pf_03192 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

dedications are not to be considered part of developable lot area - shrinking the lot size. 3.5 According to Section 1006, only 25% ofthe site may be built upon (building coverage), to a height of two stories above grade, and no more than 35 feet in height with a basement, and the total building square footage cannot exceed 50% of the lot area (FAR). 3.6 Given the new ordinances (2000) and the Council's definition for lot area, it has been difficult to find a universal interpretation of percent building coverage and floor area ratio (FAR) unless certain exceptions or interpretations are made. 4.0 CODE INTERPRETATIONS Staff prepared a series of calculations that demonstrate how building coverage and floor area ratios (FAR) affects all buildings within the shopping center districts. See the attached charts. 4.1 FAR: The FAR requirement would allow a shopping center to construct building square footage equal to 50% of the lot area. This means that a one-story shopping center covering the maximum of25% ofthe lot area could add an entire second level. The maximum height requirement is limited to two stories above grade or 35 feet in height above grade with a basement. (Section 1006.02.D.) When the Council adopted a new definition for land coverage, the FAR was inadvertently reduced on each site. 4.2 Coverage Irregularities: By using the City GIS system as a measurement basis (not a boundary survey from each parcel), 8 of the 10 centers currently located in shopping center districts have building coverages that exceed the 25% land coverage by 3% to 5%. Most centers are between 25% and 30% oflot coverage and 0.25 to 0.45 floor to area (FAR) ratios. In addition, it appears that some buildings exceed the height limitations. No variances have been found to explain these inconsistencies. 4.3 Parking Ramp Complexity: If parking ramps (for vehicle parking only) are added to the building coverage, 9 of 10 shopping centers become non-conforming, including Rosedale, which would preclude expansions or additional parking ramps without variances or Planned Unit development status. (Staff s opinion is that "building coverage" was meant to apply to the structures, which may contain office or retail activity but not to the unheated storage areas for cars, which may be above ground, at ground level, or below ground.) 4.4 Alternative to Clarify Code: Some methods that could be used to correct these inconsistencies include 1) variances to each building; 2) rezoning to a less restrictive zoning district; 3) rezoning each shopping center to a Planned Unit Development specific to the site; 4) changing (increasing) the numbers in the text ofthe City Code for building coverage, floor area coverage, and height. 3