CITY COUNCIL: Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision to Approve Design Study, Demolition Permit & Coastal Development Permit Applications for Construction of a New Residence

Meeting Date: 7 June 2011
Prepared by: Marc Wiener, Associate Planner

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Study, Demolition Permit and Coastal Development Permit applications for the construction of a new residence located at the SE Corner of Casanova Street and Avenue. The property owners are Kendon and Jullian Dressel and the appellant is Judy O’ Day.

Description: The appellant is requesting that the Council overturn the approval of the project. The appellant argues that there is a prescriptive easement on the subject property and that the proposed residence should be set back further from the easement.

Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval.

Important Considerations: The appellant has not provided any legal documentation validating the existence of an easement. Even if an easement did exist it would not preclude the applicant from using the easement portion of the property. Also, setbacks are measured from the property line, not easement boundaries.

Decision Record: On 13 April 2011 the Planning Commission unanimously approved this project.

Attachments:
• Attachment “A” Appeal Application/Appellant Letter
• Attachment “B” Applicant Letter
• Attachment “C” Reduction Plans

Reviewed by:

_________________________________ _____________________
John Goss, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
THROUGH: JOHN GOSS, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: MARC WIENER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: 7 JUNE 2011
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE DESIGN STUDY,
DEMOLITION PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW RESIDENCE LOCATED AT THE SE CORNER OF
CASANOVA STREET AND AVENUE. THE PROPERTY
OWNERS ARE KENDON AND JULLIAN DRESSEL AND
THE APPELLANT IS JUDY O’ DAY.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval.
BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project site is located at the southeast corner of Casanova Street and Fourth Avenue
and is developed with a small one-story residence. The property contains a total of 15
trees, 11 of which are significant. There is currently no off-street parking space or
driveway on the property. The northern neighbor’s driveway encroaches approximately
five feet onto the north side of the subject property.
On April 13, 2011 the Planning Commission unanimously approved the construction of a
new two-story residence on the subject property. The proposed residence has three
levels, but is designed so that no portion of the building qualifies as three stories. The
applicant is proposing a 1,192-square-foot main floor, a 363-square foot upper floor and a
232-square-foot lower floor that includes the garage. The proposed garage is partially
below grade.
The applicant is proposing board and batten siding with a Carmel stone veneer around the
front garage and steps. Unclad wood windows and doors are proposed as well as a
composition shingle roof. Site coverage includes the driveway, the front deck and entry
steps.

The applicant was originally approved to relocate two oak trees that are located in the
backyard. Since the Design Study approval, the applicant has gained permission from the
Forest and Beach Commission to remove the trees without relocation.
PC Review: The Planning Commission was presented with an opposition letter from the
appellant at the hearing. However, the Commission determined that the proposed project
met the zoning requirements and was consistent with the Design Guidelines. One
Commissioner had to step down; however, the project received a unanimous 4-0
approval.
PROJECT DATA FOR A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT SITE:
Site Considerations Allowed Existing Proposed
Floor Area 1,800 sf (45%) NA 1,787 sf (44.2%)
Site Coverage 396 sf (13.7%) NA 396 sf (13.7%)
Trees (upper/lower) 3/1 trees 0/15 trees 0/11 trees
Ridge Height (/) 18/24 ft. NA 17 ft./20.5 ft.
Plate Height (/) 12 ft./18 ft. NA 11.5 ft. /18ft.
Setbacks Minimum
Required
Existing Proposed
Front 15 ft. NA 16 ft.
Composite Side Yard 10 ft. (25%) NA 10 ft. (25%)
Minimum Side Yard 3 ft. NA 3 ft.
Rear 3 ft./15 ft. NA 29.5 ft.
EVALUATION
Basis for Appeal: The appellant, Judy O’Day, owns the adjacent property to the north.
Below is a summary of the concerns raised by the appellant with a response from staff.
The City Attorney has reviewed this report and concurs with staff’s analysis.
1. This approval allows the encroachment of the prospective building into a
legitimate prescriptive driveway easement.
Response: The appellant has not provided any legal documentation validating the
existence of an easement. It is not within the City’s purview to make a determination
about the easement.

2. The project does not establish a sufficient setback from the prescriptive easement
as defined by the fence boundary.
Response: CMC Section 17.06.020 states that setbacks are to be measured from the
property line. There is nothing in the Zoning Code to indicate that a building setback is
to be measured from an easement boundary.
Staff has evaluated the option of pushing the residence in a southern direction to provide
more clearance from the neighbor’s driveway. Relocating the building further south
would cause the sub-grade garage to encroach into the root zone of several significant
oak trees at the front of the property. The City Forester has determined that six inches
would be the maximum that the building could be shifted south, without causing harm to
the trees.
3. The survey is incorrect with regards to the property lines.
Response: A survey of the subject property was conducted in November 2010, by a
licensed surveyor. The survey shows the driveway encroaching approximately five feet
onto the applicant’s property. The City relies on the accuracy of the survey prepared by a
licensed surveyor.
Summary: The topography of the property, the large number of trees, and the driveway
encroachment present a significant challenge for developing the subject property. The
applicant has done a nice job of working around these constraints. It is important to note that the proposed new residence would leave the neighbor’s driveway intact.

During construction the contractor will need to use approximately 2-3 feet of the driveway. The portion being used is on the applicant’s property. The driveway is approximately 12 feet wide, so during the construction the useable portion of the driveway would be limited to a nine foot width. Nine foot wide driveways are common in Carmel and are recommended by the Design Guidelines (Guideline 6.3). Staff concludes that the neighbor will still be allowed access to their property, even during construction.

RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval.