HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA2004-022*NEW FILE*
PA2004=022
City of Newport Beach
Planning Division
1
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
James Campbell, Principal
June 18, 2012
File PA2004-044 for CA2004-010
Planne0-�(�
Re: Status of Initiated Code Amendment No.CA2004-010
Code amendment was abandoned in 2004 after initiation by the City
Council. There was no official action taken on CA2004-010.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO
TITLE 20 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
TO REVISE REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE HEIGHT
OF STRUCTURES (PA 2004-022)
WHEREAS, Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code authorizes the'City
Council to adopt a resolution initiating amendments to the Zoning Code of the City of
Newport Beach.
WHEREAS, the City Council intends to initiate an amendment to Title 20 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code to revise regulations relating to the measurement of
height and the height of structures.
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby initiates an amendment to Title 20 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code to revise regulations relating to the measurement of
height and the height of structures.
This resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport
Beach held on April 27, 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
rl CRAIG S. HAMPTON
I N C O R P O R A T E D
DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979
April 22, 2004
City of Newport Beach
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
RE: City Council Meeting of April 27, 2004
Study Session Agenda Item No. 3
Agenda Item No. 22
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
4..�.'.l i L L �9+e.
E4U. ?S T' G)
.i _.a'7_
1 have been designing custom homes throughout the City of Newport Beach for 25
years. I have very recently become aware of the Code Amendment Initiation — Height
Regulations. I found out about this completely by chance as there was no public
notification.
The intent of this letter is to inform the City Council of the complex process involved in
designing a custom home. As you may or may not be aware there is a lot of time and
expense that goes into designing a custom home and preparing plans to be submitted to
the City of Newport Beach Building, Planning and Public Works Departments for the plan
check process. The homeowner must hire a-designer/architect, a civil engineer/land
surveyor, a soils engineer, energy engineer, and a structural engineer. Many months of
work go into the design and preparation of the final construction plan documents before
they are submitted to the city.
The first step in the design process is prudent research by homeowners and design
professionals of the existing building envelope requirements and existing building and
planning codes. There is a certain level of trust by homeowners and professionals that
the codes and requirements of the city will not be changed without their knowledge.
After reading the Staff Report prepared by the Planning Department, it is of concern to
me that the existing building height code and its existing interpretation may be changed
without the knowledge of homeowners and the professionals they have hired. To change
the building code in the middle of this process would create an undue hardship for the
many homeowners that have begun the design of their home months ago. These
homeowners and the professionals they have hired have based their design on the
building and planning code parameters as they existed at the time they started their
project.
1 of 2
11845 SW THELEN LANE POKTLAND, OREGCN 97219
949.632.2585 50 3.246.28 07 PAX: 503.293.4331
E-MAIL: craig@cshcustomhomeplans.com
www.cshcustomholueplans.com
It is also of concern that there is not a clear direction as to what if any changes will be
made to the code or how and when the changes would be implemented. There seem to
be many unanswered questions.
➢ What is the "pipeline"?
> How can the existing code be phased out ifthere is not a new one to replace it?
➢ What will the new standards be and when exactly will they be implemented?
> Until the new standards are established, how do homeowners and design
professionals know how to proceed in the design of their current and future projects?
> How will homeowners and design professionals be notified of the changes?
I would very much like to be kept informed regarding the proposed changes to the grade
and structure height codes. My initial suggestion would be that the existing height
interpretation (i.e., broken roof) that has been in effect since 1986 should remain in
effect until the new standard is completed and adopted. This would allow a definite
ending of the existing code and beginning of the new code with no gray area in between.
Also important is the notification of homeowners and design professionals of the
proposed changes. Without notification of a definite ending of the existing code and
beginning of the new code homeowners and design professionals would not find out
there has been a change until the completed plans are submitted to the city for plan
check. At that point the homeowner would have spent thousands of dollars and months
of time would have been wasted.
Thank you for your time and attention to this very important matter.
Since ly,
Crai Ha on
President
2of2
RESOLUTION NO. 2004- 35
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO
TITLE 20 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
TO REVISE REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE HEIGHT
OF STRUCTURES (PA 2004-022)
WHEREAS, Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code authorizes the City
Council to adopt a resolution initiating amendments to the Zoning Code of the City of
Newport Beach.
WHEREAS, the City Council intends to initiate an amendment to Title 20 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code to revise regulations relating to the measurement of
height and the height of structures.
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby initiates an amendment to Title 20 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code to revise regulations relating to the measurement of
height and the height of structures.
This resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport
Beach held on April 27, 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS Heffernan, Rosansky, Adams,
Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CA1IFORl\7A
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH }
I, LaVonne M. Harkless. City Clerk of the City of :Newport Beach, California, do
hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is :even: that the foregoing
resolution, being Resolution No. 2004-85 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by
the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the
27th day of April, 2004, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit:
Ayes: Heffernan, Rosansky, Adams, Bromberg, Webb, Nichols, Mayor Ridgeway
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: '.done
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the
official seal of said City this 27th day of April, 2004.
City Clerk
Newport Beach, California
(Seal)
i Gdt�'G� fl 'til ? Y "REIN) AFT fR GENDA
rRil;iED•:' 1 C jp 9-
NIGEL BAILEY
REALTOR
2121 E. COACT H1GHw4Y• SLR IL• 1R0
4 CORONA DFL MAR. CA 92n25
SUS.(949) 718.1504
FAX (944) b40.8006
PAGER / CELL ( 949) 500-3250
RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE EMAIL nigOV-S umet
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
I am Nigel Bailey, a Realtor associated with Coldwell Banker in Corona del Mar
and a resident of., and homeowner in Corona del Mar for approx. 30 years.
I can appreciate the dilemma that the Planning Department has had to deal with in
establishing the point from which to measure building heights. And I'm sure there have
been abuses or stretching of the limits by builders and owners over the years who have
considered that the "rules" are for less creative souls.
To get to the point, I am involved in a project that was commenced last year with
the purchase of a specific site in Corona del Mar in which the purchaser developed plans
for removal of an existing home that was constructed many years ago straddling two
established building sites, and the development of two homes in it's place. A
modification request was submitted to the Modification Committee to maximize the
views from the proposed replacement dwellings and the modification was granted.
The owner decided to sell the property with the plans and modifications, and my
buyer acquired it. The seller acted in good faith in representing to the buyer that the
plans conformed,to city codes and that the modification which maximized the potential of
the properties had been granted. The buyer purchased the property at a figure that was
predicated on a two home development site that would have substantial views from
second and third levels utilizing the design criteria that is now being challenged. All
parties have acted in good faith but it appears there is a potential for major design
changes necessitated by the proposed resolution. The outcome can mean hundreds of
thousands of dollars loss for the builder due to extensive limitations being put on building
heights and square footage of the top floor which had previously been agreed to by the
Modification Committee.
It should be mentioned that the site in question adjoins a city park and has no
immediate neighbor within 100 feet or who would be affected if the homes were built.to.
even 40 feet.
What I ask of this body is that if the resolution is to be adopted that the 24 foot
mid point be retained with 29 foot maximum height to discourage the development of
unattractive flat roofed dwellings and that regardless of your decision on peaked to
versus flat that a 6 month grace period for any change to the present code, or the current
interpretation of same, be provided to enable homeowners and developers who have
entered into site purchase agreements'in good faith to submit their plans to planning for
approval.
To implement the resolution with a lesser grace period or to make any change to
the current interpretation which has been in place for so many years and to which the
design professionals have been accustomed, could cause substantial hardships to well
intentioned people, developers and homeowners alike, who have operated within the
system to help to upgrade our neighborhoods.
Thanks for the opportunity to be h ,
Owned And Operaled By NRT Incorporaled.
"RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA
PRINTED:" a-
ul-
April 26, 2004
City of Newport Beach
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
3300 Newport Beach, CA 92663
RE: Grade and structural height
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City council:
I sincerely hope that the proposed code amendment is not a "knee jerk reaction"
to the recent Getz fiasco.
As is, the code has worked for many years resulting in a community, which is
both architecturally interesting and highly desirable.
I sympathize with the planning staff in that the existing code requires time
consuming, competent evaluation, however, the end results have warranted the
effort.
That said, if the council decides to pursue the planning department's proposal, as
a minimum, the council should require extensive input from the architualjdesign
community in evaluating all possible topographic conditions and define the
"pipeline" to have minimal impact on land owners wishing to build their dream
home.
Please do not let the future of Newport Beach end up as a bunch of easy to
evaluate, flat roofed boxes.
Thank you for your service to the community and considering my thoughts.
rren H. James
2627 Cove St.
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
"RECEIVED AFfER AGENDA
PRINTED:" -�-- a a-
y-a9
APRIL 26, 2004
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORTBEACH, CA 92663
RE: PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GRADE AND STRUCTURE HEIGHT
DEAR HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY -COUNCIL,
AS AN OWNER/BUILDER OF A NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS IN THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH OVER THE PASTTEN YEARS I TAKE EXCEPTION WITH THE PLANNING
STAFF'S PROPOSALS OUTLINED IN THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS. WHILE THE CURRENT
SYSTEM IS SOMEWHAT CUMBERSOME AND CERTAINLY COULD BE REFINED, ITAT LEAST
ADDRESSES ALL CASES ON AN EQUAL BASIS, THE PROPOSED CHANGES CREATE ANY
NUMBER OF SUBJECTIVE DECISIONS TO BE CALLED OUT BY THE PLANNING STAFF ON
PARCELS THAT HAVE SUBSTANTIAL GRADE CHANGES, A COMMON SITUATION IN THIS
COASTAL CITY. TO SUGGEST THAT A PARCEL HAVING LESS THAN A 10% GRADE CHANGE
IS BASICALLY FLAT, IS ILLOGICAL; 10% OF 100 FT. (ATYPICAL LOT DEPTH) IS 10 FT., A
SUBTANTIAL GRADE CHANGE.
EVEN MORE TROUBLING IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF A 60 DAY TRANSITION PERIOD TO
A NEW POLICY. I CURRENTLY HAVE IN PLAN CHECK PROJECT THAT HAS TAKEN WELL
OVER SIX MONTHS TO DESIGN, A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THAT PERIOD SPENT ADDRESSING
HEIGHT CONSIDERATIONS ALL BASED ON THE CITY'S CURRENT POLICIES. A 60 DAY
PERIOD IS GROSSLY UNFAIR TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE CURRENTLY IN THAT SAME
DESIGN PHASE. I WOULD THINK MINIMUM 6 MONTH TRANSITION TO WHATEVER NEW
POLICIES ARE ESTABLISHED WOULD BE MUCH FAIRER.
LAST, I URGE ALL OF YOU TO FULLY COMPREHEND THE SUGGESTIONS THE PLANNING
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING. BASICALLY THEY ARE RECOMMENDING YOU ADOPT HEIGHT
RESTRICTIONS THAT NOT ONLY LIMIT HEIGHT BUT IMPOSE SEVERE ARCHITECTURAL
RESTRICTIONS THAT FAVOR, AS THEY POINT OUT, STRUCTURES WITH VERY SIMPLE ROOF
PLANES, PREFERABLY FLAT] I KNOW WE ALL AGREE THIS CITY IS NOT MEANT TO BE
CHARACTERIZED BY SIMPLE FLAT ROOF STRUCTURES.
SINCE
N.D. McNuLTY
115 KINGS PLACE
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
(949)642-0418
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
April 27, 2004
3. GRADE AND
U�R
(100-2004)
City Manager Bludau stated that staff has become heavily involved over the last
three to four months on checking grades, measuring heights and trying to
determine whether structures have been built according to the City's standards
and specifications. He stated that it has shown how difficult it is to measure and
regulate structure heights.
Planning Director Temple acknowledged Senior Planners Alford, Campbell and
Garcia for their efforts. She stated that the recent months of experience with
the difficulties in administering the height chapters and grade provisions in the
Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) have brought forward the serious
nature of some of the problems with the code, but that staff has had difficulties
with the provisions for many years. She stated that staff had already been
considering the need to find a better and simpler way to address the issue, while
still allowing for design flexibility and new development.
Using a PowerPoint presentation, Planning Director Temple stated that
implementation of the current height restrictions has become problematic. She
stated that this is primarily due to the fact that height is measured from natural
grade, although there is not a clear understanding of what natural grade is.
Additionally, the system uses an average roof height, which means that the
midpoint is measured for any sloping roof element and each roof plane is
measured separate from the other.
Planning Director Temple displayed a drawing of a lot showing what the code
would consider as natural grade, and what the finished grade and height limit
would be for a home built on the lot. She stated that determining natural grade
is very labor intensive and that other problems with using it include projects
that excavate below natural grade to allow for taller structures, plan checking
difficulties and the possibility of fraud.
Planning Director Temple stated that the zoning code sets forth how sloped roofs
are measured. She displayed a drawing showing the midpoint of a roof and the
maximum ridge allowed. In the mid 1980's staff decided that in some cases it
was appropriate to extend the plane to a setback line or other intervening roof
line. Over time, architects have founds ways to extend multiple roof planes,
which has produced both positive and negative results. She stated that it can
result in additional height and architectural variation, but that it also results in
labor intensive plan checking, a staff interpretation that has not been codified
and an easier way to design homes with three stories.
Planning Director Temple stated that it's time to look for solutions to the many
problems incurred with the current system. She provided a list of possible
solutions and stated that the method for defining grade for the purposes of
measuring height needs to be determined, and it needs to be applicable to both
level and sloped lots. She stated that staff is recommending that a level height
limit be used that is based on an average of the natural grade, instead of a
height limit that moves with the original grade.
Council Member Rosansky asked if the natural grade would still have to be
determined under staffs recommendation. Planning Director Temple stated
Volume 56 - Page 840
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
April 27, 2004
INDEX
is to actually use existing grade.
Council Member Webb referred to the staff report and stated that it looked like
it was going to be an average of the four property corners. Planning Director
Temple stated that it would actually be the corners of the buildable area of the
lot, but could be discussed further to determine the most appropriate place to
draw the average from.
Mayor Ridgeway asked if using the corners wouldn't be problematic when
looking at a cliffside home. Planning Director Temple stated that a different
system would have to be developed for sloping lots.
In response to Council Member WebVe question, Planning Director Temple
stated that staff is recommending that an average roof concept not be utilized.
Council Member Webb asked if that recommendation would encourage flat
roofed homes. Planning Director Temple stated that she didn't believe so, and
that any system could be used to construct either a flat roof or a sloping roof.
She stated that an appropriate height limit and the exceptions that would be
allowed would need to be determined.
Mayor Ridgeway confirmed that the recommendation would apply to either a
flat or sloped roof home, and asked if it would mean that the ridge height would
be arbitrarily set at 24 feet. Planning Director Temple stated that staff is not
recommending a change to the height limit, and that the number could be
determined after further discussion and outreach. Mayor Ridgeway expressed
his concern that the recommendation would result in a significant number of
legal nonconforming homes in the city.
Planning Director Temple displayed drawings showing examples if the proposed
method were adopted. She noted, however, that Item No. 22, Code Amendment
Initiation of Height Regulations, at the regular meeting is only a broad initiation
to allow the City to conduct community outreach on the issue. She stated that
staffs basic goals are to measure from an average elevation of existing grade
and to reference that to a curb height, to make special provisions for eloping lots
and to make designs easier to plan check. She stated that future discussions
should involve both the residential community and the design professional
community, and that there are several issues that could to be addressed.
Planning Director Temple stated that there are some design professionals in
attendance at the current meeting, but that a broad noticing was not done
pending direction from the City Council.
Mayor Ridgeway stated that he would have preferred more people in attendance
at the meeting from the architectural and design community, as he would have
liked to have heard their comments. He expressed his understanding of the
complexity of plan checking, and again expressed his concern for the legal
nonconforming issue.
Brion Jeannette, architect, stated that when he designs homes, his clients want
as many square feet as is allowable and a view, and that staffs recommendation
could result in a diminution of land values. He agreed that trying to determine
the grade on certain lots is difficult, but that the City's staff is diligent in making
sure that the architectural profession proves accuracy. Mr. Jeannette stated
Volume 56 - Page 841
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
April 27, 2004
INDEX
that changing the current system could result in more difficulties and more
variances, and that it would be better to define the intent of the existing code
and work within it. He stated that architects want to create unique designs for
their clients. He asked to be included in future discussions regarding any
modifications to,the code.
Mayor Ridgeway asked if Mr. Jeannette felt that defining grade and
determining a set point seems to be the issue. Mr. Jeannette agreed and
suggested that possibly a higher fee be charged for the difficult plan checks.
Mayor Ridgeway stated that the architecture and design of homes in the city
contributes to Newport Beach being considered a world class city. He stated
that he was troubled by the staff report and that he can't imagine the
architecture in the city changing at this time.
Tod Schooler, architect, stated that if massive changes are made to the height
limit, it will create real problems in the city. He stated that some things could
be done to streamline the process and make it easier for everybody, and he
expressed his support for a way to simplify and achieve buildings that are
similar in size, height and mass. He also volunteered to serve on any committee
that might be formed to discuss proposed changes.
Council Member Webb asked if a flat plane requirement were used, if it would
lead to more flat roof box -type construction. Mr. Schooler stated that it would
since the allowable buildable area wouldn't be changed. He provided a photo of
a building that was built in 1926 that wouldn't be allowed today. Mr. Schooler
stated that some architects will design well and others won't, but that lowering
the height limit without changing the buildable area will result in box -type
construction. He expressed his dissatisfaction with box -type construction and
stated that he prefers to create exterior movement in a building.
Council Member Nichols stated that the slant roof at the edge to define the
highest possible box ends up being unsightly. He stated that modifications are
needed to avoid some basic problems, and asked if a mansard roof is the ideal
way to get the maximum height limit. Mr. Schooler responded in the affirmative
and stated that its very difficult to create something in the current ordinance.
The current code promotes box -type construction as the solution.
Mayor Ridgeway noted the recent forgery of design drawings in the city and
stated that he would support more complex evaluation and certification. He
expressed his understanding of the problems experienced by the plan checkers,
but felt that some simple clean-up of the code might be all that is needed.
Council Member Heffernan asked if the architects in the city had taken any
action against the perpetrator of the alleged forgeries. Mr. Schooler stated that
he hasp t and he doesn't know if the American Institute of Architects (AIA) has.
Council Member Heffernan stated that he was disturbed when he found out that
the perpetrator was still doing business in the city.
City I Attorney Burnham stated that the existing code has not been strictly
applied, and that staff is recommending that modifications be made that would
eliminate the argument that many homes are nonconforming. He stated that
there is currently a problem with the misapplication of the code and the
Volume 56 - Page 842
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
April 27, 2004
INDEX
extension of the interpretation to broader contours. He stated that it would be
helpful to find out what the professionals think when discussing the
modifications.
Nigil Bayley, realtor, stated that he is currently involved in a project where a
property owner sold a property with approved plans and modifications. The
buyer purchased the property at a figure that was predicated by a two -home
development site with substantial views from the second and third levels. He
stated that all parties have acted in good faith, but that there maybe a potential
for major design changes necessitated by the proposed resolution. Mr. Bayley
stated that the outcome could result in a substantial financial loss to the builder
due to the extensive limitations being put on building heights and square
footage of the upper level. He suggested that the development of flat roof
dwellings be discouraged and that a six-month grace period be provided if any
changes are approved.
Mayor Ridgeway stated that the action before the City Council at the regular
meeting is only a resolution of intent. Assistant City Manager Wood added that
a property owner does not have a vested right until they receive a building
permit, and that the initiation will only be the beginning of the study process.
Mr. Bayley stated that the builder has been told that the issue could affect his
project.
Council Member Nichols stated that the 29-foot height limit does present a
problem with the neighbors. Mr. Bayley stated that the property in question
will not affect other property views.
Council Member Bromberg agreed with the comments made by Mr. Jeannette
that the proposed changes would lead to a great deal of flat -roofed buildings. He
understood the problem with City staff trying to determine actual heights and
that he would support doing what can be done to help the Planning Department
make the determinations. He disagreed with lowering the height limit since it
would affect property rights and property values. Council Member Bromberg
also suggested that a committee of architects be put together to clarify the issues
and make suggestions on what might be done to streamline the process.
Mayor Ridgeway confirmed with the Planning Director that extending the
roofline has never been made a part of the code and agreed that some
clarification is needed. He asked if the plan check and inspection fees are
adequate. Planning Director Temple stated that they are not, in all cases.
Mayor Ridgeway suggested that this issue also be addressed.
Planning Director Temple stated that staff didn't want to imply that height
limits should be lowered, and that the issue is still open to discussion. She
expressed her appreciation to the architects who offered to provide input. She
further stated that staff has been trying to be open with the information and the
possibility of the code changing.
Mayor Ridgeway agreed with the suggestion to form a committee of design
professionals and suggested that Planning Commissioner Ed Selich be on the
committee also.
Volume 56 - Page 843
'City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
April 27, 2004
Council Member Webb suggested that the formal appointment of a committee
comprised of architects and staff members be made at the regular meeting.
— at 6:00 p.m. to Closed Session.
The agendaaJor the Study Session was posted on April 21, 2004, at 3:25 p.m. on
the City Hail`Bulletin Board located outside of the City of Newport Beach
City Clerk
Recording Secretary
S
Volume 56 - Page 844
City of Newport Beach
Study Session Minutes
April 27, 2004
INDEX
LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
Volume 56 -Page 845
CRAIG S. HAMPTON
I N C O IL P O R. A T E D
DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979
April 22, 2004
City of Newport Beach
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
RE: City Council Meeting of April 27, 2004
Study Session Agenda Item No. 3
Agenda Item No. 22
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
N0 3 ENDAa
"is
-0 I -
I have been designing custom homes throughout the City of Newport Beach for 25
years. I have very recently become aware of the Code Amendment Initiation — Height
Regulations. I found out about this completely by chance as there was no public
notification.
The intent of this letter is to inform the City Council of the complex process involved in
designing a custom home. As you may or may not be aware there is a lot of time and
expense that goes into designing a custom home and preparing plans to be submitted to
the City of Newport Beach Building, Planning and Public Works Departments for the plan
check process, The homeowner must hire a designerlarchitect, a civil engineerlland
surveyor, a soils engineer, energy engineer, and a structural engineer. Many months of
work go into the design and preparation of the final construction plan documents before
they are submitted to the city.
The first step in the design process is prudent research by homeowners and design
professionals of the existing building envelope requirements and existing building and
planning codes. There is a certain level of trust by homeowners and professionals that
the codes and requirements of the city will not be changed without their knowledge.
After reading the Staff Report prepared by the Planning Department, it is of concern to
me that the existing building height code and Its existing interpretation may be changed
without the knowledge of homeowners and the professionals they have hired. To change
the building code in the middle of this process would create�an undue hardship for the
many homeowners that have begun the design of their home months ago. These
homeowners and the professionals they have hired have based their design on the
building and planning code parameters as they existed at the time they started their
project.
t of 2
11845 SW THELEN LANE PORTLAND, OREGON 97219
949.632 2585 503.246.2807 PAX: 503.293.4331
E-MAIL: craig@cshcustomhomeplans. Cont
www.cshcustolnhomeplans.com
It is also of concern that there is not a clear direction as to what if any changes will be
made to the code or how and when the changes would be implemented. There seem to
be many unanswered questions.
➢ What is the "pipeline"?
➢ How can the existing code be phased out if there is not a new one to replace it?
➢ What will the new standards be and when exactly will they be implemented?
➢ Until the new standards are established, how do homeowners and design
professionals know how to proceed in the design of their current and future projects?
➢ How will homeowners and design professionals be notified of the changes?
I would very much like to be kept informed regarding the proposed changes to the grade
and structure height codes. My initial suggestion would be that the existing height
Interpretation (i.e., broken roof) that has been in effect since 1986 should remain in
effect until the new standard'is completed and, adopted. This would allow a definite
ending of the existing code and beginning of the new code with no gray area in between.
Also important is the notification of homeowners and design professionals of the
proposed changes. Without notification of a definite ending of the existing code and
beginning of the new code homeowners and design professionals would not find out
there has been a change until the completed plans are submitted to the city for plan
check. At that point the homeowner would have spent thousands of dollars and months
of time would have been wasted.
Thank you for your time and attention to this very important matter.
Since, y,
Cram . Ha on
President
Grade and Structure Height
Gity Council Study Session
April 27, 2004
Current Height Limit Regulations
■ Implementation has become problematic
■ Height measured from "natural grade"
■ Sloped roofs measured from the midpoint
■ Staff interpretation extends roof plane
Height Measurement
Existing
"Natural" Grade
Height Measurement
Existing
n"� S1 ..
Finished Grade
nNatural" Grade
Height Measurement
Existing
steer Sw"�v1
Finished Grade
Height limit
under existing
regulations
"Natural" Grade
Natural Grade = Problems
■ Determining "natural grade" is labor intensive
■ Excavation below natural grade allows taller structures
■ Makes plan checking difficult
■ Conducive to errors- and fraud
Zoning Code
Grade
Staff Interpretation
Grade
Sloped Roof = Problems
■ Plan checking each roof plane is labor intensive
■ Staff interpretation is uncodified
■ Prolongation of the roof makes it easier to design a
house with three stories
Solution Needed
Uses existing grade
■ Elevations referenced to a verifiable, fixed point
■ Results in heights consistent with height limits
■ Simple to plan check
■ Can be applied to level and sloped lots
Height Measurement
Existing and Proposed
Height limit
under proposed
amendment
Horizontal plane based on 24'-0"
average of existing grade
at four corners of buildable
area
fit.« SMrdY
Finished Grade
Height limit
under existing
regulations
"Natural" Grade
Height Measurement
Proposed
Height limit
under proposed
amendment
Horizontal plane based on 24'-0'
average of existing grade
at four comers of buildable
area
Erin ^WwM
.. ----- ..-----------------------••----
Finished Grade
Height Measurement
Proposed Method .
Height limit (24'-0") above
a horizontal plane based on
average of existing grade
at four comers of buildable
area (26'-4.5")
E1+E2+E3+E4
4
E1 = 100.6
4Oa
Vertical datum (100) set at curb
c<OSOO'4-!5
E2=100.5'
E3=104.25'
Height Measurement
Sloped Lots
---------------- ---------------- +\ Daylight Plane
-------------
24'-0"
Horizontal plane based on
average of existing grade
at four corners of buildable
area
Shoot µ SWewn0. 24'-0"
Top Si
Slope
Tu
Of
Slhpe
24'-0"
Suggested
de Amendment
■ Measures from average elevation of existing grade
■ Referenced to curb height
■ Provisions for sloped lots
■ Easier to plan check
$EA
.� arty
b
-v '' +
bib
Beach House for Philip M. Lovell
1922-26
1242 Ocean Avenue, Newport Beach
Celle maison est la seconde plus
importante ceuvre de Schindler
apras Kings Road at une etape
marquante de so pensee architec-
turale. La structure — une aerie de
cinq portiques an baton — s'impose
ici dons route so realite pour ex -
primer clairement se fonction de
soutien des plateaux an baton at
des torts-terrasse. C'est pour cette
raison qua ce projet est considare
comma Is plus importante contri-
bution au modernisme amaricam.
Retrospectivement, cependant, le
recours a un systeme structurant
aussi clairement exprime rests
une exception, exlgee par Jos
contraintes d'un terrain an bordure
de plage. La typologie introduite
ici —calle d'une maison de plage
sur pilotis— est aujourd'hui com-
mune a Los Angeles, mame si elle
est rarement traitae avec autant
d'elegance. L'idee de niveaux
entrecroises at de volumes double
hauteur pout se rattacher au con-
cept de Raumplan d'Adolf Loos,
qui faisait appel a une repartition
par pieces asset conventionnelle
afin de traduire on sons de perma-
nence culturelle, mars qu'il traltait
on sections verticales pour intro-
duire ('element de surprise at le
soupgon de discontinuite qu'il
pressentait appartenir a 1'espnt
amoderneo.
70
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 3
February 5, 2004
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FILE COPY
FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner COPY
i
(949) 644-3210, icampbelf(a)city.newport-beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Grade and Structure Height
Introduction
Commissioner Eaton requested a report from staff on the definition of grade and
how the height of buildings and structures is measured.
Discussion
The Municipal Code establishes how the height of structure is determined.
Specifically, Section 20.65.030.A states:
"Height of Structure. The height of a structure shall be the vertical distance between
the highest point of the structure and the grade directly below. In determining the
height of a sloped roof, the measurement shall be the vertical distance between the
grade and the midpoint of the roof plane, as measured from the ridge of the roof to
where the wall plate intersects the roof plane, provided that no part of the roof shall
extend more than 5 feet above the permitted height in the height limitation zone."
Grade is defined as the unaltered vertical location of the -ground surface unless it
is altered or some other grade is identified. Section 20.65.030.E states:
"Grade. For the purpose of measuring height, the grade shall be the unaltered
natural vertical location of the ground surface unless one of the following applies:
At the time of subdivision, the City has approved a grading plan or map,
under which circumstances grade shall be finished grade as shown on the
plan or map so approved. For sites that were developed without or prior to
the requirement for a grading plan or map, the Planning Department shall
exercise its best efforts to determine the location of grade for the purpose of
measuring height. In so doing, the Planning Department shall use existing
on -site elevations and contours, as well as the elevations and contours of
adjoining and nearby properties to determine the natural profile of the site. In
cases where retaining walls have been constructed or filled surfaces have
been used for the purpose of measuring height prior to October 12, 1972, the
finished grade established in conjunction with the filled condition shall be
used for the measurement of height. Under no circumstances shall height be
measured from excavated surfaces such as basements and wine cellars
which have been used to artificially lower the ground surface.
2. Flood Hazard Areas. The height shall be measured from the finished floor of
any portion of the principal building where habitable space Is required to be
,elevated to the ,elevation established by the Flood Insurance Rate Maps
recognized by the Building Department as part of flood safety requirements
and maps adopted by City Council. Notwithstanding the building elevations
established by the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the minimum required first
floor finished floor elevation for the interior living areas of ail new structures
shall be at least 6.27 Mean Sea Level consistent with the Public Works
Department standard for bulkhead elevation."
Determining what the natural profile of a site is extremely difficult when the grade
has been altered by past development or use of the property. Nevertheless, this
section provides some guidance when the grade has been altered and it
identifies other grades to be used under specific circumstances.
1. Grades established by a grading plan for a subdivision
Typically, new subdivisions involve mass grading to create roadways and
level building sites. The finished grades are then used to measure building
or structure height with the development of the particular tract. The Code
permits the finished grade to be used under this circumstance.
2. Grades created without a aradina plan or map
The Code specifically directs planners to use existing grades and contours
of the site and surrounding lots in their best effort to determine the natural
profile of the site. When retaining walls or filled surfaces are present and
were created prior to 10-12-1972, the finished grade is used as the
baseline for measuring structure height. Artificially lowered grades such as
basements or wine cellars are not to be used to measure height. This
provision has been more broadly applied through the years such that no
excavated grades are used to measure height today.
3. Grades in flood hazard areas
The grade for the purpose of measuring height is increased to 6.27 feet
above mean seal level (MSL) measured in the 1929NGVD for habitable
portions of residential structures since the finished floor may not be below
this level. In essence, those residential properties are not penalized in
terms of height for providing mandatory flood protection. The increased
grade requirement does not apply to uninhabitable areas such as garages
and the height of these portions of the structure is measured from natural
grade. Within the Cannery Village/McFadden Square area, commercial
buildings are also required to elevate the lowest inhabited finished floor
and the height limit is measured from the 6.27 feet above MSL. As with
the residential garages, parking areas and parking garages do not have to
elevate above 6.27 feet above MSL and the height limit is measured from
the natural grade as opposed to the elevated portion of the building.
Issues
The primary difficulty in implementation of the height limit is in the determination
of what grade should be for the purpose of measuring height when a site is
developed or otherwise altered. Applicants are increasingly requesting a grade
determination based upon their belief that the existing elevations and contours of
the site and its surroundings were excavated and do not represent the "natural"
profile of the site. Estimating the historic grade is difficult when limited or no
information of past grades exists. Most of these requests relate to sites that were
developed prior to October 1972, and it is a rare event to have a grading plan
that shows the natural profile of the site and proposed grades at the time of
development. In looking at many sloping properties today, retaining walls are
evidence of excavation and applicants want to use the prior natural grade to gain
additional height for their proposals to increase property values.
History
The history of the evolution of the definition of grade and building height tells an
interesting tale. Prior to 1950, there was no definition of grade within the Zoning
Code and the height of a building was "the vertical distance measured from the
average level of the highest and lowest point of that portion of the site to be
covered by the building to the ceiling of the uppermost story. In 1950, the
definition was changed such that the upper measurement was taken from the
"topmost point of the roof." In 1965, a definition of grade was adopted and the
average level of the portion of the lot covered by the building was again used,
however projecting balconies were included in the building coverage. Artificial
grade was specifically excluded from use unless it was authorized by the
Planning Commission. The record from 1965 does not explain why this change
was made, but staff theorizes that it was may have been response using the
grades of excavated surfaces when property owners desired to build up.
In 1972, the City first used the term "natural" within the definition of the term
grade. Ordinance No. 1454 states: "For the purpose of measuring height, the
grade shall be natural grade unless the Planning Commission approves a
grading plan or map, or a grading permit has been issued on or before the
effective date of this ordinance, under which circumstances grade shall be
finished grade as shown on the plan or map so approved... This standard
permits the use of finished grade only for prior approvals issued by the Planning
Commission; otherwise, natural grade (which was not specifically defined) is
used. The changes in 1972 also included the Planning Commission's ability to
establish the grade when the natural grade or finished grade was determined to
be "inappropriate or unworkable" by the Commission. The procedure was revised
in 1991 to require a Site Plan Review application subject to 4 findings. This
procedure remains in effect today. The definition of grade above was used until
1992 when it was determined that the definition was unclear and unworkable
since the term "natural" was not defined.
In 1992, the City Council defined natural grade to be the "unaltered natural
vertical location of the ground surface." They also re -drafted the definition of
grade and broadened the use of finished grade. Previous standards prohibited
the use of artificial surfaces (finished grades) and then allowed their use with the
approval of the Planning Commission. The change in 1992 permitted the use of
any finished grade when retaining walls or filled surfaces were used for the
purpose of measuring height prior to October 12, 1972. Why this aspect of
clarifying the code was done is not in the clear record. It may have been done by
design or it may have been Inadvertent, but staff theorizes the provision was re-
drafted to address artificial grades created prior to 1972 without the approval of
the Planning Commission. The standards adopted in 1992 are identical to today's
regulations although they have been reorganized and re -codified since.
Summary
Natural grade is what It is defined to be when it Is applied to a specific
development proposal. The Code Is clear that retaining walls or filled surfaces
are to be used and it is equally clear in that structure height is not to be
measured from an excavated surface such as basements and wine cellars, which
have been used to artificially lower the ground surface. Applicants ask that
existing grades, retaining walls, old building plans, street improvement plans and
old air photos to be used to indicate of some level of excavation. Several
questions arise...
• Does the Code permit the use of air photos or other information when it
clearly states that the Department shall use existing on -site elevations and
contours, as well as the elevations and contours of adjoining and nearby
properties?
If historical air photos are used, what year should be used? Should the
grades of the 1960's,1940's, 1920's be used?
• Does the provision that prohibits the use of excavated surfaces limited to
areas lowered artificially due to basements or wine cellars or other similar
structures? Does it apply to excavated areas due to the construction of
retaining walls for the purpose of creating a level building site?
In the past, staff and the Planning Commission have used any information,
Including air photos, to assist in the determination of what prior grades were. The
prohibition of using excavated surfaces and the use of filled surfaces including
foundations and retaining walls has been consistently and broadly applied for
many years.
Natural grade can be a difficult concept when viewed from the outside. A
property is judged by its physical attributes and owners and neighbors formulate
expectations about a property based upon what they see. Designing a building or
structure to a grade that has not been seen for 20, 40 or 80 years, although
potentially beneficial to a property owner, will contradict the expectations
neighbors and the community.
Staff also believes that unequal application of the height limit is possible since
determining the natural profile of a site is subjective when unclear or limited
historical data is available. Finally, the administration of a system using historical
and oftentimes uncertain grades can be abused with faulty or inaccurate
information. As time goes on, the system relies more heavily upon the retention
of all surveys and grading plans so someone can use that information for a future
design.
Finally, recent occurrences have revealed an exploitable weakness in using
"existing" or "natural" grade for the purpose of measuring height. During the
process of new construction, over excavation of the land to build a foundation
essentially removes the grade used to measure height. Once this is done, staff is
wholly reliant on the survey and plan information in the construction documents
to insure a project's compliance with height limits. This has lead staff to conclude
that a system using a more permanent benchmark may be preferable.
Staff would like the Commission's support to examine different methods of
measuring and administering building and structure height. Staff would not like to
see a relaxation of height standards, unless the Community wanted it and the
Council directed it, but we would like to pursue a system that is easier to
understand and administer while meeting community expectations.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
mes Camp ell, Sen' r Planner
PO,A�(4�
Patricia L. Temple, Pla ning Director
CNRRI(S
B. BEHHUT
&
RSSOCIRTIS
�COnSULippTS
COMMUNITY
PLANNING •
ECONOMIC STUDIES
•
11
COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL SURVEYS & DESIGNS
BUILDING HEIGHTS STUDY
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
PRELIMINARY SUGGESTIONS
FOR
ADJUSTMENTS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE
SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION BY
THE CITY COUNCIL,
AND
THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 1961
3723 WIISHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES 5, CALIFORNIA • DIINKIRK 7-7227
0 STATEMENT
While no economic base study data on the probable demand for
high-rise commercial or residential development in the future
is available, it would seem reasonable to assume that the market
for such facilities in Newport Beach is somewhat limited for
several reasons.
Newport Beach is not a commercial community of the type where
such enterprises might operate in any great mober. Commercial
office buildings fall into two principal categories, nsmely,
those built for rental purposes and the others for institutional
type uses, such as large corporations intending to use the
premises exclusively for their own operation ultimately, if
• not immediately. The percentage of Institutional type buildings
In relation to those built for rental purposes is generally
minimal.
office rental space is usually provided to meet the market
demand for such facilities commensurate with space rental
charges local condition will warrant. It does not seem
conceivable, therefor, that office rental space made available
In arV large number of high-rise buildings in Newport Beach
would be an economically sound investment, considering the
rentals it would be necessary to establish in order to secure
a reasonable return, including amortisation costs, on the venture.
As Newport Beach grows and prospers, the demand for such space
• will unquestionably increase, but there is little likelyhood
n
that this new demand will generate a rash of high-rise buildings.
It can be expected, however, that there will be sane interest
on the part of hotel operators in the development of high-rise
facilities to take care of seasonal visitors to the area. The
extent to which this will generate into positive action will
depend in great part upon tourist promotion. Certainly, Newport
Beach has sufficient assets to attract visitor interest, but
the economic feasibility of providing accommodations for those
who may be attracted to the area may limit the number of high-
rise hotels it is possible to build to take care of arq unusual
demand. It would seem more logical to anticipate that two
• story motel facilities might be preferred by visitors since they
would be more in character with the general environment which
obtains in Newport Beach, and in Southern California in general.
Presently, there is considerable interest in the development
of co-op apartments for those who would like to live in such
accommodations, but prefer to own rather than lease. The
extent to which co-op apartments will become popular enough
to result in the development of wW multitude of high-rise
buildings to take care of the demand is arWbody's guess.
However, the likelyhood of a meteoric upsurge in the popularity
of this type of living with commuters or others needing housing,
means remote. Only time will tell, of course, and at the moment,
• it looks as though it will be some time before the results
are definite.
0
Consequently, despite the hazards of trying to second guess the
future, it would appear reasonable to justify assumptions on
the negative side when considering the probable number of
high-rise structures developers will want to erect in the
City. Economics, difficulty of site assembly, the competition
of low-rise buildings, and the general demand, are deterrents
to any wholesale action in high-rise building construction in
the immediate future, in our opinion.
Newport Beach, unlike Miami and Honolulu, which are chiefly
meccas for tourists from all over the ilorld, has a singular
charm, all of it's own. The interesting geography of the area
Is vertical as well as horizontal. Balboa Island is as different
from the Peninsula as Lido Isle is from the Kesa. The Back Bay
recreational area is destined to be a major playground for
Californians, as well as visitors from out of State.
Irvine Ranch plans for the ultimate development of same 90,000
nearby acres for major university, light industrial complex,
large scale shopping facilities, golf courses, and various types
of housing, mark the general was for planned growth unexcelled
anywhere in the United States.
These are all features auguring well for the future of Newport
Beach. They will accelerate growth sad prosperity. City authorities,
• therefor, should get the Community house in order to assimulate
the impending impact of increased population and all of the physical
•
development required to service the new influx of people in
the years Immediately following.
The best insurance a Community can devise in preparing itself
to cope with any eventuality arising from population growth
and development is a functionally adequate Master Plan and
Zoning Ordinance. In a fast growing area such as Southern
California, the best of Master Plans and Zoning Ordinances
have a short life and must be updated periodically to meet
changed conditions. Newport Beach has reached the cross roads
in this respect. The time has arrived when City Authorities
should take a close look at their existing Master Plan and
the complete Zoning Ordinance to evaluate their sufficiency to
serve as a guide to regulate the new growth trends which have
arisen since the Plan and Ordinance were originally prepared.
The Building Heights Study, which is the purpose of this report,
has to do with but one segment of the problem, and can only
suffice as an expedient method for the realistic processing
of high-rise buildings in a less frictional manner. The
suggestions made in respect thereto are tailored into the
present Zoning Ordinance with a minimum amount of adjustments
otherwise. Ultimately, if the City decides to overhaul the
entire ordinance, they can be more smoothly integrated with any
other changes which might be proposed.
r1
U
. WMARY or C=LUSI Ns AND sM=102S
This study has been limited to an exploration of the current
Interest on the part of Developers in securing zoning concessions
which will permit the erection of high-rise buildings for various
uses in Newport Beach.
Under the City•s zoning ordinance, the tallest buildings allowed
In arW zone, as a matter of right, cannot exosed fifty (50)
feet. This height may be increased to a maximum of seventy-five (75)
feet in the R3 - CN - Cl and I mass provided a Use Permit to
obtained in each case.
In the R4 - CO - C2 - M1 and MIA zones, buildings taller than
fifty (50) feet may be allowed through Use Permit procedure
to ww height City Authorities think is reasonable.
In the U - unclassified tone, the uses permitted, heights of
buildings, required building area and open yard spaces, are
all set forth in a Use Permit, which must be obtained before
agything can be built in a U sons,
The Use Permit procedure for processing the details of what can
or cannot be built over and beyond that which is permitted as
a matter of right in a particular zone, fa not very often used
by Cities throughout the United States. Mary authorities frown
upon this method of administering toning "regulations because it
Introduces too many uncertainties as to the real objectives of
the provisions of the ordinance. Others feel that the members
of a local Legislative body should not be obligated to assure
an administrative function so involved as that of determining
the precise heights of buildings, uses, yard spaces and other
details in cases where an applicant is seeking major adjustments
to the basic requirements of the ordinance in a particular district.
Zoning ordinances should be as positive in their meaning as
circumstances and judgment warrant. Mirror adjustments, or
variances, from the regulations, must, of course, be provided
to mitigate any hardship a strict application of the terms of
the ordinance may impose upon a particular property owner.
'• Also, certain uses because of their unusual character or operation,
which are not customarily permitted as a natter of right in
some districts, may be processed by the Use Permit procedure.
With the exception of RA - R1 - R2 - and Combining "H" - IV -
and MZ" districts, the regulations for the other districts set
,forth in the Newport Beach ordinance permit, and might even
be considered to encourage, applications for adjustments and
greater privileges under Use Permit procedure.
As growth and development action increase in the years ahead,
the number of requests for Use Permits can, and probably will,
become greater. As a result, the City Council may find that a
good deal of it's time is being devoted to the holding of public
hearings on the more controversial requests which have been
appealed to it.
Good public relations seldom result from hearings generated by
the dissent of property owners who disagree with an action taken
by the Planning Commission. While it is not possible for the
local Legislative Body to be relieved of all the public hearings
It is legally required to hold, the extent to which it is possible
to divorce it from hearings on details involving the administration
of the Zoning Ordinance, is the degree to which it can address
it's attention to the more important chore of running the
City►s Legislative and fiscal affairs.
The changes in certain sections of the ordinance which are
.
being submitted
in this report for
consideration, are related
primarily to the
High-rise building
problem now confronting the
City. If acceptable, and adopted into the present ordinance,
they would afford some relief respecting public hearings, but
not entirely.
The complete answer to a less complicated method of administering
the Zoning provisions of the City, lies in a comprehensive
overhauling of the entire ordinance. What is offered in this
report is an expedient means for dealing only with the tail
building question.
1]
01
No changes have been suggested for the following Chapters and
Districts
CHAPTER 1 "PURPOSE"
CHAPTER 2 "DISTRICTS"
RA - RI - R2 - I - U DISTRICTS IN CHAPTER 3
C0liium DISTRICTS B-H-Z IN CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 6 "PERMITS. VARIAICES AND AMENDMATS"
CHAPTER 8 "INTERPRETATION"
CHAPTER 9 "EWORCE161IT, PENALTIES AND LEGAL PR0CEDURE"
CHAPTER 10 "VALIDITY"
CHAPTER 12 "REFERENCE"
The changes which have been suggested are briefly theses
R3 District --
Permit multiple family dwelling in this sons on the basis
of 1200 square feet of lot area for each dwelling unit having
more than four habitable rooms.
1000 square fret of lot area for each dwelling unit having
four habitable rooms.
800 square feet of lot area for each dwelling unit having
less than four habitable rooms.
Permit rooming or boarding houses.
Building height - Thirty-five (35) feet only
0 Off-street Parking - As provided for in Chapter 5 of the ordinance.
R4 District --
Permit Hotels, motels and rooming or boarding houses, Community
centers, social halls, lodges and clubs as a matter of right.
permit multiple family dwellings and apartment houses on the
basis of -
800 square feet of
lot area for
each dwelling unit
having
more than four
habitable rooms.
600 square feet of
lot area for
each dwelling unit
having
four habitable
rooms.
400 square feet of
lot area for
each dwelling unit
having
less than four
habitable roams.
Hotel or Motel - 300 square feet of lot area for such guest room.
Building Height - Eighty-five (85) feet only -
Buildings over thirty-five (35) feet in height not provide
one additional foot of side yard for each story in excess
of three.
Off-street Parking - As provided for in Chapter 5.
CX District --
Building Height -- 'total floor area within a building cannot exceed
two times the buildable area of the site. Maxiaum height -
Thirty-five (35) feet.
Off-street Parking -- Buildings having a gross floor area of
1000 square feet or more must provide off-street parking at
the rate of one parking space for each 250 square feet of
said floor area.
CO District --
Building Height -- Buildings other than residential,paY have
a total floor area not exceeding five times tiieibutldsble
area of the site. Residential buildings to be governed
by the provisions of the R4 district.
• Side Yards -- A building in excess of 5 stories shall provide,
beginning with the second story, side yards of not less
than 10 percent of the width of the building site. In no
case shall map+ side yard be less than three foot in width.
Off-street Parking -- Buildings having a gross floor area in
excess of 1000 square feet to provide parking space as set
forth in Section 9104.21 - Chapter 4.
Residential buildings to conform to the requirements set
forth in Chapter 5.
Cl District --
Building Height -- Total floor area within the building not
to exceed two timew the buildable area of the site.
Thirty-five (35) feet limit in height.
Off-street Parking -- Must conform to the requirements set forth
in Section 9104.31 - Chapter 4.
C2 District --
Vass Permitted -- Hotels and Motels as a matter of right.
• Building Height -- Total floor area in building cannot exceed
five tines the buildable area of the site.
Side Yards -- A building in excess of 5 stories shall provide,
beginning vith the second story, side yards of not less
than 10 percent of the width of the building site. In no
case shall aay side yard be less than three feet in width.
Off-street Parking -- Must conform to the requirements set forth
In Section 9104.31 - Chapter 4.
M1 District --
Uses Permitted -- Residential uses eliminated.
Height Ludt -- Total floor area cannot exceed four times the
buildable area of the site.
Rear Yard -- Minimum of 10 feet when abutting an "R" District.
Off-street Parking -- Must conform to the requirements act forth
in Section 9104.31 - Chapter 4.
• MIA District --
Height Limit -- Total floor area cannot exceed four times the
buildable area of the site.
pefinitions --
Buildable was -- The ores, of a banding site, excluding ww basic
minimum side, front and rear Yard spaces required for
buildings three stories or less in height.
Height of Buildings -- The vertical distance between the highest
point of the adjacent ground elevation and the ceiling of
the top story of the building.
Room, Habitable -- Any room commonly used for living purposes,
but not including any lobby, hall, storage space, bathroom,
general util�`
E
R3 DISTRICT
CHAMED TO READ AS FOLLOWSi
SECTION 9103.3 Restricted Multiple Family Residential or R-3 District.
The following regulations shall apply in all R-3 Districts
and shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 5.
SECTION 9103.31. Uses Permitted,
(a) Single Family Dwellings
(b)
(c) Signs not over six (6) square feet in area and unlighted,
pertaining only to the sale, lease or rental of the
property upon which the sign is located.
(Section 9103.31 amended by Ord. 845, adopted April 14, 1958)
SECTION 9103.32. Uses permitted, subject to first securing a
Use Permit in each cases
• (a) Community centers, social halls, lodges, clubs,
rest homes, and motels, subject to first securing a
Use Permit in each case.
(b) Signs larger than six (6) square feet and appurtenant to
any use.
(Section 9103.32 amended by Ord. 845, adopted April 14, 1958.)
SECTION 9103.33. Accessory Uses Permitteds
(a) Accessory uses and buildings normally incidental to
acts+ of the above. This shall not be construed as
permitting any'eammereial uses or occupation other
than those specifically listed.
SECTION 9103.34. Building Height Limit:
+► (a) For main buildings -- thirty-five (35) feet.
(b) For accessory buildings -- maximum fifteen (15) feet.
(Section 9103.34 amended by Ord. 845, adopted $pril 14, 1958.)
SECTION 9103.35. Building Site Area Requireds
(a) For each building or group of buildings -- minimum of
five thousand (5,000) square feet and minimum width of
• fifty (50) feet on interior lots, minimum of six thousand
(6,000) square feet and minimum width of sixty (60) feet
on corner lots.
1
E
+� (b) For each family unit in any building or group of buildings
the minimum lot area per dwelling units shall be as follows:
1.
2.
3.
S1=10N 9103.36. Building Site Coverage Permitted -
(a) For aggregate building coverage, full coverage, less
required front, side and rear yards. (Except in combining
or "-B" districts, see Section 9104.1).
SBCTIOM 9103.37. Yards Required:
(a) Front yardss Minimum required twenty (20) feet, and
maximum permitted thirty-five (35) feet, except as may
. be otherwise indicated on the Districting Maps. Distances
shown on Districting Maps are to be measured frog front
lot lines.
(b) Side yards: Each side yard shall not be less than
three (3) feet wide on building sites forty (40) feet
wide or less, or four (4) feet on lots wider than forty (40)
feet, provided that the side yard on the rear twenty (20)
feet of the street side of a corner lot, where there is
reversed frontage, shall not be less than the front yard
required or existing on the adjacent reversed frontage.
(c) Rear yards: Minimum of ten (10) feet.
(d) Special yards and distance between buildings:
1. Distance between buildings in aW dwelling group --
miniaum eight (8) feet.
2. Side yard providing access to single row dwelling group --
minimum twelve (12) fast.
3. Inner court providing access to double row dwelling group,--
mininum twenty (20) feet.
•
SEEZDN
9103.38. 1�utomobile
Storaae
- or Parking Sgacs
(a)
Accessible storage
or space
for the parking_of
2
R4 DISTRICT
CRAVED TO READ AS FOLLOWS1
SECTION 9103.4. Multiple Residential or R-4 District
The following regulations shall apply in all R-4 Districts
and shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 5.
SECTION 9103.41. Uses Permittedt
(a) Single family dwellings, duplexes and triplexes.
(b) Multiple dwellings, apartment houses and dwelling groups.
(c) Hotels motels and rooming or boarding houses.
(d) Community centers, social halls, lodges and clubs.
(a) Signs not over twelve (12) square feet in area and
attached to the main building.
SWTION 9103.42. Uses permitted, subject to first securing a
Use Permit in each cases
• (a) Professional offices.
(b) Hotel and motel restaurants, eon -sale" liquor establishments,
and other appurtenant services and retail shops designed
primarily for the convenience of the guests of said
hotels and motels and provided that all access shall be
from a lobby, patio or court yard, and further provided
that no advertising be visible from aW street.
(Section 9103.42 amended by Ord. 845, adopted April 14, 1958.)
(c) Signs larger than twelve (12) square feet and appurtenant
to any use.
SWTION 9103.43. Accessory Uses Permitted:
(a) Accessory uses and buildings normally incidental to aW
of the above. This shall not be construed as permitting
ary commercial use or occupation other than those
"offioally permitted.
(Section 9103.43 amended by Ord. 845, adopted April 14, 1958.)
SECTION 9103.44. Building Height Limits
+► (a) For main buildings -- Eighty-five (85) feet.
• (b) For accessory buildings -- fifteen (15) feet.
3
0
SECTION 9103.45. Building Site Area Required:
(a) Sari as specified for R-3 Districts
* (b) For each family unit in av building or group of buildings
the minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be as follows:
1.
2.
3.
SECTION 9103.46. Building Site Coverage Permittedt
(a) Same as specified for R-3 Districts. .
SECTION 9103.47. Yards Requirede
(a) Front, side, rear and special yard requirements, same as
specified for R-3 Districts. Provided, however, that
SBCTION 9103.47.1. Automobile Storage - or Parking Spaces
(a)
CJ
4
CX DISTRICT
CHAJOED TO READ AS FMI MSs
SBCTMN 9103.480. Neighborhood ComWrcial or C-Y District.
The following regulations shall apply in all C-N Districts
and shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 5.
(Section 9103.480 added by Ord. 845, adopted April 14, 1958.)
sWrmH 9103.481. Uses Permitted*
(a) Professional offices, community centers, social hallo,
lodges and clubs.
(b) Retail stores and personal service establishments within
a building, including appliance stores, bakeries (not
wholesale), banks, barber shops, beauty parlors, book
stores, department stores, drug stores, food shops,
hardware stores, nurseries, offices, radio stores,
gasoline service stations, restaurants, antique *hope,
shoe shops, studios, tailor shops, and other uses which
in the opinion of the Planning Commission are of a
similar mature.
(c) One non -flashing sign appurtenant to any permitted use
and not over thirty-five (35) square feet in area for
each side (if two sides are used).
(Section 9103.481 added by Ord. 845, adopted April 14, 1958.)
SECTION 9103.482. Building Height Limits
(a)
SECTION 9103.483. Building Site Area Required*
(a) For each main building -- minimum two thousand (2,000)
square feet. iiinisim building site frontage required
twenty-five (25) feet.
(Section 9103.483 added by Ord. 845, adopted April 14, 1958.)
SECTION 9103.484. Yards Requireds
(a) Front yard « Nonws, except where the frontage in a
block is partially in an OR* District, in which case
the front yard shall be the same as required in such
PRO District.
(Section 9103,484 added by Ord. 8450 adopted April 14, 1958.)
5
SECYzoII loQ 3 485 Automobile Storage or Parking &!.asp
(a)
•
0
0
r�
L
CO DISTRICT
CHAIGED TO READ AS FOLLOWSs
SB:TION 9103.490. Limited Commercial - Multiple Residential or C-0 District.
The following regulations shall apply in all C-0 Districts
and shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 5.
SECTION 9103.491. Uses Permittedi
(a) Multiple dwellings or apartment houses, hotels, motels,
professional offices, clubs, and restaurants.
(b) Retail sales, and wholesale sales when combined with
retail sales of a similar natures storage therefor shall
be within a building, except for boats.
(c) Signs appurtenant to a:oy permitted use.
SECTION 9103.492. Uses permitted, subject to first securing a
Use Permit in each cases
(a) Light manufacturing, including repair of boats, and
other uses which in the opinion of the Planning Commission
are of a similar nature.
(b) Signs, other than those appurtenant to arW permitted use.
SECTION 9103.493. Building Height Limits
(a)
(b)
SECTION 9103.494. Building Site Area Requireds
(a) For each main building -- minimum two thousand (2,000)
square fact. Minimum building site frontage twenty-five (25) feet.
SECTION 9103.495. Yards Requirede
(a) Front Yards: None, except where the frontage in a
block is partially in an "R" District, in which case
the front yard shall be the same as required in such
"R" District.
7
11
(b) Side yardsi None, except *ore the side of a lot abuts
upon the side of a lot in an "R" District, in which
case the side yard shall be not less than three (3) fast
(c) Rear yards None, except where the rear of a lot abuts on
an "R" District, in -which case the rear yard shall be
not less than three (3) feet.
(d) Rear yard abutting on allsysa Minima ten (10) feet.
(Sections 9103.490, 9103.491, 9103.492, 9103.4939
9103.494 and 9103.495 added by Ord. 913 adopted
Feb. 23, 1960.)
S➢C?ION 9103.496. Automobile Store" - or Parkins Space
(a) Accessible sto_r_wx or space for arkia>Q automobiles
of e s ree s i"�ids�oriafi"Suiidl'T
other n se ss ns or residential use ch
have a aross r1cor area or one souare
feet or more as set fortS In t on ter
or this ordinatwe. d s es ne or residential
use eha roY s O -stret !MAC* in c0 ormance
w1th Wis = e ons of 5ection Y105.2 or c6svtar�
or MIS ordinance,
L
C1 DISTRICT
CHAMED TO READ AS FOLLOW5s
SECTION 9103.5. Light Commercial or C-1 District.
The following regulations shall apply in all C-1 Districts
and shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 5.
SECTION 9303.51. Uses Permitteds
(a) Professional offices, community centers, social halls,
lodges and clubs.
(b) Retail stores and personal service establishments within
a building, including appliance stores, bakeries
(not wholesale), banks, barber shops, beauty parlors,
book stores, department stores, drug stores, food shops,
hardware stores, nurseries, offices, radio stores,
gasoline service stations, restaurants, antique shops,
shoe shops, studios, tailor shops, and other uses which
In the opinion of the Planning Commission are of a
similar nature.
• (e) Signs appurtenant to any permitted use.
(Section 9103.51 amended by Ord. 845 adopted April 14, 1958
and Ord. 901 adopted Dec. 28, 19593
SECTION 9103.52. Uses permitted, subject to first securing a
Use Permit in each case.
(a) Animal hospitals, auto sales and repair shops, boat sales,
marine service stations, cleaning establishaents, laundries,
launderettes, mortuaries, outdoor markets, wholesale
stores, outdoor sales establishments, pet shops, public
garages, trailer courts, theatres, used car sales lots
and other uses which in the opinion of the Planning Commission
are of a similar nature.
(b) Handicraft enterprises, including the manufacturing and
repair of household furnishings, clothing, ceramics,
novelties and toys, and uses which in the opinion of the
Planning Commission are of a similar nature.
(e) Hotels, motels, boarding houses and residential uses.
(d) Signs, other than those appurtenant to any psrmitted
use, including billboards.
(Section 9103.52 amended by Ord. 845t adopted April 14, 1958
and Ord. 901 adopted Dec. 28, 1959.1
i
SECTION 9103.53. Building Height Limits
(a)
SECTION 9103.54. Building Site Area Requiredi
(a) For each main building -- minIw= two thousand (2,000)
square feet. Minimum building site frontage required
twanty-five (25) feet.
SECTION 9103.55. Yards Required:
(a) Front yards: None, except where the frontage in a
block is partially in an "R" District, in which case
the front yard shall be the same as required in such
"R■ District.
. (b) Side yards: clone, except where the side of a lot abuts
upon the side of a lot in an PRO District, in which case
the side yard shall be not less than three (3) feet.
(a) Rear yards gone, except where the rear of a lot abuts
on an "R" District, in which case the rear yard stall be
not less than three (3) feet.
(d) Rear yards abutting alisyse Minimums ten (10) feet.
(e) Yard requirements for residential uses shall be established
by use permit procedure.
(Section 9103.55 amended by Ord. 901 adopted Dec. 28, 1959.)
SECTION 9103.56. Automobile Storage - or Parking Space
(a)
\_J
D
C2 DISTRICT
CHA13ED TO READ AS FOLLOWS#
SECTION 9103.6. General CosaKreial or C-2 District.
The following regulations shall apply in all C-2 Districts
and shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 5.
SECTION 9103.60.
(a) Uses permitted in the C-2 District shall be planned,
developed and operated -in such a manner that noise,
smoke, dust, odor and waste of any kind is confined and/or
purified so as to control pollution of air, soil and
water to meet the standards or requirements of the Planning
Cosa►ission, and in such a manner to eliminate any
detrimental effect to public healths safety and welfare
and be in harmony with objectives of the planning of
this City.
(b) The Planning Comission =W designate such conditions as
It deems necessary to secure the purposes of this section
and may require such guarantees and evidence that such
co((Sectio 9103.60 addedbeing or will be by Ord.c815,iadopted.April 14, 1958.)
SECTION 9103.61. Uses Permittedt
(a) Professional offices, cogmUnity centers, social halls,
and clubs.
(b) Hotels and Motels.
(a) Wwlesale stores and storage within a building,
wholesale bakeries.
(d) The following uses when conducted within a building or
enclosed by a solid board or masonry fence at least
six (6) feet in height in each cases Creameries, bottling
works, building material yards, contractors yards, feed
and fuel yards, including machine shops, storage of
goods and materials and other uses which in the opinion
of the Planning Commission are of a similar nature.
(e) SiQns appurtenant to and permitted use.
Motion 9103.61 amended by Ord. 723, adopted May lO, 19549
and Ord. 845, adopted April 14, 1958, and Ord. No. 901
adopted December 26, 1959.)
SECTION 9103.62. Uses permitted, subject to first securing a
Use Permit in each case.
(a) Lumber yards, light manufacturing, including manufacture
and repair of boats, clothing, novelties and toys,
11
P
and uses which in the opinion of the Planning Comission
are of a similar nature.
it (b) Residential uses and trailer courts.
(0) Si no, other than those appurtenant to any permitted use.
no,
(d) of Section 9103.62 added by Ord. 723,
adopted May 10, 1954s and deleted by Ord. 831,
adopted Oct. 190 1957. Section 9103.62 asxnded by
Ord. 845, adopted April 14, 1958 and Ord. 901
adopted Dec. 280 1959.)
SECTION 9103.63. Building Height Unitt
(a)
SECTION 9103.64. Building Site Area Requireds
(a) For each main building -- minimum two thousand (2,000)
square feet. Minimum building site frontage twenty-five
• (25) feet.
SECTION 9103.65. Yards Requireds
(a) Front yards: None, except where the frontage in a block
is partially in an "R" District, in which case the front
yard shall be the some as required in such "R" District.
(b) Side yardst None, except where the side of a lot abuts
upon the side of a lot in an "R" District, in which case
the side yard shall be not less than three (3) feet,
(c) Rear yardst None, except where the rear of a lot abuts
on an "R" District, in which case the rear yard shall be
not less than ten (10) feet.
(d) Rear yards abutting on alleys: Minim= ten (10) feet.
• (a) Yard requirements for residential uses shall be established
by use permit procedure.
(Section 9103.65 amended by Ord. 901 adopted Dec. 28, 1959.)
12
SECTION 9103.66. Automobile Storage -- or Parking Space
(a) Accessible stora a or ce for the kl of
tasty es o e a rest s v as set
fortli in -section YIU4.31 - unapter 4 o s o� nos.
13
Ml DISTRICT
CRAMED TO BEAD AS FOLLOWS#
SECTION 9103.7, Manufacturing or M-1 District.
The following regulations shall apply in all M-1 Districts
and shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 5.
SECTION 9103.70.
(a) Uses permitted in the 9-1 District shall be planned,
developed and operated in such a manner that noise,
smoke, dust, odor and waste of any kind is confined
and/or purified so as to control pollution of air, soil
and water to meet the standards or requirements of the
Planning Commissions and in such a manner to sliainate
any detrimental effect to public health, safety and
welfare and be in harmony with objectives of the
planning of this city.
(b) The Planning Commission mey designate such conditions
as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this
section and may require such guarantees and evidence
• that such conditions are being or will be complied with.
(Section 9103.70 added by Ord. 845s adopted April 14) 1958.)
SECTION 9103.71. Uses Permitteds
(a) Retail and Wholesale stores or storage, including
storage of cement and lime incidental to a retail or
wholesale business, service establishments, light
Industrial and manufacturing uses and any other uses
which, in the opinion of the Planning Commission are of
similar nature, but under the same limitations and
restrictions specified in sections governing same.
(b) Suns appurtenant to any permitted use.
SECTION 9103.72. Uses Permitted subject to first securing a
Use Permit in each cases
* (Residential use eliminated)
(a) Fish smoking, curing or freesi:g.
(b) Signs, other than those appurtenant to any permitted
use, including billboards.
(Sub -section (d) of Section 9103.72 added by Ord. 723
adopted May 1019544 and deleted by Ord. 831,
adopted Oct. Us 1957.)
14
0
•
SECTION 9103.73. Uses Prohibited:
(a) Auto wrecking, fish canneries and/or reduction grinding
and processing plants$ drilling for and/or removal of
oils gas, or other hydrocarbon materials$ distillation
of bones$ dumping, disposal, incineration or reduction
of garbage, sewage, offal, dead animals or refuse, fat
rendering$ manufacture or stomps of acid, cement,
explosives, fireworks, fertiliser, glue, gypsum, lint,
plaster of paris or asphalt, stoalWard or slaughter
of animals, refining of AC,
or its produots,
smelting of iron, tin, AC, or other orss$ junk yards,
hog raising, bag manuf sture or cleaning, blast furnace
or boiler works, breweries, coke ovens, cooperage works,
incinerators, cordage mills, fouridries, tanneries, and
all other uses which in the opinion of the Planning
Commission are of similar nature or may be objectionable
as provided by Section 9103.70(a).
(Section 9103.73 amended by Ord. 845, adopted April 14, 1958.)
SECTION 9103.74. Height Limitt
(a) , ihs total floor contained in all main buildings o
a a a e- c r4t exces
our times e or
-Ma a
S=ION 9103.75. Yards Requiredt
(a) Front yardsi None, except where the frontage in a
block is partially in an "R" District, to which case the
front yard shall be the ssms as required in such "R"
District.
(b) Side yardst None, except where the side of a lot abuts
upon the aids of a lot in an "R" District, in which
case the side yard shall be not less than five (5) feet-
(c) Rear yardsi 'None, except where the rear of a lot abuts
on an "R" District, in which vase, the rear yard shall
be not less than tea (10) feet.
(d) Rear yards abutting on alleyet Minimum ten (10) feet.
(Section 9103.75 amended by Ord. 901 adopted Dec. 28, 1959.)
+► (Residential yard provisions eliminated)
1'5
0
MIA DISTRICT
SECTION 9103.9. Controlled Manufacturing District Designated as
M-1-A District.
The following regulations shall apply in all M-1-A Districts
and shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 5 of this
Article, eveept that where conflict in regulations occur,
In regulations specified in this Section shall apply.
A. M-1-A Districts may be established in areas where it
is deemed desirable to provide for limited manufacturing
facilities of a design and type which will enhance the
area and not be detrimental to surrounding property
or the City.
Uses permitted in the M-1-A District shall be planned,
developed, conducted and operated in such a manner
that noise, smoke, dust, odor and waste of a%r kind
Is confined and/or purified so as to control pollution
of air, soil or water to meet the standards or requirements
of the Planning Commission and in such a manner to
eliminate any detrimental affect to the public health,
safety and welfare and be in harmogy with the objectives
of the general planning.
B. The Planning Commission may designate such conditions
as it deems necessary to fulfill the purpose of this
section and may require such quarantee and evidence
that such conditions are being or will be complied with.
SECTION 9103.91. Uses Permittedi
Administrative and professional offices, accessory to uses
permitted in this distrieti residences for watchmen or
custodians employed on sites employees cafeterias or suditoriumei
research laboratories and institutesi electrical and electronic
products and instruments manufacturingi cartographyi
bookbinding, printing and lithogrephyi fabrication of plastic
produetsi storage warshouse, excluding inflammable materials
and truck tarminalsi editorial and designingl signs appurtenant
to any permitted use located on the property of use.
(Section 9103.91 amended by Ord. No. 901, adopted Dec. 29, 1959•)
16
SECTION 9103.92. Uses Permitted, subject to first securing a
Use Permit in each case from the Planning Commission. Said
uses must comply with the limitations and restrictions of
the M-1-A District Zones
Furniture upholsteringi furniture mansufacturingi finished
paper productsi assembling and construction paper products
with finished paper stocks garment manufacturing; boat
building within a building; laundry and dry cleaning plants;
manufacture of novelties, toys and small spplisncssl_ medical
and dental offices and clinics; other uses which in the
of the Planning Commission are comparable and similar in
character with the uses permitted in the District and which
comply with the limitations and restrictions specified in
this M-1-A Zone.
(Section 9103.92 amended by Ord. 845, adopted April 149 1958.)
SECTION 9103.93. Height Limit --
SECTION 9103.94. Building Site Area Required.
For each main building -- Minimum of 10,000 square feet.
SECTION 9103.95. Yards Required:
A. A minimum set -back of fifteen (15) feet from any street
or highway property line shall be required.
B. A front yard area adjacent to the front property line
and extending across the property from the side lines
fifteen (15) feet deep measured from the front property
line shall be provided. Said property front yard area
shall be appropriately landscaped and maintained except
for area required for walkways and driveways for ingress
and egress to the property. Said walkways and driveways
shall.not use more than 40% of this front yard area.
C. Building sites fronting on one street and having a side
property line adjacent to a side street shall provide
a yard area fifteen (15) feet wide measured from the
side property line and extending from the front property
line to the rear property line. Said side yard shall be
appropriately landscaped and maintained except for areas
required for walkways and driveways for ingress and egress
to the property. Said walkways and driveways shall not
use more than 40% of this side yard area.
17
•
•
E
D. In cases where a street or alley does not exist to
separate this zone from any other more restrictive zone,
a zone separation area ten (10) feet wide and extending
the entire distance said Bones adjoin each other shall
be provided. Said zone separation area shall be appropriately
landscaped and maintained.
SECTION 9103.96. Off Street Parking for Automobiles Required.
Off Street parking and loading on the building site shall be
required in M-1-A Districts according to the following formulas
1. A minim= of two (2) parking spaces shall be provided
for every three (3) employees on the shift having
the largest saber of employees, and not less in any
case, than one space for each 2,000 square feet of
ground or floor space area used for sales, ware-
housing, storage, msnufaeturing, processing or
related uses.
2. Location cad layout of off-street parking area shall
be approved by the Architectural Control Committee.
3. All loading and unloading operations and parking
of trucks shall be provided for and performed on
the premises.
(Section 9103.96 amended by Ord. 8451, adopted
April 14, 1958.)
SECTION 9103.97. Xanufacturing and Storage Areas.
All manufacturing and fabrication
within buildings. All equipment
shall be screened by solid walls,
plantings of not less than six (6)
SWrion 9103,98. Streets.
operations shall be conducted
and material storage areas
fences, or by adequate
feet in height.
All dedicated streets within or bordering this X-1-A sons shall
have a minimum right of way sixty (60) feet•wids. *
*(Sections 9103.9, 9103.91, 9103.92 9103.93, 9103.949
9103.951 9103.960 9103.97 and 9103.98 added by Ord 8040
adopted Elov. 13, 1956, and certain said Sections
subsequently amended by Ord. 845 and Ord. 901 as indicated.)
19
• S WESTED ADJUSTMENTS TO CHAPTER 7 - "DEFINITIONS"
SBCTIOI 9107.131 "BUILDABLE AREA"
SECTION 9107.28 "HEMHT OF BUIM. rMS"
SECTION 91107.341 "ROOM. HAt,�AB1yE"
•
•
19