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