04-09-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Notwithstanding tha fact that the property located at 1960 Shoreline Drive was entitled to a conditional use permit when the property was rezoned in 1975 from B-1 to LR-IA, it appears that several concessions have been made regarding this property. In 1987 the property was granted a second conditional use permit based/ in part/ because the sailboat sales and nautical shop retail operation (marina) was viewed as less non-conforming than a transmission repair business. The property has not been used as a marina in more than twelve months and under Section 10.03/ subd. 5E of the Code the 1987 Conditional Uue Permit has lapsed. Any future use of the property should be for a permitted use in the LR-IA District unless a variance can legally be granted to Section 10.3/ subd. 5E. The City Council appears to have three alternatives with regard tr the pending application. 1. The Council Mav Deny the APPlica-tigJl. The Council may deny the application based on the fact that the property has not been used for a marina within the^ twelve months/ therefore, the 1987 ® ^ {jag laosed If the Council finds the 1987 Conditional Use Permit has been, in essence, abandoned, then any future use ot the property must be consistent with the zoning ordinance. The Council may deny the permit if it is found that the applicant failed to meet the condition in the 1987 ..'onditional tse Permit based on failure to secure a "permit" prior to ^“"6 8, lias Because of the issue relating to what type of permit the applicant was to secure, this is the most difficult argument to make. 2. Th<» counrii Mav Approve the Conditional Us.e Permit. Since the existing conditional use permit has lapsed, the City may grant a conditional use permit only „r first applied for and granted to Section 10.03, subd. 5E; if the Council wants to make sure such a variance can even be aLnted thin we should first complete our legal research of Minllsoia clles and cases from other jurisdictions to see how courts have treated the question of whether or not a variance can be granted to non-conforming use provisions. 3. A^fernative FlndiMS if the ..Canditional Vs.e Pftrnii^ is Denied. As part of any analysis of whether to grant the -hl?“tli°e"Vtop “e%%y^^crVutel^^irrn' tll%u^“4 ir^a^p^prllafl are not granted for this or other commercial use. -5-