5 - Laserfiche WebLink

Maximum Permitted ADU Height in the C-C District The maximum permitted height for ADUs in the C-C District was originally proposed to be 40 feet, consistent with the maximum height for the principal structure and with the maximum height for all accessory structures in the C-C District. As noted during the June 24 Planning Commission meeting, the method of height measurement per the PMC differs between principal structures (the main building on a site) and accessory structures. According to the PMC, the height of a principal structure is measured from the "average elevation of the natural grade of the ground covered by the structure to the highest point of the structure." However, roof types such as hip, gable, or gambrel roofs are measured to the "mean height between eaves and ridges." This allows the protruding elements of the roof (e.g., the sloping and peak elements of a gabled roof) to exceed the maximum height for purposes of articulation along the roofline, with the bulk of the building height at or below the maximum permitted height. The illustration in Figure 1 shows hip, gable, and gambrel roof styles. Figure 1: Roof Styles '44V Hip Roof Gable Roof Gambrel Roof Accessory structures (including ADUs) are measured from the "lowest grade adjacent to the structure to the highest ridge or top of structure." The height measurement for principal structures and accessory structures is shown in Figure 2. Unlike principal structures, no part of the roof of an ADU may exceed the maximum permitted height. Therefore, even if the height limitations are the same numerical value for a principal structure and an accessory structure, the height of the accessory structure will appear less once constructed because this method of height measurement does not allow any portion of the roof to exceed the height limit. This approach to measuring the height of accessory structures is a long-standing interpretation dating to the 1990s and was codified to the PMC in 2012. Further, the Downtown Specific Plan Task Force reviewed this methodology in April 2018, and supported staff's recommendation to retain this methodology. Staff continues to propose retaining this methodology for height measurement for consistency and to avoid potentially creating nonconforming heights throughout the city. P20-0412, Accessory Dwelling Units Planning Commission 4 of 9 s of spaces. B. Does the Planning Commission agree with staff's proposed objective standards for second story ADUs? The Planning Commission indicated that the objective standards for upper windows in two- story ADUs were too restrictive as proposed and directed staff to draft more flexible standards that would 1) Account for existing windows and 2) Allow more flexibility on placement and size of new windows. One Commissioner also commented that a provision for decorative balconies should be added to the standards. P20-0412, Accessory Dwelling Units Planning Commission 2 of 9 egulations. She explained staff decided on these standards, in the absence of being able to conduct design review, because they were the most common points of contention between neighbors. Commissioner O'Connor suggested looking at each unit individually instead of applying blanket standards. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 June 24, 2020 and ridges and ADUs measured from the ground to the top of the structure. Commissioner Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 June 24, 2020 ing Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 June 24, 2020 e windows would have to be six feet above the finished floor or have obscured glass. Ms. Clark further noted, it might be reasonable to develop exceptions for existing windows to allow for those windows to be the same size, shape, and height. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 June 24, 2020