pf_00537 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� � � September 3, 1469 CASE NO: 537s69 APPLICANT: LOCAT ION: ACTION REQUESTED: � � �handler Wilbert Vault Company Southeast corner of Highway 36 and Hamline Avenue Variance to floor area ratio P�ANN!�NG CON�IDERATIONS: 1. The property in question consists of approximately 105,800 square feet currently occupied by the Chandler Wilbert Vault Company engaged in a manufactu�e of concrete buria) vaults. This establishment is one of their earlier investments in the Village of Roseville, and though it is surroundeci by uses other than industrial, it has continued as a successful m�anufacturing operation in the village for a considerabie period of time. R�cent chc�nges to the intersection of Highway 36 and Hamline Avenue as previously approved by the vi I lage and currently under construction, have apparently necessitated some construction changes in the operation as proposed by the owner. 2. Thp owner indicates that he proposes to add a two story office and receiving dock addition measuring 15 feet by 86 feefi across part of the Haml ine side of fihe bui Iding. This addition is indicated to have its front in I ine with the present office at the northwest corner of the structure. The existing structure occupies 40,887 square feet and contains 41,901 square feet of floor area as indicated by the owner. He proposes fio adci an addition which will constitute i,29Q square feet of building area and 2,580 square feet of floor area (2 stories). The present total floor area and land area is the fraction of 4i,901 over 105,800 or .396. ,4 proposed addition wiil change the total floor area to the fraction of 44,481 square feet over 105, 800 square feet equa I I i ng a rat io of . 42. 3. The zoning ordinance requires that in the light industrial district a ratio between floor area and lot area for a one story structure shall not exceed 0.3 and that the ratio for a two story structure shal I not exceed Q.4. Obviously, these ratios were initially established in the zoning districts so as to prevent the over development of a parcel of industrial land beyond its capabilities to handle the problems of parking in normal setback. In the case of the property in question the key issue is that of adequate parking for the operation in question. The minor variance of .42 as compared to .40 is not a major consideration. The real question is one of the appropriateness of the proposed addition in relationship to the contiguous land use and the need for parking accommodation to serve the development. In view of the