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

147
To:
From:
Submitted by:
Subject:
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Council Report
October 8, 2013
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jason Stilwell, City Administrator
Rob Mullane, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director
Marc Wiener, Senior Planner
Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to
approve Design Study (DS 12-68) and Coastal Development Permit
applications for the alteration of an existing residence located at the
northeast corner of San Antonio and Tenth Avenues, in the Single- Family
Residential (R-1) Zoning District. The application is being appealed by the
eastern property owners: Steve and Peter Boutin.
Recommendation: Deny the appeal, and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to
approve DS 12-68.
Executive Summary: The project site is located at the northeast corner of San Antonio and
Tenth Avenues, and consists of two legal lots of record. The property is
developed with a two-level Mediterranean-style residence that was
constructed in 1926. The existing residence is 2A29 square feet in size
and includes a partially sub-grade garage on the lower-level and the living
area on the main-level (second-level). The residence has a flat-roofed
design with stucco siding and wood windows and doors. A
Determination of Historic Ineligibility was issued on April 1, 2005, based
on a review by the City's Historic Preservation Consultant: Kent Seavey.
The applicant/property owner, Malcom Ghazal, is proposing a substantial
alteration of the residence that includes the following:
A 475-square foot second-story (third-level) bedroom addition;
A 471-square foot main-level (second-level) addition;
A pitched roof over a portion of the existing flat roof;
Exterior materials to include stucco, clay-tile roof, wood windows and
doors and some stone;
1
148
Removal of 31 square feet of floor-area from the main-level and 98
square feet of floor-area from the basement; and
Reduction of 686 square feet of site coverage.
As previously noted, the existing residence currently has two levels
referred to as the lower-level and second-level (main-level). The west
elevation of the residence, facing San Antonio Avenue, presents a two-
story appearance caused by the partially sub-grade garage and
basement. The residence presents a single-story appearance from other
elevations, including the south elevation facing Tenth Avenue.
The applicant is proposing to add a third-level to the residence. The
proposed third-level qualifies as a second-story, due its location on the
residence, and does not violate any zoning requirements. For the
remainder of this report staff will refer to the proposed third-level
addition as a second-story.
This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on four separate
occasions between September 12, 2012 and August 14, 2013. The
primary issue with the design was the view impact to the eastern
neighbor that was created by the proposed second-story addition. After
several hearings, the project applicant identified a location for the
second-story addition designed to mitigate the view impact to the
eastern neighbor. On August 14, 2013, the Planning Commission
unanimously approved the Design Study (DS 12-68) application by a vote
of 4-0.
The Design Study approval is being appealed by the eastern property
owners: Steve and Peter Boutin. The Boutin residence is located on the
northwest corner of Carmela Street and Tenth Avenue, two parcels
directly behind the project site. There is an intervening parcel that is
developed with a one-story residence, between the project site and the
Boutin property. The owners of this intervening property did appear at
the Planning Commission hearing on February 13, 2013, to express some
concerns with the mass and bulk created by the project. However, the
Planning Commission determined that the impact to this neighbor was
minor. The owners of the intervening property are not appealing the
project.
2
149
Analysis/Discussion:
Planning Commission Review and Staff Analysis
This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on four separate
occasions between September 12, 2012 and August 14, 2013, and the
project was revised and scaled-back based on input from the Planning
Commission. The following is a summary of the four Planning
Commission hearings.
Planning Commission Hearing (9/12/12) -The applicant had proposed a
503-square foot second-story addition. Staff noted that the second-story
of the Boutin residence had filtered ocean views that overlook the
subject property and concluded that the proposed second-story would
eliminate the majority of this view. It was identified at the meeting that
shifting the proposed second-story addition farther south would
potentially mitigate the view impact.
Staff noted that the structure did not violate the zoning requirements for
the number of stories, but due to the slope of the site, three different
level s are visible from San Antonio Avenue. Staff noted potential
difficulties with a second-story addition on this site due to the view
impacts as well as effects on overall mass and bulk. For this reason staff
recommended a continuance of the project.
The Commission was generally supportive of the design and style of the
proposed residence and did not have any significant concerns with the
building mass. However, the Commission was concerned with the view
impact to the Boutin residence. The Planning Commission voted to
continue the application, with a recommendation that the applicant work
with the Boutins on view impacts. The minutes of the September 12,
2012 meeting are included as Attachment M.
Planning Commission Hearing (2/13/13) - In response to the view
concerns that were raised at the first meeting, the applicant reduced the
width of the second-story from 26 to 20 feet. The square footage of the
second-story was also reduced from 503 to 447 square feet. The majority
of the reduction came from the north side of the structure.
In the staff report and presentation, staff noted that the revised second-
story design was an improvement over the original proposal, but still
impaired views from the Boutin residence to some extent. Staff noted
3
150
that were several ocean view corridors from the Boutin residence that
would not be impacted by the proposed second-story addition. Staff did
not provide a recommendation as to whether the design should be
accepted.
At the Planning Commission hearing on February 13, 2013, the applicant
had indicated that the primary purpose of the second-story addition was
to gain an ocean view. The Planning Commission visited the inside of
applicant's residence on the Tour of Inspection, and determined that the
ocean view from the main-level was limited.
The Planning Commission noted that the design was an improvement
over the previous one, but continued the application with a request for
further changes to mitigate the view impact, and requested that the
applicant work closely with the Boutins on the revised design and
location of the second-story. Minutes from that meeting have been
included as Attachment K.
Planning Commission Hearing (7 /10/13) - At the third hearing, the
applicant presented an option that located the second-story four feet
farther south than the previous proposal, and a total of nine feet farther
south from the original proposal.
Staff supported the proposed design and recommended that the
applicant return with plans prepared for final approval. The Planning
Commission accepted the design concept with conditions, as reflected in
the minutes included as Attachment I.
Planning Commission Hearing (8/14/13) -The applicant returned with a
revised design that was consistent with that introduced as an option at
the July 2013 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission
approved the project with findings and conditions, as reflected in the
minutes included as Attachment G. The Planning Commission
determined that the proposed design did not create a significant impact
to the Boutin residence, and achieved an equitable balance of views.
Basis for Appeal
Below is a summary of the concerns raised by the appellant, along with
staff responses.
4
151
1. The Planning Commission's failure to adhere to the mandatory
("shall" is defined by section 1.04.010G as "mandatory") language in
Municipal Code section 17.10.010.8, C, D, and E and 17.10.060, and its
failure to follow the express directives in section 17.10.010.K.
Response: The appellant is primarily referring to sections of the City
Municipal Code that establish design objectives that encourage good site
design and minimizing mass and bulk. The most relevant code section
cited by the appellant is CMC Section 17.10.010.K, which addresses the
issue of private views.
CMC Section 17.10.010.K states the following: "Designs should respect
view enjoyed by neighboring parcels. This objective is intended to
balance the private rights to views from all parcels that will be affected by
a proposed building or addition. No single parcel should enjoy a greater
right than other parcels except the natural advantages of each site's
topography. Buildings which substantially eliminate an existing
significant view enjoyed on another parcel should be avoided."
Throughout the design study process, the decisions made by the Planning
Commission included careful consideration of the design objectives cited
in CMC Section 17.10.010. The Planning Commission continued the
Design Study application (DS 12-68) three times, and directed the
applicant to redesign the project to mitigate potential view impacts to
the Boutin residence. On August 14, 2013, the Planning Commission
determined that the view impact had been adequately mitigated, and
that the proposed design would maintain a balance of view rights to all
parties involved consistent with CMC Section 17.10.010.K.
2. In spite of the Commission's February 13, 2013 direction to
"substantially" revise the proposed plan and to meaningfully negotiate
(and compromise) with Appellant, Dr. Ghazal failed to do so. He refused
to reduce the roof ridge or height of the floor plates by even on inch; he
reduced the bulk by only 5%, and he refused to further narrow or
minimize the bulk of the third floor.
Response: The appellant is correct that the size of the second-story was
only reduced by 5%, from 503 to 475 square feet and the height was not
reduced when comparing the original design to what was finally
approved. However, the applicant did reduce the width of the second-
story addition from 26 to 20 feet, and located the addition 9 feet farther
south, which substantially reduced the impact to the view corridor from
5
152
the Boutin residence. The applicant also revised the roof from a flat-roof
design to a hipped-roof design, which reduced the building mass.
3. The Commission presumably relied on the Staff Summary that
the "applicant {Ghazal) is proposing a substantial alteration of the
residence that includes a 432 sq. ft. second when in fact Ghazal
was proposal a 474 sq. ft. third floor.
Response: At the third Planning Commission hearing on July 10, 2013,
the Commission considered two options for the location of the second-
story. One option placed the second-story on the north side of the
residence and was 432 square feet in size. The second option placed the
second-story further south on the residence {9 feet further south than
what was originally proposed} and was 475 square feet in size. The
second option, which placed the second-story on the south end, was
ultimately approved by the Planning Commission.
At the Planning Commission hearing on July 10, 2013, a question was
raised about the floor area of each of the two-story proposals. However,
the issue was clarified by staff and the Planning Commission was given
the correct floor area for each two-story proposal. The staff report for
the final Design Study {DS 12-68} approval consi dered by the Pl anning
Commission on August 14, 2013, identifies the floor area of the second-
story as 475 square feet, which is correct.
4. The Commission
1
s failure to consider the September 12
1
2012 Staff
Report which stated
1
"there is adequate space on the site to achieve the
maximum allowable floor area without adding the upper-story

Response: While the staff report noted that there was adequate space to
achieve maximum floor area without adding the second-story {third-
level}, the Planning Commission did not outright deny the proposal, and
rather directed the applicant to revise the design of the second-story to
mitigate the view impact to the Boutin residence.
The Planning Commission visited the insi de of applicant's residence on
the Tour of Inspection on February 13, 2013. The Commission
determined that the ocean view from the main-level (second-level} was
limited from the applicant's residence, which factored into the
Commission's decision to approve the final design.
6
153
5. The Commission failed to consider the unique {See section
17.010.108}, historic architectural integrity of this home built in 1926,
and thus compliance with State and federal regulations. The proposed
third floor has a pitched roof which is contrary to the integrity of the flat
roof Spanish Revival design, and otherwise destroys forever the historic
architectural integrity of the home.
Response: The Community Planning and Building Department issued a
Determination of Ineligibility on April 1, 2005. The determination was
based on a professional report submitted by the City's Historic
Preservation Consultant, Kent Seavey. It was determined that the
residence was not a candidate to be placed the City's Historic Inventory
because of alterations that were made to the structure over time.
Pursuant to CMC Section 17.32.060.D, the Determination of Historic
Ineligibility expires every five years. Staff re-issued the determination on
February 21, 2013, based on the original report prepared by Kent Seavey.
It was noted that a Determination of Ineligibility had been issued for the
property in the staff report prepared for the August 14, 2013, Planning
Commission hearing.
6. The Commission's approval of a "Landscape Plan" which
approved the inclusion of two new trees, based on a finding that the
trees, especially the more westerly one, would substantially impair,
especially in the future, our view corridor to the Ocean.
Response: Design Guideline 1.4 states an objective to "maintain a
forested image on the site where it is consistent with the neighborhood
context" and "plant new trees to reinforce the existing urban forest
character on site in each neighborhood where this character exists."
Design Study approvals for substantial remodels and additions are often
conditioned with a requirement to plant new upper and lower-canopy
trees per the recommendations of the City Forester. Construction
projects are one of the City's only opportunities to require trees to be
planted on private property, which is essential to maintaining the forest
character of the City.
It should be noted that the property currently contains 3 upper-canopy
trees and 2 lower-canopy trees. The City's recommended number and
ratio of trees for an 8,000-square foot property is 5 upper-canopy trees
and 4 lower-canopy trees. Staff recommends upholding the special
7
154
condition requi ring one new lower-canopy and one new-upper canopy
tree, which brings the property close to the recommended number and
ratio of trees.
The applicant is proposing two new trees on the north side of the
property. The City Forester has determined that the proposed locations
for both trees are appropriate to ensure the future health of the trees.
However, staff notes that there is an inconsistency between the site plan
and the landscape plan. The site plan notes one upper-canopy tree and
one lower-canopy tree, while the landscape plan notes two upper-canopy
cypress trees. A special condition has been drafted that the landscape
plan be revi sed to include one new upper-canopy tree and one new
lower-canopy tree, and that the trees be located on the north side of the
property as specified on the plan.
Summary of Staff Analysis of Appeal
With regards to protecting private views, Resi dential Design Guidelines
Sections 5.1 through 5.3 encourage: "maintaining views through a
property to natural features when feasible" and recommend "locating
buildings so they will not substantially blocks views enjoyed by others."
General Plan Policy P1-65 recommends achieving "an equitable balance
of these design amenities among all properties affected by design review
decisions."
After analyzing the issues presented by the appellant, staff concludes
that the proposed design is consistent with the above obj ectives, and
concurs with the Pl anning Commission's deci si on to approve DS 12-68.
Staff notes t hat the primary basis for approval was that the Planning
Commission determined that the view impact had been substantially
mitigated, and the proposed design allowed for an equitable sharing of
views between the applicant and the appellant.
Thi s hearing is a de novo hearing, meaning that the City Council is
responsible for reviewing the entire project and is not bound by the
decision of the Pl anning Commission. Planning Commission staff report,
findings and conditions for the approval of DS 12-68, dated August 12,
2013, are included as Attachment F, for the City Council's consi deration.
Staff has provided project findings and conditions of approval, as
Attachments C and D respectively, for the City Council's consideration.
8
155
Previous Council
Action/Decision History:
This Design Study (DS 12-68) application was considered by the Planning
Commission on September 12, 2012; February 13, 2013; July 10, 2013;
and was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission {4-0 vote)
on August 14, 2013.
Attachments:
Attachment A- Project Plans
Attachment B- Site Photographs and Aerial Photograph
Attachment C- Project Findings dated 10/8/13
Attachment D- Conditions of Approval dated 10/8/13
Attachment E- Appeal Application
Attachment F-PC Staff Report, Findings and Conditions date 8/14/13
Attachment G- PC Minutes dated 8/14/13
Attachment H -PC Staff Report dated 7/10/13
Attachment 1- PC Minutes dated 7/10/13
Attachment J - PC Staff Report dated 2/13/13
Attachment K- PC Minutes dated 2/13/13
Attachment L- PC Staff Report dated 9/12/12
Attachment M - PC Minutes dated 9/12/12
Attachment N -Historic Report and Determination
Reviewed by:
City City Attorney

Administrative Services D
Asst. City Admin. D Dir ofCPB [)a: Dir of Public Svcs D
Public Safety Dir D Library Dir D Other D
9
1
5
6
VICINITY MAP
H.r.s
N
0
PACA.ECT SITE

'
/.
SITE P L AN
\
1/16-r-o
....
'
'
'
' ,

N

PLANNING INFO.
PROPti'I'TY 0\IIN[ R:
WAI."'-"CHAZAI.
2'175 U.ST SII..U:O
a.u.1S..CA. (illlt)
Jltt. 6H-1)C)O
A1XRSS.
H(CXlRN(JitSAHA.NTOfriOA'.,
1o1M tNtWtL CA t J911
PA0.CT SCOPL!
ROroOEl AND ADOiliOH Ttl AN OOS"Tm SIHClE r AWILY
RE:SIDEHC: l(llQO AOOI'JlOiol 0 t.l .toH I.Vt\.: r.I( W UPPR U\'El
BEtlMIOW AWD BAlHROOiol; U:lo!L BALCONY AH0
SPA; LOYIO lL\n GAI'IAC
OC'CUPAHC'I"! lt-3, U
CONST. 1"1'P(:_ Y-11
Al*.H Olet-277-aof
tLCN.. OESC,,
Z.Otolt;
STORitS;
,_,
2 'MJH ltASE\IEHT
LIA)C BlOC. HT: 24n
OCY
nta ROIOVH.: HOI
e lCIPQCiit.f,PK'I

2010 C8C.. Dol<:, CPC. ere_ CEC. CI\Urom.NA lttSIOOf i'IAl COOC.
Co\L.IfCfttoi!A OR[('H IVIUliNC CO()(, & CAUf'OftHIA [N[RCY CQX
t.NE.ItGY \o41HOO: WlatOPAS Ylll , OOUICY P..O $.0
LOT AAEA: &000 5.f
sm: CO'o'{.RAC;( CN.D.IlATICIN'
............,
rl .,. =,..,:-r;;;j'=?';;;o;;;; ...
- 330.0 I=;H:
CClNCRElt
0
COHCRrn: (STa) 171.0
.tr STAIRS
$TON[ PAnos f( llO.O (-120.0:
!IT( WAU.S .t: (:OJJWH$ "'-0 0 0
"
""''"
0 0 12
" SIAl-lOTH.: 1,!64.(1 -1.361.0 o 2'10
""'=''lllllt
t--o CONCRElt. PA'O ($(1-Ift
--0
-mo"
SN>)
"-.Af';ST()H[: PATH.AYf, 0 0 ..... .... o

SUB- TOTAL: 0 0 ..... o:ze.o
YJI..04 WAUCWAYS - Jee u . (Hor auum AS c::tM:RACt)
TOTAL !J"'[ aMJtACE:. I 1,554,0 H-l.ll\.0) I 17$.0 I ... o I
- $1' CO\OAC( AU.owt:o: 720:.0 Sl' ( 2.2.- r:K BFA)
+ 1'1&.0 SF (ORI'ot"WAl' DONUS. l l'. IO.OJO.C.l- 8)
.. 1104. 0 Sf
- CIOSliNC snt c::cMJtACC: V
- li'ftOII'OS[D Sll C(MJV.C(: IM&O SF (IO..as)
fl.OOiil AAA
BA!J" REA
Ill....,_ f'LOOR
,<l.!JEJ,jf
"""'"""' 8AStWEHT (CAR. a: f'U'ItR)
IASIO<IDO (WNE a:tJ..Nt)
IOTAL
AAA (PROIJOS(O):
e AREA (Au.o'll(l)):
J1
..
i4ii
BAS F\.CJCIA .ut(.f,
loiM:(ft 1C1<1VS (U)
8ASDIOfl ICNJS (17.to-D-W)
.,.
u
.000
J, JOO sr
""'"
.......
... ,.
. .., ...
_,,
lOTJ<L J.JOO Sf (tNCU,IOirfO 100 Sf' IN WASOOO!l)
.,
>17
n;;

01 D G
wiOHN
.......

_,..,
NO

.......
!MALCOLM GHAZAL
RESIDENCE
JllltO.(Ct AOOIIt$$:
NE CORNER
SAN AIITONIO AVE ..
I OTH STREET,
CARMEL, CA 9392!
, , - ''- '
04'1it:; .U.1" 1l'. 701.1
""""""
SITE
PLAN
Al.O
1
5
7
I b',
I ',
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r-
1
I
I
\ .L
LOOIICAHOI'YMf
f'Ot,.Oit(Slnl

F , i.._t.i':.J }-
I j I ', \' .....
.,:r, .. ,_
\ r:r
" ,4;' '
\
'('; \.... _/ '- I f
---w;:, _ I
,. ----.1 .
-;- -- - '-J , I .__jJ ' )-""
\ 1 - .,. ___ ...!..., I 0 -..
I '.. I .., =

;- <':.,
"- .
1
\ I
I
' .
1/16" 1'-a

CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN
.. .JON AlA
OIDG
JOHN e. MAT'T'HAMS
......

-

-
-
f'fULCT}'anll'
MALCOLM GHAZAL
RESJDENCE
NE CORNER
SAN ANTONIO A VI!.,
I OTH STREET,
CARMEl, CA 93921
01 11, Yr27 - {
0.1!."1'[: .U..T17. 20'12

........
CONCEPT
LANDSCAPE PLAN
A1.1
1
5
8
>-
:z;

(E)UVINC
ROOM
17 '2'11

EXISTING
GUEST SUITE
, .....
MAIN LEVEL PLAN
H I-I
I I
I I
1
I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
i

KITCHEN
,, .. , ..
EXISTING
BEDROOM-2
u
5
13
11
(E)COURTYARD
/."'%

1/4"-..r- o
....,...,
""'
EXERCISE RM.
"1 13 10
,-:?
N
0
\NALL LEGEND

r--=J 2XII Sl\JO J'1W,C WM.l
Vt' IHT'tfi!Ofl ST\11) rRA-1.1[0 WAIJ... U.O.H.
A. 21l.LAN01 AlA
OlD G
.JOHN e . MA.T'THAMS
.......

-- -
-

ALCOLM GHAZAL
RESIDENCE

NE CORNER
SAN ANTONIO AVE.
lOTH STI\EET.
CARMEL. CA

OA'IO .AJlT 17.
()[SIQI W'flff.rNM.,

12>
&
&
&
&.
MAIN LEVEL
PLAN
A2.0
1
5
9
r:J
________ __ j
___ _j
\/VALL LEGEND
2X [)(1 .1lol(t W.M.L. 1'0 ROlAIN
1/4"1' - 0"
H
0
2)14 SlUD WAU.., U. O.Ir4 .
c--=l lXS EX!ttltOit STUD I'RAWD:J WALL
UPPER LEVEL PLAN
..1UN A. AlA
01 D G
.JOHN II. MAT'TMAMS
......
'"'.-.c:Ptl::: DPOVI( CA.

-)-ti!KI
------
-
,_,
........ ......,.
[MALCOLM GHAZAL
RESIDENCE
I"Wl.(C:T" AOOI'IIU':
NE CORNER
SAN ANTONIO AVE ..
l DTH STREET,
CARMEL, CA 93921
ADN J \,. - -77- Ci I
OA1tl .AJLT 11. :1012
-..-..

&
&
d.
&

&.
UPPER LEVEL
PLAN
A3.0
1
6
0
I
I
Ll
LOWER LEVEL PLAN
1. .,..;Ril(. -liJ C
rt

.. ,.,_
(E)GARAGE
1
_ _1 - -l
i'
I
L-----r-
l
, ------ - - - - - - --- - ---- l
- - _j I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
L,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_j
N
WALL LEGENO

- - ., zxe EX:ltRIOR S'!VO Fl!:""'':O WAll
2)(4 INTERIOR SM niAI.IED WALL. I,J. O,N

.. A.
OIDG
.JOHN E. MATTliA.MS
?R .......
..
f"f'').(Cf/O..OIT
MALCOLM GHAZAL
RESJDENCE
NE CORNER
SAN ANTONIO AVE
lOTH STREET,
CARMEL, CA 93921
" Hl-"'JJ- (."1
OAT[: .U.Y1?.21l12

"""""'
.:2.
.:2.
&

&
LOWER LEVEL
PLAN

A4.0
1
6
1
r
I
I

I
L
f-
I
I
f-
"-OP<
-4: 12
J,
L ________ _
ROOF PLAN
[J
w

()F\.A1ROOf'
2 Sl.OI'It
I J, I
L __ _ ____ _ _ ..J
(IE) 'tAT ltOOf'
02S Sl.CP(

e
.JUN A}!-
01 DG
.JOHN E. MATTHAMS

:::. - 1- ! Q!Kl
----
, .....
PIIO.Lel/O,Vft;
IMALCOLM GHAZAL
RESJDENCE
f'RO.I:CT io()wn
NE CORNER
SAN ANTONIO AVE. ,
l OTH STREET,
CARMEL. CA 93921
Fl ' C1 - )"''1 -
O"Tl: .M..'T11, 2012
.t.
h.
&
&
&
ROOF
PLAN
A5. 0
1
6
2
*l.t.U. H[U!l Al\CMO e l?l.4'
NOCE o 1tt.)'

110.16' IC.F".
0 KITCH.N .t
LMHO R\1.

SOUTH ELEVATION
-4 ------ - ------- - - ---- --------
...
. .
IJ'oiiNGRi&.
ll

TREADS AH0 " IS[RS'-
PAn::H NfO RU'NR
N ORTH ELEVATION
1/ 1"1'-o

EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND
QJ CAP PAN CtAY T1LE ROOf"
- trAATCH EXISTINC
{!] EXTERIOR STUCCO- MATCH t.XISTINC
(I) PAINTED W000 EXTERIOR DOORS AND
'MNOOWS- MATcH EXISTlNC
G
4X_. CEDAR RAF1Eft TAILS - PAINTED
(!] 4X. 6X. OR 8X CEDAR 8AMS, CORBUS
AND POST
[!) PAINlEO 1PE GUARDRAIL A.HO CAP
(!} SHAPED SlVCCO PARAPET CAP
[!) RANDOM STONE- MATCH (XISTlNG
[!) ClASS BLOCK 'MNOOWS
(E) DOORS AND 'MNOOWS TO REMAIN
.JUN A.
OlD G
.JOHN E. MA'T'TttA.MS

....-..::;:..
...._
-)--

IMALCOLM GHAZAL
RESIDENCE
NE CORNER
SAN ANTONJO AVE.,
lOTH STREET,
CARMEL, CA 93921
AP\_ ,..l0-2ll- . 1
OAI[; .JJt Y 11,
""'"""
&
&

If:,.
&
&
ELEVATIONS
A6.0
1
6
3
;;lt HOCHT AU,OV!(D 0 123.4'
LltiO(I; 0 12:1.3'

EAST ELEVATION

\NEST ELEVATION

--

U\1\HG Rr.t.

IJl. '
EXTERIOR FINISH LEGEND
[I) CAP & PAN CLAY TllE ROOf
- TCH EXIST\NC
[l EXTERIOR SlVCCO- EXISnNC
(I} PAINTED WOOO (XT[RI()R DOORS AND
MNOOWS- WATCH ()ClSTING
0 x4 CEDAR RAfltR T.U.S - PAINTED
{!) 4X. 6X. CR 8X ctOAA 8AJ.I S. CORBELS
AHO POST
[!) PAINTED IPE CUARORAIL. NolO CAP
[!} SHAPED STUCCO PARAPET CAP
[!) RANDOM STONE- Mfllct-1
(!] Cl.o'ISS eLOCK
{!!} (E) DOORS AND MNOOWS TO REt.IAlN
A.
0 1 D G
.JOHN E. MATTHAMS
........

t'D'I._,_,
tat- -
-
l'fto.C:CT, t:liNT,
IMALCOLM GHAZAL
RESIDENCE
-...,, """""
Nil CORNER
SAN ANTONIO AVE.,
l OTJI STREET.
CARMEL, CA. 93921
d ' - 1 ,_
DAJL: .lJlY17,1012
&
&.
b.
11:.
&
'*'

ELEVATIONS
A6.1
1
6
4
(E)LIVING
ROOM
tc'-u"
CLC. HT
EXISTING
GUEST SUITE
(E)MASTER
BEDROOM
8' JM
C1.C HT
!
i
14 c=- - -
===::e='> - ,:- , ::r ... n. F' M2-Z===:oz-=--
. """1,...., _j : (<) ...,!1 II
b':'- iiO'o<'i f01' L -:/ 0 """"S I
_ .. .__, !
EXISTING
NOOK

1
1

;-., Cl" HT L..JI L"-1 (E)
,,, : : '- .. J)'"
FOYE/ 1 j '> CLC

r?-
T = _ :r=t- r;;;r-:y. I .,.y 1 fr"'--;1
'yl/...=-lJ .i..::.!'"'
I

?
EXISTING
BEDROOM-2
(E)GUEST
BEDROOM-I
( E)COURTY ARD
(E)GUEST
BEDROOM- 2
ro- o
n.c- liT
N
MAIN LEVEL EXISTING-DEMOLITION PLAN
0
l /4"-t' -0"
\/\/ALL L EGEND
h. OO'StlHC WAU. 10 1t01o\IH
(t) DOOR 01'1 'IIN)O'!II' ro K ROI<M:D
2lC O:ISTINC Wo\1.1. 'fO 8( Rfl,l C)l.ttl
_SR..LAN01 AlA
OIDG
..JC:III.''r E. MA T"'THAMS
7il1 l.iGI-n"HH:JUU ......

,_,
::.
,_,\) _ ._,
IIIIIG) ....._Iil.o
-
--
PttO.tl/l::lJMT'.
ALCOLM GHAZAL
RESIDENCE

NE CORNER
SAN ANTONIO AVE.,
lOTH STREET,
CARMEL, CA 93921
"' ..,, Ill" 1-r, I
Co\1[: .ut.Y 11. ::l012
-
&

"' &
"' &
MAIN LEVEL
EXIST / DEMO
Dl.O
1
6
5
I
(tjo. _N1Cit( 1: .:U _.
I'!;(IOIIf rY<:l\l r ,
10

'""'c" u
o
r1
(E)GARAGE
111
0
CRA'M._ SPJ.Ee-' r-,

-Yb
9
lfnlMEcH'1
.,/ (\11 ' \J:-- .ROOM
'-" 1r::j 1
(E)11'1NE RM. Jl
= = = == = = = _11==,,= =
LO\NER LEVEL EXISTING- DEMOLITION PLAN
'
1/ ,.,-o
0
\NALL LEGEND

(() DOOR 01t .,.NOOW TO at: R[lr,I(NEO
v: ExrsnNO wAU. ro IK RD.I O-..t:D
;!UN Su....L.ANO, AlA
01 D G
,JOHN E. MA.T"THoolt.M!S
.......

-
_ ,,_,=-o

jMALCOLM GHAZAL
RESIDENCE

NE CORNER
SAN ANTONIO Avt.,
lOTH STREET.
CARMEL. CA 93921
1 n.-J.r- r
IMtt: JlllY 17, 1012
""""-"
-
UPPER LEVEL
EXlST I DEMO
...
D2.0
1
6
6
e
J
W
O
J
T
i
l
!
:
J

'
J
3
W
l
e
:
J

a
/
\
V

l
{
l
Q
l
l
'
i
'

3
/
\
V

O
J
U
O
l
U
V

l
l
!
S

J
3
W
O
;
)

!
I
N

i
l
l
i
O
=
>
l
l
?
W

"
l
Q

1

H
t

H
U
t

U
H

H

...

...
-
"
"

.
.

-
-
-

.
.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.
.

n
&
!
r

.
.

...
a

.
.
.
.

t

d
i

d
d
d
i

1
U

I
z

z
i

1

l

f

J

f

J

P
I

1

t

J

f
l

r
h

H
l
h

t

H
H

!

"

.
.

n

)

t

t

I

i
f

.

u

l

f

i
i
i

d
t

.

f

f
1
j
{

I

I
J

J
u
t

,
l
.

J
l
t
h

l

l
j
!
t
I
t

r

i

d

H
J

i
l
l

i
1
!
1
H

I
m
H

I

l
t

H
!
U
B
H

i

H
I
I

0
1

j
l

U
i
U
!
!
H

I
I

U
l

(
}
d
l
?
:
>
S
p
u
t
q

l
"
"
"
'4

"
'

,
.
.
l
l
.
.
.
.

i
d
!

l

1
6

I

I
'

I
!

I

]

I

I

/
I

'
I

,
.

r

H
z
'
!

.
!

J

J
l

l
i
t

1
]

q

t
.

l
t

h

}
l
l

]
i
f

i
t

l
:

:
t
i

i
l

f
t

J
J

t

d
'

l
l

i
l

p
t

1
!

i
}

I
f
l

I
f
!

H

t

l
j
!

Q

0
L
-
J

!

C
l
}
H

1
'

!
-
<

!

l

U
J

8
-
:
-

t
'
'
r

;
f
t

J

C
l
l

!
[
1

&
I
t

i

i
i

8

>
-
<

,
.
.
J

C
)

z

p

z

:
s

0
.
.

U
J

C
l
l

,
.
.
J

167
Attachment B - Site Photographs
ect Site - Front of residence facing east
-.-::;-- .......
Project Site- Side of residence facing northeast
1
6
8
Project Setting
-{;:[ - Project Site
0 - Appellant's Residence
169
Attachment C - Project Finctings
FINDINGS FOR DECISION
DS 12-68 (Ghazal)
Northeast comer of San Antonio and 1 0
1
h A venues
Block V, Lots 18 & 20 APN: 010-277-007
CONSIDERATION:
Findings for the approval of Design Study (DS 12-68) and Coastal Development
Permit applications and for the denial of an appeal submitted by neighboring property owners:
Peter and Steven Boutin.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The subject property is located at the northeast comer of San Antonio and Tenth Avenues
and is developed with a two-story, Mediterranean-style residence that was constructed in
1926. The existing residence is 2,429 square feet in size and consists of a partially sub-
grade garage on the lower level and the living area on the main level (second level). The
property owner/applicant is Malcom Ghazal.
2. A Determination of Historic Ineligibility was issued on April 1, 2005, based on a review
by the City's Historic Preservation Consultant, Kent Seavey. A Determination of
Historic Ineligibility was re-issued on February 21 , 2013, based on the original report
prepared by Kent Seavey.
3. The applicant submitted a Design Study (DS 12-68) application on July 18, 2012, for
alterations to an existing single-family residence, which included the addition of a second
story (third level).
4. The Design Study (DS 12-68) application was considered by the Planning Commission at
duly-noticed public hearings on September 12, 2012; February 13, 2013; July 10, 20 13;
and on August 14, 2013. It was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission (4-0
vote) at the meeting on August 14, 2013.
5. The Design Study (DS 12-68) approval was appealed by neighboring property owners:
Peter and Steven Boutin, on August 28, 2013. The Boutin residence is located two
parcels east of the Ghazal residence.
6. The subject Design Study (DS 12-68) application is categorically exempt from the
requirements ofthe California Environmental Quality Act (Class 3 - New Construction
or Conversion of Small Structures).
7. Findings for denial of the appeal have been prepared for the City Council consideration
on October 8, 2013.
170
DS 13-68 (Ghaza1)
October 8, 2013
Findings for Decision
Page 2
FINDINGS SUPPORTING DECISION:
1. Finding: The design is in compliance with the zoning requirements.
Evidence:
-The subject residence is at the maximum floor area of 3,300 square feet.
-Pursuant to CMC Section 17.1 0.030.B, the proposed design does not exceed the
maximum allowance of two stories.
-The proposed second-story addition is approximately 1 foot below the allowable
maximum height of 24 feet.
-The subject residence is in compliance with all setback requirements.
2. Finding: With regards to potential view impacts, the proposed design is sensitive to
effects on views from neighboring properties, including from the Boutin residence, and is
consistent with CMC Section 17.10.0 IO.K.
Evidence:
CMC Section 17.10.01 O.K states that "Designs should respect view enjoyed by
neighboring parcels. This objective is intended to balance the private rights to views
from all parcels that will be affected by a proposed building or addition. No single
parcel should enjoy a greater right than other parcels except the natural advantages of
each site's topography. Buildings which substantially eliminate an existing significant
view enjoyed on another parcel should be avoided. "
The Planning Commission continued the Design Study application (DS 12-68) three
times, and directed the applicant to revise the project to mitigate potential view impacts
to the Boutin residence. Throughout the design process, several changes were made to
the proposed design to mitigate the view impact. The width of proposed second-story
addition was reduced from 26 to 20 feet; the size was reduced from 503 to 475 square
feet; the proposed second-story was located 9 feet farther south than what was originally
proposed; and the roof design was modified from a flat roof to be a hipped roof to reduce
the building mass.
On July 10,2013, the Planning Commission visited the Boutin residence during the Tour
of Inspection, and viewed the potential impact based on the changes that had been made,
as reflected by the story-poles on the project site. The Planning Commission determined
that the Boutin residence would retain a large percentage of its ocean view, and that the
view impact had been adequately mitigated. The Planning Commission accepted the
design concept at the hearing on July 10, 2013.
On August 14, 2013, the Planning Commission approved the Design Study (OS 12-68)
application, based on the determination that the view impact had been adequately
mitigated and that the proposed design would maintain a balance of view rights to all
parties involved, as recommended by CMC Section 17.10.01 O.K.
171
OS 13-68 (Ghazal)
October 8, 2013
Page 3
FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR FINAL DESIGN STUDY APPROVAL {CMC 17.64.8 and
L UP Policy Pl-45)
For each ofthe required design study findings listed below, staff has indicated whether the
submitted plans support adoption of the findings. For all findings checked "no" the staff report
discusses the issues to facilitate the Planning Commission decision-making. Findings checked
"yes" may or may not be discussed in the report depending on the issues.
Municipal Code Finding YES
1. The project conforms with all zoning standards applicable to the site, or has
.I
received appropriate use permits and/or variances consistent with the zoning
ordinance.
2. The project is consistent with the City's design objectives for protection and
enhancement of the urbanized forest, open space resources and site design. The
.I
project's use of open space, topography, access, trees and vegetation will maintain or
establish a continuity of design both on the site and in the public right of way that is
characteristic of the neighborhood.
3. The project avoids complexity using simple/modest building forms, a simple roof
plan with a limited number of roof planes and a restrained employment of offsets and
.I
appendages that are consistent with neighborhood character, yet will not be viewed as
repetitive or monotonous within the neighborhood context.
4. The project is adapted to human scale in the height of its roof, plate lines, eave
lines, building forms, and in the size of windows doors and entryways. The
.I
development is similar in size, scale, and form to buildings on the immediate block
and neighborhood. Its height is compatible with its site and surrounding development
and will not present excess mass or bulk to the public or to adjoining properties.
Mass of the building relates to the context of other homes in the vicinity.
5. The project is consistent with the City's objectives for public and private views
and will retain a reasonable amount of solar access for neighboring sites. Through
.I
the placement, location and size of windows, doors and balconies the design respects
the rights to reasonable privacy on adjoining sites.
6. The design concept is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies related to
residential design in the general plan.
.I
7. The development does not require removal of any significant trees unless
.I
necessary to provide a viable economic use of the property or protect public health
and safety_. All buildings are setback a minimum of 6 feet from significant trees.
8. The proposed architectural style and detailing are simple and restrained in
.I
character, consistent and well integrated throughout the building and complementary
to the neighborhood without appearing monotonous or repetitive in context with
designs on nearby sites.
NO
172
DS 13-68 (Ghazal)
October 8, 2013
Page4
9. The proposed exterior materials and their application rely on natural materials and
the overall design will as to the variety and diversity along the streetscape.
10. Design elements such as stonework, skylights, windows, doors, chimneys and
garages are consistent with the adopted Design Guidelines and will complement the
character of the structure and the neighborhood.
11. Proposed landscaping, paving treatments, fences and walls are carefully designed
to complement the urbanized forest, the approved site design, adjacent sites, and the
public right of way. The design will reinforce a sense of visual continuity along the
street.
12. Any deviations from the Design Guidelines are considered minor and reasonably
relate to good design principles and specific site conditions.
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS (CMC 17.64.B.l):
1. Local Coastal Program Consistency: The project conforms with the certified
Local Coastal Program ofthe City of Carmel by the Sea.
2. Public access policy consistency: The project is not located between the first
public road and the sea, and therefore no review is required for potential public
access.
J
J
J
J
J
J
173
Attachment D- Conditions of Approval dated 10/8/13
DS 12-68 (Ghazal)
October 8, 2013
Conditions of Approval
Page 1
Approval Conditions
No. Standard Conditions
1. This approval constitutes Design Study and Coastal Development permits ./
authorizing the alterations to an existing residence. All work shall conform to the
approved plans of October 8, 2013 except as conditioned by this permit.
2. The project shall be constructed in conformance with all requirements of the local ./
R-1 zoning ordinances. All adopted building and fire codes shall be adhered to in
preparing the working drawings. If any codes or ordinances require design
elements to be changed, or if any other changes are requested at the time such
plans are submitted, such changes may require additional environmental review
and subsequent approval by the Planning Commission.
3. This approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of action unless ./
an active building permit has been issued and maintained for the proposed
construction.
4. All new landscaping shall be shown on a landscape plan and shall be submitted to ./
the Department of Community Planning and Building and to the City Forester
prior to the issuance of a building permit. The landscape plan will be reviewed for
compliance with the landscaping standards contained in the Zoning Code,
including the following requirements: 1) all new landscaping shall be 75%
drought-tolerant; 2) landscaped areas shall be irrigated by a drip/sprinkler system
set on a timer; and 3) the project shall meet the City' s recommended tree density
standards, unless otherwise approved by the City based on site conditions. The
landscaping plan shall show where new trees will be planted when new trees are
required to be planted by the Forest and Beach Commission or the Planning
Commission.
5. Trees on the site shall only be removed upon the approval of the City Forester or ./
Forest and Beach Commission as appropriate; and all remaining trees shall be
protected during construction by methods approved by the City Forester.
6. All foundations within 15 feet of significant trees shall be excavated by hand. If ./
any tree roots larger than two inches (2") are encountered during construction, the
City Forester shall be contacted before cutting the roots. The City Forester may
require the roots to be bridged or may authorize the roots to be cut. If roots larger
than two inches (2") in diameter are cut without prior City Forester approval or
any significant tree is endangered as a result of construction activity, the building
petmit will be suspended and all work stopped until an investigation by the City
Forester has been completed. Twelve inches (12") of mulch shall be evenly
spread inside the dripline of all trees prior to the issuance of a building permit.
174
DS 12-68 (Ghazal)
8 October 20 13
Page 2
7. Approval of this application does not permit an increase in water use on the ./
project site. Should the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
determine that the use would result in an increase in water beyond the maximum
units allowed on a 8,000-square foot parcel, this permit will be scheduled for
reconsideration and the appropriate findings will be prepared for review and
adoption by the Planning Commission.
8. The applicant shall submit in writing to the Community Planning and Building ./
staff any proposed changes to the project plans as approved by the City Council on
8 October 2013, prior to incorporating changes on the site. If the applicant
changes the project without first obtaining City approval, the applicant will be
required to either: a) submit the change in writing and cease all work on the
project until either the Planning Commission or staff has approved the change; or
b) eliminate the change and submit the proposed change in writing for review. The
project will be reviewed for its compliance to the approved plans prior to fmal
inspection.
9. Exterior lighting shall be limited to 25 watts or less per fixture and shall be no ./
higher than 10 feet above the ground. Landscape lighting shall be limited to 15
watts or less per fixture and shall not exceed 18 inches above the ground.
10. All skylights shall use nonreflective glass to minimize the amount of light and ./
glare visible from adjoining properties. The applicant shall install skylights with
flashing that matches the roof color, or shall paint the skylight flashing to match
the roof color.
11. The Carmel stone fayade shall be installed in a broken course/random or similar ./
masonry pattern. Setting the stones vertically on their face in a cobweb pattern
shall not be permitted. Prior to the full installation of stone during construction,
the applicant shall install a 1 0-square foot section on the building to be reviewed
by planning staff on site to ensure conformity with City standards.
12. The applicant shall install unclad wood framed windows. Windows that have ./
been approved with divided lights shall be constructed with fixed wooden
mullions. Any window pane dividers, which are snap-m, or otherwise
superficially applied, are not permitted.
13. The applicant agrees, at his or her sole expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold ./
harmless the City, its public officials, officers, employees, and assigns, from any
liability; and shall reimburse the City for any expense incurred, resulting from, or
in connection with any project approvals. This includes any appeal, claim, suit, or
other legal proceeding, to attack, set aside, void, or annul any project approval.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any legal proceeding, and shall
cooperate fully in the defense. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate in
any such legal action, but participation shall not relieve the applicant of any
obligation under this condition. Should any party bring any legal action in
connection with this project, the Superior Court of the County of Monterey,
175
DS 12-68 (Ghazal)
8 October 2013
Page 3
California, shall be the situs and have jurisdiction for the resolution of all such
actions by the parties hereto.
14. The driveway material shall extend beyond the property line into the public right
of way as needed to connect to the paved street edge. A minimal asphalt
connection at the street edge may be required by the Superintendent of Streets or
the Building Official, depending on site conditions, to accommodate the drainage
flow line ofthe street.
15. This project is subject to a volume study.
16. Approval of this Design Study shall be vahd only with approval of a Variance.
17. A hazardous materials waste survey shall be required in conformance with the
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District prior to issuance of a
demolition permit.
18. The applicant shall include a storm water drainage plan with the working drawings
that are submitted for building permit review. The drainage plan shall include
applicable Best Management Practices and retain all drainage on site through the
use of semi-permeable paving materials, French drains, seepage pits, etc. Excess
drainage that cannot be maintained on site, may be directed into the City's storm
drain system after passing through a silt trap to reduce sediment from entering the
storm drain. Drainage shall not be directed to adjacent private property.
19. An archaeological reconnaissance report shall be prepared by a qualified
archaeologist or other person(s) meeting the standards of the State Office of
Historic Preservation prior to approval of a final building permit. The applicant
shall adhere to any recommendations set forth in the archaeological report. All
new construction involving excavation shall immediately cease if materials of
archaeological significance are discovered on the site and shall not be permitted to
recommence until a mitigation and monitoring plan is approved by the Planning
Commission.
20. The project plans submitted for building permit review shall comply with the
City's Green Building Ordinance (CMC Section 15.54) and obtain a minimum of
25 points based on the Residential Green Building Checklist.
21. Prior to the roof sheathing inspection, the applicant shall obtain a building height
certification from a California licensed surveyor.
Special Conditions
22. The applicant shall remove the stone wall encroachment from the right-of-way as
indicated on the plans and shall apply for an encroachment permit for any
remaining improvements in the City' s right-of-way. The area shall be replaced
with a natural surface and not paving materials.
./
./
N/A
J
./
N/A
./
./
./
176
DS 12-68 (Ghazal)
8 October 2013
Page4
23. The applicant shall plant one upper-canopy tree and one lower-canopy tree of
substantial size and caliber and of a species approved by the City Forester. The
landscape plan shall be revised to reflect this condition prior to building permit
submittal. The trees shall be located on the north side of the property, as indicated
on the plans.
24. A lot merger form shall be recorded with the County Recorder prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
25. The applicant shall work with staff and the southern neighbor to determine if the
height of the railing needs to be increased to mitigate the privacy impact of the
spa.
*Acknowledgement and acceptance of conditions of approval.
Property Owner Signature Printed Name Date
./
./
./
177
Attachment E - Appeal Application
C:ty c.f Gemlel-uy-the-Set
AUS 2 8 ;' 3
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION by City
(FILING FEE: $295 .00*)
Steve and Peter Boutin on behalf of the Boutin Family
Appellant:
P 0
Frank, Charlotte, Peter, Suzanne, Linda and Steve Boutin
roperty wner: .
c/o Stephen F. Boutin, Boutin Jones Inc. , 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 150(
Mailing Address: Sacramento, CA 95814 - AND- c/o Peter Boutin, Keesal, Young & Logan,
450 Pacific Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94133.
(916) 321-4444 Steve Boutin (530) 758-5531 Steve Boutin
Phones: Day:(415)398-6000 Peter Bouti1vening: ( 375-0219 Peter Boutin
sboutin@boutinjones.com - AND -
Fax:( ) Email:Peter.Boutin@KYL.com
DateBoardheardthematter: August 14, 2013
Appeals to the City Council must be made in writing in the office of the City Clerk within
10 working days following the date of action by the Planning Commission and paying
the required filing fee as established by City Council resolution.
Physical location of property that .is the subject of appeal:
Northeast corner of San Antonio and lOth
Lot(s): _1_8 _AND __ 2_o_
Block:
-----
v
APN: _ _______ ___
COMMISSION ACTION BEING APPEALED:-----------
Accepting design concept
If you were NOT the original applicant or the applicant's representative, please state the
evidence that you are an aggrieved party: ----- ---- --------
Our home is to the east of the applicant' s . additonal story
will block our central and primary view of the ocean and sunset.
(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)
178
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: (State the specific basis for your appeal, such as errors or
omissions you believe were committed by the Commission in reaching its decision, etc.)
1) The Planning Commission's failure to adhere to the mandatory ("shall"
is defined by section 1.04.010 G as "mandatory") language in Municipal
Code sections 17.10.010 B, C, D, and E and 17 . 10.060, and its failure to
follow the express directives in section 17.10.010 K. CONTINUED ON ATTACHED
PAGE . *
I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT Tiffi FOREGOING IS TRUE
AND CORRECT:
DATED AT: Sacramento, CA THIS 28th DAY OF August, 2013.

Signature of appellant
Stephen F. Boutin, on behalf of the Boutin Family
$295.00 fee* received: (Staff Initial) Receipt#:
ATTEST:
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
*Article 9, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of California authorizes a city to
impose fees. Also see California government Code, Section 54344.
IMPORTANT: If the appellant wishes to submit materials for duplication and
inclusion in the City of Council agenda packet, the materials must
be submitted to the City Clerk by working days after the decision of the
Commission. This matter is tentatively scheduled to be heard on
179
August 28, 2013
Boutin Family Grounds for Appeal of Decision (continued)
2) In spite ofthe Commission's February 13, 2013 direction to "substantially" revise the
proposed plan and to meaningfully negotiate (and compromise) with Appellant, Dr. Ghazal
failed to do so. He refused to reduce the roof ridge or height of the floor plates by even one inch;
he reduced the bulk by only 5%, and he refused to further narrow or minimize the bulk of the
third floor.
3) The Commission presumably relied on the Staff Summary that the "applicant (Ghazal) is
proposing a substantial alteration of the residence that includes a 432 sq. ft. second floor, ' when
'
in fact Ghazal was proposing a 474 sq. ft. third floor.
4) The Commission's failure to consider the September 12, 2012 Staff Report which stated,
"there is adequate space on the site to achieve the maximum allowable floor area without adding
the upper-story addition."
5) The Commission failed to consider the unique (Sec section 17.010.10 B), historic
architectural integrity of this home built in 1926, and thus compliance with State and federal
regulations. The proposed third floor has a pitched roof which is contrary to the integrity of the
flat roof Spanish Revival design, and otherwise destroys forever the historic architectural
integrity of the home.
6) The Commission's approval of a "Landscape Plan" which approved the inclusion of two
new trees, based on a finding that the trees "appear to be out of the eastern neighbor's view
shed." In fact, those two trees, especially the more westerly one, would substantially impair,
especially in the future, our view corridor to the ocean.
556631.2
180
Attachment F- Staff Report, Approval Findings & Project Conditions
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA CHECKLIST
MEETING DATE: 14 August 2013
FIRST HEARING: 9/12/ 12
ITEM NO: DS 12-68
SUBJECT:
BLOCK: V LOT: 18 & 20
CONTINUED FROM: 2/ 13/13
OWNER: Malcolm Ghazal
STREAMLINING DEADLINE: 7/21/13
Consideration of Design Study (Final) and Coastal Development Pennit applications for
the substantial alteration of an existing residence located in the Single Family Residential
(R-1) District.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Exempt (Class 3- New Construction)
LOCATION: ZONING:
NE Cor. San Antonio & lOth R-1
ISSUES:
I. Does the proposed design comply with the Residential Design Objectives (CMC 17.10.1)
and the Residential Design Guidelines?
OPTIONS:
1. Approve the application as submitted.
2. Approve the application with special conditions.
3. Continue the application with a request for changes.
4. Deny the application.
RECOMMENDATION:
Option #2 (Approve the application with special conditions.)
ATTACHMENTS:
1. StaffReport dated 14 August 2013.
2. Application Materials/Plans.
3. Correspondence.
STAFF CONTACT: Marc Wiener, Senior Planner
181
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
STAFF REPORT Amended & Approved 8/ 14/ 13
APPLICATION: DS 12-68
BLOCK: V
LOCATION: NE Cor. San Antonio & lOth
REQUEST:
APPLICANT: Malcolm Ghazal
LOT: 18 & 20
Consideration of Design Study (Final) and Coastal Development Permit applications for
the substantial alteration of an existing residence located in the Single Family Residential
(R -1) District.
EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES:
1. Plate height (exceeds 12'118')
2. Garden wall height (exceeds 4')
BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project site consists of two legal lots of record and is developed with a two-story
Mediterranean style residence that was constructed in approximately 1926. The
residence is 2,429 square feet in size and consists of a garage on the lower level and the
living area on the main level. The residence has a flat-roofed design with stucco siding
and wood windows and doors. A Determination of Historic Ineligibility was issued in
April 2005 based on review by a professional historian.
The applicant is proposing a substantial alteration of the residence that includes the
following:
A 475 square foot upper-story addition;
A 471 square foot lower-level addition;
Exterior materials to include stucco, clay-tile roof, wood windows and doors and
some stone; and
This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on three separate occasions
between September 2012 and July 2013. The primary issue with the design was the view
impact to the eastern neighbor created by the proposed second-story addition. After
several meetings the applicant identified a location for the second-story that would reduce
the view impact. The design concept was accepted by the Planning Commission on 1 0
July 2013. The primary basis for acceptance was that the view impact had been
substantially mitigated and the proposed design allowed for an equitable sharing of views
between property owners.
182
DS 12-68 (Ghazal)
14 August 2013
Staff Report
Page2
PROJECT DATA FOR A 8,000 SQUARE FOOT SITE:
Site Considerations Allowed Existing Proposed
Floor Area 3,300 sf(41.3%)* 2,429 sf (30%) 3,300 (41.3%)
Site Coverage 995 sf(12%)** 1,554 sf(19%) 868 sf(l1 %)
Trees (upper/lower) 514 trees 3/2 Trees 4/3 trees
Ridge Height (1
51
/2nd)
18 ft./24 ft. 1 7 ft./21 ft. 17 ft./22 ft. 7 in.***
Plate Height (1
51
/2nd) 12 ft./18 ft. 16 ft ./19 ft. 16 ft./19 ft.***
Setbacks Minimum Required Existing Proposed
Front (San Antonio) 15ft. 16ft. 8 in. 16ft. 8 in.
Composite Side Yard 20ft. (25%) 24ft. (30%) 24ft. (30%)
Side Street (1 0
1
h) 5 ft. 6 ft. 5 in. 6ft. 5 in.
Minimum Side Yard 3ft. 15ft.3in. 15ft. 3 in.
Rear 3115 ft. 5 ft. 5/32 ft.
*Includes 3% lot merger bonus per CMC 17.10.040 and a 100 sq ft basement bonus.
**Includes a 4% bonus if 50% of all coverage is permeable or semipermeable and an additional 2.5% bonus for
lot merger.
***New additions comply with zoning requirements.
EVALUATION:
Previous Hearings: In addition to revising the design of the second-story the applicant
also reduced the second-story terrace from 225 square feet to 80 square feet. The primary
concern with the terrace was the privacy impact that it could create for surrounding
properties. Staff is in supp011 of the terrace at the proposed size, but the Commission
should discuss whether it is appropriate to have an outdoor spa on the terrace. This issue
was raised in previous staff reports, but the focus of past hearings was typically on the
view impact created by the second-story and not the spa.
At the July hearing when the Commission accepted the design it also requested that the
applicant eliminate the retaining wall encroachment from the right-of-way and reduce the
width of the 27 foot wide driveway. The applicant has complied with these
recommendations by showing that the walls will be eliminated on the plans and reducing
the width of the driveway to 10 feet. A condition has been added requiring that the
encroachment be removed as a condition of approval.
183
DS 12-68 (Ghazal)
14 August 2013
Staff Report
Page 3
Mass & Bulk: Design Guidelines 7.1 - 7.6 encourage a building's mass to relate "to the
context of other homes nearby" and to "minimize the mass of a building as seen from the
public way or adjacent properties. "
The second-story addition has substantial setbacks from all property lines and only
accounts for approximately 15% of the total floor area on the site. The applicant is also
using a relatively low second-story plate height (8' ) and ridge height (22'). One issue
that has been raised throughout the hearing process is that the plans make it appear as
though the residence has a three-story appearance. It has been identified by staff and the
Planning Commission though site visits that the actual street view does not present a
three-story appearance because the second-story is set back on the lot and is partially
screen by the front building elements.
Building & Roof Form: Design Guidelines 8.1- 8.3 encourage "simple roofforms " and
state that "basic gable and hip roofs are traditional and their use is encouraged." The
Guidelines also discourage "a sloping roof 'skirt ' that conceals a flat roof "
For the most part, the project utilizes simple roof forms with moderate to low pitches.
The applicant is proposing to replace a portion of the existing flat roofed structure with a
hipped roof that slopes back towards the new second-story addition. This would help
reduce some of the mass of the existing structure.
The second-story originally had a skirt to conceal a flat roof as discouraged by the
guidelines. At the Commission' s request the applicant revised the second-story to give it
a hipped design.
Exterior Materials: Design Guideline 9.5 encourages the use of "natural" materials,
particularly wood for exterior siding. The Guidelines indicate that "if stucco is proposed,
it should be used in conjunction with other natural materials and not be used to excess
along a block. " Finally, the Guidelines encourage stonework to appear structural and
authentic.
The proposed finish materials are consistent with the ex1stmg materials and are
compatible with the architectural style of the residence. The materials also meet the
Guideline recommendations for the use of stucco in conjunction with natural materials
such as wood, stone and clay tile roofing. In the original proposal staff had some
concerns with the proposed use of the stone. However, the applicant has significantly
reduced the amount of stone from what was originally proposed and all new stone will
match existing.
184
DS 12-68 (Ghazal)
14 August 2013
Staff Report
Page 4
Landscape Plan: The applicant has provided a detailed landscape plan showing new
plants throughout the property. The applicant is proposing one upper and one lower
canopy tree as reconunended by the City Forester. The proposed trees are located along
the north side of the property and appear to be out of the eastern neighbor's view shed. A
condition has been added that the applicant work with City staff so that the trees be
located with consideration for the eastern neighbor's view. The City Forester has
reviewed the site and determined that the trees could be planted on the north side of the
property as proposed.
Lot Merger: CMC Section 17.10.040 allows for a three percent bonus in base floor area
and 2.5 percent bonus in site coverage for lots that are formally merged. The applicant is
proposing to formally merge the two existing legal lots of record lots and therefore
qualifies for these bonuses. As a condition of approval the applicant must record a lot
merger document prior to the issuance of a building permit.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the application with the following special conditions.
SPECIAL CONDITION:
1. The applicant shall remove the stone wall encroachment from the right-of-way as
indicated on the plans. The area shall be replaced with a natural surface and not
paving materials.
2. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan with the construction
drawings.
3. The applicant shall plant one upper-canopy tree and one lower-canopy tree of
substantial size and caliber and of a species approved by the City Forester. The
tree shall be planted on site located approximately I 0 feet from any building and
shown on the fmal landscape plan submitted with the building pennit application.
The applicant shall work with staff to locate the trees with consideration for
neighboring view impacts.
4. A lot merger form shall be recorded with the County Recorder prior to the
issuance of a building pennit.
5. The applicant shall work with staff and the southern neighbor to determine if the
height of the railing needs to be increased to mitigate the privacy impact of the
spa.
185
FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR CONCEPT AND FINAL DESIGN STUDY
APPROVAL (CMC 17.64.8 and LUP Policy Pl-45}
For each of the required design study findings listed below, staff has indicated whether the
submitted plans support adoption of the findings. For all findings checked "no" the staff
report discusses the issues to facilitate the Planning Commission decision-making.
Findings checked "yes" may or may not be discussed in the report depending on the issues.
Municipal Code Finding
YES NO
1. The project conforms with all zoning standards applicable to the site, or has
./
received appropriate use pennits, variances consistent with the zoning
ordinance.
2. The project is consistent with the City' s design objectives for protection and
./
enhancement of the urbanized forest, open space resources and site design.
The project's use of open space, topography, access, trees and vegetation will
maintain or establish a continuity of design both on the site and in the public
right of way_ that is characteristic of the neighborhood.
3. The project avoids complexity using simple/modest building forms, a
./
simple roof plan with a limited number of roof planes and a restrained
employment of offsets and appendages that are consistent with neighborhood
character, yet will not be viewed as repetitive or monotonous within the
neighborhood context.
4. The project is adapted to human scale in the height of its roof, plate lines,
./
eave lines, building forms , and in the size of windows doors and entryways.
The development is similar in size, scale, and form to buildings on the
immediate block and neighborhood. Its height is compatible with its site and
surrounding development and will not present excess mass or bulk to the
public or to adjoining properties. Mass of the building relates to the context of
other homes in the vicinity.
5. The project is consistent with the City' s objectives for public and private
./
views and will retain a reasonable amount of solar access for neighboring sites.
Through the placement, location and size of windows, doors and balconies the
design res.2_ects the rights to reasonable privacy on adjoining sites.
6. The design concept is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies
./
related to residential design in the general plan.
7. The development does not require removal of any significant trees unless
./
necessary to provide a viable economic use of the property or protect public
health and safety. All buildings are setback a minimum of 6 feet from
significant trees.
8. The proposed architectural style and detailing are simple and restrained in
./
character, consistent and we11 integrated throughout the building and
complementary to the neighborhood without appearing monotonous or
186
repetitive in context with designs on nearby sites.
9. The proposed exterior materials and their application rely on natural
./
materials and the overall design will as to the variety and diversity along the
streetscape.
10. Design elements such as stonework, skylights, windows, doors, chimneys
./
and garages are consistent with the adopted Design Guidelines and will
complement the character of the structure and the neighborhood.
11. Proposed landscaping, paving treatments, fences and walls are carefully
designed to complement the urbanized forest, the approved site design,
./
adjacent sites, and the public right of way. The design will reinforce a sense of
visual continuity along the street.
12. Any deviations from the Design Guidelines are considered minor and
./
reasonably relate to good design principles and specific site conditions.
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS (CMC 17.64.B.l):
1. The project conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program of the City of Carmel by
the Sea.
2. The project is not located between the first public road and the sea and no review is
required for potential public access.
Standard R-1 Conditions
No. Condition
1. This approval constitutes Design Study and Coastal Development permits
./
authorizing the demolition and construction of a new residence. All work
shall conform to the approved plans dated 14 August 2013 except as
conditioned by this permit.
2. The project shall be constructed in conformance with all requirements of the
./
local R-1 zoning ordinances. All adopted building and fire codes shal1 be
adhered to in preparing the working drawings. If any codes or ordinances
require design elements to be changed, or if any other changes are requested
at the time such plans are submitted, such changes shall require separate
approval by the Planning Commission.
3. This approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of action
./
unless an active building permit has been issued and maintained for the
proposed construction.
4. All new landscaping shall be shown on a landscape plan and shal1 be
submitted to the Department of Community Planning and Building and to
./
the City Forester prior to the issuance of a building permit. The landscape
plan will be reviewed for compliance with the landscaping standards
187
contained in the Zoning Code, including the following requirements: 1) all
new landscaping shall be 75% drought-tolerant; 2) landscaped areas shall be
irrigated by a drip/sprinkler system set on a timer; and 3) the project shalJ
meet the City's recommended tree density standards, unless otherwise
approved by the City based on site conditions. The landscaping plan shall
show where new trees will be planted when new trees are required to be
planted by the Forest and Beach Commission or the Planning Commission.
5. Trees on the site shall only be removed upon the approval of the Forest and .,/
Beach Commission; and all remaining trees shall be protected during
construction by methods approved by the City Forester.
6. All foundations within 15 feet of significant trees shall be excavated by .,/
hand. If any tree roots larger than two inches (2") are encountered during
construction, the City Forester shall be contacted before cutting the roots.
The City Forester may require the roots to be bridged or may authorize the
roots to be cut. If roots larger than two inches (2") in diameter are cut
without prior City Forester approval or any significant tree is endangered as
a result of construction activity, the building permit will be suspended and
all work stopped until an investigation by the City Forester has been
completed. Twelve inches (12") of mulch shall be evenly spread inside the
drip line of all trees prior to the issuance of a building permit.
7. Approval of this application does not permit an increase in water use on the .,/
project site. Should the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
determine that the use would result in an increase in water beyond the
maximum units allowed on a 8,000 square foot parcel, this permit will be
scheduled for reconsideration and the appropriate findings will be prepared
for review and adoption by the Planning Commission.
8. The applicant shall submit in writing any proposed changes to the project .,/
plans as submitted on 14 August 2013 and approved by the Planning
Commission, prior to incorporating changes on the site. If the applicant
changes the project without first obtaining approval, the applicant will be
required to either: a) Submit the change in writing and cease all work on the
project until either the Planning Commission or staff has approved the
change; or b) Eliminate the change and submit the proposed change in
writing for review. The project will be reviewed for its compliance to the
approved plans prior to final inspection approval.
9. Exterior lighting shall be limited to 25 watts or less per fixture and shall be .,/
no higher than 10 feet above the ground. Landscape lighting shall be
limited to 15 watts or less per fixture and shall not exceed 18 inches above
the ground.
I 0. All skylights shall use nonreflective glass to minimize the amount of light .,/
and glare visible from adjoining properties. The applicant shall install
skylights with flashing that matches the roof color, or shall paint the
188
skylight flashing to match the roof color.
11. The Carmel stone fa9ade shall be installed in a broken course/random or ./
similar masonry pattern. Setting the stones vertically on their face in a
cobweb pattern shall not be permitted. Prior to the full installation of stone
during construction, the applicant shall install a 10 square foot section on
the building to be reviewed by planning staff on site to ensure conformity
with City standards.
12. The applicant shall install unclad wood framed windows. Windows that ./
have been approved with divided lights shall be constructed with fixed
wooden mullions. Any window pane dividers, which are snap-in, or
otherwise superficially applied, are not permitted.
13. The applicant agrees, at its sole expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold ./
harmless the City, its public officials, officers, employees, and assigns, from
any liability; and shall reimburse the City for any expense incurred,
resulting from, or in cmmection with any project approvals. This includes
any appeal, claim, suit, or other legal proceeding, to attack, set aside, void,
or annul any project approval. The City shall promptly notify the applicant
of any legal proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense. The City
may, at its sole discretion, participate m any such legal action, but
participation shall not relieve the applicant of any obligation under this
condition. Should any party bring any legal action in connection with this
project, the Superior Court of the County of Monterey, California, shall be
the situs and have jurisdiction for the resolution of all such actions by the
parties hereto.
14. The driveway material shall extend beyond the property line into the public ./
right of way as needed to connect to the paved street edge. A minimal
asphalt connection at the street edge may be required by the Superintendent
of Streets or the Building Official, depending on site conditions, to
accommodate the drainage flow line of the street.
15. This project is subject to a volume study. ./
16. Approval of this Design Study shall be valid only with approval of the Use N/ A
Pennit.
17. A hazardous materials waste survey shall be required in conformance with ./
the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District prior to issuance of
a demolition pennit.
18. The applicant shall include a storm water drainage plan with the working drawings ./
that are submitted for building permit review. The drainage plan shall include
applicable Best Management Practices and retain all drainage on site through the
use of semi-permeable paving materials, French drains, seepage pits, etc. Excess
drainage that cannot be maintained on site, may be directed into the City's storm
drain system after passing through a silt trap to reduce sediment from entering the
storm drain. Drainage shall not be directed to adjacent private property.
189
19. The project plans submitted for building permit review shall comply with the
./
City's Green Building Ordinance (CMC Section 15.54) and obtain a minimum of
60 _points based on the Residential Green Building Checklist.
20.
The applicant shall use a licensed surveyor during construction to verify the
./
building height. Building height shall be consistent with the presentations
submitted in the application and at the public hearings.
190
Attachment G- PC Minutes 8/14/13
PLANNING COMMISSION- MINUTES
AUGUST 14, 2013
I . CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL FOR TOUR OF INSPECTION
PRESENT: Commissioner Members: Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, Reimers, and
Paterson
STAFF PRESENT: Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner
Leslie Fenton, Admini strative Coordinator
II. TOUR OF INSPECTION
The Commission toured the following sites: Ybarro, Johnson, McGowan, Old Mill
Properties, and Faxon.
III. ROLL CALL FOR REGULAR MEETING
IV. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Members of the audience joined Commission members in the pledge of allegiance.
V. ANNOUNCEMENTS/EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS
Mr. Wiener announced the following:
1. The new Planning Director's fust day will be August 26, 2013.
2. The Planning Commission will hold a Special Meeting on August 21, 2013, at
3:00p.m.
3. The City Council approved the Carmel Event Center project.
Commissioner Dallas requested that the Commission schedule a workshop with the new
Director sometime in September.
VI. APPEARANCES
None
VII. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Consideration of minutes from July 10, 2013.
Commissioner LEPAGE moved to approve the Consent Agenda, seconded by
REIMERS and carried by the following roll call vote:
191
Commissioner LEPAGE moved to approve the application with staff's Special
Conditions #1,2,3; addition of Special Condition #4 -driveway shall be made of
permeable material, straight in design and a maximum width oflO', seconded by
DALLAS and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Reimers, LePage, Dallas, and Paterson
None
ABSENT: Goodhue
ABSTAIN: None
3. DS 12-68
Malcolm Ghazal
NE San Antonio & 1oth
Block V, Lot(s) 18 & 20
Consideration ofDesign Study (Final) and
Coastal Development Permit applications for
the substantial alteration of an existing
residence located in the Single Family
Residential (R -1) District.
Commissioner Reimers recused herself from the discussion.
Mr. Wiener presented the staff report. Chair Paterson opened the public hearing at
4:35 p.m. Jun Siliano appeared before the Commission. There being no other
appearances, the public hearing was closed at 4:40p.m.
Commissioner DALLAS moved to approve the application with staff's Special
Conditions #1-4; addition of Special Condition #5 - applicant shall work with staff
and southern neighbor to determine i(it will be necessary to raise 2"J story spa deck
railing to 48", seconded by GOODHUE and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Goodhue, LePage, Dallas, and Paterson
None
ABSENT: Reimers
ABSTAIN: None
4. DR 13-15
Old Mill Properties, LLC
W Is Mission 4 S 7th
Block 90, Lot(s) 11
Consideration of a Preliminary Design Concept
for the alteration of an existing multi-family
residential structure located in the Residential
and Limited Commercial (RC) District.
Commissioners Dallas and Reimers recused themselves from the discussion.
Mr. Wiener presented the staff report. Chair Paterson opened the public hearing at
4:51 p.m. Eric Miller and Rod Goya appeared before the Commission. There being no
other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 5:13p.m.
Planning Commission - Minutes
August 14, 2013
3
192
Attachment H- PC Staff Report 7/10/13
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA CHECKLIST
MEETING DATE: 10 July 2013
FIRST HEARING: 9/ 12/1 2
ITEM NO: DS 12-68
SUBJECT:
CONTINUED FROM: 2/ 13/ 13
STREAMLINING DEADLINE: 7/21/13
Consideration ofDesign Study (Concept) and Coastal Development Permit applications
for the substantial alteration of an existing residence located in the Single Family
Residential (R-1) District.
LOCATION: ZONING:
NE Cor. San Antonio & 1Oth R-1
ISSUES:
1. Does the proposed design comply with the Residential Design Objectives (CMC 17.10.1)
OPTIONS:
1. Accept the Design Concept as submitted.
2. Accept the Design Concept with special conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Options #2 (Accept the Design Concept with special conditions.)
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report dated 10 July 2013.
3. Correspondence.
STAFF CONTACT: Marc Wiener, Senior Planner
193
STAFF REPORT
BLOCK: V
LOCATION: NE Cor. San Antonio & 10
1
h
REQUEST:
LOT: 18 & 20
Consideration of Design Study (Concept) and Coastal Development Permit applications
1. Plate height (exceeds 12 'I 18 ' )
2. Garden wall height (exceeds 4 ' )
3. Driveway width (in excess of 14' )
BACKGROUND:
residence is approximately 2,429 square feet in size and consists of a garage on the lower
level and the living area on the main level. The residence has a flat-roofed design with
stucco siding and wood windows and doors. A Detennination of Historic Ineligibility
was issued in April2005 based on review by a professional historian.
The applicant is proposing a substantial alteration of the residence that includes the
addition of a 432 square foot second-story. This project was first reviewed by the
Commission in September 2012 and once again February 2013. The primary issue with
the design is the view impact to the eastern neighbor created by the proposed second-
story addition.
At the last meeting the applicant had attempted to address the view impact by locating the
second-story five feet further south. The Commission continued the application with a
recommendation that the applicant work directly with the eastern neighbor to further
mitigate the impact.
The applicant has revised the design in response to the direction provided at the meeting.
E-mail records indicate that the applicant has communicated with the neighbor, however,
an amicable agreement has not been reached about the design (see letter). Staff has
scheduled this application for a concept review to determine if the applicant can proceed
with submitting the proposed design for final approval. The only focus of this staff report
is whether the revised design adequately mitigates the view impact.
194
DS 12-68 (Ghazal)
10 July 2013
Staff Report
Page 2
Floor Area 3,300 sf(41%)* 2,429 sf (30%) 3,232 (40.4%)
Site Coverage 995 sf(l2%)** 1,554 sf(19%) 868sf(l1%)
Trees (upper/lower) 5/4 trees 3/2 Trees 4/3 trees
Ridge Height (1 st/2nd)
18 ft./24 ft. 17 ft./21 ft. 17 ft./22 ft. 7 in.***
Plate Height (1
51
/2nd) 12 ft./18 ft. 16 ft./19 ft. 16 ft ./19ft.***
Front (San Antonio) 15ft. 16ft. 8 in. 16ft.8in.
Composite Side Yard 20ft. (25%) 24ft. (30%) 24 ft. (3 0%)
Side Street (1 0
111
) 5 ft. 6ft. 5 in. 6ft. 5 in.
Minimum Side Yard 3ft. 15ft. 3 in. 15ft. 3 in.
Rear 3115 ft. 5 ft. 5/32 ft.
*Includes 3% lot merger bonus per CMC 17.10.040 and a I 00 sq ft basement bonus.
**Includes a 4% bonus if SO% of all coverage is permeable or semipermeable and an additional 2.5% bonus for
lot merger.
EVALUATION:
Previous Hearing: The following is a 1ist of changes requested by the Planning
Conunission and a response on how the applicant has or has not complied:
1. The applicant shall revise the design to reduce the view impact to the eastern
neighbor.
Response: With regards to views, Residential Design Guidelines 5.1 - 5.3 encourage
"maintaining views through a property to natural features when feasible" and
recommend "locating buildings so they will not substantially blocks views enjoyed by
others. " General Plan Policy Pl -65 recommends achieving "an equitable balance of
these design amenities among all properties affected by design review decisions ".
At the first hearing the Planning Conunission determined that the proposed second-story
would create a significant impact to the eastern neighbor' s ocean view. In response to
these concerns the applicant reduced the width of the second-story from 26 to 20 feet.
The square footage of the second-story was also reduced from 503 to 447 square feet and
the northern five feet of the structure was eliminated.
195
DS 12-68 (Ghazal)
10 July 2013
Staff Report
Page 3
With the latest design second-story has been located an additional four feet further south
from the last proposal and a total of nine feet south from the original proposal. The
benefit of locating the building element south is that it opens up more of the view shed
and is aligned with several trees that already block the ocean view. The revised second-
story is a substantial improvement over the last two designs.
The Design Guidelines states that "the desire to maximize view opportunities from one 's
own property must be balanced with consideration of respecting views of other. " Staff
concludes that the revised design mitigates the impact and provides balance between the
two property owners. The proposed second-story will impact the eastern neighbor' s
ocean view to some extent, as almost any second-story addition would at this location.
However, much of the view is preserved in the west and southwest directions. Staff
recommends acceptance of the design concept.
It should be noted that the applicant has submitted a second proposal referred to as
"Option A", which places the second-story addition on the north side of the residence.
Staff recommends against this proposal as it appears to have a greater impact to the view.
The story-poles have been established to represent both options.
Summary: At the first hearing staff addressed other aspects of the design such as forest
character, mass and bulk, building and roof form, etc. The Commission was generally
supportive of the design and style of the residence, but was primarily concerned about the
impacts to neighboring properties.
In this report staff has only focused on neighborhood impacts. If the Commission
concludes that the impacts have been adequately mitigated it can direct the applicant to
proceed with developing this design and staff will schedule the project for a fmal hearing.
RECOMMENDATION:
Accept the design concept with the following special condition.
SPECIAL CONDITION:
1. The applicant shall prepare detailed drawings and a landscape plan for final review
by the Planning Commission.
196
Attachment I- PC Minutes 7/10/13
JULY 10, 2013
I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Commission Members: Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, Reimers, Paterson
STAFF PRESENT: Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner
Leslie Fenton, Administrative Coordinator
The Commission toured the following sites: Hardy, Carmel Lodge, Pepe, Pimentel,
Green, Ghazal, Hayward.
III. ROLL CALL
Members of the audience joined Commission Members in the pledge of allegiance.
Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner, announced that there will be a Special Planning
Commission meeting in August. One of the topics to be discussed will be water.
VI. APPEARANCES
Rudolph Schroeder, Dory Petit, Fred Skittina and Anthony Lombardo appeared before
the Commission.
VII. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Consideration of minutes from June 12, 2013.
Commissioner LEPAGE moved to approve Consent Agenda item # 1, seconded by
GOODHUE and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, Reimers, Paterson
None
None
None
197
5. DS 12-68
Malcolm Ghazal
NE San Antonio & 1 0
1
h
Consideration of Design Study (Concept) and
Commissioner Reimers re-cused herself from the discussion.
Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Paterson opened
the public hearing at 6:20p.m. Anthony Lombardo, Jun Siliano, Michael McClure, Peter
Boutin and Malcolm Ghazal appeared before the Commission. There being no other
appearances, the public hearing was closed at 6:46p.m.
Commissioner GOODHUE moved to app.rove the application with staff's Special
Conditions, seconded by LEPAGE and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
6. DS 12-111
Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, Paterson
None
Reimers
None
Bill & Adriana Hayward
SE Ocean & Carmelo
Block M, Lot(s) 2 & 4
Consideration of a Plan Revision application
for an approved Design Study at a property
located in the Single Family Residential (R-1)
District.
Marc Wiener, Acting Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Paterson opened
the public hearing at 7:06p.m. Bill Hayward and Chris Boqua appeared before the
Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at
7:20p.m.
Commissioner REIMERS moved to continue the project and reguest applicant to
provide samples of the roofing material and decorative railing be eliminated,
seconded by DALLAS and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Dallas, Goodhue, LePage, Reimers, Paterson
None
None
None
Planning Commission - Minutes
July 10,20 13
5
198
Attachment J - PC Staff Report 2/13/13
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA CHECKLIST
MEETING DATE: 13 February 2013
FIRST HEARING: X
ITEM NO: DS 12-68
SUBJECT:
CONTINUED FROM: N/A
STREAMLINING DEADLINE: 3115/13
LOCATION: ZONING:
NE Cor. San Antonio & 1Oth R-1
ISSUES:
1. Does the proposed design comply with the Residential Design Objectives (CMC 17. 1 0.1)
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDATION:
Determine the appropriate action.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report dated 13 February 2013.
3. Correspondence.
STAFF CONTACT: Marc Wiener, Associate Planner
199
STAFF REPORT
BLOCK: V
LOCATION: NE Cor. San Antonio & 10
1
h
REQUEST:
LOT: 18 & 20
1. Plate height (exceeds 12' /18' )
2. Garden wall height (exceeds 4' )
4. Right-of-way encroachments
BACKGROUND:
stucco siding and wood windows and doors. The residence is not considered historically
significant.
On 12 September 2012 the Planning Commission reviewed this project and continued it
with a request for changes. The Commission directed the applicant to revise the design to
better mitigate the impact to neighboring properties, in particular the view impact to the
eastern neighbor. The applicant has revised the design in response to the direction
provided at the meeting. Staff has scheduled this application for a concept review to
detennine if the applicant can proceed with submitting the proposed design for final
approval.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is proposing the substantial alteration of the existing residence that
includes:
An elevator from the main level to the upper-level.
200
DS 12-68 (Ghazal)
13 February 2013
Staff Report
Page2
Exterior materials to include stucco, clay-tile roof, wood windows and some stone;
Site Considerations Allowed Existing P r ~ o s e d
Floor Area 3,300 sf(41%)* 2,429 sf (30%) 3,232 (40.4%)
Site Coverage 995 sf (12%)** 1,554 sf(19%) 868 sf(ll %)
Ridge Height ( 1
51
/2nd) 18 ft./24 ft. 1 7 ft./21 ft. 17 ft ./22 ft. 7 in.***
Plate Height (1
51
/2nd) 12 ft ./18 ft. 16 ft./19 ft. 16 ft./19ft.***
Setbacks Minimum Required Existing P r ~ o s e d
Side Street (1 0
111
) 5 ft. 6ft. 5 in. 6ft. 5 in.
Minimum Side Yard 3ft. 15 ft. 3 in. 15ft. 3 in.
Rear 3115 ft. 5 ft. 5/32 ft.
*Includes 3% lot merger bonus per CMC 17.10.040 and a 100 sq ft basement bonus.
lot merger.
EVALUATION:
Previous Hearing: The following is a list of changes requested by the Planning
Commission and a response on how the applicant has or has not complied:
1. The applicant shall revise the design to reduce the view impact to the eastern
neighbor.
Response: At the first hearing the Planning Commission detennined that the proposed
second-story would create a significant impact to the eastern neighbor' s ocean view. In
response to these concerns the applicant has reduced the width of the second-story from
26 to 20 feet. The square footage of the second-story has also been reduced from 503 to
447 square feet. The majority of the reduction came from the north side of the structure.
201
DS 12-68 (Gbazal)
13 February 2013
Staff Report
Page 3
At the first meeting the Commission suggested pushing the structure south in order to
open up more of the view corridor. By eliminating the northern five feet of the structure
the applicant has accomplished the effect of moving the structure south. The applicant
could still potentially move the structure south, but this would require designing around
the staircase, which has been located to preserve the existing lower level floor plan.
With regards to views, Residential Design Guidelines 5.1 - 5.3 encourage "maintaining
views through a property to natural features when feasible " and recommend "locating
buildings so they will not substantially blocks views enjoyed by others. " General Plan
Policy Pl-65 recommends achieving "an equitable balance of these design amenities
among all properties affected by design review decisions".
The revised second-story will still impact the neighbor's ocean view to some extent;
however, there are several view corridors of the ocean that will not be impacted. The
Commission should discuss whether the revised design successfully mitigates the impact.
Staff could potentially support the revised design, but has not provided a
rec01mnendation as to whether the design should be accepted.
It should be noted that the eastern neighbor feels that the revisions have not gone far
enough to mitigate the view impact (see attached letter). The Commission will have
another opportunity to visit the site on the tour.
2. The applicant shall reduce or eliminate the terrace on the south side of the
residence to mitigate the impact to neighboring properties.
Response: With the first design the applicant had proposed a 225 square foot rooftop
terrace and spa on the south side of the second-story. The southern neighbor appeared at
the meeting to express concern about the privacy impact created by the terrace. The
Commission was also concerned about the potential privacy impact and directed the
applicant to address the situation.
With regards to privacy, Design Guidelines 5.0- 5.1 state to "maintain privacy of indoor
and outdoor spaces in a neighborhood" and "organize functions on a site to preserve
reasonable privacy for adjacent properties ".
The applicant has reduced the size of the terrace to 108 square feet and it now only
provides space for the outdoor spa. Staff could support a small balcony or terrace on the
south side of the second-story. However, the primary concern with this proposal is the
activity level that would occur from the rooftop spa. Staff finds that the proposal will
202
DS 12-68 (Ghazal)
13 February 2013
Staff Report
Page4
create a privacy impact to neighboring properties and is inconsistent with the above
Guidelines. Staff recommends that the spa be eliminated from the design.
3. The applicant shall eliminate the flat roof design of the second-story.
Response: The applicant has eliminated the flat roof element from the roof. The
proposed roof has a hipped design and comes to a peak.
Summary: At the previous hearing staff addressed other aspects of the design such as
forest character, mass and bulk, building and roof form, etc. The Commission was
generally supportive of the design and style of the residence, but was concerned about the
impacts to neighboring properties.
In this report staff has only focused on neighborhood impacts. If the Commission
concludes that the impacts have been adequately mitigated it can direct the applicant to
proceed with developing this design and staff will schedule the project for a final hearing.
If the Commission finds that the impacts have not been mitigated, then the project can be
continued with a request for changes.
RECOMMENDATION:
Determine the appropriate action.
203
Attachment K- PC Minutes 2/13/13
FEBRUARY 13, 2013
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Commission Members: LePage, Reimers, Goodhue, Paterson
ABSENT: Commission Members: Dallas (via phone for one item)
STAFF PRESENT: Marc Wiener, Associate Planner
II. TOUR OF INSPCETION
The Commission toured the following sites: Hayward, Ghazal, Casey (2), Graham,
Barhnurst/Cushman, Pepe, Wagner.
Ill. ROLL CALL
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner, announced the following:
1. Special Meeting scheduled for March 6, 2013, at 4:00 p.m.
2. City Council denied the appeal ofDS 12-122.
3. City Council approved the funding for the beach restroom project.
VI. APPEARANCES
Barbara Livingston appeared before the Commission.
VII. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Consideration of minutes from January 3, 2013, Special Meeting.
2. Consideration of minutes from January 9, 2013, Regular Meeting.
204
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS
I. SI 13-2
John Wagner
W/s Lincoln 2 N 7th
Block 74, Lot(s) 11 & 13
Consideration of an application for a brushed
metal business sign at a site located in the
Central Commercial (CC) District.
(Kevin Milligan Gallery)
Margi Perotti, Code Enforcement, presented the staff report. Chair Paterson opened the
public hearing at 4:22 p.m. Kevin Milligan and Roberta Miller appeared before the
Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing was closed at 4:26
p.m.
Commissioner LEPAGE moved to approve the sign as proposed, seconded by
GOODHUE and carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
LePage, Goodhue, Paterson
Reimers
Dallas
None
2. DS 12-68
Malcolm Ghazal
NW San Antonio & 1Oth
Commissioner Reimers re-cused herself from the discussion.
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Paterson opened the
public hearing at 4:40p.m. Anthony Lombardo, Steve Boutin, Jeff Malik and Barbara
Livingston appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the
public hearing was closed at 4:59p.m.
Commissioner GOODHUE moved to continue the project, seconded by LEPAGE and
carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
LePage, Goodhue, Paterson
None
Dallas, Reimers
None
Planni ng Commission - Minutes
February 13, 2013
2
205
Attachment L - PC Staff Report 9/12/13
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA CHECKLIST
MEETING DATE: 12 September 2012
FIRST HEARING: X
ITEM NO: DS 12-68
SUBJECT:
CONTINUED FROM: N/ A
STREAMLINING DEADLINE: 10/24112
LOCATION: ZONING:
NE Cor. San Antonio & 1oth R-1
ISSUES:
1. Does the proposed design comply with the Residential Design Objectives (CMC 17 .I 0.1)
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDATION:
Option #3 (Continue the application with a request for changes.)
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report dated 12 September 2012.
STAFF CONTACT: Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager
206
STAFF REPORT
BLOCK: V
LOCATION: NE Cor. San Antonio & lOth
REQUEST:
LOT: 18 & 20
Consideration of Design Study (Concept) and Coastal Development Pennit applications
1. Plate height(exceeds 12'118' )
2. Garden wall height (exceeds 4' )
4. Right-of-way encroachments
BACKGROUND:
stucco siding and wood windows and doors. The residence is not considered historically
significant.
The site slopes from east to west with approximately an eight percent slope and includes
three significant trees. Existing right-of-way encroachments include a stone retaining
wall and a brick pathway.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is proposing the substantial alteration of the existing residence that
includes:
A wine cellar, foyer and staircase in the basement;
An elevator from the main level to the upper-level.
Exterior materials to include stucco, clay-tile roof, wood windows and doors and
some stone; and
207
DS 12-68 (Ghazal)
12 September 2012
Staff Report
Page 2
Floor Area 3,300 sf(41%)* 2,429 sf (30%) 3,297 (41 %)
Site Coverage 995 sf(12%)** 1,554 sf (19%) 868 sf(ll%)
Ridge Height (1st/2nd)
18/24 ft. 17/21 ft. 17/22 ft. 7 in.***
Plate Height (1st/2nd)
12 ft./18ft. 16119 ft. 16/19 ft.***
Side Street (1 0
1
h) 5 ft . 6ft. 5 in. 6ft. 5 in.
Minimum Side Yard 3ft. 15ft. 3 in. 15ft. 3 in.
Rear 3/15 ft. 5 ft. 5/32 ft.
*Includes 3% lot merger bonus per CMC 17. 10.040 and a 100 sq ft basement bonus.
Jot merger.
EVALUATION:
Forest Character: Residential Design Guidelines 1.1 - 1.4 encourage maintaining "a
forested image on the site" and preserving existing upper and lower canopy trees. The
General Plan also requires that new construction maintain a six foot setback from the
trunk of any significant tree.
The proposed site alterations will not impact any significant trees and will maintain all
required setbacks. The applicant is proposing one upper and one lower canopy tree as
recommended by the City Forester.
Right-of-Way Character: Design Guideline 4.5 encourages maintaining an
planted edge in the right-of-way" and separating the front walkway from the driveway
when possible. The Guidelines also encourage driveways to generally be a single car
width and to minimize the amount of paving required for the driveway.
It its widest point, the existing driveway is approximately 27 feet wide. The applicant is
proposing to reduce its width to approximately 10 feet. This will be much more
consistent with the guidelines and will improve the right-of-way appearance. The
208
DS 12-68 (Ghazal)
12 September 2012
Staff Report
Page 3
applicant is also proposing to remove the existing brick walkway on the south side of the
property and replace it with decomposed granite. This will also improve the right-of-way
appearance.
The applicant is requesting to maintain a low Carmel stone retaining wall in the right-of-
way on the west side of the property. The Commission should provide a
recommendation to the City Administrator on whether this encroachment should be
permitted to be retained.
Privacy & Views: Design Guidelines 5.1 - 5.3 encourage new designs to ''preserve
reasonable privacy for adjacent properties" and to "maintain view opportunities to
natural features that lie outside the property. " Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Section
17.10.010.K states, "Designs should respect views enjoyed by neighboring
parcels ... Buildings which substantially eliminate an existing significant view enjoyed on
another parcel should be avoided. "
Staff has not identified any significant privacy impacts. However, staff has identified
some significant view impacts. The neighbor located on the northwest comer of Cannelo
and 1 0
1
h has filtered Ocean views over the subject property from their master bedroom
and second story deck. The proposed project substantially eliminates the majority of this
view. Staff cannot support the second-story addition as it is currently configured.
Mass & Bulk: Design Guidelines 7.1-7.6 encourage a building's mass to relate "to the
context of other homes nearby" and to "minimize the mass of a building as seen from the
public way or adjacent properties. " The Guidelines also discourage buildings that
present a three-story appearance to the street
The second-story addition has substantial setbacks from all property lines and only
accounts for approximately 15% of the total floor area on the site. The applicant is also
using a relatively low second-story plate height (8') and ridge height (22'). However,
due to the slope of the site, the finished floor of the existing residence and its location on
a comer, the project does appear somewhat massive and out of scale with the
neighborhood.
Staff notes that the building also has a three-story appearance from the San Antonio
Avenue. The structure does not violate the zoning requirements for the number of
stories, but due to the slope of the site, three different levels are visible from San Antonio
Avenue. Due to the view impacts to the eastern neighbor, and the neighborhood
character impacts due to the mass and bulk, it may be difficult to achieve a second-story
addition on this site. Staff notes there is adequate space on the site to achieve the
maximum allowable floor area without adding the upper-story addition.
209
DS 12-68 (Ghazal)
12 September 2012
Staff Report
Page 4
Building & Roof Form: Design Guidelines 8.1- 8.3 encourage "simple roof forms " and
state that "basic gable and hip roofs are traditional and their use is encouraged. JJ The
Guidelines also discourage ''a sloping roof 'skirt' that conceals a flat roof "
For the most part, the project utilizes simple roof forms with moderate to low pitches.
The applicant is proposing to replace a portion of the existing flat roofed structure with a
hipped roof that slopes back towards the new second-story addition. This would help
reduce some of the mass of the existing structure.
The second-story addition does have a skirt roof that conceals a flat roof as discouraged
by the guidelines. This was done to reduce the overall height of the second-story. The
roof form could be completed to create a true ridge, but that would result in
approximately two feet more in height. If the Commission is supportive of the second-
story, direction should be given on this issue.
Exterior Materials: Design Guideline 9.5 encourages the use of "natural" materials,
particularly wood for exterior siding. The Guidelines indicate that if stucco is proposed,
it should be used in conjunction with other natural materials and not be used to excess
along a block. Finally, the Guidelines encourage stonework to appear structural and
authentic.
A more in depth analysis will be provided on the exterior materials at the final hearing.
However, the Commission may want to provide some guidance to the applicant at this
hearing. The elevation drawings show two options for the north and west elevations.
The first option includes a stone veneer around the garage door and on the full entry way.
The alternative option shows stone on just the base of the entry way. Staff prefers the
alternative option of less stone.
Lot Merger: CMC Section 17.1 0. 040 allows for a three percent bonus in base floor area
and 2.5 percent bonus in site coverage for lots that are formally merged. The applicant is
proposing to formally merge the two existing legal lots of record lots and therefore
qualifies for these bonuses. As a condition of approval the applicant must record a lot
merger document prior to the issuance of a building permit.
RECOMMENDATION:
Continue the application with a request for the following change:
1) Redesign the project to either substantially reduce the size of the second-story
addition to accommodate neighboring views, or eliminate the second-story
addition completely.
210
Attachment M - PC Minutes 9/12/13
SEPTEMBER 12, 2012
I. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Commission Members: Goodhue, LePage, Paterson, Dallas,
Reimers
STAFF PRESENT: Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner
The Planning Commission toured the following sites: Tescher, Realmuto, 4th & Santa
Rita LLC, Aaron, Blair Vineyards, B&G Jewelers, Reimers, Byrne and Ghazal.
III. ROLL CALL
Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager, announced the following:
1. City Council adopted the 1st Reading of the Zoning amendments.
2. October lOth Regular Meeting has been re-scheduled to Tuesday, October 23, 2012.
3. Commissioner LePage will serve as Vice-chair starting the October meeting.
VI. APPEARANCES
None
VII. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Consideration of minutes from August 8, 2012, Regular Meeting.
5. DS 12-55
Harry & Jane Herbst
E/s Santa Fe 2 E 5
111
Block 61, Lot(s) 4
Consideration ofDesign Study (Final) and
residence located in the Single Family (R-1)
District.
211
2. DS 12-58
4
1
h & Santa Rita LLC
26040 Ridgewood Drive
Block 46, Lot(s) 18
Consideration of Design Study, Demolition
Permit and Coastal Development Permit
applications for the construction of a new
Commissioner Paterson and Dallas re-cused themselves from the discussion.
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chair Reimers opened the
public hearing at 4:35p.m. Dana Annereau, Linda Anderson and Roberta Miller
appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances, the public hearing
was closed at 4:45 p.m.
Commissioner LEPAGE moved to approve the application with staff's Special
Conditions #1-4 and addition of Special Condition #5- applicant shall work with
staff on fence for 4
1
h Street side of residence which shall not exceed 4' and be
consistent with other fencing on property, seconded by GOODHUE and carried by
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Goodhue, LePage, Reimers
None
Paterson, Dallas
None
3. DS 12-68
Malcolm Ghazal
NW San Antonio & 1 0
1
h
Block V, Lot(s) 1,3,5
Chair Reimers re-cused herself from the discussion.
Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager, presented the staff report. Vice-
chair Dallas opened the public hearing at 4:55 p.m. Jun Siliano, Peter Boutan and
Michael McClure appeared before the Commission. There being no other appearances,
the public hearing was closed at 5:09p.m.
Commissioner LEPAGE moved to continue the project and have applicant work with
neighbors on view issues, seconded by PATERSON and carried by the following roll
call votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Goodhue, LePage, Paterson, Dallas
None
Reimers
Planning Commiss.ion- Minutes
September 12.2012
2
212
t N
H
istoric Report and Determinations
Attacbmen -
KENT L . SEAVEY
3 ]. 0 LIGJE--3ITHOUSE A VEN U E
P ACI F I C GROV E, C A LJLJPORNIA 93950
(831)37 5 .- 8 739
March 1 7, 2005
Mr. Brian Roseth/Principal Planner
Carmel Planning & Building Department
City of Carmel by-the-Sea
P.O. Drawer G
Carmel, CA 93921
Dear Mr. Roseth:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the historic status of
the residential proper ty on the NE corner of 1Oth and San Antonio
Blk V Lots 18 & 20 (APN# 010-277-007). According to Carmel
building records the subject property was constructed in 1926 for an
owner named N.J. Walton by noted Carmel builder M.J. Murphy
(CBP# 1675). A major change in the appearance of the property
occurred in 1970 when the garage, below ground level, was extended
and a full width open deck with a shed roof was added along the
street elevation, and new steps and walls were built (CBR# 70-114).
The simple, broad planar surface of the Mediterranean style residence
is no longer present.
The Visual integrity of the subject property, as constructed in
1926, has been compromised by the 1970 deck addition which has
given the house a decidedly modern appearance. Because of the loss
of physical integrity the residence does not meet the criteria for
inclusion in the California Register, nor does it meet the criteria
established in the Carmel Historic Preservation Ordinance. Therefore,
it cannot be considered an historic resource, as defined by CEQA.
If you have any questions, please call me at (831) 375-8739.
Respectfully Submitted,

JE-flSTOR IC P RES E RVAT ION JLNTERPRET ATION
213
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
NOTICE OF INELIGffiiLITY
For The Carmel Historic Resources Inventory
On I April 2005 the Department of Planning and Building detennined that the prope1ty
identified below does not constitute an historic resource.
Assessors Parcel Number: 010-277-007
Current Owner: Albert Alexander
Block: V
Lot: 18 & 20
Street Location: NE Cor. of 1oth & San Antonio
The basis for this detennination is:
CJ The property lacks sufficient age to be considered historic.
The property has substantially lost its historic integrity through alterations,
additions, deterioration, changes in the surrounding environment or other
causes.
)( The property does not relate to historic themes or property types established in
the Historic Context Statement for Cannel-by-the-Sea.
0 The property has no association with important events, people or architecture
that are identified in the Historic Context Statement or that represent the
historical/cultural evolution of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
This determination shall remain valid for a period offive (5) years and shall expire on
1 April 2010.
~ . ~
Brian Roseth, Principal Planner
214
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
NOTICE OF INELIGIBILITY
For The Carmel Historic Resources Inventory .
On 21 February 2013 the Department ofPlanning and Building that the
property identified below does not constitute an historic resource. -
Assessors Parcel Number: 010-277-007
Current Owner: Malcom Ghazal
Block: V
Lot: 18 & 20
Street Location: NE Cor. Of 1 0
1
h & San Antonio
The basis for this determination is:
0 The property lacks sufficient age to be considered historic.
The property has substantially lost its historic integrity through alterations,
additions, deterioration, changes in the surrounding environment or other
causes.
tiJ The property does not relate to historic themes or property types established in
the Historic Context Statement for Carmel-by-the-Sea.
0 The property has no association with important events, peo.ple or architecture
that are identified in the Historic Context Statement or that represent the
historical/cultural evolution of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
This determination shall remain valid for a period of five (5) years and shall expire on
21 February 2018.
Marc Wiener, Associate Planner

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

147

You might also like