The planning Dept. here in San Rafael, CA defines building height as “measured vertically from the existing grade to the uppermost point of the roof edge, wall parapet, mansard or other feature perpendicular to that grade”. Does anyone know how to define “roof edge” and “existing grade”?
Thanks for your help!
A sleek, modern redesign maximizes space and light while preserving the building's historical charm.
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.
Start Free Trial NowGet instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.
Start Free Trial Now
Replies
You're probably better off asking your local building department. It doesn't matter what anyone around here thinks if they have their own way of determining those things
"The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and the will to carry on." [Walter Lippman, "Roosevelt Has Gone"]
Boss is right, you'll have to have them interpret that one for you. That is terrible language, apparently written by someone unfamiliar with building shapes. For instance, a Mansard roof is not perpendicular to the ground or floors.
I have worked on our local language for this item. our larger problem was in regards to the point of the ground to take off from since there are many sloping properties, and where that applies when an addition is made. Interpretation often hinges on the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
Excellence is its own reward!
> That is terrible language
It sure is. By that language, the height of the Luxor Hotel in Las Vegas would be zero because none of the exterior surface is perpendicular to grade. Great news for the dome builders, though. ;-)
Here they deal with the slope problem by saying that you measure from the lowest point within 5 ft. of the building, and they also prohibit building a retaining wall and grading to fudge that point upward.
-- J.S.
The only problem that I have with the language is "existing grade". That is OK if the lot is perfectly level.
But other than that it is OK.
What it says it to measure vertically from the "existing grade" to the hightes point on anything that could be called a roof. It excludes chaimmyes and vents.
In Venice Calif., builder try to sneak in all sorts of funny things to defy the "spirit of the law".
To over come "adjacent grade" they built up sideyard planters.
If 3 stories were max, the would install lofts at each floor to get six stories.
Some would install extra heavy ceiling joist in the top story with attic space.
There would be "Kosher" (2nd kitchens) in non-Jewish place.
Would the safe statement to be no higher or bigger than neighbors on your side of the block, within 500'?
The grammar of the language limnites it to those roof parts and structure elements that are perpendicular to the grade. There are no roofs that I am aware of that meet that description. I see what you are saying and it might be that this is the intent of that proscription but it is not what the language says, as quoted..
Excellence is its own reward!
Here, they take zero elevation from the median - meaning halfway between highest and lowest ground at point of intersecting foundation. The elevation is total to peak of roof and not counting chimneys. The primary purposes are
A> to avoid infringing on views for neighbors or creating an atypical skyline along the scenic shore.
B> to keep living areas at an elevation the fire dept is equiped for fighting fires and saving human life.
There was a unique structure that requiored som modification when it ran into one of these. A lady was building with a "turret" attached that was really more like a bell tower she intended to rise into (like Babylon) and meditate with the birds. The peak of the roof was spired at about 44' where the limit allowed was 38' Since it didn't impnge on anyones scenic sensibilities, a compromise was reached whereby she structured it in such a way that no human could ever possibly dwell under the upper roof so the fire dept could alwayus rescue her if the "meditations" got too hot.
"Rapunzle, Rapunzle, Let down your hair...".
Excellence is its own reward!
A pessimist might suggest finding the highest point on the site, and extrapolating the highest thing on the plans, and assume you need to be at least 12" lower than the mandated height.
Where it gets dicey is when the design has taken height restrictions into consideration. A good designer will want to put any height restrictions on the plan elevations, just so the PC can see them (and that the structure does not violate them).
If it gets to the stage of being built, and the inspector thinks you are over, the measurements will be taken from what is actually there, a ridge, the tip of a gable, whatever. Good drawings (or a few more drawings) up front can help avoid the "hey, stop, that's too tall" hiccup in the middle of construction.
This can work to your advantage. I had a project were a sign could not be higher that 38' above grade. We wanted the sign on the parapet wall that was 42' above grade at the building, but an existing berm on the property was 6' above the grade at the building. The inspector showed up with a transit and we told him the berm was existing. The sign passed inspection
A lot of areas define "grade" as taken five feet away from the foundation. So you can't plaster some dirt up against the stemwall to buy yourself a foot; you have to fill five feet out.
I'm running into similar BS in Durango, CO. Height limit is supposed to be 35 feet from the lowest exposed part of the building to the highest. Problem is, I'm building on a city lot that's only 70' wide, and the rear corner of the foundation footpring is 24' below the driveway. So I have to build up 24' to get to the street, and then I'm only allowed 11 more feet before I hit the limit.
I ended up with a small footprint, 3-story design, and I'm definitely pressing the limit, and that's going with all flat roofs, five of 'em. City won't budge though. Makes no difference that there aren't but a few flat lots left. They'd reather have you butcher your design or the landscape to make you house fit their formula.
Formerly BEMW at The High Desert Group LLC
One "getaround" that's allowed here is to show that you have a chimney or other venting stack that just has to be placed at the highest point of the roof. I plan to go the extra mile with a fart fan vent and some plumbing drain vents to get them into the highest portion of my design. Mind you, my intention is not to go against their rule just for giggles; given the terrain of the lot, it just allows me to put the best possible design on it with the least amount of subterfuge.
Formerly BEMW at The High Desert Group LLC
Reference whatever building code your jurisdiction has adopted and if there is any Land Development Code in effect as they might contain some exemptions like ours does. Cupolas, chimneys, parapets, etc. are often not included in the measurement of overall height.
Mike
I think the definition is pretty straightforward; I am further south of you down on the Peninsula. You may have to adjust your foof pitch to accommodate your City or country (Marin I take it) spec's, no biggie. Also, many municipalities do rely on averages, especially on sloped lots--this your City should let you know for sure.
I like the reference to "existing grade". So, can you determine your building height, and THEN change the grade by 5, 10 or 50 ft??? At what point in time is "existing grade" defined??
Penny, well for me "existing grade" was in my topo and plot plan that was also submitted to the City; also, elevations in the plans clearly showed existing grade. Plus, the surveyor via my engineer had to sign off on elevations prior to grade-beam pour. I suppose he would have "fudged" if need be--as long as the City has a signature they don't really question it. If a neighbor really knew his or her $hit though, they could make a problem for you. I do have nine-foot ceilings; I suppose if I got in a snag, I could have had eight-foot ceilings framed.
Further, existing grade is pretty paramount to a grader as they are bidding on what is there, not moving earth around, compacting it to change grade, and then grading again. I suppose you could pay $10,000 or more in changing grade, but then how would that affect the neighboring slope of lots next door? No problem out in the countryside, but on my project and perhaps the project of the orginal poster here, neighbors and buildings are right next door. Of course you could lower the grade, but then one is more than likely dealing with drainage issues for both the project and again, the neighbors.