11/26/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

conforming use cannot remain any longer than three years in any event. If it is decided this is the main building on the property, an amortization period will have to be established. The question is whether it is a main or secondary building and whether the, operation is nonconforming use of land or buildings. .~ Councilwoman Beal said she understood the appellant to say that the property in question was a separate tax lot so it would seem the one building thereon was the main building. Mr. Saul said research indicated that when the building was erected it was an accessory building to the residence to the south. The property was sub- divided in 1969 and the fact that subdivision separated the building from the residence, he said, did not change its initial use as an accessory building. He added that there is no provision in the Code for warehouse or storage facility as a main use in an RA District. In answer to further questions from Mrs. Beal, Mr. Saul said the property was subdivided on March 11, 196'9, after the adoption of the 1968 Code. Discussion continued on definition of accessory and main build- ings as set forth in the Code and Mr. Long's further explanation that the situation involved land use. Councilman Murray asked whether the property in fact was being used for storage of materials for development in that neighborhood only or elsewhere in the City also. Manager explained that it was used as a staging or headquarters area for construction work in the Willakenzie area generally. Councilwoman Beal wondered if the City had failed at any step to give proper notice that the use was nonconforming. Mr. Saul explained that the City was under no obliga- - tion to notify owners or users of accessory buildings of nonconforming use. He said Mr. Meltebeke was notified on March 30, 1972 of the violation through a building in- spection report. . Councilwoman Beal wondered on what basis the determination was made that the structure was a secondary building, since it appeared a fairly large and substantial one. Mr. Long answered that the definition of "building" in the Code was the basis. Further questions arose as to the use of the property and Mr. Saul recounted the detailed research on which staff based its determination that storage of construction materials on the property was in no way a permitted use in the RA District. He added that upon adoption of the n~w Code in 1968 nonconforming uses in existence at that time would have had to have been discontinued within three years in any event. Discussion continued, Mr. Scott and Mr. Meltebeke both reviewing use of the prop- erty, as they saw it, before and after annexation and before and after subdivision separating the subject property from the nearby residence. Me. Meltebeke called attention to landscaping and fencing he had installed on the land and said perhaps more could be added if an amortization period were granted. Mrs. Beal moved to_overturn the ruling of the Zoning Board of Appeals and grant use of the property for storage purposes. There was no second. It Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Murray to deny the appeal and find that the building on the lot was an accessory building requiring no further phasing out, that it was not in conformance with the zone within which it was located, and that the use be terminated. Councilw0man Campbell thought there was no question that the present use of the prop- erty was nonconforming. She felt the residential character of the neighborhood should be protected. Mrs. Beal felt the City should be responsible for notification of nonconforming use prior to termination and that a reasonable time should be given appellant to move. Councilman Hershner was satisfied that the size of the storage building in ,relation to the sfze of the property would fulfill the "main building" definition. He was concerned however about the lack of sufficient concrete evidence with regard to separation of the Meltebeke property from the lot on which the residence was located in relation to annexation to the City and status of the zoning code at that time. Councilman Murray felt primary use of the building would not necessarily determine primary use of the land - without the building the land could still be used for storage of construction materials. - Manager suggested, in event Gouncil's decision was appealed to the courts, that the motion include findings of fact to support the decision. He said that staff could prepare such findings for adoption at the next Council meeting. Mr. Williams with the consent of Mr. Murray included in the motion that staff prepare findings of fact on which the appeal was denied. ~ Vote was taken on motion as changed. M6:tion carried, Councilmen Williams, Campbell, Murray, and Wood voting aye; Councilmen Beal and Hershenr voting no. 34\-b 11/26/73 - 6