09-26-16 Work Session - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Next to an R-1 property, R-3 or R-4 or C-2 buildings are limited to 30 feet high for the first 50 feet. Next to an R-2 property, R-3 or R-4 or C-2 buildings are limited to only 35 feet high for the first 50 feet. st Thedrawings givenintheOctober 21presentationalsodo notsayanythingabout the alternative given to developers: to have the building at full height a mere 30 feet from the property line. This might not make a difference with smaller buildings, but when the maximum height gets to 90 feet (7 stories) as proposed at Cascade Manor or 90 or 120 feet (7 stories or 9 stories when including a 2-story bonus) at Woodfield Station areas, it makes a difference. To have an honest presentation, the difference between R-1 and R-3 or C-2 should also have been included, and also display the alternative transitions, all in a cross-sectional diagram like the one given. I will admit that the proposed transition seems to be much better for going from R-1 to R-2, and it should be adopted throughout the city, not just in a special area zone. \[Oh, but wait – the SW- SAZ transition does not apply between SFO and SFO-RA, and isn’t this more or less equivalent to R-1 and R-2? If so, why did they provide the example of transition between R-1 to R-2? Could it be because they were trying to make it look better than it really is, and the transition from R-1 to R-3 doesn’t look as bad? And they also don’t mention that no transition is necessary when your R-1 property located next to C-2 property is rezoned to AC and the C-2 property goes to MU – then SW-SAZ transitions do not apply here.\] Going from SFO to the new MU and AC designations, the sloped transition with regard to the building height is more or less visually the same (for a person in an R-1 house, looking over to a MU or AC). However, I personally like the sloped transitions allowed for in SW-SAZ between SFO and MU or AC, because with the sloped transition, it would give the opportunity to have terraced roof gardens instead of a flat 30 foot roof for 50 feet back. The transitions can honestly be sold on this basis. But the full height at only 30 feet back option should be nixed. This is much worse than the current transition. Page 4 of 7 9/20/2016