pf_03192 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Tim Prinsen February 17, 2000 Page 3 have a building coverage limit allow 35% to 50% of a lot to be occupied by a building. Four cities, including Roseville, use more than one standard. My remaining comments incorporate the analysis of Roseville's SC District performance standards, and area community standards to address the seYe~ points raised above, 1. SC District Lot Coverage Non-Compliance The issue of non-compliance with the SC District 25% lot coverage standard is not a HAR MAR issue alone, City staff have apparently confirmed that none of the buildings in any of the SC Districts meet the lot coverage standard, This is not surprising, Roseville has the lowest or most restrictive lot coverage provision among the cities using this standard, Roseville's lot coverage limitation is: . 40% more restrictive than Brooklyn Park . 60% more restrictive than Coon Rapids and Chaska . 100% more restrictive than Plymouth The particular percentage used, by the City of Roseville appears to be too low to be practical. The city's Comprehensive Plan focuses on business retention and new economic development. The Comprehensive Plan "encourage(s) the development of existing and future retail shopping centers as a means of achieving maximum efficiency of land uses, . . ". The SC lot coverage limit is in direct conflict with these city goals and policies. It appears that the city's standard is simply not working and is impacting all SC District uses, 2. Floor Area Ratio vs. Lot Coverage Roseville relies on tWo density standards: FAR and lot coverage. The City of Chaska is the only other city we researched that combined these two standards. (St. Louis Park and Minnetonka combine FAR with a minimum impervious lot coverage standard), Chaska allows a 40% building coverage and a 2.0 FAR, which are considerably less restrictive than Roseville's. The only way to achieve the 0.5 FAR in Roseville and meet the 25% lot coverage restriction is with 2-story buildings. Very little retail space is constructed in the region on multiple levels. Oddly enough, the multi-story regional malls may meet a lower lot coverage standard, but they will require higher FAR standards, It appears that the City's two standards work at odds with practical development scenarios and are excessively restrictive compared to other communities. The lot coverage standard should be eliminate~.