Appeal of The Planning Commission's Decision 11-01-16

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report
SR 2016-1206
November 1, 2016
Public Hearing
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY:
Marc Wiener, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director
APPROVED BY:
Chip Rerig, City Administrator
SUBJECT:
Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commissions decision to deny Design

Study (DS 15-217) and associated Coastal Development Permit application 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 applicant/property owner is Art
Chadwick.
RECOMMENDATION
Grant the appeal and approve Design Study (DS 15-217) and Coastal Development Permit applications
subject to the attached findings and conditions
BACKGROUND / SUMMARY
APPEAL:
The City Council is considering an appeal by the applicant/property owner, Art Chadwick, of the Planning
Commissions decision to deny a Design Study (DS 15-217) application for the construction of a new singlefamily residence.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project site is a 4,007-square foot lot 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 construct a new 2,072-square foot twostory residence consisting of 971 square feet on the ground level, and 517 square feet on the second level, a
144-square foot staircase and elevator, and a 440-square foot basement area that consists of two bedrooms.
A data table for the project is included as Attachment 4.
The proposed project includes the following major components:
1.
2.
3.
4.
demolition of the existing residence and attached garage;

site clearance, excavation and grading;
import engineered soils and materials;
backyard deck with fire pit;
5.
6.
7.
8.
new fencing on north, east and south sides;

Two gas fireplaces and two gas fire pits;
stone trim to front entry; and
steel windows with stone trim and sill.
BACKGROUND:
This project was originally approved by the Planning Commission on April 13, 2016. The neighboring property
owners to the south, Simeon and Sally Yencken, appealed the decision to the City Council. The City Council
considered the appeal on July 12, 2016, and remanded the application back to the Planning Commission with
specific direction. The design was revised to comply with the Councils direction and was considered by the
Planning Commission on September 14, 2016. Staff notes that the Planning Commission was leaning towards
accepting the design, but with a condition that the applicant revise the design of the windows on the rear
elevation to be consistent with the style of the residence. Rather than redesign the windows, the applicant, Art
Chadwick, requested that the Planning Commission deny the application. The applicant has appealed the
Planning Commissions denial. Staff notes that the windows on the rear elevation have since been redesigned,
which is discussed later in the report. The following is a timeline of the decisions for this project:
4/13/16 Planning Commission approved project
7/12/16 City Council considered neighbors appeal and remanded the application back to the PC
9/14/16 Planning Commission denied the project at the request of the applicant
11/1/16 City Council is considering applicants appeal of project denial
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The applicant contends that the project was revised to comply with all of the Councils previous
recommendations, which is the basis for the appeal. The minutes from the July 12, 2016 City Council meeting
are included as Attachment 5. As reflected in the meeting minutes, the final motion was not to completely
redesign the residence, but rather make specific changes. Below is a list of recommendations made by the
City Council (italics) and a staff analysis of how the applicant has complied with the recommendations. The
original proposed elevations and site plan reviewed by the Council are included as Attachment 8 and the
current plans are included as Attachment 10.
1. Revise the project so that a site coverage variance will not be necessary.
Staff Analysis The variance requested was to permit the property to exceed the maximum allowed site
coverage. The applicant reduced the overall site coverage, including the rear deck, in order to bring the
property into compliance. Accordingly, no variance is required.
2. To reduce mass and bulk, reduce the overall number of bay and oriel windows including the south side
second floor (at master bath).
Staff Analysis The south elevation bay window and accompanying roof extension (at master bath) have been
removed. In addition, two bay windows were removed from the rear (west) elevation. Staff notes that there
are other bay windows on the first floor of the rear elevation that the Council could require to further remove
bay windows.
3. Eliminate the second floor chimney on the north elevation.
Staff Analysis The second floor chimney on the north elevation has been eliminated.
4. Reduce the size of the main-floor and rooftop decks.

Staff Analysis - Both first floor level and upper level decks have been reduced in size. The first floor deck was
reduced from approximately 400 square feet to approximately 309 square feet, and the upper deck reduced
from approximately 474 square feet to approximately 312 square feet.
5. Reduce grading on the site and conform to the natural topography to the extent possible.
Staff Analysis The main level deck is an elevated structure above the ground level and so precludes the
need for backfill. The applicant could reduce the size of the basement space, however, this would have little
effect on the appearance of the site or residence.
6. The Council indicated a willingness to allow a smaller version of the south-facing second-story window.
Staff Analysis The applicant has re-inserted this window as advised by the City Council. Staff notes that the
Council did not have the opportunity to evaluate the potential privacy impact from the southern neighbors
residence to the extent that the Planning Commission did. In staffs opinion, the proposed window will create a
privacy impact and it should be eliminated or significantly reduced in size to a maximum of 12 x12. The
Council could condition the project with a requirement that the southern window be eliminated.
DESIGN CONCERNS:
At the July City Council meeting, concerns were raised with the amount of excavation associated with the
basement. Staff notes that Citys Municipal Code encourages basement spaces by allowing bonus basement
floor area and Residential Design Guideline 7.2 states an objective to locate some floor area fully or partially
below grade. Many residential projects in Carmel include basement space, in particular on sites that are
sloped such as this one. For these reasons staff supports the proposal for a basement.
The Council also considered whether the project would override the natural topography of the site, as
discouraged by Residential Design Guideline 3.0. The applicants original proposal included a much greater
amount of excavation and backfill, which would have altered the natural topography. However, the design was
revised and as proposed the existing slope and topography of the site will be maintained around the residence.
The proposed basement is only visible from the rear elevation and will be undetectable from the side and front
elevations.
Former City Council Member, Victoria Beach, has submitted a packet (Attachment 7) on behalf of herself and
the southern neighbor (Yencken) expressing concerns with the project. One of the primary issues raised is
that the west (rear) elevation would have a three-story appearance and would negatively impact the view from
the beach, which is in violation of Residential Design Guideline 7.7 and the Coastal Act. The Planning
Commission evaluated this issue at the September 14, 2016 meeting, which included viewing the project site
from the beach during the tour of inspection. At the public hearing several commissioners stated that they did
not believe that the project would create a three-story appearance from the beach. The applicant has provided
three-dimensional renderings from the beach perspective (Attachment 9) depicting the proposed new
residence. The proposed new residence is 4 feet lower than the existing residence, and in staffs opinion, will
not create a three-story appearance given that the bottom level is subgrade and screened by a fence.
The Letter provided by Mrs. Beach also implies that more open space is needed around the residence in order
to create a park-like setting, which is a reference to Residential Design Guideline 4.1. Staff notes that the
proposed residence has a relatively compact footprint. The composite side-yard setback of the residence is
16.5 feet, which exceeds the minimum requirement of 13 feet. In addition, the proposed rear setback is 25.5
feet, which exceeds the minimum requirement of 15 feet.
WINDOW DESIGN:
Residential Design Guideline 9.11 states that window styles and materials should be consistent with the
architecture, and window styles and materials should be uniform throughout a building. At the September
Planning Commission meeting, staff identified that the windows on the rear elevation are more characteristic of
a contemporary design and not necessarily consistent with the proposed style (Mediterranean) of the
residence. Staff notes that it is common for residences in the coastal area of the City (Scenic and San
Antonio) to have large open glass windows on west elevation for view purposes that do not always match the
architectural style of the residence. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission felt that the window design on the
rear elevation should be revised. One commissioner was in the process of making a motion to continue the
application to address the window design, when the applicant stood up and requested a denial rather than a
continuance. Staff notes that since the project denial, the applicant has revised the design of the rear windows
by arching some of the windows and by adding divided lights. In staffs opinion, the revised windows are more
consistent with the style of the residence and with the other windows on the front and side elevations. The
original proposed elevations reviewed by the Council in July 2016 are included as Attachment 8 for
comparison.
ALTERNATIVES:
Given the history of decisions for this project and the nature of why it was denied, staff recommends that the
City Council grant the appeal and approve Design Study (DS 15-217) and Coastal Development Permit
applications. Draft findings and conditions of approval are included for Council consideration. As an
alternative, the Council could take the following actions:
1.
2.
3.
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.
Remand the application to the Planning Commission with specific direction.
Deny the application request and direct staff to prepare findings for denial based on deliberation
at the November 1, 2016 public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS:

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-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.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
FISCAL IMP
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION

On July 12, 2016, the City Council considered an appeal of this project and remanded it to the Planning
Commission with specific recommendations.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Appeal Application
2. Findings for Approval
3. Conditions of Approval
4. Project Data Table
5. CC Minutes (7/12/16)
6. Neighbor Support Letters
7. Victoria Beach Opposition Letter
8. Original Elevations and Site Plan (CC reviewed 7/12/16)
9. Project Renderings (from beach perspective)
10. Project Plans
Attachment 1 - Appeal Application
Eric Miller Architects Inc.
Fax: (831) _____

37_2:1.1_Q_ _ _~-9/1 4/16
Appt~als
to the Ci~r C'owtcil must be n;ade in 1rriting in the:: ~..?lfhc (~! rhe C'i(v Clerk within
10 ~voddng da.v.sfoll1JHJiug the d~t.c ofactior; by 1he Plraudng ('omrN:is~iau and pa.ving
tlu requil'eo'fi.'lingfee c1s establishe{l by Cit.r Cczmc.:il reschnicn.
Phys~icallocaticn
c.f ftcpeny that
i~
the subject (,f nppr,-aJ
COJ\1JvUSSION ACTiON BEING APPEi\LED:
If you \\:ere N(JT th~ original :Applican! or the :"tppHcarn 's repn;s~ntt:ti:ive, ;1lease tt~t.: the
~-v~Jrnce tnat ycu ar~ aD aggrieved l~any:
----------------------------------~---------
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 letter or other material to explain your appeal.
I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT:
DATEDTHIS
l~DAYOF ~~ ,~
Receipt#:
~MPORTANT:
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
+-------------- - ------------------------------------------ --------------------+

I September 15, 2 016
*****************************
Receipt # .. : 67968
I Thursday 1 0 : 00 am
*City o f Carmel-by-the-Sea*
Register#.: 000
I By:
*****************************
Terminal ID: T91
I
P.O. BOX CC CARMEL, CA. 93921
I
1----------------------------------------------------------------------------l I.D. Numbe r
Amount Paid
1--------------------------------------------------- -- -----------------------APEAL
APPEAL FEES
304.82
Cmt: 16-390 CHADWICK
01 36276 0010
Check # Check Amount

001509
304.82
Cash
. 00
Amt Tendered
Total Paid
304.82
304.8 2
Change
.00
Paid By . : ERIC MILLER ARCHITECTS

+--------------------------- -- ------------ - --------- - ---------------- - -------- +
DS 15-217 (Chadwick)
November 1, 2016
Findings for Approval
Page 1
Attachment 2 Findings for Approval
FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR DESIGN STUDY APPROVAL (CMC 17.64.8 and LUP Policy P1-45) 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
1. The project conforms with all zoning standards applicable to the site, or has
received appropriate use permits and/or variances consistent with the zoning
ordinance.
2. The project is consistent with the Citys design objectives for protection and
enhancement of the urbanized forest, open space resources and site design. The
projects 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 of the 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 Citys 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.
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
NO
November 1, 2016
Findings for Approval
Page 2
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 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 reasonably
relate to good design principles and specific site conditions.
VARIANCE FINDINGS (CMC 17.64.210)
YES
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 under
the same limitations of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
limitations on other property in the vicinity and within the same zone;
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 of the 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.B.1):
1. Local Coastal Program Consistency: The project conforms with the certified Local
Coastal Program of the City of Carmel-by-the Sea.
NO
YES
NO
Attachment 3 Conditions of Approval

November 1, 2016
Conditions of Approval
Page 1
No.
Standard Conditions
1.
Authorization: This 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, steel windows and wood 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 setback 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 permit. 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-tolerant; 2) landscaped areas shall be irrigated by a
drip/sprinkler system set on a timer; and 3) the project shall meet the Citys
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.
November 1, 2016
Page 2
5.
Trees on the site shall only be removed upon the approval of the 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 without prior 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 building
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, this permit will be
scheduled for reconsideration and the appropriate findings will be prepared for
review and adoption by the Planning Commission.
8.
The applicant shall submit in writing to the Community 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 either the Planning Commission
or staff has approved the change; or b) eliminate the change and submit the
proposed change in writing for review. The project will be reviewed for 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.
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 faade shall be installed in a broken course/random or 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,
9.
November 1, 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 steel-framed divided light windows. Any window pane
dividers, which are snap-in, or otherwise superficially applied, are not permitted.
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.
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.
15.
This project is subject to a volume study.
16.
Approval of this Design Study shall be valid only with approval of a Variance.
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.
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 Citys 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
shall adhere to any recommendations set forth in the archaeological report. All
new construction involving excavation shall immediately cease if materials of
19a.
November 1, 2016
Page 4
19b.
20.
21.
22.
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.
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.
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.
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
The applicant shall plant TWO lower-canopy trees from the Citys 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.
*Acknowledgement and acceptance of conditions of approval.

______________________________
Property Owner Signature
___________________________
Printed Name
__________
Date
Once signed, please return to the Community Planning and Building Department.
Attach 5 - CC Minutes
City Cou ncil Meeting Minutes
July 12, 2016
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Mayor Dallas called the meeting to order at 2:30PM.
ROLL CALL:
Present:
Council Members Hardy, Richards, Theis and Mayor Dallas
Absent:
Council Member Reimers
Staff:
Chip Rerig, City Administrator

Ashlee Wright, City Clerk
TOUR OF INSPECTION
The Council proceeded to the Lehman property located on Vizcaino, 11 SE of Mountain View
and the Chadwick property located on Scenic Road, 2 NW of ath Avenue.
CLOSED SESSION
The Council reconvened in the Council Chambers at 3:30PM and Mayor Dallas announced the
Closed Session items.
Present:
Council Members Hardy, Reimers, Richards, Theis and Mayor Dallas
Absent:
None
Staff:
Chip Rerig , City Administrator

Mike Calhoun, Public Safety Director
Item A:
LABOR NEGOTIATIONS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
Agency Designated Representatives: Zutler
Employee Organization: Ambulance
Item 8:
LITIGATION ONE MATTER

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA Pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9:
1 cases Order Instituting Investigation and Order to Show Cause on the
Commission's Own Motion into the Operations and Practices of Pacific Gas and
Electric Company with respect to Facilities Records for its Natural Gas
Distribution System Pipelines. Investigation 14-11-008 (Filed November 20,
2014)
Item C:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(1)
City Council Meeting Minutes

July 12, 2016
Name of Case: Jennifer Da Silva, Plaintiff v. City of Ca rmel-by-the-Sea,
Monterey County Superior Court Case No. M132929
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(D)(1)
Name of Case: Victoria Beach, Plaintiff v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Monterey
County Superior Court Case No. 165C000631
Item D:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- ANTICIPATED LITIGATION

Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code
Section 54956.9: 2 cases
There were no public comments. Council adjourned to Closed Session at 3:32PM.

OPEN SESSION
Council Resumed in Open Session at 4:35PM.
Present:
Council Members Hardy, Reimers, Richards, Theis and Mayor Dallas
Absent:
None
Staff:
Chip Rerig , City Administrator

Don Freeman, City Attorney
Ash lee Wright, City Clerk
Janet Bombard, Library and Community Activities Director
Rob Mullane, Public Works Director
Sharon Friedrichsen, Director of Budgets and Contracts
Marc Wiener, Interim Planning Director
Paul Tomasi , Police Commander
Mike Calhoun, Public Safety Director
Paul Wood, Finance Manager
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Paul Tomasi, Police Commander, led the pledge of allegiance.
City Attorney Don Freeman announced that Council received updates on Closed Session Items
A, B, C, and D and that there were no announcements for the public.
EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS
Janet Bombard, Library and Community Activities Director, introduced Lori Aiello, Community
Activities Assistant, Beth Rosenblum, Reference Librarian, Jennifer Hall, Libra ry Assistant, Katie
O'Connell, Local History Librarian, and Tina Spellman, Library Assistant.
PUBLIC APPEARANCES
The following members of the public spoke during public appearances: Kim Stemler, Eric
Winecoop, and Victoria Beach.
EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS
Sue McCloud, Tom Brocato and Barbara Livingston provided an update on Centennial
Committee Activities.
City Counci l Meeting Minutes

July 12, 2016
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Reimers announced that she attended performances of The Borrowers at the
Forest Theater and Mary Poppins at the PacRep Theater and encouraged others to attend.
Council Member Hardy announced that Monterey-Salinas Transit has purchased offices in Ryan
Ranch and will be remodeling their old office to function as repair bays. She also stated that
California State University, Monterey Bay staff and students are allowed to ride public transit for
free and that Monterey-Salinas Transit and has recently conducted a successful ridership
campaign. Hardy announced that those interested in Highway 68 roundabout updates should
sign-up on the Transportation Agency of Monterey County webpage and that the Transportation
Agency of Monterey County was moving forward to the Monterey County Board of Supervisors
for approval of the sales tax increase.
Mayor Dallas thanked staff and volunteers for their efforts at the 4th of July celebration and
stated that the marketing workshop, held Monday, July 11, was good.
CONSENT AGENDA
Action: Upon a motion made by Mayor Pro Tern Theis, seconded by Council Member Hardy,
Council unanimously approved the Consent Agenda as follows:
Item 1:
Minutes. Approved, 5:0
Item 2:
Check Register for May. Approved, 5:0
Item 3:
Monthly Reports for May. Approved, 5:0
Item 4:
AB 1145 Consideration of a resolution authorizing the City Administrator to renew

the jail services agreement with the City of Monterey for use of its jail facilities.
Adopted Resolution 2016-041, 5:0
Item 5:
AB 1146 Consideration of the adoption of a resolution authorizing the City

Administrator to accept donations for the centennial parade floats total ing
$43,000. Adopted Resolution 2016-042, 5:0
Item 6:
AB 1147 Consideration of a resolution authorizing City co-sponsorship of the

Carmel Public Library Foundation's annual Donor Salute at the Main Library on
Sunday, March 5, 2017. Adopted Resolution 2016-043, 5:0
Item 7:
AB 1148 Authorization of the City Administrator to send a letter authorizing the

County of Monterey to execute all documents necessary to continue to
implement the annual Used Oil Payment Program (OPP) 7th Cycle, FY 20162017 on behalf of the City. Authorized, 5:0
Item 8:
AB 1149 Consideration of resolutions authorizing the City Administrator to enter

into various services agreements for planning, portable toilets and storm water
related services in a total amount not to exceed $79,000 for all services.
Adopted Resolution 2016-044, Resolution 2016-045, Resolution 2016-046,
Resolution 2016-047, Resolution 2016-048, 5:0
City Counci l Meeting Minutes

July 12, 2016
Item 9:
AB 1150 Consideration of the adoption of an environmentally preferred

purchasing policy. Adopted Policy C16-003, 5:0
Item 10:
AB 1151 Consideration of the adoption a resolution establishing and adopting the

job descriptions and salary ranges for 1. Code Compliance Coordinator and 2.
Environmental Compliance Manager. Adopted Resolution 2016-050, 5:0
Council Member Reimers made comments on the following items:

Item 8:
AS 1149 Consideration of resolutions authorizing the City Administrator to enter

into various services agreements for planning, portable toilets and storm water
related services in a total amount not to exceed $79,000 for all services.
Item 9:
purchasing
AS 1150 Consideration of the adoption of an environmentally preferred

policy.
Item 10:
AS 1151 Consideration of the adoption a resolution establishing and adopting the

job descriptions and salary ranges for 1. Code Compliance Coordinator and 2.
Environmental Compliance Manager.
City Administrator Chip Rerig responded to Council Member Reimers questions.

There were no public comments.
ORDERS OF BUSINESS
Item 11:
AB 1152 Consideration of the disbursement of marketing funds to MCCVB,

Carmel Chamber of Commerce and Burghardt+Dore.
City Administrator Chip Rerig provided a brief staff report.

At the invitation of Mayor Dallas Rob O'Keefe Vice President/ Chief Marketing Officer for the
Monterey County Convention and Visitors' Bureau and Monta Potter, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Carmel Chamber of Commerce.
Public Comments
The following members of the public spoke on this item: Barbara Livingston.
---End Public Comments--Council discussion followed .
Action: Upon a motion made by Mayor Pro Tem Theis, seconded by Council Member Reimers,
Council moved to allocate at least $120,000 to Burghardt+Dore, and allocate 50% of funds to
the Carmel Chamber of Commerce and the Monterey County Convention and Visitors' Bureau.
5:0

July 12, 2016
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item 12:
AB 1154 Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Carmel-bythe-Sea amending chapters 17.08.040, 17.1 4.030, 17.64.190, 17.64.220,
17 .68.040, and of the Municipal Code in accordance with state housing law.
Marc Wiener, Interim Planning Director provided the staff report, responded to Council
questions and provided clarifications.
Public Comments - None
Action: Upon a motion made by Council Member Reimers, seconded by Council Member
Richards, Council moved to waive reading in full and adopt on first reading an ordinance
amending chapters 17.08.040, 17.14.030, 17.64.190, 17.64.220 and 17.68.040 of the Carmelby-the-Sea Municipal Code in accordance with state housing law. 5:0
Item 13:
AB 1153 Consideration of the adoption of an ordinance amending Sub-Section A

of Section 1.16.01 dealing with citing violations of the City's Municipal Code.
City Attorney Don Freeman provided the staff report, responded to Council questions and
provided clarifications .
Public Comment:
The following members of the public spoke on this item: Michael LePage and Barbara
Livingston.
---End Public Comment--Council discussion followed.
Action: Upon a motion made by Council Member Hardy, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Theis,
Council moved to waive reading in full and adopt on first reading an ordinance amending
Section 1.16.01, Violations and Penalties, of the Carmel by the Sea Municipal Code by adding
Sub-Section 1.16.01A. 5:0
Item 14:
AB 1155 Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to

approve a Design Study (OS 16-069) and associated Coasta l Development
Permit for the demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new
residence located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. The
application is being appealed by neighboring property owners: Eric Hannah and
Lucille Biesbroeck-Hannah.

July 12, 2016
Council Member Reimers recused herself from hearing Items 1155 and 1156 because she has
previously made decisions about these items while serving on the Planning Commission and
she left the dais.
City Attorney Don Freeman provided further clarification on this recusal.
Council Member Richards and Mayor Dallas disclosed that they had both been contacted by
and spoke with the property owner, Gail Lehman.
Marc Wiener, Interim Planning Director, provided the staff report, responded to Council
Appellants Lucille Biesbroeck-Hannah and Eric Hannah spoke on this item and responded to
Council questions
Representative for the property owner Alan Lehman spoke on th is item and responded to
Council questions.
Public Comments - None
Appellants Lucille Biesbroeck-Hannah and Eric Hannah provided a rebuttal to comments made
by property owner representative Alan Lehman
Marc Wiener, Interim Planning Director provided further clarifications.
Council discussion followed .
Action: Upon a motion made by Council Member Hardy, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Theis ,
Council moved to deny the appeal and approve Design Study (OS 16-069) and the associated
Coastal Development Permit subject to the attached findings and cond itions. 4:0:1 (Council
Member Reimers recused)
Item 15:

approve Design Study (OS 15-217), Coastal Development Permit and Variance
(VA 16-070) applications for the demolition of an existing res idence and
construction of a new residence located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1 ).
Beach and Riparian (BR) and Archaeological Significance (AS) Overlay Zoni ng
Districts. The application is being appealed by neighboring property owners:
Simeon and Sally Yencken .
Marc Wiener, Interim Planning Director, provided the staff report, responded to Council
Victoria Beach spoke on behalf of the appellant on this item and responded to Council
questions.
Architect Eric Miller spoke on behalf of the applicant on this item and responded to Council
questions.

July 12, 2016
Public Comment:
The following members of the public spoke on this item: Barbara Livingston.
---End Public Comment--Attorney for the applicant Anthony Lombardo and applicant Art Chadwick provided a rebuttal,
provided further comments on this item, and responded to Council questions.
Attorney for the appellant Pamela Silkwood provided a rebuttal.
Marc Wiener, Interim Planning Director provided further clarifications.
Council discussion followed .
Action: Upon a motion made by Mayor Pro Tem Theis, seconded by Council Member Hardy,
Council moved to uphold the appeal and deny Design Study (OS 15-217), Coastal Development
Permit and Variance (VA 16-070), and to remand this item back to the Planning Commission
and to direct the Planning Commissioners to consider the following items suggested by the
Council: bay windows with excess roofs , incorporate a window on the south elevation, reduce
non-wood-burning chimney, reduce the area of the family room deck to eliminate the need for a
variance, reduce the area of the upper deck, and to support the underground garage as
proposed.
Item 16:

deny the reissuance of Design Review, Use Permit, and Coasta l Development
Permit applications for the redevelopment of the Carmel Sands hotel located in
the Service Commercial (SC) and Multi-Family Residential (R-4) Zoning Distri cts
(New planning application case numbers: DR 14-36 and UP 14-20).
NOTE:
This item will be continued to the August 2, 2016 Regular Meeting.
Action: None
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Grant Application Program

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business Mayor Dallas adjourned the meeting at 8:25PM.
APPROVED:
~
Steve G. Dallas, Mayor
ATTEST:
t0hw~
Attachment 6 - Support Letter
77 Flood Circle
Atherton, CA 94027
July 11, 2016
Dear Mayor and Council,

We are overwhelming supportive of the proposed Chadwick project at Scenic 2
NW of g th . The new Chadwick home is beautifully designed and fits in well with
t he character and charm of Carmel-by-the Sea. It will be a wonderful upgrade to
the existing home which looks like an ugly painted plywood box.
We are homeowners living at Scenic and gth and applaud all efforts to improve the
look and feel of the neighborhood. The Chadwick project will be a very welcome
addition.
Sincerely,
Jo:n ~~~:cque J~11 ~(t-
July II, 2016

To Carmel Planning Commission:
We are in support of Eric Miller's design for the house on Scenic and 8th
We used Eric on our Carmel house and found him to be very respective of the Carmel
architecture and appropriateness of the design to the environment.
Thank you
Lisa and Steven Schatz
Fred & Joanne Medero

3, SW 11th Avenue
Carmel, CA 93921
June 29, 2016
Carmel City Council
Community Planning and Building Department
Post Office Drawer G
Carmel - by-the-Sea, CA 93921
Dear Council Members,
As Carmel-by-the-Sea homeowners, we are writing to support the Carmel Planning Commissions
approval of the building permit and plans for property located at Scenic, 2 NW 8th Avenue by Art and
Farah Chadwick. The Commissions approval of the plans and permit has been appealed.
We have reviewed the drawings and details of those plans supporting the permit. It is our opinion that
the scale, height and esthetic appeal of the proposed structure are completely appropriate for the site
and location and are consistent with, and will complimentary the standards of the Carmel community.
Thus, we urge you to deny that appeal so that construction can proceed immediately.
If there are questions or additional information would be useful, please contact us at mobile #415-9390091. Thank you.
Sincerely,
_____________________
Fred Medero
___________________
Joanne Medero
Mayor Steve G. Dallas

Carmel - by-the-Sea, CA 93921.
Dear Mayor Dallas,

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 Carmel1 they are people who care about family and
about the community.
I grew up in Carmel and I now own our family 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 sustaining
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.J
think Farah and Art are the kind of people we want as neighbors and as members of our
community.
Sincerely,
H- a frlfl?vf{r
Joseph A murphy
Planning Commission
Community Planning and Building Department
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 8th. I know Farah and Art and I think they will be good neighbors.
They are the kind of people we need in Carmet they are people who care about family and
about the community.
I grew up in Carmel and I now own our family 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 sustaining
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 8th.,
think Farah and Art are the kind of people we want as neighbors and as members of our
community.
Sincerely,
Joseph A murphy
Attach 7 - Beach Opposition Packet
victoria beach
Box 1244 Carmel-By-The-Sea CA 93921 831.915.5093
Dear Marc, Matthew, and Planning staff,
18 Aug 2016
I read with interest Matthews July 18th letter containing his keen enumeration of the issues Council Members
raised about the Chadwick project at their July meeting. To summarize his list, they found the following to be
problematic: (1) the proposed variance, (2-5) excessive mass and bulk , (6) inconsistent architectural detailing,
(7) non-conformance with site topography, (8) previously identified privacy impacts. With some small
additions, these observations almost completely cover the problems raised by my presentation as well.
Matthews list also captured some Council Members detailed design solution speculations; specific ideas such
as reducing decks, windows, and the like. Since design teams obviously have sole responsibility for proposing
compliant designs, the Councils detailed design thoughts should be treated as examples of ways in which the
project was then non-compliant, but cannot be treated as design instructions for the next de novo hearing.
In fact, it is worth noting that it is a common, very human, mistake for those of us trying to uphold village
regulations, to get drawn into the role of referee for detailed design negotiations between applicants and other
private parties. This is so common that often it is a winning strategy for applicants to mischaracterize neighbors
as making selfish demands in their own private interest when actually they are just bearing witness to noncompliance with public regulations. This mischaracterization deliberately sidetracks public deliberations into
private negotiations. Eventually, even designs that remain out of compliance begin to feel acceptable because
the appearance of an unresolvable or petty private dispute wears down the patience of the public officials.
The legally required path for these procedures is, instead, for city officials to evaluate proposed projects solely on
whether they meet the letter and the spirit of village regulations. Once projects do this, there should be no
need for negotiations with offended parties, nor should there even be offended parties. To this end, I would
like to again commend Matthews capturing of the main public themes that the Council covered and just
mention some additional regulatory observations, whose legal sources can be found, in part, on an attached
checklist as well as on the attached presentation from the Council meeting.
1. The preliminary site assessment, which should identify all public and private site issues (including neighbor
privacy) must be used in the review process.
2. Views from the beach are legally protected and must be specially reviewed and restored per the Coastal Act.
3. New construction must minimize bulk and cannot appear to be taller than two stories. (Since the
neighboring property to the south is two stories, it provides a good benchmark for the approximate height of
any proposed new building.)
4. Enough space of enough variety must be reserved around the home to create a continuous park-like
environment of open space and vegetation that blends with and enhances the surrounding environment.
5. All new buildings must have stylistic integrity and consistency, regardless of existing violations of this rule.
6. There is no special physical hardship on the project site that would support any variance.
Thank you for your hard work on this critical site,
Victoria Beach
Checklist for Chadwick Project

_____ 1. Respect Adjoining Properties Privacy:
A. Avoid windows & balconies overlooking active areas of adjacent properties for privacy of indoor and
outdoor spaces (Design Guidelines 5.1-5.3.)1
B. Sensitively place windows, doors, balconies and decks to respect adjoining properties privacy (General
Plan Goal 1-2; General Plan Policy 1-51; Municipal Code 17.10.010.G2)
C. Avoid positioning a large window (greater than 12 sq ft) along a side wall that would impact the privacy
of an adjacent neighbor. (Design Guideline 9.12. iv)
_____ 2. Reduce Public Viewshed Impact From Carmel Beach Park:

A. Appearance should be no more than two stories in height when viewed from public area. (Design
Guideline G7.7. 3)
B. Locate two story element downhill out of the public view. (Design Guideline G7.7.v)
C. Protect and restore views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas. (California Coastal Act
30251. 4)
D. Development must be subordinate to the character of the setting. (California Coastal Act 30251. vi)
_____ 3. Reduce Bulk and Work with Existing Site and Topography:
A. Maintain Carmels enduring principles of modesty and simplicity. (Municipal Code 17.10.010.D.5)
B. Do not present excess visual mass or bulk to public view or to adjoining properties. (Municipal Code
17.10.010.D.i)
C. Avoid oversized design elements. (General Plan Goal 1-2; General Plan Policy 1-40; Municipal Code
17.10.010.E6) - Appropriately size chimneys, overhangs, windows, doors, dormers, porches, entries and
deck relative to the building. (Design Guideline 9.3. 7)
D. Avoid grand entryways, windows and doors that are out of proportion with the human form. (Design
Guideline 9.3.iii)
E. Limit the use of specialty [bay or oriel] windows that add to building bulk. (Design Guideline 9.12.8)
F. Respects the constraints of the site and avoids excessive grading, cuts and fills. (Municipal Code
17.58.060.C.3.9)
_____ 4. Maximize Perception of Open Space:

A. Stagger setbacks with respect to adjacent properties to avoid a "canyon effect." (Design Guideline
4.4. 10)
B. Maximize perception of open space through side yard space as they relate to the adjoining property.
(Design Guideline 4.4.11)
_____ 5. Fully Integrate Architectural Style and Details throughout the Design:
A. Provide architectural style and associated details that are authentic and fully integrated throughout the
design. (Design Guideline 9.4; Municipal Code 17.58.060.C.6.12)
B. Avoid the application of special materials or design treatments to just the street facade. (Design
Guideline 9.4.ix)
C. Window styles and materials should be consistent with the architecture, and window styles and
materials should be uniform throughout a building. (Design Guideline 9.11. 13)
_____ 6. No Variance Findings (Municipal Code 17.64.21014 ):

A. No special physical circumstances
B. Detrimental to adjoining properties
C. Condition too general and reoccurring throughout the City
D. Conflicts with General Plan and zoning objectives
E. Sets a bad precedent
SCENIC ROAD APPEAL

applicant property
beach looking north
beach looking south
1. structure in special position did not have SPECIAL REVIEW

applicant property
applicant
property
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
special property needs SPECIAL coastal REVIEW & is required to

RESTORE degraded VIEWS and subordinate building to its setting
minimize bulk & PREVENT APPEARANCE over 2 STORIES
MAXIMIZE and vary OPEN SPACE for park-like environment
DETAIL the architectural style AUTHENTICALLY & consistently
DENY VARIANCES for recurrent, detrimental cases
2. VIOLATES Coastal Act on VIEW PROTECTION along beach
MUNICIPAL CODE 17.10.010.J
restore visual quality in visually degraded areas

restore visual quality in visually deg
preserveviews from the public right-of-way in conformance with Section 30251 of the California Coastal Act
visually degraded areas
CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT 3.6.30251

development must protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, restore visual quality in
visually degraded areas and be visually compatible with and subordinate to the character of its setting
MUNICIPAL CODE 17.58.060.C.2

The project contributes to neighborhood character including the type of forest resources present, the character
of the street, the response to local topography and the treatment of open space resources such as setbacks and
landscaping.
GENERAL PLAN O1-8.P1-43

&
DESIGN GUIDELINE 1.0
The informal, vegetated, character of open space in the right of way should be maintained. Each site should
contribute to the urban forest by saving significant trees and planting new ones that are consistent with the context.
Trees in the right-of-way should not be removed.
subordinate design to setting
3. APPEARS OVER 2 STORIES & does not minimize bulk
A building should appear to be no more than two stories in height, as viewed from the public
right-of-way. Presenting a one-story height to the street is encouraged. Locate two story elements
downhill, except where this would appear dominant or out of scale when views from the public
right-of-way or a neighboring home.
GENERAL PLAN 1-2.O1-8.P1-39 / MUNI CODE 17.10.010.C
designs shall take advantage of site topography, vegetation and slopework with these limitations,
rather than ignoring them or trying to override them.
GENERAL PLAN 1-2.O1-8.P1-40 / MUNI CODE 17.10.010.D
Buildings shall not present excess visual mass or bulk to public view or to adjoining properties.
Large box-like buildingsappear massive.
GENERAL PLAN 1-2.O1-8.P1-40 / MUNI CODE 17.10.010.E
Buildings shall relate to a human scale in their forms, elementsdoors, windows Oversized
design elements make structures appear dominating and monumental. This out-of-scale character
vitiatesvillage character& shall be avoided.

The project is compatible with, and sensitive to, the natural features and built environment of the site
and of the surrounding area. The project respects the constraints of the site and avoids excessive
grading, cuts and fills.
MUNICIPAL CODE 17.10.030.D.1
whether finished or unfinishedfloor area shall include, but shall not be limited tospaces
within all building, basements, mezzanines, guesthouses, studios, garages and carports. All attic,
basement and storage shed spaces with five or more feet of clearance between the floor or walking
surface and the ceiling or roof surfaceAll required parkingwhether supplied by garage, carport or
other means.
4. does not MAXIMIZE nor VARY OPEN SPACE

Preferred
GENERAL PLAN 1-2.O1-8.P1-41
/enhance
MUNI
CODE 17.10.010.H
the park-like environment of the City. Open space should
be distributed around buildings
MUNI
CODE 17.58.060.C.7
The project is consistent with the Citys design objectives for
protection and enhancement of the urbanized forest and open
space resources. Open space is distributed around buildings to
provide visual relief from structural bulk and a distinct separation
from buildings on adjacent sites.
MUNI
CODE 17.58.010.A.2
preserve the traditional characteristics of scale, good site design,
and sensitivity to neighboring properties
MUNI
CODE 17.58.010.A.3
maintain compatibility with the Citys forest setting as well as the
site designused in surrounding structures
MUNI
CODE 17.58.010.A.4
respect privacy,and private views of neighboring properties
a significant portion of each site should remain as landscaped
open space
DESIGN
GUIDELINE 4.2
locate open space such that it visually links with that of adjacent
properties
DESIGN
GUIDELINE 4.3
stagger front setbacks to frame outdoor spaces and provide variety
in the arrangement of buildings and open spaces along the street
DESIGN
GUIDELINE 4.4
Variety in side yard setbacks is encouraged. Stagger setbacks
with respect to adjacent properties to avoid a canyon effect- Consider how the side yard space may relate to that of the
adjoining property to maximize the perception of open space.
Discouraged
5a. architecture is DETAILED INCONSISTENTLY and inauthentically

MUNI CODE 17.58.060.C.6
Project details and materials (e.g.,

windows, doors, chimneys, roofs, and
stonework) are fully integrated and
consistent throughout the design.
Building materials are used in a manner
that is visually consistent with the
proposed architecture. All fenestration is
appropriate in size and consistent with a
human scale.
SoCal
Spanish Colonial
Building details should be used to provide

interest and not exaggerate the scale of a
building. Appropriately sized chimneys,
overhangs, windows, doors, dormers,
porches, entries and decks can be used
to reduce scale and achieve a wellintegrated design. Making any of these
elements oversized can exaggerate the
buildings scale and should be avoided.
Avoid grand entryways, windows and
doors that are out of proportion with the
human form. Avoid ostentatious design
treatments.
Architectural details should appear to be

authentic, integral elements of the overall
building design concept. When design
details and surface material are selected
they should be used throughout the full
exterior of the building to maintain
consistency. Avoid the application of
special materials or design treatments to
just the street facade.
Window styles and materials should be

consistent with the architecture of the
building. Window styles and materials
should be uniform throughout a
building.
Locate and size windows and doors to

achieve a human scale wile avoiding mass
and privacy impacts. Avoid positioning a
large window (greater than 12 sq ft) along
a side wall that would impact the privacy of
an adjacent neighbor. Limit the use of
specialty [bay or oriel] windows that add to
building bulk. Fenestration should not
overwhelm the architecture. Where
views are desired, architectural styles
which accommodate wider window
configuration should be considered.
5b. windows are oversized & ARCHITECTURALLY INAUTHENTIC

Encouraged
Where views
are desired
architectural styles
which accommodate
wider window
configuration should be
considered.
Project details and materials (e.g., windows, doors, chimneys, roofs, and stonework) are fully integrated and consistent
throughout the design. Building materials are used in a manner that is visually consistent with the proposed architecture. All
fenestration is appropriate in size and consistent with a human scale.
DESIGN
GUIDELINE 9.11
Window styles and materials should be consistent with the architecture of the building. Window styles and materials
should be uniform throughout a building.
Locate and size windows and doors to achieve a human scale while avoiding mass and privacy impacts. Avoid positioning a
large window (greater than 12 sq ft) along a side wall that would impact the privacy of an adjacent neighbor. Limit the use of
specialty [bay or oriel] windows that add to building bulk. Fenestration should not overwhelm the architecture. Where views
are desired, architectural styles which accommodate wider window configuration should be considered.
6. VARIANCE UNWARRANTED: no special physical circumstances

MUNICIPAL
CODE 17.52.070
Only when the findings listed in CMC 17.64.210, Variance, can be supported shall the Planning Commission grant a variance. (Ord. 2004-02 1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 1, 2004).
MUNICIPAL
CODE 17.64.210.A
That due to special physical circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance will deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity which were developed under the same limitations of the Zoning Ordinance;
MUNICIPAL
CODE 17.64.210.B
That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations on other property in the vicinity and within the same zone;
MUNICIPAL
CODE 17.64.210.C
That the variance will not be detrimental to adjacent property or injurious to public health, safety or welfare;
MUNICIPAL
CODE 17.64.210.D
That the condition or situation of the property for which the variance is sought is not so general or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable or practical the formulation of a
general regulation to address such condition or situation;
MUNICIPAL
CODE 17.64.210.E
That the situation or condition for which the variance is sought was not the result of actions of the existing or any prior owner of the property;
MUNICIPAL
CODE 17.64.210.F
That granting the variance will not be in conflict with the General Plan, or the general zoning objectives of the district within which the affected property lies. (Ord. 2004-02
1, 2004; Ord. 2004-01 1, 2004).
15% site slope is similar to vicinity slopes

slopes less than 15% are NOT considered steep
slopes greater than 30% are considered steep
MUNI
CODE 17.06.020
steep, non-buildable areas have slopes greater than 30%
Applicant property has slope under 15%, virtually
identical to abutting and neighboring properties along
the block.
Due to allegedly steep slope applicant is seeking 44%
site coverage or 792sf, standard coverage is 22% of base
floor area or 396sf, surface types can increase allowable
coverage to be allocated only toward driveways per
Applicants nine-foot-wide driveway occupies 151sf, making
the maximum site coverage with bonus 547sf (396sf
+151sf).
MUNI
CODE 17.10.030.C.1.b
If at least 50 percent of all site coverage on the property is
made of permeable or semi-permeable materials, an
additional amount of site coverage of up to four percent of
the site area may be allowed for use in a single driveway of
up to nine feet in width.
1. a dozen regulations cited so far, but about 50 REGULATIONS apply

12/15 STAFF REPORT
DG 1.1-1.4 on maintaining a forest image on the site
CMC 17.34.070 on requiring upper and lower canopy trees
DG 3.2 on minimizing excavation and fill and following the natural contours of the site
DG 3.3-3.4 on minimizing garden walls and other foundation structures and avoiding abrupt changes in grade
DG 5.1-5.3 on avoiding windows & balconies overlooking activearea[s] of adjacent properties for privacy of indoor and outdoor spaces
DG 7.1-7.5 on relating building mass to other homes and minimizing mass of as seen from the public way or adjacent properties
DG 8.1-8.3 on using restraint and simplicity in building forms
DG 9.12 on discouraging a grand entryway which conveys a scale inappropriate to Carmel
1947 Deed Restriction no buildingshall be erected on theproperty that exceeds one story in height
03/16 STAFF REPORT
CMC 17.70 within residential zones a garage in a basement is to be counted a story
04/16 STAFF REPORT
VARIANCE REQUEST Applicant is seeking 44% site coverage or 792sf, standard coverage is 22% of base floor area or 396sf, surface types can increase allowable coverage to be allocated toward narrow
driveways only per 17.10.030.C.1.b If at least 50 percent of all site coverage on the property is made of permeable or semi-permeable materials, an additional amount of site coverage of up to four percent of
the site area may be allowed for use in a single driveway of up to nine feet in width. CMC17.02.050.B.1. unlawful to erect any building that does not strictly conform to the municipal regulations
CMC17.06.020 steep, non-buildable" areas have slopes greater than 30%
G1-2.O1-8.P1-38/CMC17.10.010.A each site should contribute to the urban forest or other vegetation characteristic of the neighborhood
G1-2.O1-8.P1-39/CMC17.10.010.C designs shall take advantage of site topography, vegetation and slopework with these limitations, rather than ignoring them or trying to override them.
G1-2.O1-8.P1-40/CMC17.10.010.D Buildings shall not present excess visual mass or bulk to public view or to adjoining properties. Large box-like buildingsappear massive.
G1-2.O1-8.P1-40/CMC17.10.010.E Buildings shall relate to a human scale in their forms, elementsdoors, windows Oversized design elements make structures appear dominating and monumental. This
out-of-scale charactervitiatesvillage character& shall be avoided.
G1-2.O1-8.P1-51/CMC17.10.010.G respect the privacy of neighbors. through sensitive placement of windows, doors, balconies & decks
G1-2.O1-8.P1-41/CMC17.10.010.H enhance the park-like environment of the City. Open space should be distributed around buildings
CMC17.10.010.J preserveviews from the public right-of-way in conformance with Section 30251 of the California Coastal Act
CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT 3.6.30251 development must protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, restore visual quality in visually degraded areas and be visually compatible
with and subordinate to the character of its setting
CMC17.10.030.D.1 whether finished or unfinishedfloor area shall include, but shall not be limited tospaces within all building, basements, mezzanines, guesthouses, studios, garages and carports. All
attic, basement and storage shed spaces with five or more feet of clearance between the floor or walking surface and the ceiling or roof surfaceAll required parkingwhether supplied by garage, carport or
other means.
CMC17.58.010.A.1 Promote design that maintains Citys intimate human scale and complements, rather than overrides, natural constraints
CMC17.58.010.A.2 preserve the traditional characteristics of scale, good site design, and sensitivity to neighboring properties
CMC17.58.010.A.3 maintain compatibility with the Citys forest setting as well as the site designused in surrounding structures
CMC17.58.010.A.4 respect privacy,and private views of neighboring properties
CMC17.58.040.B.2.a A preliminary site assessment shall be conductedforallgrading over 25 cubic yards

CMC17.58.040.B.2.d City Planner shall annotate the survey regarding right of way design character, neighborhood design, privacy issues
CMC17.58.060.C Planning Commission shall make all of the following findings before granting design review approval
CMC17.58.060.C.2 The project contributes to neighborhood character including the type of forest resources present, the character of the street, the response to local topography and the treatment of open
space resources such as setbacks and landscaping.
CMC17.58.060.C.3 The project is compatible with, and sensitive to, the natural features and built environment of the site and of the surrounding area. The project respects the constraints of the site and
avoids excessive grading, cuts and fills.
CMC17.58.060.C.4. The project maintains the Citys principles of modesty and simplicity and preserves the Citys tradition of simple homes set amidst a forest landscape.
CMC17.58.060.C.5 The 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.
CMC17.58.060.C.6 Project details and materials (e.g., windows, doors, chimneys, roofs, and stonework) are fully integrated and consistent throughout the design. Building materials are used in a manner that
is visually consistent with the proposed architecture. All fenestration is appropriate in size and consistent with a human scale.
CMC17.58.060.C.7 The project is consistent with the Citys design objectives for protection and enhancement of the urbanized forest and open space resources. Open space is distributed around buildings to
provide visual relief from structural bulk and a distinct separation from buildings on adjacent sites.
G1-2.O1-8.P1-47/CMC 17.58.020.E the Planning Commission shall use the design guidelines adopted by the City Council as the basis for review
CMC17.58.060.B.3 Before approvingPlanning Commission shall find that theplansare consistent withdesign review guidelines.
DG4.1 a significant portion of each site should remain as landscaped open space
DG4.2 locate open space such that it visually links with that of adjacent properties
DG4.3 stagger front setbacks to frame outdoor spaces and provide variety in the arrangement of buildings and open spaces along the street
DG4.4 Variety in side yard setbacks is encouraged. Stagger setbacks with respect to adjacent properties to avoid a canyon effect- - Consider how the side yard space may relate to that of the adjoining
property to maximize the perception of open space.
DG7.7 A building should appear to be no more than two stories in height, as viewed from the public right-of-way. Presenting a one-story height to the street is encouraged. Locate two story elements
downhill, except where this would appear dominant or out of scale when views from the public right-of-way or a neighboring home.
DG9.3 Building details should be used to provide interest and not exaggerate the scale of a building. Appropriately sized chimneys, overhangs, windows, doors, dormers, porches, entries and decks can be
used to reduce scale and achieve a well-integrated design. Making any of these elements oversized can exaggerate the buildings scale and should be avoided. Avoid grand entryways, windows and doors
that are out of proportion with the human form. Avoid ostentatious design treatments.
DG9.4 Architectural details should appear to be authentic, integral elements of the overall building design concept. When design details and surface material are selected they should be used throughout
the full exterior of the building to maintain consistency. Avoid the application of special materials or design treatments to just the street facade.
DG9.11 Window styles and materials should be consistent with the architecture of the building. Window styles and materials should be uniform throughout a building.
DG9.12 Locate and size windows and doors to achieve a human scale wile avoiding mass and privacy impacts. Avoid positioning a large window (greater than 12 sq ft) along a side wall that would impact
the privacy of an adjacent neighbor. Limit the use of specialty [bay or oriel] windows that add to building bulk. Fenestration should not overwhelm the architecture. Where views are desired, architectural
styles which accommodate wider window configuration should be considered.
DG10.3 Planting in areas visible from the street or other public places should continue the forest character.
G1-2.O1-8.P1-43 Maintain and enhance the informal, vegetated, open space character of the Citys rights-of-way. Trees in the rights-of-way shall not be removed
1. PRELIMINARY SITE ASSESSMENT not REVIEWED by Commission

Residential Design Review.
MUNICIPAL CODE 17.58.040.B.2

Procedures. Design review for track two projects is a three-phase
process requiring: (1) preliminary site assessment, (2) design
concept review, and (3) final details review. The application shall not be deemed complete until the preliminary site assessment has occurred and the
City has received a complete application for design concept review. When a use permit, variance, or other land use permit is required, the application shall not be deemed
complete until design concept review is completed and the City has received a complete application for final details review and for the applicable land use permit. The
procedure for track two projects includes the following:
Step One: Preliminary Site Assessment.

a. Applicability. A preliminary site assessment shall be conducted prior
to the submission of design concept plans for the following:

i. All new construction, demolition, and grading over 25 cubic yards;
ii. Residential additions that increase building coverage by more than 200 square feet or 10 percent; and
iii. Any project that will require grading within six feet of any tree classified by the City Forester as significant or moderately significant; and
iv. Any project involving tree removal or requiring significant cuts to the roots or limbs of any tree classified by the City Forester as significant or moderately significant.
b. Submittal Requirements. The applicant shall submit two copies of a topographic survey prepared by a licensed surveyor or a civil engineer prior to submittal of design plans
for design review. The survey shall document property boundaries, topographic contours, the location of all trees over two inches DBH, the outline of all existing structures on
the property, the location of any easements, existing access, the edge of pavement for all adjoining streets and all existing areas of site coverage. The survey shall be reviewed
with the applicant and/or representative in the field by the City Forester and by the Director. Where topography, soil conditions, street configuration or other factors might require
unusual drainage solutions, the City Forester or the Director may call in the Public Works Director for additional review and advice. In addition, the applicant shall deposit with
the City an amount adequate to pay for a historic evaluation of any structure, dwelling, or property involved that is at least 50 years or greater in age and for which a
determination of eligibility/ineligibility for the Carmel Inventory has not yet been made or is out of date.
c. City Forester Review. During the site visit the Forester shall review all trees on-site, in the adjacent right-of-way, and those which significantly overhang the site from adjacent
properties. The Forester shall annotate the survey regarding the following:
i. The species, approximate drip line and state of health of each tree;
ii. Each tree shall be classified as to its significance to the urbanized forest based on its species, health and condition, size, form, character, age and location. Classifications
used shall be significant, moderately significant and not significant; and
iii. For trees classified as significant or moderately significant the Forester also shall note important limbs that are low enough to encroach into potential building areas and
areas where excavation or fill should be avoided to protect roots. Trees classified as significant shall be rated and documented using a standardized tree appraisal form.
Director Review. During the site visit, the City Planner shall annotate the survey regarding the following:
i. Design characteristics of the public right-of-way including landscaping, excess paving, and access opportunities or constraints;
ii. Design patterns and context of the immediate neighborhood including number of stories, exterior materials, setbacks, and open space/
d.
landscaping features;
iii. The potential for historic resources to be present on the site;
iv. Potential view and privacy issues on neighboring lots;
v. The potential for using setback exceptions, garden levels, basements, and other features of the Zoning Ordinance; and
vi. Unusual grade conditions or prior excavations that may require an approximation of natural grade in planning the building or calculating heights.
e. Survey Copies. Upon completion of both site visits and transfer of annotations to both copies of the survey, one copy shall be returned to the applicant for use in designing
the project. The other copy will be retained by the City for use in reviewing the project. In preparing design concept plans the information on the preliminary
site assessment map shall be used to avoid impacts on significant trees and minimize impacts on moderately significant trees. Design concepts shall respond to site constraints
and opportunities in a manner consistent with the zoning standards, General Plan, and the adopted design guidelines.
f. Historic Resource Review. Planning staff or a qualified professional shall conduct an initial assessment of historic significance consistent with CMC 17.32.060(B). If there are
no historic resources eligible for the Carmel Inventory located on the site, the procedures in CMC 17.32.060(D) shall be followed. If resources are found on the site that appear
to meet the criteria for inclusion in the inventory of historic resources, an intensive survey of the property shall be conducted consistent with CMC 17.32.060(C).
1. special project and SPECIAL APPEAL

12/15 - 05/16 Meeting Packets
6 months, 1,200+ pages, 54 projects, 18 reports.
No Preliminary Site Assessment per CMC 17.58.040.B.2 A preliminary site assessment shall be conductedforall
construction, demolition, and grading over 25 cubic yards City Planner shall annotate the survey regarding right of way
design character, neighborhood design, privacy issues
12/15 Site Tour
Commission and Public tour street side of property. Commissioner Reimers absent.
12/15 PC Meeting
Applicant withdraws Design Concept, requests and receives continuance. Commissioner Reimers absent.
03/16 PC Meeting
Full Commission deliberates on Design Concept. Majority agrees project doesnt fit Carmel regulations.
04/16 PC Meeting
Full Commission deliberates on Final Study. Majority agrees project doesnt fit Carmel regulations. Reimers proposes
denial but is informed it is too late. Staff proposal to grant final approval with a continuance for the front entry passes 5-0.
05/16 PC Meeting
Entry approved on consent. Commissioner Reimers and Goodhue absent.
07/16 Council Meeting
De novo hearing of project on appeal by neighbor. Appeal upheld. Project remanded to Planning Commission.
PC Meeting
De novo hearing of project.

Pending
Possible Coastal Commission appeal and possible civil court enforcement of 1947 one-story deed restriction.
THES~
,.,0
>
01
;u
[JJ
"'
[JJ
en
SPECI~ICATIQr~S
-ma
DRA'ii'INGS ANC
~)>
Tf-E USE OF
J:\14 Job0\].4:14 ChoCwld<\_DD\'1:14A3-Ldwg, li{.!4(20Ui 1.:27148 Pld
~cp
{;I
()
"
0
m
'
'I
II
EXP~ESSLY
8'-G:f"
PUELICATIO\J IS
'
I
I
I
I
i
I
11'-IIK,"
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
4'-0''
DR PJBLIChTIDN BY #IY
1'-6"
RE:JRODLCTIC~I
15'-1"
WHED TC SUCH J5E.
~
+~~Jo~~rt~=~/
II
'ii'HICH THE'( WERE PREPARl.
I
-"'
JOB NAME:
AP.N. OIO-SI2-02b-000
5c.enlc:. 2 Nl/ll oi' 8th Avenue

Carmel, CA q9q29
C.hadif\1 ick Res ide nee
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
CEILING HT.
(!>
"
\)1
'-B" U!
"
\)1
"
cr;-1
"
-u
z
~
-u
(\
l]\
1'-6"
cl
:.n
\)1
--l
"
:lj
-u
~
ll
'
tv
\))
"
-H~
8'-6"
suite 106
"
CO~ThC
THES~
10'-B"
?!\J
'I
:lj
ll
-u
Cl
cl
ll
"
;II
PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950
:::::::::1
N===c==.:::::..:8
1111--------H
~~
--
CONSULTANT:
,.
18'-0"
l 2'-1"
--l
()
(j)
r: : : : : : s~,
~
{;I
3'-2"
\)1
~I
:.n
--l
~.?--
~ ~- ~
18'-o"
II
[.,
-H~SE R~RICTIO\JS.
II
II
\)1
:.n
--l
"
()
-"
--l
--------------~
"
"
"
"
t-+-
II
;II
ll
-u
r
-u
4'-4"
SHA __ CONSTI-UE PRIMA FI\5CIE EVICEIKE OF ll,CCEPT.<\1\CE CF
G
G
"
SPECI~CATIOI~S
8'-C1"
DRA'ii'INGS &
1---tl
II
;II
Cl
Cl
;n
-u
z
~
-u
'1\'ITH
;n
-u
z
~
~
r
PHONE (831) 372-0410 , FAX (831) 372-7840 , WEB: www.aricmillararcMacts.com
157 GRAND
"'"'
\J1
II~
~t
mz
hRC-HCT WrTHOUT PREJJOICE. \IISJfl.L
----.----------
-1
:;a
0
.,.
"
"
;II
-u
z
~
-u
r
REM<\mS VIITf-
)0
G
G
-u
r
-j
ll
-j
~-u
(\
AI~D SP~CIFCAT~~~S
:::::::::::E===RI===C::::::::::M:::::::::::::IL==L==E===R:::::::::A::::::=:::R===c::::::::::::H====I
T:::::::::::E==c
ARCHITECT
II
"
OR IN PART 15 STRICT" PROHIBITED- TTLE -o THESE DRA\\1111::;5
\))
f,IEAI~S. ~~~\\'HOLE
------------------------------------------~----------
_j
----------,
~=
II
SITE
Gf'-Gf"
T~E ORIGI~IAL
---------------~------
II
IS SOLE_! RESTRICTEJ TO
Attach 8 - Original Elevations and Site Plan (CC reviewed

7/12/16)
REVISION
I No.
.EVISED
&
.EVISED
/30/lb
ffi
/21/1642/23/lb
IB'-rz>' MAXIMUM
1-lEIGI-lT FF<OM (E)
NAT. GRADE
;----2-FIECE CLAY TILE

F<OOF
F<EMOVED - - .
SOUTH WINDOW
~
/---><'"
/~"
'4
-t
31 DEGF<EE ANCiiLED
WALL < WINDOW
B
~
~
f{i
TOP OF RID<SE HT. = 1"1.0'
w
I":" I
..,
I'
STUCCO CHIMNEY w/ -~.

CLAY TILE CAF < INLAY
AT OFENING
w
u
w
u
TOP OF PLATE HT.= 15."1'
..,
v
--- ..
FAINTED STEEL WINDOWS w/

STONE TF<IM < SILL, SEE
5CI-4EDULES
FF<OFERTY LINE
w
G
~
~
------J
'?r-
~---
..,
I
I
I
~
~
-----~
- --
-- ~
-WROUGHT IF<ON
GUAF<DF<A IL
~
~
'"
~
~
~~~11~
_,a
_,
"'
dl
,-------~
IT
l,
FIRST FINISH FLOOR = 58.65'
I\
..,
ti
~
BASEMENT CEILIN<S = 51.4'
..,
'
iC
~
"
~
u
w
,,,
~
~
~
a
'
'IT
~
~
I
I
j
~
1+~+11--
11--~:_~
,,,
r-
lJlli1
.r= ~-~-7~
BASEMENT FINISH FLOOR = 48.4'
..,
TOP OF RID<SE HT. = 11.65'
._
STUCCO WALLS w/
CHAMFEF<ED
CORNEF<S
;_j
SOUTH FROFERTY LINE

FENCE +-IE IGHT
SECOND FINISH FLOOR .= 6!>.4'
FIRST FLOOR PLATE = 61.15'
::::>
(/)
oo
oo
I:
-----
{)
FIRST FINISH FLOOR = 5"1.65'
BASEMENT CEILIN<S HT. = 58.4'
z-
----'.----'.-
1-
CARLIFT FINISH FLOOR = 4"1."1'
""
""'
---'.-
~
w
e
~
"'
DECORATIVE FEATURE
~
~
s
~
'"
z
TOP OF RID<SE HT .= 18.0'
2
~
,.
v
~~
""
~
~
TOP OF PLATE HT.= 15.'1'
w
_J
:g~
_J
"50
~LL
.!!l
I
_,_
I
I1.
I
3'-6' MIN.--~
WROUGHT IRON
~-{~~
GUARDRAIL w/
I
~~~
DE=RATIVE
I
FICKETS 4' O.C.
~
z
"''
t-
''
FROFERTY
"'""
CJW'
r-..iS
1f
<(
IOJ:
,...."-
FROFERTY LINE
w
~
-a:
"'
I
TOP OF RID6E HT. = 11.65'
0~
Z"'
""
._
""
I
I
3'-4"
....
...9
"'~
<(~
(.) a:::f:l
:I:
,.
v
FAINTED STEEL WINDOUJS

w/ 5TONE TRIM 4 SILL,
SEE 5CHEDULE5
c----2-PIECE CLAY TILE

ROOF
STUCCO CHIMNEY wl~

STONE CAF < T
INLAY AT OPENING
<(~
C..<'>
-~
rn
[t
u.. ...
-co
01';-
a:
60
- "!
<(
----'.-
SCALE, 1/4"= 1'-0"
<C'E
0 .g
a:
'
EXTERIOR SOUTH ELEVATION -SIDE
0)~
I- ~ i
- oC:::ffi..
I CJ:S:
{) o
-o
a
CARLIFT FIT FLOOR = 41."1'
(')~
"'
C'fj
{)
_,
NAT. GF<ADE
oal
10""
I-
SMOOTH NATURAL
LIMESTONE VENEER
WALL 6ASE-54' AFF.
~~-
u;
(f)
L--
._
1__.-
----'.-
9
d:l
d:l'
r-
'\'
r-
ro
z
~
'
""
j
6AY WINDOW UJ/

STUCCO COVE DETAIL
\.___NEW DECK WI STUCCO

COLUMNS AND METAL
GUARD !'<AIL
------ - 'v--I
""
IT
18 FEET 6ELOW
ROOF OUTLINE
'
TOP OF RID6E HT. = 1'1.65'
dl
(E)
w
G
w
r:~
+-;rl'-kt-[:f,l
._
'~-~-I
I'
("\
''
~~~
I
I
JJ1llLJTIUtt1l
--
----1
----
----
1
- ____.____.
- )_ ~/~____.
17
~~~
}.r
-'DEcoF<ATIVE---t-----m~
'
~~~~~~~~i~~~~,~~,' ~J~I-~i ~
I
I
I
I
I
_-J,.-
~r;;:;r;; - Jfxtflft'\ 1=11.-- -;n ~ n_ :C'nr< ~tf +r~rr~rtr rr~- -LW:1
---
SECOND FINISH FLOOR = 6!>.4'
''
z
I
I
.1)
t-'
LINE---~
SECOND FINISH FLOOR = 68.4'
..,
"'""
----------a
"w
"'""
~--
3
~
w
~
w
,,,
\l'
\r
_J------ _ _____.._. _ _,.----..._/\1:::::1
f~~.~~~~~~~~Wlliil[~~~~]!~lm~lr~W]I]l
&
w
c-
~
I
~
~
,,u
<SREAT RM. FINISH FLOOR = 5B.65'

!fl
'
BASEMENT CEILIN<S = 51.4'
..,
,.
DECK EL. - 5B5'
"'""
0
0
~
~
01~
' z
tJ- =:i
w
\)
~~~
S TUCGO
________L------
NEUJ DECK W/ STUCCO

COLUMNS AND METAL
GUARD !'<AIL
I
~:!
BEDROOMS FINISH FLOOR .= 48.4'
~
~
EXTERIOR WEST ELEVATION - BACK
'"
~
SCALE, 1/4"= I '-0"
~
w
"'
0I
\\) d) \Y
('1
..... If)
{()
Q \Y
. 5:.. <( 0
.~ z IJ 0
~ N -- .
-u \)
BEDROOMS FINISH FLOOR .= 4B.4'
B'
II)
oc~IL
u~u<(
I-
2'
m
0
E>/24/16
1/4"
DRAWN:
= 1'-0"
GJH, I3RY'I
14.S4
A-3.2
_cl\)0
JOB NUMBER:
~
~
l.f),_.N
SCALE:
"'""
>
w
('1
- .J:: If)
DATE:
4'-0" MAX.
5c
I<(
RETAININ<S V'lALL
\\) >
'\l
0
0I
-u <(
Cll)
It
0
It
<SREAT RM. FINISH FLOOR = 58.65'
~
w
~~
~
~
0
T
\\)11)
_J
"'
\0
STUCCO WALLS w/
CHAMFERED
CORNERS
If
'?
SECOND FINISH FLOOR .= 68.4'
SHEET
OF
No.
REVISION
r;=::::-
--::J-- D
111---=-~~~cct-----------
D-- D
~EYISED
/21/16$ 2/23/1
REVISED
3/30/16
I II I EL.- 4"'"'' I
::J
&
&
&
ENTRY
EXISTING BEAGH ACCESS
4/2'1/16
GROSS FLOOR AREA:
f,
"P:
f':l
NEV'I RETAININ5 Y'W.L

T.O.V'I. - 54.5'
I'
"
"w
::J
"
u
0
MAIN FLOOR LIVING AREA

MAIN FLOOR GARAGE
MAIN FLOOR STAIRS 4 ELEVATOR
I::J
"w
11
NEV'I Y'IOOD FENGE

TO MATGH (E)
I EL-
53.0'
F'L-'"'NTI \IG 5EL-OV'i
l_j
co
205 SF.
2% SF.
100 SF.
1,221 SF.
Dl
ti
<
""'"
::J
c
0
--r'
f+1:::l=rfl
::J
'"
.~
,,-,1, h01 hill~ ctl~
1 1
1
I::J
~~~~II
'"
~
I'
I
j"'<
'
~~
I
~~ ~INDJI~sEAr l llll~
~~
~.
I~
c-
I::J
::J
e
3
Sl
'
t!
"'"
::J
'
c
2
"i5
\.1111
"
15
(~')
\'-._--------/
I::J
"
8
"
'
[]
UJ.
.DI
g
1I
F'f
'\'
"p
10
1.,~) ~/
/-~.
'-~I
:1'
"'
CITY ZONING FLOOR AREA

FIRST FLOOR LIVING AREA
SECOND FLOOR LIVING AREA
SECOND FLOOR STAIRS 4 ELEVATOR
BASEMENT FLOOR LIVING AREA
'311 S.F.
Sll S.F.
144 S.F.
440 S.F.
1-
CITY OF CARMEL FLOOR AREA
::1
2,012 SF.
,
"'6
I::J
ol
''
11
()
-0
-u.. "'...
()1';-
1!l.
w
_J
~~
~u..
_J
"50
.!
-~
0w
"0
CJ;s:
a:
)'
'
'11
..
<( <C"'
c.t:5
Ul
::J
- CD
a:
2
~
(.)
::J
.,"i'
cn.r=
cne!
(')!::!
-:r: ll:ffil
"
Lll=
I- ~
0
l_j
o'tj
14'-8"
IF.F.E -58.!\5'1
ui
I-
GF'.EAT FWOM
95'-11"
en
Dl
z
-
( ) <C'E
() .g
,,
(.)
rr
w
c
m
"
310 SF.
..,m
oo
oo
440 SF.
231 SF.
2,86'3 Sf.
TOTAL FLOOR AREA
ll
-'00
,-
/'" (''!
'
::::l
'381 SF.
I I-
II'
"
Dl
LOWER FLOOR LIVING AREA

LOWER FLOOR CAR LIFT 4 MECf.l.
LOWER FLOOR STAIRS 4 ELEVATOR
""'2
I!
'---'
[JJ
SEAT
3'-6"
~(!]
=
I I
bbl SF.
--,
.~.
!:
!~
') 1
:..J
u
.
"Cl
""
--,
--,j
tj
~INDO~
'lj,
mJ \11
1
~
(/)
I,- I""
12'-0"
IG
511 SF.
144 SF.
40'-1"
1'-10"
8"
'
OP";;N TO
GA~DEN BELOV'i
~..
UPPER FLOOR LIVING AREA

UPPER FLOOR STAIRS 4 ELEVATOR
::c
oo~
0~
Z"'
<C;:(.) r::r::l:l
-a:
CJ~
t--0
Ll)J:
,....o..
'~'I
'en
~
::J
""
EL=!\2.0
"c
60
~
"
w
"'0
I
----4"
~
~
r-~"
2
0
( ~~)
::J
'"~
-""
,/~
"'"
1-
NE~ R_ETAI ~lNG V'IALL

T.Q.V'I.-62.5
/.r- ""
~ ~~~~;;.t- rY""i
t--I
_j
"
~
~
~
w
::J
~
0
I~
"f,'
I'
I
~
I
~
~
""
0
MAIN FLOOR PLAN

NEV'I 4'- " (MAX)
--+::::J
"
Y'IOOD
\_../
~
\--/ ~-----~ _.. ,. - -",
C----ct:~ (-----
''
I'
//
'\
"
(~
~-
:!
"
-----------------~=- ~~~-~-~-~~~~~~~~~~
/-----------
-----
"~
I
:3'-6"
2'-10"
e
u
0
"'0
w
~c
IB'-5"
1'-0"
11'-2"
?A
'\
,/
'
1-;L-!\3.5'
2'-10"
1'-0"
oc
It
u- l't
1.) \r
(1)
I
~ N-"
o..:.
q_ ({)
()
()
~5:.<( 0
-~ z \) 0
_J
"U\l~z
lL
~:n=
.. ~ 0
u~u
__/_/'
I
2'-2" ,
2'-B"
,~
<
"'""z
m
0
b'-Q"
i'-0"
B'-8"
b/24/16
DATE:
1/4"
SCALE:
25 WATT MAX. WALL MOUNT
a 25 WATT MAX. RECESSED CAN LIGI-IT
2'-2"
"'"
w
lf).._.N
1-
EXTERIOR LIGf.lTING SYMBOLS
0...
(.\) 1.1:)
-..!: ({)
----.,
\_ ---------------. /'"_/"--------
3c
_ D
I
8'
"'\') <(
0
0
0
1
,.\)
l't
0I
/--------\
/(
I
4'
4:
_J
lL
'---,_/ /
I
0
)
I/
'"/_.--------------./'"
NGE
II
SCALE, 1/4"= I '-0"
'
-----
_/-----
--0
"~
REMAIN
c~
(.\) >
(E) Y'IOOD FENGE IN

FRONT SETBACK TO
NEV'I Y'IOOD FENGE-1

TO MATGH (E)
I
I
~
~ ~
(.\)
DRAWN:
= 1'-0"
C.JH, 6RY"'
JOB NUMBER:
14.54
A-2.1
SHEET
OF
Tl-E USE OF
THES~
Ill
DRNNINGS ANC
SPECI~ICATIGrJS
II
~=
SITE
~-
-t::-
()-
ORIGI~IAL
~::::R
'IIHICH THEY IVEfiE

PREPAR~C
PUELICATIO\J IS
a.a
"'
,-
EXP~ESSLY
JOB NAME:
UMTED T:::: SUCH USE
A.P.N. OIO-SI2-02b-OOO
5c.enlc. 2 NY'! oi' 8th Avenve

C.e~rmel, C.A <19<129
ChCldlfll ick Res ide nee
SECOND FLOOFIC. PLAN
IS SOLE_f RESTRICTEJ TO THE
1'-2''
DR PJBLICIJIDN BY' Afl"
5'-5"
3'-4"
RPRODUCTIC~I
5'-0"
2'-1~"
REMI\HJS
3'-1"
j,
3'-2"
1'-5"
ARC-H:T WrTHOUT PREJJOI::::E VISJPL
1'-J)-4''
VIIT~ -H~
2'-8"
3'-4"
T~ESE ['PJ\WII~SS AI~D SP~CIFCA-mJS
PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950

suite 106
PHONE (831) 372-0410 FAX (831) 372-7840 WEB: www.ericmillerarchitects.com
157 GRAND
ARCHITECT
11'-0%''
rJ VI'HOLE OR IN PART 15 STRCL" PROHIBITED -TITLE -o
6'-5"
~EAIB
CO~T.IC
THES~
2'-4"
I_
DRA'NINGS &
rl
2'-5"
'/I,ITH
"'
,-
SHA __ CONSTI-UE
PRI~IA
CONSULTANT:
SPECI~CATIGrB
FIECIE EVIWJCE OF ACCEPTI\1\CE ::::F

TH~E R~STRI::::TIO\JS
VieY"' of the existing house from the beoc.h.
.....
-.
~
a:
~
~
Ill ~
.....
.....
-::E
u
a:
Ill
~
l!!b
l!!b
db
'i?
'i?
@\!!
Attach 9 - Project Renderings
In this viel"l, the proposed design is 58% less visible Prom the bec:::~c..h.
.....
-.
~
a:
~
~
Ill ~
.....
.....
-::E
u
a:
Ill
~
l!!b
l!!b
db
'i?
'i?
@\!!
In this viel"', the proposed design is 59% less visible Prom the beoc..h.
The exie.ting hou;.e i;. outlined in red.
.....
-.
~
a:
~
~
Ill ~
.....
.....
-::E
u
a:
Ill
~
l!!b
l!!b
db
'i?
'i?
@\!!
VieY"' of the existing house from the beoc.h.
In this viel"l, the proposed design is 52% less visible from the beoc.h.
In this viel"l, the proposed design is 5.2% less visible from the beac.h.
Tne exrstrng house rs outlined rn red.
REVISION
ES
SCENIC 2 NW OF 8th AVENUE

CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, CA 93923
0V>jNE!'!.SHIP AND U&E OF THESE
I.
D~IN<>&
OWNER:
ART AND FARAH C.HADI"'IC.K

THE C.HADI'IIC.K LIVING TRU5T
p_o_ eox 341o
SARATO<'!>A, C.A "15070
ADDRESS:
SCEN IC 2 Nl"' OF 8TH AVENUE

BLOCK C2, LOT5 10 I II
AND &FECCIFICCATION&
TITLE AND ALL "C..OPYR.I6+iT" PRIVILE&ES TO THESE DRA~INIS'S AND 5PEGIFIC.ATIONS IS
CCLAIMED B'T' THE AR<OHITEGT, ERic; MILl-ER HEREINAFTER REFERReD TO AS "THE

ARCCHITECCT' >"'ITHO\lf P!<E.l!DIGE.
Tt+e~ ~T DRAWik6S AND 5PEGIFIC.ATION5 51-!AU.. C.O~T I 1\JTE
PRIHA FACIE EVIDENGE OF THE Ac;c;EPTANGE OF THESE Oi'!NERSHIP RI6HT5 AND THE
YI5UAL.. CONTAGT '11TH
RECEIVED
OCT II 2016
AR.CHI TEC Tl!RAL.

A-0.1
COVER 5HEET
C.-I
CONCEPTUAL GRADIN6 AND DRAINA<S>E PL.AN
I
A-U
TOF06RAPHIC. 5URVE'T'
DEMOLITION 51TE PLAN
I OF I
CON5TRUC.TION MANA6EMENT PLAN
A-1.2
FROF05ED SITE PLAN
A-2.0
PROP05ED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
A-2.1
PROP05ED PIR5T I"L.OOR PLAN - REVI5ED
A-2.2
PROP05ED 5EC.OND FLOOR
PROF05ED ROOF PLAN - REVI5ED
FOU..O~IN& ~TED
ARCHITECT:
:2. THE LiSE OF THESE DAAV>jiNe-5 AND &PEGIFIGATIONS SHALl- BE &OLEL'T' RE&TRICCTED TO
T'HE ORI61NAL. SITE FOR ~lc.H T1-IE'f VRE PREPARED AND THE ARGHITEC.T ~"(STATES
T~AT
THEY ARE NOT INTENDED FOR NOR 5UITABLY ENISINEEREO FOR AN"f OTHER SITE.
REPf<ODI!C.TION OF THESE DOCUMENTS IF THEREFORE
EXPR!:~!IL 'T'
:;. THE ARCCHITECCT DI&GLAIHS ALL RESPONSIBILITY IF THESE D!<AI'IIN6& AND

SFEGIFIGATIONS ARE USED, IN i'IHOL.E OR IN PART, I'IITHOUT PRIOR l'iRITTEN PERHISSION,
l'iHETHER OR NoT HOt>IFIED B'T' OTHERS FOR ANOTHER SITE.
4.
L.ANDSCAI"'E:
ERIC MILLER ARCHITECTS, INC..

211 HOFFMAN AVENUE
MONTEREY, C.A "15"140
LIHITED TO THIS
INTENDED USJ:;_
IN THE EVENT OF l.INALJTHORIZED tJ5E BY ANY THIRD PARTT OF THESE DRAVIIIN6S AND
SPECCIFICCATIONS THE CCL lENT FOR V'IHICCH THIS I'IORK !"lAS ORI.S.INAU.'T' PREPARED HEREB'T'
A.S.REES TO HOLD HARMLESS, INDEMNIP"'T' AND DEFEND THE ARGHITECCT, ERic; HILLER. HIS
!ITAI'F/ EHP~O'T'EES FPWH AN'T' CCLAIMS ARI51N6 FPWM 5UGH UNAUTHORIZED USE.
PROJECT DATA
A-2.4
FROF05ED FLOOR AREA DIA<'!>RAM
PROJECT DESCRIPTION :
A-2.S
FROF05ED RooF HEIGHT PLAN
DEMOLITION OF EX15TING HOIJ5E, DEC.K5 AND PAVING. PROPOSED C.ON5TRUC.TION OF

NEI"' TI"'I-5TO~Y RE51DENC.E i"'ITH 6A5EMENT, 5 6EDROOM5, 3-112 6ATH5, 1-C.A~
<S>ARA<'!>E I"'ITH 5UBTERRANEAN LIFT IN THE BA5EMENT, AND RETAINING I'IALLS.
A-3.1
PROP05ED EXTERIOR ELEVATION& - REVI5ED
A-5.2
PROP05ED EXTERIOR ELEVATION&
A-3.3
5TREET ELEVATIONS
A-5.4
BUIL.DIN<'!> 5EC.TIONS
A-4 .1
A -4.2
PROP05ED DOOR SCHEDULE

PROP05ED I"'INDOI"' 5CCHEDULE
A-1.1
MATERIAL. 5AMPLE5
LOT 51ZE
TREE REMOVAL
FIFiE:N Tl':EE515HRU65 ARE PROP05ED FOR REMOVAL, INGLUDIN<S> (I) 2" Tl':EE, (I)
4" TREE, (2) 6' TREE5. (3) 8" TREE5, (3) 10" TREE5, (4) 12" TREE, AND ( I) 14" ~.
ONE 36" DEAD TRLNK I'IILL BE REMOVED.
- REVISED
A-2.3
SCENIC. 2 Nl'l OF 8TH AVENUE

C.ARMEL-t>,j-the-5EA, C.A "15"125
ADDRESS:
No.
L-1
L-2
LI<S>HTING IRRIGATION PL.AN

PLANTIN> PLAN
L-5
NOTE5
- - - - - - - - - 4 P 0 6.e S .F .
ZONIN.S, , - - -- - - -- - - FI.-I , BR DI5TRIC.T

BL.OC.K , - - - - - - - - - - C . - 2
Lor:.,
10' 11
A .P.N.,
OI0-5 12-026-000
OCCUPANCY <S>ROIJP,
(RJ FOR HOUSE AND (U) FOR <S>ARA<SE
T'T'FE OF C.ON5TRIUCTION ,
( V-6 )
a:
w
_J
LOCATION MAP
wPi
::::J!'!l.
z~
W"-
<Co
....J >
:2
z~
<(~
~{;;
FRONT SE'ieAGK .... , ..
15.0' MIN_
15.0'
SIDE SETBACCKS
2S>II OF SITE VIIDTH (MIN. :; FTJ
:l.O ' MIN .. 19.2S' TOTAL
(.)
LLLL;;;
NORll-4 SlOE
'1.25' MIN
"1.25'
SOUTH SIDE
6 .0 '
a:
IW
z
REAl>. &ETBACK - ...... .. .. ..

MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT
Ml~
E>.O'
21.4'
~.0'
1e-0"
18'-0"
MAX_ ALLOI"'ED F.A.R. ... ........ .......
l ,tl02 5.F. ABOVE <S>RADE
2.072 5 .F .
MAX. ALL.OV'IED 51TE COVERAGE ......
3<l5.0 5 .FJ556.0 5 .F .
556.0 S .F.
AVERAGE <S>RADE
5'l .5 '
1"11 50%
1"11
0~
~o
....-J:
C\1"-
BA5EMENT
PERVIOUS
IEXISTING FLOOR AREAl

FIR5T FLOOR
5EC.OND FLOOR
TOTAL EX15TING FLOOR AREA ,
1,411.0 5.F.
t:>1~.o
:..P.
2,08'1.0 5.F.
IPROPOSED FLOOR AREA I

FIRST' FL.OOR ........ .... ..
5EC.OND FLOOR .......... ..
5TAIR I ELEVATOR ........ ..
BA5EMENT .. ............... ..
"111.0 5.F.
511.0 5.F.
144.0 5.F.
440 .0 5 .F.
2.012.0 5.F.
TOTAL FROl'05ED FLOOR AREA=
6A5EMENT- STAIRI"'ELL .....
1"18.0 5.F .
BASEMENT- C.ARLIFT 4 ELEVATOR ..... 256 .0 5.F.
TOTAL EXCLUDED AREA=
VICINITY MAP
454.0 5.F.
IEXISTING SITE COVERAGE I

DRIVEI'IA'T'
CONCRETE V'IALK5 I P A T I O S - - SITE I'IALL5 I CUR65
l"jQOD 5HED I UTI LI TIE5
Y'IOOD 5TEP5
TOTAL EXI5TIN6 51TE C.OVERA6E ,
1UJ
UJ
I
261.0 5F _
%6.0 5 .F.
5'1.0 & _F_
56.0 5.F.
51.0 5_F_
\J)
It
1,285.0 5.F.
ELEVATED I'IOOD DECCK,
UJ
113.6 5.F .
>
()
IPROPOSED SITE COVERAGE I

PERVI OU5 C.OV ERA6E
DECK
DRIVEI'IA'T'
DI>.'T' 5TACK I'IAL.L5 - - - - - PATHI'IA'\"5/ PAV IN G - - - - - BAY I"'INDOY't5 - - - - - - l"jjOD FENCE
TOTAL PERVIOUS COVERAGE ,
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE,
5TAIR5 - - - - -- -- - SITE V'IALL5 - - - - - - - TOTAL IMPERVIOI./5 C.OVERA<'!>E ,
~
.,
\)
26'1.0 5.F.
44.0 5.F.
25.0 S.F.
3'1.0 5.F.
16.0 5 .F
3'1.0 5.F .
432.0 5.F
e>/::24/11!>
DATE
N.T.S.
SCALE:
10.851\
DRAWN:
JOB NUMBER:
14.94
26.0 5.F
"'B.O 5_F
124.0 5.F
TOTAL PROP05ED SITE C.OVERA6E
556.0 S.F .
MAXIMUM ALLOI"'ED 51TE C.OVERA6E ,
556.0 5 .F .
A-0.1
SHEET
OF
NEIGHBORING
HOUSE
- N
A.C
PAVEMENT
I
SCALE' 1" -
WATER
METER
8'
Q~
< ~
0
MULTI-STORY STONE
& WOOD rR AME HOUSE
0:: ....
~
g
u~
63.1!1
CONC
DOCUMENT
#2003033 707
z ..
A.C
PAVEMENT
1>2.37
0
0
GATE
m"'
PILLAR ELEVA T0
[Q)WOOD DECK
CONC
-----r--1
I
I
I
I
I
I
\-o.._SET IAAG. NAIL & STAINLESS STEEL WASHER

STAIAPED "CENTRAL COAST SURVEYORS"
BENCH~ARK
ELEV.63.00 ' (APPROX . NAVDB8)
~j~
A.C.
"- -
: ~~
L ~d
I '-...._}rr ~
NEIGHBORING
HOUSE
TWO WATER METERS

IN WOOD VAULT
PAVEMENT
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
OF
NOTES:
LEGEND :
1.
SSCO
BOUNDARY LOCATIONS SHOWN HER(ON WERE DETERMINED WITH THE BENEFIT OF A FIELD
SURVEY SUPPLE ... ENTEO BY RECORD DATA. ALL BOUNDARY DATA SHOWN ARE FRO" THE
RECORDS. THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY.
2. ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE BASED ON ASSUMED DATUM THAT APPROXIMATES THE NORTH
AMERICAN VE.RnCAL DATUhA OF 1988 (NAIIDB8). PROJECT BENCHMARK IS A SET MAG. NAIL &
STAINLESS STEEL WASHER STAMPED "CENTRAL COAST SURVEYORSH SET IN THE PAVEMENT OF
SCENIC ROAD. AS SHOWN.

ELEVATION ~ 63 00 FEET (APPRDX. NA'<U88)
.3. CONTOUR INTERVAL

4.
UP
SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT
PORTION
CITY OF CARMEL
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
DENOTES A WOOD FENCE
PREPARED
STATE OF CA LI FORNIA
fOR
Art & Farah Chadwick
DENOTES A WOOD RETAINING

WALL EXCEPT AS SHOWN .
ONE FOOT.
6 y
CENTRAL COAST SURVEYORS
lREE TYPES ARE INDICA TED \\'HEN KNOWN . OIAMETEF?S OF TREES ARE SHOWN IN INCHES .
TREES SMALLER THAN 2 ARE NOT SHOWN.
OF
UTIUTY POLE
- - DENOTES ELEVATED WOOD DECK
LOTS NUMBERED 10 AND 11 AS SHOWN ON "MAP OF

ADDinON No. 8, CARMEL BY THE SEA" FILED IN
VOLUME 3, "CITIES & TOWNS", PAGE 19
AS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT #2003033707
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MONTEREY COUNTY
5 HARRIS COURT, SUI TE N-11
MONTEREY,
CAUrORNIA
93940
Ph on!!: (8J1) 394-4930

Fml.'
SCALE
1"
8'
(831) .3 94-4931
JOB N o. 14-93
PREPARER'
APN
NOVEMBER 2014
ORZ
010-.312-026
REVISION
~~---- ----- -
-----____ __ J
T:;-.~i~:~ VELL
..~ ~
...
- -.----.. -. - ...,-- T1
.
-r : _
[;
1
I
I
I
I
1'.. I
1
I
I
I
,_ 1
I
I
II
II
I
I
:
II
14" T :
L; --- 11
o :I
II
12"T
:
II
II
L-= =-=--=====-=.:
,I
I
B"T
(E) EIU5+-IE5
TO REMAIN
Pl'C>PERTY L INE
- - - - - - _j
- - - - -- ~
I
I I I
:-~~- - -
i :
I I
I
a()
lfi
Ll\
lI
SX"
rj
I
I
I I I
L
012"T
I
I
I
I
[I
II
I I
tl
rl
I
I
tl
11
I I
r,~:
1-D..J
EIU5+-IE5 TO BE
REMOVED
li
I
\\
I '
I'
I\
I
I
__ _
..=-..=-ll
II
ELEVATED
WOOD DECK
I
I
T:'J
l': :'..J
r01WOOD
II
lJl
lJl
L_.J
<0'
"-'
V'IEST ,5.1<>0'
(E) FENC:.E TO
BE REMOVED
NEh 6UILDING
FOOTPR. INT
~c~
,!Y
~~ - -
'-------
1
1
--- --
~ ___ _
-'
---------:1
WM
::J~
z~
wu.
_J
~
(.)
u.u.;;;
a:
..-a
z:O
<(~
~I:;
0~
::r:wz
11
>
<(o
REMOVED
J\d
...
..-I
C\111.
- ------- ---r----~ ,
\\ : 1
D._j
CD
a:
w
_J
6238 1 ~ - - -- - -- - - - - - - ~ 6 225
1 1
1 11'111
"'Z_" _"'L
I
a:
a:
DE CK / I
l'::'J
----
<(
<(~
Ut!!
()
I
I
t-
t- ~ l
z ..
0"'
I
~~
o:.. l ::;;,~~::r;
en~
( ) ~~
UJ .g
I
I
EL~ATED l
oE
'<t
~~
(J)
I
I
~ 0
E ' ST ' (7-;
I II
---------.,1 ::
()
I
I
I
_____}-- ..
~~ -=--=--=--=-~-=--=---,1
X'
6'
REMOVI!'D
~~
~(E)FE~ETO BE
I r;r;.t
~
~~
~k~~~;;:.;z;c~~r ~ r~
-~'
I
I
oo
0
--- -- ---rb,
(E)~~d.O'f1=D
~
RE
I
I
I \! \
I
I
I
I
;I
I \!
I \
I L _______ ~ I I : I
I I
I I
~
l
,
II I
I I
I
I I
62 43 :(I} I
] ~ - -- _\___ LL - ~.J....Jn:,_LL _
---- - --- ;I<... ~-'
~~~: ~~;;;~NG
FOR REFERENCE
I
I
I
I
i
I\ :
------,
I~
~o'
L __ _
,---
~ :===== ==r-~~~~
.
:
I '
~ - 1-~-~-- ---~1-:
~
RETAININ5 Y'IALL AT
PROPOSED 5ATE
r;
I I
I::
:
SAI"'CUTGONC~
I I
I I
~----.J
:
:
(1:) FENCE: TO
BE REMOVED
[I
~._/__ f rs49Br--- 11 '
(,
I
I
I
_! _ _ ,
I I
I
-- 64
I I
I
I
I
CONCRETE
RETAININ5 ~L
TO REMAIN
)
I
L----~
1-T--- . .,
I I
If)
L _____ r- _
8"T
_,..._----o.
I L- - - - - ---1 L __
No.
uu1
_.Y)\_12"T
~"-
r~
_ _ _ _l
~=, ~
'
-- -
--
\
\
<{
_J
IL
\0
()
!:::
_J
EB
DEMOLITION SITE PLAN

5GALE, 1/4" = 1'-0"
r
o
4'
()
:L
n ~
Ul
!D
e
DATE
E>/::24/16
1/4"
SCALE:
DRAWN:
= I '-0 "
C...JH, 6Ri'l
JOB NUMBER:
14.94
A-1.1
SHEET
OF
No.
REVIS ION
--
- ----
2><4 BLOCKIN6,
2 X.:2 6RAPE - ~
STAKE FENCE
~~------ --- -
- ~~- }
--------JI
(N) FENCE
TOP 4 BOTTOM
.I
4 X 4 i"'OOD POST
ON CONCRETE PIER
PER STRUCTURAL - -
X'
EAST
-{ I
2 ><.2 6RAPE
S TAKE F ENCE - -
l: i
,-
0
_I
15.>0 '
--::::::.__0
- ~ L-:
---
(E) FENC.E
EI<ISTIN~
FENc.E
flUSHES TO REMAIN
PROPERN'
LINE
STONE V'IALL
- ']-
~o -- 6'- ~
1..'
'I"
--64
\
A-1 .2
()'I
21'-5"
~AR SETEI
~~- --
t-=-=
:I
- -
<(
,-~
.
::l
VI
If:
FENCE
- __-_-=--=--=--=
0 ~A~I~"E STAKE DETAIL;I<ISTIN~

RETAINtN~
I EL
= 54.0' 1
oo
DO
Cl
<fi
ll)
6'
5i"
2 x4 BLOCKIN0,
TOP 4 BOTTOM
\ I
l'IOOD PENCE \
()
<.0
(E) 14"T
REPLACE
EXI STIN~
l'IALL
~
I
(.)
:z
en
IXb VERTICAL - - i"'OOD FENCE TO

MATCH EXISTIN6
(E) 12"T
~~~~HF~~~~~~~~ ~
4X4 Y'lOOD POST

ON CONCRETE PIER
PER STRUCTURAL -
<U
~f!
(Y)!!!
0)~
<(~
1-
(.)!!!
~i
-~
(.) >'E
IXb VERTICAL
Ill
oE
1- ~~
z ..
om
I ~~
l:
(.)
.l)
a:
<(
0
(E) 12 "T
a:
w;;;
w
_J
:::>!!!.
z~
W"-
>
_J
EXISTING DECK
<Co
z;o:
<(~
::?!
~t;;
u..u..;;;
(.) Q!!!.
If:
""'C.AL.t:: I " = I '-0 "

STONE PAVERS
SET-IN-SAND
---- ----t
:i ! ~
CEMENT P LASTER
i"'ALL FINISH
n-
~~
~I
- r;~
() '
!
1-1-
o --
~-5 .f-b0~-=--_---,-~--------+-C-
r-
HA:L~-~D ~~
IOOLF
o_
Yi/ 5TlJGGO FINISH

T.O.~.
I
I
- 51 .3 '
~~~
O , lll
ntt:~~~~
-_---w
__-___ - l-,C
L-::...__
GONG-
1--
I
I
(\.)(!)
(.)
_J
cc
().) ~
~<(
-&I
<(
IL
-+'
().)<0~ ~
~~<(
~
()
oc ~
IL
(SEE PLAN!
PER STRUGWRAL
I
)I'
0 LANDSCAPE WALL DETAIL

5C.AJ..E, I"= 1'-0 "
6
z11..
_ 0
-g ~ ~
u~3
<t
8/.:24/lb
SCALE:
1/4""' 1'-0"
DRAWN:
C..JH,BM
JOB NUMBER:
_c: (I) ..
IL
DATE:
"!.- -
lk" ....() enu- -!1)
()
5C.ALE, 1/4" = 1'-0 "
(.)
Ul:\(1) (.)
~
1.1)
EB
(.)
'.)=>
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
NO..
IU
.-I
1.1)
I. REFER TO STRUCTURAL
DRAI"'I N6S FOR
FOUNDATION DESI6N
..-o
WOOD FENCE DETAIL
-~ :-
::r:w
z
a:
F ENCE
14.94
A-1.2
SHEET
OF
"')>
ili
I
':J"-:>
OJ
_:I:
~ ~
(\
Ol--
en
~--\oj
ij\
l:l
:t
(l>
110
'I'
I~
JOB NAME:
Residenc.e
A.P.N.
010-:31~-0~b-000
Sc.enic. 2 NV'! of Bth Avenue

C.A "!3"!23
C.c:~rmel ,
C,had~ic.k
j'ij
~--
II
6A5EMENT Fl-OOR Pl-AN
J>
.,...
0
0
;a
.,......
m
z
~m
r:n
~ J>
(\fl'1 m
(\--.
EB
r --
-."-----
10'-2"
~~
,(\
(\
-y
~~~
' y
ti~
25'-o"
I
I
INC. DO
no
"'
~
I~
t"q
'
CONSULTANT:
j'g. y
'
1~
~ ~---=-t~
'
2'-o"
-r-----1
~II ~~,
~~~ ~ l
12'-3"
I
I
6"::3. .:._ .,.-' ---4'-0'_

---
MONTEREY, CA 93940
ARCHITECTS~
,_ 2'~+-I
___
PHONE (831) 372-{)410 FAX {831) 372-7840 WEB: www.ericmillararcllrtects.com
211 HOFFMAN AVENUE
ERIC MILLER
ARCHITECT
-<!:!
i~3f
-l
. 011
- .r--
~
,.y
...q/{1
1(\
33"-o'
Half-Size on 12x18
I I
lrYI~IGYI~
REVISION
t-- ~---- ----~1"

1
- ------,r-
IEL - 41lol
No.
NEI'I RETAININ6 YW.L

T.O. ~ . -
54.5'
.....
- --~
. -,
I
I
I
'
oE
~I
~~
(/) mS
<(~
1-
- - - - '1<
0~
-~
>-'E
1-
U.Ji
1-
~ -~
Z ..
::c
ooo
::E~
a:
~~
-
'
~
":'
<(
a:
w
.....J
=== = =( ~;;f == ==
t-
w
tJ:
UJOi
:::>!!!.
z~
UJLL
.....J
>
<(o
::;~
u..-
z"
<(9
LI..Oi
0!!!.
z
a:
:J:W
....
a
...... :r
N"-
0::
<(
i ~1
-I
,_ '
~NEI'I~D ~
'il =~s- -~~+ 't
~'-
'
~~
~~
ilt----(E)
I!
L:
le'iNOW~
TO MATGH (e)
HOOD ~N(;E IN
FIWNT 5ETEAC.K TO
REMAIN
<(
_J
ll
r! HE~
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
'
SC-ALE : 1/ 4 ""' 1'-0 "

4'r i " /MAX)
NOW
N(;E
---=+~ ~ ~o --=~~
ro
I
4'
I
e
2S WATT MAX. WALL MOUNT

2'-6"
2'-0"
2'-6' '
+- ~- / ~~
-..r-- ---/-r----
11'-2'__
___
J--~~""
--.i---
1_'-o_"---~
_J
lL
1I.Jl
lL
EXTERIOR LIGI-!TING SYMBOLS
3'-10"
()
li
li
0
a 2S WATT MAX. RECESSED CAN LIGI-IT
"'0
8/24/16
DATE:
SCALE:
1/4" = 1'-0"
DRAWN:
C.JH, Bl&!
JOB NUt.IBER
14.34
A-2.1
SHEET
OF
REVISION
1' t-~---
16'-o'
,.,. ___
4'--fl" _
----rt
e-e
--~
- ----- ----'f.~-
1' ~~2_:_{
l
!'~ "
No
+- --------'1.
---~
11~ ~
d) !
io l
en
- -'!.-
I(._)
,._-+-I
~~
I~
:c
(._)
EE?R.OOH
15'-2"
a:
X 10'~ "
<(
a:
w
w;;;
::>!;!.
z~
wu.
.....J >
.....J <Co
~
(._)
1-
()
w
1J:
()
a::
a:
w
z:O:
<(9
:::!:~
u..~
u..;;;
Q!;!.
:r:w
z
.-o
.-:I:
C\jll.
<
----1-- ---- _ _ 10'-IO.:__ __
11'-2"
12'-5'
--~:-2'
<{
_J
I)_
It
_J
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
IL
n
a
\.)
SC.ALEo 1/4"= I '-0"
ro
4'
w
lfl
EXTERIOf( LIGI-ITING 5 MBOLS
'l/16/16
DATE:
1/4"
SCALE:
25 WA MAX. WA L MOUN
>a 25 WAn AX. RECESSED CAN LIGI-l
1'-0"
DRAWN:
JOB NUMBER:
14.:34
A-2.2
SHEET
OF
~e,v
':11'\..)
"')>
ili
I
:j;
""'
lll
(]I
('I
"'g ~
;a
6~
z
~~-
;;:::: .,.
rno
-t:
-a
~0
\Jl
JOB NAME:
Residence
A.P.N. OIO-SI.:2-0.:2!&-000
Sc.enic. 2 NV'! of 8th A v enue

Carmel, CA <1SG!2S
Chad~ic.k
ROOF FI...AN
~--
1>,-'./
()-.
EB
MONTEREY, CA 93940
PHONE (831) 372-0410 FAX (831) 372-7840 , WEB: www.ericmillerarchitects.com
211 HOFFMAN AVENUE
ERIC MILLER ARCHITECTS, INC. DO

DO
ARCHITECT
CONSULTANT:
I I
I~
REVISION
No.
~
~
...J
FIFlST FLOOR - AREA KEY
FLOOR LEVEL - A REA KEY
(/l
(,)
I I'I I' I. ' I

!
i I
ONE STOR
Y- FL
ROOF
FIRST
FLOOR
! LIAT
VING
SPACE ! _
TOTA L FLOOR AREA ------- -
431 SF.
431 SF
TWO STORY- PITCHED R OOF

SECOND FLOOR ( LI VINC::. SP ACE!
'---~___] TOTAL FLOOR AREA -- ..---- 10 3 SF.
S.ll SF.
. i
oE
~ ~
Ol~
25!0 SF.
!03 SF.
(')J'l
U)
~GIC'6n~;~o~~Je~~~~~r.;\Rft'6ve
'------' ~~:~M'}~~ 'c"~~~\'~c:.~._rT Ff<OM
w >i
~ -~
I- ~i
..
:r: zom
:::!:~
()
FINI5l-l FLOOr-< TO FIN ISI-I CEILING.
TOTAL EX EMPT ARE A------ =
<f!
(.)~
I-
31 SF.
()
FLOOR LEVEL MAP

SCALE , 1/ 8"= 1'-0"
2'
a:
<(
a:
::::~!!!.
c(~
:!:I;)
FIRST FLOOR AREA PLAN

AREA
F.F.E.
1-
PLATE I EAVE
ROOF I R IDGE
431 !!>F.
&!O.bS. '
b1.1& '
!0'-b'
b!OA '
.,._.,.
ELEY.
... ~IG... T
!!LEV.
1-II!K>...T
61
4b3 SF.
S.o:l.bS.'
1S..':l'
lb'-3'
11.bS'
1!0'-0'
62
240 SF.
se~s.
1S..':l'
11'-3'
l':l~s.
21 ' -12>'
1>3 S.F.
5':l.bS.'
b':l.bS'
10'-0'
1U:>'
12'-4'
1<Z>.4'
1&.':l'
~ ' -&'
1 1~&'
1S.':l'
S.'-11:)'
ll>.)5'
1'-2'
b1.1S.'
& ' -12>'
&!OA '
l ' -3'
*b
*c
':l !!>F.
14 !!>F.
1'.':l'
44 !!>F.
&US. '
I
2'
z~
LL-
SCALE , 1/8 " = 1'-0 "
VOLUME AREA
z~
UJU.
....J >
....J c(o
4'
UNIT
~
UJM
(,)
!::
::c
4'
u..;;
(.) oe
:::cwz
a:
(.)
a:
..-o
.-I
C\1"-
o<t
l' -3'
BA~iEMENT
AREA KEY
IS)
FLOOR AREA
FLOOF< AREA
IL
<(
11010 S.F.
FIRST FLOOR-----..................-.............................................
GARAGE
........_ ........................................_.................... 21Z>!:> S.F.
SECOND FLOOR ..................................................................................
!:>11 S.F.
STAIR ~ ELEVA TOR ......-..................................-.... -...........-......-144 S.F.
BASEMENT FLOOR ................................................... __.....................
ll!Zl S.F.
BASEMENT FLOOR BONUS .......... .............................
lliZ> S.F.
BASEMENT FLOOR INCENTIVE ..............._ .......................
IIZ>!Zl S.F.
TOTAL=
................................... ..... .... ___........- .... ... 2,012 S.F.
FL OOR AREA
..
,f
_J
6ASEMENT (LIVING SPACE-INC:ENTIVEJ

1)) SF.
'--~-'---'~ TOTAL FLOOR AREA------
>
~it)~
1U
CRAWL SPACE
tiNDER 4'-11' CEILINC:.
18'3 SF
6ASEMENT (EXEMPT AREA)
I fi~~~~E~~aot~rtJ;~N~~~ Aeove
'-------.J
4'- 11' MAXIMUM CEILING 14EIC01-IT FROM

FINISI-I FLOOr-< TO FINI51-I CeiLING.
TOTAL EXEMPT AREA ---- = 241 SF.
332 S.F.
193 6 .F.
2!:>8 6.F.
183 S.F.
~~<{
<(
1U
-u
()
()
1L
'0.Jl8
I
2'
4'
<(
et24/l&
DATE:
BASEMENT FLOOR AREA PLAPII
_ Q,) L
11e"; 1'-o
SCALE :
SC A LE , 1/8" = 1'-0"
N 0_
\)~
acE z
IL
<(
_J
'
N
OC"-aum
\
!-
&2S SF.
..sl
N
\i).s:. m ()
-u<t:
_J
WFEN SFACE J
BASEMENT- STAIRS ~ELEVATOR .................................

BASEMENT - CARL IFT ___.................-................................................
FIRST FLOOR ----- . . ...... .. .. ......... .................. . .. ........
TOT A L = .......................................................................................................
~::>
cc
\\)~
lU
()
()
()
~~
_J
( LIVING SFACE J
DRAWN:
C.JH,
JOB NUMBER:
6~
14.94
A-2.4
SHEET
Of
REVISI ON
No
...,
IJ'O
- -- -
-- -
-- -
- - - - - - - ==-c:::::y::=,,=p
__ ===r:=_::=
__=:c~.~_::-:::--:._==._~===----:----:-:-~---::-~-~----::----:--:-:=c-:_=:_~_=_';:-c~"--"_':"=_
=.=cc:;=_=
_ =.-=...=::o=:-_
=_=-===io=~
0
0
I
(
------ 52 - ---
'
<; /
_:_"J -~~-;::=5 ~J
- L"-~;_~::1
rli_.,:'r ~~==-~~=========,==--=====,~~~==~~n
~
I " "' oO:_< I
I~
li
~ ~. N
(N)ROOF
EL.=11 .65
~-,
::_ ,:, ;. :;
~ s/
-- -- ------
EL =o:_::_
~ I
1\ :__ .:;,t,;
oE
"<t-8
----
-----
ct~
I-
N EW 2nd FLOOR DECK

j(N) EL. . 6e.3l
~~
C') .~
(/)
__
(N) PARAPET --itt---~-~
EL.=68.<!5
(.)!!!
w >i
(.)
59
W.!.!
a:~
I
_ _ --en-- I 1!: ,. EL =tCC
I- ~l
z ..
:::r:
Offi
::=;:;;::
(.)
a:
a
Ul
<(
a:
:J~
z::i
wu.
.....J >
.....J <to
!I
~,
z:t
ct~
~ ::B;
LL-
: : =-~ -~e:.:
62
w;;;
(.)
LL;;;
0~
::cwz
a:
~o
.-:I:
C\JC..
e
,~
EL.~6 : .C
[L
oi;CD
-I
\0
.._
I
u=>
cc
li
_L:___,
- - u-----
6'J ' .,
6.3 --...
--u ~-
-u-<
lL
G
(\)d)~ NI
If)
"ill ..c
-~N_ G
-u \)
()
_c: II) L
\ ) \) Cl
IS)\)
l.l
DATE
4'
1'- o
0..:
<(
CD
IL
r
o
"'~
()
It
SCALE , 1/ 4 " =
C)c E
IL
e/24/16
SCALE
ROOF HEIGHTS
in
~~<{ ~
\0
PROPC~SED
If)
oc ...Otr
()
It
_j
()
I
I
I~
(\)~
G
G
GI
(\)II)
\!)
1/4"
DRAWN:
I'-Q "
C.JH, 6Rii't
JOB NUMBER:
14.34
A-2.5
SHEET
OF
REVISION
No.
18' -e>' MAXIMUM HEIGHT

FROM !E! NAT. GRADE
2-FIECE CLAY
TILE ROOF -.
RENAISSANCE STONE,
FE IRCED ROUND WINDOUI
---
__ T_if __
TOP OF RID<S>E HT. = "T'I .65'
- - - - - - - - - i - --- -
TOP OF RIDGE fiT. = "T'! .O'
--t
I
TOP OF PLATE HT.= "T5.q'
sru=o
TOP OF RID<S>E fiT. "T2."T5'
WALLS w/ __
CI-IAMFERED
:
CORNERS
TOP OF RID<S>E "T2.'1'

FAINTED STEEL
WINDOWS w/ STONE
TI'!IM c SILL, SEE
SOEDULES
I
I
:;E<:;OND FINISH FLOOR .= 6!1.4'
-----+-'T'-=0-'-P....:O::.cF_PLc.=A_;TE.::...:..H"-T'.-"Tc::Oc::_"l'' __
.l
~ I:
---'1.-
t-'
<t
-'
:::>
(/)
z
1-
FIRST FLOOR PLATE = 6"T.I5'
SMOOT" NATURAL LIMESTONE VENEER

WALL 6ASE AND
RAIL 42' AFF.
u
---
-'\.-
(E! NAT. GRADE
FIRST F INI!:>H FLOOR = 5t65'

6ASEMENT <:;ElLING fiT. = 5!1.4'
BASE...,ENT T.O.F'. = 51 .4'

STAINED WOOD
OVERHEAD DOOR
WI STONE TRIM
PROPERTY LINE -- - - ....
"I
~i
WOOD ENTRY DOOR
i ----
,I
r-
Pli!OFERTT LINE
SCALE, 1/ 4"= I '-0 "
r-
STAIRI'IELL FINI!:>H FLOOR 4'1."1

6AS!::I-!ENT FINISH FLOOR = 4e .4 '
4'
en -~
<C '!!
~i
.:.
>- 'E
W.Q
a: :;;
I- ~q
..
oz w
I
~ [g
EXTERIOR EAST ELEVATION- FRONT
d'; ~
C'J {l
I-
C/)
<:;ARLIFT PIT FLOOR = 4"T.q'
I
~
ml
C:.l,..____,_
NEW FINIS..
GRADE = 5<;!.5'
UJ/ NATURAL SMOOTH

LIMESTONE VENEER
SURROUND
j
<:;ARLIFT FINI!:>H FLOOR : 4"1 .'f
'!--
FIR5T FINI!:>H FLOOR = 5'1.65'
I
I
~
I
:...
$
~
oo
0
FINI!:>H GRADE = 6 !.f>5

- _ ___ ,'!!---+.c.::.:=-===-:'--"'"'-='---<$
I
I
'!--
(EJ NAT. GRADE
':1'
'
(_)
a:
<(
:;:
a:
~g
a:
w
:::c zw
18'-IZ'' MAXIML.M HEIGHT

FROM (EJ NAT. GRADE
RENAISSANCE STONE.
PEIRCED ROUND WINDOW
TOP OF R IDGE HT. = 1"1.65'
t1
~I
TOP OF PLATE HT.= 15.'!'
r-----
- ---- - - - -----
1-
- - - - _:c._ - - - - -
()
I
STUCCO WALLS w/
CHAMFERED
CORNERS
j--
~--
.........
k- --
:I
, i
'~ :
5Ec:;QND FINI5H FLOOR
~I
~ :I:
~ ---~~TO::.cP~O'-P-'-P~LA~TE~H-'-T-'-.=-1""5~.'1'-'-- ~-
FROFEI'!TY LINE
~ o
C\J C.
SJ:::<:;OND FINISH FLOOR = 6!1 4'
::r:
()
a:
<
STUCCO CHIMNEY w/
TILE INLAY AT OPENING
PROPERTY LINE
w
!:::
TOP OF RID<S>E HT. "T"'.O'
z ~
w u.
.....J >
.
.....J <C o
z ;
<C ~
~ ~
~
LL 1;i
(_) LL
0 !!?.
\
-
6B.4'
FIRST FLOOR PLATE = 6"T.15'
NEW DEC!< W/ METAL

RAIL 6 EYOND
()
()
()
(1.)(1)
IJ)
- NEW b'-IZ'' MAX. NORTj..j

PROPERTY LINE FENCE
~"'
c:c:
.....
-u<t:
(!.)~
()
'i.i)
<(
. (()
(!.)<ti~
>
w oc . . . (()
$
<S>REAT R...,_ FIN15H FLOOR : SB.65~
6A5EI-!ENT C.EILIN& = 51.4'
I+
I
( E! NAT_ GRADE
5::
9U" ' :J~
;~
<:;ARLIFT F INI!:>H FLOOR = 4'!.'1'
_j
_:,[ ?:_
lU
~z<
-~ N \.),
It
f'l
in
I
()
-u
\) '\)
a c E z
()
I
18 FEET ElELOW
PROPOSED ROOF LINE
0\)"
N
()
it
~
. <ll \...
\.) \) 0
ll)\.)
u.:
.{
lU
"1/16/16
DATE:
6EDI'WOMS F INISH FLOOR . 4B.4' ,._
1/4"
SCALE:
DRAWN:
EXTERIOR NORTH ELEVATION - SIDE

SCALE, 1/4" = I '-0"
4'
JOB NUMBER:
E>'
= 1'-0"
C...JH, ~
14.94
A-3.1
SHEET
OF
REVISION
No.
&
.~2-PIECE
ffi
- 18'-12>' MAXIMUM
HEIGd-IT FROM fEJ
NAT. GRADE
CLAY TILE
TOP OF RIDGE HT.
= 1'1.0
'
I
I
ARC'-'ED WINDOJI -
ON 31 DEGICEE
ANGLED WALL
'
F'!'!OFER:T
TOP Of' PL-"TE ~ - 1!5.'! '

5ECOIID FIN ISoH FI.OOR.
FIR.5T
FI.OO~
TOP Of' RID<&E HT.
= 1'1.65'
TOP OF RJD 6E HT
= T1.b5'
- - --'I-
- -'\i
I
I
_...---
I
I
I
I
_I __ _
STUCCO WALLS w1
CI--IAMFERED
COF<NeR:S
LINE
j-
-t--
I
I
I
I
I
~I
I
I
_j
-~ - -
___,_
STUCCO 0-IIMNEY wl
CI.AT TILE CAP < INLAY
AT OPENING
TOP OF PLATE HT. 15.'1'
&
&
R:OOF
DECORATIVE-- + ---WROUGHT IRON

!
GUAR:OR:AIL
i
9
SOUTf-1 PROPeRTY LINe
FeNCE HEIGI--lT
= b E!> 4
COF"PER: ROOF __;

OYER EIAY WINDOWS
I
I
PLATE 6 1.15
.::
z
<t
I
I
O<:o
'
$
$
SECOND
FINI~
FLOOR
.= bl'>.4'
___,_
FIRST FLOOR PLATE 61.15'
:;)
b_,
zVl
(.)
;<!) :
'!I---
FIRST FINISH FI.OOR
= 58.65'
-- - -
Ill
$
-"1.--
6 A5EMENT CEILIN<!>
= 51.4'
6A5EMENT CE:ILIN6 HT.
= 58.4'
I!
- -{
F IR.5T F INI5ri F OOR = 5'1 6 5 '
':-
en
i>
4:\
6A5EMENT FINISoH FLOOR 48.4'
NEW DECK WI 5TUCCO

COLUMNS AND METAL
GoUAR:O RAIL.
$
$
CARLIFT FINISoH FLOOR 4'1 .'1 '
CARLIFT P IT FLOOR 41.'! '
:::c
O ffi
I-
z ..
(_) ::!! ;;::
'
cc
<(
...9
'
cc
EXTERIOR SOUTH ELEVATION - SIDE

SCALE,
c( ~
(.) I!!
(_) >- ~
! I
-~-
Ol ~
I-
SMOOTi--1 NATURAL
L.IME:STONI! VENEE:R
WALL 6ASe-54' AFF
o E
;;!; ~
crJ tl
L.U ;;;
=> ~
LU
z ~
L.LJ U.
.....J >
.....J c( o
1/ 4"= I '-0 "
z :O:
1-
= 1'1.65'
TOP OF I".ID<&E: HT.

TOP OF I".ID15E l-iT
t-
.= 18.0'
STUCCO CI--IIMNEY wt- &TONE CAP I TIL.E

INL.AY AT OFENING
I
I
FROPEI'!TY L.INE:
SECOND FINISH FLOOI'It 68.4'
F IRST FLOOR. PLATE
= 61.15 '
1-
I:
TOP OF RID<&E HT.
___
JI
I
~-
____....,I
FROFEI'!TY L. INE
I
I
-$--'S=E:=
G.:::O'-'ND~F.::.IN:::I5H::.:....;F.:;cl.=O.::.O:..:R..;.-=.6B::.;...:."''--- - -"<-
FIRST FLOOR PL.ATE
=61.15'
ElASeHENT CEIL.INIS
u"'
cc
$$--'~~RE~A...:.
T..;.RH~~F~IN~IS~H...:.F=l.O::.;O::.;R~=~5~e~
.6~5_
' ____
-- ~
i'
~~ ~I
N
'iii _c 11) 0
I
\:)<(
>
lU
~~<( ~
~d)~ 1'1
.... 11)
It
it
....c
\}
fJ ;: E
J~
6EDROOH5 FINISH FLOOR .= 41!>.4 '
- --'\-
SCALE,
1/4"= I '-0"
0
4'
8'
!l
<(
"1/16/16
1/4" " 1'-0"
DRAWN:
C.JH, ~
JOB NUMBER:
EXTERIOR WEST ELEVATION - BACK
\) Cl
SCALE
eeDROOHS FINISH FL.OOR . 41'> .4'
Ill'\1)\.)
"'~
DATE:
NEW FENCE ON
<E:I CONCReTE
ReTAINING WALL-
if)
\) ~
\:)
1-
i i
On-
-~ N \J_
()
()
i=
<(
=51.4' ~
0
0
~Ill
Ul
_J
<&I'!EAT I'!M. FINISH FL.OOR 58.65'
C\J C.
,_
OvER 6AY WINDOWS
.- ::t:
()
_J
z
..- o
UJ
=11.65'
CO~ER I'!OOF - -----
:J: W
tr.
<t
TOP OF R ID<&E !-iT. = 1'l.O'

$
a:
u
w
PAINTED STEEL LlANDOUJ5

~~ &TONE TRIM < SIL.L.,
&e e SCI--IeDUL.E&
~!
~
RE:VI5eD CENTE:R
DECORATIVE PANEL TO
ARCi--1 WINDOW OPeNING
TOP OF PLATE HT. 15.'l'
3'-b' MIN.
WROUGoHT IRON
C:.UAR:OR:AIL. wl
P ICKET& 4' O .C .
ROOF
- \\
I
2-F!ECe CL.AY TILe
ce :i:
~ :!
I;
u.. u.. ;;;
(_) 0
~
14.:>4
A-3.2
SHEET
OF
REVISION
No .
.,:..:
P!'<OPERTY LINE
PROPERTY
LINE
--PROPEF<TY
LINE
PROf'EF<TY
LINE
lEI BLDG..--
PROFILE
...J
:::J
VJ
(.)
T~~~'"'
I
IEJBLDC..
-
-~LE ~ = ===+-~--, = = - -~- ~-- -
- E:::::;::~=~.>""''----::llh-!=--:-=:======~
~~--~c-::--:::--=::;:-_ _~ =--=- -~
..
~:~~~~"~8'0''''i:':
(/)
I-
()
I-
.r
SOUTH NEIGHEOI<.
~----------
PI<.OJEGT SITE
---------+
:r:
a: ~
<(
f;3
a: W;;;
()
NORTH NEI<*iBOI<.
EXISTING SCENIC ROAD ELEVATION

SCALE, 1/8"= 1'-0"
:::J~
w
_J
z~
wu..
>
<Co
_J
IE>'
z~
~
PROPERTY-LINE
PROPERTY-LINE
PROPERTY
LINE
IE! 6LDC.. PROFILE

TO 6E REMOVED
151-<0\LN DA51-<EDJ
()
10
LLJ
!::
,./c._ -,
I
PROPERTY
LINE
,-,..->j.-----------_J
-=4--=
IE~:6fi'C'=E=-======tp==""!7'i
I
L,
::r
0
a:
<(
$81.2'
<C;i.;
::!:I?
LL~
LL;;;
0~
a:
IW
z
~o
~:r
C\JC..
$83.1'
~-~6~~==~--.J_
C)
C)
C)
(\.)~
\j::J
c c:
(\.)~
SOUTH NEIGHEOR
PROJEGT SITE
--)(------
NORTH NE_I_GHE_O_R_ _ _ _ _ _ __
\:)4:
"\f) s:.
0
i=
SCALE, 1/8"= I '-0"

I
If>'
C)
Clu-
if\
~~4: ~
_J
rf)
( } " 4-
>
UJ
UJ
().)tl~ NI
rf)
..:(
PROPOSED SCENIC ROAD ELEVATION
-~N_ G
\l
\}~
act:
~
u lfl0
\.) '-
_c
UJ
UJ
It
IL
<(
\J)
~
E>/:24/16
DATE:
1/E>""' 1'-0"
SCALE
DRAWN:
C..JH, 6RY'l
JOB NUMBER
14.:14
A-3.3
SHEET
OF
REVISION
0\JTL.INE OF PR01"05ED ~
6Uil..DIN6o FRAMIN<!> '
------ -~
. . (N) RID6E HT. - ;q _6'
FRONT
~ ~ENIG
Lr:::~~~-1-
RD
(E) 6 '-D"
moo FENCE
--
- - ii.~~~~~~~~~~--~---~--.--~~~ - - ~
-~
-~-:r;~f
........--;
.......-
-.. ~ -
--
--~----
_ ____ - -;J--1
--
....
- - L,_
I I
-r- ED~OFT~ BE~~~~~; -- --- --- +
I- ______
I
DRYSTAGK STONE
TAININ6 f'IALL
t'-"=--==-=-=;n-
lilf--.:=::..___jJ-L.
~"'i-r-'AU.E>S
~---t'~-;<c. . . . .
---~---------- ~t~~~%J~D __-_-_-_j._--:-~1- - ,_,

"'IDE
if,.:;~~T
. /FRONT
-tl........=.-i-'~> "<~~.L.I[~~:;=~l
YARD SET6AC.Kl- - - -- - -
PROPO:;:ILDIN5
--J.--
REAR
(,)
.(SI_2nd . FLR _FFE-'TI~6~-+ {N) _:l_n5'l . FLR
F.F.[' .~M'
..
1~
-l ~ _-- ~~~_.mJt
F_F_,_:_!>~6~(N) ~LR~E-_2~'
~~,
,:~
J :Ji:! _
-+ (N) RID6E H'T. - ;q_6 '
---~ -
___
~
::::>
(/)
FLR
_---k-=i -=:
4IORTH
i~~~~D-~ -- ~S'-4.,-H-AX-.~:~, ~--'j<-ifill!llllliliii!Jiri. . . . . . . . . . .~
--
<
+-iE)_RID~_ftT. -~; ~~~!_ __
_:-_:_1-----rJ~ ___
--J,
~(E)~U5E.HA~R .. F~~62~~==~==~~==~==~~~~==~==~~~~~~-=~~~~~-~~.~-~
-----
l --- ---~~
.--lf-4n'!trlffiftfflffflit+- - -
PAVEMENT
--+INJ.J~LFJ.8J'~EJ;,-.5k~'-
.:-:
z
OLIT"LINE (E) HOUSE TO BE

REMOVED SHOY-lN DASHED
le'-0" MAK HEI6HT LIMIT ABOVE NA'T1.1RAL <!>RA~- ___ _____ _ -~
Y:.:;;1~ETBAC.K
?i
. Ill'
I; -{.:____ --
-- -+ (E)
__
~E~-= ~2~
(N) BASEMENT FF.-4!>.4'
~~~~:C.O
r;-
a:
I
/?> '
I""'
0
t;
:I:
(,)
r:r:
OUn.INE (E) HOUSE TO BE

REMOVED 5HOV'tiN DASHED
w
__J
zx
<(,;,
wl1:
~.::z~
~~
~g
:r:w
a:
.-iS
.-J:
NO.
<
~(! R ID6E
;, (E) I>JD6E HT. - e;;.e (AS$UMED)

- - - - - - -
~g
16'
!::
~--
r"INI!IH
SITE SECTION A
---
No.
HT. - 1?>3.6 ' (_ASSUMED)
SIDE PI<O"ERTY - LINE ($0U"TH)
\0
~~
'ill. (fl
UJ
~d)g
\0
lt. ...0\r
(fl
w
J--
= I '-0"
/?> '
~ 1-
__c
\.) \) Cl
::::!
1:0
Ul0
ll
.{
2>/24116
OATE:
z
Q
::::)
SC.ALE, 1/ e
(}
N
i1)
~ N 0_ (}
\ l \)~
C)'CE
\1)
SITE SECTION B
~~<{ ~
\0
10'-5"
1
-.\)
-u<t:
\)
3f>'-1"
(}
(}
'L:c
i=
F'ROP05ED ElUILDINe
(}
~~
<0 =>
\)
SCALE:
1/2>"
If>'
ORAWN :
= 1'-0"
c;.JH, BRJI'i
JOB NUMB ER:
14.34
A-3.4
SHEET
OF
REVISION
DOOR SCHEDULE
OOORT'r'FE
NO.
51ZE
DOOR NOTES
THKN5
LOCATION
OOOR
MAT.
FRAME
MAT.
"1"1"
I"'IOTH
"H"
HEI<'i>HT
Dl
2'-6"
T-0"
GARLIFT
1-9/4"
55TL
55TL.
D2
9'-0"
1'-0"
ELE:VATOR
1-9/4"
1"1000
D9
9'-0"
1'-0"
5TORAG>E
1-9/4"
D4
9'-0"
1'-0"
ME:GHANIGAL
D5
2'-0"
NO.
HEAD
DETAIL..
ALL DOORS 5HAlJ... COMPLY

I. SH,A,U.. BE
ROOM NAME
11!:
()
()
No.
FIRE:-RATE:D DOOR, 5E:E: NOTE: 016
~-o
~ITH
THE
FOLLO~IN6,
\A'U:SS OTH:f!U'I41SE ""'TED, LI.O.N .
X b'-8 " MINIMUM.
Sfo+ALL HAVE HARDVV..RE MOUNTED 30 " TO 44' ABOVE FINISH FLOOR.
S.
Tt-IRESHOL..t' SHAU. HAVE MA.XIt-fi.JM t!EI.SHT OF 1/2" A60\IE FINI;.t-1 FLOOR.
1"1000
PROVIDE (2) PAIR- 4-1/2" X 4-112 " 8l..ITT5 ON. ALL DOORS.
1"1000
1"1000
5.
A.I..L.
I"'OOD
_j
lL
1-
'IUi!
:Ill
1-9/4"
I"'OOD
ElATH "4
114"
5L..A55
NONE
BATH "4
1-9/4"
I"'OOD
I"'OOD
TE:MPERE:D 5L..A55 SHOI"R DOOR, :.E:E NO'I"': " IO
I"'IOD
I"'OOD
TE:MPERE:D 5L..A55, I"'E:ATHER-5TRIPPIN5
I"'OOD
'TEMPERED GL..A55, I"'E:ATHER-5TRIPPIN&
NONE
PAIR DOOR!:>
t!A~RE TO t+AY'E USIOB FINISH (OIL. ~seep 6RON.Ze,/.

Q, THE E;MTR"'"' :DOOR HARO~AR.E: TO 6E USE SHALL eE 5TAIN!...E55 5"1"'Ea. (S.S.) 916
b. AU.. EX"F'Er:!.IOR DOOf:!. HARt'~~ TO BE S.S. 616
c:.. ALL INTERIOR PAS5A6E DOORS TO 8E lJSE SHALL BE S.S. 916
EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL BE
1'-0"
2'-6"
D1
De
2'-0"
&.
2'-6"
8'-0"
BEDROOM "4
1-9/4"
2'-6"
8'-0"
BEDROOM "4
1-9/4"
5'-a"
8'-0"
BEDROOM #9
1-9/4"
Dll
2'-0"
BEDROOM "9
1-9/4"
Dl2
2'-0"
6ATH "9
1-9/4"
&LA55
I"'OOD
I"'OOD
I"'OOD
DIS
2'-6"
8'-0"
BATH "9
1/4"
I"'OOD
NONE
Dl4
2'-0"
8'-0"
6ATH "9
1-9/4"
I"'OOD
NONE
GRAI"'L !:>PAGE:
1-9/4"
I"'OOD
I"'OOD
2'-6"
DIS
Dl6
DOO~S
~ATHERS~PPEP
SHAW.. BE SO.L.ID GORE
ALL DOOfii. ISLAZINS TO 6E TEI'-'IFERW.
BE:DROOM "4
EXTERIOR ~INDO...&, ~INDOV"i t'i.AW.5, f!ili...AZED DOOR5 AND GLAZED OPENI~ ~ITHIN .EXl'f:~IOR DO~ 5HAU. 6E IN5ULATIN!So 5LA55 \/NI T~ lltlll4 A MINI ~
ON.E 'TEMPER.EP PANE, OR 6oLAS5 6LOCK UNITS, OR HAV'E A FIR.f-RE515TANGE RATIN6 NOT LESS THAN .20 MINIJ"'rl:&. (U.O.N)
12.
DIO
AJ..l..
'TEMPERE:D <'i>LA55 SHO!"R DOOR, SEE NO'I"': #10
REGIJIREI:;;J NAT\JRAL LI\SIHT FOR 5F'AC.ES INTENDED FOR HJMAN OC.c.I..JPANGY SHAU I-lAVE 6LAZED OPENI~GS V"'ITH AN AREA t-40T LES$ il-IAN
e!t oF
QF
ROOM FLOOR.
AREA.
13
REGUI~D NA'T'I.RAL VENT F=OR SPACES INTEI'lDED FOR HJMAN
ClGC.I.JPANC.Y s.HALL. HAVE ISLAZED OPENIN5S NoT LESS 'Tl-IAN 4% OF AREAS Belt-46 VENTED
I DOOR TYPES
()
ZoE
DEL TED
... . .
+'~
It
()
()
8'-0"
D21
Go
D22
DE:LE:TED
1'-0"
G>ARAG>E
2-1/4"
I"'OOD
I"'OOD
V'lOOD 5EGTIONAL OVERHEAD 5ARA6E: DOOR
FIRE-RATE:D DOOR, 5EE NO'I"': OlEo
FIXED GLASS -
_j
lL
D29
2'-6"
1-0"
ME:GHANIGAL
1-9/4"
I"'OOD
I"'OOD
D24
9'-0"
1'-0"
ELEVATOR
1-3/4"
I"'IOD
I"'OOD
D25
9'-0"
1'-0"
ENTRY
1-9/4"
I"'OOD
I"'OOD
D26
2'-0"
POI"'DE:RROOM
1-9/4"
I"'OOD
I"'OOD
'
f~+-
Lt::J
FIXE:D GLASS
1"1000 FRAME:D -. . '
I-
~lL
:1(~9
D21
11'-0"
8'-0"
G>RE:AT ROOM
2-1/4"
5TL/5L
STL...
o:2e
2'-6"
8'-0"
GRE:AT ROOM
1-3/4"
I"'OOD
I"'OOD
TE:MP.
FINISH FLOOR
ELE:VA!I_ON_(F.F.) ___ _
TE:MPERED 5LAS5, 3-PANE:L LIFT AND 5LIDE, I"'E:ATHE:R-STRIPPIN<S>
5~~~:
__
RO~ND TOP
I"'OOD ENTRY
DOOR
DELETE:D
...
__.
AI'<GHED TOP
TEMPERE:D 5LASS
DIJTCH I"'OOD DOOI'<
'I"':MPERED GLA55, DIJTGH DOOR, i"'EATHER-STRIPPIN<S>
V.l
;= ;=
f-r-
~~
( ) :::2:;:
'
a:
<(
----
' -'-ROUND TOP

TE:MPERE:D 5LA55
FRENCH STEEL DOOR
JL.U ~
1- ~
I
~fii
-r-"{I-----. ' - - -
<( ~
() >-"i
'
I"'OOD FRAME:D
~!l
Mjg
en ..=l
t- (.)
1-
5TE:EL FRAMED
TE:MP. <S>LASS
DOOR
I"'OOD FRAMED - ----'........_,

-
'1..---
..
,.r,.
-/- - -;<
a:
:::Je
_J
>
<(o
L.U;;;
w
_J
z~
L.LJU..
z:O:
11!:
()
D91
9'-0"
T-0"
ELEVATOR
1-3/4"
I"'OOD
I"'OOD
D52
9'-6"
1'-0"
STAI~LL
1-9/4"
I"'OOD
I"'OOD
D99
2'-4"
T-0"
LAUNDRY
1-914"
I"'OOD
I"'OOD
D'34
2'-o"
1'-a"
MASTE:R CLOSET #2
1-9/4"
I"'OOD
I"'OOD
IU
D95
9'-4"
1'-0"
SITTING> ROOM
1-9/4"
I"'OOD
I"'OOD
()
PAIR POCKET DOOR5
..
_j
lL
2'-6"
1'-0"
MASTE:R VESTIBULE
2-1/4"
STL./6L
STL.
D91
4'-0"
T-O"
MA5TE:R BEDROOM
1-3/4"
I"'OOD
I"'OOD
PAIR POCKET DOORS
D'3e
2'-0"
1'-0"
MASTE:R ElATHROOM
1-9/4"
I"'OOD
I"'OOD
POCKET DOOR
2'-0"
1'-0"
MASTE:R TOILE:T Oil
1-3/4"
I"'OOD
I"'OOD
'I"':MPERE:D GLASS, i"'EATHER-STRIPPING
:1
:;;i
.i
1'-0"
MASTE:R GLO!:>ET 112
1-9/4"
I"'OOD
I"'OOD
D41
2'-0"
1'-0"
MASTE:R TOILE:T '*2
1-9/4"
I"'OOD
I"'OOD
'
"'I
i_
TE:MPERE:D 5LA5S
3-PANEL LIFT t SLIDE:
S'TEEL DOOR
'I"':MPERE:D GLASS
!:>'!EEL DOOR
5:
(.)
a:
~o
.--:I:
NO..
[[
<
-~ -~-)Jl~~~'.'__-- -1~--~r):
,;----~---I
2'-0"
1-
___ ; _ ______ ~----'jr---'<-
D40
b
w
'
POCKET DOOR
I))
D9E>
__...,.__----+-
r-----~r-'er7u-~~,
-C.CI -, -~
.,.
/-
~ <(~
:::2:~'
u..~
() u..;;;
oe
:::cw
'
OVERHE:AD V'lOOD
<S>ARA<S>E DOOR
'
FRAME:LE:55
TEMPERE:D 6LA55
SI;IOI"'ER DOOR
POCKET DOOR
I_"I~
"!'<"
-/----/
~--
,t
.[[]1_!
ITillliTIJ
--'----
INTERIOR
I"'OOD DOOR
rnl~~
lllliJ
'----
IN'I"':RIOR I"'OOD
POCKET DOOR
IN'I"':RIOR I"'OOD
PAIR DOORS
8
8
,-------,.-----,
- -
~[ill
r~n' "[JI]i
LU ~
!
INTERIOR I"'IOD PAIR

POCKET DOOR!:>
8/24/16
DATE:
i
~
~-
DOOR SCHEDIULE
SCALE:
A5 NOTE:D
SC.ALEo 1/4"== I '-0"
DRAWN
r-
JOB NUMBER:
4'
C.JH,
6~
1-4.~4
f'j'
A-4.1
!L__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ __________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ i_____

s_HE_n____o_F__~
REVISION
WINDOW SCHEDULE
SIZE
WIDTH
Ull~
DOUBLE
STEEL CASEMENT
B'-0 '
BATt< 3 4 04
D OUBLE
STEEL CASEMENT
1'-Q"
3'--6"
2'-0"
5'-6"
BEDROOM #3
DOUBLE
STEEL CASEMENT
B'-D"
2'-Q'
2'-0"
STEEL
FIXED
TEMPERED 6LASS
DOUBLE
STEEL
FIXED
TEMPERED 6LASS
5'-0"
5'-6"
STAIRv-IELL
DOUBLE
STEEL
FIXED
3'-0"
3'- 1"
KITCHEN
DOUBLE
STEEL C-ASEMENT
B'-o"
4 '-5"
1'-B"
5'--6 "
GREAT ROOM
DOUBLE
STEEL CASEMENT
e-o
2'-6 "
11'-0"
5'-6"
6REAT ROOH
DOUBLE
STEEL
e-o
2'-6"
1'-B"
5'-6"
SREAT ROOH
DOUBLE
STEEL CASEMENT
e-o
2 '-6 "
1'-B"
5'-6"
6REAT ROOH
DOUBLE
STEEL C.ASEHENT
B'-o"
2'-6"
o
P
5'-B"
Fl XED
FIXED
TEMPERED 6LAS5
5'-6"
6REAT ROOM
DOUBLE
5TEEL
DOUBLE
STEEL C.ASEHENT
b '-G'
2'--6 "
b'-Q '
TEMPERED 6LASS
.~
2'-6 "
- ->r<-
)'
-i
~!
"W"
fB J
.
1'-B"
5'-6 "
GREAT ROOH
B'-B"
6'- 0"
6REAT ROOH
DOUBLE
5TEEL C-ASEMENT
b'-Q '
2'-6"
2'-0"
3'-6"
GARAGE
DOUBLE
STEEL CASEHENT
1'-0"
3'-6"
2'-0"
3'-6"
6ARA6E
DOUBLE
5TEEL C-ASEMENT
T-O"
3'-6"
f-
2'-0"
3'-10"
HASTER BATHROOM
DOUBLE
STEEL GASEHENT
1'-o"
3'-2"
2'-0"
3'-10"
HASTER TOILET 2
DOUBLE
STEEL C.ASEHENT
T-0 "
3'-2"
~-~ '-2~-.~2~
[]
---+ @_
DELETED
FIXED
15'-5'
13'-11"
2'-1" Dl J'METER
ENTRY
DOUBLE
STONE
F IXED
11'-5"
q'- 4"
2'-1" DIAMETER
STAIRWELL
DOUBLE
STONE
FIXED
15'-5"
13'-4"
it I
1'-0"
STAIRv-IELL
DOUBLE
STEEL
FIXED
15'-11 '
13'-5"
2'-6 '
1'-0"
2'-6"
STAIRv-IELL
DOUBLE
STEEL
FIXED
IS'-11 "
13 '-5 "
1'-0"
2'-6"
STAIRv-IELL
DOUBLE
STEEL
FIXED
15'-11"
13'-5"
1'--6"
3'-0"
STAIRY'IELL
DOUBLE
STEEL
F IXED
1'-4"
4 '-4"
@D
2'-0"
3'-0 "
SITTING ROOM
DOUBLE
5TEEL C-ASEMENT
T-4"
4'- 4 "
1'-0'
4'-10"
SITTIN6 ROOM
DOUBLE
STEEL
1'-4"
2'-6"
1'- 10"
4'- 10"
SITTING ROOM
DOUBLE
@o
@B
,_
STEEL
@B
@El
@>K
--
DOUBLE
1'-6"
1'-0"
4'- 10"
2'-6"
4'-10"
FIXED
STEEL t<--A5EHENT
1'-4"
T-4 "
SITTING ROOM
DOUBLE
STEEL
FIXED
HASTER VESTIBULE
DOUBLE
STEEL C.ASEHENT
1'-4"
MASTER VESTIBULE
DOUBLE
STEEL
FIXED
1'-4"
2'-6"
MASTER BEDROOM
DOUBLE
STEEL
FIXED
1'-4"
2'-6"
6'-0"
4'-10"
MASTER BEDROOM
DOUBLE
STEEL
FIXED
1'-4"
2 '-6 "
3'-o"
4'-10"
MASTER BEDROOM
DOUBLE
STEEL t<--ASEMENT
1'-6"
3'-0'
MASTER BATHROOH
DOUBLE
STEEL C-ASEMENT
1'-4"
4'- 4"
4 '-10"
3'-0'
MASTER BATHROOM
DOUBLE
STEEL
T-4"
4'-4"
1'-6"
3'-0"
MASTER BATHRQOH
DOUBLE
STEEL CASEMENT
4'-0"
4'-10"
MASTER BEDROOM
DOUBLE
STEEL C-ASEMENT
F IXED
4" .
~ -~-'
'LJDD!=! I E>
@
~I
;tl
@ _lb='k=.!b:.!L______"'I
, @
, _ '!------
--t
~ I
-- ~
3'-0"
a:
~I
I
We;;
:::>!!!.
w
_J
l '-4't
- {- ~
'
2'-6"
4'-10"
'1"1"
{ ---r~
-I'--- -- 'W _- - . i ' -
2'-6"
4'- 10"
II
, .I
---~~
3'-2'
2'- 6"
6'-0"
'!:!:__
:=2-r
ENTRY
1'-0"
BEDROOM "4
3'-6"
DOUBLE
Q)
C\l
5'-6"
2'-0"
STAIRv-IELL
SA
SA
en
2'-0"
ST AI Rv-iELL
I~
CIT( COUNC-IL
REV. 'l/16/16
SILL
5'-6"
@D
JAMB
3'-10"
c:::
HEAD
ROOM NAME
1'-1>"
~~~~R
4'-B '
HEIGHT
REVISED
3/30/16
Y>IINDOY'I DETAILS
@
@>
@
@
@
WINDOW TYPE
LOCATION
No.
REVISED
1/21/16 2/23/16
'1"1"
-.1<-+
rr:s
TEMPERED 6LAS5
z:::i
WLL
>
::::l!t;;
<o
z;;:
<~
LL~
()
r-J,
_J
LLo:i
Q!!!.
:r:w
a:
- _it,
;:~
___,___
(\JC.
TEMPERED GLASS
- -'1.
_I
J"I'l'----.;".
~
I
----+--
WINDOW NOTES
ALL HINDOWS SHALL GOHFLY WITH THE FOLLOWIN6, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, U.O.N.,
EGRESS Y'IIND0<5 SHALL HAV E A HAXIMUH SILL HEIGHT OF 44 " A .F .F.
2.
PAINTED STEEL V>liNDOY<S I>'IITH STONE TRIH AND SILLS, U.O.N.
3.
ALL 6LAZIN0 !:IJBJEC.T TO HUHAN IHPAGT SHALL GOMPLY I>'IITH GRG, 5ECTION R308.3.
REOUIREHENT5 OF CPSC 16, C.FR 1201 OR AN51ZE q1.1.
4.
ALL INDIVIDUAL GLAZED AREAS IN HAZARDOUS LOCATIONS SHALL PASS THE
SEE V<INDOI>'I TYPES ON THIS PAGE FOR OPERABLE PORTIONS OF Y'IINDOI>'IS AND TO VERIFY NATURAL VENTILATION PER CRG R30:l. AND E0RE5S PER GRC R310.
5.
ALL WINDOI>'I 6LAZIN6 5HALL BE LOI>'I- E.
6.
CONTACT ARCHITEC-T, OI>'INER 4 INTERIOR DE516NER FOR SPECIFIC-ATION 4 APPLICATION, PRIOR TO MANUFACTURIN6 .
DATE:
'1/16/16
SCALE:
AS NOTED
DRAWN:
C:.JH, BRW
JOB NUMBER:
I
4'
I>'
12'
SC ALE , 1/4"
16'
1'-0"
20 '
24'
14.34
A-4.2
SHEET
OF
REVISION
No .
.:..:
...J
::l
(!)
z
0
CLAY TILE - FLAT LAY
CHIMNEY CAP TILES
DRIVEWAY STONE PAVERS
G)
METAL WINDOWS
& DOORS
DECK GUARD RAIL
CD
CLAY TI LE
CLAY TILE ROOF
LAHP - 25 Jl'lA TT
FINISH - BROJI'lN RUST
GLAZING - HEAVY SEEDY
EXTERIOR WALL SCONES
COPPER GUTTER &

DOWNSPOUT
Jl'lOOD- BROJI'lN STA IN

PAIR OF DOOR
GARAGE DOOR
DRAIN COVER
URBAN ACCESSORIES-OT
TRENCH GRATE
9/90/IE>
DATE:
URBAN ACCESSORIES-aT
SCALE:
@ -
DRAINAGE GRATES
EXTERIOR STONE
NO SGAu;
STUCCO - l'v1EDIUI'v1 CAT F ACE
DRAWN:
EXTERIOR COLORS
JOB NUUBER:
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
14.94
A-7.1
SHET
OF

Appeal of The Planning Commission's Decision 11-01-16

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appeal of The Planning Commission's Decision 11-01-16

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Honorable Mayor and City Council Members

Marc Wiener, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director

Chip Rerig, City Administrator

Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commissions decision to deny Design

demolition of the existing residence and attached garage;

new fencing on north, east and south sides;

4. Reduce the size of the main-floor and rooftop decks.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS:

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION

Attachment 1 - Appeal Application

Eric Miller Architects Inc.

Fax: (831) _____

c.f ftcpeny that

the subject (,f nppr,-aJ

COJ\1JvUSSION ACTiON BEING APPEi\LED:

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea's Planning Commission agenda packet, the materials must be

Revised July 2014

+-------------- - ------------------------------------------ --------------------+

Check # Check Amount

Paid By . : ERIC MILLER ARCHITECTS

Attachment 2 Findings for Approval

in context with designs on nearby sites.

Attachment 3 Conditions of Approval

Authorization: This 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 faade shall be installed in a broken course/random or similar

This project is subject to a volume study.

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

*Acknowledgement and acceptance of conditions of approval.

Council Members Hardy, Richards, Theis and Mayor Dallas

Council Member Reimers

Chip Rerig, City Administrator

Council Members Hardy, Reimers, Richards, Theis and Mayor Dallas

Chip Rerig , City Administrator

LITIGATION ONE MATTER

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION

City Council Meeting Minutes

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- ANTICIPATED LITIGATION

There were no public comments. Council adjourned to Closed Session at 3:32PM.

Council Members Hardy, Reimers, Richards, Theis and Mayor Dallas

Chip Rerig , City Administrator

City Counci l Meeting Minutes

Minutes. Approved, 5:0

Check Register for May. Approved, 5:0

Monthly Reports for May. Approved, 5:0

AB 1145 Consideration of a resolution authorizing the City Administrator to renew

AB 1146 Consideration of the adoption of a resolution authorizing the City

AB 1147 Consideration of a resolution authorizing City co-sponsorship of the

AB 1148 Authorization of the City Administrator to send a letter authorizing the

AB 1149 Consideration of resolutions authorizing the City Administrator to enter

City Counci l Meeting Minutes

AB 1150 Consideration of the adoption of an environmentally preferred

AB 1151 Consideration of the adoption a resolution establishing and adopting the

Council Member Reimers made comments on the following items:

AS 1149 Consideration of resolutions authorizing the City Administrator to enter

AS 1150 Consideration of the adoption of an environmentally preferred

AS 1151 Consideration of the adoption a resolution establishing and adopting the

City Administrator Chip Rerig responded to Council Member Reimers questions.

AB 1152 Consideration of the disbursement of marketing funds to MCCVB,

City Administrator Chip Rerig provided a brief staff report.

City Council Meeting Minutes