03-09-26-WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

F. Floor Area Ratios Floor area ratios (FARs) qualify the relationship between the size of a lot and the maximum square footage that can be built on the lot. A FAR can be written as, for instance, 0:75 to 1, 0.75 or 75. FARs are commonly used in commercial districts, like downtowns, but sometimes are applied to residential zones. For example, a FAR of 0.75 applied to a 5,000-square-foot lot would allow for a maximum of3,750 square feet of residential living space. The most common substitute for FARs is a zonewide maximum square footage for homes. FARs have advantages as a method for regulating ADUs because they provide more flexibility about the size of the ADU, whether internal, attached or detached. They also lend themselves to bonus provisions that allow forADUs or types ofADUs that achieve goals concerning housing production, affordability and the like. Many local governments do not include the area of a below ground basement in the FAR limitation. This exclusion makes sense when applied to basementADUS. In the absence of this kind of provision, the design of basement ADUs can include strange elements, like a small storage area usable only by the upstairs primary dwelling, in order to reduce the square footage of the ADU in an effort to conform to the maximum -size regulation. The Model Local ADU Ordinance does not propose provisions on the topic because of the wide variety of variations possible and potential complexity when combined with other siting standards. But readers interested in how FARs can be tailored to accommodate and promote a variety of housing types, may wish to consider the application of FARs developed through the residential infill project in Portland, Oregon (2016-2020). Portland sharply reduced the maximum size of single-family dwellings but allowed additional FAR for additional units.37 G. ADU Height Limit The maximum height of an Accessory Dwelling Unit is 25 feet or the height of the primary residence, based on the highest point of its roof compared with the lowest point of ground level at the foundation, whichever is less. Adapted from Charlottesville, Virginia, Municipal Code Sec. 34-1171.(3). H. Architectural Consistency and Design Review Concern about the consistency of detached ADUs with the design of residential architecture in the neighborhood has translated into a variety of standards and procedures. Highly discretionarystandards based on neighborhood "character" or "quality" can be serious obstacles to the construction ofADUs. Vague standards of that sort hamper homeowners and decisions -makers alike. They can become an avenue for channeling neighborhood objections to ADUs in general. In some cases, the prescriptions for particular designs and materials can also add considerably to the cost of an ADU. A better approach is to reduce key design elements to a set of objective standards governing roof pitch, window orientation and siding. In some cases, design standards only apply in certain districts or when the ADU is larger than a specified height or taller than one story. Some cities are experimenting with standardized, preapproved designs forADUs that do not require the some level of regulatory review. This approach can be used to encourage the use of designs that fit comfortably within the prevailing aesthetic of neighborhoods. As has been noted in other parts of the Model Local ADU Ordinance, with regard to design standards ADUs 39 1 HARP - Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance