99

City Council
Agenda I tern Summary
Meeting Date: 5 February 2013
Prepared by: Marc Wiener, Associate Planner
Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Design
Study, Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for the
construction of a new residence located on Fifth A venue two northwest of Lincoln
Street. The property owner is Dennis Levett. The appellant is Jacqueline Simonelli.
Description: The appellant is requesting that the Council overturn the approval of the project.
The appellant is concerned that the proposed new residence creates impacts to privacy,
views and solar access.
Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission' s unanimous
approval.
Important Considerations: Design Guideline 5.0 states that "designs should preserve
reasonable solar access to neighboring parcels." Design Guidelines 5.1 encourages
preserving "reasonable privacy for adjacent properties. " Design Guideline 7.2
recommends minimizing "the mass of a building as seen from the public way or adjacent
properties. "
Decision Record: On 9 January 2013, the Planning Commission unanimously approved this
project ( 4-0) with special conditions.
Attachments:
StaffReport
Attachment "A" Reduction Plans
Attachment "B" Appeal Application/Letter
Attachment "C" PC StaffReport (1 /9/ 13)
Reviewed by:
I
Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

STAFF REPORT


TO: MAYOR BURNETT AND COUNCIL MEMBERS

THROUGH: JASON STILWELL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR

FROM: MARC WIENER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER

DATE: 5 FEBRUARY 2013

SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSIONS DECISION TO APPROVE DESIGN STUDY,
DEMOLITION PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW RESIDENCE LOCATED ON FIFTH AVENUE 2
NORTHWEST OF LINCOLN STREET. THE PROPERTY
OWNER IS DENNIS LEVETT. THE APPELLANT IS
JACQUELINE SIMONELLI.


SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commissions unanimous approval.

BACKGROUND & PROJ ECT DESCRIPTION

The project site is located on Fifth Avenue 2 NW of Lincoln Street. On 9 May 2012 the
Planning Commission approved an application to construct a new, two-story residence at
the subject location. The application was appealed to the City Council on 5 J une 2012 by
the western neighbor. The approval was upheld by the Council and a condition was
added that the applicant provide landscaping along the west property line to maintain the
privacy between properties.

The original design was dictated by a tree located near the center of the property. After
receiving approval for the first design, the applicant also obtained approval from the
Forest and Beach Commission to relocate a tree that was near the center of the property.
Because the tree had been relocated, the applicant was able to create a new design that
could better utilize the property. The applicant submitted an application for a new
design, which was approved by the Planning Commission on 9 J anuary 2013.

The new design is similar to the original with regard to style and materials, but is
different with respect to the footprint. The new design provides a 10-foot setback for the
garage, as opposed to be being on the front property line as originally proposed. The
revised design also places the second-story mass and deck further from the western
100
Levett Appeal
5 February 2013
Staff Report
Page 2

neighbor, who previously appealed the application due to concerns about privacy and
mass related to the second story.

PC Review: This application is being appealed by the western neighbor, J acqueline
Simonelli. The appellant appeared at the Planning Commission hearing to express
concerns about the project. The appellants issues with the project were similar to those
raised with the first design, which centered on privacy impacts, mass and bulk, and solar
access.

At the hearing, staff noted that the new design appeared to reduce the impacts to the
western neighbor in comparison to the original design. For example, in the new design,
the second story is located 22.5 feet from the west property line, as opposed to the
original setback of 15 feet. The balcony is also 18.5 feet from the western property line,
as opposed to the original 12-foot setback. Staff notes, however, that the balcony has
increased in size from 40 square feet to 70 square feet.

The Planning Commission reviewed the issues and unanimously approved the project
with special conditions (See Attachment C). The conditions were intended to mitigate
the impact to the western neighbor by requiring landscaping between the properties, a
solid railing around the balcony, and an eight-foot tall fence along the west property line.

EVALUATION

Basis for Appeal: This hearing is considered a de novo hearing, meaning that the
Council can review any aspect of the project. However, staff recommends focusing only
on the issues raised by the appellant.

The appellant has stated that the ruling of the Planning Commission was not in
compliance with Residential Design Guidelines Section 5.0 Privacy, Views, Light and
Air and Section 7.0 Building Mass, Scale and Form (See Attachment B). In
summary, the western neighbor contends that the proposed second-story presents
excessive building mass, blocks solar access, and that the balcony creates a privacy
impact.

Staff Response: Staff notes that the proposed second-story is 22 feet from the western
property line, which significantly exceeds the minimum side-yard setback of 3 feet.
Given that the subject lot is only 50 feet wide, a 22 foot setback from the side property
line is substantial.

The two-story portion of the residence is 21.5 feet tall, which is 2.5 feet lower than
maximum allowed height. The second story is 450 square feet and comprises only 25%
of the total floor area. The Planning Commission determined that the size and location of
the second story were appropriate. Staff concurs with the Commission and concludes
101
Levett Appeal
5 February 2013
Staff Report
Page 3

that the project was designed with consideration for the neighboring properties and the
Design Guidelines.

With regard to the balcony, the project was approved with conditions that will mitigate
the privacy impact. The Commission did discuss the possibility of reducing the size of
the 70-square-foot balcony, but determined that a reduction in size was not needed with
the mitigation measures in place.

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commissions unanimous approval with the
following special conditions:

SPECIAL CONDITIONS

1. The applicant shall provide details and dimensions for fence construction prior to
submitting the building permit application.

2. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan to include plantings on the west side
of the property to provide privacy for the western neighbor.

3. The balcony railing shall be solid to mitigate the privacy impact to the western
neighbor.

4. The applicant shall install an eight-foot-tall fence on the western property line.
Portions of the fence located in the front 10 setback may only be 4 in height.



102
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A
1
0
3
1
U
I
I

I
U

j

I
I

.
.

i
i
=

"

.

:
:


:

;
,

.
.

!
I

t

1
!:
t
:
t
:

"
'

P
I

.
.

z

-
-
-
-
L
,
M
:
.
O
L
J
C

N
l
/
0

5
T
M

c
:
.
N
I
H
5
.

.
,
.
.

n
e

!
e
A
.

c
:
.
A

A
J
>
)
I
.

O
J
-
h

-
:
f

0

>

-
-

-
"
0

-

v

\
.
!
'

y

r
.
J

l

'
*

L

I

I
I

C

0

L

I
I

I

t
l
l
t
D
!

t
o
O
C

C
l
f
o

1
1
1
1
(
[
1
)

L

I

I
I

C

0

L

I
I

I

t
t

l
t
D
!
t
!
D
l

(
I
l
l

t
f
i
i
C
I
'
I

1
0
4
-
-
-
~
N
C
,
.

e
.
-
e
.
.
.
,
.
,
.

n
c

~

c
.
A

A
I
'
J
(
.

0
1
0
-
2
1
1
-

l
!
!

i

I
I

I

'
I

~

0

.
,

- - r
-
1

D1
SITE AREA:
ZONING: R-1
8000.00 S.F.
17 AND19
ADDRESS:
BLOCK:
A.P.N.:
LOT:
53
010-211-005 LINCOLN AND5TH,
CARMEL BY THE SEA, CA.
ALLOWED
EXISTING
MAIN FLOOR
GARAGE
420.8 S.F.
492.8 S.F.
913.6 S.F.
PROPOSED
MAIN FLOOR
UPPER FLOOR
GARAGE
1,150.0 S.F.
450.0S.F.
200.0 S.F.
1,800.0 S.F.
LOT 17 LOT 19
1,216.5 S.F.
1,216.5 S.F.
WEST LOT EAST LOT
1,800.0 S.F. 1,800.0 S.F.
1,115.4 S.F.
487.3 S.F.
197.3 S.F.
1,800.0 S.F.
VICINITY MAP
NOT TOSCALE
PROJ ECT
LOCATION
6TH AVE.
5TH AVE.
4TH AVE.
3RDAVE.
CARMEL, CA. 93921
CHRIS TESCHER
P.O. BOX 4915
PROPOSEDIMPERMEABLE
PROPOSEDPERMEABLE
57.7 S.F.
78.9 S.F.
242.5 S.F.
TOTAL = 556.0 S.F.
ENTRY
COURTYARDDECK (SPACE'DWD.)
ALLOWED
396.0 S.F. 396.0 S.F. 22% of BFA or
10% of SITE AREA
4% OF SITE AREA (50%
PERMEABLE BONUS)
160.0 S.F. 160.0 S.F.
TOTAL 556.0 S.F. 556.0 S.F.
5.0 S.F.
67.4 S.F.
297.2 S.F.
556.0 S.F.
FRONT WALK CONC. STEP
ELEVATEDFRONT WALK WAY (SPACEDWD.)
DRIVEWAY
REAR DECK &STAIRS (SPACE'DWD.)
118.5 S.F.
67.9 S.F. FRONT WALK WAY
WEST LOT EAST LOT
3.0 S.F.
Design Studios
100.0 S.F.
73.9 S.F. REAR DECK (SPACE'DWD.)
105
Design Studios
D2
106
,--------------,
I
15'-e' 1 .....,..
r-----------

I
I
I
I
I
I ...-----i
I
I
I
I
LINEN
I
BATH
l-AV. LAV.
MASTER
BEDROOM
D DOD
r-----'
,----------,
I :
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
D I I
I I
I I
L--, r---'
D
L _______ _j
L------------...l
UPPER FJ..OOR FL.AN


.I ' "' ' lo
';;I .. ';;I
1
I

k )) BATH(
I
-- ----
LAV.
*'
I

( (
II AI l"l,
L _____
'
c:;.;e

"::JJ I
I
i
,;e

'I
M :tt:.=r
I
HAL.!.
I
I
L--,
:
\
aEVacn.a
'y
'?'.4'
:
!
Jt-IOOD DECK
.,
I I
I

11.1
I
I
-
I
r:
'!
----
I -----
I
-----
II
1.1 IN6
1:21'
Ot-' 0 -----
I
. -
!,.--_
t:
-
I -- ,.L.
/
11'-::t'
I II /
PASS
I :
SLEV: ct"T .a
p_go_
I
I
I
-
L """"""
L ,._.. ..
r----
SO" HI6H
.,
c:;.oUN-ra;t

I DOi"N
1-.J
0=




KITCHEN
1 ..
EJ.EV,cfcf.l
001111111i
1'-o'
-!"'
1- , DYll. RAN6E
""""L ____ ,:IJl:a
Y.
)I'
)I' ;0(
y

;,0

,,_,}/


0
y Y.

DINING ROOM
...._
-

"
BIJFFET


, I .I
9
.... ..,. 4'-::t"
.,L.ooo.

1;351
((
J
EI.EV:cfcf
eo-to FWJ..J....UP
"t:::!
l 10'-o' l
"
11-28-12
MAIN Fl-OOR FJ..At\1

-
1118
-
JOHN MANDURRAGO
-
SCALE: 1/4' 1'0'
P. 0. BOX "R", CARMEL BY-lHE-SEA. CA. 93921 831-825-1553
Design Studios
D3
107
,--------------,
I, ----- ---_J r--....... _....._ _______ r------...,

I
1 r-
T
1 L _____________ _
I.PPER FL.OOR -----'
DECK SLOPE
1/4" PER FOOT
I I PITc.H
1 4.12
I
-=+-
1
ROOF
PITCH
( 4.12
ROOF
PITc.H
412 )
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--,------_J
1
__J
1
I L_
= 412
r--------,
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

PITc.H
( 4d2
)

PITCH
4d2
1
FLAT
"-'ROOF
-,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ROOF
PITc.H
4d2
r_J
I
I
I
I
r----_J
I
I
L _____ _ ______ _j
(
ROOF
PITCH
412 )
L ____________ ...J
EROFOCEO ROOF FL.At\1
SCALE: 1/4" 1'0"
JOHN MANDURRAGO
11-28-12
___ .....
-
-
-
P. 0. BOX "R", CARMEL BY-lHE-SEA. CA. 93921 831-825-1553
1118
Design Studios
D4
108
YIII'INI:T '-""" ./".. ./"..

111.5 R
9
'
m
c p ,.....,.....,
11 '1--,
I

.I }f;j
p 114.1 T RDOF
l ." I :!
, :""""--..
.....
I II I
_.J
II
0
I-'"
; . R

II
I I I 1011.4 TP II ' 0:::
(
_j
lc?,ei '
L. I
DO
II
.I
1
UJ
J _

--
II
:d-'1 J""i::t.,:


...
I "
u, u
r--..,. -.. r
....
:-""'-..
DID DID II
I , .I
J
I
D D

I I I HI f.l

,-J
I I
'r
J L.
I II
_____
-- J

--
,...
------------
I I I I I I I I
lrl -
---
41; T I I I . 1, I I I I I I I I
I I .
----
.
-:r-
-----
lJl I I I II I I I I
"1'7.60
------+--- 4o< 1"1001;1 GOP"'M 5
FINISH eRACIE
111..5 R
JU Jl u u
-116.5R
LU I :.f.j! I L
,.....-; I,....,:;
A1" II I
Ill I Ill -,
J- 114.5,...
114.5 ,... - l
.".. I
II
F
.,_
JID
D
"""- RDOF ee.t.M5
1"1001;1 6UARD llt.'ll.
[
-.IT'-
L."
108AR
I I I I II I I
II II II II
[ II II
I
-1 - II- -+ - t lJ. lie. u II f..l
...,
L u I
L..i1:
II' I II
II I
II
J
:Zx....
il
rr
..r
RDOF
j! Ill
J J

II

I"'IOD
D DO
I"'INCIOI'&
,
'NP.

JI'IICOD
!IHINSI..!!
51DIN6

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
"1'1.0-
-
-108.SR
FF------ FF-----
EAeT El-EVATION
NORT+4 El-EVATION
/"'"-.. SPARk F5 TOR
.. ,...
h-
GHIMNE"'' c,ttP 'r
l
;
111.5 R 111.5 R
116.5 R-
II
e;:lll
II II II II II II II
II II I II I

oL u u
114.5 "TP
1 11 Ill I II
=-
114.5 TP
JD
D
r- \ ..._
II II II II
1"1000 ROOF
41UARP
---

RAIL
r-..
I J

" '
..
'

101.6 lit r 1"1001;1 !IHINSI..e ROOF
e ICITc:+EN

'NP.
u uu uu u
108.9 R
11 I I
"'-1.
l '1'"'1'
. I uu u u h
II Ill II Ill
101.1 FF
!'('.,..
J
\.+1 I
.... .
101.:11P
......., ,..... IT [t IY U IY u
IY
J
IY
u
IY u 1'-
I I
I! u !'
J
.<f TP
:zx_
I j I Jl:ll l I l I l I l I :zx_
1
,.D
1'001"
ROOF
0[ Ill FIAFT'ER5

I'IOOP 11
10!5

-r
,.....
J
( ,.....,.....
I
1m' II 11
114.1 T
L..!!,. ,_ _!! _j
li II I II
1f
I
111.6
101.5 l h

1111 II
II
I

I
J
[ uu I
rr- .....

L
Ill
....,...., .,..... l:l ...., r::,
I II
""' [t ....-[f
h .
. , I" I
J
l
I
I I I
fT
II II II II II II II II

.......... ,_,...-


1"0&'1'5 f--
!IHINIIL!!
lfi
SID IN&
l
I I .J.I , I I _l -IH
I I I
Of<f.l TOP 0/P
r-EXI5TI
- u ]d
t
-- - -
.I TOP 0/P FF
-
L- I I
"'"'JFF
I II I I I I l I II --
<f'I.&FF- - --
. FINI5H 6IUIPE
V' ---------
,_/ -----\:exll!oTIN66RADI!

FINI5H eRADE
WE&T EL.EYATION &oUT+4 EL.EYATION
11-28-12

-
1118
-
JOHN MANDURRAGO
-
EROFOCEO El..EYATIOt\lC
SCALE: 1/4" 1'0"
P. 0. BOX "R", CARMEL BY-lHE-SEA. CA. 93921 831-825-1553
Design Studios
D5
109
,_
...
w
E-ta::
,_
r::J).IIl
>-
,_
l'il;;
Qw
0

;;:
J:;il,_

"-
<D
l
i
5th AVENUE
(A 50 FOOT WIDE CITY STREET)
EJ..EYA.TION
SC.AL..E:: 1/&" .. 1'0"


w
l'ilo::
,_

E-t>-
,_
r:n;:;
w
c
z-
31:
.....:l,_
00
r
0
u"-
0
z<D
.........

.....:l
11-28-12
1118
-
JOHN MANDURRAGO
-
P. 0. BOX "R", CARMEL BY-lHE-SEA. CA. 93921 831-825-1553
Design Studios
E0
110

o l
o-3 1

0
NPS
-

0
o-3
N
0
8 .


!O"b
0
28'C

c)
,......

cfrcte
&AN
.--
0
B'T
0
12'R
0
36'R
L 0 T
0
16'Q
'
1 5
,,
3'T

Ill
PROPOSED TREE
TO BE Ra.OGA"TCD
I
/
/
I r
/
10'R
I
I
I
/

1o"RP
/
/
I
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
I
I
I
'b
0
d
IX)
w
..
4'P
g I
II 0 J
LHC:ir'l PR.OPO&EO I7"Q Cll I
i li!CE&IOEI\ICE .I :
! T '""''"'.., GAS WATER I
- .----1------- --+--- --- ---- METER I
. P. ---
---- D ....... .o' G
FF 'M.I' ELEV.
RI1!15AN o I
...IRI c.AN
3
'v

. AD,. J+.
tip I . - II- 0-GLe""""
',...V G ! Ill
p v M.AH60L
e i. 12'R
<>J I Rll!l &AN '"' 0
Q _,no .n'J.Y
s"T I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
28'P
3'P
NPS I




D
j WATER
IAETER
E-<

...
IZI"'
1-

E-<>-
1-

...
0
z-
"
...::!,_
00
0
u"-
0
Zcc
.... <
I
...::1

---- c.AN e i"
CZA l. b 'oJ o5'T / IL; Q :
HBJ MAX ..., 1 5AN
I __..,"" ""' _/ 3-_T
V"--' a .JcJ CONC WALL
.......... v .ri. \::T , _ _ _ _

0
6"P
20'P
APPROACH ....... I I
-
----- ------------
-
-
5 t h AVENUE
(A 50 FOOT WIDE CITY STREET)
PROFOeEC EA.ST SITE FL.A.l\1
SPREAD/PATH LI6HT
G1 /IIIALL MOUNT
PL.A.NTING, L.;Cip&NC>
ARCEME
ARCPAG

C:.AR C:.AL.
C:.EA GQN
C:.EA
C:.EA RAY'
C:.EA Y'AN
C:.L.E MON
HET Are
HBJ MAX
IRI GAN
MAH 6LO
GlUE Af/i.6
RIB SAN

SAL C:.L.E

BQTANIGA NAME
ARCTOSTAPHY'L.OS "EMERALD GARPET"
ARCTOSTAPHY'L.OS ''PAGif=IC:. MIST'
DENSif=L.ORA Mc.MINN"
C:.ARPENTERIA C:.ALIFOI<NIC:.A
C:.EANOTHUS "CONCHA"
CEANOTHUS 6J..UE"
C:.EANOTHUS ''RAY' HARTMAN"
CEANOTHUS <SRISBJS HORIZONTAL.IS ''Y'ANKEE POINT"
CLEMATIS MONTANA
AABUTIFULIA
HBJGHERA MAXIMA
IRIS "GANTON SN0/111"
MAHONIA "601-DEN ABUNDANCE'
GII.JERCUS Ae.Rif=OL.IA
RIBES SAN6UitEUM 6L.UTINOSUM
Of=f=IGINALIS "IRENE"
SALVIA GL.EVEL.ANDII
f=IMBRIATA
* DETAILED LANDSGAPE PLAN TO FO!..!..OIIIl

GQMMONHAME
EMERALD CARPET MANZANITA
PAGif=IC:. MIST MANZANITO
Mc.MINN MANZANIITA
8USH ANEMONE
CONCHA JIIIILD LILAC
6LUE IIIIILD LILAG
MOUNTAIN LILAG
'I"'ANKEE POINT CEANOTHIJS
ANEMONE CLEMATIS
TOY' ON
ISLAND ALUM ROOT
CANYON SNOIIII IRIS
HY'!9RID ORE60N 6RAPE
COAST LIVE OAK
GI.JRRENT
TRAIL.IN6 6L.UE ROSEMARY'
f=RA6RANT SA6E
61ANT CHAIN f=EM
11-28-12
4 Pl..Al\lTil\lc;, eiTE Pl..Al\1 .... __ ... :..
- JOHN MANDURRAGO
-
P. 0. BOX 'R', CARMEL 8'1'-THE-SEA, CA. 93921 831-825-1553
SIZP
6AL
6AL
6AL
6AL
6AL
6AL
6AL
6AL
6AL
6AL
6AL
6AL
6AL
56AL
I 6AL
I 6AL
I 6AL
I 6AL
1118
Attachment B 111
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMJ\.1ISSION DECISION

(FILING FEE: $295.00*)
Appellant: J c u eLI
(oWN't:./U
JAN 2: 2013
Property Owner: _'' _______ .;_r --------------
Phones: Day:(<J'j/) Cc 2 :1 -- o 'f-5,..1 Evening: ( ___ _
) Email: j A<' roe L CDM
{!J/1 SM, tte rvf
Date Board heard the matter: Ar'/ Cf) .:Lo ( 3
Appeals to the City Council must be made in writing in the office of the City Clerk within
10 working days following the date of action by the Planning Commission and paying
the required filing fee as established by City Council resolution.
Physical location of property that is the subject of appeal:
st:A_Ave rJue-- -- ..i. NW of Ll fJQ(}LN- BLock 53 Ld:. /Cf
Lot(s): \.l) Yt. r=r ( q Block: _
APN: ________ _
COMMISSION ACTION BEING APPEALED: FiLe .l:L:- OS' /:J..- I 2"--
/l)estLlJt- Usche_r/LeVet-t- Pc,t Dor -- Ih- fltttJNl'{g
7
& rrtiH r'ssl o/J A-fprave.d Te5cj,e-r fLe Ve:tt
I I
If you were NOT the original applicant or the applicant's representative, please state the
evidence that you are an aggrieved party: I A-M the. o wrJ tf?. )oct! vpA ttJ-1::
r ,
of tA<2 ifrt.MediAfe AdjAceJJ-1:: res/detJoz 6o Lire Wt-->t of
\( I.Vp_.sf Lot v OS 1:1.-.-2/. 4 A .J, tJt c SiMoN cdlt (5 Ar'j
(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)
112
/
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.)

ignature of appellant
$295.00 fee* received: (Stafflnitial)
ot3




Receipt#:
Heidi Burch, City Clerk
*Article 9, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of California authorizes a city to
impose fees. Also see California government Code, Section 54344.
IMPORTANT: If the appellant wishes to submit materials for duplication and
inclusion in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea's Council agenda packet, the materials must
be submitted to the City Clerk by working days after the decision of the
Commission. This matter is tentatively scheduled to be heard on
dlt>Citrl>f:ound VAPPEAL PUNNING FORM. doc
113
January 28, 2013
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council:
RE: Simonelli Appeal of#DS-122
Attached for your convenience is our Agenda Packet for the Hearing on
February 5, 2013, regarding the Appeal of#DS-122.
This includes:
1. Written Statement ( 6 pages)
2. Pictures I Photos (2)
3. Carmel-by-the-Sea Residential Review Guidelines pages 29-31 and 35-
37 (6 pages.)
We hope this information is helpful in the decision making process.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
C. C. Simonelli
, e:fr/'c!?cCft( ,(.

JAN 2 8 2Ui3
ClTYot
CARMEL BY. TliE-SEA
114
TO: Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council
February 5, 2013- Date of City Council Hearing
Carmel-by-the-Sea, California
FROM: Appellants -Jacqueline C. Simonelli & Antonio C. Simonelli
Re: Applicant #DS-122 (Tescher I LeVett. Pot D'Oro LLC)
1
We are appealing the Planning Commission's approval ofProposal DS-122, Block
53-Lot 19.
The proposed project set out in DS-122 violates the R-1 Residential District
Design Regulations set out in the Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) 17.10.010,
Purpose and Design Objectives and CMC 17.10.060 Residential Design Guidelines
The Residential Design Regulations were enacted not only to preserve the quaint
village character of Carmel-by-the-Sea but to govern the behavior of applicants
like Mr. Tescher I LeVett who's proposed residential construction does not comply
with the "Mass & Bulk, Privacy and Solar Access, Air and Light Regulations. The
Tescher I LeVett proposed 2- two-story SPEC Houses will be sold to the highest
bidder. The Tescher I LeVert proposal is designed to maximize his profits by
placing a deck//balcony with two double French doors overlooking our ONLY
private area (patio/garden) in an attempt to get a view of the ocean. The California
State Supreme Court has ruled that applicants have NO constitutional right to
VIeWS.
Our Fundamental Constitutional principles hold that the Individual can do anything
But that which is forbidden by law, and the State and Cities, and their underlying
entities, i.e. the Carmel Planning Commission/Carmel City Council may do
nothing but that which is authorized by its laws. Therefore, the Planning
Commission/City Council must implement and enforce the laws as set out in the
Carmel Municipal Code CMC 17.10.010, Purpose & Design Objectives and CMC
1710.060 Residential Design Guidelines- in other words, this council must reverse
the Planning Commission's approval ofDS-122 and reject DS-122 because the
SIMONELLI APPEAL OF #DS-122- TO CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY
COUNCIL
PART OF AGENDA PACKET - SIMONELLI STATEMENT FOR
CITY COUNCIL HEARING ON FEBRUARY 5, 2013 @4:00P.M.
SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL- MONDAY JANUARY 28, 2013
Page 1
115
2
Planning Commission failed to follow its own Regulations as set out in the Carmel
City Code.
For example:
1. Mass and Bulk:
The originally approved two-story mass is located 15 feet from the western
property line of Simonelli. The proposed second story is set back 22.5 feet from
the west property line of Simonelli-a difference of only 6.5 feet. But the Staff
Report dated January 19, 2013, noted at page 39- that the original 15 feet set-back
from the western rear property line of Simonelli, " ... prevents the structure from
looming over the neighbor" (i.e. Simonelli.) So, in the view of the staff the
additional 6.5 feet overlooks the active indoor and outdoor use areas of Simonelli
even less - this is a mind-boggling conclusion. In fact, if you have visited the
proposed site and/or looked over the photos handed to you earlier it is extremely
clear that the mass and bulk of the proposed two story building will "loom" over
our backyard/patio & garden and ground bedroom and bathroom, & an upstairs
bathroom of Simonelli
Also, Design Guideline 7.2 - recommends "minimizing the mass of a building as
seen from the public way or adjacent properties." The Staff Report at page 39
further states that the " . .. two-story element does not present excessive mass to the
street . .. " A visit to the site and/or a look at the photos demonstrates a looming
presence over the backyard/patio & garden and well as into the bedroom and
bathroom on the ground floor, and the bathroom upstairs of Simonelli.
Under the "Mass and Bulk" regulations: "Buildings shall not present excess visual
mass or bulk ... to adjoining properties. Large box-like buildings . .. can appear
massive". Also, this Regulation requires that: "Residential designs shall maintain
Carmel's enduring principles of modesty and simplicity and preserve the city's
tradition of simple homes ... " See Section 17.10.010D. The proposed SPEC home
is anything but modest and simple.
SIMONELLI APPEAL OF #DS-122- TO CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY
COUNCIL
PART OF AGENDA PACKET- SIMONELLI STATEMENT FOR
CITY COUNCIL HEARING ON FEBRUARY 5, 2013@ 4:00P.M.
SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL- MONDAY JANUARY 28, 2013
Page 2
116
2. Privacy:
The Tescher I LeVett placement of two, double French doors and balcony/deck of
the second story structure facing west overlooking our garden/patio area - looms
into the ground floor bedroom and bathroom, & the upstairs bathroom- violating
our Rights to Privacy. "Designs should respect the privacy of neighbors. The
placement of windows, doors, balconies and decks, should be sensitive .. . to
neighboring properties." See Section 17.10.01 G.
Also the two double French doors off the balcony violate Design Guidelines 5.0:
3
"Privacy, Views, Light and Air" and Design Guidelines 5.1 Organizing functions
on a site to preserve reasonable privacy for adjacent properties under, "Locate
windows and balconies such that they avoid overlooking active indoor and outdoor
use areas of adjacent properties."
The Tescher I LeVett original plan had a 10 foot x 10 foot "deck" which was
revised to a "balcony" of 14 feet long by three feet in depth (3' x 14 ')-and
located about 12 feet from the western property line of Simonelli.
The new Tescher I LeVett design now has a balcony of 17 Yz feet long and 4 feet in
depth ( 4 ' x 17.5 ') being able to accommodate chairs and tables- still overlooking
our only private patio/garden area, and a ground floor bedroom and bathroom as
well as an upstairs bathroom- but is set back 18.5 feet from the same property line
of Simonelli.
The Staff Report at page 39 holds that the additional 6.5 feet set back (18 - 11 Yz
feet = 6.5 feet), " ... presents less of an impact to privacy than the previously
approved design due to its greater setback from the western property line." (of
Simonelli.) In fact, the 6.5 feet set back is so miniscule that it has no less of an
impact on our privacy. A visit to the property and/or looking over the photos will
show that the proposed structure as originally conceived - if this council approves
DS-122 - would deal a striking blow to our rights of privacy and a major
devaluation of the Simonelli property.
SIMONELLI APPEAL OF #DS-122- TO CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY
COUNCIL
PART OF AGENDA PACKET - SIMONELLI STATEMENT FOR
CITY COUNCIL HEARING ON FEBRUARY 5, 2013 @4:00P.M.
SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL- MONDAY JANUARY 28, 2013
Page 3
117
4
Also, CMC 17.64.8 - dictates that the "placement, location and size of windows,
doors and balconies ... "the design respects the rights to reasonable privacy on
adjoining sites." Therefore, the two double French doors off balcony and the
balcony itselfviolate CMC 17.64.8.
3. Solar Access:
"Designs should preserve the rights to reasonable solar access on neighboring
parcels" See CMC17.10.010 L. and CMC 17.64.8.
The proposed design structure impinges on our "right" to reasonable solar access,
light and air. We will not get any sun light in the morning (like we do now) from 7
a.m. through 12 noon. This will impact on our garden requiring morning sun. The
proposed construction is not consistent with the city's objectives to retain a
reasonable solar access for neighboring sites. See CMC 17.64.8.
Therefore, to protect and preserve reasonable solar access and air, light and open
space, " . . . tall or bulky building elements near the property line of an adjoining site
should be avoided." See 5.0 Privacy, Views, Light and Air at page 29 of
Guidelines.
The applicable Carmel Municipal Code states that:
"The City Council shall maintain design guidelines to implement the design
objectives outlined in CMC 17.10.010, Purpose and Design Objectives. The
Planning Commission, Design Review Board, and the Department of
Community Planning & Building shall use these Guidelines to review
proposed construction. Designs that conflict with municipal code standards
or the adopted R-1 design objectives shall not be approved." See CMC
17.10.060 Residential Design Guidelines.
We urge this Council to carry out its laws as set out in CMC 17.10.010 and CMC
17.1 0.060, as well the Design Guidelines of, "5.0 Privacy, Views, Light and
Air"-by overruling the Planning Commission by rejecting Applicant #DS-122.
SIMONELLI APPEAL OF #DS-122 - TO CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY
COUNCIL
PART OF AGENDA PACKET - SIMONELLI STATE:rvfENT FOR
CITY COUNCIL HEARING ON FEBRUARY 5, 2013 @ 4:00P.M.
SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL - MONDAY JANUARY 28, 2013
Page 4
118
5
In approving DS-122 - the Planning Commission turned over to the Tescher/Levitt
team, a view of the ocean - (which the California State Supreme Court held there
is NO constitutional right to views.) In gifting the Tescher I LeVett team the
Planning Commission takes away property rights of Simonelli guaranteed by the
Constitution of the United States under Amendments 5 & 14-under both
Amendments, "No person shall ... be deprived of ... property without due process of
law .... " The Simonelli's loss of privacy and diminished access to Solar, Air &
Light considerably devalues the Simonelli property.
In looking over the Staff Report one gets the impression that the Planning
Commission takes the position that it carries lots of discretion in interpreting the
Laws & Regulations of the Carmel Municipal Code set out at CMC 17.10.010 &
CMC 17.10.060.
For instance, if a proposed structure impinges your right of Privacy as shown by a
personal visit to the site and/or photographic evidence as shown in DS-122 - the
Planning Commission has neither the discretion nor the right to give approval for
such a violating structure and walk away from Section 17.10.01 ofthe Carmel
Municipal Code.
And, if the proposed design structure takes away your "right" to reasonable Solar
access, Light, and Air set out in Section 17.10.010 L of the Carmel Municipal
Code as shown in DS-122 - the Planning Commission has no discretion to
disregard that Regulation and approve that proposed structure that violates your
reasonable access to Solar, Light & Air.
The Planning Commission has lots of discretion to dictate the content of materials
used in building construction like prohibiting vinyl clad window frames. But, it
cannot disregard the Laws & Regulations set out in the Carmel Municipal Code.
SIMONELLI APPEAL OF #DS-122 - TO CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY
COUNCIL
PART OF AGENDA PACKET - SIMONELLI STATEMENT FOR
CITY COUNCIL HEARING ON FEBRUARY 5, 2013 @ 4:00P.M.
SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL - MONDAY JANUARY 28, 2013
Page 5
119
Legal Implications:
The decisions of the Planning Commission and the City Council are subject to
Judicial Review.
6
For example, if a property owner suffers loss of property rights, and/or devaluation
of property value because of an erroneous decision of the City Council - that
property owner has the right to take legal action in the California state district court
in Monterey.
Thus, we urge this Council to do Justice and carry out its laws as set out under the
Carmel Municipal Code at CMC 17.10.00 & CMC 17.10.060-and overrule the
decision of the Planning Commission regarding DS-122.
Respectively,
Antonio C. Simonelli
~ ~ c ~ ~
SIMONELLI APPEAL OF #DS-122- TO CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY
COUNCIL
PART OF AGENDA PACKET- SIMONELLI STATEMENT FOR
CITY COUNCIL HEARING ON FEBRUARY 5, 2013 @4:00P.M.
SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL - MONDAY JANUARY 28, 2013
Page 6
120
1
2
1
122
0
Carmel-by-the-Sea Design Traditions
e
Site
5.0 Privacy) Views
1
Light and Air
Neighborhoods originally developed at relatively low densities and the
amount of planted open space was extensive. Most blocks evolved with
a reasonable degree of privacy for individual houses. Retaining this sense
of privacy, in spite of higher densities, remains an objective.
Objectives:
To maintain privacy of indoor and outdoor spaces in a neighbor-
hood
To balance and share view opporhmities to natural features and land-
marks
5.1 Organize functions on a site to preserve reasonable privacy
for adjacent properties.
Position a building to screen active areas of adjacent proper-
ties when feasible.
Locate windows and balconies such that they avoid overlook-
ing active indoor and outdoor use areas of adjacent proper-
ties.
Preserve significant trees that will help to screen views into
adjacent properties.
Screen patios, terraces and service areas.
Views, Light and Air
Views to natural features and landmarks are key features of Carmel's
design traditions. hnportant views occur to the ocean, canyons, and along
streets. Protecting views is an important community concern. This in-
cludes views from public ways as well as those through properties. Also
note that the desire to maximize view opportunities from one's own
property must be balanced with consideration of respecting views of
others. The preliminary site analysis may help identify view opporhmi-
ties as well as existing views enjoyed by others.
Designs also should preserve reasonable solar access to neighboring par-
cels. Designs should protect and preserve the light, air and open space
of surrounding properties, when considered cumulatively with other
buildings in the neighborhood. Incorporating tall or bulky building el-
ements near the property line of an adjoining site should be avoided.
[29]
Planning Guidelines
/ ~ - - ~
I
I
Discouraged: Overlooking active outdoor
areas on adjacent properties.
'
Policy PJ-65
Consider the effect of proposed
residential construction on the privacy,
solar access and private views of
neighbors when evaluating the design
review applications. Avoid designs thnt
are insensitive to the designs of
neighboring buildings. Attempt to
achieve an equitable balance of these
design amenities among all properties
affected by design review decisions.
All applicants are strongly encouraged to
consult with neighbors early in the
design process to learn their concerns
and explain proposed projects.

123
0
Carmel-by-the-Sea
Remember that trees are
part of the view and that
views are often filtered or
transitory because of the
urban forest. City policy
prohibits trimming trees for
views.
Design Traditions Site Planning Guidelines
"
5.2 Maintain view opportunities to natural features that lie
outside the property.
Consider locating key building functions to make use of views.
Also locate buildings so they will not substantially block views
enjoyed by others.
Maintain view opportunities from a site to natural features outside the property.
5.3 Maintain views through a property to natural features when
feasible.
Locate major building masses to maintain some views through
the site from other properties.
Consider keeping the mass of a building low in order to main-
tain views over the structure.
Also consider using a compact building footprint to maintain
views along the sides of a structure.
f 301
124
Carmel-by-the-Sea Design Traditions
"
Preferred: A new building is sited to maintain views from existing houses.
New fill to elevate a structure
to maximize views
Discouraged: Elevating a site to maximize views.
{ 31]
Site Planning Guidelines
0
125
Cnrmel-by-the-Sea Desig11 Traditions
0
Building Mass &

Building Sca le and Form
Most buildings in Cannel had simple forms and were relatively small in
scale, particularly in relation to the size of their lots. A new building
should appear similar in scale to those seen traditionally. Large complex
structures and those with continuous, blank surfaces can appear mas-
sive and should be avoided.
7.0 Bui [ci i ng Mass ancf Sca[e
A building should contribute to the character of the neighborhood and
should not dominate the street or neighboring properties. Structures com-
posed of a few smalleli simple elements, rather than a single large, con-
tinuous form, are encouraged. A large building mass can block views,
interfere 1-vith tl1e enjoyment of open space and restrict free passage of
light and air. Therefore, a large, expansive building mass should be
avoided.
Keeping the actual building mass in scale with those seen traditionally
is the best approach. This can be achieved by building less than the al-
lowed floor area, constructing some floor area below grade, avoiding
excessive roof volume and keeping above-ground floor level<> close to
gnde. Where a large building mass does some relief should be
provided by i.nhoducing just a few varied roof lines, offsets or smaller
bujJding elements. the result should remain simple in d1arac-
ter and the overall composition should appear to be a set of discreet
rectangular building masses, rather than a complex assemblage of vary-
ing planes around a single building mass.
Objectives:
To maintain the massing and scale of building characteristic of Carmel
To keep building scale in proportion to the area of the site
To encourage diversity in housing design reflecting the eclectic mix
of styles that is characteristic of Carmel
[ 351
Policy Pl -63
Adopt desigl"l regulatiolis that establish
maximum limits on site coverage nnd
floor aren in order to preserve open space
and avoid mass and bulk.
Establish provisions for less allowable
coverage and floor area on sites
constrained by environmental factors to
preserve open space, vegetation, natural
landforms and the character of
sun-ounding neighborhoods.
Stmctures composed of a few smaller,
simple elements, rather than a single
large, continuous fomz, are encouraged.
126
0
Carmel-by-the-Sea Design Traditions ., Building Mass & Scale
- - --=-=========
Building Mass
7.1 A building's mass should relate to the context of other
homes nearby.
o Larger building masses should be divided :into forms that are
similar in scale to houses seen in the immediate neighborhood.
o Using a detached secondary shuctwe (garage, guest house, etc.)
is encouraged to reduce the overall mass of the prima1y build-
ing on a site.
7.2 Minimize the mass of. a building as seen from the public
way or adjacent properties.
Consider these options:
Build to less than the maximum floor area.
c Locate some floor area either fully or partially below grade.
o Avoid using tall volume spaces (e.g. high ceilings or steep
pitches across wide spans) that increase the visual bulk of a
building above grade.
o Avoid long, unintenupted wall planes.
7.3 Avoid placing a tall building wan nea:r a property line when
it will be adjacent to similar walls on neighboring sites.
o Preserve open spaces and access to light between properties.
o Avoid the appearance of a narrow corridor 01 tunnel between
buildings as seen from the street.
Preferred: at:lequate
open space l;etween\
11ulk:llnes
'
_
Discouraged: Avoid the appearance of a narrow corridor between lmildings ns seeM
from the street.
! 36}
1
I
I
l
I
127
"
Carmel-by-the-Sea Design Traditions _Building Mass & Scale Guidelines
7.4 Avoid the creation of large, unused undexfloor areas thaJ
increase building mass.
(\ On sloping lots, floor levels should be stepped to follow site
grade.
e If floor levels cannot be stepped, larger underfloor spaces
should be counted and used as part of the allowed floor area.
7.5 When locating floor area in a below grade or partially be-
low grade space, minimize the visual impacts as seen from
the public right of way and site disturbances.
" Locate any walkout or terrace to !:he side orree1r to reduce
the building height <lS it will be perceived from the street. When
this is not feasible provide screening with other building ele-
ments or landscaping.
The use of exposed retaining walls should be minimized when
developing a below-grade space.
c Jmpacts on tree roots also should be minimized.
The visual impacts of window wells should be minimized.
Building Scale
7.6 A building should relate to a human scale in its basic fonns.
0
Oversized elements make structures appear massive and
should be avoided. Avoid a "grand entry" design, for example.
Avoid design treatments that produce a top-heavy appearance
such as large cantilevered building elements, roof forms that
dominate the body of the building and wide chimney struc-
tures.
o Low, horizontal building forms that appear to hug the grotm.d
are encouraged.
Building Height
A building should relate to a human
scale in its fonns, elements and in the
detailing of doors, windows and
walkways.
side: of i>uild inlJ /
I
7.7 A building should appear to be no more than two stories in
height, as viewed from the public right-of-way.
<> Presenting a one-story height to the street is encouraged.
o Locate t-.r.o story elements downhill, except where th)s would
appear dominant or out of scale when viewed from the public
right-of-way or a neighboring home.

I
o Using a low building plate height also is encouraged. The rnaxi-
mwn plilte height for first flam- of a building is 12 feet. (See
the Land Use Code for details.) this maximum is es-
tablished to accommodate sloping building sites. In cases where
a building site is relatively flat, a lower plate height is nppro-
pdette. Interior 'vall heights should generally not exceed 8 feet.
e Locating some floor area below grade or reducing roof pitch
are appropriate ways to reduce buiJding hejght nnd mass.
f ::!71
Some floor areG lo(;<ltea in a
level
Locating some floor area in a garden
level is also encouraged as a means of
reducing building height.
Attachment C PC Staff Report
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA CHECKLIST

MEETING DATE: 9 January 2013 BLOCK: 53 LOTS: 19

FIRST HEARING: X CONTINUED FROM: N/A
ITEM NO: DS 12-122 APPLICANT: Dennis LeVett
STREAMLINING DEADLINE: 2/27/2013

SUBJECT:

Consideration of Design Study (Concept and Final) and Coastal Development Permit
applications for the construction of a new residence located in the Single Family
Residential (R-1) District.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Exempt (Class 3 new construction)

LOCATION: ZONING:

5
th
Ave 2 NW of Lincoln R-1

ISSUES:

1. Does the proposed design comply with the Residential Design Objectives (CMC 17.10.1)
and the Residential Design Guidelines?

OPTIONS:

1. Approve the application as submitted.
2. Approve the application with special conditions.
3. Continue the application with a request for changes.
4. Deny the application.

RECOMMENDATION:

Option #2 (Approve the application with special condition.)

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Staff Report dated 9 January 2013.
2. Application Materials/Plans.

STAFF CONTACT: Marc Wiener, Associate Planner

128

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
STAFF REPORT Approved 1/9/13

APPLICATION: DS 12-122 APPLICANT: Dennis LeVett
BLOCK: 53 LOTS: 19
LOCATION: 5
th
Ave 2 NW of Lincoln


REQUEST:
Consideration of Design Study (Concept and Final) and Coastal Development Permit
applications for the construction of a new residence located in the Single Family
Residential (R-1) District.

ADDITIONAL REVIEW:
1. None.

BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project site is located on Fifth Avenue two northwest corner of Lincoln Street. On 9
May 2012 the Planning Commission approved an application to construct a new two-
story residence at the subject location. The application was appealed to the City Council
on 5 June 2012 by the western neighbor. The approval was upheld by the Council and a
condition was added that the applicant provide landscaping along the west property line
to maintain the privacy between properties.

The applicant is proposing a new design for the subject property. The original design
required the relocation of one tree. The revised design would require the relocation of a
second tree, which was approved by the Forest and Beach Commission on 1 November
2012. The proposed residence is 1,800 square feet, which includes a 450 square foot
second-story and 200 square foot attached garage. The proposed residence is clad with
wood shingle siding and a wood shake roof.

The new design is similar to the original with regards to style and materials, but is
different with regards to the footprint. The new design provides a 10 foot setback for the
garage, as opposed to be being on the front property line as originally proposed. The
revised design also places the second-story mass and deck further from the western
neighbor, who previously appealed the application due to concerns about privacy and
mass related to the second story.






129
DS 12-122 (LeVett)
9 January 2013
Staff Report
Page 2

PROJECT DATA FOR A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT SITE:
Site Considerations Allowed Existing Proposed
Floor Area 1,800 sf (45%) NA 1,800 sf (45%)
Site Coverage 556 sf (13.9%)* NA 556 sf (13.9%)
Trees (upper/lower) 3/1 trees 6 trees 6 trees
Ridge Height (1
st
/2
nd
) 18/24 ft. NA 12 ft./21 ft. 6 in
Plate Height (1
st
/2
nd
) 12 ft./18 ft. NA 11 ft. /18ft.
Setbacks Minimum
Required
Existing Proposed
Front 10 ft. NA 10 ft.
Composite Side Yard 12.5 ft. (25%) NA 12.5 ft. (25%)
Minimum Side Yard 3 ft. NA 3 ft.
Rear 15 ft. NA 15 ft.
* Includes a 4% bonus if 50% of all coverage is permeable or semi-permeable.


EVALUATION: Because the Planning Commission has previously reviewed the
subject property for a similar project, staff has scheduled this application for a Concept
and Final hearing. However, if the Commission has concerns that cannot be addressed
at this meeting, the application can be continued with a request for changes.

Forest Character: Residential Design Guidelines 1.1 - 1.4 encourage maintaining a
forested image on the site and for new construction to be at least six feet from
significant trees.

There are six trees located on the property, three of which are significant. One of the
trees is located near the center of the lot and another is further back but still within the
proposed building footprint. The applicant is proposing to relocate these trees out of the
footprint of the building to the front and the rear of the property. The proposed tree
relocation was approved by the Forest and Beach Commission on 5 April 2012, and a
second approval was given on 1 November 2012. No additional trees are recommended
for this site.





130
DS 12-122 (LeVett)
9 January 2013
Staff Report
Page 3

Privacy & Views: Design Guidelines 5.1 - 5.3 encourage new designs to preserve
reasonable privacy for adjacent properties and to maintain view opportunities.

The applicant is proposing a second-story balcony on the west side of the master
bedroom. The originally approved balcony was 42 square feet (3x14) and located
approximately 12 feet from the western property line. The new design is modified to 70
square feet (4x17.5), but is set back 18.5 feet from the same property line. The
proposed balcony presents less of an impact to privacy than the previously approved
design due to its greater setback from the western property line. No view impacts will be
created by this project.

Mass & Bulk: Design Guideline 7.2 recommends minimizing the mass of a building as
seen from the public way or adjacent properties. Guideline 7.7 encourages presenting
a one-story height to the street and locating two-story elements downhill.

The applicant is proposing to locate the two-story element at the back of the property on
the downhill slope as recommended by the Guidelines. The front one-story portion of the
building appears low in scale and modestly sized. The rear two-story element is located
approximately 39.5 feet from the front property line and will not present excessive
building mass to the street.

While the two-story element does not present excessive mass to the street, it will present
some additional mass to the rear and side neighbors. However, staff notes that the two-
story mass is located 15 feet from the rear property line, which prevents the structure
from looming over the neighbor. The proposed second story is also set back 22.5 feet
from the west property line, which is an improvement over the 15 foot seback that was
originally approved. The applicant also relocated a redwood tree to the rear of the
property which will help screen the building.

The two-story portion of the residence is 21.5 feet tall while the one-story portion is 12
feet tall. The second story is 450 square feet, which comprises only 25% of the total
floor area. Staff also notes that the property is as much as five feet below the street,
which will reduce the perceived height of the building.

Building & Roof Form: Design Guidelines 8.1 - 8.3 state that basic gable and hip
roofs are traditional and their use is encouraged and moderately pitched roofs (4:12
to 6:12) are preferred. The Guidelines recommend using restraint when introducing
variation in building planes and to keep building walls simple in the extent of variation
in wall and roof planes.


131
DS 12-122 (LeVett)
9 January 2013
Staff Report
Page 4

The proposed residence has a gable roof design with a 4:12 pitch. The overall building
forms are basic and the front elevation presents a simple appearance to the street. The
footprint is slightly complicated, however, the design was partially dictated by the trees
on the property.

The applicant is proposing an attached garage 10 feet from the front property line. The
project originally proposed the garage to be located at the front property line but the
revised plan changes the location to conform to the standard setback requirement.

Finish Details: Design Guideline 9.5-9.10 state that the use of painted wood
clapboard, stained or painted board and batten siding and shingles are preferred
primary materials for exterior wall.

The applicant is proposing wood shingle siding and roofing. Unclad wood doors and
windows are also being proposed. Staff supports the proposed finish materials as they
are consistent with the Guidelines and appropriate for the residence. The applicant has
done a nice job of adequately differentiating this home from the one being proposed on
the eastern lot.

Landscape Plan: The applicant has provided a detailed landscape plan showing
landscaping on the property. The plan includes landscaping along the west property line
as required by Council. The plan does not show any fence details. A special condition
has been added that the applicant work with staff on this issue prior to building permit
submittal.

Summary: Staff has provided an evaluation on privacy and views, mass and bulk, and
building design. The proposed new design better addresses the concerns of privacy, mass
and bulk, and design by placing the second story further from the front and western
property lines. The new building design is simpler in appearance and the lowered roof
pitch reduces the height of the building.

RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the application with the following special condition and findings.

SPECIAL CONDITION:

1. The applicant shall provide details and dimensions for fence construction prior to
building permit application.

2. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan to include plantings on the west side
of the property to provide privacy for the western neighbor.

132
DS 12-122 (LeVett)
9 January 2013
Staff Report
Page 5

3. The applicant shall revise the balcony railing to be solid to mitigate the privacy
impact to the western neighbor.

4. The applicant shall install an eight foot tall fence on the western property line.
Portions of the fence located in the front 10 setback may only be 4 in height.

133
FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR CONCEPT AND 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, variances consistent with the zoning ordinance.


2. The project is consistent with the Citys design objectives for protection and
enhancement of the urbanized forest, open space resources and site design. The
projects 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 Citys objectives for public and private views
and will retain a reasonable amount of solar access for neighboring sites. Through
the placement, location and size of windows, doors and balconies the design 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.


8. The proposed architectural style and detailing are simple and restrained in
character, consistent and well integrated throughout the building and complementary
to the neighborhood without appearing monotonous or repetitive in context with
designs on nearby sites.


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.


134
11. Proposed landscaping, paving treatments, fences and walls are carefully designed
to complement the urbanized forest, the approved site design, adjacent sites, and the
public right of way. The design will reinforce a sense of visual continuity along the
street.


12. Any deviations from the Design Guidelines are considered minor and reasonably
relate to good design principles and specific site conditions.



COASTAL DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS (CMC 17.64.B.1):

1. The project conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program of the City of Carmel by
the Sea.

2. The project is not located between the first public road and the sea and no review is
required for potential public access.


Standard R-1 Conditions
No. Condition
1. This approval constitutes Design Study and Coastal Development permits
authorizing the demolition and construction of a new residence. All work shall
conform to the approved plans dated 9 January 2013 except as conditioned by this
permit.

2. The project shall be constructed in conformance with all requirements of the local
R-1 zoning ordinances. All adopted building and fire codes shall be adhered to in
preparing the working drawings. If any codes or ordinances require design
elements to be changed, or if any other changes are requested at the time such
plans are submitted, such changes shall require separate approval by the Planning
Commission.

3. This approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of action unless
an active building permit has been issued and maintained for the proposed
construction.

4. All new landscaping shall be shown on a landscape plan and 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 Citys recommended tree density
standards, unless otherwise approved by the City based on site conditions. The
landscaping plan shall show where new trees will be planted when new trees are
required to be planted by the Forest and Beach Commission or the Planning
Commission.

5. Trees on the site shall only be removed upon the approval of the Forest and Beach
Commission; and all remaining trees shall be protected during construction by

135
methods approved by the City Forester.
6. All foundations within 15 feet of significant trees shall be excavated by hand. If
any tree roots larger than two inches (2") are encountered during construction, the
City Forester shall be contacted before cutting the roots. The City Forester may
require the roots to be bridged or may authorize the roots to be cut. If roots larger
than two inches (2") in diameter are cut without prior City Forester approval or
any significant tree is endangered as a result of construction activity, the building
permit will be suspended and all work stopped until an investigation by the City
Forester has been completed. Twelve inches (12") of mulch shall be evenly
spread inside the 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 4,000 square foot parcel, this permit will be scheduled for
reconsideration and the appropriate findings will be prepared for review and
adoption by the Planning Commission.

8. The applicant shall submit in writing any proposed changes to the project plans as
submitted on 9 January 2013 and approved by the Planning Commission, prior to
incorporating changes on the site. If the applicant changes the project without first
obtaining approval, the applicant will be required to either: a) Submit the change
in writing and cease all work on the project until either the Planning Commission
or staff has approved the change; or b) Eliminate the change and submit the
proposed change in writing for review. The project will be reviewed for its
compliance to the approved plans prior to final inspection approval.

9. Exterior lighting shall be limited to 25 watts or less per fixture and shall be no
higher than 10 feet above the ground. Landscape lighting shall be limited to 15
watts or less per fixture and shall not exceed 18 inches above the ground.

10. All skylights shall use nonreflective glass to minimize the amount of light and
glare visible from adjoining properties. The applicant shall install skylights with
flashing that matches the roof color, or shall paint the skylight flashing to match
the roof color.

11. The Carmel stone faade shall be installed in a broken course/random or similar
masonry pattern. Setting the stones vertically on their face in a cobweb pattern
shall not be permitted. Prior to the full installation of stone during construction,
the applicant shall install a 10 square foot section on the building to be reviewed
by planning staff on site to ensure conformity with City standards.

12. The applicant shall install unclad wood framed windows. Windows that have
been approved with divided lights shall be constructed with fixed wooden
mullions. Any window pane dividers, which are snap-in, or otherwise
superficially applied, are not permitted.

13. The applicant agrees, at its sole expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless
the City, its public officials, officers, employees, and assigns, from any liability;
and shall reimburse the City for any expense incurred, resulting from, or in
connection with any project approvals. This includes any appeal, claim, suit, or

136
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 the Use Permit.

17. A hazardous materials waste survey shall be required in conformance with the
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District prior to issuance of a
demolition permit.

18. The applicant shall include a storm water drainage plan with the working drawings
that are submitted for building permit review. The drainage plan shall include
applicable Best Management Practices and retain all drainage on site through the
use of semi-permeable paving materials, French drains, seepage pits, etc. Excess
drainage that cannot be maintained on site, may be directed into the City's storm
drain system after passing through a silt trap to reduce sediment from entering the
storm drain. Drainage shall not be directed to adjacent private property.

19. The project plans submitted for building permit review shall comply with the
Citys Green Building Ordinance (CMC Section 15.54) and obtain a minimum of
60 points based on the Residential Green Building Checklist.


137