PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Request for an Interim Use Permit to Utilize a Membrane Tent Structure for a Secondary Showroom; Case of Skeeter Boat Center

The purpose of this case is to consider a request from Jim Peterson of Skeeter Boat Center, (the "Applicant") for an Interim Use Permit to erect and utilize a temporary membrane tent structure (the "Structure") as a secondary showroom on the property located at 9421 Highway 10 NW (the "Subject Property").  The Structure would be thirty feet by sixty feet (30' x 60') in size and would have sidewalls.  The Applicant has noted that they would not provide heat for the Structure and would ensure access throughout the winter by plowing around the Structure.

The Applicant has stated that they have picked up a second line of boats and that their existing indoor showroom does not have sufficient space to accommodate the new line of products.  The Applicant is proposing the use the Structure through the month of May to provide additional showroom space for customer viewing of boats in advance of the fishing opener. 

Staff attempted to notify all Property Owners within a 350 foot radius of the Property of the Public Hearing via Standard US Mail. The Public Hearing was also published in the City's official newsletter, the Anoka County Union Herald.

The Subject Property is on the north side of Highway 10 near the city's western border.  The Subject Property is in the B-2 Highway Business District, as are the surrounding parcels to the east and west, and is bordered by right-of-way for Highway 10 to the south and BNSF right-of-way to the north.  Motor vehicle, implement and recreation equipment sales and service is considered a conditional use in this zoning district; however, the Applicant's operation is considered lawful, non-conforming as this type of use has been in operation on the Subject Property pre-dating the amendment to City Code changing it from a permitted to conditional use.

The B-2 Highway Business District, like each of the other zoning districts, outlines the permitted exterior finishes of all buildings.  The membrane style wall finish is not specifically permitted in this, or any other zoning district.  However, alternative finishes may be permissible with the approval of the Planning Commission and the City Council.  This has been the case for certain 'industry standard' finishes, such as storage buildings for salt and greenhouses for growing plant stock.
 
In some regards, this is similar to a Transient Merchant request (e.g. tent for fireworks and/or plant sales in a parking lot of a retail operation).  However, per City Code, a Transient Merchant License is limited to a sales operation of not more than sixty (60) days.  The Applicant has requested the use of the Structure for closer to 120 days, essentially double what would be permitted through the City's Transient Merchant License.

While the City does not have a specific policy addressing membrane structures, their exterior finish is not listed specifically within any of the zoning districts and therefore, these have been considered to be in violation of City Code.  Over the years, the City has responded to complaints regarding these types of structures and when such a complaint is received, it is entered into the Code Enforcement program and property owners are informed that they need to remove them.  Many membrane structures, especially those designed for residential use, are not intended for long-term use as they do not withstand the elements for long periods of time.  As a result, they can become an issue of blight.

The Subject Property, while on Highway 10, is not impacted by the Highway 10 Access Planning Study that was adopted by the City recently.  It will not be affected by future improvements within this corridor like many of the parcels further east, especially on the north side of the highway.  Additionally, the City's Strategic Plan contains a Strategic Initiative to improve the image of key corridors, including Highway 10.  Erecting and maintaining a membrane structure in clear view from the Highway does not seem to be in concert with this strategic initiative.

The Applicant's business appears to be doing well and growing in this market.  This is evident now with the lack showroom space for their growing product line.  While Staff wants to see continued growth for this business, there are concerns with the request related to the exterior finish and the location of the Structure.  If a long-term solution were in place that would eliminate this need in future years, Staff would be more supportive if the Structure were in an alternative location that is less visible from Highway 10.

Alternatives

Alternative 1: Motion to recommend City Council adopt Findings of Fact unfavorable to the Applicant and recommend denial of the IUP request.  Historically, the City has considered membrane structures as non-compliant with Zoning Code based on exterior finish requirements.  Approval could be viewed as contradictory to past (and ongoing) enforcement actions.  Improving the image of key corridors, including Highway 10, has been identified as a priority by the City.  The proposed location of the membrane structure would be in clear view from Highway 10, which would seem to be inconsistent with this initiative.  Finally, this approach doesn't resolve the larger issue of inadequate indoor showroom space for the Applicant's needs and has the potential to become an annual request (or at least be requested again in the future). 

Alternative 2: Motion to recommend City Council adopt Findings of Fact favorably to the Applicant and recommend approving the IUP request contingent upon the Structure being sited in a different location on the Subject Property, which is not so clearly visible from Highway 10.  Staff understands the potential need for this temporary structure leading into the upcoming boating season.  If the Structure were positioned further north on the Subject Property, where the principal building and/or existing trees may provide some screening of it from the highway, that would at least be more in line with the initiative to improve the image of Highway 10.  Staff would still note though that a more permanent, long-term solution (i.e. improvements/expansion of the principal building to provide additional indoor showroom space) is needed to avoid this becoming a routine request each winter.
 
Alternative 3:  Motion to recommend City Council adopt Findings of Fact favorable to the Applicant and approve the IUP as requested.  The exterior finish of the Structure does not meet the minimum standards for the B-2 Highway Business District.  However, alternative materials may be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council.  While approval of alternative materials is permissible, approving a membrane structure for additional space beyond the timeframe of a Transient Merchant License creates a mixed message to the community about installing and utilizing these types of structures.  Staff understands the Applicant's intent and would be more supportive of the request if there were a long-term solution in place (i.e. improvements to their existing building, this may be an annual request) to ensure that this does not become an annual request. 

All costs associated with this request are the Applicant's responsibility.

 Staff is not supportive of the request as proposed. 

Motion to recommend City Council adopt Resolution #17-01-008 approving Findings of Fact unfavorable to the Applicant and to recommend City Council adopt Resolution #17-01-009 denying the request for an IUP.

-or-

Motion to recommend City Council adopt Resolution #17-01-008 approving Findings of Fact favorable to the Applicant and to recommend City Council adopt Resolution #17-01-009 approving the request for an IUP contingent upon the Applicant working with Staff to site the Structure such that it is not as readily visible from the highway.