Consider Actions Related to Request to Authorize Motor Vehicle Sales at 14300 Sunfish Lake Blvd NW (Project No. 122); Case of John Buzick:

• Introduce or Deny Ordinance #18-14 Approving Amendment to the E-1 Employment District to Allow Motor Vehicle Sales
• Adopt Resolution to Approve or Deny a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Motor Vehicle Sales on the Subject Property

This case was withdrawn by the Applicant and removed from Agenda.

The City has received an application from John Buzick (the "Applicant") requesting a Zoning Amendment to the text of the E-1 Employment District to identify motor vehicle sales as a Conditional Use and a Conditional Use Permit to allow motor vehicle sales on the property located at 14300 Sunfish Lake Blvd NW (the "Subject Property").  There is an existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Subject Property, which was approved by the City in 1993, that allows for a towing operation and motor vehicle repairs.

The Applicant is proposing a similar business model that he has implemented on two (2) other properties within the City. The model creates multiple tenant suites in a building that are leased out to individual motor vehicle dealerships.

Staff attempted to notify all property owners within 350 feet of the Subject Property of the requested Conditional Use Permit and  Zoning Amendment via standard U.S. mail and published the Notice of Public Hearing in the Anoka County UnionHerald.

As stated in City Code, the intent of the E-1 Employment District is to accommodate general industrial activities.  Permitted uses include manufacturing, labs, offices, warehousing and storage, indoor self-storage facilities, and truck terminals among others.  The proposed use, motor vehicle sales, does not seem consistent and compatible with these permitted uses.  However, Conditional Uses in the E-1 Employment District includes (among other uses) open or outdoor service, sale, display and rental as a principal use.  In other districts (namely the B-2 Highway Business District and the H-1 Highway 10 Business District), motor vehicle, implement, and recreation equipment sales and service is specifically identified and therefore, is not covered by the open or outdoor service, sale, display and rental category. 

There is an existing CUP (attached to this case) for the Subject Property that allows for a towing operation and motor vehicle repair on the Subject Property.  The Findings of Fact referenced a Site Plan that indicated both the towing operation (including the impound lot) and the motor vehicle repair would be accommodated by existing pavement on the Subject Property.  In reviewing aerial photographs of the Subject Property back to 2011, it appears that the previous occupant(s) was not in compliance with the terms of the CUP; namely, they were utilizing a non-paved area for storage/parking of motor vehicles either impounded and/or awaiting repair.

The Applicant's Site Plan and summary indicates that there would ultimately be space for ninety (90) tenant stalls (each dealership is required to have five [5] per the State of Minnesota) and eleven (11) customer parking spaces.  This would be accomplished by triple stacking vehicles displayed for sale along the southern lot line.  The Site Plan does also show eighteen (18) stalls along the south wall of the existing building and it is assumed that that is where the eleven (11) customer parking stalls would be accommodated.  The triple stacking of vehicles does not account for the required twenty-four (24) foot wide drive aisle required by City Code.  Furthermore, this is based on the assumption that the towing operation would store impounded vehicles on a gravel surface west of existing pavement, which not only does not meet current standards but does not comply with the existing Conditional Use Permit either.

The Applicant has stated now that his intention would be to modify the number of tenant suites to a total of fourteen (14).  Additionally, the Applicant has noted that, if necessary, he would install additional pavement on the western portion of the Subject Property for the towing/impound operation.  However, he does object to installing concrete curb/gutter due to the added costs.  The other paved portions of the Subject Property do not include curb/gutter and thus, this would seem to be a reasonable approach for consistency.
 
The Applicant does have two similar business models in operation along Riverdale Drive (7820 and 7850), which are both located within the B-2 Highway Business District.  The stated intent of the B-2 District is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent and convenience type, high intensity commercial and service activities characteristically located along major traffic carriers. The business model does generally have fewer vehicles displayed outside for sale than a traditional dealership (a lot of sales is conducted via the internet), but there are definitely vehicles present on those properties.  Photos from the two sites are included with this case.

The City's industrial lands are somewhat limited at this point, highlighted by the recent Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment to establish a new industrial park west of Armstrong Blvd.  Both the H-1 Highway Business District and the B-2 Highway Business District already identifies motor vehicle, implement, and recreation equipment sales and service as a conditional use and keep those uses focused along the Highway 10 corridor.  As the City continues to experience growth pressure from the industrial sector, it is important to retain sufficient areas for the general industrial purposes outlined in the E-1 District.

Past uses on the Subject Property have been out of conformance with City Code, eiither relating to minimum standards and/or due to blight.  While the Applicant is not responsible for what has occurred in the past, amending the E-1 Employment District to expand the uses may not be the best approach to improving the aesthetics at this location.  It seems that there may be an opportunity to explore possible enhancements within current regulations and programs.  There have been some significant improvements within this general industrial park area and there may be an opportunity to explore options with these property owners within the confines of the existing permitted and conditional uses of the E-1 Employment District.

The Planning Commission reviewed the request for a Zoning Amendment and a Conditional Use Permit at their July 12, 2018 meeting.  At the Public Hearing, a nearby residential neighbor did express concern with allowing motor vehicle sales on any parcel within the E-1 Employment District.  He had also noted it would be appreciated if the signage could be improved on the Subject Property as it was small and oftentimes resulted in people turning around in his neighborhood as it is the first option north of the Subject Property.  The Planning Commission also was not supportive of the Zoning Amendment to the E-1 Employment District nor the Conditional Use Permit for the Subject Property.

Alternatives

Alternative #1.  Adopt an ordinance amending the conditional uses in the E-1 Employment District to include motor vehicle, implement, and recreation equipment sales and service and approve Resolution #18-136 granting a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales on the Subject Property.  The Applicant has two established dealership operations in the city presently and has generally demonstrated that this model can be successful.  However, those locations were in a zoning district that identified motor vehicle sales as a Conditional Use.  The Subject Property is located within the E-1 Employment District and this district is intended to accommodate general industrial uses.  The proposed use doesn't seem to mesh with the intent of the district and certainly wouldn't seem compatible with many uses within existing industrial parks.  Staff does not support this alternative.

Alternative #2.  Adopt an ordinance amending the conditional uses in the E-1 Employment District to include motor vehicle, implement, and recreation equipment sales and service and approve Resolution #18-136 granting a Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales on the Subject Property contingent upon the Applicant providing a more detailed Site Plan to comply with City Code (such as eliminating the triple stacking of vehicles, provides required drive aisle widths to access any row of vehicles, provides sufficient pavement for all uses including the towing service, etc.).  The proposed use does not seem compatible with the intent of the E-1 Employment District.  Amending the E-1 District will affect all parcels within this zoning district, not just the Subject Property.  This would include all existing industrial parks where motor vehicle sales may not be compatible.  Staff does not support this alternative. However, if the City Council is open to this alternative, it should be contingent upon a more detailed Site Plan being submitted for review/approval by the City and upon adoption of Ordinance #18-14.

Alternative #3.  Do not amend the conditional uses in the E-1 Employment District and deny the request for a Conditional Use Permit.  The Applicant has successfully implemented two similar business models in Ramsey, demonstrating that this type of use can be successful.  However, those were sited in the B-2 District where this type of use is generally intended.  Staff is not opposed to the proposed use if located in the B-2 District but is not supportive of the use or the zoning amendment in the E-1 Employment District.  Staff supports this alternative.

The Applicant is responsible for all costs of this request, including the review of the Application.

The Planning Commission recommended denial of this request.

Staff has a number of concerns about opening up the City's industrial parks for motor vehicle sales and repair. Staff does believe adequate land is guided for this type of use along Highway 10. In addition, the City's industrial park space is limited, and demand is high for additional employment (manufacturing) growth.  Generally speaking, Staff is not opposed to the proposed use, but does not support it in the Employment Districts.  The Planning Commission also expressed similar concerns about opening up the E-1 Employment District to allow motor vehicle sales and recommended against amending the E-1 Employment District to include motor vehicle, implement, and recreation equipment sales and service and recommended denying the Conditional Use Permit. 

Motion to introduce/deny Ordinance #18-14 to allow motor vehicle sales, implement, and recreation equipment sales and service in the E-1 Employment District.

-and-

Motion to approve/deny the requested Conditional Use Permit for motor vehicle sales on the Subject Property.