Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff warns overlay FAR rules could force building owners into extra permits; White Palace cited as example
Summary
Planning staff cautioned that numeric overlay standards — notably floor‑area‑ratio thresholds — could push routine downtown renovations into special‑use permitting, adding cost and delay. Staff recommended re‑examining FAR and related metrics, citing the White Palace project as an example.
Planning staff told the council that some overlay numeric standards (FAR, ISR, OSR) may be too rigid for irregular downtown lots and could require otherwise routine renovations to go through special‑use permitting and public hearings. Staff argued that the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) often addresses form and aesthetic issues and suggested that redundant numeric limits could produce unnecessary regulatory burden.
As an example, staff cited the White Palace renovation: the building received BAR approval for a minor addition, but under the proposed overlay FAR (1.72) the same project would have exceeded by‑right limits (staff said the current FAR on record is about 1.86), forcing a special‑use permit and additional public hearings. Planning staff recommended re‑examining FAR numbers and considering simpler standards or master‑planning of focus areas so small‑scale renovations are not penalized.
Councilors and staff discussed how county GIS data and irregular lot shapes complicate database‑driven limits; engineering and planning staff warned the council that strict numeric thresholds create enforcement burdens and could deter rehabilitation of historic buildings. Staff proposed delaying adoption of certain overlay metrics until staff and property owners could produce refined focus‑area plans and clearer justifications for any by‑right caps.
