Council remands Palou/Casanova remodel to planning commission after neighbors object to two‑story design

The Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council on April 1 remanded a contested two‑story remodel project at Casanova Street (two properties southeast of Palou Avenue) back to the Planning Commission for further work after prolonged public testimony and conflicting findings at the commission level.

The appellant argued the project’s two‑story design and a second‑floor deck substantially eliminated a privacy‑ and tree‑screened view enjoyed by the northern neighbor and that the variance finding that allowed added site coverage did not adequately address the deck and patio that drove the coverage increase. The planning commission denied the applicant’s design study in December 2024; the applicant then requested council review via appeal.

Staff reported the project would increase maximum site coverage through a variance and that coverage calculations include areas such as decks, walkways and parking strips. Staff said that, without the proposed second‑story deck and the patio beneath it, the project’s site coverage could have been compliant without a variance. Appellant counsel argued the variance finds did not specifically address the deck and patio that drove the need for extra coverage.

At the council meeting, neighbors emphasized privacy and shade impacts from the proposed second‑story deck while the applicant and architect described topographic constraints, existing lot conditions and efforts to reduce second‑story massing and overall site coverage in successive design iterations. Architect testimony noted the lot is narrow and deep and that practical constraints made a reverse‑plan two‑story design the reasonable path for larger, ground‑level living spaces.

After extended discussion — including requests from council members that the parties attempt a negotiated design solution — council voted to remand the project to the Planning Commission with direction that the applicant and staff work with the neighbors to explore additional design alternatives aimed at reducing view and privacy impacts, and return to the commission with revised plans.

The council’s motion was not an approval; the remand means the Planning Commission will revisit the application and consider any new, neighbor‑informed revisions. Staff will coordinate an applicant‑neighbor meeting and report on proposed alternatives when the redesign returns to the commission for a fresh decision.