Post on 06-Jul-2018
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
1/32
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Planning Commission Report
March 9, 2016
To: Chair Goodhue and Planning Commissioners
From: Marc Wiener, Acting Community Planning and Building D
Submitted by: Matthew Sundt, Contract Planner
Subject: Consideration of a Concept Design Study (DS 1
Development Permit, and Variance (VA 16-070) app
demolition of existing residence and construction o
located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning Di
Riparian (BR) Zoning Districts, Archaeological Significa
District, and in the Appeal Jurisdiction/Beach Overl
Districts.
Recommendation:
Accept the Conceptual Design Study (DS 15-217) and Variance (VA 16-070) ap
to the attached findings and recommendations/draft conditions.
Application: DS 15-217 (Chadwick) APN: 010-312-026
Block: C2 Lot(s): 10 & 11
Location: Scenic Road, 2 NW of 8th
Applicant: Eric Miller Architects, AIA Property Owner: Chadwick Liv
Background and Project Description:
The project site is a 4,006.8-sf interior parcel located on Scenic Road two parc
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
2/32
DS 15-217/VA 16-070 (Chadwick) March 9, 2016
Staff Report Page 2
The project site is located within the Beach and Riparian (BR) and Archaeolo(AS) Overlay Districts, which restricts height to 18-ft, and requires the pr
archaeological report. As required for all developments in the areas o
Significance, an archaeological report has been prepared and concludes there
concern, except that in the case that archaeological resources, or human rema
uncovered during construction, work must be halted within 50 meters (+160 fe
evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist.
The applicant has submitted plans to demolish the existing residence and rem
and construct a new 2,072-sf (previously 2,057-sf), two-story single-family res
of a 440-sq-ft basement/garage at sub-grade (previously 412-sf), 971-sf on
(not changed from previous), 517-sf on the second level (previously 530-s
footprint for the elevator and stairwell (not changed from previous). The bas
crawl space, a one-car garage space (accessed by a car-lift), a mechanical roo
and two bedrooms with full bathrooms. The proposed project qualifies for
floor area. The sub grade living area consists of two bedrooms, each with it
and exterior door to a below grade patio on the west side of the property (p
was to a patio on the north side). The basement is accessible via an inte
elevator.
The proposed project includes the following major components:
1. Demolition of the existing residence and attached garage;
2. site clearance, excavation and grading;
3. import engineered soils and materials;
4. backyard deck with fire pit;
5.
new fencing on north, east and south sides;
6. two wood-burning fireplaces with chimneys/one gas fireplace;
7. stone trim to front entry; and
8. steel windows with stone trim and sill.
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
3/32
DS 15-217/VA 16-070 (Chadwick) March 9, 2016
Staff Report Page 3
PROJECT DATA FOR A 4,006.8 SQUARE FOOT SITE:
Site Considerations Allowed Existing Proposed
Floor Area 1802.5 sf (45.0%) Total 2,089 sf (52.1%)
Main level 1,411 sf
Second floor 678 sf
Total 2,072 sf (
Main level 9
Second floo
Basement 4
Elevator and
Site Coverage 556.8 sf (13.9%)** 1,458.6 sf (37%)
86.5% impermeable
792 sf (142.4%
112.9% imperm
Trees (upper/lower) 3 Upper /1 Lower
(recommended)
None (one dead tree
trunk on north side)
0
Ridge Height (main
level)
≤ 18 ft 18 ft. 18 ft.
Plate Height (ground
level/second level)
≤ 18 ft ~9 ft./16 ft. 8 ft. 9 in./16 ft
Setbacks Minimum
Required
Existing Proposed
Front 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft.
Composite Side Yard 13.25 ft (25%)
(53-ft-wide lot)
9 ft 13.25 ft.
Minimum Side Yard 3 ft 3 ft 7.25 ft. (north
6 ft. (south side
Rear 3 ft/15ft*** 20 – 25 ft 24 – 26 ft. (firs
21 – 26 ft. (sec* Total excluded area is 434 sf
** Allowable site coverage with bonus, if 50% of more of the site coverage is permeable
*** Structures in the 15 ft rear yard setback are required to be under 15 ft in height.
Staff Analysis:
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
4/32
DS 15-217/VA 16-070 (Chadwick) March 9, 2016
Staff Report Page 4
Analysis: The City's Residential Design Guidelines (Section 3.0, Topographyplan designs that relate to and take advantage of the site's topography and sl
guidelines that address the manner in which natural grades are addressed a
excavated for a building foundation. A key principle is to maintain the
topography, balanced with the objective of minimizing the mass and scale of a
The rear of the property has a steep topography that is challenging to use
space. To address this issue the applicant had previously proposed to backfil
the property in order to create an earthen patio at the same level as the m
residence. However, the Commission expressed concern with the amount of
the height of the associated retaining walls, and recommended that the app
design.
As an alternative to backfilling the rear of the property, the applicant is now pr
stone-surfaced deck set on stucco coated columns/walls. The applicant is requ
(VA 16-070) that would allow for excess site coverage. The allowed site cover
feet and the applicant is requesting 792 square feet. At the last meeting
indicated that it could support the request for a Variance from the site covera
to the steep topography of the rear yard. Staff has included draft findings fo
the Variance. Staff supports the proposal for a rear deck; however, the Coconsider whether the proposed deck still appears too massive and wheth
reduced in scale and surfaced with permeable materials such a wood planks.
The original design also included a sub-grade patio on the north side of the p
foot high retaining walls. Staff notes that the California Building Code requ
egress for bedrooms located in basements; however, the proposed sub-grade
larger than the minimum required for egress. The applicant has revised the de
the proposal for the north sub-grade patio. The basement bedroom ingress/eg
the west side of the building, below the proposed deck. This revisions has subs
grading from 732 to 566 cubic yards (166 cubic yards less).
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
5/32
DS 15-217/VA 16-070 (Chadwick) March 9, 2016
Staff Report Page 5
2.
Reduce impacts to southern neighbor.
Analysis: At the first meeting the southern neighbor expressed concern with
proposed residence and with the size of the south-facing window on the s
address this issue, applicant has shifted the proposed residence 3 feet to th
increasing the south side yard setback from 3 feet to 6 feet. However, the
reduced the size of the second-story window (Attachment D). The neigh
express concern about the location and size of the south elevation window. S
the proposed window will create a privacy impact to the southern neighbor’s r
drafted a condition requiring that the window be reduced in size.
3. Redesign front entry to eliminate the “grand entry” design.
Analysis: Design Guideline 9.12 states that “the use of a grand entryway, ove
or large picture window facing the street is discouraged. These convey a scale
Carmel.” Guideline 7.6 relates to building scale and states
The applicant has not changed the front entry design. The entry feature (fro
to top of ridge) is 18 feet high and 11 feet wide. In staff’s opinion, the propose
associated stonework on the east elevation appears grand in scale and inco
above guideline. Staff has drafted a condition requiring that the entry be re
consistent with the above guideline prior to final Planning Commission review.
4. Basement Garage - Zoning Code Definition
Analysis: The applicant is proposing a car-lift in the garage that would pro
parking space in the basement. The Carmel Municipal Code (CMC), Chapte
Terms and Definitions, states that within residential zones a garage in a ba
counted a “story”. A literal interpretation of the Code indicates that the prop
qualifies as three stories and should therefore not be allowed. In staff’s o
definition is intended to apply to basement garages that are accessed via a d
h ld b bl b l l d d h d
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
6/32
DS 15-217/VA 16-070 (Chadwick) March 9, 2016
Staff Report Page 6
Other Project Components:
Forest Character: Residential Design Guidelines 1.1 through 1.4 encourage
forested image on the site” and for new construction to be at least six feet
trees.
Per the City Forester’s recommendations, staff has drafted a condition requirin
canopy and one lower canopy tree be planted on the site. Staff notes that th
east has submitted correspondence (Attachment E) expressing concern that p
canopy tree would block ocean views as seen from their residence. Staff not
no trees on the project site and development projects are one of the City’s o
to require that trees be planted on private property. In Staff’s opinion, the
remain; however, staff could work with the City Forester, applicant, and neigh
an optimal location with the least potential impact on views.
Environmental Review: The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQ
pursuant to Section 15302 (Class 3) – Replacement or Reconstruction. An e
non-historically significant single-family residence with garage will be demolis
by a new 2,072-sf residence. The proposed alterations to the residence do
unusual circumstances that would result in a potentially significant environmen
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A - Findings for Concept Acceptance
• Attachment B – Draft Recommendations/Conditions
•
Attachment C – Project Plans
• Attachment D – Correspondence from attorney
• Attachment E – Correspondence from neighbor
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
7/32
Attachment A – Findings for Concept Acceptance
DS 15-217/VA 16-070 (Chadwick) March 9, 2016Concept Findings
Page 1
FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR CONCEPT DESIGN STUDY ACCEPTANCE (CMC 17.64.8 an
P1-45) For each of the required Design Study findings listed below, staff has indica
the submitted plans support adoption of the findings. For all findings checked "no
report discusses the issues to facilitate the Planning Commission decision-making.
checked "yes" may or may not be discussed in the report depending on the issues.
MUNICIPAL CODE FINDING
1. The project conforms with all zoning standards applicable to the site, or h
received appropriate use permits and/or variances consistent with the zoni
ordinance.
2. The project is consistent with the City’s design objectives for protection a
enhancement of the urbanized forest, open space resources and site design. T
project’s use of open space, topography, access, trees and vegetation will mainta
or establish a continuity of design both on the site and in the public right of way th
is characteristic of the neighborhood.
3. The project avoids complexity using simple/modest building forms, a simple ro
plan with a limited number of roof planes and a restrained employment of offse
and appendages that are consistent with neighborhood character, yet will not
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, ea
lines, building forms, and in the size of windows doors and entryways. T
development is similar in size, scale, and form to buildings on the immediate blo
and neighborhood. Its height is compatible with its site and surroundi
development and will not present excess mass or bulk to the public or to adjoini
properties. Mass of the building relates to the context of other homes in t
vicinity.
5. The project is consistent with the City’s objectives for public and private vie
and will retain a reasonable amount of solar access for neighboring sites. Throu
the placement location and size of windows doors and balconies the desig
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
8/32
DS 15-217 (Chadwick) March 9, 2016
Concept Findings
Page 2
8. The proposed architectural style and detailing are simple and restrained
character, consistent and well integrated throughout the building an
complementary to the neighborhood without appearing monotonous or repetiti
in context with designs on nearby sites.
9. The proposed exterior materials and their application rely on natural materi
and the overall design will as to the variety and diversity along the streetscape.
10. Design elements such as stonework, skylights, windows, doors, chimneys a
garages are consistent with the adopted Design Guidelines and will complement t
character of the structure and the neighborhood.
11. Proposed landscaping, paving treatments, fences and walls are carefu
designed to complement the urbanized forest, the approved site design, adjacesites, and the public right of way. The design will reinforce a sense of visu
continuity along the street.
12. Any deviations from the Design Guidelines are considered minor and reasonab
relate to good design principles and specific site conditions.
VARIANCE FINDINGS (CMC 17.64.210)
1. That due to special physical circumstances applicable to the property, the str
application of the Zoning Ordinance will deprive the property owner of privileg
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity which were developed under
the same limitations of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent w
limitations on other property in the vicinity and within the same zone;
3. That the variance will not be detrimental to adjacent property or injurious
public health, safety or welfare;4. That the condition or situation of the property for which the variance is sought
not so general or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable or practical t
formulation of a general regulation to address such condition or situation;
5. That the situation or condition for which the variance is sought was not the res
f ti f th i ti i f th t d
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
9/32
Attachment B – Draft Recommendations/Conditions
DS 15-217 (Chadwick) March 9, 2016
Recommendations/Draft Conditions
Page 1
Recommendations/Draft Conditions
No.
1. The applicant shall plant one lower-canopy tree and one upper canopy tre
the City’s recommended tree list, and shall indicate the size species and locon the required landscape plan prior to Final Design Study approval.
2. Prior to the Planning Commission consideration of Final Design Stud
applicant shall reduce the size of the south-facing second-story window in
to minimize the privacy impact to the southern neighbor.
3. Prior to the Planning Commission consideration of Final Design Stud
applicant shall revise the front entry design to be consistent with the Resi
Design Guidelines.
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
10/32
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
11/32
~ ~ - --------------------
Jl
- - - - , . - - T _ : - _ ~ _ i _ ~ ~ ~ ~
.
r
·-
\. : : I I 1
52.00 \\ I I I :
I:
~ I I I I I
\ I I J'.. l
C-ONCRETE
RETAI
NINGo
~ L I . . .
T REMA IN
E)
FeNCE T
BE
REMOVED
0
B T
\ I
:\
: :
(f)
:
i
i - = - - = -
= - = - ; . = - j _
I I I I I I
I I I I I
1_ : : r - L _
_;_
_ _
j
l
\_/ 1 I
-=t-
-
1
-
1 I
I
is4 .98
: :
0
l l
[ l 0 J II
[ l l
I I
: l
1
I I
QT
::
L
- - - 11
-) l :
II
12"T : :
I I
.
_I L- - - - - -- - - - -
;=
:====1
1
--
-
--
- - - I I
J I SX I I
I
I I
I: : ~ : - ~ ~ - -
..=-l:l E ' IST
L
I
I
: .. I I I tvM .
TI-S
l I
I KE? IDENG
I I I I
I
I I I 1
1
I C EHC::U
' I I I
I:
I
1 I I I
I
I I I
11
I
I I
11
ELEVATED
I I I: WOOD DECK I I
I I ' ~ I I
1 1
-D_j
1
1
I I I I
I I I : I
I I I
i
~
__:::-
_::-__:::-
...=-
__:::
...=-
_::-
=Jl
' ·. ·. I I I
I II I
; ~ , . : : I L __ _ _ _ ___ ::
ELE
VATED I
· I I 1
, o ' 1
I r
0
1 WOOD DECK I
i . O"T j: I ~ : ' J . j ' V ' L::J
II
') :\ t = - = - ~ = - = - = - = - = - = - = - - 1 1 I I
·-·1 1 \ I
I I I , - - - - - ----=..-, L
I 1 ~ I I i - -
:: : : ::::
:: :
: :62
6 2 3 8 : ~ : : \
. I 1 I --- - - - -l I 1
1
1 I I I 1 . I
1 tf _.._
/
I - - - ; _ ~ ~ j _ l _ ~ I - T ~ - 4 3 / : J
(E) FENCE T
BE
REMOVED
NEt" ElU)lDI
NG
FOOTPR I T
v-EST
15
.60 '
: : : : : : r
N
EB
EMO
SCALE, 1/4
r I I
0 4
f>'
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
12/32
lll l
B " MASONRY HITH - ---,
114 TOPt6TM AND -
B" O.C. lJSE #4
VERT
® 16
O.C.
STUCCO
HA
LL
EXTER. FIN.
l IIBI'E'll
'l'fl'£111
' :-111-llnii-IH-
\} _
1
-=111=--
EXISTING
RETAINING ViALL
=-=*
- -•r
I
CEMENT
PLASTER
I
HALC F' ' ;
I
-t
i
, ~ n m ~ f ~ E m ~ m - - - - - 4 -
u
- - - - - ~
. . . , 1 1 f f i ~ i l l W J ¥ , l i i = - I I ~ J
L
REFER
TO STRUCTURAL
DRAHINGS FOR
FOUNDATION
DESI6N
21 :ffi=ffi=ffi:=iT
=TT
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
21
LANDSCAPE W ALL DET IL
5C.ALE: • I " = 1- 0 "
(E) 14"T
(
)
c,
(E) 12 T
B"CONC.V'IALL
5TUCCO
FINI5H
T.O.V'I. - 51.3'
--___
S : : : D DEO
I
a . ·
se..s•l
\.
N
E8
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
13/32
__.,_
I
-
ID
I
"'
- >
-
~
l
8'-
1
I
I
I
F
I
I
I
/
/
I a-4e.o' l
E
ED
RO::::> 'vl #4
l o'-1 '
x
IO'-IO'
C . ..
f
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
14/32
n
I
DR
IIE 'AY
e>
«.EA.T ROOM
- 95 -fl X 14
-8'
~
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
15/32
t"il:5T
HALL I
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
16/32
E N
ROOF PL N
5CALE ,
1/4"= 1'-0
-
I I
4'
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
17/32
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
18/32
~
~
0 u
-
:1
f U
· --· C -
0
r ) L.=51.5'
--
·
L
I
N) EL
. 53
I N) EL.=5 }' I
:J
I
I
N)
EL=600 I
c
:1
L ~
-
)
---
-·--
L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
19/32
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
20/32
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
21/32
PROPERTY
LINE
PROPERTY
~ I N E
PROPERTY
LINE
i
IE)6
PR
-
- ---= 'O=-=UT'- H -'NEI
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
22/32
F L ~ F . F E . - : 1 £ : . _ _
~ ( N )
2nc:CFLR.
' . k ~ ~
_
1 i
I
S
S
SIDE PROPERTY - ,
LINE
(SOJTHJ
~ ' I : > ~ ; - - - - - - = ' 1 < = - c = - =
, - . , . . . , = =
= t = ~ ~ ~
S
S
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
23/32
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
24/32
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
25/32
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
26/32
RQW W B H
MIJRAD ti SZ MR
$l) lARf fOOT Gf f NEW UpBOYfLjENTS•
TOTAL AREA • 1,.354 SF
•I.O
llllEtiSlil:
85TH
PERCENT £ •
0.8
IN
• 0.067
FT
•CIA
0•(1.0)(0.067FT)(1.354 SF) •
90.7
CF r
VQIUMf
fRP'I DfQ
QY NO
mADQN
Q- AUAfB$
CHAMBER
SC-310 1.33 x2.83'x7.12'
~ -
~ C H ~ : s ~ B ~ ~ - ~ - 0
CF
'
~
I
= = = = = = = = ~ = = =
= = = = = ~
P L AN
- - - - - - -r-
- - - -
-+- - - - --
-------1----t- -f---- -----+----j
--
- - - t - - - - -+ - - - - l ' - i l r .
:
I '"''"'"' ::::::t ~ = ~ · ~ : _ ___ _ : ~ ~
t ~ = = = = = = = =
n
- - - - - - - - -
n
I
I
II
II
5
IN SH GRAr_£\
I
I
II ::
\ .. · · II
II
(TO BE LO ERED)
.. . .
II
II
ElAlNIHG
A . l l E
II
II
5
\ , . o , . II B D R ~ ~ 4 1.1
- t - - - - f • : · ~ - - 1 - - - ~ L U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
1 _ - _ ; \
~ N O RSW SUBORA
8:
~ ~ ~ ~
0+05
0+10
0+15
0+20 0+25
O+JO
0+35 0+40 0+45
EXISTIN GROUND-.,_
~
GAR GE
GARAGE
IT
H=49 .9
r- ·J__ __:;:-r-
__
_
=
: :===-- ===
- - - - : OERSLAB SUBC ~ I N
c o ~
0+50 0+55 0+60
SECTION
A-A
~ ~ i ~ ~ ~
~ ' - R E T A
N I N G
W
U{N)
I
I,
·-
r--8
"
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
27/32
HOR N I LLOY
ANTHONY T.
KARACHALE
STEPHEN W.
DYER
MARK A. BLUM
JAMES
J.
COOK
ELIZABE
TH
C.
GIANOLA
JEROME
F. PO LITZE
R
PAMELA H. SILKWOOD
JACQUELINE
M PIERCE
BIANCA KARIM
JENNIFER M PAVLET
GREGORY J. CARPER
f ounsel
FRAN
CIS
P.
LLOYD
ROBERT ARNOLD INC.
VIRGINIA E. HOWARD
LAURENCE P. HORAN
1929-2012)
ia
E Mail
Planning Commission (Attn: Marc Wiener)
C ity ofCar
mel-b
y-the-S
ea
P.O. Box CC
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921 .
HORAN
LLOYD
Te l
A
PROFESS
IONAL CORPORATION
Fa
x
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
26385 Carmel Rancho Blvd.,
11200
Carmel,
CA
93923
File No. 6947.01
March 1, 20 16
Re: C
hadwick
Project
DR
15-217 (APN 01 0-312-026)
Honorable Commissioners:
This firm represe
nt
s Simon Yencken, owner-resident of the property locate
and south
of
the Chadwick Project. A lthough the Ch
adw
i
ck
Project has bee
significant issues r
ema
in specific to the mass and bulk of the proposed residence and
to impact my client s privacy which will need to be remedied.
The applicant of the Chadwick Project has consistently compared the ex isting
the proposed structure to demonstrate the project s benefi ts However, they fa il to a
the substantial incre
ase
in the invasion
of
my clie
nt
s privacy that would res u
proposed structure when
compa
ring it to the existing structure, which has no
window.
As can be seen in the below photograph, it is clear that the south facing wi
second floor will have a direct vi
ew
of Mr. Yencken s deck and
ya
rd, wh ich
discouraged as illustrated in the below Figure, which is included in the Reside
Revised March 2, 2016
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
28/32
March I, 2016
Page 2
HORAN LLOYD A PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION
Privacy impacts must be resolved during the design review process as re
City's General Plan, Municipal Code and Residential Design Guidelines.
1
Under C
the Residential Design Guidelines, an objective is:
To maintain privacy of indoor and outdoor spaces in a neighborhood.
In
following that objective, Policy
5.1
states,
Locate windows and balconies such that they avoid overlooking active
outdoor use areas of adjacent properties.
The privacy impacts are further exacerbated by the massive and bulky d
proposed residence, which is inconsistent with the adjoining properties. The adjoini
with comparable size lots consist
of
smaller, cottage-like homes as follows:
1)
To the north: APN 010-321-014- 1,486 sq.
ft.
residence
2) To the south: APN 010-312-027- 1,384 sq. ft. residence.
3) To the southwest: APN 01 0-312-016 - 1 686 sq. ft. residence.
4) To the west: APN 010-312-017- 1,359 sq. ft. residence.
5) To the northwest: APN
010 312 018
1,095 sq.
ft.
residence
Please refer to the figure included as Exhibit
A. Compared to the above s
Project proposes a massive three-story
2
2,491 sq. ft. residence which clearly vio
General Plan Policy P 1-40, which states as follows:
1
For example,
Policy
P1-51 in the
General
Plan states in relevant
part,
Consider the effect of proposed residential construction on the privacy ... of neighbors w
design
review applications. Avoid designs that are insensitive to the designs of neighboring
In the Design Review chapter of the Municipal Code (Chapter
17.58),
one of
four
purp
review
is to:
-------*
*2,506
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
29/32
March
1
2016
Page 3
HORAN LLOYD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Residential designs shall maintain Carmel's enduring principles o modest
simplicity and preserve the City's tradition o simple homes set amidst a
landscape. Buildings shall not present excess visual mass or bulk to public
or to adjoining properties. Buildings shall relate to a human scale in their f
elements and in the detailing o
doors, windows, roofs, and walkways. Ove
design elements make structures appear dominating and monumental. This o
scale character represents a poor fit to the human form, vitiates the more int
rural charm and village character o
Carmel-by-the-Sea and should be avoide
The Project also violates City Code §17.10.010.0, which includes mandato
i.e., shall , as follows:
Residential designs sh ll maintain Carmel's enduring principles o modest
simplicity and preserve the City's tradition
o
simple homes set amidst a
landscape. Buildings sh ll not present excess visual mass or bulk to public
or to adjoining properties.
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that your Commission will not be able
findings required under section 17.58.080
4
o the City Code to approve this Pr
because the Project is massive and bulky when compared to the adjoining properties
Although this letter is narrowly focused, the issues we had previously rai
correspondences remain unresolved, including the following:
(1) The Chadwick project proposes a prohibited three story dwelling unit,
definition
o
story (See, Footnote 2). The definition
o
story expressly
portions o a garage are considered a story. The language is clear and unam
neither the City staff nor any adjudicative body can interpret otherwise a
interpretation would be arbitrary and capricious. Unless there is an amen
definition through a legislative process, the City must act consistent with this
3
Similarly, General Plan Objective 01-8 states, in relevant part, the following: Preserve
characteristics
o
scale, good site design and sensitivity
to
neighboring sites in
the
single-fa
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
30/32
March I, 2016
Page 4
HOR N
L
LOYD
A
PROFESS
IONAL C
ORPOR TIO
N
(2) The extensive excavation proposed in an archeolog ical sensiti
ve
area wit
so ils poses cultural resource and subsidence impacts which should be add
t
i
s phase
of
review.
a
sed on
pa
st decisions
of
the Planning Commission, we are confid
Commission is sensitive to adjoining property owners and thus, will require the
window with a direct
view
of Mr. Yencken s deck and yard be removed in order t
Yencken s privacy, which decision would be consistent with the City General Pla
Code, and Residential Design Guidelines .
We appreciate this opportunity to provide t e comments herein.
PHS/em
Enclosure
4835-6 187-7294, v. I
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
31/32
EXHIBIT A
Residential Sq. Ft.
8/16/2019 Chadwick 03-09-16
32/32
142
The Planning Commission
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA
Attention: Don Goodhue, Chairman
Re: The Chadwick Project
Meeting scheduled for March 9, 2016
Ladies and Gentlemen,
February 20, 2016
y
name is George Fugelsang, and our home is directly east of the Chadwick residence
on
Scenic Road
in
Carmel. I am sorry not
to
be able to attend the March 9 meeting.
y
wife and I
traveled
t
Carmel for the previously scheduled February meeting, which was continued
at
the
request
of
Mr. Chadwick.
This pro ject has had many twists and turns, but it seems to be getting close to something the
Commissioners might find approvable.
As neighbors to the east overlooking the Chadwick property, our concern has always been how
the new project will impact our views of the ocean. The proposed residence is
at
maximum
ridge height
of
eighteen feet, and early drawings showed three new chimneys, two of which
seemed massive and disproportionately high in relation to the roof lines of the proposed house.
I believe these have now been modified.
There are currently no trees on the property, although there are several Cypress trees below
and
t
the west of the Chadwicks which we have been trimming at least annually since the early
nineties when
we
bought our home. Previous owners of our home also trimmed those trees
at
least every year. We keep the trees at a height which maintains our view of the ocean, but we
also clean
out
dead wood, which allows light and ai r through the canopies, and the owners of
those trees are very happy with our maintenance program. By the way, the Chadwicks also
benefit from it.
I now understand that the City Forrester has recommended that a low canopy and a tall
canopy tree be planted in front of the proposed residence. This is of major concern t us,
particularly i n c there are no trees there now. Worrying about proposed ridge heights and
chimney heights, and maintaining an annual trimming program
on
trees below the property is, of
course, meaningless if in the end we are
to
have at least one tall tree towering over everything.
We respectfulfy request that any new trees planted on the property have canopies at maturity
which are no higher than the building itself.
We have been told that the Chadwicks have no problem with this request, and sincerely hope
that the Commissioners will concur.
Very
truly
yours,
;ft p
George Fugel
~
E E I V E D
FEB 2 9 2 16
City
t
Cormet b
Planning&Buildtthe sea
ngoept,