CCP 01-29-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 3, 2001 4 parcels from one; a variance from Section 6 (D) #1 (b), proximity to drive-in businesses; a Special Use Permit for a drive-in business in a B-2 District; and site plan review of a proposed . Walgreens on the newly created parcel. She stated each application is contingent on the other, which is why they are a part of one planning case. Ms. Chaput indicated the applicant met with staff to discuss plans for construction on the Holiday Inn site, 1201 County Road E, in early fall, 2000. She explained the Holiday Inn currently operates on the entire parcel, under utilizing the eastern portion of the site. Ms. Chaput noted the applicant is proposing to build a Walgreens store on the corner of County Road E and Lexington Avenue, requiring the subdivision of the parcel into two separate parcels. Ms. Chaput reported while reviewing the required applications with the applicant for a lot split and site plan review, drive-in businesses were found to require a special use permit and a section of the code was identified that drive-in facilities were not permitted within 1320 feet of another drive-in. She indicated the language of the Zoning Ordinance was discussed with the City Attorney and it was determined that the language did apply to any type of drive-in, not just fast food facilities. Ms. Chaput continued by stated the application for a variance from this section was made in conjunction with the other applications. Ms. Chaput noted in order to grant a variance, a hardship must be identified, as defined by the City and State criteria. She stated the applicant has responded to the hardship in this case in Exhibit C, since the Zoning Ordinance, in Section 6 (D) #1 (b) states that a drive-in business can not be located within 1320 feet of another drive-in business, a variance application is required. Ms. Chaput explained the definition of a drive-in business, Section 2 #42, does not specifically . address a drive-in for a pharmacy but does mention other businesses that may be similar. She stated for this application for a variance for proximity to other drive-in businesses, staff can make the following findings: ]. Whether the circumstances for which the variance is requested are unique to the property. The circumstance in question (the need for a drive-in) is not unique to this particular property. There are a number of properties within 1320 feet of this property that have drive- ins (i.e. TCF, Wells Fargo, McDonald's). It is not a physical hardship of the property that is requiring the need for a variance (nor specifically dimensional) but more related to the use. Typically, a use can not be varied from the ordinance but this is a use accessory to the principal use and the City Attorney has advised staff that this is the best way to proceed with this request. The request is driven by the need for this type of business to have a drive-in window to be competitive which is, essentially, an economic hardship. State Statutes clearly state that economics can not be identified as a hardship in a variance case. However, the type of drive-in business that is being proposed is not specifically listed in the definition of a "drive-in business" and may not have been identified when the Ordinance was written, since it is fairly new to drugstores. 2. Whether granting the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning Code. The Ordinance appears to be more concerned with fast-food restaurants with drive-in facilities rather than less used drive-in businesses. Although "drugstores" are mentioned . within the definition of "drive-in businesses", they are only mentioned with reference to take home food services which are permitted. Staff does not believe that the intent of the Ordinance was to deter drugstores in this area or to include them within the "drive-in businesses" definition. Again, this Ordinance was written and adopted before drugstores