103

To:
From:
Submitted by:
Subject:
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Council Report
May 6, 2014
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 by Cathryn Carlson of the Planning
Commission's Approval of Design Study (DS 13-146) for the Installation of
Fiberglass Windows and Exterior Siding Changes on an Existing Residence
Located in the Single-Family Residential {R-1) District
Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision
Executive Summary: The project site is a 5,000-square foot property that is developed with a
3A76-square foot, two-story single-family residence. The site is located
at the northwest corner of Ocean Avenue and Carpenter Street. The
residence includes a three-car garage with driveway access provided off
of Carpenter Street.
On March 11, 2014, the Planning Commission approved Design Study {DS
13-146) for the installation of fiberglass replacement windows and sliders
throughout the residence (including two windows to be enlarged on the
south elevation) and the addition of vertical , red-cedar slat/siding on the
north, west, and east elevations of the residence.
The Planning Commission approved the project with Special Condition
#23, which requires the applicant to "work with staff to significantly
reduce the existing site coverage in the driveway." The property owner,
Cathryn Carlson, is appealing this special condition.
Analysis/Discussion: Planning Commission Review and Staff Analysis
Pursuant to CMC 17. 70.020, site coverage is defined as "the total ground
area of a site occupied by materials or improvements that cover the
natural soil but which are outside the perimeter of structures that count
1
104
as floor area." Site coverage materials include concrete, pavers, decks,
gravel, etc.
The property contains 1A90 square feet of site coverage and exceeds the
allowed site coverage of 673 square feet. The subject driveway is
comprised of concrete and is 836 square feet in size. Special Condition
#23 requires the applicant to reduce the expanse of concrete for the
driveway and parking area. It was suggested at the Planning Commission
meeting that some of the concrete be replaced with a combination of
new landscaping, wood chips, and grass-crete, and that this would
present a more pleasing street-front fac;ade.
With regard to driveway design, Residential Design Guideline 9.6 states
the following:
"Minimize the amount of paved surface area of a driveway"
"In general, the width of a driveway should not exceed 9 feet"
"Avoid large expanses of paving for vehicles visible from the
street"
The intent of Special Condition #23 is to: 1) Improve the aesthetics of the
property consistent with other approved alterations (i .e. new si ding and
windows), 2) promote consistency with the City's Design Guidel ines, and
3) bring the property closer to compliance with allowed site coverage.
Basis for Appeal
The appellant, Cathryn Carlson, is challenging the Planning Commission's
authority to impose Special Condition #23, which requires the removal of
nonconforming site coverage from the driveway. With regard to
nonconformities, the appellant has cited the following two Municipal
Code Sections:
1. CMC 17.36.020 - Continuance and Maintenance: "A building or
structure that was lawfully established, but does not conform to
the existing zoning regulations, shall be deemed a nonconforming
structure and may be used and maintained as provided in this
chapter."
2. CMC 17.36.030 - Nonconforming Building and Uses: ''A lawful
nonconforming structure may be maintained, repaired, or altered
as long as such maintenance, repair, or alteration does not
2
105
increase the nonconformity and all work performed conforms to
all of the requirements of this chapter."
The property exceeds the allowed site coverage by 817 square feet and is
nonconforming with regard to site coverage. Special Condition #23 does
not require the site coverage to be brought into compliance, but rather
requires the applicant to work with staff on reducing the driveway site
coverage to improve the aesthetics of the property in association with
the other improvements proposed by the applicant.
Design Study applications present an opportunity for the City to improve
compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines and Municipal Code
on private properties. As part of the Design Study review process, the
Planning Commission often requires improvements that are beyond the
scope of the original project to enhance the aesthetics and/or to bring
the project more into compliance with the City's Design Guidelines.
Examples include requirements to plant new trees and landscaping,
remove non-conforming site coverage, remove right-of-way
encroachments, etc.
The appellant also references a Driveway Grade and Drainage Agreement
issued by the City for the subject driveway in 1978. Staff notes that this is
a standard agreement historically issued by the City for driveways that
are not level with street grade. Staff notes that while the driveway was
permitted by the City, it does not comply with the current Municipal
Code requirements and is therefore considered legal nonconforming. As
explained above, it is within the purview of the Planning Commission to
correct legal nonconformities as well as to improve the aesthetics of a
project as part of the Design Study review process.
Staff also notes that CMC 17.36.020 and 17.36.030 state that the
nonconformities "may" be maintained, which indicates that there is some
discretion on the part of the City in the decision to allow the continuation
of a non-conformity.
Staff Analysis of Appeal
After analyzing the issues presented by the appellant, staff concludes
that Special Condition #23, which requires the reduction of site coverage
from the driveway, is consistent with the Municipal Code requirements
for nonconformities and is appropriate for this site. Staff concurs with
3
106
Alternatives:
the Planning Commission's decision to approve the OS 13-146 subject to
Special Condition #23.
Staff notes the Special Condition #23 did not specify the amount of site
coverage to be removed, but rather directed the applicant to work with
staff. Options for reducing site coverage include: 1) Reducing concrete
on the north end of the driveway, which is not needed for garage access,
2} Installing driveway strips, and 3} Installing grass-pavers, which would
reduce the site coverage and soften the appearance of the driveway.
This item 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 Planning Commission. The March 11, 2014 Planning
Commission staff report and conditions of approval for OS 13-146 are
included in Attachment C for the City Council's consideration.
Attachment 0 includes that meeting's minutes.
If the City Council determines that Special Condition #23 is not consistent
with the City's Municipal Code or not appropriate for the project then the
City Council may grant the appeal. Alternatively, the Council could also
amend the special conditions, or could direct the applicant to revise
specific aspects of the proposal.
Previous Council Action/Decision History: The Planning Commission approved OS 13-146 by a
vote of 3-2 on March 11, 2014. Staff notes that the applicant initially
expressed some reluctance related to abiding by Special Condition #23.
As such, the Planning Commission Chair specifically asked for and
received confirmation that the applicant understood and agreed to abide
by the special conditions of approval. Staff also notes that the dissenting
votes expressed no objection to the conditions of approval; rather the
issue for the dissenters was the proposed fiberglass window material.
Attachments:
Attachment A- Appeal Application
Attachment B- Property Photographs
Attachment C- PC Staff Report and Amended Conditions of Approval (3/11/14}
Attachment 0- PC Meeting Minutes (3/11/14}
Attachment E- Project Plans
Reviewed by:
City Administrator City Attorney D Administrative Services D
Asst. City Admin. D Dir of CPB
(il1
Dir of Publi c Svcs D
Public Safety Dir D Library Dir D Other D
107
Attachment A- Appeal Application
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
(FllJNG FEE: $295.00*)
Appellant: C"'ih .. :Y" 0 r 1-s o "
RE
("..,..,. , ... ,,.)
'-'.Cl. V L..:...
MAR 2 s
CllYOJ
CARMEL BY-Tfi.E-l'if.A
Property Owner: Q,- V' ; \ \ T ('J +
Mailing Address: f. 0. t Q y; I J cA r
b;;(b 0'1\'1
Fax: ( ) Email:OA-J:b ; '\j"d .(tM .
Date Board heard the matter: H t' r 1\ I 9. (!} I \.{ <..)
Appeals to the City Council must be made in writing in the office of the City Clerk within
10 working days following tie tilde of action by tile Pllmning Collllllisswn and paying
the required filing foe as established by City Council resolution.
Physical location of property that is the subject of appeal:
N J Cor-r..ec 0ctA.1 c}
Lot(s): j d} : /1t (Block: b 'J APN:
COMMISSION ACTION BEING APPEALED:
If you were NO e original applicant or the applicant's representative, please state the
evidence that you are an aggrieved party: -------------
(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)
108
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.)
S.RJ2. P..h d.e d I e k r 0-.r , o ( l f?Ls
I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE
AND CORRECT:
DATED AT: (
H f ?oil(
, THIS tv-DAY OF
ff?ot:r4d
$2 5.00 fee* received:
5S7f/.
Receipt#:
ATIEST:
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 Carmel-by-the-Sea's Council agenda packet, the materials must
be submitted to the City Clerk by working days after the decision of the
Commission. This matter is tentatively scheduled to be heard on
109
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Office of the City Clerk
Dear Sir:
PO Box7233
Carmel , CA 93921
March 23, 2014
I am in receipt of a letter from the Carmel Community Planning and Building Department
dated March 18, 2014 regarding the Planning Commission approval of my Design Study
application (OS 13-146) with amended (final) Conditions of Approval on March 11, 2014.
I would like to appeal the amended Special Condition #23 as explained below. Wrth
regard to Special Condition #24, the City Forester has visited the site and we have
agreed on an appropriate course of action. This is documented below in order to avoid
any future confusion.
Special Condition #23 - The applicant shall work with staff to significantly reduce
the existing site coverage In the driveway.
I do not believe that the Planning Commission has the legal right to impose this condition
and therefore ask this amendment by the Planning Commission be removed from my
Approval. In support of my request, please see the following sections of the Carmel
Municipal Code:
1. Chapter 17.36 Nonconforming Uses and Buildings. Sections 17.36.020 and
17.36.030
17.36.020 Continuation and Maintenance
A A building or structure that was lawfully established, but does not conform to
existing zoning regulations, shall be deemed a nonconforming structure and may be
used and maintained as provided in this chapter.
17.36.030 Alterations and Enlargements of Nonconforming Buildings and Structures
A. A lawful nonconforming structure may be maintained, repaired, or altered as long
as such maintenance, repair, or alteration does not increase the nonconformity and
all work performed conforms to all of the requirements of this chapter.
My house is a nonconforming structure or structures. My driveway and parking area
are non-conforming structures. The word "structure" is loosely defined in the CMC
and certainly includes the driveway and parking area in front of my house - either as
separate entities or as part of the whole. Whether or not you choose to define the
driveway and parking area as separate entities or as part of the whole project, the
definition of structure is not relevant in this case. In the application put before the
Planning Commission, I proposed to maintain, repair and alter the non-conforming
110
structure or structures in most instances by actually decreasing their nonconformity,
but in no instance by increasing it.
Therefore, I am clearly in compliance with the CMC regarding Chapter 17.36
Nonconforming Uses and Buildings.
2. Chapter 17.58 of the CMC. Clause 17.58.020 General Requirements and
Responsibilities. Section E reads as follows {the underlining is my own):
Design Review Standards. When conducting design review the Department or the
Planning Commission shall use the design guidelines adopted by the City Council
as the basis for review. The decision-making entity responsible for design review
shall consider the conformance of the application to the standards set forth in and
promulgated under this title, and may either approve, deny or modify an application
for design review. However. no modification mav be made that is not consistent
with any other requirement of this title. Specific zoning standards and criterta are
established in each zoning district. overlay district. specific plan area. special district.
or community plan area. These shall be coordinated with the guidelines in
reviewing projects.
The word "requirement" is not defined in this document but can be defined as
"something that must be done". In this respect, please see point 1. above.
3. Similar wording is repeated again in Clause 17.58.050 Conditions of Approval. This
section reads as follows (again the underlining is my own):
rn approving any application for design review, the decision-making authority may
impose any conditions deemed necessary to:
A. Ensure conformance with the policies of the General Plan and the Local Coastal
Program;
B. Comply with all applicable provisions of this code;
C. Implement applicable adopted design review guidelines;
0. Require mitigation for unavoidable impacts resulting from the development.
The decision-making authoritY may not impose any condition or require any
modification that is not consistent with any other requirement of the municipal code.
In this respect, again, please see point 1. above.
4. Chapter 17.52 Permit Procedures, Clause 17.52.160 Planning Commission
Procedures, Section E. Decision., the final sentence reads as follows:
Unless otherwise authorized under the municipal code, the Commission shall not
2
111
have the authority to waive or modify the site development requirements of this title
or the requirements of any other applicable City ordinances.
In this respect, again, please see point 1. above.
I have attended two recent meetings of the Planning Commission in order to gain some
understanding of the rules and values enshrined in Carmel's Residential Design
Guidelines. I have personally read the Design Guidelines and it is my sincere intention
to improve the appearance of the house in accordance with these Guidelines and the
CMC. Notwithstanding, it is impossible to ignore that the house is non--conforming in
many respects with today's Design Guidelines. Given this fact, in the interest of time
and cost, I have decided to repair the house as is with only minor alterations as
contained in the Staff Report. As you may realize, this decision is a significant
compromise on my part.
When deciding to impose additionat conditions, the Planning Commission must keep in
mind that the Carmel Residential Design Guidelines are guidelines, not law. To the
contrary, the Carmel Municipal Code {''CMC"} is legally binding. This is my
understanding; please correct me if I'm wrong.
AJI of the alterations I proposed and which were considered by the Planning and Building
Department and the Planning Commission were deemed by both bodies to be
improvements of the existing non--conforming structure(s) which decrease, rather than
increase, their non-conformity. In fact, the Planning and Building Department
recommended approval of my Design Study application without modification.
Based on the above-cited clauses of the CMC, I submit that the Planning Commission
did not property consider the CMC when imposing Special Condition #23 and
respectfully ask that this condition be withdrawn.
Finally, please see also the attached Driveway Grade and Drainage Agreement dated
22"d September 1978 giving specific permission to allow my driveway to be constructed
"at variance with t he accepted and normal standards for driveway grade and drainage,
and not at grade." You will note that the Planning Commission mentioned only my
driveway (and not my uparking facility slab" which is, in fact. a separate structure
according to the Agreement of 22"d September 1978) in their amended Conditions of
Approval. I do not believe they were aware of this document, granting express
permission for my non-conforming driveway, when imposing the additional Special
Condition. Given this Agreement, the additional Special Condition #23 must be
considered invalid.
Special Condition #24 -The applicant shall plant one upper--canopy tree on site.
The City Forester visited my horne and granted pennission for the removal of two trees
on Feb. 27, 2014. One of these trees was an upper-canopy tree. His approval did not
contain a condition that I replace the upper canopy-tree to be removed.
I believe one reason is that there is very limited room on my site for an additional upper-
canopy tree. This fact was raised by at least one of the members of the Planning
3
112
Commission during the hearing on March 11th. However, it was ignored when Special
Condition #24 was imposed as a Special Condition to the approval of my Design Study
application.
In light of Special Condition #24, the City Forester has visited my site once again and
suggested that we work together to remove an acacia tree in the southeast comer of my
property outside of my fence and facing Ocean Avenue so that we can replace it with an
upper canopy tree. I am in agreement with this solution and, on this basis, do not object
to the Imposition of Special Condition #24.
Conclusion
To date, my interaction with the City of Carmel has been limited. In the matter discussed
above, not only do I believe that the Planning Commission has acted contrary to the
CMC, but also:
1. The letter from the Planning and Building Department dated March 18, 2014
stated incorrectly that my appeal was subject to a 10 calendar day appeal period
ending March 21, 2014 when it should have said a 10 working day appeal period
ending March 25, 2014 (please see attached). r pointed this out and it was
corrected by email.
2. The envelope containing the hard copy of this letter was addressed incorrectly to
Cathryn Cess when, in fact, my name is Cathryn Carlson (please see attached).
3. In Chapter 17.52 Permit Procedures, Clause 17.52.160 Planning Commission
Procedure, Section F. Reports on Final Actions, it is stated:
All actions approving or denying applications shall be made in writing and shall
include all findings necessary to support said action. Approvals shall include all
findings required by the sections of the municipal code related to the project
being approved. Approvals may be granted in whole or in part, with or without
conditions necessary to assure the intent and purpose of all applicable policjes,
standards and guidelines.
Nowhere in the City's letter of March 18, 2014 is there mention of any findings
necessary to support the addition of Special Condition #23. This also is not in
compliance with the CMC. J made a first attempt to discuss this matter with the
Planning Diredor and the City Attorney instead of filing an appeal. I asked, in
writing, if they could point out the legal basis upon which the Planning
Commission is entitled to modify the conditions of my application/approval as
was done during the meeting of 11th March, specifically with regard to my
driveway so that I could better understand the CMC as it applies to my
application.
I did not receive a clear explanation. but rather was told on the phone that
compliance (with Special Condition #23) would increase the value of my
property". I was also told that the Imposed reduction in site coverage of my
driveway is a "nexus to the Planning Commission kindly allowing me to repair
and improve the front of my home (actually decreasing its non-conformity) by
4
113
adding some wood screening. As the word nexus" is not a usual element of my
vocabulary, I had to look it up. I thought it might be a legal term, but found that it
simply means connection. If, according to the CMC, the Planning Commission
actually has the right to make use of what they deem to be a "nexus" to require
me to substantially reduce the site coverage of my non-conforming driveway
which has been in existence since 1978n9, then please have the respect to point
out exactly where in the CMC this is made possible. I asked whether the
Planning Commission would also have the right to require me to reduce the size
of my non-conforming garage {after all the wood screening will be placed directly
above the garage). Surprisingly I was told that this might indeed be possible.
Can this be true?
I am more than willing to abide by the law and have pointed out above four
clauses in the CMC which clearly mandate that the use of this "nexus is not
possible under the CMC.
Finally, my family has been living full-time in Carmel and paying taxes here since 1979-
a period of 35 years. Like all of you, I also wish to uphold and reinforce the character
and charm of the City. In proposing my Design Study application for your review, I have
made a sincere and lawful attempt to comply with both the Residential Guidelines and
the CMC to the detriment of my personal preferences.
1 now ask that the City make an effort to do the same.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
1 look forward to working with you in order to repair my home and to significantly improve
its appearance as quickly as possible.
Yours faithfully,
5
114

AND DRAINAGE AGREEMENT
IEt1280 PAGE 442 .
AGREEMENT made this
2
2nd day. of September
, 19 18 , between
the City of carmel-by-the-Sea, hereinafter City, . and
----
Nick Marotta and Gerda Marotta , hereinafter called Owner, with
reference to the following facts:
Owner is in possession of and owns certain.real in the
soutn
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, known as Lot.Cs) 2,3,4, 5 Block
and further identified as Assessor's 'Parcel No. 010-033-06
located at Ocean and Carpenter
OWner has requested from the City permission to construct a
driveway 'on said property at variance with the accepted ' and normal
standards for driveway grade and not at grade.
Pursuant to Section 1209 et seq.: of- the Municipal Code of the
. .
City of Carmel- by-the-Sea, the City is willing to grant a permit for
construction .of said driveway, subject to conditions as hereinafter
set forth.
.
- ..
"- ' . ' .
NOW I THEREFORE, the parties I 'in consideration of the mutual
covenants contained herein,_ agree as follows: ..
1. The grants .. to to cons-truct and
establish a driveway at alevel different than the established grade.
2. Owner agrees that the may or establish a street
grade at any time in the future without any costs to the
City for any damages or expenses caused to the Owner, or his
successors in -interest, including any damage or elimination of use
of structures on said property. In addition, Owner agrees that in
the event the City changes or establishes the street grade, Owner
will bring the -driveway to the new grade at his own expense, at
such time as the Superintendent of Public Works directs.
3. agrees to hold the City harmless for any damages
caused by drainage problems or flooding across or through the
driveway permitted under this agreement.
4. This agreement pertains to the driveway grade only and does
,..
not relieve the Owner of responsibility of establishing
elevation of the parking facility slab in proper relationship to the
officially established street grade or if not street grade has been
established to the street elevation as determined by. the Superinten-
dent of Public Works.
--
I
115
--.
; ,..,
. ....
''..
..
..
PAGE 443
S. agree that this contract is for the direct
benefit of the land 'in that it makes the property more usable and
increases its value, and as sdch the covenants herein
shall run with the land, and the parties agree that the covenants
.
shall bind the successors and assigns of Owner.
SIGNED the day and year first above written.
Uperintendent of Public W rks
City of a
OFfiCE OF RECORDER
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
SAliNAS, CAliFORNIA
iL12 80 PAGE 442
.. . -..t-
'1
f
--:-=-:r -
, .
: Of lA, f
-
_M_o_n_t_c_r_e_Y_________ ss.
fY Of
ON September 22 ,
kfore nre, lhe undersigned, a Nolary Public ln and for said State, appemd
N1ck Marotta and Gerda Marotta (Mrs. N1ck Marotta)
------"---------------. kno1m to me,
to be the person..s.. n:!me..s- are subscribed to the f>ith!n lnstnm:::nt,
anlf to me tllat ...t..11 e-- the same
.
WITNESS my hand and officill seaL
,
116
ATTACHMENT B
Attachment B- Site Photographs
Project site - Facing west on Carpenter Street
Project site- Close-up of driveway with dimensions
1
117
ATTACHMENT B
Project Site- Facing south looking down at driveway
Project site- Facing north on Ocean Avenue
2
118
Attachment C- PC Staff Report and Amended Conditions
To:
From:
Submitted by:
Subject:
Recommendation:
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Planning Commission Report
March 11, 2014
Chair Dallas and Planning Commissioners
Rob Mullane, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director
TJ Wiseman, Contract Planner
Consideration of a Design Study application for the installation of
fiberglass windows and exterior siding changes on an existing residence
located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District.
Approve the Design Study (OS 13-146) subject to the attached conditions of approval.
Application: OS 13-146 APN: 010-033-006
Block: 64 Lot: S. X of 2, 3, 4, & 5
Location: Northwest Corner of Ocean Avenue and Carpenter Street
Applicant: Jeff Crockett
Property Owner: Cathryn Carlson
Background and Project Description:
This site is a 5,000-square foot property that is developed with a 3,476-square foot, two-story
single-family residence. The home currently has stucco siding, a composition-shingle roof, and
aluminum windows. The site is at the northwest corner of Ocean Avenue and Carpenter Street.
The proposed project consists of new, ebony- or bronze-colored fiberglass replacement
windows and sliders throughout the residence (including two windows to be enlarged and
seven new) and the addition of vertical, red-cedar slat/siding. The applicant proposes to
remove some of the excess site coverage and will repair the existing fences and decking and
install new, wood deck railings. An approval f rom the City Forester has been obtained for the
removal of two trees and the pruning of several other trees as part of this renovat ion.
Staff analysis:
Windows: Regarding window materials, Residential Desi gn Guideline 9.11 states that HWindow
styles and materials should be consistent with the architecture of the building, Hand Nmaterials
other than authentic, unclad wood ore appropriate only when it con be demonstrated that the
119
OS 13-146 (Carlson)
March 11, 2014
Staff Report
Pagel
proposed material is more appropriate to the architecture."
The architecture of any structure includes the window design and material. The Residential
Design Guidelines are specific in the preferred materials for structures to ensure residential
character and to continue a harmonious community aesthetic. Over the years, the City has
typically denied non-wood windows In favor of unclad wood. The primary reason for denial Is
that the windows are inappropriate for the style of the residence and do not meet the aesthetic
standards of the City.
The subject residence currently has aluminum windows, which are typical of its 1970s era of
construction. Staff has not had the opportunity to review a sample of the proposed windows,
but has requested the applicant bring a sample to the Commission meeting. Based on the
photos submitted, the Marvin fiberglass windows have a "metal-style" appearance (see
Attachment C) and seem to be more in keeping with the modern style of architecture of this
home. They are well Insulated, and staff notes that the darker, more-industrial appearance Is
more in keeping with the home's architecture. Staff notes that the proposed window material
may be found consistent with the City's Residential Design Guidelines if they convey a texture
similar to that of traditional materials, such as iron or bronze.
Regarding the proposed enlargement of the two existing windows and installation of seven
new windows on the north, south, and west elevations, Residential Design Guideline 9.12
states: "Locate and size windows and doors to achieve a human scale while avoiding mass and
privacy impacts." The most substantial change proposed is for the southern f a ~ a d e which
provides views across Ocean Avenue toward Point lobos. This same guideline also states:
"Provide windows on walls facing the street to help convey a human scale, add visual interest
and avoid unrelieved building mass." The existing structure is fairly imposing, and staff feels
that the addition of windows on this elevation would break up the mass and, together with the
proposed siding changes, would make the home warmer and more visually interesting.
Wood Siding: When considering the application of a vertical, red-cedar slats on this home,
several design guidelines are applicable. The Residential Design Guidelines state that for
building materials: "The tradition of using natural materials like wood and stone should be
continued." The City's regulations also encourage new architectural styles and design while
maintaining the tradition of using natural materials and quality craftsmanship.
Residential Design Guideline 9.4 states: "Avoid details that appear inauthentic, non-structural
or gratuitous to the basic architecture."
Residential Design Guideline 9.3 states: "Add details to relieve blank surfaces and achieve a
scale compatible with the building's forms and its architecture."
120
OS 13-146 (Carlson)
March 11, 2014
Staff Report
Page3
The proposed siding would be constructed on-site with cedar slats and affixed to the exterior of
the home with space for air circulation as well as to provide visual interest. Attachment D
depicts examples of the proposed cedar slats from other homes that have used this design
treatment.
While the proposed application of cedar slats ln this way could be considered gratuitous, staff
feels that the architectural style of this home warrants this treatment and would be an
improvement in the design. It would also benefit the home by providing some additional
privacy to the front (Carpenter Street) f a ~ a d e The applicant proposes the slats to be installed
as bi-fold screens which could be opened and dosed over the master bedroom window. The
applicant maintains that the proposed wood-siding treatment would become a unifying
architectural detail as wood is additionally proposed for the courtyard enclosure walt the deck
railings, the front-entry gate, and the lamp-posts.
The addition of this design element is in part for the structure to address the starkness of this
large structure and the lack of natural material in its original construction. (See Attachment E,
Site Photographs.) This screening as a design element Is consistent with its modern
architectural style.
Alternatives: The Commission has several alternatives or project revisions that could be
selected. The individual design elements (window material, window size and location, and
siding) could be approved as proposed or approved with revisions. The Commission also could
either deny the project in its entirety, or continue it with direction to the applicant on specific
changes that would be required.
Environmental Review: The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA requirements,
pursuant to Section 15301 {Class 1)- Existing Facilities. The project's limited scope presents no
substantial environmental impacts.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A -Conditions of Approval
Attachment B- Applicant Letter
Attachment C- Proposed Marvin window materials
Attachment D- Applicant supplied photos of proposed siding
Attachment E- Site Photographs
Attachment F - Project Plans
121
Attachment A- Conditions of Approval
OS 13-146 (Carlson)
March 11, 2014
conditions of Approval
Pagel
Amended and Aooroved bv PC on3/11/14
Approval Conditions
No. Standard Conditions
1. This approval constitutes Design Study and Coastal Development Permit t/
applications authorizing the following alterations to an existing residence: New
fiberglass windows and sliders, red-cedar vertical slat-siding screens on the
exterior, repair and replacement of existing decks and railings, and repair and
replace the existing wood fence. All work shall conform to the approved plans
of March 11, 2014 except as conditioned by this permit.
2. The project shall be constructed in conformance with all requirements of the tl'
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 t/
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 t/
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 t/
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 t/
any tree roots larger than two inches (2
1
') 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
122
OS 13-146 (Carlson)
March 11, 2014
Conditions of Approval
Page2
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 t/
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 5,000-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 t/
staff any proposed changes to the project plans as approved by the Planning
Commission on March 11, 2014, 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 final inspection.
9. Exterior lighting shall be limited to 25 watts or less per fixture and shall be no t/
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 non-reflective glass to minimize the amount of light and t/
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 ~ d e shall be installed in a broken course/random or similar N/A
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 N/A
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.
123
DS 13-146 (Carlson)
March 11, 2014
Conditions of Approval
Page3
13. The applicant agrees, at his or her sole expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold t/
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, 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 N/A
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. N/A
16. Approval of this Design Study shall be valid only with approval of a Variance. N/ A
17. A hazardous materials waste survey shall be required in conformance with the t/
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 t/
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.
19a. An archaeological reconnaissance report shall be prepared by a qualified N/A
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.
124
OS 13-146 (carlson)
March 11, 2014
Conditions of Approval
Page4
19b. All new construction involving excavation shall immediately cease If cultural
resources are discovered on the site, and the applicant shall notified the
Community Planning and Building Department within 24 hours. Work shall not
be permitted to recommence until such resources are properly evaluated for
significance by a qualified archaeologist. If the resources are determined to be
significant, prior to resumption of work, a mitigation and monitoring plan shall
be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and reviewed and approved by the
Community Planning and Building Director. In addition, If human remains are
unearthed during excavation, no further disturbance shall occur until the County
Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and distribution pursuant
to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98.
20. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the applicant shall provide for City
(Community Planning and Building Director in consultation with the Public
Services and Public Safety Departments) review and approval, a truck-haul route
and any necessary temporary traffic control measures for the grading activities.
The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring adherence to the truck-haul
route and implementation of any required traffic control measures.
Special Conditions
21. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy the applicant shall remove 36
square feet of site coverage as indicated on the approved plans.
22. The appl icant shall specify the design and height of the existing as well as
proposed new fence.
23. The aQQIIcant shall work with staff to reduce the existing site
coverage in the
24. The aQQiicant shall Qlant one tree on site.
*Acknowledgement and acceptance of conditions of approval.
Property Owner Signature Printed Name Date
Once signed, please return to the Community Planning and Building Department.






125
Attachmend D- PC Meeting Minutes 3/11/14
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION- MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2014
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL FOR TOUR OF INSPECTION
PRESENT: Commission Members: LePage, Paterson, and Reimers, Vice Chair
Goodhue, and Chair Dallas
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Rob Mullane, AICP, Community Planning & Building Director
Marc Wiener, Senior Planner
Bryce Ternet, Contract Planner
T. J. Wiseman, Contract Planner
Daryl Betancur, Acting Commission Secretary
D. TOUR OF INSPECTION
The Commission convened at 2:45 p.m. and then toured the following sites:
1. (DR 13-40) Greg Schultz: Lincoln 4 NE of 6tb, Block 55; Lot 14
2. (DS 13-136) Cal & Carol Daks: SW Cor. Lincoln & 3rd, Block 32; Lot 1
3. (DS 13-146) Cathryn Carlson: NE Cor. Ocean and Carpenter, Block 64; Lots 2, 3, 4 &
5
4. Gas Explosion Site: SW Cor. Guadalupe and 3rd; Block 40; Lot 1
5. (DS 13-96N A 14-01) Joan Buchanan: Acacia 4 SW ofFlanders, Block 102; Lot 22
6. (UP 14-02) Tudor Wines: NW Cor. ofMission and 7tb; Block 77, Lots 15, 17, 19 & 21
ill. ROLLCALL
Chainnan Dallas called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. All Commissioners were present.
IV. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Members of the audience joined the Commission in the pledge of allegiance.
V. ANNOUNCEMENTS/ EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS
Daryl Betancur, Deputy City Clerk, notified the public about the upcoming City election on
April 8, 2014, and announced that voters may deliver their ballots to City Hall or return
them by mail.
Planning Commission Minutes
March II, 2014
I
126
of grass-crete and wood chips elsewhere in the front that is acceptable to staff.
Amended motion seconded by Chair DALLAS and carried by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
7. DS 13-146
Cathryn Carlson
COMMISSIONERS: LEPAGE, PATERSON, GOODHUE,
REIMERS, & CHAIRMAN DALLAS
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
NW Cor. Ocean & Carpenter
Blk 64; Lots 2, 3, 4 & 5
Consideration of a Design Study application for the
installation of fiberglass windows and exterior siding
changes on an existing residence located in the
Single-Family Residential (R-1) District.
T.J. Wiseman, Contract Planner, presented the staff report and summarized the request. She
distributed a table regarding site coverage for the Commission's consideration, as this was
not included in the staff report, but excess site coverage was noted as a concern during the
Tour of Inspection. She also provided a color handout of the proposed siding to the
Commission.
The Commission had questions on the new window material.
Chair Dallas asked the applicant to address the Commission.
Cathryn Carlson, property owner/applicant, summarized the request and presented the
window sample to the Commission. She noted her concurrence with the conditions of
approval recommended by staff.
Chair Dallas opened the public hearing.
Speaker # 1 : Jerry Stefanik, builder working with applicant, spoke in support of the request.
He noted that the proposed windows would fit the style of the building better than wood
windows.
Chair Dallas asked the applicant about the trees that are proposed for removal. Ms. Carlson
pointed these out: one in the entry courtyard and an acacia tree on the Ocean A venue
frontage and that replacement plantings were not required. She also clarified for the
Commission the proposed window changes and which window was to be enlarged.
Seeing no other speakers, Chair Dallas closed the public hearing. The Commission had a
brief discussion of the request and noted overall support for the proposal. Commissioner
Goodhue had concerns regarding the aesthetic of the garage doors and would have preferred
that a redesign to the doors was included. Chair Dallas noted a preference to include a
requirement to plant one new trees. Commissioner LePage noted that the site
is currently substantially over on amount of site coverage and that a possible location for a
Planning Commission Minutes
March II, 2014
9
127
new upper-canopy tree would be near the northeast comer of the property with the removal
of some of the concrete in that area He would like to see some of the site coverage
removed. Commissioner Paterson concurred that this was an opportunity to reduce the site
coverage and that removing a substantial amount of the concrete in the driveway area would
improve the appearance of the property. He recommended a new condition of approval to
this effect.
Commissioner LEPAGE moved to accept the application with modification to the
special conditions to remove the concrete from the front of the property and work with
staff to come up with a design that substantially lessens the paving in that area and
with the additional special condition that an upper canopy tree be added in the
northeast corner of the property. Motion seconded by Commissioner PATERSON and
carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS: GOODHUE, LEPAGE, and PATERSON
COMMISSIONERS: REIMERS and CHAIR DALLAS
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Prior to the vote, the Chair asked the applicant to note concurrence with the revised special
conditions. Ms. Carlson noted her concern with the requirement to remove site coverage.
The Chair asked staff to comment on the revised conditions. Mr. Mullane noted that this
was a Design Study and therefore changes to the project or conditions of approval related to
aesthetics and better compliance with the City's Design Guidelines are appropriate. The
Chair asked the applicant if she understood and agreed to the terms of conditions set forth in
the revised special conditions. The applicant expressed that she was not sure she was in
agreement with the revised special conditions. For clarification, Mr. Mullane repeated the
motion and its revised conditions of approval. Ms. Carlson noted that she understood the
motion. After further discussion on possible options for this item, Ms. Carlson noted her
agreement with the conditions of approval and her willingness to work with staff on the
specifics of the type of material that would be used in the driveway and garage area.
8. DR 13-40
Greg Schultz
Lincoln 4 NE of 6tb
Block 55; Lot 14
Consideration of a Design Review (DR 13-40)
application for exterior alterations to a property
located in the Service Commercial (SC) Zoning
District
Mr. Wiener presented the staff report and summarized the request. He noted staff's
concerns with the outdoor fire-pits, as these could be a code compliance issue.
Chair Dallas asked the applicant to address the Commission.
Claudio Ortiz, project designer, went over the project concept and its components. He noted
the applicant's preference to have some variation in the brick pattern or design between the
proposed area of work and the adjacent courtyard to the east.
Planning Commission Minutes
Man:h 11,2014
10
1
2
8
Attachment E- Project Plans
i
Ill:

i
OCEAN
SITE PLAN
0
------ "
"'
I I
SITE DATA
"""
.,,.,...,._..
-
-LOTMEA
UIE
,TYPE OF CCHm<UCTlOH
II!!TBA-:
-=..
"""""
,__
--
....,.___.,., .... Z,M. ...
*drMr .. .._
..

---

..... _
..
.
..
......

-lf'OMMI .....
1 .. ..,
.... ,..... ,...,..
__.,.... ..... &MilA
........

"* ..... ..
..... 0..1A"'* CIV. lUA- .........
.. .....
,..._. M
'T'I'W.a.nGINn.ca-... ... ..,. ......
... M'II'ea...u... : ( ......... ........... iMf ..... ..
PRO.ECT

!l!PU.CIIf!)AU.Ift
- -
RECEIVED
MAR- 5 2014
City ol
Planning & Butldlng Oeot
"'
;; ..
I
' ...
tS
!:
s ;

z "''
0
II
u
--!n5pr
rlH

A-t
1
2
9
i
l
l
J
I
I
D
J
]

1

_
_
_
_
_

_
o
o
;
_
-
_
_

_
_
,
,

;
,

'
-
l
t

_
J
.

-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
r

I

'
I

n

I

I

I

i

c
C

I
!
'

.

7

I

1
3
0

,
.

'

"
'1

i

;

.
.

.
:
':

I

l

1
1
.

a
:
:

.
g

.
.
.
J

"
"

.
.
.
J

w

,
.
.
.
J

.
a
:
:

:
w

1
1
.

1
1
.

':
:
:
:
:

.

.
J

I

I

'
$
.

.

!

,
-

:,
.
.

"
"
'

.
.
.

!
i

.

.

-
H

I

'

-
I

.
.
.
J

i

!

I

"
"

I

1
i
.

<
.

I

1
3
1

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

I

.
.
,

I

i

i

I

<

l

1
3
2
i

I

J

!

j
"
l

.

<
:

'

;

.

1
3
3
i

,..........,.
L
-
f
:
.
:
.

.
.
Q
I
!
'r
;

O
h
l

-
.
.
:
.
:
J
=
2
l
.
-
i
?
'
:
.'-
.
;

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.
,
'

.
.
,
.

.
.
.
,
.
,

I
5

[
!

j
i

!
?
S
f

.
.
,

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.:
-

.
.

-

:

J
_

.

.
.
.

'

.
:
-
:

.
"

.

\
:
.

.
,

-
,
.

.
.

<
t
';

.
.
:

:
,

:
.
.
.
.

.
:

<
i

.

"
-
.

.
.

..
'
,

.

.

.
.
..:.
.

:

:
'

:

.
:
.'

':.
;
:

.

<
"
:
:
.
.

,
:
.:
:
.

:

_
:
:
:

'1
.

.
.


t
-
.
.

.
:

.

.

'

.

'

i

.

;
:
-
.
,
.

.

:

.
.
.
.
.

':'-
.
.

l
.
.

.
,

:

.
.
.
.

.

,

.
.

.
.:._

.
:

:

.
.

.

.
f

.

.
.
.

I

.
.

.
.

:
_
;
-.
.
.

.
.

S
N
O
i
l
V
I
\
3
1
3

D
N
i
l
S
I
X
3

;
.

e
s
i


+

-
,

.

.

.

.

'

.
.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
-
.
-
.
.
.

,

:
.

'

.
.
.
..:
..
.

J
.
;
:
,
,

.
.

.
.
.

'

.

.
.

.

"
-
I
.
'

.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I
.

.

-
:
.

.

.
.

'

,
:

:

.
.
.
.
.
.

.

.
:

-
.
.

..
.
.
.
.
.

.

-
.
(

.

.

.

.
.

.

'

.
.

.

.
.
.
.
.

-
.

r

:
-
'

,

,

.
.

h

:
'

.
.
-
.

.
.
.
.
.

,

.
.

:
.
_
:
.

.
.
.

.
.

,
-
.
.
.

:

:-
.

,
.

-
.
.

.
.

-
.
.


-.

-
'
;
,

.

-
''
i

,
.

,
-
-
..
:

,
.

,
'
'
!

,

.

,
.

.

:

.
.
.
.

.
.
;

.
.
.

-
.
.

.
.
.

:

.
.
_
-.

.
-
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
,

.
.
.
.
.

:.
.,

.

,
:
.

.
.

:
-
-
,
i

..
.

' .

.
.
.
.

-

._
,
,
.

-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
l
.
-
1

I

.
1

'

.

,

.

1
3
4
'

.

.

.
,

.


.

;
-
.

.
.

.
;
.
.

'

f

'
,
,
.
.
.

.
'.

.

.
.
.

.
.

.
.

'
.
"

;
t
o
- _
.
_
,

.
.

.

-
"
'
!
'
!
.
'
<
-

:
:
-

_
.

..-

.
.

,

.
;

.
.

.

-
:

,
.

:
\
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

:

:
:
:
.

.. .
'

:
;
.

'
.

.
.
.
...
-
.
.

:

S
N
O
l
l
Y
A
3
,
3

>
N
I
J
.
S
I
X
3

-
-
-

.

..
..

.
.
.
.
.

.

.
.

-;
.

'
.

.
.

'

.

-
:
.

,
.
.

.
,

.

'<
:
.
;
_

.

.

-
j
:

.

_
_

.

:

.,

,
\

,

"
:
<
:

\
:
-
-
.

.
.
.
.

,;;.