HRB finds proposed 3‑inch exterior drain inconsistent but recommends alternative routing for Clark Fairlie storefront

The Carmel‑by‑the‑Sea Historic Resources Board voted Aug. 18 to find a proposed exterior 3‑inch storm drain installation at a downtown commercial property inconsistent with the Downtown Conservation District’s established design context, but the board recommended a specific alternative routing that staff said would be consistent.

The two related applications (DR25‑112 and DR25‑151, Clark Fairlie project) are separate actions: one addresses a storm‑drain connection for a flat‑roofed building and the other addresses an awning replacement inside a courtyard. The board heard staff analysis and multiple options from the owner’s on‑site representative, Jack Carmendita.

Staff explained the Downtown Conservation District requires components such as gutters, downspouts and scuppers to be integrated or visually compatible with building facades because these details contribute to the overall Ocean Avenue character. The owner’s representative said the existing interior cast‑iron drainage under a slab has deteriorated, causing interior flooding, and presented two alternatives: run new piping inside the building (more invasive and higher cost) or route the pipe exteriorly along the south side and under the sidewalk to daylight at the curb. He said running the pipe through the building would be roughly four times more labor‑intensive and would involve going through nonbearing walls and existing slab work.

Board members and staff discussed several design‑sensitive options. A commonly endorsed solution was to bring the new downspout down on the south side of the building, run it along the retaining ledge or near the corridor behind the storefront, and install the exterior run below the paving surface before the front corner so the pipe would not cross the front facade. Staff also said painting any visible conduit to match the building’s color would help achieve consistency with the Conservation District.

On a motion, the board found the proposed drain plan inconsistent with the established design context but added a recommended finding identifying a specific alternative (bringing the pipe down farther back on the south side, running it along the retaining wall/corridor and daylighting it under the sidewalk near the street), plus a recommendation to paint visible piping to match the building. The motion passed. Vote record: Board Member Dyer — yes; Board Member Goodhue — yes; Board Member Gualtieri — yes; Board Member Voorhis — yes; Chair Kromen — yes.

Staff noted the board’s role is advisory for nonhistoric sites in the Conservation District; the recommendation will accompany the project materials to the planning decision maker.