6.3. SR 03-21-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

11. Wapiti Park argues, in a number of places, that a recreational camping area is not constrained to temporary residents. Chapter 327 defines "recreational camping area" as: any area, whether privately or publicly owned, used on a daily, nightly, weekly or longer basis for the accommodation of five or more tents or recreational camping vehicles free of charge or for compensation. The Statute also defines "recreational camping vehicle" as including the following: • any vehicular, portable structure built on a chassis, designed to be used as a temporary dwelling for travel, recreational and vacation uses; • any structure designed to be mounted on a truck chassis designed for use as a temporary dwelling for travel, recreation and vacation; • any portable, temporary dwelling to be used for travel, recreation and vacation, constructed as an integral part of the self-propelled vehicle; and • any folding structure, mounted on wheels and designed for travel, recreation and vacation use. (Emphasis added.) The definition of "recreational camping area" specifically incorporates the definition of "recreational camping vehicle." The definition of "recreational camping vehicle" uses the term temporary when defining recreational camping vehicles and, just as important, states that recreational camping vehicles must be "designed" or "to be used" for "travel, recreation and vacation use." It is clear that these definitions do not contemplate permanent residency in a recreational camping vehicle or at a recreational camping area. This is also clear because Chapter 327 also regulates manufactured home parks, which are designed and intended for permanent residency. 12. The balance of Wapiti Park's annotated notes on their January 18 presentation challenge the findings of fact set forth in the proposed resolution for City Council consideration regarding the IUP for the store building. Staff has reviewed the findings again and still believes that the record in this matter supports these findings for City Council consideration. Wapiti Park concludes by suggesting that the city allow the IUP to continue without the onerous conditions recommended. However, the only conditions that Wapiti Park will apparently agree to, pursuant to their letter of December 20, 2010, is to maintain their current hours of operation and to comply with the Minnesota Department of Health rules and regulations. As set forth above, staff believes that the City Council has the authority to require compliance with the conditions of the 1984 CUP. This CUP was validly approved and Wapiti Park is entitled to continue the use as long as the conditions set forth in the CUP are observed. The legal nonconforming use status of Wapiti Park is subject to the