CCP 11-25-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

___n________ ~/i I City of Arden Hills I Page 2 October 1, 1996 .. Lexington ^ venue is the only means of ingress and egress for the Center. The impaimlcnt of the efficient in and out for its customers will cause significant harm to the operation of the Center, and may jeopardize the continued existence of certain tenants in the Center. I The Planning Commission's attention is respectfully directed to the requirements for the I construction of fast food restaurants in the City of Arden Hills. Those requirements are contained in section VI of the City's ordinances. Fast food restaurants are not permitted to locate within 1320 feet (one-quarter mile) of one another within the City of Arden Hills. There I already exists a fast food restaurant (Burger King) at 3751 Lexington Avenue North within 1320 feet of the proposed development. The only exception to this restriction is found at section V.HA of the ordinances. That section provides that if the proposed restaurant is an integral part I of a building containing one or more other allowed uses, or if it is a part of an architecturally unified food court complex containing two or more restaurants the quarter mile radius restriction is inapplicable. It is our client's position that the proposed development does not satisfy the I requirements of this exception, and thus, without having to consider the traffic concerns raised by Shannon Square, the Commission should deny the request of the landowner. The proposed new development fails to meet the first requirement, in that it is not an integral I part of a building containing one or more other allowed uses. The proposed restaurant is a free standing structure. There is no other retail or service business located on the site with which .. the development could form an integral part. The adjacent property to the north of the proposed development is office and warehouse space. Its function is completely distinct from that of the development and fails to serve as a basis for integration or architectural unification under the I requirements of the ordinance. The land to the south is Shannon Square. There is no tie-in between these two properties, nor is there any shared access or parking. Thus, the development fails to meet the first exception provided by the ordinance. I The second exception permits the existence of an architecturally unified food court complex containing two or more fast food restaurants. The development also fails to meet this exception. I Although the ordinances do not specifically define a food court, the accepted meaning within the development community is a collection of restaurants located in the same area within a shopping complex, and designed to serve the patrons of the complex. Clearly the proposed development I fails to meet this definition. But even if a definition for a food court could be created which the development could satisfy, it fails to meet the standard of two or more fast food restaurants within the food court. I The developer has proposed to construct an Arby's/Sbarro restaurant at the site. That business does not qualify as two restaurants. The business operates out of one kitchen. It has only one I drive thru window. It has only one manager at the site. When it runs advertisements for employees, it runs only one ad and refers to both of the businesses in the singular (please see the attached advertisement from the Sun Newspaper for the Bumsville store, "Bumsville I I:\USERS\~~~\p~YUN\ARB~S\PLANCOM.LTR .. I _n____