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 />5.0 WHAT OTHER COMMUNTIES HAVE DONE <br /> <br />Planning staff did research on a number of communities, both within the metro area and <br />outside the area. After review of some of the research, it was apparent that there is no <br />consistent term or definition for "lot coverage" and "building coverage"; nor whether an <br />unheated parking ramp is part ofthe building (Many cities have not considered this issue at <br />all). Samples are below: <br /> <br />5.1 Minnetonka, Mn.: Definition of "lot coverage" is as follows: Building footprints; <br />parking areas; driveways; loading, storage and trash areas and other areas covered by <br />any impervious surface. The code excludes parking ramps and interior parking from <br />the definition of "floor area" as follows: "floor area" - the sum of the gross horizontal <br />areas of several floors of a building measured from the exterior walls excluding <br />interior parking spaces, vehicular circulation, loading areas, and accessory parking <br />decks or ramps. " <br /> <br />5.2 Blaine, Mn.: Ordinance does not have a definition for lot coverage but in the <br />sections where it applies it indicates "building coverage". Blaine's ordinance would <br />however define structured parking as a building and therefore would include the <br />parking structure within the 40% restriction. Having heard of the Roseville situation, <br />Blaine staff stated that they would suggest amending the code to specifically not <br />include parking structures. <br /> <br />5.3 Shoreview, Mn. : Does not have a definition nor does it directly regulate building lot <br />coverage. Building lot coverage is essentially determined by the structure setbacks. <br />Shoreview also has impervious surface coverage requirements, which includes <br />buildings. <br /> <br />5.4 Portland, Oregon: Definition of "building coverage" seems to include parking <br />ramps but the percent coverage is huge by comparison to Roseville: <br /> <br />"The area that is covered by buildings or other roofed structures, including eaves. <br />A roofed structure includes any structure more than 6 feet above grade at any <br />point, and that provides an impervious cover over what is below. Building <br />coverage also includes uncovered horizontal structures such as decks, stairways <br />and entry bridges that are more than 6 feet above grade." <br /> <br />Maximum building coverage standards range from 50% to 85% for various <br />commercial zones, with no maximum for "central commercial".The area under <br />parking canopies and parking structures shall not be included in site-building <br />(lot) coverage calculations in a commercial and industrial district. <br /> <br />5.5 Bellingham,Wa.: Freeway Development District requirements- <br /> <br />Building coverage shall not exceed 30 percent of the site plus for industrial use <br />one percent for each acre of site over ten acres up to a maximum of 40 percent <br />coverage. However, a parking structure or the portion of any structure used for <br />parking shall not be counted as building floor area or structure coverage for the <br /> <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.