Legal Building Site: Early in the application review process, a concerned neighbor contacted staff to discuss whether the project site is a legal building site. CMC 17.06.020.C states that for existing buildings, the ground area needed for the legal construction of a building at the time of construction shall be one building site. If the building cannot be legally built on the same ground area at the present time, the building site shall be called a nonconforming building site.
Additionally, CMC Section 17.10.020.A states that parcels not meeting the criteria for a legal building site shall not be issued any building permits, other than permits for demolition, repair, or maintenance until the parcel has been brought into compliance with this section.
The CMC further states that for a parcel of land in the R-1 district to be considered a legal building site, it must be at least 2,500 square feet and must have been a single, independent lot of record in existence on February 4, 1948, with at least 2,500 square feet of land area that was not in the same ownership as one or more adjoining lots of record on that date.
Staff reviewed the 1888 subdivision map for Carmel City and found that the original subdivision layout for the project site was a 2,500-square-foot lot. Staff also reviewed the subsequent subdivision map filed in 1902 and found the same lot configuration. Staff consulted with the City Attorney on the matter and concluded that the project site is a legal 2,500-square-foot lot of record that has existed since 1888.
The neighbor asserted that the property was not a legal building site if it was under single ownership on February 4, 1948. Therefore, the current owner can only demolish or maintain the existing structure.
In 1946, the project site (Lot 6) and four others (Lots 7, 8, 9 & 10) were developed as individual building sites, each with its own single-family cottage. All five lots were under single ownership at that time. However, the lots were not developed as a single building site but as five independent lots of record.
We do not know the ownership of Lots 6-10 on February 4, 1948. However, staff believes this is irrelevant. The project site was legally created and has existed as a 2,500-square-foot parcel since 1888. It was developed with a single-family residence in 1946 and has remained a single, independent lot of record. It is not a lot fragment, nor have the lot lines ever been changed. Whether or not the project site was under single ownership with an adjoining lot on February 4, 1948, is irrelevant because, in 1946, it was developed with an independent, single-family cottage on a legal lot of record, thereby establishing it as a legal building site and it remains as such today.
Staff contends that the code provision, which speaks to being under single ownership, was intended to prevent a single building site from being subdivided into two or more building sites after 1948, with one or more parcels being 2,500 square feet in area. This is not the case with the project site. As stated above, the project site was created as a legal building site, developed with a cottage, and has remained a single, independent, developed building site since 1946. Therefore, whether it is under single ownership or not is irrelevant. Based on the staff’s research and consultation with the City Attorney, the property is a legal building site.
Demolition. The act of reconstructing, removing, taking down, or destroying all or portions of an existing building or structure, or making extensive repairs or modifications to an existing building or structure, if such changes involve removal or replacement of 50 percent or more of both the structural framing and cladding or of the exterior walls within a 24-month period. When determining whether a building or structure is demolished, the following applies:
A. The nonconforming portions of any wall are counted as removed or taken down, even when retention of these portions is proposed.
B. Any continuous run of remaining exterior wall surfaces measuring 10 feet or less in length are counted as removed or replaced.
Based on the demolition floor plan, more than 50 percent of the exterior walls will be removed to accommodate the additions. Some of the walls proposed to remain are 10 feet or less long and are counted as being demolished. Therefore, the project meets the definition of demolition.
Occasionally, applicants will retain portions of existing walls to preserve a setback nonconformity. The existing cottage has a nonconforming east side yard setback of 2.7’ to 2.9’, where a minimum 3-foot setback is required. Additionally, the existing cottage does not meet the required composite setback of 7 feet.
Rather than reconstruct the walls to meet minimum setback requirements, the applicant proposes to retain the east wall of the cottage to preserve the setback non-conformity. In accordance with the definition of demolition, this wall is considered demolished even though it is proposed to be retained and is therefore included in the calculation for determining whether 50 percent or more of the exterior walls are being removed.
If the eastern wall is identified for removal in the construction drawings (e.g., for structural reasons or otherwise) or subsequently removed by the contractor during construction, it is required to be rebuilt in conformance with the required setbacks. All new construction (e.g., the additions) must meet the required setbacks.
The following is an analysis of the project’s consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines.
Forest Character: Residential Design Guidelines 1.1 through 1.4 encourage 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.
Carmel Municipal Code Section 17.34.070.A.1-2 states that all properties, private and public, located in the R-1 or R-4 district shall contribute to the urbanized forest or other vegetation characteristic of the neighborhood by harboring an appropriate mix of upper and lower canopy trees and/or shrubs consistent with the neighborhood context and neighborhood streetscape. Forested neighborhoods shall perpetuate the Monterey pine, Monterey Cypress, Coast live oak, or Redwood forest that predominates in the vicinity. Proposed residential projects shall preserve adequate space for the growth of trees or other vegetation.
Staff Response: In January 2021, a preliminary site assessment was conducted, and the City Forester identified two trees on the project site (both Coast live oak) and six trees immediately adjacent to the site (one Monterey cypress, one Monterey pine, and four Coast live oak). Six of the eight trees were rated significant, including the Coast live oak tree no. 5 at the rear of the project site and Coast live oak tree no. 4 adjacent to the south property line.
The recommended tree density for lots 4,000 square feet or less is three upper canopy and one lower canopy tree. Based on the small lot size (2,500 square feet) and the January 2021 observed tree canopy, the City Forester recommended planting one upper-canopy tree on-site. Recommendation/Draft Condition No. 2 (Attachment 1) requires the applicant to submit a revised preliminary landscape plan prior to the final details review that includes the size, species, and location of one upper canopy tree.
The applicant proposes removing limbs from tree no. 5. Recommendation/Draft Condition No. 3 requires the applicant to submit a tree application for the proposed limb removals. If removing limbs requires review by the Forest & Beach Commission, the applicant shall obtain their approval before the final details review. If the applicant is not proposing to remove any limbs from tree no. 5, then they shall remove this note from the plans. With the application of conditions, the project meets the objectives of forest character.
Privacy and Views: Residential Design Guidelines 5.1 through 5.3 encourage designs that preserve reasonable privacy for adjacent properties and maintain view opportunities to natural features.
Staff Response: Privacy. The proposed additions are single-story. The rear addition would be elevated above the existing cottage due to a change in topography. The plans show three steps between the kitchen and the bedroom 2 addition. A narrow 1’-6” x 6’ window is proposed adjacent to the steps on the east (side) elevation of the addition. No other windows are located on the east elevation of the addition.
On the east (side) elevation of the existing cottage, two four-foot-wide by four-foot-high windows are proposed to be replaced with two two-foot wide by three-foot, six-inch-high windows. A third window of the same size is proposed on the north side of a single door. A narrow 1’-6” x 6’ window is proposed at the south end of the cottage. Staff did not identify any potential privacy impacts to the eastern neighbors.
On the west (side) elevation of the addition, a new two-foot wide by three-foot, six-inch-high window is proposed in bath 2.
On the west (side) elevation of the existing cottage, two pairs of double doors are proposed with a 1’-6” wide by 6’ high window on the south end of the cottage and a 2’ wide by 3’-6” high window in bath 1. Staff did not identify any potential privacy impacts to the western neighbors.
On the rear elevation, the proposed addition would be set back 15 feet from the rear property line, and a double door is proposed. Staff did not identify any potential privacy impacts to the northern neighbors.
Staff Response: Views. Staff did not identify any potential view impacts. However, the northeast neighbor has expressed concerns regarding the impacts on their views from the active living spaces within their home, specifically the living room, kitchen, and master bedroom (refer to Attachment 4). The neighbor is concerned that the addition will block west-facing views of the oak tree canopy and sunsets and negatively impact their access to sunlight and air.
Recommendation/Draft Condition, No. 18 from the first concept hearing (Attachment 5), stated Prior to the final details review, the applicant shall lower the rear addition and/or change/lower the roof form to mitigate impacts to the northeast neighbor. The applicant reduced the height of the addition by 8 inches and turned the side-facing gable into a rear-facing gable. However, the neighbor still has concerns that the addition will have a negative impact on the enjoyment of their property. The Planning Commission will have the opportunity to view the project’s story poles and netting from the neighbor’s residence during the tour of inspection.
Parking and Access: Residential Design Guidelines 6.1 through 6.7 encourage subordinate parking facilities that do not dominate the design of the house or site; minimize the amount of paved surface for a driveway; position garages to maximize open space, views, and privacy; and minimize visual impacts.
Staff Response: As stated in the background section of this report, two driveways were constructed on Ocean Avenue and interconnected to create a semi-circular driveway in December 1965 to serve all five cottages, which operated as an unpermitted motel in the R-1 district. In March 1966, the City took action against the motel ownership for zoning violations (operating a business in the R-1 district) and tax evasion. In June 1968, the City’s Board of Adjustments granted a Use Permit for the operation of the motel. An undated site plan in the property file shows the location of the five cottages, the motel office, the semi-circular driveway, and on-site parking (Attachment 6). By 1974, the five cottages had been converted back to single-family use, but the semi-circular driveway remained and is still in use today. In the 1980s, two of the five cottages were remodeled and expanded. These cottages are located at the northeast corner of Guadalupe Street and Ocean Avenue and the southeast corner of Guadalupe Street and 6th Avenue. Both properties now contain on-site parking in enclosed garages, accessed from Guadalupe Street and 6th Avenue, respectively.
The remaining three cottages share the semi-circular driveway on Ocean Avenue for vehicular access and on-site parking. The semi-circular driveway allows vehicles to access and circulate across all three parcels by entering the east driveway (closer to Carpenter Street) and exiting through the west driveway (closer to Guadalupe Street).
The project applicant owns the property closest to the east driveway and proposes constructing a 230-square-foot detached garage in the front yard setback. The portion of the existing driveway in the public right-of-way is proposed to be widened to the east to better align with the garage. No modifications are proposed on the west side of the eastern driveway.
A 4-foot tall fence is proposed in the front yard setback on the west property line. The fence height would increase to 6 feet to the point where it meets the existing fence. Recommendation/Draft Condition No. 13 from the first concept hearing (Attachment 5) stated Prior to the final details review, the applicant shall revise the plans to shift the gate and pedestals to the north to maintain a minimum 15-foot front setback. The purpose of this condition was to preserve the existing circulation pattern between the three cottages. However, based on direction from legal counsel, the City cannot compel the applicant to make her property available for others to traverse.
Since the first concept review, the ownership of the middle cottage has changed. As of the writing of this report, staff has not received any comments from this neighbor. The ownership of the third cottage continues to have concerns about driveway access and safety (Attachment 7).
Detached Garage in the Front Setback: CMC Section 17.10.030.A.1 (Detached Garages and Carports) allows detached garages within the front yard setback to encourage variety and diversity in neighborhood design subject to the following standards:
1) The Planning Commission may authorize a single-car, detached garage or carport not exceeding 12 feet in width, 250 square feet in floor area, and 15 feet in height in either the front yard setback or the side yard setback facing a street (but not both).
Staff Response: The proposed single-car detached garage would be in the front yard setback, 3 feet from the front property line and 3 feet from the east (side) lot line. The garage is proposed to be 11’-6” wide, 20’ deep, 230 square feet in area, and 10’-5” in height. The garage meets standard no. 1.
2) At least 50 percent of the adjacent right-of-way is landscaped or preserved in a natural and forested condition to compensate for the loss of open space.
Staff Response: The proposed garage would be located to the right (east) of the existing eastern driveway access. The applicant is proposing to enlarge the width of the driveway within the right-of-way to align with the front of the proposed garage. However, the maximum width of a driveway in the public right-of-way is limited to 14 feet. Adhering to this requirement minimizes the removal of landscaping in the right-of-way and maintains more landscaped open space. Recommendation/Draft Condition No. 7 requires the applicant to revise the width of the driveway within the public right-of-way to no more than 14 feet prior to the final details review. With the application of conditions, the project meets standard no. 2.
3) The proposed setback encroachment would not impact significant or moderately significant trees.
Staff Response: The proposed garage would not impact significant or moderately significant trees. The project meets standard no. 3.
4) Free and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles in adjacent rights-of-way is protected.
Staff Response: The project site is located near the corner of Ocean Avenue and Carpenter Street. A sidewalk is not present at this location. A dedicated pedestrian pathway is provided on the south side of Ocean Avenue. The placement of the garage within the front yard setback would not impede pedestrian traffic in the adjacent right-of-way on Ocean Avenue.
The proposed garage would alter existing circulation patterns between the project site and the two adjacent cottages to the west that currently use the eastern driveway to access their properties. However, based on the advice of the City’s legal counsel, the City cannot require the existing vehicular access to be maintained as no recorded easement grants the adjoining properties the right to traverse the project site. As a result, it is within the Planning Commission’s authority to approve the garage even if it alters the existing circulation pattern.
The proposed garage would not impede vehicles within the improved portion of the adjacent Ocean Avenue right-of-way. The improved width of Ocean Avenue is clearly defined with a curb and gutter, and 27+ feet of unimproved right of way is located between the roadway and the front property line. The project meets standard no. 4.
5) All development on site will be in scale with adjacent properties and the neighborhood context consistent with adopted design guidelines.
Staff Response: The immediate neighborhood context includes a mix of expansive two-story structures and modest one-story cottages. As discussed above, two of the five original cottages have enclosed garages; the remaining three cottages have parking pads at the front of their cottages.
The detached garage proposes an 8-foot interior plate height and an overall height of 10 feet, 5 inches. The ridge of the garage would be 8 feet, 6 inches lower than the highest ridge of the cottage. The proposed garage is subordinate in scale within the neighborhood context and meets standard no. 5.
6) Placement of the garage or carport in the setback will add diversity to the neighborhood streetscape.
Staff Response: The two cottages to the west do not currently have covered parking, so adding a detached garage in the front yard setback would add diversity to the block between Carpenter Street and Guadalupe Street. Over 27 feet of unimproved right-of-way will be maintained in a natural state between the front property line and the edge of the roadway on Ocean Avenue. The project meets standard no. 6.
The proposed detached garage complies with the requirements for garages within the front yard setback and, with the application of conditions, meets the objectives of parking and access.
Mass and Bulk: Residential Design Guidelines 7.1 through 7.7 encourage 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 existing 562-square-foot single-story cottage was constructed with four other cottages of a similar size and scale. Two of those cottages have been expanded and include second-floor additions. One is located to the immediate north of the project site. The other is located to the west but does not share a property line with the project site. The remaining two cottages are located west of the project site and maintain their original form and scale. The property to the east is a two-story structure.
The project site is buffered from Ocean Avenue by over 27 feet of landscaped right-of-way. The front of the proposed single-story attached garage would be over 42 feet from the edge of the roadway on Ocean Avenue. Vegetation to the east and west of the project site provides a visual buffer for the cottage.
The front elevation of the cottage would be maintained, and the existing stone chimney preserved. The project meets the objectives of mass and bulk.
Building and Roof Form: Residential Design Guidelines 8.1 through 8.5 encourage 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.
Staff Response: The existing roof form is an intersecting hip with a 4:12 pitch. The proposed roof form consists of a traditional hip over the existing cottage and a rear-facing gable over the addition. All roof forms are proposed to have a 4:12 roof pitch. The existing asphalt composition shingle roof is proposed to be replaced with a new Class A composition shingle roof.
The rear addition is proposed to have an 8-foot interior plate height and an overall height of 11 feet, 8 inches. As noted above the addition would be elevated 2.5 feet due to the existing topography and requires three interior steps between the kitchen and bedroom.
Building eaves are proposed to be 18 inches on the cottage and 12 inches on the addition. Eaves within 2 feet of a property line are limited to a depth of 4 inches (Recommendation/ Draft Condition No. 5). With the application of conditions, the project meets the objectives of building and roof form.
Finish Details: The applicant proposes a stucco finish painted “Shimple White” by Sherwin Williams (SW7021). In the plans, the color appears to be a medium gray. Recommendation/Draft Condition No. 9 requires the applicant to submit paint samples prior to the final details review. The applicant proposes a Jeldwen clad-wood window with a luxury bronze finish.
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 (incandescent equivalent, i.e., approximately 375 lumens) in power per fixture, and that landscape lighting shall not exceed 18 inches above the ground nor more than 15 watts (incandescent equivalent; i.e., approximately 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 at outdoor activity areas.”
Staff Response: The applicant proposes a powder-coated black outdoor wall light by True Fine. The fixture is shielded, directs light downward, and would be equipped with a maximum 25-watt incandescent bulb or the LED equivalent (not to exceed 375 lumens). One wall-mounted light is provided at each single door, two at each double door, and two at the front of the detached garage.
Fencing/Gate/Arbor: Carmel Municipal Code Section 17.10.030.E provides the maximum fence and wall heights in the R-1 District. Fences within the front setback are limited to 4 feet in height; garden walls and retaining walls are limited to 3 feet in height. In the side and rear setbacks, fences, garden walls, and retaining walls can be up to 6 feet tall.
Staff Response: The applicant proposes 15 linear feet of a 4-foot fence in the front yard setback on the west property line and 16 linear feet of a 6-foot fence. 18-inch square pedestals are proposed at the front gate, but no details have been provided.
Site Coverage: A maximum of 247 square feet of impermeable site coverage is permitted on a 2,500-square-foot lot. The applicant proposes to remove 1,065 square feet of existing site coverage and install 226 square feet of impermeable site coverage.
Skylights: There are no existing skylights, and no new skylights are proposed.