Download - 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
1/119
F CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Council Report
June 2, 2015
To:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City CouncilDouglas J. Schmitz, City Administrator
From: Rob Mullane, AICP, Planning and Building Director
Subject: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval ofDesign Study (DS 14-107) and the associated Coastal DevelopmentPermit for the construction of a new single-family residence located in theSingle-Family Residential (R-1), Park Overlay (P), and Beach andRiparian Overlay (BR) Zoning Districts. The application is being appealedby neighboring property owners: Heather Ryan and David Dube (HBE
Holdings, Inc).
RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of
Design Study (DS 14-107) and the associated Coastal Development Permit.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The project site is developed with a 1,322-square foot one-story
framed log cabin that was constructed in 1927. A detached one-car garage that faces San
Antonio was constructed in 1964. On May 20, 2013, the Historic Resources Board determined
that the house is ineligible for architectural significance, and a Final Determination of Historic
Ineligibility was issued on May 21, 2013.
The applicant has submitted a Design Study application (DS 14-109) to demolish the existing
residence and garage, and to construct a new 2,269-square foot one-story residence with a
partial subgrade lower level and a new detached garage. The Design Study application was
reviewed by the Planning Commission at two separate meetings. The project received
conceptual review approval on December 10, 2014, and final review approval on April 8,
2015. The Planning Commission’s approval was on a unanimously vote.
The approval is being appealed by the adjacent property owners to the north of the project
site: Heather Ryan and David Dube. The appellants’ primary concerns with the project are its
on impacts related to views, solar access, privacy, and proposed roof material. The appealapplication is included as Attachment 1. Findings for Approval of the project are included as
Attachment 2, and the project’s Conditions of Approval are included as Attachment 3.
ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION:
Project Description
The subject property is zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1) and subject to two overlay
districts: the Beach and Riparian (BR) Overlay District and the Park (P) Overlay District. The
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 1
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
2/119
proposed residence would be 2,269 square feet in size, which includes 1,468 square feet on
the main level and 801 square feet on the lower level. Staff notes that the residence is
classified as one-story because the lower level is primarily below grade. The new garage
would be partially attached to the residence by an adjoining roof element and would be 201
square feet in size. The proposed residence is designed with Modern-style architecture and
includes a combination of stucco (plaster), stone, and a single-ply Duro-Last roof. A full-color,
three-dimensional rendering of the proposed residence is included with the plan set
(Attachment 11).
Planning Commission Review and Staff Analysis
This project received Concept Review acceptance by the Planning Commission on December
10, 2014. The Commission concluded that the design of the proposed residence was
consistent with the City’s Residential Design Guidelines. The Commission also supported the
proposed flat-roof design as consistent with the Contemporary style of the residence and
important in reducing the building’s mass from public viewpoints along both Scenic Road and
San Antonio Avenue. In addition, the proposed residence is smaller in both mass and heightcompared to the adjacent residences to the north and south. With regard to views and solar
access, the proposed building set-back from Scenic Road was determined to be adequate to
help maintain the ocean views and solar access enjoyed by the adjacent residences.
Prior to the Planning Commission’s Concept Review, the appellant raised concerns regarding
the project’s design. On the December 10, 2014 Tour of Inspection, the Planning Commission
visited the appellant’s property to assess potential view impairment, solar access issues, and
privacy impacts. At the ensuing public hearing, the appellant, Ms. Ryan, and her attorney, Ms.
Kemp, provided testimony reiterating their concerns with the project. The Planning
Commission expressed general support for the proposed building design, but asked theapplicant to work with the neighbors to the north to address their concerns. The applicant met
with the representatives of the appellant prior to the April 8, 2015 Final Review hearing in an
attempt to address these concerns.
This project received Final Review approval by the Planning Commission on April 8, 2015. At
that meeting’s Tour of Inspection, the Planning Commission again reviewed the concerns of
Ms. Ryan regarding the revised design. At the April 8, 2015 Planning Commission meeting,
the applicant went over the revisions prompted by the Planning Commission’s direction at the
Concept Review meeting. The design revisions were also noted in the Final Review staff
report (See Attachment 4). At the Final Review meeting, the appellant and her attorneyprovided additional testimony, including two letters, regarding ongoing concerns with the
project (letters included in Attachment 4). The Planning Commission, however, concluded that
the revised design was satisfactory and approved the project on a 5-0 vote.
Basis for Appeal
The appeal application notes several grounds for appeal. Below is a summary of these
concerns along with staff responses.
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 2
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
3/119
1. Failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Response: As identified in the Planning Commission staff reports, the Hoffman Design Study,
a discretionary project, was found to be categorically exempt under CEQA pursuant to
Section 15302 – Replacement or Reconstruction and Section 15303 – Construction or
modification of a limited number of new or existing structures. Projects determined to be
categorically exempt do not require the preparation of more detailed environmentaldocuments.
The appellant asserts that the Hoffman project is not exempt from CEQA due to the proposed
demolition of the 1927 log cabin. On May 20, 2013, the Historic Resources Board (HRB)
reviewed the historicity of the existing residence and determined that the existing log cabin
does not constitute a significant City historic resource. Historic determinations are valid for a
period of 5 years, and therefore, the City’s historic determination for the log cabin remains
valid until May 21, 2018. The HRB’s determination included the review of a preliminary
historic analysis of the subject property. This analysis was completed by the City’s historic
preservation consultant, Kent Seavey. Mr. Seavey’s report noted that the property shouldqualify as historically significant under Criterion 3 (architecture), as it represents a significant
architectural type (log cabin), period (1927), and method of construction (engineered log
building).
Staff reviewed Mr. Seavey’s report and in the staff report for the HRB’s determination, noted:
“While the log cabin is unique and contributes to the diversity of the community, it does not
have a strong relationship to the Historic Context Statement. Additionally, there is no record of
the architect or builder, and the house has undergone numerous alterations of the years.” The
HRB concurred with this staff analysis and made the determination that the existing log cabin
was not a significant historic resource. Given this determination, which was appealable to theCity Council, the Hoffman project does not require further CEQA review under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5. Nor does the proposed demolition of the cabin result in a
significant historic impact. The City’s Determination of Ineligibility, which includes the HRB
staff report and the historian’s report is included as Attachment 8. The minutes of that meeting
are included as Attachment 9.
The appellant also asserts in the appeal correspondence that the “Hoffman project involves
excavation within 50 feet of a coastal bluff, which grading is also considered a special
circumstance, creating the potential for a significant environmental impact.” The closest
portion of the proposed residence is set back approximately 20 feet from the landward side ofScenic Road and approximately 60 feet set back from the top of the coastal bluff. It is not on
the seaward side of Scenic Road or in an area prone to bluff retreat. There is no evidence that
the proposed development will require shoreline protective structures, and the grading
associated with the Hoffman project does not present a special circumstance nor create any
unusual circumstances that would result in a potentially significant environmental impact.
Regarding grading, the Hoffman project is an infill project located on a lot zoned for single-
family residential use. Scenic Road is developed with single-family residences. Given the
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 3
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
4/119
more-restrictive height limits that apply to this area, several of these residences along Scenic
Road include subgrade spaces that involve a moderate level of grading. Standard shoring
requirements, erosion control measures, and truck haul route requirements avoid significant
environmental impacts related to grading.
In the P Overlay District, the only regulation that applies to bluff protection includes the
requirement that a drainage plan be prepared to prevent erosion and excess runoff asdetermined by the Building Official. A preliminary drainage plan is included on the Site Plan
(Attachment 11, Sheet A1.1), and a standard requirement of Building Permit issuance is a
final drainage plan included with the construction plan set for review and approval by the
Building Official. The design of discharge structures is reviewed to ensure that the design
does not result in the creation of undue erosion.
Finally, CMC Section 17.20.170 Application Content – Additional Requirements is not
applicable to this project. This section states that permit applications for development on
ocean-fronting parcels are required to provide (where applicable) an erosion control plan and
geology report. As stated above, the project site is on the landward side of Scenic Road; it isnot an ocean-front parcel.
2. The Project violates the City Design Guidelines and City Zoning Code.
A. Roof Elevations and Plate Heights
Regarding roof elevations and plate heights, the appellant asserts that the interior plate
heights and exterior roof elevations violate the City Design Guidelines and Zoning Code. The
appellant also asserts that the proposed flat roof is inconsistent with the City’s Residential
Design Guidelines.
Response: Staff has the following responses:
Roof Design: With regard to roof design, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed flat
roofs and determined that it was consistent with the Residential Design Guideline 8.3, which
states: “Flat roofs may be used to a limited extent on smaller, one-story structures. They
should not be used on large buildings or two-story elements.”
Plate and Ridge Heights: Residential Design Guideline 7.7 states: “Using a low building plate
height is encouraged. The maximum plate height for the first floor of a building is 12 feet. (See
the Land Use Code for details.) However, this maximum is established to accommodatesloping building sites. In cases where a building site is relatively flat, a lower plate height is
appropriate. Interior wall heights should generally not exceed 8 feet.” The subject property
(within the proposed building envelope) slopes from east to west approximately 10 feet. In
approving the project, the Commission did not require a reduction in plate heights in part
because of the project site’s slope. CMC Section 17.10.030 B. Height Limits establishes a
maximum of 12-foot plate heights for the first story. Regarding ridge height standards, the BR
Overlay District establishes a maximum of 18 feet for ridge height above the existing or
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 4
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
5/119
finished grade, whichever results in a lower height. As identified in the Final Review staff
report, the Hoffman project does not exceed this height limit.
Building Mass: Residential Design Guideline 5.3 states: “Locate major building masses to
maintain some views through the site from other properties;” and “Consider keeping the mass
of a building low in order to maintain views through the site from other properties.” As noted in
the staff report for the project’s Concept Review, the mass and bulk of the proposedresidence is reduced by locating the lower level partially below existing grade; and the
proposed residence is substantially smaller in both mass and height compared to the adjacent
residences.
Preservation of Views, Open Space, and Solar Access:
View protection requirements within the BR Overlay District stipulate that development be
sited and designed to protect public views of the ocean and scenic coastal areas, be visually
compatible with the character of the surrounding areas, and (where feasible) restore and
enhance the visual quality in visually-degraded areas, while ensuring the private propertyowner reasonable development of land. The proposed residence is set back 38 feet from
Scenic Road on the north side of the property in order to maintain ocean views and light
currently provided to the northern neighbor. Between the conceptual and final reviews, the
project was revised in an attempt to address the appellants’ concerns. A list of the design
revisions incorporated into the final design is provided in the Final Review staff report (See
Page 3 of Attachment 4).
B. Plastic Roofing Material.
The appellant objects to the proposed Duro-Last stone-pattern roofing material and its
visibility from neighboring properties.
Response: In review of the project, staff noted that the proposed roofing material was
potentially inconsistent with the Residential Design Guideline 9.8, which states: “Metal, plastic
and glass roofs are inappropriate in all neighborhoods.” While natural roofing materials are
recommended by the Guidelines, the Planning Commission has reviewed, and at times
approved, alternative synthetic-roofing materials if the materials are consistent with the
architectural style of the building and fit within the context of the neighborhood. In this
instance, the Commission was supportive of the proposed material. However, as the appellant
asserts, the visibility of the proposed roofing material may be greater than what was
presented to the Commission. As such, the City Council may require the applicant to revise
the roofing material to one that is more consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines.
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 5
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
6/119
3. Failure to Provide Adequate Safeguards for the Ryan/Dube Property Including
Lack of Volume Calculation, Grading/Lack of Geology and Geotechnical Reports,
and Elevation and Setback Confirmation
A. Lack of Volume Calculation:
The appellant asserts that the project fails to provide adequate safeguards regarding volumerequirements, grading, and elevation and setback confirmation.
Response: It is standard City procedure to require the volume study to be conducted after the
Final Design is approved by the Planning Commission. After the Design Study was approved
on April 8, 2015, staff contracted with City volumetrics consultant, Bill Vasilovich, to calculate
volume and prepare the analysis. The Hoffman project was found to meet the City’s volume
requirements.
B. Grading/Lack of Geology or Geotech Reports
Response: The City requires a Grading Plan to be submitted with the Plan set for a DesignStudy application. The grading plan should note areas of proposed cut and fill yardage
amounts. The Grading Plan identifies less than 15 cubic yards of cut and 15 cubic yards of fill
on-site in areas outside of the footings. In addition, less than 2 cubic yards of cut and 2 cubic
yards of fill are identified for off-site grading of the new driveway in the San Antonio ROW.
The applicant has provided information on the grading required for the excavation of the lower
level: 296 cubic yards. For grading that involves export or import of soil, the City has a
standard requirement for utilization of a City-approved truck haul route.
Technical engineering studies, such as geotechnical reports and shoring plans, are generally
not required for Design Review applications. During the review of the Building Permit, theBuilding Official reviews the plans for any necessary technical engineering studies.
C. Elevation and Setback Configuration
The applicant requests that the City condition the project to require the applicant to provide a
Certificate of Survey to verify roof heights and building setbacks.
Response: Staff does not support the addition of such a condition. The applicant may,
however, agree to provide this accommodation to the appellant, and if so, such a condition
could be applied.
4. Discrepancies in the Plans.
The appellant is concerned about possible discrepancies in roof elevations, the design of the
north facing windows, and site coverage and FAR issues. The appellant states that the roof
elevations shown on the plans state “to eaves” and are inaccurately represented as the
maximum roof elevations.
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 6
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
7/119
A. Roof Elevations
Response: Staff accepted the depiction of the maximum roof height elevations to be
identified as the top of each roof eave or “to eave.” Each flat-roof element will be
approximately 2-inches higher at the center of the element to allow for proper storm-water
drainage. The applicant indicated to staff that this 2-inch deviation, which is limited to the
center of each roof element, would not be seen from ground level. Special Condition #25 hasbeen added to clarify the roof elevations and ensure that the peak roof heights do not exceed
the “to eave” heights.
B. North Facing Windows
Response: The appellant stated that the window schedule (See Attachment 11, Sheet A4.1)
does not reflect the revision in the number and location of windows as shown on the North
Elevation drawings (Attachment 11, Sheet A3.1). Staff notes that the applicant does need to
update the window schedule, which staff will ensure is corrected when the construction
drawings are submitted for review by planning staff. Staff did not require the north facingwindows to be a specific distance from the main level finished floor; however the location of
these windows will need to be consistent with the elevation drawings approved by the
Planning Commission. Special Condition #26 has been added to ensure that the construction
plan set is revised to include the correct window schedule.
C. Site Coverage - FAR
The appellant asserts that a 190-square foot bonus area (See Attachment 11, Sheet A2.0)
extends into an open space or yard area outside the building foot print and therefore does
qualify as bonus floor area. The bonus floor area is actually 100 square feet. CMC
17.10.030.D.4.c. does require bonus floor area to be located within the perimeter established
by the exterior, above-ground walls of the primary dwelling site. As shown on the plans, the
applicant has identified the 100-square foot area, and this area is located directly under the
main level within the building footprint. Therefore, the 100-square foot bonus area identified
on the Lower Level Floor Plan does qualify as bonus floor area, and the remaining 90-square
foot adjustment is for stairs, which also is consistent with the City’s requirements.
Alternative Options
This hearing is a de novo hearing. The Council is responsible for reviewing the entire project
and is not bound by the decision of the Planning Commission. The December 10, 2014(Concept Review) and April 8, 2015 (Final Review) Planning Commission staff reports are
included as Attachments 4 and 6 for the City Council’s consideration. Attachments 5 and 7
include the minutes of these respective meetings. Based on the Planning Commission’s
action and an analysis of the components of the appeal, staff recommends that the City
Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval. Draft Findings for
Approval and Conditions of Approval are included as Attachments 2 and 3 respectively.
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 7
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
8/119
Alternative 1: In upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of Design Study (DS 14-
107), the Council may include additional or revised conditions of approval. As discussed
above, the Council may consider conditioning the project to require different roofing material.
Alternative 2: The Council could grant the appeal and deny Design Study (DS 14-107).
Findings for Denial of the Design Study would be brought to the Council at a future meeting
for adoption.
FISCAL IMPACT:
In compliance with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program, the City does not collect a fee
of when an appeal to the City Council is filed for a property within the Coastal Commission
Appeal Jurisdiction. The staff-time costs to process the appeal are paid out of the City’s
General Fund.
Budgeted (yes/no) Funding Source( general fund, grant,
state)No General Fund
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION/DECISION HISTORY:
Design Study (DS 14-107) was considered by the Planning Commission on 12/10/14 and
4/8/15. The Commission approved the Design Study on 4/8/15 by a vote of 5-0.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Appeal Application
Attachment 2 – Findings for Approval (Denial of Appeal)
Attachment 3 – Conditions of Approval
Attachment 4 – 4/8/15 PC Final Staff Report and Appellant Team Correspondence
Attachment 5 – 4/8/15 PC Minutes
Attachment 6 – 12/10/14 PC Concept Staff Report
Attachment 7 – 12/10/14 PC Minutes
Attachment 8 – Determination of Ineligibility with HRB staff report and historian report
Attachment 9 – 5/20/13 HRB minutes
Attachment 10 – Site Photographs
Attachment 11 – Project Plans and Three-Dimensional Rendering
Attachment 12 – Recent Correspondence from the Appellant Team
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 8
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
9/119
APPROVED:
____________________________________ Date: ________________
Douglas J. Schmitz, City Administrator
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 9
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
10/119
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 10
ATTACHMENT #1
CITY
OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
City of Carmel-by-the-Se
APR
2 2
2015
PPE L
OF PLANNING CO:M1v1ISSION DECISION
Received
FILING FEE:
~
~ o t f 8 2
Appellant: Heather Ryan David Dube (HBE Holdings, Inc.)
Property Owner:
_S_am_e
_
as
_ ab__v_e.
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ __
_______
_ _
Mailing Address:
c
/o
Christine Kemp, Noland, Hamerly, Etienne Hoss 470 Camino El Estero
Monterey, CA 93940
Phones: Day: 831) -.:.
7-'--_3_622
____ Evening:
306)
_2_4_ _ 7_2
0_0
_ _ _ _
Fax :
83 1) 649-3043
Email: [email protected] [email protected]
Date Board heard the matter: _A_ _p
_r_
8 :
_2_0_15_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _
Appeals to the City Council must be made in writing in the office
of
he City Clerk within
10 working days
following
the date o action by the
lanning
Commission andpaying
the required il ing fee as established by City Council resolution
Physical location of property that is the subject of appeal :
San Antonio
3NW
of 13th
Lot s
:
-Po=r-'- 4 Block:
A5
- ' - ' - - - - - -
AP
N:
010-292-006
COMMISSION ACTION BEING APPEALED: April 8, 2015 Planning Commission Approval
o f D S
_ 0 7 ~ ~ ~ ~
If you were NOT the original applicant or the applicanfs representative, please state the
evidence that you are
an
aggrieved party:
Appellant appeared at the Planning Commission
hearing on the o f f m a n Project. Appellant owns property (010-292-005) immediately north of the
Hoffman project. Appellants' property will be impacted by the Hoffman Project.
CONTINUED ON REVERSE
SIDE)
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
11/119
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 11
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.)
See attached
I CERTIFY
UNDER PENALTY OF
PERJURY
THAT THE FOREGOING
IS
TRUE
AND
CORRECT:
D A T E D A T j ~ T H I S ~ D Y O F Aenr{ l ~
N/A Coastal Zone
295.00 fee* received:
(Staff
Initial)
Receipt :
ATTEST
:
(JXtJJ/)A)
City Clerk
*Article 9, Section 7,
of he
Constitution
of
he 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
n
the
City of a r m e l b t h e 8 ~ s
Council agenda packet,
the
materials
must e
submitted to
the City
Clerk by 2f
working days after
the
decision
of
the
Commission.
This
matter is tentatively scheduled to be heard
on
_
_W
:l
S
dotaC/m
OwndVAPPI A
L
PLANMNG
FORM doe
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
12/119
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 12
Appellant Heather Ryan/David Dube
Applicant Hoffman DS-14-107) and
Associated Coastal Development Permit
Grounds for Appeal
1
Failure to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA)
The City exempted the Hoffman project from CEQA review. The Hoffman project
involves the total demolition
of
the
1927log
cabin cottage
on
the site. Kent Seavey, the City' s
Historical Consultant, prepared an historic survey
of
the property, finding the cottage to be
historic.
Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15064.5 the demolition
of
any structure which may qualify
as historic under a wide range
of
criteria, is per se, deemed a potential significant environmental
impact for which heighted CEQA review is required. Additionally, the Hoffman project
involves excavation within 50 feet of a coastal bluff, which grading is also a special
circumstance, creating the potential for a significant environmental impact.
The Hoffman project is not exempt from CEQA and an Initial Study must be done to
determine the appropriate level
of
CEQA review and required mitigations.
2. The Project Violates the City Design Guidelines and City Zoning Code
A. oof Elevations and Plate Heights
The interior plate heights of 9' -8 and '-8 and exterior roofelevations
of
54' -7 and
56'-7 violate the City Design Guidelines and Zoning Code
in
that:
The City' s Residential Design Guidelines specifically disfavor the use of flat roofs, as
well
as
, the use
of
high interior plate heights, encouraging the use
oflow
plate heights no higher
than 8' to reduce the height
of
exposed walls. (See Guidelines 7.7; 8.3; 8.4 and 8.5). This project
violates these guidelines, not only with its flat roof, but also with its very high interior plate
heights. When specifically questioned
by
the Commission
if
the 8' plate height was a
requirement, staff stated it was a minimum not a maximum.
The City Design Guidelines disfavor a large expansive building mass and require the
preservation
of
open space and access to light between properties (See Guidelines 7.1 and 7.3)
and requi
re
maintaining the mass
of
buildings low to maintain views over the structure (See
Guideline 5.3).
City Code Section 17.10.010 (D) requires that buildings not present excess visual mass
or
bulk to adjoining properties and that plate heights
be
kept as close to grade
as
possible.
In
this
case, the flat roof and solid mass ofwall creates a large solid mass when viewed from the
Ryan/Dube property. In addition the project has very high plate heights of
9'8
and
11
' 8 , well
21
42
6\0
00
\589708.1
42
215
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
13/119
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 13
above the recommended 8' plate heights.
City Code Section 17.10.010 (F) requires that designs preserve reasonable access to light,
air, and open space for surrounding properties, as well as avoid taller bulky buildings near an
adjoining site that is already partially boxed in
by
previous development. In this case, the flat
roof
and solid mass
of
wall creates a large solid mass blocking sun and light and views
of
the sky
and trees from the Ryan/Dube property.
City Code Section 17.10.010 (G) requires that designs respect the privacy
of
neighbors,
including the placement
of
windows. In this case, the north facing windows face into the
Ryan/Dube property.
City Code Section 17.10.010 (H) requires that the design
of
structures
be
coordinated
with open space to enhance the City's park-like environment and that open space is a shared
community resource. In this case, the flat roof and solid mass
of
wall creates a large solid mass
blocking views
of
the sky and trees from the Ryan/Dube property.
City Code Section 17.10.010 (K) requires that private views
be
protected and that
buildings which substantially eliminate an existing view enjoyed by another owner should be
avoided. In this case, the flat roof
and solid mass
of
wall creates a large solid mass, blocking the
Ryan/Dube's existing view of the sky and trees from their property, as well
as
blocking the
Ryan/Dube existing ocean view over the existing Hoffman house from the eastern portion of
their garden.
The property is in the Beach Overlay which, pursuant to City Code Section 17 20.160(A),
requires enhanced public view protection, yet this project violates this code section
by
cutting
off
the public view
of
the ocean and point from San Antonio, as well as the eastern side of the
Ryan/Dube property.
City Code Section 17.20.170(B) requires a geologic report be submitted with this
application, yet, in violation of
this requirement, there is no geological
on
file for the project, nor
any requirement as to how soil stability
or
shoring will
be
done to protect the Hoffman property,
the City's property,
or
the surrounding properties.
To reduce the visual, shade, and boxed in impacts to the Ryan/Dube property, the plate
heights should be reduced to from 9 ' -8 to 9' -0 for the main roof and from 11
'-8
to 10' -6 for
the upper roof; with the exterior roof elevations reduced to from
54'-
7 to 53 ' -11 for the main
roof and
56'
-7 to
55
'
5
for the upper roof.
B Plastic Roofing Material
The Hoffman project was approved with a non-conventional Duro-Last plastic membrane
roof with polymer coating. Only a tiny sample
of
the roofing material was given to the Planning
Commission. When questioned
by the Commission
if
this material would be seen
by
the public,
staff
or
the applicant stated, No , but, in fact, the roofwill be seen from San Antonio,
as
well
as, from the second story
of
the Ryan/Dube home. The plastic roofing material is highly
reflective and not
in
keeping with the natural materials required
by
the City.
21426\000\589708.1 :42215
2
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
14/119
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 14
Conventional non-reflective roofing material should
be
required for the project
3. Failure to Provide Adequate Safeguards for the Ryan Dube Property
A. Lack
of
Volume Calculation
Despite the high plate heights and ceilings and flat roof, there was no Exterior
Volume calculation done as required by City Code Section 17.10.030.D.3
B. Grading/Lack ofGeology and Geotechnical Reports
The Hoffman project involves significant excavation in close proximity to the Ryan/Dube
property and home. There was more protection given to t
he
roots
of
the tree on site as well as
potential impact to archeological resources than there was to grading impacts on the Ryan/Dube
property. There are no geological
or
geotechnical reports on file for the project, nor any
requirement as to how the required shoring will
be
done to protect the Ryan/Dube property. This
excavation could have serious consequences on Ryan/Dube property.
The following conditions should be added to the revised project to address this issue:
Require Preparation of a Geological Report, Geotechnical Report, and Shoring
Plan prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
Require the Shoring Plan to
be
approved by a licensed structural engineer on
behalfof Ms. Ryan and Mr. Dube to protect the Ryan Dube property.
C Elevation and Setback Confirmation
Additionally, because the project is height and set back sensitive, the following condition
should
be
added to assure conformance with the approved plans:
Provide a Certificate of Survey to confirm the upper
roof
and lower
roof
elevations match the elevations stated herein, and that property setbacks along the
north side, match the setbacks shown on the 3/17/2015 plans. In addition, the
44'-
0 main finished floor elevation shall be confirmed
by
a Certificate of Survey for
which Ms. Ryan will pay.
4. Discrepancies in the Plans
A.
oof
Elevations
The
roof
elevations shown
on
the plans state to "eaves", yet the elevations are
represented to
be
the maximum
roof
elevations. To address this issue, confirmation that the
roof
elevations are the maximum
roof
elevations, not
just
eave elevations, is required.
21426\000\589708.1 2215
3
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
15/119
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 15
B. North Facing Windows
The window specification sheet does not match the windows shown on the plans. To
address this issue, require the north facing windows to a singular window with a glazing height
of
no higher than
6'-8
from the main level finished floor.
C
Site Coverage FAR
The plans have a credit for 190
sf
of bonus area in the Site Coverage and Floor Area
calculations, yet under City Code Section
17
.10.030.D.4, the lower portion
of
the house should
not be considered a basement
or
bonus area because the lower portion of the house extends into
an outside yard area.
21426\000\589708 1 :42215
4
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
16/119
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
DS 14-107
Carl and Mary Hoffman
San Antonio 4 NW of 13th
Block: A5, Lots: S portion of 4
APN: 010-292-006
CONSIDERATION:
Consideration of Final Design Study (DS 14-107) and associated Coastal Development Permit
application for the construction of a new residence located in the Single-Family Residential (R-
1), Park Overlay (P), and Beach and Riparian (BR) Overlay Zoning Districts
RECITALS:
1. The project site is located on San Antonio 4 parcels northwest of San Antonio Avenue.
The property is a double-frontage lot, fronting on both San Antonio Avenue and Scenic
Road. The site is developed with a 1,322-square foot single-family residence. The project
site is located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1), Park Overlay (P), and Beach and
Riparian (BR) Overlay Zoning Districts.
2. The applicant applied for a Design Study (DS 14-107) application on September 29,2014, to demolish the existing one-story residence and detached garage and construct a
new one-story residence and detached garage (attached only by a partial roof).
3. The Planning Commission accepted the design concept on December 10, 2014. The
Planning Commission approved the Design Study and associated Coastal Development
Permit application on April 8, 2015 subject to findings and conditions.
4. An Appeal of Planning Commission’s decision was filed by a neighboring residents,
Heather Ryan and David Dube (HBE holdings, Inc), on April 22, 2015. The grounds for the
appeal as asserted by the appellant include impacts related to CEQA, violations of the
City’s Residential Design Guidelines and Zoning Code, failure to provide adequate
safeguards, and discrepancies in the plans.
5. The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA requirements, pursuant to
Section 15302 (Class 2) – Replacement of an existing structure where the new structure
will be located on the same site as the structure replaced. The proposed new residence
does not present any unusual circumstances that would result in a potentially significant
environmental impact.
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 16
ATTACHMENT #2
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
17/119
DS 14-107 (Hoffman)
June 2, 2015
Findings for Approval
Page 2
FINDINGS FOR DECISION
FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR FINAL DESIGN STUDY APPROVAL (CMC 17.64.8 and LUP Policy P1-45)
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 permits and/or variances consistent with the zoningordinance.
✔
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. Throughthe 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.
✔
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.
✔
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 17
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
18/119
DS 14-107 (Hoffman)
June 2, 2015
Findings for Approval
Page 3
8. The proposed architectural style and detailing are simple and restrained incharacter, consistent and well integrated throughout the building and
complementary to the neighborhood without appearing monotonous or 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 carefullydesigned 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.
✔
Beach and Overlay District Findings
13. The combined area contained within all setbacks is at least equal to the area of
the lot that would be included within setbacks if the special beach setback
established in subsection (B)(9) of this section were applied (i.e., achieving no net
loss of setback area.
N/A
14. A minimum width of at least three feet will be maintained for the full length of
all setbacks. ✔
15. By reducing any setbacks the proposed structure will not interfere with safe
access to other properties in the neighborhood or otherwise result in damage or
injury to the use of other adjoining properties.
N/A
16. Structures proposed for construction within reduced setback areas will be
compatible with the residential character of the neighborhood and will exhibit a
human scale without excessive building bulk or visual mass.
N/A
17. The proposed setbacks afford maximum protection for the adjoining parklands
for the benefit of the public while still accommodating reasonable development ofthe property.
N/A
18. The proposed setbacks are designated on an approved plan attached to the
permit or on a scenic easement for purposes of documentation and recordation. ✔
Park Overlay District Findings
19. The proposed setbacks afford maximum protection for the adjoining parklands
for the benefit of the public while still accommodating reasonable development of
the property.
N/A
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 18
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
19/119
DS 14-107 (Hoffman)
June 2, 2015
Findings for Approval
Page 4
Coastal Development Findings (CMC 17.64.B.1):
20. Local Coastal Program Consistency: The project conforms with the certified Local
Coastal Program of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. ✔
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 19
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
20/119
Conditions of Approval No. Standard Conditions
1. Authorization: This approval of Design Study (DS 14-107) authorizes the
demolition of an existing 1,322-square foot residence and garage, and the
construction of a new 2,269-square foot residence, which includes 1,468 square
feet on the main level and 801 square feet on the lower level (bonus floor area
includes 90 square feet for stairs and a 100-square foot basement bonus floor
area), the construction of a 210-square foot garage, and the installation of 731
square feet of new site coverage. Finish materials include a combination of
plaster, limestone veneer, and a single-ply Duro-Last roof. The residence shall be
consistent with the June 2, 2015 approved plan set.
✔
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, if proposed, 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,
✔
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 20
ATTACHMENT #3
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
21/119
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 dripline 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 5,302-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 approved project plans 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 (incandescent equivalent,
i.e., 375 lumens) per fixture and shall be no higher than 10 feet above the
ground. Landscape lighting shall be limited to 15 watts (incandescent
equivalent, i.e., 225 lumens) 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
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 façade 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.
N/A
12. The applicant shall install unclad wood framed windows. Windows that have
been approved with divided lights shall be constructed with fixed wooden
N/A
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 21
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
22/119
mullions. Any window pane dividers, which are snap-in, 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 anyliability; 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
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 a Variance. N/A
17. A hazardous materials waste survey shall be required in conformance with theMonterey 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.
✔
19a. 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
N/A
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 22
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
23/119
Planning Commission.
19b. All new construction involving excavation shall immediately cease if cultural
resources are discovered on the site, and the applicant shall notified theCommunity 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.
✔
21. All conditions of approval for the Planning permit(s) shall be printed on a full-
size sheet and included with the construction plan set submitted to the Building
Safety Division.
✔
Special Conditions
23. On the construction plan set, the applicant shall revise the landscape plan,
replacing one of the Japanese Maple trees with a 15 gallon (minimum size) Coast
live oak and add a note stating that all ivy shall be removed from the site.
✔
24. On the Grading Plan submitted with the construction plan set, the applicant
shall identify the southernmost perimeter of the on-site grading area to be
excavated for the south-end of the terrace, and shall add a note regarding the
requirement for hand-excavation that states, “Prior to initiating excavation, the
City Forester shall be notified prior to commencement of excavation. This area,
along the southernmost perimeter, shall be carefully hand-excavated. The
applicant shall notify the City Forester if any roots, 2-inches or greater, are
discovered. At the time hand-excavation is completed, contact the City Forester
for an inspection prior to commencing construction.”
✔
25. Prior to approval of the Building Permit, the applicant shall include on the
construction plan seta note indicating the peak roof heights and noting that
these shall not exceed the “to eave” heights by more than 2 inches.
✔
26. Prior to approval of the Building Permit, the applicant shall provide on the
construction plan set a revised window schedule that conforms to the window
number and locations as should on the approved North Elevation drawings.
✔
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 23
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
24/119
*Acknowledgement and acceptance of conditions of approval.
______________________ __________________ __________Property Owner Signature Printed Name Date
Once signed, please return to the Community Planning and Building Department.
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 24
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
25/119
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 25
ATTACHMENT #4
To
From:
Submitted by:
Subject:
Recommendation:
CITY OF
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Planning Commission Report
April 8, 2015
Chair Goodhue and Planning Commissioners
Rob Mullane, AICP, Community Planning
and
Building Director
Christy Sabdo, Contract Planner
Consideration of Final Design Study DS 14-107) and associated Coasta l
Development Permit for the construction
of
a new residence located in
the Single-Family Residential R-1),
Park
Overlay P), and
Beach
and
Riparian
BR)
Overlay Zoning Districts
Approve the Design Study
OS
14-107) and
the
associated Coastal Development Permit subject
to the attached findings and conditions
Application: OS 14-107 Hoffman)
Block: AS
Location: San Antonio 4 NW of 13th
Property Owners: Carl and ary Hoffman
Background and Project Description:
APN: 010-292-006
Lot: S portion of 4
Applicant : Craig Holdren, Architect
The project site is located on San Antonio Street four parcels northwest
of
13th Avenue. The
5,659-square foot property is developed with a one-story framed log cabin that w
as
constructed in 1927 and that is clad
with
engineered horizontal-log siding. A detached garage
that
was constructed in 1964 faces San Antonio, and
the
residence faces Scenic. On May 20,
2013, the Historic Resources Board determined that the house
is
ineligible
for
architectural
significance, and a Final Determination of Historic Ineligibility was issued on May 21, 2013.
The existing site coverage consists of an asphalt driveway, brick and stone walkways, stone and
paver patios, and a wood deck. The site is accessed from the San Antonio property frontage.
The portion of the San Antonio Right-of-Way
ROW)
between the front property line and the
edge of pavement is largely unimproved, although there is an asphalt driveway, shrubs and a
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
26/119
28” Monterey Cypress. The portion of the Scenic ROW fronting the rear of the property is also
unimproved except for a row of shrubs.
The owner has submitted plans to demolish the existing 864-square foot, one-story residence
along with the 458-square foot detached garage; and to construct a new Modern one-story
residence with a partial subgrade lower level and a new one-car attached (via a roof extension)
garage. The proposed residence would be 2,079 square feet in size, including 1,378 square feet
on the main floor and 701 square feet on the lower floor/partial subgrade. There would also be
100-square feet of basement bonus floor area, and the new garage would be 210 square feet in
size. All existing site coverage would be removed and replaced with new site coverage.
The individual components of the applicant's proposal include:
1) the demolition of the existing one-story residence and detached garage2) the removal of all existing site coverage
3) the construction of a new 2,079-square foot one-story residence that includes a 1,378-
square foot main level and a 701-square foot partial subgrade lower level in addition to
100 square feet of basement bonus floor area
4) the construction of a new 210-square foot garage
5) the installation of 731 square feet of new site coverage including a Carmel stone entry
patio, paver patio, stone walkways, retaining walls and stairs, deck, and paver driveway
The proposed residence is designed in a Modern-style architecture and includes a combinationof stucco (plaster), stone, and a single-ply Duro-Last roof. A detailed description of the exterior
finish materials is provided in the staff analysis. The applicant will present a three-dimensional
color rendering at the Planning Commission meeting.
The Planning Commission reviewed this project on December 10, 2014, and had concerns with
the finish materials for the proposed residence, including the type of limestone veneer, the
quality and look of the proposed painted wood, and the design of the tempered glass gate
north of the garage, visible from San Antonio. The Planning Commission described the
proposed Concept Design as reasonable with minimal privacy impacts, if any; however theapplicant was asked to work with the neighbor to the north to minimize any privacy concerns.
The Planning Commission suggested different ways to maintain privacy for the neighbor’s
courtyard, such as reducing portions of the plate heights and shifting portions of the high roof
element or the entire residence south. The Planning Commission approved the Concept Design,
but asked that the applicant work with staff and owners to the north to explore any further
ways to minimize the effect of the north wall and its proximity to the setback, and move the
high roof element to the south as proposed. The applicant has revised the design to address the
recommendations made by the Planning Commission, as discussed below.
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 26
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
27/119
Staff analysis:
Previous Hearing: The following is a list of recommendations made by the Planning
Commission and a staff analysis on how the applicant has or has not revised the design tocomply with the recommendations:
1. The applicant shall work with staff and property owners to the north to explore any
further ways to minimize the effect of the north wall and its proximity and setback from
the residence to the north; and the high roof element shall be moved to the south.
Analysis: The applicant has met on the site and has been in communication with the neighbors
to the north, Mr. and Mrs. Ryan, as well as their attorney, Ms. Christine Kemp, and their
architect, Mr. Jun Sillano. The applicant has made the following revisions since the Concept
Design stage, in response to Mr. and Mrs. Ryan’s concerns with the Concept Design proposal:
• Moved the proposed new residence to the south by 1-ft 1-in, so that the minimum
setback from the north property line is 4-ft 2-in (originally 3-ft 1-in)
•
Dropped the height of the main roof (low roof) by 3-inches (from 54-ft 10-in to 54-ft 7-
in)
• Dropped the height of the high roof, located over the living room, by 1-in (from 56-ft 8-
in to 56-ft 7-in)
• Shifted a portion of the higher roof (living room) to the south by 7-ft 4-in so that it aligns
with the middle pilaster of the dining room on the west elevation
• Along the north elevation, eliminated the clere-story windows at the master bedroom,
bathroom, powder room, and laundry room
• Along the north elevation, eliminated all windows at the kitchen and dining room
• All remaining five windows along the north elevation will have window headers that are
no higher than 7-ft from the 44-ft finished floor level
• Added two 3-ft by 2-ft skylights over the kitchen, since kitchen and dining room
windows along the north elevation were eliminated
• Ensured that roof slope will not exceed 2%
•
Along the north elevation, limited the width of the eaves on the upper and lower
elevations to no more than 4-in
In addition, the Hoffmans allowed Jon Hagemeyer, a surveyor hired by the Ryans, to verify that
the staking and netting on the subject property was accurate. Ms. Christine Kemp, the Ryans’
attorney, conveyed to City staff and the applicant that based on the surveyor’s results, there
were errors in the staking distances and pole heights. City staff suggested that the applicant
team make any necessary corrections at least 10-days prior to the public hearing date to
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 27
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
28/119
address potential staking errors. On Friday, March 20, 2015, the applicant’s surveyor re-staked
the property. Staff notes that the staking and ribbon is intended to be help staff, the
Commission, and potentially-affected neighbors to better evaluate view and privacy impacts.
While it is helpful to have the staking as accurate as possible (within reason), a perfect
representation of the staking and netting is challenging and not a requirement under the City’s
Municipal Code.
Overall, the applicant has revised the proposed project in response to the Planning
Commission’s recommendation to work with the neighbor to the north. Staff supports the
applicant’s changes as they are responsive to the neighbors’ concerns regarding privacy, light,
and visual impacts.
PROJECT DATA FOR THE 5,659 SQUARE FOOT SITE:
Site Considerations Allowed Existing Proposed
Floor Area 2,359 sf (42%) 1,322 sf (23.4%) –
Demolition proposed
2,079 sf residence*
210 sf garage
Site Coverage* 745 sf (13.2%)* 978 sf 731 sf (12.9%)
Trees (upper/lower) 4/3 (recommended) 1/0 1/2
Ridge Height (Main floor) 18 ft (Beach and
Overlay District)
15 ft 7 in 16 ft 3 in
Plate Height (Main floor) 12 ft/ 18 ft 12 ft 2 in 15 ft 4 in
Setbacks Minimum Required Existing Proposed
Front Yard**
San Antonio Ave.
Scenic Rd.
15 ft
15 ft
15 ft
33 ft 6 in
15 ft
15 ft 9 in
Composite Side Yard 10 ft (25%) 15 ft 3 in (38%) 10 ft (25%)
Minimum Side Yard 3 ft 3 ft 3 in 4 ft 2 in (north)
3 ft 4 in (garage, south)
Rear n/a n/a n/a
*Includes 100 sf of bonus floor area that qualifies as a basement
2. The applicant shall install one-lower canopy tree from the City’s recommended tree list
and remove all ivy from the site.
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 28
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
29/119
Analysis: The applicant is proposing two new 6-in lower canopy Japanese Maple trees. The City
Forester is recommending that one of the proposed Japanese Maple trees be replaced with a
15-gallon Coast live oak. Staff has added a Condition of Approval regarding the Coast live oak
tree as well as a requirement that all ivy be removed from the site.
3. Prior to Final Design Review by the Planning Commission, the applicant shall work with
the City Forester to determine the appropriate actions for minimizing over excavation in
the southwest corner of the property where the stepped terrace is proposed.
Analysis: As shown on the Proposed Site Plan during Concept Design Review, grading is
proposed at the southwest corner of the subject property for the purpose of installing a
stepped terrace. The grading for the terrace encroaches within the no cut/fill area identified by
the City Forester for a 33” Monterey Cypress tree. The City Forester asked the applicant toprovide exploratory hand excavation in the area of concern. Prior to the Planning Commission
meeting, the hand excavation was prepared and inspected by the City Forester. As a result, staff
has added a Condition of Approval in order to ensure that excavation along the southernmost
perimeter of the area to be excavated for the terrace is hand-excavated. In addition, the
Condition of Approval would require the contractor to notify the City Forester prior to
commencing the hand-excavation as well as if any roots over 2-in or greater are uncovered
during excavation.
Other Project Components:
Finish Details: The City’s Residential Design Guidelines state: “Stucco, in conjunction with some
natural materials, may be considered depending on neighborhood character but should not be
repeated to excess within a block .” In regard to stone: “The application of stone should appear
structural and authentic. A gratuitous or purely decorative appearance should be avoided .” In
regard to windows: “By far wood frame windows are the most typical, but metal windows are
found, especially on some styles that reflect Modernist influences.” In regard to roof materials:
“ plastic…roofs are inappropriate in all neighborhoods.”
The applicant is proposing a plaster (stucco) finish for the new residence with a Giallo limestone
veneer that would be applied on certain vertical elements of the residence, and painted wood
trims and a wood trellis. The proposed limestone veneer is located on vertical elements on all
elevations and have the appearance of being structural and authentic (see Attachment F,
Project Plans, Proposed Elevation Drawings). The windows are proposed to be Bloomberg 225
Series, aluminum, in a red color. According to the Residential Design Guidelines, aluminum
windows are appropriate for homes that “reflect Modernist influences.” The proposed new
residence is a Modern-style residence; and therefore, aluminum windows are appropriate and
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 29
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
30/119
consistent with the Guidelines. All doors on the residence would be glass. The main garage
door, visible from San Antonio, would be wood with an aluminum side door. The flat roofs
would be finished with a thermoplastic, single-ply Duro-Last rock-ply roofing system with a
stone pattern. Staff requests the Planning Commission review the proposed roofing type as
plastic-like roof materials are inconsistent with the Guidelines. Samples of the proposed finish
materials are included as Attachment D.
Fencing: The existing fence along the south property line is proposed to be replaced with a new
6-ft high vertical wood plank fence, and a 4-ft fence within both 15-ft front-yard setbacks. The
existing fence along the north property line, outside of the front yard setbacks, varies in height
from 5-ft 6-in to 6-ft 4-in. The applicant is proposing to patch and repair this fence as needed.
The existing fence along the north property line within the two 15-ft front yard setbacks varies
in height from 4-ft 6-in to 5-ft 6-in on the San Antonio Avenue side and 5-ft to 6-in on the Scenic
Road side. Staff has added a Condition of Approval that will require the applicant to reduce the
height of the northern fence within both 15-ft front-yard setbacks to no more than 4-ft, which
is the maximum allowable height.
Along the western property line, the applicant is proposing to replace the existing fence with a
new 4-ft high vertical plank wood fence and a 4-ft high gate. North of the garage, approximately
15-ft from the eastern property line, a 4-ft high stone veneer pillar is proposed. A 4-ft high
stained cedar gate connects the pillar with a 4-ft high limestone veneer fence located
approximately 19-ft 4-in from the eastern property line. Originally, the applicant proposed a
tempered glass gate; however, due to the Planning Commission’s concerns with the proposed
glass gate, the applicant has revised the proposed material of the gate to cedar (see
Attachment F, Project Plans, East Elevation).
Public ROW: The subject property is located between San Antonio Ave and Scenic Road and is a
double-frontage lot. San Antonio Ave and Scenic Road both have 15-foot front setbacks. The
site is accessed from the San Antonio property frontage. The San Antonio Right-of-Way (ROW)
along the property frontage is largely unimproved. The existing asphalt driveway would be
removed and replaced with a semi-permeable plank paver driveway, approximately 8-ft 6-in inwidth with a 30-in Asphalt Concrete (AC) short return that meets the existing AC rolled berm
(see Attachment D, Samples of Finish Materials). The Scenic ROW would remain unimproved
and the existing shrubs would be maintained.
Exterior Lighting: Carmel Municipal Code Section 15.36.070.B. provides exterior lighting
requirements for the R-1 Zoning District. This section requires that the exterior wall-mounted
lighting not to exceed 25 Watts incandescent equivalent (i.e., approximately 375 lumens) per
fixture.
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 30
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
31/119
The applicant is proposing five wall-mounted exterior lights to be located at the entryways. The
two different types of proposed wall-mounted light fixtures are downward-lit with LED light
bulbs that produce 325 lumens or less, which meets the City’s exterior lighting standards.
Landscape lighting, including eight path lights (3 Watt LED, 200 Lumens) and five step lights (5
Watt LED, 200 Lumens) are proposed. The proposed lighting complies with the City’s exterior
lighting requirements and Residential Design Guidelines.
Landscape Plan: The applicant is proposing new landscaping as identified on the Landscape
Plan (See Attachment F, Landscape Plan, Sheet L-1). The City Forester has reviewed and
approved the Landscape Plan with one condition. The applicant will be required to replace one
of the two proposed new Japanese Maple trees with a 15-gallon Coast live oak. Staff has added
this condition to the Final Conditions of Approval.
Environmental Review: The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA
requirements, pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3) – Construction or modification of a limited
number of new or existing small structures. The proposed new residence does not present any
unusual circumstances that would result in a potentially significant environmental impact.
ATTACHMENTS:
•
Attachment A – Site Photographs
• Attachment B – Findings for Approval
•
Attachment C – Conditions of Approval
• Attachment D – Samples of finish materials
• Attachment E – Original Proposed Site Plan and Proposed Elevations
• Attachment F – Project Plans
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15 Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 31
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
32/119
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 32
Christy Sabdo
From:
Sent:
To
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Commissioners:
Rob Mullane
Thursday, April 02, 2015 4:49 PM
Don Goodhue; Michael LePage; Keith Paterson; Janet Reimers;
Jan
Martin
Christy Sabdo
FW:
For
PC -
OS 14-107 Hoffman)- Letters/Attachments from Christine Kemp and Heather
Ryan
OS 14-107 (Hoffman) - Letter from Heather Ryan dated 040215.pdf; OS 14-107 (Hoffman)
Letter from Christine Kemp dated 040215.pdf
Follow up
Flagged
Please see the attached correspondence from the neighbor and neighbor s attorney
for
the Hoffman Design Study.
These came in after the packet was finalized; however, Ms. Kemp requested that we send these along to you. We will
have copies for you at the dais.
Robert A. Mullane,
ICP
Community Planning and Building Director
City
of
Carmel-by-the-Sea
P.O.
DrawerG
Carmel-by-the-Sea,
C
93921
main
(831} 620-2010
direct
(831) 620-2057
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
33/119
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
34/119
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
35/119
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 35
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
36/119
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 36
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
37/119
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
38/119
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
39/119
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 39
NOL ND /
HAMERLY
ETIENNE
HOSS
Attorneys at l.aw A PROFESSION L
CO R
P
OR T
ION
WWW.NHEH.COM
E-MAIL [email protected]
831-373-3622
EXT.
271
0URl IU;No.
21426.000
Step 1111 W. Pearson
Lloyd
W.
Lowrry,
Jr
AnMK. cker
Rllndy Meyenberg
Michael
Miuut/Q
Christim
G
Kemp
• Jo
Marie Omeur
Turence
R.
O C01111or
Timothy J. Baldwin
• Leslie E FilfMgan
•
Charles Des Roches
A ~ t t ~ C Toledo
Roberl D.
SimpsOII
liNt/
Myron E Etie-,
Jr
PeurT.
Hoss
James D.
Sclrweftl,
Jr
Harry
I. Noland
(1904-1991)
PmdM.H rly
(1920-2000)
• CER IIFIUJBPECJAUST 1J/
PIIOBATE. ESTATEP1ANN1JI(1,
AND TRUSf
U
BY
THE
CAUFORNU
BOARD
OF
LEGAL SPECIALIZA170N
STATEIWIOFCAUFORNIA.
April 2
20 15
VIA E-MAIL [email protected]
City
of Carmel-by-the.-Sea Planning Commission
c/o Christi Sabdo
City
Planner
P.O.BoxCC
Carmel-by-the-Sea
CA 93921
Re:
Hoffman
Project- Scenic Road
April 8.
2015
Planning Commission Meeting
Dear
Members of he Commission:
I am writing on behalfof
Heather
Ryan and
David
Dube
owners
of he
property immediately north of
he above.-referenced
project, to request that
you
deny the
Hoffman
project, as proposed.
Ms. Ryan
and Mr.
Dube
have
made
every
effort to work with the Hoffinans
architect to resolve the issues affecting their property yet the Hoffinans have
continually resubmitted plans without Ms. Ryan s review or approval which plans were
not
in
conformance with their agreements
1
• Additionally the Hoftinans staking was
done incorrectly, as
to both height and setbacks
causing Ms. Ryan
and
Mr. Dube
to
make
concessions based on inaccurate information
2
•
Accordingly
Ms. Ryan
and Mr.
Dube cannot agree to the plans, as submitted.
Ms. Ryan
and
Mr. Dube
request that your Comm ission
deny
the project
as
submitted and require the following revisions be
made
prior to project approval to
protect existing view
of
the ocean and light and air coming into the Ryan/Dube
property.
1
See
Ms. Ryan s time line attached hereto.
2
For these reasons
we
requested
the
Planning Commission hearing
be
continued
to May
to
work out resolution on these additional issues but
staff
indicated they would proceed with the
project in Apr il.
PHONE 831-424-1414 FROM
MONTEREY 831-372-7525
333
SALINAS
STREET POST OFFICE BOX 2SIO
SALINAS CA 93902-2SIO
21426\000\587958.1 :421 s
R E E ~ V E O
FAX
831-424-1975
APR
0
2 2 15
CityofCarm l·bv·ihe.seo
Planning aBuilding Dept.
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
40/119
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 40
City
of
Carmel-by-the-Sea Planning Commission
April 2, 2015
Page2
1.
The
interior plate heights be reduced to 9'-0 for the main roof
and
10'-6 ,
for the upper roof; with the exterior roof elevations reduced to 53'-10 for the
main roof and 55'-4 for the upper roof, to reduce the impact on the Ryan/Dube
property.
The City's Residential Design Guidelines specifically disfavor the use
of
flat
roofs
, as well as, the
use
of
high interior plate heights, encouraging the use oflow plate
heights (no higher than 8') to reduce the height
of
exposed walls. (See Guidelines 7.7;
8.3;
8.4 and
8.5). This project violates these guidelines, not only with
its
flat
roof,
but
also
with its very
high
interior plate heights.
The proposed Hoffman house has a main roof interior plate height
of
9 7''[sic
8"]
and an
upper roofinterior plate height
of 11
'8 .
Main Roof
Reducing the main roof plate height from 9'-7 to 9'-0 , with the exterior
roof 10 above the plate height, results in an exterior lower roof elevation of
53'-10 .
Upper Roof
Reducing the upper roof plate height from 11'-S to 10'-6 , with the exterior
roof 10 above the plate height, results in
an
upper roof exterior elevation of
55'-4 .
Both these interior plate heights and exterior roof reductions are easily
achievable without
any
significant impact on the Hoffman project. It is only a reduction
of
air space .
As designed, with its flat roof and very high interior ceilings, the Hoffman
project will have a
much
greater impact on the Ryan/Dube property than a house
of
he
same height with a pitched roof which allows sun and light to infiltrate the area along
the sloped
roof. Conversely, the flat roof creates a solid barrier of wall blocking all sun
and light right up to the edge
of
he structure. Additionally, the upper roof, as proposed,
blocks existing
views of
he ocean from the eastern side
of
he Ryan/Dube property, as
well as ocean
views from San
Antonio.
The City Design Guidelines disfavor a large expansive building mass and
require the preservation
of
open space and access to light
between
properties (See
Guidelines
7.1
and 7.3) and require maintaining the mass
of
buildings low to maintain
views over the structure (See Guideline
5.3)
.
City Code Section I 7.10.010
(D)
requires
that
buildings
not
present excess
visual mass or bulk to adjoining properties. In this case, the flat roof
and
solid mass
of
wall creates a large solid mass when viewed from the Ryan Dube property.
21426'000\587958.1 :4215
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
41/119
-
8/9/2019 9.a Hoffman Appeal 06-02-15
42/119
Council Meeting Date: 6/2/15
Agenda Item: 9.A
Page 42
City of Cannel-by-the-SeaPlanning Commission
April2, 2015
Page4
b. Requir e the Shoring Plan to be approved by a licensed
structural
engineer on beha lf of Ms. Ryan
and
Mr. Dube to protect the Ryan/Dube property.
Additionally, because the project s so height sensitive, the following condition
should
be
added to assure conformance with the approved plans.
c. Provide a Certifica te
of
Survey to confirm
the
upper
roof
and
lower
roof elevations match the elevations stated herein.
In
addition, the 44'-0 main
finished floor elevation shall be confirmed by a Certificate of Survey
for
which
Ms.