Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-09-17; City Council; 11347; AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 21 | BUILDING HEIGHT | ZCA 91-03k 0 w n 4 cn m rl rn a2 k ,.n a) 0 u U 0 1H 0 M $ d :* ;% *; 3 a)\ wq x :Q k aP q .: p df-4 e "E 1 2% I-$ -4 ccd u 2 L $ 23 + 3. ua) u -a uw \ u rn 'il -lo r: 2.2 ? urd rl -I2 ;3;k 0 a 3w 'D ua *d *rl cn '2 h 6 z 3 0 0 CITYOF CARLSBAD - AGENDeILL AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 21 - BUILDING HEIGHT - ZCA 91-3 E AB # /4.?47 TITLE: MTG. 9/17/91 DEPT. PLN RECOMMENDED ACTION: If the City Council concurs, your action is to ADOPT Resolution No. c)l -. APPROVING Negative Declaration, and INTRODUCE Ordinance No. a APPROVING ZCA 91-3. ITEM EXPLANATION On July 31 , 1991, the Planning Commission considered and recommended ap a Zone Code Amendment and the corresponding Negative Declaration, to allo the revision and addition of zoning definitions (2) residential building height re (3) building height increases for certain commercial and industrial uses, modification of the building height limit in the beach area overlay zone. This ami to the Zoning Ordinance has been in process for a significant amount of 1 considerable effort has gone into the preparation by staff and the Planning Con- A substantial amount of public input was also received. The major feature amendment include the following: 1. A new method of measuring building height and associated definitions to implement the new method of measurement. A new height limit for single family and residential structures of 30 feet stories, provided a minimum roof pitch of 2/12 is used, on lots less thg square feet. If less than 3/12 roof pitch is proposed, then the maximL would be restricted to 24 feet and two stories. For lots larger than 15,OC feet in area, the height limit is proposed to be 35 feet and three storie A potential height maximum of 45 feet for certain industrial uses if findings can be made. A potential height maximum of 55 feet for certain regional commerci required findings can be made. Height reductions to 35 feet for the R-T and R-W zones and to 25 feet fc zone. Exclusion of underground parking areas and basements below existi from height measurements. These structures would also not count a: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The same building height regulations would apply within the Beach Are Zone as the rest of the City. 0 PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. //,,3q7 The Planning Commission originally reviewed a proposed ordinance which ri residential building height to 26 feet at the Commission meeting of July 3, 19 Commission recommended that this proposal be continued for further stud additional review and consultation with the building and design representati interested parties, the Planning Department re-evaluated the proposed ordinr returned to the Commission the above height recommendations which were a[ The Planning Department originally considered recommending a floor at regulation in addition to a new building height ordinance. After extensive s Planning Department recommends that the proposed building height regul, conjunction with the newly-enacted infill grading ordinance will provide ample CI building mass and bulk, and that there is no need at this time to supplemE standards with additional floor area ratio controls. However, if concerns over bulk persist over time, a floor area ratio can still be developed and recornmen directed by Council. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW On July 31, 1991, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Declaration issued by the Planning Director on May 2, 1991. FISCAL IMPACT There will be no fiscal impacts from the adoption and implementation of the F building height regulations. EXH I B ITS 1. City Council Resolution No. 9 1-3 0 S- 2. 3. Planning Commission Resolution Noa3L3b 4. 6. 7. City Council Ordinance No. OS - I? 3 Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 31, 1991 Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated July 31 , 1991. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated July 3, 1991 5. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 3, 1991 0 0 RESOLUTION NO. 91-305 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to cc proposed Negative Declaration for a zone code amendment various chapters and sections of the zoning ordinance to ,. I l2 (1) the revision and addition of zoning definitions, (2) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, FOR A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 7’0 AMEND VARIOUS CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR (1) THE REVISION AND ADDITION OF ZONING DEFINITIONS, (2) BUILDING HEIGHT REDUCTIONS, (3) INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL HEIGHT INCREASES AND (4) CLARI F I CAT1 ON OF THE BUIDING HEIGHT RESTRICTION WITH THE BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE. CASE NAME: CITY OF CARLSBAD CASE NO: ZCA 91-3 WHEREAS, on July 31, 1991 the Carlsbad lo l1 49 Tax +gg ‘’ ’ l3 SBgs z Z l4 and (4) clarification of the buiding height restriction et== height reductions, (3) industrial and commercial height 0 g: ,>+ z2:g ecZp L l5 beach area overlay zone and adopted Resolution 22;; 16 aE- 17 b recommending to the City Council that the Negative Decle > r L” 225 approved; and -0 0 WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was issued on M and submitted to the State Clearinghouse for a 30 day rev. 18 l9 2o as required by law. No comments were received from 21 Clearinghouse. All comments from the public were cons1 22 l responded to during environmental review. The City C 23 ‘1 satisfied that the project is in full compliance 24 I 25 11 Protection Ordinance, I It I1 California Environmental Quality Act and the Carlsbad Env I’ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Coun City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and c jl 0 2. That the negative declaration on the above ref 11 zone code amendment is approved and that the findings Planning Commission contained in Resolution No. 3235 marked A attached hereto and, made a part hereof are the findings city Council. 2 3 4 5 6 1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meetinc ' a city Council of the City of Carlsbad on the day of 7 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES : NOES : ABSENT : 9 10 11 12 E? zuc acg CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor ;p 14 045 >-5 15 ;5? CZ Q >e3 =z 16 5<2 FOG? C=J 4 L'Q E e l7 ALETHA I,. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk -3 0 p2 suz ,3 ATTEST: v uc, l8 (SEAL) 19 20 i 21 22 23 I /i 24 /I 25 '1 11 /I 28 ij I ! a @€AI,', bit A' 1 /I I/ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3235 111 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI' CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEG DECLARATION FOR A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO AMEND VP CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO I FOR (I) THE REVISION AND ADDITION OF ZONING DEFINITIO BUILDING HEIGHT REDUCTIONS, (3) INDUSTRIAL AND COMM HEIGHT INCREASES, AND (4) CLARIFICATION OF THE BU HEIGHT RESTRICTION WITHIN THE BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZO CASE NAME: CITY OF CARLSBAD CASE NO. ZCA 91-3 -- WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of July, 15 31st day of July, 1991, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescri 1 5 /I 61 I/ li 11 71 8 /' I' 9 I I/ lo consider said request, and - WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering a1 arguments, examining rhe initial study, analyzing the information submiti considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission factors relating to the Negative Declaration. 11 11 12 ;' ;, 13 ' 14 16 I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning I' 17 I' follows: I.8 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 19 ' 20 l1 21 22 1, 1 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearin: Cornmission hereby recommends APPROVAL of the Negative Decla to Exhibit "ND", dated May 2, 1991, and "PII", dated April 26, hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings' FiIldiIlgS: 1. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence tha have a significant impact on the environment since no developr Implementation of the proposed zone code amendments on fUh will not cause any significant environmental impacts because subject to environmental review. 24 1 26 I I 27 1 28 11 23 i: 25 I! 1 li I/ I/ 6 Noble. NOES: Commissioner Mall. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 - 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 e 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3236 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT, AMENDING VARIOUS CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR (1) THE REVISION AND ADDITION OF ZONING DEFINITIONS, (2) BUILDING HEIGHT REDUCTIONS, (3) INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL HEIGHT INCREASES, AND (4) CLARIFICATION OF THE BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTION WITHIN THE BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE. CASE NAME: CITY OF CARLSBAD CASE NO.: ZCA 91-3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of Ju on the 31st day of July, 1991, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescril consider said request; and - WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and cc testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, saic considered all factors relating to the Zone Code Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plannin as follows: ,I A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, th recommends APPROVAL of ZCA 91-3, according to Exhibit "Z", ( 1991, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the follok ' 1 Findinns : 1. The amendment will address the goals and objectives of the Bi Subcommittee to review current building height definitions and rt The amendment will add and revise zoning definitions to strer regulations and implement proposed regulations. 2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 7 19 e e 3. The mass and size of future single-family and duplex residential strucr reduced by the amendments to building height. The amendment will reduce the intensity of development by IC allowable height of structures within the Residential-Tourist, Waterways and Open Space zones. The amendment will allow for a divmity of building heights wiW allowing industrial and commercial structures to exceed the current 3i limit. The amendment will allow flexibility while addressing aesthetics anc development for future projects within the Beach Area Overlay Zone 1 4. 5. 6. the building height restrictions for that zone. 7. The amendment will not cause any significant environmental imp; future development will be subject to environmental review. Declaration has been prepared by the Planning Director on May 2, ... ... e.. ... ... ..' ''e 201 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ... ... ... ... .'. *.* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I* 15 16 I? l8 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e e PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a public hearing of t Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 31st day of July, I following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Holmes, Commissioners: Savary, Erwin & Noble. NOES: Commissioner Hall. ABSENT: Commissioner Schramm. ABSTAIN: None. CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMIS ATTEST: I Planning Director I I\ I I PC RES0 NO. 3236 -3- 6 a e STAFF REPORT c9 DATE: JULY 31, 1991 TO : PLANNING COhlMISSION Fm! P L.1T X IN G 9 E PART ?t Z E N T SCBJECT: ZCA 91-3 - CITY OF CARLSBAD - Amendments and additions to var chapters and sections of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for (1) the reki and addition of zoning definitions (2) residential building height reducr (3) building height increases for certain commercial and industrial uses, (4) modification of the building height limit in the Beach kea Overlay Z 1. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 3235 recommending APPROV, the Negarive Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Resolution No. recommending APPROVAL of ZCA 91-3, based on the findings contained therein. 11. PROJEm DESCEUPnON AND BACKGROUND On July 3, 1991, the Planning Commission considered ZU 91-3. The item was cont to provide more time for the public to review the zone code amendment documen1 to allow for the following changes: (1) reconsideration of the maximum building 1 limit for single family and duplex residential uses, (2) flexibility in regulating baser (3) reconsideration of the filing date deadline to determine which projects or applic would be subject to the new ordinance and (4) modification of the building ' limitation in the Beach Area Overlay Zone. These changes are described belo summarized in the attached Exhibit "B", dated July 31, 1991, which supersed Exhibit "A" dated July 3, 1991 attached to the original staff report. Also attached 1: report is Planning Commission Resolution No. 3236 which recommends approval zone code amendment with Exhibit "2" dated July 31, 1991 attached containi ordinance amendments. Exhibit "Z" is based on the recommended changes summa Exhibit "B' which supersedes Exhibit 'Y' (the ordinance) attached to the original 1991 staffrepcat. 1. HEIGHT WMIT FOR SMGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL USES: The original height recommendation of 26 feet and two stones for single fan duplex residential uses has been reconsidered and revised. The 26 foot heig assumed two 8 foot high stones with a minimum to low roof pitch (3/12 0: Based on the public input from the July 3,1991 Planning Commission hea a workshop held on July 15, 1991, this recommendation has been cha 8 e ZCA 91-3 CITY OF CARLSBAD JULY 31, 1991 PAGE 2 accommodate the current housing market and construction trends. The ch, in allowing common roof pitchs. PITCHED ROOFS As a result, the proposed height limit is thirty feet and two stones if a min roof pitch of 3/12 is provided. Based on the new building height definition, feet will allow for 9 and 10 foot stones with a roof pitch of 4/12 or 5/12. SI roofs with more articulation are possible with smaller stones. Since the cum foot height limit is measured to mid-point rather than peak, the thirty foot lim represents a height reduction of 9 - 10 feet on a flat lot and possibly depending on a specific roof pitch without preventing creative design. On sl eliminated bringing the total potential height reduction to around 19 - 2( dependant on roof pitch. FLAT ROOFS The thirty foot height limit allows for flexible design assuming roof articulatio a corresponding roof pitch. In keeping with the goal of reducing the mass of: family and duplex structures, a height limit of twenty four feet and two stoi proposed if less than a 3/12 roof pitch is provided. This allows for the constn of up to two 10 foot stories with a flat roof. The proposed height limit of thirty feet and two stones with a minimum 3/1: pitch or twenty four feet and two stones with less than a 3/12 roof pitch deci the mass of single family and duplex residences on a citywide scale. 15,000 SO. FT. + LOTS Single family and duplex residences on lots 15,000 square feet and greater wi be allowed up to 35 feet and three stones. include, (1) the assumption of 9 and 10 foot high stories and (2) mme flex lots, the additional 10 feet allowed by the current height definition wou 2. BASEMENIS: Through the public input and discussion of the public hearing on July 3, 199 desire to exclude "basements" from (1) the definition of a "story" and (2 calculation of building height became clear. As such, the zone code amendmer reflect this and the exclusion shall apply citywide including the Beach Area 0. Zone. The portion of a basement that is above existing grade is still included measurement of building height. !R e ZCA 91-3 CITY OF CARL JULY 31, 1991 PAGE 3 AD 3. FILING DATE: Section 27 of Exhibit 'Y', dated July 3, 1991 within Planning Commi5 Resolurion No. 3236 as attached to the original staff report describes w projects and applications will be subject to the new ordinance. Concern expressed over the original cut-off date of July 3, 1991 as being too restrictive such, a new exemption is proposed: This ordinance shall not apply to discretionary development projects which h; which the building height has been specifically stated; or if no discreric approvals are required, then deveIopment projects for which a building pl application was on file with the City of Carlsbad by August 1, 1991 and for v said permit is issued by February 1, 1992, shall be exmpt. The amended wording allows projects currently in process with comF applications, and those with approvals, to be exempt from the new h requirements. However, rl-Lis exemption would pertain to only those projects v building height has been specifically stated in the application or approval. Fi using the August 1, 1991 cut-off date prevents a flood of applications seeki avoid compliance with the new requirements and regulations. complete applicarion or received discretionary approvals by August 1, 1991 an - 4. BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE: The height limit in the BAO Zone is 25 feet measured to the midpoint which n that a 30-t foot structure (depending on roof pitch) measured to the PE currently allowed. Therefore, staff is recommending that the same height lin applied to the BAO Zone as in the rest of the City. It is also recommended to basements and underground parking to not count in building height measurer (for the portions below existing grade) or be considered a story. This will prr uniformity with Citywide height regulations. Since the proposed Citywide 1 regulations for single family and duplex residential uses is to lower the all0 height, it is consistent with the intent of the current BAO Zone height requir which provides compatibility between single family and multi-family use reduces potential between single family and multi-family uses and reduces pol view blockage by large, tall structures next to smaller ones. All buildings BAO Zone including single family, duplex and multi-family uses will be sub- the thirty foot, two story limit with a minimum 3/12 roof pitch for all sizr including lots greater than 15,000 square feet. tf less than a 3/12 roof p provided the height limit will be twenty four feet and two stories. ZCA 91-3 CITY OF CAFRAD e JULY 31, 1991 PAGE 4 ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution Eo, 3235 2. 3. 4. Planning Cornmission Resolution No. 3236 (with Exhibit "Z", dated July 31, 1 Exhibit "B", dated July 31, 1991 Staff Report dated July 3, 1991 (with Exhibits "A" and 'Y" dated July 3, 199 ENM:lh:km July 11, 1991 - - e c EXHIE JULY 31 BUILDING HEIGHT RECOMMENDATIONS - - e v 1. DEE;Rnn ONS (* - indicates new definition) 1. 21.04.045 - BASEXIENT "Basement" means that Forrion of a building (excluding ga cr.derp,cnd parking area) benveen floor and ceiling Whch is pan1 2r.i pci::ly abo;.e grzde 3s neasured along the exrerior (im+ediarelJ of "building coverage ') perimeter of the structure bur so located venical disrance from exterior grade to the adjacent interior rloor more than the verrical disrance from extenor grade to adjacenr ceiling. This definition must apply to a minimum of 50% of the pl of building coverage for a srmcture to qual& as a basement. The of a basement that is below existing grade is not included measurement of building height (as defined in Section 21.04.065) case shall a basement contain underground parking. 21.040.061 - BUILDING COITMGE "Building coverage" is defined as the total ground area of a site occl any building or structure as measured from the outside of its sun external walls or supponing members. Building coverage includes structures such as stairs, arcades, bridges, permanent structural c protruding from buildings such as overhanging balconies, oriel M stories which overhang a ground level story, garages and covered ( Building coverage also includes the perimeter area of a basement. E from building coverage are roof eaves extending less than 30 inches j face of any building, awnings, open parking areas, srrucrures under 3 in height and masonry walls nor grearer than six feet in height such walls, planter walls or grade-separation retaining walls. - 2. - - 3. 21.040.065 - BUILDING HEIGHT A. The height of a building shall be measured as follows: 1. "Building height" means the vertical distance of a 5 measured from the more restrictive (lowest) of .fin existing grade. The vertical distance is measured points at grade along and within the building coverag highest point of the structure directly above that measurement. "Exisring grade" for the purposes of measuring buildin means the ground level elevation which exisred pno grading or other site prepararion related to, 01 incorporated into, a proposed new development or a of existing developments unless a discretionary pennit developments or alterations is approved. In that case, _- 2. b 0 i *. l! grade shall mean the grade after the property is develo improved in accordance with the grading plans inplemenr [he approved discretionary peht. FOI discietior,arj permits where retaining wails, fill or grading are urilized to create finished grade hgher in ele rhan exisring grade as defined above and as deremined P!zrz.k.g Direcror, then exisring grade shall be use:! .. Cmmmon of buiidiw height. 3. - Existins grade" means the ground level elevation exis:ed ar rhe rime of rhe effecrive date of rhs ordinar. gr3Lind level s!eva:ion as shown on a corr,plere applica: a penit or entirlement, or the ground level elevation shown on an approved permit or entiriement. Building heighr measurements include basements and subrenanean areas that are above exisring grade. [n tk is measured from existing grade; excluding the area exisring grade. Building height is measured to the peak of the srructux for rhe housing of elevators, stairways, ranks, ventilatix or similar equipment required to operate and main12 building; fire or parapet walls, skylights, towers, roof flagpoles, chimneys, smokestacks, wireless masts and structures may be erected above the height limits ( ordinance prescribed, but no penthouse or roof stmcti any other space above the height limit prescribed for th in which rhe building is located shall be allowed f purpose of providing additional floor space. 4. - of basemenrs, ce!Iars and underground parking, building 5. Secrion 2L46.020 of rhis title, penthouses or roof srn 4. 21.04.160 - GRADE "Grade" means the average of the finished ground level at the cente' walls of a building. In case walls are parallel to and within five fe skwalk, the above ground level shall be measured at the sidewalks. 1 purposes of measuring building height "grade" means the ground elel along and within the area of building coverage. 5. * 21.04.202 - LEVEL An occupied or useable horizontal and vertical space of a structure. 6. 21.04.222 - LOT COVERAGE See Building Coverage. 0 W 7. 21.04.330 - STORY "Story" means that portion of a building included between the surface of floor and the surface of the floor next above it. If there be no floor a1 it, then the space between such floor and the ceiling next above it sha considered a story. Underground parking, a basement or a cellar shall be considered a story. Lofts or mezzanines shall not be considered a I provided that they do not exceed 50% of the floor area of the story the, located within. 8. * 21.04.370 - UNDERGROUND PARKING Parking areas that are located completely or partially underground wher finished floor of the parking area is below existing grade. Undergrc However, in the case where underground parking is not compl underground, building height will be measured from existing grade so the portion of the parking structure above existing grade is part o building height. In no case shall underground parking areas contain useable living area. parking areas are excluded from the measurement of building he - - 9. 21.04.376 - USEABLE LMNG AREA The area of a building intended for habitation and/or use by the build occupants. In no case shall useable living area be part of an undergrc parking area. 11. HEIGHT REDUCTIONS A. Reduce the building height limit for single family and duplex residential in the following zones: EA 21.07 RA 21.08 R1 21.10 R2 21.12 - PC 21.38 . PD 21.45 For lots under 15,000 square feet, the maximum building height sh: thirty feet and two stones if a minimum roof pitch of 3/12 is provid twenty four feet and two stones if less than a 3/12 roof pitch is pro\ For lots 15,000 square feet and greater, the maximum building height be 35 feet and three stones. Reduce the building height limit to 35 feet far the RT (21.20) anc (21.22) zones. B. 0 0 C. Reduce the building heighr limit 10 25 feet for The OS (21.33) zon HI. rNDU!ZW.AL AND COMMERCIAL HEIGHT [NCREASES .A. [ndustr;.al Uses ChI (21.301, >I (21.321, PM (21.33) and PC (21.38) zones The building heignr hni~ TvvirMn industial zones shall not exceed 3: three levels. Addirional building height may be permitred to a max 45 feet provided that: a) b) rhe buiiding does not contain more than three levels; all required srrucrural serbacks measured at the existing gra be increased at a ratio of one horizontal foot for every one vertical consrmcrion above 35 feet. The additional serback i be maintained as landscaped open space; and the building conforms to the requirements of CMC Title 18, 18.04.170. B. Commercial Uses c) C1 (21.26), 0 (21.27), C2 (21.281, CT (21.29) and PC (21.38) ZOI The building heigh iirnir wirhin 'commercial zones shall not exceed or three levels. Additional building height may be permitred to a m; of 55 feet provided that: a) b) c) the building does not contain more than three levels; the site has a minimum size of 40 acres; an increased area in contiguous heavily landscaped open 5 provided adjacent to and outside of the building perimeter anc parking lot. The properry owner agrees not to develop open 5 the future. The increased area to be provided will be comp follows: (x) feet increase in vertical height above 35 feet multil 1Yo of the site's building coverage square footage. d) the building conforms to the requirements of CMC Title 18, .' 18.04.170 and; e) the sire must develop with a regional commercial use that accommodate large anchor tenants. .. 0 w IV. BEACH AREA OVERLAY ZONE BAO (21.82) zone In order to allow for the new building height definition which measures to the peak as opposed to midpoint, the height limit in the BAO Zone will be adju Srmcrures nirh a minimum roof pitch of 3/12 shall not exceed thirty feet and stories; or twenty four feet and two stones if less than a 3/12 roof pitch is prov Underground parking will be excluded from the building height and will nc considered a story. Building height will be measured as defined in Sel 21.04.065 of Title 21 and the definitions of underground parking (Se 21.04.370) and basement (Section 21.04.045) apply as defined. This will create uniformity in Citywide height regulations. - - w APPLICATION COMPLETE D Aunl 17, 1991 0 STAFF REPORT ot DATE: JULY 3, 1991 TO: P LXV N 1 N G COMM I SSION FROM; PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: ZCA 91-3 - CITY OF WBAD - Amendments and additions to v chapters and sections of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for (1) the re and addition of zoning definitions, (2) residential building height reduc (3) building height increases for certain commercial and industrial USE (4) modification of the building height limit in the Beach Area Overlay *- - - [. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 3235 recommending APPRO' the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Resolution No recommending APPROVAL of ZCA 91-3, based on the findings contained therein. 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTTON AND BACKGROUND On September 5, 1990, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution of Intention b (attached) directing staff to proceed with the zone code amendment process tc certain recommendations made by the Building Height Subcommittee. recommendations were outlined in an Exhibit "X' (also attached) as part of Rot 1 were intended to be a guideline for the zone code amendments. As shown on Exhi recommendations included a new building height definition, the revision and add other zoning definitions, the lowering of maximum building heights in various increasing allowable building heights for certain commercial and industrial uses. At that time, tk Planning Commission also authorized the Budding Height Subcon to conduct a workshop to get public input on the issues of residential building heig intensity of residential development. The results of this workshop and staff's co review was to allow underground parking to be exempt from building height calct research floor area ratios for single family and duplex residences and allow the mi building height for single fdy and duplex residences to be approximately 25 ft As a result of this project, the proposed Zone Code Amendment has four componei the revision to and addition of zoning definitions, (2) building height red modification of the bullding height restrictions in the Beach Area Overlay Zo * 0 ZCA 91-3 - CITY OF CARLSBAD JULY 3, 1991 PAGE 2 (3) building height increases, and (4) modifications of the building height lirm Beach Area Overlay Zone. Floor area ratios are not being recommended at this i All of the specific recommendations comprising this four component Zon Amendment are listed in Exhlbit "A" dated July 3, 1991. Ehbit "B' dated July provides an oveniew of all the chapters of the Zoning Ordinance affected by rl Attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 3236 is Exhibit 'Y' dated July which is the ordinance that contains the specific amendments and additions to chapters and sections of Title 21 necessary to adopt all of the recommendations. 111. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1. Does this Zone Code Amendment address the goals and purpose of the Height Subcommittee? Is this Zone Code Amendment consistent with the City's Local Coastal Prc 2. DISCUSSION Building Heinht Subcommittee The work of the Building Height Subcommittee and staff, with input from the pu been primarily directed toward addressing the Ciyde issue of large, bw, overt and/or out of scale residential developmenr. This issue is being addressed by t Code Amendment which will (a) introduce a new building height definition and of measuring building height, and (b) reduce single family and duplex buildin limits for lots less than 15,OOO square feet in size. Other recommendations allowing for underground parking in relation to building height; allowing higher 1 in commercial and industrial areas; and modification of the building height rem the Beach Area Overlay Zone. In short, thc FoQosed zone code amendments and additions will address the recommendatbm made by the Building Height Subcommittee and the pul completes the objstives of Resolution of Intention No. 183. What foUows is a d of each recommendation. Reference can be made to Exhibit "A" to review in definitions and recommendations, and to Exhibit 'Y' to review the specific amendn additions to the Zoning Ordinance. w Zch 91-3 - CITY OF ,?)ts*AD JULY 3, 1991 PAGE 3 I. DEFINITI ONS 1. Basement. The current "basement" definition specifies that more above the ground level grade than less qualifies as a basement. is clearly an error in definition because it allows more area basemenr ro be above grade rather than below. Accordingly a "basement" definition is recommended that defines a base whereby the venical distance from outside grade to the floor t is more than the vertical distance from grade to ceiling. It is h recommended that 50% of the building coverage perimeter mee definition for an area to qualify as a basement. Cunently Title "silent" on the issue of whether basements should be included i measurement of building height. Given the recommended bu height definition, building height would be measured from the of the "basement." In addition, a basement cannot contai - parking area. 2. Buildinn Coverage. tn defining "building height" a new "building coverage" has been added. This is because recommended that building height be measured at any point and within the "building coverage" or envelope instead of fic outside the building perimeter as currently defined. At this tkt 21 does not define "building coverage". This will ensure tl portion of a structure exceeds the permitted height. Building co is the area of a structure's footprint. Buildinn Height. This definition is a complete revision of the e one. The primary differences include the elimination of measu the midpoint of a roof, clarification of "existing grade", a nev of measurement for determining building height and the allow; underground parking to be excluded from building height definition has five components: a) 3. "Building height" means the vertical distance of a st measured from the more restrictive (lowest) of €in.i! existing grade as determined by the Planning Dkectc within the building coverage to the highest point structure directly above that point of measurement. "Existing grade" for the purposes of measuring buildin- means the ground level elevation which existed prio grading or other site preparation related to, 01 incorporated into, a proposed new development or a .. vertical distance is measured from all points at grade alc b) e W ZCA 91-3 - CITY OF GZRLSBAD JULY 3, 1991 PAGE 4 of exisring developments unless a discretionary permit for si developments or alterations is approved. In that case, exist grade shall mean che grade after the property is developec improved in accordance with the grading plans wf implement the approved discretionary permit. For r discretionary permits where retaining walls, fill or 01 grading are utilized to create finished grade higher in eleva than existing grade as defined above and as determined bj Planning Director, then existing grade shall be used in determination of building height. "Existing grade" means the ground level elevation m existed at the time of the effective date of this ordinance ground level elevation as shown on a complete appiicatio a permit or entitlement, or the ground level elevation tl- show on an approved pennit or entitlement. Building height measurements include basements and subterranean areas except underground parking. In the of underground parking, building height is measured existing grade; excluding the area below existing grade. Building height is measured to the peak of the stru Chimneys may extend above the allowable building heit needed to comply with the minimum requirements ( Uniform Building Code. c) d) e) 4. - Grade. This addition to the existing definition clarifies "gra relation to building height measurement. 5. Level. This term, which is used in commercial and industrial b height restrictions, is defined. Lot Coveraae. Lot coverage is defined the same as building co This new definition is being added because lot coverage currently defined, but is used in the development standards 5 of various chapten in the zoning ordinance. Stow. This existing definition is clarified to include baseme cellars and exclude lofts. Undermound Parking. This new definition specifies that unde parking is not included in building height measurements. Nc living area may be included in underground parking areas. 6. 7. 8. r LOT SIZE MAXIMUMHEIGHT MAxrpvlIuMsl Under 10,000 sq. ft. 26 feet 2 10,000 Sq. ft. - 14,999 Sq. ft. 30 feet 2 15,000 sq. ft. and over 35 feet 3 a * ZCA 91-3 - CrrY OF CARLSBAD JULY 3, 1991 PAGE 6 111. HEIGHT INCRJZASES A. [ndusrrial Uses The proposed regulations would allow industrial buildings t( the thirty-five foot height limit in order to accommodate thrl of useable area up to a maximum height of forty-five fee allows for the mechanical and electrical equipment associai these uses to be built into the structures. A ratio of one ac horizontal foot increase for all structural setbacks measured i is required for construction of any portion of the structux thirty-five feet. A requirement for any building over 35 feet in height industrial use, as well as any commercial use as discussed bel be compliance with Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Title 18, 18.04.170. It requires compliance with' several of the "Hi standards O€ Uniform Budding Code Section 18.07 which additional fire protection features to offset the difficulties p by fires in taller buildings. - - - B. Commercial Uses The building height limit for commercial uses is clarified to t five feet or three levels. In addition, higher buildings are al commercially designated sites in the City that are over 40 acn and may develop with a regional commercial use that would accommodate large anchor tenants similar to May Co or Broi Plaza Camino Real which have building heights of about fifty- A maximum height of fifty-five feet will be allowed if (a) the does not contain more than three levels, (b) the site has a r area of 40 acres, (c) landscaped open space is increased at i shown on Exhibit "A", and (d) the building conforms requirem(?.nts of CMC Title 18, Section 18.04.1 70. IV. BEACHAREAOVERLAYZONE All references to "stories" will be deleted in the Beach Area Over building height restriction. Since the number of stories within a tw foot structure has little or no impact on visual appearance, "stones' deleted and the height limit maintained at twenty-five feet. Th underground parking to be introduced into projects in the beach are be counted in the building height measurement. Any number of "S levels may be constructed above the underground parking are twenty-five feet (as measured from existing grade). ZCA 91-3 - CITY OF CAm3A.D 0 JULY 3, 1991 PAGE 7 Coastal Zone Since ths Zone Code Amendment is proposed to be implemented Cirywide, some o Local Coastal Programs of the City will be affected. Most of the recommendations 0, action will not be in conflict with the various regulations of the City's Local Cc Programs, however, the recommendations involving increased building heighi commercial and industrial uses may involve changes to existing Local Coastal Pro regulations regarding building heighr. Some of the commercially designated sites that involve a potential height increase t feet are in the Coastal Zone. [n addition, there are some industrial propenies whch also have an increased building height which are located in the Coastal Zone. These : will be subject to subsequent Local Coastal Program Amendments at the time of proposed development. During the interim time period where there are both regula in effect, (between Local Coastal Program and City Zoning Ord-hance) the most restri - shall apply. Iv. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This Zone Code Amendment does not involve a development application, so there wi no environmental impacts resulting from this action. The proposed code amendments regulations will be part of the development standards that future projects shall cor with. All future projects will undergo standard environmental review. Staff has completed the Environmental Impact Assessment Part I1 and has concluded the adoption and implementation of this Zone Code Amendment will nor result in sigmfkant adverse environmental impacts. The Planning Director, therefore, has issui Negative Declaration dated May 2, 1991. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ENM:rvo Apd 18, 1991 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3235 Planniq Commission Resolution No. 3236 Resoluh of Intention No. 183 (with Exhibit "X' attached) Exhibit "A", dated July 3, 1991 Exhibit "B", dated July 3, 1991 July 31, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 like to hear staff's response on the If2 s.f. per linear ft. issue. In responding, Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, used the Opus East building as an example. It is 175 ft. long. If the sign ratio is 1 s.f. to 1 linear ft., it would permit one tenant with one extremely large sign. Staff felt that would be out of proportion to the structure. The ratio of 1/2 s.f. to 1 linear ft. is merely a guideline and could be adjusted to fit the building proportions. feel that a sign should overpower a building. Commissioner Schlehuber likes the guideline approach rather than the mandatory approach. He suggested stating the combined area as a guideline, which could then be appealed. Commissioner Hall inquired if a worst case scenario could be denied and sent to the Planning Comission for a decision. Mr. Wayne replied that a worst case could be dexied but when the guidelines are too vague, it causes a lot of problems for staff. is higher than to have a loose guideline. Commissioner Erwin suggested an additional sentence follow the 100 s.f. limit which states that "In extraordinary conditions, this limit can be increased to 140 s.f." Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, felt that it should be worded a little differently. as follows: Staff does not h!!l It would be better to have a set footage which He suggested the sentence read An additional 40 s.f. of signage may be allowed under unusual circumstances, such as an unusually long name and/or a sign which would not normally be visible unless extra square footage were available. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, stated that he could accept the wording suggested by Mr. Ball. Commissioner Kall still has a hard time with 4-6-8 names; he would still like to keep a clean basic sign. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 3274 recommending approval of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 3275 recommend- ing approval of SP 181(A) based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, with the addition of changes outlined in the staff memo dated July 29, 1991 and corrected in this meeting by Mr. Green of the Planning staff, and the addition of new wording as proposed by Mr. Ball which would allow an additional 40 s.f. of sign area in exceptional circumstances. RECESS The Planning Comission recessed at 7:08 p.m. and reconvened at 7:20 p.m. 2) ZCA 91-3 - CITY OF CARLSBAD - Amendments and additions - to various chapters and sections of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for (1) the revision and addition of zoning definitions; (2) residential building height reductions; commercial and industrial uses; and (4) modification of (3) building height increases for certain COMMISSION Erwin Hall Holmes Noble Savary Schlehuber 1 0 MINUTES 0 \ July 31, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 8 COMMISSIONEF Commissioner Erwin inquired about the absence of a stipulation prohibiting flat roofs on homes built on lots over 15,000 s.f. Eric Munoz, Associate Planner, replied that homes on lots under 15,000 may have a height of 30 ft. as long as there is a roof with a 3/12 roof pitch; otherwise the maximum height is 24 ft. There is no corresponding requirement for homes on lots over 15,000 s.f. because the majority of them are built on hillsides and they normally conform to the topography. Commissioner Erwin inquired if it would be a problem to put a maximum height of 29 ft. for flat roofs on lots over 15,000 s.f. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that this was considered; however, lots larger than 15,000 s.f. allow a three story structure. Staff does not feel the restriction is needed on the larger lots because there is normally more open space between the structures. Comissioner Hall commended staff on the visual aids to achieve a 5/12 roof pitch, it would require a maximum building height of 32 ft. He inquired as to why the extra two feet vas not allowed. Eric Munoz, Associate Planner, replied that the 30 ft. height was a compromise that would still allow a contractor to build a 40 ft. wide house with a 10 ft. ceiling. Homes which are 48 ft. wide are very uncommon. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, added that builders seldom build homes larger than 40 ft. wide because the truss and other materials must be custom ordered and are very costly. He feels that 30 ft. is a good compromise and will still allow architects to be creative. Chairman Holmes has a problem with Section 21.04.065 (5) in regards to vents, chimneys, parapets, penthouses, etc. He thinks there should be a height limit on uninhabitable space. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that those items are reviewed according to their use. are not allowed to extend higher than would be necessary for their particular use. would only be allowed to encase the equipment and no more. Chairman Holmes would like to see the words "as required by the equipment" added for clarification. Gary Wayne replied that staff is unaware of any problems but could accept added wording which reads "of sufficient height to accomodate such use." Chairman Holmes opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Dolores Welty, 2076 Sheridan Road, Encinitas, addressed the Commission and stated that she was representing Project Future because their representative could not attend the meeting. Project Future feels that the General Plan is inadequate and illegal because it increases the density of urban development. should be permitted to deal with the situation by way of a General Plan Amendment. Project Future feels that the proposed Building Height Ordinance is too lenient and is less restrictive than the present height requirements. Dale Naegle, 2210 Avenida de la Playa, La Jolla, addressed the Commission and stated that he is an architect and he is glad to hear that uninhabitable space for towers and Spires I provided in their report. However, he noted that in order They A housing for elevator equipment Project Future feels that the public e a MINUTES \ July 31, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 COMMISSIONE will be allowed to extend beyond the height limit because it makes for good architectural design and will add a lot to the skyline. His comments were directed at the hotel site off Palomar Airport Road near the ocean. He feels that a 55 ft. height would be acceptable as long as the building is opened up to allow a view of the ocean. John Todd, 3440 Garfield, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is very happy that the Planning Commission listened to the public and modified the previous proposal to allow subterranean parking. which is higher at the street and then drops down 6-7 ft. in the rear yard. would be allowed for a building on this parcel. Eric Munoz, Associate Planner, replied that any structure, including single family, Iould have to step down with the land. Todd objects to the requirement for stepping down the structure; he would like to see the building go straight back from the street. Lock Williams, 2407 Levante, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is working with his parents to develop a piece of property on Carlsbad Boulevard. He is in favor of the ordinance because he feels it is fair and equitable. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Holmes declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner Schlehuber is concerned that Project Future has come in tonight and made the accusation that the public has He owns property He inquired as to the maximum height he Mr. not been able to give their input regarding the ordinance, He feels this is an unfair accusation because this is the first time the Comission has heard from Project Future on this topic and it has been discussed-at several meetings. He feels that the new ordinance is much more restrictive than the previous height limits and the objections by Project Future are completely unfounded. ft. is very reasonable and he can support the ordinance as it has been presented. Commissioner Hall requested staff to restate the building height which would be allowed on Mr. Todd's property which drops down 6-7 ft. in the rear yard. Eric Munoz, Associate Planner, replied that a maximum height limit of 30 ft. would be allowed with a 3/12 roof pitch. were filled, that fill would come out of the building height, i.e. the building could only be 23 ft. high in the rear. Comnissioner Hall commented that the 10 ft. height bonus in our previous height ordinance was a large loophole. general public will need to be reeducated because this factor has been eliminated. He feels that the new ordinance is very restrictive. Most people will be picturing a 30 ft. building; hovever. in many cases they may not get a 30 ft. building. He can accept most of the ordinance but thinks we need 32 ft. under certain conditions to allow for architectural variety. Commissioner Erwin biggest concern is flat roofs on large lot homes. He would like the height to drop to 29 ft. or 30 ft. for a flat roof for lots 15,000 s.f. and greater. He is also concerned about not counting a basement as a story He feels the 30 If the 7 ft. dropoff The Page 10 July 31, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION because it will permit a substandard living area to be built below ground. story. He would be interested in what the other Commissioners think about these two issues. Commissioners Schlehuber and Savary can support the staff recommendation all the way. Commissioner Noble can also support the staff recommendation. He feels that what goes on inside his house is his business and what goes on outside should be controlled. Commissioner Hall is still concerned about 35 ft. for a three story structure because it will require 8 ft. ceilings in order to get a pitched roof. Chairman Holmes can also support the staff recommendation. He doesn't think the flat roof is a big issue and he believes the design community needs some choice. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Resolution No. 3235 recommending approval of the Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and adopt Resolution No. 3236 recommending approval of ZCA 91-3, based on the findings contained therein, with the addition of the two changes made by staff in their presentation and the one change recomnded by Chairman Holmes. Commissioner Hall requested that the record show his reason for voting no is that he thinks 32 ft. is needed on lot sizes below 15,000 s.f. and 35 ft. is needed above 15,000 s.f. Commissioner Erwin feels the Commission is making an error by not counting basements as a story. ADDED ITEMS AND REPORTS: Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, advised the Commission that there would be a workshop on Tuesday, September 10, 1991 to discuss housing issues. Commissioner Hall would like to see the Design Review Board included. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the meeting of July 31, 1991 was adjourned at 8:14 p.m. He thinks basements should be counted as a Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL HOLZHILLW Planning Director BETTY BUCKNER Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT.0N FILE UNTIL THF, MINUTES ARE GPROVED. COMMISSIONER Erwin Hall Holmes Noble Savary Schlehub Erwin Hall Holmes Noble Savary Schleh COMMISSIONERS July 3, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Page Ir lane, there would be no place for stacking cars wanting to turn left. It is an option which could be considered as long as the safety issue could be resolved. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Erwin Resolution No. 3264 approving the Negative Declaration Hall issued by the Planning Director and adopt Resolution No. Holmes 3265 approving PCD/GPC 90-3 making the determination that Noble the proposed City project is consistent with the General Savary Plan based on the findings and subject to the conditions S c hlehu be contained therein, with the addition of a new condition Schramm on the tree relocation program as read into the record by the City Attorney. 2) ZCA 91-3 - CITY OF CARLSBAD - Amendments and additions to various chapters and sections of the Zoning Ordinance definitions, (2) residential building height reductions, (3) building height increases for certain commercial and industrial uses, and (4) modification of the building height limit in the Beach Area Overlay Zone. to allow for (1) the revision and addition of zoning , Robert Green, Principal Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance incorporates (1) revised and simplified definitions to be used in measuring building height, (2) residential building height reductions, (3) building height increases for certain commercial and industrial uses, and (4) modifications to the building height limit in the Beach Area Overlay Zone. Work on the topic began in 1989 when the Planning Commission appointed a building height subcommittee to study building height. Subsequently, on September 5, 1990, the Planning Commission adopted X01 183 directing staff to proceed with a zone code amendment. recommendations were attached to the ROI. The same recommendations formed the basis for the amendment which is presented tonight. In order to legally and practically achieve the objectives of providing a simple method of building height measurement and building height modification, the wording of many sections of the ordinance had to be changed, including the definitions. This has resulted in a multi-section ordinance amendment which has been extracted and is presented in Exhibit ”A” (green cover) to the staff report dated July 3, 1991. multiple language changes work in concert to achieve the previously stated amendments. considered by staff as a supplementary regulation to building height; however, due to the potentially broad method of applying floor area ratios, and the fact that building height controls offer an easily understood, effective, and adequate method of regulation, floor area ratios were not proposed by staff. is to make a recommendation to the City Council, who will subsequently made a decision on adoption of the ordinance. Mr. Green introduced Eric Munoz, Associate Planner, who presented the building height recommendations in detail from Exhibit “A” and Exhibit ”Y”. The major items covered were: * The building height subcommittee’s The Floor area ratios were also The action being requested of the Planning Commission A new building height definition (Chapter 21.04) which, among other things, measures height from the more restrictive of finished or existing grade to the roof peak. ' July 3, 1991 PUNNING COMMISSION Page 5 COMMISSIONERS * A decrease of building height based on lot size for single family and duplex uses as follows: Height Limit Stories Lot Size 26 ft. TWO Under 10,000 s.f. 30 ft. TWO 10,000 to 14,999 s.f. 35 ft. Three 15,000 s.f. and greater - A decrease of building height to 25 ft. in the Open Space Zone. A decrease of building height to 35 ft. in the RT and RW zones. An increase of building height for commercial uses from 35 ft. to a potential maximum of 55 ft. with findings. An increase of building height for industrial uses from 35 ft. to a potential maximum of 45 ft. with findings. * * * - An allowance for underground parking in the Beach Overlay Zone. A commencement date for the ordinance of July 3, 1991 (Section 27). - Chairman Holmes requested staff to respond to the letter from Bill Hofman dated July 3, 1991 on behalf of The Fieldstone Company. Robert Green, Principal Planner, responded as follows: - Page 1, Item #I - The building height study has been in process since 1989 and the development community has been well aware of the proposed changes. - Page 1, Item /I2 - Section 27 indicates that projects which have received discretionary approvals are not subject to the provisions of the ordinance. For legal purposes, each ordinance must contain a commencement date. As regarding building height, a 26 ft. height limit would permit a two story home with 8 ft. ceilings and a pitched roof as well as some flexibility for architectural features. Page 2, Item 113 - Staff did not intentionally schedule the hearing on the eve of a major holiday. Staff would prefer a decision rather than a continuance. Page 2, Item I1 - There is no rationale for a 30 ft. height limitation. Page 3, Item #2 - There is a provision for parapets and architectural features. - - * - Page 3. Item //3 - Buildings in the beach area are frequently constructed with large garages which are then subsequently converted to living space. There is no attempt to penalize persons who desire a basement. Commissioner Schlehuber would like to know why basements and underground parking are not treated alike. Mr. Green replied that staff feels underground parking is preferable to a basement. If a basement is intended for storage rather than living area, perhaps some provision could be made to include storage. ' COMMISSIONER July 3, 1991 SWING COMMISSION Page 6 Commissioner Hall stated that at the last meeting on this subject he understood that staff promised the public they would have the proposed recommendations out at least two weeks in advance of this hearing. Mr. Wayne replied that staff promised to make every effort to get the staff report out as quickly as possible; however, they were unable to make the two week advance publication they had hoped for. Commissioner Hall inquired when the staff report was made available to the general public. Mr. Wayne replied that it was made available on Wednesday, June 26th. Mr. Munoz added that four additional changes had been proposed between June 26 and tonight's meeting. Commissioner Hall feels this is a critical issue; he feels the public needs at least 30 days to review and respond to the document. Commissioner Schlehuber would prefer to make a decision tonight if possible. If a continuation is needed, he would at least like to get the public hearing completed tonight. Commissioner Noble doesn't understand why the Beach Overlay Zone needs a height limitation of 25 ft. and the rest of the City needs a height limit of 26 ft. He is also concerned about the basement vs. the underground parking issue because someone living in the beach area is just as likely to turn a garage or basement into living space as someone who lives in another area of the City. Commissioner Noble feels the rules should be the same throughout the City. Commissioner Erwin inquired about the difference between a story and a level. Eric Munoz, Associate Planner, replied that "story" refers to residential uses and that lofts are normally not counted as an additional story. However, "level" is for commercial use. Mezzanines in commercial uses are usually counted as a level because they contain offices and employees which have parking requirements. Commissioner Erwin noted that 50% is counted towards a loft. He inquired if that means 50% of the actual space available or the total floor space of the attic. Eric Munoz, Associate Planner, replied that it is 50% of the total story where the loft would be located. usually part of an existing story. than 50% of the floor space, then it is considered to be an additional story. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, commented that it is possible for an attic or loft to become another story. For instance, if a loft is constructed in a one-story structure with a high roof pitch, it would be considered another story. Commissioner Erwin inquired about the height increase in industrial buildings and the extra space needed for mechanical equipment. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that an industrial building needs 4 ft. between levels to accommodate mechanical equipment and ducting . Commissioner Ervin inquired if, by approving 45 ft. height for industrial buildings, we are going to be seeing a lot of 45 ft. buildings. Gary Wayne replied that we are already approving 45 ft. heights for industrial because developers are taking advantage of the way height is defined. result, the buildings are having significant drainage Mr. Wayne replied that a loft is If the loft takes up more As a I Page 7 COMMISSIONERS July 3, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION problems. Having the 45 ft. limitation forces an industrial builder to adhere to the code. Commissioner Erwin requested staff to expand on the reference made to parking in the C-M Zone. Mr. Green replied that the code is saying that any commercial or industrial business enterprise must comply with Chapter 21.44, which refers to parking. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, added that the C-M Zone is a zone which is no longer used. It would be eliminated entirely except for the fact that the Carlsbad Research Center is zoned C-M due to the sewer moratorium which was in effect at the time the Specific Plan was approved. The C-M zone prohibits commercial uses and except for a few developed, isolated parcels in the City, there are no other properties which are zoned C-M. recornend rezoning any properties to C-M because it is outdated; it would result in the Carlsbad Research Center parcel becoming a nonconforming zone. Commissioner Erwin would like to see item (e) of Section 21.26.030 changed to read "the site must develop" rather than "the site may develop". Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, added that the word "and" also needs to be added to the end of item (d) to make it clear that all of the provisions must be met and not just one or two of them. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that this is the intent of the ordinance and the changes will be made. Commissioner Erwin requested staff to explain why the change of measuring to existing grade will not be a hard and fast rule, i.e. if there is a major development where grading will take place to create the pads, discretionary permits will result in height measurement from the finish grade. Eric Munoz, Associate Planner, replied that a large development with significant grading must undergo several layers of review, during which the finish grade could be re-established as existing grade under the context of a discretionary application. By approving the discretionary application, the Planning Commission would be approving the grading concept involved. Commissioner Erwin commented that, in his understanding, the reason for finish grade being re-established as existing grade is because the grading would be based on the Hillside Ordinance if a discretionary approval is given. Mr. Munoz replied that Commissioner Erwin's understanding is correct. Mr. Wayne added that this is the way the code reads today regarding establishment of existing grade, so there is really no change to that concept. Commissioner Schlehuber asked staff to comment on the Sammis property. Mr. Wayne replied that when the City took action on the Master Plan and the Tentative Map, they also approved a grading plan which lifted the pads and placed them closer to the bluff edge of the lagoon. As a result, the building heights were measured from the finish grade because it involved a discretionary approval. Commissioner Hall inquired if he was building a home on a hillside in La Costa which required a Hillside Permit, would the finish grade be re-established as existing grade. Wayne replied that it would if the lot exceeded 15%, because Staff would not the classification would be eliminated except that Mr. 0 0 MINUTES \ a discretionary approval is involved. However, he added that there are many lots in the City under 15% which would not require Hillside Permits. On lots with an incline of 15% or less, the structure must be stepped down with the incline by applying the proposed height definition. Commissioner Hall inquired about a tri-level home with a sunken living room on a flat lot8 Mr. Wayne replied that the home would have to conform to the 26 ft. height restriction but this proposed ordinance would not take away that design flexibility. Commissioner Hall inquired how the 10,000 ft. lot was established. Mr. Wayne replied that larger lots have a greater possibility for separation between structures and the massing becomes less of a problem. Commissioner Hall feels that a hejght reduction for single family homes from 45 ft. to 26 ft. is too restrictive. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, replied that he realizes this is a very significant change in the ordinance but staff was directed to reduce the massing in the single family areas. Commissioner Hall agrees with the 26 ft. height restriction in very dense areas. However, he does not consider a 7,500 s.f. lot to be dense. Mr. Holzmiller replied that the majority of single family lots in the City are 7,500 s.f. the more rural areas like La Costa, the lots run in the 10,000 s.f. range or larger. Commissioner Hall inquired if he wanted to build a home with a basement on a 7,500 s.f. lot in La Costa, if he would only be allowed to build a single story. affirmative. Commissioner Hall is also concerned about the time element. If an application has been accepted and staff is working on it, and the proposed product type complies with the existing ordinance rather than the new ordinance, i.e. Aviara, would it require redesign. Mr. Wayne replied that it would. Commissioner Hall does not believe the July 3rd date is rational. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 7:34 p.m. and reconvened at 7:44 p.m. Commissioner Schramm inquired if underground parking would not be considered a story in the Beach Overlay, why not allow a basement in other areas of the City without calling it a staff was directed to reduce height and intensity of use in single family areas. By allowing a basement which could be converted to living area, builders would be able to get around the intensity of use issue. In essence, it would be allowing a three story home and nothing has been accomplished. Commissioner Schramm inquired if a consideration had been given to treating basements like a loft, i.e. 50%. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that it would be easy to falsify the 50% in the case of a basement. Holzmiller added that under the building code, a basement can be built 7 ft. above ground and still qualify as a basement. In Mr. Wayne replied to the story. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, replied that Mr. 1 COMMISSIONER( July 3, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 9 Commissioner Schrm stated that her inquiry was to see if there was some way to accommodate a basement under the new ordinance and still meet the two story requirement. She is concerned about the larger family that might need an additional room. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if it is possible to design an ordinance which would restrict a basement to be built mostly underground. Mr. Holzmiller replied that a different definition for a basement could be incorporated into the zoning code. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired where the height is measured from under the existing ordinance. Mr. Wayne replied that the height is measured from 5 ft. outside the structure to the roof midpoint. By eliminating height and basements, we are reducing the intensity of use. Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, commented that conflicting definitions should be avoided between the building code and the zoning ordinance. adopted which is different than the Uniform Building Code, that document would have to then be amended. Commissioner Hall stated that he does not feel that basements are the most critical issue being considered because there is a lot of controversy about whether or not basements really work in Carlsbad due to the ground water. Commissioner Hall inquired if the Commission needs to address low and moderate income housing in the height ordinance, i.e. waivers to allow increased height for low or moderate income housing. Mr. Wayne replied that it is not necessary because there will be a density bonus ordinance which provides incentives including increased building heights. Commissioner Hall inquired if it would be possible to build a 5-story building for low income housing. Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director, replied that discretionary action would be required and this issue will be addressed in the density bonus ordinance which will be coming forward. Chairman Holmes opened the public testimony and issued the If a definition for a basement is invitation to speak. Roger Peterson, 180 Cherry Avenue, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he lives in the Beach Overlay Zone. which he paid a very high premium, and he is being deprived of developing that property by guidelines which he feels are inequitable. property rights for owners. parking problem in the beach area except for four holidays out of the year. Brooks Worthing, 1820 West Cliff Court, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he builds custom homes for a living and that most of the homes being built today have 9 and 10 ft. ceilings which results in a 20 ft. height before the roof has been added. Very few 8 ft. ceilings are built today. The 26 ft. height restriction will eliminate design opportunities and result in a very poor design. that people moving here from the east coast all want basements. He is concerned that he owns prime beach property, for He believes there should be more private He doesn't think there is a He added PLANNING COMMISSION Page 10 July 3, 1991 COM M lSSl0 N ERS Commissioner Erwin inquired if 29-30 ft. would be enough height to accommodate a 10 ft. ceiling and two stories. Mr. Worthing feels that developers would be able to live with 29-30 ft. He thinks some math needs to be done and that staff needs to talk to some builders and architects before a firm height restriction is adopted. Mario Monroy, 3610 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that the home he currently lives in is 28 ft. high. When you start getting below those numbers you create a monotony of square boxes. He feels the height limit should be no less than 28 ft. Mr. Monroy stated that he had received his copy of the staff report on Friday and that many of the items being presented tonight are completely different than those set forth in the staff report. He is concerned that many people have not had an opportunity to consider the ramifications of the height ordinance because he went to the library on Friday and was told that they do not receive copies of the staff repork until two days prior to the meeting. Bill Hofman, Hofman Planning Associates, 2386 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, representing The Fieldstone Company, addressed the Commission and stated that he is requesting a 30 day continuance for the reasons stated in his letter. He would like to see a public workshop held before the height ordinance is finalized because there has never been any two way discussions on this matter. He sees many problems with the 26 ft. height limitation. His letter dated July 3, 1991 is on file with the minutes in the Planning Department. Commissioner Schlehuber stated that a workshop was held at the Safety Center and many representatives of the building community were present. Mr. Hofman replied that he was also ' present at that meeting but there was no two-way discussion allowed. Commissioner Hall stated that if a continuance is granted, he would like to see some pictures of typical homes which could not be built under the new ordinance. Mr. Hofman replied that he would be happy to get some things together for the Commission. Commissioner Erwin inquired if Mr. Hofman was suggesting that there be a 30 ft. height for all homes on lots up to 15,000 s.f. in size. He replied to the affirmative. Commissioner Erwin would like to receive some material from the building community before the night of the hearing, if it is continued. Mr. Hofman will attempt to get some things together for the Commission. Commissioner Schramm inquired if it is possible to determine water levels during soil testing. Mr. Hofman replied that it is possible. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if Mr. Hofman could accept a be in favor of anything that would restrict design ability. Commissioner Hall inquired how Mr. Hofman felt on the July 3rd implementation date. seem reasonable. sunset clause because of the expense involved in redesigning a project. restriction against flat roofs. He replied that he would not He replied that July 3rd does not He feels there should be some type of COMMISSION EP July 3, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 11 Paul Klukas, Hillman Properties, addressed the Commission and stated that he was also requesting a continuance. that the short time to review the staff report has put the development community at a disadvantage. is made, he would like the Commission to take a tour of an Aviara project which was just completed and is up for an architectural award for excellence. The homes in this project are 30 ft. high and could not have been built under the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Erwin inquired if Mr. Klukas is recommending a minimum 30 ft. height limit. He replied to the affirmative. Mary Melidio, 159 Hemlock, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she was very happy with the contents of the staff report. She thinks that 26 ft. might be a little low and that 28 ft. might be better. heard is that there is an actual definition of height and this is the first time a definition has come forward. She feels that the heights in the Beach Overlay Area should be who mentioned that there are no parking problems in the beach area. height issue concl.uded in the near future. She thinks it has been dragging on for too long. Commissioner Schramm inquired if Ms. Melidio is happy with the 25 ft. height limit in the beach area. She replied that she thinks an additional two feet is needed. Commissioner Schramm inquired if Ms. Melidio thinks that basements should be allowed in areas other than the Beach Overlay Area. She replied that she thinks a basement or underground parking should be allowed anywhere. Kim Post, 3484 Sitio Borde, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he appreciates the comments which have been made. be measured to the peak of the building, additional space is needed for the roof. s.f. lot, he feels they should be able to have a 38 ft. height limit. A copy of his letter dated July 3, 1991 is on file with the minutes in the Planning Department. Steven Brindle, 1415 So. Pacific, Oceanside, addressed the Commission and stated that he recently purchased a lot on Adams Avenue. homes each year on waterfront infill lots. The proposed building height limitation will have a devastating effect for him. He doesn't feel that 26 ft. takes into account the building materials for the roof or the taller ceilings which are now being used. He thinks the proposed ordinance will create an architectural disaster. Commissioner Erwin inquired what Mr. Brindle's height recommendation would be for a 15,000 s.f. lot. He replied that he doesn't think anyone is ready to specify a height but if he had to make a decision tonight, he would have to say at least 30 ft. $%hifhdf! Collmissioner Hall noted for the record that a letter dated July 2, 1991 had been received from Architects Lorimer & Case stating they would be unable to have a representative at the hearing but that they were gravely concerned about the proposed height limitation ordinance. A copy of that letter is on file with the minutes in the Planning Department. He feels Before a decision The best thing she has lower than other areas, She was surprised to hear the man In any event, she would like to see the building He believes that since the height will now If a large home is built on a 15,000 His speciality is building one to four custom * e MINUTES c e \ COMMISSIONERS July 3, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 12 There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Holmes declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner Schlehuber thinks that the Commission has received adequate testimony to make a decision and he would not be in favor of allowing additional public testimony. had heard a definite need for more height and he could probably go with 2l9 ft. there could not be uniformity on height throughout the City. As far as basements go, he personally has a basement and likes it. He wouldn't want to see it eliminated. He would like to see some type of minimum slope required for roofs. He is not in favor of a public workshop because he feels that developers have had ample opportunity to comment. Commissioner Hall stated that without looking at an actual model or photographs, he doesn't know what height we need to have to accommodate an average home. He wants to see some examples so that the Commission can make a wise decision. feels this is one of the most important decisions to be made by the Commission and one which will affect the City well into the future. lots but he likes the underground parking and basements. thinks the July 3rd date needs to be revised. Hall would like this continued for at least two weeks because He He would like staff to address why He He agrees with the two stories for small He Commissioner he feels the Commission owes it to the citizens to allow them the time to review the draft ordinance. He would like to see the problems worked out before it goes to the City Council. Chairman Holmes thinks we should keep in mind the reason for the height limitation. building and not inside the building that needs correction. He can understand why everyone is saying that you cannot get a good design with 26 ft. He thinks that 30 ft. is probably the minimum needed on any size lot for a good design. He agrees that the July 3rd implementation date is not fair. Commissioner Erwin thinks that if we go with a 30 ft. height, we also need to have a minimum roof pitch specified. He sees no reason to make a decision tonight or to limit the public testimony. He is in favor of a continuance. Overall, he feels that the ordinance has been well done. Commissioner Schramm would like to see a 30 day continuance because she would like the development community to come in It is what occurs outside the with photographs so that she can see examples. like the July 3rd date reconsidered but she would like to know what is in the pipeline. minimum roof pitch but doesn't want to limit the architectural guidlelines. hearing remains open. Commissioner Savary thinks we could use more ideas. would like to see the date start upon acceptance of the ordinance. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, commented that the July 3rd date seems to be causing all of the Commissioners problems. He feels that staff could rethink the date and come up with something more reasonable; however, he is worried that there will be a flood of applications if the date is extended by much. She would She likes the idea of a She doesn't mind if the public She a MINUTES e \ July 3, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 13 COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Noble would be in favor of an ordinance that would have uniformity throughout the City. He could live with a 29 or 30 ft. height. have the same type of roof or all be two story. Commissioner Hall thinks that people should have the ability to be creative within their own home. He feels that is their right. like people to have the ability to be creative within that two story limitation. He, personally, doesn't like flat roofs but he thinks a variety is needed. Staff was unable to recommend a date certain before August 21, 1991 for the continuance. After discussion, it was decided to allow staff to determine a date and renotice He would not want all homes to He agrees with the two story limitation but would Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to continue ZCA 91-3 to the first available meeting date that staff can secure, that the public testimony remain open so that those wishing to submit comments can do so at least one week prior to the meeting. ADDED ITEMS AND REPORTS: Chairman Holmes read a thank you note which had been received from former Planning Commissioner Mary Marcus. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the meeting of July 3, 1991 was adjourned at 9:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, BETTY BUCKNER Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THX MINUTES ARE 0 0 I PROJECT FUTURE P. 0. BOX 4650 Carlsbad, CA 92008 September 17, 1991 Members of the Carlsbad City Council 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: A,B. 11347, “Amendments to Title 21,..ZCA 91-3” Resolution #91-305 Approving Negative Declaration Ordinance #NS 173 Approving ZCA 91-3 Dear Councilmembers: Please enter into the record the following protest of the above captioned, The environmental impacts of allowing the construction of unlimited underground structures and/or significantly higher buildings have not been adequately addressed in the Environ- mental Impact Assessment supporting the Negative Declaration Under CEQA, the above-captioned qualifies as a project requj a full Environmental Impact Report, Qhich we request the council undertake. Further, because the subject zone code amendment would signj ficantly increase the density and intensity of land use in the city, it would therefore significantly compromise the of such changes are an essential part of a proper comprehen- sive General Plan Review. No zone code amendment of this magnitude or consequence should occur prior to the completion of the Review and subsequent adoption of an amended, legally adequate General Plan, General Plan Review now officially in progresso Consideratj Very truly yours, L h- Anne Mauch For PROJECT FUTURE 0 0 CARlTAS cornpnnv ---------- --- ._I September 17, 1991 Mayor Claude f1Bud91 Lewis and Members of the Carlsbad City Council City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 Re: Heiqht Ordinance Dear Mayor Lewis and Councilmembers: We believe the proposed ordinance should be slightly modifie shown on the attached Exhibit A with respect to commercial off retail, and hotel buildings to avoid the development of spa dumpy second-class space. This will permit similar treatmen office and retail areas as in industrial areas. While preserving all of the design controls, landscape enhancen and three story limit, a modification permitting buildings of I 45 feet with additional height to 55 feet for non-habit architectural detail and articulation under the limited condit of the ordinance will permit the realization of quality facilj with the character of the Carlsbad community. The enclosed memorandum and visual presentations illustrate advantage of a modified ordinance (Exhibit B). We urge you to adopt the ordinance with these modifications. uly yours, @ Ch istapher C. Calkins for Carltas Company CCC/dsf Enc. 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS 6 SUITE 100 65 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) 431-5600 FAX (619) 431-9020 8.22. 1991 &@ uUILDING HEIGHT RECOMMENDATIONS .. JULY 31,1991 C. J; ) 'Reduce the building height limit !o 25 feet for the OS (21.33) zone. w [[I. AplD COMMFRCIAL WGHT INCREXSES A. musrr;.al Uses CLI :2! 30), ?VI (21.321, PhI (21.34) and PC (21.38) zones Tb.e bui!ding height iirit Lvirhin !ndusr+.al mnes shall nor exceed 35 fe three leteis. Additional building height may be aedrted 10 a rcax;.: 45 feet provided that: a) b) the building does nor contain more than three leveIs; all required structural setbacks measured at the existing grade be increased a[ a ratio of one horizontal foot for every one fo vertical construction above 35 feet. The additional setback arc: be maintained as landscaped open space; and the building conforms to the requirements of CMCTitle 18, Se 18.04.170. B. 'a1 Uses - c) m), 0 (21.%7), C2 (21.28), CT (21.29) and PC (21.38) zone The building height limit within tommercial zones shall not exceed 3 or three levels. PIdditional building height may be pehtrcd to a max of 55 feet provided rhac: a) b) c) the building does not contain more than three levels; the sire has a minimum size of 40 aces; an increased area in contiguous heavily landscaped open sp provided adjacent to and outside of the buildirig perimeter and/ parking lot. 'fne propcrry owner apt# not 10 devclo~ open SF the future. The increased area KO be provided WU be compu foUoWs: (x) feet increase in venicd height above 35 fett mdtip 1% of the site's building coverage squarr footage. . d) the building conforms to the rcquirrrnentr of CMC Title 18, % rhc 5ite mUSK develop with a regional commudd use that ' 18.04.170 and; -;s-c' accommodate large anchor tenants. OC\&- * **E t4 D * * * EXIIIBI 0 0 CITY OF CARLSBAD COMMERCIAL USE HEIGHT LIMITS ROMA DESIGN GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS SEPTEMBER 17,1991 Introduction Roma Design Group has had an opportunity to review the proposed height limit: commercial buildings within the City of Carlsbad. The City clearly wishes to limit height of these buildings to three floors. It is our opinion that the proposed height lim 35 feet, as defined by the ordinance, raises serious difficulties in achieving a distinct designed three story building that will attract high quality users and tenants. This mt randum explores the implications of the height limit as proposed and suggests s modifications that could better fulfill the City's objectives. In the preparation of an ordinance of this kind, we feel that it is important to regulate manner that will achieve the best results and offer developers and their architectr greatest levels of creativity and innovation. At the same time, from the City's standpo that avoid abuse by developers attempting to "shoehorn" additional square footage ii building. From the City's standpoint, it would appear that the principal objectives in establi height standards are as follows: a. To limit the height of commercial buildings to three floors. b. To be market competitive within the region, attracting high quality users and tena the City. To create architecturally distinctive buildings that Will reinforce the image and id of Carlsbad. d. To create buildings that allow for the vertical mixture of uses, including active g is important to develop standards that result in the desired physical form for the area c. level retail shops and restaurants that enliven the pedestrian environment. It is our feeling that the height limit as currently proposed is counterproductive achievement of these objectives. While three story buildings are viable and appro prototypes in the Carlsbad market, we believe that the imposition of a 35 foot heigh is unnecessarily burdensome to an architect or developer wishing to introduce L quality product. 0 e This is not to say that a three story commercial building cannot be developed within foot height limit, For instance a three story office building with floor to floor dimensio approximately 11'-6" could be developed within the limit. Two key points need to be however: one is that an 11'-6" floor to floor dimension is less than optimum for the ere of a high quality Commercial office building. The second, is that the methodolog measuring height will impose an additional burden on the creation of a high quality story building that can be sensitively integrated with its site. Floor-to-Floor Dimensions for Quality Buildings Regarding floor to floor dimensions, the 35 foot height limit for three floors of offi two floors of office with ground level retail, compromises quality, flexibility and vari design, and will result in construction coordination difficulties. Tenants of high q office buildings require gracious spaces with developed ceilings that could vary depe upon the use from 8'-6" to 10 feet and higher. Construction methods and systems rc dimensional allowances for depth of structure, fire protection and mechanical sy! ceiling and lighting systems and the resolution of unforeseen interference between sy Unreasonably limited floor-to-floor heights will greatly complicate the process of COI tion and inevitably result in a cost premium but without an improvement in quality. Based upon our review of high quality commercial building prototypes, the mi? height recommended for a three story office building is 40 feet, allowing for a 1 ground floor-to floor dimension and two office levels of 12-6" each (or a 14 foot g floor, with 13 foot office floors above). However, an optimum overall dimension for buildings would be 45 feet, offering better opportunities for quality interior space, i the introduction of ground level retail and restziurant space, which can require a fl floor dimension of 18 feet. The higher limit would also provide for greater flexibi the introduction and coordination of structural and mechanical systems. For hotels, while it is possible to achieve a three story structure within the 35 foot limit (15 foot ground floor with two 10 foot room floors), the optimum height woulc feet to allow for greater variety in floor planes and ceiling heights on the grounc The ground level of hotels, typically include spaces with longer structural spans (e, room and function rooms) that require deeper structural members and greater 1t mechanical service. In addition, the ground plane of higher quality hotels is often se finished grade to'enhance the entry sequence and to create a diversity of spatial ences within the public spaces. 2 0 e Summary of Recommeiidations This memorandum does not propose specific language changes to the City's ordinance, rather points to fundariental modifications that should be pursued in order to achieve 2 quality three story commercial structures. Key recommendations for modifications to the ordinance include the following: 1. For commercial office buildings, a maximum height of 45 feet should be establishel top of structure from finished floor elevation to allow for the greatest flexibility in design of high qudity interior spaces and the integration of mechanical and struct systems, to promote retail and restaurant uses on the ground floor, and to encou distinctive building designs that go beyond the "squat boxes" of many suburball spec tive office developments. The ordinance should remain very clear that no more three floors of habitable space will be permitted within this envelope. For hotels, a maximum height of 40 feet should be established to top of structure f finished floor elevation, again to allow for greater flexibility, and to encourage creation of unique,, high quality public spaces on the ground floor. An overall maximum height of 55 feet should be established on a conditional 1 subject to design guidelines, for decorative and architectural features that can em age a more articulated building mass and silhouette. The ordinance should re* clear that this space will not be permitted to be habitable. 2. 3. 3 _- GUESTROOM - _-__ 3rd FLOOR b wn 'x E?* TYPICAL MIXED USE BUILDING 1 a 0 ‘IJqiical mixed use building. a 0 ‘)t. -% --l * P Typical mixed use buildhg . 0 a Typical hotel. 0 a -* -..I -Y.a--*-.&L-- ‘1)rpical hotel. e 0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ZCA 91-3 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will I a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carslbad Village D (formerly Elm Avenue), Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m., on Tuesday, Septei 17, 1991, to consider amendments and additions to various chapters and sect of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for (1) the revision and addition of zo definitions, (2) residential building height reductions, (3) building he increases for certain commercial and industrial uses, and (4) modification of building height limit in the Beach Area Overlay Zone. If you have any questions regarding this matter please call Eric Munoz, ir Planning Department, at 438-1161, extension 4441. If you challenge the Zone Code Amendment in court, you may be limited to rai only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing descr in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carl City Clerk’s Office at or prior to the public hearing. APPLICANT: City of Carl sbad PUBLISH: September 5, 1991 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL .* * pl lG E H NOTICE IS HEREBY GWIW that T~R planning Limbsi~~ a€ rk~ Ciry of IXhbBQ w a public hearing at the Council Chambm, 1200 carlsbad Vuage Drive (forme Avenue), Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p,m, on Wednesday, July 31, 1991, to c amendments and additions to mious chaptets and sections of the Z~ning ordirc &ow for (1) the revision and addition of zoning definitions, (2) residential buildhi reductions, (33 building height increases far certain ccrmmdd and industrial us (4) modificatian of the building height knit in the Beach Area Overlay Those persons wishing to spa& on this proposal are cordially invited to attend th4 he&#, Copies of the std report will be available on and act: July 18, 1991. ~VC any questions, piewe C& &e ~un62, Ass~cjatc Planners h the PIag Repi at 438-1161, ext. 4441. If you challenge the Zone Code Amendment in court, you may be limited to raisi those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this noti wrirten correspcmdence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or pxior ta the public 1 CASEFtLE: ZCA91.03 APPLICANT: CZlY OF CARtSEAD PUBLISH: .I - BLADE CSTIZEN - JULY 17, 1991 WBAD JOURNAL - JULY 18,1991 cfiy OF CARtSBAD PLANNtNG COMMISSION POTS Lm Pmlmas Orive mrlubad, Calitornlm 9200e485S (ala) 43 a 0 Carlsbad Journal Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of Sun Diego County Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to W.C.C.N. Inc. P.O. Box 230878, Encinitas, CA 92023-0878 (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; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entit I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal, a newspaper of general ( published weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, and which : is published for the dissemination of locaI news and intelIigence of a genera1 character, newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscription list subscribers, and which newspaper has been established, printed and published at regular inte said City of Oceanside, County of San Diego, State of California, for a period exceeding one preceding the date of publica notice hereinafter referred to; E notice of which the annexed i copy, has been published in e, and entire issue of said newspa in any supplement thereof on ing dates, to-wit: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ZCA 91-3 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council oftbe City of Carl= bad will hold a public hearing at Carlsbad Village Drive (formerly Elm Avenue), Carlsbad, California, .t,B:aOp.m.,onTuesday, September ,.17, lSSl, to consider an amend- chapters and sections of the Zoning -Ordinance to allow for (1) the revi- sion and addition of zoning defiii- tions, (2) residential building height reductions, (3) building height increases for certain com- mercial and industrial uses, and (4) modification of the building height limit in the Beach Area Overlay Zone. .. If you have any questions regard- ing this matter please call Eric Mpnor, in the Planning Depart- If YOU challenge the Zone Code limited to raising only those issues public hearing described in this ewe delivered to the City of Carls- the City Council Chambers, 1200 I menta and additions to various September Ot men& at 43E1161, extension 4441. Amendment in court, you may be raised by you or someone else at the notice, or in written correspond- California on the 5th b*dCityClerYsOtficeator priorto day of the public hearing. CJ 6274: September 5,lWl I certify under penalty of per- foregoing is true and correct. Carlsbad, County of San Die September, j .Amlieant: City of Carlsbad CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL Clerk * CRRlTAS * corn Pmv _e-_-_ L - __ - __ I - _- - - - --_ October 8, 1991 Mayor Claude IIBudl’ E. Lewis City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 Re: AB 11387/Buildinq Heiqht Limit !Item 12, October 8) Dear Mayor Lewis: As we have advised your staff, we believe the ordinance as proposed fully deals with the concerns raised by our architect We believe the proposed ordinance will permit spacious, viable commitment to a maximum three story profile. We appreciate your staff‘s) thoughtful consideration and response the issue and urge adoption of the ordinance in the form present attractive commercial architecture without sacrifice of the Cit arltas Compan CCC/dsf cc: City Councilmembers Raymond Patchett, City Manager Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director ~~ L.yh/CIL f”lEgr/*Je OF falf7q/- & f s TRIL3U Ti5J 5600 AVENIDA ENCINAS 0 SUITE 100 L CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (619) 431-5600 FAX (619) 431-9020 ,. e e w HELGtiT LI?lIT FOR hSUA HEDIONDA LAGGOY AREA Agua 3edionda Lagoon is very special. It is a ~eopl lagoon. The area surrxmdintz it is predominatly rural with OI and two-story homes. This existing neizhborhood needs i rnaintain its character. We ask that it 3e Ziven the sa: consideration as the beach area neighborhood. We ask that there be a lagoon Dverlay, liniting sin5 fa?iily dwellings toL30 feet high, regardless of zoning. SAME ADDRESS - LpJd&U- 9379 AdftW s+ CSV/Li * Q'Jh yw9 )Ccfl-dP& YYYJ- ifgJhdeh4 K&& -/ i -.. - F' fl/i t \i/+/< 1'. - ~~- ~ 1 c: ., ,/ , -l '7, l./L i e/[+ i/. L 9 1 ~ I FL - P / '* u 3 Y'i: 74, c; /LC L.L, ,cy ,& p&zL i" < ?.7/LGd.ti / 1- ab-/ /!& /&?&6 I URD 1 d- & 4LzdLh/GI yj j/3@ iJ )-;/G+->,vd /- ,& Jc;, /L - y(d* &A- I?-, Grh* -x-# 4273 > e a. g& 4 / d 9 PI/- I- /\ L ~ rr, , /"" //--*t -' /- kt $~p-/Jd - ' &!d. -z- - 'Ai I I L / - /-- :< i (1 /"/ I i 1 //, I/ b Ar - I ,A/ ,- - - .c. r / J / -,p; -.&A4 E** sr@4 L0 c. i j. ,/,? i 2 +A 4 3 j 5/59 h la9dPP. CB fi 1 ~&.&'&,% :/ ,*$ <&+--k . j, &fl, Lf$/*d J 'x;< JJtL (7 - (- 1L ., J* /kc p ', > I, Ai- ,- ~52~ i-i d&.ci ~b &, ir I E j JLikiLdJ A i- c- I " %4i3 il,p /- *+&&+--.z >Id- 41 U , c 3 - .--.-,-*-., - *. ,.-. -----.- - r .. r ,- r e_.- c - -_- .AC -- ~ _---_ __-- L -- - _-_.-_ , ~ - ~ - /a- p/~$i<ri_3~i~~ /j.T C.-C<~-<~L ~~\/T&TJ" cg ic/e/Ti - *$ j 46 + -_ 0 e HEIGHT LIMIT FOR AGUA HEDLONDA LAGOON AREA 1 Agua Hedionda Lagoon is very special. It is a peopl lagoon. The area surrounding it is predominatly rural with on and two-story homes. This existin? neighborhood needs t rnaintain its character, We ask that it be given the sam consideration as the beach area neighborhood. We ask that there be a lagoon overlay, limiting sing1 * family dwellings to 30 feet high, regardless of zoning, NAME ADDRESS 93cr -'ML -7 I . ' ,dl &--/ /' ,, +- - 7'- ,- --72 - -,- I Ab- < ?/* L b& LC,,+- A \ A-2 & L f3 47 / / llL<, - {I I 5tc,,w7 / /$ LL24d -I >A -4/+-c \ \ ac-,C- // / :I- ? -'f 'C (/5 gk5 f L :",.c ycd[ /'_AL La ;g Ir (I 7,, /LC 1-1 I 1 - T! i I rj L/: 1, ' / I ~ I -I r- - - I- ( &qf-L. 22.: <; i / ,/ 4 /I - / - ~yd1/L'-Lp 5 I LJ ~ ci,.y: i' J' / ! " I A. ," I! i' //- _, I L'- f - I J - .7J , 8 ,/ ,P/ /L 1 7 ./ i'Y +, /! ,L _- * I/. -, -i 9 I .I 3ca-uL L+c&LLL ' y/w &fr \ A4W '7 k+ &,A ._ ~ *= * \, 3 ,LC ,Jd --,x.- ,<-% / - - ,, <//( +L -/ , /- -< - . "3 +L'IY i 7 4 A . I '1 4 Y I, / -1 ' ,& +y~~/:&\y& 'u / All v ,/(?. '/ ,/i/LL I - p-y ,- ' I A-7 -4 / *k 1 "-79 r ,+--&$&fS <-/>/ (7 , '-/' - 5~&vz.& LC', ,[~%ayFy /&?&-e 5, L/ cfi i /?&?E747 fl 42 ci _. r ,- I I # A I y? 88 - /$$Lq db : yFg/G L, -+&x ' ,4245 , yc & b-fL&u- : I I dJ+$ -? ;*,*v- &, -J-Jcl--& ,.-a ---. - c - - r c c e*-A ---e ,-- -_. -- _- __--LC--_ - -.-- c r r - 1 ._ ?+, fl'd4, I --e J~YO /&)3#>1L. ST- a 0 HEIGHT LIMIT FOR AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON AREA Agua Hedionda Lagoon is very special. It is a peopl lagoon. The area surrounding it is predominatly rural with on and two-story homes. This existing neighborhood needs t maintain its character. We ask that it be given the Sam consideration as the beach area neighborhood. We ask that there be a lagoon overlay, limiting sing1 family dwellings to 30 feet high, regardless of zoning. NAME ADDRESS m [I5 & 1 9 (( '\ \L a(- pI~L4. 3( i\ '4A -1 h -. & i/- i//ds" -@ 7 m c-&t.A /Da/ 321q L)- ai fl A/ +ors- yaof j&&z/ &-- /ad) & pyAM> a /33/ d-y-4-Q-i ZLR-L 130 I t& &..-I /37R a*2up# Ad& orz -* Gw_G 4L) /a- WdU, 62 yo a- ?=J a. c>-ec/L 4 *. Yd3S- @)c4./ b- G.r - d?L ika-0 && c [Ic $5$?- 40K- emf@ u & ' I /5' d/79 LlrLL&B4 /7, AI azi A I //% I, 0 HEIGHT LIMIT FOR AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON AREA Agua Hedionda Lagoon is very special. It is a peOpl lagoon. The area surrounding it is predominatly rural with on and two-story homes. This existing neighborhood needs t maintain its character. We ask that it be given the sam consideration as the beach area neighborhood. We ask that there be a lagoon overlay, limiting sing1 family dwellings to 30 feet high, regardless of zoning. NAME ADDRESS u\05s+3-,7 /&95 + //&' &a&. @ tllYD DM /$A //+- YV&, 2& & /I/o +a$*( 9978. G AQA ,b I +_I -I f ? ,I.- b i, &4,l,L ) 1-4 v >!-e 1, 47 .\Jr \ A/,?) r , '- i - % y/s" A JP - 9 SF- a's0 /* /Jd -- d /*ode{ p/- %'-- 3 +/emsC. 7 +f io - %-- jt22?= G 4176 a. <-* ?2 .%= (9 \Fw 2z- /< - \ - - __ 1. 4 x/ / - J, -< 1 - +Lt-iC&&Z ~ *- 53- a& t,i d &iwngLui=w ~l~f cAa 11~3 &vLhl/~d (J bfd.31: - 0- -- e -_ 'b =i HEIGHT LIMIT FOR AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON AREA Agua Hedionda Lagoon is very special. It is a peopl lagoon. The area surrounding it is predominatly rural with 01 and two-story homes. This existing neighborhood needs maintain its character. We ask that it be given the sal consideration as the'beach area neighborhood. We ask that' there be a lagoon overlay, limiting sing family dwellings to430 f2et high, regardless of zoning. ADDRESS \ = (pK P /IC&? -*q 3- , : 12-7 /a,&L L'& - ,i> A&,w- .LA-, .&JAUN NAME a -7 &@/T IC..=-- ! \ L-5 rJPC )--i~~-a Ad~rn~ . 3 2,*/-d y-~JJ&QtL fi/u-vw-- Lm~ r 3 i .f > f-- , 7-- 7 CI:\p'G A, -! k &/Jd4< I' :I I J ' !&kc 9/+--'dL,/L ,I-.!- --&S ,-+yn€. J ,L ZdgR: --LA -a+-- *=z?*- ' 9~302 &yeC- 34- \ L4' -;x-/ ,+p- i p - J' J' / \ Y(7-J /. d / /' r . _-- -- - c , j (& G- -, @4rdja* Ci -_ .. /' CL 7b ,y1/1-7=/ JLk2& /"-x- c7.l 0- -' /uyfi-, c d \ 1, I I I 1 ! t I i I I I I t ! I -- - -> * ---A-' -r. i .- , --I-cc c - c r c eF p-- 4 c -- - ,- .- - -* c c r --cc ..- - - c - --I-- - c c a e HEIGHT LIMIT FOR AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON AREA .u Agua Hedionda Lagoon is very special. It is a people lagoon. The area surrounding it is predominatly rural with one and two-story homes. This existing neighborhood needs to maintain its character. We ask that it be given the same consideration as the beach area neighborhood. We ask that there be a lagoon overlay, limiting single family dwellings to 30 feet high, regardless of zoning. NAME ADDRESS - fi&4.&&/, //d hp.---..-"-.. L /-/y fl& ,I / &/ Qj /,Liitc/ */ L. 6 pyfj r * 1,' '6'yg, LA /@ (,,$& ,4> A L&k dfM [h\ 0 i (.A24 c&&. \ !$. @D L+&&f/&& // 75- y- qm /'3s ""Zy3?iiC& /+q 7fl /I75 fi @A &JUb4. % ;7'/.."" , /hM&/ (/?3 A i P c/ &<: DL?, &d%7, 3 b 44e' /& @Wj- 46@8