2. consider Revocation of CUP for Contractors Yard, 414 Kings Road 1
i t.
CITY OF --
,, CHANHASSEN
1 ;
I `\7 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
-\-- -
' (612) 937-1900 '1-n r j lV Fr'r9irnst rmr
'
ir �-
.cr<ed ✓ t�
1 MEMORANDUM MtWtie3
Rejec'tad
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager D,44_,_2_:_521.2____
I faits 9 zb nre to w�nrn said=
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner )
le
oft
�f rANIAll
DATE: July 5 , 1989 mmaa
ISUBJ: Consideration of Revocation of Conditional Use Permit for
a Contractor' s Yard, Lowell Carlson
II BACKGROUND
The applicant has been operating his business prior to the adop-
t tion of the Zoning Ordinance in 1972. In June, 1973, the appli-
cant applied for a conditional use permit for a 40 ' x 100 ' pole
barn. On June 12, 1973, the Planning Commission recommended
I denial of the request based on the findings that there were two
garages on the property, that it is a warehousing type of opera-
tion and if expanded could be used for repair. The City Council
also denied the request on June 18, 1973 , based on the Planning
ICommission' s recommendation (Attachment #1 & #2 ) .
On August 20 , 1984, the City Council amended the Zoning Ordinance
Ito allow contractor ' s yards as a conditional use in the R-la,
Agricultural Residence District. All contractor' s yard owners
were contacted and were required to apply for a conditional use
permit to be in conformance with the zoning ordinance and remove
Ithe legal non-conforming status .
On November 13, 1984, the Planning Commission reviewed the
I request by the applicant for a conditional use permit for the
continuation of contractor' s yard activities as part of the
requirement of the city for all contractor' s yards to apply for a
1 conditional use permit. The Planning Commission tabled the
request for a conditional use permit until a detailed site plan
could be developed (Attachment #3 ) . Staff met with the applicant
I in January, 1985 , to discuss the options of either constructing
an accessory building or creating a landscape screened yard area
on site to screen the storage of vehicles from adjacent proper-
ties. The City Attorney' s Office subsequently notified the
I applicant in a letter dated September 18 , 1985 , that the con-
ditional use permit application should be concluded with some
action by the City Council or the city will take action against
1 the applicant (Attachment #4) . The applicant, after receiving
I
I
4-
II
331 '--KENNETH LUND
.1" BK 162,P.103
66 Res,--- 1: --
40rods ; 8 rods : ROAD 32 rods 1 2 I
3°
0 1 �S
N ELMER CARLSON Z I
(9 a MORSE AVENUE HOLDING CO
O, BK 86, P 316 _____f O DOC. NO 73501
z: a
Y "
v
h o Oa a
2 32 rods 0E. o
O
N n. V I
W_
)x
W m
z
DAVID C. TRUMBLE etal 2 w (.?.., rv"-________ ___.___■-.-,..._____,-_
33 N
BK 151, R 462 N ,
62.65/_ i
2,13.----"------'--------------
a - 32 RODS _ 8 rods:', 8rods f
v
o '
N
I
•
LUCIAN S. TRUMBLE eta! L
��2 rods-.= , BK 152, P. 201-207 1 t , v
o � \\ 3 I
/9/ '64 ------,------,..,‘
, I.; /, ,
, ir- ) , ,
, ,
: ,t, , /, .
• . ,0 „,,, , co
,, ,
i 6 2i3 1
( il
I rods
z � t
aN
°'= HOWARD S. BOLEY 1))
_ / 1
= CTF NO. 1831
o ] U �
LL
ti t 1
U U
\ --
. 1
•
(II 15rods 2f t. _EDWARD FINK 111111111111.1.0 ; ar'- BK 24, P 425 •
1
' Mr. Don Ashworth
July 5, 1989
Page 2
the letter from the attorney' s office, notified staff that he was
intending on purchasing a pole barn to be located on the site and
reapplied for the conditional use permit.
On October 23 , 1985, the Planning Commission recommended the City
' Council approve the conditional use permit for the property with
the following conditions (Attachment #5) :
' 1. That a structure be erected on site in conformance with the
setbacks of the R-la District by June 30, 1986.
2 . All vehicles be stored inside the structure.
' 3 . All unlicensed vehicles, litter and debris shall be removed
from the site by December 1 , 1985.
4 . Expansion of the contractor ' s yard activity beyond what has
been represented in this application must be approved by a
conditional use permit.
' On November 4, 1985, the City approved Council a roved the conditional
use permit subject to the following conditions (Attachment #6 ) :
1. That a structure be erected on site in conformance with the
setbacks of the R-la District by June 30, 1986 .
2 . All vehicles be stored inside the structure.
3. All unlicensed vehicles, litter and debris shall be removed
from the site by December 1 , 1985.
4 . Expansion of the contractor' s yard activity beyond what has
been represented in this application must be approved by a
conditional use permit.
5 . Annual review by the City.
At the November 4 , 1985, meeting the City Council also requested
that staff prepare a vehicle list and take pictures of the site
' as soon as possible to place in the file as a record to be used
to evaluate clean up activities .
' Staff has taken several sets of pictures to determine whether or
not clean up of the site has taken place ( see attached photos )
and prepared the vehicle list (Attachment #7 ) .
In January, 1988 , staff met with the applicant regarding an
application for a 12 , 000 square foot pole barn building on the
subject property. The applicant applied for the building permit
11 and stated that the intention was for storage of vehicles on site.
In reviewing the conditional use permit, it was determined that
I
Mr. Don Ashworth
July 5, 1989
Page 3
the size of the building was large enough to constitute an expan-
sion of the contractor' s yard activity and that the application
must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council.
The size of the building is equal to the size of a typical com-
mercial or industrial building in the industrial and commercial
districts.
On February 17 , 1988, the Planning Commission reviewed the 1
building permit application to determine compliance with the con-
ditional use permit for Lowell Carlson. The Commission recom-
mended that the City Council consider revoking the conditional
use permit and that the applicant prepare a specific plan to
reduce the building size and provide a plan for the outside
storage on the property (Attachment #8) . Staff at this time
asked the City Attorney to respond to some issues that were
discussed at the Planning Commission meeting (Attachment #9) .
Although the attorney stated that the city could revoke the con-
ditional
use permit for non-compliance, Mr. Carlson would have
the right to continue his non-conforming use at the level of
operation which existed in 1972. It was staff' s recommendation,
in the update to the City Council of March 14 , 1988, meeting,
that there is an advantage to trying to determine a plan for
storage and removal of junk on the property via the current con-
ditional use permit. The applicant requested the item be tabled
from the March 14 , 1988, City Council meeting since he did not
have a specific site plan prepared. The item was not placed on
the March 28th agenda for the same reason. As of April, 1988, a
site plan had not been submitted and staff determined that
further postponement of the issue did not appear to be
appropriate. Therefore, staff recommended that the Council
either agree with the Planning Commission to revoke the con-
ditional
use permit or to allow additional time for the applicant
to prepare another plan.
On April 11, 1988 , the City Council reviewed the subject con-
ditional use permit with a site plan that had been submitted the
day of the City Council meeting (Attachment #10) . At the City
Council meeting it was determined that the site plan was pretty
basic and the City Council referred the item back to the Planning
Commission with instructions to the applicant that a revised site
plan be prepared. With the departure of Barbara Dacy, and then
with Steve Hanson, this item has continued to be postponed.
Staff has been in contact with the applicant stating that the
revised site plan must be submitted for Planning Commission and
City Council review and established a deadline for which a site
plan must be submitted by. The applicant did not submit the site
plan as requested by staff in the letter dated May 31, 1989
(Attachment #11) . Staff spoke with the applicant approximately a
week prior to the June 12 , 1989, deadline for the site plan sub-
mittal and allowed the applicant to have until the next deadline
which was June 26 , 1989, to submit the revised site plan. As of
today, July 5, 1989, the applicant has not contacted staff or
submitted a revised site plan.
I
Mr. Don Ashworth
July 5 , 1989
Page 4
It is obvious that postponing the issue for the applicant to pre-
pare a revised site plan and continuing to take it back in front
' of the Planning commission and City Council for review is not
solving the problem of the outside storage of junk and non-
compliance with the conditional use permit. The city is con-
tinously getting calls and letters from residents complaining
' about the site and expressing their frustration that nothing is
being done. It has been almost four years that this issue has
been raised by residents and addressed by the city and staff
feels that it is time that action be taken. Since trying to work
with the applicant has not resolved the issue, staff is now
recommending that the City Council revoke the conditional use
permit. Even though the use would continue to be "a grand-
fathered" use in that it existed prior to the zoning ordinance,
revocation of the conditional use permit would be some sort of
action and the may realize the city is serious about having the
' site cleaned up. The city has the ability to direct staff to
pursue the cleaning up of the site using the city code, such as
enforcing the nuisance section and at the very least should
reduce the intensity of the use of this site to what existed
prior to the ordinance in 1972.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council has two options at this time. The first would
be to recommend to revoke the conditional use permit. The second
' option would be to allow the applicant one final extension to
provide a revised site plan and to conform to the original con-
ditions of the conditional use permit from 1985 . Although staff
usually is in favor of continuing to work with the applicant, we
feel that at this time, the first option may be the best one to
pursue.
' ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission minutes dated June 12, 1973 .
' 2 . City Council minutes dated June 18 , 1973.
3 . Planning Commission minutes dated November 14, 1984 .
4 . Letter from City Attorney dated September 18 , 1985 .
' 5 . Planning Commission minutes dated October 23 , 1985 .
6 . City Council minutes dated Novemeber 4 , 1985 .
7 . Photos of site.
8 . Planning Commission minutes dated February 17 , 1988 .
9 . Letter from City Attorney dated March 10 , 1988 .
10. City Council minutes dated April 11 , 1988 .
11. Letter from Jo Ann Olsen dated May 31 , 1989 .
-
•_ _ ._
...... • •
...-.7
REGULAR PLANNING COMIESSICN MEETING JUNE 12, 1973
I
The meeting tias called to order by Chairman John Ilevez., . The followin: m-moo,-s
I
were present: Jim Mielke, Arnie .E.yoa., Dan Herbst, lora Gabber .. John *ieve,-,u,s:.,
Tim Stone, and Nick Idaritz.. Counei-Iman 'do:LF:, Councilwoman Ilils, and. 1.:ayor.
Elingelhutz were present‘,
IMINUTES: A notion was made by Dan }erbst and secondec.:. by Tim S.,:one to aprovo
TEFTITS7 22, 19731 regula::, Plannizig Co:mmi.ssicn miriute3. Motion unanimouL-3:7 ar.nrovec).
The first sentence of the fourth para::,:ranh under PUI3LTC HIEJPING PI-DiOSE7) P1z5LINII:AR:. I
DEVEIDPMENT PLAN AND PREimalIARY PLAT in jUne 5i 1,973., public lY'arin,7 minut' s
to read: alight Adaz,_,Is, Attorney for ricKeon Constometion Cc n'- gave the isirst
part of the presenta.tion,,
I
A motion was made by Jim Mielke and seconded by Dan Herbst to approve the V,cod.
Hill Subdivision public hearing minutes of June 5, 1973, as amended„ Lot-Lor,
Itmanintously approved.
HOUSEMITE - RICTIARD SCITIT. DT: Mrs,, 1ic2-lard Schmidt or:Y,e,a., ,d -,-, ,fore the Pi-.1-yri -;
tc move a house inv,o Cnanliassen,_ The lo is in Bardwell' 1,1cm3 south of State HiRaway 7 and tlePt of Hazeltin--, awl,
on Oriole Lane. The house is 1.1,9 t ::: 28 and aDM:'0:: te.i_y 2_5 to 20 ,years ca-L,
The Schmidt ls plan to fix it up and sell it The house has to be moved b.,- Jul:.- :_
I
The Planning Commission asked Is SolLmidt to gel; letters from nei,7hbor,-; so tna,
they are aware of what is happerrir „
IA motion was made by Dan Herbst and Eeconcied by Arnie Ez7ba that the Plana:227.
Commission recommend the Council i_L-on.rove a buildinz permil, .tor the Thicharf.
Schmidt45 on Lot L. The Sch.r.t.dt:s ar4ree 1-,o once tile home is on the s-its to
I
finish and landscape it with.in six. months,. Motion unanimously anpzoved.
PUBLIC NEARING COMITTOILL USE PERIET - LaJELL CARL : Dan Herbst presided
I
-“T"EMT-H-c,-i-O-n—F-7-77-i=75-77-1g77-715:17-. Z.7-Ciai-TrilFTET4,--.27:,i3.7,7-building-
is i:,o be 1,sec. +orc.
The structim is not a typical accessory use for an agrietatural use of the land.
A motion was made by Dan Her.bst and seconded by Tom Gabbert that the Planning
I
Commission recommends the Council deny the Conditional Use Permit as nresented,
The following votes were cast: Arnie Hyba,,, Tom Gabbert, lac': aritzy Jim iaelize!
and Dan Herbst voted in favor. John lieveau:: and Tim Stone abstained as they were 111
not present at the Public hearing0 hotion carried. ,
Reasons for the recommc-,,nded denial arc:
• There are two garages on the property.
. It is a warehousing typo of operation.
If Et:paneled it could be used for r-epair,
PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL, US': 1311.1.1177, •, *v:ALTER GRIT.3a7:7 : Dm Herbst -ozecic.ea
crie-r• ' Z'.-762,--i;ion of-Zile mest2-3:;., -7 re-,-:,o.:.7,-.1--TEHI ,..7.1)7,...e:,.z- z_:..):1.1 Conservationist.
dated April 17, 1973. was read,.
1 motion was rr..-_-.2,, b7 lac::: :.in:.-.:;..-61-:, a:a uecondeD b,i di:-.2 ...,i',..Q.-:-o to t:Zolc, this Izazt ::
tfor 30 &yE., unt-.._i roconim :-.:7:'-atIon,.: a2,...-: riaa. .T.1.:2::: ,..i2,3 ':-:_l:L:riy..:
011Ojg votcss-- er-, cr.:-- - .1 ': 4.,,,.1Irr,. ,-,----. - i,i:; r„- ; .- ':3:.',"""t_. il.C 1: ilrarj...C.:Z.•
Dan Herbst,. and Tim Ltor...-: vo-t:L.:,--:. in favc.::2 ,;01:1-1 .: :7...1.17.:. • UL- a`.. 12: 17::.!::
Present -1'or the entire tlio hOL::::1_1-11; L::1-)..,-;1: c 7±;-:
4 2 1
• ,..
Ifriitcrigte417-4
410 S
CHANHASSEN VILLAGE COUNCIL MINUTES - June 18, 1973 -5-
II UTILITY EMPLOYMENT CON'T: A motion was made by Councilman Neils and
seconded by Councilman Wolf to recind the motion in the June 7 , 1973
Special Council minutes on hiring Mike Dorsey. The following voted in
I favor thereof: Mayor Klingelhutz, Councilmen Bennyhoff, Neils and Wolf.
No negative votes. Motion carries.
RAISE FOR JACK ERNST: A motion was made by Councilman Wolf and seconded
I by Councilman Neils to give Jack Ernst a 50 per hour increase in pay.
The following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Klingelhutz, Councilmen
Bennyhoff, Neils and Wolf. No negative votes. Motion carried.
ISTOP SIGNS: A motion was made by Councilman Bennyhoff and seconded by
Councilman Wolf to have a stop sign installed at 68th St. going on to
Nez Pierce. The following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Klingelhutz,
ICouncilmen Bennyhoff, Neils and Wolf. No negative votes. Motion carried.
TWIN HILLS PCA REPORT: The Village Attorney gave a report on Twin Hills
I Farm. He will write a letter to the PCA acknowledging the two reports
that were sent to the Village about the Twin Hill Farms.
II VILLAGE HALL REMODELING: A motion was made by Councilman Bennyhoff and
seconded by Councilman Neils to reject all bids submitted on the Village
Hall remodeling. The following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Klingelhutz,
Councilmen Bennyhoff, Neils and Wolf. No negative votes. Motion carried.
ITELEPHONE - LAKE ANN PARK: A motion was made by Councilman Wolf and sec-
onded by Councilman Bennyhoff to have a telephone stalled at Lake Ann
I Park. The following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Klingelhutz , Councilman
Bennyhoff, Neils and Wolf. No negative votes. Motion carried.
LAWN MOWER FOR PARKS: A motion was made by Councilman Wolf and seconded
■ by Councilman Bennyhoff to purchase a new Roof 60 inch demonstrator mower
for $1, 995. 00 with a full written warranty. This should be put in the Park
maintenance budget for 1974. The following voted in favor thereof: Mayor
I Klingelhutz, Councilmen Bennyhoff, Neils and Wolf. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
I A motion was made by Councilman Bennyhoff and seconded by Councilman Wolf
to issue a warrant for payment of the new Roof 60 inch lawn mower. The
following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Klingelhutz, Councilmen Bennyhoff,
II Neils and Wolf. No negative votes. Motion carried.
LOWELL CARLSON-PUBLIC HEARING: Lowell Carlson was present to ask the Council
for a Conditional Use Permit for a structure 40 x 100 ft. on his property.
IA motion was made by Councilman Wolf and seconded by Councilman Neils to
deny the request of a Conditional Use Permit as per Planning Commission
minutes of June 12, 1973 . The following voted in favor thereof: Mayor
' Klinglehutz, Councilmen Bennyhoff, Neils and Wolf. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
I GEDNEY PROPERTY: A motion was made by Councilman Bennyhoff and seconded b y
Councilman Neils to authorize the Village Attorney and Councilman Wolf to
meet with Chaska in regards to the Gedney property. The following voted in
favor thereof: Mayor Klingelhutz, Councilmen Bennyhoff, Neils and Wolf. a
No negative votes. Motion carried.
II (4
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 1984
Page 12
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit Request #84-19 for
Contractor 's Yard Activities on Property Zoned R-la , Agricultural
Residence District and located at 4141 Kings Road , Carlson
Excavating , Applicant
Public Present
Mr . Carlson 4141 Kings Road
David Trumble 4151 Kings Road
Doris Brickley 4380 Parklawn , Minneapolit '
Dacy explained that the applicant is applying for conditional use
permit approval for the continuation of contractor 's yard activi-
ties on the premises . She stated that the applicant has 5
vehicles , retains one employee, and the hours of operation are
8: 00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. but may vary . She stated that the appli-
cant does not have adequate existing structures on site to house
the vehicles . She recommended the applicant construct an
accessory building or confine one area of the site as an outdoor
storage area and provide substantial screening on all sides of
the storage area. She recommended a completion date of September
1, 1985 . She stated that this would reduce the visual impact of
the contractor 's yard on the neighborhood. She stated that the
yard is littered with piles of debris , old machinery, unlicensed
vehicles and other waste material which detracts from the
appearance of the property. She stated that the applicant should
remove all waste materials by June 1 , 1985 . ,
Carlson stated that when he first requested to build an accessory
building , he was denied—by the City Council and now staff is
requesting him to build. He stated that it would be too costly
to build today and years ago he could have afforded it . He also
mentioned that it is hard to keep the contractor 's yard clean but
felt he could do a better job and would start doing so . He also
asked if everyone had to go through this process .
Dacy stated that everyone has to apply for a conditional use per-
mit for a contractor ' s yard and that several operations have been
contacted. She also stated that the applicant had two options ,
either build a building or screen one area of the yard.
Robert Wilson questioned if this conditional use permit would be
reviewed annually or if it would be granted and never checked on .
Dacy stated that the applicant must meet the conditions of the
permit , and in this case , the recommended deadlines .
Carlson asked about what would happen if he did not meet the
deadline.
Dacy replied that the City can issue citations and begin court 1
action to force compliance.
I
( 1
' Planning Commission Minutes
November 14 , 1984
Page 13
Carlson asked if there is a limited number of vehicles he is
allowed to have .
' Dacy stated that if there is significant intensification , it will
prompt another review and he would have to apply for another con-
' ditional use permit.
Doris Bickley stated that Carlson could not build a big enough
building to screen or cover all of his vehicles . She stated that
' the dirt road was very dusty with vehicles going up and down it
and said that this yard was an eye sore and something should be
done about it .
' J. Thompson moved , seconded by Albee to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' Albee stated that the visual impact of this property was horren-
dous and stated that asking the applicant to remove the debris
and vehicles by June 1, 1985 was very generous .
' Merz asked if there would be a way to store the vehicles farther the property line rather than having them right out in r
' front .
Carlson stated that the property in back slopes and is to steep do that . He stated that there are ten vehicles on his prop-
erty and if he built a building the majority of vehicles could be
stored in it , however he stated that he was denied the request to
build such a building several years ago .
' Conrad stated that he preferred the applicant to construct a
building rather than just screening because it could take years
before screening would cover the sight of the vehicles .
Dacy stated that a combination of fencing and plantings could be
accomplished.
' Noziska asked Mr. Carlson if he could meet the September deadline cleaning the debris .
line
' Carlson stated that he could. He asked if he wanted to construct
a building would the Council permit him to do so .
Dacy stated that constructing a building is being recommended.
Conrad stated that he would like staff and Mr . Carlson to work
' together on this . He would like to see a solution that would be
good for Mr. Carlson , staff and the neighborhood.
'i`_ Noziska moved , seconded by J. Thompson to table this request
until more definitive information can be received. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
•
LAW OFFICES y '
GRANNIS, CAMPBELL, FARRELL & KNUTSON -
DAVID L.GRANNIS•1874.1961 PROFFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
DAVID L GRANNIS.JR.1910.1980 POST OFFICE BOX 57 / -
VANCE B.GRANNIS 403 NORWFST BANK BUILDING
VANCE B.GRANNIS.JR.
THOMAS J.CAMPBELL 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE
PATRICK A.FARRELL SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075
DAVID L GRANNIS.HI
ROGER N.KNUTSON 832-455.1661
THOMAS M.SCOTT
GARY G.FUCHS
MARY S.VUJOVICH
THOMAS L GRUNDHOEFER September 18 , 1985
DAVID L.HARMEYER
Mr. and Mrs. Carlson
4141 Kings Road
Excelsior, Minnesota 55331
RE: Contractor' s Yard Conditional Use Permit '
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Carlson:
Our office is legal counsel for the City of Chanhassen. Last
year the City commenced review of your request for a conditional
use permit for a Contractor's Yard. The City is growing impatient.
Please contact the City Planner, Barbara Dacy, at 937-1900. Unless
this contact is made within the next few days and unless you promptly
complete the review process, the City will commence legal proceedings
against you.
Very truly yours,
GRANNIS, C• 'BEL , FARRELL
KNUTSs.. , P.A.
B ■ : V�
�I oger N. i0''son
RNK: srn �.
cc: 1-Ms Barbara Dacy
4
CITY OF CHANH4SSEt;
1985
^OwMlJ IITy Dr-vFL n;-v71NT DE?
•
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
' REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 23 , 1985
Chairman Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel , Bill Ryan, Ladd Conrad , Howard
Noziska and Mike Thompson .
' MEMBERS ABSENT
None
STAFF PRESENT
Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Vicki Churchill, Secretary.
PUBLIC HEARING
' Conditional Use Permit to allow a contractor ' s yard activity on
property zoned R-la, Agricultural Residence and located at 4141
Kings Road , Carlson Excavating, applicant
Public Present
Mr . and Mrs. Carlson applicant
Al Klingelhutz
Dacy stated that this item was tabled from last fall until more
' information could be received about what type of screening mecha-
nisms were going to be employed on site to screen the contrac-
tor ' s yard equipment and vehicles. She stated that staff met
' with the applicant on a couple of occasions regarding
landscaping costs and the possible location of a pole barn . She
stated that the City Attorney ' s Office notified the applicant
that they had to wrap up their application in the near future and
' consequently they reapplied. She stated that staff has not
received any more information as of this date than they had last
fall and staff is recommending that we resolve this matter as
' soon as possible.
Mr. Carlson stated that as far as a new building , the prices have
gotten out of hand and he is looking for a used building . He
stated that he has someone looking right now for him, but the
only ones that have been available have been fairly small .
Ryan asked him if he could meet the deadline of December 1st for
a building?
111 Mr. Carlson stated that he did not know but he was not going to
buy a brand new building . He stated that as far as cleaning up
the place, he has cleaned up the south side of his property . He
stated that he wants to put the vehicles in the barn . He stated
' that they all work but he does not want to license all of them.
44-
' Ir
Planning Commission Minutes '
October 23 , 1985
Page 2
Mr. Carlson stated that he applied for a building permit for a
pole barn in 1973 and the city denied it . He was concerned that
once he found a building the city would not let him put it on
site.
Dacy stated that the objective of this application is to have a
structure on site. She explained that if the Planning Commission
and City Council approves the conditional use permit he will be
able to construct the building .
Ryan stated that the Commission is also concerned about the clean
up of the property. '
Mrs . Carlson stated that the lower area is all cleaned up.
Dacy stated that the vehicles are still being stored on site
adjacent to Kings Road.
Ryan stated that really the only conditions were to clean up the '
property and that no expansion of the activity occur.
Mr. Carlson stated that you can ' t be in business unless you
expand . He stated that a business is like any other job , if you
get a promotion , you move up, nobody holds you down . He stated
that there are bound to be a few changes , as far as equipment ,
you get rid of some and gain some.
M. Thompson asked if the site has improved since last fall?
Dacy felt that it has not changed. She stated that they have
cleaned up some of the area. She stated that the primary issue
is to screen the vehicles . '
? stated that he has lived next to Mr. Carlson for
about 20 to 25 years and they have always gotten along fine. He
stated that he also recalls when the city refused him a permit to
build a barn . He stated that he has no problem if the vehicles
are stored inside and felt that there would be no problems in the
neighborhood . He also stated that his only question is if this
use is a legal use in a residential area. He stated he did not
think the use would be good for the road .
Emmings stated that in 1973 contractor ' s yard activities were not
permitted uses and that was the reason for denial of the building
permit.
Dacy stated that contractor ' s yard activities were not allowed as
conditional uses until August of 1984 .
I
1 •
ao
' Planning Commission Minutes
October 23 , 1985
Page 3
M. Thompson moved , seconded by Emmings , to close the public
hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' M. Thompson stated that the applicant has the alternative of
storing vehicles and equipment at another site. He felt that
' based on the experience they had with the applicant one year ago
he doesn ' t feel their intent was to comply with the city ' s wishes
and feels the application should be denied.
' Conrad asked M. Thompson what would be accomplished by denying
the permit?
' M. Thompson stated that he does not think that it should be a
contractor' s yard in that area and would deny it as a matter of
principle and there is no criteria in which to establish why this
' should be a contractor ' s yard.
Conrad stated that Chanhassen is growing and the Commission is
trying to monitor some of the businesses that we do not have a
lot of control of and can become offensive. He also stated to
that in the application is stated what the applicant has or wants
and that should not be expanded from that . He stated that the
applicant can come in and apply for expansion in the future and
the Commission will take a look at it .
Siegel asked what has been done in the past on conditional use
permits when the applicant cannot meet conditions that are recom-
mended?
' Dacy stated that all of the previous contractor ' s yard con-
ditional use permits have been approved . She stated that if the
conditional use permit was denied , the applicant would not be
' able to operate his business from the site. She stated that the
applicant would have the right to pursue that in court. She
stated that she felt that the Carlson' s are trying to conform
with the recommendations , it is just that they cannot get the
building up before December 1st .
Siegel asked why screening the property with fencing and vegeta-
1 tion could not be accomplished in a more economical fashion
rather than putting up a new building? He stated that Mr.
Carlson is a contractor , where he could build a berm, plant
' vegetation and put up a fence.
Mr. Carlson stated that if a fence was put up, snow drifts into
the yard on the inside of the fence and block the driveway. He
' stated that some places are 2] feet lower than the road and a ten
foot fence would have to be put up to screen the lower area .
' Mrs . Carlson stated that an estimate was done on fencing and
landscape screening and it was about $6 , 000 and they would rather
have a pole barn for that amount .
l
4
JO
Planning Commission Minutes
October 23 , 1985
Page 4
Emmings felt that the permit should be granted with staff ' s
recommendations except say that any expansion would be limited by
his ability to keep it under the roof , in terms of equipment. He
felt that the condition of a structure being erected by December
1st should be extended to nine months because of the winter
months . He felt that they are trying to comply . He stated that
if at the end of nine months if the conditions are not met the
permit would be revoked and then at that time reassess for viola-
tions and possible litigation.
Ryan felt that the applicant ' s current neighbor is supporting his
activity. He stated that he would like to see the applicant get
the conditional use permit. He stated that the materials for his
business can be stored on site for a reasonable period of time,
because it will be expended to the job site. '
Conrad moved, seconded by Siegel , to recommend the City Council
approve Conditional Use Permit #84-19 with the following con-
ditions :
1. That a structure be erected on site in conformance with the
setbacks of the R-la District by June 30 , 1986 . '
2. All vehicles shall be stored inside the structure.
3 . All unlicensed vehicles , litter, and debris shall be removed '
from the site by December 1, 1985 .
4 . Expansion of the contractor ' s yard activity beyond what has
been represented in this application must be approved by a
conditional use permit .
Noziska, Conrad , Ryan , Siegel and Emmings voted in favor. M.
Thompson abstained. Motion carried.
NEW ZONING ORDINANCE INFORMATIONAL MEETING '
Dacy stated that the Business Community will be notified of the
new draft and will be invited to the next Planning Commission '
meeting for any comments or questions they have.
PLANNING COMMISSION VACANY
Dacy stated that staff has advertised in the Carver '
County Herald
for the vacancy on the Commission but has received no response.
Staff was directed to readvertise in the Herald , the Sailor and
the South Shore News .
Conrad moved , seconded by Noziska to adjourn the meeting at 9: 30
p.m. All voted in favor and the motion carried .
1
CITYacJF
I
czANHAssEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
November 6, 1985
1
Mr. Lowell Carlson
1 4141 Kings Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
1 Dear Mr . Carlson:
This is to formally notify you that the City Council at the
November 4, 1985 meeting approved your request for a conditional
use permit for contractor ' s yard activities subject to the
following conditions :
1 1. That a structure be erected on site in conformance with the
setbacks of the R-la District and in conformance with all
building code requirements by June 30 , 1986 .
2. All vehicles shall be stored inside the structure.
3 . All unlicensed vehicles , litter and debris shall be removed
from the site by December 1, 1985 .
4 . Expansion of the contractor ' s yard activity beyond what has
' been represented in this application must be approved by a
conditional use permit .
1 5 . Annual review by the city .
The Council also requested that staff prepare a vehicle list and •
take pictures of the site as soon as possible to place in the
1 file as a record to use to evaluate clean up activity. I will be
contacting you within the week to arrange an appointment out at
your site. Attached for your information is a copy of the con-
' ditional use permit which will be recorded at the county . In
order to record the conditional use permit , I need the official
legal description of your property. This description is on your
deed.
1 Should you have any questions , please feel free to contact me .
1 Sin ere' ,
1 Barbara Dacy 11. (#
City Planner
1 BD:v
U
410 411
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES , MINNESOTA
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
1. Permit . Subject to the terms and conditions set
forth herein , the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional '
use permit for : Contractor ' s yard activities
2. Property. The permit is for the following described '
property in the City of Chanhassen , Carver County , Minnesota:
See attached Exhibit A.
3. Conditions . The permit is issued subject to the
following conditions :
1. That a structure be erected on site in conformance with the
setbacks of the R-la District and in conformance with all
building code requirements by June 30 , 1986 .
2. All vehicles shall be stored inside the structure.
3. All unlicensed vehicles , litter and debris shall be removed '
from the site by December 1, 1985 .
4 . Expansion of the contractor ' s yard activity beyond what has
been represented in this application must be approved by a
conditional use permit .
5. Annual review by the city.
4 . Termination of Permit . The City may revoke the
permit following a public hearing under any of the following
circumstances : material change of condition of the neighborhood
where the use is located ; violation of the terms of the permit .
■
'' ti—AFT )N r.-C (0—t
r
I1985 Vehicle List
I - 10 or more abandoned vehicles
- At least 5 to 6 abandoned truck trailers
I - Two buildings ( junk) with debris around them
- Debris
tires
hoses
I wood
boilers
tanks
building parts
Icar parts
construction equipment parts
I - old houseboat
* No effort has been made to remove debris or abandoned
Ivehicles
** I could only see 4 trucks that are in use; one tractor and
approximately 3-5 cars still in use
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
- - -i11 Y`'if-1,WV"M s V'el V'+-�r+i-v
_ 1
q
�//
. I
49(2u 1
c��-tom L��
i
: --/12--t--0._ lai--,i2 . -i' 'V-A:/) ,,,--,_,/ deL--zz- 1
CA ..44 ''``J'�} ,2 3 LL& c:
•
' .27.-)-(_-:.Q. L
64. . .
1
f{ -ir U J J 1
I
I
e-2- f i
--S% \ .5)- ito-1-2.3 A-'-i--p,44:: r4 Z7L,2,
t".-)'- \ .Cf. - Vs,..2,,- - ..6Lc_e-&• ,,,.„f .. I
c&-
�J .' M 6
-1 i a___—" ,:.??_,_ 1
i
1
L. ,.,, 1
1
I
I
IM
- -'• .---- '1-,-.00,0.. '91.•'-- .:
..—,, -, . ,-.... •-•
I ......._. , .,,„..,,,....
. .
,.....,,. .,
..2....-:.;', 4.11:, ..._ ,.• _,
-:- •
.-
I .- -- ,_
Q,
...,-'f- :.-,- t,e '.. • '
--...---4 T•f,',•-- - - =, a,,„..____,...- ?,„..•,....,--"- -.
,..... ......__ -77 -mlw.„,, 1
,-.:--. •-':. . -
•:•-.,_,, . ,
- -,''-`,'-• s-i4 "-.:::-...' - -
;-,....., -•.-.7 .% il, -;
* lil i-;71'iVNIP. r
I - ------ .2,:pgP--;'''''.44, .:',.__.-.:•--•;;„.,.,:,. ----', '
--7• ,-re:;., -M7.-,,3., ".4. - '
- j.V..- -.4- t ,,
, , - -
t.,j 'I■ ■
ifiit' i o
'# . .
•-• ‘•
I s
--r "
-
-- .
_ ... .
,..rr,- IPP74,•-•41,...,,,-tb-
k - 1111P4ir' .
, ..... ..
A - .....W.. ..4.. .. : il.
I
I ' ,
.--"
ma
I
_.•11 ,
-
I
I
tt t''''''':4:;:: -•'‘‘I-'-_ ',;-?4.r'`''' ''''*4-r.."---...."11,11Pr" -aruarlir."411.4"."-..---",•,,..4,,, , ...‘:-,:;,:-...7 ,,,,,.-_1,-, -.., - - --:-.-_ -
-.-. I It \--• '''n t'',.--_;N:t# ' ' - .. ":: " ,
' ' ■, . _
'\
,
C:--- -
-- -- ,..,3 -..„.
._,...- .
•
"';:c "-
_ .
i.„— ._. ,.._..,. ,,,.7.4..1 _.._,..-„,-72,_,-_ --,- .t..", '4$---45..,l',„‘ ., -• "1 -
. .
— ,
. _ . -1. ----- --- --------
.. _
awIL.
• : P„,„___, -
-4...,......
,....
I ....-........_,
;--.
.....,. .....
•••■•••■■• 1r,it
.,...•
-_--
7-7-1-7-1---
I - - - ----
- ,
- '.i: - .......
-- .
4.-.‘
, ----,
I ,
'
, .
I
•
I
I
Milliir.
Mir.
'f d
I
I
*-.,k v ,.- 1,.e .x
I
..�`_ `~
. ', . _ :„ _ . �I�,
I
i r Z
:Y-� _
•
of •
I Z 1
i {y",t! .; :id.,,,.. 4!.ps� _ arm
I
� ,`!�.a�i� :'" ir iViwa,.',',��i E " `� }�ye•
I
itlf
a'r' - 9 `d^ t• ... __ ->w -?_: �Y�'r''f:^W -- :.,....'-'7-'
.�'.aA�';4R .>y+r+ ' :::
f'' '/ ;y, JCS,, r L • . r
'r: •".� . iii .!r!� rR'� + art= irk r aft r+j,l - '•
--- ,-
't .. - .; +--v..,-- 4 _•: - 1- - _ _�.e Via`.
�! y r/ N
lir , • ... `a'-�'. '- —"mac . —■
I
I
Mar 81211111111111. 1
■
I
r y nJ �/' ! p a.
i.
( 1 / d
' max q ' •��
•`'! •' - Jai.�
•
. "sue :!!
�..es-_ - - ,tea•. . tom". -i. :r� .' - ?_'
Ia++. _. •,�v+ �..- .. y _fir'^' ,.s,�y. r ''- ! �I
I
I
f
-.I:'':::".1.-:.
- ��'
eFf v r" ,+ -.•-•-� -'+r, `e. T F
11111 . _. _
■
' . 1=:..76x ' _a. •� y
r
Millir Mar-
II
, I
"---.7„..• •.- •
- --Y`...' - 4.,...-* 'h. • . . --°,„,„e* 14
, .,.
• • . rie- _, . , .: __
. ,.
.„..- -. .• -4-Vir r ..'214 •.,•k!"
.....",.. ...:,. . •
--,-•_.44,1•----A.
r .
-..r:.i'...-7-
. . , . ,,r t. ,•.,
--- -
..,
... .
"Rif Air -
..e" - ;'IL :"4"••••■•••••...
V' ' ,. s--
.. ,
' ' •7'•'-,, :::_:,....:-;.,-.„:.-
N;., ....., •
r ; 4 .,..„,...-• -,,,,...._ .;.---
,,-
t;, =saw aillfte,ria
,....._ • , ,, POW
. , _.0. _r.-- Il“ ,,.. 71, '
• 41-- -- -'-' - `‘'.l'' c. - we lir!" -N.4 , sw' - 4i IL
- "'-= --*---v....1.-- ,.. . .,.. -...,..,..• ._ ,..,_ ---- ,
. __,... ._,.. •.... ......- •tr... _ ...., ,....._ _ . .--...
- - . .- - -4_ • - .
-- ,, . . 0_ - - • , -,:ri-4,-.3.,_-...., --....,----. -
_
p„I, -.I.- - - -NOlhitM.--ft."- - •- " - -- ""."- ..-' •
•
4t 44.-...,,- - - -..--,----- - .,...- ..-_,.., _,.
. .. .......
- ____
--._ -- .
-...:...- -4---4- ,•- , -...... -,..-.f. • -.- .. ,
— - --__
, ---
.• -----
_-.,- 1....t.*:;••• ., -''''''''''''r``"r---. -----'','-gn....-
__.
ir-
-
4°_; -:' rr:,,trt.''''''',-"''',•‘'V '
.41 .-Ii‘'C'ii.7 :'' "-- . , --••-"---1-.2.0-Ar,e, 31 ::-.?:;:•=‘,:,•.-: •' •
. ,
•
' -=•••••.g"---._‘. -'.--
— .---,%;-1.-- -%,-.'--•
.,"•W• --1,--,-, -• •
:. .
•,,,ja. ipk \ . . -
;.-
11, .
. _ .
- .
.....,- - , •
-- . , • -,--, _. .
-,-.,
. ,.. -
A.. . ■ 46.4,........
',--.
16444 If
_ - -, - -.41.--....." 1,,,‘ Ilty,;....4"- .-4. -•-
.
. .-
— -- _ , ._
-.--
' '\ -- . \• ...-
_ „,---- •
- -1-1-'
. ,
Iciek
I
Mailir 1121.111Irm
•
• x
I
.. � Iltai.t.
Tt y '.'r.! •♦'. i r
i'..r Vi
�' _ _ 'AN,.,r \6.. art .i 1 :-
° '* r 4 i'. li i •
1 i it Aro V ./ '.
-__ '-,',*, ir.... *is — ...4-a/
1
ii----------
—T- ,� -
ti. •
j �a _ _ .. 1 •■•�- y �, s
' r„„ "fir:}' l:,' dr..• 3 3-.�,.
' l �
4 ` �� .� T \yam'4• tI... l t •
I
- !
I ig5"-)
1
MIIIIIr
EMIT'
•
— — ------ --- -
40
I
I
I
/ ._
,-- ...„::
'.%••
•::,' -•,-;-.• - ic ••,-":'.
. • --t.":?--.--i--,..
I
...-..,', . --, -•,', .s•.,„
c.,-.1;t:-.1.V i-.'.• - .
• 1-,-.4
..7:f,•*--.-2;,'.-''-7•
I
_
I
,.. ,I - i I— .
, ___
. .
-- - -,..,- - - - -!-,,--4._-----... -,. _...
- - ,• .._
'.tAti.e I.. ..
.77 ihriliajmi . i t.fr,".■•*-4 f''`'. .. ....,........,
i
-•... .- ,
. ........."■••.... '
.alla a . .
....a
-----4-'-.•--...-.-..'---.'-"-*0..":-O'-'gr-."-,„-"„-.'.e-'/r.k..`-.-`,,-';-;-11-_,---.....vi-r-d--*.,.-T,.::-"."','',-.•j.r_.,,.e,.'..;-.,..._.., _
•,4,0..,.-"-..."..k.,.,...-4.'--.-'
- ..-----:-.-.-_-^ "---- - •
, _•_I"-
-
,r4
....
. .
. ,
. .. .
I
i
_.,..,„--,4„,..,i,--.„.„,-4i.,,,,,-,.:..4..„-„,,,,...-...77.:.„.„. .,......,_. , .,,,-,. .4,., ,.....x„,„.,....•„....;
. ---.-7.,.'..f:'--;- -.-,4`-',--.*-4,•.,---...-..,:-,--,-e..,`,._.-,A*-_.-'. .,--.,--.,...4.','.,:.-•-7-=.‘,: . ,-
,
.... ,
I
I
I
•
/1"i \\ ,f I
I
- . =T-
If.
._lpfw.,..-...10 ....
_,:-....,..:.!,.i.,.....„..t - i......„,,,,,.. .....„.:,
. . .
- ---.-.--.. ..z.. .
... 74:-....i,;,- ,-,.-- ....,„,„„,- „. „.„.,....,..,t,- .:, , ,,, .-- _.. ,-.. .
....!-.,.. ...: . .:40;1W-1-
.
....,P . .4.- I/1.
„,, ,. `...... . -v./P.-H 1..P9 • '-....... ..1,..---..-- .7—'7 -
'f.”.7- •to ,..- f. ,• ---....... ...2-: ',._ -,*---•-,--- . .
• ..
. •• ., \, r'k\f-•-,---"%s.., -- -
.. ..it..1 '4, ',4"-"" pr, • ,
a.,
1
,'....;4.'...%W.7 .A.,'... • '‘. ..-'%10-`...1 , ,
••
...
•4 '-• .....
. . , .... . .
. ,
. .
:.-.
' ? .•, ;4 "....F.."4■1,...••• •''4. ....J .“. -..-•: . • I I
...
..,'';4A. . .,..,.--,....,- _:-;''..-.: !-,4 _,,,,• ... `...___"7" --,i -
• .4 ii•''• 't;•.,;..-2 )1:....•....•'.••.L. •'' '..-- . -i,/' M-,...46...
.. ..
;,.
".
..F
.. .
. .
4•1•6.7.
1 .,f,,..; •• .e101ie . . .• i
,a. •.,.
•
III
I
I
I .
`ice
4
I
■ .
•
I y • . wp, i
�i. -F -� T
yl=.°i s firs,• ,_ w-.."...1 a.:_llr:-,v- __ , :......... ......... -- '..--
_ , iiiirelF- --,---, ----
1.
,c ply +■ r- i Ili
■
S ie,: +1. r 32 f 1•
.� �
I f.. i -iii:`\
■
■ :\`.
;tom '"° ,`` - .
■ _ y 1,
454 • "�4.:e4.. j!' ! t w'.-re' . 4I.. .1 ..
• ]Ie 1 +ff'l'f 3"e/,::d''yam , r.., ,4
_ .._. '�1,? 5:• ,!I, �„,,,vtile•.,...,,•`”�s"+ •• ;... ' - - J
■
\6151
■
111
/*
_
' -F••••
, •
' •-• •
..-
•
1-,
,
• . . -•-
AU . • .. • ,,.•
• ' Taimssi,•ani ........or............._•-"--a-t- -■.,,,,//ftt•..... •1- „. ....: _' „._ . .,._,. . . •,...-,
. - •. -
• •• - •.. . . - .
•
- -- —• .! 41.in'
, -- - . NIL-' •• Ile, 1.-, , -- .., --,-. ". -•..Z....,'''•'
,,I.it-• i 17-- .<.• . ..,..--1”4
..;10.- amar------
' t ;1;-.13."4:.-.--t1":7 '1' '''''''',A. ,-••• .
-.... -- .
-....,- i-4, • ,4 e v•• 4....- • _ .
-...fm_ - • '
i•
A ..,------ 1°-- _
.....-_, ---..•- •
........ -- . -.• ....- _• • •
- _.:;,....- -,.- ..,,,.-. • . -
4p. " •- ,c_..- ---7--,_,._:- ____,_='- ___:-...-----,_•-- .. ,,,,..„,,,.„--z4-_- .
4•• ••••''' '''97.7-7--- "-- ,.;.,,,,,-...'°,. ..-•,,',. 7.f.41,-ft..t.1,-1. '..-••• -'''' . r .4% ' ,
. ' •
• .
-AC-- •- '' '"."' - '''"•• . . ,
- • air
-.4 ,10w!..tL-:.-..,,...-,.40;;.- -"-rf ''"4'7'''' ''''.:7-'* "'-''..4.- -‘'' .. , • ,o. '_Of•., - . ':`• '
- ".•
I, •__,- t
•
I
1
-'
I ....
1 .
- . it;._n ,i ...•--7- --,-,,,
— _v...
— u. • - :
1 .. . • ...,
--- c.,-,-. ;.;,:_.• ...> .
•
. . , . •
,
..--
.. -•1141,,i
:-..'-. ...,, •,,. -
, -,-- .-- - .!44• •%.••''-. -• •,ot '
. . ..
- '—doL•■■•■•• .
_..,
- • -
.
..-At ---' •-•..,.......it -All - --
, .., Aniet-
I .
VIC%'./.1 ---. .... i-,••%!. ."4111'. . . -- -
- . - '1•,.. . --4 . .
. •
.4„..._
44
• -i•_.44 ,------ -;-t --‘, 0
0-• -
,..............- .
- S
AO
. S.
I
1....
---,___
_ . •••
..." , *----------.:
-,:•;...- - .,_ ' . -. -4"". . ':.•II i '
-.-
Ai - •
' „...=...er- "...e 1-- ••••(.• -A.... h4 . ..,--_-----• "41: ....
_ ,.. _..; _;.•-,4;-7 .• -1..•,7k i I 44 4ir- ,
• - -
,_ , , ........._ _ -. -:...%•:...„,........
ir.,... ..-..,‘„..„,,,,,,„ek, . _,..-.•:. _. -.IA, - :.-- __i iir.
- .
.... - .
..•-••,,. ^-.... .
4.....,;- -.
_ _. --- 1,41Ng•`.-•. .;',.W'' '!,k.•..1-, •- I7.11-4.) ,-.,.." - Z, • .,.-.- ,. . -941a1 -
•• ...
-■r.."...,...ANA&'.-!:-.c., •%•-•`..#„,,A•41,.- _ • '0•--",-...,,,s, .....„..„ ---•.., -
-• - ';;;;Kr" • L'"--.•"40,-•••,.....•_„*-1110-4,4„e•-- - -•,72,*-4-• .43-:',.. •-••--,• ' .:-.,-,,i,,,;••.. 4,-„-:•••••-
li 14"----4`"- : '411"140Z..-4115$:•;,?'"!1-7:-A-.'-•-
___.-. • -• k .4...k ..s
i_
,
•
I
I
icilk ‘gb q ...1
1
giiillIr Calair•
I
- -=- a+� ��: v
•
i -' '* ,;--jam, , -} , b4(.
2,f.✓�1.�- t f J'``' -fir -.� .- i •. 'H`.` yry'j� }•4... - "'•�.
't*:,♦ ..i- ' ti rt•
• t'" •
i ,--f
i% ✓
Si.I. ."'.'":'•'-'744;4';''''.7%*-iq''-'..- •.' .". . -.. .' _ . -
r
I
I
I
II 7 ,� r t ,: �s ti t ��i
,,c• c,_,, .� v ,l .6','r,;-;(04%-Via.' ' "�,k,-,: 'r Y r.€ a - '• -� _ _
y q • -}-. ...+? - Jy.+.✓ >+ _.r ' ■ .1 .6C� }•-� - _it•
t Mr=v: 9,
metro r
'_ "4• ' 4\'4•'`L• • Mi ► F•d `
. t a .Cj r .
'�1 Pr (d .
1 q - y .. °•,� ti taw-: ,.c • �" ✓, q.� _/ ' --4\1111.-' J ' -0r.
I ;: tr .z. .rid -��— L.�
•rr.
I JU 1L 1Gl l
IMIIIIr. 2:111111111r.
•
I
•
z t ime
+ _', �"° - -+r ' `--- r <^1'•iii-_-.--..u'�.`..ew '""
r
.►'�7` e }alt" ,ft - - < uY` sr'\-
c.)...)-7‘; f
I
I
I
1
J (9o9
I
1
I
I
BMW WilirrAar
I
■
' CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 17, 1988
'
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 40 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Ann
g , ette Ellson, Ladd
Conrad, Brian Batzli and David Headla
' MEMBERS ABSENT: James Wildermuth
' STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst.
City Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
t EVALUATION OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTOR' S YARD ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 4141 KINGS ROAD, LOWELL
CARLSON.
Public Present :
Lowell Carlson Applicant
Wayne McCorney Applicant's Attorney
' Mr. Chamberlain 4151 Kings Road
Jean Chamberlain 4151 Kings Road
Doris Brickley Minneapolis , MN (Part owner of two
parcels on Kings Road)
Oscar Anderson 7115 Kings Road
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on this item.
Conrad: Just for clarification Barbara, the applicant is applying for a
' 12,000 square foot building. First phase would be 2, 000.
Dacy: That' s correct.
' Conrad : The conditional use that we granted before was a condition of
how many square foot?
' Dacy: There was no specific number established in the record. It was
just determined that whatever would be necessary to store the amount of
material on site .
' Conrad : With that little bit of background , we ' ll open it up for any
kind of public input. Mr. Carlson, if you 'd like to make a statement
about your application. Maybe it' s good that you kick it off and we' ll
' listen to your comment.
Lowell Carlson : I really thought it was no problem after the 1985
I motion. It was all set and cut and dry except for the setback and the
price of the permit was going to cost . That ' s the only thing that drug
this thing along was that.
■
.k r.J
•
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1988 - Page 2 '
Conrad : Tell us about the 12, 000 square foot building. What you' re
intent on that?
Lowell Carlson : The City of Chanhassen required me to, that I had to
build a building big enough to put everything inside so I agreed. At
that time, they wanted everything inside so I agreed to build a building
that size so everything was inside.
Conrad: By building the first 2,000 square feet of this 12, 000 foot
building, what will get inside in this particular case? Will much of
what you currently have be inside or only a portion or what?
Lowell Carlson: Basically the 2,000, the ceiling, in the excavating
business you work during the summer and you don ' t have much to do in the
winter so as far as building a building, we wanted to build it this
winter to get it done. Then I run into this thing . I 've got to go and
do this and that. Finally, we got the setback of the building settled.
We still ain ' t got the red fee settled because they wanted , I called
George at the time that he was here, he called and a square foot
building at that time, he said was about $62 , 000. 00. I said it isn' t a
new building. I didn 't pay that. He says by the time you get that
building up and have them put it up and everything, I said they' re not
putting some. . . I 've owned the property for 18 years. There' s no way
that that building could cost me no $62, 000. 00. But he wanted to
appraise that building. Charge me the permit price according to that
$62 , 000. 00 and I said no way. It ' s like a house . There ' s nothing in
it. It isn't sheetrocked. It isn ' t plumbed and he comes with a
fantastic figure like that . Somebody called him up or whenever he got
his figure so this ain' t exactly set on this deal and I guess you can
ask Barb about it. I checked back with her several times all through
1987. In 1986 I checked back with her and that, so finally this thing
got a setback. Finally I got a 30 foot setback so I could know where to
set this building in the first place because the property drops off in
back. If I put the building setback as far as they wanted it, there ' s
no way you could put a building there. Now with a 30 foot setback off
the road, the road , my property line is in the road itself . It runs off
at an angle and then down below, the whole road is on my property. I
didn' t want to put it from the edge of the road 50 foot back plus so
some of this has kind of come to a standstill on trying to get an answer
and then I find out George has left . Nobody still has come up with the
answers to what this permit is going to cost me to build this building.
I don ' t know, like you say a $62 , 000 . 00 building and whether that ' s
going to have any reflection on as far as a tax assessor or whatever.
That would be ridiculous . If they assess the building at $62 , 000. 00,
I 'm not paying taxes on that if that ' s going to decide it.
Doris Brickley: I 'm part owner of several parcels of property on Kings
Road. May I direct a question to Mr . Carlson?
Conrad : Certainly.
i
Planning Commission Meeting
' February 17, 1988 - Page 3
Doris Brickley: How long have you been in the contracting business on
your property?
Lowell Carlson : Since I bought it in 1965.
Doris Brickley: You certainly expect to expand your business don 't you
in the future?
Lowell Carlson : It ' s expanded as it went up because I bought a dump
' truck and a front end loader and a tractor and a Jeep when I come from
Minot, North Dakota in 1965 when I bought this land. I was doing
excavating. . .
' Doris Brickley: Based on a 12, 000 foot building, in the long range
planning, and you plan to expand your building, what makes you think
that that 12, 000 square foot building is going to be adequate? You' re
' going to be having still a lot of vehicles sitting all over the
property.
' Lowell Carlson: I 'm not the one to be having vehicles sitting all over
the property.
Doris Brickley: I mean your contracting vehicles .
Lowell Carlson: The contractor vehicles, they are planning to go inside
so to do this , I personally have to build a building that will take care
' of their needs . What they want.
Doris Brickley: I have just one comment and I think Mr . Carlson should
be allowed to stay there in the residential dwelling but I think he
' should take his business to commercially zoned property.
Wayne McCorney: I 'm here representing Mr. Carlson. Mr. Carlson is
' grandfathered in on this property. He had , I 'm sure, the property long
before Mrs. Brickley or anyone else had their property. What we would
like to do, recognizing that he wanted , when this was totally by itself,
' it was wide open country and then with this village, he was running his
business . Now the city is running his business . He did this long
before there were any zoning ordinance. He has a right to run his
business there and people have to recognize that. We ' re willing to
' cooperate recognizing that every Village and City now does intervene and
attempts to clean things up and you can ' t get a permit for a junk yard
for all the tea in China I guess but the fact is, those things exists
' and they have to exist in order for our entire economy to work. So what
we' re willing to do is we' re willing to cooperate with the Council. He
can not afford to just go out and buy something else so that Mrs .
Brickley, who came in there facing a contractor ' s yard, so we improve
' the value of her property and therefore throw my client into bankruptcy.
This is not legal and it can not be done. Consequently, since we are
grandfathered in and have a right to operate this business from this
' property, we will restrict the manner in which we operate this if we can
get the building , get it built and get a reasonable amount for a permit,
for our costs. We' ll help clean up what is our city. I 'm sure our
I
■
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1988 - Page 4 ,
interests are the same as yours except that we have the right to do this
on this property. There are a lot of other buildings there. The farm
building and this and that . If everything ' s inside, it should be no
problem but I think that what we have to have is recognition that we' re
entitled by law to operate this and it' s indeed unfortunate that we' re
here at this point to determine whether or not there was compliance with
a conditional use permit because indeed , if Mr . Carlson had had counsel
at that time, there would not have been any application for a
conditional use permit. All the City' s threats of criminal prosecution,
etc. , I 'm sure if he had counsel , he would have just thumbed his nose
at them because they had no right to do that. They had no right to
bring criminal charges and all kinds of other charges, throw him off the
property or take his business away from him, which is the reason he
applied for the conditional use permit in the first place. So we will
restrict the impact of our business if you allow us to build the
building under some reasonable parameters that you might take the
evidence. 12, 000 foot building, there can be no argument or no question
that the Council knew back in 1985 that he was going to put in something
more than 1,000 feet . As a matter of fact , on page 8 of the Council
meeting Minutes, they asked him how big. Councilwoman Watson asked how
big a building do you hope to erect and Mr . Carlson said we ' re looking
at 50 to 60 foot wide and 100 to 150 feet long so the Council knew at
that time that he' s not building a 1, 000 square foot building . I guess
we' ll restrict the impact. We' re willing to restrict the impact of the
building on the surrounding area by building the building and therefore
it is not going to look like a junkyard or an equipment yard or anything
like that, which is normal in this sort of business . But we need this
permit and then we also need some recognition that by law we' re entitled
to operate there and that we build a building and that the City does not
have a right in 6 months or a year later , to come in and say no, you ' ve
got to move that building because it ' s a non-conforming use . As I see
it, we have a legal right to operate the way we are now, to a certain
extent. We will change that if we' re given a reasonable alternative and
I think the building is the only way to give us a reasonable alternative
to use our property other than that . As far as I see , it ' s a
Constitutional, unlawful, illegal taking of property. So we' re willing
to cooperate . We' ll do anything . We just want to get this whole thing
over with. We don' t want to fight with anybody. We don ' t want to get
into litigation but we do have to run a business .
Conrad: The key issue, as I understand it however, is you don ' t want to
build a building that has a high value because then the taxes are going
to be high. Is that my understanding? That ' s what I heard Mr. Carlson
say. '
Wayne McCorney: No, what Mr . Carlson said is that the building is going
to cost about $16,000. 00 to $18 , 000. 00. He' s not going to pay for a
permit for a building $65, 000 . 00 and then have a $65 ,000 . 00 building
assessed on the land. Now I realize that just the amount of the
building permit may not have any bearing on how the assessor assesses
the taxes but that 's in theory. In practice, I 'm sure they look at it
and they will immediately raise the price value of the property
$65, 000.00 even if the building is worth $20, 000. 00 so we' re willing to
I
•
Planning Commission Meeting
' February 17, 1988 - Page 5
pay a permit for what it costs us to build the building and that ' s going
to be maybe $16,000. 00 to $18 , 000. 00.
Dacy: Just to comment on the permit fee issue, that is not within the
Planning Commission' s area tonight. The Building Inspector , every City
has to go by a Uniform Building Code and there are established building
' fees based on the construction value. If the applicant does want to
seek relief from the typically required building permit fee , this is not
the place to do that. I think we should keep the building permit fee
' issue out of it. That' s for another .
Wayne McCorney: I 'm not arguing with that. I 'm just saying that's the
' main argument, one of the main arguments that he had. We can resolve
that issue if we can just go ahead and change the way they are operating
here so that we' re still able to operate but operate in a little
differnt manner which will make the City happy because it' s more
' beautiful , whatever and nobody' s going to object .
Dacy: Right. I just wanted to clarify that the Commission' s role is to
' determine whether or not the application is consistent with the 1985
approval and you' re dealing with land use and zoning issues and not
building permit fee issues .
' Conrad : I 'm trying to understand why it was not built in the first
place.
' Doris Brickley: King Road is not served by water and sewer . Is his
commercial activity in the future going to conform to safety regulations
and waste disposal regulations? What about all these vehicles up and
' down Kings Road? What about school aged children? That area is
developing . I ' ve seen these large vehicles tear up and down Kings Road.
Wayne McCorney: It seems to me that any road has vehicles on it and on
' this particular road , it' s a little dirt road . I think there' s probably
two children in that one house. The roads are there for vehicles to
drive on. You drive your car on a road . Certainly he' s got a right to
' drive his truck on the road. He' s been doing it since 1965.
Oscar Anderson: I 'm one of Mr . Carlson ' s neighbors and I 'd like to say
that. . . I 'm very much against the junk yard that we have there now. I 'm
' very much against the piles that he has . I 'm very much against the
burning that he does. He ' s got a regular burning dump there and all of
this mess is not going to be taken care of by building a building . I 'm
against all the vehicles he' s got there. I think he ' s got close to 35
or 40 vehicles . Some running , some don ' t . They' re all sitting there ,
all over the place. He would need a building, at least 2 acres in area
to house all the vehicles that he has . I 'm just against it . I still
own a place out there at the end of the road and I was told by a realtor
at that time that I could have gotten $15 , 000. 00 more for the place if
you didn' t have to go past a junkyard to get there. I 'm very much
11 against it. This has been coming , up and down for years . Mr . Carlson
has not done one thing that has been recommended by the Planning
Commission or the Council to clear up his area . To clean up his act at
■
1 r
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1988 - Page 6
all . I don ' t mind a few pieces of construction equipment but I sure
don' t want all that junk.
Wayne McCorney: I 'd like to say, a great deal of the junk. . .that are on
the property, van type bodies, truck bodies and all these truck bodies
are used in his business to store property because he doesn ' t have a
buliding to store them in. He wouldn ' t need perhaps 20, van bodies if
he had a building .
Erhart moved , Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
in favor and motion carried. The Public Hearing was closed.
Conrad : Barbara , I think for our background, there were some conditions '
set up in 1985 for the conditional use. Can you give us a recap of the
conditions and the performance of Mr . Carlson on those conditions?
Dacy: Okay. Condition 1 and 2, basically revolved around the
construction of the building and that ' s at issue tonight . Item 3 ,
unless the applicant wants to address that otherwise, there is still a
substantial amount of litter and debris on the property.
Conrad: Has anything been done to your knowledge?
Dacy: Not to my knowledge. Maybe Mr . Carlson could address that .
Lowell Carlson: What are you people saying of litter and debris? What
is litter and debris on that property?
Conrad: Let' s put it this way. When you were here in 1985, there was a
concern that it didn' t look the way we would like it to look so if you
could reflect back in 1985, we wanted that property to look differently.
The idea was to bundle it into a building . I guess the question I ' m
asking staff right now is , if there' s 18 or 19 piles of litter but I 'm
curious whether you ' ve taken any steps , either in your mind or in
staff's mind to solve the problem.
Lowell Carlson: This is the time when anybody can come out if they
wanted. Any stuff that' s gone, is the stuff that 's used. It ' s all on
pallets. We pick it up with a forklift and stack the pallets . You can
come out and look at it. We ' ll shovel the snow off for them. Wherever
they set the debris and whatever . That place , as far as the vans , if
you want to see what' s stored in them. The plumbing stuff. We have
compactors . We have compressors . We have pipe , sewer and water .
Copper fittings. If you can get that all in a little building, whoever
thinks you can or whatever . An excavating business isn ' t like an
ordinary job where you have a pencil in your pocket and a piece of paper
in your hand . Many a job that we do , people ask for compactors and
everything else. If you ' re going to be in the excavating, you 've got to
be in excavating . You' ve got to have equipment to do the job. You call
me, no I can ' t do it because I ' ve only got a shovel and a spade. Sorry,
if you' ve got something we can do with that.
1
■ /-
k
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17 , 1988 - Page 7
Conrad : Have you done anything since November 4 , 1985 to clean up the
area?
' Lowell Carlson: Oh yes . You bet. Come out and look at it. The
vehicles isn' t in exact rows. I 'm saying, some day when it snows, our
vehicles get closer to the road because that ' s the easiest way to plow
' them out to the road. So they do get closer to the road and maybe
that' s why it' s more agitating to someone but now we' ve got the building
right in there. It's a steel rack. I 've got a steel rack in my yard
' and all the crane and everything are stacked. All the iron is there.
The metal for the roof is there. So you gain one and lose the other I
guess. This building is sitting there. It could just as well have been
' up. That' s the way I look at it. It didn' t happen.
Conrad: Had we been able to settle on assessed value and those type of
things?
Lowell Carlson : Yes . That ' s where the whole trouble is . I 'm getting
tired of waiting. All my vehicles, the seats and everything, they' re
getting worn. The seats deteriorate , whatever . I 'm not very happy
about leaving my stuff out there either. You paint it up and it looks
shabby in a year . I'd like to have it under cover so when I go out to a
job I can be proud of my stuff.
■ Conrad: Barbara , the point 4, expansion of the contractor ' s yard ' s
activity beyond what has been represented in this application. What was
' represented in the application?
Dacy: I believe in the original report , I 'm going to have to refresh my
' memory.
Conrad : Usually we want to know how many pieces of equipment there are .
' Dacy: Right. We have a number of vehicles and the location of the
storage yard and so on. In 1985 we took a number of pictures and then
after that, I believe it was in the winter of 1986, we went out to the
site and we ' ve got a handwritten check list here of the items that still
remained on the property. Mr . Carlson is right, he has a substantial
amount of material so to determine whether or not 2 pieces of wood have
been removed or stacked on pallets versus how many vehicles have come
' and gone, without going out there on a regular basis , it ' s fairly hard
to keep track but after going to the site this fall , during his
application time, there is still the same amount of material along the
east property line. There' s still the little storage area of the
vehicles . He has an enormous amount of materials stored on that
property. It' s very hard to keep track.
Erhart : According to your Minutes of your 1984 Planning Commission
meeting, there are 5 vehicles.
Dacy: Yes , an International Harvestor Tote and Trailer , Ford Dump
Trailer and Truck, a Chevy Pick-up, Ford Van and International Harvester
Dump Truck. Those were the vehicles that were listed during that time
■
•
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1988 - Page 8
and there' s one employee listed . Hours of operation usually between
8: 00 to 5: 30. However, sometimes varied. That 's what was listed in the
applicant ' s letter at that time but based on the pictures that we took
in 1985, I think it' s clear that there were more than the number of
vehicles indicated in the application.
Erhart: I was there and I counted vehicles at the house and the yard 1
had 16 vehicles , licensed and unlicensed .
Conrad: You were there when? ,
Erhart: Today.
Conrad : It' s staff posture basically that not much has been done? '
Dacy: That' s correct .
Headla : What was your comment? We ' ve got to look at this as a 1985
application?
Dacy: My comment was that the issue before the Commission is , the '
applicant ' s request is to build a 12, 000 square foot building. 2, 000
square feet initially. It was brought to the Commission' s attention to
determine whether or not you feel that it ' s appropriate for that area
and whether or not that ' s consistent with condition 1 of the 1985
permit. In other words, if you feel that what he 's proposing is fine
and he can store all his materials within that building, then you can
recommend approval .
Conrad : Mr . Carlson has the permit to go ahead and do this . Not the
building permit but the conditional use permit. Staff felt that because
the building size is so great , we really didn ' t anticipate how big that
building could be. Therefore, they' re bringing that back and saying, is
this really your intent City to tell Mr . Carlson to build a 12 , 000
square foot building out there? Secondarily is the issue of the permit
being issued . Yet Mr . Carlson not living up to anything that was agreed
to 2 to 3 years ago. Mr. Carlson is saying he couldn ' t because he
couldn ' t resolve the debate with assessments and taxes on that expanded
building.
Headla : Where Lowell has been here and grandfathered in, how much '
control do we actually have? I 'm comparing with like other contractor ' s
yards . I think the last time we had a contractor ' s yard at the south
end of Chan. We were pretty stringent. We insisted on berms. The
aesthetics of the building . Do those requirements apply to someone
who's grandfathered in?
Dacy: I conferred with the City Attorney on this matter and to use Mr .
McCorney's words , the City does have the right to control the amount of
impact of Mr . Carlson ' s use . We have every right to require berms .
Require construction of buildings . Require screening. Require any type
of measure that we feel that can control the impact of this use against
the adjacent properties. That is the purpose of a conditional use
■
1, .
Planning Commission Meeting
IIFebruary 17 , 1988 - Page 9
Ipermit. The applicant ' s attorney is contesting the whole conditional
use permit process in the first place. What I 'm saying is that the City
II Attorney feels that that was appropriate . But again, our charge here
tonight is to determine whether or not the 12, 000 square foot building
is appropriate .
I Headla : I think it all fits together . We ' ve been very consistent on
insisting that screening and berming for any contractor ' s yard. I
talked to Lowell and I know this would be a hardship on him but at the
I same time, I don' t see how we can back away from one person and then
require it of everyone else. I really think we' ve got to insist on some
type of berming and screening but then it presents another, this leads
I into another problem. In our area , even Minnewashta Parkway, it' s
questionable from that shoulder is 66 feet wide. It ' s never been taken
off of my abstract . I own that land by my abstract. King ' s Road is
muddier yet. I 'm not sure where King 's Road really is. Is it 90 feet
II north of Lowell ' s property or right next to the store? So where he' s
got the stakes, I don' t know. He tried to go what seemed to be the
right thing for the building but I think we ought to have some
1 definition of where that road is and then room for a berm and then a
setback. Then the third point I had was , Lowell I measured the drawing
and it looks like that building would be 37 feet high. ,Is that correct?
IILowell Carlson : No , it can ' t be.
Headla : I thought it said 18 feet to an inch . If that ' s the case , I
Iget 37 feet.
Dacy: That ' s the same dimension that I came up with on the scale
II drawing. The way that your architect has it scaled on here, it does
measure to be 37 feet .
Lowell Carlson : It would be 20 at the most .
IIHeadla: What I have in writing is 37 feet. To put that in perspective,
we' re going to be talking about a church over here with a steeple and
I that' s going to be 37 feet high . Anyway, 37 feet, I ' ve got to assume
that what we' ve got here on prints is correct for the time being . It
may be wrong but assuming that , I think 37 feet high in that area is
just way too intimidating . I don ' t have a problem so much with the
I building but when it ' s on a hill and then 37 feet high, it ' s going to be
there for a long time. It ' s just going to dominate that whole area .
Then the only other one I have is , on the finish of the building , do we
I have any control over aesthetics of a building? I don ' t know what you
were going to put up there Lowell . You showed me part of the material
but it seems like if something is going to be that visible , we ought to
II have some control. Just like last week on the contractor ' s , we went
into detail . They have a block building and we were asking a lot of
questions about it. Did it fit into the area? It seems like we ought
to have some, and I hate to say control , but some yea or nay on it or
II some type of control . I 'm not looking for an answer but that ' s just an
opinion I have .
II
ii
I
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1988 - Page 10
Wayne McCorney: You give us a color and we' ll be glad to. It ' s going
to be steel outside obviously and if you want some sort of color, we ' ll
be more than happy to comply. If you like yellow. . . ,
Conrad: I 'm trying to decide what you really said on the issue. You ' re
concerned , you don ' t think there needs to be a building and that berming
is satisfactory or did you say there needs to be a building? '
Headla : I think he has to have some type of building .
Conrad: So berming is an extra besides the building?
Headla : Yes , and I think we have to require berming if we' re going to
be consistent. Send out the same signal to all contractor' s. I don' t
see how we can isolate one and say you live over here so we can ' t do it.
Conrad: And what do you think about the 12, 000 square foot size? '
Headla : I think that ' s excessive. Based on the resolution we passed
last time, we can' t back up all of a sudden and say, this is a special
case. I think we ' ve got to be consistent .
Batzli : I guess my first question was, has the business expanded from
when the first conditional use permit was granted? I don ' t know that
that was ever answered clearly.
Dacy: It wasn ' t answered clearly because to be honest , I can ' t address
that. I did not evaluate that.
Batzli : Has the City ever reviewed this conditional use permit?
Dacy: Over the past year and a half, as Mr. Carlson relayed , we talked
Y d
to him a number of times about putting up a building and the discussions
were stalled because of the issue over the building permit fee. We
advised Mr . Carlson to either appeal to the City Council or go to the
City Manager to resolve the permit value issue but that was not
resolved . Now, we did get a valid application.
Batzli : I guess it ' s clear to me he has submitted himself to the
conditional use permit process and that for one reason or another , it
appears he' s in violation of his conditional use permit but on the other
hand , I think he' s trying to get in compliance at this time . I believe
also that the building size is excessive , even from his own original
estimates would put it at between 5, 000 and 7 , 000 square feet even if he
built it at this point. I do think it ' s a valid issue and it sounds to
me like it' s a concern to his neighbors whether he will put everything
inside even if he does put up the building . Based on those facts, I
think I agree that berming or screening should be required as well
regardless of what size building he eventually puts up.
Ellson : I think the building sounds awful large. I 'd like to see a
smaller building. I agree that he needs a building. I have trouble
seeing that this thing hasn ' t been resolved in this length of time or at
■
I
I Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1988 - Page 11
IIleast some best efforts basis of going ahead with something toward
meeting these conditions from, Tim' s mention of the number of vehicles
I now versus the number of vehicles in the pictures that were passed
around. It does look like he has done some expansion which, according
to this conditional use, has to have approval so I would say that he
isn 't necessarily meeting those conditions. Not only from the building
I standpoint but from the expansion standpoint as well . I 'd probably go
along with both gentlemen that we've heard from that I 'd like a smaller
building and I 'd like to see as much as possible get in there and then
Icover up the rest with as much berming and screening as you can.
Emmings : I don' t have anything that ' s very differnt. I don ' t see any
II sense in building 2,000 square feet of the building. Somehow we've got
to get a handle on what size building he needs to reasonably handle his
use of the property. I think we need the berming and so forth but
I have a feeling we' re never going to find out what kind of a building
I would take care of it because I think, no matter what size building ,
unless you dome the whole property, I think he' ll wind up outside anyway
because that 's what he' s always done. There are several garages, I
I remember when we talked about this 3 years ago or whenever it was . He
had several garages on the place and they were jammed to the rafters and
I think that ' s what is going to happen to anything you put up out there
II because I think that ' s just the nature of his business and the way he
runs his business . In a way, I think it ' s kind of hopeless . I really
don ' t like backing away from the ordinance amendment that we ' ve got
going to limit buildings . This is an RSF zoned property and that
I bothers me a lot. I don ' t like backing away from our 1, 000 square foot
maximum size on that . I don ' t know how to resolve that in my own mind .
I guess I wonder, are you going to take down all those other buildings
I if you have this 12, 000 square foot building? Will you take down all
those garages that are jammed to the rafters with stuff?
II Lowell Carlson : If you were at them and knew they were that tall ,
basically some of them will have to stay there regardless .
Emmings: I 'm wondering , if you have a building that ' s as big as 12 , 000
I square feet, would that eliminate your need for all those other
buildings on the place or not?
I Lowell Carlson : Somewhat but like they' re saying everything inside .
I 've got to make sure that everything ' s inside. If you want it inside,
I have to build a building to put it inside. Now you ' re saying , I go
back to 1,000 square feet. Now where am I going to put it in 1 , 000
Isquare feet?
Emmings : No , I said if you built your 12 , 000 square foot building that
II you ' re asking for, would you still have a need for all those other
buildings out there?
Lowell Carlson: Yes, some.
IIEmmings : The other thing is, I noticed in a letter here you were asking
for structural calculations on the building. Did you ever get those?
II
\ t
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17 , 1988 - Page 12
Dacy: No . Depending on what size is approved, that would eventually be
required. '
Emmings: The bottom line for me is, I think Mr . Carlson has a mess out
there and I don' t think anybody would argue with that except maybe Mr.
Carlson and I think it would be better to have it inside than have it
outside all over the place. I 'm opposed to this because I can' t tell
what it is . He says he wants a 12, 000 square foot building but he only
wants to build 2, 000 square feet of it. Now we' re going to wind up with
another garage out there that ' s going to just get jammed full of junk
and there's still going to be stuff outside. If I had something in
front of me that said , if I can build this building on this property, I
can tear down the old buildings out there, the garages and stuff, I can
get all my stuff inside. This is what I. need to make this place look
nice and I don' t see that here. This is not a concrete plan, It ' s just
mush. He hasn ' t done a thing to comply with the conditional use permit
conditions that we set out last time and he was here when we did that
and it was certainly my understanding at that time that he was agreeing
with them. He didn' t do anything. I don' t care what the reasons are,
he didn' t do anything and I don' t think he' ll do anything now either .
Bottom line, I 'm just plain opposed to going any further unless he can
come in to the staff and say, this is what I need and put together a
package to clean up the property, to build the building he wants , to do
some berming and screening and we can see that plan . That ' s a plan I
could act on. This one I 'm not willing to act on.
Erhart : I have to , in fact Steve pretty much took away everything I was
going to say. I 'd have to agree a lot with Steve. I think you have a
pattern here of delays . It' s associated with the business and if I was
in the same business I would probably could see myself following the
same track that we' ve seen since 1984 . He was required to build his
building and he agreed to do it by June 30, 1986. Is that correct?
Okay, that ' s almost two years ago . I ' d like to point out , so we all
understand, that this contractor ' s yard is a non-conforming use in this
area now so it' s not quite the same as the other one we were discussing .
We' re talking about residential RSF district. I think you want to keep
that in mind . I 'd like to also point out to the Commissioners that in a
non-conforming use, and correct me if I 'm wrong, but if this property is
sold , that terminates the use.
Dacy: No , the use runs with the land . He ' s been issued a conditional
use permit for a contractor ' s yard at that site. If Mr . Carlson sold ,
for example to Mr . yolk, he could continue operation as long as the
terms of the conditional use were met.
Erhart: Okay, so it stays with the land . ,
Dacy: Again, I 'm drawing the distinction between the conditional use
and non-conforming use and with the conditional use , it runs with the
land unless it is revoked .
s
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1988 - Page 13
' Erhart : The question was non-conforming. That ends with the sale of
the property.
Dacy: The City staff ' s position is that they were , Mr . Carlson was
issued a conditional use permit and the City has the ability to revoke
the conditional use permit. In a non-conforming use situation , if a
' property owner sells to another property owner , the use can continue if
it ' s not expanded or intensified . The only time that a non-conforming
is expired, if the ordinance says that the non-conforming activity
ceases operation. I think it' s a one year time period.
Erhart: Did you have burning permits for the burning you' re doing?
' Lowell Carlson : The little bit there is , all the neighbors , I see smoke
coming from different areas. A burning permit as far as burning .
' Erhart : My conclusions on this is , in viewing the property on the first
place, on one side 12, 000 square foot building seems large. On the
other hand , if a 12 , 000 square foot would not contain all the materials
that you currently have on the property. I think allowing an industrial
building at all represents an extension of a non-conforming use and I
think adding a building really makes the non-conforming use more
permanent which is something we ought to be working in the opposite
direction. Quite frankly, I don ' t believe that putting a building on
the property is going to make it look any better . You ' re going to have
a variety of sizes of small garages. You ' re going to have a used
' building . Given the pattern , I don ' t know, at any prediction at all
what it would look like. I think you will continue to see materials on
the outside of it so I would recommend creating a conditional use permit
' that requires some berming , " screening, landscaping and strict
enforcement of the setbacks . Then , if those aren ' t followed , then I
think the City ought to take legal action to eliminate the
non-conforming use . So I 'm against the building for those reasons .
' Conrad: All together? 2, 000 or 12, 000?
Erhart : Yes .
Conrad : My feeling is , I think the 12 , 000 square foot building is
excessive. Especially in a residential single family area . I don ' t see
' that Mr . Carlson has taken any step to resolve the problem in 2 1/2
years . I honestly don ' t see that anything presented tonight is going to
resolve the problem. If there was a plan in front of me tonight and Mr .
' Carlson said this will take care of the City' s needs , I think I could
feel responsive and act on it . I don ' t see anything . I see some
schematics but I 'm also hearing Mr. Carlson saying that the building
won ' t take care of what we were trying to resolve 3 years ago. My
opinion is to revoke the conditional use permit .
Headla : When you say revoke the conditional use permit , the conditional
use permit for the building?
Conrad : The conditional use permit that we granted in 1985. To revoke
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1988 - Page 14 '
the contractor ' s yard . I don ' t think anything else is going to take
care of this issue and this issue is taking up a lot of our time and
city staff ' s time and nothing happens . There are other issues .
Contractor ' s yards are a problem in Chanhassen. Most communities outlaw
them. We are trying to give contractor ' s like Mr . Carlson the
opportunity to stay in business in Chanhassen because they have been
here. We flexed our rules to allow them to stay here like good
citizens. In this particular case, I 'm not seeing anything happen and I
still don ' t see anything on the desk right now that gives me hope . If
revoking the contractor 's yard permit is what it takes to get something
happening , maybe Mr . Carlson will realize that we' re serious about this .
Erhart: What's being requested is what? Is it the building permit or
is it the continuation?
Dacy: What is being requested is a building permit for 12, 000 square
foot building and just to clarify, Mr . Carlson has said he is set and
prepared to build 2, 000 square foot of that .
Erhart: But what are we being specifically asked to vote on? I
Dacy: You' re being asked to vote as to whether or not a 12, 000 square
foot building is consistent with condition 1 of the 1985 approval . Is
this consistent with the intent of the City when they authorized the
conditional use permit in the 1985? What the Commission has said so far
is that you have concerns about the size of the building . It ' s
excessive and you ' re sure about the overall plan for the clean-up of the
property.
Erhart : I 'm not sure we want to vote tonight . Even though the
conditional use permit that we voted on in 1985 may have directed the
owner to build a building , I 'm trying to make a motion that we deny the
building of the building but I 'm too sure that ' s the purpose of the
public hearing . '
Conrad : The public hearing would be conducted by the City Council to
revoke the permit. We can make that motion that the City Council
conducts a public hearing to revoke the permit . My understanding is
that that permit would not be for the building but for the entire
contractor ' s yard . That ' s one alternative. I think we all have similar
opinions about how the contractor ' s yard is being run. How we want to
resolve this issue is , I think we might have six different opinions on
how we want to resolve that issue. My opinion is to have the public
hearing but there are other approaches . 1
Erhart moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to
the City Council revoke the conditional use permit for Lowell Carlson .
Headla: Now we ' re talking strictly the building?
Conrad : No . ,
Headla : His whole operation?
- r
1 Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1988 - Page 15
Conrad: Right.
' Batzli : The motion on the floor is to revoke the conditional use
permit.
' Erhart: What it will do Dave, it will basically restart the process all
over again.
Headla : What ' s it going to do to him?
Erhart: He's going to have to come in and negotiate an acceptable way
to do his business . I think in voting for this , what it says is, we are
not accepting anymore those conditions which include a building.
Dacy: Just to clarify. Your recommendation will be passed to City
' Council and they will consider this on March 14th. They may choose to
accept that recommendation or they may work out an agreement with Mr .
Carlson so this is a recommendation only and the council will have the
' final say on it.
Erhart : But it may be changed to a berming/landscaping . From a
building to a landscaping given that they look at our Minutes .
Headla : I guess what it' s really going to do is force some action to
get this thing resolved. That ' s what you ' re really after I guess .
Batzli : I 'd be against the motion in that I think a large part of the
inactivity is perhaps based in part upon the City of Chanhassen ' s lack
of enthusiam for the entire process as well . Once we did finally grant
the conditional use permit, I don ' t think anything ' s been done as far as
monitoring the activity of the contractor ' s yard . There hasn ' t been an
annual review. I don ' t entirely place the blame, from my viewpoint , on
Mr. Carlson . At least to a point where revocation of a conditional use
permit would be warranted .
' Headla : Even though this is a recommendation and we ' re trying to work
toward a resolution?
Batzli : That ' s right .
Erhart moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to
' the City Council revoke the conditional use permit for Lowell Carlson .
All voted in favor except Batzli who opposed and motion carried .
Batzli : What I stated prior to the vote is my reason .
Conrad : Mr . Carlson , I would recommend if I were you, and I 'm not , but
if I were you, I would go in there with plans that would demonstrate to
' them how you would resolve the problem. I 'm not a lawyer by any means
but in front of us tonight , without any plans , even though you ' re lawyer
said you wanted to resolve the problem, there was nothing here that gave
■
i
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1988 - Page 16
me any confidence that there were plans to resolve the conditions that
were set forth 3 years ago. If I were you, I would be going into that
meeting showing them how you would resolve that .
Emmings: I 'd like to explain my vote to some extent. I agree with what
Tim said after me. I think maybe a more overall approach to the
landscaping out there. Doing some berming and doing plantings may be a
better first approach to this problem. If it ' s done right and if it ' s
maintained, I think that might be a better type of solution.
Conrad: I ' ll jump in that too . I'm not convinced that a building is
the right solution to the problem. I totally favor the berming and the
screening .
Wayne McCorney: . . .number one, we bought the building because we wanted
to do something about it. It seems to me if you buy a building and you
make the building look like it' s brand new, even though it' s used , by
putting all new steel on it, and put all the vehicles and all the crap
that you ' re complaining about now, put it inside of that , I don' t see
any reason for berming and everything like that. ,
Emmings: He told us it all wouldn ' t be inside of it. I heard him say
that to me.
Lowell Carlson: I said it wouldn ' t be inside of it? When did I tell
you that?
Conrad : I heard the same thing .
Lowell Carlson: I 'm sorry if I told you that .
Conrad : Mr . Emmings said that if
g you build a 12 , x0 square foot
building, would you be able to fit everything in and you said, no you
could not . You said those garages would still be standing , packed . '
Lowell Carlson: Yes, that I did say.
Wayne McCorney: He' s not going to tear down all the buildings that are
there but everything that ' s outside is going to be inside. Consequently
you've got room that you can paint and fix up the buildings you don' t
have everything piled up against the building so consequently all the
buildings are going to look decent and look good if he got the building .
The size of the pile is concerned, that there ' s too much to go in there.
You' ve got to realize that that building is entirely there and that
building, when it' s broken down sitting on that pile, it would take up
about one-third of the building so forget about that pile because it ' s
going to be gone. It' s going to be inside. ,
Emmings : I think you might get a long way with the City Council if you
would come in with a real hard plan and say if we can put this building
here , we' ll take everything off the ground and put it inside this
building. We' ll build the building by such and such a date. We ' ll have
everything cleaned up by such and such a date . If you came in with a
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
' February 17, 1988 - Page 17
real hard plan , they might be interested in listening to you but you
didn ' t do that tonight. It 's hard to evaluate something that' s in the
' future when you have people you ' re dealing with who haven ' t shown any
interest, really, in doing what they said they would do in the past.
Lowell Carlson: Number one, how do you go about getting a price on a
' permit?
Emmings : I have no idea . This is the wrong body.
TEMPORARY CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A TRAILER TO BE LOCATED
TEMPORARILY ON 5. 65 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND
LOCATED AT 1660 ARBORETUM BLVD. , DAVID LUSE, NATURAL GREEN.
Conrad : Staff has advised me that the second item regarding. the
' temporary conditional use permit for a trailer to be located temporarily
on property at 1660 Arboretum Blvd . , the Natural Green site , that this
item should not be handled at the Planning Commission level and will be
handled at City Council . Barbara , can you explain that a littel bit
more for us?
Dacy: The City Attorney reviewed this request and because of a previous •
document called a Settlement Agreement with Natural Green that was
executed in 1985 , that the issues involved with the office space can be
handled by an amendment to that agreement and should not be handled
' through a conditional use permit . So the City Council will be
considering that agreement at their Marcn 14 , 1988 meeting . So if there
is any public here regarding that issue , they should attend that
meeting.
' Conrad : So the rationale is , there is already agreement an reem g ent governing
that parcel or that property?
' Dacy: Right . So we would execute a secondary agreement that would wrap
up the issues concerning the first agreement as well as the office space
' issue .
Emmings : That would also include , would the . . . for allowing the trailer
be that we get the old railroad building by a certain date and that he
' have his trailer out of there by a certain date?
Dacy: That ' s correct .
' Emmings: I think that sounds real good .
' PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO REPLAT 5 COMMERCIAL LOTS INTO 6 COMMERCIAL
LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS AND LOCATED NORTH OF WEST
78TH STREET BETWEEN POWERS AND KERBER BOULEVARD, T.F. JAMES COMPANY.
' Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item.
I
•
a . I
LAW OFFICES I
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON
DAVID L.GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER:
DAVID L.GRANNIS,JR.- 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612)455-2359
403 NOR WEST BANK BUILDING DAVID L. HARMEYER
VANCE B. GRANNIS ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH
VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE
MICHAEL J. MAYER
I PATRICK A. FARRELL SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 TIMOTHY J. BERG
DAVID L. GRANNIS, III
ROGER N. KNuTsoN TELEPHONE(612)455-1661
March 10, 1988 I
Ms. Barbara Dacy, City Planner II
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 II Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Barb:
Your letter of February 25 , 1988 , asked me to respond to II
several questions.
la. "Average Underdeveloped Land Value" is not a direct I
quote from the statute. Minn. Stat. § 462. 358, subd. 2 (b) ,
provides that the City can require a subdivider to dedicate "a
reasonable portion" of a subdivision to the City for a park or an
II
equivalent amount in cash "based upon the fair market value of
the land no later than at the time of final approval. " I drafted
the ordinance so that the City could set a fixed fee every year
II
for every plat. The purpose in doing so was administrative
convenience.
lb. I have not received the revised language. I
1c. One ordinance can include all the changes in the zoning
ordinance. Reference should be made to the new City Code I
numbering.
2. Findings are enclosed.
II
3. Findings are enclosed.
4. Enclosed is the revised Agreement.
II
�--._
5a. The City Council can revoke the CUP for non-compliance. i
Carlson would, however, have the right to continue his operation 1
II
as a non-conforming use. He could not, however, expand the
operation over what existed in 1972. If by reason of exterior
torage of junk d e like a nu exis or if he has ,ptcote
II
MAR 10 1988
\ALA CITY OF CHANHASSEN 111
-74* II
yiv,Z
City Council Meeting - App 11, 1988
might solve the issue. We need to pay for the upkeep of the parking lot,- _
consequently we charge for people who park there.
Councilman Johnson: What about the people who drop their boat off and go home
with it?
Mayor Hamilton: I'm just trying to look for a way we can resolve this and
still bring in some funds. Since the beach and picnic area is the most heavily
used, and since that's where we spend most of our maintenance dollars and
clean-up, with lifeguards and all the other things, it seems like that's where
we should try to recover some portion of what our costs are and not from the
tennis players.
Councilman Johnson: Like we said earlier, approve it for this year and then
ask Park and Rec, as Council direction that we would like to see the fees
II reduced or eliminated. In the overall city budget, $17,000.00 to $20,000.00 is
a fairly amount of the overall city budget.
Mayor Hamilton: It was my idea to lower it and I still think it's a good idea.
I don't have a problem with continuing on as we are this year.
IIMayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to continue with the fee
schedule that's been established for 1988 for Lake Ann Park by the Park and
Recreation Commission. That the Park and Recreation Commission review this
item early in the year (i.e. January) , to take a look at some of the ideas that
have been suggested for alternative methods of charging fees at Lake Ann Park
for 1989. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: I would like the Park and Rec people to receive this portion
of our verbatim Minutes. It would be my position that if they propose reducing
the fees, that they also look at where we're going to find the money to pay for
the expenses of operating this park.
I I EVALUATION OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH!
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD, LOWELL CARLSON. j
II Barbara Dacy: I scheduled this item for Council consideration tonight for two
options. Either one, the Council can go along with the Planning Commission's
recommendation that was decided at their meeting on February 17, 1988 or to
table this item again to allow the applicant to prepare another plan. I was
I I concerned that if plans didn't get submitted, that this item might be further
postponed and this item has been up in the air for the last 2 1/2 to 3 years.
The applicant did submit this morning a proposed site plan locating the
I I building on the lot. I know the Council does not like surprises and I'm going
to commit a cardinal sin by handing out a site plan the night of the meeting
but I just wanted to pass that out. The two options for the Council, either
you can table the item again or if you want to go ahead and proceed with
IIratification of the conditional use permit.
Mayor Hamilton: I think before you pass those out, I would rather ask the
Council, and it's my feeling that I would rather see this put on at least our
next agenda so we would have an opportunity to review his plans and perhaps to
18 4)0
LI
City Council Meeting -( ,ril 11, 1988
I '
17 right direction because you're asking the City to approve an expansion to your
business. I'm not comfortable that we can do that.
Councilman Geving: I understand a little bit about where you're coming from.
I don't know if you've expanded since 1972 or not. All I know is it's a real
mess out there. I get the impression in the discussions that you had with our ' +
staff, that you are making an attempt. You are trying. The mere fact that
you're here tonight with your Attorney is an indication to me that you do have
good faith and that you're making an attempt to show it. I have to agree
I �
however that we're looking at a plan for the very first time. The Planning
Commission has not seen this plan. It would be unfair for them to have us
approve something tonight that they have not seen. I also read in my notes
that you are looking at the possibility of a 2,000 square foot building rather I
than this 12,000 square foot building so that's what I was kind of looking for
tonight because the notes appear to me, it says Mr. Carlson appears to be
willing to construct a 2,000 square foot building initially. I don't know
I
where that note came from. Then secondly, there was a request somewhere down
the line for a waiver of the permit fees. There would be no way that I could
see that happening and I don't think this Council would allow that to happen so
we can forget about that. I don't think it would be proper for us to act on
this tonight other than to tell you that we appreciate your good faith Mr.
Carlson and your attempt to clean up that area.
Councilman Johnson: I get to looking at this upside down drawing here with the I
south property line on the top and everything and as I understand it you've got
I a 30 foot, no I guess it would only be a 10 foot sideyard setback here but
there's a house right next door there if I remember the property right that
you're putting up a big building that's basically going to block all their
sunlight in the evening, 27 foot tall. It's a heck of a building. I'd like to
see a lot more information in here. What's going to be utilized in the
building? What's the layout? What's the exterior like? Can it be moved
further from the property line so you're not squished up against your neighbor
like that? He's pretty close to his property line there from looking at the I
edge of the junk piles near his house. I see that there's a lot more
information here to show us that this building is actually going to clean up
the situation in hand. A layout showing that the trucks are going to sit and I
here's how the trucks are going to be. We're going to have speed racks here
for putting in plumbing parts or what. All I see is some amateurish sketches,
lines drawn on a piece of blueprint paper. I think this is a way to clean it
up. I'd like to see landscaping also to hide this building a little bit. Some I �
trees and shrubs and whatever. It doesn't need to be 27 foot tall. How big is
the biggest truck coming in and everything? This is a residential family area
as far as the zoning. I have a real problem with putting this big of a I
structure in this type of zoning area. When we redid the zoning, it was a time
to protest the zoning but I've got to see a lot more information about what
this is going to look like.
Mayor Hamilton: There's a building, it appears to be similar the size just
to I
to the north of Mr. Carlson's property. Are you familiar with that building?
What size that is? I
f
1 Barbara Dacy: Isn't that Headla's building?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, how big is that?
21 1
Li
City Council Meeting - April 11, 1988
II
I Lowell Carlson: I think that's 60 by 150 or something like that.
Mayor Hamilton: It's not 27 feet high.
I Lowell Carlson: He's got three of them. He's got a riding stable and two
other big.
I Mayor Hamilton: They're quite a ways back, they're further back than yours I
think. The one that stands out is certainly the one just to the north of
yours. I don't think that's 27 feet tall. I'm not too good at heights but...
1 Wayne McCorney: It's a little bit different than his. He's got 14 foot
sidewalls and there's a peak in our sidewalls. It's a round roof so the total
to the peak would be about the same size.
IIMayor Hamilton: I think it's not out of character for the area and if it would
help clean up the mess that's there, I would certainly be in favor of it but
I agree with Dale, it should go back to the Planning Commission for their
I review and comment of this plan and along with looking at the plan, whatever
you need to go with it to show us how you're going to clean up and I think the
Planning Commission should at least discuss some deadlines. They'll say it's
I got to be done by and put Mr. Carlson on a schedule so we're not sitting here a
year from now still messing around with this thing.
II Councilman Johnson: I'd like to see if it's possible to move this back into
the property further away from the road, berming between it and the road and
shrubery and stuff to somewhat hide the building more than have it sitting
basically as close to the road as my house is in my little subdivision. 30 -
1 foot from the road is not very far at all. Just some suggestions that might
help the overall affect.
II Mayor Hamilton: Hopefully that will come up in the discussion at the Planning
Commission. If not, you can throw that out.
IMayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table evaluation of the
building permit application to determine compliance with Conditional Use Permit
for a contractor's yard for Lowell Carlson and return it to the Planning
IICommission for review. All voted in favor and motion carried.
II Lowell Carlson: If you use that top line for the road, as far as setback, my
property line goes clear over to the last lane and then down below the hill,
the whole road is like on my property or whatever. That's the way it's laid
out so when you're saying 30 feet back from the edge of the road, you still got
Ianother 15 or 18 feet or whatever and whatever happens to that when you change
the road I don't know. Will they move the road over or stay there or whatever?
II Councilman Johnson: I'm trying to get that thing as far away from the road
where it's the least impact from the road for the people driving by as
possible.
IIMayor Hamilton: He's the last guy on the road.
II 22
City Council Meeting -C ri.l 11, 1983
_. Councilman Johnson: The road goes all the way around and there are some houses
behind you there.
Lowell Carlson: Yes but when you get down to the bottom, the whole road is on
my property. That's not a question I wanted to ask.
Councilman Johnson: So it's a private road?
Lowell Carlson: Yes, it was put in there years ago. ,
Councilman Johnson: The road's not even shown on the drawing so we have no
idea of that. '
Lowell Carlson: It don't show the lot line but on the bottom it's the road.
Wayne McCorney: It's been plowed. The City's been taking care of it for '
years. It's a public road.
Councilman Geving: I think what we're trying to say here Mr. Carlson is.. .
this building to the west and to the south.
Mayor Hamilton: Let's let the Planning Commission do that.
Lowell Carlson: See, this is what I was saying. This stuff would be gone and
this stuff would be gone... Like you said, show the clean-up.
Mayor Hamilton: I think you have to come up with a plan.
Lowell Carlson: Where can I show that?
Councilman Johnson: Are you going to have concrete floors? What are you going
to have inside the building? Draw little cars inside there. Trucks inside
there. Racks inside there.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think we care what's inside that building. We care
what's outside right now and where that's going. '
Lowell Carlson: The Planning Commission they wanted a firm, now you build a
building and I give them their color and a nice building and now they want to
put up a berm and cover the building up. That's pretty impossible to do
because I'm on the south side of the road and the wind blows and covers the
building with snow in the wintertime. I don't know about some of these things.
Councilman Boyt: I think in terms of good faith, it's important that you start
making progress on cleaning up before you get your building built. You can do
that and that to me would demonstrate your intent to take care of this problem. '
Lowell Carlson: Okay. I would love to take anyone of you out there. All the
stuff's that put on pallets, we stacked it and we spent all this summer putting
the stuff on pallets. I pick it up with a forklift. We got rid of a lot of
stuff. There's still some there. I'm not done and Barb and Jo Ann, they come
over before I torn that building down and checked it as far as the type of
building and that. ..
23 '
I
t
CITY OF
cHANHAssEs
\i
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
1 May 31, 1989
1 Mr. Lowell Carlson
4141 Kings Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
1 Dear Mr. Carlson:
1 On April 11, 1988, the City Council referred your building permit
request back to the Planning Commission with instructions to pre-
pare a revised site plan. The revised site plan should provide
1 the following information:
1. Areas of existing storage.
2 . Complete inventory of the items that are currently stored
' outside.
3 . A proposal for which of these items will be located within
the building.
' 4. Shifting of the proposed building to the west away from the
easterly lot line.
5 . Submission of an elevation plan of the proposed building.
6 . Identification of where the property slopes to the south.
1 The purpose of the site is to evaluate your proposed building permit
application and revised site plan to determine whether you are in
1 compliance with your conditional use permit for a contractor ' s yard.
This item has been an issue for the past several years and action
needs to be taken either by yourself or by the City. Therefore, I
1 am requesting that you provide the revised site plan for the next
Planning Commission agenda by June 12, 1989 . If a site plan is not
provided by June 12, 1989, then I shall have to refer your con-
ditional use permit back to the City Council for consideration of
' revoking your conditional use permit.
Should you have any questions , please feel free to contact me.
1 Sincerely,
1 Jo Ann Olsen
Assistant City Planner
1 cc: Scott Harr
Don Ashworth
1 �y1
•
‘., CITY OF 1
� � 1
.... .,
.4...,
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
April 15, 1988 1
Mr. Lowell Carlson 1
4141 Kings Road .
Excelsior, MN 55331
and
II
Mr. Wayne Pokorny
435 Water Street
II
Excelsior, MN 55331
Dear Gentlemen:
II
This is to confirm that the City Council at the April 11, 1988,
meeting referred this item back to the Planning Commission with 1
instructions to prepare a revised site plan.
The Council members suggested several items that you indicate on
the plan. They are areas of existing storage, a complete inven-
I
tory of the items that are currently stored outside, a proposal
for which of these items will be located within the building,
shifting of the building to the west away from the easterly lot 1
line, submission of an elevation plan of the proposed building,
identification of where the property slopes to the south. These
plans should be prepared and submitted to my office as soon as
possible. If submitted to me by April 25 , 1988, I can schedule II
you for Planning Commission consideration on May 18, 1988 . If
this timeframe cannot be accomplished, I will have no recourse
but to schedule the item again for Council consideration to
II
revoke the permit. This matter should be completed as quickly as
possible. You should also be aware that the inventory of items
and your proposal will become part of the permit for compliance. 1
Should you have any questions , please feel free to contact me.
Sinc= ely, 1
(:::'
,Barbara Dacy ����. 1
City Planner
BD:v
I
I
I
CITY CAF
CE
1 1
IssEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
April 24, 1989
Mr. Alec Wilson
4030 Kings Road
' Excelsior, MN 55331
Dear Alec:
iThank you for calling me again regarding the property near you.
I have already written our Assistant City Planner Jo Ann Olsen,
asking her to gather up the file so that she and I can discuss.
' I will be getting back to you as soon as possible to advise you
of the action we intend to take. I have also requested that our
department and the Carver County Sheriff ' s Department provide
' extra patrol in your area.
Thank you.
' Sincer y,
' Scott Harr
Assistant Public Safety Director
' SH:v
7� �, /f .K7
,=,,, 1
0,_ 0 A/A-1/ i &-e-rz, 0-/' e.i,140
1
/ 1
ei,, /,, ,,,2,e1.- (99w _4-3--:-;/7 zi- - -- cier-z-L-0-71_-
. 4 1
/� Q� 1
cat-e---e- ii?_4_-2.-- ii---- 7.i___ .- I
j,( 1/L_;._4. ,e,_-z._"--e._t___et__.,0z6L_er 6_,,,, re,4,,.e...., ,,zi,_—_.-.,-----
„..,1„..„.. ?" .„.6_774--/--- 6‘.., de.., ez-ip e..414t_aie_ t--, \-.-." 1/ / V-(--^a--' 7(1- 6---rilL . I
v •V I/ ` A / 4
te' j-a-i a:--el L , /.
re,(4,,,:t a.. r._0 t r j2,1,,eL.1, / i ' / '(x--U-'l.-C-71.-AW, L'i-4C
Y°--A--1- . r—r— ey'/' i
1
-,j,, fi, /fff, ,-. / ele g,e ,, ,,,-,7,- e., 11 ,_;,,a,,,q ‘,e/11-Iti"--ct;&-e-s- 0. `-b/9 , - . ite- /- it72f I
.- - (ze, i,71,(,;, eewtel-4; 6 ' - e4, - ' , / Z-(1z-t 9-- -/z:z I
fAleG-771--elre-"It-e-Z a2 ?; ‘v-e, 12^%4'°"- , I
c4//-`.-(-g-e_eiit-e . ,(vJ .,-$27/- I
�� , MAY I 1 1989
O� 6-4 CITY OF CHANhASStN 1
v.4 i
1 C C � .
n/ _
I■
33
r-(A. _
ace:/4.
6/771-
jet-it.o6 g-t/kM4770--/z- 6/
1
■
� Lz !/
■ ��- -
■ ft a , •
•
■
1
1
1 ��
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I