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.
Finding #2 for Concept Design Study Approval Requires that “the project is consistent with the City’s design objectives for protection and enhancement of the urbanized forest, open space resources and site design.” For a 4,000 square foot site, the recommended tree density is 3 upper canopy trees and 1 lower canopy tree. The design objective states that “each site should contribute to the urban forest or other vegetation characteristic of the neighborhood, by harboring an appropriate number and mix of trees and/or shrubs consistent with the neighborhood context and the neighborhood streetscape” (CMC 17.10.010.A). A landscaping plan has yet to be provided, but will be required to be provided prior to scheduling for final details review.
Finding #7 for Concept Design Study Approval states, “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.” The site contains four trees (3 upper canopy and 1 lower canopy), three of which are significant. One significant fir tree was approved for removal by the Forest and Beach Commission at their June 8th meeting (click here for staff report). While initially rated as significant during the Preliminary Site Assessment conducted in March 2022, the associated Arborist Report prepared for the Forest and Beach Commission hearing found that the tree was in very poor condition with less than 10% remaining of the living crown. The arborist also noted that the tree is not a long-term asset to Carmel’s urban forest due to its condition. Upon approval of the tree removal, the Forest and Beach Commission has required that one upper canopy tree be planted on-site as a replacement tree to meet the recommended tree density for the site. This requirement has been included as Draft Condition of Approval #2, and will be included in the final resolution as well.
The development is setback a minimum of 6-feet from the remaining significant trees on the project site, as well as the significant trees on the adjacent property, as depicted on the tree protection plans (refer to Attachment 6, Sheet T2 & T3). While the development is adequately setback from the trees, the proposed second floor does encroach into the canopy of existing trees overhanging the property as assessed by the story poles –this was not identified until the story poles were installed after the June 8th Forest and Beach Commission hearing. In discussion with the Forestry Department, tree pruning permits are analyzed differently from tree removal permits, and the applicant’s ability to prune the tree is not automatically precluded, as is their ability to remove a healthy significant tree as outlined in the municipal code. Concept Design Guideline Finding #7 also prohibits removal of significant trees –not pruning/limb removal, though Residential Design Guideline 1.2 encourages using a building design or roof design that avoids require extensive pruning to tree limbs and canopies.
Staff has included Draft Condition of Approval #3 stating, “Prior to scheduling for Final Details Review, the applicant shall submit a Tree Pruning Permit Application to be reviewed and approved by the Forestry Department. Should the Tree Pruning Permit be not approved, the applicant shall prepared a revised design that does not require the pruning or removal of the subject branches.”
As conditioned the project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines for Forest Character and meets Concept Phase Approval Findings #2, and #7 pertaining to the protection and enhancement of the urbanized forest (CMC 17.64.080).
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. Concept Design Study Finding #5 states, “The project is consistent with the City’s 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.”
At the time of writing this report staff has only heard from one neighbor with concerns regarding privacy and views –the neighbor to the north. Story poles for the project were initially installed prior to the Preliminary Site Assessment (March 2022) and were installed consistent with Figure 1b, below. Staff was contacted by the neighbor to the north regarding concerns regarding the project around the same time, specifically privacy, view, and light concerns related to their breakfast nook, kitchen window, and lower floor bedroom (these issues continue to be areas of concern for the neighbor –see “Public Correspondence” section, below). The views of concern are not ocean views, but views of the forest and tree canopy beyond.
Staff noted the neighbor’s concerns in the preliminary site assessment report which was provided to the applicant. The applicant was able to meet with the neighbor at the neighbor’s home to view and discuss the areas of concerns. This meeting took place on or around May 19, 2022. Based on conversations with the neighbor, the applicant made the following revisions and modifications to the project plans (refer to figures 1 & 2, below).
Figure 1a. Proposed Front (West) Elevation
Figure 1b. Initial Front (West) Elevation – Not under consideration
Figure 2. Approximate overlay of initial (grey) and proposed (red) north elevations.
Aligned using static points (existing grade, east/west building walls)
Finding #5 for Concept Design Study Approval states, “The project is consistent with the City’s 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.”
The proposed project does not obstruct any public view, as defined in CMC 17.10.010.J, which relates to significant coastal views as seen from the right-of-way.
The project also meets the design objective pertaining to solar access which states, “Designs should preserve the rights to reasonable solar access on neighboring parcels. Excessively tall buildings, particularly those near a north property line, which would block the free passage of the sun onto neighboring solar collectors or south-facing windows on neighboring sites, should be avoided.” The building is proposed to be a maximum of 20’2” tall (24’ allowed), approximately 4’ less than what is permitted for a 2-story building and only 2’ taller than the maximum allowed for a one-story building (18’). The proposed residence is also centrally located on the site with a minimum setback of 5’6” from the northern property line with the new second floor being setback a minimum of 7’3” from the property line. The combination of the additional setback and lower building heights allow for a reasonable amount of solar access for neighboring sites.
In respect to privacy impacts, facing north, the only new second floor window is an opaque bathroom window. This window does not create any privacy impacts to the neighbor to the north. To the south, there is a bedroom oriel window as well as a set of 3-stairway windows that overlooks the neighboring roof and does not create a privacy impact. There is also a small balcony off the southern elevation above the ground floor main entry. While some filtered views into the southern neighbor’s yard may be present as a result of the inclusion of the proposed second floor deck, the yard appears to be largely screen by an existing oak tree on the subject property and well as trees and landscaping on the neighbor’s site. To the south, an elevated deck that extends to the property line is proposed to be demolished and replaced with a modest deck at the rear of the residence. The removal of the existing deck will significantly improve any existing privacy impacts as the current condition allows for direct views over the rear property line. There are no second story windows proposed to face south, however the new second floor deck, previously described, is also proposed to face south. However, the distance from the deck to the southern property line (approximately 35’) will have minimal impact to the rear neighbor (refer to figure 3, below).
Figure 3. Approximate outline of ground floor in blue; approximate outline of 2nd floor in red –shaded red area is a covered balcony (under roof area) and hatched red is an uncovered balcony. Footprint of adjacent neighbor’s property shown for reference.
In conclusion, the project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines pertaining to privacy and views and meets Concept Phase Approval Findings #5 pertaining to public and private views, and solar access.
Mass/Bulk and Building/Roof Form: 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. 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. Guideline 8.3 states to “limit the number of subordinate attachments, such as dormers, to avoid cluttered design.”
Concept Finding #3 requires that “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. Additionally, Concept Finding #4, requires that “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.”
In plan, the proposed building is a simple rectangular form, as encouraged by the Residential Design Guidelines. As discussed above, the building uses low plate lines, with a maximum (most restrictive) first floor plate height of 11’ (maximum allowed 12’) with 10’ (maximum) foot interior plates (minimum interior ground floor plate height: 8’1”). The upper floor maintains 16’9” plates throughout (maximum allowed 18’) with interior plate heights of 7’. The roof ridge is also approximately 20’2” above grade where 24’ is allowed for a two-story building. The mass and bulk of the residence is also minimized by using a slab on grade foundation which eliminates the creation of large, unused under-floor areas that would otherwise increase the building’s mass, as encouraged by the residential design guidelines. Lastly, the project is proposed to be a total of 1,767 square feet where 1,800 square feet is permitted for a 4,000 square foot site. Building less than the allowable floor area is also encouraged by the Residential Design Guidelines to minimize mass and bulk.
The roof is comprised of hipped roof forms moderately pitched at 4:12 throughout, as encouraged by the residential Design Guidelines. The hips primarily run east to west with a hipped element also facing north on the second floor.
The proposed project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines pertaining to mass and bulk and building and roof form and meets Concept Phase Approval Findings #3 and #4 pertaining to avoiding the use of complex building forms and maintaining a scale similar to those in the immediate neighborhood (CMC 17.64.080).
Overlay Districts:
The subject property is located in both the Beach and Riparian (BR) Overlay District and the Archeological Significance (AS) Overlay District. An analysis and discussion of the applicable requirements and findings will be made at the Final Details hearing.
The required Archeological Resource Management Report (required for projects in the AS overlay) has been prepared and has been included as Attachment 4 for reference.
Considerations for Final Details Review:
The building is proposed to be finished with a combination of stucco and stone with wood doors and windows. The stucco is proposed to be painted “Drift of Mist” by Sherwin Williams (click here for color information) with white building trim elements. The roof is proposed to be a weathered copper (color –not material) standing seam metal roof that is consistent in color and appearance to other metal roofs approved by the Commission.
Staff however is seeking the commission’s feedback on the appropriateness of the proposed metal roof given the roof’s proximity in elevation to the northern neighbor’s main floor windows given potential glare and reflectivity impacts a metal roof may create. Additional considerations are that the subject property is located in the very high fire hazard severity zone, and that there is a dense tree cover along the northern property line but generally open skies toward the south. If not supportive of a metal roof, the commission should provide direction accordingly.
Lastly, a landscape plan/forest enhancement plan has not been included which is required as part of all track 2 applications (CMC 17.34.040). There is a note on the site plan that states, “natural a forested condition throughout rest of property” however, landscaping plans and/or details should be provided. Draft Condition of Approval #4 has been included stating prior to Final Details Review, a landscape plan shall be submitted for review by staff and final approval by the Planning Commission.
Public Correspondence: At the time of writing this report, staff has received one letter from the neighbor to the north. Their letter states, in part, “As you know, we are very concerned that the height of what they are proposing will impact our trees, our views, and the light we receive downstairs.” As stated by the neighbor, they “provided information [they] put together with a local architect. [The architect] is very familiar with the guidelines and helped us with drawings, etc to show the impact of the proposed design” (refer to Attachment 5).
Staff notes that while some of the figures included in the attachment are in the style of the Residential Design Guidelines, they are not taken from the Residential Design Guidelines, or are hybrid drawings combined with images taken from the Residential Design Guidelines.
Prior to the installation of the story poles, the neighbor had informed staff that they would be out of the county until after the staff report was published and therefore staff has not had an opportunity to review the installed story poles from inside their residence. Staff has however included photographs from an earlier iteration of the project (see Figure 1b and 2, above) from March 2022 as part of Attachment 3, Figures 4-8 for reference. At the time of writing this report current photos of the newly installed story poles have not been provided by the neighbor.