PL PACKET 10152002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 4 1 are being proposed. He explained there are high bay lighting, gas fired unit heaters, 2 and very wide aisles. For this user, the rack storage system works very well. 3 4 Vice Chair Stille stated he visited the site and did not notice a retention pond. Mr. 5 White stated that would be added as part of the project. 6 7 Vice Chair Stille asked if there will be a common wall. Mr. White stated that is 8 correct and two buildings would be joined with a common wall. 9 10 Vice Chair Stille addressed the issue of finding a hardship and asked the applicant to 11 provide information about the characteristics of this site that would make it unique. 12 13 Steeves recommended they obtain an application form from City staff so they can 14 begin to work on those issues. 15 16 Mr. White noted the pie-shaped corner, which restricts the area to the north. 17 18 Thomas asked if there will be vegetation around the retainage ponds. Mr. Murlowski 19 stated there is not much space but they will be presenting a landscaping plan that 20 provides some plantings. Mr. White noted that area will also be fenced off. 21 22 Chair Melsha thanked the applicants for providing this information in advance. 23 24 Mr. Murlowski stated they also appreciate the opportunity to present these 25 preliminary plans and will submit a formal application for the September Planning 26 Commission meeting. 27 28 8.2 Review ' survey information and make recommendation to City Council re: 29 amendment to City ordinance relating to the definition of`garage" and "accessga 30 building" and to regulate the size of garages in relation to the floor area ration 31 (FAR) in residential districts. 32 Susan Hall explained this is continuation of a discussion regarding the amendment 33 relating to the definition of"garage" and "accessory building" and to regulate the size of 34 garages in relation to the floor area ratio (FAR) in residential districts. City staff has 35 researched area metropolitan municipalities, with the help of e-mail, on the subject and 36 provided that report for the Commission's review. 37 38 Hall explained the issues she researched and stated that staff found cities handle the 39 "mass" issue in a number of ways. A couple of cities contacted use FAR, like St. 40 Anthony. Arden Hills has a FAR of 30%; Roseville has a 30% FAR in R-1 and 40% 41 FAR in R-2. Most cities contacted do not have FAR, but rather use lot coverage, 42 setbacks, height, maximum garage square footages, to regulate building size. Lot 43 coverage of 25-35% and building height of 25-30 feet are common among the cities 44 surveyed. Some cities surveyed have gone through a similar dialogue as St. Anthony. 45 Hall explained that generally, it was found that most cities limit the size of accessory 46 buildings and garages in some way. 47