Laserfiche WebLink
MEMORANDUM A <br />To;Ron Moorse, City Administrator <br />Mayor and Council <br />* - ^ <br />From: <br />Date: <br />Mike Gaffron, Planning Director <br />September 2, 2004 <br />Subject: Building Height Issue, 1335 Tonkawa Road - Jim Render <br />Summ?:y of Issue <br />Mr. Render is appealing staffs inteipretation of the City’s building height ordinances and policies as they <br />have been applied to his proposed new residence at 1335 Tonkawa Road. A building permit has been <br />applied for, but not issued because staff believes the proposed building height exceeds the 30' height <br />allowed by City codes. <br />The primary issue is the intequetation of the tenninology “average height of the highest gable of a pitched <br />or hipped roof, and how the City has interpreted it from a policy standpoint. A secondary issue, but <br />equally important in relation to tliis specific application, is whether the low point of measurement must be <br />the current existing grade or a grade proposed when the subdivision was approved but never created. <br />The peak as proposed is 49.0 feet above existing grade at thcNW comer of the relevant portion of the <br />house. From staffs perspective, using our standard and consistent methods (codes and policies) of <br />delennining building height for zoning puiposcs, the defined heinht of the pi opo.scd house is 36.6 feet, or <br />6.6 feet higher than allowed by code. However, merely cuttingoff6.6 feet from the peak will still result <br />in a defined height of 33.3 feet. In fact, from staffs perspective, the peak would have to be lowered by <br />12.2 feet, i.e. be no more than 4.8' above the top of the upper level windows, in order to meet code. A <br />re-design is obviously necessary. <br />fhe applicant's architect wants us to go by the strict wording of the code and ignore our policy. If we do <br />that, then staff finds the defined hciglit is still 32.4 feet, or 2.4 feet liiglier tlian allowed by code. Tliis means <br />that 4.8' would have to be lopped off the peak in order to have the defined height be 30*. <br />List of Attachments <br />A • South Facade Submittal <br />B - Applicant ’s Height Analysis <br />C • ConcepUial Grading Plan from Original Subdivision <br />D - Proposed Contours, Proposed Spot Elevations <br />E • Submitted Survey Indicating Existing and Proposed Grades <br />F • Staff Analysis; Defined Height Based on City Policy <br />G - Staff Analysis: Defined Height Based on Literal Interpretation of Ordinance <br />H • 11/25/02 Policy Handout <br />1 • Photos of Site <br />1} <br />• r