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,