Laserfiche WebLink
t <br />tl <br />F <br />4. <br />located. The City never enforced any of the 1984 CUP conditions and Wapiti operated just as <br />they always had, as a legal, nonconforming use. <br />In 1999, a fire completely destroyed the Building. At the time of the fire, the market <br />value of the Building (approximately $200,000.00) was less than 50% of the market value of the <br />entire Property (approximately $900,000.00). The Applicants decided to rebuild the Building in <br />2000. As a prerequisite to issuing a building permit to rebuild the Building, the City required <br />that the Applicants apply for a conditional use permit. On February 7, 2000, Applicants applied <br />for a conditional use permit as instructed. At some time after February ?, 2000, the City <br />unilaterally changed Applicants' conditional use permit application to an application for an <br />interim use permit. The City knew it could not issue a conditional use permit to rebuild the <br />Building because the use of the Building as an office, bar, laundry and gathering place for guests <br />was not a "conditional use" within the district where the Property was located. On April 17, <br />2000, the City issued an Interim Use Permit ("2000 IUP") permitting White to reconstruct the <br />Building ("Building II") on the Property, subject to Wapiti's compliance with two (2) conditions: <br />a. The 2000 IUP was valid for a period of ten (10) years, or until <br />ownership of Building II is transferred, whichever comes first; and <br />b. That Building II comply with the requirements of the Chief <br />Building Official. <br />Applicants built Building II in accordance with the City's requirements and since its completion, <br />Wapiti has continuously occupied and used Building II as an accessory to the Campground. The <br />Building and Wapiti's use of the Building as an accessory to the Campground for an office, bar, <br />laundry and gathering place for guests preexisted the City's adoption of the Code and at all times <br />relevant to this action have constituted a legal, nonconforming use. <br />In June 2010, Plaintiffs applied for the renewal of their Liquor Licenses. On or about <br />June 21, 2010, the City denied Applicants' application for the renewal of the Liquor Licenses <br />3 <br />