119

To:
From:
Submitted by:
Subject:
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Council Report
Mach 4, 2014
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jason Stilwell, City Administrator
Rob Mullane, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director
Marc Wiener, Senior Planner
Consideration of a Use Permit (UP 14-6) for alterations to an exi sting 2-
unit residential building located on Mission Street four buildings
northwest of Eighth Avenue in the Residential and Limited Commercial
(RC) Zoning District
Recommendation: Approve the Use Permit (UP 14-6) subject to the attached findings
Executive Summary: The project site is located on Mission Street four buildi ngs northwest of
Eighth Avenue in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) Zoning
District . The lot is currently developed with a two-unit apartment
building (multi-family dwelling) at the rear (western) portion of the
property and a three-space surface parking lot at the front portion of the
property.
The existing building is 2,590 square feet in size and is set back
approximately 57 feet from the front property line.. The existing
structure has a Mid-century modern flat-roof design and is clad with
wood siding. The building has historically been used for both office and
residential uses.
The applicant is proposing a substantial remodel and addition to the
existing building; however, it will remain a two-unit residence. The
proposed project includes the addition of 210-square feet of living space
and the addition of a four-space carport at the front of the building. With
the proposed additions, the structure would be a total of 2,800 square
feet in size, and the front setback would be reduced from 57 feet to 15
feet. The interior of the existing building would be completely
remodeled, but the north, west and south exterior walls would be
retained.
1
120
The Design Review {DR 13-15) application for this project was reviewed
by the Planning Commission on three separate occasions between August
14, 2013 and January 23, 2014. Several revisions were made to the
design per the recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission.
The project was unanimously approved {3-0 vote) on January 23, 2014.
Use Permit and Density: CMC Section 17.14 establishes the range of
permitted and conditional uses that are allowed in this RC Zoning district.
Multi-family projects between 0 and 22 units per acre are a permitted
use. Projects between 22 and 33 dwelling units per acre require a Use
Permit. The applicant is proposing two dwelling-units on a 3,500 square
foot site, or a density of 24.89 units per acre. Hence, the project requires
a Use Permit (UP 14-6) for the proposed density.
Two commissioners own property within 500 feet of the project site and
had to recuse themselves from the project review. According to the
Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, Use Permits require a minimum
of four commissions to form a quorum, and therefore, the Planning
Commission was not able to act on the Use Permit. For this reason, the
Use Permit Component of the permit has been referred to the City
Council.
Analysis/Discussion: Staf{Analysis
The subject property is located in the Residential and Limited Commercial
(RC) Zoning District. CMC Section 17.14.010.C states that the purpose of
the RC Zoning District is to:
"To provide an appropriate location for permanent and transient
residential uses, service and office uses, and limited retail uses that do not
adversely impact the residential neighborhood. This district is intended to
provide a transition and buffer between the more intense activities in the
CC and SC districts and the less intense activities in the R-1 and R-4
districts."
The proposal to maintain and remodel the existing 2-unit building is
consistent with the intent of the RC Zoning District, which places an
emphasis on residential use and limits commercial activity.
Staff notes that on October 2, 2012, the City Council adopted an
amendment to CMC Section 17.14.040, requiring that 'for two (2) unit
residential developments, the floor area of the smaller unit shall be at
2
121
Alternatives:
least 40% of the size of the forger unit." The proposed development
compl ies with this requirement. The smaller unit is 1,035 square feet in
size, which is 58% of the larger 1, 765-square foot unit.
Housing Element
The following is a list of goals from the City' s Housing Element of the
General Plan, which support maintaining and improving residential uses
in the City:
Goal G3-1 - Preserve the existing single-family residential housing stock
and provide adequate sites for an increase in the number of housing units.
Goal G3-2 - Preserve all existing residential units in the Commercial and R-
4 Districts and encourage the development of new multi-family housing.
Goal G3-3 - Provide adequate sites for the development of a wide range
of housing types for all citizens.
Planning Commission Review
The Planning Commission was supportive of the proposed design and
approved the Design Review (DR 13-15) appl ication for the remodel of
the subject building with a condition that the Use Permit (UP 14-6) be
approved by the City Council.
Staff supports the proposed project and recommends that the City
Council approve the Use Permit subject to the attached findings.
However, if the City Council has concerns with the project, the Council
could refer the project back to the Planning Commission with any
comments or recommendations.
Previous Council
Action/Decision History:
Fiscal Impact:
On January 23, 2014, the Planning Commission unanimously {3-0)
approved the associated Design Review (DR 13-15) appl ication for this
project as well as the Coastal Development Permit.
Under the City' s adopted fee schedule, the City charges $760.00. This fee
is to defray the cost of staff review of the application, preparation of the
staff report, presentation to the decision making body, and follow-up
correspondence. The application fee provides funding for some of the
staff time required. Staff costs beyond the amount of the application fee
3
122
are general fund expenditures and part of the department's adopted
budget.
Attachments:
Attachment A - Site Photograph
Attachment B- Findings for Approval
Attachment C- PC Final Staff Report, Findings, and Conditions (dated 1/23/14)
Attachment D- PC Minutes (dated 1/23/14)
Attachment E- PC Concept Staff Reports (dated 8/14/13 and 10/9/13)
Attachment F- Project Plans
Reviewed by:
City Administrato City Attorney
Asst. City Admin. D Dir of CPB
D
til
Administrative Services D
Dir of Publ ic Svcs D
Public Safety Dir D Library Dir D Other D
4
123
Attachment A- Site Photograph
Project Site- Facing west on Mission Street
124
Attachment B- Findings
UP 14-7 (Old Mill)
March 4, 2014
Findings for Approval
For each of the required findings listed below, staff has indicated whether the submitted plans
support adoption of the findings. For all f indings checked "no" the staff report discusses the
issues to facilitate the Planning Commission decision-making. Findings checked "yes" may or may
not be discussed in the report depending on the issues.
Municipal Code Findings YES NO
1. The project constitutes an improvement over existing site conditions pursuant to t/
CMC 17.14.010
Use Permit Findings (Density 22-33 dwelling units)
2. The project preserves the existing residential housing stock (GP Goal 3-1). t/
3. The project preserves existing residential units and encourages the development t/
of new multi-family housing in the Commercial and R-4 Di stricts (GP Goal 3-2).
4. The proposed use is not in conflict with the General Plan. t/
5. The proposed use will comply with all applicable zoning standards. t/
6. The granting of the Use Permit will not set a precedent for the approval of similar t/
uses whose incremental effect will be detrimental to the City, or will be in conflict
with the General Plan.
7. The proposed use will not make excessive demands on the provision of public t/
services, including water supply, sewer capacity, energy supply, communication
facilities, poli ce protection, street capacity and fire protection.
8. The proposed use will not be injurious to public health, safety or welfare and t/
provides adequate ingress and egress.
9. The proposed use will be compatible with surrounding land uses and wi ll not t/
conflict with the purpose established for the district within which it will be located.
10. The proposed use will not generate adverse impacts affecting health, safety, or t/
welfare of neighboring properties or uses.
125
Attachment C- PC Staff Report, Findings, and Conditions (1/23/14)
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Planning Commission Report
January 23, 2014
To: Chair Dallas and Planning Commissioners
From: Rob Mullane, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director
Submitted by: Marc Wiener, Senior Planner
Subject: Consideration of a Final Design Review (DR 13-15) and associated Coastal
Development Permit for the alteration of an existing building located in
the Residential and Limited Commerciai"(RC) Zoning District
Recommendation:
Approve the Final Design Review (DR 13-15) and associated Coastal Development Permit
subject to the attached findings and conditions
Application: DR 13-15 APN: OlG-142.004
location: Mission Street four parcels southwest of Seventh Avenue
Block: 90 Lot: 11
Applicant: Old Mill Properties Property Owner: Old Mill Properties, LLC
Background and Project Description:
The project site is located on Mission Street four parcels southwest of Seventh Avenue in the
Residential and limited Commercial (RC) Zoning District. The lot is currently developed with a
two-unit apartment building (multi-family dwelling) at the rear (western) portion of the
property and a three-space surface parking lot at the front portion of the property. A
Determination of Historic Ineligibility for the subject building was Issued by the Community
Planning and Building Department on August 5, 2013.
The existing building is 2,590 square feet in size and is set back approximately 57 feet from the
front property line. The existing structure has a Mid-century modern flat-roof design and is
clad with wood siding. The building is currently used as a two-unit residence, but has
historically been used for both office and residential uses.
126
DR 13-15 (Old Mill Properties)
January 23, 2014
Staff Report
Page2
The applicant is proposing a substantial remodel and addition to the existing building; however,
it will remain a two-unit residence. The proposed project includes the addition of 210-square
feet of living space and the addition of a four-space carport at the front of the building. With
the proposed additions, the structure would be a total of 2,800 square feet in size, and the
front setback would be reduced from 57 feet to 15 feet. The interior of the existing building
would be completely remodeled, but the north, west, and south exterior walls would be
retained.
The ground level would include a 1,035-square foot two-bedroom apartment, while the upper
level would include a 1,765-square foot two-bedroom apartment. A shared patio/garden area
is proposed at the interior of the property between the living space and the carport. The
proposed structure would have a Contemporary-style design. The applicant is proposing a
stone veneer on the front building element, stucco on the rear building element, and horizontal
wood siding on the intermediate portion of the building. The proposed type of stone is from
Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin, and is shown on page A-4.1 of the project plans.
The Planning Commission reviewed this project on August 14, 2013 and on October 9, 2013.
The Commission was supportive of the project, and at the October meeting, directed the
applicant to make minor revisions to the design prior to the final review. The applicant has
revised the design to comply with the recommendations made by the Planning Commission
PROJECT DATA FOR A 3,500-SQUARE FOOT SITE (RC):
Site Conslderat1ons Allowed Existing Proposed
Floor Area 2,800 sf (SO%} 2,590 sf (74%) 2,800 sf (80%}*
Building Coverage 2,450 sf (70%) 1,295 sf (37%) 1,999 sf (57%)
Ridge Height (1st /2"d) 26ft. 20ft. 26ft.
Parking Requirement 3 spaces 3 spaces 3 spaces
Setbacks Minimum Required Existing Proposed
Front 5 ft. 57 ft. 15ft.
Rear 0 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft.
Side Yard 5 feet for at least SO% of N/A 5 feet for at least 50%
the side property lines. of side property lines.
Main level/Upper Level Unit= 1,765 sq. ft. ; Lower level Unit= 1,035 sq. ft.
127
DR 13-15 (Old Mill Properties)
January 23, 2014
Staff Report
Page 3
Staff analysis:
Previous Hearing: The following is a llst of changes requested by the Planning Commission and
an analysis of how the applicant has addressed the Commission's direction.
1. The applicant shall work with staff to include wood gates ot the front of the carport. The
revisions shall be reflected on the plans submitted for final Planning Commission review.
Response; Pursuant to CMC Section 17.36.020.C, the site is required to have three off-street
parking spaces. The applicant is proposing three parking spaces as required by code, two of
which would be in tandem. At the October 2013 meeting, there was a discussion about
whether tandem parking would be consistent with the City's Municipal Code. The Planning
Commission was supportive of the proposed tandem parking design, but recommended that
the applicant revise the design to include wood gates at the front of the carport to screen the
cars from the public view.
In response to the Planning Commission's recommendation, the applicant is proposing 6-foot
high wood gates at the front of the carport. The proposed gates would consist of horizontal
wood slats, similar in appearance to the horizontal wood siding used on other portions of the
structure. Staff notes that the applicant is also proposing horizontal wood panels on the north
and south sides of the carport to screen the parking area. There is a 3-foot gap between the
top of the panels and the ceiling of the carport.
At the October 2013 meeting, staff noted that carport would be 34 feet long, but that a
minimum depth of 38 feet would be required to contain two tandem spaces. Since that
meeting the applicant has increased the length of the carport to 38 feet, by extending the rear
wall of the carport 4 feet In a western direction. One of the tandem spaces would be a
standard size 10' x 20' space, while the other would be a compact 9' x 16' space. Pursuant to
CMC Section 17.36.020.C, "compact spaces may constitute 50 percent of the total required
spaces." Staff notes that the carport would contain two standards spaces and one compact
space.
2. The applicant shall install landscaping at the front of the property on the north and
south sides of the driveway as specified in the staff report. The revision shall be included
on a landscape plan submitted for final review by the Planning Commission.
128
DR 13-15 (Old Mill Properties)
January 23, 2014
Staff Report
Page4
Response: The applicant Is proposing landscaping at the front north and south corners of the
property. The plan also shows landscaping in the center courtyard and at the rear of the
property. Staff notes that the plan does not identify what types of plants are proposed.
Standard Condition #4 requires the applicant to submit a final landscape plan prior to the
issuance of the building permit.
3. The applicant shall depict the current parking configuration along the west side of
Mission Street and note any changes to existing on-street parking spaces presented by
changes to the driveway and driveway throat width.
Response: An existing curb-side parking space at the front of the property has been shifted
approximately 3 feet north to provide clearance for the new driveway. As a result, the new
driveway would not require the elimination of any curb-side parking spaces. Staff notes that
shifting the parking space did not impact the driveway of the neighboring property to the north.
Finish Materials: At the October 2013 meeting, the applicant presented a photograph
(included as Attachment C) of the type of stone to be used on the structure. The proposed type
of stone is from Fond Du lac, Wisconsin, and is shown on Sheet A-4.1 of the project plans. The
stone would have a tan color and would be applied in with a dry-stack pattern. The Planning
Commission was supportive of the stone as shown in the photograph. Staff has drafted a
condition requiring that the stone used on the building be consistent with the photograph
presented at the meeting on October 9, 2013, and with the project plans.
In the previous staff report it was noted that the applicant is proposing to use a standing seam
copper metal roof. A photograph of the proposed roofing material was presented at the
October 2013 meeting, and the Planning Commission was generally supportive of the proposal.
Staff notes that the roof is not visually prominent to the public way due to the height of the
building and the low pitch of the roof. The applicant has indicated that a roof sample will be
provided at the December meeting for the Planning Commission to review. The a photograph
of the proposed roofing is shown on Sheet A-4.1 of the project plans
Use Permit and Density: CMC Section 17.14 establishes the range of permitted and conditional
uses that are allowed in the RC Zoning District. Multi-family projects between 0 and 22 units
per acre are a permitted use. Projects at a density between 22 and 33 dwelling units per acre
require a Use Permit. The applicant is proposing two dwelling-units on a 3,500 square foot site,
129
DR 13-15 (Old Mill Properties)
January 23, 2014
Staff Report
PageS
for a density of 24.89 units per acre. Hence, the project requi res a Use Permit for the proposed
density.
Two commissioners own property within 500 feet of the project site and are required to recuse
themselves from this project review. According to the Planning Commissi on Rules of
Procedure, approval of a Use Permit requires a minimum of four affirmative votes, and
therefore, the Planning Commission would not be able to act on the Use Permit.
Nonetheless, the three unrecused Commissioners can review and act on the Design Review (DR
13-15) and Coastal Development Permit. The Use Permit would subsequently be referred to
the City Council. Staff has consulted with the City Attorney on this matter and determined that
this would be an acceptable course of action to avoid having the City Council go through a
potentially lengthy design review process, which is typically the role of the Planni ng
Commission. A condition has been drafted requiring that the applicant obtain Use Permit
approval from the City Council prior to submitting an application for the building permit.
Environmental Review: The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEOA requirements,
pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1} - Existing Facilities.
AITACHMENTS:
Attachment A- Findings for Approval
Attachment B- Conditions of Approval
Attachment C- Photograph of Stone Finish Material
Attachment D - Project Plans
130
DR 13-15 (Old Mill Properties)
January 23, 2014
Findings for Approval
Page 1
For each of the required findings listed below, staff has indicated whether the submitted plans
support adoption of the findings. For all findings checked "no" the staff report discusses the
issues to facilitate the Planning Commission decision-making. Findings checked "yes" may or may
not be discussed in the report depending on the issues.
Municipal Code Findings YES NO
1. The project constitutes an improvement over existing site conditions pursuant to t/
CMC 17.14.010
2. The project conforms to all zoning standards applicable to the site; including floor t/
area, height, setbacks and parking.
Commercial Design Guideline Findings
3. The building materials and colors respect traditions already established in the t/
commercial district. The use of richly detailed wood, tile, molding, corbels, brick and
stone is encouraged.
4. The building wall facing the street provides visual interest to pedestrians.
t/
Variations such as display windows, changes in building form, and changes in
material, texture, or color are appropriate.
5. The Building is designed to allow for flexibility In its use over time so as to t/
accommodate the mixed-use pattern of residential over commercial, as well as
other uses compatible with this district.
6. The building avoids the appearance of a large single-family dwelling.
7. The building design is sensitive to the context of the neighborhood in which it is
t/
located.
8. Any deviations from the Commercial Design Guidelines are considered minor and
""
reasonably relate to good design principles and specific site conditions.
Coastal Development Findings (CMC 17.64.8.1):
9. local Coastal Program Consistency: The project conforms with the certified local
""
Coastal Program of the Clty of Carmel-by-the Sea.
10. Public access policy consistency: The project is not located between the first
""
public road and the sea, and therefore, no review is required for potential public
access.
131
DR 13-15 (Old Mill Properties)
January 23, 2014
Conditions of Approval
Page 1
Approval Conditions
No. Standard Conditions
1. This approval constitutes Design Study and Coastal Development permits
authorizing the alterations to an existing two-unit apartment building. All work
shall conform to the approved plans of January 23, 2014, except as conditioned
by this permit.
2. The project shall be constructed in conformance with all requirements of the
local RC zoning ordinances. All adopted building and fire codes shall be adhered
to in preparing the working drawings. If any codes or ordinances require design
elements to be changed, or if any other changes are requested at the time such
plans are submitted, such changes may require additional environmental review
and subsequent approval by the Planning Commission.
3. This approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of action unless
an active building permit has been issued and maintained for the proposed
construction.
4. A landscape plan and shall be submitted to the Department of Community
Planning and Building prior to the issuance of the building permit. The landscape
plan will be reviewed for compliance with the landscaping standarcis contained In
the City's Municipal Code.
5. Trees on the site shall only be removed upon the approval of the City Forester or
Forest and Beach Commission as appropriate; and all remaining trees shall be
protected during construction by methods approved by the City Forester.
6. All foundations within 15 feet of significant trees shall be excavated by hand. tf
any tree roots larger than two inches (2") are encountered during construction,
the City Forester shall be contacted before cutting the roots. The City Forester
may require the roots to be bridged or may authorize the roots to be cut. If roots
larger than two inches {2") in diameter are cut without prior City Forester
approval or any significant tree is endangered as a result of construction activity,
the building permit will be suspended and all work stopped until an investigation
by the City Forester has been completed. Twelve inches {12") of mulch shall be
evenly spread inside the dripline of all trees prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
7. Approval of this application does not permit an increase in water use on the
project site. Should the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
determine that the use would result in an increase in water beyond the
maximum units allowed on a 3,500-square foot parcel, this permit will be
t/
t/
t/
t/
t/
t/
t/
132
DR 13-15 (Old Mill Properties)
January 23, 2014
Conditions of Approval
Page2
scheduled for reconsideration and the appropriate findings will be prepared for
review and adoption by the Planning Commission.
9. The applicant shall submit in writing to the Community Planning and Building tl'
staff any proposed changes to the project plans as approved by the Planning
Commission on January 23, 2014, prior to incorporating changes on the site. If
the applicant changes the project without first obtaining City approval, the
applicant will be required to either: a) submit the change in writing and cease all
work on the project until either the Planning Commission or staff has approved
the change; or b) eliminate the change and submit the proposed change in
writing for review. The project will be reviewed for its compliance to the
approved plans prior to final inspection.
10. Exterior lighting shall be limited to 25 watts (incandescent equivalent) or less per tl'
fixture and shall be no higher than 10 feet above the ground. landscape lighting
shall be limited to 15 watts (incandescent equivalent) or less per fixture and shall
not exceed 18 inches above the ground.
11. All skylights shall use non-reflective glass to minimize the amount of light and N/A
glare visible from adjoining properties. The applicant shall install skylights with
flashing that matches the roof color, or shall paint the skylight flashing to match
the roof color.
12. The Carmel stone f ~ d e shall be installed in a broken course/random or similar tl'
masonry pattern. Setting the stones vertically on their face in a cobweb pattern
shall not be permitted. Prior to the full installation of stone during construction,
the applicant shall install a 10-square foot section on the building to be reviewed
by planning staff on site to ensure conformity with City standards.
13. The applicant shall install unclad wood framed windows. Windows that have tl'
been approved with divided lights shall be constructed with fixed wooden
mullions. Any window pane dividers, which are snap-in, or otherwise
superficially applied, are not permitted.
14. The applicant agrees, at his or her sole expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold tl'
harmless the City, its public officials, officers, employees, and assigns, from any
liability; and shall reimburse the City for any expense Incurred, resulting from, or
in connection with any project approvals. This Includes any appeal, claim, suit, or
other legal proceeding, to attack, set aside, void, or annul any project approval.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any legal proceeding, and shall
cooperate fully in the defense. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate in
any such legal action, but participation shall not relieve the applicant of any
obligation under this condition. Should any party bring any legal action in
connection with this project, the Superior Court of the County of Monterey,
California, shall be the situs and have jurisdiction for the resolution of all such
133
DR 13-15 (Old Mill Properties)
January 23, 2014
Conditions of Approval
Page3
actions by the parties hereto.
15. The driveway material shall extend beyond the property line into the public right
of way as needed to connect to the paved street edge. A minimal asphalt
connection at the street edge may be required by the Superintendent of Streets
or the Building Official, depending on site conditions, to accommodate the
drainage flow line of the street.
16. This project is subject to a volume study.
17. Approval of this Design Study shall be valid only with approval of a Variance.
18. A hazardous materials waste survey shall be required in conformance with the
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District prior to Issuance of a
demolition permit.
19. The applicant shall include a storm water drainage plan with the working
drawings that are submitted for building permit review. The drainage plan shall
include applicable Best Management Practices and retain all drainage on site
through the use of semi-permeable paving materials, French drains, seepage pits,
etc. Excess drainage that cannot be maintained on site may be directed into the
City's storm drain system after passing through a silt trap to reduce sediment
from entering the storm drain. Drainage shall not be directed to adjacent private
property.
20a. An archaeological reconnaissance report shall be prepared by a qualified
archaeologist or other person(s} meeting the standards of the State Office of
Historic Preservation prior to approval of a final building permit. The applicant
shall adhere to any recommendations set forth in the archaeological report.
20b. All new construction involving excavation shall immediately cease if cultural
resources are discovered on the site, and the applicant shall notified the
Community Planning and Building Department within 24 hours. Work shall not
be permitted to recommence until such resources are properly evaluated for
significance by a qualified archaeologist. If the resources are determined to be
significant, prior to resumption of work, a mitigation and monitoring plan shall be
prepared by a qualified archaeologist and reviewed and approved by the
Community Planning and Building Director. In addition, if human remains are
unearthed during excavation, no further disturbance shall occur until the County
Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and distribution pursuant to
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98.
21. Prior to the roof sheathing inspection, the applicant shall obtain a building height
certification from a California licensed surveyor.
22. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the applicant shall provide for City (Community
Planning and Building Director in consultation with the Public Services and Public
Safety Departments) review and approval, a truck-haul route and any necessary
t/
N/A
N/A
t/
t/
N/A
t/
t/
.,
134
DR 13-15 (Old Mill Properties)
January 23, 2014
Conditions of Approval
Page4
temporary traffic control measures for the grading activities. The applicant shall
be responsible for ensuring adherence to the truck-haul route and
implementation of any required traffic control measures.
Special Conditions
23. The stone veneer used on the building shall be consistent with the photographs
presented by the applicant at the Planning Commission hearing on October 9,
2013.
24. The applicant shall obtain approval of a Use Permit from the City Council prior to
submitting for a building permit.
*Acknowledgement and acceptance of conditions of approval.
Property Owner Signature Printed Name Date
t/
t/
135
Attachment D- PC Minutes 1/23/14
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION- DRAFT MINUTES
JANUARY 23,2014
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL FOR TOUR OF INSPECTION
PRESENT: Commission Members: LePage, Paterson, Reimers, Goodhue, and Dallas
ABSENT: Commissioners Members: None
STAFF PRESENT: Rob Mullane, AICP, Community Planning & Building Director
Marc Wiener, Senior Planner
Bryce Temet, Contract Planner
Daryl Betancur, Acting Commission Secretary
Ill. ROLL CALL
Chairman Dallas called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m.
IV. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Members of the audience joined Commission Members in the pledge of allegiance.
V. ANNOUNCEMENTS/EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS
Commissioner Dallas announced that he was stepping down from the Sign Sub-committee,
and that Item No. 6 will be continued to future date.
There were no other announcements.
No Items.
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. DR 13-15 Applicant: Old Mill Properties, LLC
Location: Mission 4 southwest ofih; Block 90, Lot(s) 11
Consideration of Final Design Review (DR 13-15) and
Coastal Development permit applications for the substantial
alteration of an existing building located in the Residential
and Limited Commercial (RC) Zoning District.
Planning Commission Draft Minutes
January 23, 2014
I
136
Prior to the discussion on this item, Chairman Dallas announced that he needed to recuse
himself because he own property within 500 feet of subject property and accordingly
stepped off the dais and exited the room. Commissioner Reimers stated that she too had to
recuse herself because she has a family business within 500 feet of the subject property and
accordingly left the dais and exited the room.
Vice Chairman Goodhue presided over this item and asked for the staff report.
Marc Wiener, Senior Planer, presented the staff report and went over the conditions of
approval set forth in the staff report. He indicated that the property will stay as a two-unit
apartment building and went over the site elevations.
Eric Miller, project architect, addressed the Planning Commission and noted that the recent
changes in the design were an improvement to the overall project.
Vice Chair Goodhue opened the public hearing at 4:13 p.m. Seeing no speakers, Mr.
Goodhue closed the public hearing at 4:13p.m.
Commissioner LEPAGE moved to approve the DR 13-15 as submitted with the
conditions. Motion seconded by Commissioner PATERSON and carried by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONRES:
COMMISSIONERS:
LEPAGE, PATERSON AND GOODHUE
NONE
NONE
DALLAS AND REIMERS
Plarming Commission Draft Minutes
January 23, 2014
2
137
Attachment E- PC Concept Staff Reports (dated 8/14/13 & 10/9/13)
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA CHECKLIST
MEETING DATE: 14 August2013
FIRST HEARING: X
ITEM NO: DR 13-15
SUBJECT:
BLOCK: 90 LOT: ll
CONTINUED FROM: N/A
APPLICANT: Old Mill Properties
STREAMLINING DEADLINE: N/A
Consideration of a Preliminary Design Concept for the construction of a new multi-
family residential structure located in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC)
District.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Exempt (Class 3 - new construction)
LOCATION: ZONING:
Mission 4 SW of 7th RC
ISSUES:
1. Is the project consistent with the regulations of the Residential and Limited Commercial
District (CMC 17.14)?
2. Is the project consistent with the standards of the Commercial Design Guidelines?
OPTIONS:
1. Provide direction to the applicant.
RECOMMENDATION:
Option #1
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report dated 14 August 2013.
2. Application Materials/Project Plans.
STAFF CONTACT: Marc Wiener, Senior Planner
138
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING
STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION: DR 13-15
BLOCK: 90
LOCATION: San Carlos 3 SE of 7th
REQUEST:
APPLICANT: Old Mill Properties
LOT: 11
Consideration of a Preliminary Design Concept for the construction of a new multi-
family residential structure located in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC)
District.
BACKGROUND:
The project site is located on Mission Street four southwest of Seventh Avenue in the
Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) District. The lot is currently developed with a
two-unit apartment building and a four-space parking lot at the front.
The existing building is 2,590 square feet and is set back approximately 57 feet from the
front property line. The structure is clad with wood and has a contemporary flat roof
design. The building has historically been used for both office and residential use.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is proposing to remodel the building and add a carport at the front. The
proposed structure is 2,800 square feet. The ground level includes a 1,035 square foot
one bedroom apartment and the upper level includes a 1,765 square foot two bedroom
apartment. A patio/garden area is proposed at the interior of the property between the
apartment and the carport. The proposed structure has a Contemporary style design and
is clad with stone and has tall vertical glass doors on the front elevation.
CMC 17.14.110 encourages applicants to present preliminary concept plans to the
Commission for feedback and direction prior to formally submitting an application for
design review. The purpose of this meeting is to provide feedback to the applicant on the
proposed project.
139
DR 13-15 (Old Mill Properties)
14 August 20 13
Staff Report
Page2
PROJECT DATA FOR A 3,500 SQUARE FOOT SITE (RC):
Site Considerations Allowed Existing Proposed
Floor Area 2,800 sf(80%) N/A 2,800 sf (80%)*
Building Coverage 2,450 sf (70%) N/A 1,925 sf(55%)
Ridge Height _0
51
/2"d) 26ft. N/A 26ft.
Parking Requirement 3 spaces N/A 3 spaces
Setbacks Minimum Required Existing Proposed
Front 5 ft. N/A 5 ft.
Rear 0 ft. N/A 5 ft.
Side Yard 5 feet for at least 50% N/A 5 feet for at least
of the property length 50% of the north
and south property
lines.
*Main Levei!Upper Level Apartment= 1,765 sq. ft. ; Lower Level Apartment = 1,035 sq. ft.
EVALUATION:
Proposed Use: This site is zoned Residential and Limited Commercial (RC). CMC
Section 17.14.010.C states that the purpose of the RC District is to:
"To provide an appropriate location/or permanent and transient residential uses,
service and office uses, and limited retail uses that do not adversely impact the
residential neighborhood. This district is intended to provide a transition and
buffer between the more intense activities in the CC and SC districts and the less
intense activities in the R-1 and R-4 districts."
CMC Section l 7.14 establishes the range of pennitted and conditional uses that are
allowed in this district. Multi-family projects between 0 and 22 units per acre are a
pennitted use. Projects between 22-33 dwelling units per acre require a conditional use
permit. The applicant is proposing two units on a 3,500 square foot site, or a density of
24.89 units per acre. The project will require a use pennit for the proposed density.
On 2 October 2012 the City Council adopted an amendment to CMC Section 17.14.040
requiring that "for two (2) unit residential developments, the floor area of the smaller
unit shall be at least 40% of the size of the larger unit." The proposed development
meets and exceeds this requirement. The smaller writ is 1,035 square feet, which is 58%
of the larger 1,765 square foot unit.
140
DR 13-15 (Old Mill Properties)
14 August 2013
Staff Report
Page 3
Design: 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 " ( CM C 1 7.14. 010). In addition to this standard, the Commission
should ensure that the project is consistent with zoning requirements and the Commercial
Design Guidelines.
Zoning: The proposed project complies with the dimensional standards for height and
setbacks. At 2,800 square feet the proposed structure is at the maximum floor area and is
below the allowed building coverage by 15%. The project includes three parking spaces
as required by the Code (CMC 17.38).
The front carport is unenclosed on the front and sides and is therefore not included in the
floor area calculations. CMC 17.14.14 defines commercial floor area as "the total
combined area included within surrounding exterior walls of all floor levels. " Because
the carport is not fully enclosed by walls it should not be included in the floor area
calculations. The Planning Commission made a similar determination in the past on a
project directly to the north that was submitted by the same applicant and is currently
under construction.
General Guidelines: Section Estate that "building materials and colors should respect
traditions already established in the commercial district. The use of richly detailed
wood, tile, molding, corbels, brick and stone are encouraged" and "building walls facing
public streets and walkways should provide visual interest to pedestrian. Variations such
as display windows, changes in building form, and changes in material, texture, or color
are appropriate. "
The proposed structure is a Contemporary design with stone, wood and large glass doors
on the front elevation. The applicant will provide a sample of the stone at the meeting. A
recommendation has been added that the applicant works with the Commission and staff
on the stone and that it be differentiated from the project to the north currently under
construction.
Staff supports the overall design and use of materials. The Design Guidelines encourage
architectural diversity while maintaining compatibility with the neighborhood. The
proposed design meets both of these objectives. One aspect of the design that should be
discussed is the tall glass doors proposed on the front elevation. Staff notes that a strong
component of Contemporary architecture is the use of glass. However, the Commission
should discuss whether the size of the glass doors on the front elevation should be
reduced to make the building more compatible with the neighborhood and other buildings
in the commercial district.
141
DR 13-15 (Old Mill Properties)
14 August 20 l3
Staff Report
Page4
RC District Guidelines: On 6 March 2012 the City Council amended the Commercial
Design Guidelines to assist the City with reviewing developments in the RC District.
The following is a list of guidelines to use when reviewing development in the RC
District, followed with a staff response:
Section L - RC District and R-4 Design
Building designs should be sensitive to the context of the neighborhood in which they
are located.
Response: The proposed structure is consistent with the height and mass of neighboring
structures in the vicinity. Mission Street between Seventh and Eighth Avenues is a mix
of commercial and residential uses with a variety of architectural styles.
Buildings in the RC District should be designed to allow for flexibility in their use
over time so as to accommodate the mixed-use pattern of residential over commercial,
as well as other uses compatible with this district.
Response: The proposed structure does not appear strictly residential and could be
converted to a mixed use conunercial building by a future property owner without
substantial alterations.
Paving in the front setback should be limited to a narrow driveway and a front
walkway. The remainder of the front setback should be used primarily for
landscaping.
Response: Because the project is being reviewed at a conceptual level staff has not had
the opportunity to work with the applicant on the driveway design. Staff recommends
that the driveway be the minimum width needed to provide access to the two-car wide
carport.
Landscaping at the front of the property would help improve the visual interest of the
front f a ~ a d e However, based on the site plan there may be limited opportunity to
provide landscaping. A recommendation has been added that the applicant work with
staff to identify locations where landscaping can be provided.
The majority of a building's a ~ a d e at street level should address the public way, be
pedestrian oriented and provide visual interest.
142
DR 13-15 (Old Mill Properties)
14 August 2013
Staff Report
Page5
Response: The applicant is proposing to replace the surface parking lot with a structure
that has a five foot setback from the street. One aspect of successful pedestrian oriented
design is that the building be out by the street edge as opposed to being set back behind a
void of parking or open space. The proposed design appeals visually interesting and
presents an attractive building ~ d e to the street.
Residential projects should avoid the appearance of a large single family dwelling.
Response: As previously stated, the structure does not appear strictly residential and does
not present the appearance of a single-family residence. The design is appropriate for the
neighborhood which has a mix of commercial and residential buildings.
Section K - Parking Design
On-site parking should be designed to limit the visibility of vehicles and vehicle
access points as well as to reduce conflicts with pedestrians.
Vehicles should be located out of view from the public way whenever possible.
Openings in a building ~ d e to accommodate parking should be as minimal as
possible (height, width, volume). A single car garage door or opening is preferred.
Surface parking at the front of a lot is strongly discouraged.
For most projects, curb cuts and driveways should be limited in width (9-10ft.). Curb
cuts should avoid or limit the removal of existing on-street parking whenever
possible.
Response: If this were a new building the Commission could consider requiring that the
parking be located at the rear of the property. However, this is a remodel project to an
existing site that has a building at the rear and parking at the front. The proposed carport
is consistent with the objective of bringing the cars out of view by screening the surface
parking with a structure.
The site is required to have three parking spaces and therefore the opening appears to be
appropriately sized for a two-car width carport. A recommendation has been added that
the applicant work with staff to ensure that both the opening and driveway/curb cut is at
the minimum required.
Use Permit: The proposed project will require a use pennit for the density of 24.89 units
per acre and because the applicant is proposing to add floor area to a commercial
building. Two commissioners own property within 500' of the subject property and are
required to recues themselves from this project. Use permits require a minimum of four
commissioners to form a quorum; therefore the Planning Commission will not be able to
act on the use permit application.
143
DR 13-15 (Old Mill Properties)
14 August 20 13
Staff Report
Page 6
The three remaining commissioners will review and act on the Design Study application.
However, the use permit will be reviewed and acted on by the City Council. Staff has
consulted with the city attorney on this matter and determined that this would be an
acceptable course of action to avoid having the Council go through a potentially lengthy
design review process, which is the role of the Planning Commission.
Summary: Staff has provided an analysis of this project at a preliminary concept level.
The intent is to provide feedback to the applicant prior to having them develop a full set
of plans. Staff provides the following recommendations:
Work with staff and the Planning Commission on the stone.
The Commission should consider whether the front glass door design is
appropriate?
The applicant should work with staff to identify additional opportunities for
landscaping at the front of the property?
The applicant should work with staff to ensure that the driveway and carport
opening are at the minimum needed for vehicle access?
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction to the applicant.
144
To:
From:
Submitted by:
Subject:
Recommendation:
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
Planning Commission Report
October 9, 2013
Chair Paterson and Planning Commissioners
Rob Mullane, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director
Marc Wiener, Senior Planner
Consideration of a Concept Design Review (DR 13-15} and associated
Costal Development permit for the alteration of an existing building
located in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) Zoning District
Accept the Concept Design Review (DR 13-15) and associated Coastal Development
Permit subject to the attached findings and recommendations/draft conditions.
Application: DR 13-15 Applicant: Old Mill Properties
Block: 90 Lot: 11
Location:
APN:
Mission Street four parcels southwest of Seventh Avenue
010-142-004
Background and Project Description:
The project site is located on Mission Street four parcels southwest of Seventh Avenue in the
Residential and Limited Commercial {RC} Zoning District. The lot is currently developed with a
two-unit apartment building (multi-family dwelling) at the rear (western) portion of the
property and a three-space parking lot at the front portion of the property. A Determination of
Historic Ineligibility for the subject building was issued by the Community Planning and Building
Department on August 5, 2013.
The existing building is 2,590 square feet in size and is set back approximately 57 feet from the
front property line. The existing structure has a Mid-century modern flat-roof design and is
clad with wood siding. The building has historically been used for both office and residential
uses.
1
145
DR 13-15 (Old Mill Properties)
October 9, 2013
Staff Report
Page 2
The applicant is proposing a substantial remodel and addition to the existing building; however,
it will remain a two-unit residence. The proposed project includes the addition of 210-square
feet of living space and the addition of a three-space carport at the front of the building. With
the proposed additi ons, the structure would be a total of 2,800 square feet in size, and the
front setback would be reduced from 57 feet to 15 feet. The interior of the existing building
would be completely remodeled, but the north, west and south exterior walls would be
retained.
PROJECT DATA FOR A FOOT SITE (RC):
Site Considerations Allowed Existing Proposed
Floor Area 2,800 sf (80%) 2,590 sf (74%) 2,800 sf (80%)*
Building Coverage 2,450 sf (70%) 1,295 sf (37%) 1,834 sf (52%)
Ridge Height (1st/2nd)
26ft. 20ft. 26ft.
Parking Requirement 3 spaces 3 spaces 3 spaces
Setbacks Minimum Required Existing Proposed
Front 5 ft. 57 ft . 15ft.
Rear Oft. 5 ft. 5 ft.
Side Yard 5 feet for at least 50% of N/A 5 feet for at least
the property length 50% of the north
and south property
lines.
"'Main Level/Upper Level Unit= 1,765 sq. ft.; Lower Level Unit= 1,035 sq. ft.
The ground level would include a 1,035-square foot two-bedroom apartment, while the upper
level would include a foot two-bedroom apartment. A shared patio/garden area
is proposed at the interior of the property between the living space and the carport. The
proposed structure would have a Contemporary-style design. The applicant is proposing a
stone veneer on the front building element, stucco on the rear building element, and horizontal
wood siding on the intermediate portion of the building. Vertical glass doors with a height of
10.5 feet are proposed on the front elevation.
On August 14, 2013, the Planning Commi ssion reviewed a preliminary design concept for the
proposed project. The Planning Commission was generally supportive of the project, but made
several recommendations pertaining to the design.
2
146
DR 13-15 (Old Mill Properties}
October 9, 2013
Staff Report
Page3
Staff analysis:
Previous The following is a list of changes requested by the Planning Commission and
an analysis of how the applicant has addressed the Commission's direction.
1. The applicant shall increase the distance of the front-yard setback.
Response: The applicant originally proposed a 5-foot front-yard setback for the remodeled
building, which is the minimum that is allowed by code. At the Planning Commission hearing on
August 14, 2013, the property owner of the building directly to the south, expressed concern
with the impact that the structure would have on views from one of their apartment windows
that overlooks the project site. The neighboring property owner requested that the proposed
building be located further back from the front property line. It was also indentified during the
Tour of Inspection that the proposed structure would require the removal of limbs from an oak
tree at the front of the property. The Commission directed the applicant to shift the structure
further back to mitigate the impact to the southern neighbor and to provide more space for the
oak tree.
The applicant has revised the design and has located the building 10 feet farther back from the
front property line than what was originally proposed. The building would now have a 15-foot
front-yard setback. The applicant was able to increase the front-yard setback by reducing the
size of the interior patio. In staff's opinion, the revised design adequately addresses the
potential impact on views from the neighboring property to the south and to the oak tree.
2. Explore a mix of finish materials other thon stone.
Response: At the Planning Commission meeting on August 14, 2013, the Commission
expressed some concern with the proposal for stone, in particular because the structure
directly to the north is also clad entirely with stone. The Planning Commission directed the
applicant to explore a mix of finish materials that would highlight the architectural detailing of
the building and provide some relief to the stone.
The proposed finish materials are very similar to the original proposal reviewed by the Planning
Commission on August 14, 2013. The applicant is proposing a stone veneer on the front
building element with stucco on the rear building element and horizontal wood siding on the
intermediate building element. Staff notes that the applicant has introduced other materials
3
147
DR 13-15 (Old Mill Properties)
October 9, 2013
Staff Report
Page 4
(i.e. stucco and wood) as requested by the Planning Commission; however, the front building
element as viewed from the street would be dominantly of the stone. The stone would have a
dry-stack pattern and would be differentiated from the structure to the north. A photograph of
the proposed stone is provided as Attachment B.
The proposed finish materials are consistent with Commercial Design Guideline Section E,
which states that "building materials and colors should respect traditions already established in
the commercial district. The use of richly detailed wood, tile, molding, corbels, brick and stone
are encouraged." In the first staff report, staff supported the use of stone but noted that it
needed to be differentiated from the adjacent structure to the north. However, upon further
review} staff is concerned that the proposed dominant use of stone could have an impact on
the character of the street, given that it would be adjacent to another building that is clad
entirely with stone. The Planning Commission should discuss whether the extent to which
stone is used in the finish materials for the proposed building is appropriate for the location.
One alternative would be to use horizontal wood siding, which is characteristic of
Contemporary-style architecture and would provide some variety to the streetscape.
Use Permit and Density: CM C Section 17.14 establishes the range of permitted and conditional
uses that are allowed in this RC Zoning district. Multi-family projects between 0 and 22 units
per acre are a permitted use. Projects between 22 and 33 dwelling units per acre require a Use
Permit. The applicant is proposing two dwelling-units on a 3,500 square foot site, or a density
of 24.89 units per acre. Hence} the project will require a Use Permit for the proposed density.
Two commissioners own property within 500 feet of the project site and are required to recuse
themselves from this project review. According to the Planning Commission Rules of
Procedure, Use Permits require a minimum of four commissions to form a quorum
1
and
therefore, the Planning Commission may not be able to act on the Use Permit.
Nonetheless} the three unrecused Commissioners can review and act on the Design Review (DR
13-15) and Coastal Development Permit. The Use Permit could subsequently be referred to the
City Council. Staff has consulted with the City Attorney on this matter and determined that this
would be an acceptable course of action to avoid having the City Council go through a
potentially lengthy design review process, which is typically the role of the Planning
Commission.
4
148
DR 13-15 (Old Mill Properties)
October 9, 2013
Staff Report
PageS
Design: CMC 17.14.010 states that the basic standard of review in the Commercial Districts is
whether "the project constitutes an improvement over existing conditions - not whether the
project just meets minimum standards." In addition to this standard, the Commission should
ensure that the project is consistent with zoning requirements and the Commercial Design
Guidelines.
Zoning:
Floor Area and Site Coverage: At 2,800 square feet in size, the proposed structure is at the
maximum-allowed floor area. CMC 17.14.14 defines commercial floor area as "the total
combined area included within surrounding exterior walls of all floor levels." Staff notes that
the front carport is unenclosed on the front and sides, and therefore is not be included in the
floor-area calculations. The Planning Commission has previously made a similar determination
for the project site directly to the north, which is currently under construction. The neighboring
project to the north also contains an unenclosed carport that was not included in the floor area
calculations per the determination of the Planning Commission.
Staff notes that while the carport is not included in the floor area calculations, it would be
calculated as building coverage. With regards to building coverage, the proposed buildings and
carport would cover 52% of the lot, which is 18% below the allowed building coverage of 70%
for a 3,500-square foot lot.
Apartment Size: On October 2, 2012, the City Council adopted an amendment to CMC Section
17.14.040 requiring that '1or two (2) unit residential developments, the floor area of the smaller
unit shall be at least 40% of the size of the larger unit." The proposed development complies
with this requirement. The smaller unit is 1,035 square feet in size, which is 58% of the larger
1,765-square foot unit.
Height: The proposed building would have a height of 26 feet, which is the maximum allowed
in the RC Zoning District. The property currently slopes down from the street, in an east-to-
west direction. The grade below the carport would be maintained at is existing elevation.
However, the north side of the property and the rear of the property would be excavated to a
depth of 4 feet. The finished-floor level of the first-story apartment at the rear of the property
would be stepped down from the finished floor of the carport to meet the 26-foot height
requirement. A condition has been drafted that a grading plan be submitted with the drawings
for final review.
5
149
DR 13-15 (Old Mill Properties)
October 9, 2013
Staff Report
Page6
Setbacks: The proposed design complies with the minimum setback requirements. The
structure would be located 15 feet from the front property line, which is 10 feet more than the
minimum requirement of 5 feet. The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing 5-foot
rear-yard setback. Staff notes that the minimum required rear-yard setback is 0 feet .
With regard to the side-yard setback, the structure must have a setback distance of 5 feet for at
least 50% of the property length. The proposed design meets this requirement. The subject
property is 100 feet long. Along the north property Hne, 29 feet of the structure would have a
0- foot setback, while the remainder of the building would be at 5 feet. Along the south
property line, 45 feet of the structure would have a 0-foot setback, while the remainder of the
building would be at 5 feet.
At the Planning Commission hearing on August 14, 2013, the property owner of the building
directly to the south questioned whether the stairs that provide access to the upstairs
apartment should be permitted to encroach into the side-yard setback. The Zoning Code does
not specify whether the required setback should be measured from the building or from other
structures such as stairs.
CMC 17.52.060 states that one of the duties of the Planning Commission is "to interpret the
meaning and intent of the City's land use code". In staff's opinion the setback should be
measured from the building, not the stairs. This determination could be made based on the
floor area standards in the RC Zoning District, which allow the floor area of the building to be
equal to 80% of the lot size. It would be difficult to build a structure to this floor area allowance
on a 40 foot wide lot without having stairs or walkways located in the side-yard setback. Staff
also notes that in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District stairs that provide access to
the first-story are permitted in the side-yard setback (CMC 17.10.030). The Planning
Commission should discuss this setback issue.
Parking: Pursuant to CMC 17.38.020.C, the proposed structure Includes a carport that would
contain three off-street parking spaces, as required for two dwelling units. Two of the spaces
are in a tandem configuration. The carport's dimensions are 30 feet long by 21 feet wide
(interior clearance), while a tandem configuration would require a carport length of 38 feet.
The City's Municipal Code does not explicitly address tandem parking, but it does call for
flexibility in meeting parking requirements for constrained lots. There is also a provision for
6
150
DR 13-15 (Old Mill Properties)
October 9, 2013
Staff Report
Page 7
payment of in-lieu fees for parking that does not meet Zoning Code requirements. The
Planning Com mission should discuss the appropriateness of tandem parking at this location, the
adequacy of the proposed carport for tandem parking, and whether a revised design is needed.
Staff also notes that the driveway width is being modified slightly from the existing
configuration. The Planning Commission should also discuss any impacts to existing on-street
parking on the west side of Mission Street presented by the proposed changes in driveway
width.
Commercial Design Guidelines: The staff report prepared for the August 14, 2013 Planning
Commission hearing provides an analysis of how the project complies with the Commercial
Design Guideline standards. The August 14, 2013 staff report is included as Attachment C.
The original staff report recommended that the applicant work with staff to explore
opportunities for additional landscaping at the front of the property. There are limited
opportunities at the front of the property for landscaping. The majority of the front-yard would
be occupied by the driveway and walkways. However, there is a two-foot wide area between
the driveway and walkways on the north and south sides of the property that could be
landscaped. A condition has been drafted that the applicant make this revision to the final
drawings submitted for review by the Planning Commission.
Windows Design Issues: The proposed project has large windows on the second-level of the
front portion of the building. Windows are a salient part of the design of the front (eastern)
elevation, which may present issues for compatibility with surrounding buildings. The windows
on the south elevation look out onto a wall, while the windows on the north elevation look out
onto the neighboring building to the south, and could present potential privacy issues. The
Planning Commission should review the window design during the Tour of Inspection.
Metal Roof: The applicant is proposing a standing-seam copper metal roof. A sample will be
provided for the Planning Commission to review at the October 9, 2013 meeting. Unlike the
Residential Design Guidelines, the Commercial Design Guidelines do not specifically
recommend against metal roofs. However, Commercial Guideline Section Estate that "building
materials and colors should respect traditions already established in the commercial district.
The use of richly detailed wood, tile, molding, corbels, brick and stone are encouraged."
Metal roofs are not widely used in the Commercial Zoning District and could present
compatibility issues with the surrounding buildings. The Planning Commission should consider
7
151
DR 13-15 (Old Mill Properties)
October 9, 2013
Staff Report
Page 8
whether the roof is architecturally appropriate for the building and neighborhood and evaluate
potential Impacts that could be created by glare.
Environmental Review: The proposed project is categorically exempt f rom CEQA requirements,
pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3) - Construction or re-modification of a limited number of
new or existing small structures.
ATIACHMENTS:
Attachment A- Project Plans
Attachment B- Finish Material Photographs
Attachment C- Site Photographs
Attachment D- Findings for Concept Acceptance
Attachment E- Recommendations/Draft Conditions
Attachment F- PC Staff Report and minutes dated August 14, 2.013
8
1
5
2
I
I
.,
I
I
I


I
0
e
2

il
.I
I
- - ----- --
[IVIACKEV
D u
p
' - ------ ---- - - - -
-
IVIission 4SVV o-r 7th
C:armel, C:ali"fornia
-
I O'I'JNETlSHIP NOTES PROJI;GT OA 1 A
---,-

""'""'
CIU'fla&......,...u.c;.,_
.. ... ,_---.... Oil>4."4..1"t
""'.,...,
...-. .......
.....
... -
....... .._..,__....,. ___ ....... .... ,.

"""""""

a. .. _.....,.,.._,__,...,..f'(\!111
., ...... ......
..... __
& ___ _,........_._"',..,. ""' .. _ ....-w,Joe"
,..........,.,.,___ __
"""""'
-.-... ..


..,,.,.,.,.....,_,..,...NHCI..N4 ...... '!PJHZ[ QIII!W!pt.


--

-
00
""'"'
#--
------W.I,.__.MI"'IIl...,_...
....... ____ ,_,
,_ ,
-
...
-

---
,.,.
PROPOSED FLOOR AAEA RAllO
-f'LOOI< 1,'765 &JII.


-
-
Tori<. UCQOJ',
-
PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE
- .
......,_ I'OCm'MIT I.D61 SF
.,._,...,.
-e6 S1" .
- --
WTAL I,'M'( S P.
. '""
PROPOSED SrTC COVERAGE

loB
-
Kotii.J(.Ii.N'CAI

r-- ----
"""""""""
2.4 51".
... 406eJ-.
="'-
.... 5/', 2'1Jf0
- -- -----
-
No,
- --- -
L EX
i
I
------- ---
i
i
SHEET INDEX

- --
'""'
--
-
__ ......
.,.1'\M!
-
._,._ ......
....0.2 ...... f'UIQ!lf'LHI4
/1.<0.
....,
...... ......... T'OI
REVISION
.-...a
A-6.1 ,_, LWA'ftiM
........ ldml
.-...... ._......., ......,..
DEC 2 7 2013
.... , _.....,......_.
Clly of Connel-by-ln.Soa
a:
l'lolrilg & Bulldlng Oopt
c(
a:
w
...J
...J

I
xl!



jid;
->llz


iii
j
I
... l2/:a'IS
"""
v .. t\-0"
-
""' ...._
-
A-0.1
....
"
1
5
3

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.

y

4
.

-
.
g
.
,
.
,
,
_
.

.

.
.

"
!
)
t
-
4
1

'
8
W
3
a
N
I
O
N
V

J
:
.
:
:
J
S
a
N
v
7

*
l
.V
M
'
1
"
"
.1
.1
S

Y
t
N
.
.

t

!
!
D
V
d
.
L
V

.
S
N
N
.
O
.
L
O
N
V

S
!
!
L
l
.
I
O
.
.

d
O

l

"
l
o
A

0
6

x
:
x
n
a

l'o
ll

t

I

.
L
O
"
l

d
O

.
A
-
n
r
.
I
H
.
L
n
O
S
l
i
H
.
L

d
V
W

:
:
>
I
H
c
i
V
l
i
D
O
d
O
.
L

!

,
-

i
j

.
.

i

!

"

K

f

'

1
5
4

-
-
-
-
-
'

-
-
-
-
_
J

I

I

'

i

t

.

a

Q

z

I
I

:
:

I

c

s

r

.
.

"

h

:
E

0

.
.
J
o

o
!

!
t

.

h

.
r
)

s
e

1
5
5
gi l
"""""' , ...
........
---
I ......
i _,_._ ...... _. ... .:.. --t- -- ....... ......
il I 1m g I I 'ld'--- ..... . ---{ -- --.
-
j / / . / ' / '/
'
i - r/
-,----j:=;=;,==
;
l / u
' "" " . ;;,; l
l f' r"ll
' ; '. -- fil 'l
: i / . .. . ' . t= i!
SW '\ S!{:l<' / . ... e . n, ::C d
' .,.,,., ' . -.- ' 0 :
' ' .I / . . - '-'- a: ;;;
.. !. . .+ : "" d
: l . -- . !, . i i _, . "' .
. ' ' ; . '_ i <L} ' ;:
... .. .. (.) n
-#- , . ... , I _. . . . . :> '
I ffi
LOT 12 I
- LOT 13 I
i I nlll=u !
!
i ...... , l ...
; - . - - -- - -- ----.IJ.
' -

.!l

z
<1: "Sf .;
i ------ ---- ..... ______ ----
I -
. . - --
EB
(
I
PLA!i--i : ' =-
.,..,..,.,. 1 SCite ....
!*** ! a !.,.
2 ......



.....

-
ft.ol
A-2.0
1
5
6

I
I

B
B

"
8
N
I

'
S
1
8
3
l
i
H
8
t
i
V

}
-
-
-
L

_
_

I

I

J

l

l

I

J
.
.
.
.
_
_
_
_
_
_

l

.
.
.
.
..

<

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

'
j
.
_

_
_

'

_

_
:
:
..
.

+
-
-
=
-
-
-
-
-
i

L
.
.

T

1

I

I

i

i

d

I

I

.
I

:
I

z

r
:

j

A
.

a
:

0

0

.
.
.
.

1
&
.
9

9
1

a
,

1
1
1
:
.
!
:

.
.
.

%
f
f
i

I

I

j

I

I

!

I

-
-
n

'

J

.
.
.
,

r
l

_
,

r

f
l

.,
........ ,

.
.
.
.
.

_
.
.
,
_

.
.
_
,_

"
'

-
-

-
-
-
#

.
.

"
'

-
.. _
.

.
.
.

to

.
.
.
.
.
.

_
.
.

...:

,
.
.
,

_
_
_

.
.
....... _
.
.
.
....
.
.

1
5
7
I

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
.
,
_
.

i
-
.

.
.
.

.
'1

1
:
.
.
.
.
....
I

I

f

}

-
-
;
o
;
;
;
i
i
"

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
t

t
l
I

l

I

I

f
1

1

I

I

I

:0
.'
.
.

.
.
.
.


:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

:
.
.

.

.
,
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

,
.
;

....
.
,
.....
.
..
.
.
..
_

.
.
.

,
.
-
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

_
.
.
,
,

.
,
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

1
5
8

O
S
0
0
6

V
O

,
.
,
.
,
.

O
!
M
l
D

l
!
H

B
o

O
l
l
:
l
3

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

I

:

l

l

I

I

.
L

I

I

I

I

I

I

'

'

I

'

'

'

'

'

'

I

'

'

'

'

I

'

'

'

l
L
=
=
=
-
=
=
=
1

-
.
.
.
.

.
-
-
-
=
-
;
-
;
:
:
.
-
=
-
=
.

-
-

-
-
.
.

-
-
-
-

.....
-
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

-
-
-
_

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
....
.
.
.
-
-

_
,
_
,
.
,
.
.
_
_
,

-

.
.

-
-
-
-

-
-

.

1
5
9

-
-
.
-
s
a
l
l
c
:t}
X
"
ff:

o
l
t
O
i
:
U
t
l
w
t
i
H
O
i
4
d

&
C
&

'
i
i
O
I
.
,
.
.
.

.
!
9
1

B
o

a
N
I

s
l
0
3
1
1
H
O
l
:
f
v
'

0
1
1
:
:
1
3

!

!
!

t
;
1

I

I
I

I

i

I

0

i
l

I

B

-
r
t

I

I

.
o
-
,1
1

I

z

0

e

.
.
.

I
l
l

-.
.

z

0
.

a
:
v

-
.

.

.
.

.

w

i
f

!

I

1
6
0

6

D
O

D
O

:.1
H
'f'J
.
Y
5
.
.
W

O
S
'6
E
:
6

Y
O

'3
1
\
0
\
J
!
>

O
I
:
J
l
O
V
d

D
O
L
.
.
,
.

C
J
N
V
l:
t

)

L
9
L

"
:
:
l
N
I

1
S
l
:
:
l
3
l
i
H
:
:
l
l
:
l
\
f

:
)
1
1
:
:
1
3

l

f

'

'

:

I

I

J
,
.
.

!
I

I

I

I
'
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

'

I

;

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

i

.
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.

r

!

j

_

_
_
_
_
_
!
!
!
_

"
"
'
"

.
.

_
_
_
4

I

.
o
-
-
.
o
1

;
'
t

r

I

,
.
o
o
-
t
:
'
I
'
J
-
o
l
o

'
N
'
.
J
V

"
"
"
"
"

N
O
I
.
L

N
l
1
i
l

1
-
t
i
l
i
O
H

i

i

!

.
.

M
i

i
'
!

!

<
1
:

1
6
1
l

1

-
0
-
o
O
I

I

I
.

.

I

r

f
!
;

?
O
<
:
>
-
I
:
t
l
-
0
1
0

N
'
"
'
'
"
'

1
6
2

0
1
4
N
J
S
(
I
t
a
,I
'
K
'
I
,J

,
,
,
.
.
,
.

8
8

'
O
N
I

1
S
l
0
3
1
1
H
O
'
I
:
I
V

O
l
l
:
:
l
3

i
I

I

I
\

'

I

I

\

i

\

I

I

i

'
N
'.
I
'
o
'

_
.
,
.

1
6
3
...
.
.
.
.

..

.
.

r
:
t
O

'
f
'
1
1

I
l
l

I
l
l

a

I
l
l

I
l
l

-
t

I
I

,
.
.

e

6

z

)
>

l

1
2

D
v
o
l
e
x

1
.
.

i

M

6
1
o
1
"
1
5
V

t

4
5
f
o
i

o
t

1
\J
'o
l
'

e
o
-
-
r
n
.
l,

G
.o
\

0
1

A
.
P
.
N
.

O
I
O
-
I
4
2
-
o
0
4

I

H
a
l
f
-
S
i
z
e

o
n

1
2
x
1
8

.
.

...
...-
.
.
.
.
.

,
.
,
.
_
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
_
.
_
_

-
"
'
-
"
-
-

t
;
>
'
(

M
C
H
!
l
!
C
T

E
R
I
C

M
I
L
L
E
R

A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
.

I
N
C
.

8
8

1
5
7

G
R
A
N
O

-
1
1
0

P
A
C
I
F
l
C
G
A
D
V
E
.

C
A

1
1
3
8
5
0

N
.
X
t
l
l
'
t
)
a
n
-
J
M
l
l

-
-
-
-
I
l
l

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

-
.
.
.
,
.
.
.

C
O
M
S
U
l'f
N
o
iT
:

i

f

1
6
4
8
' f
i j
@ WALKWAY PAVERS

0 DRAIN COVER
eG""-L.I!o N.T.5.
@ TRENCH ORATES
SC:.Al.Zo H.T ....
TaMA.
.,

G) EXTERIOR WALL LIGHT
eG-AL.eo N.T.!5>.
/ .. .,

0 SITE WALL LIGHT
sc.ALI!o N.T
@ GARDEN LIGHT
&G.ALer H: T'.$.
G) METAL RAIL & GUARDRAIL
6GAU: , H.T

-

WOOD WINDOW
9C"'-L..eo
0 EXTERIOR WALL SIDING
SC.AI..ao N.T.S.

--
I:L =
":'::.
--:'"':.
CD COPPER ROOFING
!GALe, N.T
@STONEWALL
:.GALe H.T.'S.
!l
)
STUCCO WALL

_, ....

i


"''
!i '

a: i
w u
ii
(.)
- $.
i ffi

xf!


\) fh
;/,
-
! I
l:
I2IZW>
JCIUI K.T.S.
""
A-4.1