CC PACKET 02102015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

November 17, 2014 Page 5 traffic. The Applicant's proposed restaurant concept appears to require more parking (when combined with existing uses on the Property) than currently existing on site. This could result in overflow parking on public streets within the neighborhoods to the south, which may be bothersome. Additionally, having the business open until lam may have an impact on noise associated with patrons leaving the restaurant in the morning hours. These hours are not unlike other restaurant establishments in the area (i.e. Village Pub), although the neighborhood characteristics surrounding the Village Pub are different than the Property located at 2510 Kenzie Terrace, as it is surrounded by other commercial property, a larger intersection, and limited single family residential uses adjacent. On the other hand, having restaurant within walking distance from residential uses promotes walkability and provides the neighborhood with another dining option within their immediate neighborhood. Restaurant uses have occurred on the Property in past and have been seen as a benefit to the area. Criteria met. 4. The use will provide a service or o facility which is in the interest of public convenience and will contribute to the general welfare. Having a variety of dining options within a community is a convenience that serves the entire community and surrounding area. Having dining options within walking distance of your residence is an added benefit that not all areas throughout the community have. Additionally, the space is currently vacant and therefore the property is underutilized. Adding a restaurant business will fill the space and add some vibrancy to the area. Criteria met. 4. Criteria for and Consistency with Criteria for Variance Approval. Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.245, (C) Evidence, lists the criteria the City Council must consider in determining whether to grant or deny a variance. The applicable criteria include: 1. The subject matter of the application is within the scope of this section. The site currently has 37 parking spaces. A fast food, take out, and convenience restaurant requires 42 parking spaces in addition to the existing uses on site ( 11 parking spaces for a total of 53 parking spaces). Not meeting these criteria fits within the scope of the variance section. Criteria met. 2. Strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because: a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning code, The property owners propose to fill an existing vacant portion of a commercial building with a restaurant, which is a commercial use. Restaurant uses have existed in this location in the past. While the nature of the restaurant (intensity) is relatively unknown, the Applicant's statement to "focusing strongly on take-out and delivery", in addition to the 30 seats available for a dine -in experience, lend the need for additional parking. Having a restaurant use in a commercially zoned district is reasonable use of the property. Criteria met. b. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner,• The Property is zoned C -Commercial and is located directly adjacent to a residentially zoned district. The existing buildings and parking lot layout and sizing have been in place for several decades. Restaurant uses have been located here in the past as well. The need for the variance was not created by the property owner. Criteria met. 37