CCP 11-25-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . 3. Only one "food court" or "drive-in business court" or building containing fast food .. restaurants or drive-in businesses will be allowcd in addition to one free-standing fast food restaurant; . 4. The architecture and the site, grading, circulation, landscaping, screening and signage plans shall unify the appearance and function of the complex or building; and . 5. A "fast food court" or "drive-in business court" may consist of one or more buildings on one or more parcels if the intent of providing a unified appearance and function is not compromised. . In attempting to dctermine if the Arby's/Sbarro complies with these five requirements. The Staff reviewed the Zoning Ordinance, Sign Ordinance, City Code, Uniform Building Code, State . Statute, and available dictionaries for a definition of "fast food court" or "drive-in business court". The Staff was unable to find a definition of either ofthe phrases. Therefore, the Staff reviewed the reports and minutes of the Lexington Avenue Business Area Plan in an attempt to . determine if an Arby's/Sbarro meets the intent of the district. The Staff and the Planning Commission, after reviewing the reports and minutes of those proceedings, concluded that the request does not comply with the intent of the ordinance (ie., Section V, H, 4). . The City received the following three letters for the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission: Neil M. Meyer of Meyer & Njus, P.A. who represents Hayzin, LLC, (owner of . Shannon Square); Ferrol O. Robinson of SRF Consulting Group, Inc. who represents the City of Arden Hills as its consulting traffic engineer; and, John Bergly of Sanders Wacker Wehrman .. Bergly, who is representing the applicant (Exhibit B). Plannin~ Commission Recommendation . The Planning Commission recommends denial of Planning Case #96-17, Planned Unit Development (Master Plan and Final Plan). The recommendation is generally based upon that the request: is within 1320 feet of an existing fast food use; does not meet, nor warrant, the . exemption in Section V, H, 4, of the Zoning Ordinance; would cause unnecessary traffic impacts on adjacent streets, and does not comply with the Lexington Avenue Business Area Plan. . Updates The applicants request (Planning Case 96-17) was originally scheduled to go before the City . Council on October 28, 1996. However, the applicant requested that consideration of their request be postponed to November 25, 1996, "...to allow St. Paul Properties additional time to . meet with the owners of Shannon Square and others about the Lexington A venue access and the fast-food use which were raised at the Planning Commission meeting on October 2, 1996." (Exhibit C). . The Staff contacted the representatives of Shannon Square on Wednesday, November 20, 1996 to inquire if representatives from Saint Paul Properties had discussed the Lexington A venue access . and the fast food use issue. The Staff was informed that representatives from Saint Paul Properties had contacted them that day for the first time since the postponement and that they .. were going to attempt to meet prior to the November 25, 1996, City Council meeting. I !