My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2019-08-26 Joint SA PFA
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2019
>
AgdaPkt 2019-08-26 Joint SA PFA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/24/2020 10:00:32 AM
Creation date
8/23/2019 8:26:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Date
8/26/2019
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
464
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
8.A. - Page 38 of 85 <br />1VI0RRIS <br />ARCHITECTURE <br />HOME SIZE RESTRICTIONS — FLOOR AREA RATIO <br />Attn: City Council, Redwood City <br />Date: 08.08.19 <br />Regarding upcoming 8126119 hearing for consideration of new restrictions. <br />1 am a residential architect, based in Millbrae, and practicing architecture on the peninsula, including Redwood <br />City, for the past 16 years. Over the past 3 years, Morris Architecture has had 15 residential projects either <br />completed or currently active, which is a large percentage of our work as a small firm. As an architect, I am <br />involved with homeowners from the earliest conception of their home improvement project, through to <br />completion. I am very familiar with Redwood City zoning codes and refer to them regularly for my projects. <br />Floor Area Restriction <br />While it is common on the peninsula to have floor area restrictions, we feel that 40% of the lot area, or <br />2,500 sq. ft., is a significant and excessive reduction to the unlimited floor area allowance that has been <br />in place. In comparison to the downtown commercial density that has been encouraged recently, this <br />restriction seems out of place with the new character of the city. In comparison with neighboring cities <br />which are less `urban' than RWC, 40% FAR is less dense than every other city along the El Camino <br />corridor, which again seems out of place (see comparison below). <br />My clients on the Peninsula are regularly seeking homes with living space between 2,000 sq. ft. and 3,500 <br />sq. ft., and this new restriction would quickly render a majority of RWC properties as undesirable. An <br />average 6,000 sq. ft. lot has a max potential living space of 2,100 sq. ft. (2 car garage = 400 sq. ft.). I <br />imagine many potential development projects would be drawn elsewhere. <br />Have property values and property tax revenue been taken into account? If all homes are limited in floor <br />area, it seems that development momentum in this city will dwindle, and potential tax revenue will be <br />capped. Is this the intended result of these restrictions? <br />Notification <br />Unfortunately, we were surprised to learn of this upcoming hearing agenda only last week, through a <br />client who saw a news article. I visit the Community Development Department often, speak with peer <br />architects and countless residents and clients, and i would hope these decisions would make it my way <br />months in advance. <br />- What notification measures have been taken so far, to announce this upcoming decision? <br />www.morris-arch.corn VSillbrac. CA 1AM111 <br />314 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.