Q&A
Clarification of unit number changes between zoning options
0:38:15
·
122 sec
David Rosenberg explains the differences in floor area ratios (FAR) and unit numbers between various zoning options. He clarifies the changes from R6A to R7A and from R7A to R7D, including the impact of the proposed solar plane.
- R6A (as-of-right): 3.0 FAR
- R7A (with City of Yes): 5.01 FAR
- R7D: 5.6 FAR, but capped at about 5.35 due to solar plane
- Significant increase from R6A to R7A, smaller increase from R7A to R7D
- City of Yes could increase R6A height to 95 feet with 20% affordable housing at 60% AMI
David Rosenberg
0:38:15
Yes.
0:38:16
Yeah.
William Wallace IV
0:38:16
I think I think one minute, David.
0:38:18
I think you might be confusing apples and oranges.
Crystal Hudson
0:38:21
No.
0:38:21
I understand that it there wouldn't be affordability Yeah.
0:38:24
Included.
0:38:24
But I'm that's what I'm hoping you can explain you a little bit.
David Rosenberg
0:38:27
And so just walking through the floor area, the r 6a, as of right, because there's no mandatory inclusionary housing that is mapped, Under current zoning, the maximum floor area the maximum f a r is 3.0.
0:38:41
With r 7 a, and these numbers assume city of yes, which is how city planning calculated it, The maximum SAR for R7a is 5.01.
0:38:51
So that is a 67% increase in floor area between the R6a and the R7a.
0:38:59
Because you're going from 3 to 5.01.
0:39:02
And between r 7 a and r 70, you're going from 5.01 to 5.6, where and even with the 5.6, because of the solar plane that's proposed as part of the 15 degree angle in the text amendment, you can't actually max out the site at 5.6.
0:39:19
You actually cap out at about 5.35.
0:39:22
So that's why there's a relatively small gap between our 70 and our 7a and then such a big drop off once you go from R7a to the next low to the next zoning district, which is R6a.
Crystal Hudson
0:39:33
Okay.
0:39:34
Thank you.
0:39:39
Sorry to spare with me.
0:39:44
Okay.
0:39:45
So under r 6a, city of yes would increase the height from 70 feet to 95 feet, but only if 20% of the building is 60% AMI.
0:39:56
Correct?
David Rosenberg
0:39:56
Yes.
0:39:57
As currently proposed, the universal affordability preference would allow the building to come up, which would raise the total height of the building in the back to about a 130 feet, which is substantially higher than both what we proposed as the R8A, but it'll even right and certainly what is now in front of the council with R7D.
