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. While there was previously concern about the need for pruning of the trees along the northern property line, the applicant has modified the roof form which has eliminated the need for any tree pruning, as assessed by the story poles.
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).
Topography: Residential Design Guidelines 3.1 through 3.5 encourage maintaining the natural topographic character of Carmel; encourage site development that preserves natural slopes, avoids significant exposed cuts or fills and protects trees; promote grading designs that will retain water on site, enhance percolation into soils, and minimize runoff onto adjacent properties; promote the use of natural slopes and stepped floor plans in building
design so that houses hug the land.
Previous and current public comment (Attachment 3) on the project has included comments regarding the sloping topography of the neighborhood and project site. In respect to sloping topography, the Design Guidelines state the following:
Residential Design Guidelines 3.2 Minimize the extent of excavation and fill on a site.
- The site design should follow the natural contours of the site. Where construction is necessary on a steep slope, step the foundation and building forms to follow the contours or locate the long axis of a building to lie parallel with natural contours.
Residential Design Guideline 3.3 Minimize the visual impacts of retaining walls, garden walls and other foundation structures as seen from the public way or neighboring sites.
- Use a stepped building foundation that follows site contours.
- Avoid extensive areas of" cantilevered" floors especially above a cut area.
- Avoid the creation of tall, unused underfloor areas that add to building mass. The level of the finished floor above unused, under floor spaces should not be higher than five feet above the ground at any point around the full perimeter of the building.
While proposed development on sloping sites should step and follow the contours of the natural grade, this site has already been flattened and excavated from prior development –likely when the existing residence was constructed in 1941 or subsequent carport addition in 1955 (garage conversion unknown date).
Calculated using the site survey, the average grade of the site is 4.85% or 2.7 degrees. When walking the site, it has the appearance of being effectively flat. The applicant has elected to pursue a combination slab on grade foundation and partial raised foundation as a means to lower the height of the building to the greatest extent feasible which takes advantage of the already level building site. In an initial design, a raised foundation was proposed, but the foundation was changed to slab on grade through public participation in the design process.
Further excavation to cut or fill the site would conflict with the Residential Design Guidelines which encourage minimizing the extent of excavation and fill on a site and further disrupt the existing topography. As such maintaining the existing topography and working with the existing site condition is consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines and meeting Concept Design Study Finding #2.
Figure 5. Existing site topography viewed from Right-of-Way.
Privacy and Views: Residential Design Guidelines 5.1 through 5.3 pertain to Privacy, Views, Light, and Air. The objectives of these Design Guidelines are to “maintain privacy of indoor and outdoor spaces in a neighborhood” and “To balance and share view opportunities to natural features and landmarks.”
At the previous hearing, the neighbor to the north had expressed concerns regarding the project specifically in respect to privacy, view, and access to light related to their breakfast nook, kitchen window, and lower floor bedroom. The views of concern were not ocean views, but views of the forest and tree canopy and of open space and access to light beyond.
There are no second story windows on the northern elevation nor exterior balconies facing north and as such, staff has not identified any privacy impact associated with the project. A small second story balcony is proposed to be located on the southern elevation, however, this overlooks the neighbor’s roof to the south similar to the prior proposal which was not a topic of discussion at the public hearing. As there is no privacy impact, the continued concerns with the project are light and view impacts.
In respect to views, light, and air, the Residential Design Guidelines state the following:
Views to natural features and landmarks are key features of Carmel's design traditions. Important views occur to the ocean, canyons, and along streets. Protecting views is an important community concern. This includes views from public ways as well as those through properties. Also note that the desire to maximize view opportunities from one's own property must be balanced with consideration of respecting views of others. The preliminary site analysis may help identify view opportunities as well as existing views enjoyed by others.
Designs also should preserve reasonable solar access to neighboring parcels. Designs should protect and preserve the light, air and open space of surrounding properties, when considered cumulatively with other buildings in the neighborhood. Incorporating tall or bulky building elements near the property line of an adjoining site should be avoided.
Residential Design Guideline 5.2 Maintain view opportunities to natural features that lie outside the property.
- Consider locating key building functions to make use of views.
- Also locate buildings so they will not substantially block views enjoyed by others.
Residential Design Guidelines 5.3 Maintain views through a property to natural features when feasible.
- Locate major building masses to maintain some views through the site from other properties.
- Consider keeping the mass of a building low in order to maintain views over the structure.
- Also consider using a compact building footprint to maintain views along the sides of a structure.
Further, CMC 17.10.010, Purpose and Design Objectives, states:
The purpose of this chapter is to establish standards and requirements for physical development in the R-1 single-family residential district. To implement the General Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan, the following design objectives for the R-1 district are established.
…
G. Privacy. Designs should respect the privacy of neighbors. The placement of windows, doors, balconies and decks should be sensitive to similar improvements on neighboring properties.
…
J. Public Views. Buildings shall be located and designed to preserve significant coastal views from the public right-of-way in conformance with Section 30251 of the California Coastal Act. The protection of public views should not prevent reasonable development of the site, yet development shall not preclude reasonable protection of any significant coastal view.
K. Private Views. Designs should respect views enjoyed by neighboring parcels. This objective is intended to balance the private rights to views from all parcels that will be affected by a proposed building or addition. No single parcel should enjoy a greater right than other parcels except the natural advantages of each site’s topography. Buildings which substantially eliminate an existing significant view enjoyed on another parcel should be avoided.
L. Solar Access. 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.
Concept Design Study Finding #5 requires: “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.”
Staff has not identified any public view impacts associated with the project, nor were public views identified as part of the prior review of the project. Privacy is also not a concern as previously discussed. Reasonable solar access appears to be provided through the revised design. With the exception of a projecting stairway element that is located toward the north (that’s setback has been maintained), the second story building form is primarily located on the southern portion of the lot, and not toward a northern property line discouraged by the solar access objective (refer to Figure 3, above, and Figure 6 below). The neighbor indicated to staff the light to the downstairs is still an area of concern, however, as noted, the building has been shifted to the southeast by 10’7” feet except in the area of the stairway.
Figure 6. Overlay of Prior Concept Review 2nd Floor Outline and Revised (Proposed) 2nd Floor Outline with Dimensions. Also see figures 1-3, above.
In considering private views, the commission should consider that that objective “is intended to balance the private rights to views from all parcels that will be affected by a proposed building or addition. No single parcel should enjoy a greater right than other parcels except the natural advantages of each site’s topography. Buildings which substantially eliminate an existing significant view enjoyed on another parcel should be avoided.” In this case, the views are the natural resources outside of the property, including trees and air, and not an open view that is typically assessed when discussing a view impact.
Staff has deferred this assessment to the Commission to evaluate during the tour of inspection, specifically in the area of the proposed stairway across from the breakfast nook which is an area of concern of the northern neighbor. Staff has visited the site separately and in conversations with the neighbor, staff’s understanding is views are not a concern except in the area of the breakfast nook.
While staff is recommending acceptance of the concept design, the Commission could find that the project is inconsistent with the Design Guidelines and provide direction to the applicant on plan revisions necessary to achieve compliance with the design guidelines. Alternatively, the commission could continue the hearing if the Commission finds the design is still substantially out of compliance with the design guidelines.
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. Between design revisions, the overall building height has been increased.
The overall ridge height of the structure has been increased from an elevation point of 57.66’ to 59.00’ (+1.34’) and the 2nd story plates have been increased from 54.16’ to 56.25’ (+2.09’). While the new building is still under the 24’ height limit (22’3” proposed), the plate heights exceed the maximum allowable 18’ height limit (approximately 19.25’ proposed). As such, Condition of Approval for Concept Acceptance #3 has been included requiring the plate heights be reduced to an amount which complies with the zoning standards for the R-1 Zone District.
Figure 7. Revised (Proposed) Front Elevation
Figure 8. Prior Concept Review Front Elevation
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.
Design Guideline 7.2 has been cited by the concerned neighbor, specifically the massing impacts when viewed from the adjacent property. Residential Design Guideline 7.2 states:
RDG 7.2 Minimize the mass of a building as seen from the public way or adjacent properties. Consider these options:
- Build to less than the maximum floor area.
- Locate some floor area either fully or partially below grade.
- Avoid using tall volume spaces (e.g. high ceilings or steep pitches across wide spans) that increase the visual bulk of a building above grade.
- Avoid long, uninterrupted wall planes.
The commission should also consider whether Design Guideline 7.3 would be applicable. Design Guideline 7.3 states:
RDG 7.3 Avoid placing a tall building wall near a property line when it will be adjacent to similar walls on neighboring sites.
- Preserve open spaces and access to light between properties.
- Avoid the appearance of a narrow corridor or tunnel between buildings as seen from the street.
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 the results of the reconnaissance survey were negative.
Public Correspondence: At the time of writing this report, staff has received correspondences from the northern neighbor, whom is aggrieved by the project, as well surrounding neighbors who state they are not impacted by the project but support the position of the northern neighbor. These correspondences have been included as Attachment 3.