Dear Commissioners:

I am writing in opposition to the proposed Quinton's expansion as well as to other recent requests for additions and outdoor roof decks in downtown bars/restaurants.  My objections are twofold.

First, any roof deck in a closely built environment, especially when it will be frequented by smokers, increases the likelihood of fire.  These fires can be very hard to fight given the closeness of the buildings and the possibility of a cigarette reaching an inaccessible area where it may smolder for some time.

A casual look downtown reveals cigarette butts everywhere.  A roof deck is not an antidote to the recent no smoking ordinance.  (Nor are sidewalk smoking areas for each establishment.)

My second reason challenges whether, under the given circumstances, the City Commission has the legal authority to grant such an expansion to an downtown establishment not meeting the 1994 food ordinance.  As I understand it, there are three parts to this question.

1.  Is Quinton's a non-conforming use?  I repeat that I cannot find any place in the 1994 ordinance that grandfathered any establishments.  At the most, the intent of some commissioners may have been to grandfather existing non-food bars, but that is not reflected in the ordinance.

2.  Even if Quinton's were a non-conforming use, it must first meet one of the conditions under the City Code section 20-1302, Limitations on Non-Conforming Uses.  I will detail these below, but they are shown in the Addendum from Planning.  I submit that it does not meet any of the five.  The Planning Dept. failed to note which of the five conditions it believes allows any expansion.  They note that it is a use permitted in the C-3 district, but that is not correct.

3.  Only after meeting one of the five conditions in 20-1302 can expansion be addressed.  Then it must meet all four conditions in 20-1303.  Planning only addresses this area.

Here are my thoughts on the five limitations on non-conforming uses in 20-1302.  The code says that (a) "No non-conforming building, structure, or use of land shall be changed, extended, enlarged, or structurally altered unless.."
       1.  This change is not required by law or order.
       2.  The use is not changing to a use permitted in the district.  This would mean that the expansion would feature a use that conforms with the zoning code for downtown and not be a non-conforming use.
       3.  The City Commission can grant the authority to change the use or occupancy, but only if such a change "will not tend to prolong and continue the non-conforming use."  I submit that it would prolong and continue such use.
       4.  The City Commission can grant the authority to enlarge or complete a building devoted to a non-conforming use "where such extension is necessary and incidental to the existing use of such a building and the conditions set forth in section 20-1303 ... are met."  Clearly this is not necessary and incidental to this use.
       5.  The City Commission can also grant the authority to "extend a non-conforming use throughout those parts of a building which were manifestly designed or arranged for such use prior to the date when such use or building became non-conforming, if no structural alterations, except those required by law, are made therein."  There is no such existing structure already designed for this use, so this does not justify an expansion.

I am disappointed that after I spent so much time researching this area earlier this year and spoke and wrote about it at length, expansion continues without further clarification and limitation by the city.  I hope that you will resolve this matter of code at this meeting.

Thank you.
Patricia Sinclair