CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Planning Commission Report

November 8, 2017

To: Chair Goodhue and Planning Commissioners

From: Marc Wiener, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director

Submitted by: Marnie R. Waffle, Senior Planner

Subject: Consideration of a Concept Design Study (DS 17-294) and associated

Coastal Development Permit for the demolition of an existing single-
family residence and the construction of a new single-family residence
located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District.

Application: DS 17-294 APN: 010-022-013

Location: Guadalupe, 4 NE of 3rd
Block: 22 Lot: 14
Applicant: Jeff Crocket Property Owner: Jeraslav & Janna Stepanek

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting approval of a Concept Design Study and associated Coastal
Development Permit for the demolition of an existing single family residence and detached
garage and the construction of a new single family residence with attached garage in the R-1
Single Family Residential District.

RECOMMENDATION
Accept the Concept Design Study (DS 17-294) and associated Coastal Development Permit
subject to the attached findings and draft conditions.

BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project site is currently developed with a one-story residence and a detached garage
located at the rear of the lot. The property is 4,000 square feet in size and contains one tree.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing single family residence and construct a new,
1,800-square foot single family residence. The proposed residence will be one-story and
includes 1,524 square feet of living space, a 276-square foot attached garage, and 556 square
feet of site coverage.

79
DS 17-294 (Stepanek)
November 8, 2017
Staff Report
Page 2 of 4

Staff has scheduled this application for conceptual review. The primary purpose of this meeting
is to review and consider site planning; privacy and views; and, mass and scale related to the
project. However, the Planning Commission may provide input on other aspects of the design.

PROJECT DATA FOR A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT SITE:

Site Considerations Allowed Existing Proposed
Floor Area 1,800 SF (45%) 1,100 SF (28%) 1,800 SF (45%)
Site Coverage 396 SF/556 SF 612 SF 556 SF
Trees (Upper/Lower) 3/1 0/1 1/1
Ridge Height (1st/2nd) 18/24 N/A 17-6
Plate Height (1st/2nd) 12/18 N/A 9
Setbacks Minimum Required Existing Proposed
Front 15 23-6 15
Composite Side Yard 10 (25%) 11 10
Minimum Side Yard 3 3 3
Rear 15/3* 29 5
*The rear setback is three feet for those portions of structures less than 15 feet in height.

STAFF ANALYSIS

Forest Character: Residential Design Guidelines 1.1 through 1.4 encourages preserving
significant trees and minimizing impacts on established trees; protecting the root systems of all
trees to be preserved; and, maintaining a forested impact on the site.

The site currently contains one Coast Live Oak tree in the rear yard which has been deemed
significant by the City Forester. The City Forester recommends that one upper canopy tree be
planted as part of the project. The applicant is proposing to plant a new Monterey Pine in the
rear yard near the existing Coast Live Oak. Two additional trees are proposed in the front yard,
on either side of the driveway; however, the proposed species of these trees has not been
identified.

Privacy and Views: Residential Design Guidelines 5.1 through 5.3 encourages designs that
preserve reasonable privacy for adjacent properties and maintain view opportunities to natural
features.

Staff has not identified any view impacts that would be created by the new residence. With
regard to privacy, staff notes that the neighboring residence to the south is located close to the
property line and has a number of large windows facing the project site. The applicant is
proposing two windows, one in the garage and one in the living room, that are slightly offset
from the neighbors windows in order to preserve privacy. In staffs opinion, the lower
elevation of the neighboring residence combined with a new 4-foot tall fence on the property
line will adequately preserve the privacy of the neighboring residence.

80
DS 17-294 (Stepanek)
November 8, 2017
Staff Report
Page 3 of 4

Parking and Access: Residential Design Guidelines 6.1 through 6.7 encourages subordinate
parking facilities that do not dominate the design of the house or site; minimizing the amount
of paved surface for a driveway; positioning garages to maximize open space, views and
privacy; and, minimizing visual impacts.

The applicant is proposing an attached garage that would be set back 15-feet from the front
property line. The gabled roof form over the garage would mirror the roof form on the north
side of the main entry. The driveway is proposed to be 12-feet wide and the Guidelines
encourage no more than 9-feet in order to minimize the amount of paved surface.

Mass and Bulk: Residential Design Guidelines 7.1 through 7.7 encourages a buildings mass to
relate to the context of other homes nearby; minimize the mass of a building as seen from the
public way or adjacent properties; and, relate to a human scale in its basic forms.

The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing one-story single family residence and
construct a new, one-story single family residence on the site. In staffs opinion, the single-story
residence is appropriate because it complements the one-story residence to the south and
maintains a low profile despite the natural topography which causes the site to sit slightly
above the neighboring residence. In staffs opinion, the proposed residence is consistent with
the Guidelines.

Building and Roof Form: Residential Design Guidelines 8.1 through 8.5 encourages traditional
building forms; using restraint with variations in building planes; using simple roof forms that
are in proportion to the scale of the building; and, roof eave lines that are low in scale.

The proposed design includes a one-story residence with an attached garage. The gabled roof
forms have a 5 and 12 pitch with three rooflines visible from the street. The lower gabled roofs
that flank the front entry provide symmetry at the front of the residence. In staffs opinion, the
roof design is simple and complements the building style and neighborhood context.

Design Guideline 8.2 encourages using restraint when introducing variation in building planes.
Furthermore, Guideline 9.21 recommends limiting the use of specialty windows that add to
building bulk. The proposed design includes a total of six projecting bay windows, five of which
encroach into the required 10-foot composite side-yard setback on the north and south
elevations. Municipal Code Section 17.10.030.A.2 sets forth exceptions to setback requirements
in the R-1 District and does not permit bay windows within required setbacks. The design
should be revised to eliminate these encroachments.

A projecting bay window is also proposed on the front elevation along with two gable end
detail projections. In staffs opinion, the number of projections on the front elevation
introduces variations in the wall plane that create more complexity in the design. The Planning
Commission should consider whether the design of the front elevation should be simplified.

81
DS 17-294 (Stepanek)
November 8, 2017
Staff Report
Page 4 of 4

Site Coverage: The project site currently contains 612 square feet of hardscape which exceeds
the allowable site coverage of 396 square feet by 216 square feet. The applicant is proposing to
remove the existing hardscape and bring the site into compliance. Proposed site coverage
would include 106 square feet of non-permeable coverage as follows, 76 square feet for a front
walkway and porch landing leading to the front entry and 30 square feet for a stone wall in the
rear yard. Semi-permeable site coverage would include a gravel driveway; a sand set stone
paver patio along the south elevation; and, a sand set stone paver landing in the rear yard. The
project qualifies for a 4% site coverage bonus because more than 50% of the site coverage
would be permeable or semi-permeable. The total proposed site coverage would be 556 square
feet.

Right-of-way Character: Residential Design Guidelines 1.5 through 1.7 encourages maintaining
an informal open space character of the right-of-way; maintaining trees and natural vegetation;
and, designing parking areas to reinforce the forest image.

The City Right-of-Way (ROW) between the front property line and the edge of asphalt street
paving is approximately 26-feet wide and unimproved. The ROW contains a 22-inch oak tree
and remains in a natural state with no encroachments. The applicant is proposing to retain the
existing gravel driveway; however, the Guidelines prohibit gravel in the ROW. An alternative
material should be chosen. The plans indicate an 8-foot by 20-foot parking area north of the
driveway but do not identify the surface material. The Guidelines recommend only natural soil,
shredded bark or wood chips as a surface material in the ROW. The Guidelines also recommend
separating existing parking in the ROW from driveways with plantings.

Environmental Review: The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA requirements,
pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3) New Construction or Conversion of Small Units. The
project includes the demolition of an existing single family residence and the construction of a
new single family residence in a residential zone and therefore qualifies for a Class 3
exemption. The proposed 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 Concept Acceptance
Attachment C Recommendations/Draft Conditions
Attachment D Front Elevation Schematic
Attachment E Project Plans

82
Attachment A Site Photographs

83
Attachment B Findings for Concept Acceptance

DS 17-294 (Stepanek)
November 8, 2017
Concept Findings
Page 1 of 1

FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR CONCEPT DESIGN STUDY ACCEPTANCE

For each of the required design study findings listed below, staff has indicated whether the
concept plans submitted support adoption of the findings. For all findings checked "no" the staff
report discusses the issues to facilitate decision-making by the Planning Commission. Findings
checked "yes" may or may not be discussed in the staff report depending on the issues.
CMC Section 17.68.040.A Concept Phase Approval Findings YES NO
1. The project conforms with all zoning standards applicable to the site, or has
received appropriate use permits or 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-site and in the public right-of-way that is
characteristic of the neighborhood.
3. The project avoids complexity using simple building forms, a simple roof plan 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 set back a minimum of six feet from significant trees.
CMC Section 17.64.010.B - Coastal Development Permit Findings YES NO
1. Local Coastal Program Consistency: The project, as described in the application
and accompanying materials, as modified by the conditions of approval, conforms to
the certified Local Coastal Program of the City of Carmel-by-the Sea.
2. Public access policy consistency: The project is not located between the first
public road and the sea, and therefore, no review is required for potential public
access.

84
Attachment C Recommendations/Draft Conditions

DS 17-294 (Stepanek)
November 8, 2017
Concept Findings
Page 1

Recommendations/Draft Conditions
No.
1. The applicant shall plant one-upper canopy on the site. The location is subject to review
and approval of the City Forester.
2. The applicant shall reduce the driveway width to 9-feet and shall remove the gravel
driveway within the City Right-of-Way.
3. The proposed 8-foot by 20-foot parking area north of the driveway within the City Right-
of-Way shall remain natural soil or covered with shredded bark or wood chips.
4. The design shall be revised to eliminate the bay windows that encroach into the
composite side-yard setback.

85
STEPANEK RESIDENCE
GUADALUPE STREET
LOT 14, BLOCK 22 CARMEL, CA.
"' ,..,, "'-i.. r
~ ~ .,.. ,..~
R\..!L,\.._ ~~.,-~-
iJ',, ( iA I W 1< 't
.:.i'

:JL . _ 0 2017
os ",:~ . :, ~:.c ,. -: ~/
//~
<:--!(: ~/ /" '

.IP~!I ~/ :1:_.! t?E1..~ ~

,.~~h !'

./ "' , A
0

'- "

t' r-o. :f ~; .."- ri f ., _.J

I
!-- --- .........._
- -- r-- ---.
I ' I
I
~_l
II'~
t t l

II) !l ! !l
-~_1~'1
t
\ It::? ~ ~ ~-. ~~:t).!~_, , ,.,.
---~-..1; 9fl-'Fvl4 t ft{!-::..-...
I ., WILt .1!11:.-1 : -
86

r I ; .
~ 1?). ~ ( ;
- .y. .---- -c. --"7,"'--
=,

WEST ELEVATION . 1
 REVISIONS BY
SITE DATA
96.4
./ APN 010<122<113<100

SITE ADDRESS 4th.NE of 3rd Ave. on Guadalupe

Carmel-By-The-Sea, Ca. Q3921
96
i 12
I.

__
96.0 ' ExiSTING GARAGE . LOT OWNER Jerasalav and Hanna Stepanek
~

-1
I
~~
I
I

Found 3/4"J'lpe,
/></ //./
/
// // ./ . ./' ./' /',

/ / / / // ' _, (EAST) 101.0 (100.00') .! ) ""

jJ
ZONING
3063 LarJ!in Road
Pennie Beach, Ca. 93953
R-1
~I
,.f J'

r~~--~ Iii -'~~. r _~'F=~~~~:l==::===,;=-=~~-=~~=-~-~~=~~---~~~--~~r~

LOT AREA 4,000 S.F.
"- I
!5 1 USE R3/U
I!i
~ ...,
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION
I i ~=t
VB- SPRINKLERED
:' 1 :1
I 1 \ 22:~oak : I : L-J 1 ~ I SETBACKS:
! I \
\ TO REMAIN :1
... lie i EXISTING HOUSE ~ -- TORE
I \ \ I; FRONT 15'

I
1
\ 95.6 '\_
'\\ me~~~~S~
I
wa,\:, ~ i. FROI 15'-C'

I
Ll -----l TO BE REMOVED
:
1
- EXISTING l'jAROSCAPE
TO BE REf>f>VED ...___.:r, \, "~
v
SIDE
REAR
3' and combined"" 10'
3'

94.3
J
\ \ ,
__j
1
' .. . ./
.
1 ._-,
1
~~ro
l (OBtumAssumed) ~--.,r
hol ....
I t.~S:~
...,r--
CODES 2016 CBC, CEC, CPC, CMC & Co. Res. Code
T-24 CA. Energy Compliance and 2016 Ca.
1 , \ : I l ~-....,.
1
I AREAS
Green Building Code.

I. '9\ \! ' I \ i i. 1;Jk i EXISTING RESIDENCE

EXISTING GARAGE
880 S.F.(demo)
Z20 S.F-Idemo)
~$ \ \ ,.. \ I ' l r,;:;-------7------------w.~ r-------------+----------,TO T !:!..:' 1 TOTAL EXISTING LOT COVERAGE 1,100 S.F. 28%

h . I I R~~AAD ~ I ~~
PROPOSED SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE 1,524 S.F.
\j \ i 'Y (N) ATTACHED GARAGE 276 S.F.
~\ =-i:
\ !, \ ,',,
i \\ I
\ ! !l
, L------------~---J J'
;;jf,;---- _SETBA!f .l____h
1'
TOTAL NEW LOT COVERAGE 1,800 S_F. = 45%

93.3
\ : ,
I I'
I'
\
\\~l ~ ~
EXISEo\?!GGARAGE
T~~~EMOVEO
j

: ~ i SITE COVERAGE: Allowed : 22% base floor ~ ro~ + 4% site bonus

- -:- :
- -.,.-;.;.,- . , .:
1 EXISTING HARDSCAPE 612 S.F.(TO BE RJ;MOVED )

!- \ I \ L :;:::::_--~ ~ -
~,.t - - ----';~-~ --~ ~ - --:--- PROPOSED NON-PERMEABLE:
Front S.W. and Landing 76S.F.
\ 94.6 J: \ , . . ~ ~! j 9ss ,J,-------------------------J . I RetaiD ing Walls
PROPOSED SEMI-f'ERMEABLE;
30S.F.

___ !:;~'---- .. ~----_'!!~~-- ---._.!..~~:=.- ?:!, ~.--M:':=:.:....-=:.:.=:.:.:_""::~-- "'-....J~~~}-------"~ '-

9
Found3/4"pipe, Driveway 180S.F.
i L.S. 3880 1 concrete ret. wall ~~'-....;-., li) Patio
Back Lanc;ling
250S.F.
20S.F.
I
I joint pole '

i / /// /~/ ///<<

/ gs_o ...<::::::---....
~>
556S.F. 14%

92.1
92.3
;
! LOT 16 ./><
/// ' .;
, EXISTINGHOUSE //
/ / _/ // /
,/~/ / / /
:
!j PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
DEMO EXISTING HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGE. CONSTRUCT NEW SINGLE STORV
HOUSE WITH ATIACHED GARAGE. PATIO, FENCING AND LANDSCAPE.

i / / /:/ / /////// : SHEET INDEX:

A1 SITE DATA, EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE PLAN & PROJECT NOTES

A-2 SURVEY I TOPO MAP AND STREET PROFILE

I
A-3 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN

~S~IT~E~D~E~M~O~~P=LA~N~~~~~--~~~~~---~~~~~~>~
" ~ --- A-4

A-S
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

ROOF PLAN

p' (y' ~ -;
,/ /' 1/ /' ,,
'/
96.4 EXISTING .HOUSE //
/ EXISTING STRUCTURE

('I 0 2017
ll, l ~- \ ~ I ' -, ' f.-. ' ; -,
:.~~~: . . j_; ~.,,_
i
! 1-
IJJ
i IJJ
i a:
1-
I rJJ
94.0 ,. w
a.
::J
I ~
..J

I
I
<(
:::l
Cl
I
I
1-
I
I
I
I
I
92.3

92.1
~~~
CHECKED
capll~ "irgl'\ S..::h....~'\1

,;
_;y
.,
~ ~-~o-1~t"'
.{ JH~jp~?f
I ~ ~
011 ~'7ti~-,r~;
PLAN

!
PROPOSED SITE ---- aHE:ET

PLANS PREPARED BY:

i
li''
JEFF CROCKETT BUILDING DESIGNS
209 SAN BENANCIO ROAD
SALINAS, CA. 93908
831-484-2265 ...
i\ A1
~... --_~ i.
OF t? 87
BHI!IETS
 REVISIONS BY

,'/ /,.-' / , /

/ _./// ~//.
96.4
'}j;XJSTJNG / GARAGi
.>> / ./ ~- />/
96 1,_\ LOT 12

,.._
~
.... ~

::-,
~.().

94.0

.. 93 - .

I
92.3
LOT 16

~ ~
u
z
~
~ u
Q
~
(f)

REVISIONS:
tf /07: Jlaloe f1I'IJisions to

NOTES:
1. Elevation d4rum is asS'Umlld.
m.., as necessary.

2. Points fiYIJ.nd. ,. set are so indicated,

of/r.en GIT6 shown for rejllTfJflCe only.
I
- N- of Lot f 4, Blook 22, C<M"fML City, Jlontsrey
Covn.f:y. CaJ.iforn:i.a..
~
~
~
eLl w
z
1-
w
O::t--l

~
- Prepared for -
3. Record data is shown. in parenthesis ( ........ ) 1-N
4. CheciJ: for direction of free gruwth in fleW JERRY STEPANEK (J)~
wheN perlinant to location of improv~t9.
5. .Distcmces cm.G e!e11cafions are e:pressed in wu
a_O
feet a.nd decimals tMreof. Jon D. Hag(J'fflll')Jer .UCil1I.Slld Land. Suroeyor
::J.....:l
~
Ccarme!, CaJ.ifornia
Sccale: t"= 8' r.o. 5171 J'U!y, :aooe _Ja:l
<(
f-t
(fJ =>o
o;:!;
<(E-<
<9.....:~

~~
~----------------------T CHECKeD

o"'~:: 11
I&CALe

t:? IJ ~;;~i 03eo

8HEI!T

. . --~-
A2
GUADALUPE STREET PROFILE OF !=? 88
SHEETS
 REVISIONS BY

J r
~I '
1I
!

BEDROOM#3 BEDROOM#2
~!
~
i
i

\ i
~!
-~ !
~-

- MASTER BEDROOM

~ j
. GARAGE
u ,_:f

z~ ~
I

. -;j I
-.-..~ I
- - - - - -- ------'f----r- Q
~

--- ----- --- .

CJ)

~
I
~
! I I ~ 1-

~ 'IJ'-o"
+---~ ... - T Wl ~ n.g
w
w
a:::C\J
1-C\J

-t
--1----------c ------------- U> .::,-::

+--------- ., __ ________!:_~-~ (7'~----------- ------ --- -------- ---- __ _t(q~ ---- - ---- --~- _J __________ Ir?~'l___ __~_" ~ wu
+---- --~-.-------------~------------ -----'------"9>'cC__o~A:_:__ _ __ __ _
~ 3pq
~
<t: -
o;!;
<t:f-t
::Jo
CJ)
"~

DRAWN

<:HI!!<: KED

D~, 7;
0
t-Ti1
I ~

$ .JOB NO.

I
SHEET

A3
I
iL-----------------------------------------~------~
OF r;7 89
SHEETS
 ~~
I
I
I

-- - . __ __f:IJ?~k-
---, - - -1-U--~
""'
J

!
l
i

WEST ELEVATION

-;

- .. .
I

NORTH :ELEVATION
90
 REVISIONS BY

~- -- --
-- ~~
1
11" l", _;_ L:.:::--=::.:::.r!
-~
;:;i fi::-.::-:-:_-~-~==:-~-J
I !

~ I
.'
, f

!:
,!.
,

y i i
I; I

t:-r ~~.:::_-~ --=-=-=----=- ::- = ---=~- -. ,- I

.~. Ll

I
~-1;-r'qp, g<o~t;j_.- _______"' ~ t.- ~'- jL. - - -- -- - --- ~::.~-- ~~ --=--==~--~ l
~==--=
---=
-===-~-========~
( s'Jo/.'e>. L-t-lt- ~-
~
- - - - -- -- _ _J
~
u
z~ ~ ()

Q
~

rn
~
~
~
z
1-
w
w
o::C'I

<r! wt.> 1-C'I

(/)~

~ a..g
~ 3o:l
<("

f--4 =>o
o;!;
<(E-t

rn <.9....1

jDRAWN
.&.
CHECKeD

01- ;;~ELl
vl:C!~e,,
i ..lOB NO.

i
SHI!!I!!T

AS

~~------------------------------------------------------------~------------------~ OF ~ 91
SHEETS