Loading...
2043 - Resolution - Cloise & Mike Construction AppealRESOLUTION NO. 2043 A RESOLUTION OF THE CllY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, REGARDING CLOISE & MIKE CONSTRUCTION'S APPEAL TO OVERTURN A NOTICE AND ORDER FOR THE ABATEMENT OF AN UNSAFE OR UNLAWFUL CONDillON WHEREAS, on July 7, 2003 the City notified Claise & Mike Construction (the "Applicant'') that it was in violation of the City's Zoning Ordinance, which disallows construction and trade uses within the City's commercial retail I office zone; and WHEREAS, within the applicable time period, the Applicant filed a written appeal request and thus a public hearing was scheduled for August 25, 2003 before the City Council for the purpose of determining the appeal application; and WHEREAS, the Council held a public hearing on August 25, 2003 at which time the testimony from the public was taken and the applicant had the opportunity to present evidence that the Zoning Ordinance had not been violated, and being fully advised, the Council finds, concludes and resolves as follows: TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS The Council bases its Findings and Conclusions upon the following Exhibits and Testimony that it finds to be relevant, credible and persuasive. 1. The Following Documents were admitted into the record: A. City Staff Report, dated July 31, 2003, including attachments 1 through 8. 2. Rob Wen man, City Planner, described the factual and legal basis for filing the notice of violation against the Applicant. He summarized the Staff Report and its attachments. He asked the Council to deny the application to overturn the notice of violation. 3. Robert Heller, attorney, spoke on behalf of the Applicant and asked the Council to affirm the request and overturn the notice of violation. He represented that there would be no heavy equipment parked or stored at the site and there would be no outside storage of any kind. He displayed recent photographs of the site to demonstrate that no such activities Resolution No. 2043 Page 2 of 3 were presently occurring. He explained that the Applicant's intent was to operate an indoor retail showroom and office and that site was now staffed on a full time basis for that purpose. Storage of materials and equipment will occur at an offsite location in a properly zoned area. Mr. Heller argued that the Applicant's business activities are allowed under the City's Zoning Ordinance. He argued that the site should not be considered a construction yard. He also expressed concern regarding the City's Zoning Ordinance and its reliance on SIC codes. 4. Carol Larson, a former business owner at this location, spoke in favor of allowing the Applicant to operate at this site. 5. Fred Chang spoke in favor of allowing the Applicant to continue to operate at this site. 6. Ron Rice advised that although he did not know the employees or owners of the business, he felt the City should be encouraging businesses, not restricting them. If vehicles are intruding on the right of way, then they should be ticketed; don't shut down the business. 7. David Hamerick testified that he had hired the Applicant to roof a baseball dugout and he was very satisfied with the professionalism and civic support of the company. 8. Pauline Cornelius of Cornelius Construction spoke in favor of allowing the Applicant to remain at this site and suggested that the zoning code should be amended if necessary. FINDINGS Based upon the above testimony and evidence the City Council finds as follows: 1. The Applicant operates a roofing contractor's business known as Claise & Mike Construction at 914 Bay Street in an area that is zoned Commercial Retail I Office. 2. In the past, the Applicant has used the site for the outside storage of construction materials, heavy equipment, and large trucks. 3. In the past, the Applicant has not operated a retail showroom and office on the premises. Resolution No. 2043 Page 3 of 3 4. The Applicant has represented that it will not use the site for outside storage of any kind, including but not limited to construction materials, heavy equipment, or large trucks. 5. The Applicant has represented that it intends to operate a retail showroom and office on the premises. CONCLUSIONS 1. The City's Zoning Ordinance requirements for operating within a Commercial Retail f Office zone were violated when the Applicant used its site for the outside storage of construction materials, heavy equipment, and large trucks, and failed to operate a retail showroom and office on the premises. 2. The Applicant's present operation at the site without outdoor storage, with no parking of heavy equipment or large trucks, and supplemented by office space and a retail show room does not violate the City's Zoning Ordinance, now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. For the reasons set forth in the Findings and Conclusions, the application of Claise & Mike Construction appealing the notice and order of abatement of an unsafe or unlawful condition as prescribed in Zoning Ordinance No. 1748 is hereby denied but abatement is not required, as the current use may continue as described in Section 2 below. SECTION 2. Claise & Mike Construction shall be allowed to continue to operate at 914 Bay Street, Port Orchard, including the development of a retail showroom and office, provided there is no outdoor storage and no parking of heavy equipment or large trucks on site. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Port Orchard, SIGNED by the Mayor and attested by the Clerk in authentication of such passage th" 22n day of September 2003.