CITY COUNCIL: Modifications to the City's Volumetric Standards

Meeting Date: 4 August 2009
Prepared by: Sean Conroy, Plng & Bldg Services Manager

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Review report and provide direction on modifications to the City’s Volumetric
Standards, as established in CMC Section 17.10.030.

Description: The City’s volumetric standards establish the maximum amount of exterior
volume that can be built on sites located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) District.

The Planning Commission recommended modifications to the volumetric standards.

Overall Cost:
City Funds: N/A
Grant Funds: N/A

Staff Recommendation: Provide direction on this issue.

Important Considerations: The City adopted standards several years ago, limiting the amount of exterior volume that could be constructed as part of new development in the Residential (R-1) District. The standards were designed to address concerns regarding the size of new homes and their impact on the character of the City.

Decision Record: The Planning Commission recommended some modifications to the City Council on 8 July 2009.

Reviewed by:

__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR MCCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: SEAN CONROY
PLANNING & BUILDING SERVICES MANAGER
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: 4 AUGUST 2009
RE: CONSIDERATION OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE CITY’S VOLUMETRIC STANDARDS AS ESTABLISHED IN CMC 17.10.030

BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION
The City adopted standards several years ago, limiting the amount of exterior volume that could be constructed as part of new development in the Residential (R-1) District. The standards were designed to address concerns about the size of new homes and their impact on the character of the City. The Municipal Code defines exterior volume as:

“The total space occupied by all structures located above average grade, expressed in cubic feet and measured from the exterior wall and roof surfaces of each building.”

The following volume factors are used to determine the total allowed exterior volume of new construction:
Existing Volume Factors for R-1 District
Maximum Exterior Volume (Cubic Feet) Per Square Foot of Floor Area
One-Story Elements of the Building
Two-Story Elements of the Building
Located under a pitched or sloping roof greater than 3:12 pitch
12 11
Flat roof 3:12 or less pitch 11 10

For example, a new 1,800-square-foot, one-story residence with a pitched roof would be allowed up to 21,600 cubic feet of volume. Once a project goes through the design review process, the approved plans are sent to a consultant to calculate the actual proposed exterior volume. Projects that do not comply, must accordingly revise the plans.

Mayor McCloud recently appointed a small committee to review the City’s volumetric
standards and recommend whether the standards are appropriate. The Committee included:

􀂉 John Thodos, Architect
􀂉 Bill Strid, former Planning Commission Chair
􀂉 Sean Conroy, Planning & Building Services Manager

The Committee determined that the volume requirements are effective, but recommended
some modifications. The Planning Commission reviewed these recommendations on 8 July 2009. The following summarizes the Committee’s recommendations followed by a response from staff and the recommendation from the Planning Commission.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Revise the volume factors as shown below.
Proposed Exterior Volume Factors for R-1 District
Maximum Exterior Volume (Cubic Feet) Per Square Foot of Floor Area
One-Story Elements of the Building Two-Story Elements of the Building
All buildings
11 10

Staff Response: The Committee recommended reducing the volume factors by one to
further reduce the mass and scale of new projects in the Residential District. This would reduce the allowed volume for a standard 1,800-square-foot residence by 1,800 cubic feet. This recommendation also grants flat-roof structures the same volume factor as pitched-roof structures.

One criticism of the volumetric standards is that they can limit design creativity. Many of the City’s older, character-defining homes could not be built under today’s volume standards, much less if the standards became more stringent. The City’s current height, setback, volume and floor area requirements, along with the Design Guidelines and the design review process, provide sufficient opportunities to limit mass and bulk. Staff does not support a reduction in the allowed volume factors, as proposed. Staff could support the recommendation to allow flat-roof structures the same volume factor as pitched-roof structures, but prefers that the other volume factors remain unchanged.

PC Review: The Planning Commission concurred with the Committee’s recommendation to
reduce the volume factors by one and to grant flat-roofed structures the same volume factor as pitched roof structures.

2) Discourage subterranean parking garages on sites that require a sloped driveway
that create a “ramp” effect. Specify in the code that subterranean parking should not qualify as basement space and should always be counted as above-ground floor area.

Staff Comments: This recommendation is consistent with the Design Guidelines, which
discourage subterranean garages that create a ramped driveway. Staff concurs with this recommendation since ramped driveways typically add to the visual mass of a structure. Currently, subterranean garages can qualify for basement bonus floor area. Staff could support modifying the code to indicate that garage space always counts as above-grade floor area, thus removing the incentive to place a garage underground.

PC Review: The Planning Commission concurred with the Committee’s recommendation
regarding subterranean garages.

3) If a volume consultant submits a project for design review, require the volume
calculations to be prepared by another consultant.

Staff Comments: The City has three consultants who perform volume verifications. All
three also work as architects in the City. The recommendation of the committee is that the City ensure that if a consultant submits a project for design review, a separate consultant perform the volume study. Staff concurs with this recommendation. Since this is an administrative matter, no action is required by the Council.

PC Review: The Planning Commission concurred with the Committee’s recommendation
regarding consultant reviews. The Planning Commission made an additional recommendation that was not discussed by the Committee, to appoint a study group to analyze if volumetric standards should be also implemented in the Commercial District.

LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP)
Any proposed changes to the zoning ordinance constitute an amendment to the LCP and
would require Coastal Commission.

OPTIONS
The Council may wish to discuss at least the following options:
1) Make no changes to the City’s Volumetric Standards.

2) Direct staff to prepare an ordinance to address all of the recommendations of the Volume Committee and the Planning Commission.

3) Direct staff to prepare an ordinance to address some of the recommendations of the
Volume Committee and the Planning Commission.

RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction on potential modifications to the City’s Volumetric Standards.