CC PACKET 08272002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

26 MEMORANDUM DATE: 08/12/02 MEETING DATE: 08/20/02 TO: Chair Melsha & Planning Commission Members FROM: Susan M.H. Hall, Assistant City Manage SUBJECT: Discuss amendment relating to the definition of"garage" and "accessory building" in relation to the FAR and to regulate the size of garages Background: This is continuation of a discussion regarding the amendment relating to the definition of "garage" and "accessory building" and to regulate the size of garages in relation to the floor area ratio (FAR) in residential districts. City staff has researched area metropolitan municipalities on the subject. Please find the report attached. In summary, staff found cities handle the "mass" issue in a number of ways. A couple of cities contacted use FAR, like St. Anthony. Arden Hills has a FAR of 30%; Roseville has a 30% FAR in R-1 and 40% FAR in R-2. Most cities contacted do not have FAR, but rather use lot coverage, setbacks, height, maximum garage square footages, to regulate building size. Lot coverage of 25-35% and building height of 25-30 feet are common among the cities surveyed. Some cities surveyed, like Golden Valley and Shoreview, have gone through a similar dialogue as St. Anthony. Generally, it was found that most cities limit the size of accessory buildings and garages. In Arden Hills, if the garage is attached it is included in the FAR. If it is detached, it is not included in the FAR and is classified as an accessory structure, which are limited to 728 square feet. In Golden Valley, Columbia Heights, and New Brighton, all accessory structures (attached and detached) cannot exceed 1,000 square feet. Robbinsdale and Hopkins have a sliding scale/ratio for garage size based on lot size or zoning. New Brighton and Robbinsdale both mentioned unique review processes. In New Brighton, all garages between 400 and 1000 square feet go through a special permit process. In Robbinsdale, most R-1 and R-2 requests go through a CUP process and in that look at coverage, design, etc. In both cases, there is more review and oversight. Most cites, when asked if they have a design review board responded "no." If cities do have something in place, it functions more like a development review committee, a subcommittee comprised mostly of city staff and in some cases, Planning Commissioners like New Hope. Many of the cities reported design review boards for commercial and multi-family zoned properties, rather than residential. One city staff in a core city commented, "How restrictive do you want to be? We're trying to encourage reinvestment and not put too many stipulations or hoops for residents." There were a couple of other cities whose staff said something similar.