CITY COUNCIL: Appeals of Planning Commission's Decisions to Deny Two Two-Unit, Milti-Family Residential Projects

Meeting Date: 1 March 2011
Prepared by: Marc Wiener, Associate Planner

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of the following two appeals filed by Old Mill Properties, LLC.:
1. An appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a two-unit, multi-family residential project for a site located 3 SE of Seventh Avenue on San Carlos.
2. An appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a two-unit, multi-family residential project for a site located 3 SW of Seventh Avenue on Mission Street.

Description: The appellant is requesting that the Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the two multi-family projects in the RC District.

Staff Recommendation: Grant the appeals.

Important Considerations: During the hearings several concerns were raised by the Commission about the projects. However, the primary point of debate centered on whether the applicant should be required to place the parking at the rear of the lots for both projects.

Decision Record: On 12 January 2011 both projects received a split 2-2 vote and were denied due to a lack of a motion for approval.

Attachments:
• Attachment “A” Appellant Letters
• Attachment “B” Data Tables
• Attachment “C” Planning Commission Hearing Summary
• Attachment “D” Police Parking Evaluation
• Attachment “E” General Plan Policies
• Attachment “F” Commercial Design Guidelines
• Attachment “G” Correspondence

Reviewed by:

__________________________ _____________________
Rich Guillen, City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
THROUGH: RICH GUILLEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: MARC WIENER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: 1 MARCH 2011
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING TWO APPEALS FILED BY OLD MILL PROPERTIES, LLC.:
1. AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY A TWO-UNIT, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT FOR A SITE LOCATED 3 SE OF SEVENTH AVENUE ON SAN CARLOS.
2. AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY A TWO-UNIT, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT FOR A SITE LOCATED 3 SW OF SEVENTH AVENUE ON MISSION STREET.

BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to develop two adjacent lots, each with a multi-family (twounit) residence. Both properties are located in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) District. One of the lots is located on San Carlos Street three southeast of Seventh Avenue and the other lot is located on Mission Street three southwest of Seventh Avenue. Both lots were previously developed with residences that have since been condemned and demolished.

The applicant is appealing the denial of both projects by the Planning Commission. This staff report addresses both projects but notes that the Council will need to make two separate motions to address the projects individually.

DR 10-24 San Carlos Street Project: The applicant is proposing to construct a 3,200 square foot Spanish style structure. The project includes a 2,371 square feet main residence, a 412 square foot apartment and a 417 square foot garage. The apartment is located on the lower level and has a separate entry as well as a kitchen and full bathroom. The project includes three parking spaces as required by code (see attachment “B” for more information).

The structure is clad with stucco siding, a clay tile roof and includes unclad wood windows. The front elevation presents an entry element, a balcony and single wood garage door. The garage door is located 22.5 feet from the street and is recessed behind the front carport. No variances are being proposed.

DR 10-25 Mission Street Project: The applicant is proposing to construct a 3,600 square foot structure. The project includes a 2,756 square foot main residence with a 410 square foot apartment. The apartment is located on the lower level and has a separate entry as well as a kitchen and full bathroom. The project includes three parking spaces as required by code (see attachment “B” for more information).

The proposed structure consists of a low pitched gable and hip roof design with wood rafter tails. The entire residence is clad with a stone veneer and includes wood doors and windows and a slate roof. The front façade presents an entry element and a two-car garage and carport to the street. No variances are being proposed.

Planning Commission Review: The Planning Commission reviewed these projects at four separate hearings (see attachment “C” for a hearing summary). Due to a conflict of interest, one commissioner was required to step down during the review process. On 12 January 2011 both projects received a split 2-2 vote and were denied due to a lack of a motion for approval.

Since there was no majority vote to approve or deny the projcts, there are no formal Planning Commission findings that accompany these appeals. During the hearings several concerns were raised by the Commission including mass and scale, architectural design, landscaping and safety (see attachment “C”). However, the primary point of debate centered on whether the applicant should be required to place the parking at the rear of the lots for both projects.

BASIS FOR APPEAL
The property owner is appealing the project denials for the following reasons (see attachment “A” for more information):

• The proposed project is consistent with the Zoning Code and Commercial Design Guidelines.

• The determination that parking should be at the rear of the property is unfounded and cannot be tied to the Zoning Code or Design Guidelines.

• Parking in the back is an impractical notion that is too costly and would result in a financially disastrous project.

EVALUATION
This section of the staff report discusses the General Plan, Zoning Regulations and Design Guidelines that should be used by the City Council in its deliberation.

General Plan
The General Plan land use designation for this site is Commercial/Residential. Page 1-15 of the General Plan states:

“this area is intended to provide for a mix of residential dwellings and a limited range of office and service uses in scale with the character of the community. Less intense commercial uses and visitor accommodations are allowed in this area. Mixed-use developments of commercial and multi-family residential uses at a maximum density of thirty-three (33) units per acre are allowed. This area is also appropriate for public service uses.”

The General Plan envisions residential, limited commercial, public services and mixeduse developments for this area. The traditional character of the RC district is quite eclectic and contains single-family residence, multi-family projects, mixed use projects, commercial projects and public services. The proposed use is consistent with the intent
of the General Plan and the traditional character of the District.
There are several goals, objectives and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan that provide guidance on project design, which are summarized in Attachment “E”.

Objective 01-11 was the focus of much of the Commission’s debate and encourages pedestrian-oriented commercial and multi-family districts that are integrated into the residential character of the community. The Commission was split on whether the proposed designs with two garage doors facing the street, rather than locating the parking at the rear of the site, were inconsistent with this objective.

Staff notes that there are challenges to placing parking at the rear of these sites, particularly for the San Carlos project. Both sites are narrow, steeply sloped, and include large significant trees that constrain the potential location of parking. Placing the parking at the rear would require sloped driveways. Sloped driveways often require tall retaining walls and expose more of the mass of a structure to the street, as well as presenting safety concerns due to the limited lines-of-sight when approaching the street. These challenges should be taken into consideration as well as the concerns raised by the Commission that
placing the parking near the front of the site is not pedestrian friendly.

Zoning Regulations
The Zoning Designation for both properties is Residential and Limited Commercial (RC). CMC Section 17.14.010.C states that the purpose of the RC District is:

“to provide an appropriate location for permanent and transient residential uses, service and office uses, and limited retail uses that do not adversely impact the residential neighborhood. This district is intended to provide a transition and buffer between the more intense activities in the CC and SC districts and the less intense activities in the R-1 and R-4 districts.”

CMC Section 17.14 establishes the range of permitted and conditional uses that are
allowed in this district. Multi-family residential projects with a density between 0-22
acres are considered a permitted use by the Zoning Ordinance. CMC Section 17.68.030
defines a multi-family dwelling as:
“a building or group of buildings on a single building site that contains two or
more dwellings, each with its own facilities for parking, living, sleeping, cooking
and eating. This classification includes condominiums, townhouses, and
apartments.”
The Zoning Code also encourages a mix of unit sizes to provide a wide range of housing
opportunities. Staff concludes that both projects are consistent with the intent and the
requirements of the RC District.
Design Guidelines: CMC Section 17.14.100 states that the “Basic standard of review in
the commercial district is whether the project constitutes an improvement over existing
conditions – not whether the project just meets minimum standards.” CMC 17.14.110
indicates that the Commercial Design Guidelines have been adopted to assist in the
design review process and that “Proposed projects need not strictly comply with every
Guideline to be approved but deviations should be minor and reasonably related to good
design principles and site conditions.”
Attachment “F” includes a list of some of the relevant Commercial Design Guidelines
that the Council should consider. In summary, the Guidelines encourage buildings to
provide visual interest, complement the rhythms established by other buildings in the
immediate vicinity and encourage building materials and colors to respect the traditions
already established in the commercial district. Staff provides a brief response for each of
the projects below.
San Carlos Street Project: The project provides visual interest and is consistent with the
heights of other buildings between Seventh and Eighth Avenues on San Carlo Street.
The structure is larger than the neighboring building to the south, however, the
neighboring building is undersized compared to the other buildings in the vicinity.
With regards to materials, the applicant is proposing an off-white stucco siding, clay tile
roofing and wood windows. Spanish style architecture with the proposed materials is
traditionally used in the commercial district. The proposed color also respects the
traditions and context of the commercial district.

Mission Street Project: For the project on Mission Street the applicant is proposing stone
siding, a slate roof and wood windows. The proposed materials are natural and are
consistently used throughout Carmel’s commercial and residential districts. The
applicant is proposing to apply a stone veneer to the entire structure as opposed to being
used on only the street façade.
Safety: The Carmel Police Department reviewed the plans and conducted a site visit in
order to evaluate the safety of the proposed parking designs (see attachment “D”). The
Police Department determined that there were no undue traffic and safety problems
arising from the construction of either driveway as set forth in the plans.
Summary: The City Council should discuss the following questions:
• Are the projects consistent with the General Plan?
• Do the projects comply with the Zoning Requirements for the RC District?
• Are the projects consistent with the Commercial Design Guidelines?
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council make the following two motions:
1) Grant the appeal for DR 10-24 (San Carlos Street) and direct staff to prepare
findings and conditions for approval.
2) Grant the appeal for DR 10-25 (Mission Street) and direct staff to prepare findings and conditions for approval.24