Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision 02-05-13 Simonelli

7/30/2019 Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision 02-05-13 Simonelli

1/39

99

City CouncilAgenda Itern Summary

Meeting Date: 5 February 2013Prepared by: Marc Wiener, Associate Planner

Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve DesignStudy, Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for theconstruction of a new residence located on Fifth Avenue two northwest ofLincolnStreet. The property owner is Dennis Levett. The appellant is Jacqueline Simonelli.

Description: The appellant is requesting that the Council overturn the approval of the project.The appellant is concerned that the proposed new residence creates impacts to privacy,views and solar access.Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's unanimousapproval.Important Considerations: Design Guideline 5.0 states that "designs should preservereasonable solar access to neighboringparcels." Design Guidelines 5.1 encouragespreserving "reasonable privacyfo r adjacent properties. " Design Guideline 7.2recommends minimizing "the mass ofa building as seen from the public way or adjacentproperties. "Decision Record: On 9 January 2013, the Planning Commission unanimously approved thisproject (4-0) with special conditions.Attachments:

StaffReport Attachment "A" Reduction Plans Attachment "B" Appeal Application/Letter Attachment "C" PC StaffReport (1 /9/13)

Reviewed by:

IDate


2/39

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

STAFF REPORT

TO: MAYOR BURNETT AND COUNCIL MEMBERS

THROUGH: JASON STILWELL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR

FROM: MARC WIENER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER

DATE: 5 FEBRUARY 2013

SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING

COMMISSIONS DECISION TO APPROVE DESIGN STUDY,

DEMOLITION PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT

PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A

NEW RESIDENCE LOCATED ON FIFTH AVENUE 2NORTHWEST OF LINCOLN STREET. THE PROPERTY

OWNER IS DENNIS LEVETT. THE APPELLANT IS

JACQUELINE SIMONELLI.

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commissions unanimous approval.

BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project site is located on Fifth Avenue 2 NW of Lincoln Street. On 9 May 2012 the

Planning Commission approved an application to construct a new, two-story residence at

the subject location. The application was appealed to the City Council on 5 June 2012 by

the western neighbor. The approval was upheld by the Council and a condition was

added that the applicant provide landscaping along the west property line to maintain the

privacy between properties.

The original design was dictated by a tree located near the center of the property. After

receiving approval for the first design, the applicant also obtained approval from the

Forest and Beach Commission to relocate a tree that was near the center of the property.

Because the tree had been relocated, the applicant was able to create a new design that

could better utilize the property. The applicant submitted an application for a new

design, which was approved by the Planning Commission on 9 January 2013.

The new design is similar to the original with regard to style and materials, but is

different with respect to the footprint. The new design provides a 10-foot setback for the

garage, as opposed to be being on the front property line as originally proposed. The

revised design also places the second-story mass and deck further from the western

100


3/39

Levett Appeal

5 February 2013

Staff Report

Page 2

neighbor, who previously appealed the application due to concerns about privacy and

mass related to the second story.

PC Review: This application is being appealed by the western neighbor, Jacqueline

Simonelli. The appellant appeared at the Planning Commission hearing to express

concerns about the project. The appellants issues with the project were similar to those

raised with the first design, which centered on privacy impacts, mass and bulk, and solar

access.

At the hearing, staff noted that the new design appeared to reduce the impacts to the

western neighbor in comparison to the original design. For example, in the new design,

the second story is located 22.5 feet from the west property line, as opposed to the

original setback of 15 feet. The balcony is also 18.5 feet from the western property line,

as opposed to the original 12-foot setback. Staff notes, however, that the balcony has

increased in size from 40 square feet to 70 square feet.

The Planning Commission reviewed the issues and unanimously approved the project

with special conditions (See Attachment C). The conditions were intended to mitigate

the impact to the western neighbor by requiring landscaping between the properties, a

solid railing around the balcony, and an eight-foot tall fence along the west property line.

EVALUATION

Basis for Appeal:This hearing is considered a

de novohearing, meaning that theCouncil can review any aspect of the project. However, staff recommends focusing only

on the issues raised by the appellant.

The appellant has stated that the ruling of the Planning Commission was not in

compliance with Residential Design Guidelines Section 5.0 Privacy, Views, Light and

Air and Section 7.0 Building Mass, Scale and Form (See Attachment B). In

summary, the western neighbor contends that the proposed second-story presents

excessive building mass, blocks solar access, and that the balcony creates a privacy

impact.

Staff Response: Staff notes that the proposed second-story is 22 feet from the westernproperty line, which significantly exceeds the minimum side-yard setback of 3 feet.

Given that the subject lot is only 50 feet wide, a 22 foot setback from the side property

line is substantial.

The two-story portion of the residence is 21.5 feet tall, which is 2.5 feet lower than

maximum allowed height. The second story is 450 square feet and comprises only 25%

of the total floor area. The Planning Commission determined that the size and location of

the second story were appropriate. Staff concurs with the Commission and concludes

101


4/39

Levett Appeal

5 February 2013

Staff Report

Page 3

that the project was designed with consideration for the neighboring properties and the

Design Guidelines.

With regard to the balcony, the project was approved with conditions that will mitigate

the privacy impact. The Commission did discuss the possibility of reducing the size of

the 70-square-foot balcony, but determined that a reduction in size was not needed with

the mitigation measures in place.

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commissions unanimous approval with the

following special conditions:

SPECIAL CONDITIONS

1. The applicant shall provide details and dimensions for fence construction prior tosubmitting the building permit application.

2. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan to include plantings on the west sideof the property to provide privacy for the western neighbor.

3. The balcony railing shall be solid to mitigate the privacy impact to the westernneighbor.

4. The applicant shall install an eight-foot-tall fence on the western property line.Portions of the fence located in the front 10 setback may only be 4 in height.

102


5/39

AttachmentA

103

1UIIU

j I.

i=. : ;.!

~t1t"

!

~

~

P~. z8 ; ~

OJh

- 0~ ~ > ~ - -"0 - v \! y rJ

l

'*

L

C0L

ItlltD!toOCClo11[1)


6/39

104

~ 0. --1


7/39

D

SITE AREA:

Z ON IN G: R -1

8000.00 S.F.

17 AND 19

ADDRESS:

BLOCK:

A.P.N.:

LOT:

53

010-211-005 LINCOLN AND 5TH,CARMEL BY THE SEA, CA.

ALLOWED

EXISTING

MAIN FLOOR

GARAGE

420.8 S.F.

492.8 S.F.

913.6 S.F.

PROPOSED

MAIN FLOOR

UPPER FLOOR

GARAGE

1,150.0 S.F.

450.0S.F.

200.0 S.F.

1,800.0 S.F.

LOT 17 LOT 19

1,216.5 S.F.

1,216.5 S.F.

WEST LOT EAST LOT1, 80 0. 0 S. F. 1 ,8 00 .0 S .F .

1,115.4 S.F.

487.3 S.F.

197.3 S.F.

1,800.0 S.F.

VICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALE

PROJECTLOCATION

6THAVE.

5THAVE.

4THAVE.

3RDAVE.

CARMEL, CA. 93921

CHRIS TESCHER

P.O. BOX 4915

PROPOSED IMPERMEABLE

PROPOSED PERMEABLE

57.7 S.F.

78.9 S.F.

242.5 S.F.

TOTAL = 556.0 S.F.

ENTRY

COURTYARD DECK (SPACE'D WD.)

ALLOWED

396.0 S.F. 396.0 S.F.22% of BFA or

10% of SITE AREA

4% OF SITE AREA (50%

PERMEABLE BONUS)

160.0 S.F. 160.0 S.F.

TOTAL 556.0 S.F. 556.0 S.F.

5.0 S.F.

67.4 S.F.

297.2 S.F.

556.0 S.F.

FRONT WALK CONC. STEP

ELEVATED FRONT WALK WAY (SPACED WD.)

DRIVEWAY

REAR DECK & STAIRS (SPACE'D WD.)

118.5 S.F.

67.9 S.F.FRONT WALK WAY

WEST LOT EAST LOT

3.0 S.F.

Design Studios

100.0 S.F.

73.9 S.F.REAR DECK (SPACE'D WD.)


8/39

,--------------,r - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ I15'-e' 1 . . . . , . .

r - - - - - - - - - - -

~ - - - - - - - - - = ~ ~ ~ - - - - - - - - ~ - - ~ ~ - - T

IIIIII ...-----iIIII

LINEN

I

BATHl-AV. LAV.

MASTERBEDROOM

D DOD

r - - - - - ', - - - - - - - - - - ,I :I II II II II II ID I II II IL--, r---'

D

L_______ _j

L------------...l

UPPER FJ..OOR FL.AN

.I';;I ..1II

~ ( ::JJI M tt:.=r

:?'.4' :Jt-IOOD DECK, I

III

IIII

11-::t IPASS T H I ~ I / I :IL ,._... r---- SO" HI6H., c:;.oUN-ra;t

1-.J

KITCHEN1- , DYl. RAN6E""""L ____ ,:IJl:a

~ A R A 6 E ;,,,_,}/ ~

~ ~(( J

EI.EV:cfcfeo-to FWJ..J....UP "t:::!l 10'-o' l"

MA

SCALE: 1/4' 1'0'


9/39

, - -I, - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - _J r- -l ~ d : : ZI1

1 - - - ~ ' ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + -

1_____________ _

I.PPER FL.OOR- - - - - 'DECK SLOPE1/4" PER FOOT

-=

~ - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~

11=12

(ROOFPITCH412 )

L ____________ J

EROFOCESCALE: 1/4" 1'0"


10/39


11/39

,_...wE-ta::,_

r::J).IIl>-,_

l'il;;Qw

0

;;:J:;il,_

"-


12/39

Design Studios E

o lo-3 1

- - - - - ~

0NPS

-

0o-3

N0

8

!O"b028'C

i ~ a c,.. ...

cfrcte&AN

.--

0B'T

012'R

06'R

L 0 T016'Q

'

1 5

,,

3'T

I

PROPOSED TREETO BE Ra.OGA"TCD

I

/

/I r/10'R

III/

1o"RP//I

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

III

'b0dIX)w

..4'P

g III 0 J

LHC r PR.OPO&EO I7"Q Cl Ii li!CE&IOEI\ICE .I :! T '""''"'.., GAS WATER I- .----1------- --+--- - - - - - - - METER I. - < ~ P. -- ----- D . . . . . . . o' G FF 'M.I' ELEV RI1!15AN o I

. IR I cAN

3

'v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ - ~ - - - - - - - ~ - - ~

.AD, . J+.tip I . II- 0-GLe""""',...V G ll ~ t o ~p v M.AH60Le i. 12'R I Rl! l &AN '"' 0Q ~ 4 ' R _,no .n'J.Y

s"T IIIIIII

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

0

0

28'P

'P

NPS I

Dj WATERIAETER

E-

Documents

Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision 02-05-13 Simonelli