Agenda Packets - 2009/02/08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mermaid Staff Report February 9, 2009 Page 2 arose during the City’s review of the three-lot plat in 2008 (and is still a concern today), is that the proposed subdivision would put a property line running through the structure to formally separate the Mermaid from the hotel. To allow the proposed division, the building code may require additional firewall construction between the structures to have each building on its own lot. This is an issue because the fire code does not allow for any openings where the property line runs through the building. There is currently a hallway and a set of doors that connects the Mermaid to the hotel. The fire code would require this opening to be permanently closed off, but the Minnesota Department of Labor & Industry has allowed openings if each building/property owner signs a “Hold Harmless Agreement.” By not allowing openings between separate buildings, the fire code is trying to prevent or reduce the fire spread or damage done to the adjoining building if there were to be a fire. The Hold Harmless Agreement would acknowledge the additional liability due to the opening between the buildings. City Attorney Scott Riggs also has agreed that such an agreement is possible as an alternative as long as the document has adequate protective language running in favor of the City. TIF The majority of the Mermaid property is in TIF District #1, which runs until 2013. There is a minimum assessment agreement in place with the property owners and the City as part of the developer agreement. This requires the property to have a minimum value to support the required debt service payments. Staff is planning to discuss further the TIF and the financing details at the February 23, 2009 EDA meeting, since the EDA has to consent to the subdivision by virtue of the development assistance agreements. Parking In 2000, when the City approved the PUD for the hotel addition, the PUD Agreement stated that 808 parking stalls were required for the site. There are currently 760 stalls existing on the Mermaid site, 48 less than what the City required in 2000. The proposed plan would not remove any existing parking spaces from the site. However, it would put 273 parking spaces with the hotel and would leave 487 parking spaces for the Mermaid facility. The Halls and the new owner of the hotel are proposing to continue to share the existing access and parking on the site. The parking demands for this entire site vary throughout each day. Not all of the uses and activities on the site have their peak parking demands at the same time or even on the same day of the week. The Mermaid site is currently 48 parking stalls short of what the City required in 2000 and the owners have been leasing unused daytime spaces for Park & Ride parking. Despite this apparent parking shortage, the owners state that the parking lot has never been filled to anywhere near capacity. City staff is not aware of any parking problems at this location and the proposed property subdivision should not change the parking needs on the site.