Laserfiche WebLink
To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members ��`�'� <br /> Jessica Loftus, City Administrator <br /> � a <br /> From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc yF 1 <br /> � <br /> ��kfs N o��` <br /> Date: 11 May 2016 <br /> Item#7 <br /> Subject: #16-3815, Half Story Definition/Discussion of Massing Regulation <br /> Memo#2; Public Hearing (Continued) <br /> Exhibits <br /> ExhibitA. FAR comparison spreadsheet <br /> Exhibit 8. Builder Feedback(revised) <br /> Exhibit C. Draft PC Minutes from 04/18/16 <br /> Background <br /> At the April meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss the possibility of amending the City's <br /> massing regulations.Two options were discussed and the amendment was tabled;the public <br /> hearing will continue at the May 16th Planning Commission meeting. Following discussion, <br /> direction was given at the meeting to bring the discussion to the May work session for further <br /> exploration of the two suggested options,which were as follows: <br /> Option 1: Option 2: <br /> • Remove the number of stories • Remove the number of stories <br /> limitation. limitation. <br /> • Keep height limitation as it is • Keep height limitation as it is currently <br /> currently calculated at 30'. calculated at 30'. <br /> • Keep 15%structural footprint • Remove 15%structural footprint <br /> maximum (for lots under 2.0 acres). maximum. <br /> • Establish a Floor Area Ratio(FAR) <br /> limit for principal buildings. <br /> Based on Staff's analysis it appears that with the current 2%story height limit and 15% <br /> structural coverage limit the City already has the functional equivalent of a FAR of 0.39. If the <br /> goa) is to increase flexibility for design and eliminate the cumbersome half story calculation a <br /> FAR of 0.39 could be established. If the goal is to simply do away with the half story issue (i.e. <br /> "Option 1") it can be accomplished pretty easily. However it should be acknowledged that <br /> "Option 1" does not allow footprint flexibility and may/will result in more full "3 story' homes. <br /> Discussion: <br /> During the work session, staff presented a number of discussion points, outlined in bold below. <br /> Ultimately,the Planning Commission felt Option 1 best meet the goals of the ordinance. <br /> Both Options: How would small lots and lots over 2.0 acres be addressed? <br /> Utilizing a FAR approach,staff would suggest a similar breakdown to the existing code provision <br />