mcfarland 05-11-16
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
1/31
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Planning Commission Report
May 11, 2016
To: Chair Goodhue and Planning Commissioners
From: Marc Wiener, Acting Community Planning and Building Direc
Submitted by: Matthew Sundt, Contract Planner
Subject: Consideration of Concept Design Study (DS 16-103) and as
Development Permit for the demolition of an existing
construction of a new single-family residence located in t
Residential (R-1) Zoning District.
Recommendation:
Accept the Concept Design Study (DS 16-103) subject to the attache
recommendations/draft conditions.
Application: DS 16-103 APN: 010-158-018 Block: 115 Lot: 2
Location: Southeast Corner of Lincoln Street and 10th Avenue
Applicant: Justin Pauly Property Owner: Nancy and Dan M
Background and Project Description:
The property is 4,000 square feet in size and includes an existing single-story res
attached carports, on a corner lot. The property slopes upward from Lincoln S
Determination of Ineligibility for the residence was issued by the Planning
September 2015.
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
2/31
DS 16-103 (McFarland)
May 11, 2016
Staff Report Page 2
The front door, garage door, and a portion of the south elevation exterior is resFencing material is wood grape stake. Windows are with true divided lites with ce
be painted.
The parcel has a 15 foot wide driveway easement over the back yard area (e
provides access to the adjacent neighbor’s (to the south) two car garage with se
quarters. The east wall of the proposed McFarland residence will be placed on
existing easement, where currently there is a about a two-foot setback to the exist
The applicant is proposing to excavate approximately 180 cubic feet of soil
accommodate the garage and a portion of the main floor. All cut will be exported
fill is proposed; approximately 25 truck trips will be made to export soils.
PROJECT DATA FOR A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT SITE:
Site Considerations Allowed Existing Proposed
Floor Area 1,800 sf (45%) NA 1,800
Site Coverage 556 sf NA 556 sf
Trees 3 Upper /1 Lower
(recommended)
1/2 1/2
Ridge Height (1st/2nd) 18’/24’ NA Max. 1st floor
Max. 2nd floo
Plate Height (1st/2nd) 12’/ 18’ NA Max. 1st floor
Max. 2nd floo
Setbacks Minimum Required Existing Proposed
Front 15’ NA 19”
Composite Side Yard 10’ (25%) NA Min: 18.0’ ft
Minimum Side Yard 3’ NA Min. North Si
Mi S h Si
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
3/31
DS 16-103 (McFarland)
May 11, 2016
Staff Report Page 3
Other project components include: 1) the removal of all existing site coverage (dwelling, two carports, hardscape, landscape, and decking), and 2) removal and re
existing fencing on the south and east boundaries. No trees are proposed to be re
Staff has scheduled this application for conceptual review. The primary purpose
to review and consider the site planning, privacy and views, mass and scale relate
However, the Commission may provide input on other aspects of the design.
Staff Analysis:
Forest Character : Residential Design Guidelines 1.1 through 1.4 encourage mainta
image on the site” and for new construction to be at least six feet from significant t
The City Forester has identified three trees on the property including two signi
Oaks and one significant Monterey Pine. No additional trees are recommended to
City Forester has also commented that it would be desirable to eliminate ivy on
right-of-way.
Privacy & Views: Residential Design Guidelines 5.1 through 5.3 state that “design
reasonable solar access to neighboring parcels” and “maintain privacy of indoor anin a neighborhood” and “maintain view opportunities.”
Staff has not identified any view impacts that would be created by the new reside
to privacy, staff notes that the adjacent residence to the south would be the mos
proposed project. The existing residence to the south is estimated to be one-stor
estimated to be 18 feet. Based on staff’s site visit, the residence immediately to th
be negatively affected relative to privacy as the existing driveway easement crea
the proposed building design appears to negate any privacy impacts.
The proposed residence has a second floor as seen on the east elevation (back hal
with an overall ridge height of just under 24 feet The south and east facing
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
4/31
DS 16-103 (McFarland)
May 11, 2016
Staff Report Page 4
between the residences. This tree will ultimately benefit from the new residresidence being set back three feet further from the tree as compared to existing
does not anticipate any privacy impacts associated with the project.
Mass & Scale: Residential Design Guidelines 7.1 through 7.6 encourages “U
secondary structure to reduce the overall mass of the primary building”, “locate
either fully or partially below grade”, and “presenting a one-story height to the
these guidelines state that “a building should relate to a human scale in its basic fo
The proposed new residence has a form that sits well on the property with it
components connected by a one-story dining room, and each of these sections
having different roof lines and roof materials that create a logical and intere
aesthetic order.
The combination of window size, location, building dimensions with varied setbac
on the downhill side (west elevation) of the property, combine to create a reasona
form and appearance. Both the garage and the back area of the residence to the
underground and reduce the visible height of the building. In staff’s opinio
residence meets the objectives of Residential Design Guidelines 7.1 through 7.6.
Building & Roof Form: Residential Design Guidelines 8.1 through 8.3 state
moderately pitched roofs are appropriate on one-story buildings. More steeply
low plate lines can be used on two-story buildings." The Guidelines e
“restraint ” and “simplicity ” in building forms, which should not be complicated
which should “avoid complex forms.” Changing roof heights helps to break up
keeping the overall roof forms simple in character.
This project achieves appropriate scale and form through breaking up the building
varied dimensions that create a harmonious arrangement of shapes and textures
Carmel stone to be used on the bottom floor facing north and west, and on the e
north Most of the exterior is clad with western red cedar shingle and resawn c
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
5/31
DS 16-103 (McFarland)
May 11, 2016
Staff Report Page 5
Exterior Lighting: With regard to light fixtures, Municipal Code Section 15.36.070that all exterior lighting attached to the main building or any accessory building s
than 10 feet above the ground and shall not exceed 25 watts (incandescent
approximately 375 lumens) in power per fixture, and that landscape lighting sha
inches above the ground nor more than 15 watts (incandescent equivalent; i.e., ap
lumens) per fixture and no closer than 10 feet apart. Furthermore, “Landscape lig
used for tree, wall, fence or accent lighting of any type. The purpose of landsca
safely illuminate walkways and entrances to the subject property.”
In addition, the City’s Residential Design Guidelines, Section 11.8, states, “P
nighttime lighting character of the residential neighborhoods. Use lights only w
safety and at outdoor activity areas. Appropriate locations may include buildin
terraces, walkways, and patios,” and “[…] Point lights downward to reduce glar
pollution”, “Locate and shield fixtures to avoid glare and excess lighting as
neighboring properties and from the street”, and “Lights should not be used to a
vegetation”.
The location and style of the proposed wall-mounted light fixtures are depi
elevations on Sheet A3.1 and A3.2 of the Project Plans. A total of 10 full-cutoff, w
fixtures are proposed. Four of these are located on the north elevation with two troom doors and front door. These lights will not exceed 25 watts.
In addition, landscape lighting is proposed. The landscape site plan (Sheet L.1) s
lights to include three path lights (two at driveway area and one at front entry w
lights in trees in south side back yard, numerous riser lights (at steps on 10 th Av
steps on south side of driveway), three down lights at south side back yard at rea
wall-mounted down light on west aspect of chimney, and one wall-mounted task l
counter.
Based on the City’s Guidelines, to control the amount of light emitted from the pro
not support more than one light fixture for each of the dining room and front do
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
6/31
DS 16-103 (McFarland)
May 11, 2016
Staff Report Page 6
cast lighting fixtures such as riser lights, or landscape lights not to exceed 18-spaced at least 10 feet.
Site Coverage: Per Municipal Code Section 17.10.030.C, site coverage shall
maximum of 22 percent of the base floor area allowed for the site (Note: on a 4
site this equals 396 square feet or 10 percent of the site). In addition, if at least
site coverage on the property is made of permeable or semi-permeable materia
amount of site coverage of up to four percent of the site area may be allowed
square foot lot the total amount of coverage is allowed to be 556 square feet; the
consistent with the allowed coverage.
Garage & Driveway : Design Guideline 6.3 states, “…consider using paving strips
for a driveway, and that driveways should not be over nine feet wide. This is espe
for a long drive that runs to the rear of a property.” Design Guidelines 6.5 and 6.6
a garage to maximize opportunities for open space, views and privacy ”, and “Lo
minimize its visual impacts”. Locating a garage under a house or detached at the
encouraged.
The property slopes upward from Lincoln Street to the rear of the property with a
nine-foot elevation change. The proposed main level of the residence will be aseen from 10th Avenue. The proposed design places the garage partially u
frontage and access to Lincoln Street. Above the garage is the main floor and
driveway is a “tire-track” driveway surrounded by low landscaping (dynondia ma
the connection to the City’s right-of-way there is mulch surface. The asphalt dr
strip is approximately 25 feet wide at its widest point. The City’s Municipa
maximum driveway width of 14 feet. A condition has been drafted requiring the
to be reduced to this width.
Driveway Easement: There is a 1906 era 15 foot wide easement on the east (
McFarland property that provides vehicle access to the southerly neighbor’s
applicant is proposing to replace the southeast corner of the existing fence w
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
7/31
DS 16-103 (McFarland)
May 11, 2016
Staff Report Page 7
maintaining the curved fence at the corner if the squaring it would impinge ovehicle access.
Public ROW: There are 6 locations where ROW encroachments occur along 1
Lincoln Street and what is proposed by the applicant:
1. Boulders located in the front of the property on 10th Avenue will be remov
2. The wooden steps that lead up to the front door of the property will be rem
3. The small fence on the north-facing side of the property will be removed;
4. Stepping stones on the north-facing side of the property, just behind the sm
removed;
5. The asphalt parking pad at the north-facing side of the property will be
mulch parking pad; and
6.
The rock wall on the west-facing side of the property that leads to the exist
be removed.
Staff concurs with this approach.
Alternatives: Staff has included draft findings that the Commission can adopt if
accepts the overall design concept, including the architectural style of the buildingCommission does not support the design, then the Commission could continue the
specific direction given to the applicant.
Environmental Review: The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQ
pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3) – New Construction or Conversion of Small U
includes the construction of one single-family residence in a residential zone
qualifies for a Class 3 exemption. The proposed residence does not pres
circumstances that would result in a potentially significant environmental impact.
ATTACHMENTS:
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
8/31
Attachment A – Site Photographs
10th Avenue Frontage
Lincoln Street Frontage
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
9/31
Driveway Easement on left with access to 10th Avenue
Drive
Easement showing curvilinear fence section
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
10/31
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
11/31
DS 16-103 (McFarland) May 11, 2016
Concept Findings
Page 2
9. The proposed exterior materials and their application rely on natural materials
and the overall design will add 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 th
character of the structure and the neighborhood.
11. Proposed landscaping, paving treatments, fences and walls are carefully
designed to complement the urbanized forest, the approved 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 reasonab
relate to good design principles and specific site conditions.
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT FINDINGS (CMC 17.64.010.B.1):
1. Local Coastal Program Consistency: The project conforms with the certified Loc
Coastal Program of the City of Carmel-by-the Sea.
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.
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
12/31
Attachment C – Recommendations/Draft Conditions
DS 16-103 (McFarland) May 11, 2016
Recommendations/Draft Conditions Page 1
Recommendations/Draft Conditions
No.
1. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan for final Planning Commission r
2. The applicant shall remove ivy from the site.
3. The applicant shall reduce the width of the asphalt entry at Lincoln Stre
maximum of 14 feet.
4. The applicant shall submit a truck haul route plan for final Planning Comm
review that will explain total number of trips and exactly what route these
will take getting to and from the project site. Hours of operation
explained.
5. Reduce the number of light fixtures for each of the dining room and fron
(both on the north elevation) to one fixture each;
Remove the downlights at trees in the south yard area;
Remove the wall-mounted downlight on west aspect of chimney; and
Remove one of the three proposed down lights at the rear patio area.
6 So as to safely illuminate the walkways on the south side of the propertylighting to include low-cast lighting fixtures such as riser lights, or landscap
not to exceed 18-inches in height spaced at least 10 feet.
7. Provide materials cut-sheet for driveway.
8. Provide materials cut-sheet for light fixtures.
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
13/31
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
14/31
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
15/31
ABBREVIATIONS
APPROX APPROXIMATE
ELEV ELEVATION
FO
FOUND
1H THRESH
LEGEND
1
100
-0
TBM
+ 98.30
:; (::·.
X -
[L sJ
D
D
-ITd
NOTES:
GROUND CONTOUR
SUBJECT PROPERTY
UNE
ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE
CONTROL POINT
TEMPORARY BENCHMARK
SPOT GRADE
TREE
FENCE
FLOW
UNE
BUILDING
CONCRETE
AC
WALL
PAVER
DECK
1'
'-
..
I
~
/)
u
0
0
z
_
l
I
v
1.
HIS
MAP REPRESEN
TS A
TOPOGR
A
PH
IC
SURVEY PERFORMED Y wt
i
TSCN ENGINEER
S ON 8/18/15 .
2. HIS
MAP PORTRAYS 1HE
SITE
AT 1HE
TIME OF lHE
SIJRVEY AND
DOES
NOT
SHOW
SOILS
OR GEOLOGY
INFORMATION, UNDERGROUND CONDITIONS, EASEMENTS, ZONING
OR REGUL
ATORY
INF
ORMATION
OR
ANY
OlHER ITEMS NOT SP ECIFICALLY REQUESTED BY 1HE CLIENT.
3. BOUNDARY LOCA
iONS SHOWN HEREON WERE
DETERMINED
WITH
1HE BENEFIT
OF A FIE
LD SURVEY
SUPPLEMENTED BY RECORD DATA. ALL BOUNDARY
SHOWN
IS
FROM
RECORD DATA. lHIS TOPOGRAPHY
DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A BOUNDARY SURVEY.
lHERE MAY
BE EASEMENTS
OR
DIHER RIGHTS , RECORDED
OR
UNRECORDED,
AFFECTING
1HE SUBJECT PROPERTY
WHICH ARE
NOT
SHOWN HEREON.
4. DISTANCES AND DIMENSIONS
SHOWN
ARE EXPRESSED IN FEET
AND
DECIMALS HEREOF,
U
NLESS OTHERWISE
NOTED.
5_
BENCHMARK TAKEN AS MAG NAI
L IN ASPHALT.
ELEVATION:
500.00
(ASSIJMED
DATUM)
6. UNDERGROUND llfiLI
T
ES WERE NOT WITHIN 1HE SCOPE
THIS
SURVEY. THE EXISTENCE, LOCATION AND DEPlH OF
ALL llfiUTIES
SHOULD
BE
CONFIRMED PR
IOR TO C
ONSTRUCTION.
7. DIAMETERS OF TREES
ARE SHOWN
IN INCHES. TREES SMALLER lHAN
6" WERE
NOT NECESSARILY LOCATED
AS
PART
OF THIS SURVEY.
i
\
I
I
I
I
\ (
/
/
_
APN 01
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
16/31
~ ~ _ B R E V I A T I O N S
APPROX APPROXi A
t
ELEV ELEVATION
FD FOUND
TH
THRESH
LEGEND
1 ··
&.100
(o'\SSMH
\,
__ RIM: 491.91
GROUND CONTOUR
SUBJECT PROPERTY LINE
ADJACENT
PROPERTo
liNE
CONlROL
POINT
ltt. PORARY
BENCHMARK
SPOT GRADE
lREE
- - - X- - -
FENCE
- ·
i>
D
D
CJ
[ilJ
[j-;J
[(2 ;1
FLOW LINE
BUiDING
CONCRElt
AC
WALL
PAVER
DECK
i
I
- - T l
I
i
v
.._:
( )
6
)
z
_
\.__
1.
THIS MAP REPRESENTS
A
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PERFORMED BY WHITSON ENGINEERS ON 6/18/15.
2.
THIS MAP PC TRA
YS
THE
SITE
AT THE
11M£ OF
THE SURI.£Y AND
DOES NOT
SHOW
SOLS OR
GEOI.OGY
INFORMATION, UNDERGROUND CONDITIONS,
EASEMENTS,
ZONING OR REGULATORY
I N F O R ~ A l l O N
OR ANY
OTHER ITt:hiS
N01
SPECIFICALLY REOLIESTt:O BY TH£ CUENT.
3. BOUNDARY LOCATIONS SHOI\tl
HEREON WERE DETERMINED WITH THE
BENEFlT OF
A
F1ED SURVEY
SUPPLEMENTED
BY
RECORD DATA. ALL BOUNDARY SHOWN IS
FROM
RECORD DATA.
lliiS
TOPOGRAPHY
DOES NOT CONSliTliTE
A
BOUNDARY SUR'A:Y. THERE
MAY
BE EASEI.IENTS OR OTHER RIGHTS. RECORDED
OR
UNRECORDED,
AmCllNG THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHI H
ARE
NOT SHOWN
HEREON.
4. DISTANCES
AND
D I ~ [ N S I O N S
SHOWN ARE EXPRESSED IN fEET AND
DEaMALS
lHEREOF, UNLESS OTHERWISE
NOTED
.
5.
B E N C H ~ A R I <
TAKEN AS MAG NAIL IN
ASPHALT.
ELEVAlON:
500.00 (ASSUMED
DATUM)
6.
UNDERGROUND UTI
LI
TIES
WERE
NOT
WITHIN
THE SCOPE
THIS
SUIMr . lHE
EXISTENCE,
LOCATION AND DEPTH Of
ALL l/liUTIES
SHOULD BE CONFIRMOl
PRIOR
TO CONSTRUCTION.
7. DIAMETERS OF TREES ARE SHOWN IN INCHES. TREES SMALLER THAN s• 'II£RE NOT NECESSARILY LOCATED
AS
PART OF THIS SURVEY.
\
r-' ':·' . .
\
\
1
1
r
\
\
f -
I
I
I
, i - ~
x
APN
O
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
17/31
/
/
'
\
\
\
\
\
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
18/31
/ _ ·
/
l,bo
CUYD.
/ ·
: i
REFERENCE
NOTES
~ (N) 6'-0 TALL
GRAPE STAKE FENCE
ALONG
PROPERTY
LINE
~
STAIR
WITH
MULCH TREADS
AND 2X
PTDF HEADERS
\
0
FULLY
PERMEABLE
GROUND
COVER PER
LANDSCAPE
PLANS
0 SEMIPERMEABLE
TURF
BLOCK
HOLLYWOOD DRIVEWAY STRIPS
0 LANDSCAPE RETAINING BOULDERS. HEIGHT VARIES WITH GRADE
li_j
REPlACE (E) AC PARKING
AREA
WITH MULCH
]
N) PIZZA OVEN W/36
SQ. BASE
AND FLUE PER MANUFACTURER'S
SPECIFICATIONS
3'-0
AC PAVEMENT
APRON
W/30 RADIUS
FlARE OUTS
I
@ 14 PINE
~
20 PINE
lOTH
AVE.
/
(N) GUEST
PARKING
/
ON
MULCH
GARAGE BELOW
F.E@49:t:l3'
I
I
/
:
...
100.00'
PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
SCALE: 11
4 =
1'·0
[:] 6X6
PTDF STAIR
HEADER
A
BROKEN
COURSE
STACKED
CARMEL STONE
LANDSCAPE WALL,
TYP.
0
MULCH
GROUND COVER IN
CITY
R.O.W.
G INDICATES
FOOTPRINT
OF
(E) RESIDENCE
G INDICATES
EXTEND
OF
GRADING CUT
(EXISTING SURFACE CONDITIONS UNDER
THE FOOTPRINT OFTHE
(E)
BLDG.
ARE
NOT
KNOWN
.
IT
IS
ASSUMED THAT MINIMAL
GRADING WILL BE REQUIRED TO
ACCOMODATETHE
NEW CONSTRUCTION) SEE
CALCUlATION
FOR TOTAL
VOLUMES
G
(N) 3'-0 TALL
GRAPE STAKE FENCE ALONG
PROPERTY LINE
AR
ARE
A
B
C
D
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
19/31
N
m
4'
15
'-0"
(_
~ I ~ T F
~
_ -
_ _
-
_ - -
_ - -
- :
L
---
_
E T B C K
~ -
__
__
__
__
I _
::TE
A
REA4.0DO
sq ft
, ; \
FLOOR LEVEL MAP
~ ~ C L E =
1
-
0"
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE
0 SCALE : 11
8" =
1· 0
\
'
\
\
\
\
I
\
0 4'
8'
c-------===
N
m
N
m
COVERAGE SUMMARY
ALLOWED
22% BASE
FLOOR AREA
4% BONUS AREA FOR DRIVEW
MAXIMUM
PROPOSED
DESCRIPTION
3
[_ .=:J
TOT
SE
MI-PERMEABL
NON-PERMEAB
TOT
MAIN
LEVEL
OVERLAPPING
(SECOND FLOO
OVERLAPPING
(GARAGE
BELO
2 ? ~
BONUS AREA IN
0
I
I
23.3
16.8
17
4 16.6
5
21.7
6
20.8
_ _ _ _
8-J_
TOTAL
PRODUCT/
LENGTH
125
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
20/31
+16-10"
PLATE
' i @ '
+B'-10"t1. FF. 508.83
2nd FLOOR'lf./
1st
F L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - .·
STAIR
TO
BASE ENT
GARAGE
BELOW
FIRST
FLOOR
BELOW
.
\_
--
@:0
4
STAIR
TO BASEMENT
GARAGE BASEMENT
OVERALL
FOOTPRINT
334 'G ft
FIRST
FLOOR
OVERALL
FOOTPRINT 191 sq ft
l f - @
508.83
2nd FLOOR T \
~
±O FE @ 500
-1 st FLOOR ANG499]-
-8'8"$ IFF.@ 49
1
33
GARAGE
- -
0
w
ONESTORYFLOORAREA(3:120R
GREATER) 88SQ
.F.T
[ _ ~ O N E
STORYFLOORAREA
(3:12LESS) 336 SQ.F.T
itRlliwJ NO STORY FLOOR AREA
(3 :12
OR GREATER) 1,376 SQ.
F.T
l NO
STORY FLOOR
AREA (3 : 2 OR LESS)
0
SQ
.
F.T
.__
__
_,
TOTAL = I 800
SQ.
F.T
ALLOWED VOLUME
-- .f-
4' 3 16'
PROPOSED VOLUME
ZONE
AI
A2
A3
B
D
El
SECTIONAL
.l>._ll ;A_
_
_____
_
262 SQ.
FT
I
SQ.
FT
21 SQ.FT
206
SQ .FT
229 SQ.FT
2
SQ.F
E2
30 SQ.
Fr
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 ~ ? . ...
. 9 X f
AREA
TYPE
PROPOSED AlLOWED
AREA FACTOR _VOLUt L__
ONE STORY FLOOR AREA (3 :12 OR GREATER)
ONE
STORY FLOOR AREA (3:12 OR LESS)
TWO
STORY FLOOR
AREA
(3:
12 OR
GREATER)
TWO STORY
FLOOR
AREA (3:
12 OR
LESS)
UNUSED FLOOR AREA OR
BASEMENT
AREA
INOI NCiliDING BONUS AREA\
TOTAL
88
SQFT. 12
1,056 CU
.FT.
336
SQ
Fr. II 3,696 CU. Fr.
1,376 SQ
.FT.
II
15,136 CU.FT.
0
SQ.FT.
10
0
CU.FT.
0
SQ.
FT.
12
0
CU.FT.
I
800
SQ. FT.
19,888 cu. FT.
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
21/31
' \
... ;
;
.
'
'
....
.·
..... ~ - - . . - · · · · ·
- ,
..
·-·---
.
'
REFERENCE NOT S
INDIACTESLOCATI
ON
OF
WALL
MOUN
10
-0 MOUNTING
HEIGH
T
TED
FULL CUT OFF EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE WI
CRAWL SPACE
ACC
ESS
MAX.
STORAGE
GARAGE
F.F.@
491.33
BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" l '·O'
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
22/31
I
\
\-
.._ ...... ........ ._ _
· ..
,_
..
--
.......... .
......
·- ....... -····
···· ···• ........
..........
·· ··
-.
,,
' - ~ . -...
.. - - ~ -
· ·· .
REFEREN E
NOT S
,·
.
..
_
.
.
'' ·
}
/,· '· ...
;
I
\
.
..
INDIACTES
LOCATION OF
WALL
MOUNTED
FULL
CUT
OFF
EXTERIOR
LIGHT
FIXTURE
WI MAX.
10 -0 MOUNTING HEJGHT
BENCH SEAT
BELOW
STAIR
CEILING HEIGHT
VARIES
W/ROOF PITCH
~ ~ ~ ~ . B ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~ ~ . R ~ P L ~ A ~ N L _
____
________
_______
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
23/31
........ ....
-
- - - - ·
I •
• • - - - - : . , . o ~ : - - -
· · · ·
· · ·
····-
.
.
l ~ ·
I
... .......) .
/
-
.....
. __
_
..
_
.....
__
REFEREN E
NOT S
···
· 4 \ . ~ · · · · · · · · · · · ~ · · · · ·
f
_ ..
.......
.
··· ·B,__...-_ _ _:_
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
24/31
REFEREN E NOTES
(N) CLASS 'A' CEDAR SHAKE ROOF
(Nl LOW SLOPE ROOF WITH ZINC COATED STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF
DECORATIVE SPARK ARRESTOR
AT
CHIMNEY VENT
TERMINATION
0
0
t -3
1/2
t
;.,
20-2
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
25/31
, . .
RIDG_E
@mJ
_L
__
1st FLOOR
NOTE:
.J91.33'
GARAGE
HEIGHTARE
MEASURED FROM
THE MOST
RESTRICT IV
E EXISTING OR PROPOSED) GRADE
DRECTLY BELOWTHEAREABEING MEASURED.
~ E L E V T I O N
\.2 SCAL
E:
114 • 1-0
RIDGE @522.75'
6 ' - 1 0 " ~
PLATE
.1-V.RM
.
I D G ~
513.77'
LV. RM.PLATE@ 511.19
•-
-
- --
+S·10 t:J.
Z
nd
FLOO
RV
508 .81' PLATE@ 508.79
y
- ·- -
I
I
- - - -
=
_
s
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
26/31
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
27/31
1
3
I PROPERTY
v---- BOUNDARY
I
I
I
NE. GHBORING P ~ Q P I : . R
tA5fMENl
EXISTING STREET ELEVATION NORTH
SCALE: 3/32
=
1'-0
I PROPERTY
v---- BOUNDARY
I
I
lOTH AVENUE
RESIDENCE
SIT
BACK FROM
STREIT
SUR l
CI PROPfRTY
I
I
I
(E)
FF@ I
- I
I
- - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - ~
~ N E ~ I G H ~ e O ~ R ~ I N G ~ P ~ R O ~ P E ~ ~ y ~ 4 ~ m l l i L
_ - - - - - - -
~ S ~ ~ l l i E C ~ T ~ P R O ~ P E ~ ~ L Y _ _ _
lOTH
AVENUE
PROPOSED STREET ELEVATION NORTH
SCALE: 3/32 = 1'-0
EXTERIOR
DOOR
SCHEDULE
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
28/31
DETAILS
HAR
DWARE
MARK WIDTH HEIGHT TYPE
TEMP'D
GROUP
HEAD
JAMB
SILL
DOl
10'-0 6'-10 A
D02
3'-0 7'-0
B
D03
12'-0 7'-6
c T
D04 12'-0
7'-6 c T
ALL EXTERIOR DOORS TO BE MARVIN ULTIMATE SERIES WOOD EXTERIORS AND PRIMED WOOD INTERIORS
(WITH EXCEPTION OF FRONT ENTRY)
SHADES: HUNTER
DOUGLASS DUETTE
SERIES,
OR APPROVED EQUAL
EXTERIOR
DOOR
LEGEND
TYPE
FRONT
VIEW
WINDOW
LEGEND
TYPE
WINDOW
ELEVATION
A
'
A
B
___ _,_-
, ---
l/ /
r--
r------
---. __
_ ---
, /
f::
i l-
>---
B
NOTES
MA
W
W
W
W
w
---
W
W
w
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
c
c
D
Attachment E
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
29/31
277
Matthew Sundt
From
Sent
To
Cc:
Subject
Mike Hough [[email protected]]
Wednesday April27 201610:46 AM
Matthew Sundt
Valerie Hough
Re: McFartand Plans
Michael and Valerie Hough
3332-C Twenty Second Street
San Francisco, Ca. 94110
Phone 415)-282-1977
Fax 415)-282-8688
Cell Phone 415)-317-2399
Matthew Sundt, City Planner
Carmel
by
the Sea City Hall
P.O. ox CC
Carmel
by
the Sea, Ca. 93921
1
April 25, 2016
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
30/31
278
Re:APN:Ol0-158-017-000 & Lincoln and lOth
Dear
Matthew Sundt,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me on April
5th
with regards to our
concerns about the McFarland project.
We purchased and renovated our home
in
2011
and
were under the impression
that Carmel had very stringent parameters for construction or renovation. With that
in
mind, we adhered to the original state of the building. We kept the fences n the
same location and built a fence abutting the original fence onto what
we
were told
was our property at the adjacent easement where
we
are the dominant tenants. The
fences have existed for many decades
n
the same location.
When we
were recently informed by the McFarlands' architect that they would be
taking back a portion
of
what we use for ingress/egress to our garage, we were
confused. Why would the McFarlands not advise us before we built a new fence,
or
tell us at some point in the last five years if here
was
a question as to the rights
of
property lines; the easement
was
recorded in 1902. Further, we were told
by
a long
time resident and neighbor that the fence has been in place for as long as she could
remember We photographed it, and it does look as such.
The McFarlands would be extending their yard into the path ofwhat we use to
access our garage adjacent to the easement, which would create an undue burden.
2
We
will
be
contacting the McFarlands soon n
an
attempt to resolve this issue
-
8/16/2019 McFarland 05-11-16
31/31
279
diplomatically, but ifwe are unable,
we
would like to attend any site meetings and
the formal City planning meeting.
Thank you again for your time, and we appreciate your efforts to inform us
of
any
developments.
Sincerely,
Michael and Valerie Hough
Sent
from y iPad
On Apr 15, 2016,
at
2:55PM,
Matthew
Sundt wrote:
Matthew
Sundt, City Planner
Office Hours: Monday Wednesday
and
Friday
Note: The Planning Counter s
do «l rom
noon t PM andcloses
t
4PNI or the
day
Cityof Cannel-by-the-Sea
831-6.20-2023
3