04-25-2007 Additions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mayor and City Council April 25, 2007 Page 4 e. The storage area shall not occupy any space required for conformity to the parking regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. The planning consultant notes that the storage area does not interfere with any required off - street parking and the minimum parking requirements for the site have been met. In summary, each of the conditions has been noted as satisfied or satisfied by reasonable conditions of approval. What is not reasonable, is to deny the CUP to prevent what is otherwise a lawful and allowed use of the Property. Because of the configuration of the Property, the building improvements on the Property, its location in the I -1 District and its long use for this purpose, denial of the requested applications denies all reasonable use of the property. 3. Discussion of Applicable Law The City's planning consultant states that "legal opinions have established Conditional Use Permits as essentially a right, presuming that an applicant can meet the reasonable conditions of the permit approved by the City Council. As such, the City would have difficulty denying an application for a permit in which the applicant's proposal demonstrates compliance with those conditions." Staff report, dated January 5, 2007, page 2. This is a fair statement of the applicable law and a clear directive to the City to approve the CUP. A more comprehensive discussion of applicable law follows. a. Matter of Right Once Zoning Ordinance Criteria Are Met. An applicant for a conditional use permit ( "CUP ") has a constitutionally protected property interest in an application for a permit which is conditioned on compliance with standards set out in the zoning ordinance. Northpointe Plaza v. City of Rochester, 465 N.W.2d 686 (Minn. 1991). Where an applicant complies with specified permit requirements, approval follows as a matter of right. Citizens for a Balanced City v. Plymouth Congregational Church, 672 N.W.2d 13 (Minn. App. 2003); Hay v. Township of Grow, 206 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. 1973); Zylka v. City of Crystal, 167 N.W.2d 45 (Minn. 1969). Failure of a city to issue a CUP once ordinance criteria are met is the basis for a court order reversing the denial. (1) In Yang v. County of Carver, 660 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. App. 2003), the court of appeals found that a county board denial of a CUP for a custom slaughterhouse was arbitrary and capricious where the proposed use met the requirements specified by the zoning ordinance and the reasons for the denial had no factual basis in the record. First, neighbors' comments on traffic were insufficient to substantiate a finding that the proposed slaughterhouse will cause excessive traffic. Although neighbors have sufficient "competency and personal knowledge" to discuss traffic congestion, the neighbors' anecdotal comments were insufficiently concrete to substantiate a finding that the proposed use would create an excessive demand on the gravel - 2 3 -