pf_03183 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

To: Steve Sarkozy, City Manager From: Dennis Welsch, Community Development Director Re: Methods of resolving the 25% shopping center building lot coverage issue: Date: January 19,2000 Listed below are some alternative actions that could be taken to resolve the interpretation of what "shopping center lot coverage" means. 1. Accept the existing practice of lot area calculation., with additional follow-up: . Do nothing further, because enforcing some more restrictive interpretation will make every shopping center in Roseville a non-conforming use and because by rezoning to B-3 there would be no lot coverage requirements, or . Require shopping centers to calculate and have approved by the City, its "percent lot coverage" prior to each building modification or road easement dedication, and define "lot coverage" uniquely for each center, with the maximum coverage (assume 25% or more) as they exist currently. . . Request the City Attorney and Zoning Committee to work on clarification for inclusion in new amendments later in year 2000, or . Direct the Planning Commission to study the issue and report its findings to the Council on February 14 (no hearing) . Direct the Planning Commission to hold hearings (March, 2000) to amend the Code. 2. Determine that the staff interpretation of "shopping center lot area" is incorrect and, as the Board of Appeals, change the administrative interpretation to: . "Lot area" means only the developable or usable land, excluding all road easements, or . "Lot area" means only the developable or usable land, excluding all road easements and outlots, or It "Lot area" means only the developable or usable land, excluding all road, outlots, and ponding easements. 3. Determine that the "percent lot coverage" should be increased from 25% to 35% for shopping center buildings in those areas that must comply with 24 hour service site setbacks and improvements, provided all parking and setbacks requirements can be met. This would eventually require hearings and an ordinance amending the Code. 4, Determine that the "percent lot coverage" is a meaningless statistical requirement, in that it does not address multiple story buildings or parking ramps, and direct the Planning Commission to hold hearings and report a proposal to delete this requirement from the Code (since most, if not all shopping centers are at or above the required 25% coverage) and therefore could be classified as a "pre-existing, non-conforming use" requiring Council action in order to expand or intensify.