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.
The site contains one cypress. A Preliminary Site Assessment was not required for the project based on the scope of work so the significance of the right-of-way trees was not evaluated prior to application submittal (CMC 17.58.040.B.2.a), however, the city forester did conduct a site visit and evaluated the tree and determined the tree is a significant tree.
CMC 17.48.110.A.3 requires that “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. Grading ruts and fills around significant trees shall be limited to areas outside the root projection zone... Cutting and filling around the base of trees shall be done only after consultation with the City Forester, and then only to the extent authorized by the City Forester...”.
It was determined that all new grading and walls needed to be at least 6 feet from the tree and any excavation within the larger root zone (Structural Root Zone shall by 6 feet from the trunk or 6 inches radially from the tree for every one inch of trunk diameter at 4.5’ above the soil line, whichever is greater) needs to be performed with pneumatic excavator, hydrovac at low pressure, or other method approved by the city forester that does not sever roots in accordance with the city’s standard tree preservation practices (Condition of Approval #25).
As such, the proposed site plan will need to be slightly modified such that the proposed new retaining walls and grading areas are located out of the tree protection zone to ensure protection of the significant cypress tree. Conditions of Approval #25 and #34 have been included which require the plans be revised such that the new walls and areas of cut and fill are revised so they are located at least six (6) feet away from the significant cypress tree (as shown in Figure 1 and 2, below).
Figure 1. Trunk area of subject cypress and partial existing site area.
Figure 2a. Partial existing site plan with annotations.
Figure 2b. Partial proposed site plan with annotations.
Figure 2c. Partial proposed grading plan with annotations.
Figure 2d. Approximate area of structural root zone (SRZ). Excavation within SRZ shall be performed with pneumatic excavator, hydrovac at low pressure, or other method approved by the city forester that does not sever roots (refer to CoA #25). SRZ based on average diameter of ellipse.
In general, a tree density of 4 upper and 3 lower canopy tree is recommended for sites between 4,001-6,000 square feet, however, the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and protection of significant public views, scenic routes and corridors may warrant fewer trees or only lower canopy trees in some areas (CMC 17.48.080.A.2).
CMC 17.34.090, Landscape Standards for Overlay Districts, requires the following for properties located within the Beach Overlay as well as the Park Overlay:
- New native trees or other significant native vegetation shall be planted between the buildings on the site and the adjoining parklands when such vegetation would enhance the visual resources of the park by screening the buildings from public view, and when there is adequate space available to make such landscaping practical.
- At least 75 percent of all landscaped areas on the property visible from the park shall be planted with drought-tolerant and/or native species. Areas of the site adjacent to parklands shall be landscaped and designed to establish a natural transition to the parkland vegetation. Trees approved for removal shall be replaced by two or more native specimen trees listed in the forest management plan preferably on-site or, if necessary, in the adjoining park as determined by the City Forester. Invasive species shall be removed if currently established.
Condition of Approval #22 requires, in part, that, “the project shall meet the City’s recommended tree density standards unless otherwise approved by the City based on on-site conditions.” Staff recommends the project be approved with this condition, however, the applicant may work with Planning and Forestry staff to reduce the total number of trees or plant only lower canopy trees through development of the final landscape plan.
The landscape plan has yet to be reviewed by the City Forester (discussion provided in landscape section), however, Condition of Approval #22 has been included requiring Forster review for consistency with CMC 17.34.090 prior to Building Permit issuance.
As conditioned the project meets 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.
Staff has not identified any adverse view impacts associated with the project. There is no change to the building’s massing and therefore there is no change or impact to views as a result of the proposed project.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission assess the story poles at the Tour of Inspection to determine whether the proposed view deck would result in a privacy impact. The proposed window replacements and alterations do not appear to impact the privacy of adjacent neighbors, however, the addition of the deck may create impacts to the adjacent neighbors immediately to the north and south. The majority of the new view deck will be screened from the northern and southern neighbors by existing landscaping, however, there are portions of the deck with a direct line of site to the adjacent properties (refer to Figure 3, below). At the time of writing this report, staff has not received any written correspondence regarding any element of the project.
Concept Finding #5. 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.
Residential Design Guideline 5.1. Organize functions on a site to preserve reasonable privacy for adjacent properties.
- Position a building to screen active areas of adjacent properties when feasible.
- Locate windows and balconies such that they avoid overlooking active indoor and outdoor use areas of adjacent properties.
- Preserve significant trees that will help to screen views into adjacent properties.
- Screen patios, terraces and service areas
Figure 3a. View toward northern neighbor from proposed deck (approximately).
Figure 3b. View toward southern neighbor from proposed deck (approximately).
Figure 3c. Proposed view deck from as seen from existing driveway. Red Box at left side of figure indicates location from where Figures 3a and 3b were taken.
Should the Commission find that there is no privacy impact, the project would meet the Residential Design Guidelines pertaining to privacy and Concept Finding #5. Should the Commission find that there is a privacy impact, the finding would be the project is inconsistent with the Residential Design Guidelines pertaining to privacy and therefore inconsistent with Concept Finding #5.
As drafted, the Resolution includes a finding for approval without modification, however, the Commission could find that there are adverse privacy impacts and either continue the project with direction or provide direction for modification through Conditions of Approval.
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.”
With the exception of the added deck and elimination of a bay window on the west (front) elevation, the building maintains the existing building and roof form. No changes are proposed to building or roof form.
Finish Details: The existing building materials are proposed to be removed completely and the building will be re-sided throughout. The building will be finished with a combination of Fond Du Lac Country Squire stone, smooth finished stucco in an “inspire” color – which is a light taupe or warm gray-beige with a slightly warm undertone. The roofing material is proposed to be a charcoal black presidential shake roof and the new windows are proposed to aluminum bronze windows. The applicant is proposing to use a glass safety rail system for all guardrails.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the following:
Roof color/material:
Residential Design Guideline 9.8 states (emphasis added in bold), "Roof materials should be consistent with the architectural style of the building and with the context of the neighborhood. Composition shingles that convey a color and texture similar to that of wood shingles may be considered on some architectural styles of recent eras." The following [CertainTeed Presidential] colors have been found to be inconsistent with this guideline: Charcoal Black; Shadow Gray.
As such, staff has included Condition of Approval #38 which requires the applicant to work with staff to select an alternative roofing color.
Windows:
The window notes on sheet sheet 5c state “all windows shall comply with the following (u.o.n)” (unless otherwise noted). Item #2 on the window notes states, “wood clad windows with stain grade interiors…”, however, elsewhere the plans indicate the windows are proposed to be “metal” (aluminum) casements and manufactured by “Awake”.
Residential Deign Guideline 9.11 states:
Window styles and materials should be consistent with the architecture of the building. Window styles and materials should be uniform throughout a building
- Divided light windows are encouraged. Divided light windows should appear to be true divided light, including use of internal and external mullion and muntin bars on insulated windows. Removable or "snap-in", or internal-only mullion and muntin bars, are unacceptable.
- Materials other than authentic, unclad wood are appropriate only when it can be demonstrated that the proposed material is more appropriate to the architecture.
- High gloss finishes should be avoided.
- Fenestration on historic buildings should retain the historic integrity· of the resource. When feasible, original windows should be restored rather than replaced.
Staff has not included any additional Conditions of Approval in respect to windows, but recommends the Commission have a discussion regarding the appropriateness of the window material and appearance, specifically whether the proposed undivided aluminum windows are appropriate and consistent with the architecture of the building, or whether windows with divisions and/or unclad wood (or aluminum clad wood, or another material) windows are more appropriate for the structure.
Figure 4. Materials and rendering.
Site Coverage/Landscaping/Fencing: The applicant is proposing to remove all of the site coverage improvements (which are currently a non-conforming amount) and is requesting approval of a Variance to replace the site coverage with an amount of 1,017 square feet (526 sf allowed; 756 sf allowed with permeability bonus), 261 square feet above what would otherwise be permitted –analysis below.
The majority of the proposed site coverage is comprised of semi-permeable materials including the new driveway, new/replaced walk ways, and the new view deck constructed of spaced decking (827 square feet total). The impermeable site coverage primarily consists of the new/replaced stairs and landings, as well as a new light well (190 square feet total).
In accordance with CMC 17.52.070.A, the Planning Commission may grant a variance for maximum site coverage and minimum open space regulations only when the findings listed in CMC 17.64.210 can be supported. The applicant has prepared a response to these findings (refer to Attachment 2) and have been noted below. Staff concurs with the applicant’s statements and is supportive of the variance, and has provided additional comment below, were applicable.
Variance: The following special findings are required for approval of a variance.
A. That due to special physical circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance will deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity which were developed under the same limitations of the Zoning Ordinance;
Applicant’s Response: The topography of this site slopes from Scenic Road at an elevation height of approximately 49.9 to a rear elevation height of approximately 60.1. In response to a ten-foot difference in elevation, the existing house has two levels with the garage accessed at the lower level and the living space accessed at the upper level. The side yards and back of the house are at a higher topographic elevation which is conducive to a reverse floor plan and main entrance on the upper level. Accessibility to the main entrance of the house requires a long pathway with stairs along the side of the house to a side entrance, a feature shared by multiple properties along Scenic Road. The stairs and landings for an elevation difference of 10 feet requires a significant length to access the main entrance. To not allow additional site coverage to safely access the main entrance would be a hardship for the owners.
B. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations on other property in the vicinity and within the same zone;
Applicant’s Response: The granting of a safe pathway to the main entrance at the site of the house is a necessity, not a special privilege. All residences have a safe accessible means of entry into their residence, many with a side entrance similar to this property.
C. That the variance will not be detrimental to adjacent property or injurious to public health, safety or welfare;
Applicant’s Response: This request for a variance will maintain the existing topography which safely transitions to the adjacent property. The new stairs, landings and pathways will continue the natural slope of the topography along the side of the building to provide a safe means of ingress and egress for the residence. The existing vegetation provides adequate privacy for all site improvements requested.
Staff Response: Granting the variance will not be detrimental to adjacent properties, or injurious to public health, safety or welfare. The applicant shall still be required to comply with the applicable requirements of the underlying zoning district, overlays, and standard conditions of approval including but not limited to site drainage and storm water retention, landscaping, and tree planting/forest enhancement. The variance would only grant additional site coverage provided the additional coverage still allows for required site features (drainage, landscaping, trees, etc) to be maintained on-site first.
D. That the condition or situation of the property for which the variance is sought is not so general or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable or practical the formulation of a general regulation to address such condition or situation;
Applicant’s Response: The change in topography in the side yard setbacks deems it necessary to have stairs and pathways for safe access as a specific hardship to this property. This condition is due to an oddly shaped front property line and narrow width requiring a garage and off-street parking.
E. That the situation or condition for which the variance is sought was not the result of actions of the existing or any prior owner of the property; and
Applicant’s Response: The request for a variance is the result of a drastic change in topography from the front property line to the rear property line. The garage requirements at the lowest grade elevation require a width such that the side of the house is required for accessibility on the sloping topography of the natural site.
F. That granting the variance will not be in conflict with the General Plan, or the general zoning objectives of the district within which the affected property lies.
Applicant’s Response: The granting of this variance is in response to an unusual condition due to the grade change naturally occurring on this property. For safety of owner and public
access, the elevation change of ten feet requires appropriate stairs and pathways.
The side entrance and access to the entry are compliant with the general zoning
objectives for not having a grand entry.
Staff Response: As conditioned, the project will not be in conflict with the General Plan or zoning objectives of the R-1 zoning district or associated overlay districts. The project shall still comply will all other applicable standards with only an additional allowance for site coverage permitted.
Landscaping:
The applicant has also included a landscape plan, however, the landscape plan is substantially incomplete and either notes that landscaping is proposed to remain or the site will be mulched.
CMC 17.20.160, Permit Standards, states: “The following standards shall be used by decision-making bodies in approving or denying a coastal development permit in the beach and riparian overlay district... No building permit for any development, as defined in Chapter 17.70 CMC, including but not limited to new construction, additions, exterior alterations or change in land use shall be approved unless a coastal development permit is approved taking into consideration all of the following as may be appropriate to the scope of the project.” Specifically, subsection B.5 states: “When any construction activity is proposed on a site in the park overlay district, the site design shall include a landscaping plan in accordance with Chapter 17.34 CMC, Landscaping.”
CMC 17.34.090, Landscape Standards for Overlay Districts, requires the following for properties located within the Beach Overlay as well as the Park Overlay:
- New native trees or other significant native vegetation shall be planted between the buildings on the site and the adjoining parklands when such vegetation would enhance the visual resources of the park by screening the buildings from public view, and when there is adequate space available to make such landscaping practical.
- At least 75 percent of all landscaped areas on the property visible from the park shall be planted with drought-tolerant and/or native species. Areas of the site adjacent to parklands shall be landscaped and designed to establish a natural transition to the parkland vegetation. Trees approved for removal shall be replaced by two or more native specimen trees listed in the forest management plan preferably on-site or, if necessary, in the adjoining park as determined by the City Forester. Invasive species shall be removed if currently established.
The “park” as described above, refers to Carmel Beach and the adjacent Scenic Pathway, both of which are zoned P-2, Improved Parklands.
Condition of Approval #22 is included requiring the city forester review the landscape plan which meets the standards of CMC 17.34.090 prior to building permit issuance.
Lastly, the existing non-nonconforming fence and gate along the west and north property lines will be maintained, however, Condition of Approval #37 required correction of the non-conforming sections of the fence if removed or altered.
Alteration of Non-Conforming Buildings: As previously described, the existing residence is non-conforming. 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 exceeds the allowable floor area and height, it may be maintained, altered, and repaired, provided, there is no additional floor area or height added to the site. Additionally, if any floor area is removed as a result of any of the alterations, or the building is reduced in height, those elements cannot be re-built in the same location or elsewhere on the site and the building will be required to be brought into compliance with the underlying zoning.
The applicant has provided a comprehensive demolition plan (refer to Attachment 3, Sheets 5a) illustrating the extend of the demolition work, thus maintaining the nonconformities in accordance with the zoning code. The applicant has also included a note on the cover sheet of the plans indicating an acknowledgement that the removal of any non-conformity shall require the correction of the nonconformity.
Special Condition of Approval #35 has been included stating, “All exterior demolition shall be in substantial compliance with the approved demolition plan as shown on Sheet 5a of the Design Study Plans Approved by the Planning Commission on January 15, 2025. Changes to the demolition plan shall be approved in writing by the Community Planning and Building Department prior to commencement of any additional demolition work. If during construction the exterior demolition exceeds what has been approved, a cease work order may be issued any time at the discretion of the Director of Community Planning and Building and with revised plans submitted to the Department of Community Planning and Building that correct the non-nonconformities in respect to the buildings floor area.”