1i. approval of Finds of Fact, Dave Stockdale CUP CITY OF .
I, i
�t A,
I
t r CHANHASSEN
1 . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I KM"_'_` (612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM c■
ITO Don Ashworth, City Manager -`:_,
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner Daft Sub/li r. �
DATE: November 22, 1988
I SUBJ: Findings of Fact and Decision for Dave Stockdalc //A ' s�' -
Conditional Use Permit for a Contractor' s Yard
I On October 24, 1988, the City Council approved the conditional
use permit for Dave Stockdale' s contractor' s yard, Conditional
Use Permit #85-2 . The conditional use permit was approved with
the following conditions:
I
1 . The applicant shall provide a revised site plan which con-
forms to the 100 foot setback requirement for the storage
Iareas .
2 . The applicant provide soil boring information locating two
1 septic sites for approval by Drs . Machmeier and Anderson for
use of a bathroom facility in the contractor' s yard building
and provide a holding tank for waste water with a contract
from a pumper and documentation when the tank has been
Ipumped.
3 . The applicant shall receive an access permit from Carver
ICounty.
4 . The applicant shall maintain hours of operation between 7 : 00
I a.m. to 6 :00 p.m. with work not permitted on Sundays and
holidays.
5 . There shall be no signage advertisting the business
Iestablishment on site.
6 . Conditions of the Building Department.
1 7 . Conditions of the Engineering Department.
I 8 . Employees cannot exceed a total of 15 .
9 . The City Attorney shall prepare Findings of Fact using the
fact that the applicant was granted a conditional use permit
on March 18, 1985 .
II
Mr. Don Ashworth
November 22 , 1988
Page 2
The attached Findings of Fact were required by the City Council
as part of approval .
RECOMMENDATION 1
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Findings of Fact
for the conditional use permit for Dave Stockdale' s contractor' s
yard Conditional Use Permit #85-2 .
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Findings of Fact. I
2 . City Council minutes dated October 24 , 1988 .
II
1
I
I
I , ,
I LAW OFFICES
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
VANCE B. GRANNIS 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING ELLIOTT B KNETSCH
VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE MICHAEL J MAYER
I PATRICK A.FARRELL TIMOTHY J. BERG
DAVID L.GRANNIS,III SOUTH ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075
ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661
DAVID L. HARMEYER
IINovember 7, 1988
IMr. Don Ashworth
Chanhassen City Hall
I 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
IRE: Dave Stockdale C.U.P. Application
Dear Don:
I Enclosed please find proposed Findings of Fact and Decision
concerning the application of Dave Stockdale for a Conditional
Use Permit for a contractor' s yard.
IVery truly yours,
GRANNIS GRANNIS, FARRELL
1 & 'UTSON, P.A.
III"
BY: Allir _.■111Wr.v
•ger N. Hutson
RNK:srn
Enclosure
Icc: Jo Ann Olsen
I
I
I
I
-
NOV 91988
CITY OF CHAN1-hr,DJC4N
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
IN RE:
Application of Dave Stockdale FINDINGS OF FACT '
for a Conditional Use Permit for AND DECISION
a Contractor's Yard
On September 21, 1988, the Chanhassen Planning Commission '
met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the
Application of Dave Stockdale for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Contractor's Yard. The Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the proposed use preceded by published and mailed - II
notice. The City Council now makes the following: '
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate. 1
2 . The 2000 Land Use Plan designation is agricultural -
3 . The proposed use is a conditional use.
4. The site is outside the urban service area. '
5. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit
for a landscaping contractor's yard on a lot directly south of '
his residence. The contractor's yard will consist of a 55, 000
square foot pole barn which will contain a 25'x25' office area, a '
25'x45' workshop, and storage space for 7 trucks, 3 trailers, and
a bobcat. The inventory of vehicles are as follows: 3 single axle
dump trucks, 2 one ton trucks, 2 3/4 ton pick-ups, 3 skid loaders '
and trailers. The contractor's yard will employ 3 staff personnel
and 12 field personnel. The hours of operation proposed are from '
6: 30 a.m. to 5: 30 p.m. with peak hours between the hours of 6: 30
and 7: 30 a.m. and 4 :30 and 5:30 p.m. The applicant is providing a
paved parking area and the site will be accessed from Galpin
Boulevard located at the southeast corner of the site.
' 6. On March 15, 1985, the City Council approved the
conditional use permit. Because of problems beyond the
applicant's control the permit was not fully implemented. To
' remove any doubt about the continuing validity of the permit the
applicant has asked the City Council to reconfirm it.
' 7. The proposed conditional use satisfied all
requirements under the zoning ordinance when the permit was
issued on March 15, 1985.
DECISION
' The City Council reconfirms the conditional use permit
issued March 15, 1985, subject to the conditions in the permit
and subject to the following additional conditions:
' 1. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan which
conforms to the 100 foot setback requirement for the
storage areas.
' 2 . The applicant shall provide soil boring information
locating two septic sites for approval by Drs.
' Machmeier and Anderson for use of a bathroom facility
in the contractor's yard building and provide a
holding tank for waste water with a contract from a
pumper and documentation when the he tank has been
' pumped.
3. The applicant shall receive an access permit from
' Carver County.
4. The applicant shall maintain work hours of operation
between 7: 00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with work not
permitted on Sundays and holidays.
5. There shall be no signage advertising the business
establishment on site.
-2-
r
6. Conditions of the Building Department.
7. Conditions of the Engineering Department. '
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day of
, 1988.
CHANHASSEN QITY COUNCIL /
!
BY: \
Tiromas L. Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST
Don Ashworth, city- Manager '
1
I
-3-
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988
6
Gary Warren: Bill has
had a lot of experience. He's out of Waconia.
II 1r- Councilman Johnson: A lot of people bid on this one. This is a really good bid
I think.
Councilman Geving: Would the construction start this fall?
Gary Warren: That's our intent is that they would start here. By spec they
have 10 days to get their contract documents in order but I'm sure they'll meet
that. The reason you saw so many bidders is because of the good construction
season we had. They're anxious to get going.
Resolution #88-114: Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to award the
bid for the Audubon Road Utilities Project 88-20A to Machtemes Construction in
the amount of $87,638.75. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
,o' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LANDSCAPING CONTRACTOR'S YARD, 7210 GALPIN BLVD.,
I U ) DAVE STOCKDALE.
Jo Ann Olsen: This was tabled at the last meeting because it was so late and
the applicant requested that.
Dave Stockdale: My name's Dave Stockdale. I've got some property on Galpin
II Blvd. and since the last meeting I've had a chance to review my situation and
what's taken place since I bought the property. Also with me I have a friend
who's an attorney.. .and I'm asking to assist me in the conversation. As you
know, I received prior approval of a conditional use permit in 1985. Three
members on this panel approved it at that time. I'm here tonight is to try to
show you that there is in fact some hardship that I hope you will go along and
be persuaded to making sure of a conditional use permit again. One of the
things that I did do, since the permit was approved, as some of you may have
seen, although I didn't do a lot of physical work on the property, I was going
through the process, the normal process of doing the surveying, getting drawings
worked on which was expensive and I had spent a lot of time doing that process.
Prior to actually starting the execution of the project I was in the process of
building my house and having the land subdivided based upon the Minnesota
Mortgage laws. The legal description had to change and at that point in time,
because of the description change, the permit had to be resubmitted. By the
time I finished building the house, I had to put it on hold because of economic
reasons. I'm sorry, I didn't put it on hold, I was still proceeding and then I
was notified that the permit was not valid so at that point I decided
to...proceed with it. During this time I had some unfortunate...difficulty in
pursuing this project. I contend that if that did not happen, I would have been
able to actually start the project within the timeframe or at least reapply for
the conditional use permit prior to the change of the ordinance. As I stated
before, it's my intention in moving to Chanhassen was to have both my residence
and a contractor's yard and that was one of the original conditions on my
property. The ordinance was changed and like I said, at that time I was being
distracted by some of the processes that were affecting me. The investment.
When I was back in a position to go through with the project, I talked with
staff and they recommended I go through the procedure again. So again, I have
incurred some expenses going through the process of doing soil borings, ...fees
9
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988
and those kinds of things so I have been spending money all along. I also feel
if I am denied the contractor's yard, in essence by property value would just '
have a progressive decrease because it won't be useable for anything else for
the next 15 years or so until sewer and water are available. I also might note
that my contract for conditional use permit did not state anything about the 1
year limitation. However, that was in the documents somewhere but I didn't have
that... As you're discussing this, I'd also like you to consider the
possibility of grandfathering this because of the original grant was approved.
There is a contractor's yard within a mile. That seems to be the major '
stumbling block. It's use is real minimal. If you're concerned, I think you
prbably should talk to... The other concern is the neighbor besides myself
within 500 feet. At the prior meeting I presented a recommendation from him
stating that his approval of my project. Again, I'd like you to consider the
fact that there was a variance granted at one other time in the last few years
since the ordinance changed to Gardeneer. As far as I know, that was not based
upon any kind of hardship. As far as I know, they did not previously have a
conditional use permit. As I stated before, I've made every effort to work
within the system. Do things above board. I know there are times when people
just go ahead and do their own thing and then at a later date that project is
grandfathered in. I chose not to approach it that way. Again, I'd just like
you to consider these things and hopefully you'll see these hardships are not
self-imposed but in fact are created from outside influences. It's my
understanding that if you perceive it that way, it does give you the grounds for
granting a variance and that's what I'm asking for.
Councilman Johnson: How many employees would you have at this contrator's yard? ,
Dave Stockdale: I have 12 employees. I have about 9 of them that actually show _
up at the yard. The other 3 just move in the field.
Councilman Johnson: Do they all have parking for their private vehicles?
Dave Stockdale: Yes. '
Councilman Johnson: Do they then get into your vehicles and leave or do they
take their vehicles? '
Dave Stockdale: They use my vehicles. I have buffered parking through a berm
situation so the vehicles wouldn't be visible from the street level. My site
plan includes.. .for personal vehicles.
Councilman Johnson: I think that one of the main purposes way back when, I
shouldn't say we, I wasn't on the Council at that time but when the previous ,
Council put in the ordinance to allow contractor's yards, they were considering
yards like what Larry Kerber has. Where he's the employee and he keeps his
vehicles there and he's go out and does his contracting and comes home at night.
A very small, low intensity use. That's what I'd like to see contractor's yards
be in the town. When you start putting commercial businesses in, our plumbing
business, other folks, they locate in the industrial yard. They come in, their
employees come in, get in their trucks and head out to work. That's always been
our industrial zone and that's where I see that fit. However, our rules don't
prohibit this type of operation. That's one thing I guess we're looking at
changing our rules again for contractor's yards. The Planning Commission is
[E:
looking at that. In this case, I feel that the Minnesota laws prevented you
10
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988
from having your contractor's yard way back when. We had approved under the old
ordinance and that you would be here and you would be grandfathered if it
I weren't for the mortgage laws. That was the primary thing. I swing a bit
towards, at this point, saying you do have a hardship here. I'm a bit, as you
can tell, slightly opposed to as intensive a use in the rural areas. I know a
farm doesn't have 12 employees coming to it but, most farms but I'm not totally
convinced right now of the hardship and hopefully somebody else will convince me
during this evening.
Councilman Geving: I have a comment or two that I'd like to make and I'm glad
you asked about the number of employees because I think it's important that we
understand that Mr. Stockdale is trying to bring a business into Chanhassen but
more importantly, Dave was given a conditional use permit back in March of 1985
and at that time we saw fit to provide that conditional use him to have a
contractor's yard. When I look back at the intent of what we tried to do, we
' tried to get a hold of all the contractor's yards and identify them throughout
the city. Prior to that no one knew where they were or what they were doing so
on a very honest basis, we asked these people to come in and register with us.
Most did. In fact, they all did. It was our way of trying to find out what
kind of businesses were going on. Now I find that we have caught Mr. Stockdale
in a web of sorts because of timing and the fact that another conditional use
permit was given to Mr. Ted Bentz who lives within 1 mile of David's location
and an ordinance change that took place inbetween the conditional use permit and
today. I feel strongly that David does have some very good grounds for asking
for a reconsideration of this. We didn't vote on it at the last meeting. David
felt that he should go back and gather his facts and he's done that. He's given
us a letter tonight regarding his problem with the embezzelment in his business •
and he was working towards making that contractor's yard work. I must say Dave, _
that you're trying to do the best you could. You came to us in all honesty and
' you probably, like so many people, we had one tonight, could have gone ahead and
built something out there and no one would have ever known the difference
because it is off the road and it could have happened. We eventually would have
caught up with you I suspect but the main thing is that you were honest enough
to bring this to our attention and as a result, you're here tonight. My
personal feeling is that we're only hung up on a couple of minor issues here.
One, and that's the neighbor 500 feet which you could move your business away
from that area so that you could conform to our ordinance requirement. Is that
true? Could you move your proposed site so that it did not fall within the 500
feet?
' Dave Stockdale: It would be on the same legal description regardless of how
it's proposed.
' Councilman Geving: Okay, the second issue then is the hours of operation which
you can conform to our ordinance and it would be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and
that's no problem?
' Dave Stockdale: No.
Councilman Geving: The biggest issue that I see is that no two contractor's
yards can be within 1 mile of each other. My proposal to the Council is to
delete that item number 5 from our zoning ordinance for contractor's yards
located in the A-2 district. If we did that, it makes sense to me because there
are already existing in the city situations where we have more than one
11 11
1()I!
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988
I
contractor's yard located practically on the same land. To delete this from our
ordinance and amend the ordinance rather than grant a variance is the better way
to go. I an personally very sympathetic to you Mr. Stockdale. I would
encourage the Council to move along those lines. To grant this conditional use
permit for the contractor's yard. If you're agreeable to the changes that I
suggested in the hours of operation and moving your site and then maybe we could
turn this back to staff and to the Planning Cuctdnission to amend the ordinance to
remove the 1 mile distance. Those are my comments.
Councilman Horn: What is the exact distance that you are from Bentz?
Dave Stockdale: About three-eighths of a mile. From yard to yard. The legal
description is closer but yard to yard.
Councilman Horn: I guess the question I had is, pursuing Dale's line, what kind
of exposure would we have if we reduced it something within say, a quarter mile?
How many more potential contractor yard sites would we open up?
Jo Ann Olsen: A few. I'd have to look at that one. Right now we're pretty II much filled with the 1 mile radius.
Councilman Horn: What I'm trying to get a handle on is what kind of precedent
would we set and... I guess I'd like to find another way to do it other than
reducing the 1 mile limitation. I'd like to get the Attorney to respond to us
on the validity of the hardship based on the facts that we have this evening.
Mayor Hamilton: Roger, did you have an opportunity to review... I
Roger Knutson: Yes. I think you know, or many, many times what a hardship is.
I guess you'll each have to make your own decision obviously...as to whether
they meet the definition of our ordinance now.
Councilman Horn: The fact that he lost financing does not create a hardship? '
Roger Knutson: No. It's a hardship for him. There's no question about it but
not as defined in our ordinance. '
Councilman Horn: In our ordinance?
Roger Knutson: And by State Statute. ,
Councilman Horn: So we have no opportunity to change the description of what a
hardship is? ,
Roger Knutson: No.
Councilman Horn: Okay, let's attack it from another angle then. What about, 1
why don't we meet the rules of grandfathering since we already approved this
once?
Roger Knutson: If he was grandfathered, he wouldn't need another conditional
use permit for one thing.
Councilman Horn: Well, that's the question. Does he need a conditional use
12 I
i
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988
permit?
Roger Knutson: He hasn't built anything on it.
' Councilman Horn: But is showing progress merely in the building or in the
planning?
Roger Knutson: The Supreme Court has told us that you don't get vested rights
to proceed until you are digging a hole and putting up the boards.
Councilman Horn: So digging a hole and pouring money isn't enough?
' Roger Knutson: A paper hole doesn't qualify.
' Councilman Horn: I can't find an easy answer. Maybe somebody else can.
Councilman Hoyt: I follow Clark's line of thought I believe. I would be
opposed to deleting the 1 mile limit. I think that we're surrounded by
' communities that have said that they don't think that contractor's yards are
compatible with residential development and I would agree with them. That's why
the 1 mile limit's in there. I didn't vote to put it in there but I've been
' assured by staff before that there's no room for contractor's yards and since
then we've approved one and we're now looking at you. I'm of the opinion that
this isn't a type of business that we generally want to encourage. Although the
people who have it, have the right to continue to do that. The other thing I
3 don't want to do is I don't want to create an ordinance that we can no longer
enforce. I think Roger has sort of sealed the deal. I think what you read in
the Minutes, or at least the way I interpretted the Minutes of 2 weeks ago was
that if we were going to approve a contractor's yard, this was the model of the
kind of yard we'd like to approve. It certainly looks very much like a
responsible type of business to have but I don't want to lose the ability to
' limit contractor's yards in our community. So far, the people that I've
listened to, no one has come up with a way to balance those two out. I'm still
listening for a way. I would like staff, if we're going to pursue this, I'd
like to know on a much fresher basis, what the basis was on Gardeneer and why we
11 granted that variance. I think we need to be consistent. I would hope that if
we decide that we're in general support of this, that we ask Roger to come back
with Findings of Fact before we actually take action.
' Mayor Hamilton: I guess I have a question of you. In the wintertime, what do
your employees do or how many do you have there?
' Dave Stockdale: We scale back quite a bit. We do remodeling work and we do
have some snow removal contracts. If we get to that point, I was going to
ask to talk to you about adjustment on the hours for the snow removal.
' Mayor Hamilton: You do remodeling work so you're doing more than landscaping?
Dave Stockdale: When I say landscape contractor, we don't deal with plant
' materials. We deal strictly with hard goods. Retaining walls, decks, fences,
patios and we do a fair amount of remodeling work. About half of my work is
remodeling. We have a relationship with Bachman's. We do their, on a sub-
IIcontract basis, we do all of their construction projects. Because of that
relationship, I don't deal with the plant material. They do.
13
"CLi
ity Council Meeting - October 24, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I have a difficulty, as everybody else does I guess, in
trying to figure out exactly what a contractor's yard is. I guess I mistakenly
thought that you did more with plant material and if that's the case, I guess I
still feel the way that when you have plant material involved, it's not to me a
contractor's yard, it's an agricultural use and it shouldn't be classified as a
contractor's yard. I think our problem lies in defining what a contractor's
yard is. I think when the ordinance was passed, to me a contractor's yard was
some guy who's out pouring cement with his dump truck or whatever and you're
hauling their equipment back and forth. That, to me, is a contractor's yard.
I'm not sure if this falls in that category or not. I guess if you're not using
plant materials and you're doing construction type things, that probably falls
into a contractor's yard. But I also feel that since you were given a permit
once, I don't have a problem with allowing you to continue. I certainly feel
that what has happened to you is certainly no cause of your own. I'd like to
see you in town and I'd like to see you continue business here. It's the type
of service that's needed and you should be here. You had a comment you wanted
to make.
Dave Stockdale: Just to one of the things that Mr. Boyt stated. He said he's I
concerned about having a contractor's yard, with how it woulde interface with
the residential development. In fact that neighborhood is not a residential
development and won't be until sewer and water comes through. It's zoned 10 ,
acre minimum. One acre is 2 1/2 acres lots and that will probably not be
used...so it's not really interfacing with the residential community. At that
point in time when sewer and water comes through, I suspect that I would
reassess my situation.
Councilman Horn: Would it be possible for us to relook at this whole
contractor's yard ordinance and in fact make the type of uses much more
restrictive than some we're seen today. If we did that, we may feel more
comfortable in reducing this mileage. If we knew that we're going to get the
type of thing in that required the original intent. It would seem to me that if
we made it more restricted and compromise and reduce the distance, we'd have
something that might be liveable.
Councilman Geving: I think the important thing here is that we're not trying to 1
make an exception for you Mr. Stockdale. We're trying to look at the city and
the ordinance that we've created and try to apply it fairly. I again go back to
the original intent when we captured this contractor's yard situation was to ,
find out what kinds of businesses were being done in the rural area. That was
our total intent. It wasn't trying to restrict anyone. We were trying to get a
handle on it so that we could then decide how we should build the ordinance and
make it better. I think Clark may have hit upon it. I only included my idea on
the 1 mile so we might be able to find a way and I think we're still looking for
that way. I want you in town and I want any other business that would bring 12
employees to our city. It doesn't have a great deal of impact on the rural area
certainly. So I think since you've already had our conditional use permit from
1985, if things had gone right for you, you would have been out there for the
last 3 years. No question about it. So I want to find a way tonight to direct
L-1.1
staff to see if they can't come up with a means by which businesses like Mr.
Stockdale's can be a part of Chanhassen. I guess I would ask our planner, our
only planner right now, what her thoughts are in Mr. Stockdale's request. I
want you to be fair and impartial. Not necessarily thinking about Mr.
14 '
In
, City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988
Stockdale's request but along the lines of what Clark was asking. Is there a
way that we can look at that ordinance provision on a conditional use permit and
I probably define better what a contractor's yard is because there are a lot of
variations of that.
' Jo Ann Olsen: We are doing that right now. We are reviewing the ordinance for
contractor's yards. Making it much more restrictive. Better defining what they
are. We have not gotten into details as of yet as far as like the 1 mile
radius. I definitely don't want to remove that completely but we could look
' at...
Mayor Hamilton: Who doesn't?
Jo Ann Olsen: The Planning Commission is working on the ordinance right now.
Councilman Horn: How about if we keep the 1 mile in for the existing ordinance
' the way it is and then also allow a provision in there that if we have a more
restrictive use, that it could be closer than a quarter of a mile. That way the
higher intensity things that we are trying to keep out would still have the mile
' restriction. In effect, the less intense you have, the closer you can have it
to another one.
Jo Ann Olsen: I think the Planning Conuiission, what they've been giving the
staff as comments is that they want to restrict them even if they're within a
mile or not.
II4 Councilman Horn: They may want to do that anyway. Even a mile, that's fine.
Mayor Hamilton: When do you anticipate the Planning Commission will have that
completed?
Jo Ann Olsen: They're going to be reviewing it in November. They'll be coming
to the Council in December if it's not tabled or taken back to the drawing
board. We have a pretty good idea. We've discussed it several times with the
Planning Commission and we have a pretty good idea of what they want so we're
preparing that right now. We'll take it back to them, I believe it's the second
meeting in November.
Councilman Johnson: Jo Ann, would what they're considering help Mr. Stockdale
at all? I kind of doubt it.
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes, I don't think that it was changing that 1 mile radius.
' Councilman Johnson: And it's looking at a less intense use probably than what
he's proposing. The 12 employees, I think they're looking to make it even less
than that.
' Councilman Boyt: You have to live on the property.
ICouncilman Johnson: He does but his employees don't.
Councilman Boyt: Let's not forget that an A-2 is a single family residential
area. It's rural but it's also single family residential. I agree with a lot
of what I've heard everybody say tonight. We've got contractor's yards defined
15
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988
in our ordinances and they describe what
Y you've described. So unless you change
your business substantially or unless we change the definition substantially,
there's not going to be relief there. I think one of the things to keep in mind [11
is the City Council just approved a contractor's yard that has 5 tractor
trailers operating out of it. I'm real wary of extending the ability of putting
more contractor's yards in town. It's not your situation but it was one we
approved on TH 169 in the last couple months.
Councilman Geving: I would like to make a motion at this time to approve the
contractor's yard as proposed for Mr. Dave Stockdale located at 7210 Galpin
Blvd. with the conditions as stated here on page 10 of our September 21, 1988
memorandum of planning staff. There are 7 conditions on my motion.
Mayor Hamilton: I'll second your motion.
Councilman Johnson: Dale, do you want to put any conditions on here, starting
with 12 employees. If you get successful here, I can see him going to 20
employees and then to 30 employees. We're granting it at 12. We've talked
about intensification. Do we want any conditions on the intensification? Not
to exceed 15 employees or... I
Councilman Geving: I don't think there's anything wrong with that because I
think that's a good point. We don't want you to start up a Frank's business out
there or some kind of home remodeling business. I agree with you. That could
be a very good. What would be a good number for you Mr. Stockdale?
Dave Stockdale: I think 15. I
Councilman Geving: 15 to 20 maximum?
Dave Stockdale: 15 sounds fine.
Councilman Geving: I would like to add then condition 8 to my motion that this
business can't exceed a total of 15 employees at this site. I like your idea
Jay.
Councilman Johnson: Dale, are we going to have to go through the variance '
procedure then?
Councilman Geving: This is a request for a conditional use permit. ,
Councilman Johnson: But in order to get it, at the time we'll have to grant a
variance also which you'll have to go before a public hearing and before our
Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
Councilman Geving: I don't understand that.
Mayor Hamilton: Is that right Roger?
Roger Knutson: You need a zoning variance. Zoning variances go before the '
Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
Mayor Hamilton: We're not changing zoning.
91
16 ,
1:4:4
II - • City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988
Councilman Geving: The City Council can override the Board of Adjustments and
4 Appeals at any time. That's why we are elected officials. We can make that
IT-
Idistinction tonight to do that and we would grant him the variance as requested.
Councilman Johnson: He hasn't applied for a variance.
Councilman Geving: No, but if there was one required, this City Council could
' grant that.
Councilman Boyt: I think that we're rushing into something that needs a lot
more study. You grant this variance and you've just done away with the 1 mile
' restraint on contractor's yards. The City Attorney has said that, in his
opinion, this doesn't fit our ordinance not meet the requirements of a variance.
Planning staff is recommending that it be turned down. The Planning Commission
' voted to turn it down. Without further study, I'll vote against it.
Councilman Geving: Mr. Boyt, let me remind you that in 1985 we granted this
' variance once. We granted the conditional use permit for Mr. Dave Stockdale to
go into business. We gave him that right. Through no fault of his own, he ran
into some financial difficulties. He was not able to consummate that
conditionalq use permit and for that reason, because of the mortgage situation
' in the State of Minnesota, when he applied for his home mortgage, he was forced
to subdivide his land into 10 acre minimums. That's what brings him before us
tonight. If all of those conditions had not happened, Dave would have moved
ahead and built that yard out there and we would have had a construction yard.
' A contractor's yard right where it was proposed. I don't feel we're violating
anything that this Council didn't grant to Mr. Stockdale in 1985.
' Mayor Hamilton: The request is for a conditional use permit.
Councilman Horn: If we, in our Findings of Fact, use that very line that this
' was granted at one previous point, would that surely differentiate or would that
give us some reasonable findings of fact to indeed grant a variance.
' Councilman Johnson: Or could we reinstitute the 1985 permit?
Councilman Horn: In other words, could we use that as a difference on any other
future request for variances where this had previously been approved and that's
' our Finding of Fact as to why we allowed the variance in this case.
Roger Knutson: It would help this move.
' Councilman Horn: It seems to me that's our key.
Councilman Boyt: I think that one of the things that the previous Council
' established was that a conditional use permit that isn't acted upon within 1
year expires. That's not my ordinance gentlemen. That's the City's ordinance.
We can't ignore that ordinance in spite of a logical argument.
1 Councilman Geving: Let me tell you something Mr. Boyt, we make the laws and we
amend the ordinances. That's why we're here. That's our job. We created this
ordinance. We have a right to change it. It's that simple. If you can't see
' that, I can't teach it to you. When we have to amend the ordinance, we have
1 17
108
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988
that right. We built that ordinance back in early 80. I was a part of it.
Councilman Johnson: In this case, we're stuck by State Zoning laws too. That ,
to grant a conditional use permit that in effect grants a variance, we have to
go through the variance procedures. He has to file for a variance. Public
notice has to be made. Letters have to sent to all residents within 500 feet.
Mayor Hamilton: Thank you. They did that already.
Councilman Johnson: ...in order for us to.
Mayor Hamilton: We've going back over something we've already. It's a good 1
point. You've already said that. Roger, is that true?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilman Horn: I'm not against granting a variance as long as we don't '
real precedent and we have a Finding of Fact that substantiates what we're doing
and can differeniate it from future requests. I think that's the key that we II
have in this case. I believe the Attorney sustains that position.
Councilman Johnson: I'd also like to make one other point. If, after
replatting this land, in 1985, that we then had come at that time in. I know
for some personal reasons that you didn't come back at that time. You could
have come back at that time. Gotten a new conditional use permit because the
old one expired. It didn't expire for the 1 year but it expired due to the '
replatting as I understand the circumstances. What first got rid of the
conditional use permit is that it goes with the land. When the land got
replatted, the conditional use permit disappears. If at that time you'd come
back for a conditional use permit, moved a couple feet of dirt, you would have
had your conditional use permit. By not doing that, it's hard for us to say
that 3 years later, two simple actions that could have been taken at that time,
that were within your control, could have been taken by you, that would have
preserved your rights to the conditional use permit. It's tough now to come
back and do it. When we look at the literal enforcement in this chapter, we
call it undue hardship and practical difficulty. You have a business that's
going. It's established. If you don't get this, it makes it to where you have
a longer drive to work everyday. I know people who work in Maplewood and drive
to Maplewood everyday. It doesn't really cause what I would consider an undue
hardship or practical difficulty.
Councilman Horn: Do we have any others in this category where they failed to
exercise within the time and they would be potential to fall into this Finding
of Fact?
Jo Ann Olsen: The only outstanding one is Lowell Carlson but he never received ,
a conditional use permit.
Councilman Horn: So this is indeed the only one.
Councilman Gevi
ng: I just wanted to ask Clark, would it be your interest then
to add to this motion that we would ask the Attorney for a Finding of Fact using
the fact that we did grant this conditional use permit on March 18, 1985?
18 1
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1988
Councilman Horn: And that's how we're justifying a variance and it's not
something that we would deny from somebody else.. .
Councilman Geving: I understand. I would add that to my motion.
Dave Stockdale: Can I add just one more point? Just in response to what Mr.
Johnson is stating. No, I did not go out there and take a Bobcat or a shovel
and turn over dirt. That's not the logical procedure for executing what I was
trying to accomplish. I was going through the normal procedure of having the
documentation first. I could have approached it from a, more devious point of
' view I suppose and gone out there and turned clumps of dirt and come back and
said, here, I've done what was required of me. Now let me have it. I didn't
approach it that way. I in fact did proceed in a logical manner with my
planning and surveying work.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Conditional Use
' Permit Request #88-2 with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan which conforms to the 100
foot setback requirement for the storage areas.
' 2. The applicant provide soil boring information locating two septic sites for
approval by Drs. Machmeier and Anderson for use of a bathroom facility in
the contractor's yard building and provide a holding tank for waste water
i with a contract from a pumper and documentation when the tank has been
pumped.
' 3. The applicant shall receive an access permit from Carver County.
4. The applicant shall maintain hours of operation between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00
p.m. with work not permitted on Sundays and holidays.
5. There shall be no signage advertising the business establishment on site.
6. Conditions of the Building Department.
7. Conditions of the Engineering Department.
8. Employees can not exceed a total of 15.
' 9. The City Attorney shall prepare Findings of Fact using the fact that the
applicant was granted a conditional use permit on March 18, 1985.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
HIGHWAY 101 REALIGNMENT:
'? A. RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF TH 101 REALIGNMENT, FRED HOISINGTON.
B. APPROVAL OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER TO
IDENTIFY SAID REALIGNMENT.
' 19