04-18-2016 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

a structure (by filling or by a combination of filling and retaining walls)above the surrounding natural terrain shall not be allowed as a method for converting a defined story to a defined basement, regardless of any other benefits to the property of such action. Finished grade that increases more than one foot from existing ground level shall be considered as artificially raising the grade. Who says any existing grades are magically perfect in any way? Many grades can be too high or too low that are either natural or in the past man-created. As well, existing grades may be problematic given buildable areas of the site with respect to water management and run off. However, artificially raising the grade when such action merely restores a previously excavated site to its original natural grade may be used as a method for converting a defined story to a defined basement. FEEDBACK #2: I think option 1 makes the most sense. It's straight forward and easy to follow. With the height requirement just come up with something from average proposed grade to midpoint of tallest roofline to be X. You could also put in a max height limit of say 45'from lowest proposed grade to ridge. Then it's pretty straight forward. The reason I don't like option 2 is the FAR calc. Unless there's a way to get rid of any loop holes and come up with 1 way to calculate it I think it gets very confusing. The reason I say confusing is not because it's hard to figure but that it's got too many gray areas. Do you could just the floor? Not the stairs? Now where the walls are? How much of the basement if it's below grade? We've had to do it in another city and it just left too much up for interpretation. FEEDBACK #3: o tqion2 Remove the number of stories limitation. Keep height limitation as-is at 30'. Remove 15% structural footprint maximum. Establish a Floor Area Ratio limit for principal structures. a. What is included in FAR? i. Basements? YES ii. Attics, or area under a roof? NO FEEDBACK #4: I like option #1, and I think it'd make sense to revisit how building height is measured. On several lots we've designed for, the basement rule is close, or does not work. I think giving staff some latitude to determine if the house looks appropriate giving the context of the site, final grading plans, etc... would go a long way and avoid involving the council in minor issues that you and the others on staff can work through. I also think that removing the structural coverage limitation makes sense. Hardcover usually is the limiting factor on the house size. FAR makes sense, I think. But it might make sense to look at some examples where the house felt too large for the site and a FAR would have resulted in a better project/ better fit on the lot. 2