11/8/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M =I BARKETT APPEAL OF WENDY'S SITE PLAN _ The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 2, 1994: TO: The Board of County Commissioners - FROM: L,L, t William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney DATE: November"2, 1994 SUBJECT: Barkett Appeal of Wendy's Site Plan This is an appeal of a final decision of a County officer to the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Indian River County Code Section 100.06.3. Code Section 954.08, Special Parking Regulations and Arrangements, allows cross -parking agreements when an abutting property has excess parking spaces, a cross -access easement has been executed that provides for perpetual access and use of the abutting property's parking spaces and driving aisles. The Code further requires that the easement agreement be approved as to substance by the Community Development Director and approved as to legal form and sufficiency by the County Attorney's Office. The easement agreement must be recorded prior to site plan release. A reciprocal easement agreement for parking, ingress and egress was executed April 1, 1994 between Barnett Bank and South Vero Square, Inc. That agreement gave Barnett, its successors and assigns, exclusive rights to seven parking spaces within the South Vero Square . Shopping Center. It also gave non-exclusive rights of parking, ingress and egress over other parking spaces within the shopping center. Mr. Barkett contends that this easement agreement satisfies condition #2 of Planning and Zoning Commission's site plan approval on August 11, 1994 "2. -Prior to site plan release, the applicant shall provide documentation acceptable to the County Attorney's Office guarantying 15 additional dedicated off-site parking spaces located on the South Vero Square Shopping. Center site." The ' principal concern 'of the Community Development Department and the County Attorney's Office is that the 15 extra non-exclusive parking spaces claimed within - the South Vero Square Shopping Center would not be double counted for parking purposes. It appears that Wendy's as Barnett's successor would not have the right to exclude anyone else from using those 15 spaces, nor does the shopping center owner have the right to exclude Wendy's customers from utilizing any of the parking spaces within the shopping center. Our office was concerned that the shopping center owner might come in at a later date with some new improvements to the shopping center which would require additional parking and attempt to have credited the same 15 spaces that Wendy's was claiming under the reciprocal easement agreement. To avoid such a situation, and in the absence of any exclusive easement rights to the 15 parking spaces in question, we asked for an acknowledgment from k�1 November 8, 1994 BOOK bi Wcj,� 700