pm_021106 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Motion carried. d. Planning File 3192: request by the city of Roseville to amend language within Sections 1006 (Business Districts) and 1007 (Shopping Center Districts) of the City Code pertaining to lot coverage, building area and floor area ratio. At the request of the Chair, Thomas Paschke discussed the background as indicated in the project report of November 6, 2002, and recommended the City eliminate the confusion among all the lot coverage requirements and makes the development process on shopping center parcels more straight forward including the following suggested improvements to the Code. a) Change the "building coverage" ratio to 30% of the developable land area within the shopping center master plan as of January 1, 2000. b) Define "developable lot area" as land upon which construction of structures or paving may occur consistent with the approved existing master plan and excepting all public road, transit, and pedestrian easements, but respecting all required setbacks. c) For the purposes of the Shopping Center District (Section 1006), define "building" as gross occupiable commercial retail and/or service, office, and/or multi-family residential area within a building, but specifically excluding parking ramps and decks. d) Allow the height of a shopping center or outlot buildings to vary based on FAR and its horizontal separation from residential districts with 2 stories allowed for any building less than 100 feet from property line with the maximum height to be 7 stories. Outlot buildings on a shopping center site should have the same setbacks as in a B-3 zone. e) Allow Floor to Area (FAR) ratios of up to 1.0. (Example1: A building that covers 30% of a 10 acre developable lot area, would be allowed 3.3 acres of building coverage or 143,750 s.f upon which (based on a FAR of 1.0) 435,600 total s.f. of building could be built, which would create a 2 t03 story building. Example 2: At Rosedale, with 72 acres of developable land area, approximately 3,136,300 s.t. of building could be built, with a maximum of 940,900 on each floor, or 3 to 4 stories of building. These examples assume that each site has adequate parking to meet the demands of the uses developed on the site.) f) A Planned Unit Development (PUD) should be required for any master plan or building or site plan expansion that increases by more than 10% over the existing master plan which consists of the improvements on the site as of January 1, 2000. Since it appears the Council has directed that more meetings and input take place, the Planning Commission should discuss how it prefers to approach this issue; what methods might be appropriate to gain public input (hearings, task forces, focus groups, surveys, etc.); how much time the Commission wishes to commit to this topic and when to start this process. Member Mulder suggested that a work group be created of two or three Planning Commission members, Council members and Planning staff, and that group be responsible for compiling a plan for the Commission to review, after which informal and formal public hearings should be held, working with the City Attorney to determine the most effective notification process whereby affected groups, ownership groups would be notified. . The work group should set a schedule with time certain to complete process. It was concluded that this would be a six to eight month process. Members Mulder, Bakeman and Peper volunteered to serve on the work group. Thomas Paschke indicated they would be researching shopping centers as well as other business districts. Member Traynor agreed with Member Mulder's approach. Member Bakeman asked if the Chamber of Commerce and property owners had been, or will be, notified. Motion: Member Mulder moved, seconded by Member Bakeman, to form a work group to compile a framework and work schedule for the formulation of a Plan, relative to the "building and lot coverage" Code interpretation and hearing process, for recommendation to the Planning Commission. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Motion carried. e. Planning File 3359: Request by the City of Roseville to consider amended text in the B-6 Business Park