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 – Housing Element Policy P3-3.1 states to: “Ensure adequate sites are available to meet the City’s projected housing growth needs.”
As proposed, the site would be developed with both commercial and residential uses and 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 six units on an 8,000 square foot site, which is a density of 32.7 du/acre. The proposed dwelling unit density requires a conditional use permit with no requirement for affordable housing associated with a density bonus.
Zoning Compliance: The proposed project complies with the allowable floor area, height, and building coverage. However, the following is a list of potential zoning issues:
Front Setback
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 has a 47’ long front façade, with 15’ (32%) located 2’ back from the front property line, while the remaining 32’ (68%) of the front wall is set back 7’ from the front property line. The proposed front setback is out of compliance with the requirement that the majority of the building façade be located within 2’ of the front property line. Additionally, the proposed second-story balconies encroach beyond the property line and onto the airspace above the sidewalks. Staff recommends that the balconies be pulled back to the property line and that the front façade be modified to comply with the setback standards.
Site Parking
The required parking for the proposed project is 8 spaces (6 for residential units, 2 for commercial space). The applicant is proposing an underground garage with car lifts that can potentially accommodate 12-24 parking spaces. One issue with the proposed project is that it would eliminate the existing 15-space parking lot, currently devoted to the adjacent 7th and Dolores restaurant. The restaurant Use Permit extends across all four lots of this property and the staff report associated with the Use Permit identifies that the restaurant has conforming parking. The restaurant is currently required to provide 8 spaces and this number would be reduced to 7 if the smaller building is no longer part of the restaurant. The proposed project would need to also provide the required 7 parking spaces for the restaurant, in order to avoid creating a parking non-conformity by eliminating the restaurant parking lot.
A separate issue with the parking design is that the plans indicate that a hydraulic ramp will be utilized at the entrance of the driveway. Staff has requested that the applicant provide drawing further detailing this lift system and identifying whether any portion of it will be located on the adjacent sidewalk.
Historic Review: The two buildings at the subject property were constructed in 1972 and are 47 years old. The buildings were designed by noted architect Walter Burde for Palo Alto Savings and Loan and is characteristic of the Second Bay Region Tradition of architecture. When evaluating properties for inclusion on the Carmel Inventory, among other things, a property should be at least 50 years old. Younger buildings can be added to the City’s Historic Inventory (CMC 17.32.040.H), but must meet a higher threshold of significance than would be used for a building 50 years or older. In 2006, the City Council considered adding the Walter Burde building(s) to the City’s Historic Inventory, but decided that the building did not meet the necessary threshold, given that it was only 34 years old at the time. This determination of historic ineligibility is valid for 5 years.
The applicant is proposing to modify the small building by construction a 452 square-foot addition at the rear. CMC 17.32.050 states that it “shall be unlawful for any person, corporation, association, partnership or other legal entity to directly or indirectly alter, remodel, demolish, grade, relocate, reconstruct or restore any property without first determining if the property is eligible for the inventory.” Because the applicant is proposing to modify the small building, it will require an historic eligibility evaluation. Nonetheless, the applicant intends to preserve this building, and the addition appears to be in general compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic properties.
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, a new mixed use building with underground parking would be an improvement over the existing surface parking lot. For example, Commercial Design Guideline K discourages surface parking at the front of lots and that vehicles be located out of view. However, staff is concerned with the proposed architectural style and whether it complies with the City’s General Plan Commercial Design Guidelines, as discussed in the below.
The General Plan provides the following pertinent guidelines with regards to commercial development:
G1-3 - Recognize the qualities and attributes that make up the unique architectural character of Carmel, retain these qualities in existing buildings, and encourage the use of them in new structures.
O1-10 - Apply design regulations for the commercial district that will protect its established character while supporting the land uses contained therein.
P1-63 - Protect the special and unique character of Ocean Avenue and the surrounding commercial area. Ensure, through the administration of land use and design regulations, that the architecture, landscape, scale and ambience of this area is maintained.
The Commercial Design Guidelines provide the following pertinent recommendations for reviewing projects (Refer to Attachment 2 for the full list of Commercial Design Guidelines).
Commercial Design Guideline A states: “New Buildings should not imitate styles of the past but strive to achieve compatibility with the old.”
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")"
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”
Staff Response: Both the General Plan and Commercial Design Guidelines include policies that speak to preserving village character and the unique qualities that contribute to the downtown. In staff’s opinion, the proposed design, which includes the expansive use of concrete with metal accents, and a large vertical window and metal screen on the front elevation, are not consistent with these policies. In staff’s opinion, the current design is not compatible with the character of the downtown and should be revised. The Planning Commission may consider allowing Contemporary-style architecture at this location, however, it should provide specific direction on how to achieve better compatibility. While a building should not imitate styles of the past, the applicant may consider a design that better complements the adjacent Burde building.