pf_03192 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

a boundary survey ITom each parcel), 8 of the 10 centers currently located in shopping center districts have building coverages that exceed the 25% land coverage by 3% to 5%. Most centers are between 25% and 30% oflot coverage and 0.25 to 0.45 floor to area (FAR) ratios. In addition, it appears that some buildings exceed the height limitations. No variances have been found to explain these inconsistencies. 3.3 Parking Ramp Complexity: If parking ramps (for vehicle parking only) are added to the building coverage, 9 of 10 shopping centers become non-confonning, including Rosedale, which would preclude expansions or additional parking ramps without variances or Planned Unit development status. (Staffs opinion is that "building coverage" was meant to apply to the structures, which may contain office or retail activity but not to the unheated storage areas for cars, which may be above ground, at ground level, or below ground.) 3.4 Alternative to Clarify Code: Some methods that could be used to correct these inconsistencies include 1) variances to each building; 2) rezoning to a less restrictive zoning district; 3) rezoning each shopping center to a Planned Unit Development specific to the site; 4) changing (increasing) the numbers in the text ofthe City Code for building coverage, floor area coverage, and height. 4.0 WHAT OTHER COMMUNTIES HAVE DONE Planning staff did research on a number of communities, both within the metro area and outside the area. After review of some of the research, it was apparent that there is no consistent tenn or definition for "lot coverage" and "building coverage"; nor whether an unheated parking ramp is part ofthe building (Many cities have not considered this issue at all). Samples are below: Minnetonka, Mn.'s definition of "lot coverage" is as follows: Building footprints; parking areas; driveways; loading, storage and trash areas and other areas covered by any impervious surface. The code excludes parking ramps and interior parking ITom the definition of "floor area" as follows: "floor area" - the sum of the gross horizontal areas of several floors of a building measured ITom the exterior walls excluding interior parking spaces, vehicular circulation, loading areas, and accessory parking decks or ramps." Blaine, Mn.'s ordinance does not have a definition for lot coverage but in the sections where it applies it indicates "building coverage". Blaine's ordinance would however define structured parking as a building and therefore would include the parking structure within the 40% restriction. Having heard of the Roseville situation, Blaine staff stated that they would suggest amending the code to specifically not include parking structures. Shoreview, Mn. does not have a definition nor does it directly regulate building lot coverage. Building lot coverage is essentially detennined by the structure 3