Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #2195 <br />January 16, 1997 <br />Page 4 <br />Sales Operation and Intensiflcation of Site Uses <br />Boat sales is a permitted use in the B-2 zone, and has been since 1975. The 1989 parking lot <br />expansion for this site was approved based on no retail sales occurring at the site. The expansion <br />of parking to serve the currently proposed new retail sales use requires a number of variances. It is <br />staffs position that parking lot expansion would be required if applicants were to merely remodel <br />the existing building and commence a retail sales operation. <br />Planning Commission should carefully weigh the intent of the code and applicants' analysis of <br />parking needs, including whether expansion of the parking lot should occur at a 3-stall or 10-staIl <br />level. Consideration should also be given to the potential enhancements to the site as well as to its <br />operation as a result of this application. A new smaller building with more conforming setbacks and <br />a more effective storm water control system, as well as the provision of sanitary facilities for all <br />users of the site, are all positive improvements to the property. Yet, Planning Commission has raised <br />the concern that providing additional parking spaces could lead to an intensificatioii of yse of the <br />site. Certainly, it could be argued that if 10 additional parking spaces are provided and then the retail <br />opei^tion disappears again, the property owner might use the enhanced parking as justification for <br />expanding the number of slips. We cannot predict what the current or future owners of the property <br />will do in the future. We can assume, however, that access to Lake Minnetonka will become more <br />dear as the population of the metropolitan area increases. <br />Issues for Discussion <br />1.Are the lot depth and lot arei variances justified by the historic and current use of this <br />property as a marina? <br />Does the extremely nonconforming location of the existing building provide suffici«< <br />hardship justification to allow its replacement with a building that will be more conforming <br />in location, even though variances are still required? <br />Does Planning Commission have a concern regarding the use of green space between the <br />new building and the lake, for boat display purposes? If this is a concern, how would the <br />placement of those boats in required automobile parking stalls impact the site? <br />4.Is there any justification for granting a variance to the required number of parking stalls? <br />Does Planning Commission agree with applicants' analysis of the parking code <br />requirements? Sh.ould applicants be required to increase the parking lot by 3 stalls, by 10 <br />stalls, or not at all? Does Planning Commission acknowledge the continued variance for <br />parking stalls across the County Road from a portion of ihe slips they serve? <br />I