PUBLIC HEARING (continued): Consider Extension or Revocation of a Conditional Use Permit for Motor Vehicle Sales at 8175 Riverdale Dr NW; Case of Quality RV

On December 13, 2011, the City Council approved a conditional use permit (the "Permit") for motor vehicle sales in the B-2 Business District for Quality RV (the "Permittee"). The Permit granted several deviations from City Code including the temporary use of an unimproved surface for display of inventory and allowing class V gravel rather than pavement and curb and gutter. The Permit stated that both the temporary use of the unimproved surface and the installation of class V gravel shall be completed no later than June 30, 2012 and that grading and drainage plans must be submitted and approved by June 30, 2012 to initiate the Permit. When it became apparent that the required improvements were not going to be completed by June 30, 2012, a case was brought forward to City Council to discuss various options to address this matter. At the July 10, 2012 meeting, City Council granted a sixty (60) day extension (end date of September 8) to provide additional time for the required site improvements to be completed. To date, the improvements have not been completed or initiated; however, during the week of October 1, 2012, the Permittee submitted grading, drainage and surfacing plans to the City as well as to the WMO for consideration of the required improvements.

City Code does not outline any specific procedural process for notification when considering the possible revocation of a conditional use permit.  Notices of the the public hearing were sent by certified mail to both the Permittee and the Property Owner.

The Permit allowed for the temporary use of an unimproved surface for parking and display of merchandise. This provision was granted to accommodate the Permittee relocating to the Subject Property during the winter, during which time surfacing work could not be completed. The Permit also allowed the Permittee to utilize class V gravel instead of pavement and curb and gutter. This provision was approved due to the impacts to the Subject Property from the potential Highway 10/Armstrong Blvd interchange project. The Permit allowed for the use of the unimproved surface until June 30, 2012 and required the installation of the class V gravel by June 30, 2012 as well. Although the Permittee was comfortable with the June 30, 2012 deadline (as well as the sixty [60] day extension time frame), the improvements have not yet been completed and thus, they are in violation of the terms of the Permit.

It is noted that under lawful, non-conforming status of the original use, the Applicant could reduce inventory to only that which could be accommodated on the existing paved surface, and not need the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.

There are two options that could be considered to address this matter:

• Consider a second extension to allow the Permittee to complete the required improvements; or 
• Revoke the Permit for violating the terms of the Permit.

Part of the reason the Permit was required initially was due to the fact that the Permittee was going to be expanding a lawful, non-conforming use on the Subject Property. After learning of the potential interchange project, the Permittee also sought approval for utilizing an alternative surface (class V gravel).  It should be noted that the use (motor vehicle sales) could continue on the site without a conditional use permit as long as it was restricted to the boundaries of the existing pavement (it would be considered lawful non-conforming). It should also be noted that another term of the Permit requires the surface of the parking/display area be upgraded to current zoning standards by June 30, 2016 if the interchange project has not been initiated or upon written notification from the City that the project will not be initiated.

The Permittee has submitted drainage and grading plans, prepared by Bogart, Pederson & Associates, Inc and dated October 2, 2012, to the City for consideration.  Staff has reviewed those plans and provided feedback to the Permittee outlining two needed revisions.  Revised plans have been submitted Staff is in the process of reviewing them.  The Permittee has applied for their WMO permit as well and Staff will provide an update to the City Council regarding the status of that application at the meeting. 

The impacts to the Subject Property due to the potential Armstrong Blvd/Highway 10 interchange project have created some financial concern for both the Permittee and the Property Owner relating to the installation of surfacing material. Both have expressed concern in their ability to recoup this significant investment should the interchange project commence in the next several years (2014-2016 time frame had been the consistently stated goal/hope of the City). At the time this request was initially considered by the City, there was still hope that between potential grant opportunities and the State bonding bill, the interchange project could commence sometime between 2014 and 2016.  Since that time, though, the City was informed that the grant requests were not awarded and that the project was not included in the bonding bill.  Both the Permittee and the Property Owner have been informed that the time frame for the interchange project now is likely to be further into the future than originally anticipated.  Nonetheless, both the Permittee and the Property Owner were aware or were made aware of this potential project. The Property Owner met with the County and their consultant in 2010 to discuss the project and the Permittee was informed by City Staff of this potential project prior to their submittal of an application for a conditional use permit.

While the Permittee is presently in violation of the terms of the Permit, they have undertaken the necessary steps to complete the required improvements.  They have renegotiated their lease with the Property Owner, they have submitted engineered plans for the required improvements, and have applied for their WMO permit.  Upon approval of their plans by City Staff and upon receipt of their WMO permit, the Permittee would be ready to commence the required improvements.  Therefore, contingent upon the Permittee obtaining their WMO permit, Staff would recommend that the Permittee be granted an extension until December 31, 2012 to complete the required improvements as specified in the approved Permit. 

The applicant is responsible for costs associated with this case.

Motion to adopt Resolution #12-10-___ adopting Findings of Fact to support continuation of the conditional use permit.

-and-


Motion to confirm the continuation of the conditional use permit, contingent upon receipt of their WMO permit and installation of required improvements by December 31, 2012.

-or-

Motion to adopt Resolution #12-10-___ adopting Findings of Fact to support revocation of the conditional use permit.

-and-

Motion to revoke the conditional use permit for motor vehicle sales on the properties located at 8101, 8151, and 8175 Riverdale Dr NW.