Laserfiche WebLink
r: <br />-V- <br />I <br />r <br />&■ <br />I'" <br />1^ <br />I* <br />k <br />&• <br />I T <br />0' <br />k <br />f-. <br />^- <br />P r <br />Notwithstanding the fact tr.at the property located at <br />1^60 Shoreline Drive was entitled to a conditional use permit when <br />th^ property was rezoned in 1975 from =-l to LP.-IA, it appears <br />that several concessions have been made regarding this property. <br />In 1987 the property was granted a second conditional use permit <br />based in part, because the sailboat sales and nautical shop <br />retail operation (marina) was viewed as less non-conforming than a <br />transmission ropaic business. The PyP®”'/ has nor been used as a <br />marina in mote than twelve months and unde. Section 10.03, <br />subd 5E of thi) Code the 1987 Conditional Uue Permit has lapsed. <br />Any future use of the property should be for a permitted use in <br />the LR-IA Distxict unless a variance can legally be grantea to <br />Section 10.3, subd. 5E. <br />The City Council appears to have three alternatives with <br />regard to the pending application. <br />rniinril Mav Deny the APPlicatiOJl <br />The Council ray deny the application based on the fact <br />S2eT"in Usrnce?“XnLnia"%rn any’ fru'e^us^^rihe^^rroper?? <br />must be consistent with the zoning ordinance. <br />iMlliasimi <br />make. <br />2.Th» CQMnr?i1 Mav Approve the Conditional USfi <br />Permit. <br />Since the existing conditional use permit has lapsed, the <br />City may grant a conditional use permit only if a variance is <br />^^Jses-anf\“^s“es‘VrVm Th^eV^lur-'dlcVrs h <br />courts have treated the ,uestion of whether or not a variance can <br />be granted to non-conforming use provisions. <br />3.Aitiimative findings if the Conditional Use <br />p.>n«4»/Variance Denied. <br />condition^! *v"aVSc*e. 1he“'’cVt’';%ho^°ld’'dlferm^nj <br />Shat the property can be used for in the future if approvals are <br />not Qrnntod for this or other conunercial use. <br />-5- <br />-- - -/ ...