09-16-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mermaid / Perkins Parking Lot Variance Planning Case No. 536-98 • September 16, 1998 Page 2 Analysis: To compensate the Perkins property, the Mermaid has opened a secondary access drive between the two businesses, complementing the existing joint access. This access should serve to increase circulation between the sites and to improve the safety of Mermaid patrons by diverting Perkins traffic to the rear of the Mermaid. In addition, representatives from both properties have entered into a joint use agreement, such that both properties are protected in the event either use or ownership should change. In addition, the City will require that a cross-access and shared parking easement be filed with Ramsey County to legitimize the arrangement. This document is being drafted by the City Attorney and should be available to the Commission and applicants prior to the meeting. According to Section 1125.02 of the City Code, the following seven criteria need to be satisfied in order for a variance to be justified. Economic factors alone do not justify variance and the property owner cannot be responsible for the action or condition that necessitates the approval of a variance. The criteria, with responses, are as follows: 1 Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply • generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. - The development plans prepared for the Mermaid expansion and adopted by the City Council were in error, resulting in the parking lot being constructed over the five-foot setback and onto the adjacent property. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. The parking is required to be installed in accordance with the development agreement and the parking requirements as imposed by the City Code, which apply for all uses within the City. 3. Special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The site plans were drafted by outside consultants, upon whose expertise and abilities the applicant and City had entrusted and believed to be accurate. 4. Granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant a special privilege that a is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Other properties within the City have combined parking lots and joint accesses.