Resolution 3890 - Laserfiche WebLink

referenced, is hereby granted. The following findings and conclusions are made: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING BUILDING: 1. Issue: Alleged Error of Fact #1. The Appellant states that the Hearing Examiner has incorrectly determined that the proposed expansion would create an intensification of use along the entire south property line. Specifically, the Appellant maintains that an area proposed for the parking lot expansion is already being used for vehicle parking. Also, the proposed addition would serve to provide a buffer to noise being generated by parking activity on the north side of the existing restaurant. Findings: The area proposed for the parking lot expansion is currently used as an informal parking lot. This area has been graded level and surfaced with gravel. The City has not sanctioned use of this portion of the site as a parking lot. The Zoning Code authorizes accessory activities, such as parking and refuse disposal areas to be located up to within 10 feet of the rear property line. The existing loading dock is nonconforming, and is approximately 10 feet from the rear lot line. The new loading area would be in a similar location and have a similar setback to the existing loading area. The Zoning Code also contains provisions for expansions of nonconforming buildings. The location of the proposed expansion provides a greater setback than the existing building. Because of the location and design of the existing building, it would be impossible for any expansions to meet the required 100 foot setback. Conclusions: Even if the Applicant's proposal would increase the intensity of use along the south property line, the Zoning Code specifically authorizes parking lots in the area proposed by the Applicant. Other uses which are permitted outright in the C-1R zone would be allowed to develop parking and other accessory activities up to within 10 feet of residentially zoned property. This includes grocery stores, convenience stores, restaurants and taverns. The impacts resulting from accessory uses and activities associated with these uses would be similar to impacts resulting from Gerry Andal's restaurant. The Hearing Examiner's decision does not acknowledge the similarities between Andal's Restaurant and other uses in the C-1R zone with respect to accessory uses and activities. The use/activity that distinguishes Andal's Restaurant from other uses permitted outright is live entertainment and dancing. The principle impact generated by this activity is noise originating from amplified sound within the building. 2