09-13-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1335 Tonktwt - Height Issue September 2,2004 Pages 2.In reviewing the proposed roof system, it became immediately clear that there are windows and habitable spaces within the pyramidal roofsystem, along with a variety of sizes and shapes ofdonners and incorporated gables. Using the policy we have consistently followed, the upper measuring point was taken as a point halfway between the top of the upper level windows and the peak. This yields an upper measuring point 9 ’ above the window edge and 9' below the peak, at elevation 972.9. (See Attacbmeot F) Height Calculation The defined height then is the difference between the upper measuring point (972.9') and the lower measuring point (936.3'). The defined height is then 972.9 - 936.3 = 36.6 ’, exceeding the 30' limit. If the 939.5' low point is used, 972.9 - 939.5 ’ = 33.4'. hi cither case, the 30' height limit is exceeded Applicant ’s Argument The applicant is basically stating that because the City’s height measurement policy is not in ordinance or resolution form, his architect was not aware of it, and it’s unfair that hi.s architect spent considerable time and money designing a house in reliance upon his own interpretation of the code, winch design City staff now find to be out of compliance with City requirements. Applicant requests that Council allow the height measurement as depicted in Attachment B. StafPs Response to Applicant ’s Argument If we adhere strictly to the literal language of the ordinance, we should use the defined lower measuring point based on existing grade (936.3') and the average height of the “highest gable ”. It is stafT s position that the highest continuous gable must be reasonably considered as that gable on the nortli side of the house that starts 26.4 feet below the peak, at elevation 955.5' (see Attachment G). The average height of that gable is then 13.2 feet below the peak, at elevation 968.7'. The heiglit going strictlyby the Code definition is then 968.7 ’ - 936.3 ’ = 32.4 ’. This still exceeds the allowed height by 2.4', and the peak will have to he reduced by 4.8' in order to meet the 30'height limit. Staff does not agree with this method of calculation, as it docs not match the long-standing policy, but it is presented to illustrate that even when the policy is not used, the building height is non-compliant. Options Tlicre is no valid hardsliip to allow the excess height, in staff s opinion. Applicant has suggested changing the peak to a ‘cupola ’ design, which might qualify for a Conditional Use Permit under Section 78-1 366 if the Council concludes any negative impacts of the excess height can be suitably mitigated. Staff is very reluctant to support such an application, based on a past history of fielding complaints by residents. Planning Commissioners and Council members about excessive residential building heights in the City. r