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

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 10 of 85 Considering the City consists of a wide variety of neighborhood types and lot sizes that make it difficult to utilize one ratio for all homes in the City, setting a maximum 0.40 FAR or 0.45 would have negative implications for smaller lots and some neighborhoods where homes already exceed these limits. In addition, lot coverage is already 0.40 in four of the six residential zoning districts and 0.60 in the two residential zoning districts. As discussed above, non -conforming homes due to FAR would have no ability to expand, even for a small addition, on either on the ground floor or second story. Alternative 3: Sliding scale based on lot size Another approach to a hard -cap FAR is a sliding scale based on lot area with highest FAR for smaller lots, and smallest FAR for larger lots. One approach could look like this: Less than 5,000 sq. ft. 0.55 5,000 — 5,999 sq. ft. 0.50 6,000 — 7,5000 sq. ft. 0.45 7,501-10,000 sq. ft. 0.40 Greater than 10,0000 sq. ft. 0.35 A sliding scale approach slightly accounts for differences in lot size, however, determining the lot size ranges would create situations where a lot that is 4,999 sq. ft. could build more than a lot at 5,000 sq. ft. Figure 1 below shows this relationship between different FAR options. 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 FIGURE 1— DIFFERENT HARD CAP FAR SCENARIOS 3,000 4,000 4,500 4,999 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 8,000 9,0000 10,000 sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. Hard -cap 0.45 Sliding scale 2,500 sq. ft. or 0.40 Alternative 4: Soft Cap: The City Council may also consider a soft -cap approach (addressed earlier in this report) City of Redwood City 1017 Middlefield Road, Redwood City, CA. 94063 Tel: 650-780-7000 www.redwoodcity.ore 286