6.3. SR 03-21-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the CUP, the destroyed building could not be rebuilt. City staff suggested an IUP as a way to allow reconstruction of the store building. Wapiti Park agreed to that approach, accepted the IUP when it was approved, and expressed no objection to the IUP for its entire duration often years. 5. Wapiti Park argues that the ten-year term of the IUP is invalid because no Minnesota Statute gives the city authority for termination of a permit. In fact, Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 462.3597, gives the city express authority to allow interim uses, and to set conditions on interim uses. The Statute defines an interim use as, "a temporary use of property until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it." (Emphasis added.) This Statute gives the city express authority to issue an IUP allowing the temporary use of property until a particular date, including ten years from the date of the issuance. 6. Wapiti Park argues that the city's Apri12010 amendment of its interim use ordinance resulted in Wapiti Park's building become a legal nonconforming use without further need of an IUP or CUP, citing Sections 30-691 and 30-701 of the city code and Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 462.357, Subdivision (1)e. The Statute cited is the 2004 amendment of the Municipal Planning Act which allows for the repair and replacement of nonconforming uses. The city code sections are the city's corresponding nonconforming use section. Neither the Statute nor the code sections provide that an ordinance amendment wipes out existing CUPs and IUPs. As pointed out above, when a legal use becomes nonconforming, it is a legal nonconforming use subject to the approvals that made it a legal use. Wapiti Park has cited no Statutes or case law which would support their position that an amendment of the city code frees them from the terms of their IUP or CUP. The fact of a zoning ordinance amendment does not eliminate a CUP, the conditions set forth in the CUP, or the date for expiration of an IUP. 7. Wapiti Park argues that the conditions recommended by staff are illegal because they constitute an uncompensated taking of valuable property rights. Nobody has proposed a physical taking of Wapiti Park or any portion thereof. If Wapiti Park's argument is that the imposition of conditions in a CUP and/or an IUP constitute a regulatory taking, the facts in this instance would not support such a claim. To establish a regulatory taking of property, the owner must establish that the nature of the taking leaves the property with no remaining economic value. In this instance, the CUP and IUP specifically allow for use of the property as a campground, subject to conditions. None of the conditions prohibit use of the property as a campground. Even if they did, the R-lb zoning district allows other economically viable uses of the property. There is no regulatory taking. 8. Wapiti Park argues that the conditions recommended by staff are illegal because they have no relation to the use of the building as an office, restaurant, bar, laundry and gathering place. 3