DS 24024 (Cosmero-O'Boyle): Consideration of a Combined Concept and Final Design Study for substantial alterations to an existing single-family residence located at Santa Fe Street 7 SW of 8th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District. APN: 010-053-015-000.

The applicant is requesting approval of a Track 2 Design Study for a substantial alteration to an existing single-family residence.  While the project will result in a minimal reduction in floor area, the architectural style of the residence is substantially changing due to proposed changes in wall cladding, changes in roof form, fenestration changes, and various building and site modifications that collectively qualify the project as a substantial alteration requiring Planning Commission review.  

Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) approving a Combined Concept and Final Design Study for substantial alterations to an existing single-family residence located at Santa Fe Street 7 southwest of 8th Avenue in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District. APN: 010-053-015-000.

The project site is a 4,000-square-foot lot developed with a 2,426-square-foot single-family residence, inclusive of a 216-square-foot detached garage. The site is non-conforming in respect to floor area as it exceeds the maximum allowable for the building site (1,800 square feet allowed). The applicant proposes to reduce the size of the residence by fifteen (15) square feet by squaring off a diagonal section of the building at the kitchen on the main level.  All other floor area is proposed to remain, and no exterior walls are proposed to be demolished aside from removal of this diagonal building form. The resulting floor area would be 2,411 square feet which is still non-conforming.

The existing structure is finished primarily with a plywood siding which is proposed to remain. The applicant is proposing to add batts to the existing siding to create board and batten wood siding.  The residence will further be modified by removing and replacing the entire roof system form and installing a combination of hipped forms (rear facing) and gables (street facing).  The new roof is proposed to be finished with composite shingles. The front (east) and south elevations will also feature fenestration changes while the remaining elevations (north and west) will have the windows replaced in the existing openings to match the new windows. The applicant has not proposed any changes to site coverage, however, has proposed grading and landscaping as part of the project. The applicant is not proposing any increase in floor area or height, as is typical with a Track 2 project that usually reviewed by the Planning Commission, however the project is considered a substantial alteration which qualifies for Track 2 processing in accordance with CMC 17.58.040.B.1.

A substantial alteration is defined as “any visual change, exterior design modification or addition to a building, structure, or site design, including but not limited to changes in architectural style or details, or changes in exterior materials, paving or decks that does not meet the definition of a demolition or a rebuild, or does not comply with adopted design objectives and/or design guidelines or does not qualify for track one design review.”  As the project consists of a visual change and exterior design modification that results in a change in architectural style to a building, the project is considered a substantial alteration and therefore subject to the Track 2 process including adoption of the applicable Design Study findings for approval.

An exploratory demolition permit was issued for the property in January 2024. The scope of work described on the issued permit stated:

 REQUESTING AN EXPLORATORY PERMIT TO REVIEW EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR FUTURE MINOR INTERIOR REMODEL. the work will be performed in the basement with approx. 150 sq ft of 1/8" ceiling panel to be removed and/or opened up to expose the upper floor framing and beams. The purpose of the exploratory permit is to visually inspect and document existing floor framing size and direction for future interior re-model.  

Upon inspection of the story poles, staff assessed that substantially more demolition had been completed than was approved under the exploratory demolition permit and nearly all interior sheetrock had been removed on both floor levels and the appearance of additional construction activity occurring.  Additionally, staff requested a site visit with the City Forester who noted that only two trees had received written approval to be removed (tree removal permit), however, nearly the entire site was scraped of trees and landscaping including a 12” Oak which was removed without approval.  On October 4, 2024, a stop work order was issued by the Code Compliance Division.  No work shall continue on the site (story poles may be removed when appropriate) until necessary corrective action is obtained as directed by the Code Compliance Division.

Alteration of Non-Conforming Buildings: The existing residence is non-conforming in respect to floor area, plate height, minimum setback on the north side of the building, composite setback, and site coverage. CMC 17.36, Nonconforming Uses and Buildings, outlines the standards for nonconforming uses and buildings. It is the purpose of this chapter to regulate nonconforming buildings and nonconforming uses and to provide for the elimination of nonconformity, where its elimination will not have a detrimental effect on the City’s unique charm and the overall village character of the City (CMC 17.36.010).

In accordance with CMC 17.36.030, “A lawful nonconforming structure may be maintained, repaired, or altered as long as such maintenance, repair, or alteration does not increase the nonconformity and all work performed conforms to all of the requirements of this chapter.” However, CMC 17.36.040.E continues to state, “The substantial alteration of any nonconforming building or structure, that includes removal of any nonconforming building element or structural element, shall require correction of that specific nonconforming building element or structural element in conformance with all requirements for new construction. The removed nonconformity shall not be rebuilt or reestablished at that location on the site or elsewhere on the site.”

Simply put: while this building maintains a number of existing nonconformities, they may be maintained, altered, and repaired, provided there is no increase to the existing nonconformities. Additionally, if any floor area or other nonconforming element is removed as a result of any of the alterations, it cannot be re-built in the same location or elsewhere on the site, and the nonconformity would need to be corrected.

The applicant and property owner were informed of the nonconforming elements and the implications of the removal of these building elements in a completeness review letter dated June 21, 2024.

Condition of Approval #40 and #42 have been included which requires a strict adherence to the proposed demolition plan and approved project plans to allow the project to proceed consistent with CMC 17.36 and not require the site to come into compliance with or correct existing non-conformities, and also addresses the treatment of the nonconforming site coverage (discussed below).

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.

Design Study Finding (CMC 17.64.080.A) 2 and 7 state, respectively:

 The project is consistent with the City’s design objectives for protection and enhancement of the urbanized forest, open space resources and site design. The project’s use of open space, topography, access, trees and vegetation will maintain or establish a continuity of design both on-site and in the public right-of-way that is characteristic of the neighborhood; and

 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.

A tree density of 3 upper and 1 lower canopy tree is recommended for sites of 4,000 square feet or less, (CMC 17.48.080.A.2). 

In October 2023, prior to the submittal of the associated Design Study Application (January 2024), Tree Removal permit TR 23-314 was submitted for the removal of one (1) 42” Monterey pine. The permit was amended later that month to remove one (1) 12” pittosporum. Both trees were approved for removal prior to submittal of the Design Study Application and were located within the front yard.

While the subject trees were approved to be removed prior to submittal of Design Study Application, CMC 17.48.050.A.1 presumes the tree removal was reliant on the proposed construction due to the timing of the applications. Generally, when trees are proposed to be removed due to construction, the city’s practice is not to release the tree removal permit until the associated building permit has been issued unless an immediate threat to health and safety.  

Additionally, though the subject trees were permitted to be removed, no other site alterations were approved by the Forestry Department nor the Community Planning and Building Department associated with the tree removal permit. Based on an evaluation of the site, all existing landscaping as well as multiple additional trees have been removed from the site at the front and rear of the property (staff presumes this was during or around the time of the tree removal which has been carried out).

Figure 1a. Previous site condition (interior of site); pre-tree removal. Photo from real estate listing.

Figure 1b. Previous site condition; pre-tree removal. Photos from Google Street View.

Figure 1c. Current site condition; post tree removal. Photo from Historic Evaluation Application (HE 24137)

Condition of Approval #34 been included requiring the applicant to revise the plans to meet the recommended tree density for the site including requirements for planting locations based on Residential Design Guideline 1.6 (discussed below). The location and species of the proposed trees shall be shown on the proposed site plan and required landscape plan. Condition #34 further states that a minimum of two of trees shall be planted within the front yard setback with at least one of the trees being planted within the first nine (9) feet of the property in the “open space” area to make up for the loss of trees and planting at or near the property line when existing trees and landscaping was removed without approval. This condition is supported by Residential Design Guideline 1.4 and 1.6 and Concept Design Study finding #2.

The applicant has included a landscape plan in an effort to re-establish landscaping at the street edge and within the front yard of the property.  A discussion of the landscaping is provided in the landscape section, below. 

As conditioned, the project meets the objectives of the Residential Design Guidelines pertaining to 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.

In respect to privacy impacts, the proposed fenestration alterations (re-arranged and larger door and window openings) do not appear to substantially change or increase the impact to adjacent neighbors. At the time of writing this report, staff has not received any written correspondence regarding the project.

The rear deck will be retained in place with no alteration and will not create or increase any adverse privacy impact.

The project meets the Residential Design Guidelines objectives pertaining to privacy and views.

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.”

The existing building is comprised of two building forms: a cross gable roof form pitched at 2:12 and a shed roof form which projects off the front of the building also pitched at 2:12.  The applicant is proposing to remove the entire roof system (while keeping the exterior walls in place) and modify the roof form to a combination of a hipped roof form with gabled roof elements at the front of the building. The new roof will be pitched at 4:12 throughout.  The plate heights, which are non-conforming in certain areas, have been surveyed to establish a baseline condition and are not proposed to be removed or increased in height – only the roof will be modified with the existing exterior walls remaining in place. The existing and proposed roof height complies with the 24’ height limit and the proposed residence successfully passed a volumetric analysis.  

Figure 2a. Existing South Elevation.

Figure 2b. Proposed South Elevation.

The story poles show that the building is proposed to slightly increase in size at the front of the residence, however, the project plans represent no increase in floor area or change in wall location.

Figure 3a. Story poles with additional posts beyond building walls. 

Figure 3b. Proposed partial demo plan with no walls to be demolished and no new framing walls at front. Diagonal wall element to be modified to a right angel. 

The existing garage is proposed to have the roof system replaced and the existing 2.5:12 pitched gabled roof will be changed to a 4:12 pitched gabled roof match the primary dwelling. The plate height of the garage is proposed to increase by 1’4” and will result in an overall new height of 11’11” as viewed from the street (15’5” total). However, the applicant’s dimensions for the proposed plate height appear to have been taken from the deck behind the garage and not from grade. When measured from the deck, the plate height is a compliant 12’, however, when measured from grade (standard used for height measurement) results in a height of 12’8”. As such Condition of Approval #36 has been included requiring the height of the garage be revised to comply with the 12’ plate height as measured from existing or finished grade. 

Figure 4. Rear garage elevation with height measurements. 

As conditioned, the project conforms to the applicable zoning standards described within this section and with the Residential Design Guidelines objectives pertaining to mass and bulk and building and roof form.

Finish Details:

The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing ¾” plywood siding and will have 1x4 battens added to create a board and batten exterior wall cladding. The exterior is proposed to be painted “Swiss Coffee” by Kelly Moore. Trim elements throughout were proposed to be “Black Oak” by Kelly Moore, however, Kelly Moore ceased operation in January 2024 and an alternative was never provided in the plans. The roof is proposed to be a composition shingle by Certainteed Landmark Pro Max Def roof in the “driftwood” color (click here for manufacture’s website).  According to the manufacturer, the shingle is architectural grade and the top features of the product include the rich surface granule mixture and highly dimensional texture. The driftwood color is in line with a black or dark gray. Lastly, the new and replaced windows are proposed to be powder coated aluminum clad wood.

Staff is concerned that the proposed color scheme is high contrast between the black roof and windows and lighter color of the body of the house and trim. The Planning Commission previously expressed concerns regarding bright white color schemes, as well as color schemes that are highly contrasting. While the main body color of the residence is not a bright white, the black windows and roof of the residence do contrast with the lighter body color which the Commission has not been in support of with recent projects. As such, Special Condition of Approval #37 has been included stating, prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall work with staff to select and alternative color palette for the project that is less contrasting and complies with the Residential Design Guidelines which encourages the use of muted earth tones.

 From Residential Design Guidelines: Traditionally, builders used muted colors in Carmel. In many cases, the natural earth tones of stone and the dark tans of stained siding dominated a site. Even when buildings were painted, muted earth tones were used to help blend with the forest. This tradition should be continued.

The applicant has also represented in the plans that two (2) styles of wall sconces are proposed for the residence. A down facing lamp and a lantern style sconce.  The down facing lamp complies with the Residential Design Guidelines which states lights should be shielded and downlit, however, the lantern style light does not comply which has the light source completely exposed. Condition of Approval #11 requires all lights be shielded and downlit as well as comply with maximum lumen output. Staff has also included Condition of Approval #38 which establishes a performance requirement for revising the plans to comply with Condition #11 prior to building permit issuance.   

The applicant proposes nine (9) 2’x2’ skylights as shown on the proposed roof plan. There is a discrepancy in the plans in that six (6) skylights are shown on the proposed floor plan. No skylights are shown on the elevations. In respect to skylights, the Residential Design Guidelines state:

 Residential Design Guideline 9.13. When a skylight is to be used, it should blend with the overall building design and its visual impacts should be minimized.  Skylights are appropriate when:

•  Interior spaces have no access to exterior windows or such windows have limited access to light.
•  Windows would cause greater impacts to adjoining homes.
•  The skylight design is compatible with the architecture.
•  The size of the skylight is appropriate to the lighting task.
  
  

Residential Design Guideline 9.14. Skylights should not be visually prominent from the street or from neighboring windows.

•  The size, placement, number, and design of skylights should be an integral part of the building design. Skylight placement or size that appears random from the exterior and that detracts from architectural integrity should be avoided.
•  Skylights should be framed in colors that match adjoining roof surfaces.  High profile, domed, or pyramidal covers are inappropriate. 
•  Skylight that will produce glare or light pollution visible to neighbors or the public should be mitigated.

The proposed inclusion of nine skylights conflicts with the design guidelines cited above. The use of the skylights is excessive, would appear random from the exterior, would not be an integral part of the building design, and would be visually prominent from the street and neighboring homes. While the applicant did not show the skylights on the elevations, there would be four (4) skylights on the south elevation, two (2) skylights on the west elevation, and three (3) skylights on the north elevation.

If six skylights were considered, as shown on the floor plan, there would be two skylights on each of the roof planes described above. The Commission should consider whether two skylights are appropriate on each roof plane, or may consider conditioning the project to allow any number of skylights or no skylights at all. Standard Condition of Approval #12 pertains to skylights and will be included in the adopted resolution should skylights be authorized by the Commission.

Site Coverage/Landscaping/Fencing: The property presently contains 1,064 square feet of site coverage improvements which is nonconforming as a maximum of 556 square feet could be allowed for the site. The applicant has indicated the existing non-conforming site coverage will remain unaltered, as shown on the existing and proposed site plan, and described in the scope of work on sheet A1 of the project plans. 

CMC 17.36.030.A allows for nonconformities to be maintained, repaired, or altered, as long as such maintenance, repair, or alteration does not increase the nonconformity and all work performed conforms to all of the requirements of this chapter, and CMC 17.36.030.B states alterations, repairs or remodeling that enlarge, extend or increase a nonconforming feature of a building shall be prohibited. 

CMC 17.36.030.D describes that the demolition of any nonconforming building or structure shall require that all new construction on the site meet all requirements for new buildings and structures, and CMC 17.36.040.E states, the substantial alteration of any nonconforming building or structure, that includes removal of any nonconforming building element or structural element, shall require correction of that specific nonconforming building element or structural element in conformance with all requirements for new construction. The removed nonconformity shall not be rebuilt or reestablished at that location on the site or elsewhere on the site.

In respect to the non-conforming site coverage as it applies to this site, the applicant may retain the site coverage in its existing condition, however, if site coverage elements are removed prior, during, or after construction, site coverage elements may not be replaced or added elsewhere to the site unless the site is brought into compliance with site coverage limits. This includes the area where the 15 square feet of site coverage is proposed for removal at the kitchen area which shall remain as open space (refer to background discussion). Condition of Approval #40 has been included with describes the preceding statement and requires the appropriate review should review of new coverage elements be proposed/required.

While existing coverage is proposed to remain, the applicant has proposed new landscaping in both the front and rear of the property. The site has had all landscaping removed and the goal of the landscape plan would be to re-establish planting throughout the site. In addition to the planting that is proposed, the applicant is also proposing to terrace the front yard area to create a more functional front yard space. The two upper levels would be planted and the lowest level of the new terraced yard would have artificial turf, however, turf areas are inappropriate when visible from the right-of-way (Residential Design Guideline 10.3).  As such, Condition of Approval #39 has been included requiring the omission of the artificial turf lawn, or any lawn otherwise, from the front half of the property. A second artificial turf lawn is proposed for the rear yard.

New landings are proposed for the top level and intermediate terrace level as well as around the perimeter of the rear yard. Staff has included Condition of Approval #35 which ensures landscaping will be installed prior to final inspection and final approval of the landscape plan consistent with the requirements outlined in CMC 17.34.070 prior to building permit issuance.

The terrace walls would be finished with stucco and would be a mix of a 2’ tall wall and a 6’ tall wall. The 6’ tall wall is proposed to have a 4’ tall fence located on top of the fence, however, this would exceed the height limit for fences on top of walls which is measured to the lowest adjacent grade.  As such, the fence would need to be stepped in off the top of wall and not placed directly on top of the feature. Condition of Approval #41 has been included to bring the proposed fence into compliance with the fence and wall height requirements.