Laserfiche WebLink
<br />expanding the Cabinet Shop. It would serve as the first PUD "buffer" between a <br />business park and a residential area. It would also serve as the first parcel (of 6 to <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 />8. 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 RoseviHe.) <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 />2.4 The Schreier request was originally reviewed as a sketch plan at the February 1998 <br />Planning Commission. Staff was directed to work with the Schreiers regarding <br /> <br />PF#2986 - (10/14/98) - Page 3 of 9 <br />