My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2002_1021_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2002
>
2002_1021_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 10:00:31 AM
Creation date
10/25/2010 1:49:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
253
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
3.4 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 <br />zoning district; 3) rezoning each shopping center to a Planned Unit Development <br />specific to the site; 4) changing (increasing) the numbers in the text of the City Code <br />for building coverage, floor area coverage, and height. <br />3.5 The attached chart and a diagram from the Rosedale site illustrate lot coverage, floor <br />area, and building coverage inconsistencies.. <br />4.0 WHAT OTHER COMMUNTIES HAVE DONE <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 of the building (Many cities have not considered this issue at <br />all). Samples are below: <br />Minnetonka, Mn.'s definition of "lot coverage" is as follows: Building <br />footprints; parking areas; driveways; loading, storage and trash areas and other <br />areas covered by any impervious surface. The code excludes parking ramps and <br />interior parking from the definition of "floor area" as follows: "floor area" • the <br />sum of the gross horizontal areas of several floors of a building measured from the <br />exterior wa11s excluding interior parking spaces, vehicular circulation, loading <br />areas, and accessory parking decks or ramps." <br />Blaine, Mn.'s ordinance does not have a definition for lot coverage but in the <br />sections where it applies it indicates "building coverage". Blaine's ordinance <br />would however define structured parking as a building and therefore would <br />include the parking structure within the 40% restriction. Having heard of the <br />Roseville situation, Blaine staff stated that they would suggest amending the code <br />to specifically not include parking structures. <br />Shoreview, Mn. does not have a definition nor does it directly regulate building <br />lot coverage. Building lot coverage is essentially determined by the structure <br />setbacks. Shoreview also has impervious surface coverage requirements, which <br />includes buildings. <br />Portland, Oregon's definition of "building coverage" seems to include parking <br />ramps but the percent coverage is huge by comparison to Roseville: <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 />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.