Building Height Limits and Building Setbacks

[Kevin Glasheen]

The Planning and Zoning Commission has already had a hearing on building heights on December 7th and has another scheduled for January 4th at 6 pm. Our current building height limit is 35 feet, which I think is reasonable. I would support lowering the height to 30 feet like Westlake Hills. The biggest problem with our code is that the definition of “building height” includes a formula that allows new house to be built up to 45 feet were there is some slope in the lot. Many voters have expressed concern about houses that are too tall, and I think this loophole is part of the problem. I would like to see that definition of “building height” changed to make it clear that the 35 foot limit is to be measured from the adjacent natural grade. Section 22.03.279 Westlake Hills Ordinance provides: “No part of any principal structure shall rise more than the maximum height shown on the schedule of regulations… above natural ground grade or original grade directly below.” The maximum is 30 feet for residential construction. The Westlake Hills ordinance further provides: “If the average natural slope in the area directly below the foundation of the principal structure is 25% or greater, than no part of any principal structure shall rise more than 32' above natural ground grade directly below.”

Building Setback Requirements​

The building setback ordinance is supposed to keep houses setback either 10’ or 15’ from the side yards, 20’ from the back lot line and 30’ from the street. Developers have been pushing those limits with roof overhangs, balconies, swimming pools and air conditioning equipment all being placed in the setbacks. The way the current rules are being interpreted, two houses next to one another could have balconies or even roof overhangs that touch each other above the property line. The proposal to amend the setback ordinance is set to be heard at the planning and zoning hearing set for January 4th. We have not set a date for planning and zoning to consider an impervious cover ordinance, but at the next council meeting I plan to set set a date for a planning and zoning hearing on such an ordinance.

 

[Phil McDuffee]

Now that the City Council Message Board is live, I would like to communicate my current preferences before tonight's meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I will not attend the meeting because that would likely trigger a quorum violation.

With regard to height limits on residential construction, I think that a simple statement in our code along the lines of "No portion of any building may be higher than (whatever height limit we as a community settle on - likely somewhere between 30 and 35) feet above the natural grade of the land directly below it.

This is the language that we have found in several Texas cities and is simple, direct, and difficult to misinterpret. This language is usually accompanied with further regulations allowing chimneys, antennas, certain service equipment, etc. to extend a number of feet above the first limit.

 

[Kevin Glasheen]

Kevin Glasheen's Rollingwood City Council Update