Laserfiche WebLink
(11) Parapet walls extending not more than three feet above height of the <br /> building. <br /> (12) Cooling towers. <br /> (13) Elevator penthouses. <br /> ��,� u �,+� o o „� .�,,, ���„ oa ,,,�o ,�,� ,.*;,, r_„� ,.�+�,; o,.+;,, � ��, „�o� <br /> z zvi siii. u.��.� <br /> pu�.�7'u'�Tkfl'�--�6 �3C.'�vF+°caan�-ir�JP.+C��c�'n-'zr"r-�ar'�[i`oii. �1 rl..,;c,i.,r. '�� �,f'4L.ic. �.L..�r.4or, <br /> {�}� On any lot sloping downhill from the street, which has an average ground slope on <br /> that portion of the lot to be occupied by the main building of 25 percent or more <br /> (measured in the general direction of the side lot lines), an additional 12 feet of height <br /> may be permitted in such main building and the garage or parking space may be in the <br /> required front yard provided a yard of ten feet or more is maintained." , <br /> [Ed discussion: This original section dates to 1968 or earlien The 1968 version in (a) did not require a <br /> CUP for the extra SO percent in height. In August 1977 Ord 198 added the CUP requirement for(a); <br /> added `Antenna or antenna structure'to the list; and removed `Silo and other typical farm structures' <br /> from the list. It also revised(b) by eliminating wording requiring the Council to find that `such <br /> structure would not be dangerous and would not adversely affect adjoining or adjacent property'and <br /> replaced it with `pursuant to procedures as set forth in'the general CUP requirements. <br /> In 1997 `Antenna or antenna structure' was rerrzoved as such structures were henceforth dealt with <br /> separately as a lisled conditional use in various districts. As it currently stands, (a) requires a CIIP <br /> for height increases of SD% (i.e.from 30'to 45'in residential zones) and(b) requires a CUP for height <br /> increases beyond SO% (i.e. total height greater than 45'). There is no functional difference between <br /> the CiIP procedural requirements noted in (a) and those noted in (b)under current code-all CUPs <br /> require the findings of Article V,Division 2 (Sections78-911 thru 78-922). This in effect makes(b) <br /> redundant. This redundancy can be eliminated by merely eliminating(b) and adding the CUP <br /> reference to (a) -per Option A. <br /> However, if one suggests by reading between the lines in the existing code that above 45'some greater <br /> level of caution should be exercised in the approval process, then such greater caution may best be <br /> served by eliminating(b) and having the CUP requirement in (a)apply just to the SO% increase-per <br /> Option B. Then, any increases above SO% would automatically become a variance process which has <br /> stricter requirements for approval and can be denied more readily when desired <br /> Option C would essentially revert back to the 1968 provisions that allow a SO% increase without <br /> approvals, but require a CLIP for more than a 50% increase. <br /> Option D would exempt the listed items from any height limitation. <br /> Staff would recommend a proposed revision to clar�and strengthen the existing code language. <br /> Neighboring cities'codes vary widely on this topic, and each one of the options above appears in one <br /> or more neighboring codes... Staff is inclined to recommend Option C, at least for discussion <br /> purposes.J <br /> Page 32 of 39 <br />