HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 09-10 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
REGULAR SESSION
SEPTEMBER 10, 1981
1 . Cali to Order: 7:30 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes: August 27, 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.
5. Byron Brekke 81058
Request for a variance from Section 15-104 of the subdivision
ordinance to subdivide property by metes and bounds description
rather than formal plat. Land is being conveyed from the property
at 5536 Irving Ave. N. to 5555 Humboldt Ave. N.
6. B1umentals Architecture 81063
Request for site and building plan approval to constrict a six
lane remote drive-up bank facility for Summit State Bank at the
office building at 6040 Earle Brown Drive.
7.. Summit Mortgage Corp./Blumentals Architecture 81041 and
Request for site and building plan approval to relocate build= 81051
• ings on the Earle Brown Farm (81041 ) and to develop the horse-
barn and .hiprodrome as a speculative industrial building
(81051 ).: A condition of approval of the applications was the
revision, of the preliminary plat submitted under Application
No. 81034. The items 'were tabled at the July 30, 1981 Planning
Commission meeting.
8. ShowBiz Pizza 81053
Request for site and building approval to construct a 230
seat, 1-0,343 sq. ft. restaurant with game room on the south
side of' John Martin Drive, west of Burger Brothers. This
application was tabled at the July 30, 1981 Planning Commission
meeting.
9. Other Business
a) Review of request for building permit for an oriental
restaurant (Szechuan Taste) to occupy 7,920 sq. ft. in
the Brookdale Square Shopping Center. A staff memo has
been prepared on this item.
10. Discussion Item
a) Draft ordinance amendments for group lesson special home
occupations.
11 . Adjournment
wL
f
•
N
Planning Commission Information Sheet
R
Application No. 81058
Applicant: Byron Brekke
Location: 5555 Humboldt Avenue North and 5536 Irving Avenue North
Request: Variance
The applicant requests a variance from the provisions of the Sub=
division Ordinance (Section 15-104) to draw a new property line
between two existing lots by metes and bounds description. The
lot$ at 5536 Irving Avenue North is described as Lot 9, Block 1, Hipp' s
Second Addition. The lot at 5555 Humboldt Avenue North has a metes
and bounds legal description as part of Auditor ' s Subdivision No.
218 . The properties are zoned R1 and are surrounded by single-family
homes .
Presently, the lot at 5536 Irving (Mr. Brekke's house) is 82 ' wide by
120 ' deep, and the lot at 5555 Humboldt Avenue North is 81 ' wide and 147 '
deep (the south side property lines are offset about 105 . The estate of
the late owner of 5555 Humboldt has agreed to sell 20 ' of the rear yard
area to Mr. Brekke which would change the dimensions of the lots to 82 '
x 140' (11,480 sq. ft. ) , and 81' x 127 ' (10, 287 sq. ft. ) , respectively.
Both resulting lots will, therefore, be standard as to width and area.
Variances from the Subdivision Ordinance may be granted when an undue
hardship may result from strict compliance with the ordinance. In
making its findings, the Planning Commission should take into account
the following standards :
Section 15-112. VARIANCES
(a) The Council Rfay authorize a variance from these regulations w,hdih '
in its opinion� 'undue hardship may result from strict compliance In
granting any,,Variance, the Council s hall prescribe only conditions that
it deems n .e'essary to or desirable for the public interest..
In makigY its findings as required herein below, the Council shall take
into pCCOUnt the nature of ,,the proposed use of land, ,,the existing use
of Efnd in the vicinity, ;the number of persons to reside or work in
t proposed subdivision and the probable effect .of the proposed sub-
ivi
sion n upon traffip conditions in the vicinity. To grant a variance,
/the Council shall_..-find: . --''
1: That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting
said property such that the strict application of the provi-
sions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of the
reasonable use of his land.
2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner.
3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to
• the public welfare or injurious to other property in the
territory in which said property is situated.
9-10-81 -1-
Application No. 81058 Continued
(b) Application for any such variance shall be 'made in writing by-,.
the subdivider at the -time when the preliminary plat is filed for the
consideration of the Council, stating fully and . clearly all facts
relied upon by the petitioner and shall be supplemented with maps,
plains, or other additional data whidh may aid the Council in the
analysis of the proposed project..' The plans for such development ,
%shall include such covenants, ,restrictions, or other legal provi-
sions necessary to guarantee the full achievement of the plan..'`
Variances for subdivision by metes and bounds were quite common prior
to 1978. Since then, there have been no such divisions. No ordinance
change has taken place. There simply have been no such applications .
The grounds for granting these variances typically cited the right of
a property owner to divide his property and the hardship of bearing
full platting costs to divide property by plat.
The applicant' s letter (attached) cites the cost of platting and the
lack of injury to other property in the neighborhood. There is no
fence between the properties at present. The applicant has submitted
an as-built survey of the property to verify that no structures exist
within the area to be transferred or within five feet from the pro-
posed property line.
Staff have no serious objection to the proposed variance, so long as
no new lots are being created and no substandard conditions arise from
the metes and bounds subdivision . Approval of this variance would be
based on considerable precedent, and is, therefore, recommended on
the following grounds :
1) The costs of platting would place an unreasonable burden on
the property owners to transfer a small amount of land.
2) No substandard conditions will be created by the subdivision.
3) No new lots are created by the subdivision.
•
9/10/81 -2-
�I
i
I
II
�I
i
�I
i
I
I
•
To: Planning Commission, City of Brooklyn Center
From: Byron 0. Brekke, 5536 Irving Ave. No.
Date: July 30, 1981
Subject:(. Request for Variance From Section 15-104 Subdivision A-1
I request a variance from Section 15-104 Subdivision A-1 to sub-
divide and combine 20 feet from the rear of 5555 Humboldt Ave.
No. (7101 Auditors Subdivision) with 5536 Irving Ave. No. (Lot 9
Block 1 Hipps 2nd Addition).
There are no other variances and the transfer will not create a
substandard lot. The granting of this variance will not be
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property
in the territory.
The 20 foot extension to 5536 Irving Ave. No. will permit me to
extend my garden and shrubs. There is no fence between the
properties.
The granting of this variance will save me about $600.00 in sur-
veying and fee costs.
A survey by a registered land surveyor will be made upon favorable
reception of this variance request.
OB/ckb
Cherrier Wim mr & Associates, Inc.
Registered Professional Land Surveyors
308 ■Village North Professional Bldg.■7420 Unity Avenue North■ Brooklyn Park,MN. 55443■(612)561-2505
Sheet 1 of 2 Sleets
, � r� �m eE• a" U�' Viz, �! `�►, }
w s'
Property of Byron o. Brekke
Described as follows:
See Sheet: 2 of 2 Slieet_s for Led,.;1 Eiescr i ht ions
Lof 54, E a�bs /t/e.
,✓
� Q �
2''/9 b D/T/DN Q i
d` /e 9�
�io.oa /z&.99 —
B _ G S•7 Zb.2 a5.1 ' 33•D�
71 �°� a �. off ; 'k Ali o
, 0 , v N`�� i Farce
V ` ` = v lea
x `1`
� Ne�°�,,/9„E �oh � Cv. �i�c o1- /v�• >G!o �B!”a��c�54, •�
•�`` get`
v` I
/,YIe o f Lo 9, 11 DDIT/O�✓
B/oEk / f/IPP S 6ECOAID
hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or Scale 1 inch equals �_° feet
,nder my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land o Indicates Iron Monument
purveyor undsj the laws of the Stta't�of Minnesota Book Page -
rl'"'
No.
Date f' 'O-r'/Reg No. ��c� Job
e
•
�/ r / ICJ :: � ■ -r
. .� ■ iii ` IM" �r i� ,��i �" ■■
t. ri■ ..■ ■■ ��C •_ ... ■ ■■
IM
IM
IM
IM
. ■ �■■■ �,■ �■�ii .iii .� ■■ �■r ■■■ ■
rte- �■� i■ �■ir ■ . �■■' ■iii i i it ■
■�■� =ice ■■■ �...
arr �� r -�� �■
n,
. M •
u s�� t R �ICT-
'Tom
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 81063
Applicant: Blumentals Architecture
• Location : 6040 Earle Brown Drive
Request: Site and Building Plan
The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct a remote
drive-up bank facility at 6040 Earle Brown Drive for the Summit State Bank.
The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded by Hwy. 100 on the east,
vacant C2 land on the south, Earle Brown Drive on the west, and the Earle
Brown Office Tower on the north. The new facility will be roughly 610' from
the existing Summit State Bank, located west of Earle Brown Drive at 6100 Summit
Drive.
The drive-up facility will have six lanes underneath a staggered canopy project-
ing 68' easterly from the existing office building. The faces of the proposed
canopy will be of exposed concrete block to match the existing building.
The installation of the canopy will result in the loss of 46 parking stalls out of
354 existing spaces, leaving 308 spaces. This is still 53 more than the 255 required
for the office building by ordinance formula, ( The reason an excess exists is be-
cause the Nino's restaurant, which required extra stalls, no longer occupies space
in the building. )
New landscaping will be installed in the area immediately adjacent to the remote
facility. Two Radiant Crabs north of the office building are indicated. Spreading
Junipers on the outer driving lane delineators are also shown. The plan contains no
landscape schedule at present. This should be added to the plan before Council con-
sideration.
The .plan calls for B612 concrete curb and gutter on the new delineators adjacent to
the building and along the outer edge of the parking lot. The teller islands , how-
ever, have only 6`curb with no surrounding gutter. Staff recommend that these
islands be surrounded by B612 concrete curb and gutter, consistent with the City's
policy and ordinance section 35-710. Also, an existing catch basin in the driving
lane east of the building is to be removed and the attached storm sewer abandoned.
The grade in this area is rather flat and staff recommend that some pitch be given
to the surface to improve drainage to remaining catch basins.
Building elevations for the office building show a large sign reading:"Summit 'Bank"
and a time and temperature flashing sign. Owners of the building intend to change
its name to the Summit Bank Building although only one small tenant space will
actually be used by the bank. Wall signs for building identification purposes are
permitted on multi-storey office buildings, but a time and temperature sign is not.
The proposed sign, is not formally a part of the site and building plan review,
but is being addressed by staff at this time on the basis of whether the proposed
sign can be allowed under the ordinance and whether two buildings in the City can
be given the same name. A variance request or an appeal from staff's determination
may be forthcoming on this issue. Site and building plan approval need not be con-
tingent on approval of signery which is considered separately.
Subject to some minor revisions , then, approval of the proposed plan is 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.
-1-
9/10/81
J
i�
i
i'
-Application No. 81063 Continued
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 supoortinq 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. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to
facilitate site maintenance.
5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the
City Ordinances.
6. B612 Curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas.
7. The plans shall be modified to indicate 8612 curb and gutter around all teller
islands ; and a landscape schedule shall be added prior to consideration by the
City Council .
-2- '
9/10/81
i
��
r
•
1
i
Planning Commission Information Sheet
i
Application Nos. 81041, 81051
Applicant: Summit Mortgage Company/Blumentals Architecture
Location: 6100 Summit Drive
Request: Site and Building Plan
The applicants for these two applications request site a building l
plan approval to relocate buildings on the Earle Brown 81041) and
to develop the horsebarn and hippodrome as a speculative industrial j
building (81051) . These applications were tabled on July 30, 1981 f
to allow the owner of the property time to react to the recommended ,
conditions of approval. The condition which was of primary concern i
to the owner relates to revising the preliminary plat submitted under
Application No. 81035 . This revision was to include the land desig-
nated as a historic site by the Minnesota Historical Society in a j
single parcel which would be given special zoning status to allow
development preserving the Farm buildings .
i
The owner has accepted this condition in principle. A revised plat !
has been prepared to contain the historic site on two parcels rather
than one. However,- these parcels do not include any land outside
the historic site. Therefore, any variances granted for the devel-
opment of the two parcels will be related solely to the historic
site and not for neighboring development. One of the proposed par-
cels, Tract H, will take in the horsebarn, hippodrome and cook shed
and will be 3. 28 acres. The other parcel comprising the historic {
site will include all the other farm buildings and will be 2 .69
acres and designated Tract I. The Summit Bank building will not
be included in either parcel. Instead, it will be located on a
large 10.1 acre tract which will almost surround Tracts H and I. E
The Planning Commission is referred to the minutes and staff re-
ports for the July 30, 1981 meeting for a discussion of the details
of the relocation plan (81041) and the horsebarn/hippodrome site
plan (81051) .
With the revision in the preliminary plat, staff are prepared to
recommend approval of Application No. 81041, subject to the fol-
lowing conditions :
i
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 is revised so that all the Farm buildings to
be relocated or preserved are within the Minnesota
Historic Site (as defined by the register of
9-10-81 -1-
i
•
Application Nos. 81041 and 81051 continued
Minnesota Historic Places) for the Earle Brown
Farm and are to be on two parcels with no excess
land available for future development with new
structures.
5. That the City Council acknowledges through this
site plan approval 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 re-
quirements 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 his-
toric district unless specifically waived by
variance approval.
7. Approval of this application does not constitute
approval of any special use permit for potential
uses in the historic Earle Brown Farm buildings.
Approval of Application No. 81051 is also 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.
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 buildingfijffl to be equipped with an automatic fire
extinguishing system to meet NFPA Standards and shall
be connected to a central monitoring device in accord-
ance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances.
6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed
7n all to fa�r 'state a mai tenance.
, f a 7. Pappris exclusive of a'll signery which
subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances .
-2-
9-10-81 �
_ Application Nos. 81041 and 81051 continued
8• B-612 curb and gutter shall be provide around All
,. parking and driving areas.a.�4,c,.,�-{- -♦
U ;
• 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, east side elevations
for the barn and hippodrome.
4. Indication of trash storage. fl
9-10-81 -3-
i
�'II
'r b c
cr
Q'
CL
w
/ ( Q
/ PROPOS R A
� 94 F.S.
f �C PROOPOS pE gu-,V DG �0 r
u
su ,rr,rr �'
=J
i(' ► I
A
i G 8 04 APPLICATION 1051 NOS.
_ } C Cv. , 8
•:t -� , 81 fi3 —
EP-RL BROWN
SCHOOL
GRANDV I E W , o wi
PARK
P r5;
'r
t�
D
w
--- ou^:aC:-.0 ea: -
-- - .1 ARJU�:G%1.'NCn� + W.t ^:7•,-' i c:0.4- -`k£A, +
Tl
e374
..._ �_ - - V .- _- ---• - " ,,:. -f; - �1. Nom'^i`l /-`•• � 'f, `�-_- `J'
�Jtv�.:�0-1>oi .._-.::�1,,,Y..1:.�ti,l + � + �1 .�'\t �t t � •F
t _ -• t' r:t 1+ 1 t. 1
fj t 1 ;e=P'
I, ' ��.-.,A_.: �'�1�•�.r-�• .G- ri�:"�:ti:t^ �l�%�
.� � ••� •,�;.".�,,.,�-�•- —�,:•,-� ` ---
:<:. E Erg 'i�Vy ;.uf0 i
^i
I St;� c.e ��'G/— .� +n��' �• _`'itao9 \ 55?BS �\-
Af 00
Opt• � fit•, \� '� �.
/li,616 f7/f 1
4.19
/11/17
262794 ffn�-'•
�' ( G.OJ C. a Nf1•/4'ta'W. i
[
so.M
o
1 v �• ,ao
M 1y
1 � N •� �
1. vY � J 111099 5¢!' I �t I 295,191 fob(!'
IV 87-14'
.. J, v
t / `
�` _. ._ rarer, C)V 1•• r. I ,II •n l�l
5W'-
S �.� � rr$- � r 10.101JC. - r✓ac•%YS-scr I
C 1
!^y h
. O„1. ,(„• .wor G'!o;lr:ono,rnt 4 1 °`
�. v \1• J)f Gr N.1:<r,SOn.:Pr, � � Jr • I I N 4:
cSC • - t.f r )[root_r IdS1 I I � ? �•� ii..
j/4/'Soo���/9✓ .` �. __ __ I�_1d' ° •__�- G____���_"r�i.a-.u._a�: � �I �.'✓
Qar
P /�!q/ �\ _ - ..-�' � n�,•�,',cC n.o`� e� 1 ` _ /99.6/1 fOlf^ .:
t w=lPh��� �?3/V r t 3r a ysa
ea i rae �\ ` QtS� r w v •I ! w
,/"
,, : alb : •
r�
'i.^.=:a?• i1 »a 193>�� r•1 '� ..
Ail/41 T
. o
t ,I, w I d r 1 � �• n/, ve �Q: t5,
SS'M1:: .'�'.to fti563'25 •Z,;,.1? i"z-c /{ hR•�0� �•
1 � �n,'1v .+ /� �r.n/v �oh q.ti is "� 'U.': �•n / o : •� \
/�� •nJ r r '- i h•a __-�•�• Y'v, 11G,517 fgr/^• v'1
!I n• Ytirtn "�___1 1 I
~ r / 170 04
ILrJ
Tom, Aa.a• 5179 Re
{ ph 14
' ✓t �lt Q
i
I
•
•
- Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 81053
Applicant: Showbiz Pizza Place
Location: John Martin Drive
. Request: Site and Building Plan/Special Use
The applicant seeks site and building plan and special use permit approval to build
a 10,343 square foot, 230 seat restaurant with a 2187 square foot game room on the
property west of Burger Brothers on John Martin Drive. This application was tabled on
July 30, 1981 until disposition of an appeal regarding required parking spaces. After
a hearing by the City Council on August 10, 1981 and further negotiation with staff, the
appeal was withdrawn at the August 24, 1981 City Council meeting. The withdrawal came
after agreement between all parties that 140 parking spaces was an appropriate and
feasible requirement for the site plan proposed under this application. Also, the
applicant has agreed to place a covenant on the restaurant limiting it to 270 seats ,
unless the City's ordinance is changed to allow more seats or additional off-site
parking can be obtained or stipulated under City ordinance, (see letter attached) .
In lieu of these agreed upon provisions , there is no longer need for the appeal .
The calculation of 140 parking stalls is based on the following:
230 seats = 115 spaces
16 Employees = 8 spaces
2187 s.f. retail space = 17 spaces (at 8 per 1000 s.f.)
Total = 140 spaces
Staff used 8 spades per 1000 square foot of retail space since the game room area need
not be considered the "first 1000square foot" of building area (which requires 11 spaces
• under the retail formula) . In compliance with this requirement, the applicant has sub-
mitted a revised site plan showing 136 spaces to be installed and four "optional" spaces
as a proof-of-parking, located near the southwest corner of the building.
The applicant has provided three additional trees in the front greenstrip area (Skylight
Locusts) , as per the request of the Planning Commission at its July 30 meeting. Also,
the applicant has agreed to remove the yellow, red and orange striping around the
building with the exception of the area around the in front entrance. This was also
requested by the Planning Commission. - --� � - .�
dcr--- .
Based on these revisions and the previous review of the plans on July 0th (see minu es
and information sheet, attached) , approval of the plans is 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.
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 issu-
ance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements.
4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop michanical 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.
9/10/81 -1-
Application No. 81053 Continued
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. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas.
9. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator and is non-
transferable.
10. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and
regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
11. A copy of the House Rules for the game room shall be filed with the City prior
to the issuance of the special use permit. The house rules shall be display-
ed at the entrance to the restaurant and within the game room area.
--- 12. Signery for the building shall be limited to identification sign.s.Wall treat-
ments used as eye-catching devices (eg. colored striping) shall be prohib-
ited on all wall areas except the area beneath the c opy on the front wall
around the main front door.a�-...: � zk' �
13. The restrictive .covenant shall be approved by the City Attorney and filed
with the title to the property prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
•
LARKIN, JAMES P. LARKIN STEVLN G.LEVIN
HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. ROBERT L.HOFFMAN CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN
JACK F. DALY PETER K.BECK
ATTORNEYS AT LAW D.KENNETH LINDGREN RICHARD 1.DIAMOND
ANDREW W. DANIELSON JOHN R. BEATTIE
WE DELL R.ANDERSON JON S.SWIERZEWSKI
ISOO NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER GERALD H. HITL C MICHAEL S.STERN
ROBERT B.WHITLOCK SAMUEL L.STERN
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH ALLAN E.MULLIGAN THOMAS J.FLYNN
ROBERT J. HENNESSEY RODERICK 1.MACKENZIE
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55431 RONALD R. FLETCHER MICHAEL D.SCHWARTZ
JAMES C.ERICKSON FORREST D.NOWLIN
TELEPHONE 16121 835-3800 • EDWARD J. DRISCOLL JAMES P.OUINN
JAMES P.MILEY MICHAEL C.JACKMAN
GENE N.FULLER MARY E.CURTIN
STEPHEN B. SOLOMON DANIEL A.OUINLAN
4324 IDS CENTER 1101 CONNECTICUT AVENUE,N.W. JOSEPH W. ANTHONY JEROME H.KAHNKE
MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402 WASHINGTON,D.C.20036 DAVID C.SELLERGREN TODD 1.FREEMAN
JOHN D.FULLMER CATHY E.GORLIN
TELEPHONE (6121 835-3800 TELEPHONE 1202) 223-9398 ROBERT E.BOYLE JOSEPH T.GREEN
FRANK 1.HARVEY ANDREW J.MITCHELL
ROBERT T.MONTAGUE,JR..
o JAMES M.STROTHER
September 2, 198 r 1 EMBER D.REICHGOTT
CHARLES S.MODELL
RICHARD A.FORSCHLER OF COUNSEL
LINDA H.FISHER JOSEPH GITIS
THOMAS P. STOLTMAN LINN J.FIRESTONE
.PRESENTLY ADMITTED ONLY IN PENNSYLVANIA
Ronald A. Warren
Planning Commission Secretary
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
Re: ShowBiz Pizza, Inc. Site Plan and
Conditional Use Permit Request
Dear Ron:
I enclose four copies of a new site plan and new landscaping plan for the
• above proposal. The site plan depicts the potential location of four additional
parking spaces in compliance with the City Council's determination of August 24th.
The landscaping plan incorporates additional landscaping in front of the lot in
response to the recommendation contained in the report to the Planning Commission
submitted in July.
I have been authorized to advise you that ShowBiz Pizza is willing to remove the
yellow, red and orange striping shown as proposed for the corners and sides of
the building with the exception that they be allowed to place these graphic stripes
in the "U" shaped area immediately around the front door. It is accepted that
this treatment will be regarded as signage and that total signage must conform to
ordinance requirements.
I also enclose a rough draft of a declaration of restrictive covenant relating to
the commitment to place no more than 270 seats within the restaurant to be constructed
at this location. I will communicate with you and Dick Schieffer shortly with regard
to this. covenant.
We are planning to attend the Planning Commission meeting on September 10th. If
additional information is desired, please feel free to call.
Very truly yours,
4 A,
• Forrest D. "Dic Nowlin, for c�`v
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. ��
cc: Richard J. Schieffer "�
C-0
Craig Sweeney
(ROUGH DRAFT)
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
THIS DECLARATION is made this day of , 1981, by SHOWBIZ
PIZZA, INC., a Minnesota corporation (Declarant) .
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF FACTS
Declarant is the owner of certain real property located in the City of
Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A
which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the Property) .
In order to induce the City of Brooklyn Center to approve use of the Prop-
erty by Declarant as a restaurant, the Declarant desires to subject the
Property to the Restrictive Covenant hereinafter described.
NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant declares that the Property is, and shall be, held,
transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied, subject to the following Restrictive
Covenant which Covenant shall run with the Property and be binding upon all parties
having any right, title or interest in the Property or any part thereof, and their
heirs, successors and assigns:
Any restaurant or eating facility now existing or to be built upon the
Property shall be constructed with no more than two hundred seventy (270)
seats available for diners unless:
(01) The City of Brooklyn Center ordinances governing parking are -
amended subsequent to the date hereof to allow more restaurant
seats for each available parking space on the Property; or
(02) The additional parking spaces necessary to permit increased
seating capacity under existing city ordinances are acquired
by Declarant or any successor owner of the Property.
This Restrictive-Covenant shall have a term'of years from the
date this Declaration is recorded and upon expiration, shall automatically
terminate.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has executed this Declaration on the day and
year first above written.
SHOWBIZ PIZZA, INC.
By:
Its:
i
•
I'��
��
•
i
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 Rl , R2 or R3 zoned property (no such abutment exists in this
case) .
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 t ne 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 painted 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
Bugle flowers are to be planted in a decorative wood 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 replays ." The stage area presents various "electronomated" animal shows
featuring 5 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 applicant 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 this 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 , some of which operate til late in the evening (I .e. theaters and
restaurants) . To an extent, then, the proposes 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-
i
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
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-
Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis,
Manson, Simmons and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion
passed.
APPLICATION NOS. 81053 and 81054 (ShowBiz Pizza Place, Inc. )
The Secretary intro used the next item o usiness, a request by
ShowBiz Pizza Place, Inc. for site and building plan approval to
construct a 10, 343 sq. ft. , 240 seat restaurant and a game room
on the south side of John Martin Drive between Burger Brothers and
State Farm Insurance. He also reviewed the application for an
appeal from the determination of the Planning Director that addi-
tional land for parking, over and above the restaurant formula,
must be provided for the 10, 350 sq. ft. ShowBiz Pizza Restaurant.
He reviewed the contents of the staff reports (See Planning Com-
mission Information Sheets for Application Nos . 81053 and 81054
attached) .
The Secretary stated that the City has required parking based on
mixed uses in the past and will continue to do so. He reviewed a
chart of parking, seating, building area and land area for rest-
aurants in Brooklyn Center. He explained that when the application
was originally made for the site plan, the staff required parking
based on the retail formula for the game room. The Secretary then
referred to the example of the Lemon Tree Restaurant which had
additional seating capacity, but could not install seats because
there was no additional parking on the site. The Secretary stated
that the Green Mill, which desires to remodel the Lemon Tree Rest-
aurant, feels that the restaurant is overbuilt and can accommodate
more seats. The staff, in turn, feels that the 10 ,000 plus sq. ft.
building proposed by ShowBiz Pizza for the site in question is far
• too big for the site and is also overbuilt for the amount of seating
involved, on which the parking would normally be based. The Secre-
tary stated that ignoring the potential for conversion in the future
to a full blown restaurant would lead to problems similar to that
being experienced by the Green Mill as it attempts to make use of
the Lemon Tree Restaurant. He briefly reviewed the recommended
ordinance amendment and explained that it would provide alternative
formulas to comprehend the potential use of a restaurant type build-
ing and is based on seating to square footage ratio of other rest-
aurants in the City.
In answer to a question from Chairman Hawes, the Secretary explained
that the lights around the main sign on the canopy are permitted, so
long as they are not flashing lights .
Chairman Hawes called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Dick Nowlin,
of Larkin-Hoffman Law Firm, and a representative of ShowBiz Pizza,
addressed the Commission.
Mr. Nowlin stated that he considered the ShowBiz Pizza Restaurant
a combined use and not strictly a restaurant. He acknowledged that
one-third of the building is devoted to entertainment. He also
stated that he had talked with surrounding businesses who have ex-
pressed no opposition to the project. Mr. Nowlin briefly described
the ShowBiz Pizza use and stated that it appeals to children of all
ages. Mr. Craig Sweeney, President of ShowBiz Pizza, next spoke
• to the Commission regarding the proposal. He admitted that he had
to explain the nature of the use constantly to Planning Commissions
around the country. He stated that 70% of the revenue from the
restaurant would be from the sale of food and beverages. He also
7-30-81 -8-
` described the electronomated animal band which plays a variety of
music to entertain the mostly youthful audience. Mr. Sweeney stated
that ShowBiz Pizza does not have a separate game room business and
that there is no separate door leading to the game room.
In answer to a question from Chairman Hawes, Mr. Sweeney stated that
no one under 18 would be admitted to the restaurant without an adult.
He stated that games are a fad at this point in time and that it is
necessary to control the use of the games by younger patrons . Chair-
man Hawes noted the expression "fad" and stated that this is pre-
cisely one of the things which the staff and the Planning Commission
are concerned about. Mr. Sweeney answered that the games are the
most profitable aspect of the business and that they are not likely
to be removed in the foreseeable future. He stated that pizza
restaurants by themselves have a difficult time making a profit in
today' s economic climate. Chairman Hawes noted that restaurants
change from one operator to another and pointed out that Brooklyn
Center has a number of existing pizza restaurants , as well as others
proposed for the near future. Mr. Sweeney answered that he felt
that ShowBiz Pizza is on the "cutting edge" of bringing food, en-
tertainment and games together in one place. Chairman Hawes asked
whether other food would be served besides pizza. Mr. Sweeney an-
swered that roast beef sandwiches, hot dogs and a salad bar would
be available.
Commissioner Simmons noted that Mr. Sweeney talks as though there
will be no change in the restaurant, yet the restaurant is built
for a possible conversion. Chairman Hawes referred to page 4 of
the letter addressing the special use standards and noted that it
called for restricting the use of the machines by nonrestaurant
patrons. Mr. Sweeney stated that use of the games by nonrestaurant
patrons under 18 would be discouraged by the use of guards, etc.
. Commissioner Simmons asked whether identification was requested to
check whether people are 18 or not. Mr. Sweeney answered in the
affirmative. Chairman Hawes stated that he did not wish to dis-
courage the use from coming into Brooklyn Center, but did not feel
that the proposed parking layout was adequate for a potential use
in the future.
Mr. Nowlin explained that ShowBiz Pizza is not arguing against
separate parking for the game room, but feels that the parking re-
quirement imposed by the City staff is too stringent. He explained
that the City Council and Planning Commission should avoid double
counting in calculating the needs for parking. He stated that the
patrons of the game room are, for the most part, patrons of the
restaurant as well. He stated that practically speaking, ShowBiz
Restaurant does not need even the 136 spaces which are presently
shown on the site plan. This, he pointed out, is based on approxi-
mately four persons per group and per car attending the restaurant.
He reviewed a list of other ShowBiz Pizza locations , all of which
had less than 136 parking stalls , roughly 10 ,000 sq. ft. of building
area, and lot areas of between 45, 000 and 68 ,000 square feet. He
stated that, if necessary, the ShowBiz Restaurant would attempt to
ameliorate the lack of ordinance required parking by obtaining joint
parking with the surrounding office uses.'
• Regarding the reuse of the restaurant as a 350 seat facility, Mr.
Nowlin stated that this could not be accomplished legally or practi-
cally without some review by the City. He stated that the property
7-30-81 -9-
s proposed could be reused as an office a retail use or a com-
mercial ,
P P
,
mercial use with mixed restaurant and game room .facilities. He
stated that the restaurant as built would be marketable.
As to legal controls, he stated that the conditional use permit
need not be reissued for the restaurant on occupation by a new
operator and/or that a certificate of occupancy, food license,
and/or liquor license could all be denied as means of controlling
the amount of seating in the restaurant. He stated that reuse of a
structure is not a typical standard for determining parking require-
ments in most Zoning Ordinances . Mr. Nowlin stated that the 14%
building to land utilization is not excessive if considered as a
mixture of commercial and restaurant uses . He concluded by comparing
the parking requirement for other cities in the west Hennepin area
for a similar facility.
Commissioner Simmons stated that the restaurant use looked interest-
ing; but if this use is not successful in the long run, what other
use would likely occupy the building? She asked whether the kitchen
is extensive enough to accommodate a larger restaurant. Mr. Craig
Sweeney answered that the building could be made into a drug store,
that this has been done in one other case.
Mr. Nowlin stated that the applicant is willing to remove the i
colored bands around the building except at the door, in which case
the bands and canopy signery will conform to the Sign Ordinance
limitations. He also stated that there is no objection to providing
additional landscaping along the front greenstrip. He concluded that
the parking problem is the only major obstacle to approval of the
• proposed use. He also explained that the structure is a single use
from a business standpoint, but acknowledged that from a planning
standpoint, it must be comprehended under two different formulas.
Commissioner Theis stated that he was confused regarding the extent
of the kitchen facilities . Mr. Sweeney stated that the kitchen in-
cludes a pizza oven, a makeup table with sink, a dishwasher and
freezers. He explained that a full service restaurant would have
a lot more kitchen equipment. Commissioner Theis also asked where i
other game room users would come from if only 50% of those users
have restaurant seats. Mr. Sweeney answered that 95% to 100% actually
have restaurant seats at the time they are playing in the game room. i
He explained that 50o was chosen as a number for Planning Commission
consideration and represented a minimum. Chairman Hawes stated that
the numbers submitted by .the applicant amount to 240 seats for the
restaurant plus 50 game room users . Mr. Nowlin tried to explain that
of the 50 patrons in the game room, at least half of them would also t
be patrons of the restaurant at the very same time and, therefore,
it is not necessary to calculate separate parking for the entire r
game room.
The Planning Assistant distinguished between what is practical for
the restaurant and what is the best judgment of the structure' s po-
tential use from an ordinance standpoint. He explained that the '
ordinance must be geared toward maximum potential use with a proof-
of-parking submitted to meet that requirement. It is up to the
business proprietors themselves, and not the Planning Commission,
he said, to decide what is a practical number of stalls for their
business.
7-30-81 -10-
Chairman Hawes asked whether a basement could be put in for storage
areas, reducing the ground coverage of the building and allowing
more area for parking. Mr. Sweeney answered that that would not.
be feasible.
The Planning Assistant asked the Planning Commission whether it
wanted more information on the parking formula for the proposed
use. The Chairman asked whether the staff was definitely recommend-
ing the 173 stalls based on one space for every 60 square feet of
building area. The Secretary answered in the affirmative. Commis-
sioner Theis stated he was confused regarding the commercial retail
formula. The Secretary explained that the retail formula had origi-
nally been used to calculate the potential use of the game room
area, but that as staff considered the application more thoroughly,
it was decided that some formula was needed to accommodate future
use of the restaurant.
The Planning Assistant noted that the applicant had referred to
"dead space" within the restaurant. He asked whether some of the
"dead space" could be used more efficiently to reduce the size of
the building and thereby the parking requirement calculated on the
square footage formula. Mr. Sweeney answered that the space is ,
in fact, used for entertainment and milling around area within the
game . room.
Commissioner Simmons asked how the staff would best recommend con-
trolling the seating within the restaurant. The Secretary answered
that it is preferable that City staff not have to monitor the number
of seats continually to see whether it exceeds the maximum number
allowed by the parking formula. This, he stated, is a difficult
task and recommended that the ordinance be changed to reflect the
maximum use of the structure rather than to rely on continual mon-
itoring to see that seats do not exceed the number permitted by
ordinance.
Commissioner Malecki asked what other cities do to calculate parking
for restaurants. The Planning Assistant answered that there are
some communities with formulas lower than one space for every 60
sq. ft. , but that these probably apply to fast food restaurants
rather than sit down type restaurants. He referred to Minnetonka's
formula of one space for every 75 sq. ft. and noted that the plan-
ning staff of Minnetonka considered it to be inadequate.
Commissioner Manson asked whether the size of the kitchen, and
thereby the potential usage of the restaurant could be easily con-
trolled. The Planning Assistant answered that any addition to the
kitchen would be controlled through a building permit, rather than
monitoring, which is unrealistic. He stated that it would be best
for technical staff to evaluate the size of the kitchen proposed to
see whether it could accommodate a larger seating capacity than the
240 seats in the proposed plan.
The Building Official suggested that the plan might be approved by
use of a covenant to control the use of the restaurant so that excess
parking would not be needed. The Secretary pointed out, however,
that the City Attorney has advised against such arrangements and
they are generally unfeasible. He summarized the staff position by
stating that. it is basically meant to prevent the overutilization of
7-30-81 -11-
property. This, he said, is in line with basic planning principles.
He encouraged the Planning Commission to look ahead five years or
more to what may be a different use of the property, rather than to
consider the particulars of the proposed use.
• Mr. Nowlin asked on what basis the City staff had proposed a parking
requirement of 173 spaces , on the basis of a proposed ordinance
amendment or on the basis of the existing ordinance. The Secretary
answered that the determination of 173 spaces is based on staff' s
interpretation of the present ordinance. Mr. Nowlin questioned this
interpretation.
ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81054
(ShowBiz Pizza Place, Inc.)
Motion by Commisi ldoner Malecki. seconde by—Commissioner Manson to
recommend denial of Application No. 81054 based on the fact that
it does not meet the parking requirements of the City's Ordinance.
Voting in favor: Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Simmons and Ainas .
Voting against: Chairman Hawes and Commissioner Theis.
Chairman Hawes explained that his negative vote is based on the
feeling that the application should be tabled with further research
into the proper number of parking stalls for the structure in question.
Commissioner Theis stated that his negative vote was based on the
feeling that he is partially convinced that the facilities are ade-
quate so that the restaurant cannot be converted to a different
restaurant use.
Commissioner Simmons stated that while she voted to deny the appeal,
she did hope that a solution can be found on the basis of a proof-
of-parking. Commissioner Manson agreed and explained that her vote
to deny the appeal was based on the fact that the City does not have
means to enforce continually a requirement for the exact number of
seats in the restaurant. She added that she is not ready at this time
to look into an ordinance change.
ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 81053 (ShowBiz Pizza Place, Inc.)
Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Ainas to table
Application No. 81053 until the appeal is disposed of by the City
Council. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki,
Theis , Manson and Ainas . Voting against: none. The motion passed.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
The Planning Commission briefly discussed the action taken by the
City Council on the application by Mr. Donald .Johnston for a welding
shop in his garage at 4800-71st Avenue North.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Manson to adjourn
the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed. The
Planning Commission adjourned at 1:30 a.m.
•
Chairman
7-30-81 -12-
r
i
i
III
\� `"APPLICATION 6 `"
AP
ON N0. 810 3 —
RA L
cr
o x
"`I
t 94 we.-_
CD
PROPOSE�f R wAY�'f
PROPOS p �0 94 EB.
g
r G — O
r v
7 t �
SUMMIT
CIA I till
f� s
a
I y
Olt, o� /
EARL BROWN ,
GRAN pVIEW SCHOOL
J
/ D
PARK $
TH
58TH
1
E
\ .....,,�„
57TH
F 1
CT,
I i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ronald A. Warren
FROM: Gary Shallcross
RE: Restaurants in Shopping Centers
DATE: September 8, 1981
This memo is in response to a request by Commerical Partners for
a review of the City's policy regarding parking spaces for rest-
aurants in shopping centers . The City has normally required that
there be enough spaces for each use within a shopping center.
Section 35-720 states : "With respect to development complexes ,
the required parking facilities to serve two or more uses may be
locate on the same lot or in the same structure, provided that
the total number of parking spaces furnished shall not be less
than the sum of the separate requirements for each use. " This
rule has generally been followed for any new structure containing
two or more uses. In the case of larger shopping centers, (eg.
Brookd le, Humboldt Square) however, monitoring of incoming uses
has been spotty. Smaller complexes have been monitored fairly
closel (eg. the building containing Midwest Stereo and St. Paul
Book a d Stationery) . This practice is based on the assumption
among taff that larger complexes will retain roughly the same
overal mix of uses over time and that non-retail uses will off-
set re taurant uses . Smaller complexes are more subject to sig-
nificant change which might violate the Zoning Ordinance. Another
factor to consider is the size of a given -restaurant and whether
• it has a. clientele apart from the shopping center itself. This is
more likely to occur in a strip center than in a mall type center.
In a survey of ten (10) municipalities discussing treatment of
restaurants, seven (7) cities followed roughly the same policy
as Brooklyn Center, calculating restaurants in shopping centers
on the restaurant formula and other uses at the retail formula.
Other cities interpret retail centers to include a mix of uses,
the sum of which will basically require spaces based on the retail
formula. The latter practice has been followed at Humboldt Square ,
which has three eating establishments, but as a practicality, still
has excess parking. This is partly because of the C-1 nature of
some of the other uses in the center and partly because the C-2
uses are simply not high generators . The center, as a whole, does
not have the collective parking required by ordinance for all the
uses present.
There have been discussions at the staff level as to how to ration-
alize the process of granting occupancy to non-retail uses within
retail shopping centers. One thought has been to set a percentage
level of 10% of gross floor area and exempt from special parking
consideration the first 10% of gross floor area devoted to rest-
aurant uses. This level would acknowledge that any retail center
is bound to have a certain amount of area devoted to eating estab-
lishme is and that this reality has already been factored into the
retail formula. Only when a center became overladen with rest-
aurants (over 10% of gross floor area) would parking become a
concern. This idea seems especially valid for the kind of small
(under 100 seats) , sit-down restaurants in Humboldt Square, North-
brook Shopping Center and Brookdale. But it may not hold true for
-1-
i
•
Memo
September 8, 1981
Page 2
V
a single large establishment which has an identity and clientele
separate from the shopping center.
The letter submitted by attorney James Brehl (attached) on behalf
of Commercial Partners requests building permit approval for a 175
seat, 7v920 sq. ft. oriental restaurant/gift shop. Mr. Brehl states
that he does not feel the restaurant will draw more traffic than
other retail tenants , or that, if it does , the higher traffic
volumes for the restaurant will be offset by lower volumes for
other tenants such as the wallpaper store, etc. Mr. Brehl also
argues that the amount of parking for the shopping center/theatre/
restaurant complex is sufficient to meet any demands caused by
addition of the oriental restaurant. I do not recommend adoption
of Mr. rehl' s reasoning as a justification for allowing the rest-
aurant to occupy the shopping center even if I were to agree with
the net results.
All land uses involve parking. To the extent that the parking
demand for various uses can be predicted, sound planning would re-
quire that spaces be provided to meet potential parking demand.
To institute these requirements , the City must have explicit ordi-
nance formulae which are consistently applied. We cannot require
parkinc spaces on the basis of what a property owner thinks , guesses,
or wis es to be the case in his or her particular situation. The
mix of tenants at Brookdale Square will remain predominantly retail
over time, but will change somewhat in terms of traffic generation.
Therefore, a particular mix cannot be relied upon to make a parking
plan work. What must undergird the City's requirements is one of
two assumptions :
a) That each use in a shopping center has its own
ordinance-defined parking requirement and the
requirement for the shopping center equals the
sum of the requirements of the various uses; or
b) That the retail shopping center formula is
adequate to comprehend a mix of uses ranging
from office uses to restaurants , and that no
special calculation of the particular mix need
be made.
The City' s ordinance in Section 35-720 takes its cue from assumption
a) , but enforcement has been more on the basis of assumption b) un-
less there is a significant new use involved. Adopting a 1110% rule"
for restaurants would draw upon both assumptions by acknowledging
a general retail mix with restaurants comprising up to 10% of gross
floor area, but requiring a special calculation for additional
parking when restaurant uses exceeded the 10% level.
In a hypothetical shopping center of 100 ,000 sq. ft. with a 10,000
sq. ft. restaurant (300 seats and 20 employees) , -assumptions a) and
b) an the 10% rule result in the following parking requirements:
Assumption a) with no office uses :
90,000 sq. ft. retail = 543 spaces
V ,000 sq. ft. Restaurant (300 seats) = 160 spaces
Total = 703 spaces
Memo
September 8, 1981
Page 3
Assumption b)
100 ,000 sq. ft. general retail mix = 598 spaces
"10% rule"
90,000 sq. ft. general retail mix
10 ,000 sq. ft. restaurant (100)
100,000 sq. ft. at retail formula = 598 spaces
The difference between assumption a) and assumption b) in this
case is 105 spaces, or a discount of roughly 15% in terms of park-
ing spaces required. The 10% rule works out the same as assumption
b) until restaurant space exceeds 10% of gross floor area.
In the case of the oriental restaurant proposed for Brookdale Square,
the assumptions work out as follows :
Assumption a) with no office uses :
80, 406 sq.' ft. general retail= 490 spaces
7,920 sq. ft. restaurant (175 seats) = 95 spaces
Total = 585 spaces
Assumption b) general retail mix
88, 326 sq. ft. retail = 544
104 rule: same as assumption b.
• In this case, the differential is only 41 spaces or a 7% discount
in parking spaces. (It should also be noted that the proposed
restaurant would have only one seat per 45 sq. ft. of gross floor
area which is very low utilization. If seating were installed at
one seat per 32 .5 sq. ft. , the restaurant would have a total of
244 seats. Adding 16 employees , the parking requirement becomes :
[244 + 16]/2 = 130 spaces + 490 spaces = 620 spaces total
If this were the case, the discount would be 76 parking stalls ,
or over 12%)
A calculation of total parking provided per square foot of retail
space works out as follows :
Assumption a) 88, 326 sq. ft./620 spaces
= 142.46 sq. ft./stall
or approximately 7 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.
Assumption b) 88, 326 sq. ft./544 spaces
= 162 . 36 sq. ft./stall
or 6. 16 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.
These effective parking requirements are not significantly different
from retail parking formulas in other cities , but assumption b) may
be considered fairly lenient inasmuch as a fair-sized restaurant is
involved.
Looked at yet another way, should the restaurant actually use up
95 parking stalls (175 seats plus 15 employees divided by 2) , there
i
V
•
Memo
s September 8, 1981
Page 4
would be only 449 spaces left for the remaining 80,4.06 sq. ft. o.f
retail space. This works out to one stall per 179 sq. ft. of retail
space, or 5.59 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. This is 41 stalls less than
the remainder of the center would have under current assumptions.
Considering that 75 parking spaces near the center have not been
installed (they are a proof-of-parking) , the remainder of the center
might have to survive on only 374 spaces if other uses in the complex
fill up the lot. This last calculation works out to one stall per
215 sq. ft. or less than 5 stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. of retail space.
That amount of parking is less than any other city requires , and {
even using the most liberal assumptions , I cannot recommend that i
so much retail space rely on so little parking. Pbrhaps the proof-
of-parking should remain a private business decision as long as
adequate land is available, but proof-of-parking should not be
used without at least the consent of the Planning Commission and
the City Council.
In conclusion, I believe that the introduction of another restaurant j
into the Brookdale Square complex would require at least the amend-
ment of Sections 35-720 and 35-704 of the Zoning Ordinance. It
should also involve a re-evaluation of the proof-of-parking granted
to the developer when the original plans for this complex were I
approved. I would tend to favor something like a 10% rule for
restaurants in shopping centers . However, I am more concerned
about the impact such a rule would have in strip shopping centers
than in mall shopping centers , since in mall centers eating estab-
lishments are accessory to the center and have almost no separate
clientele (ie. parking demand) .
If
I
1
l
a
4
k
j�
j
i
a
•
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT DRAFTS
35-900 Definitions.
Version I - Home Occupation, Special - Any gainful occupation or
profession, approved by special use permission, engaged in by the
occupant of a dwelling unit within said dwelling or involving not
more than one accessory use permitted by Section 35-310 or Section
35-311 and which involves and of the following: . . . the teaching
of more than one (1) but not more than [four (4) ] ten (10) non-
resident students at any given time; or the need for not more than
two (2) on-street parking spaces [in addition to spaces required
for the persons residing on the premises] ; and the like.
Version II - the teaching of more than one (1) but not
more than [four (4) ] ten (10) nonresident students at any given
time; or the need for not more than two (2) on-street and two (2)
off-street parking spaces in addition to spaces required for the
• persons residing on the premises; and . . . the like.
Version III - the teaching of more than one (1) but not
more than [four (4) ] ten (10) nonresident students at any given
time; for the need for not more than two (2) parking spaces in
addition to spaces required for the persons residing on the
premises; ] and provided the activity: involves no on-street parking;
i
is clearly incidental and secondary . . .
Underline indicates new matter; brackets indicate matter to
be deleted.
• r'
3
F