09-13-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

September 9, 2004 Page 2 Re: Line Item 2. The coaect quote from the ordinances is that height is measured to “the average height of the higliest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. Again, we do not believe that the policy “contravenes ” the ordinance; we believe it clarifies the ordinance. For example, aside from application of the policy, we apparently do not even agree with the applicant ’s architect ’s version of what is the Tiigltest gable’. He’s using a low point of the roof at the front of the house, elevation 952.9’±. I would use a low point of the roof at the rear of the house, elevation 955.5'+, i.e. 2.6 feet higher. If the orduiance is so unclear that we can ’t agree on where the low point of the highest gable is, it begs to be interpreted... We believe tliat the code section limiting heiglit to “2-1 /2 stories or 30 feet” has been consistently interpreted and administered for the past two decades, to require that both standards must be met. The policy statement of November 25,2002 merely clarified the interpretation that had been in use for many years; the only need for the policy statement was that in recent years architects and others have been pushing the ordinance interpretation envelope on neatly every new project that comes in the door. We disagree that tliis policy statement changes the intent or consistent administration of the code. Wc disagree that the word “or” as used in the ordinance gives an applicant the choice to meet one standard but not the other. Re; Line Item 3. If the applicant chooses to apply for a CUP for a cupola, and i f the Council finds that the peak as designed or modified can be considered as acupola, and ifCouncil finds tliat either there are no negative impacts or any negative impacts can be suitably mitigated by attaching reasonable conditions to an approval, then a CUP may be an option. The drawing attached to Mr. Barnard s letter shows an elevation view of the south facade of the proposed house. It does not allow staff to reach any conclusion about how this house relates to tlie neighborhood. For the record, staff provided Mr. Render with the September 2 staff memo prior to receipt of t^e letter of appeal, specifically because we wanted the applicant to be awaie of our revised position on tlie “existing grade” measuring point in time for him to address this issue. As to that memo being ‘negative’ or ‘adversarial ’ in nature, I would submit that it strives to clearly inform the Council of the background regarding this appeal and how City codes and policies have been and are being administered. y