CITY COUNCIL: Appeal of a Planning Commission's Decision to Deny Design Study and Coastal Development Permit Applications

Meeting Date: 1 July 2008
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny Design Study
and Coastal Development Permit applications for the substantial alteration of a residence
located on the W/s of San Antonio between Ocean and 4th Avenues. The appellant and
property owners are Robb and Dale Johnson.
Description: The appellant is requesting that the Council overturn the Planning Commission’s
decision to deny the construction of the proposed additions and alterations.
Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A
Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
Important Considerations: This site is part of the Sand and Sea development that was
constructed in approximately 1941. The site is 5,550 square feet in size and includes a
20-foot wide driveway easement that runs along the northern portion of the site and
provides access for the lots located to the west. The Planning Commission determined
that the driveway easement should be subtracted from the buildable site area for
calculating the allowed floor area for the site.
Decision Record: The Planning Commission denied this project on May 14, 2008. The property
owner filed an appeal with the City Clerk on May 20, 2008.
Reviewed by:
__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: SEAN CONROY, PLNG & BLDG SERVICES MANAGER
DATE: 1 JULY 2008
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY A DESIGN STUDY
AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FOR
THE SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATION OF A RESIDENCE
LOCATED AT THE WEST SIDE OF SAN ANTONIO BETWEEN
OCEAN & 4TH. THE APPELLANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS
ARE ROBB AND DALE JOHNSON
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
BACKGROUND
The subject residence is part of the Sand and Sea development and was constructed in
1941. This site includes a 20-foot wide driveway and utilities easement the runs along
the northern end of the property and provides access to the lots to the west. Sand and Sea
was identified as an historic district in 2002 as part of the City’s on-going survey of
historic properties. In 2004, the Historic Preservation Committee and the Planning
Commission approved the substantial alteration of the subject residence. Most of the
construction for this project has been completed.
On July 11, 2006, the City Council determined that the subject residence did not qualify
as an historic resource and directed staff to remove it from the City’s Inventory.
Therefore, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties no longer apply to this site.
On August 8, 2007, the Planning Commission denied a request to add a second-story on
this site. The applicant revised the project and was again denied by the Planning
Commission on May 14, 2008.
Johnson Appeal
1 July 2008
Staff Report
Page 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to add 348 square feet to the existing residence. The additions
include an expansion of the master bedroom on the north side of the residence and the
expansion of two other bedrooms near the southeast corner of the residence. A new entry
and fireplace are proposed on the south elevation. Portions of the existing residence are
proposed for demolition to accommodate the new construction.
The applicant is proposing to replace the existing flat roof with 3.5:12 pitched gable
roofs. A combination of eight and nine-foot plates are proposed.
PROJECT DATA FOR A 5,550 SQUARE FOOT LOT:
Site Considerations Allowed Existing Proposed
Floor Area 2325.5 sf (42%) 1,916 sf (35%) 2,290 sf (41%)
Site Coverage * 733 sf (13%) 729 sf (13%) 548 sf (10%)
Trees (upper/lower) 4/3 trees 0/2 trees 0/2 trees
Ridge Height (1st/2nd) 18 ft. 10.9 ft. 14 ft. 2 in.
Plate Height (1st/2nd) 12/18 ft. 10 ft. 9 ft. 6 in.
Setbacks Minimum Required Existing Proposed
Front 15 ft. 23 ft. 23 ft
Rear 3 ft. 5.6 ft. 3 ft.
Composite Side Yard 12 ft 8 ft. 11 ft.
Side Yard min. 3 ft. 2 ft. 3 ft.
*The existing and proposed site coverage figures do not include the driveway area.
PROCESS
The City’s design review process typically includes two public hearings. The first
hearing is called the Concept Review and addresses issues dealing with site design,
privacy and views, mass and bulk, buildable area, etc. Once the design concept has been
accepted, the Final Details Review addresses exterior materials, architectural details, site
coverage, landscaping, exterior lighting, etc. The plans that have been submitted are
Concept plans only. If the Council overturns the Planning Commission’s decision, this
project should be referred back to the Commission for the Final Details hearing.
Johnson Appeal
1 July 2008
Staff Report
Page 3
EVALUATION
Basis for Appeal: At the time this report was written, the only basis of appeal provided
by the appellant was a lack of due process.
Planning Commission: The Commission’s basis for denial included the following (see
attached findings):
• The driveway easement should be considered ‘unbuildable’ for the purposes of
calculating the allowed floor area for the site. The project as submitted therefore
exceeds the allowed floor area for the site by approximately 262 square feet.
• The additions as proposed have significant impacts on the views enjoyed by
neighboring properties. Complaints were filed from five different property
owners.
• The proposed design is inconsistent with the simple architectural character of the
neighboring structures.
Buildable Area: The allowed floor area for a property is based on its buildable area.
The zoning ordinance references “buildable area” in three separate sections (see attached
CMC sections 17.06.020.D, 17.10.030.D, and CMC 17.70). These sections state that
private access roads and certain types of easements should be subtracted from the
buildable area of a site before calculating the allowed floor area. There is no reference to
shared driveways.
The Planning Commission determined that since no construction would be permitted
within the driveway easement, that the easement should therefore be considered
unbuildable area. The allowed floor area for the site would therefore be approximately
2,028 square feet rather than 2,325 square feet.
If the City Council agrees that the driveway easement should be deducted from the
buildable area of the site, the appeal should be denied, as the project would not comply
with the allowed floor area requirements. If the Council determines that the driveway
easement should not be deducted from the buildable area of the site, then the issues
related to views and neighborhood character should be addressed.
Privacy & Views: Residential Design Guidelines 5.1 - 5.3 encourage new designs to
“preserve reasonable privacy for adjacent properties”, and to “maintain view
opportunities to natural features that lie outside the property.”
Complaints regarding view impacts were registered from five different property owners
in the vicinity. Of particular concern to the Commission was the potential impact on the
Johnson Appeal
1 July 2008
Staff Report
Page 4
neighbor directly to the east (Margaret Kim), who had already been impacted by the past
additions.
While the proposed project will impact views enjoyed by neighbors to the northeast, it
appears that these impacts are not significant. Staff concurs that the project will have
significant impacts on Margaret Kim and recommends that if the project is approved, that
a condition be added to prohibit any further extension of the master bedroom on the north
elevation.
Neighborhood Character: The Commission expressed concern regarding the
compatibility of the design with the neighborhood. The Commission determined that the
proposed design was inconsistent with the simple, beach cottage design of the
surrounding properties.
Coastal Access: The Coastal Access Element of the General Plan states that access to
the beach north of Ocean Avenue is provided via a dedicated easement through the Sand
and Sea subdivision. However, based on a title search of the property, there has been no
coastal access easement recorded. There is a coastal access easement beginning on lot
six, which is just west of the subject property, but not for the lots between San Antonio
Avenue and lot six.
Since the driveway easement has historically been used for coastal access, staff
recommends that if the Council grants the appeal, that an easement be recorded
specifically as a coastal access easement. Similar easements would be required for the
neighboring lots as development occurs.
The City Council approved the access easement for lots 6-9 in 1989 with a minimum
required width of 44 inches. Staff recommends that the coastal access easement for the
Johnson’s property be 44 inches in width. This area would be subtracted from the
buildable area for the purpose of calculating the allowed floor area. This would result in
a buildable area of 5,384 square feet and an allowed floor area of 2,277 square feet.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.













M&K Design
1111 High Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
T 650.473.1530
F 650.473.1531
margaret@mandk.com
June 18, 2008
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
P.O. Drawer CC
Carmel, Ca 93921
Subject: Johnson Residence, Alterations to Existing Residence (block SS, lot 4)
Dear Members of the Carmel City Council:
I am the owner of the property adjacent to that of Robb and Dale Johnson and am
writing to oppose the current proposed plans for the addition to the Johnson residence
(4 SW San Antonio at 4th, Sand & Sea) and their appeal to the decision made by the
City Planning Commission on May 14 to deny their request.
First and foremost, the City Planning Commission has deemed the driveway in the
rear (which provides the only access to 3 other properties) of the Johnson property as
“unbuildable” and, therefore, should not be included in calculating the allowed floor
area of the site. Please consider the following:
• If the rear driveway is not included in calculating the floor area of the site, the
proposed plan exceeds the allowed floor area by approx. 262 sq. ft. Additionally,
the current approved plans for their first addition (still under construction) may
then have significant nonconforming site coverage.
• If the rear driveway is included in calculating the floor area of the site, this will
set a precedent for 5 properties that exist along this one continuous driveway, each
providing access to neighboring properties.
• The rear driveway is truly “unbuildable”. It provides access to 3 other homes—
just as my driveway, which is adjacent to the Johnsons’ and part of the same
driveway, provides access to 4 other homes—including the Johnson’s.
Secondly, if that area were to be included in the calculation, the design of the addition
significantly impacts the view from my home, which has already been greatly impacted
by their first addition (still under construction after 3 years…)—to which I had not
objected to, as a gesture of goodwill to my neighbor. Please consider not just this phase
of their project, but the cumulative effect that the two remodelling projects will have
on the views from my home:
• My primary argument has always been that their first remodel has already taken
away a significant part of my view (Exhibit A). They have already been allowed
to add over 18 linear feet to the original footprint of their home. The propsed
addition will bring it to over 21 feet.
page 2 of 3
• Any additional extensions to the north on the Johnson residence will, certainly, violate
the Residential Design Guidelines “to balance the private rights to views from all
parcels that will be affected by a proposed building addition”—if it hasn’t already.
• The seemingly short extension can be misleading, as the impact to the view from my
home is amplified by the angle of the sight line.
• The Johnson property has expansive views of the ocean. While the proposed
extension to their home does not add much relative to those views, it has a significant
impact to mine.
• There is still plenty of room to put the additional square footage on the west side of
the Johnson home.
• As addressed, and already voted on, at previous Public Hearings, I proposed that the
recommendation be made to only extend the master bedroom to the west—not just
shorten the north extension. This was one of the special conditions that was proposed
to the Johnsons—and they rejected it in favor of a flat out denial of their application.
• All these arguments will be moot if the City Council agrees with the Planning
Commission in the method of calculating the allowed floor area of the site and that
this has been a fair process.
It was implied in the Johnsons’ application for an appeal that they have not received Due
Process. If this has taken so long, they only have themselves to blame, and it is unfortunate
if they feel that they have not been treated fairly. Please note that:
• The initial plans that were submitted proposed to add a second story that impacted
the views of an entire neighborhood on the slope behind us. Their proposed deck,
which spanned the entire length of the front of their home, overlooked the homes of
two adjacent neighbors, which created significant privacy issues that are clearly
outlined in the Residential Design Guidelines (the side elevation looked almost
identical to the example of what not to do, as illustrated in the Guidelines). This was
all done without consulting a single neighbor.
• Their second plan proposed adding 12 feet that directly blocked the view from my
home. This was in addition to the 18+ feet that they had already added to their home,
which I did not object to. This would have brought the portion of their addition that
blocked my views to a total of over 30 feet!
• Their third plan would have been accepted with special conditions, but they chose to
have it rejected rather than accept those special conditions.
Most importantly, the allowed floor area of the site needs to be reduced, as recommended
by the Planning Commission, to take into account the “unbuildable” area. But beyond that,
I still believe that their plans reflect a disregard for the neighboring properties as well as
the Residential Design Guidelines.
Sincerely,
Margaret Kim
3 SW San Antonio at 4th, “Sand & Sea, Lot #3”
Carmel-by-the-Sea, California
page 3 of 3
Exhibit A: Cumulative Footprint of Both Additions
AREA OF DETAIL
DIRECTION OF VIEW
DIRECTION OF VIEW
MY HOUSE
My Bedroom
My Dining Room
JOHNSON
RESIDENCE
ORIGINAL FOOTPRINT
PROPOSED ADDITION
Any additional extension to
the north will only worsen the
impact to views on my home—
view impact is amplified by
the angle.
(extends an additional 3'4" to the north
for aTOTAL OF 21'5")
EXISTING ADDITION
CURRENTLY
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Shows how the extension
currently under construction
has already significantly
impacted my views.
(extends 18'1" to the north)