Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Height, Amend HBMC 9080.22 - Ordinance 2846 - Code Authorized to Publish Advertisements of alCkinds including public `� — 6�A� notices by Decree of the Superior Court of orange County, 6r California, Number A-6214, dated 29 September, 1961, and '. A-24831, dated 11 June, 1963. F t STATE OF CALIFORNIA F. �� �e AA County of Orange PubhC t+01tCe AdvtMWV covered by this sttldnvtt is 201 to r ow" 40 rlth 10 W1 a COIuTh aldth - I am a Citizen of the United State$ and a resident of PUBLIC NOTICE [{rr the County aforesaid, I am over the.age of eighteen NOTICE OF NOTICE I years, and not a party to or interested in the below PUBLIC HEARING 1 CODE AMENDMENT entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange " ' DEFINITIONS NO.8 -24 - Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the BUILDING HEIGHT NOTICE IS HEREBY NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, GIVEN that the it will hold g Beach City Council will hold printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, a public Coun- cil Chamberthe Hunt- ington Beach Civic Center, County of Orange, State of California, .and that a 2060 Main Street, Hunt- Notice Of PUBLIC HEARING Idgton Beach;California,on the date and at the time In- _ dicated below to receive and consider the statements ofi all-Verson n wrt�wtsrs heard relative to the appli- cation described below. of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete DATE: Monday, May 5, '1986 - copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, ( TIME:7:30 P.M. APPLICATION NUMBER: Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Code Amendment No.85-24 LOCATION:City wide Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna PROPOSAL: to modify e defi- Beach issues of said newspaper for 1, time nitionosectio 2ofihe Hunt- ington Beach Ordinance consecutive weeks to wit the issue(s) of I E -Building Height. 1 NVIRONMENTALI, STATUS: Categorically ex-I empt from California En- ' vironmental quality Act ON FILE: A copy of the April 23 proposed Code Amendment 198 6 is on file In the Department of Development Services ALL INTERESTED PER- SONS are Invited to attend 198 said hearing and 'express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application. as outlined above.All appli- 198 cations, exhibits, and de- scriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of Ithe City Clerk, 2000 Main 198 'Street, Huntington Beach, California,for inspection by the public. HUNTINGTON BEACH 198 CITY COUNCIL;By: Alicia M. Wentworth, City Clerk, "None-(714)536-5405 4pri1 21,1986 ad Orange Coast I April 23,1986 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the w-40,4I foregoing is true and correct. Apr il. 24 t 6 axe uted on , 198 — at CoS-t' Mesa, California. tignature ,. . . ly ORDINANCE NO. 2846 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9080.22 DEFINING BUILDING HEIGHT The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1 . The Huntington .Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9080. 22 to read as follows : 9080. 22 Building Height . The vertical distance above a reference datum measured to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or to a deck line of a mansard roof or the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof . For the Single Family Residential District only, the highest point of any roof shall not be more than five feet above the maximum permitted height . The reference datum shall be selected by either of the following, whichever yields a greater height of building: ( 1) The elevation of the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground surface within a five (5 ) foot horizontal distance of the exterior wall of the building when such sidewalk or ground surface is not more than four (4) feet above the lowest grade . ( 2 ) An elevation four (4) feet higher than the lowest grade when the sidewalk or ground surface described in ( 1) above is more than four (4) feet above lowest grade. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21St day of July 1986. Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Al' City Clerk 6-Alf City ttorney REVIE . ND APPROVED: JIITIATED AND APPROVEDCityA mini trat rector o Development Services Ord. No. 2846 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH } I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the ,�Cth day of June . 19 86 , and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of July 19 86 and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of more than a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmen: Kelly , MacAllister", Mandic , Bailev , Green NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Finley , Thomas City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California RE UE I°®R CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date June 16 , 1986 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administra or Prearedb : James W. Palin, Director, Development Services p Y � Subject: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-24 — BUILDING HEIGHTS Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes N New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Code Amendment No. 85-24 is a modification to the definition of building height . The item was deferred to the Planning Commission for a report on the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission action and recommendation on June 3, 1986 : ON MOTION BY LIVENGOOD, SECOND BY PORTER, THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED AND ACCEPTED THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON BUILDING HEIGHTS DEFINITION AND RECOMMENDED ADOPTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Winchell , Schumacher, Livengood, Porter NOES: None ABSENT: Rowe, Erskine ABSTAIN: Mirjahangir Staff recommendation is the same as the Ad Hoc Committee and the Planning Commission. ANALYSIS: The City Council , at its meeting of June 2, 1986, deferred the matter of the heights code amendment back to the Planning Commission for a report on the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee . The Ad Hoc Committee made up of representatives of the City Council , Planning Commission, developers, architects , Board of Realty and others met on May 30, 1986, to discuss the definition of building height and heights of buildings issues . The committee formulated a recommendation to modify the Uniform Building Code height definition to reflect a four (4 ) foot differential in reference datum plan on sloping lots rather than the ten (10 ) foot differential (see attached drawing) . The committee further recommended residential buildings height standards remain as now described in the code with TA jr PIO 4/84 the exception that single family and residential agricultural structures shall be amended per the Planning Commission recommendation. Although this is a. separate issue which will be discussed later in the agenda, it is important in context with the heights issue. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of June 3, 1986, took the Ad Hoc Committee 's recommendations under advisement and approved the definition and the heights as recommended by the committee. The Commission further directed that staff prepare a "hillside" ordinance to address areas where cross slopes of lots will exceed five ( 5) feet in elevation differential . The committee ' s version sets up a change in reference datum should a slope exceed four (4 ) feet in elevation differential . Projects proposed in areas where there is a greater slope would be handled on a case by case basis until a "hillside" ordinance has been adopted . The hillside ordinance will include standards regarding grading as well . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act . FUNDING SOURCE• Not applicable . ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Modify wording as desired . ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Ordinance reflecting Ad Hoc Committee, Planning Commission and Staff recommendation 2 . Diagram 3 . Staff report to the Planning Commission 4 . Staff report to the Ad Hoc Committee 5 . Request for City Council Action May 5, 1986 JWP:GKG:kla RCA - 6/16/86 -2- (5348d ) ORDINANCE NO. j(� AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9080 .22 RELATED TO THE DEFINITION OF BUILDING HEIGHT The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : SECTION 1. The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending Section 9080 .22 to read as follows: 9080 . 22 Building Height . The vertical distance from the lowest elevation of e ground surface immediately adjacent to the building to the top of roof at any given point or slice. Top of roof shall be defined as the highest point of a flat roof, the deck line of a mansard roof, or the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hip roof. Artificial grades established by the construction of planters or berming around parking structures shall not be used for purposes of determining maximum height. SECTION 2 . This ordinance shall become effective thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1986. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED �kS TO F RM: r % 4 City Clerk z ne �- REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPRO VW D City dminis rator DIrectorl of Develop nt Services CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-24 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 9080.22 DEFINING BUILDING HEIGHT The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by amending section 9080.22 to read as follows : 9080.22 Building Height. The vertical distance above a reference datum measured to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or to a deck line of a mansard roof or the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. The reference datum shall be selected by either of the following, whichever yields a greater height of building: (1 ) The elevation of the highest adjoining sidewalk, or ground surface within a five (5) foot horizontal distance of the exterior wall of the building when such sidewalk or ground surface is not more than ten (10) feet above the lowest grade. (2 ) An elevation ten (10 ) feet higher than the lowest grade when the sidewalk or ground surface described in (1) above is more than ten (10 ) feet above lowest grade. PASSED AN ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1986. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk ��,�-�� City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Director of evelopment Services s � 2 u W 1 5' 5' DATttM DATUM IL JA� S' MORE HA ®® .� 4- LESS THAN 4�' CASEI CASEII DETERMINATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT IN FEET FB CITY OF 1°1UNTING BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Tom Livengood,. Chairman From Glen Godfrey, Planning Commission Deputy Direc r, Planning Subject BUILDING HEIGHTS Date June 3, 1986 The City Council at its meeting of June 2, 1986 deferred the matter of Code Amendment 85-24 , Building Heights , back to the Planning Commission for a report . The ad hoc committee met on Friday, May 30, 1986 to discuss the heights of buildings issue. The committee formulated several recommendations and inasmuch as the Planning Commission had not had an opportunity to take the ad hoc committee 's deliberations into consideration, we are asking that the Commission consider the "new information" for discussion and report back to the City Council . The City Council continued the item to June 16 , 1986, therefore, we seek your earliest attention to this matter . Should the Planning Commission agree to an additional meeting . on June 10 , 1986 , this matter could be discussed at that meeting. Staff is prepared to make a presentation on- the discussions and recommendations of the ad hoc committee at the meeting this evening. ,We have attached for your perusal the staff report that went to the ad hoc committee which compared heights in the various zoning districts . GG:pb Attachments ' (5326d ) BUILDING HEIGHTS District/Type Existing Planning Commission Ad-hoc Committee Project Code Action Recommendation RA 30 ' 25 ' Per Planning Commission R1 30 ' 251 , max . 2 stories Per Planning (30 ' and/or 3 stories Commission with CUP) R2, R3 , R4 30 ' (35 ' with 251 (30 ' with add ' 1 Leave Existing Code Base District add ' 1 setbacks ) setbacks) R2, R3 , R4 35 ' 30 ' Leave Existing Code Apartment Standards Rl , R2 , R3 , R4 35 ' 30 ' (staff recommends Leave Existing Code Planned Developments leaving 35 ' as is) ( condos) Oldtown/Town Lot/ Not affected by any code amendment Downtown Specific Plans JA:pb ( 5281d ) t - GABLE HIP FLA-T Ih.L A- FRAME SHED WRAP - AROUND GAMBREL QUONSET SAW- TOOTH BARREL - VAULT M- ROOF HUTTON MANS.,RD �i I T- OCTAGONAL DOME PYRAMID VICTORIAN CONICAL Fig.9.31 Rwo gvtct. 86 _ _ _ 1 BUILDING HEIGHTS Friday, May 30 , 1986 3 : 00 P .M. I. Introductions IT. Building Height Definition 1, Planning Commission and staff-recommended definitions (Attachments No. 1-A, 1-B) .2. Discussion III. Maximum Building Heights 1. Existing code versus approved Planning Commission code amendments (Attachment No. 2) 2 . Slide presentation; other graphic examples (Diagrams showing different roof types is Attachment No. 3) IV. Adjournment �• ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH�av�� �'A/ 6104 ' INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION 70 HUNTINGTON BEACH !4 To Charles W. Thompson ro James W. Palin, Director City Administrator Development Services Subject CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-24 Date May 29, 1986 AGENDA ITEM NO. D—la BUILDING HEIGHTS An ad hoc committee has been formed to address the building height issue . This group is scheduled to meet Friday, May 30, 1986 . The concerns of the group members, which include Planning Commission and City Council representatives as well as developers, will be discussed. Any recommendations made by the group will be brought before you on June 2, 1986 . JWP :JA:pb (5273d ) Q a'M y 28 , 1986 Re: Definition of building Height Ordinance #2844 Dear Planning Commissioner Winchell,, The purpose of this letter is to request your support of the referenced ordinance as modified below. The. citizens of our city need a building height definition with no loopholes or fudge factors . We request a code amendment which will treat all property owners in an equitable manner, be understandable and not difficult for interpretation . It is with these generalized thoughts in mind that we respectfully suggest two modifications to the ordinance. Words deleted are noted by slash marks ( ///// ) and words inserted are noted by bold print. 9080 . 22 Building Height . The vertical distance from the lowest elevation of the ground surface immediately adjacent to the building to the top of roof at any given point or slice. Top of roof shall be defined as the highest point of qi fX4t the roof, or the deck line of a mansard roof, or the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hip roof . Artificial grades established by the construction of planters , or berming, 4.toAl�a 160-tyl�vio retaining walls, or other structures shall not be used for purposes of determining maximum height . The rationale for the first modification the) , is to close a loophole . Specifically, several roof types , ( i.e. ) , gambrel roof, shed roof, modified parapet flat , etc. , are not addressed in the original ordinance and this creates a definition problem as to where these are to be measured from or to. We believe the first modification would address this potential loophole. The rationale for the second modification (4-t0000 retaining walls, or other) , is to close the pseudograde/fudge factor loophole. We understand there are some very legitimate reasons for pseudogrades , such as for proper drainage . We feel these specific conditions and situations could be addressed by Planning Commission permits with City Council approval. In conclusion we respectfully request your support of our modifications to the definition of building height , Ord . #2844 . We believe these modifications will clarify the proposed ordinance and benefit everyone in our great city. Respectfully, &I Lal C ' Charles 0. Reince 17211 Marina View Place Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 P. S. I would be happy to meet you at your convenience, please advise. xxuntington Beach Fountain Valley Board of REALTORS' Inc. R E A LTO R' 8101 Slater Avenue o Huntington Beach, CA 92647 e (714) 847-6093 June 2, 1986 The Honorable Robert Mandic, Jr. , Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Building Heights Dear Mayor Mandic: We had the opportunity to attend the meeting of the ad hoc committee which discussed this issue on Friday, May 30, and wish to express our comments to date. The- ad hoc committee appeared to reach a consensus regarding the definition of building.. height, which. was a compromise between that proposed by the Planning Commission and that proposed by staff. While we would prefer the staff recommendation. which is the ..Uniform .Building Code Definition, the compro-- mise solution appears to be livable. It is fair to state that our greatest concern with regard to this issue is that a reduction in the allowable height of any of the projects will not only devalue the property since its value is determined by what you can build on it, and obviously a smaller dwelling unit is logically less valuable, but also that by reducing the height, we may be mandating mediocrity in terms of building design. Attractive, peaked roofs, vaulted ceilings and architectural features such as cupolas, can add a great deal to the attractiveness of a residential structure. We do strongly recommend that Planned Developments be addressed separately from single family residences as the issues they raise are entirely different. We believe that the relationship of these units to one another, as opposed to neighboring construction, makes them unique and justifies a separate set of rules with regard to building height in order to encourage attractive develop— ments. The impact these developments have upon our community is greater than a single family dwelling simply due to the number of units. I believe -D a OFFICERS R.L. "KIRK" KIRKLAND, President o LILA NOWELL, First Vice President 1j JAN SHOMAKER, Second Vice President/MLS Chairman a BETH DUNCOMBE, Secretary/Treasurer DIRECTORS KENT M. PIERCE a LARRY GAGE o MAGGIE SHAFFER o JIM RIGHEIMER• FRANK C. HORZEWSKI WILL WOODS, Executive Vice President o JUDITH SEVERY, Vice President/Public Affairs Huntington Beach City Council June 2, 1986 Page 2 it is important that these units have the flexibility in height to utilize inno- vative architectural features and therefore, recommend that the current 35' height limit be retained. We are also concerned about the, two story limit in Rl districts. We believe that the current maximum of 30' should be retained and the 3 stories should be allowed provided they are compatible with neighboring residences. We feel that many of the 3 story homes in the downtown area, with the required set- backs and architectural design which places the bulk of the residence to the rear of the property, are attractive and compatible. Thank you for the opportunity to express our views on this issue. We will - continue . to monitor this as it proceeds through the Planning Commission and City Council. Sincerely, R.L. "Kirk' Kirkland Board President RLK/JAS/km CITY OF HUNTRE40TON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Charles W. Thompson, From James W. Pal in, Director � 1 C i t y Adm i n i s t ra tor Dev el op men t Sery i I Subject BUILDING HEIGHTS ITEMS: Date June 2, 1986 D-1a, I-1b, 1-1c, I-ld and D-lb Regarding all of the code amendments that relate to the building height issue on tonight's meeting, my recommendation is that the Council refer the height defini- tion (D-la) back to the Planning Commission for a report and that all of the ordinances scheduled for second reading be continued to the next City Council meeting of June 16, 1986. Attached is a matrix showing the various maximum heights for each district as per the current code, the Planning Commission recommendation and the ad-hoc committee recommendation. JWP:JA:ss HUNTINGTOP ACH INTER DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH ?` To` Char^les W. Thompson ro ames W.V✓ Palin, Director City Administrator , Development Services Subject„ CODE AMENDMENT ,NO 85 24 Date May, is BUI'LDING :HEIGHTS , An ad hoc 'committee . has been formed . to address the building height issuer' This - group- is ' scheduled �'to meet Friday:, May , 30, 1986 . The cQncerns.- of the group members '. which include . Planning Commission Avi d City Council representatives as well as developers,- will. be : discussed. Any 'recommendations made by the group will be brou/gj t //4 before' ou`.on: June 2, 1986: JWP:JA:pb w V (5273d) C — s May 5 , 1986 To Mayor Robert Mandic �f f City Council: ;.Ruth Bailey Ruth Finley Green Jack Kelly Don MacAllister Jack Thomas Re: Height Limitation on Four-Plexes Including four-plex,. apartments in the 251 limit ' makes no sense. Most existing four-plexes exceed 25i and future Four-plexes would be more boxy, with flatter roofs and unattractive skylines. If density limitation is desirable , it can be ac- complished better, ; more effective with living area - lot ratios and other effective requirements . If better architectural effect is desired , the 25 limit is counter productive . Sincerely, Aold William H. Wilson 16961 Bolero .Lane Huntington Beach cc : Cat" Clerk Phone 846-8o43 __y_�_- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-24 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center. , 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach , California , on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below . DATE/TIME: Wednesday, January 22 , 1986 - 7 : 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Code Amendment No . 85-24 APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: City-wide ZONE: All districts w+.a > , a t . 7 ZZ REQUEST: To 441t s� the definition section of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code.ag i � ro Building Height4'. aff e . ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act . ON FILE: A copy of the proposed Code Amendment is on file in the Department of Development Services , 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach , California 92648 , for inspection by the public . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above . If there are any further questions please call H-e col ���ate planner at 536-5271 . ; James W. Palin , Secretary Huntington Beach Planning Commission i ( 3941d ) i i7 i 0 � f s REQUE6 G FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date MAW 5, 1 9 R H Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W . Thompson, City AdministratoreV, Prepared b : James 7 . P n Director, Development p Y � alp. , irecto , Service � c� Subject: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-24 - BUILDING HEIGHTS Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Code Amendment No. 85-24 is a modification to the definition of building height, Section 9080. 22. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission action and recommendation on April 1, 1986: ON MOTION BY ERSKINE AND SECOND BY LIVENGOOD THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-24 AND RECOMMENDS ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL, BY THE FOLLO41ING VOTE: AYES: Rowe, Winchell, Schumacher, Livengood, Erskine, Porter, Mirjahangir NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Staff recommends the City Council adopt the definition of building height as stated in the Uniform Building Code. Planning Commission supports the adoption of a modified Uniform Building Code definition which they feel is clearer than the current definition in Division 9 and less complicated than the Uniform Building Code. It provides for a building terracing effect on sloped building sites. In addition new policies ensuring the review of site plans and grading and elevation plans during the review process can further fix the maximum building height. ANALYSIS: The revised definition has been streamlined so that the current definition of building height still pertains to most sites within the City. The change that does impact all measurement of building height in the definition of "top of roof" , which incorporates the provisions of the Uniform Building Code, i.e. using the mid-point of sloped roofs. The new definition further explains that the maximum I height, for example 25 feet in most residential districts, is P10 4/84 � S measured at any given point or slice along the structure. No portion ot the building shall be greater than this 25 foot measurement above the ground level immediately adjacent to that portion of the building. This new definition actually only clarifies the interpretation currently in use. It will ensure a terraced effect, that is, the building bulk will conform to the original terrain of the site. The provision for measuring to midpoint of roof, similar to the Uniform Building Code and to the wording used in the Downtown Specific Plan, is meant to encourage interesting roof designs and slopes without penalizing such design by requiring that the topmost part of the roof be included as part of the height. Adoption of Code Amendment No. 85-24 will create a uniform definition throughout all zoning districts and specific plans within the community. Planning Commission is also recommending that the City Council direct staff to modify the definition of building height adopted by reference in the Uniform Building Code. If the Council chooses to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation, the definition in the Uniform Building Code would need to be replaced with the one adopted in Division 9 in order to establish consistency, ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS : The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Modify wording as desired . ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance Reflecting Planning Commission Action 2. Planning Staff Recommended UBC Definition 3. Staff Report to Planning Commission 4. Diagrams 5. Survey of Building Height Definitions 6. Policy - Grading Plans Jh'P :JA:jr RCA - 5/5/86 -2 (4731d) huntington beach development services department A REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: March 18 , 1986 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-24 - "BUILDING HEIGHTS" (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 22, 1986 AND FEBRUARY 4 , 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) On March 4, 1986 , the Planning Commission continued Code Amendment No . 85-24 at the request of the attorneys representing Dr . Reince . On February 4, 1986 , the Planning Commission continued .Code Amendment No . 85-24 . to allow staff time to revise the definition of building height to address concerns the Commission had regarding natural and finish grade, the relationship of building site elevation to street curb elevation and to adjacent properties . The language provided in the definition addresses these concerns . In addition, we have attached a proposed department policy directive which will require submittal of the grading plan, site plan and elevations at time of initial entitlement . The grading plan shall include elevations of adjacent properties and will clearly establish street curb elevations by bench mark . This should tie down the reference datum, and clearly depict the height of the proposed building. The staff still supports the adoption of the Uniform Building Code version in that the describing of the reference datum in the definition of building height may not apply in each and every situation where height may be of concern . The review of site, grading and elevation plans during the entitlement review process can more accurately and specifically affix the reference datum and the height of the building as proposed in the department policy directive . The Planning Commission is also considering reduction in height and stories of buildings in residential zones . The attached ordinance and policy directive should complement the height amendments . RECOMMENDATION: Approve Code Amendment No . 85-24 as presented February 4 , 1986 ( Item C-2 ) and recommend adoption to the City Council . C' H; A-FM-23A ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Ordinance 2. Policy Directive 3. Staff Report dated February 4, 1986 JViP:GG: kla Staff Report - 3/18/86 -2- (4210d ) huntingt®n beach development services department STAf F TO: Planning Commission FROM: Development Services DATE: April 1 , 1986 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-24 - BUILDING HEIGHTS APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach REQUEST: A modification to the definition of building height, Section 9080.. 22 1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: Approve Code Amendment No . 85-24 and recommend adoption to the City Council . 2. 0 GENERAL INFORMATION: On March 18, 1986, the Planning Commission continued Code Amendment No. 85-24 in order to allow staff time to revise the definition of building height to address concerns the Commission had raised over the past few months . Staff supports the adoption of a modified Uniform Building Code definition which is more clear, less complicated, and which provides for a building terracing effect on sloped building sites . In addition, the review of site plans and grading and elevation plans during the review process can further fix the reference datum and the maximum building height . The Planning Commission previously took action on March 18, 1986 , on related issues when they voted to reduce the maximum building height in residential zones by five ( 5) feet . 3 . 0 ANALYSIS• The newly revised definition has been streamlined so that the current definition of building height still pertains to most sites within the City. A change that does impact building height on flat parcels in the definition of "top of roof" , which incorporates the provisions of the Uniform Building Code, i .e . using the mid-point of .sloped roofs . The new definition further explains that the maximum height, for example 25 feet in most residential districts , is measured at any given point along the structure. No portion of the A-FM-23A building shall be greater than 25 feet above the ground level immediately adjacent to that portion of the building. This new definition actually only clarifies the interpretation currently in use . It will ensure a terraced effect, that is, the building bulk will conform to the original terrain of the site. 4 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act . ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Draft Ordinance 2. Staff Report dated March 18, 1986 69P:JA: jr Staff Report - 4/1/86 -2- (4522d) sesw `s.os a��• y�pAoRI�® �L�ARR�1. r � j son UNIFORM SUiLOIN& CODE _ Z Z � I � m m O � ) O w uj I I 5' 5' I g 12A , MORE THANA0LESS THAN 10' CASEI CASEII DETERMINATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT IN FEET (SEC. 409) 29 SURVEY OF BUILDING HEIGHT DEFINITIONS Huntington Beach Building Height - The vertical distance. from 'the Ordinance Code: Iowest eIevation of the ground ,level immediately Section 9700 .2 adjacent to the building, to the highest point of the roof. Uniform Building Height of Building - is the vertical distance Code above a reference datum measured to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or to a deck line of a mansard roof or the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof . The reference datum shall be selected by either of the following, whichever yields a greater height of building. (1 ) The elevation of the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground surface within a 5-foot horizontal distance of the exterior wall of the building when such sidewalk or ground surface is not more than 10 feet above lowest grade . ( 2 ) An elevation 10 feet higher than the lowest grade when the sidewalk or ground surface described in item 1 above is more than 10 feet above lowest grade. Anaheim Building Height - The vertical distance measured from the average level of the highest and lowest point of that portion of the site covered by, the building to the ceiling of the uppermost story. (Ord. 774 Sec. 2 (part ) ; February 27, 1951 . ) Buena Park Building, height of shall mean the vertical distance measured from the adjoining curb level to the highest point of the building,. exclusive of chimneys and ventilators and other exceptions to building height permitted in the zones; provided, however , that where buildings are set back from the street line, the height shall be measured from the average elevation of the finished grade, at the front of the building. Cypress Building Height shall mean the vertical distance from the grade to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the highest point of the highest gable of a pitch or hip roof, but exclusive of vents , air conditioners , chimneys, or other such incidental appurtenances . Fountain Valley 21 .08 .080 Building height. "Building height means the vertical distance measured from the ground to the ceiling of the uppermost story. (Ord. 66 Sec. 2 (part ) , 1961 ) . Garden Grove Building Height means the vertical distance measured from the average level of the highest and lowest point of that portion of the building site covered by the building to the ceiling of the uppermost story. Long Beach Height of Building. The vertical distance above "grade" as defined herein to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of the highest grade of terraced building is the maximum height of any segment of the building. Orange Section 9100 .11 "Building Height" . Building height is the vertical distance from the average of the highest and lowest elevations of those parts of the lot immediately adjacent to the building to the ceiling of the uppermost story in case of a flat roof ; the deck line of. a mansard roof; to the mean height between eaves and ridge of a gable, hip or gambrel roof . Placentia 23. 04 .335 Height, building. "Building height" means the vertical distance from the average level of the highest and lowest point of that portion of the lot, covered by the building to the highest point of the building exclusive of chimneys and ventilatorfs and other exceptions to building height permitted in the zones . (Prior code Sec. 25-1 . 1 (part ) ) . Redondo Beach "Building Height" shall mean the vertical distance from the average natural finished grade around the perimeter of a building to the highest point of the building. Artificial grades created by planters , retaining walls , or other structures shall not be used in computing the building height . San Clemente Height of Structures - The average vertical distance measured from the ground level grade to the top of a structure . ( 3344d) _wry Tallahasse, Building height : The vertical distance Florida measured from the ground level grade to the top of the building. on a sloping site the height of any building shall be the vertical distance minus the foundation or understructure between the finished ground surface adjacent to the building at any point and the highest point of the building directly above provided that a roof shall be measured to the average height of the roof but that no part of the roof shall extend more than five (5 ) feet above the permitted height. (3344d ) Publish April 23, 1986 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 85-24 ( / DEFINITIONS - BUILDING HEIGHT fir/ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE: Monday, May 5, 1986 TIME: 7:30 P.M. APPLICATION NUMBER: Code Amendment No. 85-24 LOCATION: City wide PROPOSAL: to modify Section 9080.22 of the definition section of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code - Building Height. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act ON FILE: A copy of the proposed Code Amendment is on file in the Department of Development Services ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. All applications, exhibits, and descriptions of this proposal are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, for inspection by the public. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL By: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk Phone (714) 536-5405 Dated: April 21 , 1986 CITY ® _. K* 019ACI'I INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To ALL DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL From James W. Palin, Director Development Services Subject GRADING SITE AND ELEVATION Date February 7 , 1986 PLANS All submittals for multi-story structures and/or single story structures in designated flood drain areas shall require attime of initial review of adequacy of application for entitlement or building permit, a rough grading plan, site plan and elevation of structure(s ) proposed. The following information shall be included: Plans shall be drawn to suitable scale upon substantial paper and shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that they will conform. to the provisions of the ordinance code and the Uniform Building Code and all other relevant regulations . The plans shall give the location of the work , legal description and where prepared. The plans shall include, but not be limited to, the following information . 1 . General vicinity sketch of the proposed site and known seismic faults and flood hazard designations . 2 . Accurate contours of at least 0 .5 of a foot of existing ground and details of terrain and area drainage of the existing ground level on the proposed building site , contributory drainage areas and on the property adjacent thereto for a distance of approximately twenty-five (25) feet and based on curb elevation on City of Huntington Beach benchmark . 3 . Dimensions , elevation or rough grade contours of at least 0 . 5 of a foot 'to be achieved by grading pad elevation , drainage patterns , and related details based upon a City of Huntington Beach benchmark . 4 . Details of proposed retaining walls , slopes , basements , subterranean or semi-subterranean structures to be constructed with or as part of the proposed work on the building site together with a hydrology showing estimated runoff. 5 . Location of the footprint of any building or structure on the property where the work is proposed and the dimensioned location of any building or structure on land of adjacent sites which may be affected by the proposed building. i , 6 . Quantity of excavation and fill involved and "daylight" line of such grading. 7 . Elevations shall include accurate top of building elevations based upon City of Huntington Beach benchmark and clearly shown on the plans . Susan Pierce will prepare a handout information sheet for use of counter personnel . In the preliminary plan check process, all personnel shall assure that plans are in conformance with building height requirements and all regulations . Subsequent working drawings , hard copy site and elevation plans shall be in conformance with the approved site, grading and elevations initially submitted . JWP: kla ( 4328d )