| | | | | | | |  | CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report |
October 12, 2022
PUBLIC HEARINGS |
| | | | | | | | TO:
| Chair LePage and Planning Commissioners
| SUBMITTED BY:
| Marnie R. Waffle, AICP, Principal Planner
| APPROVED BY:
| Brandon Swanson, Community Planning & Building Director
| | SUBJECT: | DS 20-300 (Clausen): Consideration of a combined Concept and Final Design Study application, DS 20-300 (Clausen), for additions to a single-family residence located on Dolores Street 5 northwest of 2nd Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District. APN 010-127-003 |
|
| | | | | | | | | Application: DS 20-300 (Clausen) | APN: 010-127-003 | | Block:9 | Lot:11 | | Location: Dolores Street 5 northwest of 2nd Avenue | | Applicant:Adrian Lopez, Forma Design Studio | Property Owner: Brian K & Erin M Clausen |
|
| | | | | | | | | Executive Summary: | | The project is an addition to the historic Zanetta Catlett Cottage. The project site is a 4,000-square-foot lot, and the existing one-story cottage is 839 square feet. The project includes two additions on the south elevation to create additional living space. Both additions are single-story. The cottage was added to the Carmel Historic Inventory in 2021. The Forest and Beach Commission has approved the removal of one Coast live oak, and the HRB has added the property to the Carmel Register and issued a Determination of Consistency with the Secretary’s Standards. Due to the nature of the proposed improvements and lack of issues surrounding the project, staff recommends that the concept and final hearings be combined into one decision by the Commission. |
| Recommendation: | | Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) approving a Combined Concept and Final Design Study DS 20-300 (Clausen) and associated Coastal Development Permit for additions totaling 430 square feet and associated site improvements to the historic Zanetta Catlett Cottage located at Dolores Street 5 northwest of 2nd Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District. |
| Background and Project Description: | The Zanetta Catlett Cottage was designed by Hazel Watrous and constructed by Allen H. Tyler in 1924. The property includes an 839-square-foot cottage at the rear of the property and a 185-square-foot detached garage at the front property line. A 104-square-foot workshop is attached to the rear (west elevation) of the garage. The proposed project includes two additions on the south elevation of the cottage: a 22-square-foot addition to the kitchen area and a 403-square-foot addition to the existing bedroom.
The property was evaluated for historical significance by preservation consultant Margaret Clovis in May 2021 and subsequently added to the Carmel Historic Inventory (Attachment 2). The character-defining features of the cottage include the asymmetrical plan with intersecting gable roof; arched windows with shutters and arched doors; multi-paned windows; overhanging eaves with exposed rafters; stone chimney; and, board and batten siding. The landscaping is also character-defining with the meandering stone paths, garden walls, and lush plantings creating a woodland atmosphere. Additionally, the detached garage is part of the historic fabric and the character-defining features include the board & batten siding, arched garage entrance, and the front gable roof with overhanging eaves and exposed rafters.
In accordance with the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Section 17.32.160 (Historic Evaluation Process for Major Alterations), additions exceeding two percent of the existing floor area are considered major alterations, and a determination of consistency shall be prepared by a qualified professional and adopted by the Historic Resources Board. Following the Historic Resources Board review, the Planning Commission reviews the project.
Historic Resources Board Meeting of August 15, 2022
The Historic Resources Board adopted Resolution 2022-005-HRB (Attachment 3) on August 15, 2022, adding the Zanetta Catlett Cottage to the Carmel Register and issuing a Determination of Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, with the following conditions:
1. Prior to consideration of the Design Study application by the Planning Commission, the applicant shall submit a structural report for the chimney. The report shall contain recommendations for repairing the chimney including identifying the materials and methods to be used consistent with the Secretary’s Standards. If repair is not feasible, the report shall clearly document the reasons why a repair is infeasible and provide recommendations for reconstruction including identifying the materials and methods to be used consistent with the Secretary’s Standards. The report is included in Attachment 4.
Staff Response: Licensed engineer, Christian K. Lee with Structural-E Incorporated in Pacific Grove, CA inspected the chimney on-site on August 30, 2022. In Mr. Lee’s professional experience, the existing firebox and chimney do not conform to current seismic standards and it is unlikely that any steel reinforcing exists. Mr. Lee concludes that life, safety, and overall structural liability outweigh historic preservation needs and recommends a full demolition and reconstruction to meet current code requirements.
Staff notes that any historic resource that retains integrity from the period of construction is not likely to meet current building code requirements. Staff further notes that it is not uncommon for masonry chimneys that have been identified as character-defining features of a historic resource to be preserved and protected. The Secretary’s Standards recommend “…patching, splicing, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing the masonry using recognized preservation methods. Repair may include the limited replacement in kind or with compatible substitute material of those extensively deteriorated or missing parts of masonry features.” Replacement is recommended only when a feature has deteriorated beyond repair. The structural report does not address whether the firebox or chimney has deteriorated beyond repair, rather it documents the chimney as being not seismically sound. As a result, the structural report does not evaluate repair as an option but rather concludes that certain failure would result during a seismic event. Based on this finding, the report does not include
recommendations for reconstruction consistent with the Secretary’s Standards as required by the Historic Resources Board. The applicant has stated their intent to reuse the existing stone in the reconstruction but the materials and methods have not been identified. Special Condition of Approval No. 35 requires this information to be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit. Additional review by the Historic Resources Board may be required.
2. Prior to consideration of the Design Study application by the Planning Commission, the applicant shall submit a report documenting the extent of dry rot and/or termite damage on the historic portions of board & batten siding. The report shall contain recommendations for repairing the board & batten siding including identifying the materials and methods to be used consistent with the Secretary’s Standards. If repair is not feasible, the report shall clearly document the reasons why a repair is infeasible and provide recommendations for in-kind or a compatible substitute material, except that wood shall be used on primary or other highly-visible elevations, including identifying the materials and methods to be used consistent with the Secretary’s Standards. The report is included in Attachment 5.
Staff Response: The applicant has prepared Sheet A-1.0.2 identifying areas of the board & batten siding that are showing signs of deterioration due to water intrusion and direct contact with the ground. The applicant also recommends an independent inspection for wood-destroying insects however a report documenting the extent of wood-destroying insects has not yet been provided.
Moisture damage has also been identified on window sills and trim. Staff notes that the extent of the damage may be more widespread than what was observed during the appicant’s visual inspection. Rotted boards and trim are proposed to be replaced with the same materials and installation methods, vertical joints are proposed to be sealed and caulked, and a weather protective paint or varnish is proposed to be applied on the exterior.
3. Prior to consideration of the Design Study application by the Planning Commission, the applicant shall submit product information for the new windows. The windows shall include divided lights and be compatible with, and subtly differentiated from, the historic windows.
Staff Response: The applicant is proposing Kolbe windows and doors from the Heritage series. The product information for the windows is included as Attachment 6. Nine new windows are proposed. All would be double glazed casement windows. The elevations show new windows having divided lights that match the existing historic windows. Condition of Approval No. 14 requires all new windows to be unclad wood and sets for the requirements for divided light windows.
One of the benefits of being included in the Carmel Register includes the treatment of existing nonconformities as conforming and the ability to expand nonconformities when necessary to achieve consistency with the Secretary’s Standards. For the purposes of this project, existing nonconformities that are treated as conforming include on-site parking, and side and rear yard setbacks. Expansion of nonconformities includes the rear yard setback and composite side yard setback. |
| 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 image on the site.
Staff Response: The City Forester identified 12 trees on, or adjacent to, the project site during the preliminary site assessment, including two Monterey pines, four Birch, one Douglas fir, one Coast redwood, two Coast live oak, one Acacia, and one Plum tree. Eight trees have been rated significant, one has been rated moderately significant, and three trees have been rated insignificant. The applicant requested the removal of one Coast live oak tree (Tree No. 9) and the request was approved by the Forest & Beach Commission on April 14, 2022, with the following conditions:
1. Oak tree [Tree No. 9] shall not be removed until a building permit has been approved.
2. The building permit shall not be issued until the City Forester is satisfied that the redwood [Tree No. 8] on the adjacent lot will be protected.
3. The City Forester shall approve the location of the planting of two [upper canopy] trees.
The Forest & Beach Commission conditions have been included in the draft Resolution as Condition of Approval No.’s 23 and 24. With the application of conditions, the project meets the objectives of forest character.
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 Response: Staff did not identify any potential privacy or view impacts.
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.
Staff Response: The property contains a 185-square-foot detached single-car garage with a 104-square-foot attached workshop/storeroom. The garage is located in the front yard setback at the front property line. In the DPR 523A Form (Attachment 2), the garage was found to be part of the historic fabric of the site. The garage is described as follows,
“A 280 square foot board and batten garage and storeroom, designed by [Hazel] Watrous and built in 1928, is located at the front of the property near the street. It has a front gable roof with overhanging eaves and exposed rafters. Composition shingles cover the roof and vehicle access is gained through an arched garage door. The rear storeroom is covered by a shed roof. Two entrances are located on the north elevation, on e of which leads into the garage and the other into the storeroom. A small multi-paned window is located on the garage’s north elevation while the storeroom’s west elevation has a larger multi-paned window divided into three sections. elevation, one of which leads into the garage and the other into the storeroom.”
The existing garage is detached from the cottage and located at the front property line. While the garage is more prominent than the cottage, the location maximizes open space and views into the property. The location also minimizes the amount of paved surface needed for a driveway. The garage is part of the historic fabric and any modification is subject to adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Restoration of the garage is not part of the current scope of work but may be completed in a later phase. The project meets the objectives of parking and access while preserving the historic features of the property.
On-Site Parking Requirements
CMC Section 17.10.030.F.2 (Additional Requirements), subsection d. states that developed building sites not meeting parking standards shall be considered nonconforming and no floor area addition shall be permitted unless the parking is brought into compliance. Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Section 17.10.030.F (On-Site Parking Requirements) requires parking to be at least 10 feet by 20 feet. The existing garage is 10’-2” by 18’-2” and does not meet this requirement.
Staff notes that if the internal wall separating the garage and workshop was removed or shifted to the west, the garage could easily obtain a depth of 20’ and meet current parking standards. However, as noted above, restoration of the garage is not part of the current scope of work but may be completed in a later phase.
CMC Section 17.10.030.A.1 (Detached Garages and Carports) allows detached garages in the front setback with approval by the Planning Commission. The existing garage was constructed in 1928 prior to this requirement and is considered legal nonconforming. The Historic Preservation Ordinance, CMC Section 17.32.100.D (Nonconformities), states that existing structural nonconformities associated with a historic resource listed on the Carmel Register are to be treated as conforming if they are essential to maintaining the integrity of the resource.
On August 15, 2022, the Historic Resources Board adopted Resolution 2022-005-HRB adding the project site to the Carmel Register. The inclusion of the historic resource on the Register allows the garage to be treated as conforming for the purposes of this project. Therefore, the existing nonconformities would not preclude the proposed additions to the cottage. As proposed, the project meets the design objectives and development standards for parking and access.
Mass and Bulk: Residential Design Guidelines 7.1 through 7.7 encourages a building’s 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.
Staff Response: The project includes two single-story additions, both on the south elevation. The smaller of the two additions is 22 square feet in the kitchen area. The larger addition is 403 square feet for two bedrooms and a bathroom.
The existing finish floor level of the cottage steps down three times from east to west for a combined 2.7’ (from 192.9’ to 190.2’). The project proposes to create a single finish floor level throughout the historic cottage at 192.2’. The finish floor level of the new addition would step down to 190.7’ and connect with the historic cottage via a flat roof element. The addition would be located at the southwest corner of the site and would be obscured by the detached garage and workshop at the front of the property which has a finish floor elevation of 198.35’.
The east, west, and north elevations of the cottage would remain largely the same. At the existing kitchen, the roof would be reconstructed to create a single continuous ridge from east to west where the front-facing gable intersections with the side gable at the rear of the cottage.
The northwest corner of the cottage is currently a two-story element and is below the permitted plate and ridge heights for two-story residences (18’ and 24’ respectively) (refer to Attachment 2, Project Data Table). The project proposes to convert the two-story element into a single-story element without modifying the existing top plate or ridge. This will make the plate height at the northwest corner of the cottage nonconforming at 14.2’ (a maximum of 12’ is permitted). As stated earlier in this report, one of the benefits of placing historic properties on the Carmel Register is the ability to expand nonconformities when necessary to achieve consistency with the Secretary’s Standards. Maintaining the existing plate and ridge height achieves this goal.
The proposed single-story bedroom and bathroom addition at the southwest corner of the lot would have a plate height of 12.2’ and a ridge height of 16.7’. The maximum plate height permitted for a single-story addition is 12’ and the maximum ridge height is 18’. The proposed addition is below the allowable ridge height but slightly taller than the permitted plate height. Special Condition No. 36 requires the plate height to be reduced to no more than 12’ prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The massing of the additions are appropriate within the context of the project site and nearby homes. Views of the additions from the street would be minimal due to their location at the rear of the lot. With the application of conditions, the project meets the objectives of mass and bulk.
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 proportionate to the scale of the building; and, roof eave lines that are low in scale.
Staff Response: The smaller addition fills in a jog in the south wall plane and the larger of the two additions is an ell shape connected to the south elevation at the rear of the cottage. The addition creates a u-shaped floor plan with a central courtyard as an outdoor living space. The connection between new and old is a flat roof form. The addition would have an 8:12 pitched hipped roof. On the east elevation, a gable roof form is proposed above a projecting bay window. The pitch of the gable roof is not identified on the plans but appears subordinate to the main roof forms. The depth of the eaves appear to be 12 inches. The project meets the objectives of building and roof form.
Finish Details: The Applicant will preserve the historic board & batten siding which is a character-defining feature of the cottage. The flat roof addition would be finished in stone and the larger addition finished in smooth plaster. The existing roof material is a composition shingle and the new roof forms will be finished to match. Where new windows are proposed, the material would be unclad wood painted white. The smooth plaster would be painted a lighter green color to distinguish the addition from the original cottage.
Exterior Lighting: Carmel Municipal Code Section 15.36.070.B.1 states that all exterior lighting attached to the main building or any accessory building shall be no higher than 10 feet above the ground and shall not exceed 25 watts (the incandescent equivalent of 375 lumens) in power per fixture, and that landscape lighting shall not exceed 18 inches above the ground nor more than 15 watts (the incandescent equivalent 225 lumens) per fixture.
In addition, Residential Design Guideline 11.8, states that projects should, “preserve the low nighttime lighting character of the residential neighborhoods. Use lights only where needed for safety and in outdoor activity areas. Use low-lumen output bulbs. Locate and shield fixtures to avoid glare and excess lighting as seen from neighboring properties and from the street.” The Guidelines do not address design compatibility between building architecture and exterior light fixtures.
Staff Response: The applicant is proposing two exterior light fixtures, a wall-mounted fixture, and a step light. The wall-mounted fixture has a 125-lumen light output and the step light has a 266-lumen light output. Both fixtures are shielded, and direct light downward however the step light exceeds the 225-lumen light output for landscape lighting. Special Condition of Approval No. 36 requires the applicant to select an alternative step light prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The lighting plan (Sheet C-1.3) identifies the location of three-step lights on the south side of the patio but does not indicate the number or location of wall-mounted lights. Standard Condition of Approval No. 11 requires the applicant to submit a lighting plan with the construction drawings that identify the number and location of all exterior light fixtures. With the application of conditions of approval, the project meets the objectives of exterior lighting.
Fencing/Gate/Arbor: No new fencing, gates, or arbors are proposed.
Landscaping: Residential Design Guideline 10.0 states that project sites should “Provide for upper and lower canopy trees when designing the landscape. Landscape plans that use native plants and other varieties accustomed to growing along the Central Coast are encouraged. Planting in areas visible from the street or other public places should continue the forest character. Plants in the public right-of-way should be predominantly green foliage plants, in keeping with the design traditions of Carmel.”
Carmel Municipal Code Section 17.48.080, Table 17.48-A includes recommended tree densities for a variety of lot sizes. Lots up to 4,000 square feet are recommended to have 3 upper canopy trees and 1 lower canopy tree.
Staff Response: As stated above in the section on forest character, 12 trees are located on or adjacent to the project site. Four are upper-canopy trees and the remaining eight are lower-canopy trees. The applicant has received approval from the Forest & Beach Commission to remove one lower canopy tree (Coast live oak) and is required to plant two new upper canopy trees. A landscape plan has not been provided therefore the location and species of the required tree plantings have not yet been identified. Landscape Condition of Approval No. 22 requires the applicant to submit a landscape plan prior to the issuance of a building permit that identifies the number, location, and species of all landscape material, and Landscape Condition of Approval No. 23 requires the applicant to include two upper canopy trees on the landscape plan. With the application of conditions of approval, the project meets the objectives of landscaping and the recommended tree density.
Skylights: The project does not include any skylights.
Site Coverage: Carmel Municipal Code Section 17.10.030 limits the amount of site coverage to 22 percent of the base floor area. A bonus of 4 percent of the lot size is allowed when at least half of all site coverage is permeable/semi-permeable. Permeable/semi-permeable materials include gravel, spaced decking, and exterior stairs, sand-set bricks or pavers, garden walkways of small paving stones, and arbors. Impermeable materials include asphalt, concrete, mortared brick and stone, decomposed granite, unspaced decking and balconies at any level, garden walls, solariums, bridges, sheds not counted as floor area, ponds, hot tubs, and swimming pools.
The property contains 852 square feet of site coverage and is non-conforming. CMC Section 17.10.030.C.2 states, Nonconforming Site Coverage. Sites not in compliance with site coverage limits shall not be authorized to increase site coverage. Sites with excess coverage may add floor area consistent with subsection (D)(3) of this section, Exterior Volume, only when:
a. The site complies with the R-1 district tree density provisions established in CMC 17.48.080(A), and all existing and new trees have sufficient space to protect the root zones and provide for new growth; and
b. Excess site coverage will be reduced at a rate equal to two times the amount of floor area added to the site or to an amount that complies with the site coverage limits, whichever is less.
As discussed above in the section on Forest Character, the project exceeds the recommended density requirements and therefore meets subsection (a).
The project includes additions totaling 430 square feet. Site coverage must be reduced by 860 square feet OR to an amount that complies with site coverage limits. In this case, a reduction of 296 square feet of site coverage would bring the site into compliance. However, the Historic Preservation Ordinance states that existing structural nonconformities associated with historic resources that are essential to maintaining the integrity of the resource shall be treated as conforming.
The existing meandering stone walkways and garden walls account for 310 square feet of site coverage and are a character-defining feature of the historic resource; therefore, they must be maintained in order to preserve the historic integrity of the property. The remaining site coverage elements include a rear yard wood deck and a stone entry patio.
The applicant is proposing to eliminate the rear wood deck (102 square feet) to accommodate the new addition, reconstruct the entry patio (440 square feet) with sand set pavers and increase the size by 46 square feet (486 square feet total), and maintain all existing walkways (310 square feet). The total proposed site coverage would be 796 square feet, a reduction of 56 square feet. The total site coverage excluding the historic stone walkways and garden walls would be 486 square feet which are below the permitted 556 square feet.
|
| Other Project Components: | | Staff recommends the project be found categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA guidelines, and local environmental regulations, pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1) – Existing Facilities. Class 1 exemptions include additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition or 2,500 square feet whichever is less. The proposed project does not present any unusual circumstances that would result in a potentially significant environmental impact and no exceptions to the exemption exist pursuant to section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines. |
|
|