CITY COUNCIL: Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision to Deny Two Unit Multi-Family Residential Project

Meeting Date: 5 April 2011
Prepared by: Marc Wiener, Associate Planner

City Council
Agenda Item Summary

Name: Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a two unit multi-family residential project for a site located on Mission Street 3 SW of 7th Avenue. The appellant is Old Mill Properties LLC.

Description: The appellant is requesting that the Council overturn the denial of the project. The appellant argues that the project complies with City standards and should be approved.

Staff Recommendation: Grant the appeal.

Important Considerations: The RC District was established to provide an appropriate location for residential uses and limited commercial uses and to be a transition zone between the more intense activities in the CC and SC Districts and the activities in the R-1 District.

During the Planning Commission hearings several concerns were raised by the
Commission about the project. However, the primary point of debate centered on whether the applicant should be required to place the parking at the rear of the lot.

Decision Record: On 12 January 2011 this project received a split 2-2 vote and was denied due to a lack of a motion for approval.

Attachments:
• Attachment “A” Reduction Plans
• Attachment “B” Appeal Application (See San Carlos Report)
• Attachment “C” Data Table
• Attachments “D-H” (See San Carlos Report)
• Attachment “I” Planning Commission Staff Report (1/12/11)
• Attachment “J” Alternative Site Plan

Reviewed by:

_________________________________ _____________________
Heidi Burch, Assistant City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
THROUGH: HEIDI BURCH, ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: MARC WIENER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: 5 APRIL 2011
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO DENY A TWO-UNIT, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT FOR A SITE LOCATED ON MISSION STREET 3 SW OF 7TH AVENUE.
THE APPELLANT IS OLD MILL PROPERTIES, LLC.

BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is located on Mission Street three southwest of Seventh Avenue in the
Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) District. The lot was previously developed
with a small single family residence. The structure was condemned by the City and
demolished several years ago.
The applicant is appealing the Planning Commission’s denial of the proposal to develop
two adjacent lots, each with a multi-family residence. One lot fronts on San Carlos Street
and the other fronts on Mission Street. The lot which faces Mission Street (DR 10-25) is
the subject of this staff report, while the lot facing San Carlos Street (DR 10-24) is the
subject of a separate report. Attachments D-H are attached to the San Carlos staff report.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 3,600-square-foot multi-family dwelling. 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 “C” 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 requested.
Planning Commission Review: The Planning Commission reviewed this project at four
separate hearings (see attachment “D” for a hearing summary). Due to a conflict of
interest, one commissioner was required to step down during the review process. On 12
138
Old Mill Properties Appeal (Mission - DR 10-25)
5 April 2011
Staff Report
Page 2
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 project, there are no formal
Planning Commission findings that accompany this appeal. During the hearings several
concerns were raised by the Commission including mass and scale, architectural design,
landscaping and safety (see attachment “D”). However, the primary point of debate
centered on whether the applicant should be required to place the parking at the rear of
the lot.
BASIS FOR APPEAL
The property owner is appealing the project denial for the following reasons (see
attachment “B” 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
The staff report for the San Carlos project appeal discusses the General Plan and Zoning
Regulations that apply to both projects and should be used by the City Council in its
deliberation. Staff notes that the City Attorney was required to step down due to a
conflict of interest and did not provide staff with any legal counsel for this project.
The Mission Street project presents similar challenges with regards to placing the parking
at the rear. The Mission Street project also includes an apartment with a separate entry,
bathroom and cooking facility that qualifies the structure as a multi-family dwelling.
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 “G” 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
139
Old Mill Properties Appeal (Mission - DR 10-25)
5 April 2011
Staff Report
Page 3
immediate vicinity and encourage building materials and colors to respect the traditions
already established in the commercial district.
The proposed structure has a simple design that appears visually interesting. 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. Staff concludes that the
proposed project is consistent with the Guidelines.
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 “E”). The
Police Department determined that there were no undue traffic and safety problems
arising from the construction of the driveway as set forth in the plans.
Use Permit: The construction of basement floor space is permitted in the commercial
district with the approval of a use permit (CMC 17.14.015). Floor space qualifies as a
basement if the distance between the exterior grade and finished floor above is one-foot
or less. In the original proposal a portion of the lower level dedicated to storage and
mechanical equipment qualified as a basement space. The applicant has since revised the
design so that no portion of the lower level qualifies as a basement. As a result a use
permit is no longer required.
Summary: The City Council should discuss the following questions:
• Is the project consistent with the General Plan?
• Does the project comply with the Zoning Requirements for the RC District?
• Is the project consistent with the Commercial Design Guidelines?
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council make the following motion:
1) Grant the appeal for DR 10-25 (Mission Street) and direct staff to prepare
findings and conditions for approval.