DS 20-319 (26162 Ladera Drive): Consideration of a Track 1 Design Study (DS 20-319, Leatherberry) referral to the Planning Commission for the construction of a new driveway gate located in the shared private driveway easement of a flag lot located in the Single-Family, 20,000 square foot minimum lot size (R-1-C-20), Park Overlay (P), and Archaeological Significance (AS) Overlay Zoning Districts. (APN 009-331-019)

CEQA Action: Staff recommends the project be found categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) approving a Track 1 Design Study (DS 20-319) for the construction of a new driveway and pedestrian gate supported by stucco columns.

The property is a 28,667-square-foot flag lot developed with an existing 4,641-square-foot, two-story residence. In February 2020, the Planning Commission approved several additions to the existing residence consisting of a new bedroom, bathroom, workout room and master bedroom expansion totaling 462 square feet. The scope of the February 2020 project also included a proposal to construct a new driveway gate on the applicant’s property in the shared driveway easement. Georgine Casella, owner of the adjacent northwest flag lot, raised an objection to the proposed driveway gate, providing staff with a copy of the grant deed for her property (Attachment 3) demonstrating that a private easement grants her property (Parcel III), “An Easement for Driveway and Utility purposes on, over and under Lot 4, as said Lot is shown on said Map and as shown on that certain Map entitled “Map of Second Addition to Mission Tract,” recorded in Volume 4 of Cities and Towns, at page 12, Records of Monterey County, California.”  On the map included with this Grant Deed, Lot 4 is the flag pole driveway for the Leatherberry residence.

Additionally, the Leatherberry residence’s driveway easement is partially located on a portion of the neighboring property to the northeast (Parcel A in the Grant Deed, included as Attachment 3), belonging to Patricia Alhona.  Since the driveway and pedestrian gate is proposed to be located at the front of the property, it will be located entirely on the Leatherberry residence’s property and will not be located in the area of overlap with Ms. Alhona’s property. However, at the February 2020 Planning Commission meeting, Ms. Alhona had submitted an email expressing concern about the proposal to block the private easement with a gate and requesting “a continuance of this application until more facts can be evaluated and compromises reached.”

At the February 2020 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission approved the remodel and floor area additions to Mr. Leatherberry’s residence, but adopted Condition of Approval #23 requiring that the driveway gate be removed from the proposal until such time that all parties reach an agreement regarding access.

Since the February 2020 Planning Commission meeting, the owner of the property, Bill Leatherberry, hired a land-use attorney to assist in putting together a document that would allow the construction of a driveway gate for Mr. Leatherberry’s residence, while protecting the access rights of the other two properties. According to the applicant, Ms. Alhona agreed to sign the agreement, but Ms. Casella did not agree to sign the agreement and objects to the construction of the driveway gate, pedestrian gate and columns.

The applicant has submitted a Design Study (DS 20-319) application proposing to construct a new 5’-6” tall, Class A fire retardant western red cedar, horizontal board driveway gate. The driveway gate will be approximately 12’-4” in width, and will be mounted to two 5’-6” tall, 1’-4” wide, stucco pillars. A 5’-6” tall, 3’ wide pedestrian gate and 5’-6” tall, 1’ wide stucco pillar will connect to the driveway gate. The pedestrian gate will match the style of the western red cedar horizontal board driveway gate. While the installation of a 5’-6” tall driveway gate, pillars and pedestrian gate qualifies for a Track 1 Minor, staff-level review, staff has referred this proposal to the Planning Commission due to Ms. Casella’s concerns regarding access to the shared driveway easement in the flagpole portion of this lot.

Proposed Entry Gate in the Flagpole of the Lot.  This project site is a flag lot which is defined by CMC 17.70 as “a lot not fronting or abutting a public roadway, where access to the public roadway is limited to a narrow private right-of-way.”

According to CMC 17.10.030.D.2.d.ii. “Unbuildable Areas. Those portions of a property that are not counted as part of the building site or that are unbuildable (i.e., exclusive easements, private roads, the “pole” of a flag lot, etc.) shall first be deducted from the site lot area when calculating base floor area.”

Figure 1.  CMC 17.06 Depicting the Deduction of the Pole of a Flag Lot from the Buildable Area

While the pole of a flag lot is considered unbuildable area that cannot be included in the calculations to determine the maximum allowed floor area or volume for the lot, staff’s interpretation is that this does not prevent structures that do not add floor area or volume, such as gates and pillars, from being installed in the flag pole on the applicant’s property.  The proposed location for the gate is entirely on the Leatherberry residence’s property, but also within the shared easement over Mr. Leatherberry’s property.

Figure 2. Proposed Driveway and Pedestrian Gate on the Leatherberry’s Property, in the Pole of the Flag Lot

While staff has not received any communication from the northeast neighbor, Ms. Alhona, Ms. Casella, the northwest neighbor has contacted staff expressing concern regarding this new application for the installation of a driveway and pedestrian gate in the shared driveway easement on the Leatherberry residence’s flag lot. Ms. Casella has not yet provided a letter in writing with her objections, but in conversations with staff indicated that her gardeners access her rear yard via a gate at the end of the easement and she is concerned that the driveway gate will block their access to her rear yard. She also stated she is concerned that the new gate will prevent her from accessing the easement, which she is legally allowed to access, and that the driveway gate could affect the value of her property.

Ms. Casella’s lot, like Mr. Leatherberry’s lot, is a flag lot that relies on a driveway easement to access her property. However, Ms. Casella’s property has two easements that provide access to her property. The primary driveway access to Ms. Casella’s property is provided by a driveway and driveway easement on the north side across a portion of Ms. Alhona’s property, while the south easement provides secondary access to Ms. Casella’s rear garden gate (refer to Figure 3 below). Ms. Casella has provided her property’s Grant Deed (refer to Attachment 3) which grants access to this south secondary easement by Ms. Casella “on, over and under lot 4”, where lot 4 is the driveway easement over the flag pole of Mr. Leatherberry’s property.

Figure 3. Arial View of Neighboring Properties and the Leatherberry Residence’s Flag Lot

Mr. Leatherberry is requesting to construct the driveway and pedestrian gate to stop traffic and people from proceeding down the driveway, under the impression that it is a public street.  Since this driveway easement on Mr. Leatherberry’s property does not constitute Ms. Casella’s primary driveway access to her property, staff can support the proposal to construct a new a driveway and pedestrian gate in the easement accessed with a code or a key, with the condition that Mr. Leatherberry provide Ms. Casella and any other current or future property owner who have a right to access the easement, with the code combination or a key to access the gate in order to preserve access to the driveway easement for themselves and any contractors working on their property.  Staff had drafted Condition of Approval #14 reflecting this requirement.

Height of the Driveway and Pedestrian Gate and Columns. Carmel Municipal Code section CMC 17.10.030 Table 17.10-B and Table 17.10-G permits gates and columns to be up to 6’ in height when located in the front 15’ setback.

Analysis: The proposed gate is located 38’-7” back from the front property line of the flag pole portion of the lot, and outside of the front setback. The proposed 5’-6” height of the gates and columns complies with the Municipal Code’s height requirements for gates and columns.

Materials of the Proposed Gates and Columns. According Residential Design Guideline 11.2, “Respect the neighborhood context when designing a fence or wall. Fences and walls should convey a simple, hand-crafted design. The use of grapestakes or wood pickets for fences is traditional in most neighborhoods. The use of river rock/ Carmel stone, brick or plastered masonry for short walls is traditional in most neighborhoods.”

Analysis: Staff supports the proposed western red cedar material of the driveway and pedestrian gates as the gate incorporates natural wood materials. The horizontal board design also complements the more contemporary design of the residence. Additionally, staff support the use of stucco on the columns which matches the siding of the stucco residence.