09-13-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

133S Tonkawa - Height Issue September 2, 2004 Page 4 B&Z staffare quite regularly asked by architects to discuss the City ’s height measurement policy in relation to houses they are designing. We have encouraged architects to ask questions before they start design work. Application of Codes & Policies to Proposed House Lower Measuring Point 1. A strict interpretation of the ordinance would establish the lower measuring point at the highest point where currently existing grade abuts the proposed foundation. This point was initially determined by staff to be elevation 93 3.3'directly below the peak, although the elevation at the extreme west end of the foundation appears to be 936.4'. A majority of the foundation will be on ground currently at 933'-936' elevation. Tlie highest existing grade abutting the portion of the house with the high peak is 936.3' which seems to be the most appropriate low measuring point. 2. The code definition of building height is specifically worded to disallow situations where fill raises the grade to allow for a higher house. It comes into play here with the effect that the applicant ’s proposed high-side grade of 943.7 ’ cannot (and should not) be used for the lower measuring point. Staff has considered a second option for defining the lower point for measuring. We could use the proposed liighcst intended grade of939.5' shown in the conceptual grading plan at the time the original subdivision was approved. How'ever, this grade w as never created, and 1 would argue that this past approval not used is no longer valid. In discussions with applicant in early August staff had given the applicant the benefit of the doubt and had used 939.5' as the lower measuring point. Upon more in-depth review, staff no longer believes tliis is appropriate. If the applicant had graded the site as proposed when the subdivision was approved, the existing height today would be at 939.5'. It was only filled to 936.3 ’. It is what it is, for zoning purposes. It would be totally inconsistent with staffs past practice to deteimine building height based on elevations proposed on paper but never existing. It would be inappropriate to use the 939.5' elevation as a low measuring point. Therefore this analysis uses 936.3' as the low measuring point. Upper Measurine Point I. The proposed house has what might be described as a ‘pyramid ’ hip roof system that in itself spans a vertical height (from lowest point of the overhang to the peak) from elev ation 949.5' to elevation 981.9'; i.e. a rise of 32.4 ’. rJ