appeal of the planning commission's decision to deny a single family residence 06-04-13

7/28/2019 Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to Deny a Single Family Residence 06-04-13

1/2260

City CouncilAgenda Item Summary

Meeting Date: 4 June 2013Prepared by: Marc Wiener, Senior Planner

Name: Consideration of an appeal ofthe Planning Commission' s decision to deny a singlefamily residence at a site located in the multi-family residential (R-4) District (Blk 48,Lot 19). The appellants are Peter Kimball and Kathy Campbell.

Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish the 700 square foot single-family residenceat the rear of the property in order to construct a new one-story residence. The existingresidence was built in 1930's and is in need of substantial repairs. The proposedresidence is 1,143 square feet and is of a similar size and scale as the original.Staff Recommendation: Grant the appeal and approve Design Review (DR 12-26), CoastalDevelopment Permit, Use Permit (UP 13-6) and Variance (VA 13-1) applications withthe attached finding and conditions.Important Considerations: General Plan Goal 3-2 states to "Preserve existing residential units

and encourage the development ofnew multi-family housing in the Commercial andR-4Districts. "Decision Record: On 10 April2013 voted 3-2 to approve the project. The project was deniedbecause it did not have the four necessary votes for the use permit.Attachments:

Attachment "A" Project Plans & Data Table Attachment "B" Findings Attachment "C" General Plan Policies Attachment "D" Appeal Application

Reviewed by:

Jason Str%!t / ;yAd:nistrator Date


2/2261

TO:THROUGH:FROM:DATE:SUBJECT:

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEASTAFF REPORT

MAYOR BURNETT AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCILJASON STILWELL, CITY ADMINISTRATORMARC WIENER, SENIOR PLANNER4 JUNE 2013CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNINGCOMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A SINGLE FAMILYRESIDENCE AT A SITE LOCATED IN THE MULTI-FAMILYRESIDENTIAL (R-4) DISTRICT (BLK 48, LOT 19). THEAPPELLANTS ARE PETER KIMBALL AND KATHY CAMPBELL.

BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTIONThe project site is located on Torres Street two northwest of Fifth Avenue in the Multi-FamilyResidential (R-4) District. The lot is currently developed with a two-story (2 unit) duplex at thefront of the property and a one-story single family residence at the rear. The property does notcontain any off-street parking.The applicant is proposing to demolish the 700 square foot single-family residence at the rear ofthe property in order to construct a new one-story residence. The existing residence was built in1930's and is in need of substantial repairs. The proposed residence is 1,143 square feet and isof a similar size and scale as the original. The duplex at the front of the property would remainunaltered. The proposed project would require a variance since off-street parking cannot beprovided and a use permit for the proposed density of 32.67 du/acre.PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWThe Planning Commission reviewed this project on three separate occasions and it waseventually denied on 10 April 2013 . The Commission voted 3-2 in favor of the project, but itwas denied because it did not receive the four affirmative votes required for the use permit. Insummary, the Commissioners that voted against the project were concerned that the proposedexpansion of the dwelling would increase parking demand on a site that does not contain any offstreet parking. The Commissioners that voted for the project concluded that the minor expansionwould not increase the parking demand and they supported the proposal to improve the livingconditions of the residence.


3/2262

Kimball/Campbell Appeal4 June 2013StaffReportPage 2During the meetings with the Planning Commission it was identified that the only location whereoff-street parking could be provided is at the northeast comer of the property. The drivewaywould require the elimination of two City oak trees and one on-street parking space. Only twoparking spaces could be provided on site, which would have to be in tandem and would requirethe construction of a parking pad within the six foot setback of a redwood tree. There are severaltrees that block the parking from being placed any further back on the property. Because one onstreet parking space would have to be removed there would only be a net gain of one parkingspace.The Commission directed the applicant to apply to the Forest and Beach Commission to have theCity oak trees removed, which would allow for the on-site parking. The applicant followed thisdirection, but was denied by the Forest and Beach on 7 March 2013. The Forest and BeachCommission concluded that the trees were an important aspect of the streetscape and the netbenefit of one additional parking space did not warrant the removal of the trees. TheCommission was also not supportive of placing a parking pad within the six foot setback of asubstantial sized redwood tree.APPEALThe property owner's representative filed an appeal on 18 April 2013. In the application theappellant states that the denial is being appealed because the proposal to construct a newresidence meets the goals of the General Plan and Housing Element. The appellant also statesthat providing two off-street parking spaces is not practical or viable due to the trees and lot size.EVALUATION

Review Standards: The subject property is located in the Multi-Family (R-4) District and issubject to the design standards of the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) District for floorarea, height and setbacks (CMC 17.12.040). Other R-4 standards are defined in Section 17.12 ofthe Zoning Code. Staff notes that a conditional use permit is required for the proposed density of32.67 du/acre.With the proposed new residence the site would be approximately 900 square feet below theallowed floor area and I ,487 square feet below the allowed building coverage. The newresidence meets all setback and height requirements. The site is required to have five off-streetparking spaces, but contains none.With regards to parking, there are two oak trees in the City right-of-way that prevent theinstallation of a driveway on the north side of the property. As previously stated, the Forest andBeach Commission denied an application to remove the two oak trees on 7 March 2013. Theapplicant does not have the option for providing parking and has therefore applied for a variance.


4/2263

Kimball/Campbell Appeal4 June 20 13StaffReportPage 3Variance: CMC Section 17 .38.020 establishes that the subject property is required tohave five off-street parking spaces (1 .5 per dwelling unit). The property currently does notcontain any off-street parking.California State planning law allows for the granting of variances from zoning standards onlywhen there is a hardship inherent with the property (slope, shape, trees, etc.). CMC section17.64.210 establishes findings that the Commission must make when granting a variance (SeeAttachment B).The two-story duplex at the front of the property limits options for off-street parking. There is anopen space to the north of the building, however, parking at this location could not be providedwithout removing a significant tree that is located on City property. There are also severalsignificant trees behind the parking area that would have to be removed in order to add morethan one or two spaces.Staff concludes that the conditions of the property, primarily the trees, present a physicalhardship that makes it infeasible to provide off-street parking. It should be noted that the densityof the property would remain the same with the replacement of the single-family residence andthe parking demand will not be increased from existing conditions. Staff supports the proposedvanance.Non-conforming Structures: CMC Section 17.36 state that "a lawful nonconforming structuremay be maintained, repaired or altered as long as such maintenance, repair, or alteration doesnot increase the nonconformity" and "the demolition ofany nonconforming building or structureshall require that all new construction on the site meet all requirements for new buildings andstructures. "The property is non-conforming with regards to parking, but the proposed structure would meetthe zoning requirements with regards to floor area, height, etc. The question arises as to whetherthe structure i tself should be considered non-conforn1ing due to the fact that the property doesnot have sufficient parking. Regardless, staff is still recommending that the applicant obtain aparking variance for the construction of the new dwelling unit given that there would be no offstreet parking on site. The Variance would be in effect for the life of the structures on theproperty and would be null and void if the structures were demolished.The two commissioners that voted against the project were primarily concerned that the newstructure would increase the parking demand and non-conformity. However, staff notes that theexisting residence contains two bedrooms and would be replaced by a new residence that alsocontains two bedrooms. The new residence would have a modest increase from 700 square feetto 1,143 square feet. Staff concludes that the parking demand would not be increased by thisproject, thus the non-conformity is not being increased. It should also be noted that CMC17.38.020 requires 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit in the R-4 District, and does notdistinguish based on size of the dwelling unit or number ofbedrooms. Technically the parkingdemand is not being increased with the construction of a slightly larger residence.


5/2264

Kimball/Campbell Appeal4 June 2013StaffReportPage4

Design: The proposed residence is not visible to the street and at 1,143 square feet is modestlysized. The residence has a craftsman style design and the applicant is proposing board andbatten siding, composition shingle roofing and fiberglass windows. A special condition has beenadded that the applicant use unclad wood windows. The proposed residence will not create anyimpacts to neighboring properties. Staff supports the overall design.Summary: A Conditional Use Permit is required for this project because its density exceeds 22du/acre (CMC section 17.08.040). The approval of a use permit is discretionary and requiresfour affirmative votes from the City Council.Staff supports the applicant' s proposal to demolish and rebuild the deteriorated dwelling unit.The proposal is consistent with the Zoning Code and the Variance is supported based on theconditions of the property. Additionally, the project helps maintain the housing stock in Carmelas encouraged by Goal 3-2 of the General Plan, which states to "Preserve existing residentialunits and encourage the development of new multi-family housing in the Commercial and R-4Districts. " As a separate attachment staff has provided other General Plan policies that supportprojects that encourage preserving and maintaining Carmel's housing stock (See Attachment C).RECOMMENDATIONGrant the appeal and approve Design Review (DR 12-26), Coastal Development Permit, UsePermit (UP 13-6) and Variance (VA 13 -1) applications with the attached finding and conditions.


6/22

Aahmen"A"Pan

~i . i I p: 1 i I II . I.~ I I

.

i

. . ~

~

--!lilF"

'


7/22


8/22

~ 1,1

~

',

t

~

p f

!tu ~ pt


9/22

I I

lt

J!r_1i1-

~rc

-=N,4

i If \

1 r


10/22

) a

.

0

'

.I . . I. ,I" I .

~' '

.

'."'

t

'

~

' -


11/22

.

!~

J -v .:. >.

t

~ .-._ ~ ~

~t1

-

\1I

~

. )>_

~

,

Q f

J 1. ! . - . ' 1 1, -

-_ i" (" '1 t ;

'=

I. l- l1 " -1- . ,

, 'I .-


12/22

s \)

--

j

,_ --r-

~._. -.., .

j ~

'. :

"'v

.

'c

' '

.._ '. 1 t

y. '

.

"'

, . :

.

.

.

.iJ)

- !.


13/2272

Attachment "A" Data Table (Kimball-Campbell)

PROJECT DATA FOR A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT SITE (RC STANDARDS):Site Considerations Allowed Existing ProposedFloor Area 3,200 sf (80%) 1,844 sf(46%) 2,287 sf (57%)Building Coverage 3,150 sf(70%) 1,220 sf (30.5%) 1,663 sf (59.3%)Ridge Height (1 st/2n) 26ft. 14 ft. (original) 18ft. (new)Parking Requirement 5 spaces 0 spaces 0 spacesSetbacks Minimum Existing Proposed

RequiredFront 7.5 ft. 7.5 ft. No ChangeRear 0 ft. 21 ft. 10ft.Side Yard 5 ft. (min. 50%) 5 ft. (min. 50%) 5 ft. (min. 50%)


14/2273

Attachment "B"

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEADEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING

FINDINGS FOR DECISIONDR 12-26/UP 13-6NA 13-1Peter Kimball/Kathy CampbellTorres 2 NW of 5thBlock 48, Lot 19CONSIDERATION:Consideration of Demolition Permit and Use Permit applications for the construction of anew residence on a property located in the Multi-Family Residential (R-4) District.FINDINGS OF FACT:1. The property is located on Torres Street two northwest ofFifth Avenuein the Multi-Family Residential (R-4) District. A determination of historicineligibility was issued for the property on 31 December 2012.2. On 27 September 2012 the applicant submitted a Design Review application todemolish and replace an existing dwelling unit at the rear of the property with aunit that is 443 square feet larger. The project received a conceptual review by the

Planning Commission on 14 November 2012 and 9 January 2013.3. At the direction of the Planning Commission the applicant applied to have two oaktrees removed that are located in the public right-of-way. The application wasunanimously denied by the Forest and Beach Commission on 7 March 2013.Removal of the trees would have enhanced the feasibility of off-street parking.4. The applicant submitted Variance and Use Permit applications on 26 March 2013for final review by the Planning Commission. The project was denied by thePlanning Commission at the final review hearing on 10 April 2013.5. A parking variance is required for the construction of a new structure since theproperty is unable to provide on-site parking.6. CMC section 17.08.040 requires the issuance of a Use Permit for properties in theR-4 District with a density greater than 22 du/acre. The existing and proposeddensity of the subject property is 32.67 du/acre.


15/2274

DR 12-26/UP 13-6NA 13-1 (Kimball/Campbell)4 June 2013FindingsPage2

GENERAL FINDINGS FOR ALL USE PERMITS (17.64.010).1. The proposed use is not in conflict with the City's General Plan.

2. The proposed use complies with all zoning standards applicable to the useand zoning district.3. Granting the use permit does not set a precedent for the approval of similaruses whose incremental effect will be detrimental to the City, or will be in conflictwith the General Plan.4. The proposed use will not make excessive demands on the provision ofpublic services, including water supply, sewer capacity, energy supply,communication facilities , police protection, and fire protection.5. The proposed use will not be injurious to public health, safety or welfare.6. The proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses and will notconflict with the purpose established for the district within which it will belocated.7. The proposed use will not generate adverse impacts affecting health, safety,or welfare ofneighboring properties or uses.FINDINGS FOR DECISION (VARIANCE):1. The existing development and trees on the property and in the City right-of-waycreate a hardship in providing conforming parking.2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent withlimitations on other properties in the vicinity.3. The variance will not be detrimental to adjacent property or injurious to publichealth, safety or welfare.4. The site conditions are not so general or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable

the formulation of a general regulation to address such conditions.5. The parking situation was not created by the applicant.6. The variance approval is consistent with the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan.


16/2275

DR 12-26/UP l 3-6N A 13-1 (Kimball/Campbell)4 June20 13FindingsPage 3

7. The project conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program of the City ofCarmel by the Sea.8. The project is not located between the first public road and the sea and no reviewis required for potential public access.9. While a parking variance is being requested, the property can still provide threeoff-street parking spaces if one of the cars is parked in the front setback on thedriveway.SPECIAL CONDITIONS:1. All doors and windows on the new residence shall be constmcted ofunclad wood.DECISION: The Use Permit is approved with the finding and conditions stated above.


17/2276

Attachment "B" continued

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:1. The project conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program of the City of Carmel by

the Sea and Commercial Design Guidelines.2. The project is not located between the first public road and the sea and no review is

required for potential public access.

Standard ConditionsNo. Conditionl. This approval constitutes Design Study and Coastal Development permitsauthorizing the demolition of an existing residence construction of a newresidence. All work shall conform to the approved plans dated 3 June 2013 except

as conditioned by this permit.2. The project shall be constructed in conformance with all requirements of the localR-4 zoning ordinances. All adopted building and fire codes shall be adhered to in

preparing the working drawings. If any codes or ordinances require designelements to be changed, or if any other changes are requested at the time suchplans are submitted, such changes shall require separate approval by the PlanningCommission.

3. This approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of action unlessan active building permit has been issued and maintained for the proposedconstruction.4. All new landscaping shall be shown on a landscape plan and shall be submitted to

the Department of Community Planning and Building and to the City Foresterprior to the issuance of a building permit. The landscape plan will be reviewed forcompliance 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 systemset on a timer; and 3) the project shall meet the City's recommended tree densitystandards, unless otherwise approved by the City based on site conditions. Thelandscaping plan shall show where new trees will be planted when new trees arerequired to be planted by the Forest and Beach Commission or the PlanningCommission.

5. Trees on the site shall only be removed upon the approval of the Forest and BeachCommission; and all remaining trees shall be protected during construction bymethods approved by the City Forester.

6. All foundations within 15 feet of significant trees shall be excavated by hand. Ifany tree roots larger than two inches (2") are encountered during construction, theCity Forester shall be contacted before cutting the roots. The City Forester mayrequire the roots to be bridged or may authorize the roots to be cut. If roots largerthan two inches (2") in diameter are cut without prior City Forester approval orany significant tree is endangered as a result of construction activity, the building

. /

. /

. /

. /

. /

. /


18/2277

permit will be suspended and all work stopped until an investigation by the CityForester has been completed. Twelve inches (12") of mulch shall be evenlyspread inside the drip line ofall 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 Districtdetermine that the use would result in an increase in water beyond the maximumunits allowed on a 4,000 square foot parcel, this permit will be scheduled forreconsideration and the appropriate findings will be prepared for review andadoption by the City Council.

8. The applicant shall submit in writing any proposed changes to the project plans as . /submitted on 3 June 2013 and approved by the City Council, prior to incorporatingchanges on the site. If the applicant changes the project without first obtainingapproval, the applicant will be required to either: a) Submit the change in writingand cease all work on the project until either the Planning Commission or staff hasapproved the change; or b) Eliminate the change and submit the proposed changein writing for review. The project will be reviewed for its compliance to theapproved plans prior to final inspection approval.

9. Exterior lighting shall be limited to 25 watts or less per fixture and shall be no . /higher than 10 feet above the ground. Landscape lighting shall be limited to 15watts or less per fixture and shall not exceed 18 inches above the ground.

10. The Carmel stone fat;ade shall be installed in a broken course/random or similar N/Amasonry pattern. Setting the stones vertically on their face in a cobweb patternshall not be permitted. Prior to the full installation of stone during construction,the applicant shall insta ll a 10 square foot section on the building to be reviewedby planning staffon site to ensure conformity with City standards.

11. The applicant shall install unclad wood framed windows. Windows that have . /been approved with divided lights shall be constructed with fixed woodenmullions. Any window pane dividers, which are snap-in, or otherwisesuperficially applied, are not permitted.12. Approval of this Design Study shall be valid only with approval of a Variance. . /13. Approval ofthis Design Study shall be valid only with approval ofthe Use Permit. . /14 . The applicant agrees, at its 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, orother legal proceeding, to attack, set aside, void, or annul any project approval.The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any legal proceeding, and shallcooperate fully in the defense. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate inany such legal action, but participation shall not relieve the applicant of anyobligation under this condition. Should any party bring any legal action inconnection with this project, the Superior Court of the County of Monterey,California, shall be the situs and have jurisdiction for the resolution of all suchactions by the parties hereto.


19/2278

15. 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 asphaltconnection at the street edge may be required by the Superintendent of Streets orthe Building Official, depending on site conditions, to accommodate the drainageflow line of the street.16 . A hazardous materials waste survey shall be required in conformance with theMonterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District prior to issuance of a . /

demolition permit.17. The applicant shall include a storm water drainage plan with the working drawingsthat are submitted for building permit review. The drainage plan shall include . /applicable Best Management Practices and retain all drainage on site through theuse of semi-permeable paving materials, French drains, seepage pits, etc. Excess

drainage that cannot be maintained on site, may be directed into the City's stormdrain system after passing through a silt trap to reduce sediment from entering thestorm drain. Drainage shall not be directed to adjacent private property.18 . The project plans submitted for building permit review shall comply with theCity's Green Building Ordinance (CMC Section 15.54) and obtain a minimum of . /60 points based on the Residential Green Building Checklist.


20/2279

Attachment "C"General Plan: Housing Element1.1 Purpose of the Housing ElementThe Housing Element is designed to achieve the following:

Identify adequate sites for a range of housing types;Assist in the development of adequate and affordable housing;Address constraints to meeting the City's housing needs;Conserve and improve the condition of existing housing;

A.3.1 Housing StockAccording to the U.S. Census and the DOF, housing stock in Carmel-by-the Seaincreased by 1 054 units from 2000 to 2008. The City is primarily built out and isconstrained by the lack of water to accommodate new development. Residentialconstruction in recent years involved mostly demolition and replacement of olderunits with new, larger units. With very few vacant lots in the City and limited wateravailable to new projects, infill is the primary method of residential construction.

A.3.3 Age and Housing Stock ConditionsAge of Housing StockAge of a housing unit is often an indicator of housing conditions. In general,housing that is 30 years or older may exhibit need for repairs based on the usefullife of materials. Housing over 50 years old is considered aged and is more likelyto exhibit a need for major repairs.

3.1 Goals, Policies and ProgramsGoal G3-1: Preserve the existing residential housing stock. (Existing- Goal G3-1)Policy P3-1.1: Continue and expand programs to assist homeowners inmaintaining and improving existing housing units. (Combined Exist ing Objectives03-1 and 03-2)

Carmel-by-the-Sea's previous Housing Element was adopted in 2003. It set fortha series of objectives with related policies under each of the following goals:Goal G3-1. Preserve the existing single-family residential housing stock and provideadequate sites for an increase in the number of housing units.Goal G3-2. Goal G3-2: Preserve all existing residential units in the Commercial and R-4Districts and encourage the development of new multi-family housing.Goal G3-3. Provide adequate sites for the development of a wide range of housing types forall citizens.Goal G3-4. Protect the stability of residential neighborhoods by preserving the quality ofhousing and promoting year-round occupancy.


21/2280

A I I D\.. -\- t rr-c'n t"h .tl t-CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION(FILING FEE: $295.00*)

KECElVEDAPR 18 2013

CITYOtCARMEL BY-'nffi..S.EA

A p p e l l a n t : ~ ' D k j ~ ? ~ f " ~ \ ? J ~ ~ ~~ O w n e r : ~ ~ H ~ ~ = ~ ~MailingAddress: ~ \ S l e _ U . , E ' f ~ - ~ - - - .. '

q ~ z . . ~Phones: Day:( ) 4:z;2..4:- ( l Q ~ E v e n i n g : ( ) 2c-::2Ji3- ~ % 1 ~Fax : ( ~ V C \ ~ 7 < - P Email: f " R D { s l e X \ r f ~ " f t ! ' ~ ~Date Board heard the matter: fo -kf?{dL- \ \:2Appeals to the City Council must be made in writing in the office of he City Clerk within ~10 working dllys foUowing the date ofaction by the Planning Commission and paying ~the required iling fee as established by .City Council resolution. "Physical location of property that is the subject of appeal:- - - c ~ {f-) b1 {W OJf- s ~Lot(s): ~ Block: \9_ APN: 0 \6 - O'l(p- 0 \ ~COMMISSION ACfiON BEING APPi.ED: ~ \ls:L- {Jf--- ~~ W - LC 2 - (p ~ I2--'1- fv >s \:2 -tI fyou were NOT the original applicant or the applicant's representative, please state theevidence that you are an aggrieved party: ------- -----

(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)


22/22

G:ROUNDS FOR APPEAL: (State the specific basis for your appeal, such as errors oromissions you believe were committed by the Commission in reaching its decision, etc.)

$295.00 fee* r e c e i v e d ~ ~ I n i t i a l ) Receipt#:

Article 9, Section 7, of the Constitution of he State ofCalifornia authorizes a city toimpose fees. Also see California government Code, Section 54344.IMPORTANI': If he appellant wishes to submit materials for duplication andinclusion in the City ofCarmel-by-the-Sea's Council agenda packet, the materials mustbe submitted to the City Clerk by working days after the decision of theCommission. This matter is tentatively scheduled to be heard on

-

appeal of the planning commission's decision to deny a single family residence 06-04-13

Documents