Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 07-30 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION JULY 30, 1981 CITY HALL CALL TO O RDE R The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman William Hawes at 7: 37 p.m. ROLL CALL ' Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Richard Theis, Nancy Manson, Mary Simmons and Lowell Ainas. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube, Building Official Will Dahn and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. Chairman Hawes noted that Commissioner Lucht was excused from the meeting on account of being out of town. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 16 , 1981 Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to approve the minutes of the July 16 , 1981 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Manson, Simmons and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 81050 (Swenson's Ethan Allen Galleries) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a 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. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report concerning the application (See Plan- ning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 81050 attached) . Chairman Hawes asked whether the proposed sign is within the building setback in this situation. The Secretary responded in the affirm- ative. Commissioner Simmons pointed out that the Planning Commission and City Council had allowed a variation from the standard policy for consistent exterior treatment on the site and building plan approval for the site in question. She stated that in many ways the building could be considered a sign and, as such, she questioned the need for any additional signery on the building. Chairman Hawes asked a hypothetical question as to how a second story which extended out over a first story would be interpreted: as a canopy or as a wall. The Secretary stated that it would be con- sidered a wall treatment. The Secretary also pointed out that there are other buildings in the City which have canopies extending entire- ly around the building in which case they are considered wall treat- rents rather than canopies and signs are allowed on them. Commiss- ioner Simmons observed that the proposed change in the Sign Ordinance would not allow signs or canopies as long as the canopy is subject to a setback. She pointed out that this would mean there is no real signery advantage to having a canopy. The Secretary concurred with this interpretation. 7-30-81 -1- Chairman Hawes asked whether wall signs or canopies over multiple tenant buildings would be uniform in size. The Building Official answered that this is not the case at present. He explained that each tenant is allowed up to 30% on his own wall area. He added that only individual lettering is allowed at the Humboldt Square Shopping Center as a policy of the owner. Commissioner Ainas asked what area of a canopy would be eligible for signery if the canopy is considered an integral part of a wall. The Secretary answered that it would be that portion of the canopy parallel to the wall from which it extends. Commissioner Simmons asked how a canopy would be determined to be an integral part of a wall. The Secretary answered that a canopy made of the same material would certainly be considered an integral part of a wall. Commissioner Simmons asked whether there should not be some limit on the amount to which a canopy can extend out from the wall and still be considered an integral part of the wall. The Secretary stated that the extension of the canopy would be controlled by the setback. Commissioner Manson expressed her feeling that the Ethan Allen canopy appeared to be more of a wall or perhaps even part of the roof as opposed to a canopy. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes opened the meeting for a public hearing and called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Swenson stated that it was nice to be back in Brooklyn Center and commended the staff for catching an im- proper sign erected without knowledge of the regulations. Mr. Swenson stated that he understood the concern of the City with regard to the sign regulations, but added that the sign is very important to his particular business. Commissioner Ainas asked whether the Carriage Stores in Maplewood and Mendota Heights also have the same sign over the canopy. Mr. Swenson answered in the negative, explaining that the architecture of the building is different at the Maplewood Store and that the orientation of the Mendota Heights Store makes such a sign unnecessary. In answer to a question from Commissioner Manson, Mr. Swenson stated that the canopy sign is important primarily for westbound traffic, since the freestanding sign would be adequate for eastbound traffic on Freeway Boulevard. _ Commissioner Simmons acknowledged that the variance would not be detrimental to the public, but asked Mr. Swenson why he feels the situation is unique. Mr. Swenson answered that his situation is unique because Ethan Allen Galleries sell just one brand of furni- ture,' while others sell multiple lines of goods. He pointed out that Schmitt Music does not sell just one brand of musical instruments. Commissioner Simmons acknowledged that the Carriage House might be unique within the neighborhood of the Industrial Park, but not throughout the City. Commissioner Manson commented that after re- viewing the pictures she agreed that the sign was on a canopy as opposed to either being a roof or a wall sign. 7-30-81 -2- Chairman Hawes asked for comments from others present. Mr. Al Beisner, representing Dominion Development, briefly showed the Planning Commis- sion some building elevations for a proposed shopping center to be re- viewed later in the evening. He stated that he had planned to promote the shopping center with signery to be placed on a metal canopy ex- tending out over a pedestrian walk some eight feet from the building, yet set back more than the minimum requirement from public right-of- way. Commissioner Simmons noted that the canopy which Mr. Beisner proposed is not part of the wall nor is it'of the same material as the main building proposed. Mr. Beisner answered that it would be set back far enough from the street and that he considered it an in- tegral part of the building. There followed a lengthy discussion of canopy signs in relation to both freestanding and wall signs . Chairman Hawes asked what the area of signery is on the canopy at Humboldt Square. The Building official answered that the signery is far below the 30% of wall area permitted under the ordinance. He stated that the policy of the shopping center was to try to hold down signery on the mansard to 30% of the mansard area or less. He stated that it would probably be feasible to permit canopy signs up to 10% of the wall area with- out having much effect on most business establishments in the City. The Building Official explained that a special formula for canopies might make enforcement difficult and lead to discrepancies between various uses in the City. He stressed the need for uniform enforce- ment of a direct and unambiguous standard. The Planning Commission's discussion continued regarding the area to be allowed for canopy signs. No definite standard was agreed upon, however. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed. Commissioner Simmons stated that she did not feel the variance request met the standards laid out in Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. The Secretary recom- mended tabling of the variance request and review of the ordinance for a proposed amendment dealing with canopy signs . ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 81050 (Swenson' s Ethan Allen Galleries) Motion by Commissioner Theis seconaed by Commissioner Manson to table Application No. 81050 and to direct staff to bring back language for an ordinance amendment relating to canopy signs at the August 13, 1981 Planning Commission meeting. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Com- missioners Malecki, Theis, Manson, Simmons and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Chairman Hawes polled the Planning Commission as to some of the pro- visions it wished to see in a proposed ordinance amendment. Com- missioner Malecki stated that she agreed the canopy must meet build- ing setbacks and suggested that there be a maximum sign area as a percent of the canopy area itself. Commissioner Ainas stated that the canopy sign must be a certain distance below the roof line and cannot extend above the roof line in any case. Commissioner Simmons agreed and asked for clarification of the different types of canopies to distinguish gas station canopies from those eligible for signery. Commissioner Manson stated that some distinction should be made on which part of the canopy a sign would be allowed. Chairman Hawes generally agreed with all those comments. -30-81 -3- APPLICATION NOS. 81051 (Blumentals Architecture) and 81041 (Summit Mortgage Corporation) THE ecretary in ro uce e nex two items o usiness , a request for site and building plan approval to convert the existing horse barn. and hippodrome on the Earle Brown Farm for an office/warehouse industrial use, and a site and building plan request for the relo- cation of buildings within the Earle Brown Farm into a compact com- plex. The Secretary reviewed the staff reports (See Planning Com- mission Information Sheets for Application Nos . 81051 and 81041 attached) . Commissioner Theis asked for a clarification of the recommendation that any site plan with variances for the historic Earle Brown Farm site be subject only to approval by the City Council. He asked whether Planning Commission review and recommendation would still be sought for such an application. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, explaining that the recommendation of the staff really is aimed at ruling out implied variances for office buildings out- side of the Farm establishment itself. Chairman Hawes inquired as to the fire sprinkling of the Farm build- ings. The Secretary answered that this would depend on the use pro- posed and if the building is over 2 ,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Ainas asked whether the other buildings on the Farm besides the horsebarn and hippodrome would be open to the public. The Secretary answered that that was a possibility, but that would be up to the owner of the property to decide. Commissioner Simmons expressed her concern that the City would wind up with the worst of both worlds. She stated that the Farm used to have an expansive character, but that now the buildings would be cluttered into a small space. She stated that the outside of the Farm buildings would be changed in perception because of the parking lots placed around it and that the inside would be changed because of the non-agricultural uses proposed. She commented that all that would be left would be buildings which, on their exterior, look like farm buildings , but which in no way really resemble a farm. She stated that she agreed Farm buildings should be on one parcel, but suggested that perhaps fewer buildings should be preserved in a true farm atmosphere. This , she thought, might be more economical than requiring more buildings to be preserved and subsequently used for something commercial, rather than for residential, agricultural or park purposes. The Secretary agreed with Commissioner Simmons` comments, but stated that the proposed site plan is a compromise between the ideal of historic preservation and the reality of the financial interests of the owner. The Planning Assistant suggested that the City Council could perhaps control the use going into. each farm building as well as controlling the site improvements. He stated that if this power was not evident from the conditions recommended in the staff report, additional conditions could be added to clarify that. Commissioner Simmons stated that she preferred the use of the buildings to be in Character with their historic preservation and that they should be open to the public. Chairman Hawes stated that he felt the only way to preserve the Farm buildings was to find an economic option for the property owner. He pointed out that once the buildings are de- molished, they are gone for good and cannot be replaced. 7-30-81 -4- Mr. Dennis Gimmestad, of the Minnesota Historical Society, expressed his opinion that the latter plan for relocation of the Farm buildings is much better than the initial plan. Chairman Hawes called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Janis Blumen- tals commented regarding the plan for the horsebarn and hippodrome. He stated that the idea of the landscape plan was to create a boule- vard appearance with the same species of tree down the central drive of the Farm complex. He stated that to mix the species as suggested by the staff would destroy this boulevard effect. He also explained that underground irrigation for the land area west of the barn and hippodrome was not being pursued at this time because the project did not really involve this area. As to trash disposal, he stated that trash would be stored inside the building. He also explained that the south drive to the property could not be lined up with the entrance to the Earle Brown Office Tower across the street because it would have to straddle a property line which is not owned on both sides by B. C. I. P. He explained that the property to the south is owned by National Republic Airlines. Mr. Blumentals passed out to the Planning Commission conceptual sketches of the Farm area with four office buildings planned around the perimeter of the Farm complex. Mr. Roger Newstrum, of B. C. I. P. , explained that the drawings represented-a conceptual idea of how the area can be developed with 30 ,000 to 80,000 sq. ft. office buildings. He stated that parking for the office buildings would be accomplished through cross easements and a proof-of-parking underneath the build- ings which are part of the Farm complex. Commissioner Theis noted that part of the central mall is on the horsebarn and hippodrome and asked why it would not be appropriate to have underground irrigation on the portion of the mall that is on the same property as the hippodrome. Mr. Blumentals pointed out that the trees for the central boulevard are on a different parcel and yet are being planted as part of the proposed plan for the horse- barn and hippodrome. He explained that this is sort of a trade off. Mr. Newstrum explained that moving the property line to the south of the hippodrome by five feet would squeeze the driveway to a point where it would be useless . The Secretary answered that the property line extending out to Earle Brown Drive could be eliminated and simply drawn to a different point on the property owned by the Airline. As to access, he explained that the access could be closed or moved to another spot to meet ordinance requirements. Mr. Newstrum, commenting on the suggestion by the Planning Assistant that uses entering the Farm complex should be subject to the approval of the City Council, stated that a general use restriction is accept- able, but that he would oppose a Council veto on tenants using in- dividual structures or tenant spaces. Regarding the provision of the preliminary plat, Mr. Newstrum stated that it would cause practical problems for moving the buildings if the final plat had to be filed prior to moving any of the Farm buildings . He stated that he did not have any immediate reaction to the suggestion that all buildings on the Farm complex be contained in a single parcel. Chairman Hawes asked Mr. Gimmestad for his reaction to the plan. Mr. Gimmestad stated that it was an acceptable plan, although not the best. In answer to another question from Chairman Hawes re- garding the plat revision, Mr. Gimmestad stated that to contain the 7-30-81 -5- Farm buildings within a single parcel would be wise for long run preservation. Chairman Hawes asked for Mr. Gimmestad's reaction to the construction of office buildings around the Farm complex. Mr. Gimmestad acknowledged that this is not the best situation, but is acceptable. He stated that it should not ruin the historic preservation of the Farm. Mr. Newstrum asked whether Mr. Gimmestad would have any idea whether the Summit Bank building would be placed within the State Historic site in the future, although it is not presently within the district. Mr. Gimmestad answered that he would prefer to put the bank in the historic site, but that it would not be absolutely necessary. The Secretary stated that City staff would not oppose putting the bank into the historic site, adding that the bank would provide additional area for use within the historic site. Mr. Newstrum stated that he was willing to have both applications tabled for an additional two weeks to respond to the recommendations of the staff. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NOS. 81041 and 81051 (Earle Brown Farm) Motion by commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Ma ecki to table Application Nos. 81041 and 81051 concerning the Earle Brown Farm. The motion passed. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 10 :07 p.m. and resumed at 10: 34 p.m. APPLICATION N0. 81052 (Dominion Development Corporation) Fol owing the recess, the Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for site and building plan approval to construct a 62,621 sq. ft. shopping center at the southwest corner of Earle Brown Drive and Summit Drive. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 81052 attached) . Chairman Hawes asked what size trucks would have to make the turn around the corner of the building on the service drive. The Planning Assistant answered that the architect has stated that semis can make the turn around the corner of the building, although he was not sure whether staff had verified that. The Assistant City Engineer stated that the access on Earle Brown Drive is directly across from the Pontillo' s Restaurant access which would meet the ordinance require- ment for accesses in the commercial district. As to the accesses on Summit Drive, the Assistant City Engineer stated that they are no more than 125 feet offset from drives on the north side of Summit. He explained that this is minimally acceptable and expressed concern that Summit Drive is getting cluttered with proposed driveways. As a clarification, the Assistant City Engineer stated that the require- ment for 125 feet offset would tend to rule out any additional accesses on Summit Drive. Chairman Hawes called on the applicant and asked how many stores would likely occupy the shopping center. Mr. Beisner answered that anywhere from 20 to 35 tenants, depending on their size. Regarding entrances to public streets , Mr. Beisner explained that an entrance adjacent to LaBelle's on Earle Brown Drive was unacceptable because of the offset requirement. The Assistant City Engineer asked Mr. Beisner to have his engineer 7-30-81 -6- contact him to discuss drainage. He pointed out that an earlier platting of the property had divided parcels along a drainage line which presently runs through the middle of the property. He wished to address with the project engineer the questions surrounding all drainage being handled by a single storm sewer line. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81052 (Dominion Development Corporation) Moti37n 57—commissioner Manson seconded y Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 81052, subject to 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 im- provements. 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 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 property shall be replatted into a single parcel in accordance with Section 35-540 and the final plat shall be filed at the County prior to the issuance of building permits . 10. Plan approval acknowledges a "proof-of-parking" that meets ordinance requirements . If it is determined that the installed parking is inadequate, the City shall require installation of any or all of the deferred parking indicated on the site plan. 11. The plan shall be revised to provide berming along Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive greenstrips prior to consideration by the City Council. 7-30-81 -7 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 uced the next item o us.iness, 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 100, 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- as proposed could be reused as an office, a retail use, or a com- 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 d6mparing 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 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 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. He explained that 50% 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 be patrons of the restaurant at the very same time and, therefore, it is not necessary to calculate separate parking for the entire 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 Commissioner Malecki. seconde2l 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-