pf_03427 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

2.4 According to Section 1006, a developer can construct building square footage covering 25% of the site, to a height of2 stories above grade, and no more than 35 feet in height and the total building square footage cannot exceed 0.5% of the lot area. 2.5 Given the new ordinances (2000) and Council interpretation, it has been difficult to find a universal interpretation of percent building coverage and floor area ratio (FAR) unless certain exceptions are made. 3.0 CODE INTERPRETATIONS Staff prepared a series of calculations that demonstrate how building coverage and floor area ratios impact all buildings within the shopping center districts. See the attached charts. 3.1 The FAR requirement would allow a shopping center to construct building square footage up to 50% of the lot area. This means that a one-story shopping center covering the maximum of25% of the lot area could add an entire second level. The maximum height requirement is limited to 2 stories above grade or 35 feet in height above grade. (Section 1006.02.D.) 3.2 In a snapshot, what the staff found was that, using the City GIS system as a measurement basis (not a boundary survey from each parcel), 8 of the 10 centers currently located in districts have building areas that exceed either the 25% land coverage by 3% to 5%. Most centers are between 25% and 30% oflot coverage and 25% to 45% floor to area (FAR) ratios. In addition, it appears that some buildings exceed the height limitations. No variances have been found for these inconsistencies. 3.3 Ifparking 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. (Staffs opinion is that "building coverage" was meant to apply to the structures, which contain office or retail activity, not to the unheated storage areas for cars, which may be above ground, at ground level, or below ground.) 3.4 Alternatives: Some methods that could be used to correct these inconsistencies could include variances to each building; rezoning to a less restrictive zoning district; rezoning each shopping center to a Planned Unit Development specific to the site; changing (increasing) the text of the City Code for building coverage, floor area coverage, and height. 3.5 The attached chart and a diagram from the Rosedale site illustrate part of the dilemma. Next page 2