Planning Commission Meeting Agenda September 13, 2017

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING AGENDA Regular Meeting September 13, 2017 City Hall Wednesday East Side of Monte Verde Street Tour: 2:45 p.m. Between Ocean & Seventh Avenues Meeting: 4:00 p.m. A. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Commissioners: Don Goodhue, Chair Michael LePage, Vice Chair Julie Wendt Gail Lehman Stephanie Locke B. TOUR OF INSPECTION Shortly after 2:45 p.m., the Commission will leave the Council Chambers for an on-site Tour of Inspection of all properties listed on this agenda (including those on the Consent Agenda). The Tour may also include projects previously approved by the City and not on this agenda. Prior to the beginning of the Tour of Inspection, the Commission may eliminate one or more on-site visits. The public is welcome to follow the Commission on its tour of the determined sites. The Commission will return to the Council Chambers at 4:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. C. ROLL CALL D. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE E. ANNOUNCEMENTS/EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS F. APPEARANCES Anyone wishing to address the Commission on matters not on the agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the Commission, may do so now. Please state the matter on which you wish to speak. Matters not appearing on the Commission agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three minutes, or as otherwise established by the Commission Chair. Persons are not required to give their name or address, but it is helpful for speakers to state their name in order that the Secretary may identify them.

1

Planning Commission Meeting Agenda September 13, 2017

G. CONSENT AGENDA

Items placed on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine and are acted upon by the Commission in one motion. There is no discussion of these items prior to the Commission action unless a member of the Commission, staff, or public requests specific items be discussed and removed from the Consent Agenda. It is understood that the staff recommends approval of all consent items. Each item on the Consent Agenda approved by the Commission shall be deemed to have been considered in full and adopted as recommended.

1. Draft minutes from the August 23, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting (p. 5) 2. DS 17-088 (Harinarayan/Neelakantan) Aengus Jeffers, Applicant Attorney Scenic Road, 9 SW Ocean Ave Block: C2; Lots: 6 and portion of 7 APN: 010-312-010

Consideration of a construction management plan in association with the approval of Design Study (DS 17-088) for the demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new 3,450-square foot residence. (p. 12)

H. PUBLIC HEARINGS

If you challenge the nature of the proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.

1. UP 17-264 (Albatross Ridge) Garrett Bowlus, Business Owner/Manager Dolores 1 NE of Ocean Block: 71; Lots: 8 & 9 APN: 010-134-009

Consideration of Use Permit (UP 17-264) application to relocate an existing wine tasting room (Albatross Ridge) to a space in the Central Commercial (CC) Zoning District. (p. 17)

2. DR 16-477 (Fink/Goodhue) David Fink, Applicant Dolores Street, 4 NW of 7th Block: 75; Lot: 13 APN: 010-147-003

Consideration of Design Review (DR 16-477), Coastal Development Permit, Condominium Subdivision and Parking In-lieu Fee Use Permit applications for the construction of a second-story condominium above an existing one-story building located in the Central Commercial (CC) and Downtown Conservation (DC) Overlay Zoning Districts. (p. 39)

2

Planning Commission Meeting Agenda September 13, 2017

3. DS 17-292 (Bartron) Reed and Christine Bartron, Owners Lobos Street, 3 NE of 2nd Avenue Block: 19; Lot: 16 APN: 010-011-012

Consideration of Design Study (DS 17-292) for the replacement of a wood-shake roof with composition shingles on a residence located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. (p. 67)

4. DS 17-309 (Woo) William Woo, Owner Junipero, 3 NE of 11th Avenue Block: 119; Lots: 16 & N. half of 18 APN: 010-072-037

Consideration of Design Study (DS 17-309) for the replacement of a wood-shake roof with composition shingles on a residence located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. (p. 76)

5. DS 17-303 (Edwards) Kimberly Edwards, Owner SW Corner of Vista Ave. and Junipero St. Block: 8; Lot: 1 APN: 010-112-001-000

Consideration of Design Study (DS 17-303) for the replacement of a wood-shake roof with composition shingles on a residence located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District. (p. 88)

6. DS 17-266 (Lampi) John Mandurrago, Designer 3rd Ave., 2 SW of Dolores St. Block: 33; Lots: W half of 1 & 3 APN: 010-129-002

Consideration of a Design Study Permit (DS 17-266) application for the construction of a detached garage located in the front and side-yard setbacks at a residence located in the Single Family (R-1) Zoning District. (p. 94)

7. SD 17-252 (Old Mill Properties, LLC) Don Mackey, Owner San Carlos Street, 3 SE of 7th Avenue Block: 90; Lot: 10 APN: 010-142-011

Consideration of a Subdivision (SD 17-252) and associated Coastal Development Permit to create two condominium units in an existing 2-unit multi-family building located in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) Zoning District. (p. 114)

8. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Story-Pole Policy City Wide

Consideration of a Story-Pole Policy for new construction. (p. 144)

9. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City-wide

Discussion on the Planning Commission’s policy for reviewing re-roofing applications. (Oral staff report to be provided)

I. DIRECTOR’S REPORT

1. Update on Planning Activities

J. BOARD MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS

3

Planning Commission Meeting Agenda September 13, 2017

K. ADJOURNMENT

The next meeting of the Planning Commission will be: Wednesday, October 11, 2017

The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. Carmel-by-the-Sea City Hall is an accessible facility. The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea telecommunications device for the Deaf/Speech Impaired (T.D.D.) Number is 1-800-735-2929. The City Council Chambers is equipped with a portable microphone for anyone unable to come to the podium. Assisted listening devices are available upon request of the Administrative Coordinator. If you need assistance, please advise the Planning Commission Secretary what item you would like to comment on and the microphone will be brought to you.

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Planning & Building Department located in City Hall, east side of Monte Verde between Ocean & 7th Avenues, during normal business hours.

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING

I, Marc Wiener, Community Planning and Building Director, for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing notice was posted at the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Hall bulletin board, posted at the Harrison Memorial Library on Ocean and Lincoln Avenues and the Carmel Post Office. Dated this 7th day of September, 2017 at the hour of 4:00 p.m. ____________________________________ Marc Wiener, AICP Community Planning and Building Director

4

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING – MINUTES

August 23, 2017

A. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL FOR TOUR OF INSPECTION

PRESENT: Commissioners: Wendt, Lehman, Locke, LePage and Goodhue ABSENT: N/A STAFF PRESENT: Marc Wiener, Community Planning & Building Director Marine Waffle, Senior Planner

Matthew Sundt, Contract Planner Cortina Whitmore, Planning Commission Secretary

B. TOUR OF INSPECTION

The Commission convened at 3:09 p.m. and then toured the following sites: • DS 17-104 (Finnegan), Carmelo St., 5 SW of 11th Ave., Blk: X ; Lot: 9 • UP 17-264 (Albatross Ridge), Dolores 1 NE of Ocean Ave.(Paradise Building);

Blk: 71, Lot: 8 & 9 • UP 17-242 (Olivier-by-the-Sea), Ocean Ave., 4 NW of San Carlos St.; Blk: 71; Lot: 5

C. ROLL CALL

Chairman Goodhue called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m.

D. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Members of the audience joined Commission Members in the Pledge of Allegiance. E. ANNOUCNCEMENTS/EXTRAORDINARY BUSINESS

N/A

F. APPEARANCES N/A

G. CONSENT AGENDA

Items placed on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine and are acted upon by the Commission in one motion. There is no discussion of these items prior to the Commission action unless a member of the Commission, staff, or public requests specific items be discussed and removed from the Consent Agenda. It is understood that the staff recommends approval of all consent items. Each item on the Consent Agenda approved by the Commission shall be deemed to have been considered in full and adopted as recommended.

5

1. Draft minutes from the June 14, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting.

Commissioner Locke recused for Consent Item #1.

Commissioner LePage motioned to approve the minutes from the June 14, 2017 meeting with corrections. Chair Goodhue called for votes. Motion passed with the following vote: 4-0-0-1.

AYES: COMMISSIONERS: LEHMAN, WENDT, LEPAGE & GOODHUE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: LOCKE 2. Draft minutes from the July 12, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting

Commissioner LePage motioned to approve the minutes from the July 12, 2017 meeting with corrections. Chair Goodhue called for votes. Motion passed with the following vote: 5-0-0-0. AYES COMMISSIONERS: LEHMAN, WENDT, LEPAGE, LOCKE & GOODHUE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE

H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. DS 17-104 (Finnegan) Jeff Crocket, Agent Carmel St. 5 SW of 11th Ave. Block: X; Lot: 9 APN: 010-279-004

Consideration of combined Concept and Final Design Study ( DS 17-104) and associated Coastal Development Permit for the remodel of an existing single-family residence to include adding 170 square feet to the main floor, adding a 182 square-foot lower floor, a 15 square-foot addition to the existing garage. The project site is located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zoning District.(p.22)

Matthew Sundt, Contract Planner presented staff report. Mr. Sundt noted staff recommends approval and answered Commission questions. Speaker #1: Jeff Crocket, Designer summarized design changes to mitigate neighbor concerns and answered questions from the Commission.

Chair Goodhue opened the public hearing.

6

Speaker #2: Mr. Finnegan, Property Owner expressed his efforts to work with neighbors and voiced his support of a shake roof. Speaker#3: Tony Valance, neighbor to the north voiced concern with the proposed terrace and suggested a taller privacy wall. Speaker #4: Barbara Livingston voiced support of a wood shake roof, a four foot high railing and recommended landscaping by both neighbors to increase privacy. Speaker #5: Dixie Dixon, neighbor to the east thanked the Finnegans and Mr. Crocket for the compromises and voiced support. Speaker #1: Mr. Crocket clarified landscape plan. Speaker #2: Mr. Finnegan voiced his preference for a four foot railing. Chair Goodhue closed the public hearing. The Commission held brief discussion. Commissioner Lehman and LePage noted the property’s non-conformity and voiced support. Commissioner Wendt expressed desire for a wood shake roof. Commissioners Locke and Goodhue agreed with their fellow commissioners. Commissioner LePage moved to accept DS 17-104 (Finnegan) as presented with special conditions and the added condition the owner will install a wood shake or wood shingle roof. Commissioner Wendt seconded the motion and carried the following vote: 5-0-0-0.

AYES: COMMISSIONERS: LEHMAN, LEPAGE, LOCKE, WENDT & GOODHUE

NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE

2. UP 17-242 (Olivier-by-the-Sea) Erich Klein, Business Owner Ocean Ave. 4 NE of San Carlos St. Blk: 71; Lot: 5 APN: 010-134-005

Consideration of Use permit (UP 17-242) for a specialty food and retail store specializing in the sale of dipping oils and other gourmet products located in the Central Commercial (CC) District. (p.46)

Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner presented staff report and noted staff recommends approval. Speaker #1: Applicant/Business Owner, Erich Klein described the unique visitor experience Olivier-by-the-Sea will provide.

7

Chair Goodhue opened the public hearing. Speaker #2: Barbara Livingston welcomed Marnie Waffle to Carmel. Ms. Livingston inquired about the wine bottles placed in gift baskets and cautioned against wine tasting. Chair Goodhue closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lehman and Mr. Wiener clarified wine bottles are included in sealed gift baskets and are not authorized for wine tasting. Mr. Wiener noted the Applicant is not authorized to conduct wine tasting under (UP 17-242) will need to obtain an ABC License. The Commission held brief discussion in support and commended the Owner on a high quality operation. Commissioner LePage made note the owner will need to obtain an ABC License and welcomed the Applicant to Carmel. The Commission spoke favorable about the business. Commissioner Lehman motioned to accept UP 17-242 (Olivier-by-the-Sea) subject to staff findings and conditions with added condition to obtain an ABC License for the sale of alcohol. Motion seconded by Commissioner Locke and carried the following vote: 5-0-0-0. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: LEPAGE, WENDT, LOCKE, LEHMAN &

GOODHUE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE

ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE

3. UP 17-264 (Albatross Ridge) Garrett Bowlus, Business Owner Dolores 1 NE of Ocean Ave. Block: 71; Lots: 8 & 9 APN: 010-134-009

Consideration of Use Permit (UP 17-264) application to relocate an existing wine tasting room (Albatross Ridge) to a space in the Central Commercial (CC) Zoning District. (p.60)

Marc Wiener, Planning Director presented the staff report and summarized Use Permit history. Speaker #1: Garrett Bowlus, Business Owner summarized business operation and intent to apply for new Type 2 License. Speaker #2: Mr. Bowlus Sr. further summarized proposed business operation and informed the Commission Albatross Ridge Wine is produced in Salinas, California. Chair Goodhue opened the public hearing.

8

Speaker #3: Barbara Livingston noted the Applicants should obtain a Type 2 License prior to opening in the new location and questioned the number of proposed seats and the appearance of a wine bar. Chair Goodhue closed the public hearing.

Chair Goodhue asked for clarification from Mr. Wiener in regards to the Type 2 License. Mr. Wiener informed the Commission although inconsistent with current policy it is legal for Albatross Ridge to move and open while the application for a Type 2 License is pending. Speaker #2: Mr. Bowlus Sr. informed the Commission Albatross Ridge has begun the Type 2 application process. The Commission held discussion. Commissioner Wendt noted the Applicant needs to have appropriate license prior to opening in the new location and reduce the number of seats to avoid a bar-like appearance. Commissioner Lehman expressed the same concerns as Commissioner Wendt. Commissioner LePage spoke in favor of a wine tasting room located north of Ocean Ave. and suggested a reduction to the proposed number of proposed seats. Commissioner LePage expressed support of the Applicant obtaining a Type 2 License within nine months or face possible revocation of the Use Permit for noncompliance. Commissioner Locke agreed with Commissioner LePage and made note of the high number of proposed seats and recommended a reduction. Commissioner Locke voiced support of the Use Permit. Commissioner Lehman requested that the number of allowable seats be determined and calculated to 30% of floor area of retail space. Commissioner Goodhue made note that Albatross Ridge is already in operation and voiced support for the application.

Commissioner Lehman moved to continue Item #3, UP 17-264 (Albatross Ridge) until the September 13, 2017 Planning Commission meeting to allow the Applicant time to work with staff to reduce the number of allowable seats to 30% of floor area per City policy and provide proof of the Type 2 License submittal. Motion seconded by Commissioner Wendt and carried the following roll call vote: 4-1-0-0. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: WENDT, LEPAGE, LEHMAN & GOODHUE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: LOCKE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE

ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE

4. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Story-Pole Policy City Wide

Consideration of a Story-Pole Policy for new construction. (p.76)

Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner provided history of Story-Pole Policy and requested that the Commission assist staff in the creation of a formal written policy for story-poles. Ms. Waffle asked the Commission to consider the following:

9

• Should the draft Story-Pole policy require that the height of the poles be certified

by a surveyor? • Should story poles be required for staff-approved projects? • Should the draft Story-Pole policy include the installation of story poles and

netting for deck, balconies and chimneys? • Should story poles be required to be reinstalled as part of a request to renew a

previous approval? Chair Goodhue opened the public hearing. Speaker #1: Barbara Livingston stressed the importance of creating standards for the Story-Pole policy. Chair Goodhue closed the public hearing. The Commission held discussion and provided the following recommendations to bring forth to the City Council:

• Continue to require as a condition of approval, that the structure height be certified during construction at rough frame inspection.

• Require staking and flagging of balconies when they extend beyond an existing building footprint.

• Netting used shall be bright yellow or orange. • Require staking and flagging for Track One Design Study. Director to determine

whether height should be surveyed/certified. • The height of story poles should be certified by a surveyor for all Tract Two

Design Studies and for Track One Design Studies at the Director’s discretion. • Story poles and netting should be installed for decks, balconies and chimneys. • Story poles should be reinstalled if a permit lapses and a request to renew the

approval is submitted.

I. DIRECTOR’S REPORT

1. Update on Planning Activities Mr. Wiener informed the Commission of the following:

• Marc Wiener informed the Commission of the City’s new Building Official, Dick Bower and Public Works Director, Bob Harary.

• Mr. Wiener informed the Commission of recent City Council activity. J. BOARD MEMBER ANNOUCEMENT

N/A

K. ADJOURNMENT

10

There being no further business, Chair Goodhue adjourned the meeting at 6:05 p.m.

The next meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled:

Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. – Regular Meeting

SIGNED:

_____________________________________ Donald Goodhue, Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: _________________________________________ Cortina Whitmore, Planning Commission Secretary

11

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Planning Commission Report

September 13, 2017

To: Chair Goodhue and Planning Commissioners

From: Marc Wiener, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director

Submitted by: Matthew Sundt, Contract Planner

Subject: Consideration of a construction management plan in association with the approval of Design Study (DS 17-088) for the demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new 3,450-square foot residence.

Application: DS 17-088 APN: 010-312-010 Block: C2 Lots: lot 6 and portion of lot 7 Location: Scenic Road, 9 SW of Ocean Avenue Applicant: Aengus L. Jeffers, Agent Property Owner: Venky Harinarayan and Sudha Neelakantan Executive Summary The Planning Commission requested that the applicant submit a construction management plan to address potential impacts on vehicle and pedestrian circulation on Scenic Road. Recommendation Approve the construction management plan. Background and Project Description On June 14, 2017, the Planning Commission approved Design Study (DS 17-088) for the demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new residence. During public testimony a resident expressed concern with the potential impact that the project would have on the portion of Scenic Road at the front of the project site, which is fairly narrow and frequently contains a high volume of vehicle and pedestrian traffic. The Planning Commission conditioned the project with a requirement that the applicant submit a construction management plan to be reviewed prior to the issuance of the building permit.

12

DS 17-088 (Harinarayan - Neelakantan) Staff Report September 13, 2017 Page 2

Staff analysis The applicant has submitted a construction management plan (Attachment A) in accordance with the condition of approval. The construction management plan includes the following elements:

• A provision that the general contractor will provide a van for carpool of the ten daily workers to the site and that all subcontractors will be encouraged to carpool.

• Note that hours of construction are from Monday - Friday only, from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. • Depiction of where material storage will occur and that large truck parking and material

delivery will occur in the driveway. • A note that there will be a construction coordinator whose name and contact information

will be posted on the site during construction and easily visible from the public space. • Depiction of three parking spaces in the City right-of-way that can accommodate parking for

inspections, consultants and property owners (represented by area “E” as shown in Attachment A). Of important note is that these spaces are available on a first-come first-serve basis and cannot be reserved for exclusive use by the contractor.

In staff’s opinion, the construction management plan adequately addresses the concerns raised at the Planning Commission meeting. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the plan. ATTACHMENTS:

• Attachment A – Construction Management Plan

13

14

15

16

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Planning Commission Report

Sepember 13, 2017

To: Chair Goodhue and Planning Commissioners

From: Marc Wiener, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director

Subject: Consideration of Use Permit (UP 17-264) application to relocate an existing wine tasting room (Albatross Ridge) to a space in the Central Commercial (CC) Zoning District.

Application: UP 17-264 APN: 010-134-009 Block: 71 Lots: 8 & 9 Location: Dolores 1, NE of Ocean Applicants: Garrett Bowlus (Albatross Ridge) Property Owner: Irvine/Laub Executive Summary: The applicant, Garrett Bowlus of Albatross Ridge, is requesting a new use permit to relocate his existing wine tasting room. Recommendation: Approve the Use Permit (UP 17-264) application subject to the attached findings and conditions. Background and Project Description: The applicant, Garrett Bowlus, was issued a use permit (UP 13-9) by the City for a wine tasting room in June 2013. The use permit was issued to space in the Court of the Fountains, located at the northwest corner of Mission and 7th Ave. Mr. Bowlus has applied to relocate his wine tasting room from the current space to a new space located on Dolores Street one space northeast of Ocean Avenue, which requires a new use permit. The proposed tasting room would feature wines exclusively from Bowlus Vineyards, which grows it grapes in Monterey County. The Albatross Ridge tasting room currently operates with a Type 42 (on-sale beer and wine) license from Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC). Background information on Albatross is included in the applicant’s correspondence (Attachment F).

17

UP 17-264 (Albatross Ridge) September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 2 The Planning Commission reviewed this Use Permit application on August 23, 2017, and continued it with a request for changes. Specifically, the Commission required that the seating be reduced and that the applicant provide documentation verifying that they have applied for a Duplicate Type 02 ABC license. Staff analysis: Previous Hearing: The following is an analysis of how the applicant has complied with the recommendations made at the previous hearing. 1. The applicant shall reduce the seating to be in compliance with the City’s Wine Tasting

Policy. Staff Response: The City’s Wine Tasting Police states that: “In order to avoid the appearance of a bar, the wine tasting service and seating area should generally be limited to no more than 30% of the floor area of the retail space. The remaining area should primarily consist of wine-related retail display.” The primary intent of this guideline is to ensure that tasting rooms do not operate appear and operate as bars. The applicant originally proposed 27 seats, but this number has been reduced to 18 seats. The original proposed floor plan is included as an attachment for comparison to the revised floor plan. The seat reduction was accomplished by removing two tables and six seats from the main floor, and removing thee seats from the bar. The applicant has provide calculations showing that the seating and tasting area is less than 30% of the total floor space. In staff’s opinion, the seating reduction is a substantial improvement over the original proposal and is consistent with the City’s policy. However, the Commission could require removal of additional seats and tables if necessary. 2. The applicant shall provide documentation verifying that they have applied for a

Duplicate Type 02 ABC license. Staff Response: The applicant has provided verification that they have applied for a Duplicate Type 02 ABC license (Attachment D) and indicated that the wine would be produced at Joyce Vineyards Winery located in Salinas, CA. In addition, the applicant has provide a signed statement (Attachment E) acknowledging that they understand and intend to comply with the requirement to obtain the Type 02 license. Staff has originally drafted a condition requiring the applicant to obtain the Type 02 license within 9 months. However, some of the Commissioners raised concerns that it would be premature for the applicant to occupy and operate the space prior to obtaining the Type 02 license, because it would violate the City’s Wine Tasting Policy. Concerns were also raised about how the City would enforce the condition if the applicant is not able to obtain the Type 02 license. In order to address these concerns, a condition has

18

UP 17-264 (Albatross Ridge) September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 3 been drafted requiring the applicant to obtain the Type 02 license prior to occupying and operating from the space. The applicant would, however, be allowed to initiate tenant improvements to the space prior to obtaining the Type 02 license. This condition allows the Commission to approve the Use Permit and provides the applicant with an entitlement to use the space as a tasting room once the Type 02 license is obtained. In staff’s opinion, it would protect the City from potentially having to shut down an operating business if the Type 02 license is not obtained. Alternatives: The following alternative actions are presented for Commission consideration:

1. Approve the request with revisions. If the required revisions are substantial, the Commission may wish to continue this item to allow the applicant to respond to Commission direction.

2. Continue the application and postpone the approval until the applicant obtains the Duplicate Type 02 ABC license.

3. Deny the application request. Environmental Review: The application qualifies for a Class 3 Categorical Exemption from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Class 3 exemptions include projects involving limited new construction projects and conversion of small structures. The proposed project does not present any unusual circumstances that would result in a potential significant environmental impact. ATTACHMENTS:

• Attachment A – Findings for Approval • Attachment B – Conditions of Approval • Attachment C – Wine Tasting Policy • Attachment D –Type 02 License verification • Attachment E – Applicant Correspondence • Attachment F – Public Correspondence • Attachment G – Original Plans • Attachment H – Revised Plans

19

Attachment A – Findings for Approval

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING

FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL UP 17-264 Garrett Bowlus (Bowlus Vineyards) Block 71, Lots 8 & 9 APN: 010-134-009 CONSIDERATION: Consideration of Use Permit (UP 17-264) application to relocate an existing wine tasting room (Albatross Ridge) to a space in the Central Commercial (CC) Zoning District. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. On July 21, 2017, the applicant (Albatross Ridge) submitted a Use Permit (UP 17-264)

application to relocate an existing tasting room to a new location in the Central Commercial (CC) Zoning District.

2. Albatross Ridge currently operates under a Type 42 ABC license and is in the process of obtaining a Type 02 ABC license for the relocation.

3. The subject tenant space is located on Dolores Street, 1 space northeast of Ocean Avenue and is 930 square feet in size.

4. Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Section 17.14.030 requires a Use Permit for proposed wine

tasting rooms. Use Permits require approval by the Planning Commission. 5. This Use Permit (UP 17-264) application, as conditioned, is consistent with the City’s Wine

Tasting Policy. 5. The application qualifies for a Class 3 Categorical Exemption from the provisions of the

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Class 3 exemptions include projects involving limited new construction projects and conversion of small structures.

FINDINGS FOR DECISION: 1. The proposed use is not in conflict with the General Plan.

20

UP 17-264 (Albatross Ridge) September 13, 2017 Findings for Approval Page 2 2. The proposed use, as conditioned, will comply with all zoning standards applicable to the

use and zoning district. 3. As conditioned, the granting of 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.

4. As conditioned, 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, street capacity and fire protection.

5. As conditioned, the proposed use will not be injurious to public health, safety or welfare

and provides adequate ingress and egress. 6. 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. 7. The proposed use will not generate adverse impacts affecting health, safety, or welfare of

neighboring properties or uses. 8. With conditions applied, the proposed use would generally be consistent with the adopted

Wine Tasting Policy. OTHER REQUIRED FINDINGS (CMC 17.64.060 – Ancillary Uses): 1. The ancillary use of wine tasting is compatible with the primary use of retail wine sales. 2. The proposed uses will not exhibit a character of multiple, unrelated activities combined

into one business. 3. The store will contribute to the character and diversity of the commercial district.

21

Attachment B – Conditions of Approval

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

UP 17-264 Garrett Bowlus (Albatross Ridge Winery) Block 71, Lots 8 & 9 APN: 010-134-009 AUTHORIZATION: 1. This Use Permit authorizes the retail sale of wine with an ancillary use of wine tasting

based on the following percentages. The approved tasting room is 930 square feet in size and include a restroom. The tasting room is authorized a total of 18 seats, including a bar with 9 seats and 2 tables with 9 seats. The floor layout shall comply with the September 13, 2017 approved plan set.

2. Wine sales and tasting shall be limited to wines produced by Bowlus Vineyards.

3. The business is permitted to operate between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. seven days a week.

4. Routine wine club functions and similar functions are allowed up to 24 per year, with no more than two such functions in any one calendar month. These functions must be wholly contained within the establishment’s building and not spill out into common areas. In addition, up to four larger special events are allowed per year, subject to written authorization from the Community Planning and Building Director, after review of the specifics of the request. Such specific requests shall be provided in writing to the Community Planning and Building Department no less than 30 days prior to the event.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS:

5. Albatross Ridge shall obtain a Duplicate Type 02 ABC license for its tasting room in Carmel

within 9 months from the date of issuance of this Use Permit. The applicant shall first obtain a Duplicate Type 02 ABC license prior to occupying and operating the space. The applicant is authorized to commence with tenant improvements prior to obtaining a Duplicate Type 02 license. The applicant shall provide the City with proof of the Duplicate Type 02 license once obtained.

6. Tasting shall only involve traditional wine based products such as still wines, sparkling wines or Port-type products, no other alcoholic beverages are permitted to be tasted or purchased.

22

UP 17-264 (Albatross Ridge) September 13, 2017 Conditions of Approval Page 2

7. All wines stored, displayed, and offered for sale and tasting shall have been produced by

Bowlus Vineyards in a Type 02 Bonded Winery located in Monterey County with a minimum of 75% of the grapes grown in Monterey County.

8. The maximum serving size shall be 2 ounces per serving. Customers are not permitted to drink bottles of purchased wine in the store and no wine tasting shall take place on public property.

9. This Use Permit shall become void and of no further force or effect if the use is not initiated within six months and/or upon termination or discontinuance of the use for any period of time exceeding six months. Should you require an extension for the Use Permit, a written request must be submitted to the Community Building and Planning Department prior to the permit’s expiration.

10. All exterior alterations and/or signage, and interior renovations that may require a Building Permit, shall require approval from the Community Planning and Building Department prior to performing the work.

11. The use shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the presentations and statements submitted in the application and at the public hearing, and any change in the use which would alter the findings or conditions adopted as part of this permit shall require approval of a new Use Permit by the Planning Commission.

12. Violations of the terms of this Use Permit or other ordinances of the City may constitute grounds for revocation of this Use Permit and the associated business license by the Planning Commission.

13. Upon termination or revocation of this Use Permit and/or business license for any reason, the use shall immediately cease and shall not be re-established without issuance of a new Use Permit.

14. The applicant agrees, at its sole expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold 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 actions by the parties hereto.

23

UP 17-264 (Albatross Ridge) September 13, 2017 Conditions of Approval Page 3 *Acknowledgement and acceptance of conditions of approval. _____________________ _________________ ___________ Applicant Signature Printed Name Date _____________________ _________________ ___________ Property Owner Signature Printed Name Date Once signed, please return to the Community Planning and Building Department.

24

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea Wine Tasting Policy

(3/3/2015) Purpose To establish guidelines for the review and approval of wine tasting facilities in the Central Commercial and Service Commercials Districts in the downtown. Policy The General Plan encourages a balanced mix of uses that serve the needs of both local and non-local populations. The Planning Commission recognizes the demand for establishing wine tasting facilities but also recognizes that their proliferation could impact the balanced mix of uses that the General Plan encourages. Definition A wine tasting room is a stand-alone establishment with a Duplicate Type 02 ABC license, in which the primary purpose to encourage patrons to purchase wine for off-site consumption. Establishments should not operate as a wine bar, where the primary purpose would be for patrons to consume wine on premise other than for the purpose of wine tasting. It is recognized that tasting rooms host occasional promotions and special events to encourage sales and marketing of wine for the education and development of current and potential customers. The following standards are recommended and shall be considered by the Planning Commission in its review of wine tasting permits:

1. Wines originating from Monterey County Vineyards and Wineries and locating their off-site tasting rooms in Carmel are desired and strongly encouraged. The tasting room should have a Duplicate Type 02 ABC license of a primary Type 02 ABC licensed winery located within Monterey County. All wines stored, displayed, and offered for sale and tasting should have been produced in a Type 02 Bonded Winery located in Monterey County with the vast majority (i.e. 75% or more) from grapes grown in Monterey County.

2. No more than three wine tasting Use Permits for new locations shall be issued within any 12-month period. To encourage diversity in the Commercial District, retail wine tasting shops located north of Ocean Avenue are strongly encouraged.

3. A wine tasting room may be permitted a limited number of special events specified through the Use Permit for the purpose of marketing and educating current and potential customers on wine.

4. In order to avoid the appearance of a bar, the wine tasting service and seating area should generally be limited to no more than 30% of the floor area of the retail space. The remaining area should primarily consist of wine-related retail display.

5. In general, the size of the retail and wine tasting area combined (office and storage excluded) should be no larger than 1,000 square feet.

25

6. Tasting should only involve traditional wine based products such as still wines, sparkling wines or Port-type products, no other alcoholic beverages should be permitted to be tasted or purchased.

7. The maximum serving size should be 2 ounces per serving. Customers should not be permitted to drink bottles of purchased wine in the store and no wine tasting should take place on public property.

8. Light snacks such as cheese, crackers, and bread may be served; however, meals are not permitted.

9. In order to encourage diversity and maintain a balanced mix of uses, no more than five establishments offering tasting should be permitted within any standard two-block area as depicted in Figure 1.* For smaller blocks including Blocks 70, 71, 72, and 73; or for other blocks in which these boundaries do not apply, the Planning Commission shall consider proposals on a case by case basis that meet the intent of this density limitation.

10. Night time hours should generally be limited to no later than 9:00 p.m. 11. Wine tasting associated with other uses such as retail food, art galleries, clothing stores,

and the like is discouraged. *For the purposes of this policy a “standard two-block area” would include all commercial spaces on both sides of a street located between the next two cross streets. The cross streets at the end of the blocks are also included up to the mid-point of each block. Figure 1: Example of Standard Two-block Area (max 5 wine tasting establishments)

Dolores Street

7th A

ve

Oce

an A

ve

26

Addendum (8/10/16) Wine Tasting Room Events Routine Events: These are normal business activities that are strictly for the purpose of promoting wines sales. These events generally do not involve a large number of attendees, live music, or any activities outside of the building. Wine tasting rooms are allowed e a maximum of 2 routine events per month and a total of 24 routine events per year. Routine events include activities such as wine club events, library tastings, and pairing functions, such as wine and chocolate, wine and cheese, or pairings with other food products that are not classified as full meals. Special Events: Special events are permitted live music and can be held for general social functions that may or may not be for the purpose of promoting wine sales. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.16.030, the business is allowed a maximum of 4 special events per year, subject to written authorization from the Community Planning and Building Director upon review of each specific request. * A Live Music Use Permit is required for regular live music (CMC 9.16)

27

28

29

30

Hi Marc, Please find a summary to clarify the ABC type 02 license application information and posting below: The ABC allows for you to maintain a Mailing Adrress and Books/Records separate from your physical location. While our Vineyard (Carmel Valley) and Tasting Room (Carmel by the Sea) are located in Monterey County, we have, as allowed by ABC maintained our books and records where our accounting/CPA's are located in Southern California. This will change with the issuance of the type 02 license to the new Dolores street address. We will maintain all books and records at the new physical address. We have produced and bottled our wine at Joyce Winery in Salinas since 2014 and will continue to do so moving forward into the future including our current vintage of 2017. With the application and filing of the type 02 license to the ABC we have posted a signage declaration at Joyce winery located at 1341 Dayton st. unit G, Salinas CA. This posted signage declaration fulfills part of our obligation of our application and permit for a Type 02 ABC license. We have also posted a signage declaration at the new tasting room location on Dolores in downtown Carmel to fulfill the other part of our application and permit. Please find photos of the two posting permit application signs.

-- Garrett Bowlus Winemaker | Albatross Ridge garrett@albatrossridge.com (c) 831.402.8992

www.albatrossridge.com

31

32

33

34

Russell Joyce <russell@joycevineyards.com>

Aug 23

to me

To Whom it may concern, I have known Garrett Bowlus for many years. I have been up to his and his father Brad's Albatross Ridge vineyard on numerous occasions in Carmel Valley, just west of Laureles Grade seven miles from downtown Carmel. I currently produce a single vineyard Pinot Noir from Albatross Ridge vineyard under my Joyce wine label. I also currently help produce Albatross Ridge wines at my Joyce Winery facility located in Salinas. I have contracted to custom crush and produce Albatross Ridge wines at my facility since 2014. My facility helped produce the 2015, and 2016 vintages as well, and will produce the 2017 vintage this fall. Garrett and his family are good people and they produce great quality wines from their vineyard that reflect well on Monterey County and the Carmel area. Sincerely, Russell Joyce Winemaker | Partner Russell@Joycevineyards.com www.joycevineyards.com Tasting Room: 831.659.2885 Office: 831.754.8733 Cell: 831.521.7536 Fax: 831.754.8774

35

cheeseshopcarmel@aol.com Aug 23

to garrett, me

Mr. Wiener, My regrets for not showing to today's council meeting, but as President of The Cheese Shop I am in complete support of Albatross Ridge request to move their tasting room from it's current location of Mission between Ocean & 7th, to it's proposed new location north of Ocean on Dolores. The Bowlus family are wonderful business people and their local winery, Albatross Ridge Winery, is a great addition to our community featuring world class wines made from right here in Carmel Valley. We have known and carried their products for many years. All businesses undergo changes as time goes on. A business will need to change with the times to help them continue to grow and succeed. We as a community should be supportive to their needs in growing and maintaining their business within our city. I believe this to be a beneficial move for both Albatross Ridge and our town. Mahalo & Aloha, R. Kent Torrey President The Cheese Shop Inc. The Cheese Shop Inc. Carmel-by-the-Sea 831.625.2272 www.TheCheeseShopInc.com

36

37

B CA D

23'-13/8"

12'-10" 11'-6"15'-6"

STAIR2

BATHROOM

1

2

3

4

5

STORAGE

48'-8

"

DNDN5"RISER

15'-0

"1'-0"

1'-0"

5'-4"

BREAKERBOX

COUNTER/CABINET

TASTINGBAR

TASTINGROOM

OTHERTENANTSPACE

ADACOUNTER

+30"

+42"

MERCHANDISE&DISPLAY

5'-21/2"

MERCHANDISE&DISPLAY

DISPLAY

4'-01/2"

RAMP1:12SLOPERAILING

46"X60"LANDING

DISPLAY

sheet title

sheet number

scale

date

project ALBATROSSRIDGETASTINGROOM@OCEANANDDOLORES

FLOORPLAN

18"=1'-0"

SEPT.7,20171

808SQ.FEETOFRETAILSPACE

SEATINGAREA(SHOWNHATCHED)=7%

POBOX223386CARMEL,CA93922

38

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Planning Commission Report

September 13, 2017 To: Chair Goodhue and Planning Commissioners From: Marc Wiener, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director Submitted by: Marnie R. Waffle, Senior Planner Subject: Consideration of Design Review (DR 16-477), Coastal Development

Permit, Condominium Subdivision and Parking In-lieu Fee Use Permit applications for the construction of a second-story condominium above an existing one-story building located in the Central Commercial (CC) and Downtown Conservation (DC) Overlay Zoning Districts.

RECOMMENDATION: Approve Design Review (DR 16-477), Coastal Development Permit, Condominium Subdivision and Parking In-lieu Fee Use Permit applications subject to the attached findings and conditions. Application: DR 16-477/EN 17-067 APN: 010-147-003 Location: Dolores Street, 4 NW of 7th Ave Block: 75 Lot: 13 Applicant: David Fink Property Owner: Neil Goodhue BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project site is a 4,000-square foot lot located on Dolores Street, 4 northwest of 7th Avenue, adjacent to the City-owned Piccadilly Park. The lot is developed with a 3,824-square foot one-story building that contains Cantinetta Luca restaurant and Salumeria Luca deli. The applicant is proposing to add a 1,570-square foot second-story condominium addition that would increase the building height to approximately 28-feet. The proposed second-story addition is clad with concrete panel siding and includes a rooftop deck and wood trellis on the front elevation and rooftop deck on the rear elevation. Access to the second story would be provided via an interior staircase and elevator located near the front of the building within a portion of the Salumeria Luca deli.

39

DR 16-477(Goodhue-Fink) September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 2 In accordance with Carmel Municipal Code Section 17.14.110 (Standard of Review and Design Guidelines), the applicant submitted preliminary concept plans for review by the Planning Commission prior to submitting a design review application. At the July 12, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission provided feedback on the concept plans. Specifically, the Planning Commission recommended that the proposal for a staircase in Piccadilly Park be eliminated and that the applicant consider setting back the second story away from the north elevation to minimize the impact to the park. The applicant has eliminated the staircase but has not set back the second story. In addition to Planning Commission review, the project was reviewed by the Historic Resources Board on August 21, 2017 for consistency with the established design context of the Downtown Conservation District. Staff has scheduled the project for final review and approval.

PROJECT DATA FOR A 4,000-SQUARE FOOT SITE (Central Commercial District):

Site Considerations Allowed Existing Proposed Floor Area 5,400 sf (135%) 3,824 sf (133%) 5,394 sf (135%) Building Coverage 3,200 sf (80%) 3,824 sf (95%) No Change Building Height 30’ 18’6” 28’ Parking Requirement 1 space 0 spaces 0 spaces* Setbacks Minimum Required Existing Proposed

Front 0’ 0’(ground level) 0’ (ground level)/ 8’7” (2nd story addition)

Rear 0’ 0’ (ground level) 4’ (ground level)/ 51’ (2nd story addition)

Side Yard 0’ 0’ 0’

*Parking requirement may be satisfied by payment of in-lieu fee (CMC 17.38.030.C)

STAFF ANALYSIS: Zoning District: The project site is zoned Central Commercial (CC) and is located in the Downtown Conservation District. CMC Section 17.14.010.A states the following purpose for the CC district: “To provide an appropriate location for a broad range of retail, residential and service uses. Uses which generate high pedestrian traffic and which do not have large space requirements are appropriate in this district. Residential uses are appropriate on the second floor of structures.” CMC Section 17.20.260 states the following purpose for the Downtown Conservation District: “To protect the historic resources and the general design context that surrounds them and to implement the following General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan policies:

40

DR 16-477(Goodhue-Fink) September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 3

A. Recognize the qualities and attributes that make up the unique architectural character of Carmel. Retain these qualities in existing buildings and encourage the use of them in new structures (LUP Goal G1-3). B. Protect the special and unique character of Ocean Avenue and the surrounding commercial area. Ensure, through the administration of land use and design regulations, that the architecture, landscape, scale and ambience of this area are maintained (LUP Policy P1-63). C. Retain the scale and variety of design established in the retail core when considering changes to buildings that are not historic. Protect, preserve and rehabilitate historic commercial architecture that represents the character, ambience and established design context of the commercial area (LUP policy P1-66).

In staff’s opinion, the proposed use of the building complies with the intent of the CC Zoning District and the Downtown Conservation District; however, as further discussed below Staff does have some concerns regarding the exterior materials on the second story addition and its compatibility on Dolores Street. Housing Density: CMC Section 17.14.010 states that residential uses are appropriate on the second floor of structures. Projects between 0 and 22 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) are a permitted use in the CC Zoning District. The applicant is proposing a second-story condominium addition on a 4,000 square foot lot resulting in a density of 11 du/acre. Zoning Compliance: The proposed project complies with the floor area, building coverage, building height, setbacks, and parking standards for a 4,000 square foot lot in the Central Commercial (CC) Zoning District. The floor area ratio for a two-story building in the CC Zoning District is 135%. With the proposed addition, the building would be 5,394 square feet in size with a floor area ratio of 135%. Staff notes that CMC 17.14.140 specifically excludes underground floor space within a basement, cellar or underground garage when not used for commercial purposes. Also excluded are, underground areas for noncommercial storage or parking; mechanical spaces within a building limited to vent, duct and piping shafts; and, mechanical equipment rooms of the minimum size required by the building code. The maximum building height allowed in the CC Zoning District is 30-feet. With the proposed addition, the building would be 28-feet in height. With regard to setbacks, the CC Zoning district permits zero setbacks and the project would not alter the existing building footprint. At the second floor, the proposed addition would be set back approximately 8-feet, 7-inches from the front of the building and 51-feet from the rear of the building. The second story addition would not be setback along the north side of the building facing Piccadilly Park.

41

DR 16-477(Goodhue-Fink) September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 4 With regard to parking, CMC Section 17.38.020.C (Minimum Off-Street Parking) requires one parking space for a permanent residential use in the Central Commercial (CC) Zoning District. However, CMC Section 17.38.030.A prohibits on-site parking in the Central Commercial (CC) Land Use District. This policy eliminates the need for curb cuts in sidewalks and the interference with free pedestrian traffic flow that would result from an excessive number of driveways. This policy is also intended to enhance the opportunities for creating intra-block courts and walkways between properties and buildings. CMC Section 17.14.200 (Parking Requirements) states that parking requirements on sites where parking is prohibited shall be satisfied through the payment of fees in-lieu of on-site parking as set forth in Chapter 17.38 CMC, Off-Street Parking Requirements. Parking In-Lieu Fee Use Permit: CMC Section 17.38.030.C (Parking Adjustment In-Lieu Fees) allows the Planning Commission to 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 in-lieu fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first permit for which the in-lieu fees are required. The amount to be charged is determined by CMC 17.38.040.B and must be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit and the project has been conditioned accordingly. The payment of in-lieu fees are placed in the Parking In-lieu Reserve Fund, which is used for creating public parking in or near the business district. Design Standards and Guidelines: The basic standard of review in the Commercial District is whether “the project constitutes an improvement over existing conditions – not whether the project just meets minimum standards” (CMC 17.14.010). At the Preliminary Concept Review meeting on July 12, 2017, the Planning Commission was supportive of the design and the improvement that it would be to the site. In addition to the Carmel Municipal Code, the Commercial Design Guidelines provide the following guidance for reviewing projects: Commercial Design Guideline Section A states that: “Modifications to buildings should respect the history and traditions of the architecture of the commercial districts. Basic elements of design integrity and consistency throughout each building should be preserved or restored” and “New Buildings should not imitate styles of the past but strive to achieve compatibility with the old.” Guidelines Section E 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” 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 project was presented to the Planning Commission on July 12, 2017 as a Preliminary Concept Review. The applicant had originally proposed an exterior staircase that would have encroached onto Piccadilly Park. At the request of the Planning Commission, the staircase

42

DR 16-477(Goodhue-Fink) September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 5 encroachment has been eliminated and the applicant is now proposing an internal set of stairs. In addition, the Planning Commission requested that the applicant consider setting back the second-story away from the north elevation to minimize the impact to Piccadilly Park. While no change has been made to the plans with regard to setting back the second story, the applicant did provide a shade study to demonstrate the minimal shading impact that the second story addition would have on Piccadilly Park (refer to Attachment E, Sheet A-6). The Planning Commission should consider whether the project should be continued with a requirement that applicant set back the second story. On August 21, 2017, the Historic Resources Board reviewed a revised preliminary concept that included relocating the exterior staircase that would have encroached into Piccadilly Park to the interior of the building within a portion of the Salumeria Luca deli. The Board reviewed the second story addition and the exterior materials and finishes and determined the project to be compatible with the surrounding Downtown Conservation District. At both the Planning Commission and Historic Resources Board meetings, Staff was supportive of the second story addition being compatible with surrounding properties and the context of Dolores Street, but expressed concerns over the use of concrete panel siding as a finish material on the second floor (Attachment C). The Planning Commission did not raise any concerns at the first meeting with the proposal to use concrete panels. The Historic Resources Board was supportive of using concrete panels as a way to break up the mass of the building and felt that it would look like wood from the street. In staff’s opinion, the concrete panel siding may not be consistent with the lower level of the building and may appear too contemporary for the surrounding historic neighborhood. In order to provide better consistency between the upper and lower levels, the applicant is proposing to replace the existing Spanish clay tiles on the front elevation awning with gray slate tiles. Samples of the proposed concrete siding and paint for the lower level will be available at the meeting for the Commission’s consideration. Subdivision Requirements: Review of this request is subject to CMC Section 17.44 (Subdivisions and Lot Line Adjustments). The criteria for condominium subdivisions are listed below with a staff analysis on whether the project complies with these requirements.

1. Only legal lots may be subdivided. No subdivision shall be approved which increases or creates a zoning nonconformity or is inconsistent with the policies of the certified Local Coastal Implementation Plan. The project site is a 4,000 square foot lot recorded on a map filed with the County of Monterey in 1902 and is a legal lot of record. Subdividing the commercial portion of the building from the proposed residential portion would not increase or create a zoning nonconformity or be inconsistent with the Local Coastal Implementation Plan. Residential uses are appropriate on the second floor of structures in the Central Commercial (CC) Zoning District.

43

DR 16-477(Goodhue-Fink) September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 6

2. No subdivision shall be approved which increases or creates a zoning violation. There are no known zoning violations associated with the property and the subdivision for condominium purposes would not create a zoning violation.

3. No subdivision shall be approved that would result in the creation of an additional lot of record if such creation would increase the demand for water resources. The applicant will purchase water from the Malpaso water company for this project.

4. Approval of a subdivision shall be conditioned upon all zoning requirements being met. The proposed subdivision for condominium purposes would not divide the existing 4,000 square foot lot but rather would divide the air space between the commercial and residential portions of the building. The project has been conditioned to comply with all zoning requirements.

5. Other conditions may be required as the City deems reasonable and proper for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The draft conditions of approval are included in Attachment B. The Planning Commission may consider additional conditions for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare.

6. No subdivision shall be approved that would require removal of a significant tree. The project site is currently developed with a commercial building. Approval of the subdivision for condominium purposes would not result in the removal of a significant tree.

7. All subdivisions shall comply with the minimum lot or parcel sizes established for the zoning district where the property is located. As noted above, the property is located on a 4,000 square foot lot in the Central Commercial (CC) Zoning District. The minimum building site area for condominiums in the CC Zoning District is 4,000 square feet. The existing lot complies with the minimum lot size and the proposed subdivision for condominium purposes would not alter the lot size.

8. Applications for subdivisions resulting in additional parcels, including condominiums, shall require a coastal development permit. Approval of the proposed Subdivision also requires approval of a Coastal Development Permit.

Trash Enclosure Encroachment: Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Section 12.08.050.A states that “applications for encroachments involving properties in the CC, SC, RC and R-4 districts which accompany applications for design review shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission for its consideration and recommendation.” The Planning Commission is advisory to the City Administrator and/or City Council on encroachment permit applications. There is an existing trash enclosure on the north side of the

44

DR 16-477(Goodhue-Fink) September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 7 building that encroaches into Piccadilly Park. The record indicates that this structure was approved by the Building Official as part of a 2006 restaurant remodel, but was never issued an encroachment permit. When applications are submitted to redevelop a property, it triggers an evaluation of existing encroachments. The Planning Commission typically conditions the approval of a project with a requirement that the encroachment be removed or that the applicant obtain an encroachment permit when deemed necessary. At the request of Staff, the applicant has applied for an encroachment permit for the existing trash enclosure. With regard to trash storage, CMC 17.14.040.I.b states that restaurants must adhere to the following standard:

Adequate facilities shall be provided on the site for the closed storage of trash and garbage generated by the use. The on-site storage shall be designed so that the area can be cleaned and the refuse removed without creating a public nuisance and without being placed on the sidewalks or other public ways. If the method of cooking used will generate hot ashes, a storage facility and disposal method shall first be approved by the Fire Department.

In staff’s opinion, the existing trash enclosure should be removed and the applicant should be required to provide trash storage on-site (private property) as required by the Municipal Code. It should be noted that other restaurants in town store their trash on private property and Cantinetta Luca is the only one that uses public property for trash storage. In addition to the restaurant standards, the City’s Municipal Code (CMC 12.08) provides a list of criteria for evaluating encroachments (Attachment D) which the Planning Commission should use in its analysis. A condition has been drafted noting that if the encroachment permit is denied, the applicant will be required to relocate the trash enclosure onto private property prior to issuance of the building permit. Environmental Review: The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA requirements, pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1) – Existing Facilities. The project includes a 1,570-square foot addition to an existing 3,824-square foot commercial building, and therefore qualifies for a Class 1 exemption. The proposed alterations to the residence do not present any unusual circumstances that would result in a potentially significant environmental impact. Alternatives: The following alternative actions are presented for Commission consideration:

1. Approve the request with minor revisions. 2. Continue the item with a request for changes. For example, the Commission could

continue the project with a requirement that the second story be set back a specified amount from the north elevation.

3. Deny the application request.

45

DR 16-477(Goodhue-Fink) September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 8 ATTACHMENTS:

• Attachment A – Findings for Approval • Attachment B – Conditions of Approval • Attachment C – Concrete Panel Example • Attachment D – CMC 12.08 (Encroachment) • Attachment E – Project Plans

46

Attachment A – Findings for Approval

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING

FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL DR 16-477 Goodhue/Fink Location: Dolores Street, 4 NW of 7th Ave Block: 75, Lot(s): 13 APN: 010-147-003 CONSIDERATION: Consideration of Design Review (DR 16-477), Coastal Development Permit, Condominium Subdivision and Parking In-lieu Fee Use Permit applications for the construction of a second-story condominium above an existing one-story building located in the Central Commercial (CC) and Downtown Conservation (DC) Overlay Zoning Districts. FINDINGS OF FACT:

1. The project site is located on Dolores Street, 4 northwest of 7th Avenue in the Central Commercial (CC) Zoning District. The lot is 4,000 square feet in size and is currently developed with a 3,824-square foot one-story building that contains Cantinetta Luca restaurant and Salumeria Luca deli.

2. On August 31, 2017 an application was submitted to construct a 1,570-square foot

second-story condominium addition that would increase the building height to approximately 28-feet. The project also includes two rooftop decks.

3. The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA requirements, pursuant to

Section 15301 (Class 1) – Existing Facilities. The project includes a 1,570-square foot addition to an existing 3,824-square foot commercial building, and therefore qualifies for a Class 1 exemption. The proposed alterations to the residence do not present any unusual circumstances that would result in a potentially significant environmental impact.

FINDINGS FOR DECISION: Municipal Code Findings:

4. The project constitutes an improvement over existing site conditions pursuant to CMC 17.14.010.

47

DR 16-477 (Goodhue-Fink) September 13, 2017 Findings for Approval Page 2

5. The project conforms to all applicable zoning standards including, housing density,

floor area, building coverage, building height, setbacks, and parking standards. Design Study Approval (CMC 17.64.080.B and 17.58.060)

6. The proposed architectural style and detailing are simple and restrained in character, consistent and well integrated throughout the building and complementary to the neighborhood without appearing monotonous or repetitive in context with designs on nearby sites.

7. The proposed exterior materials and their application rely on natural materials and the overall design will add to the variety and diversity along the streetscape.

8. Design elements such as stonework, skylights, windows, doors, chimneys and

garages are consistent with the adopted design guidelines and will complement the character of the structure and the neighborhood.

9. Proposed landscaping, paving treatments, fences and walls are carefully designed to

complement the urbanized forest, the approved site design, adjacent sites and the public right-of-way. The design will reinforce a sense of visual continuity along the street.

10. The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to the applicable policies of the

General Plan and the Local Coastal Program.

11. The proposed project, as conditioned, complies with all applicable provisions of the Carmel Municipal Code.

12. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with applicable adopted design

review guidelines.

Commercial Design Guideline Findings:

13. The building materials and colors respect traditions already established in the commercial district. The use of richly detailed wood, tile, molding, corbels, brick and stone is encouraged.

14. The building wall facing the street provides visual interest to pedestrians. Variations

such as display windows, changes in building form, and changes in material, texture, or color are appropriate.

15. The building design is sensitive to the context of the neighborhood in which it is

48

DR 16-477 (Goodhue-Fink) September 13, 2017 Findings for Approval Page 3

located. Coastal Development Findings (CMC 17.64.010.B):

16. Local Coastal Program Consistency: The project conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program of the City of Carmel-by-the Sea.

17. 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. Parking In-Lieu Use Permit Findings (CMC 17.38.030 & 17.64.010):

18. The parking for which the adjustment is sought is not required for serving hotel or motel uses.

19. 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.

20. The proposed project, as conditioned, will comply with all zoning standards applicable to the use and zoning district.

21. The granting of 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.

22. The proposed project will not make excessive demands on the provision of public

services, including water supply, sewer capacity, energy supply, communication facilities, police protection, street capacity and fire protection.

23. The proposed project will not be injurious to public health, safety or welfare and

provides adequate ingress and egress.

24. The proposed project will be compatible with surrounding land uses and will not conflict with the purpose established for the district within which it will be located.

25. The proposed project will not generate adverse impacts affecting health, safety, or

welfare of neighboring properties or uses.

49

DR 16-477 (Goodhue-Fink) September 13, 2017 Findings for Approval Page 4 Condominium Subdivision:

26. The proposed condominium subdivision is not in conflict with the General Plan or the adopted Local Coastal Program.

27. The proposed condominium subdivision is consistent with all zoning standards for the Central Commercial (CC) Zoning District and Downtown Conservation District.

28. Residential uses are appropriate on the second floor of structures in the Central Commercial (CC) Zoning District and housing densities between 0 and 22 dwelling units per acre are a permitted use. The project density is 11 dwelling units per acre.

29. Condominium subdivisions are limited to sites of 4,000 square feet or less and the project site is 4,000 square feet.

30. The minimum size of any residential unit is 400 square feet and the proposed condominium would be 1,570 square feet.

31. The proposed condominium subdivision will not make excessive demands on the provision of public services, including water supply, sewer capacity, energy supply, communication facilities, police protection, or fire protection.

32. The proposed condominium subdivision will not be injurious to the public health, safety or welfare.

33. The proposed condominium subdivision will be compatible with surrounding land uses and will not conflict with the purpose established for the district within which it will be located.

34. The proposed condominium subdivision will not generate adverse impacts affecting health, safety, or welfare of neighboring properties or uses.

50

Attachment B – Conditions of Approval DR 16-477 (Goodhue-Fink) September 13, 2017 Conditions of Approval Page 1

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL No. Standard Conditions

1. Authorization: This approval of Design Review (DR 16-477), Coastal Development Permit, Condominium Subdivision, and Parking In-lieu Fee Use Permit applications authorizes the construction of a 1,570 square foot second story condominium addition to an existing 3,824 square foot commercial building that contains Cantinetta Luca restaurant and Salumeria Luca deli. Finish materials on the second floor include concrete cladding and a wood trellis. The project also includes two roof decks, one in the front of the building and one in the rear.

✔

2. The project shall be constructed in conformance with all requirements of the local CC 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 18 months from the date of action unless an active building permit has been issued and maintained for the proposed construction. The condominium subdivision approval shall be valid for a period of 24 months from the date of action by the Planning Commission (CMC 17.52.170.B.9).

✔

4. All new landscaping, if proposed, shall be shown on a landscape plan and shall be submitted to the Department of Community Planning and Building and to the City Forester prior to the issuance of a building permit. The landscape plan will be reviewed for compliance with the landscaping standards contained in the Zoning Code, including the following requirements: 1) all new landscaping shall be 75% drought-tolerant; 2) landscaped areas shall be irrigated by a drip/sprinkler system set on a timer; and 3) the project shall meet the City’s recommended tree density standards, unless otherwise approved by the City based on site conditions. The landscaping plan shall show where new trees will be planted when new trees are required to be planted by the Forest and Beach Commission or the Planning Commission.

N/A

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. If 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,

N/A

51

DR 16-477 (Goodhue-Fink) September 13, 2017 Conditions of Approval Page 2

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 for a 4,000-square foot parcel, this permit will be scheduled for reconsideration and the appropriate findings will be prepared for review and adoption by the Planning Commission.

✔

8. The applicant shall submit in writing to the Community Planning and Building staff any proposed changes to the approved project plans 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.

✔

9. All skylights shall use non-reflective glass to minimize the amount of light and 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.

N/A

10. The stone façade shall be installed in a broken course/random or similar 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.

N/A

11. 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.

N/A

12. The applicant shall submit a grading plan with the Building Permit Application identifying the cubic yardage of soil proposed to be excavated and removed from this site as part of the project.

N/A

13. 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.

N/A

14. The applicant shall include a storm water drainage plan with the working drawings that are submitted for building permit review. The drainage plan shall comply with the Central Coast Region Post-Construction Storm-water Management Requirements. The drainage plan shall include applicable Best Management Practices and retain all drainage on site through the use of semi-

✔

52

DR 16-477 (Goodhue-Fink) September 13, 2017 Conditions of Approval Page 3

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.

15a. 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. All new construction involving excavation shall immediately cease if materials of archaeological significance are discovered on the site and shall not be permitted to recommence until a mitigation and monitoring plan is approved by the Planning Commission.

N/A

15b. 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.

✔

16. 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 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.

N/A

17. All conditions of approval for the Planning permit(s) shall be printed on a full-size sheet and included with the construction plan set submitted to the Building Safety Division.

✔

18. The applicant agrees, at his or her sole expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold 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

✔

53

DR 16-477 (Goodhue-Fink) September 13, 2017 Conditions of Approval Page 4

actions by the parties hereto. Special Conditions

19. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for the trash enclosure on the north side of the building prior to the issuance of the building permit. A building permit shall not be issued unless the encroachment permit is either approved or removed from City property (Piccadilly Park).

✔

20. The applicant shall apply for a Temporary Encroachment Permit for any proposed construction materials or staging that are to occur in the City right-of-way.

✔

21. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall pay a parking in-lieu fee in accordance with CMC Section 17.38.040.

✔

Subdivision Conditions

22. The applicant shall submit a condominium subdivision map meeting the requirements of the California Subdivision Map Act and the City Engineer. The map shall show each unit, assignment of parking spaces and all common areas. The map shall be reviewed and authorized by City Staff and the City Engineer. Notations on the map shall include the following: a. The second-story condominium unit shall not be occupied on a Transient

Rental basis. Any unit rented, leased or offered for occupancy to any party for any form of remuneration shall be for a period of not less than 30 calendar days.

b. The second-story condominium unit shall not be used or occupied by any Commercial Use.

c. The second-story condominium unit shall not be further subdivided into any additional unit(s).

d. The second-story condominium unit shall not be sold, leased, rented, used or occupied on any form of Timeshare or interval basis.

✔

23. Prior to recordation of the map, the applicant shall submit a draft Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s) document for City review and approval. This document shall include provisions alerting future owners of the units to the notes on the map and also shall alert owners to the need for Design Review approval from the City for any future change to the site or building design. Each of these provisions shall be permanent provisions of the CC&R’s and shall not be amended by the Homeowners Association or any other party without the express, written approval of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. The CC&R’s shall state this limitation.

✔

54

DR 16-477 (Goodhue-Fink) September 13, 2017 Conditions of Approval Page 5 *Acknowledgement and acceptance of conditions of approval. ______________________________ ___________________________ __________ Property Owner Signature Printed Name Date

Once signed, please return to the Community Planning and Building Department.

55

56

57

Attachment D – Encroachment Standards

12.08.060 Encroachment Application Review Standards.

A. Need. The applicant shall be determined to have a justifiable need for the encroachment, and the

encroachment shall not be contrary to the public interest.

B. Safety. The granting of an encroachment permit shall not create a hazard to public health or safety.

C. Drainage. The proposed encroachment shall not adversely affect the normal drainage of surface water,

unless an acceptable mitigation is included that will be advantageous to the general public and meet the

standards herein.

D. Circulation and Parking.

1. The proposed encroachment shall not adversely affect vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic nor the

parking of vehicles.

2. The proposed encroachment shall not adversely impact existing rights-of-way nor preclude or make

difficult the establishment or improvement of existing or potential streets or pedestrian ways.

E. Public Use and Enjoyment.

1. The proposed encroachment shall not diminish public use or enjoyment, either visual or physical, of

the City property or public right-of-way to be encroached upon.

2. The encroachment and enjoyment shall be in the public interest.

3. The length of time an encroachment has existed shall not by itself prejudice a decision.

F. Compatibility.

1. The proposed encroachment and its mitigation shall be consistent with the General Plan and the

adopted ordinances of the City. Particular attention shall be given to Section P1-48 of the General Plan,

which prohibits the construction of sidewalks and concrete curbs in the R-1 district, unless necessary for

drainage and/or pedestrian safety.

2. The encroachment shall not create, extend, or be reasonably likely to lead to an undesirable land use

precedent.

58

3. Granting of a permit shall not adversely affect the usability or enjoyment of one or more adjoining

parcels.

4. The proposed encroachment and its mitigation shall be compatible with the surrounding area and

adjoining properties.

G. Public Property/Greenbelt.

1. The proposed encroachment shall not adversely affect any public property, including existing

vegetation or its root structure, and shall not significantly reduce greenbelt area that may be used for

tree planting.

2. Significant trees which would be affected by the proposed encroachment shall be identified by the

Director of Forest, Parks and Beach and approval for removal shall follow City policy.

H. Mitigation. When deemed appropriate by the City, the applicant shall include those measures appropriate to

compensate the City for the loss of the use of City property or the public right-of-way, or to repair damage

thereto. (Ord. 89-9 § 1, 1989).

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Planning Commission Report

September 13, 2017

To: Chair Goodhue and Planning Commissioners

From: Marc Wiener, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director

Submitted by: Catherine Tarone, Assistant Planner

Subject: Consideration of a Design Study (DS 17-292) referral to the Planning Commission for the replacement of the wood shingle roofing with composition shingle.

Application: DS 17-292 APN: 010-011-012 Block: 19 Lot: 16 Location: Lobos Street, 3 NE of 2nd Avenue Applicant / Property Owner: Reed and Christine Bartron Executive Summary The applicant is requesting approval of a composition shingle roof to replace an existing wood shingle roof. This application has been referred to the Planning Commission for a decision based on the Planning Commission’s 2012 directive related to re-roofs that involve changing wood shingle to other materials. Recommendation Deny the proposed composition shingle and approve a natural wood roof, or synthetic shake or slate from the list of pre-approved alternatives. Background and Project Description The project site is located on Lobos Street, 3 NE of 2nd Avenue and is developed with a single-story residence with tan painted horizontal shiplap siding and a moderately-pitched, side-gabled wood-shingle roof. The property owner is requesting to replace the existing wood-shingle roof with composition-shingle roofing (Attachment C). A sample of the roofing material will be provided at the Planning Commission meeting.

67

DS 17-292 (Bartron) September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 2

On January 25, 2012, the Planning Commission determined that all requests for replacement of wood shingles/shakes with composition shingles should be reviewed by the Commission. The Commission wanted to ensure that the use of composition shingles would not negatively impact community character. The City does not require Design Study review for proposals to replace existing composition shingle roofs in-kind for residential structures. Staff analysis When making a decision on finish materials and roofing, City staff refers to the Residential Design Guidelines and the Reroof Information Sheet.

• Section 9.8 of the City’s Residential Design Guidelines states the following: Roof Materials should be consistent with the architectural style of the building and with the context of the neighborhood.

1. Wood shingles and shakes are preferred materials for most types of architecture

typical of Carmel. 2. Composition shingles that convey a color and texture similar to that of wood shingles

may be considered on some architectural styles characteristics of more recent eras.

• Reroof Information Sheet: this sheet (see Attachment B) is distributed to the public and reflects the March 2016 decision of the Planning Commission to allow some non-wood roofing material. This sheet indicates that proposed metal roofs and proposals to replace wood with composition shingles are subject to Planning Commission review. Synthetic materials are allowed with staff level approval if the material is one of three on the approved synthetic list.

The existing wood shake-roof is deteriorated and in need of replacement. The applicant is proposing to replace the wood shakes with composition shingles. Staff has included a photograph of the subject residence and proposed roofing as Attachment A.

When making a decision on the use of composition-shingle roofing, the Planning Commission should consider neighborhood context, the architectural style of the building, and the characteristics of the proposed composition shingle. Staff notes that the Planning Commission has on occasion approved the replacement of wood roofing material with composition shingles in cases when the composition shingles are compatible with architectural style of the residence, not highly visible from the street (for example, for flat or low-pitched roofs), and compatible with other homes in the neighborhood.

68

DS 17-292 (Bartron) September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 3

The subject residence is a mid-century style with wood siding and is mostly screened by a tall hedge at the front of the property. Furthermore, the majority of residences in the neighborhood contain composition-shingle roofs. The Planning Commission should consider whether a composition-shingle roof is appropriate for this residence.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the proposal for composition shingle roofing, as using a natural wood roof is the preferred option and is most consistent with Residential Design Guideline 9.8. Staff notes that the Community Planning and Building Department would be able to approve a re-roofing application to replace the existing roofing with a wood roof, or one of the synthetic shake or slate alternatives. Alternatively, the Planning Commission could approve the request for composition shingles.

Environmental Review: The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA requirements, pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 1) – Additions to Existing Facilities.

ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A – Site Photographs and Roofing Photo • Attachment B – Re-Roof Information Sheet • Attachment C – Applicant Letter

69

Attachment A

Bartron Residence Photographs

Front of residence as seen from Lobos Street

70

View of the residence immediately in front of the property

Sample Roofing Board of proposed composition shingle. Shingles have 1/2-inch thickness.

71

Process/Policy for Reroof Applications

Do I need a Planning Permit, Building Permit, or both for a reroofing project? Often a Planning Permit is needed before the Building Permit can be issued. Carmel-by-the-Sea has strict Design Guidelines and regulations for review of reroofing projects. Below is a summary of the permitting requirements for most types of reroofing projects.

Reroofing Permit Process: Single-Family Resid. Buildings

Like for like reroofs Wood to wood Just Building Permit, no planner review

Slate to slate Tile to tile Tar & Gravel to Tar & Gravel And other natural materials

Usually just Building Permit, however needs planning review and sign-off. Applicant includes with Building Permit application photos of existing house (from street) and roof, as well as color and material samples for proposed roof.

Comp to comp Usually just Building Permit, however needs planning review. Applicant includes with BP application photos of existing house (from street) and roof, as well as color and material samples for proposed roof. Senior Planner or Director to determine if comp is acceptable and if prior comp roof received proper Planning Review. If not, a Track 1 DS (with or without PC referral) may be required.

Reroofs with change in material

New Materials: Slate, Tile (clay, ceramic, and concrete), Tar & Gravel and other natural materials

Design Study Track 1 (staff level approval).

Metal Roof requests Design Study Track 1 with Planning Commission referral required

Tar and gravel to TPO or similar

Typically not allowed. Track 1 Design Study required; may require PC referral.

Wood to comp Design Study Track 1 with - Planning Commission referral required.

Synthetic Products Design Study Track 1 (staff level in most cases) - *See list of acceptable synthetic materials below

72

*Acceptable Synthetic Alternatives

The Planning Commission has determined that certain synthetic products can be approved administratively. The following synthetic products (or similar products) are recommended in earth-toned colors: CeDUR shakes DaVinci shake or slates EcoStar shake or slates Note: Projects are site specific and compliance with the above noted list does not constitute guarantee of approval. The use of synthetic products in the Commercial Zoning Districts may require Planning Commission approval. The City will consider additional synthetic products upon request when installations of products are available nearby.

Handout Accepted by Planning Commission on: 3/9/16. The Planning Commission will review the list of accepted synthetic products on 3/8/17 to determine if the allowance of these products will be continued.

73

74

75

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Planning Commission Report

September 13, 2017

To: Chair Goodhue and Planning Commissioners

From: Marc Wiener, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director

Submitted by: Catherine Tarone, Assistant Planner

Subject: Consideration of a Design Study (DS 17-309) referral to the Planning Commission for the replacement of the wood shingle roofing with composition shingle.

Application: DS 17-309 APN: 010-072-037 Block: 119 Lot: 16 & N. half of 18 Location: Junipero, 3 NE of 11th Avenue Applicant / Property Owner: William Woo Executive Summary The applicant is requesting approval of a composition shingle roof to replace an existing wood shingle roof. This application has been referred to the Planning Commission for a decision based on the Planning Commission’s 2012 directive related to re-roofs that involve changing wood shingle to other materials. Recommendation Deny the proposed composition shingle and approve a natural wood roof, or synthetic shake or slate from the list of pre-approved alternatives. Background and Project Description The project site is located on Junipero, 3 NE of 11th Avenue and is developed with a single-story single-family residence with stained wood shingle siding and a low-pitched, hipped, wood shingle roof interspersed with glass pane skylights. The property owner is requesting to replace the existing wood-shingle roof with composition-shingle roofing (Attachment C). A sample of the roofing material will be provided at the Planning Commission meeting.

76

DS 17-309 (Woo) September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 2

On January 25, 2012, the Planning Commission determined that all requests for replacement of wood shingles/shakes with composition shingles should be reviewed by the Commission. The Commission wanted to ensure that the use of composition shingles would not negatively impact community character. The City does not require Design Study review for proposals to replace existing composition shingle roofs in-kind for residential structures. Staff analysis When making a decision on finish materials and roofing, City staff refers to the Residential Design Guidelines and the Reroof Information Sheet.

• Section 9.8 of the City’s Residential Design Guidelines states the following: Roof Materials should be consistent with the architectural style of the building and with the context of the neighborhood.

1. Wood shingles and shakes are preferred materials for most types of architecture

typical of Carmel. 2. Composition shingles that convey a color and texture similar to that of wood shingles

may be considered on some architectural styles characteristics of more recent eras.

• Reroof Information Sheet: this sheet (see Attachment B) is distributed to the public and reflects the March 2016 decision of the Planning Commission to allow some non-wood roofing material. This sheet indicates that proposed metal roofs and proposals to replace wood with composition shingles are subject to Planning Commission review. Synthetic materials are allowed with staff level approval if the material is one of three on the approved synthetic list.

The existing wood shake-roof is deteriorated and in need of replacement. The applicant is proposing to replace the wood shakes with composition shingles. Staff has included a photograph of the subject residence and proposed roofing material as Attachment A.

When making a decision on the use of composition-shingle roofing, the Planning Commission should consider neighborhood context, the architectural style of the building, and the characteristics of the proposed composition shingle. Staff notes that the Planning Commission has on occasion approved the replacement of wood roofing material with composition shingles in cases when the composition shingles are compatible with architectural style of the residence, not highly visible from the street (for example, for flat or low-pitched roofs), and compatible with other homes in the neighborhood.

The subject residence is a non-descript architectural style with natural wood shingle siding. While it is visible from Junipero Avenue, the majority of residences in the neighborhood contain

77

DS 17-309 (Woo) September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 3

composition-shingle roofs (staff counted 12 residences out of 17 on this block that have a composition shingle roof). Staff conveyed to the applicant that one of the pre-approved synthetic shakes or slates, would be appropriate. The applicant selected not to use these materials and opted instead for referral of the application to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission should consider whether a composition-shingle roof is appropriate for this residence.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the proposal for composition shingle roofing, as using a natural wood roof is the preferred option and is most consistent with Residential Design Guideline 9.8. Staff notes that the Community Planning and Building Department would be able to approve a re-roofing application to replace the existing roofing with a wood roof, or one of the synthetic shake or slate alternatives. Alternatively, the Planning Commission could approve the request for composition shingles.

Environmental Review: The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA requirements, pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 1) – Additions to Existing Facilities.

ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A – Site Photographs • Attachment B – Re-Roof Information Sheet • Attachment C – Applicant Letter

78

Attachment A

Woo Residence Photographs

Front of residence as seen from Junipero Street

79

Google Maps satelite image of the roof structure of the residence

Roofing Sample Board

80

81

82

Images of the existing roof submitted by the applicant

83

Process/Policy for Reroof Applications

Do I need a Planning Permit, Building Permit, or both for a reroofing project? Often a Planning Permit is needed before the Building Permit can be issued. Carmel-by-the-Sea has strict Design Guidelines and regulations for review of reroofing projects. Below is a summary of the permitting requirements for most types of reroofing projects.

Reroofing Permit Process: Single-Family Resid. Buildings

Like for like reroofs Wood to wood Just Building Permit, no planner review

Slate to slate Tile to tile Tar & Gravel to Tar & Gravel And other natural materials

Usually just Building Permit, however needs planning review and sign-off. Applicant includes with Building Permit application photos of existing house (from street) and roof, as well as color and material samples for proposed roof.

Comp to comp Usually just Building Permit, however needs planning review. Applicant includes with BP application photos of existing house (from street) and roof, as well as color and material samples for proposed roof. Senior Planner or Director to determine if comp is acceptable and if prior comp roof received proper Planning Review. If not, a Track 1 DS (with or without PC referral) may be required.

Reroofs with change in material

New Materials: Slate, Tile (clay, ceramic, and concrete), Tar & Gravel and other natural materials

Design Study Track 1 (staff level approval).

Metal Roof requests Design Study Track 1 with Planning Commission referral required

Tar and gravel to TPO or similar

Typically not allowed. Track 1 Design Study required; may require PC referral.

Wood to comp Design Study Track 1 with - Planning Commission referral required.

Synthetic Products Design Study Track 1 (staff level in most cases) - *See list of acceptable synthetic materials below

84

*Acceptable Synthetic Alternatives

The Planning Commission has determined that certain synthetic products can be approved administratively. The following synthetic products (or similar products) are recommended in earth-toned colors: CeDUR shakes DaVinci shake or slates EcoStar shake or slates Note: Projects are site specific and compliance with the above noted list does not constitute guarantee of approval. The use of synthetic products in the Commercial Zoning Districts may require Planning Commission approval. The City will consider additional synthetic products upon request when installations of products are available nearby.

Handout Accepted by Planning Commission on: 3/9/16. The Planning Commission will review the list of accepted synthetic products on 3/8/17 to determine if the allowance of these products will be continued.

85

86

87

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Planning Commission Report

September 13, 2017

To: Chair Goodhue and Planning Commissioners

From: Marc Wiener, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director

Submitted by: Matthew Sundt, Contract Planner

Subject: Consideration of a Design Study (DS 17-303) referral to the Planning Commission for the replacement of the wood shingle roofing with composition shingle.

Application: DS 17-303 APN: 010-112-001 Block: 8 Lot: 1 Location: SW corner of Vista and Junipero Applicant: Scudder Roofing Property Owner: Kimberly Edwards Executive Summary The applicant is requesting approval of a composition shingle roof to replace the wood shingle roof. This application has been referred to the Planning Commission for a decision based on the Planning Commission’s 2012 directive related to re-roofs that involve changing wood shingle to other materials. Recommendation Deny the proposed composition shingle and approve a natural wood roof, or synthetic shake or slate from the list of pre-approved alternatives. Background and Project Description The project site is located at the SW corner of Vista and Junipero and developed with a two-story single-family residence with a tan stucco exterior and wood-shingle roof – the architectural style is “non-descript contemporary”. Residences in the area represent a mix of architectural styles with wood and composition shingle roofs and tile roofs. The applicant is proposing a composition roof that has a relatively thin-profile (as compared to thick-butted shingle). A sample of the proposed roofing material will be available for review at the Planning Commission meeting.

88

DS 17-303 (Edwards) September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 2

On January 25, 2012, the Planning Commission determined that all requests for replacement of wood shingles/shakes with composition shingles should be reviewed by the Commission. The Commission wanted to ensure that the use of composition shingles would not negatively impact community character. The City does not require Design Study review for proposals to replace existing composition shingle roofs in-kind for residential structures. Staff analysis When making a decision on finish materials and roofing, City staff refers to the Residential Design Guidelines and the Reroof Information Sheet.

• Section 9.8 of the City’s Residential Design Guidelines states the following: Roof Materials should be consistent with the architectural style of the building and with the context of the neighborhood.

1. Wood shingles and shakes are preferred materials for most types of architecture typical

of Carmel (Arts and Crafts, English Revival and Tudor Revival). 2. Composition shingles that convey a color and texture similar to that of wood shingles may

be considered on some architectural styles characteristic of more recent eras.

• Reroof Information Sheet: this sheet (see Attachment B) is distributed to the public and reflects the March 2016 decision of the Planning Commission to allow some non-wood roofing material. This sheet indicates that proposed metal roofs and proposals to replace wood with composition shingles are subject to Planning Commission review. Synthetic materials are allowed with staff level approval if the material is one of three on the approved synthetic list.

The existing wood shake-roof is deteriorated and in need of replacement. The applicant is proposing to replace the wood shakes with composition shingles.

When making a decision on the use of composition-shingle roofing, the Planning Commission should consider neighborhood context, the architectural style of the building, and the characteristics of the proposed composition shingle. Staff notes that the Planning Commission has on occasion approved the replacement of wood roofing material with composition shingles in cases when the composition shingles are compatible with architectural style of the residence, not highly visible from the street (for example, for flat or low-pitched roofs), and compatible with other homes in the neighborhood.

The subject residence has an architectural style that can be defined as “non-descript contemporary”. The roof has a low-pitch (perhaps 4:12), is hipped and covered with wood shingles or shakes. The roof is not visible from Junipero Street but is partially visible from Vista Avenue. Staff conveyed to the applicant that one of the pre-approved synthetic shakes or slates, would be

89

DS 17-303 (Edwards) September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 3

appropriate. The applicant selected not to use these materials and opted instead for referral of the application to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission should consider whether a composition-shingle roof is appropriate for this residence.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the proposal for composition shingle roofing, as using a natural wood roof is the preferred option and is most consistent with Residential Design Guideline 9.8. Staff notes that the Community Planning and Building Department would be able to approve a re-roofing application to replace the existing roofing with a wood roof, or one of the synthetic shake or slate alternatives. Alternatively, the Planning Commission could approve the request for composition shingles.

Environmental Review: The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA requirements, pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1) – Additions to Existing Facilities.

ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A – Site Photographs • Attachment B – Re-roof Information Sheet

90

Attachment A – Photograph

Project site facing south on Vista

91

Process/Policy for Reroof Applications

Do I need a Planning Permit, Building Permit, or both for a reroofing project? Often a Planning Permit is needed before the Building Permit can be issued. Carmel-by-the-Sea has strict Design Guidelines and regulations for review of reroofing projects. Below is a summary of the permitting requirements for most types of reroofing projects.

Reroofing Permit Process: Single-Family Resid. Buildings

Like for like reroofs Wood to wood Just Building Permit, no planner review

Slate to slate Tile to tile Tar & Gravel to Tar & Gravel And other natural materials

Usually just Building Permit, however needs planning review and sign-off. Applicant includes with Building Permit applicatio photos of existing house (from street) and roof, as well as colo and material samples for proposed roof.

Comp to comp Usually just Building Permit, however needs planning review. Applicant includes with BP application photos of existing house (from street) and roof, as well as color and material samples f proposed roof. Senior Planner or Director to determine if com is acceptable and if prior comp roof received proper Planning Review. If not, a Track 1 DS (with or without PC referral) may be required.

Reroofs with change in material

New Materials: Slate, Tile (clay, ceramic, and concrete), Tar & Gravel and other natural materials

Design Study Track 1 (staff level approval).

Metal Roof requests Design Study Track 1 with Planning Commission referral required

Tar and gravel to TPO or similar

Typically not allowed. Track 1 Design Study required; may require PC referral.

Wood to comp Design Study Track 1 with - Planning Commission referral required.

Synthetic Products Design Study Track 1 (staff level in most cases) - *See list of acceptable synthetic materials below

92

*Acceptable Synthetic Alternatives The Planning Commission has determined that certain synthetic products can be approved administratively. The following synthetic products (or similar products) are recommended in earth-toned colors: CeDUR shakes DaVinci shake or slates EcoStar shake or slates Note: Projects are site specific and compliance with the above noted list does not constitute guarantee of approval. The use of synthetic products in the Commercial Zoning Districts may require Planning Commission approval. The City will consider additional synthetic products upon request when installations of products are available nearby.

Handout Accepted by P lanning Commission on: 3/ 9/ 16. The P lanning Commission w ill review the list of accepted synthetic products on 3/ 8/ 17 to determine if the allowance of these products w il l be continued.

93

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Planning Commission Report

September 13, 2017

To: Chair Goodhue and Planning Commissioners

From: Marc Wiener, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director

Submitted by: Catherine Tarone, Assistant Planner

Subject: Consideration of a Design Study (DS 17-266) application for the construction of a detached garage located in the front and side-yard setbacks at a residence located in the Single Family (R-1) Zoning District.

Application: DS 17-266 APN: 010-129-002 Block: 33 Lot: W half of 1 & 3 Location: 3rd Avenue, 2 SW of Dolores Street Applicant: John Mandurrago Property Owner: Steve Lampi Executive Summary: The applicant is proposing to construct a 200-square-foot detached garage on a property that contains an existing 1,596 square-foot two-story residence. The detached garage will be located within the front and side-yard setbacks of the property. The applicant is also proposing to remove an existing parking pad in the right-of-way and replace it with a 14-foot-wide driveway, a 4-foot-wide decomposed granite walkway and landscaping in the right-of-way. Recommendation: Approve Design Study (DS 17-266) subject to the attached findings and conditions. Background and Project Description: The property is located on a 4,000 square-foot lot and is built with an existing 1,596 square-foot, two-story residence. In 2015, staff approved a first-story addition to the southwest portion of the residence and a second-story addition to the rear southeast portion, which together totaled 126 square feet. The applicant also constructed a new wooden entry deck and a reconfigured rear wood deck. The existing parking situation is nonconforming since no parking exists on-site. Parking is instead provided by a 32-foot-wide, 20-foot-long asphalt parking pad located in the City right-of-way that has existed since the construction of the residence in 1951.

94

DS 17-266 (Lampi) September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 2 On July 18, 2017, the applicant submitted a Design Study application proposing the construction of a 200-square-foot detached garage within both the 15-foot front yard setback and the 3-foot side-yard setback. The proposed new garage will provide off-street covered parking and eliminate the need for the parking pad in the right-of-way. The applicant is proposing the removal of the existing parking pad and its replacement with a 14-foot-wide, sand-set concrete paver driveway and a 4-foot-wide, decomposed granite front walkway. The remainder of the right-of-way is proposed to be landscaped. A Determination of Historic Ineligibility for the residence was issued by the Planning Department on January 8, 2016 and will last until January 8, 2021.

PROJECT DATA FOR A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT SITE:

Site Considerations Allowed Existing Proposed

Floor Area 1,800 sf (45%) 1,596 sf not including the existing 200 sf parking pad in the Right-of-Way

1,796 sf (44%)1

Site Coverage 556 sf 2 592 sf 588 sf Trees 3 Upper /1 Lower

(recommended) 3 pine trees/ 3 pittosporum trees

3 pine trees/ 3 pittosporum trees

Ridge Height of the detached carport

15’ N/A 11’ at the street

13' -11" at rear

Plate Height 12’ N/A 9' clearance for a vehicle

Setbacks Minimum Required Existing Proposed Front 15' 16’-9" (for residence) 6" from front property line

set back 28 feet from road

Composite Side Yard 10' (25%) N/A 27 ft.

Minimum (east) Side Yard

3’ 3’ (at deck) 1'-6"

Rear 15' (3' for portions of the building less than 15' in height)

4' at deck 4' at deck

1 Includes new 200 sq. ft. detached garage 2 50% of the proposed site coverage is pervious and so earns the bonus.

95

DS 17-266 (Lampi) September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 3 The finish materials of the garage include vertical board and batten siding and a cedar shingle roof with a 4:12 pitch to match the existing residence. The garage door will have a carriage door design. The detached garage will also have a side entry door, and a double-pane divided light window with shutters to match the residence’s existing windows. Staff Analysis: Detached Garage Design: According to CMC 17.10.030.A.1, "To encourage variety and diversity in neighborhood design, detached garages and carports may be authorized by the Planning Commission within the front yard setback facing the street and within an interior side yard setback," provided that the proposal is compliant with the Municipal Code’s requirements. The applicant is proposing to construct the detached garage 6 inches from the north front property line and 1.5 feet from the east side property line. The neighboring property’s detached garage is located 1 foot and 2 inches from the east property line. Staff notes that, due to the slope of the land, there is a distinct difference in elevation between the proposed detached garage and the neighboring detached garage (see Attachment A for photographs). The elevation difference helps to conceal the proximity of the garages. Additionally, a vegetated and landscaped area that is located in the right-of-way between the two properties will help to conceal the proximity of the garages. Staff notes that the applicant will be removing two pittosporum trees and approximately 11 feet from the 16-foot-wide landscaped area in the right-of-way; however, two significant trees and an approximately 5-foot-wide landscaping area will remain to provide a visual buffer between the properties. Staff does not feel that the proposed garage will create a repeating pattern of detached garages on this block and staff supports the design and location of the detached garage. Additionally, the proposed detached garage will need to meet the following Municipal Code requirements as analyzed by staff: 1. At least 50% of the adjacent right-of-way is landscaped. Staff Response: The applicant is proposing to remove the existing 32-foot-wide asphalt parking pad located in the City right-of-way (See attachment A for a photograph of the parking pad). The applicant is also proposing to replace a portion of the existing landscaped right-of-way separating the project site from the property to the east. The removed parking pad and landscaped area will be replaced by a 14-foot-wide, sand-set permeable paver driveway and a 4-foot-wide decomposed granite walkway in the right-of-way as well as landscaping. CMC 12.24.020 restricts the maximum

96

DS 17-266 (Lampi) September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 4 width of driveways to 14 feet as measured at the property line. However, a 14-foot-wide driveway is typically acceptable for a two-car garage. The City’s Residential Design Guidelines advise a 9-foot-wide driveway. Since the garage width is 10 feet, staff has drafted a condition of approval that the width of the driveway be reduced to 11 feet so that the driveway is more consistent with the City’s Design Guidelines and so that less of the existing forested landscaped area separating the properties will be removed. According to staff’s calculations, the construction of the proposed 14-foot wide driveway and 4-foot-wide decomposed granite pathway, would still allow 50% of the adjacent right-of-way to be landscaped to compensate for the loss of open space that would result from locating the detached garage in the front setback. 2) The proposed setback encroachment would not impact significant trees. Staff Response: There are 6 trees on the property. The garage is proposed to be located more than 6 feet from all trees on the property. 3) The protection of the free and safe movement of pedestrians. Staff Response: The placement of the garage 6 inches from the front the property line does not restrict public access along 3rd Avenue since the right-of-way in this location is wide and varies from 14 to 28 feet in depth from the edge of the street. The right-of-way, as proposed, will provide space for pedestrians walking along 3rd Avenue to move off the street in this location. 4) All development on site will be in scale with adjacent properties. Staff Response: The height of the detached garage is proposed to be 11 feet as measured from the street and 13’- 11” as measured from the rear of the garage due to the slope of the land. The maximum height allowed by the Municipal Code is 15 feet. The garage is proposed to be 200 square feet in size and measure 10 feet in width while the maximum width is permitted to be 12 feet. The length of the garage appears to vary. Staff noted an inconsistency in regard to the length of the garage. On sheet one of the plans, the dimensions are 10 feet by 20 feet while on sheet two of the plans, the dimensions are listed as 10 feet by 19 feet and 7 inches. Staff has drafted a condition of approval that the garage shall be 10 feet by 20 feet to ensure that there is sufficient space for a standard sized car to utilize the garage. While the garage will be set back from the front property line by only 6 inches, staff notes that it will be set back from 3rd Street by

97

DS 17-266 (Lampi) September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 5 approximately 28 feet making the garage less visible from the street. In staff’s opinion, the proposed detached garage is consistent with the scale of surrounding development. 5) Placement of the garage within the front setback will add diversity to the neighborhood streetscape. Staff Response: While the neighboring property to the east has a detached garage located approximately 2’ to 7’ from the proposed detached garage, the right-of-way separating the two garages is 28 feet in depth and contains two trees. While the applicant is proposing to remove some of this vegetation in this existing right-of-way, to construct the driveway, the driveway is proposed to curve so that the trees and a portion of the vegetation will remain which will help maintain a visual separation between the garages despite their proximity. Provided that some vegetation in the right-of-way is maintained to shield the proposed garage, from view, the proposed garage would not appear to create a repeating pattern on the block. Site Coverage: Per Municipal Code Section 17.10.030.C, site coverage shall be limited to a maximum of 22 percent of the base floor area allowed for the site (Note: on a 4,000 square-foot site this equals 396 square feet or about 10 percent of the site). In addition, if at least 50 percent of all site coverage on the property consists of permeable or semi-permeable materials, an additional amount of site coverage of up to four percent of the site area may be allowed up to 556 square feet. As part of the or design study application submitted in 2015 for a 126-square-foot addition, the property’s existing site coverage was 844 square feet, which exceeded the maximum site coverage allowed for the site. The applicant was required to reduce the site coverage by 252 square feet resulting in a 592 square feet of total site coverage. The applicant is now proposing to remove 25 square feet of site coverage to install 5 square feet of driveway plus a 16-square-foot decomposed granite pathway connecting the front walkway to the detached garage side door. Staff supports this exchange of site coverage. Exterior Lighting: Municipal Code Section 15.36.070.B.1 states that all exterior lighting attached to the main building or any accessory building shall be no higher than 10 feet above the ground and shall not exceed 25 watts (incandescent equivalent; i.e., approximately 375 lumens) in power per fixture, and that landscape lighting shall not exceed 18 inches above the ground nor more than 15 watts (incandescent equivalent; i.e., approximately 225 lumens) per fixture.

98

DS 17-266 (Lampi) September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 6 In addition, Residential Design Guideline 11.8, states that projects should, “preserve the low nighttime lighting character of the residential neighborhoods. Use lights only where needed for safety and at outdoor activity areas.” The applicant has not submitted a lighting fixture proposal for the front or side doors of the garage. As per the standard conditions of approval for Track 2 projects, all proposed lighting fixtures shall meet the Municipal Code's standards for wattage, height, down-lighting and shielding. Public ROW: According to the City's Right-of-Way Vision Statement, "Paving, gravel, boulders, logs, timbers, planters or other above-ground encroachments are prohibited, except paving for driveways." The City Right-of-Way (ROW) between the front property line and the street edge on this property primarily consists of the 32-foot-wide, asphalt parking pad; however, a 16-foot-wide natural landscaped area containing 2 significant trees and several smaller pittosporum trees also exists to the east of the driveway. The applicant is proposing to remove existing smaller pittosporum trees and construct an 11-foot section of the proposed driveway in the existing landscaped area. The driveway will veer away from the trees near to the street in order to preserve these. A new 26-foot wide landscaped area will be planted to the west of the driveway in the area of the existing parking pad. Staff has drafted a condition of approval that the applicant shall submit a tree removal permit for the removal of the pittosporum trees in the right-of-way at the location of the proposed driveway. Environmental Review: The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA requirements, pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1) – Existing Facilities. The project includes a 200-square foot detached garage addition to an existing 1,596-square-foot residence, and therefore qualifies for a Class 1 exemption. The proposed addition of a detached garage to the residence does not present any unusual circumstances that would result in a potentially significant environmental impact. ATTACHMENTS:

• Attachment A – Site Photographs • Attachment B – Findings for Approval • Attachment C – Conditions of Approval • Attachment D – Project Plans

99

Attachment A

Lampi Residence Photographs

Proposed detached garage location from 3rd Street facing east

100

101

Landscaped area in the right-of-way adjacent to the east property line where the new driveway is proposed. Will require the removal of the two small pittosporum trees, the larger trees will be retained.

102

Parking Pad Located in the City Right-of-Way along 3rd Avenue

103

Older Photograph from Google Earth of the parking pad (front wall has since been replaced with a fence)

104

Attachment B – Findings for Approval DS 17-266 (Lampi) September 13, 2017 Findings for Approval Page 1

FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR FINAL DESIGN STUDY APPROVAL (CMC 17.64.8 and LUP Policy P1-45)

For each of the required design study 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 Finding YES NO

1. The project conforms with all zoning standards applicable to the site, or has received appropriate use permits and/or variances consistent with the zoning ordinance.

✔

2. The project is consistent with the City’s design objectives for protection and enhancement of the urbanized forest, open space resources and site design. The project’s use of open space, topography, access, trees and vegetation will maintain or establish a continuity of design both on the site and in the public right of way that is characteristic of the neighborhood.

✔

3. The project avoids complexity using simple/modest building forms, a simple roof plan with a limited number of roof planes and a restrained employment of offsets and appendages that are consistent with neighborhood character, yet will not be viewed as repetitive or monotonous within the neighborhood context.

✔

4. The project is adapted to human scale in the height of its roof, plate lines, eave lines, building forms, and in the size of windows doors and entryways. The development is similar in size, scale, and form to buildings on the immediate block and neighborhood. Its height is compatible with its site and surrounding development and will not present excess mass or bulk to the public or to adjoining properties. Mass of the building relates to the context of other homes in the vicinity.

✔

5. The project is consistent with the City’s objectives for public and private views and will retain a reasonable amount of solar access for neighboring sites. Through the placement, location and size of windows, doors and balconies the design respects the rights to reasonable privacy on adjoining sites.

✔

6. The design concept is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies related to residential design in the general plan.

✔

7. The development does not require removal of any significant trees unless necessary to provide a viable economic use of the property or protect public health and safety. All buildings are setback a minimum of 6 feet from significant trees.

✔

8. The proposed architectural style and detailing are simple and restrained in character, consistent and well integrated throughout the building and complementary to the neighborhood without appearing monotonous or repetitive in context with designs on nearby sites.

✔

105

DS 17-266 (Lampi) September 13, 2017 Findings for Approval Page 2 9. The proposed exterior materials and their application rely on natural materials and the overall design will add to the variety and diversity along the streetscape.

✔

10. Design elements such as stonework, skylights, windows, doors, chimneys and garages are consistent with the adopted Design Guidelines and will complement the character of the structure and the neighborhood.

✔

11. Proposed landscaping, paving treatments, fences and walls are carefully designed to complement the urbanized forest, the approved site design, adjacent sites, and the public right of way. The design will reinforce a sense of visual continuity along the street.

✔

12. Any deviations from the Design Guidelines are considered minor and reasonably relate to good design principles and specific site conditions.

✔

106

Attachment C – Conditions of Approval DS 17-266 (Lampi) September 13, 2017 Conditions of Approval Page 1

Draft Conditions of Approval No. Standard Conditions

1. Authorization: This approval of Design Study (DS 17-266) authorizes 1) the construction of a detached garage located 1.5 feet from the side east property line and 6 inches from the front property line. The garage has a width of 10 feet and a length of 20 feet. The height of the garage is 11 feet at the street and 13 feet, 11 inches at the rear of the garage. 2) the construction of a new sand-set paver driveway in the City right-of-way, 3) the construction of a new 4-foot-wide decomposed granite driveway at the front of the property in the right-of-way and a small decomposed granite walkway on the property connecting the garage to the front walkway.

✔

2. The project shall be constructed in conformance with all requirements of the local R-1 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. All new landscaping, if proposed, shall be shown on a landscape plan and shall be submitted to the Department of Community Planning and Building and to the City Forester prior to the issuance of a building permit. The landscape plan will be reviewed for compliance with the landscaping standards contained in the Zoning Code, including the following requirements: 1) all new landscaping shall be 75% drought-tolerant; 2) landscaped areas shall be irrigated by a drip/sprinkler system set on a timer; and 3) the project shall meet the City’s recommended tree density standards, unless otherwise approved by the City based on site conditions. The landscaping plan shall show where new trees will be planted when new trees are required to be planted by the Forest and Beach Commission or the Planning Commission.

✔

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. If 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

✔

107

DS 17-266 (Lampi) September 13, 2017 Conditions of Approval Page 2

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 4,000-square foot parcel, this permit will be scheduled for reconsideration and the appropriate findings will be prepared for review and adoption by the Planning Commission.

✔

8. The applicant shall submit in writing to the Community Planning and Building staff any proposed changes to the approved project plans 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.

✔

9. Exterior lighting shall be limited to 25 watts or less (incandescent equivalent, i.e., 375 lumens) per fixture and shall be no higher than 10 feet above the ground. Landscape lighting shall be limited to 15 watts (incandescent equivalent, i.e., 225 lumens) or less per fixture and shall not exceed 18 inches above the ground. All exterior lighting shall be down-facing and shielded.

✔

10. All skylights shall use non-reflective glass to minimize the amount of light and 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.

N/A

11. The Carmel stone façade shall be installed in a broken course/random or similar 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.

N/A

12. The applicant shall install unclad wood framed windows. Windows that have 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.

✔

108

DS 17-266 (Lampi) September 13, 2017 Conditions of Approval Page 3 13. The applicant agrees, at his or her sole expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold

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 actions by the parties hereto.

✔

14. 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.

✔

15. This project is subject to a volume study. ✔

16. Approval of this Design Study shall be valid only with approval of a Variance. N/A

17. 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.

N/A

18. 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.

✔

19a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, 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. All new construction involving excavation shall immediately cease if materials of archaeological significance are discovered on the site and shall not be permitted to recommence until a mitigation and monitoring plan is approved by the Planning Commission.

✔

19b. All new construction involving excavation shall immediately cease if cultural ✔

109

DS 17-266 (Lampi) September 13, 2017 Conditions of Approval Page 4

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.

20. 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 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.

N/A

21. All conditions of approval for the Planning permit(s) shall be printed on a full-size sheet and included with the construction plan set submitted to the Building Safety Division.

✔

22. Prior to any excavation or digging, the applicant shall contact the appropriate regional notification center (USA North 811) at least two working days, but not more than 14 calendar days, prior to commencing that excavation or digging. No digging or excavation is authorized to occur on site until the applicant has obtained a Ticket Number and all utility members have positively responded to the dig request. (Visit USANorth811.org for more information).

✔

23. Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented by the contractor and subcontractors.

✔

Special Condition ✔

24. The applicant shall reduce the width of the driveway from 14 feet to 11 feet. ✔

25. The garage shall be 10 feet by 20 feet to ensure that there is sufficient space for a standard sized car to utilize the garage.

✔

26. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall submit a tree removal permit for the removal of the pittosporum trees in the right-of-way at the location of the proposed driveway.

✔

*Acknowledgement and acceptance of conditions of approval. ______________________________ ___________________________ __________ Property Owner Signature Printed Name Date

110

DS 17-266 (Lampi) September 13, 2017 Conditions of Approval Page 5 Once signed, please return to the Community Planning and Building Department.

111

112

113

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Planning Commission Report

September 13, 2017 To: Chair Goodhue and Planning Commissioners From: Marc Wiener, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director Submitted by: Marnie R. Waffle, Senior Planner Subject: Consideration of a Subdivision and associated Coastal Development

Permit (SD 17-252) to create two condominium units in an existing multifamily (two-unit) building located in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) Zoning District.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Subdivision and associated Coastal Development Permit. Application: SD 17-252 APN: 010-142-011 Location: San Carlos, 3 SE of 7th Block: 90 Lot: 10 Applicant: Don Mackey Property Owner: Old Mill Properties, LLC BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project site is located on San Carlos Street, 3 southeast of 7th Avenue in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) District. The applicant is requesting approval of a subdivision and associated Coastal Development Permit to create two condominium units in an existing multifamily (two-unit) building. The purpose of the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) Zoning District is to provide appropriate locations for permanent and transient residential uses, service and office uses and limited retail uses that do not adversely impact the residential neighborhood. The district is intended to provide a transition and buffer between the more intense activities of the Central Commercial (CC) and Service Commercial (SC) zoning districts and the less intense activities in the R-1 and R-4 districts. The existing multifamily (two-unit) building serves this purpose.

114

SD 17-252 (Old Mill Properties, LLC) September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 2 In October 2011, the Planning Commission approved a design review application for the construction of the multifamily (two-unit) structure on the project site. The approval was the result of a multi-year design effort between the applicant and the City regarding redevelopment of the property. The site was previously developed with two small cottages that were condemned by the City and demolished in May 2010. The applicant originally proposed a single- family dwelling with a small guest unit, but it was denied by the City because the project did not conform to the development standards for a single family dwelling in the RC zoning district. A revised proposal for a multifamily (two-unit) building was subsequently submitted and denied. The reasons cited for the denial were insufficient landscaping in the setbacks and the design and location of the garage along the street frontage. The applicant later submitted a new application for a multifamily (two-unit) design with parking in the rear, which was approved in October 2011 by the Planning Commission and final building inspection was completed in May 2017. The existing multifamily (two-unit) building includes a 1,070 square foot residence on a lower, subterranean level and a 2,170 square foot residence on the main and upper levels. A lobby is located at the front of the building and includes a staircase and elevator providing access to each level. Three parking spaces are provided underground; two of the parking spaces are tandem (Attachment D). STAFF ANALYSIS: A subdivision for the purpose of creating condominiums allows for a residential structure to be subdivided into separate, individual dwelling units. The Carmel Municipal Code defines a condominium as a multiple dwelling or development containing individually owned dwelling units and jointly owned and shared areas and facilities. A subdivision for condominium purposes is subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. The condominium subdivision would not divide the land on which the existing, two-unit multifamily dwelling is located but rather would subdivide the air space within the structure, thus creating two separate single family dwelling units. Exterior decks, patios, and parking spaces may be restricted to the use of an individual unit while the land on which the condominium is located would be held in common with the other owners of the condominium project. General Plan Policies: The creation of condominium units is subject to the policies, programs and regulations contained in the Carmel General Plan and the Carmel Municipal Code. The following policies and programs pertaining to condominium units are contained in the Carmel General Plan: P1-18 Prohibit the creation of any stock cooperatives within the City/also prohibit the demolition and/or conversion of any apartment units to create condominiums. Source: Land Use and Community Character Element

115

SD 17-252 (Old Mill Properties, LLC) September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 3 Policy P3-5.3 Preserve and expand affordable and rental housing opportunities to enable local employees such as teachers, police, fire fighters and other City personnel to live in the community where they work.

Program 3.5.3.a: Condominium Conversions. The City will continue to implement its condominium conversion policy, which restricts the conversion of apartments to condominiums to preserve the lower-cost rental housing options, typical of apartments, within the City. Apartments cannot be converted to condominiums unless a new apartment is being created to offset the conversion. Source: Housing Element

These policies advance the objective of preserving and increasing the supply of housing for lower- and moderate-income households, senior citizens and other special needs groups. When this project was submitted it was characterized primarily as a multi-family (two-unit) building with references to “apartment units” in various places in the original staff report (Attachment C) and throughout the architectural plans. The property owner has indicated that it was not the intent that the buildings be dedicated as apartments, and furthermore, the recently finished building has only been owner occupied and has not yet been used as an apartment building. The applicant now desires to record a condominium map that would allow for the sale of the two individual units. In staff’s opinion, the subject building should not be classified as an apartment building because it has not been operated as such, and there is some ambiguity in the record as to how the building was classified at the time of approval. The application submitted in 2011 refers to the project simply as “multi-family”. Furthermore, the original project description refers to the building as a two unit multi-family project and there is no special condition requiring that the buildings be apartments. However, if the Planning Commission finds that the existing multifamily (two-unit) building was approved to be apartments then converting the units to condominiums would be in conflict with the General Plan and should be denied. Municipal Code Requirements: In addition to the General Plan, review of this request is subject to Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Section 17.44 (Subdivisions and Lot Line Adjustments and Section 17.14.040.N (Multifamily Dwellings). The criteria for condominium subdivisions are listed below with a staff analysis on whether the project complies with these requirements. Section 17.44, Subdivisions and Lot Line Adjustments

1. Only legal lots may be subdivided. No subdivision shall be approved which increases or creates a zoning nonconformity or is inconsistent with the policies of the certified Local Coastal Implementation Plan. The project site is a 4,000 square foot lot recorded on a map filed with the County of Monterey in 1902 and is a legal lot of record. The property was the subject of a design review application in 2011 for the development of the existing multifamily (two-unit)

116

SD 17-252 (Old Mill Properties, LLC) September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 4

dwelling. The project completed construction in 2017. As constructed, the property is in compliance with the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) Zoning District and associated development standards.

2. No subdivision shall be approved which increases or creates a zoning violation. There are no known zoning violations associated with the property and the subdivision for condominium purposes would not create a zoning violation. As further described below, the proposed condominiums would be in compliance with Carmel Municipal Code Section 17.14.040.N (Multifamily Dwellings).

3. No subdivision shall be approved that would result in the creation of an additional lot of record if such creation would increase the demand for water resources. The proposed subdivision for condominium purposes would not result in the creation of any additional lots. The building currently contains two-units and would continue to contain only two-units.

4. Approval of a subdivision shall be conditioned upon all zoning requirements being met. The proposed subdivision for condominium purposes would not divide the existing 4,000 square foot lot but rather would divide the air space within the existing building creating two, separate single family dwelling units. The project has been conditioned to comply with all zoning requirements.

5. Other conditions may be required as the City deems reasonable and proper for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. No other conditions are being proposed by Staff. The Planning Commission may consider additional conditions for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare.

6. No subdivision shall be approved that would require removal of a significant tree. The project site is currently developed with a multifamily (two-unit) building. Approval of the subdivision for condominium purposes would not result in any physical changes to the site nor would it require removal of a significant tree because the site does not currently contain any significant trees.

7. All subdivisions shall comply with the minimum lot or parcel sizes established for the zoning district where the property is located. As noted above, the property is located on a 4,000 square foot lot in the Residential and

117

SD 17-252 (Old Mill Properties, LLC) September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 5

Limited Commercial (RC) Zoning District. The minimum building site area for condominiums in the RC Zoning District is 4,000 square feet or less. The existing lot complies with the minimum lot size and the proposed subdivision for condominium purposes would not alter the lot size.

8. Applications for subdivisions resulting in additional parcels, including condominiums, shall require a coastal development permit. Approval of the proposed Subdivision also requires approval of a Coastal Development Permit.

Section 17.14.040.N, Multifamily Dwellings

1. Condominium subdivisions are limited to sites of 4,000 square feet or less. The project site is a 4,000 square foot lot and therefore a condominium subdivision is permitted.

2. The minimum size of any residential unit shall be 400 square feet. The existing multifamily (two-unit) building includes a 1,070 square foot residence on the lower, subterranean level and a 2,170 square foot residence on the main and upper levels. Both residential units meet the minimum size requirements.

3. For two-unit residential developments, the floor area of the smaller unit shall be at least 40 percent of the size of the larger unit. The smaller 1,070 square foot unit is approximately 49% of the size of the larger 2,170 square foot unit. The smaller unit complies with the floor area requirements.

Environmental Review: The application qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 Existing Facilities) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Class 1 exemptions include the division of existing multiple family or single-family residences into common-interest ownership and subdivision of existing commercial or industrial buildings, where no physical changes occur which are not otherwise exempt. ATTACHMENTS:

• Attachment A – Findings for Decision • Attachment B – Conditions of Approval • Attachment C – PC Staff Report (October 12, 2011) • Attachment D – Project Plans

118

Attachment A – Findings for Decision

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING

FINDINGS FOR DECISION

SD 17-252 (Old Mill Properties, LLC) San Carlos Street, 3 SE of 7th Avenue Block: 90; Lot: 10 APN: 010-142-011 CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a Subdivision and associated Coastal Development Permit (SD 17-252) to create two condominium units in an existing 2-unit multi-family building located in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) Zoning District. FINDINGS OF FACT:

1. The project site is located on San Carlos Street 3 southeast of 7th Avenue in the

Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) Zoning District. 2. On July 17, 2017, the applicant submitted a Subdivision application to create two

condominium units in an existing 2-unit multi-family building.

3. Carmel Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 (Subdivisions and Lot Line Adjustments) sets forth the criteria for reviewing and approving subdivision applications. Applications for subdivisions require review and approval by the Planning Commission. Applications resulting in the creation of condominiums also require a Coastal Development Permit.

4. The application is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental

Quality Act (Class 1 – Existing Facilities). FINDINGS FOR DECISION:

1. The proposed condominium subdivision is not in conflict with the General Plan or the adopted Local Coastal Program.

2. The proposed condominium subdivision is consistent with all zoning standards applicable to the multifamily dwelling and the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) Zoning District.

3. Multifamily dwellings up to 22 dwelling units per acre are a permitted use in the

Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) Zoning District and the project density is 22 dwelling units per acre.

119

SD 17-252 (Old Mill Properties, LLC) September 13, 2017 Findings for Approval Page 2

4. Condominium subdivisions are limited to sites of 4,000 square feet or less and the

project site is 4,000 square feet.

5. The minimum size of any residential unit is 400 square feet and the proposed condominium units would be 1,070 square feet (lower level unit) and 2,170 square feet (main level and upper level unit).

6. For two-unit residential developments the floor area of the smaller unit shall be at least 40 percent of the size of the larger unit and the proposed smaller condominium unit is 49 percent of the size of the larger unit.

7. The proposed condominium subdivision will not make excessive demands on the provision of public services, including water supply, sewer capacity, energy supply, communication facilities, police protection, or fire protection.

8. The proposed condominium subdivision will not be injurious to the public health, safety or welfare.

9. The proposed condominium subdivision will be compatible with surrounding land uses and will not conflict with the purpose established for the district within which it will be located.

10. The proposed condominium subdivision will not generate adverse impacts affecting

health, safety, or welfare of neighboring properties or uses.

120

Attachment B – Conditions of Approval

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

SD 17-252 (Old Mill Properties, LLC) San Carlos Street, 3 SE of 7th Avenue Block: 90; Lot: 10 APN: 010-142-011 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Consideration of a Subdivision and associated Coastal Development Permit (SD 17-252) to create two condominium units in an existing multifamily (two-unit) building located in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) Zoning District. STANDARD CONDITIONS:

1. This permit authorizes a subdivision for condominium purposes of an existing multifamily (two-unit) building.

2. This approval shall be valid for a period of 24 months from the date of action by the Planning Commission (CMC 17.52.170.B.9).

3. The applicant agrees, at its sole expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold 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 actions by the parties hereto.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS:

1. The applicant shall submit a condominium subdivision map meeting the requirements of the California Subdivision Map Act and the City Engineer. The map shall show each unit, assignment of parking spaces and all common areas. The map shall be reviewed and authorized by City Staff and the City Engineer. Notations on the map shall include the following:

121

SD 17-252 (Old Mill Properties, LLC) September 13, 2017 Conditions of Approval Page 2

a. No condominium unit shall be occupied on a Transient Rental basis. Any unit

rented, leased or offered for occupancy to any party for any form of remuneration shall be for a period of not less than 30 calendar days.

b. No condominium unit shall be used or occupied by any Commercial Use. c. No condominium unit shall be further subdivided into any additional unit(s). d. No condominium unit shall be sold, leased, rented, used or occupied on any form

of Timeshare or interval basis.

2. Prior to recordation of the map, the applicant shall submit a draft Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s) document for City review and approval. This document shall include provisions alerting future owners of the units to the notes on the map and also shall alert owners to the need for Design Review approval from the City for any future change to the site or building design. Each of these provisions shall be permanent provisions of the CC&R’s and shall not be amended by the Homeowners Association or any other party with the express, written approval of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. The CC&R’s shall state this limitation.

*Acknowledgement and acceptance of conditions of approval. _____________________ __________ ________________________ ___________ Applicant Signature Printed Name Date ______________________________ ________________________ ____________ Property Owner Signature Printed Name Date

122

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CHECKLIST

MEETING DATE: 12 October 2011 BLOCK: 90 LOT: 10 FIRST HEARING: 8/10/11 CONTINUED FROM: N/A ITEM NO: DR 11-15/UP 11-16/VA 11-2 APPLICANT: Old Mill Properties

STREAMLINING DEADLINE: 11/21/11 SUBJECT:

Consideration of Design Review, Coastal Development Permit, Use Permit and Variance applications for the construction of a two unit multi-family structure located in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) District.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Exempt (Class 3 – new construction) LOCATION: ZONING:

San Carlos 3 SE 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. Approve the application as submitted. 2. Approve the application with special conditions. 3. Continue the application. 4. Deny the application. RECOMMENDATION: Option #2 (Approve the application with special conditions.) ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report dated 12 October 2011. 2. Application Materials/Project Plans. STAFF CONTACT: Marc Wiener, Associate Planner

123

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING STAFF REPORT Amended & Approved 10/12/11

APPLICATION: DR 11-15 APPLICANT: Old Mill Properties BLOCK: 90 LOT: 10 LOCATION: San Carlos 3 SE of 7th REQUEST: Consideration of Design Review, Coastal Development Permit, Use Permit and Variance applications for the construction of a two unit multi-family structure located in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) District. BACKGROUND: The project site is located on San Carlos Street three southeast of Seventh Avenue in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) District. The lot was previously developed with two small cottages that were used for commercial and residential purposes. The structures were condemned by the City and demolished in May 2010. The applicant previously proposed a multi-family (two-unit) project on the subject property that was denied on January 12, 2011. In response to the denial the applicant redesigned the project to address concerns raised with the original proposal. The Planning Commission reviewed a preliminary concept of the new proposal on August 10, 2011. The Commission was generally supportive of the concept, but did ask that the applicant work on the details of the front façade to make it more pedestrian oriented. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a multi-family (two-unit) structure on the subject property. The proposed structure includes a 1,070 square foot apartment on the lower level and a 2,170 square foot apartment on the main and upper levels. The floor plan includes a vestibule, staircase and elevator at the front that provides access to each level. The project is designed with a three-space underground garage located towards the rear of the lot. Two of the parking spaces are tandem. Access to the garage is provided by a sloped driveway on the south side of the property. The proposed driveway is approximately 9 feet wide (11 feet including retaining walls) and has a slope of approximately 14%. The driveway would only eliminate one curbside parking space. The proposed structure is clad with a combination of horizontal wood siding on the lower level and wood shingle siding on the upper level. The applicant is proposing a slate roof as well as unclad wood doors and windows. The project also includes a landscaped planter across the front of the property.

124

DR 11-15/UP 11-16/VA-2 (Old Mill Properties) 12 October 2011 Staff Report Page 2 A use permit is required for the lower level parking space. The applicant is also applying for a variance, due to the fact that the rear of the structure exceeds the allowed height. A variance may also be required for the parking if the Planning Commission determines that tandem parking does not meet the parking standards.

PROJECT DATA FOR A 4,000 SQUARE FOOT SITE (RC):

Site Considerations Allowed Existing Proposed

Floor Area 3,200 sf (80%) N/A 3,200 sf (80%)*

Building Coverage 3,150 sf (70%) N/A 2,486 sf (62%)

Ridge Height (1st/2nd) 26 ft. N/A 32 ft.

Parking Requirement 3 spaces N/A 3 spaces

Setbacks Minimum Required Existing Proposed

Front 5 ft. N/A 6 ft. 4 in.

Rear 0 ft. N/A 26 ft.

Side Yard 5 feet for at least 50% of length

N/A 5 feet for at least 50% of length

* Main Level/Upper Level Apartment = 2,170 sq. ft. ; Lower Level Apartment = 1,030 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 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.”

CMC Section 17.14 establishes the range of permitted and conditional uses that are allowed in this district. Multi-family projects between 0 and 22 units per acre are a permitted use. The applicant is proposing two units on a 4,000 square foot site, or a density of 22 units per acre. Goal 3-2 of the Housing Element encourages the “development of new multi-family housing in the Commercial and R-4 Districts.” The proposed project fulfills the Housing Element goal while being compatible with the mix of residential, hotel and limited commercial uses in the area.

125

DR 11-15/UP 11-16/VA-2 (Old Mill Properties) 12 October 2011 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” (CMC 17.14.010). In addition to this standard, the Commission should ensure that the project is consistent with zoning requirements and the Commercial Design Guidelines. Zoning: At 3,200 square feet the proposed structure is at the maximum floor area ratio and is below the allowed building coverage by 8%. The project includes three parking spaces as required by the Code (CMC 17.38). The proposed project complies with the dimensional standards for setbacks, however, the rear of the building exceeds the allowed height by six feet, which is addressed below. Height & Variance: The allowed height in the RC District is 26 feet (CMC 17.14). The majority of the structure is at or below this height, with the exception of the rear of the building, which is at a height of 32 feet as measured on the south elevation. The height nonconformity is created by the fact that the applicant must excavate the south and rear of the property to provide parking. From the existing grade the structure meets the height requirement, but from the excavated grade it does not. The applicant is applying for a variance to allow the height. Approval of a variance requires adoption of specific findings as identified in CMC Section 17.64.210. Generally, variances should only be considered when physical constraints exist on a property that would deprive an applicant of privileges enjoyed by other properties that do not have similar constraints. The size and slope of the site appear to justify the height variance. In the past the Planning Commission has indicated that they would support a variance for this site if it allowed the applicant to locate the parking away from the street. With the proposed design this objective has been met. It’s also important to note that the proposed height will not adversely impact the street elevation or make the structure appear out of scale with the neighboring buildings. Parking & Variance: The applicant is proposing three parking spaces located in underground garage at the rear of the structure. Access to the garage is provided by a sloped driveway on the south side of the property. The driveway and surrounding retaining walls have an approximate width of 11 feet. Since the conceptual hearing the applicant had reduced the width of the driveway from 10.5 to 9 feet.

126

DR 11-15/UP 11-16/VA-2 (Old Mill Properties) 12 October 2011 Staff Report Page 4 CMC Section 17.38 requires three spaces for this project (1.5 spaces per unit). The code allows up 50% of all spaces to be compact. Standard spaces are minimum 9’ x 19’ and compact spaces are a minimum of 8.5’ x 16’. The code also requires between 20 to 24 feet for backup space for standard parking spaces and 18 feet for compact spaces. In addition, the code indicates that parking designs shall minimize the need for multiple or complex turning movements. The code does not discuss tandem spaces, but based on small lot sizes and constraints to providing parking, the City in many instances has allowed for tandem parking. However, a strict reading of the code requirements for backup space seems to preclude tandem parking because there would not be sufficient backup space when two vehicles are parked back to back. Tandem parking would likely never be appropriate for commercial uses, but may make sense in some instances for residential uses. The applicant is proposing two parking spaces in the garage, one of which would be a compact space. The applicant is requesting a variance for the third parking space. If tandem spaces were allowed, the proposed driveway would have sufficient space for a third car and would therefore not need a variance. Staff has prepared findings for the parking variance. If the Commission determines that tandem spaces are appropriate then the findings could be amended to eliminate the variance. Design Guidelines: Section “A” of the Commercial Design Guidelines encourages building forms to “complement the rhythms by other buildings in the immediate vicinity”, and recommends avoiding “long blank walls.” The proposed project is consistent with the height, mass and setback patterns of neighboring structures. There is sufficient modulation on the front elevation that prevents the monotonous appearance of a long blank wall. With regards to the exterior siding, Section “E” of the Commercial Guidelines encourages the use of “richly detailed wood, tile, moldings, corbels and stone, as well as landscaping.” The applicant is proposing wood siding, unclad wood doors and windows as well as a slate (stone) roof. The proposed siding materials are consistent with the Guidelines. Commercial Design Guideline Section “B” states that “generally, motels, residential and office buildings in the RC and R-4 districts should maintain a greater front setback to create an attractive landscape area and to complement the design and open space needs of such uses.”

127

DR 11-15/UP 11-16/VA-2 (Old Mill Properties) 12 October 2011 Staff Report Page 5 At the concept hearing the applicant had proposed a five foot front setback. The setback has increased to six feet four-inches, which allows for a larger planter and more landscaping at the front of the property. Front Façade: Section “A” of the Commercial Design Guidelines states that “building walls facing public streets should provide visual interest to pedestrians. Variations such as display windows, changes in building form, and changes in material, texture, or color are appropriate.” At the conceptual hearing the Planning Commission requested that the applicant revise the front façade in order to make it appear more “pedestrian friendly” and less closed off. Concerns were raised about one of the front windows that peered into a small compartment space (between the window and staircase). The Commission also discussed expanding the vestibule so that it could potentially be used for commercial activity in the future. In the original staff report concerns were also raised that the front façade appeared like a single-family residence. Staff recommended that the applicant remove the formal wood door at the front and either leave the common area open, or install a wrought iron gate for security. Staff also recommended that the applicant install a sign that identifies the structure as an apartment building, use appropriate light fixtures and consider expanding the window on the front elevation to provide greater visual interest. The applicant has responded by increasing the size of the vestibule and has eliminated the compartment space and the window that peers into the staircase. The applicant is also proposing a sign and light fixtures that are appropriate for the building. One issue that concerns staff is that the door has now been located on the south side of the vestibule, and is less visible to the street. The applicant has indicated that the door was relocated because there is insufficient room to provide steps and a landing in the six-and-a-half foot space between the door and the front property line. The applicant contends that the steps would be relatively steep at the front, which would also lead to drainage issues. Staff discussed with the applicant the idea of pushing the structure back 2-3 feet in order to gain more space for the steps, however, this would create an issue with the ability to back out of the garage. One option is that the applicant could expand the size of the front window or add more windows. The applicant will provide an alternative option for the front window design at the hearing. Staff notes that with the current proposal the dimensions are consistent between the upper and lower window. The Commission may wish to maintain the consistency. Staff is recommending approval of the project, but notes that the

128

DR 11-15/UP 11-16/VA-2 (Old Mill Properties) 12 October 2011 Staff Report Page 6 Planning Commission may add a condition that the applicant continue to work on the façade and it would be approved at a future hearing. Underground Space/Use Permit: The Planning Commission may authorize underground floor area when the use of these floors is expressly limited to parking, non-commercial storage, and mechanical equipment serving the building. CMC Section 17.14.014 states that underground spaces devoted to these uses are excluded from the floor area calculation. The applicant is proposing an underground floor that includes the garage, mechanical room and storage area. Staff notes that the lower level is below the grade on the north elevation, however, the walls are partially exposed on the south elevation and fully exposed on the north elevation. This is caused by the fact that the applicant must excavate the rear and south side of the property to provide for the driveway and parking area, which is the same reason that the structure exceeds the allowed height and requires a variance. While the structure exceeds the allowed height, the lower level does not qualify as a story. According to CMC 17.70.020, if the finished floor of the floor above the garage is less than five feet above street grade, then the garage does not count as a story. Summary: As stated at the conceptual hearing, staff commends the applicant for submitting a new design that addresses many of the concerns raised with the original proposal. The Commission was mainly concerned with the proposal for parking at the front of the property. The applicant has responded by designing a project that places parking at the rear. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the design, as well as the use permit and variance. If the Commission has concerns about the front façade, this aspect of the project can be continued to the next hearing. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the application with the attached findings and conditions.

129

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING

FINDINGS FOR DECISION

UP 11-16/VA 11-2 Old Mill Properties San Carlos 3 SE of 7th Blk 90, Lot 10 CONSIDERATION: Consideration of a Use Permit authorizing a multi-family dwelling with the use of underfloor areas for parking and noncommercial storage, and a variance from the height and on-site parking requirements. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The property is located on San Carlos Street three southeast of Seventh Avenue in

the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) District. 2. The property is a 4,000 square foot legal lot of record. The lot was previously

developed with two small cottages that were used for commercial and residential purposes. The structures were condemned by the City and demolished in May 2010.

3. The applicant submitted Use Permit and Variance applications for this project on

26 September 2011. FINDINGS FOR DECISION (USE PERMIT): 1. The proposed use is not in conflict with the General Plan.

2. The proposed use will comply with all zoning standards applicable to the use with

the exception of the requested height and parking variance.

3. The granting of 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. 4. 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, street capacity and fire protection.

5. The proposed use will not be injurious to public health, safety or welfare and

provides adequate ingress and egress.

130

UP 11-16/VA 11-2 (Old Mill Properties) 12 October 2011 Findings & Conditions Page 2 6. 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.

7. The proposed use will not generate adverse impacts affecting health, safety, or

welfare of neighboring properties or uses. 8. The proposed underground garage is exempt from floor area consistent with CMC

Sections 17.14.150.A and 17.14.21.F. FINDINGS FOR DECISION (VARIANCE): 1. The size and slope of the site along with the location of a significant tree present a

significant physical hardship that justifies the granting of a variance from the height and on-site parking requirements.

2. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with

limitations on other properties in the vicinity. 3. The variance will not be detrimental to adjacent property or injurious to public

health, safety or welfare. 4. The site conditions are not so general or recurrent in nature as to make reasonable

the formulation of a general regulation to address such conditions. 5. The existing site constraints were not created by the applicant. 6. The variance approval is consistent with the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan. 7. The project conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program of the City of

Carmel by the Sea. 8. The project is not located between the first public road and the sea and no review

is required for potential public access. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. All underground areas shall be used for non-commercial storage and parking only. 2. If the approved building is demolished in the future, the variance and use permit

approvals will become null and void.

131

UP 11-16/VA 11-2 (Old Mill Properties) 12 October 2011 Findings & Conditions Page 3 DECISION: The Use Permit and Variance applications are approved with the conditions stated above.

132

REQUIRED FINDINGS: 1. The project conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program of the City of Carmel by

the Sea and Commercial Design Guidelines. 2. The project is not located between the first public road and the sea and no review is required for potential public access.

Standard Conditions

No. Condition 1. This approval constitutes Design Study and Coastal Development permits

authorizing the construction of a new residence. All work shall conform to the approved plans dated 12 October 2011 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 shall require separate 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. All new landscaping shall be shown on a landscape plan and shall be submitted to the Department of Community Planning and Building and to the City Forester prior to the issuance of a building permit. The landscape plan will be reviewed for compliance with the landscaping standards contained in the Zoning Code, including the following requirements: 1) all new landscaping shall be 75% drought-tolerant; 2) landscaped areas shall be irrigated by a drip/sprinkler system set on a timer; and 3) the project shall meet the City’s recommended tree density standards, unless otherwise approved by the City based on site conditions. The landscaping plan shall show where new trees will be planted when new trees are required to be planted by the Forest and Beach Commission or the Planning Commission.

✔

5. Trees on the site shall only be removed upon the approval of the Forest and Beach Commission; 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. If 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.

✔

133

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 4,000 square foot parcel, this permit will be scheduled for reconsideration and the appropriate findings will be prepared for review and adoption by the City Council.

✔

8. The applicant shall submit in writing any proposed changes to the project plans as submitted on 12 October 2011 and approved by the Planning Commission, prior to incorporating changes on the site. If the applicant changes the project without first obtaining 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 approval.

✔

9. Exterior lighting shall be limited to 25 watts or less per fixture and shall be no higher than 10 feet above the ground. Landscape lighting shall be limited to 15 watts or less per fixture and shall not exceed 18 inches above the ground.

✔

10. The Carmel stone façade shall be installed in a broken course/random or similar 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.

N/A

11. The applicant shall install unclad wood framed windows. Windows that have 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.

✔

12. Approval of this remodel does not authorize demolition and is based on the constraints of the design of the existing building and site constraints as presented to the Planning Commission. Unauthorized demolition shall void this approval and shall require submittal of a new Design Study application.

✔

13. Approval of this Design Study shall be valid only with approval of the Use Permit. ✔

14. The applicant agrees, at its sole expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold 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 actions by the parties hereto.

✔

134

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. 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.

✔

17. 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.

✔

18. The project plans submitted for building permit review shall comply with the City’s Green Building Ordinance (CMC Section 15.54) and obtain a minimum of 60 points based on the Residential Green Building Checklist.

✔

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Planning Commission Report

September 13, 2017 To: Chair Goodhue and Planning Commissioners From: Marc Wiener, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director Submitted by: Marnie R. Waffle, Senior Planner Subject: Consideration of a Story-Pole Policy for New Construction RECOMMENDATION: Develop a recommendation to the City Council on a proposed Story-Pole Policy. BACKGROUND: The City does not currently have a written policy regarding the installation of story poles during the design review process. Staff is recommending that the City adopt a Story-Pole policy that formalizes current practice and provides clear direction on when and how story poles should be installed. At the August 23, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, Staff solicited input from the Planning Commission on the development of a Story-Pole Policy. Based on input from the Planning Commission, Staff has developed a draft Story-Pole Policy (Attachment A). Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission review the draft policy and develop a recommendation to the City Council. STAFF ANALYSIS: At the August 23rd Planning Commission meeting, the Commission provided direction on a number of policy considerations. The policy considerations and the Planning Commissions feedback are summarized below followed by a discussion of the draft Story-Pole Policy. Policy Considerations

1) Staff currently relies on applicants to ensure that story poles are installed to accurately depict the height of proposed structures.

a. Should the draft Story-Pole policy require that the height of the poles be certified by a surveyor?

144

Story Pole Policy September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 2 Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommended certification of the height of the story poles by a licensed surveyor.

b. If certification is recommended, then should it be for all projects or only projects of a certain size, type, or location, i.e. new residence, new commercial building, located in a scenic area, etc.?

Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommended certification of all projects, but suggested that an existing reference point could potentially be used for Track One Design Study/Review projects.

2) Current practice is to require the installation of story poles for all Track-Two design

study projects that require Planning Commission review. a. Should story poles be required for staff-approved projects?

Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommended the installation of story poles and netting for all design study/review projects, with the exception of projects that are 40 square feet in size or less.

3) Should the draft Story-Pole policy include the installation of story poles and netting for

decks, balconies and chimneys? Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommended that architectural elements such as decks, balconies and chimneys also be identified with story poles and/or netting.

4) Residential Design Studies are valid for one year and may be issued a one-year time

extension. After two years the project requires a new design study permit. For previously approved projects the City has historically required public noticing, but not story poles. Should story poles be required to be reinstalled as part of a request to renew the approval?

Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommended that story poles and netting be reinstalled if a project approval has expired and a request to renew the approval is submitted. Draft Story-Pole Policy Staff has drafted two versions of the Story-Pole Policy for the Commission’s consideration. Both draft policies include sections on the purpose and applicability of story poles as well as a requirement for 2-foot wide orange netting and identification of elevated decks, balconies and chimneys. The following is a summary of the key differences between the two versions of the policy:

145

Story Pole Policy September 13, 2017 Staff Report Page 3 Version 1

• Requires certification for both Track-One and Track-Two projects1. • Story-poles are required for all Staff-approved projects that exceed 40 square feet. • There is no option for the Director to waive story-pole requirements for Track-One

projects. Version 2

• Only requires certification for Track-Two projects while Track-One projects can use existing reference points.

• Story-poles are required for Staff-approved projects that exceed 120 square feet. • Allows the Director to waive story-pole requirements for Track-One projects.

In staff’s opinion, Version 2 of the policy is more practical and less onerous for property owners, particularly for Track-One projects. For example, if the Commission decides to establish a threshold as low as 40 square feet, then property owners would be required to install story-poles for new storage sheds. The Planning Commission may consider a hybrid of the two versions or making additional revisions that are not included in either version. With regard to certification, the Commission may consider only requiring it for second-story additions and new two-story homes, or in cases where there is a potential impact to an ocean view. Environmental Review: Seeking direction from the Planning Commission on the creation of a draft policy is not a project under CEQA pursuant to Section 15378(b)(2), general policy and procedure making. ATTACHMENTS:

• Attachment A – Draft Story-Pole Policy, Version 1 • Attachment B – Draft Story-Pole Policy, Version 2 • Attachment C – Story-Pole Affidavit

1 Track-One projects are those that add less than 10% of the existing floor area to the residence and can be approved by Staff. Track-Two projects are those that add greater than 10% to the existing floor area or for new buildings and must be approved by the Planning Commission.

146

Version 1 Policy No. 2017-##

Approved: ___________

THE CITY OF Carmel-by-the-Sea

COMMUNITY PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT Administrative Policies & Procedures

Policy No. 2017-## STORY-POLE POLICY

PURPOSE To require the installation of story poles and netting for Design Study/Review applications in order to assist decision makers and the public in evaluating the height, location and extent of proposed development for consistency with local regulations and ordinances. APPLICABILITY AND TIMING OF INSTALLATION The installation of story poles and netting shall be required for residential and commercial design study/review applications that increase floor area or structure height or may otherwise impact privacy or views (i.e. decks and balconies) as outlined below. Staff Approvals (i.e. Design Study/Review, Track One) Story poles and netting shall be installed and certified for all proposed additions and elevated decks exceeding 40 square feet in size. Story poles shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Notice of Approval and shall remain in place until the 10 calendar-day appeal period has ended. Public Hearings (i.e. Design Study/Review, Track Two) Story poles and netting shall be installed and certified at least 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing. The story poles and netting shall remain in place until final action has been taken on the project and the 10 business-day appeal period has ended. Appeals If an appeal is filed, the story poles and netting shall remain in place until the project has been reviewed by the appeal body and the appeal period for that review has ended. Permit Expiration If a Design Study/Review approval expires and an application to renew the approval is submitted, the story poles and netting shall be reinstalled in accordance with the Story-Pole Policy. CERTIFICATION It is the applicant’s responsibility to install story poles and netting on the project site consistent with this policy. Furthermore, it is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that the story poles and netting are placed in a manner which accurately depicts project elements including but not limited to height, location, mass, and bulk and that all trees and/or branches proposed for removal are properly identified. Story poles and netting shall be certified by a California licensed surveyor, civil engineer or architect prior to the issuance of a Notice of Approval or distribution of a Public Notice. An “Affidavit of Story Pole Certification” shall be submitted to the Community Planning and Building Department along with a photograph of the story poles and netting. 147

Page 2 of 2

REQUIREMENTS Materials Story poles shall be constructed of 2-inch by 4-inch (minimum) lumber or metal poles. Story poles shall be braced at the base with supporting beams to ensure they will withstand weather and remain correctly positioned. Netting shall be bright orange construction mesh at least 2-feet wide.

Identification Story poles shall be placed at all outside building corners and along the rooflines of the proposed structure(s). Architectural elements such as chimneys, elevated decks and balconies that extend beyond the footprint of the structure shall also be identified. If trees or branches are proposed for removal, they shall have 1-inch minimum fluorescent pink or red flagging ribbon tied around their most visible portion. If story poles, netting and/or flagging ribbons are not installed accurately, staff or the review body may continue the project review until such time that placement has been corrected.

REMOVAL All story poles and netting shall be removed at the end of the appeal period following final action on a project. QUESTIONS For questions, please contact the Community Planning and Building Department at (831) 620-2010.

148

Version 2 Policy No. 2017-##

Approved: ___________

THE CITY OF Carmel-by-the-Sea

COMMUNITY PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT Administrative Policies & Procedures

Policy No. 2017-## STORY-POLE POLICY

PURPOSE To require the installation of story poles and netting for Design Study/Review applications in order to assist decision makers and the public in evaluating the height, location and extent of proposed development for consistency with local regulations and ordinances. APPLICABILITY AND TIMING OF INSTALLATION The installation of story poles and netting shall be required for residential and commercial design study/review applications that increase floor area or structure height or may otherwise impact privacy or views (i.e. decks and balconies) as outlined below. Staff Approvals (i.e. Design Study/Review, Track One) Story poles and netting shall be installed for all new structures/additions and elevated decks exceeding 120 square feet in size. Story poles shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Notice of Approval and shall remain in place until the 10 calendar-day appeal period has ended. Public Hearings (i.e. Design Study/Review, Track Two) Story poles and netting shall be installed and certified at least 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing. The story poles and netting shall remain in place until final action has been taken on the project and the 10 business-day appeal period has ended. Appeals If an appeal is filed, the story poles and netting shall remain in place until the project has been reviewed by the appeal body and the appeal period for that review has ended. Permit Expiration If a Design Study/Review approval expires and an application to renew the approval is submitted, the story poles and netting shall be reinstalled in accordance with the Story-Pole Policy. WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT The Director of Community Planning and Building may waive the requirement for story poles and netting for Track One projects if it can be seen with certainty that the proposed site/building modifications are not visible from the public way and/or will not have a negative impact on surrounding properties. CERTIFICATION It is the applicant’s responsibility to install story poles and netting on the project site consistent with this policy. Furthermore, it is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that the story poles and netting are placed in a manner which accurately depicts project elements including but not limited to height, location, mass, and bulk and that all trees and/or branches proposed for removal are properly 149

Page 2 of 2

identified. For Track Two Residential and Commercial design study/review applications, story poles and netting shall be certified by a California licensed surveyor, civil engineer or architect prior to distribution of a Public Notice. For Track One Residential and Commercial design study/review applications, story poles and netting shall use existing on-site structures as a reference point. An “Affidavit of Story Pole Certification” shall be submitted to the Community Planning and Building Department along with a photograph of the story poles and netting. REQUIREMENTS Materials Story poles shall be constructed of 2-inch by 4-inch (minimum) lumber or metal poles. Story poles shall be braced at the base with supporting beams to ensure they will withstand weather and remain correctly positioned. Netting shall be bright orange construction mesh at least 2-feet wide.

Identification Story poles shall be placed at all outside building corners and along the rooflines of the proposed structure(s). Architectural elements such as chimneys, elevated decks and balconies that extend beyond the footprint of the structure shall also be identified. If trees or branches are proposed for removal, they shall have 1-inch minimum fluorescent pink or red flagging ribbon tied around their most visible portion. If story poles, netting and/or flagging ribbons are not installed accurately, staff or the review body may continue the project review until such time that placement has been corrected.

REMOVAL All story poles and netting shall be removed at the end of the appeal period following final action on a project. QUESTIONS For questions, please contact the Community Planning and Building Department at (831) 620-2010.

150

Please attach a photograph(s) demonstrating installation of the story poles and netting.

AFFIDAVIT OF STORY POLE CERTIFICATION

(Must be completed by a California Licensed Surveyor,

Civil Engineer or Architect)

On _____________________, I surveyed the story poles and netting located at Date ___________________________________, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA related to plans Property Address submitted as part of a design review/study application ______________________. Application No. I have determined that the story poles are in substantial compliance with the project plans submitted to the Community Planning and Building Department and accurately represent the proposed construction in terms of dimension, corner/wall locations, and ridge heights/locations. I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Signature Executed on _______________ Date Name Phone No. (____)____________ Print Legibly State License No. Company

151