My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7(a) Ordinance Amendment - Interim Uses, Discussion
Laserfiche
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Agenda Packets
>
2019
>
09-19-2019 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
>
7(a) Ordinance Amendment - Interim Uses, Discussion
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/11/2019 8:43:53 AM
Creation date
9/11/2019 8:43:51 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
RELEVANT LINKS: <br /> A. City role in hearing <br /> A city exercises so-called"quasi judicial" authority when considering a <br /> CUP application. This means that the city's role is limited to applying the <br /> standards in the ordinance to the facts presented by the application. The <br /> city acts like a judge in evaluating the facts against the standards. If the <br /> applicant meets the standards, then the CUP should be granted. In contrast, <br /> when the city in zoning ordinance designates certain uses as conditional, <br /> the city is exercising"legislative" authority and has much broader <br /> discretion. <br /> B. Role of neighborhood opinion <br /> Neighborhood opinion alone is not a valid basis for granting or denying a <br /> CUP. While city officials may feel their decision should reflect the overall <br /> preferences of residents, their task is limited to evaluating how the CUP <br /> application meets the ordinance standards. Residents can often provide <br /> important facts to help the city address whether the application meets the <br /> standards, but unsubstantiated opinions and reactions to an application do <br /> not form a legitimate basis for a CUP decision. If neighborhood opinion <br /> serves as the sole basis of the decision, it could be overturned by a court if <br /> challenged. <br /> C. Documentation of hearing <br /> See LMC mformaUon memo, Whatever the decision, a city should create a record that will support it. If <br /> 7utiin,ti�hr t/t stri� nrn r�/ <br /> �,,,��,,,�,„��.,,�, a city denies a CUP application, the 60-day rule requires the reasons for <br /> the denial be put in writing. Even if a city approves a CUP, a written <br /> statement explaining the decision is advisable. The written statement <br /> explaining the decision should address the general and specific ordinance <br /> standards, and explain the relevant facts and conclusions. <br /> V. Conditional use permit after issuance <br /> ^'��,�, ���' ,�'', '„'; "'''�i A conditional use permit is a property right that"runs with the land" so it <br /> ' attaches to and benefits the land and is not limited to a particular <br /> landowner. State statute requires that CUPs be recorded with the county <br /> �linn tilal J-1h� i�y� �uh�l <br /> � recorder's office. When the property is sold, the new landowner will have <br /> the continued right to the CUP so long as the conditions are met. <br /> A city can revoke a conditional use permit if there is not substantial <br /> compliance with conditions, so long as the revocation is based upon <br /> factual evidence, after appropriate notice and hearing. Because a CUP is a <br /> property right, a city should work closely with the city attorney if <br /> considering a CUP revocation. <br /> League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo �����20�9 <br /> Land Use Conditional Use Permits Page 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.