The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1989-08-02; Planning Commission; ; DI -89-03 - NESSIMDATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 2, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISCUSSION ITEM NESSIM PCD 89-3 -APPEAL OF A PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION CONCERNING BUILDING HEIGHT. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission find that the proposed project does not meet the purpose and intent of the General Plan and the building height limits of the R-1 Zone and Adopt Resolution 2295 denying the appeal of the Planning Director's Determination. DISCUSSION The Planning Director's Determination that the proposed building exceeds the building height requirements of the R-1 Zone is provided as Exhibit "A". The applicant is appealing the Planning Director's decision regarding the proposed single family dwelling at 2986 Highland Drive -the northwest corner of Highland and Elm (Exhibit "B"). The proposed structure is shown on Exhibit "C", "Site Plan.11 The building height issue is shown on the "Section Drawing" of Exhibit "C". The proposed project is located in the RLM-Residential Low/Medium General Plan Land Use Designation, and the R-1 Zone. This land use designation and zone are primarily for Single Family Detached Dwellings. In the R-1 Zone building height is limited to 35 feet. Building height is defined and measured according to Section 21.04.065 of the zoning ordinance. This Section is attached as Exhibit "D 11 , and is graphically illustrated on Exhibit "E". The applicant was notified in a letter dated April 25, 1989, that his project did not comply with the 35 feet height restriction in the R-1 Zone nor did it comply with the intent of the General Plan or the R-1 Zone by creating a large massive four-story structure. The intent of the RLM Land Use Designation and implementing R-1 Zone is to create neighborhoods which are typically of a low suburban scale and intensity. The Land Use Element of the General Plan has goals to: {l) preserve the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas and (2) evaluate site design quality for harmony of proposed buildings in terms of size, height and location with respect to existing neighboring development. The intention of the building height definition is to allow some flexibility for lots that are steeply sloping and where no substantial grading was to occur. Under these circumstances some single family units may have been approved over an exact 35 feet, however, none to staff's knowledge are as high as the proposal or would be so different in size or scale to the surrounding neighborhood. The intent of the City's height definition was never to encourage development of four-story structures on relatively flat sites. PCD 89-3 NESSIM August 2, 1989 PAGE 2 With this intent and purpose of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Director has determined that the proposed building, by substantially grading the site and by creating a four-story structure with a total height of 39 feet at the western building elevation, would be in violation of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has appealed this on technical grounds citing compliance with Section 21.04.065. The site is presently non-conforming to the R-1 Zone with respect to minimum front yard setbacks. The proposal will correct this non-conformity At the present time both the definition and the standards for building height are being reviewed by a Planning Commission Subcommittee. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution 2895 2. Exhibits: A: B: C: D: E: LBS: 1 h June 26, 1989 Letter dated April 25, 1989 Letter dated May 11, 1989 Project Plans Section 21.04.065 C.M.C. Graphic of Section 21.04.065 C.M.C. April 25, 1989 Mr. Gary Nessim THE VILLAGE, REALTORS 2860 State Street Carlsbad, CA. 92008 RE: 2986 HIGIILAND DRIVE Dear Mr. Nessim, This is to reaffirm the decision of the Planning Department that the proposed structure shown on your plans for 2986 Highland Drive does not comply with the 35 ft. height restriction of the R-1 zone. The purpose and intent of the 35 ft. height restriction was to limit buildings to a maximum of three stories in single family areas. Your westerly elevation shows a four story building. I realize that your plans technically comply with the definition of building height but I do not believe that the city intended to let this definition subvert the intent of the height limit in the R-1 zone. Again, this determination can be appealed to the Planning Commission if you so desire. Procedures for appeal of a Planning Director's decision are outlined in section 21.54.140 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The copy of your plans can be picked-up at the front counter. cc: Mayor kd Mayor Pro Tern Mike Howes Lance 2075 Las Palmas Drive Sincerely, CITY OF CARLSBAD [~1kllu_a(~\/ ~)~t'-l•~Ct/. , MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director • Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 • (619) 438-1161 f ( ·, ( f /}< I Gary Nessim 2987 Highland Drive Carlsbad, Ca 92008 Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, Ca 92008 REs 2987 HIGHLAND DRIVE Dear Planning Commission Members, t:.A. t1U:H l b May 11, 1989 I am hereby appealing the Planning Director's decision reguarding the remodeling of my home located at 2987 Highland Drive in his letters of 1/6/89 and 4/25/89. I believe the plans comply fully with the building code and they were designed to compliment the existing structure, topography of the lot and the historical development of the city. The underground garage has no effect upon the appearance or actual height of the structure while it's location maximizes open space on my lot. Correspondence and preliminary plans are attached with the final set to be drawn and submitted upon successful resolution of this issue. Colored elevations will be available for the hearing. atti letters & plans(lO) J?/.1 (11') :_1,:\-_; -, ( \V l Sinrerely, ( • J ,·· • \ '··-,_ Gary/Nessim Cll'i UI i_; '/: I I tH:vr, ')". 1 p<•r; ::FIN. engaged in the on-premises sale of alcoholic bev- erages. The interior area shall include only those portions of the establishment devoted to regular use by the public; (6) A minimum of twenty percent of the gross floor area of the establishment shall be used solely for food storage, preparation, mainte- nance and storage of eating utensils, dishes and glassware and shall include refrigeration, cook- ing, wanning and dishwashing equipment, and any other equipment necessary for a fully equipped restaurant kitchen; (7) During the above specified minimum hours for restaurant services, there shall be not less than one employee per two hundred and fifiy square feet of floor area devoted to food service use. Said employee or employees shall be on the job during the specified minimum hours for the restaurant service as described in subsection (2) of this section. The city council may waive the above require- ments relating to hours, menus, alcoholic bev- erage area, kitchen area, employees and equipment if they find a proposed restaurant will provide equivalencies, meets the other require-. men ts of this section and will, in fact, be operated as a bona fide restaurant. Uses not specifically named in this section but which are of substantially the same general type and character and are within the intent and pur- pose of this section may be permitted: provided. however, that the burden of proving the same shall rest with the person seeking to establish that use. (Ord. 9527 § 2 (part), 1979) 21.04.0!7 Bo~Hna alley. "Bowling alley" means any structure in which a ball or balls are rolled on a green or down an alley or lane at any object or group of objects. (Ord. 9527 § 2 (part), 1979) 21.04.060 Building. "Building'' means any structur~ having a roof. including all forms of inhabitable vehicles even though immobilized. Where this title requires. or 545 EXHIBIT '[ 21.04.056 where special authority granted pursuant to this title requires that a use shall be entirely enclosed within a building, this definition shall be qualified by adding "and enclosed on all sides." (Ord. 9060 § 211) 21.04.065 Building height. (a) The height ofa building shall be measured as follows: ( l) When the highest e'listing grade elevation within a five-foot horizontal distance of the building is equal to or less than ten feet above the lowest existing grade elevation, then the building height shall be measured from the highest exist- ing grade elevation to the highest point of a flat roof or the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. ( 2) When the highest ex.isting grade elevation within a five-foot horizontal distance of the building is more than ten feet above the lowest e:"(isting grade elevation, then the building height shall be measured from a point ten feet above the lowest e:"(isting grade elevation to the highest point of a flat roof or the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. (b) "Existing grade" means the ground level elevation which e'listed prior to :my grndina or other site preparation related to. or to be incorpo- rated into, a proposed new development or alteration of existing developments unless a dis- cretionary permit for such developments or alterations is approved by the planning commis- sion or city council. In that case. e:,.isting grade shall mean the grade after the property is devel• oped or improved in accordance with the grading plans for the approved discretionary permit. In cases where retaining walls. fill or other grading are utilized to create finished grade higher in elevation than existing grade as defined above, then e~isting grade shall be used in the determin- ation of building height. (Ord. 966 7, 1983: Ord. 9498 § I. 1978: Ord. 9141 § I: Ord. 9060 § 212) EXHIBIT 'E. DETERMINATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT LESS THAN -c 10' -,--- 1 ~,----~ c.,1 !1 9, ;: ~~ ~; S21 w, :z:, -4---- . I 01 ,...I I a , I I MORE THAN f 10' .... , ' ------------' A-LOWEST EXISTING GRADE ELEV A TION B-HIGHEST EXISTING GRADE ELEVATION CASEI CASE II ZCA 150 EXHIBIT •x" 11/23/82