Four Noteworthy 1 March 2011 City Council Agenda Items

UPDATE: (Tuesday, 1 March 2011)
RE: XI. Orders of Council
A. Approve amendments to City’s revised Harassment Prevention Policy.
Harassment Prevention Policy pulled from 1 March 2011 City Council Meeting.

ABSTRACT: Four Noteworthy 1 March 2011 City Council Agenda Items, namely Receive update on the ASBS project, Consideration of the following two appeals filed by Old Mill Properties, LLC.: 1) An appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a two-unit, multi-family residential project for a site located 3 SE of Seventh Avenue on San Carlos Street. 2) An appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a two-unit, multi-family residential project for a site located 3 SW of Seventh Avenue on Mission Street, Consideration of an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 6.08 to allow for the keeping of chicken hens on properties in the R-1 District in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and Approve amendments to City’s revised Harassment Prevention Policy, are presented. Excerpts from Agenda Item Summaries and Staff Reports are provided.

AMENDED AGENDA PACKET
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
4:30 p.m., Open Session

Live & Archived video streaming

City Hall
East side of Monte Verde Street between Ocean and Seventh Avenues

V. Announcements from Closed Session, from City Council Members and the City Administrator.

C. Announcements from City Administrator.

4. Receive update on the ASBS project.

VIII. 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 City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.

A. Consideration of the following two appeals filed by Old Mill Properties, LLC.:
1) An appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a two-unit, multi-family residential project for a site located 3 SE of Seventh Avenue on San Carlos Street.
2) An appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a two-unit, multi-family residential project for a site located 3 SW of Seventh Avenue on Mission Street.

Description: The appellant is requesting that the Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the two multi-family projects in the RC District.

Staff Recommendation: Grant the appeals.

Important Considerations: During the hearings several concerns were raised by the Commission about the projects. However, the primary point of debate centered on whether the applicant should be required to place the parking at the rear of the lots for both projects.

Decision Record: On 12 January 2011 both projects received a split 2-2 vote and were denied due to a lack of a motion for approval.

BACKGROUND & PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to develop two adjacent lots, each with a multi-family (twounit) residence. Both properties are located in the Residential and Limited Commercial (RC) District. One of the lots is located on San Carlos Street three southeast of Seventh Avenue and the other lot is located on Mission Street three southwest of Seventh Avenue. Both lots were previously developed with residences that have since been condemned and demolished.

The applicant is appealing the denial of both projects by the Planning Commission. This staff report addresses both projects but notes that the Council will need to make two separate motions to address the projects individually.

DR 10-24 San Carlos Street Project: The applicant is proposing to construct a 3,200 square foot Spanish style structure. The project includes a 2,371 square feet main residence, a 412 square foot apartment and a 417 square foot garage. The apartment is located on the lower level and has a separate entry as well as a kitchen and full bathroom. The project includes three parking spaces as required by code (see attachment “B” for more information).

The structure is clad with stucco siding, a clay tile roof and includes unclad wood windows. The front elevation presents an entry element, a balcony and single wood garage door. The garage door is located 22.5 feet from the street and is recessed behind the front carport. No variances are being proposed.

DR 10-25 Mission Street Project: The applicant is proposing to construct a 3,600 square foot structure. The project includes a 2,756 square foot main residence with a 410 square foot apartment. The apartment is located on the lower level and has a separate entry as well as a kitchen and full bathroom. The project includes three parking spaces as required by code (see attachment “B” for more information).

The proposed structure consists of a low pitched gable and hip roof design with wood rafter tails. The entire residence is clad with a stone veneer and includes wood doors and windows and a slate roof. The front façade presents an entry element and a two-car garage and carport to the street. No variances are being proposed.

Planning Commission Review: The Planning Commission reviewed these projects at four separate hearings (see attachment “C” for a hearing summary). Due to a conflict of interest, one commissioner was required to step down during the review process. On 12 January 2011 both projects received a split 2-2 vote and were denied due to a lack of a motion for approval.

Since there was no majority vote to approve or deny the projects, there are no formal Planning Commission findings that accompany these appeals. During the hearings several concerns were raised by the Commission including mass and scale, architectural design, landscaping and safety (see attachment “C”). However, the primary point of debate centered on whether the applicant should be required to place the parking at the rear of the lots for both projects.

BASIS FOR APPEAL
The property owner is appealing the project denials for the following reasons (see attachment “A” for more information):

• The proposed project is consistent with the Zoning Code and Commercial Design Guidelines.

• The determination that parking should be at the rear of the property is unfounded and cannot be tied to the Zoning Code or Design Guidelines.

• Parking in the back is an impractical notion that is too costly and would result in a financially disastrous project.

EVALUATION
This section of the staff report discusses the General Plan, Zoning Regulations and Design Guidelines that should be used by the City Council in its deliberation.

General Plan
The General Plan land use designation for this site is Commercial/Residential. Page 1-15 of the General Plan states:

“this area is intended to provide for a mix of residential dwellings and a limited range of office and service uses in scale with the character of the community. Less intense commercial uses and visitor accommodations are allowed in this area. Mixed-use developments of commercial and multi-family residential uses at a maximum density of thirty-three (33) units per acre are allowed. This area is also appropriate for public service uses.”

The General Plan envisions residential, limited commercial, public services and mixed use developments for this area. The traditional character of the RC district is quite eclectic and contains single-family residence, multi-family projects, mixed use projects, commercial projects and public services. The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and the traditional character of the District.

There are several goals, objectives and policies in the Land Use Element of the General Plan that provide guidance on project design, which are summarized in Attachment “E”. Objective 01-11 was the focus of much of the Commission’s debate and encourages pedestrian-oriented commercial and multi-family districts that are integrated into the residential character of the community. The Commission was split on whether the proposed designs with two garage doors facing the street, rather than locating the parking at the rear of the site, were inconsistent with this objective.

Staff notes that there are challenges to placing parking at the rear of these sites, particularly for the San Carlos project. Both sites are narrow, steeply sloped, and include large significant trees that constrain the potential location of parking. Placing the parking at the rear would require sloped driveways. Sloped driveways often require tall retaining walls and expose more of the mass of a structure to the street, as well as presenting safety concerns due to the limited lines-of-sight when approaching the street. These challenges should be taken into consideration as well as the concerns raised by the Commission that placing the parking near the front of the site is not pedestrian friendly.

Zoning Regulations
The Zoning Designation for both properties is Residential and Limited Commercial (RC).

CMC Section 17.14.010.C states that the purpose of the RC District is:

“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 residential projects with a density between 0-22 acres are considered a permitted use by the Zoning Ordinance. CMC Section 17.68.030 defines a multi-family dwelling as:

“a building or group of buildings on a single building site that contains two or more dwellings, each with its own facilities for parking, living, sleeping, cooking and eating. This classification includes condominiums, townhouses, and apartments.”

The Zoning Code also encourages a mix of unit sizes to provide a wide range of housing opportunities. Staff concludes that both projects are consistent with the intent and the requirements of the RC District.

Design Guidelines: CMC Section 17.14.100 states that 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 17.14.110 indicates that the Commercial Design Guidelines have been adopted to assist in the design review process and that “Proposed projects need not strictly comply with every Guideline to be approved but deviations should be minor and reasonably related to good design principles and site conditions.”

Attachment “F” includes a list of some of the relevant Commercial Design Guidelines that the Council should consider. In summary, the Guidelines encourage buildings to provide visual interest, complement the rhythms established by other buildings in the immediate vicinity and encourage building materials and colors to respect the traditions already established in the commercial district. Staff provides a brief response for each of the projects below.

San Carlos Street Project: The project provides visual interest and is consistent with the heights of other buildings between Seventh and Eighth Avenues on San Carlo Street. The structure is larger than the neighboring building to the south, however, the neighboring building is undersized compared to the other buildings in the vicinity.

With regards to materials, the applicant is proposing an off-white stucco siding, clay tile roofing and wood windows. Spanish style architecture with the proposed materials is traditionally used in the commercial district. The proposed color also respects the traditions and context of the commercial district.

Mission Street Project: For the project on Mission Street the applicant is proposing stone siding, a slate roof and wood windows. The proposed materials are natural and are consistently used throughout Carmel’s commercial and residential districts. The applicant is proposing to apply a stone veneer to the entire structure as opposed to being used on only the street façade.

Safety: The Carmel Police Department reviewed the plans and conducted a site visit in order to evaluate the safety of the proposed parking designs (see attachment “D”). The Police Department determined that there were no undue traffic and safety problems arising from the construction of either driveway as set forth in the plans.

Summary: The City Council should discuss the following questions:

• Are the projects consistent with the General Plan?
• Do the projects comply with the Zoning Requirements for the RC District?
• Are the projects consistent with the Commercial Design Guidelines?

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council make the following two motions:

1) Grant the appeal for DR 10-24 (San Carlos Street) and direct staff to prepare findings and conditions for approval.

2) Grant the appeal for DR 10-25 (Mission Street) and direct staff to prepare findings and conditions for approval.

IX. Ordinances
A. Consideration of an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 6.08 to allow for the keeping of chicken hens on properties in the R-1 District in the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. (First reading)

Description: The proposed ordinance would allow the keeping of up to two chicken hens per property in the R-1 District, under certain conditions.

Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Ordinance (1st reading).

Important Considerations: The City’s Municipal Code currently does not allow for the keeping of chickens. On 5 October 2010, the City Council heard a request to allow the keeping of chicken hens and directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance for review.

Decision Record: The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the attached ordinance on 26 January 2011.

BACKGROUND & DESCRIPTION
Carmel Municipal Code (CMC) Section 6 establishes the City’s regulations regarding animals. Section 6.08.120, originally adopted in 1969, states the following:

“It is unlawful, and is declared a nuisance, for any person or persons to keep or cause to be kept any swine or barnyard fowl whatsoever within the corporate limits of the City.”

On 5 October 2010 the City Council heard a request from a Carmel citizen to amend the municipal code to allow for the keeping of chickens. The Council agreed that the City should allow the keeping of chickens under certain conditions and directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance. The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the attached ordinance on 26 January 2011.

EVALUATION
The proposed ordinance establishes a limit of two chicken hens per property in the R-1 District only. The ordinance establishes nine requirements for the keeping of chickens. These are identified below followed by a brief response from staff.

a) No roosters are permitted.

Response: Not allowing roosters will limit the noise impacts that might otherwise occur.

b) All chicken hens must be kept and secured within an enclosure of metal chicken wire, or other suitable material as to prevent the escape of any hens. The enclosure shall be maintained in good repair and no chicken hen shall be allowed to run at large on public or private property. Chicken hens may be permitted outside of an enclosure on the applicant’s property only when attended.

Response: This condition addresses the concern that chickens could escape from private property onto neighboring properties or city parks and open space. This condition will also limit the potential for incidents with other wild animals such as raccoons.

c) No enclosure shall exceed 20 square feet in size and five (5) feet in height above grade.

Response: This requirement limits the size of hen enclosures to mitigate potential visual impacts on neighboring properties.

d) The enclosure shall comply with all applicable R-1 standards as defined in CMC Section 17.10 and no commercial uses are permitted.

Response: Some of the R-1 standards that would be applicable include setbacks and site coverage. R-1 setback standards would require an enclosure be at least three feet from any side and rear property line and 15 feet from the front property line on most sites. The Planning Commission discussed limiting structures to rear yards only, however, ultimately did not make that a requirement of the ordinance primarily because there may be lot and building configurations in the City that would preclude placement in a rear yard.

e) A Track 1 Design Study application shall be submitted to the Department of Community Planning and Building for approval of the location and design of the enclosure prior to installation. Upon receipt of an application, the City shall cause that a notice be provided by mail and by hand delivery to all properties within 100 feet of the site indicating that an application has been filed. A public hearing with the Planning Commission may be required if a concern is filed in writing within 10 business days of the date the notice is delivered.

Response: A Track 1 application would be required to ensure that an applicant complies with the rules of the ordinance, to review the design and placement of the chicken hen enclosure, and to allow the City to track the properties that have been approved to keep chicken hens. The Planning Commission added the noticing requirement to ensure that neighboring property owners were made aware of a proposal to keep chickens.

f) Animal excretion shall not be permitted to accumulate so as to become offensive to any neighboring property; and

g) Outdoor slaughtering of birds shall not be permitted.

Response: These requirements will help ensure that the keeping of chickens does not create negative impacts on neighboring properties.

h) Failure to comply with any of these requirements may result in the revocation of the permit to keep chicken hens.

Response: This requirement gives the city the ability to revoke the permit to keep chicken hens in the event that a property owner is unable to comply with the requirements of the ordinance.

i) This ordinance shall expire on 30 June 2013 unless otherwise authorized by the City Council. No more than 15 permits shall be issued within that time.

Response: The Planning Commission recommended a sunset date on the ordinance and the establishment of a maximum number of permits that could be issued before that time. The purpose is to allow the City to reevaluate the ordinance within approximately two years and determine whether it should be extended, revised or withdrawn.

SUMMARY
In summary the Council should answer the following questions:

1) Are the proposed requirements appropriate or should they be modified?

2) Are there other requirements that should be included?

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Ordinance (1st Reading).

XI. Orders of Council
A. Approve amendments to City’s revised Harassment Prevention Policy.

Item XI-A – Approve amendments to City’s revised Harassment Prevention Policy will be provided under separate cover.