HomeMy WebLinkAboutDI 89-03; Gary Nessim; Discussion Item (DI) (3)July 11, 1989
TO : Planning Department
Att: Lance Schulte
FROM: City Attorney
NESSIM DI 89-01 APPEAL OF A PLANNING DIRECTOR’S DETERMINATION
CONCERNING BUILDING HEIGHT
Thank you for sending me a copy of your proposed staff report on the above referenced item. I’You should decide whether or not the
project meets the height limitation and so state. 2) You should eliminate the implication in the staff report that there are
multiple definitions of height and that the City has used some
definition to approve buildings exceeding the 35’ height
limitation.
3)In the proposed findings of Resolution No. 2895, you should make them consistent with your determination regarding the building
height limitation.4)You should specify what residential guidelines
adopted in the Land Use Element of the General Plan are violated.
In that regard, I believe you are referring to the guidelines which
Apreserve the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing
residential areas,ahillside areas should only accommodate densities that are compatible to slope preservation and density and intensity should decrease as the slopes and hillside areas increase. ? In that regard, I have not heard from you whether or not the hillside
development regulations are triggered. When I looked at the site
plan, it appeared that they were because the slope was greater than
15% and the elevation differential was greater than 15 feet.
5)You should determine whether or not the existing building is a non-
conforming building which limits the alteration, repair or
expansion of it. (CMC 521.48.080).
Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
RONALD R. BALL Assistant City Attorney
rmh
JU1 19989