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.
Staff Response: The City Forester identified eight trees on or immediately adjacent to the property, including three Coast Live Oaks and five Monterey pines. All trees have been rated significant except for three Monterey pine trees (no. 2, 3, & 4) which have been rated moderately significant for the following reasons:
· Trees no. 2, 3, & 4 show some pests or diseases that impair their condition but which do not immediately threaten the health of the tree. The trees may recover on their own or with appropriate intervention.
· Trees no. 2, 3, & 4 have poor form or structure but (a) can recover with proper maintenance or (b) provide visual interest in their current form and do not have structural defects that are likely to develop into a safety hazard.
· Trees no. 3 & 4 are over-mature or show signs of poor or declining vigor, such as die-back of major limbs or the crown, small leaves/needles, and/or minimal new growth.
· Tree no. 2 is mature but retains normal vigor and is likely to continue as a forest asset for a substantial period into the future.
The applicant is proposing to remove these three Monterey pine trees. The northern neighbor objects to the removal of trees no. 2 and 3 because it would reduce the existing tree canopy, which they enjoy. Recommendation/Draft Condition No. 2 requires the applicant to obtain approval for the removal of these trees prior to the final details review.
Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Section 17.34.070 (Landscaping Standards for Residential Districts) requires that upper and lower canopy trees be planted as a component of development projects if needed. Table 17.48-A: Recommended Tree Densities establishes a ratio of three upper canopy and one lower canopy tree for lots up to 4,000 square feet in size. The city forester recommends a standard tree density of three upper and one lower canopy tree.
CMC Section 17.48.110.A (Protection of Existing Trees) says All compaction of soils, construction of building walls, or placement of impermeable surfaces must be setback a minimum of six feet from all significant trees. Portions of the proposed improvements at the southeast corner of the lot encroach into the 6-foot root protection zones of Monterey pine trees no. 5 and no. 6. Recommendation/Draft Condition No. 3 requires the applicant to shift all improvements, including foundation walls and/or footings, outside the 6-foot zone.
With the application of conditions, the project meets the objectives of forest character.
Privacy, Views, Light, & Air: Residential Design Guidelines 5.1 through 5.3 encourage designs that preserve reasonable privacy for adjacent properties; maintain view opportunities to natural features that lie outside the property; locate buildings so they will not substantially block views enjoyed by others; and, maintain views through a property to natural features when feasible.
General Plan Policy P1-51 states, Consider the effect of proposed residential construction on the privacy, solar access, and private views of neighbors when evaluating design review applications. Avoid designs that are insensitive to the designs of neighboring buildings. Attempt to achieve an equitable balance of these design amenities among all properties affected by design review decisions.
The Residential Design Guidelines implement General Plan Policy P1-51 by recommending that buildings are located so they will not substantially block views enjoyed by others [emphasis added]; that major building masses be located to maintain some views through the site from other properties [emphasis added]; and, the building mass is kept low in order to maintain views over the structure [emphasis added]. The Planning Commission is tasked with determining what an equitable balance is among properties and what constitutes a “substantial” view blockage.
Staff Response: Below are separate analyses on privacy, views, and access to light.
Privacy. The northern neighbor’s living spaces facing the project site include two bedrooms and a living room. The applicant proposes to place the front entry and covered porch on the north side of the residence, creating a privacy concern for the north neighbor. Windows proposed on the north elevation include,
· 1’-8” x 4’ window in the powder room,
· 3’ x 8’-9” window in the staircase,
· 5’ x 6’ window in the dining room,
· 1’-8” x 4’ window in the bath 2 shower, and
· Two 1’-10” x 5’-6” windows in bedroom 2.
According to the proposed window schedule, all windows are proposed to be fixed. Additionally, a skylight is also proposed above the kitchen; however, no dimensions were provided. Recommendation/Draft Condition No. 4 requires the skylight dimensions to be provided prior to the final details review. To mitigate potential privacy impacts, Recommendation/Draft Condition No. 5 recommends that the applicant consider using additional skylights in lieu of north-facing windows to bring natural light to the interior spaces or use opaque glass. Last, Recommendation/Draft Condition No. 6 recommends that the applicant shift the front entry to be west-facing instead of north-facing.
Views. The applicable Residential Design Guideline objective is to balance and share view opportunities to natural features and landmarks. Guideline 5.2 says to maintain view opportunities of natural features that lie outside the property. Locate buildings so they will not substantially block views enjoyed by others. The question of what constitutes a substantial blockage of a view is entirely subjective and at the discretion of the Planning Commission.
The northern neighbor has identified a significant tree canopy view and sunset view they enjoy. They oppose the removal of Monterey pine trees no. 2 and 3. As noted above in the section on forest character, tree no. 2 is mature but retains normal vigor and is likely to continue as a forest asset for a substantial period into the future. On the other hand, tree no. 3 is over-mature or showing signs of poor or declining vigor, such as die-back of major limbs or the crown, small leaves/needles, and/or minimal new growth. Recommendation/Draft Condition No. 2 requires the applicant to get approval to remove these trees prior to the final details review. If the removal is not approved, the applicant will need to adjust the design of the project to preserve these trees.
Light. Solar access can be affected when a new residence is proposed along the south elevation of a neighboring property and one or both homes are in close proximity to the property line. A solar study can also provide additional information on how much a neighbor’s natural light would be blocked at summer and winter solstice.
The northern neighbor has expressed concerns about a reduction in sunlight to one of their bedrooms as well as a reduction in available sunlight to their roof, which could impact a future solar installation.
The north side yard setback is 3’-6” at the rear of the house and 5’-6” at the front. The existing finish floor level of the residence is 1008.3’, and the proposed finish floor level is 2.8’ lower at 1005.5’. Staff recognizes that expanding the building footprint to the front of the lot changes the open space view the neighbor currently enjoys. However, without a solar study, it is difficult to determine what the shading impact might be with the proposed design. Recommendation/Draft Condition No. 7 requires the applicant to submit a solar study that evaluates potential impacts to the north property.
Parking and Access: Residential Design Guidelines 6.1 through 6.7 encourage subordinate parking facilities that a) do not dominate the design of the house or site, b) minimize the amount of paved surface for a driveway, c) maximize open space, views, and privacy, and d) minimize visual impacts.
Specifically, Residential Design Guideline 6.6 says to Locate a garage to minimize its visual impacts. Three options should be considered: 1. Detached at the rear of the lot. 2. Detached in front within the front setback is acceptable when other design traditions objectives are met. This option should not be repeated to excess within a block. 3) Under the house, when the other design tradition objectives are met.
Guideline 6.7 says that In limited circumstances, a garage may be located under a structure when the visual impacts will be minimized. The garage door should not dominate the front of the house. A door perpendicular to the street is best in this condition. The driveway may not dominate the front garden and may not create a “ramp” effect or introduce tall or massive retaining walls. A sense of a front yard must be maintained.
Staff Response: The applicant is proposing to locate the garage under the residence, with the garage door parallel to 2nd Avenue. To minimize the visual impact of the garage, it is set below the street. However, this creates a “ramp” effect and the need for tall retaining walls on either side of the driveway. Staff finds the project inconsistent with the objectives of parking and access. Recommendation/Draft Condition No. 8 requires the applicant to redesign the driveway to eliminate the ramp effect and the need for tall retaining walls.
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 applicant proposes a single main level, locating the garage and a bedroom under the residence. This design approach on this lot minimizes the mass of the building compared to a two-story residence, which rises up from the existing grade. However, it also results in an expansive building footprint nearly 76 feet long on the north property line. The northern neighbor has expressed concerns regarding the impact the proposed residence will have on their south-facing windows. The proposed setback at this location is 5’-8”. Staff notes that the existing front yard setback is 45’-8” and is proposed to be reduced to 15’. The Planning Commission will be able to view the story poles and netting from the northern neighbor’s property during the Tour of Inspection.
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 proposed building form is an irregular U-shape. The roof form consists of front and side-facing gables pitched at 6:12. The eaves are proposed to be 18 inches. The project meets the objectives of building and roof form.