CCP 11-25-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2/1 . '. City of Arden Hills I October 21, 1996 -I Page 2 Shannon Square. Once the proposed development creates its new curb cut at Lexington Avenue, the breaks in traffic now experienced during peak hours of operation at Shannon Square will be I lost to the flow in and out of the new development. We believe that impact to be antithetical to the purpose of the B-3 district: to promote prosperity and to minimize traffic congestion and ensure acceptable traffic on local streets. I We also assert that the applicant's request is not consistent with the requirements of the City of Arden Hills' zoning ordinances. Specifically, we believe that the restriction on the location of . fast food restaurants within 1320 feet of one another will be violated if the request is granted. The only exception to this proximity prohibition is found at section V.H.4 of the ordinances. . In our earlier correspondence with the Planning Commission, we articulated our argument as to why this development did not meet the requirements of the ordinance. We will not restate those arguments previously raised, but rather request that the members of the Council read that I document. In our discussion of the ordinance with the Planning Commission, we pointed out that one of . the requirements of the exception to the prohibition is that the development consist of two or more restaurants. At the Planning Commission's public hearing, Dave Walia of the Nath Companies, the owner of the Burger King located at 3751 Lexington Avenue North, told the ell commission about the concept of "co-branding". Co-branding is a means to share the costs and expenses of more than one retail brand operating in the same facility. In this particular instance the operator, Franchise Associates, is the franchisee of Arby's and Sbarro. As Mr. Walia I pointed out, the co-branding of these two franchises, owned by one franchisee, is inconsistent with the competitive concept of a food court. Unlike the commonly understood concept of a I food court which contains multiple unrelated vendors competing for the customer, the co-branded proposal presented to the City by the developer has only one owner. It thus is unimportant if the potential customer purchases roast beef or rigatoni, the dollar essentially is deposited in the . same cash register. The competitive element associated with the "food court" concept is completely absent. Doug Kennedy, Vice President of Administration of Franchise Associates, told the Planning I Commission that Franchise Associates is the exclusive franchisee for free standing Sbarro restaurants, while its franchisor has retained the rights to develop the Sbarro restaurant concept I in food courts in shopping centers. Even if this development were a food court, it appears from the statements made by Mr. Kennedy that Franchise Associates would not have the legal authority to construct the proposed Sbarro's at this site. The only reason Franchise Associates' I franchisor would permit the development of this site, is because it recognizes that the site is not a food court. I -. .