04-09-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i'.'i If jIM Zoning File^ #1497 March‘15, 1990 Page 2 of 4 It would be the City staff's opinion that the issuance of a building permit was secondary in regard to the principal intent to install a retail operation. y»r. Toberman was advised prior to his letter of August 30, 1988 that his conditional use permit had expired and he would have to apply for a new conditional use permit. The current application itself is a renewal conditional use permit. The building permit was required to make the necessary structural improvements for the non-conforming use to be allowed to open to the public. The commercial use was never installed. Section 10.09, Subdivision 9 - Conditional uses: Lapse of use. Should a conditional use lapse or cease for a period of 6 months, future use shall be ir conformance with the terms of the Zoning Cha^ ^ f’', unless such lapse of ceasation is determined to due to illness, nature disaster or acts of wa».. A conditional use is exactly what the term suggests, a use and has no relation to a building permit issued for construction. To staff's knowled. •, non<^ of the three standards set forth in this section is applicable for the lapse of this non-conforming use. The non-conforming use and conditional use standards of the code refer to the use of a property. When a conditional use permit requires structural improvements, a building permit is required and suggests an intent to install new approved use. Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (J) - Applied to uses only: The non-conforming use provisions of the Zoning Chapter apply only to use which land and buildings are put, and do not apply to situations wht-e location or height of structure, lot size or other factors not involving the use of the premises prevent strict conformance of the Zoning Chapter. Where, however, <»uch a situation existed legally under the prior ap-licable law, the Council will not unreasonably restrict strict compliance and will generally look with favor on granting a variance under Section 10.08. The City Attorney's memo suggests that such variances may not be able to be granted by the City, and that additional research would be necessary. The granting of such variances may find us in violation of MN Statute 463.357, Subdivision 6 (City cannot grant a use variance).