Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Height topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues proposed switch from feet to ‘stories’ for building-height limits
Summary
After extended discussion and developers’ objections, the Planning Commission continued consideration of a land‑use amendment that would measure maximum building height by stories instead of feet and would add a ‘half‑story’ definition and other rules.
The Timnath Planning Commission continued action on a proposal to change how building height is measured — shifting from numeric feet to counting stories and a related set of definitions for residential and nonresidential buildings.
Why it matters: Staff told the commission the stories-based approach is intended to make height limits more intuitive and to align land-use language with building-code references to “stories.” The draft establishes numeric maximums for a defined residential story (a conservative maximum of 12 ft 8 in per story) and a “half‑story” option for sloped-roof attic living space, and proposes exceptions in the RC (regional commercial) zone to accommodate single‑story tall retail (for example, grocery, big‑box or warehouse stores).
What commissioners and developers said: Troy Jones (planning staff) summarized the approach as “an attempt to substitute what we've had always measured building height in feet with, now measuring its stories.” Several developers said the draft, as written, would prevent or complicate prototypical commercial and entertainment buildings (single‑story theaters, big‑box retailers, fitness centers) because many retail and entertainment prototypes include tall first floors or high clearances that do not translate neatly into the proposed story scheme. Multiple commenters urged staff to rework the RC exceptions or to continue the item so staff could refine wording.
Action: The commission voted to continue the item so staff can revise the language and return with clearer draft language and examples. Commissioners requested clearer examples for how the new definitions would apply to typical retail, hotel and entertainment prototypes and asked staff to clarify interactions with the building-code (IBC/IRC) and with existing PD overlays such as Ladera’s.
Quotes “Troy Jones (planning staff): ‘This next code revision is an attempt to substitute what we've had always measured building height in feet with, now measuring its stories.’”
Ending: Staff agreed to revise the draft — including clearer examples, cross‑references to building-code practice, and language for RC exceptions — and return to the commission at a later meeting; the commission continued the item without setting a date certain.
