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 reviewing the proposed plans, the Commission should take into consideration that the proposed project 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 (CMC 17.14.110). Some deviations may be acceptable when determined appropriate for the site and maintaining good design principals.
Furthermore, in accordance with CMC 17.14.100, the basic standard of review in [all of] the commercial [districts] is whether the project constitutes an improvement over existing conditions – not whether the project just meets minimum standards.
While the commission will need to find the project to be consistent with the Commercial Design Guidelines as part of the required findings for approval, a strict interpretation of the guidelines is not required and deviations from the guidelines are permitted. Deviations should be found to be consistent when determined to be minor and related to good design principles. Additionally, the project as a whole will also need to be found as an improvement over existing conditions –not only that the project meets the minimum development standards.
Consistency with the Secretary’s Standards: The project is located on lots 6, 8, and 10 of block 91. The Northern California Savings and Loan Complex (“complex”), consisting of Lots 2, 4, 6, and, 8, of Block 91 was listed on the Carmel Inventory and Register on April 4, 2023 by the City Council. Lot 10 is a separate lot of record not associated with the complex and is not a historic resource.
In accordance with the city’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (CMC 17.32), the City contracted with qualified professional historian Seth Bergstein from PAST Consultants to prepare the Determination of Consistency (Phase II Evaluation; refer to Attachment 2). The evaluation concluded the project is consistent with the Secretary’s Standards. The Historic Resources Board considered the project at their July 17, 2023 meeting and adopted Resolution 2023-009-HRB issuing a Determination of Consistency. During the 10-day appeal period for the decision, the City Council enacted the City Council Right of Review (CMC 2.04.160) to review the decision made by the Historic Resources Board.
The City Council considered the project at their September 12, 2023 and October 3, 2023 hearings. The final action by the council was to adopt a Resolution overturning the July 2023 decision of the Historic Resources Board (Reso. 2023-009-HRB) and Issuing an alternative Determination of Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, with new findings and conditions (Resolution 2023-099).
The new Conditions of Approval associated with the project required for Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are as follows:
- Ornamented Concrete Wall. Prior to review by the Planning Commission, the Design Review plans shall be revised and submitted to the Community Planning and Building Department, so that the original ornamented concrete walls located adjacent to the Community Room are shown to remain in their original locations and configuration.
Staff Analysis: In the plans submitted to the HRB and reviewed by the City Council, the ornamented concrete wall was proposed to be partially removed and/or relocated. The revised plans show the original portions of the ornamented wall remain in its entirety in the original location.
Condition of Approval #65HP, requires, in part, “Site improvements shall not significantly obstruct the wall from public view and the wall shall remain accessible to the public as a piece of public art as part of a courtyard, interblock-walkway, or other means.”
The applicant has proposed new planters and bench seating on the interior of the wall facing the Community Room. The Commission should consider whether the benches and planters significantly obstruct the wall, or if these improvements are consistent with the provisions of the Condition. Staff has not prescribed or required any modification to the plans.
-
Figure 2a & 2b. 2a – (Left) Wall reviewed by HRB/City Council. Portions of Wall to be removed/relocated. 2b – (Right) Revised Wall design. Proposed to remain intact in its entirety.
- Preservation of Spatial Relationships. Prior to review by the Planning Commission, the Design Review plans shall be revised and submitted to the Community Planning and Building Department, to preserve the existing spatial relationship of the Northern California Savings and Loan Complex. At a minimum, all proposed structural elements shall be located outside of the Preservation Buffer as depicted in Exhibit A of this resolution. Walkways, at grade stairways, landscaping, paving, and similar features may be allowed within the Preservation Buffer, however, building elements that are defined as building coverage (CMC 17.14.130) shall not be permitted to encroach. Building eaves shall be limited to an encroachment of 18 inches or less.
Staff Analysis: The applicant has revised the project to substantially comply with the preservation buffer established in Exhibit A as part of Resolution 2023-099. The exception to the preservation buffer is the proposed trash enclosure located at the northeast corner of the lot.
The condition established by the City Council established, in part, that, “At a minimum, all proposed structural elements shall be located outside of the Preservation Buffer…” with exceptions granted for walkways, at grade stairways, landscaping, paving, and similar features.
As such, staff has included Condition of Approval #50DR requiring the garbage enclosure being located to an area outside of the preservation buffer. Should the applicant wish to pursue locating the garbage enclosure within the Preservation Buffer, as proposed or in a similar manner, staff recommends the applicant return to City Council in order for the Council to consider amending Resolution 2023-099 to allow the trash enclosure within the buffer.
All other requirements of the Preservation Buffer have been met. As conditioned, the project complies with the requirements of the provision for the Preservation of Spatial Relations, as established in Resolution 2023-099.
-
Figure 3. Preservation Buffer, as adopted by City Council per Resolution 2023-099.
-
Figure 4. Overlay of ground floor site plan with preservation buffer (RED shaded area). Red outline indicated building footprint of former project reviewed by HRB and City Council.
-
Figure 5. Overlay of 2nd level floor plan with preservation buffer (RED shaded area).
-
-
Figure 6. Overlay of roof plan with preservation buffer (RED shaded area). An 18” allowance is provided for roof eaves into the preservation buffer.
-
Preservation of Site Context. To ensure the Northern California Savings and Loan Complex is not subordinated by the proposed development, prior to review by the Planning Commission, the Design Review plans shall be revised and submitted to the Community Planning and Building Department, to preserve the context of the site so that the Saving and Loan Complex remains a prominent feature as viewed from 7th Avenue and Dolores Street. Changes to be considered include but are not limited to: articulation of the front elevation to preserve and open the view from Dolores Street looking north, reducing and minimizing the mass of the structure(s) to maintain to not diminish the character of the complex, and further enhancing the open space around the Northern California Savings and Loan Complex.
Staff Analysis: According to the applicant (refer to Attachment 5), “The proposed project maintains and is subordinated to the community building and ornamented concrete wall complex. The Dolores Street facade preserves the identity of the complex. The existing driveway opening along Dolores is maintained and is 12' -0" setback from the ornamented concrete wall. The preservation buffer line only required a 5 '-0" setback. Furthermore, unit 106 of the proposed commercial accommodations has a single-story 2'-6" setback from Dolores Street property line with the second story apartment 5' -0" setback further.”
The applicant has also further modified the project to minimize the impacts of the project against the adjacent complex site. The project version reviewed by the HRB and City Council were proposed to be 15,119 square feet (excluding existing Community Room –new construction only) whereas the revised project before the Planning Commission is now 12,807 square feet (excluding existing Community Room –new construction only). The proposed building coverage for the site (excluding existing Community Room) was initially proposed to be 8,930 square feet and the revised project includes an additional 8,550 square feet of coverage, resulting in more open space around the site.
Figure 7. Overlay of coverage plan of previous design reviewed by HRB and City Council (Orange Background) and revised building coverage and building location in colored foreground to reflect conditions for consistency with Secretary’s Standards.
-
Figure 8a. West (Front) Elevation with Building Heights noted for various ridge heights. Design changes made to reflect conditions of approval for consistency with Secretary’s Standards
-
Figure 8b. West (Front) Elevation with Building Heights noted for various ridge heights. Prior design reviewed by HRB and City Council.
-
-
Figure 9a. North (view from 7th Ave) Elevation with Building Heights noted for various ridge heights. Design changes made to reflect conditions of approval for consistency with Secretary’s Standards.
-
-
Figure 9b. North (view from 7th Ave) Elevation with Building Heights noted for various ridge heights. Prior design reviewed by HRB and City Council.
Zoning District and Development Standards: This site is zoned Service Commercial (SC). 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.”
Land Use Designation: According to the Carmel General Plan, “[The Core Commercial] area is intended to provide for a wide range of retail and service uses in scale with the overall residential character of the community. More intense commercial activities such as retail, restaurant and visitor commercial uses are appropriate in this area. Less intensive development may be appropriate to preserve the unique character and ambiance along Ocean Avenue. Mixed-use developments of commercial and multi-family residential uses at a maximum density of thirty-three (33) units per acre are allowed.
Maximum building intensity in the core commercial area is limited to 95 percent and 135 percent floor area ratio for one and two story buildings, respectively. More open space and less floor area is required on larger sites. Throughout the Core Commercial area, floor area bonuses (up to 15 percent) and density bonuses (up to 35 percent) are allowed as incentives for affordable or senior housing and for special design amenities.”
CMC Sections 17.14.120 through 17.14.220 outline the various development standards for projects within the commercial districts with the various land uses identified in CMC 17.14.030 through 17.14.040. While the Service Commercial Zoning District is intended to serve as a transitional district between the more intense activities of the CC District and less intense activities on the periphery, the development standards buildings (floor area, height, etc) are generally the same for both the Central Commercial and Service Commercial Zoning Districts whereas the Residential and Limited Commercial as well as the R-4 District uses a separate set of development standards. Additionally, the allowable land uses prescribed in CMC 17.14.030 and CMC 17.14.040 result in less intense activity as a zoning district moves away from the Commercial Core. Within the Commercial Core, the CC Zone District allows for more intense uses than allowable uses within the SC Zone District with the uses generally allowed within the SC district being more resident serving than visitor serving.
Figure 10. Carmel-by-the-Sea General Plan Land Use Map. Subject site identified in blue outline. Located within “Core Commercial” Land Use Designation.
Building Site Area – CMC 17.14.120:
In accordance with CMC 17.14.120, Maximum Building Site Area, the maximum building site in the SC Zone District is 12,000 square feet (subject site is proposed to be 12,000 square feet). The existing building site is comprised of three (3) 4,000 square foot lots of record. As part of this application, the three lots are proposed to be merged into a single lot. Conditions of Approval #62LM and #63LM have been included requiring the recordation of the lot merger prior to building permit issuance. The project complies with the standards pertaining to building site area (CMC 17.14.120).
Building Coverage – CMC 17.14.130:
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 9,242 square feet (~77% 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. Coverage bonuses are also available which could bring the building coverage of the site up to 95%, however, those bonuses are not proposed to be utilized.
While up to 80% of the building site may be occupied by building coverage improvements, the site is proposed to only be 77% covered.
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% of the required landscaping on any site. The remaining site area is proposed to be landscaped with approximately 411 square feet of planting on the ground floor, 699 square feet of planting on the roof areas, and detailed paving, and benches throughout the project site, as well provides access to the historic decorative concrete wall. The proposed landscaping improvements meet the initial requirements for application approval. The landscaping has preliminarily been reviewed by the City Forester with no substantial comment, and the final landscape plan shall be reviewed by the City Forester prior to issuance of a building permit.
There is no required setback within the CC and SC zoning districts, and buildings are permitted to be constructed up to the property lines on all sides of the property. In fact, the street-facing, ground-level facade of each building is required by the code to 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 (exceptions to this requirement are allowed for entrances to intra-block walkways or courtyards) with the remaining 30 percent or less of the building not constructed at the build-to line used for recessed shop entries, landscaping, building articulation or driveways.
At their October 3, 2023 meeting, the City Council adopted a Determination of Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Reso. 2023-099), for the project with new findings and conditions. Of the adopted findings, the Council found that a waiver from the “build-to-line” requirement (CMC 17.14.130) may be granted by the Planning Commission for portions of the proposed building located on Lot 8, for up to 5-feet from the property line. This waiver and creation of a Design Non-Conformity is granted in accordance with CMC 17.32.100.D, Benefits Available to Historic Resources on the Register and is intended to be a benefit to the applicant and not a mandated requirement (refer to Attachment 8). This waiver was granted in an effort to protect from the new project obscuring views of the historic resource on the adjacent parcel.
The applicant has elected to take advantage of this waiver provision and has proposed a setback of 2’6” from the from property line for the building located within lot 8 (refer to Figure 11, below). The new development located in Lot 10 meets the 2’ foot built-to-line and the use of the waiver is only applicable to the portions of the building prescribed for use of the waiver in lot 8.
The community room, located on lot 6, is not subject to the built-to-line provision as the existing historic structure is non-conforming and therefore may be maintained consistent with the requirements of CMC 17.36.020.A and CMC 17.36.030.A. The HRB and City Council have also previously found that removing or relocating the Community Room would result in a loss of historic integrity of the Complex site.
Figure 11. Build-to-Line Waiver Area for lot 8 indicated in RED. Proposed build-to-line: 2’6”.
The project meets the prescribed zoning code requirements pertaining to building coverage (CMC 17.14.130) and build-to-line waiver requirements outlined in Resolution 2023-099.
Floor Area Ratio – CMC 17.14.140:
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.
In the SC Zone District, the base FAR allowance for a two-story structure is 135% of the site area. The zoning code states that 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 does not propose any affordable housing units nor the inclusion of an intra-block walkway or courtyard that meet the dimensional standards for bonus floor area (i.e. no FAR bonuses are granted). That said: the maximum allowable FAR for the project is 135% or 16,200 square feet.
The project is proposed to be less than the allowable square footage and is stated to be 13,428 square feet (including the existing 621 square foot Community Room), or 112% of the site area. An 852 square foot utility basement containing mechanical equipment, a janitor’s closet and restroom facilities for the building is also proposed, although, in accordance with CMC 17.14.140, the basement is excluded from the FAR for the building site.
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.
The project applicant has described the project as having five individual buildings, each less than 10,000 square feet as follows:
- Building 5: 621 sf (Community Room – Existing Structure)
While staff concurs with the applicant’s square footage totals for each of the buildings noted above, staff does not concur that the buildings, as illustrated in the plans, represent five separate structures. The Commission has previously interpreted that separate buildings could be connected with a second floor egress balcony, however, the proposed buildings share common covered roof connection. In staff’s opinion, this is inconsistent with the provision described above (CMC 17.14.140.C) which requires 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 before passing to another building on the site.
As proposed, there is a single common second floor roof connection between four of the five buildings which function as a covered walkway. This conflicts with the provision described above which requires existing to an area of “open space.” The Commission has previously provided direction on other projects that the “open space” as described above, shall be an area free of structures, as defined in CMC 17.14.170.A, pertaining to Open Space Courtyards and Intra-Block Walkways. As such Design Review Condition of Approval #51DR has been included stating: Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall revise the plans such that there no shared roof connection between buildings over, or across, the second floor egress balcony.
However, the Commission may be inclined to consider an alternative. CMC 17.14.140.C only states that: 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.
A definition of open space is provided in CMC 17.14.170 and has been used in the past as implementation metric to enforce the provision above:
Open space is an open area that is free of structures and is visually accessible from public ways or walkways (CMC 17.14.170.A);
Furthermore variety of Open Space Types are also expressly defined in CMC 17.70, Definitions, which have not been previously considered by the Commission and include:
Private Open Space. An open area outside a building adjoining and directly accessible to a dwelling unit, reserved for the exclusive use of residents of the dwelling unit and their guests.
Usable Open Space. An outdoor or fenced area on the ground or on a roof, balcony, deck, porch, or terrace designed and accessible for outdoor living, recreation, pedestrian access, or landscaping, but excluding parking facilities, driveways, utility or service areas, or any required front or corner side yard, and excluding any space with a dimension of less than six feet in any direction or an area of less than 36 square feet.
Common Open Space. Land not individually owned or dedicated for public use that is designed and intended for the common use or enjoyment of the residents or occupants of a development.
Should the Commission be inclined, the Commission could make the finding, that the project, as proposed, meets the intent of this section as the egress balcony could be considered Common Open Space, as defined above, and therefore the project is consistent with the requirements of this chapter as passageway to an area of open space before circulating to another building is met. The variety of open space types, defined above, do not require or mandate they be uncovered or open to the sky. For example, a private open space could be a balcony on a residential unit with a covering. The balcony covering would not preclude this feature from being considered private open space.
CMC 17.52.060.F grants the Planning Commission the power and responsibilities to interpret the meaning and intent of the City’s land use code, therefore, the Commission could find the project is consistent with the alternative provided by staff as access is still provided into an open space area, as defined in the zoning code.