PUBLIC HEARING: 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, on October 2, 2012, the Permittee submitted grading, drainage and surfacing plans to the City for 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 accomodated 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.

Just this week, Staff received grading and drainage plans, prepared by Bogart, Pederson & Associates, Inc. and dated October 2, 2012, and are in the process of reviewing them.  The Permittee has also stated that they will be submitting their plans and application to the Lower Rum River Water Management Organization (LRRWMO) for consideration at their October meeting.  Finally, the Permittee stated that their contractor stated that, once all approvals are in place, the improvements could be completed in about two (2) weeks time.

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 in violation of the terms of the Permit, they have now taken several steps needed to complete the required improvements.  They have renegotiated their lease with the Property Owner, they have submitted professionally prepared plans for the required improvements, and are in the process of applying for their WMO permit.  As mentioned previously, the Permittee has stated that once they receive all required approvals, the improvements could be completed in just a couple weeks.  At the meeting, Staff will provide a verbal update to the City Council whether the Permittee has submitted an application to the WMO.  If so, Staff would recommend continuing the public hearing until the October 23, 2012, at which time Staff could update the City Council as to whether the Permittee successfully obtained a permit from the WMO and may potentially provide additional recommendations as well.  If the Permittee has not submitted an application to the WMO for consideration, Staff would recommend proceeding with the public hearing this evening.

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 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.