VN-221 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

VN-227, LP-116 PAGE #3 2. That the formula for retail sales area for the addition is not adequate, but the use of the formula for a restaurant appears to be quite restrictive; 3.-That a minimal overlap in hours of operation precludes to some degree the use of section 12-050 m. of the code relating to joint parking; and 4. That staff has used the most strict interpretation of the code in analyzing the proposal in regard to requiring on-site parking. B. Hariance Warrants The revised zoning code states that "a modification of the literal provisions of this ordinance granted when strict enforcement would .cause undue hardship owning~to circumstances- unique to the. individual property on which the variance is granted. The crucial points of the variance are (a) undue-hardship, (b) unique circumstances, (c) applying to property, (d) conformance with the Eompreher~sive Plan and. (e) shall not be detrimental to adjacent, property or to the public as a whole." The rationale for the variance request is enumerated by the attached statement prepared by Mr. Winkels. Staff feels that the site is unique in that it is not only contiguous to a shopping center but is an integral part of that center. Attached for Council review is a copy of the joint parking agreement with the owners of the shopping center and bank dated in 1972. This agreement provides for a cross over of parking from one use (one property) to another. This agreement indicates the recognition of the liquor store as a part of the shopping center and that ~Ct overlap of parking was predicted. A hardship would result if this site is restricted in size of building and use to provide 100% of the required parking spaces without being given any credit for adjacent parking spaces. Presently, there is nothing that restricts the use of the shopping center parking area for liquor store patrons. This need for short-term parking would be complemented by the wine bar traffic. The two uses and parking needs in review of the proposal appear to complement each other therefore there does not appear to be any adverse affect on adjacent properties. Using the formula for parking of the revised zoning-code the shopping center has a surplus of 105 spaces. This variance proposal which requests overflow parking for 29 spaces should not then adversely affect the shopping center. It is also suggested by the applicant that there would be little overlap in peak parking demand for the two liquor store functions. Because the overlap would be minimal there would be less need for the overflow parking onto the shopping center property.