CITY COUNCIL: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a two-unit, multi-family residential project for a site located on Mission 3 SW of 7th Avenue

Meeting Date: 3 May 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 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
• 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 (rear parking)
• Attachment “K” Attorney Letter (See San Carlos Report)

Reviewed by:

_________________________________ _____________________
John Goss, Interim City Administrator Date

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
STAFF REPORT
TO: MAYOR McCLOUD AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
THROUGH: JOHN GOSS, INTERIM CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: MARC WIENER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: 3 MAY 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 changes to the report from the 4/5/11 agenda packet are shown in underline)

The project site is located on the west side of Mission Street between Seventh and Eighth Avenues 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 recused during the review process. On January 12th, 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.

The motion to deny the project was based on a determination that it was inconsistent with the General Plan, the intent of the RC District and the Design Guidelines because it was not pedestrian oriented due to the configuration and location of the parking. Concern was also expressed over the lack of landscaping in the front setback as required by code. It was also noted that a plan previously approved at this location, but never constructed, included parking at the rear of the site. The motion to approve the project was based on a determination that the project sufficiently complied with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines and was a considerable improvement over existing conditions.

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 and too costly.

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. On April 5th, 2011 the City Council directed staff to contract with land use attorney Brian Finegan to provide legal advice on this project. Mr. Finegan’s written remarks can be found in attachment “K.”

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 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.