Laserfiche WebLink
8.A. - Page 137 <br />Under this scenario a residence with a floor area of approximately 9,300 square feet <br />could be proposed, per the current development regulations in the RH zoning district. <br />The EIR also includes an alternative which provides for reduced home sizes (Alternative <br />B — The Reduced Floor Area Alternative). The Reduced Floor Area Alternative would <br />reduce the proposed maximum floor area of each dwelling within the project. This <br />alternative would calculate the maximum floor area based on a slope density formula <br />that would increase the required lot size as the slope of the lot increases. This formula <br />was developed based on research with other Bay Area cities with hillside developments, <br />as shown in Table 5.3-3 of the EIR. The maximum allowable floor area would be 40 <br />percent of the reduced lot size based on the adjusted slope density formula, with a <br />minimum floor area of 2,000 square feet (including garage). Table 5.3-4 of the EIR lists <br />the resulting maximum floor area limits for each of the lots. The applicant's proposal for <br />the average maximum floor area for the project is 3,838 square feet, while the average <br />maximum floor area for the 18 lots under the Reduced Floor Area Alternative would be <br />2,479 square feet, representing a reduction in house sizes of approximately 35 percent. <br />As shown in Appendix C of the Revised Final EIR, the average size of existing homes in <br />the area is 2,643 square feet, slightly higher than the average allowed under the <br />Reduced Floor Area Alternative. <br />Staff previously recommended in favor of approving the Reduced Floor Area Alternative <br />rather than the project as proposed. However, the City's General Plan and Zoning <br />Code only provide limited guidance for mandating reductions in home size below the <br />maximums currently permitted in the RH zoning district. Staff has thus determined not <br />to make a recommendation between adoption of the Project as proposed, the Reduced <br />Floor Area Alternative, or some other alternative in between, but is leaving it to the <br />Planning Commission's discretion to determine whether further reductions in home size <br />should be mandated as part of any approval of the present project. The following <br />discussion is presented to provide further information to the Planning Commission on <br />this question. <br />At the December 7, 2010 Planning Commission meeting staff recommended that the <br />Planning Commission consider Alternative B in the EIR with respect to allowable <br />residence sizes within the project area. At the Planning Commission meeting the <br />applicant argued that the City had allowed larger residences to be constructed within <br />this Zoning District and that constructing smaller residences would be financially <br />infeasible. More recently the City has granted a PD permit for an approximately 4,000 <br />square foot residence on Laurel Way and is considering another PD application for a <br />3,000 square foot residence on an abutting lot on Laurel Way. <br />Currently, Redwood City residential zoning districts, including the Residential Hillside <br />(RH) zoning district, do not include floor area ratio (FAR) limits. Home sizes are <br />influenced by factors such as allowable lot coverage, height, stories, and setbacks. This <br />existing regulatory framework presents both opportunities and challenges in evaluating <br />appropriate development intensity in terms of site conditions and neighborhood scale. <br />Specifics of the development regulations, such as lot coverage, focus more on the <br />objective requirements; while the more subjective architectural elements, such as <br />massing and materials choices are discussed in general terms. These subjective <br />