12-07-1981 CC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page Four December 7, 1981 which deals with nonconforming uses. The City Administrator indicated that in the zoning ordinance, a nonconforming use shall not be extended or enlarged and that it is the interpretation of the zoning ordinance that the replacement of the old tanks with new tanks would extend the use. Mr. Jim LaRock indicated that he felt that with. the City's zoning ordinance as it is, businesses could be forced out of business and also indicated the con- cern of a health problem should the tanks be old and leaking and not be able to be replaced under the nonconforming use. Mr. Neil Larson indicated that the Planning Commission had indicated to him that they did not feel the changing of the pumps and tanks were extending the life of the nonconforming use, as a masonry building has a life of approxi- mately 50 years and the pumps and tanks would have a lesser life expectancy. Mr. Neil Larson indicated that the pumps and tanks were personal property and therefore, were not included in the language of the ordinance, and further indicated that the pumps and tanks are owned by the jobber and not the owners of the building. Mr. Larson indicated that the replacement of the pumps and tanks is purely economical. General discussion was carried on between the City Administrator, the City Council, Mr. Neil Larson and Mr. Rick Breezee, the Building Official, regard- ing the issuance of a building permit in 1981 for the Mobil Gas Station. The building permit was issued for the rehabilitation of the building which also included a 6 foot by 14 foot addition. Mr. Larson indicated that he had applied for a zone change at that time and was told that a zone change was not necessary as the rehab of the building for a gas station and car wash was a related use to the nonconforming use. The City Adniinistrator indicated that the addition to the building should not have been allowed and further indicated that the issuance of the 1981 building permit is irrelevant to the issue of the appeal. Councilman Duitsman indicated that he could not find a problem with Mr. Larson's request to replace the existing tanks and further indicated that the City Attorney did not address the issue of whether the tanks are considered personal property or not. Councilman Duitsman further indicated that he did feel there was a problem with nonconforming uses north of the railroad tracks and indica- ted that this issue should be discussed with the Planning Commission. Councilman Engstrom and Councilman Schuldt also indicated their recognition of the problem and further indicated that the problem must be addressed with the Planning Commission. General discussion was carried on regarding the replacement of the tanks, extending or enlarging the use of the nonconforming use, whether the tanks are considered a structure and also whether there would be a difference in the consideration of the extension of the use if new tanks or used tanks were put in to replace the old tanks.