Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />WOS-3085 <br />March 21, ZOOS <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />Proposed Parking Space License Agreement <br />The applicants have .submitted an agreement with the adjoining property owner, Mike <br />Keaveny, wliich permits the use of a specified number of parking spaces in order to meet tlie <br />requirement of Section 78-1516. Staff has revised the usable square footages of the existing <br />business to gain a more accurate count on the amount of required parking. <br />Li^a Janes; <br />Apex: <br />Minnetonka Mud; <br />Apartments; <br />1318 s.f. X (1/150 s.f.) = 9 spaces <br />391 s.f. X (1/150 s.f.) - 2.5 spaces <br />691 s.f X (1/80 s.f.) = 9 spaces <br />2 stalls X 5 units = 10 spaces <br />Jul Ann Hair Fa.shions is proposing a u.sable square footage of 939 s.f based on the floor plan <br />submitted and noted in the original I’C report. Uased on the 1 space per 150 square feet of <br />floor area, 6 stalls would be required for thi.s use. <br />As a total the site currently requires 30.5 spaces where the survey submitted shows the <br />existing stall count to be counting the .spaces only accessible for the adjoining property. <br />Including the proposed use, 36.5 stalls would be required in order to comply with the parking <br />requirements established within the Zoning Ordinance. <br />The applicants have proposed to account for the 8.5 stall shortfall by entering into an <br />agreement with the adjoining property owner. Tliat agreement is attached as Exhibit IJ. 'fhe <br />Planning Commission should review this agreement and determine if it is acceptable as a <br />means for meeting the required parking. Staff would call your attention to the following; <br />• Hie site is cuirently short 2.5 stalls based on the revised square footages and not <br />including the proposed use. 'lire shared agreement is a lease between Mr. Keaveny and <br />Jul Ann, who requires only 6 spaces. Should tlie agreement include use of 6 stalls or 8.5 <br />stalls? Should the property owner of the Overson site be included in the agreement? <br />• lliere arc a number of circumslapces where this shared parking agreement may become <br />tenninated (noted as items a-c on page one of attached Exhibit 13). The Planning <br />Commission should discuss what happens to the propo.sed use shoidd the agreement be <br />terminated. How does the City force the proposed use out if its parking goes away? <br />• Shouldn’t access to these spaces for the business invitees be included in the agreement, as <br />the formal ingress and egress easement permits access only for the tenants of the <br />apartments... <br />Staff Recummeiiciatloii <br />Review the attached Ingress and Egress Document and Parking Space License Agreement <br />and determine if they arc sufficient in addressing the concerns noted at the February meeting. <br />If they arc, approve the commercial site plan request stipulating complying with Sections 58- <br />1 and 58-3 regarding junk and debris. This would include moving the dumpster to a location <br />not obstructing parking spaces anti .screening it. <br />If the Plaiming Commission feels the Ingress and Egress Document and the Parking Space <br />License Agreement do not sufficiently address the original concents, deny the commercial <br />site plan request or provide direction as to what revisions to the agreements are necessary.