On April 14, 2021, the Planning Commission held a Preliminary Review Workshop to review drawings for a development known as “Ulrika Plaza.”  The Commission was not supportive of the initial concept plans, and gave direction to the applicant to revise the design.  The applicant returned with a revised design which was again preliminarily reviewed at the Planning Commission’s March 9, 2022 hearing.  The Commission was not supportive of the revised plans, and gave direction to the applicant to revisit the design. 

Revised plans were submitted to the Community Planning and Building Department and the project was scheduled for a Preliminar Review Workshop at the August 10, 2022 hearing, however, the item was continued at the request of the property owner so they could make additional changes to the proposed plans. While not heard by the Commission, the associated staff report and project plans scheduled for review at the August 10, 2022 were published and made available on-line or upon request at City Hall. The applicant has returned with a revised design following the continuance request and is requesting the Commission review and provide feedback on the preliminary design concept prior to returning for a formal Design Review hearing.  This staff report is substantially similar to the report published ahead of the August 10, 2022 hearing as many components and aspects of the project are similar to the project described in the August 10^th report, however, the report has been updated to reflect the portions of the project that require an updated discussion or evaluation.  

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the preliminary project and provide feedback to the applicant.

The project site is located at the southwest corner of Dolores Street and 5^th Avenue in the Service Commercial (SC) Zoning District.  The site has been partially developed from two previously approved projects (DR 16-032 & DR 17-482 –referred herein as “Del Dono”) which allowed for the construction of two mixed use building on a merged building site, although construction was halted in 2019 and ownership of the property was later transferred. 

The revised drawings (Attachment 1) do not constitute a complete plan set, but rather illustrate the conceptual design of the project.  A more complete set of plans will be created for the formal Design Review hearing.  Staff has provided a cursory review of the project in order to provide a general analysis and address potential issues.  The items discussed below are not intended to provide a comprehensive list of outstanding or correction items or to be used as a determination of consistency with adopted codes and design guidelines, but rather as discussion topics to guide the discussion of the Commission.  This Preliminary Review by the Planning Commission is intended to provide feedback to the applicant on the design of the proposed project and does not constitute a guarantee of future approval.  No action will be taken at this hearing and a formal Design Review hearing will be required prior to action being taken on the project by the Planning Commission.

Standard of Review and Design Guidelines:

In accordance with CMC 17.14.110, “to assist in the design and review process, the City Council has adopted commercial design guidelines. 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. When a proposed project involves construction of a new building or the replacement, significant enlargement, or modification of an existing building, applicants are encouraged, first, to consult the design guidelines and then to prepare and submit conceptual or preliminary drawings for review by the Planning Commission. This preliminary review can promote communication between project applicants and the City’s staff and decision-makers, facilitating an understanding of applicable design regulations and avoiding unnecessary expenditures in detailed plans.”

In considering the proposed plans the Commission should take into consideration that the 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. Some deviations may be acceptable when determined appropriate for the site and maintaining good design principals. While no approvals are to be granted at this hearing, the Commission should provide feedback as to where appropriate deviations are acceptable, should they exist, and where strict adherence to the guidelines are preferred. 

Zoning District:  This site is zoned Service Commercial (SC).  City Municipal Code Section 17.14.010.B states that the purpose of the SC Zoning District is:  “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.”

Like the projects previously reviewed by the Commission, the proposed building would be a mixed-use building with 10 apartments (no condominiums) on the second floor and 2 apartments on the ground floor, as well as commercial spaces on the ground floor.  This newest project no longer shows individual tenant spaces on the lower floor plan, but rather shows a commercial shell area with approximately 9,000 square feet of commercial square footage proposed, which is approximately 57 square feet larger than the last iteration.  Although 16 doors entering into the commercial space are shown on the floor plan, it is unclear if 16 commercial spaces are proposed, or if some businesses may have multiple entrances or doors -15 commercial spaces were proposed in the prior version of the project.  The applicant has noted that although 16 doors are shown entering into the commercial floor area, the number of business do not necessarily correlate to 16 business spaces.  The applicant has not informed staff of the number of proroposed business spaces, their layout, or square footages.

At the April 14, 2021 hearing, the Commission gave feedback to reduce the amount of commercial space provided in the project.  The applicant provided a response letter that was included in the March 9, 2022 staff report that stated:

We have not reduced the overall square footage of commercial space in the new design [approx. 8,900 square feet]. We are providing small commercial spaces ranging in size between 414 square feet and 1,000 square feet in order to support small size neighborhood serving commercial uses. There is no demand for large retail spaces in Carmel, nor would these be suitable for the look and feel of the town. They would also attract larger national retailers which is not what Carmel is looking for. 

In summary, the subject project proposes approximately 9,000 square feet of commercial floor area.  The two prior conceptual project reviewed by the Commission proposed approximately 8,900 square feet of floor area, and the Del Dono project was approved for 5,399 square feet between the two buildings with the remainder of the ground floor area being dedicated to residential uses or amenities for the building. 

Residential Density and Uses:  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 12 residential (apartment) units on a 16,000 square foot site, which is a density of 33 du/acre and is therefore requires issuance of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission.  Due to the number of units proposed, there is no required affordable housing requirement associated with the proposed residential density and requiring affordable units cannot be imposed.  All 12 units are proposed to be long-term rental apartments with none being used as transient (short-term) rental units. CMC 17.14.040.N requires 25% of the units shall be 400 to 650 square feet in size –with 12 units proposed, 3 units would need to be between 400 and 650 square feet. The proposed rental units range in size with three of the units being a one bedroom units that are 650 square feet or less and the largest being a 1,860 square foot two-bedroom unit.  While still market rate units, the smaller units become more “affordable by design” due to the smaller square footage of each unit. 

10 of the 12 apartments are proposed to be located on the second floor of the building with 2 of the units being located on the ground floor near the northwest corner of the property –a change from the prior version of the plans that proposed all apartments to be located on the second floor. 

*8 units were condominimum units

Floor Area: Floor area (FAR) is defined as the total combined area included within the surrounding exterior walls of all floor levels. Floor area includes all floor spaces used for commercial, manufacturing, residential and miscellaneous land uses including space occupied by mezzanine floors, interior walkways, storage areas above ground, hallways, restrooms, and both interior and exterior wall thicknesses.

While the FAR is typically limited to 135% of the site, a 10% floor area bonus is available for sites providing a courtyard or intra-block walkway with additional floor area bonuses available for projects providing affordable housing, up to a maximum of 150% of FAR for the site. This project proposes the inclusion of an intra-block walkway and courtyard and therefore is eligible for a 10% floor area bonus that would bring the allowable floor area to 145% of the site area, or a total of 23,200 square feet. As stated by the applicant, project is proposed to be the less than the allowable square footage and is stated to be 22,964 square feet per the applicant, or 143% of the site area. An approximately 15,200 square foot basement containing 27 parking spaces, mechanical equipment and storage is also proposed, although, in accordance with CMC 17.14.140, the basement is excluded from the FAR for the building site.

The previous projects reviewed by the Commission proposed a FAR of 143% and 145% of the site area and Del Dono was approved for a FAR 147% of the site area (Del Dono I – DR 16-032: 150% FAR; Del Dono II - DR 17-482: 146% FAR). 

At the previous hearing, there was also discussion regarding the size of the individual buildings and whether they exceeded the allowable square footage for a single building.  In accordance with CMC 17.14.140.C, No single structure shall contain more than 10,000 square feet of floor area. Interaccessibility between adjacent structures on one or more building sites by any means that allows passage between structures without first exiting to an open space area shall not be allowed if the resulting floor area contained within the combined structures would exceed 10,000 square feet of area. It was concluded the buildings did in fact exceed the allowable square footage and should reduce in square footage and/or redesigned to be separated.  

The applicant has revised the project to consist of four individual buildings, each less than 10,000 square feet to:

•  Building 1: 3,630 sf
• Building 2: 5,119 sf
• Building 3: 6,604 sf
• Building 4: 7,611 sf

The revised building siting and layout appears to meet the intent of the maximum building size requirement prescribed in the municipal code with the only connection between the buildings being an exterior staircase connecting buildings 2 and 3 and an uncovered second floor egress balcony that connects the buildings on the second floor. A small portion of the ground floor of Building 1 and the 2^nd floor of Building 4 will overlap and share a physical connection (Figure 1, below), however, there is no interaccessabiliy between the two structures, as illustrated in Figure 2, below (see Intra-Block Walkway section).   

Figure 1. Overlap and shared connection between Building 1 and 4

As stated above, Interaccessibility between adjacent structures on one or more building sites by any means that allows passage between structures without first exiting to an open space area shall not be allowed if the resulting floor area contained within the combined structures would exceed 10,000 square feet of area.  An open space area is defined as an “an open area that is free of structures and is visually accessible from public ways or walkways” (CMC 17.14.170).  On the ground level, a person would need to enter into the intra-block walkway, or courtyard, before entering into any other building.  On the second floor, a person would need to exit onto the egress balcony before entering into any other building (whether on the ground floor or second floor). If the Commission does not agree with this interpretation and finds that the buildings still exceed the allowable square footage (either 1 and 4 by the connection between the 1^st and 2^nd floor, the exterior stairway connection between 2 and 3, or the connection of the egress balcony connecting any of the four buildings, the commission should give direction accordingly.

Additionally, CMC 17.14.120, Maximum Building Site Area, states that the maximum building site in the SC Zone District is 12,000 square feet (subject site is 16,000 square feet) and development of a parcel larger than these limits requires that the land area be broken up into two or more distinctly different developments to avoid the appearance of a single large project and to maintain the small scale and village character of the City. Dividing the project into four smaller different buildings helps to achieve this zoning standard by dividing the buildings into smaller buildings. Additional discussion is provided below in the building finishes/details section.   

Building Coverage: Building coverage is defined as the total ground area of a site occupied by any building or structure as measured from the outside of its surrounding external walls or supporting members. Building coverage includes exterior structures such as stairs, arcades, bridges, permanent structural elements protruding from buildings such as overhanging balconies, oriel windows, stories which overhang a ground level story, and covered carports.

The building coverage is proposed be approximately 12,221 square feet (~76% of lot area) in area.  The allowed building coverage for a two-story building in the SC Zoning District is typically 80% of the site area for projects that fully implement Commercial Guidelines III-A., although CMC 17.14.130.A states, exceptions may be granted up to a maximum building coverage of 95 percent.   The exception described allows for a commensurate amount of bonus building coverage to be added to the site for any bonus floor area granted (for example: a 10% floor area bonus allows for an additional 10% building coverage bonus).

While up to 95% of the building site may be occupied by building coverage improvements, the site is proposed to only be 76% covered.  The prior project proposed building coverage of 88% and Del Dono was approved for building coverage of 95%

The remaining area of the site that is not building coverage is considered open space. A minimum of 50% of the required open space on each site shall be landscaped which may include nonliving materials such as garden benches, water features and patterned paving treatments as long as the combined total area of such plant alternatives is not used as more than 25 percent of the required landscaping on any site. All landscaping improvements is required to include upper canopy trees on-site and/or in the sidewalk in front of the property whenever possible. A complete landscape plan is currently being developed, however a preliminary landscape plan has been included on Sheet A201 of the project plans. 

Intra-Block Walkway/Courtyard

A discussion topic at the previous hearing was the concept of designing an intra-block walkway consistent with the Commercial Design Guidelines.  The Commercial Design Guidelines State:

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.

1.      A courtyard should maintain continuity of architecture, colors and materials.

2.      The area of a courtyard should be compatible with the size of the building site.

The courtyard and intra-block walkway has been re-organized so that movement throughout the courtyards area would requires a person to navigate throuht the courtyard, and landscape areas, as opposed to being able take a direct and linear path of travel (refer to figure 2 below).  The project maintains additionals opportunites for circulation around the site, however, the additional circulation opportunities has been limited by the inclusion of private outdoor patio areas for the two ground floor apartatments. The patios limit access along the southern end of the propty, adjacent to the Carmel Art Association, and around the west side of Building 1 through the outdoor dining area (refer to Figure 1, below).

The courtyards on the site (walkways, arcades, and street frontage recesses excluded) make up a considerable amount of open space for the building site and appears compatible with the size of the building site, though a portion of the open space appears to be dedicated for a future outdoor dining area. 

Figure 2. Site Plan with overlay of second floor plan.

Height/Massing: 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.  

At the time of writing this report, story poles have not been installed on the site.  Staff advised the applicant that the installation of story poles would be benefital to the preliminary review, however, the applicant has elected not to install them for this review.  The city’s story pole policy, which is an official policy adopted by the City Council, does not require that story poles be installed for preliminary reviews. As such staff is unable to prepare an analysis of the story poles for this report and all descriptions are based on the representations made in the project plans.

The project is proposed to be a maximum of 30’ tall which matches the maximum height of the previously approved Del Dono project, as well as the height of the two prior versions of the Ulrika Plaza project.  The 30’ tall elements are only the portions of the building where the mezzanines are located.  Staff notes that while the mezzanines do count as floor area, only those portions with a floor or walking surface count as floor area , and  the areas that are within the open volume of the mezzanine level and portions of the stairways would be adding height and mass to the structure without being included in the floor area of the building (refer to Figure 3, below).

Figure 3. Partial Building 4 East Elevation.  Figure is intended to show how the volume of the mezzanine relates to the 2nd floor below and how floor area is captured on the mezzanine level.  The characteristics of each mezzanine will differ, however Building 4 was selected for illustrative purposes.

The mezzanines, are however, generally set well back front the street.  The mezzenines closest to the Dolores Street frontage is approximately 28’6” from the front property line and the closest to the 5^th Avenue frontage is 15’5”.  The mezzanines are closer to the side and rear property line with the side setback being (adjacent to Haseltine Court) being 5’ from the property line, and the rear setback (closest to the Carmel Art Association Building) being approximately 18’8”.

In general, the majority of the buildings are under the 30’ foot height limit.  The following is an assessment of the building heights as viewed from the street but exclude the mezzanines which in general are all at or within 1-foot of the 30’ height limit:

Beginning at the southeast corner of the lot on Dolores Street, the Building #4 is setback approximately 5’5” from the rear property line that creates a passageway between the Art Association and the subject property.  As discussed in the Intrablock walkway section, this passageway would not lead to the publically accessable potions of the site but would terminate at a private patio for a lower floor apartment.  The southern building wall of building #4 is approximately 16’ tall and runs to the north for 10’ before a second story element is introduced to the façade (the second story is setback 14’2” from the rear property line).  The roof of the second story element is a hipped roof form that pushed the ridge of the second story away from both the street and the rear property line and has a maximum height of 24’3” –by contract, a single family residence in the R-1 District is permitted a maximum height of 24’. Approximately ¾ down the building façade continuing north is an architectural element that projects an additional 1’6” above the ridgeline, being the tallest point of the building aside from the mezzanine level.  

Building #3 is a corner building that has frontages on both Dolores Street and 5^th Avenue.  Beginning at the southern end of the Dolores Street frontage of Building #3, the building has a partial gabled roof that matched the height of the two story form of Building #4 -24’3”.  The roof form transitions to a hipped roof at the intersection of an ornamental chimney and the ridge of the hipped roof drops approximately 1’6” and continues at that height around the 5^th Avenue elevation.  Approximately ¾ down the building façade continuing west is an architectural element that projects an additional 4’0” above the ridgeline, being the highest point of the building aside from the mezzanine level.  While this element is the highest point aside the mezzanines, as measured from grade, it is only 22’10” tall as the topography of the adjacent sidewalk slopes up on 5^th Avenue.

Between building #2 and building #3 is an open staircase.  Building #2 fronts 5^th Avenue and is where the access to the parking garage is located.  There are multiple two story elements along the frontage ranging  between 21’5” for the hipped roof element where the garage enterance is located, to 20’10‘-21’11” tall at the enclosing raining for the mezzanine level beyond the hipped roof (height varies depending on grade). .  Building #1 does not maintain a street frontage but may be visible from the south from Dolores Street through the Art Association property.

At the previous hearing, a property owner on San Carlos Street expressed concerns regarding view impacts.  As story poles were not installed, staff was unable to assess the impacts of the revised design, though the revised design does appear to allow for view opportunities through the tallest building elements, however, staff cannot confirm where there is an impact or not. Story poles will be required to be installed for when a the item is scheduled for a formal hearing.

Mezzanines

At the March 9, 2022 hearing a Commissioner inquired about the history of the inclusion of the mezzanine level which they stated, “essentially adds a second level to the second level which some might interpret as a third level.” A similar mezzanine level was approved as part of the Del Dono project with staff at the time asking the requesting the Commission make a determination on the appropriateness of the inclusion of such feature. The following is a discussion from a March 9, 2016 staff report for a Preliminary Concept Review for the first Del Dono building (Del Dono I):

The proposed building includes a third-level mezzanine above the each of the 4 condominiums. Pursuant to CMC 17.14.150, “no building shall have more than two stories above grade.” The Zoning Code does not address whether a mezzanine is defined as a story. The California Building Code defines a mezzanine as: “An intermediate level or levels between the floor and ceiling of any story with an aggregate floor area of not more than one-third of the area of the room or space in which the level or levels are located. Mezzanines have sufficient elevation that space for human occupancy can be provided on the floor below.”

The City’s Zoning Code intends to minimize the mass of structures and ensure human-scale design by limiting structures to a maximum of two stories. The Planning Commission is charged with determining whether this project meets the intent of the Zoning Code, regardless of the Building Code definition of the mezzanine. The Commission should consider whether this third- level mezzanine should be defined as a story. Staff notes that it would be challenging to achieve the floor area allowed through the courtyard and housing bonuses, without having a mezzanine level.

The Commission should consider that the proposed building would still be below the allowed height limit of 30. In addition, the applicant has designed the project with the intent of avoiding a three-story appearance as depicted in the rendering included as Attachment B. The upper mezzanine level has been set back between 12 to 24 feet from the Dolores Street property line in order to avoid a tall wall at the street. In addition, the mezzanine has been proportioned in relation to the second level to appear similar to a clear story as opposed to a third story and is partially screened by rooftop landscaping.

Review of the video of the March 9, 2016 hearing found that the Commission was supportive of the mezzanine and appeared to agree with staff’s assessment as outlined in the staff report (above).

The current Building Code maintains substantially similar language as the prior building code, cited above.  The 2019 California Building Code defines a Mezzanine as: “An intermediate level or levels between the floor and ceiling of any story and in accordance with Section 505. [DSA-AC] An intermediate level or levels between the floor and ceiling of any story with an aggregate floor area of not more than one-third of the area of the room or space in which he level or levels are located. Mezzanines have sufficient elevation that space for human occupancy can be provided on the floor below.”  Section 505 of the California Building Code speaks to the specific requirements for mezzanines. 

While it would be inconsistent with past Planning Commission approvals to not allow, or disapprove of, the inclusion of the mezzanine level, the code interpretation regarding the inclusion of mezzanines has not been adopted as a formal policy and has only been permitted on a project specific basis.  The current Commission could consider whether the mezzanine level should be defined as a story, which would not be permitted by the zoning code as the zoning code does not allow for more than two-stores above grade, or if this floor level should be included as part of the 2^nd floor level, as allowed by the building code -provided the mezzanine adheres to all applicable building code requirements.  Both the General Plan and Zoning Code make reference that building should have no more than two stories above grade. 

While it would be inconsistent with past Planning Commission approvals to not allow, or disapprove of, the inclusion of the mezzanine level, the code interpretation regarding the inclusion of mezzanines has not been adopted as a formal policy and has only been permitted on a project specific basis. In other words, the Commission has discretion over this matter:

•  The Commission has authority to decide that the mezzanine level should be defined as a “story” for the purposes of the Design Review, which would not be permitted by the zoning code. The zoning code does not allow for more than two-stores above grade.
  
  
• The Planning Commission also has authority to decide that this floor level should be considered part of the 2^nd floor level, as allowed by the building code -provided the mezzanine adheres to all applicable building code and design review requirements and applicable commercial design guidelines.

The commission has previously stated in their review of previous conceptual plans for this project that that the building should appear no more than two stories as viewed from the street, however, the Commission has been open to exploring the mezzanine concept further.

Both the General Plan and Zoning Code make reference that building should have no more than two stories above grade. However, while the zoning code does not provide a definition of a mezzanine, it does refer to the mezzanine level as a “mezzanine floor” and not a “mezzanine story.”

CMC 17.14.140: Floor area is defined as the total combined area included within the surrounding exterior walls of all floor levels. Floor area includes all floor spaces used for commercial, manufacturing, residential and miscellaneous land uses including space occupied by mezzanine floors, interior walkways, storage areas above ground, hallways, restrooms, and both interior and exterior wall thicknesses.

            CMC 17.70.020:

Floor. A surface that is horizontal or nearly so located within the interior of a structure which is suitable for walking or standing upon.

Story. A space in a building between the upper surface of any floor and either the upper surface of the next floor above, or in the case of the topmost floor, the ceiling or roof above. Those portions of a subgrade or partially subgrade living space, space used for parking, underfloor space or crawl space are counted as a story where the finished floor above such space is five feet or more above the final grade adjacent to any exterior wall around the perimeter of the building.

Building Finishes/Details: A comprehensive material sample list has yet to be provided, however, the applicant had identified the proposed building materials on the building elevations.

As minimal detail or information has been provided regarding the finish appearances of the buildings, staff recommends the Commission focus their discussion on the proposed architectural styles of the buildings.  As previously stated in the report, when development of a parcel larger than 12,000 square feet is proposed, the land area must be broken up into two or more distinctly different developments to avoid the appearance of a single large project and to maintain the small scale and village character of the City.  In the current proposed, there are four different buildings sited on the building site with four different styles of architectural finishes. According to the applicant, the architecture style of each building is: Bauhaus (Building 1), Bay Area Shingle (Building 2), Spanish Colonial Revival (Building 3), and Contemporary Prairie (Building 4).  The commission should consider whether the intent of this provision is being met by this preproposal, or if this requirement could better be achieved, or better balanced, by reducing the number of building finishes and only having two, or three different building styles, as opposed to four different styles spread across the four different buildings.  While reducing the number of styles of building/finishes may make the development appear larger, the site may also appear less busy and more cohesive if split just between two building styles.