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.
Figure 11a. Proposed roof plan with proposed buildings identified by color (Building 1; Building 2; Building 3; Building 4). RED outline indicates area of covered walkway; PINK dashed line indicates eave surrounding covered walkway. With covered walkway, all buildings appear to be connected with no access to an area of open space before circulating into another building.
11b. See figure 11a. Uncolored image.
Summary:
Recommendation: Include CoA #51DR (already included in Resolution) requiring modification to the plans such that there no shared roof connection between buildings over, or across, the second floor egress balcony to ensure there are multiple individual buildings no greater than 10,000 sf.
Alternative: Adopt a finding that the project is consistent, as proposed or with some modification, as the access between buildings is achieved through exiting to “Common Open Space” as defined in CMC 17.70.
Provided that Condition of Approval #51DR is implemented, or the Commission finds the alternative consistent with the intent of the this provision, the building siting and layout meets building size requirement prescribed in the municipal code though connected by the second floor egress balcony for the apartment units. The project meets the zoning code requirements pertaining to floor area ratio (CMC 17.14.140).
Building Height – CMC 17.14.150:
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.
The project is proposed to be a maximum of 30’ tall at the most restrictive point (southwest corner of the site) with the lower portions of the building being toward the north/northeast (higher portion of the lot). In general, the majority of the project is proposed to be under the 30’ foot height limit with the building elements located closest to the Complex site ranging between approximately 24’ and 26’ (refer to Figures #8 - #9, above).
In accordance with CMC 17.14.150.B, “Small areas not exceeding 10 percent of the proposed building coverage and occupied by special design features such as towers, steeples and ornamentation may exceed these heights if approved by the Planning Commission.” The applicant has included two chimneys that would project above the 30-foot height limit (33’6” at tallest point). Three chimneys are proposed for the project, however, only two would exceed the height limit. The Commission should consider whether these projections should be permitted. As conditioned, staff has not required the omission of the proposed chimneys.
Figure 12a. Dolores St. – West. Streetscape elevation
Figure 12b. Dolores St. – West. Streetscape elevation.
Landscaping – CMC 17.14.180:
As stated in CMC 17.14.180, Landscaping shall be provided in conjunction with development in commercial zoning districts in accordance with CMC 17.34, Landscaping.
A comprehensive landscape plan has been provided on sheets L1.0-L1.3 (refer to Attachment 10C) for the landscaped areas described in the “Building Coverage” section, above. The City Forester has reviewed the preliminary landscape plan and found the planting palate to be acceptable based on the city’s landscape standards. The final landscape plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the forester prior to issuance of a building permit.
Public Improvements – CMC 17.14.190:
In accordance with CMC 17.14.190, Development projects involving substantial new or replacement construction shall include improvements in the public right-of-way adjacent to the building site to coordinate the design of the development with the design of City streets, sidewalks, walkways and infrastructure improvements and to enhance the overall appearance of the community. These Public way improvements shall consistent with the Policy Standards for Public Way Designs.
The applicant has prepared a comprehensive public improvement plan that includes:
- The installation of one (1) new upper canopy street tree planted within structural underground cells, and
- Construction of the adjacent sidewalk and driveway approach adjacent to the project site.
Figure 13. Proposed Public Way Improvements.
Consistent with other large projects where public way improvements are required, Conditions of Approval #43DR-#44DR have also been included pertaining to the associated improvement of the right-of-way including consistency with the Public Way Design Standards and repair of the adjacent right-of-way as a result of the construction.
Parking Requirements – CMC 17.14.200:
As outlined in CMC 17.14.200, Surface parking, parking structures and driveways design shall be consistent with the provisions of CMC 17.38, Off-Street Parking Requirements. Additionally, one of the required findings for the Use Permit Approval for increase in commercial floor area (analysis below), requires consistency with the provisions of CMC 17.38.
Minimum Parking:
As required by CMC 17.38.020, new projects or developments shall only be allowed when meeting all parking requirements of this chapter and the requirements of any use permit, subdivision approval or specific plan applicable to the property. Proposed uses within existing buildings may replace existing uses as long as any existing parking deficiencies on the property are not increased by the replacement. Proposed additions of floor area, new shops or dwelling units, or other similar changes in land use resulting in a net increase in parking requirements, as set forth in this chapter, shall provide all required parking generated by the new activities on the site.
The table below (Table 1) sets forth the required parking for the proposed land uses in the subject zoning district, and is an abridged table that outlines all land uses and all zone districts (full table located in CMC 17.38.020.C).
|
Table 1. Minimum Parking Requirements
|
|
Land Use
|
Basis for Requirement
|
Land Use Parking Factor
|
|
SC District
|
|
Permanent Residential Use
|
Spaces per Unit
|
1
|
|
Commercial Retail or Service Uses Not Otherwise Specified in This Table
|
Spaces per 600 Square Feet of Commercial Floor Area or per Business/Shop Space, Whichever is Greater
|
1
|
Based on the parking factors for the SC District and proposed land uses, the site is required 16.8 on-site parking spaces (8 residential parking spaces; 9 commercial parking spaces). One full space shall be provided for the fractional space or the fractional space shall be met through fractional in-lieu fee (CMC 17.38.020.B). The applicant has proposed 12 on-site parking spaces, all of which are proposed to be located in an at-grade covered parking area at the rear of the property. The applicant has indicated they will pursue the remaining 4.8 parking spaces through the city’s in lieu parking program (CMC 17.38.040).
The proposed 12 on-site parking spaces will be provided across one (1) ADA accessible van space, one (1) standard parking space, and ten (10) compact spaces that utilize a parking lift system split between five (5) lifts.
Of important note, the commercial parking ratio has been determined using the square footage (1 space per 600 sf of commercial floor area) as this results in a greater number of parking spaces than the proposed number of commercial business spaces.
- 5,882 sf of commercial space / 1 parking space per 600 sf of commercial floor area = 9.8 parking spaces required
- 7 proposed commercial spaces = 7 parking spaces required
In Lieu Fee:
It is recognized that some sites, due to size, shape, topography, existing buildings, the availability of land suitable for parking purposes or location within specific land use districts, may have difficulty meeting all parking requirements. Therefore, the municipal code provides for some exceptions to increase the flexibility in meeting parking requirements.
In accordance with CMC 17.38.030.C, 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. Parking adjustments shall not decrease the number of parking spaces required by this chapter. The practicality of providing parking on-site shall be evaluated by using the criteria set forth in subsection (B)(2) through (B)(4) of this section. Standards for participation in the in-lieu fee program are established in CMC 17.38.040, Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. Applicants for use permits authorizing the use of in-lieu fees to adjust on-site parking shall also demonstrate both of the following:
- The parking for which the adjustment is sought is not required for serving hotel or motel uses.
- 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.
As established above, the proposed site is not a hotel or motel use and therefore the first criteria of the in-lieu provision is satisfied. The applicant has proposed 12 on-site parking spaces and is seeking approval of Use Permit to satisfy the remaining parking requirement (4.8 spaces) through the payment of in-lieu fees. As noted above, “the practicality of providing parking on-site shall be evaluated by using the criteria set forth in subsection (B)(2) through (B)(4) of this section.”
2. The project site for which the parking requirement applies is 5,000 square feet or less in size and has less than 50 feet of street frontage.
3. The construction of required driveway(s) for on-site parking would result in the excessive loss of curb parking on street.
4. The topography, size, shape or peculiar conditions of the site or the existing development on the site would make the provision of on-site parking impractical.
While the site is greater than 5,000 square feet with a frontage greater than 50 feet, and utilized an existing curb cut and driveway (i.e. no loss in on-street parking), the project is subject to a peculiar conditions of the site or the existing development on the site would make satisfaction of the on-site parking requirement impractical.
According to the applicant (refer to Attachment 4):
Through multiple iterations of the design for the JB Pastor project we have arrived at the current proposed design for this mixed-use project based on the site constraints. The initial concept for the JB Pastor project anticipated a mixed- use project encompassing all three of the above referenced parcels with a below grade parking structure to accommodate the parking requirements. That iteration of the project assumed the existing community room building associated with the savings and loan building would be demolished.
The current iteration of our proposed JB Pastor project now includes the development of mixed-use project encompassing all of parcels 010-145-024 and 010-145-012 and partial development of parcel 010-145-023. The parcel being partially developed now maintains the historic savings and loan community building, the associated historically significant ornamented concrete wall, with the required preservation buffer along the perimeter of the community building.
As a result of the site constraints associated with maintaining the historic savings and loan building and related historic site improvements along with the required buffer, we have now modified our proposed JB Pastor project to reduce the overall area of the proposed commercial space at the ground level and the overall area of residential apartments at the second level. Additionally, the site constraints due to the historic community room building and associated site improvements do not allow for the required area needed to accommodate all the required parking in an underground parking structure since we cannot feasibly excavate under the existing community room building and if we were to excavate around the historic building and site improvements we may risk damage to these important historical assets.
Staff concurs with the applicant that the protection of the historic resource presents a peculiar condition of the site and maintenance of the existing development on the site warrants consideration of the in lieu program. As noted by the applicant, previous iterations of the project had included provisions for all parking to be accommodated on-site, and it was not until additional protection measures were placed around the Complex site that the in lieu program was considered by the applicant.
As such, staff has Condition of Approval #61UP stating, prior to Building Permit issuance, the applicant shall remit payment to the Community Planning and Building Department and Finance Department, as appropriate, for all fees related to the five (5) parking spaces provided through payment into the city’s in-lieu fee program.
Staff notes, based on the discussion above pertaining to the trash enclosure above, the re-located location may need to replace an on-site parking space, which may result in the loss of one (1) additional on-site parking space. Should this be the case, staff recommends an allowance for up to 5.6 parking spaces be provided as part of the in-lieu program without the need to return to the Planning Commission to amend the use permit. This determination and the final total of space would likely be determined if the applicant pursues amending the Preservation Buffer described in Resolution 2023-099 by the City Council. This recommendation has been noted in Condition of Approval #61UP and support of the addition in lieu parking space is based on the protection of the historic resource as previously described.
As established in Urgency Ordinance 2020-003 and Resolution 2003-72, the current in lieu fee is $54,080 per parking space.
Use Permits
The proposal requires four use permits associated with the project. An analysis of each of the required use permits is provided below:
Use Permit #1 - Increase in Commercial Floor Area, Commercial Spaces or Business – CMC 17.14.050
In accordance with CMC 17.14.050.E, Any construction resulting in a net increase in the amount of commercial floor area shall require a conditional use permit and coastal development permit authorizing such increase. Prior to authorizing such increase, the Planning Commission shall make all findings listed in CMC 17.64.100, Increase in Commercial Floor Area, Commercial Spaces or Business. The decision-making body may approve plans submitted or may approve such plans subject to specified changes or conditions.
As outlined in CMC 17.64.100, The following findings are required for approval of an activity resulting in an increase in commercial floor area, commercial spaces or businesses:
- That the proposed development has been found consistent with Chapter 17.30 CMC related to the demolition of structures;
17.30.010 Demolition or Rebuilding of Buildings.
Staff Analysis: The demolition of the non-historic structure (Lot 10) includes the concurrent review and approval of replacement construction for the site (this subject application). No structure is proposed to be demolished on the historic Complex site. The project meets this standard.
17.30.020 Conversion or Demolition of Affordable Housing.
Staff Analysis: Affordable housing is not converted or demolished as part of this project. Refer to section 2A, below.
17.30.030 Minimum Standards.
Staff Analysis: The project includes the proposed merger of all underlying lots and therefore is exempt from this requirement.
- That the proposed development has been found consistent with CMC 17.14.050(A), (E) and (F), related to the demolition and conversion of residential uses;
A) No existing residential dwelling unit shall be converted or demolished unless replacement housing is provided in accordance with findings established in CMC 17.64.070, Demolition and Conversion of Residential Structures.
The city maintains record of one market rate unit located on the second floor of the building located at the rear of lot 10. There are eight new apartment units proposed with the project resulting in a net increase of 7 market rate apartment units.
CMC 17.64.070 Demolition and Conversion of Residential Structures. The following special findings are required for demolition, or conversion of residential structures:
- That the proposed action will not result in the conversion of any floor space occupied by residential dwelling units to nonresidential use located at any level above the first story in any commercial or R-4 zone; and
Staff Analysis: No new commercial uses are proposed for the second floor. All second floor uses are proposed to be residential apartments.
- That the proposed action meets all requirements of the Government Code of the State of California related to affordable housing including Government Code Section 65590.
Staff Analysis: The one (1) subject unit to be demolished and replaced is a market rate unit and therefore not subject to the requirements of Government Code Section 65590.
E) Any construction resulting in a net increase in the amount of commercial floor area shall require a conditional use permit and coastal development permit authorizing such increase. Prior to authorizing such increase, the Planning Commission shall make all findings listed in CMC 17.64.100, Increase in Commercial Floor Area, Commercial Spaces or Business. The decision-making body may approve plans submitted or may approve such plans subject to specified changes or conditions.
A Conditional Use Permit and associated Coastal Development Permit has been applied for and findings for approval have been made herein.
F) Except as provided for legally established motel units in CMC 17.14.040(M), Hotels and Motels, all newly constructed second story floor area, including area in new buildings, remodeled buildings and replacement, rebuilt or reconstructed buildings, shall be occupied by residential dwellings only and shall not be used for any commercial land use.
The subject site is not a hotel/motel use and all second floor uses are proposed to be residential. A Condition of Approval has been included stating any area located above the ground level shall not be used as a commercial use. In staff’s opinion, an acceptable exception is to allow for home occupation business for tenants of the apartments upon approval of a home occupation business, if permitted by the tenant’s lease agreement. The apartment would still be classified as a residential unit, and not a commercial business. Home occupations do not involve visits by customers, vendors, attendees, salespeople or employees of the business, but allow a tenant to use their residence as a home office or similar place of business.
3. That the proposed development has been found consistent with CMC 17.50.040, Effects of Allocation, related to water consumption;
As outlined in Condition of Approval #4, “Approval of this application does not permit an increase in water use on the project site without adequate supply. Should the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District determine that adequate water is not available for this site, this permit will be scheduled for reconsideration, and appropriate findings prepared for review and adoption by the Planning Commission.”
4. That parking will be provided to serve all new development on the site consistent with the provisions of Chapter 17.38 CMC, Off-Street Parking Requirements;
As conditioned, the parking complies with the requirements outlined in CMC 17.38, as described above.
5. That all existing nonconformities on the property have been identified, that the proposal would not increase, expand or create any nonconformities, and that the proposal has been found consistent with Chapter 17.36 CMC, Nonconforming Uses and Buildings;
The project is for the construction of a new mixed-use development. All new construction is consistent with the underlying zoning or has received the appropriate waivers or adjustments (i.e. build-to-line waiver; parking in-lieu payment). The existing non-conformities exist in the form on the build-to line along Dolores Street where the Community Room is located, however, this nonconformity is required to be maintained consistent with the city’s Historic Preservation Ordinance as correction of the non-conformity may have an adverse impact to a historic resource.
6. That the approximate square foot areas devoted to residential space, commercial space, landscaping and parking have been designated for guidance in reviewing any design plans that may be necessary and that such areas have been found consistent with Chapter 17.14 CMC, Commercial Zoning Districts.
The applicant has provided the appropriate information in respect to residential space, commercial space, landscaping, and parking in the project plans for review of the project. The project is consistent with the requirements of CMC 17.14, as described in the “Zoning District and Development Standards” section, above.
Use Permit #2 - Residential Density 22 du/ac –33 du/ac – CMC 17.14.030
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 8 residential (apartment) units on a 12,000 square foot site, which is a density of 29 du/acre and is therefore requires issuance of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. In the Core Commercial, this is the maximum allowable density allowed without the need for a density bonus. 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 8 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 8 units proposed, 2 units would need to be between 400 and 650 square feet. The proposed rental units range in size with 4 of the units being a one bedroom units that are 650 square feet or less and the largest being an 1,601 square foot two-bedroom unit.
The larger (1,000+ sf) units are proposed to have two-bedrooms each and will are also proposed to have their own roof top decks accessed via a private stairway and roof top hatch.
While a Conditional Use Permit is required for the proposed density, there are no specific findings required for the subject Use Permit aside from the findings required for all use permits (CMC 17.64.010), described below.
Use Permit #3 - Underground floors – CMC 17.14.150.A:
CMC 17.14.150.A states, No building shall have more than two stories above grade. Additional underground floors, not defined as a story, may be authorized by a use permit approved by the Planning Commission when the use of these floors is expressly limited to the parking of vehicles, noncommercial storage and mechanical equipment serving the building.
The applicant has proposed a 852 square foot basement that includes electrical room, janitor’s closet, and restroom facilities for the building. The electrical, and restrooms are all considered as part of the mechanical equipment that service the building. It has not been confirmed if the restrooms would be open to the public or just tenants of the building.
Like with the residential density, while a Conditional Use Permit is required for the proposed density, there are no specific findings required for the subject Use Permit aside from the findings required for all use permits (CMC 17.64.010), described below.
Use Permit #4 – In Lieu Parking – CMC 17.38.030.C:
CMC 17.38.030.C states, 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. Parking adjustments shall not decrease the number of parking spaces required by this chapter. The practicality of providing parking on-site shall be evaluated by using the criteria set forth in subsection (B)(2) through (B)(4) of this section. Standards for participation in the in-lieu fee program are established in CMC 17.38.040, Parking In-Lieu Fee Program. Applicants for use permits authorizing the use of in-lieu fees to adjust on-site parking shall also demonstrate both of the following:
- The parking for which the adjustment is sought is not required for serving hotel or motel uses.
- 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 findings for this Use Permit have been previously made in the discussion regarding parking for the project.
General Use Permit Findings
In its review of applications for use permits, the Planning Commission shall evaluate each proposed use in order to consider its impact on the City. No use permit shall be granted unless all of these general findings can be made:
- That the proposed use will not be in conflict with the City’s General Plan.
The proposed increase of commercial floor area, residential density, use of the basement level, and participation into the in-lieu parking program do not create any inconsistencies or conflicts with the City’s General Plan as outlined in this report.
- That the proposed use will comply with all zoning standards applicable to the use and zoning district.
The proposed increase of commercial floor area, residential density, use of the basement level, and participation into the in-lieu parking program comply with all applicable zoning standards as outlined in this report.
- That granting the use permit will not set a precedent for the approval of similar uses whose incremental effect will be detrimental to the City, or will be in conflict with the General Plan.
The proposed increase of commercial floor area, residential density, use of the basement level, and participation into the in-lieu parking program is not precedent setting. The use permits granted are all uses part of the established context and land use of the commercial districts and are consistent with exiting provisions established within the municipal code, General Plan, and Local Coastal Plan.
- That the proposed use will not make excessive demands on the provision of public services, including water supply, sewer capacity, energy supply, communication facilities, police protection, and fire protection.
The proposed project consists of 8 residential units, parking, and a commercial shell with up to 7 business spaces, which would be an increase in use at the site. However, these uses will not significantly adversely affect police or fire protection services. Utility services including wastewater, sewer, and landfill facilities have adequate capacity for the proposed project, or the project has been conditioned appropriately to verify adequate capacities or supply prior to building permit issuance.
- That the proposed use will not be injurious to public health, safety or welfare.
The proposed increase of commercial floor area, residential density, use of the basement level, and participation into the in-lieu parking program will not be injurious to public health, safety or welfare. The use permits granted are all uses part of the established context and land use of the commercial districts.
- That the proposed use will be compatible with surrounding land uses and will not conflict with the purpose established for the district within which it will be located.
The proposed increase of commercial floor area, residential density, use of the basement level, and participation into the in-lieu parking program will are all uses part of the established context and land use of the commercial districts and their inclusion are supported by the zoning code and General Plan.
- That the proposed use will not generate adverse impacts affecting health, safety, or welfare of neighboring properties or uses.
The proposed increase of commercial floor area, residential density, use of the basement level, and participation into the in-lieu parking program will not generate adverse impacts affecting neighboring properties or uses as the zoning code has been written to ensure that impacts of these features to neighboring properties and uses are minimized.
Design Review
In accordance with CMC 17.14.110, Standard of Review and Design Guidelines, “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 2019, the Planning Commission considered a preliminary review of a smaller project by the applicant, in conjunction with the property owner, proposed for Lot 10. The feedback received by the Applicant at this hearing was general position reception from the Commission for the Mediterranean/Spanish style of the building, among other comments and direction.
While the project has grown in scale substantially, the applicant has taken the theme from the 2019 plan and has continued the motif across the other two lots. The applicant has provided a Design Narrative describing the design intent of the project.
As described by the applicant (refer to Attachment 3):
The design intent is to respect and preserve the historical village character; integrate with residential attribution of the community and pedestrian friendly environment. The overall design concept includes harmony of interior and exterior spaces as an overall experience. Open space gallery for pedestrian use in the commercial areas including permanent planters, landscape areas and benches. Access to commercial units is through 2 access points in the sidewalk on Dolores Street. In the second-floor apartments outdoor covered open balconies to access each unit and courtyards to some of the units are features that allows indoor and outdoor experience. This will be achieved with a harmonized architecture in the immediate surroundings of Spanish Colonial, Italianate and Mediterranean structures.
The proposed project will have facades that will reminisce traditional architecture of the period through use of traditional elements such as authentic clay tile roofs, wood corbels and beams, decorative wrought iron railings, limestone floors, cantilevered features, window projections and the like.
The proposed projects scale and form will complement the rhythm of structures in the immediate vicinity through the use proportioned storefront fenestrations for the commercial areas and properly scaled in the apartments. The use of character defining details through eaves, parapets, overhangs, finishing details and similar features. The undulating walls creating shadow lines that cultivate interest in architecture will be achieved. The use of natural stone and mixed with stucco including molding surrounds of fenestrations adds texture and color. Each building fa9ade has interest and have no long blank walls. The various building heights add to the creation of various roof forms and a "village" feel.”
Figure 14. Material board.
As stated in CMC 17.14.100, Design Review and Basic Review Standard, “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.” The commission should consider whether the project is an improvement over the existing site condition.
The purpose section of the Commercial Design Guidelines, “[The Commercial Design Guidelines] establish a series of design statements intended to conserve the historical village character and pedestrian orientation of Carmel's central commercial district. The emphasis of this document is architectural, with special attention to building facades. Please note that these are guidelines and should be taken as descriptive, not prescriptive; they are likely to be most useful as a guide during the preliminary planning process. Strict compliance with every guideline is not necessary for approval of a project, but deviations should be related to good design principles and site conditions. More definitive design specifications are set forth in the Zoning Code, Title 17.”
As such, it is not possible to analyze and evaluate every element of the project or new construction for full compliance with consistency with the Commercial Design Guidelines, as many building elements, especially those for the construction of a new building, are not expressly addressed. However, this Design Review application is a discretionary application for which the Planning Commission has the authority to take discretionary action on the project. Those actions and findings should be made and informed through the applicable provisions of the Commercial Design Guidelines or specific design standards outlined in Title 17.
In accordance with CMC 17.58.060.B, Findings for Design Review Approval, before approving an application for design review in any district, the Director, Historic Preservation Board, or the Planning Commission shall find that the final design plans:
- Conform to the applicable policies of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program;
- Comply with all applicable provisions of this code; and
- Are consistent with applicable adopted design review guidelines.
Staff finds the project, as conditioned, applicable policies of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program, complies with the applicable provisions of this code, and is consistent with applicable design review guidelines.
Public Correspondence: At the time of writing this report, staff has received two (2) correspondence letters regarding the proposed project. Both letters raise concerns regarding the project. Correspondence for the project received at the time of publication has been included as Attachment 12. Additional correspondence received after publication of the staff report will be forwarded to the Commission and attached to the agenda as late correspondence. Staff will be prepared discuss the points raised in these correspondence at the hearing.