Consider Request for an Interim Use Permit to Utilize a Membrane Tent Structure for a Secondary Showroom (Project #17-100); 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 of 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.

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this request on January 5, 2017 and there were no written or verbal comments received.  The Planning Commission was supportive of the request with two contingencies.  First, that the Structure be positioned on the site such that it behind the building and thus, not so visible from the highway.  Secondly, that the Applicant provide a financial surety of $2,000 to ensure proper removal of the tent by May 31, 2017. 

The Applicant has revised the Site Plan to show the Structure in the northern portion of the Subject Property behind a grove of trees, which should conceal the Structure fairly well from the Highway 10 traffic.  The Applicant has stated that he does not feel that the financial surety is necessary and has requested that that condition be eliminated.

Alternatives

Alternative 1: Motion to adopt Findings of Fact favorable to the Applicant and recommend approving the IUP request, including the $2,000 financial surety to ensure proper removal.  The Applicant has revised the Site Plan to relocate the structure so it is not in clear view of highway traffic, which is more consistent with the City's initiative to improve the image of the Highway 10 corridor.  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.  Staff supports this alternative.

Alternative 2: Motion to adopt Findings of Fact favorable to the Applicant and recommend approving the IUP request, without the $2,000 financial surety requirement.  The Applicant has revised the Site Plan to relocate the Structure so it is not in clear view of highway traffic, which is more consistent with the City's initiative to improve the image of the Highway 10 corridor.  A financial surety is not an uncommon condition to ensure that a temporary use is properly terminated upon conclusion of a permit.  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 adopt Findings of Fact unfavorable to the Applicant and deny 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.  However, the Applicant has revised the Site Plan in accordance with the Planning Commission's recommendation so that it would no longer be clearly visible from Highway 10.  While this approach doesn't resolve the larger issue of inadequate indoor showroom space for the Applicant's needs, it is Staff's understanding that the Applicant continues to work with the property owner on a more long term solution. Staff does not support this option. 


 

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

The Planning Commission recommends approval of the request contingent with the Structure being position behind the building and that the Applicant provide a $2,000 financial surety to ensure the Structure is removed by May 31, 2017.

Motion to adopt Resolution #17-01-008 approving Findings of Fact favorable to the Applicant and to adopt Resolution #17-01-009 approving the request for an IUP.