Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/07/2005

Home

June 10, 2005 --Page 3 Nonconforming Use-- Nonconforming restaurant parking lot not used for three years Abandoned cars found on lot during that time Citation: City of Des Moines v. Imperial Properties [nc., Court of Appeals of Iowa, No. 5-088/03-0762 (2005) IOWA (04/28/05) -- Imperial Properties Inc. owned a commercial building and parking lot that it had leased to several restaurant tenants since the early 1960s. The parking lot was ~andfathered in under the zoning ordinance, So it did not have to comply with site-plan and parking-lot regulations that were enacted at a later date. tn 1998, Imperial's tenant vacated the property. The property remained va- cant until 2001 When it was leased to another restaurant: The city believed ImPerial's use of the parking lot was no .longer a legal nonconforming use because the use was discontinued for more than a year. It also claimed Imperial had discontinued the use of its parking lot for a restaurant because one or more abandoned or disabled vehicles were found in the parking lot while the property was vacant. The city sued to stop Imperial's use of the parking l~t. The court ruled in favor of l_mperial. The city appealed. DECISION:Affirmed. Imperial could continue m use its parking lot. There was no evidence indicating Imperial's intended use of its parking lot for a restaurant changed after 1998, or that the design or arrangement of the property for use as a restaurant had changed.. Imperial continuously offered the property for rent during its vacancy and eventually leased it to a restaurant tenant in 2001. At most, there was no more than an interruption in Imperial's use of the property for a restaurant, pending' its eventual lease to another restaurant tenant. Lastly, the fact that one or more vehicles were parked in the parking lot during this time did not mean Imperial had discontinued the legal nonconform- ing use of its parking lot. see also: Perkins v. Madison County Livestock and Fair Assoc., 613 N.W. 2d 264 (2000). see also: Vincent v. Four M Paper Corp., 589 N. W. 2d 55 (]999). Enforcement -- City sign prohibition based on complaints Some signs allowed to remain, while Others taken down Citation: Maida v. County of Santa Barbara, Court of Appeal of'California, 2;~d App. Dist., Div. 6, No. B.174733 (2005) CALIFORNIA (04/28/05) -- Maida owned a liquor store in San.ta Barbara County. Outside the store was a large internally illuminated pole sign approximately 25- 2005 Ouinlan Put~lishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 95