My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03192
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3100
>
pf_03192
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 12:54:24 PM
Creation date
12/8/2004 3:58:52 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
115
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />dedications are not to be considered part of developable lot area - shrinking the lot size. <br /> <br />3.5 According to Section 1006, only 25% ofthe site may be built upon (building coverage), to a <br />height of two stories above grade, and no more than 35 feet in height with a basement, and <br />the total building square footage cannot exceed 50% of the lot area (FAR). <br /> <br />3.6 Given the new ordinances (2000) and the Council's definition for lot area, it has been <br />difficult to find a universal interpretation of percent building coverage and floor area ratio <br />(FAR) unless certain exceptions or interpretations are made. <br /> <br />4.0 CODE INTERPRETATIONS <br /> <br />Staff prepared a series of calculations that demonstrate how building coverage and floor <br />area ratios (FAR) affects all buildings within the shopping center districts. See the attached <br />charts. <br /> <br />4.1 FAR: The FAR requirement would allow a shopping center to construct building square <br />footage equal to 50% of the lot area. This means that a one-story shopping center covering <br />the maximum of25% ofthe lot area could add an entire second level. The maximum height <br />requirement is limited to two stories above grade or 35 feet in height above grade with a <br />basement. (Section 1006.02.D.) When the Council adopted a new definition for land <br />coverage, the FAR was inadvertently reduced on each site. <br /> <br />4.2 Coverage Irregularities: By using the City GIS system as a measurement basis (not a <br />boundary survey from each parcel), 8 of the 10 centers currently located in shopping center <br />districts have building coverages that exceed the 25% land coverage by 3% to 5%. Most <br />centers are between 25% and 30% oflot coverage and 0.25 to 0.45 floor to area (FAR) <br />ratios. In addition, it appears that some buildings exceed the height limitations. No variances <br />have been found to explain these inconsistencies. <br /> <br />4.3 Parking Ramp Complexity: If parking ramps (for vehicle parking only) are added to the <br />building coverage, 9 of 10 shopping centers become non-conforming, including Rosedale, <br />which would preclude expansions or additional parking ramps without variances or Planned <br />Unit development status. (Staff s opinion is that "building coverage" was meant to apply to <br />the structures, which may contain office or retail activity but not to the unheated storage <br />areas for cars, which may be above ground, at ground level, or below ground.) <br /> <br />4.4 Alternative to Clarify Code: Some methods that could be used to correct these <br />inconsistencies include 1) variances to each building; 2) rezoning to a less restrictive zoning <br />district; 3) rezoning each shopping center to a Planned Unit Development specific to the <br />site; 4) changing (increasing) the numbers in the text ofthe City Code for building coverage, <br />floor area coverage, and height. <br /> <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.