Code Section: 261 (b)(2)

Subject: Height limit in the RH-2 District

Effective Date: 12/87

Interpretation:

   This Paragraph imposes in certain zoning districts, special height limits not imposed by the mapped height limits. The paragraph begins by stating, " No portion of a dwelling in any RH-2 District shall exceed a height of 40 feet,..." [emphasis added]. Such language should not be taken to exclude applying to the RH-2 District the height exceptions or the method of measurement of a sloped roof in Section 260.

Code Section: 261 (b)(2)

Subject: Height measurement on hilly lots

Effective Date: 7/91

Interpretation:

   This Provision states that the permitted height of a dwelling in an RH-2 District shall be reduced to 35 feet when the rear property line is 20 feet or more lower than the front property line. This reduction shall not apply however, when the buildable depth of such lot is up sloping.

Code Section: 261 (c)(1)

Subject: Additional height limits, exemptions from

Effective Date: 2/87

Interpretation:

   This Paragraph imposes a special height limit to the front of dwellings in certain zoning districts, under certain circumstances. The exemptions from the height limits listed in Section 260(b) also apply to the special height limit that is prescribed by this Section for the front of the buildable area.

Code Section: 261 (c)(1)

Subject: Height limits applicable to the front portion of the property

Effective Date: 01/06

Interpretation:

   Section 261(c)(1) limits heights at the front set back or front property line in RH-1 and RH-2 districts to a maximum of 30 feet, stepping back at a 45 degree angle to the full height limit permitted on the affected parcel. (See Figure 1)

   A question has persisted as to whether this is an absolute limit on any portion of the structure, or if it allows features or portions of a building to project above this limit so long as: a) its height, as defined under the Code does not exceed the limitation, or b) it is a feature exempted from height limits per 260(b). The former category (a) would include things such as sloped or articulated roofs that are measured at the midpoint rather than the top of the roof. The latter category potentially includes a number of items including minor features, such as parapets and railings etc., up to larger structures such as mechanical equipment, stair penthouses and similar features.

   The Zoning Administrator has determined that it is the intent of the Code to provide for an appropriate stepping back of building facade from its frontage to full height, not to impose an artificially rigid contraint on building design at this bevel or chamfer. Minor architectural features such as sculpted roofs or parapets would allow a well designed transition from the front setback to full height consistent with the intent of the Code. Major structural components, such as mechanical penthouses would not contribute to an appropriate transition and would not accomplish the intent of the Code.

   Therefore the Zoning Administrator has determined that height of a building as defined in the Code would apply to this Section. Features that do not exceed the limitation based on height as defined in the Code would be permitted.

   For features otherwise exempt from the height limit, the Zoning Administrator has determined that features that could be considered minor architectural elements would also be permitted, e.g. parapets or railing. Features that are larger of more substantial than parapets would not be permitted under this Section.

Code Section: 261 (c)(2)

Subject: Definition of adjacent lot/building

Effective Date: 6/84

Interpretation:

   This Paragraph allows an exception to the height limit applicable to front of properties in the RH-1 and RH-2 Districts and bases the exception upon the heights of the two adjacent buildings, which it defines as "building[s] on a lot adjoining the subject lot along a side lot line." An adjacent building on a lot adjoining the subject lot along a side lot line means that the side lot line referred to is the side lot line of the subject lot. The situation which is intended to be referenced is the same as that described by Section 134(c)(4)(B) and Section 132(d)(2) which exclude buildings fronting on another street or alley. Since all these Sections have the same rationale, to maintain equivalent building envelopes on the same street frontage, it is logical to use the same method for determining an adjacent lot or building.

Code Section: 261.1

Subject: Additional Height Limits for Narrow Streets and Alleys

Effective Date: 3/21

Interpretation:

   This Section regulates development patterns and setbacks for properties abutting narrow streets. The Code diagram represents a scenario where the street/alley is an improved right-of-way that is generally flat and running perpendicular to the subject property line. A question arose in a case where the street/alley is unimproved and sloped in multiple directions. This interpretation clarifies that:

-   Where the street or alley is unimproved, the base datum for measurement of the 45-degree angle will be taken literally directly opposite of the subject property line, at a distance that corresponds with where the opposite property line begins, but at the same elevation as the point taken from the subject property, as though it were a level, improved right-of-way;

-   Where a property subject to this provision has a laterally sloping frontage, the base datum measurement shall follow the same provisions for measuring height on laterally sloping lots as described in Section 260(a)(3), except that these provisions will apply even in height districts above 65 feet.

Code Section: 261.1 (d)(4)

Subject: Narrow Streets Provisions for Mid-Block Passages

Effective Date: 3/21

Interpretation:

   This section contains two slightly conflicting subsections. Subsection (A) applies to passages between 20 and 30 feet wide, and Subsection (B) applies to passages between 30 and 40 feet wide. Because 30 feet is called out in both subsections, the question arose of which subsection applies to a passage that is exactly 30 feet wide.

   Relying on the general principle that the more restrictive control applies when there are conflicting provisions, a 30-foot wide passage is subject to the controls of Subsection (A) because it requires a larger setback and at a lower height. The controls of Subsection (B) apply to any passage greater than 30 feet, but no greater than 40 feet in width.