CCP 01-29-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 3, 2001 5 began serving customers throllgh drive-in prescription pick-up windows, which is what is being proposed. Therefore, staff believes that the variance request for a drive-in for a Walgreens meets the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. 3. Whether the property in question can be put to a reasonable use without granting of a variance. The property can be put to a reasonable use without the granting of a variance. The proposal for a Walgreens on the property meets all of the dimensional requirements of the lot (area, setbacks, width, etc.). However, Walgreens may choose to not build in this location if a drive-in is not permitted, as it has become an integral part of their business and a requirement to be competitive in the metro area. Therefore, althollgh the property could be put to a reasonable use without the variance, the applicant requires the variance for operation. This particular use could not operate without the variance. 4. Whether the hardship was created by the property owner. Again, the hardship on the property can not be identified as a physical hardship of the land. This hardship is being created by the applicant through the proposal to construct a facility that relies on a drive-in within 1320 feet of another drive-in facility. The hardship is not of the shape of the land or its terrain. As referred to previously, it is based on a use that was not identified in the Ordinance at its time of adoption and the requirement of this accessory use for operation ofthe business at this location. 5. Whether granting the variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. A drive-in for a drugstore has very little vehicle stacking compared to a fast-food restaurant. The addition of a drive-in for this type of facility will hardly be noticeable and will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Again, staff does not believe that it was the intent of the Ordinance to prohibit drive-ins for drugstores. Although the hardship is not a physical hardship of the land and that the hardship is at the request of the applicant, this use is accessory to the primary use on the property and will not negatively affect the neighborhood as it is proposed. Ms. Chaput indicated staff recommends approval of Planning Case #00-45, for the following applications, each contingent on the other's approval: 1. Lot split of the property at 1201 County Road E from one lot into two lots, for the following reason and with the following conditions: a) The proposal meets the minimum requirements of Section 22-12, (e) of the City Code; b) The subdivision shall be recorded with Ramsey County within sixty days of approval from the City Council; and c) Following recording with Ramsey County, the applicant will provide a final plat plus evidence ofrecording to the City of Arden Hills. 2. Variance from Section 6 (D) #1 (b), proximity to drive-in businesses, for the following reasons; a) The Zoning Ordinance was adopted without identifying this particular drive-in use and it appears, by definition, that the application does meet the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance; b) Although the property can be put to a reasonable use without this variance, it is required for the operation of the business which is a permitted use within the district; and c) The granting ofthe variance will not alter the essential character of the District.