Agenda - Council - 01/24/2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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. Funding Source: