HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 07-30 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
STUDY SESSION
JULY 30, 1981
1 . Call to order: . 7:30 P.M.
2. Roll Call
. 3. Approval of Minutes: July 16, 1981 .
4. Chairman's Explanation: The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One
of the Commission's functions is to hold public
hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings,
the Commission makes recommendations to the City
Council - The City Council makes all final decisions
in these matters.
81050
5. Swenson's Ethan Allen Galleries
Request for a variance from Section 34-140:3A(2)(a) to allow a
canopy sign in addition to a freestanding identification sign at
2300 Freeway Boulevard.
6. Blumentals 'Architecture
81051
Request for site and building plan approval
Earle Srown remodel
Farmthe
for
existing horsebarn and hippodrome on
a speculative office/warehouse.
'81041
7. Summit Mortgage Corporation .
Site and building plan for relocation of existing buildings on
the Earle Brown Farm into a more compact complex.
81052
• 8. Dominion Development royal to construct a
Request for site and building plan app
62,621 sq. ft. retail shopping center at the southwest corner
of Earle Brown Drive and Summit Drive.
9. ShowBiz Pizza Place, Inc
81053
Request for site and building plan and special use permit approval
to construct a 240 seat restaurant and game room on the south side
of John Martin Drive between Burger Brothers and State Farm
Insurance.
10. ShowBiz Pizza Place, .Inc.
81054
Appeal from the determination of the Planning Director that
additional land for
videdparking
for the 10a350osq.the
ft.r estaurant
formula must be pro ShowBiz Pizza
Restaurant.
11 . Other Business
12. Discussion Items
13. Adjournment
1
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 81050
Applicant: Swenson'.s Ethan Allen Galleries
Location: 2300 Freeway Boulevard
Request: Sign Ordinance Variance
The applicant is seeking a variance from Section 34-140:3A(2)(a) of the City's
Sign Ordinance to erect a sign reading "Ethan Allen" on the canopy of the furniture
store located at 2300 Freeway Boulevard. The above cited section of the Sign
Ordinance permits only one freestanding identification sign for a commercial premises
unless it abuts "two or more streets which are at least collector or arterial in
j character, and if the abutment on each street exceeds 400 feet. The subject site
abuts only Freeway Boulevard on the south and is bounded by Schmitt Music on the
west and the Shingle Creek greenstrip on the east.
Under the City's Zoning Ordinance a canopy is defined as "an accessory rooflike
structure, either attached to or detached from a permitted building, open on all
sides, other than where attached; which is located over and designed to provide
temporary cover for entrances, exits , walkways and approved off-site vehicle
service areas (such as gasoline stations, drive-in establishments and loading
berths) ." Canopies, generally, are structures supported by two or more posts or
columns supporting a roof and designed or intended to cover or protect an area
and, based on the above definition, are accessory structures. Canopies are not
considered a part of the building, but rather as a separate structure independent
of the building even though they may, or may not be attached to a building in some
manner. This is shown by the fact that canopies are not subject to yard setback
requirements in the Zoning Ordinance, whereas walls obviously are. As separate
accessory ; ructures apart from a permitted building, any identification sign
placed on a canopy has been considered a freestanding identification sign which
is allowed only in lieu of any other normally permitted freestanding identification
signery. The applicant has erected one such freestanding sign already which is all
that the Sign Ordinance allows for this premises. We have, therefore, not permitted
the proposed canopy sign absent the granting of a variance, an ordinance change or
the elimination of the other freestanding sign.
The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which he argues that the proposed
canopy sign is vital to the business 's advertising effort. He also points out that
the visual impression of the canopy is that it is part of the building and the sign
can, therefore, be construed as a wall sign. Finally, he states that the sign will
not be detrimental to the general public or surrounding properties.
Variances from the Sign Ordinance may be granted in instances where their strict
enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive
to the specific property or use under consideration. The provisions of this
ordinance, considered in conjunction with the unique and distinctive circumstances
related to the property .or uses must be the proximate cause of the hardship;
circumstances caused by the property owner or the applicant or a predecessor in
title shall not constitute sufficient justification to grant a variance. The
variance can be granted only after demonstration by evidence that all of- the
following three qualifications are met:
1 A particular hardship to the owner would result if the strict letter
of the regulations were carried out;
2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based
M are unique to the parcel of land or to the use thereof for which
the variance is sought and are not common, generally to other
property or uses within the same zoning classification;
7-30-81 -1-
i
Section 34-170. APPEALS
In order to secure relief where it is alleged that an administrative officer of
the City has committed an error in interpretation of judgment in issuing an order
or making a determination, any person may appeal said order or determination
consistent with the provisions of Section 35-251 of the City Ordinances.
Section 34-180. VARIANCES (ADJUSTMENTS)
The procedure for obtaining a variance from the requirements of this-ordinance
shall be the same as set out in Section 35-240 of the Ordinances of the City of
Brooklyn Center.
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant
variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their
strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and
distinctive to the specific property or use under consideration. The provisions of
this ordinance, considered in conjunction.with the unique and distinctive circum-
stances related to the property or uses thereof must be the proximate cause of the
hardship; circumstances caused by the property owner or the applicant or a predecessor
in title shall not constitute sufficient justification to grant a variance. A
variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that
all of the following qualifications are met:
1. A particular hardship to the owner would result if the strict
letter of the regulations were carried out;
2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is Lased
are unique to the parcel of land or the use thereof for which the
variance is sought and are not common, generally to other property
or uses thereof within the same zoning classification;
3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the
neighborhood.
Section 34-190. ENFORCEMENT
It shall be the responsibility of the City Manager to .cause. the requirements
of this ordinance to be properly enforced and to administer the same.
Section 34-200. SEPARABILITY AND VALIDITY
Every section, provision, or part of this ordinance is declared separable from
every other section, provision, or part to the extent that if any section, provision
or part of the ordi.naiice snail be held invalid, it shall not invalidate any other
section, provision, or part thereof.
Section 34-210. PENALTIES
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, alter, repair,
move, equip, or maintain any sign or sign structure or- cause or permit the same to
be done in violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance. Whoever does any
act or omits to do any action which thereby constitutes .a breach of any section of
1
�.'U � '• ysscaaeesarxm -rte +�ucewt�u!esas',a ��--•. a�x •,
CITY
MAINTENANCE
BUILDING
. ........ ........... ... ,
��6y "�1•• ..i SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
OPEN SPACE 67 TH AJF. ,
Q
x
i APPLICATION N0.
81.050 w
` CIV � �J t t FREE::
`TO BE CLOSE,D � �� t r
AVE co
N.
.....� �>
PROPOSED ROADWAYS
PROPOSED BRIDGES
t / / %rfr 1 '�•
GARDEN %,,CITY r�
PA R K
R7
o f � n
•:tra ���r rl
.• SUMMIT -
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 81051
Applicant: Blumentals Architecture
• Location: 6115 Earle Brown Drive
Request: Site and Building Plan
The applicant requests site and building plan approval to make use of the main barn,
hippodrome and cook's shed on the Earle Brown Farm for an office-warehouse use. The
property is located on the west side of Earle Brown Drive, across from the Earle
Brown Office Tower. The land is zoned I-1 and office-wa iu¢as� uses are permitted
in that zone.
iNQ�sret*L
The proposed plan provides 45 parking stalls. Based on 85% via* and 15% office,
the 21 ,000 sq. ft. of space requires 39 parking spaces (3,210 sq. ft. 2200 = 16
spaces plus 18,190 . 800 = 23 spaces) . One handicapped stall is provided. Setback
requirements are met except for the south interior setback. The proposed property
line is only 5' from the south wall of the hippodrome. Revision of the plat as
comprehended under Application No. 81041 would move this property line at least
10 feet from the existing hippodrome. The southerly access to the site should
also be revised since it does not meet the policy that accesses be either directly
across or 125' offset from accesses on the side opposite. Apart from these de-
ficiencies, the plan meets setback, greenstrip and parking requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed landscape plan calls for 12 Ash trees to be planted along the existing
entrance drive to the Farm at approximate 60' intervals (part of the concept for
restoring the historic site) . Five additional Ash 'trees are scheduled along the
greenstrip area in front of Earle Brown Drive. Six (6) Radiant Crabs are in-
dicated in the green areas immediately east of the main barn and hippodrome.
• Other plantings within green areas east of the building include one (1 ) Black
Hills Spruce, ten (10) Golden Mockorange, and fifteen (15) Japanese Redleaf
Bayberry. Sod is indicated in all green areas. Gates are shown athe portherly
and southerly entrances to the parking lot. ( °`�(" ` `, `"
The drainage plan for the site shows all runoff in the parking lot flowing toward
a single catch basin on the west side of the lot and from there via storm sewer
in a southeasterly direction to the City storm sewer in the street. Berms within
the front greenstrip are 2' to 3' in height.
The building elevations will remain essentially unchanged apart from replacement
of existing windows with nonoperating glass windows. The floor plans show only
existing conditions and do not show any proposed tenant areas.. It should be
noted that if the entire main barn is utilized for office, the parking require-
ment would increase from 39 to 52 spaces. This is only seven (7) spaces over the
45 shown on the plan. Since there is ample green area to the east of the building,
there seems to be no conflict with .regard to parking.
The plans are generally in order apart from the location of the south property line
and the south entrance shared with the Summit Bank. Approval is, therefore,
recommended, subject to at least the following conditions :
1 . Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance
of permits.
2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review
and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of
permits.
7-30-81 -1-
i
' f
4
Application No. 81051 continued
3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial, guarantee
(in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be
• submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion
of approved site improvements.
4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical
equipment shall be appropriately screened from view.
5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extingu-
ishing system to meet NFPA Standards and shall be connected to
a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the
City Ordinances.
6. An. underground irrigation system shall be- installed in all
landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance.
7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to
Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances..
'8. B6-12 curb and gutter shall be„provided around all ,parking and
driving areas.
.9. The plan shall be revised prior to consideration by the City
Council to provide:
1 . A• 10' setback from the south wall of the hippodrome
to the south property line.
• 2. The southerly access shall be revised to be directly
across from the middle access to the Earle Brown
Office Tower.
3. Floor plans and elevations for the Cook Shed. Also,
easside elevations for the barn and hippodrome.
4. Indication of trash storage. r
4 i .�4 tvZ-L.l V �2� •
• 7-30-81 -2-
1
1'
t
EAR•LB P��ov�r1 OR,vE
zej_ -
—•5ov �y i
1 `�BN j ` G• 39-2 mo 3a,
3Ai --mac � )-3"'� !�t�,.-_:a•�,g•�3'�1 � NcPPaOF�ot�iE 1. 7
I f Gemara,
PAIL
• � C�g-c..•CVED � riGuElStX.i+,� �...�.}i_�� - -
YSULKi•dr A A
r p�• r ?I o � 'A • �
Fal�6 trim^ .
JA
A"
. • AL.- .i7, 7vTJ':.. r'T-IER.W-..,F-
'E L
APPLICATION\� ON NOS
I. . .-
// 81051 , 81052 i _ ` �F
-K� � 81053
m -
�
r7r -
`" PROPOSEtS R `,yAY
Y-- PROPOS p Q �0 94 E.B.
GE _ 00
R7
I '
1 •
SUMMIT a ��
CIA
A
L ��E EARL BROWN ,
�` EP GRANDVIE W SCHOOL.
PA R K m
TN
f
Q�
58TH
1
Z _
Z
C25TT//
C t
- 1-
A
III
• I
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 81041
Applicant: Summit Mortgage Corporation
Location: 6100 Summit Drive
Request: Site Plan Approval
The applicant requests approval of a site plan for the relocation of some and
continued location of other buildings on the historic Earle Brown Farm. The new
site plan would place those buildings which can be preserved into a more compact
complex near the main residence. The land in question is bounded generally by
Earle Brown Drive on the east and north, by the 3rd Phase of the Ryan Construction
development on the west, and by Summit Drive on the south. The land is zoned I-1
and a variety of light industrial and commercial uses are comprehended in that
zone. This application was tabled by the Planning Commission at its June 11 ,1981
meeting for further review by staff in consultation with the developer and repre-
sentatives of the Minnesota Historical Society. The Planning Commission is
referred to the minutes of the June 11 , 1981 meeting for review of the initial
discussion of this application. (See minutes and information sheet relating to
81041 attached) .
The proposed site plan would involve the relocation of six structures on the
Earle Brown Farm. These include the Garage, the Farmhouse (or Fieldhouse) , the
Windmill , a Barn from the northwest corner of the existing farm site, the Bunk-
house, and the Smokehouse. The relocation of these.structures will place the
resulting Farm complex entirely within the boundaries of the historic site
which is listed on the Minnesota State Register of Historic Places. A written
evaluation of the preservation aspects of the proposed plan has been submitted
by Mr. Dennis Gimmestad ,of the Minnesota Historical Society. (copy attached)
At the June 11 , 1981 meeting, Mr. Gimmestad did express general approval of the
site plan, provided it did not result in a cluttered, overcrowded appearance
of the Farm.
The preliminary plat which accompanied this site plan (Application No. 81035)
placed the Farm buildings on three separate parcels. The main barn and hippodrome,
along with the cook shed, would be on a parcel by themselves. Other barns would
be placed on a parcel to the -north of the barn and hippodrome; residential and
other miscellaneous structures would be placed on a large parcel to include the
Summit Bank and extend down to Summit Drive. Upon further review, staff recommend
that this preliminary plat be revised to place all structures within the Minnesota
Historic Site boundaries on one parcel including no excess land* for other develop-
ment. This type of arrangement will make the preservation of the Farm buildings
more certain in that the-City Council will not be faced in the future with a
choice between historic preservation and the granting of variances from parking
and/or other zoning requirements.
It is also suggested, however, that the parcel or -pace.ls contained within the
Minnesota Historic site be granted a special zoning status. Such a status might
involve the creation of a historic district with separate zoning requirements.
Or, it could simply be established under the conditions of this site plan approval .
Such special zoning status would allow a mixture of non-residential uses of the
existing Farm buildings based simply on City Council approval . Variances from
zonir3 requirements could be granted to the extent acceptable to the City Council
for the clear purpose of historic preservation. Staff would note that such
preservation does appear to be in the public interest in that the results of the
recent community attitude survey show that. over 750 of City residents favor
Council involvement in preservation of the Earle Brown Farm. Moreover, nearly
65% of City residents agree with delaying taxation of the Farm to accomplish
preservation (such as would be the case in a tax increment financing district_
7-30-81 -1-
i
.�
Application No. 81041 continued
It should be pointed out as well as that taxes on the Farm property have been
delinquent for some time) .
Staff's judgment is simply that any scheme to preserve the Farm buildings should
be straightforward and should not ipply imply future variances, or code compliance at
the cost of demolishing buildings now presumed to be preserved. The. relationship
between variances and preservation should be unambiguous from the start rather
than clouded by future development plans. Another reason for this approach
that the current owner of the land in question could sell off hisgs to others,
din sPQO---
who may very well have no interest i,n preserving the Farm buil .
Unless the proposed site plan is further amended or the developer requests further
tabling of the matter, the Planning Commission must take action on the proposed
site plan at this meeting. Approval is, therefore, recommended subject to the
following conditions :
1 . All relocation and/or alteration of existing buildings is subject
to review and approval by the Building Official . Voluntary comment
from the Minnesota Historical Society shall also be considered.
2. Any grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer.
3. All buildings -over 2,000 sq. ft. in floor area shall be equipped
with an automatic fire extinguishing system in accordance with
-NFPA Standards and shall be connected to a .central monitoring
device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances at
the time of occupancy unless specifically waived by the City Council .
4. The preliminary plat approved under Application No. 81035 shall be
revised so that all the Farm buildings to be relocated or preserved
atre. within the Minnesota Historic Site (as defined by the register
• of Minnesota Historic Places) for the Earle Brown Farm and are to
be on one parcel with no excess land available for future develop-
ment J th new structures. ( 7,„
5. . That the City Council acknowGledges, through this site plan approval
If a special zoning status for the land within the Minnesota
Historic Site (see condition no. 4) whereby development and use
of the existing Earle Brown Farm buildings shall be based on City
Council approval only. The grounds required for variances from
City ordinance requirements shall be City Council acceptance of
a development plan and the preservation of the Earle Brown Farm
structures .
6. Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements shall apply to all
development within the historic district unless specifically
waived by variance approval .
7-30-81 -2-
1 .
1 Q
` 't
t
11
C*le �' is� t - .. J �•� 1 `'
p
l
m I
pV
1 I 1
i
Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North.
10. The master site plan shall be revised. to include
at least one visitor parking stall for every two
townhouse units prior to issuance of building
permits. The landscape plan shall also be revised
to show at least one shade or coniferous tree for
every decorative tree throughout the complex.
Particular attention should be paid to increasing
shade trees along the west side of the development.
Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, 'Theis
and Simmons . Voting against: none. The motion passed.
` APPLICATION NO. 81035 (Summit Mortgage Corporation)
The Secretary introduced a request by Summit Mortgage. Corporation
for preliminary R.L.S. approval to subdivide the land north of
Summit Drive from west of Highway 100 and south and east of the
proposed extension of Earle Brown Drive into 10 parcels . The Secre-
tary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Com-
mission Information Sheet for Application No. 81035 attached) .
Following presentation of the staff report, the Assistant City
Engineer added that the City has taken bids on Earle Brown Drive.
He stated that the easement of 60 feet in width, close to the
intersection of Earle Brown Drive and Summit Drive, would be in-
adequate for a sidewalk and a right turn lane. He stated that
there would be a need of approximately 250 to 300 feet along the
north side of Earle Brown Drive where the easement is 40 feet from
the center of the roadway, rather than 30 feet. The Planning
Assistant also pointed out that the various information required
by Condition No. 3 , have been accomplished already with the plat
submitted just that day.
APPLICATION NO. 81041 (Summit Mortgage Corporation)
• The Secretary then introduced a companion application to No
81035,
a request for site and building Plan approval to move a number of
structures on the Earle Brown Farm complex to a more compact area.
He reviewed the contents. of the staff report (See Planning Com-
mission Information Sheet for Application No. 81041 attached) .
HE A F�T_N_(�
airman Hawes called on Dennis Gimmestad of the Minnesota Histor-
ical Society to present the position of the Historical Society
regarding the Earle Brown Farm. Mr. Gimmestad referred to a letter
that he had sent to the Brooklyn Center City staff a few days pre-
viously regarding the Farm' s status and the way to preserve the
Farm structures. He stated that the Historical Society preferred
to preserve the site as it was historically, rather than moving a
number of buildings into a space which would become cluttered and
untrue to the history of the Farm. He suggested that the moving
of the buildings lie looked at on a case-Oy-case basis . He stated
that the restoration of the Farm within a commercial area would make
preservation more difficult, but also more interesting as a unique
resource within a commercial district. .
Commissioner Simmons asked Mr. Gimmestad to clarify whether he
meant that moving buildings might not be good, but actually could
be detrimental to the historic site. Mr. Gimmestad responded in
the affirmative, saying that certain buildings could be moved if
they are carefully placed so as not to disrupt the historic site
6-11-81 -10-
3
that existed on the- Farm years ago. Commissioner Theis stated
that this sounded to him like the Farm site should be kept pure,
• but the City should take what it could get. Commissioner Theis
acknowledged that .all involved would have to live with the economics
of the situation even though that will not necessarily result in the
best preservation. He asked Mr. Gimmestad whether the Historical
Society has an alternative proposal for moving some buildings .
Mr. Gimmestad responded that he could not elaborate on such a pro-
posal immediately, but commented that some -minor buildings on the
Farm could probably be sacrificed.
Commissioner Simmons stated that she saw three alternatives .
1. Don't do anything. '
2. Sacrifice some buildings to save others .
3. Bring everything into a compact site at the risk of
creating clutter.
She stated that she considered Alternative No. 2 to be the most
-realistic and that this seemed to be what the Historical Society
is recommending.
In answer to a question from Chairman Hawes regarding Fort Snelling,
Mr. Gimmestad explained that State and Federal funding has been used
in the past to restore that site, but that no Federal funds would be
available for the next couple of years . He stated that an entrance
fee .can be used to offset operating costs . Chairman Hawes noted
that Bradley Electric Car Corporation had indicated that they would
like to move into the Hippodrome and he asked what the next step
would beain the restoration of the Farm. Mr. Gimmestad suggested
that he sit down with members of the City staff and the owner of
the property and develop a new alternative. Chairman Hawes stated
that he felt strongly about preservation of the Farm and added that
he considered that it would be a mistake to destroy the Farm at this
time. Mr. Gimmestad commented that adaptive uses, other than agri-
cultural, certainly could be acceptable occupants of the Farm build-
ings, but that these uses must respect the continued preservation of
the buildings and their aesthetic features . Mr. Gimmestad also
mentioned historical commissions as a means of preserving the build-
ings over time.
Chairman Hawes called on Roger Newstrum, representing B.C.I.P.
Mr. Newstrum stated that he had nothing much to add, that he would
have to react to what the community wishes regarding the Farm site.
The Secretary called on Mr. Newstrum to react to the comments of
Mr. Gimmestad. Mr. Newstrum stated that he had sent a revised
drawing to the Planning staff that had taken some of Mr. Gimmestad's
suggestions into account. He noted that there were fewer buildings
-moved into the central site of the Farm.
Commissioner Theis asked for a timetable as to when the barn pre-
sently in the path of the proposed Earle Brown Drive would be moved.
The Assistant City Engineer stated that it would have to be moved by
late June or early July. The Secretary added that permits to move
the structure have been issued. Mr. Newstrum acknowledged this and
pointed out that the barn would not be placed on a new foundation
until a site plan for the. Farm was approved. He warned, however,
that if a plan is not agreed to before winter time, it will be im-
possible to move any buildings then. Mr. Newstrum also noted that
Mr. Gimmestad's letter mentions a historic district defined by the -
State Historical Society. He said that the reason the parcel boundary
6-11-81 -11-
•
lines on the proposed R.L.S . do not conform with the State District ,
, is because those parcels are based on building areas to .land areas
for future development. He asked thenPthennortherlysparcelo consider
so long
a compromise to leave the two barns o
as they do not interfere with new development. Commissioner Simmons
stated that the revised plan still seems to bring in aG um er of
buildings to- the original homestead on the Farm.
Mr .
commented that moving Barn No. 4 into the immediate farmstead area
would destroy the historicity of the Farm site the most, but that
smaller buildings would have less impact.
Mary Jane Gustafson, of the Brooklyn Historical Society brought up
the idea of running Earle Brown Drive through .Barn No. 4 , which
would give the barn some ambience. There was a discussion among
the Planning Commission for the best location for Barn No. 4 . Mary
Jane Gustafson asked what uses would likely go into scheduled tFarm.in r.
Newstrum answered that an industrial use w as
the horse barn and hippodrome and that some of the smaller buildings
might be used for property management offices for B.
C.I.P . Mary
Jane stated that some of the buildings looked quite lmadovetthemears
of neglect, but that work is finally being done to p
Commissioner Theis stated that he wanted to see a counter proposal
from the Historical Society which recognized the constraints out-
lined in the staff report and set down by the policies of the
Historical Society. Mary Jane suggested that a historical district
and a historic preservation commission could be created to implement
the preservation of the Farm. Commissioner Simmons stated her opinion
that Barn No. 4 does not appear as important to preserve as the barn
immediately north of the horse barn and hippodrome. In discussing
the borders of a historic district, Mr. Gimmestad -stated that although Su
ict the current state distr benincludedeindany not newndistrictedrawnito
._State Bank, the bank should
preserve the Farm.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Theis to
close the public hearing. The motion passed.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81035
(Summit Mortgage Corporation) Commissioner Theis to
Motion y Commissioner Aialecki. seconde y ect to at least
recommend approval of Application No. 81035 , subj
the following conditions:
1. The final R.L.S. is subject to the approval of
the City Engineer.
2. The final R.L.S . is subject to the provisions
of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances .
3. The preliminary R.L.S. shall be revised prior to
consideration by the City Council to include a
revised easement for turning lane and sidewalk
along the north side of Earle Brown Drive for
approximately 300 ft. north of Summit Drive in
accordance with the recommendation of the City
Engineer.
-12-
6-11-81
s
•
•
Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis
and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
As to direction to staff regarding Application No. 81041, the
• Secretary stated that staff had not had enough opportunity to re-
view the continents of the Historical Society prior to the evening's
meeting. He asked for direction regarding zoning concerns , land-
scaping, and whether a full site plan should be required for the
buildings which are to be moved or only for those buildings which
will have a new use to occupy them in the foreseeable future.
Commissioner Theis stated that he would be willing to consider a
special historical district as long as the concerns of health and
safety are not watered down. Chairman Hawes asked whether a special
historical district would have to follow the property lines laid
out in the proposed R.L.S . The Secretary answered that that would
not be necessary. Commissioner Theis suggested that if the his-
torical district regulations point out precisely what can't be done
with buildings within the district, the zoning ordinance may not be
necessary to enforce within that district.
ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. .81041 (Summit Mortgage Corporation)
Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Simmons to
table Application No. 81041, a site plan for the Earle Brown Farm,
with direction to staff to work with the owner of the property, or
his representatives, and the Historical Society, to come up with an
alternative site plan and appropriate regulations . Voting in favor:
Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis and Simmons. Voting
against: none. The motion passed. ,
Planning Commission Information Sheet '
Application No. 81035
Applicant: Summit Mortgage Corporation
Location: Earle Brown Drive and Summit Dirve
Request: Preliminary R.L.S.
The applicant requests preliminary R.L.S. approval to resubdivide all of the land
north of Summit Drive, east of Phases 1 and 2 of the new Ryan Construction develop-
ment which abut Shingle Creek Parkway on the west. The R.L.S. does not include
the newly dedicated Earle Brown Drive which was apart of the recent Ryan Construc -
tion plat. The property in question is bounded by Summit Drive on the south, by
the new portion of Earle Brown Drive on the west and north and by Hwy. 100 on the
east. Three parcels north of Summit. Drive and east of the existing Earle Brown
Drive are zoned C2. The remainder of the land is zoned I-1 .
The R.L.S. consists of 10 tracts, a number of which will remain essentially as
they have been in .the past. The tracts abutting Highway 100 (Tracts A through E)
will have the same interior property lines as in the past. However, these tracts
are surveyed to the middle of Earle Brown Drive. Heretofore, Earle Brown Drive
has been a separate, 80 feet wide, tract of land owned by Tropicana Holding Company,
but with a City easement over it. After filing of the R.L.S. , each abutting parcel
will own land to the middle of the street and the City will obtain an easement for
a 60' wide rather than an 80' wide Earle Brown Drive right-of-way. The R.L.S. will
also redefine the easterly property lines of Tracts A, B, C, and D to reflect the
new- right-of-way acquisitions by MN/DOT for I-94 and Highway 100.
Tract F at the upper corner of Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive owned by Republic
Airlines remains essentially unchanged except for surveying to the middle of Earle
i Brown Drive. Tract J belongs to Ryan Construction and reflects the transfer of
t,ti® 45 feet of land from the west side of what was formerly Tract B, R.L.S. No. 1380.
The main changes proposed by the preliminary R.L.S. relate to the land occupied
by the historic Earle Brown Farm buildings. Tract H will surround the horsebarn
and hippodrome and is planned to accommodate an industrial use (Classic Electric
Car Corporation) . Tract I, at the north end of the Farm area, abuts the new
Earle Brown Drive and is planned for office development. Tract G includes a number
of existing Farm buildings and the Summit Bank. The proposed site plan submitted
with Application No. 81041 calls for moving a number of other outbuildings into
this area in a compact formation. The remainder of Tract G, adjacent to Summit
Drive is planned for an office development. Office developments are special uses
in the I-1 zone.
The proposed R.L.S. is deficient in a number of important informational items.
Existing easements for water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer have been omitted .and
the former property lines are very unclear. The previous right-of-way lines are
shown, but the proposed easement for Earle Brown Drive right-of-way is not. The
R.L.S. should also provide land area information for each tract. Finally, the
City Engineer has requested information showing the width of Tract G at its
narrowest point just north of the Summit Bank. All this information should be
provided on the proposed R.L.S. by the time it is considered by the City Council .
As long as these additions and corrections are made, approval is recommended,
subject to at least the following condtions :
1 . The final R.L.S. is subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
6-11-81 -1-
Application No. 81035 continued
2. The final R.L.S. is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of
the City Ordinances.
3. The preliminary R.L.S. shall be corrected prior to consideration
by the City Council to include the following information:
a) Location, width and purpose of,existing easements.
b) New right-of-way location as well as existing.
c) The size of each tract in the new R.L.S.
d) The width of Tract G at the narrowest point, jgst
north of the Summit Bank.
e) Old property lines should be shown more clearly.
6-11-81 -2- )
• I�
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 81041
Applicant: Summit Mortgage Corporation
Location: 6100 Summit Drive
Request: Site and Building Plan
The applicant requests site and building plan approval to authorize the relocation of
a number of buildings on the Earle Brown Farm into a more compact complex near the
main residence. The property to be used for relocation of the buildings is bounded
generally by Earle Brown Drive on the east and north, by the 3rd Phase of the Ryan
Construction development on the west, and by Summit Drive on the south The land is
zoned I-1 and a variety of light industrial and commercial uses are potential uses
in that zone. Without going into the spetifics of which buildings will be moved
where, staff would offer simply a review of the various issues involved in the
relocation of Farm buildings and the future of the Farm area generally. These
issues break down into concerns regarding zoning, historic preservation, and
development .
Zoning Concerns
1 . The structures on the Farm either are or were devoted to agricultural or resi-
dential uses, both of which are now nonconforming uses in the I-1 zone. Those
buildings which have ceased to be used in a nonconforming capacity must in
the future be used in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The structures, .provided they have no active use, may be moved to a different
location on the site. Buildings which are being used in a nonconforming
fashion cannot be moved, as stipulated in Section 35-111 :2 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
3. Any future use of Farm buildings will require that both the buildings in
question, and the use site pertaining to those buildings , conform to the
maximum extent feasible with the provisions of the State Building Code and
the City ordinances. For instance, any useful structure exceeding 2,000 sq.
ft. must be fire sprinklered and connected to a remote monitoring system in
accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. Setback and parking re-
quirements must also be met.
4. The buildings on the site which continue to be used in a nonconforming fashion
(i .e. residential) cannot be expanded by the addition of other structures to
them.
5. All site improvements, including the relocation of buildings must be guaranteed
by a standard performance agreement and an appropriate financial instrument.
Historical Preservation
The Earle Brown Farm has significant historical value, not only to the community
of Brooklyn Center, but to Hennepin County and even the State of Minnesota. Once
this resource is demolished, it can no longer be retrieved for appreciation as a
historic resource. Concern for the Farm, however, is not unanimous . The greatest
interest has been shown by long-term residents and people generally interested in
historic preservation. The value of preserving the Farm buildings , while signifi-
cant, is not absolute. It must be seen in the light of competing values , such as
financial feasibility and the public health and safety, as reflected in state and
local codes .and ordinances. Briefly, the potential means of preserving the Farm
include at least the following:
6-11-81 -1-
i
i
Application No. 81041 continued
1. A private and voluntary effort by the property owner. -This would
involve no direct public subsidies, though tax advantages for
restoration might be pursued. The farm buildings would have to
be put to some economic use which is competitive with other in-
vestments that could be made on the same land. These uses would
have to comply with zoning restrictions and, in light of the
restoration costs, would have to be quite original in their concept.
2. Purchase by a public agency. Technically, the City or the State
Historical Society could pursue purchase of the site and operate
it as a park, a library, or even a commercial enterprise. However,
considering the fiscal strains that all levels of government are
experiencing, there is no real likelihood that the substantial
funds necessary would be available for such a purchase..
3. A Tax-Increment District. The City might declare a tax increment
district over the Farm property and other property nearby (for
instance, the Ryan Construction land and Byerly's) .' The increase
in taxes which is bound to occur within this area would help to pay
off tax increment bonds . The bonds would constitute the write-down
cost to the City between its purchase price and the sale price to a
private developer who would agree to restore and operate the Farm
in a manner compatible with historic preservation. This is a more
feasible option than alternative No. 2, but would require much timely
research by City staff into financial feasibility and potential buyers
for the Farm before commencing with any action. Time may already
have run out for this option.
4. Special Regulation. If there is sufficient public interest, the
City could adopt special regulations pertaining to historic sites
and structures. This might take the form of a Historic Preservation
Overlay District and a Historic Preservation Commission (possibly
the Planning Commission) . If the site were nominated to the National
Register of Historic Places and accepted by the Department of Interior
as a National Historic Place, then even if the owner phose not to be
placed on the Register, the site would be considered eligible and,
therefore, subject to certain restrictions if they are adopted by the
local unit of government. These restrictions and the appropriate
regulatory vehicles for imposing them on development of the Farm will
be explained by correspondence from the Minnesota Historical Society.
We have not received that correspondence yet. It must also be noted
that the public mood regarding the Farm is not really known at this
time. It is hoped that recent community surveys will shed light on
this question.
Development Concerns
It must be understood from the outset that the presence of the Farm buildings,
while providing a unique asset for the property, also pose a definite drain on
the investment potential of the land on which they are located. It is chiefly
for this reason that the owner of the property wishes to relocate a number of
the buildings into a more compact complex, thereby creating larger vacant areas
which can be developed for office buildings. Staff do not consider it likely
• that the owner would in•some fashion donate the Farm buildings either in a �-
restored or unrestored state to the Historical Society for public use. If
the buildings are to be restored and retained on the site, there must be a
realistic possibility of putting the buildings to some use which will allow
6-11-81 -2-
Application No. 81041 continued
for some return on the investment. Considering the cost of that investment
and the likely return, the private development of the Farm seems to be a shaky
proposition at best. This prospect must also be acknowledged by public bodies
that would devote public monies for subsidizing in some way the restoration of
the Farm.
In conclusion, the restoration of the Farm is not a simple matter. More in-
formation is needed as to the public demand for 'the restoration of the Farm, the
cost of restoration, the potential use of the Farm buildings, means of financing
the improvements , and alternative investments on the land. In the meantime,
current zoning and building requirements should be enforced to insure the public
health, safety, and general welfare. Absent the information needed to judge the
appropriateness of the proposed site and building plan, it is recommended that
the application be thoroughly discussed, but tabled until a later time.
6-11-81 -3-
I
1
MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
F O lJ N D E D IN 1849 James J. Hill House,240 Summit Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 (612)2%-8205
24 July 1981
. Mr. Ron Warren
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear Mr. Warren:
RE,: Earle Brown Farm
Relocation of Existing Buildings
Hennepin County
MHS Referral File Number: N 266
This letter is written to express our opinion of the proposed relocation
of existing buildings on the Earle Brown Farm, 'as submitted by Blumentals
Architecture, .Inc. with revisions of July 10, 1981. We responded to an
earlier version of the relocation project in a letter of June 9.
As we 'stated earlier, the most preferable alternative in terms of the
preservation of the farmstead would permit retention of all of the
buildings on their original locations. We do realize, however, that
there may be reasons why some of the outbuildings need to be relocated.
r
The current proposal, we believe, retains the integrity of the central
area of the farmstead (the area on the State Registry) to a much better
degree than previous proposals, and also provides for the relocation of
some of the outlying structures, preventing their demolition. While we
may have some minor reservations about specific relocations, these are
largely "reversible," and the plan generally accomplishes preservation
of the complex with a minimal impact on integrity.
We would like to thank the owner of the farm and his representatives for
their willingness to modify- their original proposal into one that, we
believe, takes into account the key area of the site.
The Earle Brown Farm is an important historic resource for Brooklyn
Center and Hennepin County. The owner of the property, the City of
Brooklyn Center, and the Brooklyn Historical Society are to be commended
for their interest in its preservation.
Sincerely,
• Dennis A. Gimmestad
Acting Assistant State
Historic Preservation Officer
(612) 296-9070
DAG/s1
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 81052
Applicant: Dominion Development Corporation
Location: Summit Drive, north of Earle Brown Drive
Request: Site and Building Plan
The applicant seeks site and building plan approval to construct a 62,621 sq. ft.
shopping center north of Earle Brown Drive and west of Summit Drive. The property
is zoned C-2 and is bounded by the new Byerly's site to the west and by LaBelle's
to the south. Retail shopping centers are permitted uses in the C2 zone.
The site will be served by three (3) accesses, one off Earle Brown Drive and two
off Summit
Drive. The westerly access off Summit Drive is a 24' wide service
entrance only for trucks to reach the rear of the main building.
The 62,621 sq. ft. .of building on the site {comprised of Building A: 44,914 sq. ft.
and Building B: 17,707 sq. ft.) require 392 parking stalls. The plan shows 307
spaces to be installed during construction with 87 parking spaces deferred for a
total of 394 spaces. (All driving and parking areas will be bounded by B6-12
curb and gutter.) Eight handicapped stalls are provided on the site. The deferred
parking spaces are located within a front and side corner greenstrip area that is
33' wide rather than the minimum requirement of 15' . All setback requirements are
met.
The drainage plan for the site provides three large catch basins in the main parking
lot at elevation 843.3' , located along a line parallel to the main building. These
are connected to City storm sewer in Summit .Drive by a 30" private storm sewer line
which will carry all drainage from the site. Three catch basins in the service
drive behind Building A and two catch basins in the service drive behind Building
B are connected to this storm sewer line via 21" diameter storm sewer leads.
Landscaping for the site includes twelve (12) Shademaster Honeylocusts within parking
lot islands closer to the main building. Fifteen (15) Spring Snow Crab are
scheduled in parking_lot islands around the perimeter drive of the parking lot.
Nine (9) Marshall Seedless Ash are shown in the large front and side corner green-
strips. A large landscaped area is proposed at the intersection of Earle Brown
Drive and Summit Drive. Plantings at this location include: three (3) Austrian
Pine, one (1 ) Amur Maple, 27 Redosier Dogwood, and 95 Stagh n Sumac. Oth q
pl a ti g ar as around t e site are a s fairy ge out. `mo ''`t
Parking lot lighting is provided by three (3) twin pole mounted, mercury vapor
fixtures on 25' poles. Low level mercury vapor accent lights are to be placed
along the sidewalk in front of both buildings on the site. The rear sides of
both buildings are to have a total of 28 wall mounted security lights.
The building exterior will be a light brown burnished block (color similar to
the
Hall ) i_ dark blue freestanding tall canopy pp vniii'n'ltel- 3' be7nw
City nd 1 1 ) W 1 l.11 a UU1-K U 1 UC 1 I CC$�anu 1��y7�c�a� �aiio t'1 J
roof line. The canopy will extend 8' 10" out. from the wall to cover a wide
pedestrian walk in front of both buildings . Floor plans show two large tenant
areas of 16,000 sq. ft. in Building A and 10,800 sq. ft. in Building B. Other
tenant spaces are 20' wide.
The Zoning Ordinance require a m'.ni m of three loading berths for such an estab-
lishment. Loading areas are ot/pindi ated on the site plan, however, the 30' area
behind the center seems to provide enough space for loading and unloading provided
the areas are parallel with the building. Utility equipment is contained in on-
ground units shielded from public view by masonry wall enclosures at these points
around the building.
7-30-81 -1-
Application No. 81052 continued
Altogether, the plans seem to be very much in order and approval is re��cgy w nded,
subject to at least the following conditions:
1 . Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance
of permits.
2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance
of permits.
3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee
(in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be
submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion
of approved site improvements.
4'. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical
equipment shall be appropriately screened from view.
5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing
system to meet NFPA Standards and shall be connected to a central
monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City
Ordinances.
6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all land-
scaped areas to facilitate site maintenance.
7. plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to
Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. .
8. B6-12 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and
driving areas.
• 9. The property shall be replatted into a single arc Petliapai accordance
with Section 35-540 and the final plat shat e^^ i the
County prior to the issuance of building permit".
0
�. A .
0-�.,,� �,u„� � -tom
7-30-81 -2-
'�� 1 • • ' ` F w a r__ti1.. Ii E'." ..�..-d'�+':'.w4rw••t•.:"`JYIRYNr....�•fIV.'w. , •l`. .... .L
.•� ._...�._�.........._ ._..__.....�.—..-. .--._.._. �La7 IZ_�._._._.'.b �_.._ �.-- ....__.»_-_.-_»r ' � W AY MJnnUS
CY•I[�. ti..YV.t.w.R•/
a i ..•. 1. ',�/ �_ _ c ,_1 'lit
` � .' t \�Y�"/�� •, pr _ __--\ - - /,- -- it h/�.
jr
�7
0 Tee :I I t- r'
i s•• r•J n'ti w _-'*:•y s4' iMi 4{'{' tv n'+ 'rl'�{N'r i
' _--`\�\ iii `��� / .+`•��S / ��
1
re
SOO
EARLE
WA,
- - -•- - •� � �.. �w�+ `�•' it •vt�„�y L •
O'o7o.c- /
• {.•ei-r_ -1-:"`.- � •,'.1�• `mod_ ... , .
C + \ •+ :�' ' ,C �c/ �� DATA
f �'\ % tAtar sa+�ss
' `Y\ •:�ii�_ \;� *tly, �� 0110E 19�.TiVO b!A is MI ss
#AnOJU.TALLD/a:L%A L9 Y't
��• � / �/ }AIY.Tq iTNlB{Yh7\'OtD N�
sv
I+QI r.[�• /Al:JA 6f MLD OU 1I1U3{ 67
•sv rJC�s
7�. • i w
V
_ _ __
r
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 81053
Applicant: Showbiz Pizza Place, Inc.
Location: John Martin Drive
Request: Site and Building Plan/Special Use Permit
The applicant seeks site and building plan approval to construct a 10,343 sq. ft. ,
240 seat restaurant, and a special use permit for a recreation center and live
entertainment. The use is to be conducted on the parcel of land located between
Burger Brothers and State Farm Insurance on the south side of John Martin Drive.
The Northwestern Bell Service Center is to the south. The property is zoned C2
and the combined uses proposed are comprehended in that district, provided there
is no abutment with R1 , R2 or R3 zoned property (no such abutment exists in this
case) . _ JG
Site Plan
The proposed site plan meets ordinance requirements for setbacks, greenstrips, and
parking for a restaurant with 240 seats and 16 employees. As will be discussed in
greater detail under Application No. 81054, however, staff do not recommend
approval of the parking layout for 136 spaces in lieu of the additional game room
use and the capacity which thereby exists for a much larger restaurant. It is
staff's opinion that the parking spaces provided are not adequate for the proposed
structure.
The building elevations show yellow, red, and orange striping around the front
entrance at the building corners and along the sides of the building. Whether
these stripes should be considered signs or an exterior building treatment is not
certain. Certainly, they meet the definition of a sign as an "attention gathering
device" (Section 34-110: "sign") . As signs, the colored bands exceed. 30% of the area
of the walls on which they are located. The plans show the stripes panted directly on
the wall surfaces which is not permitted if the stripes are construed as signs.
The extent of this decorative treatment may classify it as a wall treatment as
well as signery. As such, its compatibility with and impact upon surrounding
properties should be evaluated insofaras the wall treatment and advertising are
related to the game room and entertainment aspects of the proposed use.
The building exterior itself will be an earthtone stucco with a walnut colored
wood mansard around the entire building. Apart from the extensive "sign" treat-
ment, staff see no incompatibility between the basic structure proposed and
surrounding uses in this neighborhood.
The landscape plan calls for eight (8) Skylight Locusts , five to be located
behind the building and two at the southwest corner. One Locust is shown at the
entrance to the site. Six (6) Japanese Green Leaf Junipers are to be clustered
around a freestanding identification sign at the northwest corner of the site.
Twenty (20) Armstrong Junipers and eight (8) Andora Junipers are shown in green
areas around the west and north sides of the building. Six hundred (600) Carpet
Buale flowers are to be planted in .'� decorat.s�e hood post landscape area along
the east side of the building. Of note is the total lack of significant plantings
along the front greenstrip area. It is recommended that the Planning Commission
request further landscaping in this area.
Drainage on the site will flow into three existing. catch basins on or near the
property line shared with Burger Brothers to the east. Of the 136 parking spaces
shown, three are handicapped stalls and 25 are at a 600 angle behind the building.
The driving lane along the west side of the building is designated one-way to
bring traffic around the south side of the building to the common drive with
Burger Brothers.
7-30-81 -1-
Application No. 81053 continued
Lighting for the site is provided by four (4) single bronz colored fixtures on 25'
poles at the corners of the parking lot and two (2) double-fixture poles on the
parking lot islands immediately in front of the restaurant. The trash enclosure
is located at the southeast corner of the site.
Special Use Permit
The applicant has submitted a lengthy letter (attached) in which he describes the
nature of the game room and entertainment area and the security measures which the
applicant proposes to take to control the use of the game area. The game area is
to have approximately 50 "play-centers or devices" (p.5) , including a variety of
amusements for various age-groups, from a "kiddie crawl " area to skee-ball and
other games of eye-hand coordination. None of the games involve repetitious play
or "free jLeplays." The stage area presents various "electronomated" animal shows
featuringA5 piece computerized animal band.
The hours of operation will be 11 :00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m,. , Sunday - Thursday.; until '
midnight Friday and Saturday. The floor plan provides for the following use
areas:
Showroom dining area - 2,109 sq. ft.
200 seats
stage area 380 sq. ft.
Playroom 2,187 sq. ft.
Sportsman dining room 636 sq. ft.
Kitchen & office 1 ,565 sq. ft.
Gift Shop 322 sq. ft.
Storage, Technical , Restrooms, and
hallways 3,144 sq. ft.
-10,343 sq. ft.
The applicant apparently will be seeking a beer/wine license, but anticipates
that 70% of its revenue will come from the sale of food as opposed to game
revenue or sale of alcholic beverages. The applicant cites this as an indication
that the primary business of the restaurant is to sell food, not operate a game-
room. Regarding the impact on neighboring property and future development, the
applicant states that the restaurant will not likely generate increased vandalism,
loitering or nuisances in the area; that it will , rather, provide a benefit to
surrounding commercial properties from incoming customer traffic and a lunchtime
spot for those employed in the area. . As to traffic concerns, the appl-icant states
that traffic generation will be off-peak with other uses in the area and should
cause no congestion in the public streets.
Based on past experience and knowledge of the incoming development in tliis area,
the staff.-has some skepticism of the use proposed. The Planning Commission is
well aware of the difficulties experienced with operations combining the sale of
food and gifts with the operation of electronic games. (Snacks and Nick Nacks) .
It should also be pointed out that the proposed use may only be complimentary to
office uses in its traffic generation; yet most of the uses in the immediate area
are retail uses, s of which operate til lat in the evening (I .e. theaters and
r_esta,urants) . To extent, then, the propose4 use may compound this evening
traffic rather than offset a large amount of daytime traffic on John Martin Drive.
Nevertheless, staff would acknowledge that the neighborhood in which this use is
proposed to locate is as good as any other in the City for a restaurant/game room
. operation. We feel that it is more a matter of making the proposed use truly com-
patible with other development in the commercial and industrial park than of
7-30-81 -2-
Application No. 81053 continued
approving or denying the use as proposed. As is discussed in the appeal application,
it is staff's judgment that the proposed building would be substantially overbuilt
M for the parcel on which it is to be located. ' Most restaurant uses of this size
occupy less than 10% of the land area of the respective parcel , whereas the building
proposed would occupy roughly 15%. It is felt that the Planning Commission and
City Council may require a smaller structure either as a fulfillment of ordinance
parking standards or simply as a condition of granting the special use permit.
(This matter is discussed further under Application No. 81054) .
We also feel that the exterior. appearance of the building, insofaras it relates
directly to the special use aspects of the operation, may be limited not only by
the Sign Ordinance, but as a further condition of continued reissuance of the
special use permit. (Technically, special use permits are issued once a year and
need not be reissued if the conditions of the original permit are not met. ) Staff
regard the stripes on the exterior walls of the restaurant to be incompatible,
for the most part, with surrounding development.
If the Planning Commission is convinced as well that the proposed use takes too
many liberties with the development standards adhered to by other neighboring
uses, it is recommended that this application be tabled at least until a disposition
of the Appeal application by the City Council .
7-30-81 -3-
I
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL
AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Show Biz Pizza Restaurant
at John Martin Drive
SHOWBIZ PIZZA PLACE, INC. s
2209 West 29th Street
Topeka, Kansas 60611
THE APPLICANT SHOWBIZ PIZZA
PLACE, INC.
2209 West 29th Street
Topeka, Kansas 60611
ShowBiz Pizza Place, Inc. is a subsidiary of the Brock Hotel
Corporation of Topeka, Kansas. Brock Hotel Corporation owns
or manages fifty-six (56) hotels (principally Holiday Inns)
and resort properties in twenty-.two (22) states including the
Holiday Inn in Brooklyn Center.
APPLICANT'S INTEREST ShowBiz Pizza Place, Inc. will acquire the site and finance,
• construct and manage the resraurant. The cost of constructing
and equipping the restaurant will be in excess of One Million
Dollars ($1,000,000). The physical structure ultimately will
be owned by private investors.
EXISTING AND
PROJECTED SHOWBIZ
PIZZA RESTAURANTS The first ShowBiz Pizza Restaurant opened in March 1980 in
Kansas City, Missouri. A total of twenty-three (23)
restaurants, ranging in size from 7,500 to 12,000 square feet,
are currently operating in the following states: Missouri,
Florida, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas,
Colorado,, Illinois and Louisiana. Attached to this text are
letters from a real estate developer, financial director and
patrol supervisor, who are, respectively, personally familiar
with ShowBiz Pizza Place restaurants in the Antioch Shopping
Center, Kansas City, Missouri; in a shopping center in West
Des Moines, Iowa; and at locations in Kansas City, Missouri;
Independence, Missouri; and Overland Park, Kansas. These
letters attest to the high-quality operation of ShowBiz Pizza
Restaurants.
In addition to these facilities, twenty (20) restaurants are
currently under construction in several Midwestern, Southeastern
and Southwestern states. Although there are no ShowBiz Pizza
Restaurants presently located in the seven-county metropolitan
area, the cities of Bloomington and West St. Paul have recently .
authorized the development of ShowBiz Pizza Restaurans and
• the Bloomington restaurant ,is currently under construction.
SUBJECT SITE
AND NEIGHBORING
LAND USES The proposed ShowBiz Pizza Restaurant is to be on the south
side of John Martin Drive just east of Shingle Creek Parkway
on a lot currently zoned for commercial use - C-2. State Farm
Insurance Company is located on a lot immediately to the
northwest, a Burger Brothers outlet is located on a lot
immediately to the southeast, and a lot owned by Northwestern
Bell is located to the southwest of the Subject Site. Across
John Martin Drive, to the north and northeast, are a parcel
owned by Byerlys, and a lot owned by Gabberts.
2.
DESCRIPTION OF THE
SHOWBIZ RESTAURANT:
OILY DINING WITH A
QUE INDOOR MINI-
THEME PARK The proposed ShowBiz Restaurant is a family restaurant which
includes a unique indoor mini-theme park. Based on experience
at existing ShowBiz Pizza Restaurants, it is expected that
most of the Brooklyn Center ShowBiz Restaurant patrons will
be adults accompanied by one or more young children. The
business community is expected to -be attracted to the ShowBiz
Restaurant for a change-of-pace luncheon atmosphere.
The Brooklyn Center ShowBiz Restaurant will offer a menu which
features pizza, hot dogs, hot roast beef sandwiches, and a
salad bar, as well as beverages. Ice cream sundaes and popcorn
will also be available. The method of food service is cafeteria.
style. Patrons are advised when their orders are ready by
mounted television monitors utilizing special computer programs.
Subject to approval of the application for a conditional use
permit, the applicant intends to apply for a retail on-sale
nonintoxicating malt liquor license to sell beer for consumption
on the premises.
Patrons will be offered a choice of two dining rooms in which
to enjoy their meals. The Show Room dining area will contain
200 seats and will afford diners the opportunity to watch the
"Electrouimated" animal show described below. The Sports Room
dining area will contain 40 seats, a warm, rustic decor and
wide-screen television.
�► ShowBiz Restaurants are eating establishinents in a unique
3.
setting. Approximately 70% of revenues at existing ShowBiz
.Pizza Place restaurants are derived from food sales. The
maintenance of an atmosphere conducive to casual enjoyable
eating is critical in light of the substantial investment
involved.
To ensure that this situation exists, ShowBiz Pizza Restaurant
managers exercise considerable control within their
establishments. Managers are trained to supervise both the
restaurant establishment and the amusement activity. ShowBiz
restricts amusement use to people purchasing food and their
children in polite ways consistent with legal limitations.
The music, games and rides are operated primarily with tokens
which are given free with food .purchases. Non-diner use of
the amusements is discouraged. Separate token purchases by
non-diners are limited. Further, special personnel, typically
off-duty policemen, are hired to observe and circulate during
• busy periods to ensure that only restaurant patrons are
utilizing the games. A sign is posted immediately outside
the door of all ShowBiz Restaurants which states that persons
under the age of eighteen (I8) are not welcome unless
accompanied by a parent or other responsible adult..
The ShowBiz Restaurant will be distinguished from other dining
establishments by its unique indoor mini-theme park. - The
primary component of the theme park concept is the
"Electronimated" animal show offered in the Show Room dining
area. It involves a series of computerized automated
4.
performances by three-dimensional animal characters on three
stages. These performances feature renditions of traditional
and popular musical works.
AMUSEMENTS In addition to the musical entertainment, ShowBiz Pizza
Restaurants offer a number of participatory amusements for
diners of all ages. The restaurant will contain approximately
50 play-centers or devices, most of which are located in a
Playroom integrated with the two dining areas. For very young
children, there is a "kiddie crawl" area; an illuminated "cave"
and"-balloon machine. 'For the slightly older, more dexterious
children, there are a number of attractive rides such as a
fire truck, mustang, bulldozer, helicopter and a small autorama.
For the older child, and perhaps even for mom and dad, there
are a number of visual electronic games featuring light beams,
Stargets, athletic and space challenges. The exact type and
mix of these electronic games is left to the discretion of
the manager. Generally, there are a number of up-right
electronic visual games and table-models of similar games.
There are electronic versions of the traditional pinball game,
skee ball (bowling) games as well as "Sea Wolf ,II", Missile
Command" and "Drag Race" games. Many of the games test hand
and eye coordination, visual acuity and.the physical and mental
reflexes of the participants and are all, to some degree, games
of skill. None of the games involve repetitious play or "free
replays" on the basis of success. The Playroom will be
supervised continuously by a trained, uniformed, ShowBiz
employee who enforces the age restriction policy and the rule
5.
i
that no food or beverages are allowed in the Playroom.
HOURS OF
ORATION The ShowBiz Restaurant will be open 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 P.M.
Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 a.m. to midnight Friday and
Saturday.
i
MANAGERS AND
EMPLOYEES The ShowBiz Restaurant will be managed by one full-time adult
manager who has prior experience in the management of multiple
restaurant establishments. He or she will be assisted by two
full-time adult assistant managers. and a technician who is
responsible for maintaining the "Electronimated" animal show
and the games. It is anticipated that the restaurant will
employ approximately 90 persons altogether, with no more than
15 employees .on the premises at any time.
The manager and assistant managers will attend a four-week
training school in Topeka, .Ransas, and restaurant operation
is monitored periodically by the applicant.
BUILDING AND
OPERATIONAL SUPER-
VISION AND SECURITY The ShowBiz Restaurant will be equipped with an electronic
security system. Operational security will be provided by the
restaurant's management team and employees. As discussed above,
the playroom will be supervised continuously to ensure
compliance with established policies and rules. To enforce
the posted age restriction policy, a uniformed security guard
will be on duty every night during the opening weeks of
restaurant operation. Thereafter, a security guard will be
employed on busy nights of the week as determined by the
• manager.'`
6.
FLOOR PLAN
AND LAYOUT The proposed ShowBiz Pizza Restaurant is a 10,343 square-foot
0 structure with several rooms. The Showroom dining area (2,109
square feet) includes a platform dining area in addition to
the main floor seating. The Showroom dining area is the main
dining area, and will offer a total of 200 seats. The Playroom
(2,187 square feet) contains the various amusements, and is
connected to the Showroom dining area via a hallway and a
corridor. The Sportsroom dining area (636 square feet) provides
40 seats and is accessed by two doorways into the Playroom.
Kitchen and office areas (1,565 square feet) are adjacent to
the Playroom and Showroom areas. This area includes a food
ordering station, a salad bar and various food and beverage
preparation areas. A small Gift Shop (322 square feet) .is
loated near the vestibule. A number of storage, technical
and electrical rooms as well as bathrooms, hallways and closets
make up the remainder of the building.
EXTERIOR
MATERIALS The Applicant plans an exterior consisting of brick veneer,
finished hardboard panels, stained shiplap siding and stained
wood trim. Graphics, coordinating with the interior colors
and consisting of three equal running bands, will be finished
on the hardboard panels. The entrance is canopied with an
iliuuninated identification sign.' Windows on either side of
the entrance as well as duraply ShowBiz logos on each of the
side elevations shall compliment the exterior.
LANDSCAPING The Subject Site plans include landscaping utilizing deciduous
and coniferous trees, evergreen shrubery, sod, gravel beds,
7.
s
s
and a turf fill between parking curbs. Sheet 3A1, the submitted
site plan designates this vegetative cover.
1!:tKING The proposed plan includes 136 parking spaces, 23 of which
are at 60° to the curb, with the remaining 113 at 90° to the
curb. The number of parking spaces responds to Section 35—
704, Subd. 2(a) of the Zoning Ordinance which would require
120 spaces ,for- 240 dining seats and 8 for 15 employees.
SIGNAGE Exterior signs as shown on sheet 1A3, the elevation plan.
The sign on the canopy of 'the building will display the ShowBiz
Pizza Restaurant logo illuminated against the beige canopy.
There will also be an identification sign located near the
ingress to the restaurant, as indicated on the site plan.
IMPACT ON PUBLIC
HEALTH AND WELFARE ShowBiz seeks to' locate in Brooklyn Center, which is located
in an area with one of the highest incidents of young families
• in the metropolitan area. The success of every ShowBiz facility
indicates the "good fun" atmosphere of ShowBiz is both desired
by and responsive to the needs of a substantial number of
American families. The high—quality food and unique
entertainment ShowBiz offers form a combination which cannot
be compared to any other enterprise in the local area, even
though other game center/food service enterprises do exist.
Most game centers are not oriented to families, and generally
ta'3 u"iut }`►ivvtu@ a�uaA-L y loide oaavwuss. as atva,aa maw++y a+a•+ avv..
oriented. The design and nature of the amusements, the quality
of food, as well as the fact that 70% of the restaurant's
revenue comes from food sales, all attest to the uniqueness
• of ShowBiz,• and the fact that its games are a secondary part
8.
of this operation.
IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING
PERTY AND FUTURE
ELOPMENT As a substantial restaurant, ShowBiz will attract many patrons
to the immediate area at lunch and dinner time. This consumer
generation should have a beneficial impact on surrounding retail
and commercial uses and on property values in the area. In
addition, ShowBiz will provide the service of an entertaining
luncheon atmosphere for many working patrons.
It is very unlikely that the ShowBiz Restaurant will generate
increased vandalism, loitering or nuisances in the area. As
previously described in this application, signs, management
and security personnel would all be used to control clientele.
As the letter from Ron West indicates, Brooklyn Park is
satisfied with the control at the "Circus" in Brooklyn Park
• because of sound management practices. ShowBiz's policies
and management will obtain similar successful results as they
have at their other existing locations.
The Restaurant will complement the already existing land uses
in the nearby area. It will provide an entertaining luncheon
service as well as give a recreational and wholesome dining
opportunity to residents in surrounding areas.
_TRAFFIC Traffic to the proposed Restaurant will be generated primarily
at noon and dinner hours. These peak times should balance
with traffic generation patterns of the other retail and office
uses in the area and thereby preclude adverse impact on Shingle
Creek Parkway or other tributary streets.
9.
t:
TELEPHONE 5307 CENTER MALL
816/464-1200 A DIVISION OF CURRY INVESTMENT COMPANY' KANSAS CITY. MO.64119
January 16, 1981
Show Biz Pizza Place,. Inc. '
. 2209 W. 29th
Topeka,. Kansas' 66611
TO. WHOM IT• ?..AY CO;r'CM:
During the course of the: last: twa years, it has not. only been our
pleasure, but an extremely beneficial. financial relationship to have
made Show. Biz Pizza Place a, par= of- our regional center. As the De-
veloper of. Antioch- Shopping Center,- a. 27-year-old regionl center,,
we. sorsetimes refer to- Shour Biz Pizza Place as our third. anchor. As
a: point of reference-, we,. as developers, embarked_ on. a total- r.enova-
tion. and- enclosuret. project: im 1979- of Antioch Center from. which evolved
a new, enclosed mall, and. over- the course- of the lasr year- and a half,
we have made.. an.. addition: of some- 70 new tenants, mainly of the national
caliber. Ia. reviewing. our pro forza for ouz tenant: mix, we had to take:
strong, consideration in. regard. to the type of. operation that Shod Biz.
• pizza. Places presented to us as, & part of a major regional center. Since
the co=encemenl= of their term:, our' decision. Ca make Show Biz. Pizza. Place
a part of our, regional mall has: been one" of the most rewarding, experiences:
in. many more ways than. strictly financial. Earlier in my Tatter, L made
reference to. the= as our third. anchor, Show Biz. Pizza consistently draws
one. of the- biggest: per-tenant customer counts to any shopping center. in
which L have. been iavolved.. ever_ Additionally, the: customer that they-
are dr2wing' and appealing to ultimately is. the customer every developer
desires-: to have drawn to his. shopping. center. Please- let me assure you_
that the- customer response to Show Bi.z Pizza. Place. in: Antioch Center,.
as, well as Kansan City, has been nothing but positive,. and we. have re-
ceived. many letters and. phone calls- compliaeating, us. o . the- addition of
them. to our shopping center-
If you are: considering. the addition. of Show Biz Pizza Place" to one of
your developments, I strongly urge you to contact me at. your earliest
co lance so that L can. personally relate to yes the type oa tenant
at we strive to make a part of our- developments- each and every
ay.
Sincerely,
)CUURRY L S?" CO. ANY
Doug` B odbeck
Agent ;
DLB:ns
0
rvILlINi °': OMPANY
January 01. 1KI
S^c:rbi t Pizza
2209 :-lest 29th St.
Topeka , KS 60611
rue ne.•.
71-is letter is 'to serve as a_ reponse to your inquiry conc^_:•ni ng our attitude
_o::ard Show izr Pima . Let. rie begin by stating that have had experience.
game•-roo!,, operations. in other shopping centers and have had problems'.
? can' t tell you What a of easure. it is having you as a tenant because o,
he mc-1-hod you conduct:. your business .
You trul_;' run a `au--ily operation to the extent That 1 bring- Tamli,y there
almost 1:er;l V. i have even, rrne to the. extent- o hri nr?i nr,, my Junior
• mchieve,,er.t class to /out' restaurant. as. a. field trip. You truly have a
thoroughly un i quc concept deal i vered to- the public in a
quality i;,anner by
-60".1-flight neopl C.
I would d be honored i`- you would give my name to anyone i nqui ryi nc, as to your
• cnmpany' s ovicration; I gill answer any and ail questions they m.ic_ht have.,
but i must ae.mi t to you a l l my answers wi 11 reflect the clua 1 i ty of you►•
operation: excellent..
Most sincerely,
Philip O' Leary
Financial Oi recta-
sO= w;eRUS HAY ROAD C)=S Iv,OIrJES, IOWA 503 i O A C 515 276-3317
10-3?t" STREET • IDES MCINLS, IOWA 30312 • AiC 515 255.2288
Art
rA'1 IN 9119 Barton *-Overland Park, Kansas 66214
s .
Show Biz Pizza Place District Office
2726 \ E Vivion Rd-
Kansas City, Missouri
January 12, 1981
To Whota It May Concern:
This firm- has been associated with the Show Biz Pizza chain for the past
four months at theCansas City, Missouri; Independence, Missouri; and
Overland Park,. Kansas locations. 'L can personally attest to the high quality-
of- both the store level_ as- well 3s. the: management level personnel.
They- have- consistently shown: a high regard: for their- appearance= and-
performance as a family oriented business-. The- g=es- and. entertainment are
clean, wholesome. itsn. L not only recr-mend this business to any area,.
abut have_ takerr cry own: children, ages seven,_ nine, and eleven to, Show Biz-
with no fear. of foul. influence_
Respectfull ,
Ed Stites-
Patrol. Supervisor
P •
5800 85th J= NORTH/BROOKLYN PL,a,MN.55443/612-425-4502
ry
CITY OF
BROOKLYN
PARK February 2, 1981
Mr. F. D. Nowlin
Attorney at Law
1500 Northwest Financial Center
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Mpls. , MN.. 55431
Dear Dick:.
In regards to your inquiry about the "Circus." amusement business in Brooklyn
Park, there was a considerable amount of concern over this business when it.
was first proposed. The City placed those conditions it felt were necessary-
to insure the use •would be. compatible with the location of the business_
Since it's opening in the. summer of 1979 there have• been no- major problems
with the- facility.
The operators, Advance- Carter Company-, have made every attempt to control the.
environment of' the- business so that it will- remain attractive as a. family place_
The. management and operators- will put up with no breach in their- rules and
will eject anyone who- will not abide by them-
Being a weekly visitor to. the Circus since: it's. opening,- Z can attest to, it's-
desirability as- an outlet for teenage fun (Z have: two sons, 12. and 14).. My
experience- has. been that many families; are using the facility as a recreational
outlet.. _
Sincerely
Ronald H. West
Dire of Coma. DevP
RHW:mp
~ Section 35-220. SPECIAL USE PERMITS
2. Standards for Special Use Permits
A special use permit may be granted by the City Council. after
demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met:
(a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the
special use will promote and enhance the general
welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger
the public health, safety, morals, or comfort.
(b) The special use will not be injurious to the use
and enjoyment of other property in the immediate
vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor
substantially diminish and impair property values
within the neighborhood.
(c) The establishment of the special use will not
impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of surrounding property for uses
permitted in the district.
(d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to
provide ingress, egress and parking so designed
as to minimize traffic congestion in the public
streets.
(e) The special use shall, in all other respects,
conform to the applicable regulations of the
district in which it is located.
3. Conditions and Restrictions
The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may
impose such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment,
location, construction, maintenance and operation of the special .
use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest
and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this ord-
inance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted,
the City Council may require such evidence and guarantees as it
may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connec-
tion therewith.
�- 4. Resubmission
No application for a special use permit which has been denied
by the City Council shall be resubmitted for a period of twelve
(12) months from the date of the final determination by the- City
Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing newly
discovered evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to
gain the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier
time.
5. Revocation and Extension of Special Use Permits
When a special use permit has been issued pursuant to the pre-
visions of this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further
action by the Planning Commission or the City Council unless the
.applicant or his assignee or successor commences work upon the sub-
ject property within one year of the date the special use permit is
granted, or unless before the exniratinn of the. one year period the
applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by filling out and
submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special
Use Permit" application requesting such extension and paying an
additional fee of $15.00.
Special use permits granted pursuant to the provisions of a
prior ordinance of Brooklyn Center shall expire within one year of
the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the sub-
ject property pursuant to such special use permit has not commenced
within that time'.
In any instance where an existing and established special use
is abandoned for a period of one year, the special use permit re-
lated thereto shall expire one year following the date of abandon-
Mont.
• ors . , :� •v� � -..
t
Ll
rl 4r
or
LL—)
AlF 61
F tV
�_�
r
t
•
e
Planning Commission Information Sheet
I
i
Application No. 81054
Applicant: ShowBiz Pizza Place, Inc.
Location: John. Martin Drive
Request: Appeal
The appellant challenges staff's determination of the parking requirement for a
a Showbiz Pizza Place restaurant on John Martin Drive, between Burger Brothers
and State Farm Insurance. Staff have pointed out to the appellant the need for
additional stalls over and above the ordinance restaurant formula for two reasons:
1 ) a substantial portion of the space within the building is devoted to activities
other than eating and drinking; and 2) the building could be converted to a total
dining area in the future without a building permit being obtained. Such a con-
version could result in a restaurant of approximately 350 seats rather than the
present proposal of 240 seats . A parking deficiency of 55 stalls could result.
The appellant opposes the City staff's determination that additional parking is
needed. Appellant argues that much of the game room and gift shop space will be
used by restaurant patrons while they are waiting to be served. Other game
users would only be those who have finished eating a meal or are waiting to
order, so that there will be no separate clientele for the game room apart from
the restaurant customers . Appellant has proposed to police this arrangement
with uniformed and nonuniformed security personnel as described in their letter
addressing the special use standards (See Application No. 81053) . Appellant
also argues that the proposed use should be evaluated on its own merits , not
on the basis of what it can be converted to in the future.
Q ly, the City staff have recommended that the applicant provide at
least enough parking to meet the retail parking formula for the game room space
in addition to parking which meets the strict restaurant formula for seats and
employees. This would result in a parking requirement as follows:
Restaurant: 240 seats plus = 120 spaces
16 employees = 8 spaces
11 spaces up to 1,000 sq. ft.
Retail : Game Room -2,187 sq. ft. @ 8/1,000 sq. ft = 20 spaces
Total : 148 spaces
Since the proposed plan provides only 136 spaces , there is a deficiency of 12
parking stalls which would require a reduction of 24 seats. Appellant has pro-
posed that the required parking be calculated by using a formula of 1 space/200
sq. ft. of floor area for the game room space rather than the retail formula of
8/1,000 sq. ft. ; and by reducing the seating to 230 seats . Their calculation -
follows:
Restaurant: 230 seats 115 spaces
16 employees 8 spaces
Amusement Area 2,187 sq. ft./200 = 11 spaces
Total 134 spaces
Upon further evaluation of `the plans in comparison with other restaurants, staff
is more, rather than less , concerned over the potential for conversion to a full-
blown restaurant. Since the current Zoning Ordinance tioes not really comprehend
mixed use eating and drinking establishments with game rooms, staff suggest that
7-30-81 -1-
,,
C
•
•
•
Application No. 81054 continued
Y the Planning Commission consider an ordinance amendment to take account of the
potential use of a restaurant building. Such an amendment would calculate some
reasonable potential for restaurant use of an entire building. . Formulas based
on restaurant square footage are used in Minnetonka , St. Paul , Roseville, and
to some extent, Bloomington. Past history in Brooklyn Center shows that sit-down
type restaurants normally have about one seat per 30 sq. ft. of total building
area. To be consistent with the present formula .of one space per two seats,
the floor area formula should perhaps be: one parking stall per 60 sq. ft. of
floor area for any building with kitchen facilities to accommodate a full
restaurant use. (See ordinance amendment attached) . We believe Showbiz Pizza
proposes this type of building and should be treated accordingly.
The parking requirement for a 10,350 sq. ft. building at 1 space per 60 sq. ft.
is 173 spaces. This is far more than can possibly be provided by ShowBiz Pizza
on this site. To build their restaurant on the site in question, ShowBiz Pizza
would have to either acquire more land for parking (off-site accessory parking
is not allowed for new uses) or shrink the size of the building to approximately
8,500 sq. ft. (142 stalls) . As stated by the applicant in the letter addressing
the special use permit standards (see Application No. 81053), ShowBiz has built
smaller restaurants in the past. We urge the Planning Commission to limit the size
of the proposed restaurant to something more realistic in terms of this site. It
should be pointed out that even an 8,500 sq. ft. restaurant would represent a
building to land ratio of over 12% which is quite high for a restaurant with over
200 seats. The Planning Commission may also wish to limit further the area avail-
able for games as was done in the Snacks and Nick Nacks application (No. 80020) .
The appellant argues that it is "not only impolite, but also inequitable unjusti-
fiable" to base parking requirements on potential re-use of the building. He
states that ShowBiz expects a long and profitable existence in Brooklyn Center so
that there should be no need to anticipate a different use for the building. To
illustrate how unreasonable staff's requirements are, the appellant cites the
parking requirements for four other cities: Edina (100 spaces) Bloomington (117
spaces) , Brooklyn Park (93 spaces) , Minnetonka (86 spaces, approximately) . Staff's
calculation of the Minnetonka requirement is 146 spaces (8,180 sq. ft. restaurant
space @ 75 sq. ft. per stall = 109 spaces plus%g IX sq. ft. retail @ 100 sq.ft/
stall = 22 spaces; plus one for each employee = 15 spaces; total = 146 spaces) .
Oddly enough, the appellant has offered no specific quantitative evidence as to
how many spaces other ShowBiz restaurants have actually had to provide.
The contention that the City does not have the right to require parking space
based on future re-use is the crux of the matter. The City has a longstanding
policy of requiring separate parking requirements for secondary uses within
structures . The City has also required parking based on potential use conversions
in the future. This was done in the case of the Osseo Bus Garage, the A.F.I .A.
office building, and the Car X Muffler Shop. In these cases , future reconsider-
ation of required parking was not ruled out, but did constitute a basis from which
to plan further development of a respective site. We do not feel it is unreasonable
to calculate a stricter parking requirement for potential re-use in this particular
case. 1I{C circumstances 1. sl1T r UU11U I Ill 1.he pr oposed use, n our view,f Jus V{ ly
an approach. Restaurants have a fairly rapid turnover rate compared to other
commercial and industrial uses. It does not seem unreasonable to anticipate that
in the future a restaurant with up to 350 seats could occupy the proposed building.
Contrary to what the appellant contends, the City would have little power to stop
• ShowBiz or a potential user from simply removing games and installing portable
tables for eating and drinking. Even withholding a liquor or food handling
license would present the difficulty of continually enforcing the seating limit.
This is simply not a realistic task for the City. It is far better to avoid this
kind of difficulty in the future (a difficulty we might add for those marketing
the property as well as those enforcing zoning regulations) by planning now on
7-30-81 -2-
ir
Application No. 81054 continued
• the possibility of conversion later on. This possibility is more than slight and,
in staff's opinion, is sufficient in this case to justify such a precautionary
approach. The fact that other municipalities have similar requirements shows that
a parking requirement based on total building area is not unreasonable or arbitrary.
We recommend that the appeal be denied and that the proposed ordinance amendment
be adopted i-n some form.
7-30-81 -3-
v
,ms's Draft Ordinance Amendment
Section 35-704:2 (a) is hereby amended by the addition of the
following:
2. Commerce (Retail and Service/Office)
(a) Eating and drinking places: ,
One space for every two (2) seats, and one space
for every two employees on the average maximum
shift; or one space for each 60 sq. ft. of gross
building area in restaurants with commensurate
kitchen facilities ; whichever is the greater
parking requirement. (Parking spaces for
"drive-in" customers shall not be credited as
a part of the off-street parking area needed
to serve the sales operation conducted within
the buildings) .
v
? �
',�
� __
�I