLC. The appellant is Jacqueline Simonelli.
Description: The appellant is requesting that the Council overturn the approval of the project. The appellant is concerned that the proposed new residence impacts her privacy, access to light and presents excessive mass and bulk.
Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's unanimous
approval.
Important Considerations: Design Guideline 5.0 states that "designs should preserve reasonable solar access to neighboring parcels." Design Guidelines 5.1 encourages preserving "reasonable privacy for adjacent properties." Design Guideline 7.2 recommends minimizing "the mass of a building as seen .from the public way or adjacent properties. "
Decision Record: On 9 May 2012 the Planning Commission unanimously approved this project
with special conditions.
Attachments:
• Staff Report
• Attachment "A" Reduction Plans
• Attachment "B" Appeal Application/Letter
• Attachment "C" PC Staff Report (5/9/12)
• Attachment "D" Correspondence
Reviewed by:
Jason Stilwell, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR BURNETT AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
THROUGH: JASON STILWELL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: MARC WIENER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: 5 JUNE 2012
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE DESIGN STUDY,
DEMOLITION PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW RESIDENCE LOCATED ON FIFTH AVENUE TWO
NORTHWEST OF LINCOLN STREET. THE PROPERTY
OWNER IS POT D‘OR LLC. THE APPELLANT IS
JACQUELINE SIMONELLI.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval.
BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is located on Fifth Avenue two northwest of Lincoln Street. The property
is comprised of two separate 4,000 square foot lots that are developed as a single building
site. There is currently a single-family residence, subordinate unit and a detached twocar
garage located on the property.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the structures on the property in order to construct
two new single-family residences. One of the proposed residences is on the western lot
and the other is on the eastern lot. The proposed project on the western lot is the subject
of this appeal, and consists of an 1,800 square foot two-story residence clad with wood
shingle siding. The project includes a detached garage located in the front setback, and a
42 square foot second-story balcony on the west side of the residence.
86
PC Review: The appellant, Jacqueline Simonelli, appeared at both the conceptual and
final Planning Commission hearings to express concern regarding the project. The
primary concerns were centered on privacy, mass and bulk, and solar access (See
Attachment “B”). The appellant indicated that the second-story was too imposing and
that a privacy impact was being created by a second-story balcony on the west side of the
master bedroom.
The Planning Commission did not require any design changes to address the concerns
about the mass or solar access. However, the Commission did require the applicant to
address the privacy impact created by the balcony. The applicant reduced the size of the
balcony from 98 square feet to 42 square feet to address the impact. The railing around
the balcony was also revised from open banisters to a solid railing. At the final hearing
the Commission determined that the privacy impact had been mitigated and unanimously
approved the project (See Attachment “C”).
EVALUATION
Basis for Appeal: This hearing is considered a de novo hearing, meaning that the
Council can review any aspect of the project. However, staff recommends focusing only
on the issues raised by the appellant. Below is a summary of the concerns raised by the
appellant followed by a staff response.
1. The mass and bulk of the proposed two-story building will “loom” over the
appellant’s backyard and patio.
Response: The proposed second-story is 15 feet from the western property line, which is
12 feet more than the minimum required. At 22 feet tall the second-story is two feet
below the allowed height. The second-story is 400 square feet, which comprises only
22% of the total floor area. The proposed residence is 3,260 cubic feet below the allowed
volume, which is fairly significant.
The Planning Commission determined that the size and location of the second story were
appropriate. Given that the subject lot is only 50 feet wide, a 15 foot setback from the
side property line is substantial. Staff concurs with the Commission.
2. The second-story balcony creates a privacy impact to the appellant’s property.
Response: The applicant is proposing a second-story balcony on the west side of the
master bedroom. Originally the balcony was 98 square feet (7’ x 14’), but was reduced to
42 square feet (3’ x 14’) to address the concerns raised by the appellant at the first
hearing. The applicant also revised the railing from open banisters to a solid railing.
87
Both staff and the Planning Commission concluded that the potential for a privacy impact
is minor, due to the small size of the balcony and its distance from the neighboring
property. The Commission did not require the applicant to make any further changes to
the design. The Council could require the applicant to plant additional landscaping
between the properties if it is determined that a privacy impact does exist.
3. The appellant’s solar access will be impacted by the two-story design.
Response: Design Guideline 5.0 states that “designs should preserve reasonable solar
access to neighboring parcels” and “incorporating tall or bulky building elements near
the property line of an adjoining site should be avoided.”
Placing a tall building element near the property line can cast a shadow on neighboring
properties and is discouraged. However, in this case the two-story element is 15 feet
from the western property line and does not have a significant shadow effect. Staff also
notes that there is a dense tree canopy behind the two-story element that already impedes
solar access to the appellant’s property, as depicted in the photo submitted by the
appellant.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval.
TO: Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council
Carmel-by-the-Sea, California
FROM: Appellant, Jacqueline C. Simonelli
RE: Applicant #DS12-24 (C. Tescher, Pot D'Oro LlC)
1 am appealing the Planning Commission's approval of Proposal #DS12-24.
The proposed project set out in DS12-24 violates the R-1 Residential District Design Regulations set out
in the Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) 17.10.010, Purpose and Design Objectives.
The Residential Design Regulations were enacted not only to preserve the quaint village character of
Carmel-by-the-Sea but to govern the behavior of applicants like Mr. Tescher who's proposed residential
construction does not comply with the "Mass & Bulk Regulations-- it also impacts negatively on the
"privacy, solar access, air and light" of my property and that of my next door neighbor, Mr. Comstock.
Mr. Tescher's proposed 2 -two-story Spec Houses will be sold to the highest bidder. His proposal is
designed to maximize his profit by placing a deck/balcony with two double French doors overlooking my
only private area (patio/garden) in an attempt to get a view of the ocean. Commissioner Reimers
suggested the deck/balcony be moved to the north side (as the neighbors to the north had no
objections to the plans).
Our Fundamental Constitutional principles, inspired by legal scholar John locke, holds that the Individual
can do anything but that which is forbidden by law, and the State and Cities, and their underlying
entities, i.e. the Carmel Planning Commission/Carmel City Council may do nothing but that which is
authorized by its laws. In other words, the Planning Commission/City Council must implement and
enforce the laws as set out in CMC 17.10.010, Purpose & Design Objectives.
The Planning Commission failed to comply with the applicable laws and regulations when it approved DS
12-24. For example:
I. Mass and Bulk: The mass and bulk of the proposed two story building will"loom" over my
backyard/patio & garden as well as my neighbor's yard (Mr. Comstock). Under the "Mass and Bulk"
regulations: "Buildings shall not present excess visual mass or bulk ... to adjoining properties. large boxlike
buildings ... can appear massive". Also, this Regulation requires that: "Residential designs shall
maintain Carmel's enduring principles of modesty and simplicity and preserve the city's tradition of
simple homes ... " The proposed home is anything but modest and simple. It is a 1,800 sq. ft. house plus
a 400 sq. ft. second story which overlooks my backyard. See Section 17.10.010 D.
2. Privacy: Mr. Tescher's placement of two double French doors and balcony/deck of the second
story structure facing west and overlooking my garden/patio area violates my privacy. "Designs should
respect the privacy of neighbors. The placement of windows, doors, balconies and decks, should be
sensitive ... to neighboring properties". See Section 17.10.010 G. I suggested Mr. Tescher move his west
facing 10ft. deck, (that overlooks my backyard), to the north side of the house and his reply was, "NO, I
want it facing west". His "new revision" of his 10 foot x 10 foot "deck" now called a "balcony" is 14 feet
long by three and one-half feet in depth --accommodating several chairs and tables-- still overlooking
my only private patio/garden area.
97
Mr. Tescher mentioned at the first hearing that a third neighbor is not objecting to the building
plans -- so I suggested he put the deck/balcony on the north side (he would still get a westward
view). The property (owned by Mr. Rose) is North of the proposed construction and set back by
a good margin-- also, Mr. Rose is the applicant's brother-in-law.
After the first hearing on April 11th , the Commission recommended we (Mr. Tescher & I) ''try to
work it out" (the privacy issue). Mr. Tescher and I, along with Ms. O'Connell, went over to my
back yard where the deck/balcony would overlook my patio/garden. I said to Mr. Tescher "You
can look right down here into my patio"-Mr. Tescher then said he would put in a large tree on
my property. I do not want a large/big tree because I need the sun for my garden to grow. Why
should I have to re-landscape my patio/garden to accommodate Mr. Tescher's spec project that
violates my privacy rights and CMC privacy regulations?
3. Solar Access: "Designs should preserve the rights to reasonable solar access on
neighboring parcels" See Section 17.10.010 L. The proposed design structure impinges on my
"right" to reasonable solar access, light and air. I will not get any sun light in the morning (like I
do now) from 7 a.m. through 12 noon. This will impact on my garden plants that require
morning sun.
To comply with the Solar and Mass/ Bulk and Privacy issues, I request that the proposed
building nearest my property be reduced to one story. The proposed construction fails to comply
with the Design Regulations set out in Chapter 1 7 .I 0 -- that is the applicable law -- therefore,
this Council should overrule the Planning Commission and reject application DS 12-24.
The applicable Carmel Municipal Code states that:
"The City Council shall maintain design guidelines to implement the design objectives
outlined in CMC 17.10.010, Purpose and Design Objectives. The Planning Commission, Design
Review Board, and the Department of Community Planning and Building shall use these
Guidelines to review proposed construction. Designs that conflict with municipal code standards
or the adopted R-1 design objectives shall not be approved." See CMC 17.10.060 Residential
Design Guidelines.
Respectively, . ·---:; __ __ £~ 8 (! ~-~.dt:-.. ,
Mrs. Jacqueline C. Simonelli <-~·-- · -~?£,. !L .:Jl~, o2c.· t::l..
( •
P.S. FYI: At the May 9th Hearing, the Planning Commission requested more information on the
retaining wall and the drainage because of our concerns.
98
• Carm~l-by-the-Sea Design Traditions • Site
5.0 Privacy, ·views, Ligfit ancf Air
Neighborhoods ongiilal1y developed at relatively low densities and the
amonnt of planted open space was extensive. Most blocks evolved with
a reason,able degree of privacy for individual houses. Retaining this sense
of privacy, in spite~~ higher densities, remains an objedive.
Objective_s:
• To maintain privacy of indoor and outdoor spaces iri a neighborhood
_
o To balance and share view opportunities to natural features and landmarks
5.1 Organize functions on a site to preserve reasonable privacy
for adjacent properties.
• Position a building to screen active areas of adjacent properties
when feasible.
• Locate windows and balconies such that the..)UlY.oid overl~okingacttve
mdoor and outdoor use areas of adjacent properties.
• Preserve significant trees that will help to saeen views into
adjacent properties.
• Screen patios, terraces and service areas.
Views, Light and Air
Views to natural features and landmarks are key features of Carmel's
design traditions. Important views occur to the ocean, canyons, and along
streets. Protecting views is an important community concern. This indudes
views from public ways as well as those through properti~s. Also
note that the desire to maximize view opportunities from one's own
property ~~t be balanced with consideration of res~g views of
others:Tiie preliminary site analysis may help identify view opportuni·
ties as well as existing views enjoyed by others.
Designs also should preserve reasonable solar access to neighboring par·
eels. Designs should protect and preserve the light, air and open space
of surrounding properties, when considered cumulatively with other
buildings in the neighborhood. Incorporating tall or bulky building elements
~:~r t~e property line of an adjoining site ~h~tl~ _ be av
.... ~~-· · -- - .
Planning Guidelines •
Discouraged: Ol1erlooking llctive outdoor
areas on adjacent properties.
Policy Pl-65
Consider the effect of proposed
residential construction on the privacy,
~lar access and private views of
neighbors when evnlut~ting the design
Teokw applialtions. Avoid designs t11at
are ~l}!.~~siti~ to the designs of
neighboring buildings. Attempt to
achieve lln equilllble balance of these
design amenities cnnong all properties
lljfecled by design revieW decisions.
All npplicants are strongly ~raged to
consult with neighbors enrly in the
design process to learn their concerns
and e"--plnin proposed projects.
TO: Cannel Planning Commission
Carmel-by-the-Sea, California
FROM: Jacqueline C. Simonelli
RE: Applicant# DS12-24 (Tescher)
May 9, 2012
The proposed project set out in DS12-24, violates several Regulations ofthe Land Use Code ofthe City of
Carmel-by-the-Sea and Chapter 17 .I 0 of the R-1 District Design Regulations adopted pursuant thereto.
Writing in 350 BC, the Greek Philosopher Aristotle declared, "The rule of law is better than the rule of any
individual."
The applicable rule of law in this matter are the Design Regulations that were enacted not only to preserve
the quaint village character of Cannel-by-the-Sea but to govern the behavior of applicants like Mr. Tescher
who's proposed residential construction plans negatively impact on the privacy, solar access, air and light of
my property as that of my neighbor, Mr. Comstock.
The Fundamental Constitutional principles, inspired by legal scholar John Locke, holds that the Individual
can do anything but that which is forbidden by law, and the State and Cities, and their underlying
governmental bureaucracies, i.e. the Carmel Planning Commission, may do nothing but that which is
authorized by its laws. In other words, the Planning Commission must implement and enforce the law as set
out in Chapter 17.1 0, R-1 District Design Regulations. The Planning Commission is a vital organ of the City
and is a creature created to provide services to the public and to be bound by the law.
As referred to earlier, the proposed project violates several Design Regulations set out in Chapter 17.1 0,
Land Use Code of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. For example:
!.Privacy, the placement of windows, doors, and balcony of the second story structure creates a negative
impact on our privacy and enjoyment of our backyard. See Section 17.10.010 G, Privacy of the Design
Regulations.
I suggested Mr. Tescher move his 1 0 foot deck,(that overlooks my back yard), to the north side of the house
and his reply was, "No, I want it facing west". His "new revision" of a "deck" is now a so-called "balcony"
which is 14 feet long by three, and one-half feet in depth- accommodating several small tables and chairs still
overlooking my only private garden and patio area.
Mr. Tescher mentioned at the other hearing that a third neighbor, Gerard Rose, did not object to the building
plans- so I suggested he put the deck on the north side. The Rose property is North of the proposed
construction and set back by a good margin-also, Mr. Rose is the applicant's brother-in-Jaw.
2. Solar Access: The proposed design structure impinges on my 'right' to reasonable solar access, light and
air. I will not get any sun light in the morning from 7 a.m. through 12 noon. See §17.10.010 L. This will
impact on my garden plants that require morning sun.
101
3. Mass and Bulk: The mass and bulk of the proposed two story building will"loom" over my property as
that of my neighbor, Mr. Comstock. "Buildings shall not present excess visual mass or bulk to public view or
to adjoining properties."Aiso,this Regulation requires homes to, "maintain Carmel's enduring principles of
modest and simplicity and serve the city's tradition of simple homes .... "The proposed home is anything but
modest and simple. It is a I ,800 sq. ft. house with a 400 sq. ft. second story overlooking my backyard. See
§17.10.010 D.
To comply with the Solar and Mass/Bulk and Privacy, I request that the proposed building nearest my property
be reduced to one story, which would solve several problems for adjoining neighbors.
If Mr. Tescher complies with all the design regulations and the Commission approves the application,
I would like to be assured that-
I) The proposed 2 foot by 12 foot pressure-treated board used to replace the existing concrete
retaining wall which is on level ground, will be sufficient to hold the hill with the added weight.
2) Also, know where the downspouts drain to that are 7 feet from the property I ine.
As noted above, the proposed construction fails to achieve reasonable compliance with the Design Regulations
set out in Chapter l 7. l 0- that is the applicable law- therefore, this Commission should reject application
DS12-24.
Respectfully,
Mrs. Jacqueline Simonelli
4/9/2012
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
THE PROPOSAL TO BUILD A TWO STORY HOME ADJACENT TO MY
PROPERTY, WHICH IS AT THE NE CORNER OF 5TH AVENUE & MONTE
VERDE STREETS, WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE QUALITY OF MY
LIFE AND VALUE OF MY HOME FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS,:
1). MY PROPERTY WILL BE GREATLY AFFECTED BY THE LOSS OF ANY
PRIVACY I NOW HAVE ON THE EAST SIDE WHERE THE BEDROOMS
AND ADJOINING PATIOS ARE (BACKYARD). SINCE I AM ON A BUSY
CORNER, THE QNL.Y PLACE OF MY YARD WHERE I DO HAVE PRlV ACY
AND QUIET IS MY BACKYARD.
THE PROPOSED TWO STORY HOME TO BE BUILT BY MR. TESCHER
LOOMS OVER MY BACKYARD PATIO AS THERE IS A HILL UP TO THE
PROPERTY LINE WHERE THEY WANT TO PUT THIS TWO STORY
HOUSE. THEIR HOUSE WOULD LOOK RIGHT DOWN INTO THE PATIO
AND BEDROOMS. IT IS ONLY 7' FROM THE PROPERTY LINE (THEY
SAY). MR. TESCHER CAN ALTER HIS PLANS --- I CANNOT MOVE MY
HOUSE.
2). FURTHERMORE, MY CONCERN WITH THE LOSS OF PRIVACY, IS THE
LOSS OF VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE FIRST THING PEOPLE WANT IN BUYING A HOME IS PRIVACY AND
I WILL HAVE NONE LEFT WHERE I CAN GO FOR MY ENJOYMENT
OUTSIDE IN MY GARDEN. THIS IS AN INSIDIOUS FORM OF "EMINENT
DOMAIN", WHEN A GROUP IS GIVEN THE POWER TO GIVE SOMEONE
ELSE~S PROPERTY VALUE TO ANOTHER PARTY FOR THEIR BENEFIT. I
BELIEVE MR. TESCHER HAS THE RlGHT TO BUILD TWO HOMES ON
TWO LOTS. ----HOWEVE~ NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO DAMAGE OR
DIMINISH ANOTHER'SPROPERTY VALUE IN ANY WAY--- AND THIS
TWO-STORY STRUCTURE DEFINITELY WILL.
I DO BELIEVE IN PEOPLE MAKING A LIVING BUT BELIEVE IT BE
COUPLED WITH SENSITIVITY.
103
A HOME ON ONE SIDE OF ME WAS NOT ALLOWED TO DO A TWO
STORY NOR WERE THEY ALLOWED EVEN TO PUT A BASEMENT IN
THEIR HOME AND YET, HERE IN 2012 IS A PETITION FOR A TWO
STORY STRUCTURE ON MY OTHERSIDE?????? ONE SIDE IT WAS
DENIED AND NOW IN 2012 A TWO STORY STRUCT~ WOULD BE
ALLOWED?????
3). MY OTHER CONCERN WITH THE BUILDING SO VERY CLOSE TO THE
'HILL PROPERTY LINE' IS THE DRAINAGE OF WATER AND THE WATER
RUNOFF FROM THE HILL INTO MY PATIO. THE SOIL CONSISTS OF
SAND ONLY (WHICH IS UNSTABLE), AND THE CONCERN IS LACK OF
STABILITY OF THE SOIL BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. I
QUESTION WHETHER THIS CONSTRUCTION BY THE HILL WOULD BE
STABLE AND ALSO NOT UNDERMINE A HUGH MONTEREY·PJNE ROOT
SYSTEM (ABOUT 40' TALL). ~~ :'.·., · -~-=
I AM NOT ADVERSE TO MR. TESCHER BUILDING TWO LOVELY
CARMEL STYLE HOMES. HOWEVER, I AM ADVERSE TO A TWO-STORY
STRUCTURE THAT WOULD TAKE AWAY MY PRIVACY AND DEY ALUE
MY PROPERTY.
A FINAL CONCERN IS THAT I WON'T SEE THE MORNING SUN
ANYMORE UNTIL AFTERNOON W/THIS TWO-STORY STRUCTURE UP
THERE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALLOWING ME TO STATE MY
CONCERNS OF MY HOME.
SINCERELY,
MRS. JACQUELINE C. SIMONELLI
P.O. BOX 1178
CARMEL, CA. 93921
104
4/9/2012
WHY DO PEOPLE LIKE CARMEL?
ITS HISTORIC, UNIQUE CHARM, UNIQUE HOUSES THAT IS DIFFERENT
FROM ONE ANOTHER ON DIFFERENT SIZED LOTS. NOW, IMAGINE
WHAT CARMEL LOOKS LIKE ~F ANY BUILDER IS ABLE TO BUILD
TWO HOMES ON TWO LOTS. EVENTUALLY, CARMEL WILL BE
REDUCED TO A TOWN WITH HOUSES ON/ONE LOT-- THAT IS IT.
WHY? BECAUSE DIFFERENT BUILDERS WILL COME IN AND CONTINUE
TO DO THE SAME THING -- Ol1l BUY A HOUSE ON THREE LOTS -BETTER
TEAR THE ONE DOWN AND PUT UP THREE HOMES (ONE ON
EACH LOT).r.:: '".~ ~/ sl .(:. ~·;m( ~
CARMEL WILL DRASTICALLY LOSE ITS UNIQUE CHARM-TURNING
INTO A TOWN OF ROW HOUSES. WHO WANTS THAT?
THIS IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN -- OVER TIME -- WHEN THE OLDER
PEOPLE DIE AND THEIR HEIRS SELL THE SMALL HOMES ON TWO
LOTS -- BUILDERS WILL COME IN AND BUILD TWO HOMES WHERE
ONLY ONE ONCE STOOD. SO, CARMEL BECOMES "COOKIE-CUTTER" -WHICH
NO ONE WANTS BUT THEY WILL GET, IF ALL THESE NEW
HOMES GET APPROVED.
}~~,.."' ·~
THE SAME THING COULD HAPPEN INlLOCALS, BUT NEIGHBORS AND
THE COUNCIL WOULD NEVER ALLOW IT. SO WHY SHOULD IT BE
ALLOWED IN CARMEL??
105
Picture Mr. Teacher took
from the roof of the old
garage w/tree branches on
his property which can &
will be cut out when property
sold -- looking at an angle
down into mv Datio.
106
- ----- ~ ~vva ~~vw wy
patio showing how Fr. Drs .
and balcony will look down
into my patio/ garden--also
tree branches on his property
which can and will
be cut out when property
sold (taken from my patio
looking up to where balcony/
deck will be (approx.)
107
Attachment "C" - PC Staff Report
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA CHECKLIST
MEETING DATE: 9 May 2012 BLOCK: 53 LOTS: W ~ 17 & 19
FIRST HEARING: X
ITEM NO: DS 12-24/UP 12-2
SUBJECT:
CONTINUED FROM: N/ A
APPLICANT: Pot D'or LLC
STREAMLINING DEADLINE: 5/21/12
Consideration of Design Study (Final), Demolition Permit and Coastal Development
Permit applications for the construction of a new residence located in the Single Family
Residential (R-1) District.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Exempt (Class 3-new construction)
LOCATION: ZONING:
5th Ave 2 NW ofLincoln R-1
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 9 May 2012.
2. Application Materials/Plans.
STAFF CONTACT: Marc Wiener, Associate Planner
108
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
STAFF REPORT Amended & Approved 5/9/12
APPLICATION: DS 12-24/UP 12-2
BLOCK: 53
LOCATION: 5th Ave 2 NW of Lincoln
REQUEST:
APPLICANT: Pot D'or LLC
LOTS: W Yz 17 & 19
Consideration of Design Study (Final), Demolition Permit and Coastal Development
Permit applications for the construction of a new residence located in the Single Family
Residential (R -1) District.
ADDITIONAL REVIEW:
1. Planning Commission 4/11/12.
BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project site is located on Fifth Avenue two northwest comer of Lincoln Street. The
property is comprised of two separate 4,000 square foot lots that are developed as a single
building site. There is currently a single-family residence, subordinate unit and detached
two-car garage located on the property.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the structures on the property in order to construct
two new single family residences. This project was reviewed at the April2012 Planning
Commission meeting. The Planning Commission approved a Use Permit application for
a lot line adjustment. The reconfigured lot line creates an eastern lot and western lot.
The western lot is the subject of this design study (DS 12-24), while the eastern lot is the
subject of a separate design study (DS 12-23).
The applicant is proposing to construct a new 1 ,800 square foot, two-story residence.
The proposed residence includes a 1, 181 square foot main level, a 401 square foot upper
level and a 218 square foot detached garage located in the front setback. The proposed
residence is clad with wood shingle siding and a stone wainscot. The residence also
includes unclad wood windows and a wood shingle roof.
The Planning Commission reviewed the building design at the previous meeting and
accepted the design concept with a condition that the applicant work with staff and the
western neighbor to address the potential privacy impact created by this project. The
applicant has revised the plans to comply with this condition as discussed in the next
section of the report.
109
DS 12-24/UP 12-2 (Pot D'or LLC)
9 May2012
Staff Report
Page2
PROJECT DATA FOR A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT SITE:
Site Considerations Allowed Existin2 Proposed
Floor Area 1,800 sf(45%) NA 1,800 sf(45%)
Site Coverage 556 sf(13.9%)* NA 556 sf(13.9%)
Trees (upper/lower) 3/1 trees 3/4 trees 3/4 trees
Ridge Height (1st/2nd) 18/24 ft. NA 15 ft./22 ft. 3 in
Plate Height (1st/2nd) 12 ft./18 ft. NA 10.5 ft. /18ft.
Setbacks Minimum Existing Proposed
Required
Front 15ft. NA 16 ft. 8 in.**
Composite Side Yard 12.5 ft. (25%) NA 12.5 ft. (25%)
Minimum Side Yard 3ft. NA 3ft.
Rear 15ft. NA 15ft.
"' Includes a 4% bonus if 50% of all coverage is permeable or semi-permeable.
**Detached garage at front property line. Permitted to encroach into front setback.
EVALUATION:
Previous Hearing: The following is a change requested by the Planning Commission
and a response on how the applicant has or has not complied:
1. The applicant shall work with staff and the western neighbor to address the
privacy impact.
Response: At the previous hearing the western neighbor expressed concern about the
impact created by this project, in particular the new two-story element near the back of
the property. The primary concerns were regarding privacy and access to light. The
Commission did not indicate that any design changes would be needed to address the
neighbor's access to light, but did request that the applicant mitigate the potential privacy
impact.
The primary area of concern was the second-story deck on the west side of the residence.
The original proposal was for a 100 square foot deck that is connected to the master
bedroom. The applicant has substantially reduced the size of the deck, so that it is now a
43 square foot balcony. The Commission could request that the applicant provide
additional landscaping between the properties if there are still concerns about privacy.
However, it should be noted that there are already several trees that help screen the
second-story mass.
110
DS 12-24/UP 12-2 (Pot D'or LLC)
9 May2012
Staff Report
Page3
A second neighbor, whose property is located northwest of the subject property, spoke
against the project at the last hearing and has since submitted a letter (see attached). This
neighbor is also concerned about the impact to privacy and access to light.
Staff notes that the proposed second-story is 15 feet from the rear (north) property line
and 10 feet from the western property line, which is seven feet more than the minimum
required. Two-story homes often create more of an impact to neighboring properties
because they are more visible and imposing than a one-story home. However, the Zoning
Code does not prohibit two-story homes. Staff concludes that the two-story element has
been located appropriately, and is at an adequate distance from the neighboring properties
given the size of the lots in Carmel. Staff recommends approval of the proposed design.
Finish Details: Design Guideline 9.5-9.10 state that the use of "painted wood
clapboard, stained or painted board and batten siding and shingles are preferred
primary materials for exterior wall" and that "establishing a stone foundation and then
wrapping the remainder of the building with wood are appropriate applications of stone
and wood."
The applicant is proposing wood shingle siding and roofmg along with a stone wainscot.
Unclad wood doors and windows are also being proposed. Staff supports the proposed
finish materials as they are consistent with the Guidelines and appropriate for the
residence. The applicant has done a nice job of adequately differentiating this home from
the one being proposed on the eastern lot.
Landscape Plan: The applicant has provided a detailed landscape plan showing
landscaping on the property. The plan does not show any landscaping improvements for
the right-of-way or fence details. A special condition has been added that the applicant
work with staff on these two issues prior to building permit submittal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the applicant with the attached special condition.
SPECIAL CONDITION:
1. The applicant shall work with staff on the landscape plan to review options for
improving the landscaping in the right-of-way and on reviewing the fence details
if a fence is being proposed. Plantings in the right-of-way shall be done in a
manner to preserve the existing walkway.
2. The working drawings shall ensure that the construction addresses the retaining
wall on the west side of the property and includes a seepage pit to address the
drainage.
Attachment "D" -Correspondence
Home: 831-625-1124
Office: 831-333-0200
Gerard A. Rose
Lincoln Street, 2•11 N. W. of 5111
P.O. Bos: 6516
Carmel, Callfomia 93921
April. 10, 2012
Via Pacaimile: (831) 620-2014
Marc WeiDer
C011111uni ty Planning & Building Department
City of carm.J.-by-the-Sea
PO Drawer G, CaDael-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
Fas:: 831-649-5550
E-Mail: glitzrose@aoLcom
Re: Northwest Corner of Lincoln St. and. Fifth Avenue
Appl.icant: Chris Teacher/Pot D'Or
Dear Marc:
I l.ive next d.oor, i.e., immediately north of the subject
project (Li.ncoln 2nd H. W. of 5th) , and I am WZ'itiDg to exp%'88& my
wholehearted support ~or Nr. Teacher' a proposal .
To begin with, I applaud Nr. T .. char for his eztraordinary
efforts in maintaining and/or rel.ocating !!! of the trees on the
site.
Second., the proposed at:zouctures not only fit in with the
character of the bamaa that surround. them, but will greatly
enhance the entire neighborhood.
'l'hird., because the southern boundary of my lot abuts the
entire northern boundary o~ both of the applicant' a l.ota, my
heme ia probably the residence that is moat affectecl by tha
project. I can tell you frcm that perapecti.ve that the changes
propoaecl by *, Teacher are acceptable to ae and my wife, and
will have a minimal impact upon ua.
I have reviewed. 'the staff report generated by youzo office,
and. I urqe t:be PlaDDing Ccaaiaaion. to adopt that report i.D its
entirety.
If you or any members of the Pl.anning COIIIIDi.asion have any
questions about my endoraament of this project, please feel. free
to call ae on my cell phone at (831) 277-8140.
Gerard. A. Rose
Timothy F. Comstock 112
144 7 38th Street
Sacramento, California 95816
f"AD•n£!TYOF
-~YJ.CL.BY..~
Dear Carmel City Council: May 14,2012
This material is in support of the appeal of Jackie Simonelli to the Planning
Commission's decision on DS12-24 at its May meeting.
That decision violates several of the Commission's own rules, guidelines
and policies (as cited in my attached letter to them dated April 27, 2012). That
decision is, frankly, an insult to Ms. Simonelli, me and to the Commission's
execution of its own responsibilities.
The builder (the applicant for DS12-24) has never tried to contact me even
though I provided all contact information to him at the Planning Commission's
April meeting.
I can't believe the Commission can take such a cavalier approach on an
issue that so clearly and obviously will result in a diminution of my property
values and Ms. Simonelli's property values, and our enjoyment of our property
and homes, which greatly pre-date Mr. Tesher's ownership rights and interests.
If the Commission's rules, guidelines and policies stand for nothing, they
should just say so and allow anyone to do anything within the confines of the
village.
Our treatment on this matter, by your Commission and by Mr. Tesher, has
been deplorable. I am at a loss to understand how they can take such an action
and continue to believe that their stated rules and guidelines have any credibility.
Please listen to us and give us a fair chance to provide input into the white
elephant outlines in DS12-24.
Sincerely,
J;~h!##)fiLTim
Comstock
Phone: 916-452-1197 Email: TFComstock@comcast.net
