My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/8/1994
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1994
>
11/8/1994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:04:27 PM
Creation date
6/17/2015 2:48:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/08/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Director Keating indicated Wendy.'.s-needs 44 spaces, of which <br />they are providing 22 on-site and want to use 22 spaces that are <br />contiguous to their parcel but off-site. Staff acknowledges that <br />7 of those 22 off-site spaces are for the exclusive use of Wendy's; <br />however, the other 15 are in question and staff's concern is that <br />the shopping center owner may have a need to use those 15 spaces. <br />Bruce Barkett, attorney representing the applicant, Wendy's <br />International, introduced Joe Keith of Wendy's International, a <br />real estate manager from Atlanta, Georgia; Alan Blankstein, Asset <br />Disposition Officer for Barnett Bank; and David Felton, of <br />Corporate Property Services, Inc., the planning agent who submitted <br />the site plan for Wendy's International. Mr. Barkett believed the <br />issue is whether Wendy's could ever be excluded from the use of <br />those 15 spaces as it is their contention that the cross -parking <br />easement agreement is valid, enforceable, recorded and gives <br />Wendy's the right to use the parking spaces. <br />County Attorney Vitunac agreed that the agreement provides for <br />perpetual use, but felt that it does not provide exclusive use, <br />which the Code requires. He felt that the issue is whether the <br />required parking spaces can be claimed by both the shopping center <br />and Wendy's, in which case the easement is defective because it is <br />not exclusive. <br />Director Keating suggested that the applicant provide a "non - <br />concurrent parking study" to show that the total required parking <br />spaces would not be needed, that there may be different peak usage <br />times, and that the uses would require fewer spaces. <br />Steve Henderson, attorney representing Vero Beach Shopping <br />Center. Associates_. Limited Partnership, the current owner of the <br />center, agreed with Attorney Barkett that a declaratory judgment is <br />not appropriate in this instance and felt that the real issue is <br />how the parking ordinance is interpreted as to whether non- <br />exclusive parking spaces created through an agreement should be <br />counted in meeting minimum parking requirements. <br />David Felton of Corporate Property Services, the agent for <br />Wendy's, explained that the store will not impact the shopping <br />center parking all day long and requested approval of the site <br />plan. <br />37 <br />November 8, 1994 �G'tl �r <br />BOOK Ud FALL 765 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.