Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-09-05; City Council; 10237; Appeal Of PC Denial Bldg Height Nessim Prop22 I m I’ m ii 0 5 a C-Y OF CARLSBAD - A&i BILL -. ---..---- ~~ _.-- -- - - - --- @7 m Q . AB## id, 237 TITLE: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MTG. 9/05/89 DENIAL CONCERNING BUILDING HEIGHT. DEPT. PLN PCD 89-3 - NESSIM I RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the Council ADOPT Resolution No. 8,$?-J/9, UPHOLDING the Planning Commission decision DENYING PCD 89-3. I ITEM EXPLANATION The applicant is appealing the Planning Commission denial of a PCD (Planning Commission Determination) regarding the height of a proposed building located at the northwest corner of Highland and Elm, just east of the library parking lot. The PCD before the Planning Commission was actually an appeal of an earlier denial by the Planning Director. The building in question is the "spite house" located at 2986 Highland Drive in the R-l zone. A remodel is being proposed by the applicant which would create a four story structure with the height reaching 39 feet. The existing height limit in the R-l zone is 35 feet. The current way of measuring height in all zones is illustrated on Exhibit "E" of the staff report to the Planning Commission. This form of measurement is subject to interpretation and is currently under review by a Planning Commission subcommittee. Appellant argues that the building at 39 feet should be interpreted to meet the height limit under this system of measurement. The Planning Commission and staff feel that based on interpretation of this section over the last 5 years in the R-l Zone, the building does not meet the ordinance. Both the Planning Commission and the staff felt that it has never been the intent of the RLM General Plan designation, the R-l zone, or any other single-family zone to allow four story structures, or houses that substantially exceed 35 feet in height. In addition City policies and practices exclude the approval of four story, 39 feet, single family structures. It was felt that the project was not consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element for residential (R-l) zones since all single family dwellings must conform to the guidelines for residential land use. It includes guidelines for goal implementation that indicate the following: 1) Preservation of the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of residential areas, and 2) Evaluation of site design quality for harmony of proposed buildings in terms of size, height and location with respect to existing neighborhood development. In denying the project (6-l) the Planning Commission felt that it would be beneficial to have a change to the existing building on site but that it should be done at a lower height to preserve the character of the existing single-family neighborhood. No public notice of this project was required. Page 2 of Agenda Bi 11 No. /4 237 -----l -._.. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is ministerial in nature and is therefore exempt from CEQA requirements. FISCAL IMPACT There will be no impact from a Council decision on the project. The applicant would pay the same basic fees regardless of building height. EXHIBITS 1. City Council Resolution No. 2. Letter of Appeal - Nessim s’/%3/9* 3. Draft Planning Commission Minutes dated August 2, 1989 4. Planning Commission Staff Report w/attachments . ‘ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING BUILDING HEIGHT AT 2986 HIGHLAND AVENUE. PCD 89-3 - NESSIM WHEREAS, an application for a building remodel was submitted to the City of Carlsbad for property located at 2986 Highland Avenue: and 9 10 11 12 WHEREAS, the application was denied by the Planning Director because it exceeded the height limit of the R-l Zone; and WHEREAS, the applicant appealed to the Planning Commission which also denied the request because the proposed building exceeded the height permitted in the R-l Zone; and WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. II NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City 1E 13 14 RESOLUTION NO. 8g-31g of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 16 A) That the above recitations are true and correct. 17 B) That based on the evidence presented, the City Council DENIES ia the appeal of PCD 89-3 based on the following findings: 19 1 Findinas: I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. That the four-story, 39 foot remodeled building does not meet the intent of the R-l zone because it exceeds the 35 foot height limit and the number of stories that other single family structures have in this zone. 2. That the proposed height is inconsistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan in that it does not meet the goals and policies provided in this document. Specifically, it does not meet the goal implementation section with regard to the preservation of neighborhood atmosphere and harmony with existing development. . . . . . . - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 la 19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. The proposed building violates established City policies and practices used to implement the RLM General Plan category and the R-l zone which have not permitted four-story single family detached structures or single family detached structures 39 ft. in height. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 5th day of September I 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, and Larson NOES: Council Members Mamaux and Pettine ABSENT: None ATTEST: a4wd /ci?A ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City blerk (SEAL) 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 O//ice ol the City Clerk situ af alristtnb APPEAL FORM M-Y OF Cii?l.SBnn I (.G$ appeal the following decision of the piflflnrhG CC~~*~S/~k Phil OkI v& bl n-&v \ J to the City Council: Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): (&dJ? 1 6 ,f (2eq ICQQW G $ 29-57 /(lc, h[cih~ pmpi? cm9 llJ-dw~~J.?ci$oq 04 ALI t- Date of Decikion: Ppc,us c a Fwi I Reason for Appeal: &CM of j-&s rTuT7/&1tc, luocl~~ cay c,ll -pKl(fH~ y5 //t~rK?3~‘7=.iwh f b c (J?‘$ UP%&& (‘(‘j/h%’ I/I +!?,r, c,f$, I f n/ CIM’; cpw [.(,q( ( (,zl l&h, II +! l.4 I Ii2 t, Gh< Cl (- +hjJ 3 c&q 1 Date 'I I0 " G -ct”/ 5, Al p’jyr.A.7 Name (Please Print) Address u a”, w4 * 277r Telephone Number 7x/ - 3133 5 &go I. k. - MINUTES Aup;ust 2, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 COMMISSIONERS ’ letters were received, all in support e proposed amendments, which are on file in the Planning The City Attorney's office is recommending that tely prohibit these uses due to her communities that have established ordinances were modeled after the es which have not been challenged. posed amendments provide policy ommends approval. ested confirmation that the ordinance Gary Wayne replied that this is correct. Commissioner Erwin inqui would be affected in any is not affected because storage facilities are f rather than off-shore dr would require an amendme tion is due to a total ban of support facilities City Attorney, replied that a trial partially in favor of the Western 0 which is on appeal before the 9th C Chairman Hall opened the public invitation to speak. There being no persons d this topic, Chairman Hal closed and opened the it Commission members. Commissioner Schl inquired of the City Attorney if Resolution No. 28 reference to d would like Fin comment is well taken. lanning Commission Resolution Nos. 2899, 2900, and approving GPA/LU 89-2, LCPA 89-1, and ZCA 89-l based he findings contained therein, with the correction Line 21 of Resolution No. 2898 as suggested. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 4) PCD 89-3 NRSSIM - An appeal of the Planning Director's Determination concerning the building height of a proposed single family dwelling at 2986 Highland Drive located in the RIM and the R-l Zone. Mike Howes, Principal Planner, gave a slide presentation and reviewed the background of the request. He stated that the applicant is appealing the Planning Director's decision regarding the proposed single family dwelling at 2986 Highland Drive, the northwest corner of Highland and Elm, commonly referred to as the "Spite House." Staff believes that although the project technically complies with the City's 35' height limit, it does not comply with the intent / *a. Erwin Hall "a Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm MINUTES of the R-l zone and the RIM General Plan designation to construct a four-story building at this site. Staff believes that the four-story building will not be compatible with the existing homes in the neighborhood and, although the elevations of the proposed project are very attractive, once approved, there is no way to guarantee that the finished product would resemble the elevations that the applicant has provided. For these reasons, staff denied the proposed project. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if there is absolutely no way to put a review on this project. Mike Howes replied that the only way would be to put a Q-overlay on the site which would require a zone change. Ron Ball replied that as the parcel currently exists the only requirement would be a building permit which does not require a discretionary review. A Q-overlay would require a zone change. Chairman Hall inquired about the noticing on a discussion item. Mike Howes replied that no noticing of any kind is required. The Planning Commission agenda is printed in the newspaper but there is no actual public notice or location map of a discussion item. Chairman Hall opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Gary Nessim, 2987 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, addressed the Connnission and stated that he would guarantee the finished product will be Victorian and would do that in writing, if necessary. Mr. Nessim added that the plans for the building were designed according to the building code and to preserve the existing structure as much as possible due to its historical significance. Once the building is completed he plans to request an historical site designation. It is currently nonconforming but, once completed, it would become a completely conforming structure with no variances required. He thinks the proposed plan is an enormous improvement for the present structure. The building is three-story and 28' tall. He would be adding a 3' facade to hide some solar panels on the roof. Commissioner McFadden inquired why there is only a dumbwaiter and no elevator. Mr. Nessim replied that there is room to add an elevator later (in the middle of the staircase), if one is needed. An elevator might be needed if his parents come to live with him. Commissioner Schramm.&quired if Mr. Nessim is building this as his home. Mr. Nessim replied that he is. Commissioner Schramm has a problem with the tower. Mr. Nessim replied that it is difficult to create a Victorian look without a tower and the extra height would also be used to house the equipment for the elevator. He has tried to keep the building narrow in order to avoid obstructing the view of neighbors. She likes the tower on the left and would like to see a similar tower on the other side which would not exceed the height limitation; however, she is aware that the reduced height would not allow an elevator. Commissioner Erwin inquired if the home will still qualify for an historical designation even though significant changes will be made. Mr. Nessim replied that the entire structure would remain intact and he would be enhancing it. \ 3 August 2, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 COMMISSIONERS r MINUTES DRAFT \\\\ \ a August 2, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 10 COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Erwin inquired if this would be a State designation. Mr. Nessim replied that it would probably be a local designation. Commissioner Holmes commented that the structure appears to be four floors because of the underground garage. Webster's defines a story as a section or horizontal division of a building extending from floor to ceiling. Commissioner Holmes asked Mr. Nessim if this describes the garage. He replied that the Uniform Building Code does not define this as a story because it is surrounded by dirt on three sides. Once a wall is built around the property, it will obscure the view of the garage. Without the garage, a retaining wall of the same height would be required in order to keep the building level. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if a car is in the second story at the present time. Mr. Nessim replied that when the garage was put atop the original building, it was moved with the car inside. When Mr. Anderson passed away, the car was sold and removed. Several civic groups now use the area for storage. Kay Christensen, 2802 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she thinks this will be a tremendous improvement to the corner and many people will enjoy the new structure. Victorian structures are symbolic of Carlsbad and she would like to see the project approved. Commissioner Marcus inquired if this hone would qualify for historical significance. Mrs. Christensen replied that it could but there are many questions to be answered. She doesn't remember all of the details but it is possible. Commissioner Marcus inquired if it could be designated "as is." Mrs. Christensen replied that it could only be designated if it is embellished, leaving the core structure intact. She referred to the Twin Inns and the Culver House which have both had remodeling done. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if the things spoken about the "Spite House" are true. Mrs. Christensen replied that an old gentlemen named Jacobson owned the property for many years and had many plans for it. When he thought the property had been destroyed with the curve of Elm Street, his way of getting even was to stack the garage on top of the original house. Since Mr. Nessim's purchase of the home it has been repainted and now looks considerably better than it ever has. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Hall declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner McFadden inquired if the only thing the Commission must decide is whether the project meets our General Plan for R-l and the building height limits. Gary Wayne replied that she is correct. Commissioner McFadden agrees with the Planning Director regarding the building height; she does not feel this fulfills the intent of the height limitation. Commissioner Holmes does not feel that this project meets the intent of the RLM Land Use Designation to "create MINUTES DRAFT AuRUSt 2, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 11 COMMISSIONERS ’ neighborhoods which are typically of a low suburban scale and intensity." Commissioner Marcus loves this house and wishes she could live in it. She agrees with Commissioner McFadden because it doesn't meet the intent of R-l. As charming as it is, it is incompatible with the neighborhood and exceeds the height limitation. Commissioner Schlehuber cormnented that if the ground floor were used as a basement there is apparently no problem. He thinks this is a good remodel if it technically complies, however he would like to see a Q-overlay on the site. He feels there must be some way to have the cupola changed so that it complies. He could support it with a Q-overlay. Commissioner Schramm inquired if the denial was due to the four stories rather than the Victorian style. Mike Howes replied that this is correct. Since the applicant can make revisions to the plan and still build a Victorian style, she can support the Planning Director's determination. Chairman Hall commented that all of his feelings have been expressed. He feels it is a shame that this wasn't a public hearing because he would like to hear what the surrounding neighbors have to say. He likes the architecture and hopes Mr. Nessim returns with a revised plan. Commissioner Marcus inquired if the project can be approved without the garage. Mike Howes replied that without the garage it would not be a four-story building and it would still have the same appearance. To reduce the appearance, it would require a significant redesign. Chairman Hall inquired if the reason for the garage on the ground floor is for better utilization of space. Mike Howes replied that this is correct. Commissioner McFadden commented that with a basement it would still not meet the intent of R-l. Commissioner Marcus conrmented that the applicant's comments are well taken since it can still be built at the same height without a garage. Michael Holzmiller replied that this is the first time that staff has seen these renderings and he would have to have more time to look at them before it is determined whether they would comply with the ordinance. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Resolution No. 2295 denying the appeal of the Planning Director's Determination. ated that the applicant is a Special Use Permit to allow Erwin Hall Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schramm DISCUSSION ITEM DATE: August 2, 1989 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: NESSIM PCD 89-3 - APPEAL OF A PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION CONCERNING BUILDING HEIGHT. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission find that the proposed project does not'meet the purpose and intent of the General Plan and the building height limits of the R-l Zone and Adopt Resolution 2295 denying the appeal of the Planning Director's Determination. DISCUSSION The Planning Director's Determination that the proposed building exceeds the building height requirements of the R-l Zone is provided as Exhibit "A". The applicant is appealing the Planning Director's decision regarding the proposed single family dwelling at 2986 Highland Drive - the northwest corner of Highland ;;f,Elm (Exhibit "B"). The proposed structure is shown on Exhibit "C", "Site . W The building height issue is shown on the "Section Drawing" of Exhibit The proposed project is located in the RLM-Residential Low/Medium General Plan Land Use Designation, and the R-l Zone. This land use designation and zone are primarily for Single Family Detached Dwellings. In the R-l Zone building height is limited to 35 feet. Building height is defined and measured according to Section 21.04.065 of the zoning ordinance. This Section is attached as Exhibit "D", and is graphically illustrated on Exhibit "E". The applicant was notified in a letter dated April 25, 1989, that his project did not comply with the 35 feet height restriction in the R-l Zone nor did it comply with the intent of the General Plan or the R-l Zone by creating a large massive four-story structure. The intent of the RLM Land Use Designation and implementing R-l Zone is to create neighborhoods which are typically of a low suburban scale and intensity. The Land Use Element of the General Plan has goals to: (1) preserve the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas and (2) evaluate site design quality for harmony of proposed buildings in terms of size, height and location with respect to existing neighboring development. The intention of the building height definition is to allow some flexibility for lots that are steeply sloping and where no substantial grading was to occur. Under these circumstances some single family units may have been approved over an exact 35 feet, however, none to staff's knowledge are as high as the proposal or would be so different in size or scale to the surrounding neighborhood. The intent of the City's height definition was never to encourage development of four-story structures on relatively flat sites. PC0 89-3 NESSIM August 2, 1989 PA& 2 With this intent and purpose of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Director has determined that the proposed building, by substantially grading the site and by creating a four-story structure with a total height of 39 feet at the western building elevation, would be in violation of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has appealed this on technical grounds citing compliance with Section 21.04.065. The site is presently non-conforming to the R-l Zone with respect to minlmum front yard setbacks. The proposal will correct this non-conformity At the present time both the definition and the standards for building height are being reviewed by a Planning Commission Subcommittee. ATTACHMENTS :: Planning Commission Resolution 2895 Exhibits: A: Letter dated April 25, 1989 B: Letter dated May 11, 1989 a Section 21.04.065 C.M.C. E: Graphic of Section 21.04.065 C.M.C. LBS:lh June 26, 1989 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2895 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION CONCERNING BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE R-l ZONE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 2987 HIGHLAND DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPLICANT: GARY NESSIM CASE NO.: PC0 89-3 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property at: 2987 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, California, has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of August, 1989, consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Appeal of a Planning Director's Determination; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission DENIES PC0 89-3, based on the following findings: Findinas: 1. Although the proposed structure could be interpreted to technically comply with the building height definition of 21.04.065, the building height and number of stories violates the purpose and intent of the RLM- Residential Low-Medium Land Use Designation of the General Plan and R-l Zone by substantially grading the site and creating a 3 to 4 story structure which is 30 to 39 feet in height. . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. The building does not meet development guidelines adopted in the Land Use Element of the General Plan indicating the need to preserve the neighborhood atmosphere of residential areas and to assure harmony of proposed buildings in terms of size, height and location with existing neighboring development. 3. The height as proposed does not meet Section 21.10.02 of the R-l Zone requiring a maximum of 35 feet in height. 4. The height as proposed, is not compatible with surrounding one and two story single family homes. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 2nd day of August, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schramm, Erwin, McFadden, Holmes and Marcus. NOES: Commissioner Schlehuber. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. MATTHEW HALL, Chairman t CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO 2895 -2- EXHIBIT ‘A City 0-f Cadsbad ~~~~fifq#-~ Apt-i I 25, 1989 ItI- , Gary Ness inr ItlE VILLAGE, IIEALIOIIS 2860 State Street Cat-l shad, CA. 92008 111. : 2906 IlICIt ANI) I)RlVI Ilear fir. Ness ittt, 1 II is is 1.0 rca f f i t.111 I Ite tier: i s iott rtr 1.11~ PI ~IIII ittc] I1c~j~at.l waif I flat. I Itr? pt~op’sf~tl s t.t~rctrtt*e SIIWJII on yolrt* it I arts for* 2986 lliglt larrtf IIt-ive tlrrc?s rttrt coraply wit II ~/IV 35. fl. ItcigItt r~est.t*icLiott of the II-1 zofte. ltic pcrtptse and itttertt of the 35 ft.’ height t-csLt.ictiort was I.0 1 ittti 1. hi ldittgs lo a px_j!!tt!!1_1 of t.ltt-ce stories itI single family areas. Yoirr rqestct*Iy r!leval.icut sltons i\ four s Lot-y hi i Id i rlq. I real ize that ,yoIit* platrs tr!(-lttticaf ly cottqtly with Ittc (Icrirliliort of Ittrildirt~~ ttoi~~tt1. bt11. I tlo riot h(2lic?vr? that. Iltr? city ittlr~f~~lml lo let Ibis definitiott subvert. the ittletlt. of the It~igltl I ittti t iii Lht! 11-I IUIIP. Again, Lttis detet-tttit~atior~ car) be appealed to lfte I’l~rtttifiq I:orttrrtissiort if yoti so de.5 ire, Procedures for aj~pca I 0 f a I’ I atttt i riq I) i I‘P!C I or ’ s tlrc i s i oti at’e ott 11 i ttr?-ttl irt sect iott 21 . 51. 140 of the (1 i I.-y’s Zortir~q Ot.(Iirrart(~r!. llro copy of your plans cart be picked-up al the ft.ortl CO~III~PI.. Sincerely, (: 1 IV of: cniwrmr) /‘i,1; &(.~(!\I k::‘, l.!d ‘c c! , , ) t4ICIlAEl. J. IIOI ZflIl I t II PI artrt i rtg II i t’ec tot- cc: Mayor Mayor h-0 iertt Idi ke Itowes Lance kd :‘07!i l.:l:; fy:lltrt;lr; (Jr ivc? - (:;~fl!:f);~tf. c::tlirrtftti:t l):‘OO!I ,111!;0 * ((i IO) fl:lII l It; I Gary Nessim 2987 Highland Drive Carlsbad, Ca 92008 May 11, 1989 Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, Ca 92008 RE: 2987 HIGHLAND DRIVE Dear Planning Commission Members, I am hereby appealing the Planning Director's decision reguarding the remodeling of my home located at 2987 Highland Drive in his letters of I/6/89 and S/25/89. I believe the plans comply fully with the building code and they were designed to compliment the existing structure, topography of the lot and the historical development of the city. The underground garage has no effect upon the appearance or actual height of the structure while it's location maximizes open space on my lot. Correspondence and preliminary plans are attached with the final set to be drawn and submitted upon successful resolution of this issue. Colored elevations will be available for the hearing. Sir; erely, 4 I '. ‘I.- -. -, r 1-l , --. ._ GarylNeksim att; letters & plans(lO) [,\j\j 1. 1 \ ‘.! (;lj\i (-It !; ‘(: ” l,t\/,., r!!‘. 1 [{“I: ‘;FW ’ ‘i ‘,‘( I/./?> ill 1 j]‘, y):-;*;j -; (,v ) EXHIBIT ‘I 2 1.04.056 engaged in the on-premises sale of alcoholic bev- erages. The interior area shall include onlj those portions of the establishment devoted to regular use by the public: (6) A minimum of twenty percent of the gross floor area of the establishment shall be used solely for food storage, preparation, mainte- nance and storage of eating utensils, dishes and glassware and shall include refrigeration, cook- ing, warming and dishwashing equipment, and any other equipment necessary for a fully equipped restaurant kitchen; (7) During the above specified minimum hours for restaurant services, there shall be not less than one employee per two hundred and fifty square feet of floor area devoted to food service use. Said employee or employees shall be on the job during the specified minimum hours for the restaurant service as described in subsection (2) of this section. The city council m&y waive the above require- ments relating to hours, menus, alcoholic bev- erage area, kitchen area, empioyees and equipment if they find a proposed restaurant will provide equivalencies, meets the other require- ments of this section and will, in fact. be operated as a bona fide restaurant. Uses not specifically named in this section but which are of substantially the same general type and character and are within the intent and pur- pose of this section may be permitted: provided, however, that the burden of proving the same shall rest with the person seeking to establish that use. (Ord. 9527 0 2 (part), 1979) 21.04.057 Bowling alley. “Bowling alley” means any structure in which a ball or balls are roiled on a green or down an alley or lane at any object or group of objects. (Ord. 9527 § 2 (part), 1979) 21.04.060 Building. “Building” means any structure having a roof. including all forms of inhabitable vehicles even though immobilized. Where this title requires, or .- 545 where special authority granted pursuant lo this title requires that a use shall be entirely enclosed within a building, this definition shall be qualified by adding “and enclosed on all sides.” (Ord. 9060 9 21 I) 21.04.065 Building height. (a) The height of a building shall be measured as follows: (I) When the highest existing grade elevation within a five-foot horizontal distance of the building is equal to or less than ten feet above the lowest existing grade elevation, then the building height shall be measured from the highest exist- ing grade elevation to the highest point of a flat roof or the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. (2) When the highest existing grade elevation within a five-foo-t horizontal distance of the building is more than ten feet above the lowest existing grade elevation, then the building height shall be measured from a point ten feet above the lowest existing grade elevation to the highest point of a flat roof or the deck line of a mansard roofor to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped rooC (b) “Existing grade” means the ground level elevation which existed pricer to any grading or otfler site preparation related to. or to be incorpo- rated into, a proposed new development or alteration of existing developments unless a dis- cretionary permit for such developments or alterations is approved by the planning commis- sion or city council. In that case. existing grade shall mean the grade after the property is devel- oped or improved in accordance with the grading plans for the approved discretionary permit. ln cases where retaining walls. fill or other grading are utilized to create finished grade higher in elevation than existing grade as defined above. then existing grade shall be used in the detetmin- ation of building height. (Ord. 9667, 1983: Ord. 9498 9 I. 1978: Ord. 9141 S I: (3rd. 9060 $212) EXHIBIT ‘E DETERMINATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT I ol 3 5 I 3 I 8 I I G I I?I 9 I -G----, r L-- b; ’ -d 7 THAN i I 10’ - 1 -__- -------A ,A - A-LOWEST EXlSTltiG GRAOE ELEVATION B-HIGHEST EXISTING GRAOE ELEVATION CASE I . ZCA 150 EXHIBIT ‘X” 1 l/23/82 PLd TELEPHONE (619) 434-2808 TO : Bobbie Hoder - Planning Dept. FROM: Karen Kundtz - Clerk's Office RE : Appeal - PCD 89-3 - Nessim THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by - all parties.) Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call. ~ 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Office of the City Clerk APPEAL FORU Gw 3, . Ajec3+Gl Name (Please Print) Cbl? 4%- 27" Telephone Number 7Aq - 5373 Wc-k ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION 1 AMOUNT (Form A) TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE FROM: Planning Department RE : PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice PCD 89-3 - NESSIM (APPEAL) for a publlc hearing before the City Council. Please notice the item for the council meeting of Seoternber 5, 1989 Thank you. Assistant City Man- 8/18/89 Date NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO PM., on Tuesday, September 5, 1989 to consider the appeal of a Planning Commission denial of a PCD (Planning Commission Determination) regarding height of a proposed building located at the northwest corner of Highland and Elm, just east of the library parking lot. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. If you have any questions, please call the Planning Department at 438-1161. If you challenge PCD 89-3 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 of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: PCD 89-3 APPLICANT: NESSIM PUBLISH: August 30, 1989 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TERRY & LINDA SIMPKINS 3042 HIGHLAND DR CALRSBAD CA 92008 JOHN & GEORGETTE KIRMSE PO BOX 366 1542 OAK AYE CARLSBAD CA 92008 ROBERT & JANICE DEARDURFF 2885 HIGHLAND OR CALRSBAD CA 92008 ROSE BARONE 2884 ELMWOOD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 156-211-02 156-211-08 156-190-48 156-190-08 RONALD & BLANCHE RAMSWICK CARLSBAD CA 92008 156-i90-09~ 2886 ELMWOOD ST BILLY & ARDETH MCCOLEY 3057 HIGHLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 GERALD & RUTH DONLON 3021 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 156-190-35 156-190-45 PAUL SCHMITT C/O GOLDEN PACIFIC REAL ESTATE 100 N RANCHO SANTA FE RD S SAN MARCOS CA 92069 119 CAROLINE SCHINDLER 3081 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 156-190-18 SECURITY PACIFIC NAT BANK PO BOX 4382 TERMINAL ANNEX 156-190-13 GEORGE HOENIG 3002 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 THOMAS DOWDING 1606 JAMES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 FRANCES BRISEBOIS 1612 JAMES DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 156-200-27 156-211-09 156-211-10 PHILLIP SAGER CARLSBAD CA 92008 2911 HIGHLAND DR FRANKIE RUNZO 3000 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 LEO SAWYER 2946 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 156-190-10 156-200-12 156-200-13 SARAH MARQUEZ CARLSBAD CA 92008 2963 CARLSBAD BLVD 156-190-11 JASON MCGHEE 1618 JAMES DRIVE 156-211-11 CARLSBAD CA 92008 MARUICE KIMBALL 156-211-27 . . -. - -. CARLSBAD CA 92008 1623 JAMES DRIVE DOUGLAS MOORE 1624 JAMES DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 156-211-12 HARRY EKDAHL 1630 JAMES DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 156-211-13 WAYNE & MARY SCOTT 1636 JAMES DR 156-211-14 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CHARLES MCCAIN CARLSBAD CA 92008 1642 JAMES DR DAVID & ELAINE WAITE CARLSBAD CA 92008 1648 JAMES DR DAVE NADELLE CARLSBAD CA 92008 1653 JAMES DR 156-211-15 156-211-16 156-211-26 GREGORY NELSON 3437 HIGHLAND DR 156-211-17 CARLSBAD CA 92008 R.T. HUTTON CARLSBAD CA 92008 1264 OAK AV BLAINE SMILEY 156-190-25 156-190-27 - - . . . . -. CARLSBAD CA 92008 1300 OAK AVE ELSIE HARVEY ~~~~~ ~~ 156-190-23- 1306 OAK AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 ELIZABETH GERUM 9700 PINEHURST ST SOUTHGATE CA 90280 JOHN & KATHLEEN COURDIFF 1330 OAK AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 156-190-32 156-190-33 TERRY & SUSAN HART 1340 OAK AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 SCOTT NETTLETON 1342 OAK AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 BARBARA SMITH 1350 OAK AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARROLL FORD 1450 OAK AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 JOHN & KATHY MARLIN 1274 STRATFORD LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 VERA HUFFAKER 1275 STRATFORD LN CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARL PRINCE 2935 VALLEY ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 ELSIE HARVEY 1306 OAK AV CARLSBAD CA 92008 EVA WAGNER 520 W FOOTHILL BLVD #F 156-190-26 MONROVIA CA 91016 JERRY & MARGARIE BACCUS 10310 MATTOCK ST DOWNEY CA 90241 CONSTANTINO MEDINA 156-190-61 156-190-60 156-190-20 156-190-31 156-164-59 156-164-37 156-200-03 156-190-24 156-190-34 156-200-15 1655 BUENA VISTA WY HOYD PARDEE 614 ALMA REAL DR 156-190-53,54 PACIFIC PALISADES CA 90272 NEAL & L STOBAUGH CARLSBAD CA 92008 2860 ELMWOOD ST 156-190-04 ARCHIE & MILDRED LARSON 156-164-16 2869 ELMWOOD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 - - - - - . - - GIN0 BURDETTE CARLSBAD CA 92008 2870 ELMWOOD ST HEINZ KUHN 2880 ELMWOOD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 156-190-05 156-190-07 WILLIAM & EVA COUNTY 2883 ELMWOOD ST 156-164-17 CARLSBAD CA 92008 HELEN LACEY CARLSBAD CA 92008 2889 ELMWOOD ST MARIA LOPEZ 2905 ELMWOOD ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 156-164-18 156-164-19 JAMES CAREY CARLSBAD CA 92008 2923 ELMWOOD ST JAMES SCANLON 7306 BORLA PL CARLSBAD CA 92009 GREGORY CLAVIER 2992 ELMWOOD CARLSBAD CA 92008 156-164-20 156-164-21 156-190-12 ROBERT GARNER 2905 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 156-190-50 JAMES SWAB 2924 HIGHLAND DRIVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 PO BOX 194 MARIE LAWSON 156-200-20 156-200-28THRU32 . . - . . - . 2862 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 ALBERT & SHARRON MENDOZA CARLSBAD CA 92008 2870 HIGHLAND DR MYRON & DOROTHY BRENER 2880 HIGHLAND DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 156-200-19 156-200-18 CARLSBAD CA 92008 Carlsbad Journal Decreed A Legal Neivspoper by the Superlor Court of SOP Dlego County Mail 011 correspondence regording public notice advertising io North Coast Publishers. Inc. corporote offices: P 0. Box 878, Encinitas, CA 92024 (619) 753-6543 Proof of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; Iamovertl~eageofeighteenyeors,ondnotapartytoorinterestedinthenboveent~tledmatter. published twice weekly In the City of Carlsbad, County of Son Diego, State of California, and which I om principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circulation, newspaper IS published for the dissemination of local news and intelligenceof a general character, and which newspaper at all times lherein mentioned had and still hasa bono ficlesubscrlption listof paylng subscribers, and whlch newspaper has been established, printed and publisl-ied nt regular Intervals in the said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, Stnte of Califormo, foro period exceeding one year next preceding the dote of publicailon of the notice which the annexed is o printed copy, has been hereinafter referred to; and that the notice of published In each regulorand entire Issueof said newspaper and not In any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING August 30 ..... 19 ............................. 19 1181. If you challenge PCD 89M in court. you may be limited to raising only those issues sou Or Someone else raised st the public hearing described in this notice, Or in writ- ten correspondence delivered to the city of Carlsbad at or Prior to the public hearing. Case File: PCD 88-3 Applicant Nessim w M828: August 30,1989 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL 19 ......... ................... 19 I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at California on ~~____ day of ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ Clerk ofthe Printer 11202-2M-12107 September 12, 1989 Gary S. Nessim Carlsbad, CA 92008 2987 Highland Drive .Enclosed for your records, please find a copy of the Iollowillg Resolution 89-319 , adopted by the Carlsbad city coullcil 011 September 5, 1989 City Clerk c7 ..