3A Public Hearing 2007 0116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Drafi Minlltes Excerpt - Joint Board/Planning Commission Work Session October /9, 2006 2 . Compatibility with the neighborhood - may call for establisbing a FAR limit to limit the size and scalc of homes. To give Boardmembers and Commissioners an idea of how PAR standards might apply, Ms. Pollart prepared another chart that showed, for example, tbat on a 6,000 square-loot lot, a 3S% FAR standard might allow a home with livable area of 2, 100 square feet, while a sm-;) fAR standard would bump allowable square footage up to 3,000. The Planning staIr also came up with a range of FAR standard recommendations for consideration, based on lot size and zoning district. For the RS, RS- 40, RS-VP and RD Districts, for example, the recommended FAR for lots 01' less than S,OOO square feet is 500;{), Cor 2,SOO square feet of living space, plus 400 square feet for a garage. POl' an 8,000 square-foot RO district lot, the recommended SO% FAR would allow construction of a home with 4,000 square feet of living space with an additional SOO square Ceet for a garage. Staff used a "graduated" formula to develop recommendations for larger lots, so that the S()lYO FAR applies to the first 5,000 square feet of tbe lot, with fAR dropping to 30% for the next 5,000 square feet. If the lot exceeds 10,000 square feet, the FAR [ails to 10% for that portion of the lot in excess of 10,000 square feet. . Privacy and shade impacts - FAR standards might be established to address the issue of second-story step-backs, or such step-backs could be codified separately. Other potential standards may result from the creation of "daylight plane" requirements such as those that cun-cntly require cOlllmercial developments to be angled back to prevent them from looming over any adjacent residential properties. . Off-street parking - Concell1s over this issue have been made at recent public meetings before the Planning Commission, the Board of Zoning Adjustments and the City Council alike. Among the potential options to address this issue is increasing off-street parking requirements (not necessarily covered) for homes with five or more bedrooms. The Planning stafr's next step is to develop proposed zoning code amendments based on Commissioners' input. Commissioner Kleehauer addressed the parking issue by noting that in some areas, such as downtown, the City is focusing on transit-oriented housing developments to discourage use of private vehicles. She expressed concell1 that increased parking requirelllents for large homes not be citywide, lest it not runs counter to that focus. Commissioner D1ugosh added that the City needs a more aggressive fOn11Ula to ensure provision for sufficient off-street parking for large dwellings, whether the formula derives from square footage or number of bedrooms. Also agreeing with Commissioner Kleebauer's point, he indicated that the solution would need llexibility built-in to support the public transit focus rather than detract from it. Planning Manager Poll art pointed out that future downtown infill development would likely be a multi-family project, whereas the parking requirements under discussion would apply specifically to single-family homes.