Laserfiche WebLink
current zoning standards for parking, loading, and <br /> screening; there are no specific standards that require <br /> additional setbacks for these activities. <br /> FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS - VARIANCE: <br /> The following findings and conclusions are based upon the <br /> criteria established in EMC Chapter 19.41.130.C. - Variances. <br /> 1. That the variance is necessary because of exceptional or <br /> extraordinary circumstances regarding the size, shape, <br /> topography, or location of the subject property; or the <br /> location of a pre-existing improvement on the subject <br /> property that conformed to the zoning code in effect when <br /> the improvement was constructed. <br /> Findings: If the restaurant expansion had been limited to <br /> 25% of the existing building area, the soundstage and dance <br /> floor would have been too small for the owner's needs and <br /> would not have functioned properly. The addition would have <br /> been approximately 2,970 square feet. The intent of <br /> relocating the soundstage and dance floor is to place the <br /> noisiest activity within a soundproofed structure. A 2,970 <br /> square foot addition would not permit relocation of these <br /> facilities. <br /> The location of the existing building prevents the owner <br /> from locating any additions in conformance with the 100 foot <br /> setback requirement from residentially zoned property. All <br /> portions of the existing building are located less than 100 <br /> feet from the south property line, which represents the R-1 <br /> zoning boundary. Locating the restaurant addition on the <br /> north side of the building would not be possible because it <br /> would involve elimination of existing parking, and would not <br /> be consistent with the layout of the existing structure. <br /> Conclusion: The variance is necessary because of the size, <br /> location, and configuration of the existing building. <br /> 2. That the variance will not be materially detrimental to the <br /> property in the area of the subject property or to the City <br /> as a whole. <br /> Findings: The surrounding properties to the north, east, <br /> and west are zoned C-1R. The proposed addition is not <br /> expected to adversely affect these properties. The <br /> properties to the south are zoned R-1. The proposed <br /> addition should have a positive effect on these properties <br /> because it would reduce or eliminate the chronic noise <br /> problem resulting from music from the existing restaurant. <br /> The new addition would be soundproofed, and would be <br /> reasonably compatible with regard to height, scale, and <br /> setbacks. <br /> 6 <br />