CITY COUNCIL: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a two-unit, multi-family residential project for a site located on San Carlos Street 3 SE 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 San Carlos Street 3 SE 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/Appellant Letters
• Attachment “C” Data Tables
• Attachment “D” Planning Commission Hearing Summary
• Attachment “E” Police Parking Evaluation
• Attachment “F” General Plan Policies
• Attachment “G” Commercial Design Guidelines
• Attachment “H” Correspondence
• Attachment “I” Planning Commission Staff Report (1/12/11)
• Attachment “J” Alternative Site Plan (rear parking)
• Attachment “K” Attorney Letter

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 SAN CARLOS 3 SE OF SEVENTH 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 east side of San Carlos Street between Seventh and Eighth Avenue in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) District. The lot was previously developed with two small cottages that were used for commercial and residential purposes. The structures were condemned by the City and demolished in May 2010.

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 San Carlos Street (DR 10-24) is the subject of this staff report, while the lot facing Mission Street (DR 10-25) is the subject of a separate report.

The proposed multi-family dwelling on San Carlos Street is a 3,200 square foot Spanish style structure. The project includes a 2,371 square foot 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 “C” 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 sidewalk and is recessed behind the front balcony. 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. 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 impractical and too costly.

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. Staff notes that the City Attorney was recused 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.”

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 residences, multi-family structures, mixed use structures, commercial structures and public services. The proposed multi-family residential 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 “F”.

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 divided on whether the proposed design conflicted with this objective.

Staff notes that there are challenges to placing parking at the rear of this site. This site is narrow, steeply sloped, and includes a large significant tree that constrains the potential location of parking. Placing the parking at the rear would require a sloped driveway. 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 a driver’s limited line-of-sight when approaching the street from the driveway. 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 this site 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 proposed structure includes a 2,371 square foot main residence with a 412 square foot apartment. The apartment has a separate entry, bathroom, cooking and sleeping facility, and includes a designated parking space. Based on the above definition, the project qualifies as a multi-family dwelling.

Staff notes that the Zoning Code and Housing Element encourage a mix of unit sizes to provide a wide range of housing opportunities. Small studio units can potentially help provide affordable housing opportunities in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea.

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 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.

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.

While the police determined that backing onto San Carlos Street is safe, the applicant has agreed to install an automobile carousel. The purpose of the carousel is to rotate automobiles into a forward position, so that the driver would not have to back out of the driveway. The proposed carousel is located under the carport and would be covered with pavers to blend with the driveway. The carousel is only being proposed for the San Carlos Street project because there is higher volume of traffic on this street than on Mission Street. The carousel is also more compatible with the San Carlos garage design.

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 10-24 (San Carlos Street) and direct staff to prepare findings and conditions for approval.