Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision Chadwick 07-12-16

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
AGENDA BILL
AB 1156
July 12, 2016
Public Hearing
TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

Chip Rerig, City Administrator
FROM:
Marc Wiener, AICP, Interim Community Planning and Building Director
SUBJECT:
Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Design

Study (OS 15-217), Coastal Development Permit and Variance (VA 16-070) applications
for the demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new residence located in
the Single-Family Residential (R-1 ), Beach and Riparian (BR) and Archaeological
Significance (AS) Overlay Zoning Districts. The application is being appealed by
neighboring property owners: Simeon and Sally Yencken .
AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE
$ N/A
AMOUNTBUDGETED
$NM
APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
$ N/A
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and approve Design Study (OS 15-217), Coastal Development Permit and Variance
(VA 16-070) applications subject to the attached findings and conditions.
SUMMARY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project site is 4,007-square-feet in size and is located on Scenic Road two parcels northwest of 8th
Avenue . The subject property is currently developed with a 2,089-square-foot two-story single-family
residence. The applicant has submitted plans to demolish the existing residence and remove all
hardscape and construct a new 2,072-square foot two-story residence consisting of a 440-square foot
basement/garage at sub-grade, 971 square feet on the ground level, and 517 square feet on the
second level. The proposed project qualifies for 434 square-feet of bonus basement floor area. The
basement includes a crawl space, a one-car garage space (accessed by a car-lift), a mechanical room,
storage room, and two bedrooms with full bathrooms.
The proposed project includes the following major components:
1. Demolition of the existing residence and attached garage;
2. site clearance, excavation and grading;
Page 1
310
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
import engineered soils and materials;

backyard deck with fire pit;
new fencing on north, east and south sides;
two wood-burning fireplaces with chimneys/one gas fireplace;
stone trim to front entry; and
steel windows with stone trim and sill.
The project was unanimously approved (5-0) by the Planning Commission on April 13, 2016 with a
condition that the applicant return with a revised front entry design. The revised front entry was
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at the May 11, 2016 meeting. The project
approval is being appealed by the neighboring property owners directly south of the project site:
Simeon and Sally Yencken. The appeal application is included as Attachment 1.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
Concept Review (12/16/15) - At the December 161h meeting, the southern neighbor (appellant)
expressed concern with the mass of the proposed residence and with the size of the south-facing
window on the second story. In addition to concerns raised by the neighbor, staff and the Plann ing
Commission expressed concern with the proposed backfill at the rear of the property and the
associated retaining walls, and recommended that the applicant revise the design. Staff notes that the
rear of the property has a steep topography and the applicant had originally proposed to backfill the
rear-yard of the property in order to create an earthen patio at the same level as the main floor of the
residence. The Planning Commission made a motion to continue the application with a request that the
applicant revise the design to reduce the amount of grading and fill at the project site, mitigate impacts
to the southern neighbor, and revise the front entry design.
Concept Review (3/9/16) - In order to mitigate the impact to the southern neighbor, the applicant
shifted the proposed residence 3 feet to the north, thereby increasing the south side yard setback from
3 feet to 6 feet. In addition to this change, the applicant also withdrew the proposal to backfill the rear
yard and proposed a deck instead. A Variance (VA 16-070) was requested that would allow for excess
site coverage in order to construct the deck. The allowed site coverage is 556 square feet and the
applicant requested 792 square feet. The Planning Commission supported the Variance request due to
the topography of the rear yard . The Planning Commission accepted the design concept and directed
the applicant to remove the south-facing window as requested by the southern neighbor and to revise
the front entry.
Final Review (4/13/16) - The applicant eliminated the south-facing window and revised the entry.
Planning Commission unanimously approved (5-0) the Final Design Study with a condition that the
applicant continue to work on the front entry design and return with a revised version.
Post Final Approval (5/11/16) - The Planning Commission reviewed and approved the final front entry
design.
Page 2
311
BASIS FOR APPEAL:

On April 26, 2016, an Appeal of the Planning Commission 's decision was filed by Pamela Silkwood,
attorney representing the appellants, Simeon and Sally Yencken, who live immediately to the south of
the Chadwick residence. The appeal application with supporting documentation is included as
Attachment 1. This is a de novo hearing, meaning that the City Council may make a decision on any
aspect of the project. Nevertheless, this project went through a thorough review process with the
Planning Commission during the aforementioned meetings, and staff recommends that the Council
primarily focus on the issues raised by the appellant. The following is a summary of the concerns raised
by the appellant, followed by a staff response:
1. Inconsistent with the General Plan, Municipal Code and Residential Design Guidelines.
Staff Response: The argument submitted by the appellant is premised on statements made by certain
Planning Commissioners at the April 13, 2016 meeting, whereupon it was stated that the proposed
residence needed additional design changes and was not appropriate for the City of Carmel. In part,
these comments were directed at the design of the front (east) elevation and entry. As a condition of
approval the applicant addressed the issues with front elevation. The appeal also refers to various
parts of the Design Guidelines and to the Carmel Municipal Code that relates to findings
(17.064.080.A.4) specific to the human scale of proposed structures and their fitting in with the size,
scale and form of buildings in the immediate block and neighborhood.
Sheet A-3.3 of the plan set (Attachment 7) includes a streetscape elevation depicting that the proposed
new residence will be smaller in size than the existing residence . In staff's opinion, the proposed
residence as modified by during the review process, is consistent with the City's Residential Design
Guidelines pertaining to visual mass and bulk, simplicity of design, and neighborhood context.
Furthermore, staff notes that the surrounding neighborhood has several examples of large-size homes,
and furthermore, the applicant eliminated 'flatness' on the east elevation where there was concern for
such, and the front door entry was substantially modified. The original proposed front entry elevation is
included as Attachment 6 for comparison to the revised design.
2. The Project Proposes a Three Story Structure.

Staff Response: The applicant is proposing a car-lift in the garage that would provide access to a
parking space in the basement. The Carmel Municipal Code (CMC), Chapter 17.70- List of Terms and
Definitions, states that within residential zones a garage in a basement is to be counted as a "story". A
literal interpretation of the Code indicates that the proposed garage area qualifies as a third story and
should therefore not be allowed. The Planning Commission considered this issue and determined that
this regulation is intended to apply to basement garages that are accessed via a driveway, in which
there would be a visible basement level with a garage door. In such a design, a garage below a twostory residence would create a three-story appearance. However, the applicant is proposing a car-lift in
which the basement level would not be visible from the street and does not create the appearance of a
third story. The Planning Commission determined that the design does not constitute a three story
building.
Page 3
312
3. Hardship Required for Variance.

Staff Response: The deck in question is at the rear of the main level and is being proposed as an
alternative to backfilling the property in order to create a rear patio to the same level as the main floor.
In addressing the Variance, the appellant has referred to the cut (excavation) of 556 cubic yards of soil.
Staff notes that the soil removal from the site is in association with the basement and not the rear deck.
Furthermore, the proposal to construct a deck rather than backfill the rear of the property has reduced
the amount of earth movement for this project. Staff notes that only two decks are proposed and not
three as asserted by the appellant.
The appellant has requested that the City required an Initial Study or full EIR for this project because of
the excavation. Staff has determined that the project qualifies for a CEQA exemption pursuant to
Section 15303 (Class 3) - Construction or modification of a limited number of new or existing small
structures. This is a standard exemption that is applied to the vast majority of new single-family
residences constructed in the City. The proposal to excavate in order to create a basement space is a
common construction practice in the City and in staff's opinion, the construction of the proposed new
residence does not present any unusual circumstances that would result in a potentially significant
environmental impact.
4. The Fencing along the Southern Boundary should remain in its current location.
Staff Response: Based on the survey, the existing fence along the south property line is approximately
1.5 feet on the applicant's property. Fencing and property line determinations are a civil matter, and
hence, the City does not have the authority to require that applicant maintain the fence at its current
location, essentially granting property to the southern neighbor.
ALTERNATIVES:
Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision by denying the
appeal and approving Design Study (OS 15-217), Coastal Development Permit and Variance (VA 16070) for the demolition of an existing residence. Draft findings and conditions of approval are included
for Council consideration. Alternatively, the Council could take the following actions:
1.
2.
3.
Continue the application with a request for changes .

Approve the request with revisions . If the required revisions are substantial, the Council
may wish to continue this item to allow the applicant to respond to Council direction.
Deny the application request and direct staff to prepare findings for denial based on
deliberation at the July 12, 2016 public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA requirements, pursuant to Section 15302
(Class 3) - Replacement or Reconstruction . An existing, 2,089-sf, non-historically significant singlePage 4
313
family residence with garage will be demolished and replaced by a new 2,072-square-foot residence.
The proposed alterations to the residence do not present any unusual circumstances that would result
in a potentially significant environmental impact.
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
None.
ATTACHMENTS
'
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Appeal Application
Findings for Approval
Conditions of Approval
PC Concept Staff Report (3/9/16)
PC Final Staff Report (4/13/16)
Original Front Elevation (Front Entry)
Project Plans
APPROVED:
/f/(//"
(:& ~
Date: ~{:{("
Chip Rerig, City Administrator
Page 5
314
Attachment 1 _Appeal Application
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
(FILING FEE: $304.82*)
Appeals to the Planning Commission must be made in writing in the office of the Planning
Department within 10 calendar days following the date of the Administrative Decision and
paying the required filing fee as established by City Council resolution.
Physical location of property that is the subject of a peal (street location or address):
lot(s):
~ -
I 0 +[
Block:
. [)
cZ:
1n .
APN :
()I {7- 3 {2-()Zk
A~TRATIVE DECISION BEING APPE,AlE9f:P f a t') n I
--)L.tSL~Yl MPYZJI~-
Utf /))
(l'l.'fVt
(s$;1;(1_$
If you were NOT the original applicant or the applicant's representative, please state why you
are an aggrieved party:
1
}1e ~ hl2h::
11>
tht ~~A=
*Article 9, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of California authorizes a city

fees. Also see California government Code, Section 54344.
B
1
c APR 2 6 Z016
''Y otCormel-b
1
Planning & 8 . Yfhe.saa

U11ding DePt.
315
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: State the specific basis for your appeal, such as errors or omissions
you believe were committed by Community Planning and Building Director in reaching his/her
decision, etc. You may also submit a le~~_Vther material to explain your appeal.
&..e. A+f.aeh l'lL~U:
I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT:
DATEDTHIS ~ DAVOF
Ar:{! ,
20j(,
Receipt#:
IMPORTANT: If the appellant wishes to submit materials for duplication and inclusion in the
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea's Planning Commission agenda packet, the materials must be
submitted to the Planning Department at least two weeks in advance of the appeal date.
Revised July 2014
316
Grounds for Appeal

Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision for Chadwick Project (DS 15-217)
1.
The Project is Inconsistent with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code and
Residential Design Guidelines Due to Its Mass and Bulk.
The majority of the Commissioners stated that the Chadwick Project ("Project"), due to
its mass, bulk and style, belongs in Pebble Beach and not in Carmel. They expressed concerns
that they let the project review process go too far to deny the Project, but believe that the
Project is not consistent with Carmel's cottage-style homes. The transcript of the Commission's
deliberation at the April 13, 2016 hearing is included as Exhibit A. For example, please find the
following excerpts of the deliberation:
Commissioner Martin: Here is my problem with what we are talking about right
now and again, it's a fine looking design. It's a good looking home but it's not
right for Carmel by the Sea like we talked about last time and I appreciate
Barbara Livingston's comments. Two, 1 wish that at our first hearing our
concept, the first time we saw that, that we talked about the entire design of
the building overall, instead we narrowly talked about just the grand entrance.
So I think if we had a time machine, we would turn back the clock, we would go
back to the first meeting and talk about what is a fine design but not
appropriate, I feel for Carmel by the Sea.
Commissioner Reimers: I will step in, actually I did address it at the first hearing
and I don't think I'm being heard and that's where I am coming from. I am
concerned .. (interruptions) we talked about the flatness, we talked about the
house, we talked about the two stories to the street and we are still now, we
are being given the same design. I feel bad to continue something but we need
to have a reaction, we need to be heard.
Chair Goodhue: Well I'll make my comments now. I agree with some of the
points Commissioner Reimers has made. My problem and it may be our
mistake, is we narrowed the focus down to "the entryn and I'm sorry we did
that. And I apologize to them. What we have here is a very monumental
fac;ade and it is a monumentality that is the problem, not the entry. I think, and
I don't think we'd be asking much at all of the architect, in one day study, he
can do other ways to modulate this fac;ade and relieve the two stories, share
walls, not only the entry way with the other and come up with something that
really has some smaller scale down.
The Project proposes a massive three-story 2,072 sq. ft. residence on a small lot
comprising 4,000 sq. ft., which clearly violates the City General Plan Policy P1-40, which states
RECEIV L.
as follows:
APR 2 ti 2016
City ot Carmel-by-the-Sao
Planning & Building Dept.
317
Residential designs shall maintain Carmel's enduring principles of modesty and

simplicity and preserve the City's tradition of simple homes set amidst a forest
landscape. Buildings shall not present excess visual mass or bulk to public view or
to adjoining properties. Buildings shall relate to a human scale in their forms,
elements and in the detailing of doors, windows, roofs, and walkways. Oversized
design elements make structures appear dominating and monumental. This outof-scale character represents a poor fit to the human form, vitiates the more
intimate, rural charm and village character of Carmel-by-the-Sea and should be
avoided.
The Project should conform to the character of the neighborhood, which comprises
sma ll cottage-style homes on comparable size lots as follows:
1} To the north: APN 010-321-014 - 1,486 sq. ft. residence
2) To the south: APN 010-312-027- 1,384 sq. ft. residence.
3} To the northwest: APN 010-312-016- 1,686 sq. ft. residence.
4} To the west: APN 010-312-017- 1,359 sq. ft. residence.
5) To the southwest: APN 010-312-018-1,095 sq. ft. residence 1
The Project violates City Code 17.10.010.0, which includes mandatory language, i.e.,
"shall", as follows:
Residential designs shall maintain Carmel's enduring principles of modesty and
simplicity and preserve the City's tradition of simple homes set amidst a forest
landscape. Buildings shall not present excess visual mass or bulk to public view
or to adjoining properties.
Based on the foregoing, it is dear that this Council will not be able to make the findings
required under section 17.58.0802 of the City Code to approve this Project design, because the
Project is massive and bulky when compared to the adjoining properties.
Information obtained from Chicago Title property profiles

Under Municipal Code 17.64.080.A, the Council is required to make the following findings as
part of its design approval, which the Council cannot make based on the proposed design:
2
4. 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.
318
2. The Project Proposes a Prohibitive Three Story Structure.
The Chadwick project comprises a three story house based on the definition of "story"
in the City Code. City Code Chapter 17.70 defines story as follows:
A space in a building between the upper surface of any floor and either the
upper surface of the next floor above, or in the case of the topmost floor, the
ceiling or roof above. Those portions of a subgrade or partially subgrade living
space, space used for parking, underfloor space or crawl space are counted as a
story where the finished floor above such space is five feet or more above the
final grade adjacent to any exterior wall around the perimeter of the building.
Within Residential Zones. Those portions of excavated space not used for
parking, that qualify as a basement, do not count as a story. All portions of a
garage are considered a story. See also "Basement". (Emphasis added.)
The Project proposes to utilize a portion of the basement for parking, which based on
the above definition must be counted as a story. The language in the above definition is clear
and unambiguous and not subject to interpretation. Unless there is an amendment to the
definition through a legislative process, the City must act consistent with this definition and
deny this Project.
3. Hardship for Required for Variance Approval Cannot Be Made
The Applicant is requesting a variance to add a third deck to the Project. The Project
already proposes a roof deck and a deck on the main floor. The essential requirement of a
variance is a showing that a strict enforcement of the zoning limitation would cause
unnecessary hardship; the burden of showing hardship is on the applicant. (PM/ Mortgage Ins.
Co. v. City of Pacific Grove (1981) 128 Cai.App.3d 724, 731.) Here, the applicant cannot justify a
hardship to support a variance request for a third deck when two decks are already part of this
Project. Granting the variance to allow for this third deck would constitute a grant of special
privileges to the applicant, inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity
and zone in which the Project property is situated, which is prohibited under Section
17.64.210.8 of the City Code.
Moreover, granting of the variance would be detrimental to adjacent properties and
injurious to public health, safety and welfare, and the finding required under 17.64.210.(
cannot be made and supported by substantial evidence in the record. The Project property is
located within an Archaeological Significance Overlay District and Beach and Riparian Zoning
District. The extensive cut of 566 cubic yards in an area with known sensitive resources and
loose sandy soils with the potential to cause subsidence are problematic and should be
addressed during this phase of review. Trucking of 506.30 cubic yards of the sandy soil off-site
along this street would cause significant air quality and traffic impacts which must be addressed
and fully mitigated in an initial study.
319
Since the City has already clearly delineated the Areas of Potential Archaeological
Significance in Figure 1.4 of the General Plan, the City cannot rely on a categorical exemption
and must prepare an Initial Study or an EIR to evaluate the Project's potential to impact these
resources.
4. The Fencing Along the Southern Boundary Should Remain In Its Current Location as It
Has for the Past Decades.
The Appellant has relied on the existing fencing that has been in place for decades to
plant vegetation and request that the existing fencing remain in its current location .
4819-4323-0769, v. 1
320
HORAN
I LLOYD
MEMORANDUM
RE:
Chadwick Project Appeal

Deliberations by Planning Commissioners of Chadwick Project (DS 15-217) at 01:18
Hearing Date: April13, 2016
Commissioner Michael LePage: I make a motion that we approve

the, is this the final? This is the final, with the special
condition that the entrance way be redesigned to reflect
conformance with our side guidelines which address grand entry
ways and that both special conditions, special condition 22 plant two lower canopy trees and 23 - to work with staff to fix
lighting location, I maintain both those two in my motion.
Commissioner Goodhue: Add discussion on that or does anyone fee
differently? Do we have a substitute motion?
Commissioner LePage: Do we need a second first?
Commissioner Goodhue: yes that probably would be good, a second
to that motion?
Commissioner
----:
I sill second that
Commissioner Janet Reimers: Are we open now for discussion? I'm

concerned about the motion in that form and could not support it
in that form. I'm going to support the staffs' considerations as
stated in the staff report, and in fact, a mass involved, 7.1
through 7.6, encouraged mass in building to relate to the
context of other homes nearby, to minimize the mass of a
building as seen from a private right of way, or adjacent
properties, and further guidelines that state that the building
should relate to the human; the motion does not go far enough in
my judgment, yes, I think yes indeed , the redesign of the entry
is absolutely essential, however it needs to come back. I would
only be able to continue this project or deny it in the way that
it is now and for these reasons not just opinion. The stated
objection, objective section 9 of the guidelines, includes to
promote the diversity of architecture styles that are also
compatible with the village and or its contents; to promote
simplicity and building designs for buildings that are in scale
and to continue the use of the natural building materials. The
321
doorway
element
be able
city or
area itself has been reduced but the tall flat two story
that it's attached to has not been altered and I won ' t
to support that two story to the right of way, to the
street. I can't support that.
Commissioner Michael LePage: Question, so your comments are

specifically directed towards the entry way?
Commissioner Janet Reimers: Yes.
Commissioner Michael LePage: Not to the structure?
Commissioner Janet Reimers: No. I actually ...
Commissioner Michael LePage: Just the entry way?
Commissioner Janet Reimers: That's correct . .. I think what I
would like to point out is that the other parts of the building,
the south and the west, and the north, all have definition and
setbacks and a variety.
The streetscape does not have that and
we do need to encourage that to happen to follow our guidelines
that are stated by staff and by this commission at the last
meeting - I felt.
Commissioner Michael LePage: Any other comments?
Commissioner Martin: Here is my problem with what we are talking
about right now and again, it's a fine looking design .
It's a
good looking home but it's not right for Carmel by the Sea like
we talked about last time and I appreciate Barbara Livingston 's
comments. Two, I wish that at our first hearing our concept,
the first time we saw that, that we talked about the entire
design of the building overall, instead we narrowly t a lked about
just the grand entrance . So I think if we had a time machine, we
would turn back the clock, we would go back to the first meeting
and talk about what is a fine design but not appropriate, I fee l
for Carmel by the Sea. But we are now in this place where in
fairness, we need to allow the entire project overall to move
forward so if we can go back to the facade Mark.
I think so
much of the architectural interest of this design does reside
around this doorway and yes I do not like grand entries, and I
feel that they are inappropriate to Carmel but the entire
concept I feel is inappropriate to Carmel, good as though it may
be, it 's not appropriate for Carmel so where I'm at with this is
that perhaps we might consider allowing them to have something
more of a larger entry way as proposed now as to fill up this
large vertical space that we approved, that we've been approving
so far because I feel that so much of the architectural interest
of this house is derived from the way this entrance fills in
2
322
this large vertical blank space because if we squish down on

this thing and do not have a grand entrance, then to my eye the
design overall loses a great deal of interest . So that's where I
am with this. And I would even go so far as to even consider
looking at the entrance as it was originally proposed because to
talk about the entrance is really nibbling around the edges of a
much larger issue that we as a commission should have addressed
in the first hearing of this project.
Commissioner Janet Reimers: I will step in, actually I did
address it at the first hearing and I don't think I'm being
heard and that's where I am coming from.
I am
concerned . . (interruptions) we talked about the flatness, we
talked about the house, we talked about the two stories to the
street and we are still now , we are being given the same design.
I feel bad to continue something but we need to have a reaction,
we need to be heard.
Commissioner Keith Paterson: I think we have been heard and I
think that the simple design doesn't fulfill the purpose of that
large blank wall.
I think we need something more in keeping
with that design (point to screen) and I think that we h ave let
this one go too far without either saying, this has to be done,
or not and I think that we should now approve i t as it stands?
(interruptions) I actually don't agree that this is something
that should be allowed in Carmel. We are famous, I guess, for
having so many different varieties of designs here and I won't
name some of the ones that I think are particularly detestable
but I don't think this falls amongst them. Not to my eye .
If
fact, I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I can't say
this is beautiful but I can say it's different and I think it
deserves a place here.
Commissioner Don Goodhue: Well I'll make my comme~ts now.
I
agree with some of the points Commissioner Reimers has made. My
problem and it may be our mistake, is we narrowed the focus down
to "the entry" and I'm sorry we did that. And I apologize to
them. What we have here is a very monumental fa9ade and it is a
monumentality that is the problem, not the entry.
I think, and
I don't think we'd be asking much at all of the architect , in
one day study, he can do other ways to modulate this fa9ade and
relieve these two stories, share walls, not only the entry way
with the other and come up with something that really has some
smaller scale down.
It wouldn't require any change to the floor
plans or anything else. There are a lot of ins and outs all
around the other elevations and this one is this sheer monument,
statement of monumentality, so that 's my point and I think by
continuing it, I think Eric Miller's firm is capable of doing
something very quickly and of minimal trouble to him or the
3
323
client and I think it would be a mistake if we allow this

proceeding without that minor additional study.
(interruption)
Last thing I want to do is the design of the
but I
think there's setbacks between the floor leve ls and setbacks
across there that could add a lot of interest to this fa9ade and
scale it down closer to Carmel (interrupted) .
(discussion between staff and commissioners regarding display)
Commissioner Michael LePage: I think we are getting off the
subject where we are and I don' t agree that there is a place in
Carmel for this house, I agree with Commissioner Paterson.
There's all kinds of Mediterranean architecture in Carmel and I
think that , so it's not that there isn't Mediterranean
architecture, it's just about this particular architecture, this
particular house and we 're working on , we ' re talking about this
grand entry way. There ' s a simple fix here.
So what ' s causing
the grand entry way is that the roof line is up here. All you
have to do is take the roof line and lower it down to here
(points to display) . but now you can put up what I drew and I
don ' t normally do this but I think one picture is worth one
thousand words. I think this isn't quite right . I looked at this
later but you get what I am talking about? If you lower the
upper roof line , see how I blanket it out, leave the window
there, this really won't work because there's an offset right
there which I didn't pick up when I was messing around with it ,
but if you just took this element here and repeated it over
there, which is what the architect had but he had it up higher
up here , you eliminate those offsets above because this is just
a little built out. And in element , whether this is round or
square , actually I prefer it round, I think it's more in keep ing
with the, but now you can see that the sca le is brought down and
I think this is what this house needs. This is what the staff
has been talking about . Eliminating t hi s grand entry way where
you have strong vertical lines, extending up in the front of the
house . What breaks up a two story house if you introduce a
horizontal element midway? And so , that's all that needs to be
done here.
Is we need to have a horizontal element introduced
here. Whatever it is , it doesn't have to be this but I think
this is the direction that this design needs to go, because this
is really what we ' re talking about here . It's just a grand entry
way.
324
Commissioner Martin: So concerning the grand entry way , you're

talking about not only the door and the immediate surrounds but
the entire vertical plane of
Commissioner Michael LePage:
plane, which you can see it
Commissioner
this wall here
We're
talking
about
So this whole way that
the
offset
(interrupted)
Commissioner Michael LePage: You just take this and move it down
there.
Commissioner Don Goodhue: I commend LePage for suggesting that
but this is not the answer to all but it's a direction.
And I
think (interrupted)
Commissioner Michael LePage: I don' t want to
I just want to give some direction to the
think it addresses what we're talking about,
It ' s up to the architect to figure out the
sorry but I think that's the direction the
needs t o go and we can reach a consent on
ahead.
redesign the house,

architect which I
it's a simple fix.
details of it. I'm
front of the house
this design moving
Commissioner Janet Reimers: I do want to say that I agree with

you whole heartedly that that is the direction it has to go and
I would like it to come back to the commission because I believe
that it ' s something that the staff has been attempting to work
wi th and it hasn't happened so I I'd like to see it so.
Weiner: I just want to point out that I think the commission
could approve this project but with the condition that they come
back to work on the one element that way they can start on the
engineering and all the other details involved and it doesn't
hold them up but we can ask the architect if that's possible or
if he feels that he needs more of a redesign and back to the
construction drawings
Miller : I would be open to lowering that main facade but in
difference to my client who's been sitting on his hands for
months, I would like to work with the staff instead of coming
back to another public hearing.
I figure it's fair to my client
and I think that we can lower that element if we need to.
If
that's the direction the commission gives us.
325
Weiner: What if it's approved with the condition that the entry
element come back to the planning commission, could you start
with the rest of your drawings? And proceed that way you're not
held up much longer?
Miller: Well , I guess we could.
It is hard on my client
thought, they've been going through a l ot , they've moved a lot
and changed a lot and I'd like to say something about massing
and
buildings
like
this,
if
you
look
at
George
Washington's .... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Commissioner Don Goodhue: I think it's too much of a burden on
staff. I think it does have to come back to the commissioners
and find some way to let them go ahead but the front fa<;ade
needs treatment, it needs study.
Miller : The obvious thing for me is taking that gate in and
dropping it down and it will be shortened, and I think that will
help a lot.
You know, in terms of what you' re concerns are.
Because there's not a lot of options . because we're kind of
locked in on that floor plan and to really adjust and put lower
roofs on the left hand (interrupted), I think would then mean
that we have to push the house to the west.
And doing that I
think it would be a disservice to everybody, including my
client.
Her view to the north , we would be blocking her view.
That's one of the reasons it is what it is. But if we can just
lower that gate down to about where Mike showed it, I mean I can
sketch it now if would help this move on.
Commissioner Don Goodhue : Speaking as an architect, I think that
would be too quick , I think you should study it, one day, and
not just jump to the conclusion .
Miller: alright.
side of that
Thank you. My client has pressure on the other
Commissioner Don Goodhue: I understand .. we're struggling to find

a way to let them proceed.
Commissioner Michael LePage:
Commissioner, I made the motion so
I just want to amend my motion.
I will amend my motion that we
accept the design as presented, with the exception that the
entry way, just the entry way design be brought back to the
planning commission for final approval.
(discussion among
commissioners) I think there's been enough discussion that the
architect
knows what the direction is
and what
is the
expectation here. There's a clear avenue here for approval for
this and my motion is amended to provide the additional approval
6
326
that the, that the opportunity to see the final design that I
think my fellow planning commissioners want.
Commissioner Don Goodhue:
take a look at the front
doesn't. Any further?
I request that the archi teet please

fa<;ade.
I' 11 be disappointed if he
Commissioner Martin: Thank you for getting rid of the window.
Commissioner
Don
commissioners)
Goodhue:
All
in
favor?
("I"
by
all
327
Attachment 2 - Findings for Approval

OS 15-217 (Chadwick)
July 12, 2016
Page 1
FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR DESIGN STUDY APPROVAl {CMC 17.64.8 and lUP Polic~ Pl-45} For
each of the required Design Study findings listed below, staff has indicated whether the submitted
plans support adoption of the findings. For all findings checked "no," the staff report discusses
the issues to facilitate the Planning Commission decision-making. Findings checked "yes" may or
may not be discussed in the report depending on the issues.
MUNICIPAl CODE FINDING
YES
NO
1. The project conforms with all zoning standards applicable to the site, or has ,/
received appropriate use permits and/or variances cons istent with the zo ning
ordinance.
2. The project is consistent with the City's design objectives fo r 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 the site and in the public right of way that
is characteristic ofthe neighborhood.
,/
3. The project avoids complexity using simple/modest building forms, a simple roof ,/
plan with a limited number of roof planes 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.
4. 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.
../
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.
6. The design concept is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies related to
residential design in the general plan.
,/
7. 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 setback a minimum of 6 feet from significant trees.
328
DS 15-217 (Chadwick)
July 12, 2016
Page 1
8. The proposed architectural style and detailing are simple and restrained in
character, consistent and well integrated throughout the building and
complementary to the neighborhood without appearing monotonous or repetitive
in context with designs on nearby sites.
./
9. The proposed exterior materials and their application rely on natural materials
and the overall design will as to the variety and diversity along the streetscape.
./
10. Design elements such as stonework, skylights, windows, doors, chimneys and
garages are consistent with the adopted Design Guidelines and will complement the
character of the structure and the neighborhood.
./
11.
./
Proposed landscaping, paving treatments, fences and walls are carefully

designed to complement the urbanized forest, the ap proved site design, adjacent
sites, and the public right of way. The design will reinforce a sense of visual
continuity along the street.
12. Any deviations from the Design Guidelines are considered minor and reasonably ./
relate to good design principles and specific site conditions.
VARIANCE FINDINGS (CMC 17.64.210)
1. That due to special physical circumstances applicable to the property, the strict
application of the Zoning Ordinance will deprive the property owner of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity which were developed und er
the same limitations of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. That the variance will not constitute a grant of specia l privilege inconsistent with
limitations on other property in the vicinity and within the same zone;
3. That the variance will not be detrimental to adjacent property or injurious to
public health, safety or welfare;
4. 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;
5. That the situation or condition for which the variance is sought was not the result
of actions of the existing or any prior owner ofthe property; and
6. 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.
(Ord. 2004-02 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 1, 2004).
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS (CMC 17.64.010.8.1):
1. local Coastal Program Consistency: The project conforms with the certified local
Coastal Program of the City of Carmel-by-the Sea.
YES
NO
./
./
./
./
./
./
YES
NO
./
329
July 12, 2016
Page 1
2. Public access policy consistency: The project is not located between the first
public road and the sea, and therefore, no review is required for potential public
access.
330
Attachment 3 - Conditions of Approval

July 12, 2016
Page 1
No.
Standard Conditions
1.
Authorization: Th is approval of Design Study (DS 15-217) authorizes the

applicant to demolish the existing residence and remove all hardscape and
construct a new 2,072-sf, two-story single-family residence consisting of a 440sq-ft basement/garage at sub-grade, 971-sf on the ground level, 517-sf on the
second level, and a 144-sf footprint for the elevator and stairwell (not changed
from previous). The basement includes a crawl space, a one-car garage space
(accessed by a car-lift), a mechanical room, storage room, and two bedrooms
with full bathrooms. Finish materials include stucco, metal railings, clay tile
roofing, unclad wood windows and doors, and new fencing. Fencing will include
a four-foot high grape-stake fence with spaced pickets in the front yard setback
area and a solid six-foot high solid fencing elsewhere. Section of fencing on the
north boundary line in the front yard set back area is proposed to remain.
2.
The project shall be constructed in conformance with all requirements of the

local R-1 zoning ordinances. All adopted building and fire codes shall be
adhered to in preparing the working drawings. If any codes or ordinances
require design elements to be changed, or if any other changes are requested at
the time such plans are submitted, such changes may require additional
environmental review and subsequent approval by the Planning Commission.
3.
This approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of action
unless an active building permit has been issued and maintained for the
proposed construction.
4.
All new landscaping, if proposed, shall be shown on a landscape plan and shall
be submitted to the Department of Community Planning and Building and to the
City Forester prior to the issuance of a building perm it. The landscape plan will
be reviewed for compliance with the landscaping standards contained in the
Zoning Code, including the following requirements: 1) all new landscaping shall
be 75% drought-to lerant; 2) landscaped areas shall be irrigated by a
drip/spri nkler system set on a timer; and 3) the project shall meet the City's
recommended tree density standards, unless otherwise approved by the City
based on site conditions. The landscaping plan shall show where new trees will
be planted when new trees are required to be planted by the Forest and Beach
Commission or the Planning Commission.
331
DS 15-217 {Chadwick)
July 12, 2016
Page 2
5.
Trees on the site shall only be removed upon the approval ofthe City Forester or
Forest and Beach Commission as appropriate; and all remaining trees shall be
protected during construction by methods approved by the City Forester.
6.
All foundations within 15 feet of significant trees shall be excavated by hand. If

any tree roots larger than two inches (2") are encountered during construction,
the City Forester shall be contacted before cutting the roots. The City Forester
may require the roots to be bridged or may authorize the roots to be cut. If
roots larger than two inches (2") in diameter are cut w ithout prio r City Forester
approval or any significant tree is endangered as a result of construction activity,
the building permit will be suspended and all work stopped until an investigation
by the City Forester has been completed. Twelve inches (12" ) of mulch shall be
evenly spread inside the dripline of all trees prior to the issuance of a bu ilding
permit.
7.
Approval of this application does not permit an increase in water use on the
project site. Should the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
determine that the use would result in an increase in water beyond the
maximum units allowed on a 4,000-square foot parcel, th is permit will be
scheduled for reconsideration and the appropriate findings wi ll be prepared for
review and adoption by the Planning Commission.
8.
The applicant shall submit in writing to the Commun ity Planning and Building
staff any proposed changes to the approved project plans prior to incorporating
changes on the site. If the applicant changes the project without first obtaining
City approval, the applicant will be required to either: a) submit the change in
writing and cease all work on the project until eithe r the Planning Comm ission
or staff has approved the change; or b) eliminate the change and subm it the
proposed change in writing for review. The project will be reviewed fo r its
compliance to the approved plans prior to final inspection.
Exterior lighting shall be limited to 25 watts or less (incandescent equivalent,
i.e., 375 lumens) per fixture and shall be no higher than 10 feet above the
ground.
Landscape lighting shall be limited to 15 watts (incandescent
equivalent, i.e., 225 lumens) or less per fixture and shall not exceed 18 inches
above the ground.
9.
10.
All skylights shall use non-reflective glass to minimize the amount of light and
glare visible from adjoining properties. The applicant shall install skylights with
flashing that matches the roof color, or shall paint the skylight flashing to match
the roof color.
NA
11.
The Carmel stone fa~ade shall be installed in a broken course/random o r similar

masonry pattern . Setting the stones vertically on their face in a cobweb pattern
shall not be permitted. Prior to the full installation of stone during construction,
332
OS 15-217 (Chadwick)
July 12, 2016
Page 3
the applicant shall install a 10-square foot section on the building to be reviewed
by planning staff on site to ensure conformity with City standards.
12.
The applicant shall install unclad wood framed windows. Windows that have
been approved with divided lights shall be constructed with fixed wooden
mullions.
Any window pane dividers, which are snap-in, or otherwise
superficially applied, are not permitted.
V'
13.
The applicant agrees, at his or her sole expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless the City, its public officials, officers, employees, and assigns, from any
liability; and shall reimburse the City for any expense incurred, resulting from, or
in connection with any project approvals. This includes any appeal, claim, suit,
or other legal proceeding, to attack, set aside, void, or annul any project
approval. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any legal proceeding,
and shall cooperate fully in the defense. The City may, at its sole discretion,
participate in any such legal action, but participation shall not relieve the
applicant of any obligation under this condition. Should any party bring any
legal action in connection with this project, the Superior Court of the County of
Monterey, California, shall be the situs and have jurisdiction for the resolution of
all such actions by the parties hereto.
V'
14.
The driveway material shall extend beyond the property line into the public right
of way as needed to connect to the paved street edge. A minimal asphalt
connection at the street edge may be required by the Superintendent of Streets
or the Building Official, depending on site conditions, to accommodate the
drainage flow line of the street.
V'
15.
This project is subject to a volume study.
V'
16.
Approval of this Design Study shall be valid only with approval of a Variance.
V'
17.
A hazardous materials waste survey shall be required in conformance with the

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District prior to issuance of a
demolition permit.
V'
18.
The applicant shall include a storm water drainage plan with the working
drawings that are submitted for building permit review. The drainage plan shall
include applicable Best Management Practices and retain all drainage on site
through the use of semi-permeable paving materials, French drains, seepage
pits, etc. Excess drainage that cannot be maintained on site, may be directed
into the City's storm drain system after passing through a silt trap to reduce
sediment from entering the storm drain. Drainage shall not be directed to
adjacent private property.
An archaeological reconnaissance report shall be prepared by a qualified
archaeologist or other person(s) meeting the standards of the State Office of
Historic Preservation prior to approval of a final building permit. The applicant
V'
19a.
V'
333
July 12, 2016
Page 4
shall adhere to any recommendations set forth in the archaeological report. All
new construction involving excavation shall immediately cease if materials of
archaeological significance are discovered on the site and shall not be permitted
to recommence until a mitigation and monitoring plan is approved by the
Planning Commission.
19b.
All new construction involving excavation shall immediately cease if cultural

resources are discovered on the site, and the applicant shall notified the
Community Planning and Building Department within 24 hours. Work shall not
be permitted to recommence until such resources are properly evaluated for
significance by a qualified archaeologist. If the resources are determined to be
significant, prior to resumption of work, a mitigation and monitoring plan shall
be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and reviewed and approved by the
Community Planning and Building Director. In addition, if human remains are
unearthed during excavation, no further disturbance shall occur until the County
Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and distribution pursuant
to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98.
20.
Prior to Building Permit issuance, the applicant shall provide for City
(Community Planning and Building Director in consultation with the Public
Services and Public Safety Departments) review and approval, a truck-haul route
and any necessary temporary traffic control measures for the grading activities.
The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring adherence to the truck-haul
route and implementation of any required traffic control measures.
21.
All conditions of approval for the Planning permit(s) shall be printed on a fullsize sheet and included with the construction plan set submitted to the Building
Safety Division.
Special Conditions
22.
The applicant shall plant TWO lower-canopy trees from the City's recommended
tree list, and shall indicate the size species and locations on the required
landscape plan prior to Final Design Study approval. Location will be based on
City Forester review and approval based on discussion with neighbor to the East.
23.
The applicant shall work with City staff to fix locations of the proposed
landscape lighting.
*Acknowledgement and acceptance of conditions of approval.
Property Owner Signature
Printed Name
Date
Once signed, please return to the Community Planning and Building Department.
334
Attachment 4 - PC Concept Staff Report

Planning Commission Report
April 13, 2016
To:
Chair Goodhue and Planning Commissioners
From:
Marc Wiener, Acting Community Planning and Building Director
Submitted by:
Matthew Sundt, Contract Planner
Subject:
Consideration
of a Concept
Design
Study (DS
15-217 ),
Coastal
Development Permit, and Variance (VA 16-070) applications for the

demolition of existing residence and construction of new residence
located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District, Beach and
Riparian (BR) Zoning Districts, Archaeological Significance (AS) Overlay
District, and in the Appeal Jurisdiction/Beach Overlay (AB) Overlay
Districts.
Recommendation:
Accept the Conceptual Design Study (DS 15-217) and Variance (VA 16-070) applications subject
to the attached findings and recommendations/draft conditions.
Application:
APN:
010-312-026
Block:
C2
Lot(s) :
10 & 11
Location:
Scenic Road, 2 NW of 8th
Applicant:
Eric Miller Architects, AlA
Property Owner: Chadwick Living Trust
Background and Project Description:
The project site is a 4,006.8-sf interior parcel located on Scenic Road two parcels northwest of
8th Avenue. The subject property is currently developed with a 2,089-sf two-story single-fam ily
residence. A Determination of Historic Ineligibility for the residence was issued by the Planning
Department on February 28, 2015, herein included by reference. The property file indicates
that the original residence was a post/adobe built in 1949.
The residence has undergone
several modifications over the years, including substantial add itions in 1956 and 1981.
335
DS 15-217/VA 16-070 (Chadwick)

March 9, 2016
Staff Report
Page 2
The project site is located within the Beach and Riparian (BR} and Archaeological Significance
(AS) Overlay Districts, which restricts height to 18-ft, and requires the preparation of an
archaeological report.
As required for all developments in the areas of Archaeological
Significance, an archaeological report has been prepared and concludes there are no issues of
concern, except that in the case that archaeological resources, or human remains are found, or
uncovered during construction, work must be halted within 50 meters (160 feet) until it can be
evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist.
The applicant has submitted plans to demolish the existing residence and remove all hardscape
and construct a new 2,072-sf (previously 2,057-sf}, two-story single-family residence consisting
of a 440-sq-ft basement/garage at sub-grade (previously 412-sf}, 971-sf on the ground level
(not changed from previous), 517-sf on the second level (previously 530-sf}, and a 144-sf
footprint for the elevator and stairwell (not changed from previous). The basement includes a
crawl space, a one-car garage space (accessed by a car-lift}, a mechanical room, storage room,
and two bedrooms with full bathrooms. The proposed project qualifies for 434-sf of bonus
floor area. The sub grade living area consists of two bedrooms, each with its own bathroom
and exterior door to a below grade patio on the west side of the property (previously, access
was to a patio on the north side). The basement is accessible via an interior stairwell and
elevator.
3. import engineered soils and materials;
4. backyard deck with fire pit;
5. new fencing on north, east and south sides;
6. two wood-burning fireplaces with chimneys/one gas fireplace;
7. stone trim to f ront entry; and
8. steel windows with stone trim and sill.
The Planning Commission conducted a concept review of this project on December 16, 2015.
At that time, the Planning Commission made a motion to continue the application with a
request that the applicant revise the design to reduce the amount of grading and fill at the
project site, mitigate impacts to the southern neighbor, and revise the front entry design. The
applicant has revised certain aspects of the design in accordance with the Planning
Commission's recommendations.
336
OS 15-217/VA 16-070 (Chadwick)

March 9, 2016
Staff Report
Page 3
PROJECT DATA FOR A 4,006.8 SQUARE FOOT SITE:

Site Considerations
Allowed
Existing
Proposed
Floor Area
1802.5 sf (45.0%)
Total 2,089 sf (52.1%)
Total 2,072 sf (52%)*
Main level1,411 sf
Main level 971 sf
Second floor 678 sf
Second floor 517 sf

Basement 440 sf
Elevator and stairwell144 sf
Site Coverage
Trees (upper/lower)
Ridge Height (main
1,458.6 sf (37%)
792 sf (142.4%)
86.5% impermeable
112.9% impermeable
3 Upper /1 Lower
None (one dead tree
(recommended)
trunk on north side)
:S 18 ft
18ft.
18ft.
:S 18ft
-g ft./16 ft.
8ft. 9 in./16 ft. 4 in .
Minimum
Existing
Proposed
15ft
15ft
15ft.
13.25 ft (25%)
9ft
13.25 ft.
3ft
7.25 ft. (north side)
556.8 sf (13 .9%)**
level)
Plate Height (ground
level/second level)
Setbacks
Required
Front
Composite Side Yard
(53-ft-wide lot)
Minimum Side Yard
3ft
6ft. (south side)

Rear
3ft/15ft***
20-25 ft
24- 26ft. (first floor)

21-26 ft. (second floor)
Total excluded area is 434 sf
**
Allowable site coverage with bonus, if 50% of more of the site coverage is permeable.
* **
Structures in the 15ft rear yard setback are required to be under 15ft in height.
Staff Analysis:
Previous Hearing: The following is a list of recommendations made by the Planning
Commission and a staff analysis on how the applicant has or has not revised the design to
comply with the recommendations:
1.
Reduce the amount of cut and fill at the project site.
337
DS 15-217/VA 16-070 {Chadwick)

March 9, 2016
Staff Report
Page 4
Analysis: The City's Residential Design Guidelines (Section 3.0, Topography) encourage site
plan designs that relate to and take advantage of the site's topography and slope and includes
guidelines that address the manner in which natural grades are addressed and how a site is
excavated for a building foundation .
A key principle is to maintain the sense of natural
topography, balanced with the objective of minimizing the mass and scale of a bu ilding.
The rear of the property has a steep topography that is challenging to use as outdoor living
space. To address this issue the applicant had previously proposed to backfill the rear-yard of
the property in order to create an earthen patio at the same level as the main floor of the
residence. However, the Commission expressed concern with the amount of backfill and with
the height of the associated retaining walls, and recommended that the applicant revise the
design.
As an alternative to backfilling the rear of the property, the appl icant is now proposing a 364-sf
stone-surfaced deck set on stucco coated columns/walls. The applicant is requesting a Variance
(VA 16-070) that would allow for excess site coverage. The allowed site coverage is 556 square
feet and the applicant is requesting 792 square feet.
At the last meeting the Commission
indicated that it could support the request for a Variance from the site coverage standards due
to the steep topography of the rear yard. Staff has included draft f in dings for the issuance of
the Variance. Staff supports the proposal for a rear deck; however, the Commission should
consider whether the proposed deck still appears too massive and whether it should be
reduced in scale and surfaced with permeable materials such a wood planks.
The original design also included a sub-grade patio on the north side of the property with 10foot high retaining walls. Staff notes that the California Building Code requires an external
egress for bedrooms located in basements; however, the proposed sub-grade patio was much
larger than the minimum required for egress. The applicant has revised the design to eliminate
the proposal for the north sub-grade patio. The basement bedroom ingress/egresses is now on
the west side of the building, below the proposed deck. This revisions has substantially reduced
grading from 732 to 566 cubic yards (166 cubic yards less).
The revised plan shows a reduction in cut and fill and includes approximately 567 cubic yards
(cy) of cut (previously 732.40 cy) and about 61 cy of fill (previously 108.30 cy), thereby 506 cy of
soil must be exported (previously 624 cy).
The number of truck trips associated with soil
exports is reduced from 78 to 65. The other truck trips associated with demolition and import
of engineered soils will remain the same. These calcu lations are shown on the Conceptual
Grading and Drainage Plan an d Construction Management Plan included in Attachment C Project Plans.
338
OS 15- 217/VA 16-070 (Chadwick)

March 9, 2016
Staff Report
Page 5
2.
Reduce impacts to southern neighbor.
Analysis: At the first meeting the southern neighbor expressed concern with the mass of the
proposed residence and with the size of the south-facing window on the second story. To
address this issue, applicant has shifted the proposed residence 3 feet to the north, thereby
increasing the south side yard setback from 3 feet to 6 feet. However, the applicant has not
reduced the size of the second-story window {Attachment D).
The neighbor continues to
express concern about the location and size of the south elevation window. Staff concurs that
the proposed window will create a privacy impact to the southern neighbor's rear deck and has
drafted a condition requiring that the window be reduced in size.
3.
Redesign front entry to eliminate the "grand entry" design.
Analysis: Design Guideline 9.12 states that ''the use of a grand entryway, oversized entry door
or large picture window facing the street is discouraged. These convey a scale inappropriate to
Carmel." Guideline 7.6 relates to building scale and states
The applicant has not changed the front entry design. The entry feature (from door threshold
to top of ridge) is 18 feet high and 11 feet wide. In staff's opinion, the proposed entry door and
associated stonework on the east elevation appears grand in scale and inconsistent with the
above guideline. Staff has drafted a condition requiring that the entry be revised to be more
consistent with the above guideline prior to final Planning Commission review.
4.
Basement Garage -Zoning Code Definition
Analysis: The applicant is proposing a car-lift in the garage that would provide access to a
parking space in the basement. The Carmel Municipal Code (CMC), Chapter 17.70- List of
Terms and Definitions, states that within residential zones a garage in a basement is to be
counted a "story". A literal interpretation of the Code indicates that the proposed garage area
qualifies as three stories and should therefore not be allowed. In staff' s opinion, the Code
definition is intended to apply to basement garages that are accessed via a driveway in which
there would be a visible basement level and garage door. In such a design a garage below a
two-story residence would create a three-story appearance. However, the applicant is
proposing a car-lift in which the basement level would not be visible from the street and does
not create the appearance of a third story.
The Commission should consider whether the
applicant's proposal violates the Zoning Code.
339

March 9, 2016
Staff Report
Page 6
Other Project Components:

Forest Character: Residential Design Guidelines 1.1 through 1.4 encourage maintaining "a
forested image on the site" and for new construction to be at least six feet from significant
trees.
Per the City Forester's recommendations, staff has drafted a condition requiring that one upper
canopy and one lower canopy tree be planted on the site. Staff notes that the neighbor to the
east has submitted correspondence (Attachment E) expressing concern that planting an upper
canopy tree would block ocean views as seen from their residence. Staff notes that there are
no trees on the project site and development projects are one of the City's only opportunities
to require that trees be planted on private property. In Staff's opinion, the condition should
remain; however, staff could work with the City Forester, applicant, and neighbor to determine
an optimal location with the least potential impact on views.
Environmental Review: The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA requirements,
pursuant to Section 15302 (Class 3) - Replacement or Reconstruction. An existing, 2,089-sf,

non-historically significant single-fami ly residence with garage will be demolished and replaced
by a new 2,072-sf residence. The proposed alterations to the residence do not present any
unusual circumstances that would result in a potentially significant environmental impact.
ATIACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Findings for Concept Acceptance
Attachment B- Draft Recommendations/Conditions
Attachment C - Project Plans
Attachment D -Correspondence from attorney
Attachment E- Correspondence from neighbor
340
Attachment 5 - PC Final Staff Report

Planning Commission Report
April13, 2016
To:
Chair Goodhue and Planning Commissioners
From:
Marc Wiener, Interim Community Planning and Building Director
Submitted by:
Matthew Sundt, Contract Planner
Subject:
Consideration of a Final Design Study (DS 15-217), Coastal Development

Permit, and Variance (VA 16-070) applications for the demolition of
existing residence and construction of new residence located in the
Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District, Beach and Riparian (BR)
Zoning Districts, Archaeological Significance (AS) Overlay District, and in
the Appeal Jurisdiction/Beach Overlay (AB) Overlay Districts.
Recommendation:
Accept the Final Design Study (DS 15-217) and Variance (VA 16-070) applications subject to the
attached findings and conditions.
Application:
APN :
010-312-026
Block:
C2
Lot(s):
10 & 11
Location:
Scenic Road, 2 NW of 8th
Applicant :
Eric Miller Architects, AlA
Property Owner: Chadwick Living Trust
Background and Project Description:

The Planning Commission conducted a concept review of this project on December 16, 2015
and on March 9, 2016. At the March 9 hearing, the Planning Commission made a motion to
accept the design with a request that the applicant revise the design to eliminate the second
floor south-facing bedroom window and redesign the front entry. The applicant has revised the
plans to reflect the Planning Commission's request.
The project site is a 4,000-sf interior parcel located on Scenic Road two parcels northwest of 8th
Avenue. The subject property is currently developed with a 2,089-sf two-story single-family
residence. A Determination of Historic Ineligibility for the residence was issued by the Planning
341

Aprill3, 2016
Staff Report
Page 2
Department on February 28, 2015, herein included by reference. The property file indicates
that the original residence was a post/adobe built in 1949. The residence has undergone
several modifications over the years, including substantia l additions in 1956 and 1981.
The project site is located within the Beach and Riparian {BR) and Archaeological Significance
{AS) Overlay Districts, which restricts height to 18-ft, and requires the preparation of an
archaeological report.
As required for all developments in the areas of Archaeological
Significance, an archaeological report has been prepared and concludes there are no issues of
concern, except that in the case that archaeological resources, or human remains are found, or
uncovered during construction, work must be halted within 50 meters (160 feet) until it can be
evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist.
The applicant has submitted plans to demolish the existing residence and remove all hardscape
and construct a new 2,072-sf, two-story single-family residence consisting of a 440-sq-ft
basement/garage at sub-grade, 971-sf on the ground level, 517-sf on the second level, and a
144-sf footprint for the elevator and stairwell. The basement includes a crawl space, a one-car
garage space (accessed by a car-lift), a mechanical room, storage room, and two bedrooms with
full bathrooms. The proposed project qualifies for 434-sf of bonus floor area. The sub grade
living area consists of two bedrooms, each with its own bathroom and exterior door to a below
grade patio on the west side of the property.
The basement is accessible via an interior
stairwell and elevator.

3. import engineered soils and materials;
4. backyard deck with fire pit;
5. new fencing on north, east and south sides;
6. two wood-burning fireplaces with chimneys/one gas fireplace;
7. stone trim to front entry; and
8. steel windows with stone trim and sill.
342

April 13, 2016
Staff Report
Page 3
PROJECT DATA FOR A 4,006.8 SQUARE FOOT SITE:

Site Considerations
Allowed
Existing
Proposed
Floor Area
1802.5 sf (45.0%)
Total 2,089 sf (52.1%)
Total 2,072 sf (52%)*
Main level1,411 sf
Main level 971 sf
Second floor 678 sf
Second floor 517 sf

Basement 440 sf
Elevator and stairwell 144 sf
Site Coverage
Tree s (upper/lower)
Ridge Height (main
556.8 sf (13.9%)**
1,458.6 sf (37%)
792 sf (142.4%)
86.5% impermeable
112.9% impermeable
3 Upper /1 Lower
None (one dead tree
(recommended)
trunk on north side)
!>18ft
18ft.
18ft.
!> 18ft
~g
8ft. 9 in ./16 ft. 4 in.
Minimum
Existing
Proposed
15ft
15ft
15ft.
13.25 ft (25%)
9ft
13.25 ft.
3ft
7.25 ft. (north side)
level)
Plate Height (ground
ft./16 ft.
level/second level)
Setbacks
Required
Front
Com posite Side Yard
(53-ft-wide lot)
M inimum Side Yard
3ft
6ft. (south side)

Rear
3ft/15ft* **
20 - 25 ft
24 - 26ft. {first floor)

21 - 26 ft. (second floor)
Total excluded area is 434 sf
**
Allowable site coverage with bonus, if 50% of more of the site coverage is permeable.
Structures in the 15ft rear yard setback are required to be under 15ft in height .
***
Variance Request:
The City's Residential Design Guidelines (Section 3.0, Topography)
encourage site plan designs that relate to and take advantage of the site's topography and
slope and includes guidelines that address th e manner in which natural grades are addressed
and how a site is excavated for a building foundation. A key principle is to maintain the se nse
of natural topography, balanced with the objective of minimizing the mass and sca le of a
building.
343

April13, 2016
Staff Report
Page 4
The rear of the property has a steep topography that is challenging to use as outdoor living
space. To address this issue the applicant is proposing a 364-sf stone-surfaced deck set on a
wood support structure coated with stucco. To facilitate this project component, the applicant
is requesting a Variance (VA 16-070) that would allow for excess site coverage. The allowed site
coverage is 556 square feet but the applicant is requesting a total of 792 sq uare feet. The
Commission indicated that it could support the request for a Variance from the site coverage
standards due to the steep topography of the rear yard. The attached Findings reflect approval
of the Variance.
Previous Hearing: At the March 9 hearing the Planning Commission instructed that the second
floor south side window be removed and that the front entry feature be toned down so as to
be consistent with the Design Guideline 9.12 that states, "the use of a grand entryway,
11
oversized entry door or large picture window facing the street is discouraged.
Review of the
revised Final plans indicates that the second-story window has been removed and the front
entry has been reconfigured.
The original entry design included limestone around the perimeter of the door and was 9 feet
wide and 10 feet high. The revised entry also consist of limestone around the perimeter of the
door and is 6 feet wide and 9 feet with a cornice at the top. In staff's opinion, the applicant
may not have adequately addressed the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the grand
entry. The Planning Commission must determine if the new entry design meets the intent of
Design Guideline 9.12. Also, in the event the Planning Commission is not satisfied with the
current entry design proposed, staff has requested the project architect to bring additional
designs for consideration by the Planning Commission.
Other Project Components:
Exterior Lighting:
Municipal Code Section 15.36.070.6.1 states that all exterior lighting
attached to the main building or any accessory building sha ll be no higher than 10 feet above
the ground and shall not exceed 25 watts (incandescent equiva lent; i.e., approximately 375
lumens) in power per fixture. Landscape lighting shall not exceed 18 inches above the ground
nor more than 15 watts (incandescent equiva lent; i.e., approximately 225 lumens) per fixtu re.
The location of the proposed light fixtures affixed to the residence are depicted on the
elevations included on Sheet A-2.1 of the plan set, and the lighting details are included on Sheet
A-7.1. The applicant is proposing incandescent up to 25 watts, or LED bulbs not to exceed the
incandescent equivalent of 375 lumens.
The applicant is proposing a total of three lights on
the main floor and one on the second floor. Ofthe three fixtures on the main floor, only one of
344

April13, 2016
Staff Report
Page 5
these fixtures is facing the east elevation (facing Scenic Drive) and is set above the garage
within the 10-foot vertical height limit. One recessed light will be installed above the front door
on the east elevation.
Although the lighting is not down cast, the 25 watt limitation combined with the heavy seeded
glass will be sufficient to diminish light intrusion into the front yard and public space. Staff
supports the proposed fixtures and notes that they comply with City requirements.
In regard to landscape lighting, the applicant is proposing light fixtures as shown on Sheet L-3.
However, the landscape plans on Sheet L-2 do not show where these fixtures will be located.
Therefore, a condition is prescribed whereby the applicant will work with City staff to fix the
location of these fixtures.
Fences:
Except for the north side, front yard fence, the property's existing fencing will be
removed and replaced as shown on Sheet A-1.2. Fencing will be grape stake on both sides of a
structural support. Fencing on the south (side yard) and west (rear yard) side will be replaced
with the grape stake not to exceed 6 feet {4 feet within 15 feet of the east {front) property
boundary). Fencing at the front of the house on the east side fronting Scenic Road will be a
solid 4-foot high grape-stake fence.
Environmental Review: The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA requirements,
pursuant to Section 15303 {Class 3) - New Construction or Conversion of Small Units.
An
existing, non-historically significant single-family residence with garage will be demolished and
replaced by a new residence, and therefore qualifies for a Class 3 Exemption. The proposed
residence does not present any unusual circumstances that would result in a potentially
significant environmental impact.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A- Findings for Approval
Attachment B - Conditions of Approval
Attachment C - Project Plans
345
88
1.o-UCCialiJoiOHoll
10~ -rw otM:ro l.St
M.i-c.tr iiCIOW~
oset6 ~ "31\rn:IO Ol.::U::IYd
~-.w
--.
....--..-:
< ... I'

'
I'
oNI 'S!Q3!1HQ~V ~3111V'J QIH3
/
I
u
.u
~~
I
~~
..;.,~
'
,I
I , _
il
t"
''
I
I
1 - ''
~
i
....I
'
~.
'
~r
II)
z'
>
Ul
.I
Ul
:1:
1-
~.
z
oJ
i:
Ul~
~~
Ul~
---J.
346
.g
~
J!
w
...!!
1l
~
~
0:
a.
a.
...
~
1i
II
I CHADWICK-
RESIDENCE I
SCENIC 2 NW OF 8th AVENUE
CARMEL-BY-THE- SEA, CA 93923
iI
ii
OWNERSHIP NOTES
-""'"...C.INTM .....Sf~T~Ne> .... . r"""~--"-"""'''..,..
iI
I
I
I
!
l
'I
PROJECT INFORMATION
~-::'~~~~-DIIIIItDIO
....
I
!I
,.~~ ,..10
~2-.:JrfofiiA~
a.O....c.7,LO'T!Iolo3t"
Bt.IG. ...._I.P
TMTTIC.TAIC IOO't~I'OIIt-WI..._l'~~P'~_., OTICJII ~.

~TIQNtll' IIC'tol!~r.r-"'fCliiU! ~-.TI......T'ION>1'!olt
~. nc~'~"'"'~r.-...:t~~~N<P
~~~':r~~~~~~_,_
~
IMfH!~CI'-ZE:).eelrt_.,f*I:Df'AAT'r''!tCK~AH!;)
~IGAl~Mc.l.<lltl' fO#t....W..OO ~ --~V I"'U:,....,.,.O_ SI
..-.rUtOOCII.P~- ~f' -C:Cf~'I'Mr:~rl(.l, t:lbe.-....t:"
. ,..,.,, IM"'..Ttar-~ U~..,.......r...,...~~IOOI"!ICDIM
~~TW:JM~I'L.Hi
~08AtcHCNT~ ,-V>.N
~ flillitTf"loo.t i"I.....,.IU V~
~~1'1.-00I't l'lrVIMO
r-. LC!OCSC!!'!!C':L
Clf..C..moNCW VQ;.~ ~ ~-~
""V!Ma
~~
~ I'I.OOfiiNA~
...... ,~
~~~JI'LN(
~.KO~TIU:.ftOI'tCW
oc~ -"
SGCNIC:. ~ Nl'l
<..)
,.,
,.,
.....
~-"""
L~.,...,.~Tl()IO~
.....~. """"" ~1 ...... MICAU.5
a et H,...,IN.W:
~n
~!
~
:l!'
(.)
...., IOM!I
....s.2
,....,.
~f.X"!'fJliQ!I n~
~-u
~POOA~
-~
~~~
........ ..,.,..,..
r- \!!!
I: ~0 "'"
u
a: ~~
&f~e'T f'~"fl"".
.,.~ .r.
:6
lt--\, -~IUc:.f
""'
c:..,
<t: ~~
o.::
l'lf'TRM TtV.f ~~~OI',..~H..KUO~N,. ~f.(l,j
f ll:eL(:tJ fl' ~~ T'lltf..fS, '3) I(I' Tne$, (4) U' Tiltt:C., NO(\),... ~!!
~ ,.. '011\Pnt..l+.~~~
oc:.a...-ANc:.Y61'ta!#
a: i.
w
----~I'QIII. ~~ MfQit. .,_.._
- IV. . )
..,_....,.,...,. , , .._,,,. , , 1,....r
em~v~.~~,.~~~.~0Aff1CoOY'I:~UoM:I--'=::::..::.:.:::..:.=..::..--------------------I
~01'~1~110ff
lsn.; BlJILOI'.'OST. """"""''
""'"-
---
::::! ~~
::2: 0z ,
(.) < =
"""""'
o-.o.:n. tc:rr""-
.......... ........... .
........._~Q'olfOf'Ait
l..tlcSf'~~
2P'1,~1" JV~
~OS I'
rvsm..l"'t:~
"""""'~OkT'Cc.....vlltA6C
AV(IV4(~
8~
-
_J
0#
MM!Ir~
~~
~ E.ot."l"lAAC::It~....llClld- IU:~
MD'I~TC'!';Y~I"'!,...~, :tR~~'2 .....n.. l~

./V>/\M.I'\itHt..Otf~I..IFT !I'Ifi4
oo
oo
~fl(b'l"'.....,.-~
PROJECT DATA
G.ov!IC.I.Oj- ~, C:.A'I.llo'I:'J
TREE REMOVAL
~~NC~I"V<<oo
..1"1'1'\.M
~14TU.f'l, ~Me
;)MtoOf'I'~ A~
~1fliltY,GA "1,..4~
:JTtdi U!!III rt',...)II DI"-Nii:Jti"'fCM'l('.A.'IONS!Iofto'oU.Mt(X..D.TIIt:!iT'OI:IG'JEOIO

n.e ~- .m1: ~Oit-c:.t< I .... ~'<A~: ~P'Aiti:ONO J>C~O:I !CitZM' loT...ttt
<&ll._
'"""'""""' .......
...............
"""'
~T~GA<eo'liO
"JIC
~~-,.,.~tl"''......Ut:ll'ncM-c...... ~....ot14'
M<;HIT!!GN'Y'b
nc~"' L.M.to~~o~
lnl'\.1! -AU.~- . . . . . . . ,.,'IIC!JII!~- ~,_ .
SHEET INDEX
NlnH:JI'~~
0-NI:A..
~-\4Cc>r'""'W~-NCI-C.r"""~
- 5i
a:
,_~
w ~
roo-TING FL~J
1,/tii.OV.
'lttoTP\.OOft
fleGONOI'\..C""'
.o.r
''".... ~~~
:).OCo'IIOSJI
j t ~:O.~::..EOFLO~AA;- ~
I"IUTI'I..OQ!It
NG~fl.a....R
_.,,.,.,. &J'
..... .... ,.... ...
"'
.......... . ..... 1._.0 61'
......y;-...r .................
............ -o"
!llfA!IIt t
E~VATOIII.
10'fAI..I'ROI"...< I"'.OOit J<IUA

~
. ,..-,c......_...............
~-"""""""1o&C'"fCI'l --
~.0
W'
~ .;.) 61'
"
TO'I'....._t:.I<..UICICD""*-" ' '
I ~""'" ''~;:,ITEW\'EFJ.-flE
~~ 8
'?
~~ ...
"Oicli~ ()
Oltl~l'
~ITEI'Yt'-~/~,.1'106 -
ec.. o -"
,_o,.r
a.or
t.r'l'l~!> / a.oii:IM--
roOCIP~IVfLifft---
>
0
,-;.,_'t!>l,_...~ ---....TIO'(~
.....aoD~
101.o.L ~It~CQ.t:IU6C .
lto.Q.,.
~D $1'
" " ' -"
lloftlt-'~~
347
c.lOT....
=====
.-ftltO'\OA .....,.~
\)
:::;
~D &.r
::;~
!lo:".-.051"
TOT""-~.n"C~
,_.O~.r
1'4AJ(H..Hx...I..OI'eP.TI!GO~
~o 5 .r
\)
()
~ ;I,;
Ill
~:ciED~-*e- J
~:....:NoLL..,-,.,.
.----
-~
II(
c.'IQ!>,_51 1t~.W:
CI..CVATCOrc...ootc.(
~~~.
.ll~<
~
TM""-
~ ~~ ~
1Ill
Ill
~,05.1"
~u.X ...
<
...
~
--.,
H.TJI.
"'--
. ......... >OS
L""'
'C:J
~;
"-" """
~-WI.
,.,...
=>'---.__ '
A-0.1
""' "'
Jl
IL
Tg'JJ~:~
.:-= -:I r: 1I 1
:1
l:
1 1
12"T
;; ::
I I I
\l
....,.P
II
11
I
I
,'
(Q
oooot:=\_l..l---- - - -="''"
II
::=- --,.J; Ir---,-----iS~
.:rl I
I I
1-'- -
I I
I I
I
I
II
II
all
~
012T
,.. ....,..,...
::
::
::
I
I
r.~l
::
: I:1
I I
1 I
o ..
1:
:1
II
II
EXI&TINcS
1-tJ!..TI-&TOR'f
II
1I
I
fl
II
::
\ I'
II
~
- --,
I I:
----- -- ---, 1
::
L------.,
::
E
I
_ ____ _ _ _ _,
I I
LEVATEO II
::
flt'I 1I
:: oJ'
I 1
It
I I
c~
'o'
11
--~-t--~--------~
I - - ---- - --.,1
i - ----- -,.~~~~
::
~~
I
11
I I I I I I I
L'::!i"JJ>t-~~~
-~
f>: _ ~
"'
,til_ _ __
~~ _
:1I
L _____ _ _ __ __ _
--------.. J
I
1
lp..j
~
-- - ::;.._
..... , , .60.
---T - --_rJ )
_-_-:..-- - -:.
-:::-
1:
}I
~-----------J
~
- - - --
=I
I
l
348
Jl
IO"T
I
\I
IU~I)
6"
8
--
oo
........___ CV I'itNIU!TODe
I
09~
"'r
1 1
:
ro">
(
~T
r:--
00
I
I
I~
1- ~ ~
I ~
:
I
'fThr
:J: 152..2!1
:
1
I
I
)V(
t ;,.cx
IIII!~P
:1
>':J\12T
=-:
I
I
a:
EB
6GAL.e . \lA 1'-o

~
4'
6'
<(
w
_J
8~
-
~~
~
~
-_J
::E
()
t;
w a:
~ w
--,,
'
"
~J:
~
~~
C o
\)~ .0
!!! ~~~?
~- ~!:!
...
iii
~~< -
:::i
0
\,) 1! <
x:n~. 0
DEMOLITION SIT E PLAN
l!; i
a:
g~
()
(l) ,.I'NC.t'!'OM
D )
14 "T
"<.(
en ~~
oW o_~ I
1-- g:: Ji
::
..:..:...___;;; ~-=-'=-=-=~ ..:.==- == ~ ,_____ _....-
1 - .,._
--
:
I~---- ------ -- r
I ---
I
I
I
'i
II
1I
: I I: I I I I I I I I I
t 11 t l l l l l l l l :lc&2
L - - - - - - - '"'1 I Ill I
r0,wOODDECKII
_: -,_--_-:---J
_ _ ~ __J::::_,
'I
:
1
I
:I
r--
rCJJI
II II
tc:j) ~~~
~ ~-,
I
:I
. !...,.._
'~
~~ ). ~
f\
\.
"
'
I
I I
1I
0 Xr
"'
"'
:
:
"
I:II
I
(.. !1
11
'I
,----' I
II
I
II
II -
DEMO~ISHED
1
1
::
_ _J I
::
II
~&IDI!N~E TO 61!
II
I
I
I
-64
"\ I
1
::-r- : :r- - - ..J
-ll
ELEVATED
wooD DECK
"""""'~:
:, i:
: il
I I
I
); I
L.l.,
t: 1 1
I:
L_ _ __ ,
:j
)
T-\ 1
1 r t
11 I
II
~I
I
toln:.rw.l.
II
II
i ~I
~~ :
(!> I - I
,,I I
~
llM.t*t
,~II'IT ~
11
II
.
""i:;7'
8 T
er~r
::~:
II I :L
:
" Il l
I I I I
r1 ===:: J_____,---'-~-'
1 1 v
1 ,.---- - .,
"?T
II
'K-~-- -- L_L - -
\s :Ljii
"';11
A '
1 1
_ __ .J ... ___ _ ______ _
I
I
1 1
- '-
K TiliO.LIC TO IIU!KAJN
~.ltf'l't..IN!
-
~ ~- -----------, ~---_}
, , -l rr ---r I
I
r --- --,
l1
f"COT!"!tl~at'e.xi$1'1N
II I
II
: :
l ll
~PNTOM~
~~
:
:
1 1
iiI'S4~.98
'(>
:::::
I IL-.L
:1
I
I
I'~T
IIZI'fOYI.OC.OO'"-tc nu4K
I ----- -~~
~~~-...,..--.---N
- - - .- - - - - ,
\.. ---- r'T~
h---,"1
,'
II
I
p.IGUNI"II:XIOI'fHU. DIII'-Q'
~,.....I"'CCO
~IOUNO
~D6~ TOR~~
~~ ~ -"""'J~
- ..,
J6T
::
1 1
::: :
U'
U'
I
I
I
,.,l
::
I I
.....______o
lI
Q
11
II
1
II
t- - '--.1.--~
I
1
..,
I
I I
' \..---------1 ~ -.,

'----.--r-.,..--, 1
:
U
\ VI
~ --,;-=-"-
I I
I
IU\.DC.A!I I.ITII,fff~l
]~] ~
~ i
n
,.,.
"""
~
b/.:Z../16
V<f' 1'-o"
.....
I
,lL1.1
,
!
~
:L_
______________________________________~--"
Go><-
JOIIIJWII(It:
IL___
________ JI
(MJ l'fMGe
(f)f!!HGe;
n.: -"\1-~ T - - ~.I!~ : _i

~ ~-\
"'
- r liTE"__--::: .'"
1'-0"
IJC11oTINf
ttt
,.,,..,....,.,
+------~
'III
0-
r~~
18 ~~""'
:;~
GRAPE STAKE DETAIL

~AL.t:!
-r-1
'
oo
DCJr-
i(
0
6'.,
""'
ci
Z
~ ~~:
I- S
C> ;s
UJ .
!:=: ~ I
I ~~
(.)
~.
a: .. i
<( "'
~~
~
s~
a:
UJ
_J
~~
i,;
-::2: cr
_J
~ ~ ""'l~i
't. .._HCf=
,._
WOOD FENCE DETAIL

6G.AU:
1'-<r
'6''-l:
OI'V'~ ... nt
... toPt8T)41>KJ
oo.:.
UJ
tJSe . ..
VfRl.IO' C<.
ll>".:l i'W.L
t:X1"Eiot I"K
Com, 'rd
=.-...tiS'".Of)
I .;'
_,1;.5' '
--. ___
~\
''I.._
~-
l . liUeR ., ~lAU...~
~~~
349
OfVMNt--') P'.:;R
I'G\.tOII.'r::JINOP"~
EB
PROPOSED SITE PLAN

5oc:-AL.t: . 1/4 1'-o-
~
0
- ........
..l ~"~~~
..l
LANDSCAPE WALL DETAIL
...
"
A-1.2
,i<"il~
0
I.
~ ~
;j
,<;J-.1'
:JJN!YI'SHOO
W(>
~ ,..~.....,.,..._
QI-'IQVd
' ll~ '
!JfOHd
90l..,, ONVI::tO L!it
I JM' '" :.l lll ~)A'I~ Olt\ ::.
~6C6 VQ '3AO~!l
.C>31J..r.)l,fV
DO
DO "JNI 'SlJ311HJl:l'v' l:l3lliV'J :)1!:13
.l.Nil~~'o'9
':j?!MPt:>4? ,.,.. ,.,
OOo-9l;O-r; IGOIO 'N'J"'

GZ'bGb 'Y'? 'f .W..IQ?
#0 lofi t ,.U.~
On.JOI\"1 ~q
~?UQpjSQl!j
N'o'1d ll001d
z
0::
a.
0
0
.J
u.
JI
s 3~
3
I[
<(I .."
4
0
.'
N c
!
350
- ~o--o---o---o---o--- o---o~---o--o
__E
IJidfL ...-1
....__r:!O!or..,.~~
~
!:
]
~
~~l'l~~-~
,..-A.Irfi1N5'~0H
~NiO
~A."C'~ e~L.OP"i
61<055 fl.OOR Al<fk

HAN FLOOR L~IN'J AREA
HAN flOOR UAR1a
HAN flOOR oiA!IO I ELE'IAI~
~I
1)21 5f
lffiR flOOR LIVIG Al1fA

ilffiRflOOR 511.110 I ELEVA!~
oo
mu
~of.
----~SF
2/ll>%f.
(J)
f-
(.)
li!
~1
~~
:C ~I
(.) 5~
a:
f-
<..)
I,
~I I :!
CITT
:., , ~
I
'1.I I ,
:1 :1 I
:~N'J fLCCR
~'
~ < '
Q. o.
Al<fA,
a:
fifOI flOCl< LI'I'K> AREA

5ECGIO flOOR LIVIG AREA
5ECO>flOCRSIA!IO 1 ElVAICR
8A5El'NT fLOOR LMIJ ARE/.
,115f.
>11 Sf.
144 Sf.
440 Sf.
cnr Cf CAR'tL flOOR Al<fA
2;:12 Sf.
_J
_J
.....
1r.
~~
TOTAL flOOR Al1fA
-~
......,~
~r
440 Sf.
2~ oF
rrr-~
+--II
>nSf.
W<Sf
----66l of
LG1i.ER fLOOR LIVIG AREA

LG1i.ER FLOCl< CAR Lfl I I'EOl
LG1i.ERfLOCl< 51AL'<5 I ELEVAICR
~~
lC!> of
2;6 of
---
1:
lhl> of.
:!~
-
i,;
~ 0~
(.) ~ ~
01
~ ffi 9!~
11~
d:
(}L;M"WJ
EBN
MAIN FLOOR PLAN

~AL.t:
v~
...
-o1
b'
EXTER!CR LIGiffN'J Sl!'fla.S
351
- - - - - - -- -
?A
i711ATTMAXII.>llral(l
..
7~
O o lS!JAITMAX.RECESOEDCI.HI61ll
t ,..r ~ r ~ ,..,.
_.
A-2.1
"""
i.
90L """ ONVtiD l9l
....... :eJM ~-:. 1. 1\alO"J o *' u 'lHOH4
OS6t6 V0'3/\0I:J801::ti0Vd
wc;-,.,..~
.9,t'
.....
L.___
'*"-~
.........,
DtDJf=
(V')
.C>".S
'JNI 'S18311H8t:JV t:l31llv.J 81tl3
,I.S
88
1 ...
-~
I~
tl.l...n I'.. II
""';::r lr1
'
'""
lr:':
_,.,~.
httl,..l
httl,..l
e!'fl:1 ~
.J,lL
ii ,, ~~
<t
...
l4:19
~o
MN r
~ J'<I
"'U~?S
~t'bG:b V? 'l~
00<>-9U>CII;-oiO
~ru :JA"'
NV1d
t\
a
-~
'~
ti
(;l)
~
~ ~~
,;,t
(J"
~ J
.CJ
L..j.J
.t l
l l
j'[Q]f il 1m
"'"'
-ow. ____ ..,M_ Jol ---...,--
c:::IN0?3S
I[
..1
II.
II:
a.
z
~
~001.1
e?ugp!S e~ ~?! Mpoy~ :~
f-
'I--
'
I=
F!
i"-'F'rPP
}i\ -
fl~!
::~~~ ~" ~
~r~
I
. ~-~
.. --rw-......, -""'-"" '" _,__,._ ..,- -
......
~ I III: [j~~)1.hlllt~~ . tB
'j,.J
It!
~
~
~5tft
rt
~!
h
- rl
~ !~ m
-Jg -Tit! I~ -j
~Bl
;;..!\
" 1-llliJ
:j
I' I> ~
r1 iTt:UeJgj]
&b ~ ~ ~
:S:i .nrnr~
!;lj
lr'i
:re1
mr
~~
-~'(
- - - --- ---~----
~ !
-JUII--..,..--...
352
BB
w. .o~N:......,~- aJM o.t~"l . h n J 'IN, o~.,..~l(li~l~f.kl

OS6&6 'f/'J ' 31\0t:IO OI:IIO'f/d
IMH """' ONV'=IO LS l
.::>NI 'S18311H8l:J\f l:J3111V>J 81l:J3
II ITT._
i[
..
('f)
N o
I ~
<(
353
':l
FLOOR LEVEL - AREA KEY
[[llll
~
FIRST FLOOR -AREA KEY
T01A1- I'L.OCfii': Al'i.4 - -
TWOSTORT PITCHfp
5f';CQ>ID
~L.OOR
"31 ~ 1' .
(L.!VNG Sf"'A CI!J
TOTAJ.. I'LOCIR AR!A _
~3
5 1'
~;:,Ts;.._~r~i~E~~
TOlAL..<"LOORAR:E A _
!'Col-IT
TWO ~TCRY - PITQ.If:D ~

F!R!IT R-OOR fJ,. IVINCo 6t"A,C!.)
- -
oo
09~
(.)
FLOOR ARE A --
f- ~ ~
"lNI&Ioi i'I.OQt l l'l>lt!oo-1 6R.IIDI'

~ R" l't<loX IMIM CI!:R.JNCo HE ~Glof! ff'l:a1
'-'II~ rl.oaot f() ~IHI!M-I Clli.NG
~ROM
l't.OOR TO I'IHI!oH Cf.L NIO

TO TAL E.rE MFf .4.R;EA
-
totAL
l!:~t
Al't!! A _
bl 5F
1/e"
!-
NEB
VOLUME AREA
I.NITI
...,
'c
FF.E. 1 PLATE I EAVE
AREA
a: ~ ~
w
__J ~~
1'-0 '
~-
(.)
:J
w .S
!::: I!:!
:r: ffi~
(.) 0
a:
~!
<( oo
FLOOR LEVEL MAP

5GALE,
~ ~~
~ I'IR:!JT 1"1,_00~ l f flo<EMP'f AREA1

PROJEC IICN!'l I'' AeQv
~ ~ll.DlNiii
f ll<o:l6~
NEB
TOTAL I'LOOI'<' Alt!"A
~TOTAl..
~\.) =-:~;:~~~~~~
W'I"\AXM..nC.~ILI~
[illJ]]
CW! ~TO~ - FL AT 101001'

I'IR$T FI.OOR (j._~ !>PACE)
TOTAl. FLOOR Al'!f"A, -
f'""777771 F~T 1\...00R !a-EN ~ACEJ
~ f'Lii!>T ~ ~ ( 0>:11M ARfAJ
ON!! !ITO!'IT I'LAT ~

FL()Of;! (LivlNGo SPACU
f'I~T
"!'}_,.
~--) '
~A>!>'
1~-~-
11')'
e.J :>J'.
~ b~'
lb~6 !>'
10'"'
~ 51'.
'
ROOF I RIDGE"
,..,;,..,
()
1 /8~ ..
--.
:2'
n ..
.......
&-
ii
:::2: of,
z ~
I '-0 "
(.)
<(
a:
g
a:
"
w ~~
----.
~-
~ --~
~&A '
5o'llb!lo'
2.(4) ~"-
__J
FIRST FLOOR AREA PLAN

5GALE:
16'- 0'
1l'!t>'
""'
"'A'
,.,.
I!)'- II>'
"11 6 !>'
~1'.
,,,.
,~-~-
I ..
Sl'.
lbiJ!o'
61.!!o'
~"'
1e~-
<1<1
-c
,.1-;__,.
BASEMENT AREA KEY

FLOOR AREA
FLOOR AREA,
~ ~i!C~~~~t~!'"~ .
( l!VlNG SFACE )
F IRe>T FLOOR
:"0~.e.JC
!>F
11"
~F.
110 e.F
_
_
n.z, 51".
~ 1'5A!IEMIONT (Cf"EN SPACE)

~ TOlAli"L(::IOR A,M,A
- ~
_. 2~12 6 F.
!1',/!i
~1'
~ ::~~~~~A~:.JA&CM!
<OFEN 5PACEJ
FIN~fi.OO!II: PWI~~
FIRST FLOOIQ:
- ~
~)2
~ ~CE ll.~ He !GMT ~fO;IOI"I

1'11'01~ f LOOR TO f tiCl!llNG
TOTAL El<Mf"1 A.'CEA ~~ I ~1'.
f>F
~~ a.t.!o~MENT t LtviNGo 6f"AC!INCEHT!\'!:I

~ TOTAl I'LOOR ARI!A
. llti:J ~JI
511 6 F
~4
6A ~MENT SoT A! ~ ~ ELEV'ATOR.

6A5EMENT CARL.IFT _
TOTAl
~ TOtAl- I'LOORAREA -
lrQh S.F
C.~ E
SECOND FLOOR
fiTAIR l ELEVATOR
6A5EMENT FL OOR 6ASEMENT FL OGIR f3CNLI5
6A5EMENT FLOOR INCENTi vE
TOTAl..
n0 61'.
~ 8A5:MI<NT(I, IVI!Cit!PAC.E~)
. '"'3 er.
1.t3 f>F
NEB
BASEMENT FLOOR AREA PLAN

SC..A LE :
354
1/e "
j.
1 '-0 ~
A-2.4
_ . . ....-.
!J.H't'110SNCY.>
88
""~~34f~- :JlM
' Oti N tf ttl)
OSStS V-::l '3/\0l:tD QI:II::>Vd
XV~ '
0\tl)oi!LI: hUIJN'JHd
?Ol..,.,. ONVl:tO l'il
- -~ -
EB
.'
l()
N c
4: ~
. --.. ---- _. . . .
~.LH9101H zlO~ CIOI~OdO~d 3 j
-------"------.. --. ------
l:::>3UH'JI:IV
"JNI 'SD311HJl:JV l:l3lliV'J Jll:J3
--~r...--lDO.---.,.,..,..-- ,... -
355
..
WW~oC"'n~
I'JIIOr'ltl!:l-l~
- ----- -
TOf>Q/f~Mf 'M~
!1
,-!~~!!::!!;""H,... 'f
----~~~~~-~-
'""'
&
- -- - -- --- 1-
TQPetrltiD6f:"'o'M(T
!I
l
I
Il
MGDteii'IN!IHI"\.OCllt
&-"
,~,"-"''R~TI. 1 1,.
--
iI
I
I
I
'
I
I'~T'"I'"""I'!.OOft t'll ~
&.o~Gt.:IL IN!iti'T
S.4'
i
irf"'RRPP.
FRQf"f.fll'ITUC~
i
i
" " " ' ' I'MiM fi'\..O(IR .... "'

f!'51"TI"'TI'LOO!Ito41'1 '
oo
ocu
~,~-r-
EXTERIOR EAST ELEVATION- FRONT

~AL-e 11-4
-o
~-- -
:..
~-10~.
0
z
.,
~~
U)
f-
:t
..,_,
Ml
{_)
IY I.HI
w
~~
:r: ~{_)
t:
~TAII'OCU.~I'l.OIJII(o41'1"
"''>!;i_
..
a:
~IC)ITI'-f'l..oc:l'l ~-'~'
~-
I
!i
a:
<(
u .
8~
~.
....J - -
:::di
~It: totO.
l'IEIIQC(Q
TO!"'~III:~rlf'"~
&
'g
:::;;:
IICUC)IPC()u
{_)
-- - - ----- --
0w a:
-
!
t
~ w
TO!"C?rP'\.Atr:"' '-~
-+
~I"RRP'S.!Ir!TI.HE
i
I
,,
NGOI<iP I'INI~ ~OQ'I I .0.4 '
. l'lttjfl'l..~l"l. ...fi1J~'
-=4
i
i
i
:
- - --,!
Ill
~~
~~
.,
0[ _ :~;
-~~1l?
-'
Mtt,~~o.T "'"-!"M1'5H!I)..9rO!It5610
R
9
0)
~
~
!:!
()~en
~ ~~~ ~
e.o.e1"Vt1'Uil-~it14'
I
~
~I!
~
9Ill( _g.
"~~~:.;II,
~
X
IU
\) <\
<
~
il>/24/!6
-~,.~~
...
-....~
v 1'-<r
~-
356
EXTERIOR NORTH ELEVATION- SIDE

~AJ...E ,
1/-4 " 1'-0"

0
A-3.1
~-
~~~CL..&T -~
I
T~CN' IIt~Do!. !"(1"
l"'lt;l
...
~
..ICW4T~
fl)
HAr<dtA.I)iE
'
-- - --- - ------- -- - - ~ -: ~
., .
~ TC#~It106~ M1'.
..........
Tf!Clf'I"'\.Af!' oth
"tS<il'
NGoi>O"N'!M"""CO!t ~
-- -
-
"1"1...S
fc:Pe"' ~TI!If'l ~.<il '
-!.<l!c:.otofi'Uolfliot~
~
-8 oo
~ ...
f'llfltoT~ I'\. ,O.l't of0"1 ~"
. _... . .,..
DCJ~
0
z
f'llef N<64 P\.OOil . . . ~.
~r
......ICMT Gtt.. ..... Iff. ~
""'!f.T~~ ..... ~
~"~ "l..OCIR..O'
'""""-W T~T~ o 41.4"
EXTERIOR SOUTH ELEVATION- SIDE
~ ~~
() <1
w ~
t: !II !
a:
<::
a:
5G A l.. E , 1/4'' 1'-0"
_J
::::!
r-- ',..._1
GUI.T n..
_,.
1~
~-=--+------._
'
~~~
'
I"''C:KKf6'0J;
Tt#'OI'.'tiD64!: t41. o
TC/' (N'~Tt!lff"l'l ,"'"
L~ltTT~.-
!IU.GIIC)f'MSI<I~ . !6 "
f' IRSTf"'AAIOIl~,._,..,.6
Ill
;z:
1-
MII:JLAT_ I'..,..P\A:I()A $6.,.
~,-,.....
~Gt!,- S,<I'
0)
f'LOOit !l6"'
1J (
"'
''
() ..
~~
... !~ ~
~
~ ~~~ ~
L
\)
<
-=~
Q
Q
>
_J
II'
~
::!0) ~
~ ~~~ ~
""""""'
ii
.,....D'
~~uw
,,
8 ~
a:
... 1
W :!!
"IIUTI'\.OOI't,......T'I' 1W-
~~
- "'r
r-=.--:r~ ~~~.~
I
e ~
TOI"'Clf'"'-,O.f'e l(f o
~ 0~
( ) ~ ;;
r-- ce~nve: I'!'Al'UI'I:f

I
~~
( ) o
.,..,.
SOrt..t
f'IJ\I6ol: I'\..OOR . ... ....
v .. 1'-0'
357
ec~'!!!IM"!.90!t ..,.. .
G.>l.~
EXTERIOR WEST ELEVATION- BACK

5GAL..J!, 1/4 ' 1.. o~
A-3.2
""'"
s:
~i
88
( -~~
OS6t6 V0 '3AOOD~I:U~Vd
ll" l..., ONV~~ LSI
... .. ~.. - .. e~ 0110..~o.~;hCtixv:~ ou9i'J.(u,, J.~CKJ
'OQ
~!
(--
.~=~-
~u
L __
'ONI 'S18311HOI:!V 1:13111~ 811:13
0
~
w
..J
w
Q
<
0
Q:
(J
-z
w
(J
1/j
C)
z
1/j
)(
ooo-9 z;o-z;1~-0 1 0
~ ~
'N'..J'V
?tUO?o;
~t:I:>Q. V':J 'IIMU..I:>?
WVQAV 'A9 I()
NO I.I.""A31il
"'
J.3~S
ll?U:i>P!S:i>'l!j ')j?IMP04? -
0
~
<
>
w
w
..J
<
Q:
zw
(J
1/j
1/j
Q:
0
a.
0
a.
358
..
:J.HV.L11"15NOO
~
~I ~
'iI. ~t
"i
90 1awnt ONVl:IO LSl
~~.-... :'""' Ott.f:<U.t (ltt) kV,J OlJO-UChOO :JNOHd
0566 V~'3/\0t:lD ~I:ti~Vd
...
BB '8NI 'S18311H88\f 83lllv-l 8183
I I
~I
:il
i !i
r !!'II
~!
t
<
0
j:
00<>-9~~:~~,!":
.,..,.... ~ ~o~r?lu...,.,;
~?VliP!S~ 'lf?!MPtxl?._"'
i
I
i
;I~ l.i
'f+
i
'I~
lj-1
~.t-
~I !
SNO IJ.?:;s ;u.1s 9Nia11ne
~
~
i
i
~
\
~
~
I
I
Jjl
~ ~
.J
r:
~ ...;t_
('f)
~ I ~ ,.d:
S :r: i
ID
1&1 -
u ~
z
0
i= .
en ~
w:
en ~'
1&1
II)
1_ "t
Ui
1&1
1-
i
j
l
i
- ------ ""-- ---- -------- -... - --.. - - - -u. - ~- --- . - -- ..--..-- - - - --~~~-- -- ---- - 359
,t<8 <3
l1 1
Ii
!
l
' I
l
I
': i
:!NV!lr\SNO::>
III
I
'
b
f
! !
:t
ll
u!
!
~~~ i
t~ I ,
h f
It.q ~'
I'q il
~(I 1
~!
'
j ~I in
~ !1 d
i I il I~P I id !
I i s dl:,
tn!I I nu j
I. ~j Hp Iti:ii Ii I I1g i!! I '
t - .. "'
:
~
..
'I
!~
....
i
~
ll
'D
i
~
HI
BB
-
(/)
a..
0
0
~
a:
0
L_
:.- :.~ ~ ~ ~
901~
ONV~O LS ~
o-..: ~lt ht1)lfV$ c.otQ-<:.t <tWl iJNU<d
OS6E:6 II() '3/\0l::ID !>I:UOVd
--~qJY--83..
'
01! ...
-~
h~
~~J!jli
I~
I
Is
~h
j!
i ill' ;.
~
~
<
~~I
~I
i~l
;~
' ~s
.
J!
~ D
~ ~
nnd
n~~H
:. :.
;; t
~ ~ ~
! ;~H
t
~
}~j
~~
~,l!
\!'
~~
It
1:
f~ "h
~t
\\~
1)
J_,L--
>[~;
~~ I
~~
l
~
~I
!ii
Si
~.~
l!!oi.oll
.
:. :.
~ I
n~
n Hi
I ! !I
~ I~ i
~
' '" " I
r: :-:
i
~
~ ~
~.!. .!.~ ~..:.
HHI
'~ n
II
~ ~
.!.
!~ii
..:.
d HHi
2 ~ 222
..
'~ I~ j- !i n II !tf
~ ~
~ ~ ~u
~
~
>- ..
i~t
l ~ ~r :,'
-
l't
..
~VB' VB' i'i 11r
~, .. aHO?~
____,..._....
________
. -, - ,
- - - , rl:s
cur :I
8
9 f
"in
h
9 9 1
I dH
\> ~
~ ~
'
~ ~ ~
~
.i
- - -.
_ _ _ :w. _ _ _ _ _ _ .,...
OO"Y J.<ilN:I
a 1!' "
L:>JtmtJv
.8NI ISD311H8l::l'v' l::I3111V'-J 81!::13
~ ~
~ ~
; ~ ~
, .~
0
I
! n1 !i
l ' I
~'ll
> <I>
0
L
I
I~ .
! n
~ I
I II d
tn
~ ~
i
~ ~ ~ ~
~ I~
-f!
~ ~
- -
I. ,;, ~ ~
X a R
H H H H HI
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
n n ! i n .H. n 'n
J~
M
~1
11
~
i
.
~
~ t
~
4
~ :
l
. q
i I HII n
~ ~
2 '
w ~
_J
9....
.- .
s a s a 8
~#~If'S
- - -
?
ft ... ~ ~ ~
~ 9
! ~ n
-.
::>
------- ....- --- -
&5 ~ F,li
a:
8~
0
w
5z HId i 1d!i !:~~~ i ~
a: ' ! u ii!l nli II 1 i
HHj ;.
ri; q
IIi ~~~~ ~j
I ; ; ; .!
8 11
(/)
"~. !!!~~
:t I~
If.rv
Giit:bGb ? 'I GJW...Jt:>?
0<>0-9t:c::>-t:t~-o to
~.
.
[ =""
~
~0
I~
;:.~
ra_,~~)~
<")I
~~
"'l1
~~
:a)
I
Y!)l)
(zyJ)
C?J
T"""
-.::f" c
<( ~
~ !H
3
i1 ~
...:;)w
w
2:
~oa: ..
~
0 ~
-----..---- ---
~~
-~
~~~
{1~.~~!~
-r1Bll
;;1na;!H?S '>IOOQ
ru~A"f 41Q ;o ~ t: ?tU?S

9?U9p! ;9~ ';1?!MPt::>4?.,.,"'
_,
360
w
a..
:?;
0
L-
:LN 11, "~NO~
BB
O!t6t6
.. :W. Ot?.~~,(II.:ICYJ cuo-~.. . hUI~

't:/':J'3AOI::I~":JI:li":JVd
QO i lMJM ONV~O L';il
_.,~..,...-
'8NI 'S18311H8tl'v' tl3111V'J 81tl3
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
' m1~ ~ ~ M~1u ~~~ ~ ,,m11~1 ~' ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ 1~,i ~ ~ 1 I;~

~ ~ ~ ~
~~
i ~ i i ~ ~ !i j i i ~ i !i ~ i ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ i i i i i j i ~
......,.,.-.. . --------- ------JoO --- -----
-------,....- -- --- < -------
361
RNSI)H
. .. I~~--- .~
'
,
'
I
I
'
oo
...
09~
C.LAY TILE FLAT LAY
()
G)
CHIMNEY CAP TILES
DECK GUARD RAIL
METAL WINDOWS
& DOORS
G)
C.LAY TILE
~ ~J
CLAY TILE ROOF
1-~~
(.) <
u.J "
!::: ~q
~~--. ~~~:~,j~-:-:~~
. 4,.,4.,, '
. _-..
,A!. -!'-Ny;;;, l: I . '
1.' f
'j /(7/..
:X: ~
"'~
0: ~i
(.)
~-Jilo~
:'-:.A,;,-' /..._Jiil! "f
-.~1-;_t.-,;;-:~~~
,.._tf~~-'.' ~.' .!'

1
''
: . ,
:-:
~-:. .
, ,
'
..
:-~ -~
--~
I '
I
:...i
.. . . .J .J,
)..<~ ~. "", '
: -: - _-
L;-j
-r . . . . . - ,-_
'
t ...{
'
~
u.J 8~
_I - "
_I ~,;
0:
f.
~ ~
-~. (,_,,
:
"
11
0 (.)
-
~ u.J
LAHP 25 yjATT
F INISH - 6RO~ RU5T
GLAZING- HEAVY SEEDY
EXTERIOR WALL SCONES
0:
t ~_.\:~
DRIVEWAY STONE PAVERS
..
<( ~~
-~:-..:~
0
'
,1.
I,'
. -. ~
No.
yj00D - 6RO~N STA IN

PAIR Of DOOR
COPPER GUTTER &

DOWNSPOUT
GARAGE DOOR
d)
Ill
~ f .,~
-8 ~
~ ~~g ~
Ill
-!
DRAIN COVER
<(
UR6AN AC.C.ESSORIESOT
1",'
I\.
l:"' . ()
it ~l1l,.;
'.~v;..t';v;.~~9'.'.:v;,..';v;.~~
1
~%~ Sl
~r
' 'A' ' ' " ' ' At ~ ~A~
~~ ~
l: ~
TRENCH GRATE
6/::1:~
UR6AN AC.C.ESSORIE5-0T
SICA(:
362
@ -
DRAINAGE GRATES
EXTERIOR STONE
NQ~
,...
STUc.c.O - MEDIUI-1 C.AT FAC.E
EXTERIOR COLORS
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
.IOI~It:
1<4~
A-7.1
... "
363
'~~ i1. !.. 1~~
I ~/
Q~ 3
.qJ
!,
I~
II
~I .:~
Ir~.b~+-+-
.~2~
I :1 I i I :1 I
C)l
:r' l
I .... I
:l , I,. ~
... ~
tt?
I ,..,, I ~; I 'I I
~
1__
47J62
4 1. 446
~I .~
0
0;:
n--~ -
I--1 ---- -------- - -- --~I
I (~ :~,..iTlr'/, fPL~
" ~
II
II
""
::" I
~.;n=====rl::r==
t__
Ii
I
li I~
1: ::1 r
I : t, l
-II(
':
!I"'
!fflil;t
..
II =I
? I .... I
"-XH~
I I :!I
x,.
m
" !:~I I I
I F?l-;;;r r- 1 I
I
i l"1 . ~ 121
I fr
.. )>
E I ::.~:
~
8 I
I \- i: I
~z
::: I t__::
.r
:1,..
'
'<' ------
}/
.!
rr
I I
~~
..
c~-ijl
lll 1s
I "'
-(,rt
~ ~
1::m ol ..i il \/'I
~ ~
,; tW 1 '
~
1
"{~
il ~I
? I ....
.,. I
II
II
II
<I, Irik_ _Rr Imm,,,,-...,...b,ftodfili,mu.:~::.OJillL .:,. ~ ::
......
pti ..-.
ldl
177
I ,; 1ll,o\ "/.':'\ I
,._.,
'
II .il ,i
.~;:,
PAl,~
-.CEL 3'0 1.
I n.,~
.mi I
11
~~~
lit,!
'
'
'''"'" ~
>
' j~
~~
- ':
It"i~ ~~:~~
~ ~~~~~~H
. --::- ..., .
,_ x '''" \~'"
'
J !
~F!!ti!tff~\,.
.
t _ .--~'-
w.~:I~-~Z41!
/ ~ - . ~ II
"'=~- : ~
~~~~~' >~'J!>~Jt:=:l1
'I .,
1
I \JI ~
I1 A .
'I ,I
I'
~l
'
,-~~ ~-
.: -. .
.;~r.~
. ~~ ' .aan -~~1- -<.~
.-
:,
'-
.'
-'-
~ :r- )~
.
I
. ~-
""'
_--
' .
"
1-'
I
IIII
II
. . .' -
-~~
~
i
----,;
~~
~
-~ ~~
'
J
~
~~
.t
. L :t_:-t.t
lii.ZD
il::
a~
~
'' .~
;(
r
I
14
I
L
ll;l:'
'I'
,>
~ ,1,
't'll
--~
> --
'
2=~9_=--:~ - ~ ~~
/
/
ils: ~
::id
~ :(~ ~-.:....;;;; i
...,..
.,.--
(
/
-~
/
\~
:-
'I
~~
J!i
~
~~
r
I
R 0 A D
SCENIC
r \..
['
'"'
.. .....~.!! !.......t.~...
:1~1~
il?
*
--------,---- -- I '!;ll
,,
lA
;.~!~
l~
~~
..~:;I
:,':
~~--
"COVER SHEEIT"
CONCEPTUAL GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN

CHADWICKRESIDENCE
A.P. N.: 01 0-3 1 '2~026
CARMt.. M()f'IT111 EY COUI'ITY.CAUf"CM\NIA
LANDSET
a MGIMa a lltl,
J.PPII:OVUI JY:
IN C.
CUY 111. ctl.AUOO
VINliCkfiiV:l
::>
::
...
!NdV
A9lf3J.NOV<i V3S ::n.u. AD ,3WHV::J
CJ;:)N'aOJS3lf,Ji:JIM O VH:J
9ZQ-~ I (-QIO
'A~NnOO
.
~
lin i
~ 4~c
" ~;"
~ ~~~
~~a ;s-
/-"
-:--
/~
......_.,.-, _
/'
,'
,...,.
..... .M..- --... .
NVId ~N3W3DVNVW NOU::>IHUSNO::>
~
g
~;:
~~
364
~I
1!
'L,, fl
------ -------a-___:::
.. . , , c-
~)rfb
/ n IO
V.l., , Dnp
v-e~
~
Y.L.k
'=-
o.'f
1\'.l..--._
,,.,.,CC'JI'Id,..,tfOO"I"'S-~-ccoo....,&c , - -t.t-k( p c:c:h ..o -
EllnQ L nV ~ ccp>nq
,!)
,oeS'<-nc:,.Z)
--i..=
-,"'-=.,
M;chelle Com<ou
llEQS.
L..nd~c:Hpe Dt:sgn
&
lnst tlL:tt10n
f0l'>.- ,,.
c...-~.c~ ~~
r ~
r
,~~,
!o
-..~~"-
, .!..,..1,~........... . . .....
"'
~ :8
~~u;:
~ ,, .. "'\
~~ \/) ~
~
;; ...I: 0
,t.._f-
6:.: cez
~-~~
,
r ~
""'Sk"'''=ff=#== I
c;k.c
y a
~:.>0
..
"'
._
'
., \J
....
~~r:J.._, :.~ ..acon&....t
'
.:.;
II
~-t T.dt
L+hnso- lm~ llo"

fln
D'<
I-o-o-o
I
365
".1-l~'"
:)c.L.. f. .. I 'Q
Q . ... ,~, GM
ffi .
J;, ..,.!
S heet. L-
"" '
'Y~<:rc
r'o1o N"J\'
(11.6 ")'>S' 'tl.-~<J-p~")

~11\P'\f ~l" jO J\\N! -:JIU~~
"':::"""i'' 'f)
;.u:>pt4>:>~
<
IE.
t'>
~J
<.
..t.
\.J
5 ,;:' c8
c.. ,A 6
'
c.i:
'-:
-'
v
-;;
...r:;
~
If) 't
366
-~
''; ~
l.r!-ro.,...... ..... .., t.
M !CHFf IE CQMFAU
,..............
U1.620.t iii1FAXUI .610tlts
liC'lK!Il )'C).~~
.... ot
..A
......._...... _ ....... l_..c- ... .,___
.
.....
,,...
C.O"'-\.""t .... .u...::,

r..-<>~ K-~Jc,....
c~o,.-~n-
,.,..~. O."'S~
c.~
L-T-
......,...
0..
~,yu
..
r--1\-+ L~
,...,
......
c...,._
..
HtW \'-vo
~"S".-..1
.. ~
.lol>ol.,1
..J J.oO~(. _
/JO I ~ -.O.. .ff ~ II"M"'J "'-cl.' ,o..Joll llof ,,,,...L .J.,.. lo, 1 - ~il'" . . .
~~~u.~-;=~~-...:.. k ""~h "' '""-~.,..,..,.,,,.;,..,_..'t -~~

w. .,..,_\tn""'"-"" ., ...,"'Cl..,~ "- '
"'""--
1.C .. ~.._11 pro .. .._ .._.,,.. ts:.OOOioo o..
r.-"'- "'-
~L..Jt
NcLo\I.NI(.M,,,..,T,..
iX-tnA JII'*IOOt'... W11-
''J
M~~ ~
r. Soc \\.. ~~""

o... .,.~
9.&-aoto-.IW..hio)11' 10k"f''"' ... 10 . . . , . __ 00CV."-'1to>
,.,
"
,,.
..
...
.,.
"
,_
...
Dfl.:.~
r-r-t......_..
r..J........,...I '-
o-J.V-ciY~
Y ~-..J
R.""-'Lt..,...,. .f'
c-.. v~ ...~..~.
c..u....... ~
fli.-r~
ti,.. ...-,e,...J.
o--.......
> _, ..,.....
To...l..lo,.,_,._
W-4.~J..
... ,
1 10f1 Cir-
ol p&., ot 1h!" ell1-- o>4 ..,. '' - lw"-~''"''""'''u(.!l

P-o Nk ;;-..1 U''\-k-1 .l """CI Ifl ....
'-pt
~~......~ dutot t.t . .!Jo-
,...,.foa.--~.~
' '"" .._
~~fl<'h t-.or
M o=M-H .h ... ~<>-'~;o:- li .O .. HT ro t..~~ih 411~ .,,.,..,. """" ""'
II. \li..,W... o. hcpa.& tolhl '~""'"'l,l

...,._ >"\... (--l---,.."11
L!.AII ploR: too bc-. """..,...c.d ,._ .,., .,.. , -
""' - <1 -
.,,_,.,;WI, ,.
J,...,
.-..~
1,)
r\.l ...........,,_f'J lc_.-.,.,,.:,,h
......__,.,.._l'r'
IJ.. No,...
:Jo.,j._
14. AIIn lot- loaa >k
...Ill~
f' ;t~.
~I
1 "
r,L- r('RD lLD,)',&. .,,. I .C..
lil
~'1/I'. L .OL M-:"">DCl :, ; n .!<._,C (,\1 ,\LITY" ' ~ TTA .L

(.: _-,t_OrPIMAR'\ ,.\KC..,.\M U.IJ.'Itl\1 (.[l~".\ IT.:..r1LC'Ot.
~-
.._,,
TRAN~(.to.l-.\[f{ l")[_lNI.
,_
,_,
-
n,, ,_
,_:'
,_,
T~~!:J
Qn
To
T
f!: ,. ,
,.,
,.,
"""''
.")\':
Michelle Comeo u
landscape DC':usn
e.
l>
t"'<IC'IIm
ln.stallabon
f\ t('IRI"'
t . ( l
'
1\'C'Tf. T,,..,.J.,....,,
...
r---~
r- ,,_.t,_,
r , ,..\ 1 ..............
T:
' ,. ~,.
r rC'd>
pl.o,.
r ?~"
( ...""I,C., ., I"! t
1 ...-.~ ....-,...,...,...,..,....,.,
r ~"-f'l >-01 I I
r ~ t- 10- ....
I lla:-0<11
Lo J oth"""''r' t lo
I"'~C('f ~I U.
Olot( ~ot. l
c:,..... c.,_.r.,...
r,-.,,
--
..\"'(.[_-.....,.:::.,...!(.!,
r .L- -tl , , .......~...- . ....,.,..-.-,.., T~.. :W _t.~o:
1 I . T.,..s.,.-,
6.C ... .n.A o0.11
...,,.._,('fU '' .J""""l"'U'I-" " ....-.. "-' '""~efloll ho T..f"not;.lc f?t(l__.....,,.
t.t .._..,..o;!o_ . ... . - .
r~to o P""""U<>oo"-...o'N N'
CD:
f ftAN._" )f( MU: .':Yt-l rJXILC
l - f l ' -
0 "... 1..Me"""'
r~~~"'
~'\l !i 1'\.l_TY ).t~r M(f"f_lf'~':IC...I'T IC'f\
IIIJo ANZ:$1
.,
,.,
".,
r !:
!~
: . I
. ~'f._
,..
U&h''"S L<s<n.:l
...~ .
ol _,O.ft pltd IN' .--..1 sholl ,....o:ll q<!- lot fl r- OfK""~M>4 .,.1 .
CJ.oclwC.\f'lt~
c~,...-i:....lroc"-'d
...t.
_l.("-~~ ..... -
bOTAr'ICAl t..;.i,".i.C,
("..,...,>ctot .J e-....,
!. Conltlltlllfl& -f- l..n~oe.,e.S....;-" '" '- "f ~ no..;"
-'W(~
....
QTY
~oo t
...............
-l"""' l' ~~
P.O . II.O.It6lr7 CAUU:I.,(A tJor.l
lL
C":IOI!r~,~.n
f,..-..lrlo_-ot~ - nt .Wibo - (.t"-" ~ -1 ->doc

~-.--~ ~ ~.,.,.- .o
LO[DSC'AK DUlGS If to'fl.U.U. nos
.-....
Lshtms f ;,lurc
---)-
...._...
SC'H 4~f'\.._.,..,. - ,
U .UI I'Jilw wiru 16 k Jlu-wd Mill Y,ctt(~cll caMuit. SOl 4ft.
t6.,-ut ...ctlowialtowvoll.ost ..,._t., .. ,h.,.c4..-i*-Y.'ol.,;lnu4CW!IIfuit,

SCH 4o>PH'.
11. .-.a~-.ta Mriii W.~,..Jc...rcec,r
lhod,WV lko:tl to O.. ..--.ntj
to:...._,....,...,..._....,
__
.__
-----
__. ______
--- .
______
___ --c..
- -__--. . . ._....
--------___, ____ ~ !"~
-a----
-- Ii. ~
'----------<t
-M.....II.,_. _ _
.....
==~-=-'::=..._
FX-C5
FX- FO R.D
W .....___~,~
OM'\ \ l\ t:.
) .Z ~~
~i J) :'
l:r$JC.iATIONtr.C.ND
CONT~J.r.Jt
~~a
c!"'(
~> .. ":"
.... 5-ti.-\,A, (...I, n.-.5<-~""""""" >/.l..
: ' ....r. C"
..,;. L!-0
~ ~j'z
U5...! .0..:.
J)~<(
,. , .. It - ( _.,, ....._,..,... _ ,..,.......... ~
.. e,..... ~v....,,.t._
,. , .~ W'- R- "" - ~r-.-v v >_..
' '"'-l.- 5C.H-.oo..'I'[).'T
..
v-o-~-~c.......,_~ ~
.a
oe;.' _--~
.. ..,.._
-_ ......,
;I
~
..,TTl)o,l
.._ _
.-sc----...
11
;-1;
nrt.
lC'_,Tl':(\
D~'r
, _ , .. r ..... v..
l"litlf
Dlr'
t:.rr... r -
,_. .. ~ .... ,....,
r:-
j,. .-r-~
l.
... t - \ \
.....
,s...,
WI': I. JT1('t~ WCT;~~r-u.
":f -..,:.
~' ">1\(.(.[.:<;, IV ~
~.1., 1
~:,
:(()rDJirt.Gl0 '. Tr-.:.1J
T'
M'fl
T r
"-' ~>~1...:
rirk
Not( )
-!..'\.l MM!:.K
=''
r ~ l
~:;; t ,J), t
r.r
''INT(R V\S--r---tCt..:)5 .\f,'( '((C! L)o.'\; :> TO At

~ . I..
D a t.:
T.l
).19.1(
Sc.k ,V.-~
-o.l.\1'-1
-.T I1t:.1~
D'"" [),; LJI,\

f\... .. d
367
5hech l >
c.i,)
NEI~~~ING
.t
.ee
'J ~
~h
J_1
:;;
368
!'
C"t
A.. C.
PA\'EMNT
~
I)!
SCAl(; ,.. -
8'f
~~IU I
"'z
8'
ijll!
"1 1
<>o
a~
>~H.ll
RJOG ELEVATION 81 ....
0 ~
<~
~i
ENCROACHES 0.1'
P:::::
MULn-S TORY STONE
& WOOD f RAME HOOSE
REEL 3 221,
PAGE 177
I
I
"'
,..
tu.ll
TOP-Of-CHIIMY ElEVAllOH 87.2'
DOCUMENT
#2003033707
U o
-
-
z ~
A.C.
PAVE~ t.N T
r.4 ~
...
~u
RIDGE El.EYA'JKlt4 - 43.7'
Pl.LAR ElEVATED
JmV.OOO
u
(/).
1U.07
OECI<
111&
-- -
--
- - -r-- -
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
'
~S(lSTAMPED
N AC. NAL & STAINLESS STEEL WASHER

~ CENTRAL COAST SURVEYORS
BENCHWARK
LEV. 61 00' (APPROX. N AVOBS)
u._ ...:
O gj
j: "'
NEI~rZ~ING
1.,?2
TWO WATER METERS
IN WOOD V"UL T
. .J""'
..c.
PAVEM ENT
f:Z.N
~~~
I
I
<:>-'
"'
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
or
NOTES:
1.
LEGEND:
BOUNDARY LOCATIONS SHOVtN HEREON WERE D1[RM1NEO WITH THE B(N(nT Of A F'l(l0
SSCO
SURV('r' SUPPLEMEN TED BY RECORD DATA. ALL BOUNDARY OAT.A. SHOWN ARE f ROM THE
RECORDS. THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY.
UP
2. (LEUTIONS SHOWN ARE BAstO ON ASSUM.0 OA TUM THAT APPROXJMATES THE NCR TH
,.ANITARY S(W(R ClEANOO l
PORTIO N
Of'
LOTS NUMBERED 10 AND 11 AS SHOWN ON "MAP OF

ADDI TION No. 8, CARMEL BY THE SEA" FILED IN
VOLUME 3, "CITlES & TOWNS" , PAGE 19
AS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT #2003033707
OFfiCI AL RECORDS OF MON TEREY COUN TY
UTILITY POlE
- - DE NOTES ELEVATED WOOD DECK
CITY Or CARMEL
COUNTY OF MONTERE Y
STATE or CAUF'ORNIA
AMERICAN 'v'ERTICAL OAlUN 'X 1988 (NA\1088). PRO.f:CT BENOtMARK IS A ST MAC. NAIL &.
STAINI.SS SlUL W.4.$H(R STAMPED "CENTRAl COAST SUR\t:YORS" !H IN THE PA~MENT Of

SCENIC ROAD. AS SHOYIN.
ELE VATION 63 00 fEET (APPROX. NA\1>88)
c:=
DENOTES A WOOD FENCE
PREP A RED
Art & Farah Chadwick
DENOTES A W000 RETAININC

WALL ( XCPT AS SHOWN.
J. CONTOUR NTERVAL ONE F"COT.

... TR( T'T'PES AR INOICAT0 WHEN KNO'Mol. OIAM(TERS (X TREES ARE SHOWN IN INCHES.
TREES SMALLER THAN 2 .liRE NOT SHOYIN .
F" O R
9 y
CENTRAL COAST SURVEYORS

5 HARRIS COUR T, SUITE N-11
t.tONlEREY,
CALifORNIA
93940
Phone: (8J il394- .. 930

F"ox:
SCALE:
1"
8'
(831 394- ,.931
J06 No. 14-93

PREPARER :
NOVEMBER 2014
ORZ
APN 010-312-026
uPOATED 1/20/ 16 - AO()(O ROOF /CHIMNEY fl(VAllON$ (HelaZONTAI. LOCAllONS APPROXI.IATE)
Planning Comm ission

Community Planning and Building Department
Post Office Drawer G
Carmel - by-the-Sea, CA 93921.
Dear Planning Commission Members,

My name is Joseph A Murphy. It is my pleasure to write you in support of the planned Chadwick
house on Scenic Rd, 2 NW of gth. I know Farah and Art and I think they will be good neighbors.
They are the kind of people we need in Carmel, they are people who care about family and
about the community.
I grew up in Carmel and I now own our fam ily home at Camino Real, 3 SE of Ocean Ave. As a
boy I enjoyed the freedom to roam the streets of Carmel at will, secure in the knowledge all our
neighbors watched over me, my siblings, and my friends to make sure we were safe. This
neighborly corporation is one of the many things about Carmel I think is important to sustain ing
a community spirt. I know Farah and Art will make a positive contribution to our community.
In conclusion, I fully support the planned Chadwick house project on Scenic Rd, 2 NW of gth. l
think Farah and Art are the kind of people we want as neighbors and as members of our
community.
Sincerely,
Joseph A murphy
RECEIV D
JU
(!
City of CarmaiOYThe-Sea
Plan~~lQ?JD
t.
JlJI 0:> I ' 1

City oi Carmer-oy-rne-Sea 369
Planning & Building Dept.
ANTHONY LOMBARDO & ASSOCIATES

A Professional Corporation
Anthony L. Lombatdo
Kelly McCarthy Sutherland
Michael A. Churchill
Cody J. Phillips
144 W. Gabilan Street

Salinas, CA 9390 I
(831) 751-2330
Fax (831) 751-2331
July 8, 2016
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

File No. 4880.000
Hon. Mayor and Members of the City Council,
c/o Ashlee Wright, City Clerk
Carmel-by-the-Sea City Hall
P.O. Box CC
Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA 93921
Re:
Y cncken Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Design Study Application:

DS 15-217 (Chadwick Living Trust)
Scenic Road, 2NW of gth Avenue
Blk C2, Lots 10 and 11, APN: 010-312-026
Dear Mayor Dallas and Members ofthe City Council:

Art and Farah Chadwick's proposed project is the demolition of their existing two story home
that was built in the early 1980's and construction of a new two story home with a basement that
will have a roof ridge line, floors and backyard decks three to four feet lower than the existing
home. Their neighbors to the south, Mr. and Mrs. Yencken, have appealed the Planning
Commission's approval oftheir application on four grounds:
1. That the proposed residence is "too massive";
2. That the proposed vehicle lift to the basement transforms the residence into a prohibited
"three-story" building;
3. That the City cannot grant a variance for a "third'' deck at the rear of the home; and
4. That the Chadwicks should be prohibited from rebuilding the fence between their property
and the Yenckens' home along the actual propetiy line because the Yenckens like having a
few extra inches of space on their side of the fence.
None ofthese grounds has any merit. Therefore, the Chadwicks request that the Council uphold
the Planning Commission's approval of their project.
Before receiving the Planning Commission's approval, the Chadwicks' project was extensively
modified in response to comments from Planning staff, members ofthe Commission, the
Yenckcns, and other neighbors. The roofline and entryway have been modified, several
Carmel City Council

July 8, 2016
Page2
proposed windows have been eliminated, relocated, and made smaller, and the chimneys have
been shortened to reduce the home's effect on the neighbors' views. In addition, the backyard
has been completely redesigned: extensive grading and tall retaining walls originally proposed to
create a level yard area have been eliminated and replaced with a smaller deck. The latter
changes will reduce the visual impact of the raised rear yard on the neighbors to the south and
west but require a variance of site coverage limits.
1.
The Proposed Residence Does Not Violate the City's "Mass" and "Bulk" Standards
The Yenckens' first ground for appeal is that the proposed residence is inconsistent with the
City's General Plan, Municipal Code, and Residential Design Guidelines due to its "mass" and
"bulk". In support ofthat contention, the Yenckens assert that the proposed residence will dwarf
the homes on adjacent properties on the west side of Scenic Avenue. However, the proposed
home would be both several feet lower and considerably less boxy than the home that has stood
on the property for over 30 years. More importantly, numerous other houses on Scenic Avenue,
including the properties across the street from the Chadwicks', are as big or bigger and more
visually imposing than the Chadwicks' proposed new home.
During the July 11 site visit, the Chadwicks' architect, Eric Miller, will show the Council that the
bulk and mass of numerous properties in the immediate vicinity greatly exceed both the existing
and proposed Chadwick residences. In addition, during the July 12 hearing, Miller will present
photographs of both the existing Chadwick home and numerous homes in its immediate vicinity
to demonstrate the consistency of the proposed home with others in the neighborhood. Pictures
of two of the houses across Scenic Road form the project site are attached hereto as Exhibits 1
and 2. An aerial photograph of the immediate neighborhood showing the existing Chadwick
residence and the dozen closest homes is attached as Exhibit 3.
The Yenckens' appeal quotes the City's General Plan Policy Pl-40 and Municipal Code section
17.64.080(A)-along with nonexistent Sections 17.10.010(D) and 17.58.080 1- all ofwhich
contain language prohibiting "excess mass or bulk" inconsistent with other structures in the
immediate block and neighborhood. A comparison ofthe elevations of the Chadwicks' proposed
new home with the photographs ofthe nearby properties and the existing Chadwick home will
establish that the size, bulk, and visual impact of the proposed house are consistent with the
character of the immediate block and neighborhood. Therefore, the Council should uphold the
Planning Commission's approval ofthe project.
2.
The Proposed Project Is a Two-Story House with a Basement, Not a Prohibited

Three-Story Building
It appears that the Yenckens may have intended to cite Municipal Code section 17 .5 8.060(5), which required the
Planning Commission to find that "[t]he project does not present excess visual mass or bulk to public view or to
adjoining properties. The project relates to a human scale in form, elements and in the detailing of doors, windows,
roofs and walkways."
Carmel City Council

July 8, 2016
Page3
The Yenckens' second contention is that the proposed car lift in the garage makes the project a
prohibited three-story building. The relevant Municipal Code section is 17.70.020, which
defines "basement" and "story" as follows:
Basement. An underground room or excavated space between five and nine feet
of interior height, finished or unfinished where the finished floor level directly
above the space is not more than one foot above both the existing or final grade.
Any subgrade space where the finished floor elevation directly above the space is
more than one foot above existing or finished grade shall be considered aboveground space. All areas where the finished floor elevation directly above a
subgrade space is more than five feet above either existing or final grade shall
also be considered a story. (Note: In calculating the floor area of a basement it
may be necessary to count part of the area in a floor level as basement and part of
the area in a floor level as above-ground space.) Basement spaces may be used for
any residential occupancy allowed by the Uniform Building Code such as
bathrooms, family rooms, hobby rooms, offices, mechanical equipment, storage
and, if equipped with window wells, bedrooms.
Story. A space in a building between the upper surface of any floor and either the
upper surface ofthe next floor above, or in the case of the topmost floor, the
ceiling or roof above. Those portions of a subgrade or partially subgrade living
space, space used for parking, underfloor space or crawl space are counted as a
story where the finished floor above such space is five feet or more above the
final grade adjacent to any exterior wall around the perimeter of the building.
Within Residential Zones. Those portions of excavated space not used for
parking, that qualify as a basement, do not count as a story. All portions of a
garage are considered a story. See also "Basement."
Within All Commercial Zones. A basement or cellar is considered a story if the
finished floor level directly above such basement or cellar is more than five feet
above the surface of the ground adjacent to any portion of any exterior wall of
such structure that faces on a public street, way, place, or park.
While a literal interpretation of these definitions might determine the basement portion of the car
lift to be a garage, the Chadwicks' proposed car lift is clearly not the type of condition the code
was intended to prohibit. The City, whether acting through the Planning Commission or the
Council, has the ability to interpret its Municipal Code. As the City's Planning staff has
acknowledged, the intent of these provisions is to prohibit true "three-story" structures with
"ordinary" basement garages, i.e. visible basement garages accessed by driveways, topped by
Carmel City Council

July 8, 2016
Page 4
two additional stories of living space. The basement car lift space will not be visible, has no
separate door, and reduces the overall size and visual impact of the structure rather than
increasing them. As such, the car lift to the basement does not create a three story "look", which
is the condition these provisions were designed to prevent.
Where the City gives careful consideration to its legislative intent and the practical
considerations of one interpretation versus another, California courts will grant significant
deference to the City's interpretation of its zoning code. (See Yamaha Corporation ofAmerica v.
State Board of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.App.4 111 1, 12; Citizens for Responsible Equitable
Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1041-1042.
Therefore, just as the Planning Commission did, the Council should find the basement car lift to
be consistent with Section 17.70.020 notwithstanding the apparent prohibition on such
conditions.
3.
The Council Should Uphold the Variance for the Size of the Rear Deck
The Yenckens' third ground for appeal is that the City cannot grant the Chadwicks a variance
because there are "three" decks and restricting them to two would not result in a hardship. This
argument is nonsensical: the design only includes two decks-one in the backyard at the main
floor level, and one on the roof at the second floor level- plus an at grade patio outside the
basement bedrooms. The original project design called for a level yard I patio to be created with
extensive fill and retaining walls. In response to significant comments from the Planning
Commission regarding the amount of grading involved and the visual impact of the proposed
retaining walls, the filled yard has been replaced by the proposed deck. While the graded and
filled yard would not have required a variance, the deck requires a variance regarding the amount
of site coverage allowed. The Planning Commission granted that variance to allow that design
change that it had strongly suggested to the Chadwicks. The Council should uphold that
decision.
4.
The Chadwicks Should Be Allowed to Rebuild their South Fence on the Actual
Property Line
The Yenckens' final issue is that the Chadwicks should be forced to keep the existing fence
between them despite the fact that portions of the fence are located as much as fifteen inches on
the Chadwicks' side ofthe property line. The Yenckens' argument against replacement ofthe
fence amounts to nothing more than an expression of their personal preference for keeping the
fence on the Chadwicks' side of the property line.
Although the Yenckens may prefer the location of the existing fence, they do not have any legal
right to maintain a fence on the Chadwicks' property instead of on the property line. The legal
doctrine that governs transfers of title to property by long-term occupation is adverse possession.
In order to establish an interest in property by adverse possession, a party must bring a lawsuit
Carmel City Council

July 8, 2016
Page 5
and prove all of the following elements multiple elements, including that he or she has paid all
property taxes on the disputed area for at least five consecutive years. [See Code of Civil
Procedure 325.] The Yenckens have not filed suit pursuing a claim of ownership of the narrow
strip between the fence and the property line and would be unable to satisfy the elements
necessary to prevail if they were to do so. Therefore, they have no right to force the Chadwicks
to keep the existing fence on the Chadwicks' property instead of replacing it with a new fence on
the actual property line. (In fact, a decision in favor of the Yenckens on this issue would be
tantamount to the City exercising its power of eminent domain to take the disputed area from the
Chadwicks and give it to the Yenckens. The City has no power to perform such a taking and gift
of property for such purely private purposes.)
5.
Conclusion
Applicants Art and Farah Chadwick designed their proposed new home to minimize its visual
and other impacts on their neighbors. In the course of navigating the Design Review process,
they have made extensive changes to further reduce impacts on the neighbors, and the resulting
project is entirely consistent with the characteristics of the neighborhood. Nonetheless, their
neighbors Simeon and Sally Yencken's continue to oppose the project in an unreasonable
attempt to have it further modified to fit their own preferences and illegally transfer a narrow
strip of property to them. However, the Design Review process should not be a vehicle for
individual neighbors to exercise carte blanche control over proposed projects. For the reasons
set forth herein, in the report prepared by City staff, and to be presented at the July 12 City
Council meeting, the Chadwicks respectfully request that the Council deny the Yenckens' appeal
of the Planning Commission's approval of the Chadwicks' Design Study application and uphold
the grant of that permit.
Very truly yours,
Michael A. Churchill
cc:
Art & Farah Chadwick

Eric Miller, Eric Miller Architects, Inc.
Donald Freeman, City Attorney
EXHIBIT 1
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 3
Google Maps
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5530067 ,-121.9284397, 116rnldata=!3ml! le3
Google Maps
1 of 1
7/7/2016 9:35PM

Appeal of Planning Commission&#39;s Decision Chadwick 07-12-16

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Appeal of Planning Commission&#39;s Decision Chadwick 07-12-16

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

Marc Wiener, AICP, Interim Community Planning and Building Director

Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Design

import engineered soils and materials;

BASIS FOR APPEAL:

2. The Project Proposes a Three Story Structure.

3. Hardship Required for Variance.

Continue the application with a request for changes .

Chip Rerig, City Administrator

Attachment 1 _Appeal Application

()I {7- 3 {2-()Zk

A~TRATIVE DECISION BEING APPE,AlE9f:P f a t') n I

*Article 9, Section 7, of the Constitution of the State of California authorizes a city

Planning & 8 . Yfhe.saa

&..e. A+f.aeh l'lL~U:

Revised July 2014

Grounds for Appeal

Residential designs shall maintain Carmel's enduring principles of modesty and

Information obtained from Chicago Title property profiles

2. The Project Proposes a Prohibitive Three Story Structure.

Chadwick Project Appeal

Commissioner Michael LePage: I make a motion that we approve

I sill second that

Commissioner Janet Reimers: Are we open now for discussion? I'm

Commissioner Michael LePage: Question, so your comments are

this large vertical blank space because if we squish down on

client and I think it would be a mistake if we allow this

Commissioner Martin: So concerning the grand entry way , you're

So this whole way that

redesign the house,

Commissioner Janet Reimers: I do want to say that I agree with

Thank you. My client has pressure on the other

Commissioner Don Goodhue: I understand .. we're struggling to find

I request that the archi teet please

Commissioner Martin: Thank you for getting rid of the window.

Attachment 2 - Findings for Approval

Proposed landscaping, paving treatments, fences and walls are carefully

Attachment 3 - Conditions of Approval

Authorization: Th is approval of Design Study (DS 15-217) authorizes the

The project shall be constructed in conformance with all requirements of the

All foundations within 15 feet of significant trees shall be excavated by hand. If

The Carmel stone fa~ade shall be installed in a broken course/random o r similar

This project is subject to a volume study.

A hazardous materials waste survey shall be required in conformance with the

All new construction involving excavation shall immediately cease if cultural

*Acknowledgement and acceptance of conditions of approval.

Property Owner Signature

Attachment 4 - PC Concept Staff Report

Chair Goodhue and Planning Commissioners

Marc Wiener, Acting Community Planning and Building Director

Matthew Sundt, Contract Planner

Development Permit, and Variance (VA 16-070) applications for the

Scenic Road, 2 NW of 8th

Eric Miller Architects, AlA

Property Owner: Chadwick Living Trust

Background and Project Description:

The residence has undergone

DS 15-217/VA 16-070 (Chadwick)

As required for all developments in the areas of Archaeological

OS 15-217/VA 16-070 (Chadwick)

PROJECT DATA FOR A 4,006.8 SQUARE FOOT SITE:

Total 2,089 sf (52.1%)

Total 2,072 sf (52%)*

Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision Chadwick 07-12-16

Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision Chadwick 07-12-16