Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council remands contested Casanova two‑story project to planning commission for redesign discussions with neighbors
Summary
After lengthy public testimony and conflicting recommendations from planning staff and the planning commission, the Carmel City Council remanded a contentious two‑story house proposal at Casanova Street back to the Planning Commission and ordered staff and the applicant to work with neighbors on additional design alternatives.
The City Council on April 1 remanded a contested design‑study application for a proposed two‑story house at Casanova Street (2 SE of Palou Avenue) back to the Planning Commission for further work with neighbors and staff. The remand followed more than three hours of public discussion, cross‑examination and testimony from the applicant, adjacent property owners and design consultants. The council vote to remand was 3–0 with one recusal.
Project background: The owner proposed to demolish an older one‑story house and build a new two‑story, 1,793 square‑foot single‑family residence with an attached garage on a roughly 4,000‑square‑foot lot. Planning staff performed standard reviews; the project was considered multiple times by the planning commission through 2023 and 2024 and the commission ultimately adopted a denial resolution on January 15, 2025. The planning commission’s denial centered on Concept Finding 5 in the residential design guidelines: that a proposed project must not substantially eliminate significant existing views for neighboring properties.
What council heard: The applicant, Dr. Liyung Lim, described an aging, undersized house on the lot and a family need for additional, safe living space. The applicant’s designer and an independent architect testified the team followed planning commission direction and reduced ridge height and second‑floor massing between hearings. Neighbors protested that the proposed second story would create a “canyon” effect, eliminate sunlight and private outdoor enjoyment, and intrude on views from their homes. Speakers urged more substantive redesign rather than incremental modifications, and several neighbors said they had proposed alternatives that would preserve more privacy and light (including shifting or reducing the second story or exploring a single‑story solution) that had not been seriously examined.
Council action and direction: Rather than approving or denying the appeal, the council remanded the application to the planning commission with direction that the applicant, staff and interested neighbors work together to explore additional design alternatives. Council members said recent process steps had been unclear and that the application would benefit from direct neighbor‑applicant discussions and one more round of design iteration before the planning commission or the council acts on a final permit. The council explicitly asked staff to facilitate discussions and return the item to the planning commission with alternatives developed in collaboration with neighbors.
Why it matters: The remand preserves the applicant’s ability to pursue housing on the lot while requiring a more collaborative design path. Council members framed the outcome as a way to avoid protracted litigation and repeated appeals by encouraging neighbor‑to‑neighbor design work facilitated by the planning staff.
Ending: Staff will schedule facilitated design discussions, and the planning commission will receive a revised application or new options informed by neighbor input. The council asked staff and the applicant to return with a clearer set of mutually reviewed options at a future hearing.
