My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6.1. SR 07-18-2011
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2011 - 2020
>
2011
>
07-18-2011
>
6.1. SR 07-18-2011
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/18/2011 12:19:07 PM
Creation date
7/15/2011 2:21:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
7/18/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
On May 7, 1984, the City added additional conditions to the previously approved <br />conditional use permit. Although the Applicants were represented by counsel at this hearing, the <br />conditional use permit had already been issued approximately two months earlier. Despite a <br />clear violation of the "60 day rule," the City amended the Applicants conditional use permit by <br />adding additional conditions. <br />II. Applicants had an absolute right to rebuild the Building in 2000 without <br />needing an IUP. <br />In 2000, Minnesota statutes section 4632.357 stated the following with respect to a legal, <br />nonconforming use: <br />"Subd. le. Nonconformities. Any nonconformity...may be <br />continued, including through repair or maintenance, but if the <br />nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of <br />more than one year, or any nonconforming use is destroyed by <br />fire or orther peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its <br />market value, any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or <br />premises shall be a conforming use or occupancy." <br />In determining the extent of the destruction to a legal, nonconforming use, consideration <br />of the entire legal, nonconforming use must be considered. (See Hertog v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. <br />Co., 415 N.W.2d 370 (Minn.App.1987) (Case dealt with a nonconforming floral business in <br />which a building was destroyed by fire. Although a city ordinance regulated nonconforming <br />uses destroyed to an extent over 75% of market value, Hortzog recognized<that a floral business, <br />the nonconforming use, constituted more than one structure for the purpose of ascertaining the <br />percent of destruction.) (See also Buss v. Johnson, 624 N.W.2d 781, 787 (Minn.App.2001) <br />(Holding that "a consideration of the market value of an entire nonconforming use comports with <br />the legislature's goal of gradually reducing nonconforming uses while protecting interests of <br />property owners, and has the support in both Minnesota and foreign jurisdictions...Accordingly, <br />we conclude that the legislature... intended the percentage of destruction to be determined after a <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.