pf_03192 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE: 05/07/03 ITEM NO: 7 Department Approval: DPW Item Description: Manager Approved: Agenda Section: REPORTS City of Roseville "Building and Lot Coverage" Interpretation. (PF3192) 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 On October 21,2002, the City Council directed this issue back to the Planning Commission and requested that the Commission begin a series of well publicized meetings with the St. Paul Chamber of Commerce, the affected businesses, and the properties owners within 350 feet surrounding the "SC" Shopping Center Districts. 1.2 The Council requested performance standards which are linked to the adjacent neighborhoods and have measurable impacts on the residential areas. The Council also asked for a better discussion of intensity of use including the relationships among store size, lot coverage, and traffic (the example was a 24-hour grocery store versus a furniture store). The Mayor suggested that lot coverage regulations may be obsolete, particularly with the stringent parking requirements the City has adopted. The Council sent the recommendations (5.1 through 5.6) back to the Planning Commission, removing the numbers or percentages (premature and too restrictive) within the staff and Planning Commission recommendation. See Section 7 and 8 of this report. 1.3 The staff did meet with Chamber Vice President Ellen Watters and staff. On December 9, 2002 the City received a written response that the staff recommendations were "... appropriate and accomplish the keys goals of continuing to provide for economic vitality in the city, providing flexibility for future expansion to existing shopping center owners and ensuring that existing centers are in compliance with city zoning code". The Chamber supported: 1.3.1 the 30% building coverage ratio; 1.3.2 excluding parking ramps from the building coverage issue; 1.3.3 allowing the height of a center to vary based on floor area and horizontal distance from residential districts; 1.3.4 allowing a floor to area ratio of up to 1.0 as consistent with other communities; and, 1.3.5 utilid,ng the PUD strategy for existing developments seeking to expand by more than 10% and on future shopping center developments. (Ellen Watters, 12/09/02) 1.4 Staff Recommendation: Review issues. Set hearing date. Gather public input, decide whether all or some of the items need further study, and make recommendations on each subject. 1.5 Suggested Actions: Set the hearing date. Review comments, decide which items need further study and which items can be recommended to the Council as presented (or with modifications ). 1