My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02986
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2900
>
pf_02986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 12:27:57 PM
Creation date
12/8/2004 1:57:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2986
Planning Files - Type
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Address
3090 CLEVELAND AVE N
Applicant
SCHREIER, JIM AND DEB
PIN
042923220008
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.
/
386
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
<br />8) that could be converted from a single family use to a business use, but with strict <br />development criteria. This change would also improve the business marketability <br />of the other parcels from County Road D to Brenner. <br /> <br />2.3 Since the use is a non-conforming use, the City Code does not allow for expansion <br />or intensification. The following alternative Comprehensive Plan and City Code <br />solutions have been evaluated: <br /> <br />A. In all cases, the Comprehensive Plan map would need to be amended from <br />low density residential to business. Normally this is done for "blocks" or areas <br />of the community, rarely for a single parcel. <br /> <br />B. The south parcel could be uniquely rezoned from "R-1" to "1-1". This would <br />be considered a "spot rezoning", a procedure which is not supported in the <br />City Comprehensive Plan, <br /> <br />C. The zoning code text could be changed to allow the expansion of non- <br />conforming uses in residential districts, This approach would have to be <br />applied to all non-conforming properties in the community and would <br />jeopardize other residential properties. <br /> <br />D. Is a variance appropriate? As currently configured on the site, the structure <br />and/or parking are considered pre-existing, non-conforming uses. Under <br />Minnesota law, a "use" variance cannot be granted to allow the expansion <br />of the use. <br /> <br />E. Alternative sites could be evaluated and the cabinet manufacturing activities <br />could be moved to a land use zone which allows light manufacturing and <br />warehousing. (This alternative has been reviewed by the applicant and staff, <br />but no suitable site was available in Roseville.) <br /> <br />F. The applicant could split the uses, allowing the office and showroom to <br />remain in the existing building, while moving the manufacturing to a larger, <br />properly zoned site, (This alternative has been reviewed by the applicant and <br />staff, but no suitable site was available in Roseville.) <br /> <br />G. The applicant could apply for rezoning through a Planned Unit Development. <br />This is a standard approach in the City of Roseville when completing <br />redevelopment projects because it allows the applicant and the city to specify <br />uses, dimensions, and design and materials, <br /> <br />PF#2986 - (10/26/98) - Page 3 of 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.