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

15
Meeting Date: August 2, 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 on Mission Street 2 NW of Eleventh Avenue. The property owner is Domicile Properties, LLC. The appellant is Sherrie Spendlove Gallo, joined by three neighbors.

Description: The appellants are requesting that the Council overturn the approval of the project. The appellants are generally concerned with the location of the detached garage and the size of the proposed residence.

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

Important Considerations: The applicant is unable to develop the middle portion of the lot due to the presence of two significant trees.

Decision Record: On May 11, 2011 the Planning Commission unanimously approved this project.

Attachments:
• Attachment “A” Appeal Application/Appellant Letters
• Attachment “B” Reduction Plans
• Attachment “C” Zoning Code Excerpts

Reviewed by:

_________________________________ _____________________
John Goss, Interim City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
THROUGH: JOHN GOSS, INTERIM CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: MARC WIENER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: AUGUST 2, 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 ON MISSION STREET 2 NW OF ELEVENTH AVENUE. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS DOMICILE PROPERTIES, LLC. THE APPELLANT IS SHERRIE SPENDLOVE GALLO, JOINED BY THREE NEIGHBORS.

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

BACKGROUND
The project site is located on Mission Street two northwest of Eleventh Avenue and is developed with a small one-story residence. The property contains three significant trees, one of which is located near the center of the lot. A Determination of Ineligibility for listing on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources was issued on November 8, 2010.

On May 11, 2011 the Planning Commission unanimously approved the construction of a new one-story residence on the subject property. The Planning Commission was presented with opposition letters from three of the appellants at the hearing. However, the Commission determined that the proposed project met the zoning requirements and was consistent with the Design Guidelines.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed residence is 1,583 square feet in size with a 217-square-foot detached garage located in the front setback. The applicant is proposing a combination of board and batten siding with stucco. Unclad wood windows and doors are proposed throughout the residence.

PROJECT DATA FOR A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT SITE:
Site Considerations Allowed Existing Proposed
Floor Area 1,800 sf (45%) 587 sf (14.7%) 1,800 sf (45%)
Site Coverage 556 sf (13.9%)* NA 545 sf (13.6%)
Trees (upper/lower) 3/1 trees 2/7 trees 2/3 trees
Ridge Height (1st/2nd) 18/24 ft. NA 17.5 ft.
Plate Height (1st/2nd) 12 ft./18 ft. NA 12 ft.
Setbacks Minimum
Required
Existing Proposed
Front 15 ft. 75 ft. 17 ft.**
Composite Side Yard 10 ft. (25%) 13.5 ft. 10 ft. (25%)
Minimum Side Yard 3 ft. 2 ft. 3 ft.
Rear 3 ft. 1 ft. 6 ft.
* Includes a 4% bonus if 50% of all coverage is permeable or semi-permeable.
**Detached garage located at front property line.

EVALUATION
Basis for Appeal: This approval is being appealed by four neighbors who live within the immediate vicinity of the project. The appeal is led by Sherrie Spendlove Gallo, the neighbor who lives directly to the north of the subject property. Below is a summary of the concerns raised by the appellants with a response by staff.

1. The proposed garage is located too close to the street and presents potential safety issues for those backing out. The neighbor to the north (Sherrie Spendlove Gallo) also feels that the garage will damage her view and access to sunlight.

Response: Design Guideline 6.2 states that “parking facilities that maintain or enhance variety along the street edge are encouraged.” CMC 17.10.030 allows for detached garages and carports to encroach into the front and/or side yard setbacks if certain standards can be met. These include avoiding impacts on significant trees and providing diversity to the streetscape (see Attachment “C” for more information).

The applicant was approved to construct a detached garage located within the front and composite side-yard setbacks. The proposed garage is at the front property line and is located three feet from the northern property line. The garage is detached from the main residence but touches the corner of the front entry porch.

The applicant originally proposed a two-story design that would have placed the garage behind the front setback. The second-story would have been located on the northern side of the property to avoid the trees on the south. After consulting with staff, it was determined that a two-story design would have loomed over the northern neighbor’s outdoor patio and blocked the neighbor’s access to light. As a result, the applicant revised the design to be one-story. The one-story design has a larger footprint than the two-story and places the garage at the front of the property. In staff’s evaluation the onestory design creates much less of an impact than a two-story design.

Staff notes that the applicant is unable to develop the middle portion of the lot due to the presence of two significant trees. The proposed residence is required to maintain a six foot setback from these trees. As a result, pushing the garage further back is not a feasible option without significantly reducing the square footage of the residence or by redesigning the home to be two stories. The Planning Commission did discuss the possibility of pushing the garage back two feet, but determined that it would have negatively altered the design while providing only a minimal benefit to the northern neighbor.

The proposed garage assists the project in avoiding impacts to significant trees and reduces the impact to the northern neighbor by allowing a one-story design. For these reasons staff supports the proposed garage. Additionally, none of the neighboring properties have a detached garage in the front setback. In staff’s evaluation the garage adds to the diversity to the streetscape and is not detrimental to the neighborhood.

With regards to safety, detached garages located in front and side-yards setbacks are fairly common in Carmel and several are approved by the Planning Commission each year. There are no unusual circumstances that make the subject garage less safe than any other detached garage located in the front setback.

2. At 1,800 square feet the proposed residence is too large given the constraints of the site. One neighbor recommended that footprint be reduced, while another neighbor recommended that the height be reduced.

Response: At 1,800 square feet the proposed residence has three bedrooms, two bathrooms, a kitchen, living room, dining room and garage. As evident on the floor plan, all of the rooms are modestly sized and are appropriate for a standard home. In order to push the garage back the applicant would likely have to eliminate either the living room or dining room.

With regards to building height, at the Planning Commission hearing staff noted that the structure appeared relatively tall for a one-story residence. The proposed residence has a ridge height of 17.5 feet with a maximum plate height of 12 feet. Staff recommended that if the Commission was concerned about mass, it could require the plate height to be reduced by one foot. The Planning Commission was supportive of the height because the trees at the front of the property help screen the building mass and because the proposed residence is in scale with other homes in the neighborhood, including the adjacent home to the north.

3. One neighbor is concerned with the appearance of the front window and potential for privacy impacts. This neighbor recommended that the window be reduced in size.

Response: Design Guideline 9.12 states that “the use of a grand entry, oversized entry door or large picture window facing the street is discouraged.”

The proposed window at the front of the residence is eight and-a-half feet tall by seven feet wide. Staff did raise some concern about the window at the Planning Commission hearing. However, the Planning Commission approved the window based on the determination that the scale was appropriate for the residence given that there are very few other windows on the front elevation. Staff notes that the proposed window is also screened by the trees at the front of the property.

4. One neighbor is concerned with the number of trees (five) that are being removed from the property.

Response: There are a total of nine trees on the property. The applicant is proposing to remove five of these trees, all of which are non-significant. As a condition of approval the applicant is required to plant one upper-canopy tree, giving a total of five trees on the property. The City Forester has reviewed the plans and supports the proposed tree removal.

Summary: The proposed residence is one story, presents a simple design and
incorporates the use of wood siding. The applicant has also done a nice job of designing the residence around the three significant trees on the property and redesigned the project early in the planning process to help mitigate the impact on the northern neighbor. For these reasons the Planning Commission determined that the proposed project is consistent with the Guidelines. The Commission considered the concerns that were raised by the neighbors and determined that the project was appropriate. Staff concurs with the Commission.

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