CC 02-26-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 26, 2001 7 . 7. Application for a building permit must be made with the Building Inspector; and 8. Screening to be placed in front of the compactor. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). A2. Case #00-45, Semper (Walgreens), County Road E & Lexington Avenue North, Special Use Permit (SUP)/Site PlanNariancelLot Split Mr. Lynch explained that the applicant had made the following requests for the property located in the Northwest quadrant of County Road E and Lexington Avenue, zoned B-2, General Business District: 1. A lot split of the property located at 1201 County Road E creating two parcels from one; 2. A variance from Section 6 (D) #1 (b), proximity to drive-in businesses; 3. A Special Use Permit for a drive-in business in a B-2 District; and 4. A site plan review of a proposed Walgreens on the newly created parcel. Mr. Larson advised that the Planning Commission heard the applicant's request at the January 3, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. The applications were tabled, pending submission of additional information, and heard again at the February 7, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. . Mr. Lynch presented a list of past planning cases for the Holiday Inn property, located at 1201 County Road E and explained the outcome of each. Mr. Lynch then presented staffs review of the application as follows: Lot Split The applicant requested a lot split from the property located at 1201 County Road E, creating two parcels from one. The Holiday Inn remained on one parcel, splitting off a second parcel, 78,515 square feet in size, for a proposed Walgreens. The remaining Holiday Inn parcel, as proposed, was sufficient for it's parking and operating requirements. The lot split application met all of the requirements of Section 22-12 (e) of the City Code, division of platted lots of record. Variance The applicant requested a variance from Section 6 (D) #1 (b) ofthe Zoning Ordinance, proximity to drive-in businesses, 200 feet (from parcel to parcel) where 1320 feet was required. This Section of the Ordinance states that a drive-in business could not be located within 1320 feet of another drive-in business. The City Attorney had advised staff that this business did meet the definition of a "drive-in business" (Section 2, #42) since it offers a service without entering a building and there was a separate definition identifying "restaurant, fast food" (Section 2, #126). Therefore, a variance application for distance from another drive-in business was required. . The following findings of fact could be made: · The drive-in was required for the operation of the business and the property could not be put to a reasonable, approved use within the District without it; · The granting of the variance would not alter the essential character of the District;