Zoning District: This site is zoned Service Commercial (SC). City Municipal Code Section 17.14.010.B states that the following purpose of the SC Zoning District: “To provide an appropriate location for services, offices, residential and limited retail activities that primarily serve local needs. This district is intended to provide a distinct transition between the more intense activities in the CC district and the less intense activities in the districts on its periphery. Mixed uses of commercial and residential activities are appropriate throughout this district.”
General Plan – Housing Element Policy P3-2.1 states to: “Continue to encourage mixed-use developments (second-floor housing over first-floor commercial uses) as a preferred development form contributing to the village character in all Commercial Districts.”
General Plan – Land Use Element Policy P1-8 states to: “Continue to encourage mixed land uses that create new second floor apartments located over ground floor retail and service uses in the commercial district on streets where a pattern of second story buildings already exists.”
The proposed building would be mixed use and occupied with two residential dwelling units. In staff’s opinion, the use of the building complies with the intent of the SC Zoning District and policies of the General Plan.
Housing Density: CMC Section 17.14 establishes the range of permitted and conditional uses that are allowed in the SC Zoning District. Multi-family projects between 0 and 22 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) are a permitted use. Projects between 22-33 du/acre require a conditional use permit and projects with densities between 34-44 du/acre require a conditional use permit with a finding that the project complies with State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code Section 65915). The applicant is proposing two units on a 4,000 square foot site, which is a density of 22 du/acre and is therefore a permitted use. There is no required affordable housing associated with the proposed density.
Zoning Compliance: The proposed project complies with the allowable floor area; the applicant is requesting exceptions for building coverage, and parking standards. As proposed, the building does not meet the setback or height standards.
Floor Area
With regard to floor area, the proposed building would be 5,363 square feet (134% of lot area) in size. The floor area ratio for a two-story building in the SC Zoning District is 135% of the site area. Staff notes that CMC 17.14.140 specifically excludes underground parking, non-commercial storage, and mechanical spaces from the floor area calculations. Included in floor area are is a 2,689 commercial shell on the ground floor, and a 1,520 square foot second story apartment, and a second 1,120 square foot apartment on the second story.
Building Coverage
With regard to building coverage, the proposed building would be 3,265 square feet (81% of lot area) in area. The allowed building coverage for a two-story building in the SC Zoning District is 80% of the site area for designs that fully implement Commercial Guidelines III-A (Refer to Attachment 2, Pages 3-6). CMC 17.14.130.A states, exceptions may be granted up to a maximum building coverage of 95 percent, however, the Municipal Code does not address any requirements or findings needed to obtain the exception to be granted a maximum of 95% of the building coverage. Staff suggests the Planning Commission provide direction to the applicant if it is acceptable to slightly exceed the 80% building coverage in accordance with CMC 17.14.130.A.
Height
Per CMC 17.14.150, the maximum allowable building height shall be determined primarily by the design context established by the prevailing heights of nearby structures facing the same street or intersection and within the same pedestrian field of view (i.e., generally, within 100 feet to either side of, or across the street from the proposed structure). In the CC and SC districts the main building and roof form of all structures shall be limited to a maximum of 30 feet. As proposed, the parapet wall exceeds the maximum allowable height of 30 feet, by 1 foot, at one corner of the building. There are several other two-story buildings in the neighborhood, however, the proposed new building appears to be slightly higher than some of the neighboring buildings based on evaluation of the story poles. In staff's opinion, the building could potentially be reduced in height to better match the height of the neighboring buildings and at a minimum must be lowered to meet the height requirement (Refer to Attachment 4).
Parking & In-Lieu Fees
With regard to parking, the underground garage is proposed to include four spaces, where seven are required (1 for each residential unit: 2 total; 1 for each 600 square feet of commercial space: 5 total). As proposed, the dimensions of the parking spaces do not meet the requirements of CMC 17.38.020.E which states: all parking designed with parking spaced perpendicular to vehicle travel lanes, a minimum of 24 feet shall be provided for automobile backup room behind standard spaces and 18 feet behind compact spaces. As proposed the parking design does not comply as a 19 foot deep standard space with a 24 foot back-up exceeds the 40 foot lot width. A reconfigured parking layout shall be required prior to final details review.
Pursuant to CMC 17.38.030.C, and in accordance with CMC 17.38.040, the Planning Commission may authorize the satisfaction of parking requirements through the granting of a use permit and the payment of in-lieu fees when on-site parking is not practical or when on-site parking is prohibited by City policies. Applications for use permits authorizing the use of in-lieu fees to adjust on-site parking shall also demonstrate both of the following:.
1. The parking for which the adjustment is sought is not required for serving hotel or motel uses.
2. The applicant has diligently pursued meeting the parking requirements both on-site and off-site, but has been unsuccessful in meeting the requirement, or that the site is located within the central commercial (CC) land use district where on-site parking is prohibited.
The site is not proposed to be utilized as a hotel or motel use, however, the applicant will need to further demonstrate that it would not be feasible to provide the required parking onsite to meet the required findings for the use permit. As noted above, the current parking layout does not meet the design standards to provide adequate parking and will require a re-design. Additionally, a large portion of the underground garage is dedicated to a private owner storage/garage to be utilized by the building’s owner and is proposed to not be rented or leased (Refer to attachment 3, Sheet A4.0). Staff suggests the Planning Commission provide direction to the applicant whether this space is appropriate to be used as a private storage space or if this dedicated area should be utilized to facilitate as much as required off-street parking feasibly possible given the site constraints.
Setbacks
CMC 17.14.130 requires the street-facing, ground-level facade of each building in the CC and SC zoning district(s) to be established on the property line or within two feet of this line for at least 70 percent of each street frontage. The proposed building is set back 5 feet from the front property line and is not within 2 feet of the front property line as required by the Code. The applicant had originally submitted plans that comply with this requirement, but at the direction of staff set the building back 5 feet. This was done in error and will be corrected at the time of final project review.
Roof Deck: The applicant is proposing 1,140 square foot roof deck to be utilized by Apartment 1 with a 735 square foot mechanical equipment area to serve the building. The municipal code and the Commercial Design Guidelines are silent on roof top decks in the commercial district. Furthermore, the Commercial Guidelines do not address neighboring privacy impacts, as is the case in the Residential District. Nonetheless, staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide direction to the applicant whether the size of the roof deck reserved for use by Apartment 1 is appropriate for the building and surrounding neighborhood context. There are several second-story apartments in the vicinity. The adjacent building to the south has a large-sized rooftop deck.
Design Standards and Guidelines: 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 17.14.010). In staff’s opinion, the proposed project would be a substantial improvement over the existing building.
In addition to the above code section, the Commercial Design Guidelines provide the following guidance for reviewing projects. Staff has addressed a number of pertinent Design Guidelines below. Refer to Attachment 2 for the full list of Commercial Design Guidelines.
Commercial Design Guideline A states: “Modifications to buildings should respect the history and traditions of the architecture of the commercial districts. Basic elements of design integrity and consistency throughout each building should be preserved or restored” and “New Buildings should not imitate styles of the past but strive to achieve compatibility with the old.”
Staff Response: The proposed design respects with history and traditions of the architecture of the commercial district. The building features Spanish influences, however, does not imitate the established styles of the commercial district. The proposed building could benefit by a reduction in the overall height, but the overall building design of the building fits within the context of other buildings in the immediate vicinity.
The proposed building does conflict with Design Guideline A8, which states: pitched roofs that do not reach a true peak or hip should be avoided. The second story roof is pitched at 5:12, and does not meet a true peak as the building also contains a 3’6” parapet wall around the perimeter of the roof deck (Refer to Attachment 3, Sheet A6.0). This design feature should be considered by the Planning Commission as the allowable building coverage for a two-story building in the SC Zoning District is 80% of the site area for designs that fully implement Commercial Guidelines III-A. Currently the building coverage is proposed to be 81% of the site area, and there is a conflict with Design Guideline A8.
Commercial Design Guideline B.4 and B.5 states that "Buildings and storefronts in the core commercial area should establish a "pedestrian wall" close to the front property line (generally within 0" to 24")" and "The pedestrian wall should not be without relief; it should be punctuated by occasional offsets produced by entries, window projections, small planters, and entrances to courtyards and intra-block walkways."
Staff Response: Design Guideline B4, and CMC 17.14.130, states the street-facing, ground-level facade of each building in the SC zoning district be established on the property line or within two feet of this line for at least 70 percent of each street frontage of the building. As previously discussed in the “setback” section above, the proposal does not comply with the build-to-line requirement established in the Commercial Design Guidelines and the Municipal Code. However, as proposed, the pedestrian wall along the front elevation is punctuated by occasional offsets produced by building entries and small planters as encouraged by Design Guideline B5.
Commercial Design Guideline C states “Window design should ·be consistent with the original building concept or with its architecture. Wood framed windows with true divided lights (Tudor, Craftsman, Norman), arched windows (Spanish, Colonial Revival), or banded windows (Craftsman) are typical.”
Staff Response: The building does feature multiple arched windows, as suggested in the Commercial Design Guidelines, which is consistent with the Spanish Influence of the building (Refer to Attachment 3, Sheet A6.0). However, Commercial Design Guideline C1 states, large sheets of glass, unbroken by divisions, can appear too urban or modem and should be avoided. The commission may wish to consider if the large, unbroken, sheets of glass on the ground floor are appropriate building, or if divisions should be installed to be consistent with the Design Guidelines and the other rectangular windows in the building.
Commercial Design Guideline D states “Entrances to stores are typically recessed from the façade by creating a small alcove. This establishes a more definitive sense of entry and affords an alternative view of merchandise in display windows” and strongly encourages single doors.
Staff Response: The building proposes a recessed entry for the commercial shell and a separate entry which provided ADA access to the commercial space as well as the primary access to the apartment units. The proposed building is substantially in compliance with Design Guideline D, but deviates from the guidelines with the proposed double doors at the commercial entry, as doors are strongly encouraged in preference to double doors. In staff’s opinion, the double doors are not excessively wide, as discouraged by the Design Guidelines, and complement the building, however, the commission may wish to address the inconsistency with the guidelines regarding the double doors.
Commercial Design Guideline E states “building materials and colors should respect traditions already established in the commercial district. The use of richly detailed wood, tile, molding, corbels, brick and stone are encouraged” and “building walls facing public streets and walkways should provide visual interest to pedestrian. Variations such as display windows, changes in building form, and changes in material, texture, or color are appropriate.”
Staff Response: The exterior building material is primarily stucco. While stucco is discouraged in the single-family zoning districts, it is the primary building material for buildings in the Commercial Districts despite not being a preferred building finish listed in the Commercial Design Guidelines. The proposed building features, a clay tile roof, wrought iron guard rails, copper gutters, and metal clad bronze windows and doors. The building does include faux limestone accents, which is identified as inappropriate in design guideline E1.
Commercial Design Guideline F states “Courtyards and intra-block walkways are important design features of the commercial districts. They provide pedestrians the anticipation of the unusual, swift and gratifying shifts in prospect, and often intriguing connecting routes between two or more streets defining a block.”
Staff Comment: The proposed building does feature a small, semi-private courtyard (refer to attachment 3, Sheet A1.0). The courtyard provides public access to the ground level from the parking garage and serves as the main entrance for the residential units. Additionally, per Design Guideline F2, the area of the courtyard should be compatible with the size of the building. In staff’s option, the proposed courtyard is out of scale (too small) with the proposed building to function as a true courtyard, and as proposed, only acts as a circulation element. While courtyards are encouraged, they are not required by the Design Guidelines and are only required by the Municipal Code when an existing courtyard (or inter-block walkway) exists on the site (CMC 17.14.170.D).