AgdaPkt 2019-08-26 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 6 of 85 DISCUSSION There are several elements of the proposed ordinance which the City Council may wish to consider. Interim vs. Permanent Ordinance — The FAR Ordinance was originally intended to be utilized on a temporary basis until the adoption of Residential Design Guidelines. Staff anticipated (and currently is initiating) a robust community engagement process to obtain community input related to future Residential Design Guidelines. Staff recommended a soft -cap approach that was intended to help address community concerns about larger remodeling or tear down projects prior to the community engagement process for Residential Design Guidelines. Because an additional level of review and findings would be required for a larger home, the soft -cap approach would operate similarly to a design review process if design guidelines were in place. While the soft -cap approach would have also required a new zoning ordinance section, it did not require many changes to other portions of the Zoning Ordinance. Establishing a hard -cap FAR would create a maximum floor area based on lot size regardless of a design review process and would be considered a permanent change, unless staff is directed by the City Council to revisit it at some point in the future. Because of the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, a hard -cap FAR would not only affect Architectural Permit applications for new homes and second story additions, but it would also affect ground floor additions and building permits applications. A ground floor addition for a single-family home does not require an Architectural Permit, but would still be subject to the required development standards, including FAR. The City Council could provide a specific timeframe to revisit the FAR Ordinance to evaluate whether it is working as intended and to amend it as needed. Proposed Exceptions to FAR - Staff and the Planning Commission recommend including exceptions to what is included in the calculation of floor area: Basements that are no more than 24 inches above average finished grade Detached structures including accessory buildings and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). This includes second story ADUs over a detached garage. Architectural features as described in Article 32.3 E (e.g. bay windows, unenclosed decks, balconies) Basements and detached structures do not contribute to the massing from the streetscape. Detached structures are typically located in the rear of the lot, while basements that are no more than 24" above average finish grade are mainly underground and not visible so neither would visually impact the neighborhood streetscape or contribute to the perception of size. In addition, if exempted from FAR, detached garages would be incentivized to promote neighborhood compatibility and ADUs for additional housing units. The same would be true of architectural features, which should be encouraged as part of the design of a home for architectural interest, articulation, and neighborhood compatibility. Proposed Hard -Cap FAR—There are multiple approaches to a hard -cap FAR, and all nearby cities approach a hard -cap FAR differently. A hard -cap creates clear expectations for applicants and neighbors, and reduces additional City review process associated with a soft -cap approach. Establishing hard -cap FAR usually requires an extensive public engagement process prior to adoption, however it may be warranted in this case with the increased development pressure. A drawback of the hard -cap FAR is the lack of flexibility: even small additions such as adding or enlarging bathrooms or extending a kitchen would be City of Redwood City 1017 Middlefield Road, Redwood City, CA. 94063 Tel: 650-780-7000 www.redwoodcity.org 282