9. Building Permit to Determine Compliance with CUP for Contractor's yard Lowell Carlson 9,
ICITY OF P.C. DATE: Feb. 17, 1988
��" C.C. DATE: March 14, 1988 7 CHANHASSEN
I , r CASE NO: 84-19 CUP
IPrepared by: Dacy/v
I
' STAFF REPORT
1
I PROPOSAL: Evaluation of Building Permit Application to
Determine Compliance with Conditional Use Permit
for a Contractor' s Yard
I Z
Q
V LOCATION: 4141 Kings Road ry
a^' ....._y//1/ ' -9-
il .ate APPLICANT: Carlson Excavating
4141 Kings Road _ ,„
____ _ _
Excelsior, MN 55331
c
IIPRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential
ACREAGE: 6 acres
DENSITY: N/A
IADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- RSF; agricultural
1 S- RSF; single family residence
E. E- RSF; single family residence
1 Q W- RSF; single family/Victoria
IW WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services currently not installed ,
PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Site slopes toward the south; contains a
small ridge.
II2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
I.
/ ' 1. , ai
• j=,wig M ii_6400 - / I�..•� N z /�C
cew,6500 �I I '. 1= „
:ta,z.lip ---4;-14■. 4v•Zt:"1'ri,*
- .) C.: it ... :..41,‘ ,&--..,_ 4 ..,,iiii_Tfic. .
6600 . +���ernt ` • 1
. , At 11V . Airrirvi-:,Ispwa•Au. '
6700 /�� �1 -ti-r1 431 NMI im ■F(,' I.
E `% L A K E
6800 f % 1
M / N N E W A S H T i
6900 1�!� . -°T __
Illr,, RD •
I
7000 s KING ROA' ∎. , PUD-R
tr
i
poi-_ T iktimp. ‘,J
v) „ .7100 4: _ `LAKE , RI ��a.,
.STJOE sti 'ice:;• /
Li! = PON•: f 14510/ , $#"!'h'.`��0 7200 0 1� • ������`
>- MAPLE SHORES
U �- DRIVE
7300 — �,
/J 7400 nla V _`,,)MR,
[J _ 1
rH sr. 1 ri . tom
7500 — V os
loom
-i.ritiV. t- s , 11011 I
-� .\�
�
7600 1
7.- re-; k- = , :
p--1,
7700- 1
i
7800- - - -
\PO 1*.
7900 ‘1---- i
A2
8000 - 1
i
Carlson Excavating CUP
' February 17 , 1988
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The applicant applied for a conditional use permit for a 30 ' x
1 100 ' pole barn in June of 1973 . On June 12 , 1973 , the Planning
Commission recommended denial of the request based on the findings
"that there are two garages on the property; it is a warehousing
' type of operation; and if expanded it could be used for repair" .
The City Council also denied the request on June 18 , 1973 , based
on the Planning Commission' s recommendation.
The applicant has been operating his business before the adoption
of the Zoning Ordinance in 1972 .
On August 20 , 1984 , the City Council amended the Zoning Ordinance
to allow contractor' s yards as a conditional use in the then in
place R-la, Agricultural Residence District. All contractor' s
' yard owners were contacted regarding this amendment and applied
for conditional use permit approval .
The Planning Commission considered the request on November 13 ,
1984 , and tabled the item until a detailed site plan could be
developed. The Commission considered the application again on
October 23 , 1985 . The Planning Commission recommended approval
of the conditional use permit subject to four conditions ( see
Attachment #6 ) . On November 4 , 1985 , the City Council approved
the conditional use permit for contractor' s yard activities sub-
ject to five conditions :
1 . That a structure be erected on site in conformance with the
setbacks of the R-la District and in conformance with the
' 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.
ANALYSIS
Although the City staff warrants criticism for allowing portions
of the 1985 permit to lapse by over one year , it was the belief
of the Planning Department and City Attorney that every means
should be pursued for compliance before prosecution was recom-
mended. Citizens living in the Minnewashta area and Council mem-
bers may find difficulty in understanding staff' s position.
Carlson Excavating CUP
February 17, 1988 ,
Page 3
The fact remains that Mr. Carlson' s operation predated city ordi-
nances . Effectively, Mr. Carlson is operating on the property as
a valid non-conforming use. Property owners on the north and
east side of Lake Minnewashta can attest to the problems asso-
ciated
with a non-conforming use. Specifically, the city con-
tinued to have Mr. Cermak (business operation very similar to Mr.
Carlson' s) in court for over a ten year period of time. The
court continued to support the rights of a business which pre-
dated city ordinances . For example, on one occasion the court
found that the numerous stumps dumped onto the site were similar
in character to the business itself , that the junk cars may have
restoration value, that a pile of debris could not be substan-
tiated as to its time of existence. By contrast, if a contrac-
tor' s yard permit can be entered into and agreed to by the owner
and city, the city has a means by which illegal activities can be
measured and upon which a court can reasonably require compliance.
Following continuous prodding by city staff, Mr. Carlson did make
application for a permit in January, 1988, for construction of a
12,000 square foot building. Mr. Carlson wishes to proceed imme-
diately with construction of a 2 ,000 square foot building by
using parts of 12,000 square foot structure already moved onto
the site.
City staff would be more than pleased if either the Planning
Commission or City Council could reach agreement with Mr. Carlson
as to what will be constructed on the site and materials that are
to be moved into the structure. We continue to believe that
entering into an agreement specifying exactly what is to be done
and materials to be maintained inside would be very advantageous .
However, we cannot support the construction of a 12 ,000 square
foot building recognizing that sewer and water is available to the
area and eventually platting of the area into single family homes
will occur. Entering into an agreement, which would allow for a
12 ,000 square foot building, would be more damaging than not
having any agreement.
RECOMMENDATION
As stated in the Analysis Section, city staff would welcome any
form of action which would cause the property owner to comply
with the conditions established in 1985. Given past performance,
staff questions whether it can or will happen. Mr. Carlson does
appear to be willing to construct a 2 ,000 square foot building
initially. If an agreement cannot be reached, this office sees
no alternative but to recommend that the Planning Commission ask
that the City Council revocate the conditional use permit. The
Zoning Ordinance requires a public hearing by the City Council in
order to revoke a conditional use permit. This recommendation is
made recognizing that by revoking the conditional use permit
would authorize the City Attorney' s Office to initiate legal pro-
ceedings against Mr. Carlson to clean up the site and/or cease
business operations .
Carlson Excavating CUP
February 18 , 1988
Page 4
area will be under development pressure in the near future given
that it is able to be served by water and sewer. Construction of
a 12 , 000 square foot building would be out of character of a
typical single family residential neighborhood with lots 15 ,000
square feet in size.
RECOMMENDATION
' Should the Planning Commission determine that the proposed
construction of a building at the subject location is in
compliance with the conditional use permit issued in 1985, the
following conditions are recommended:
1 . The applicant be allowed to construct a 2 ,000 square foot
building to be located 30 feet from the front property line
' and 25 feet from the east property line.
2 . All debris and material along the east property line be
' removed or stored within the building.
3 . As many vehicles or debris on the remainder of the site also
' be stored within the building area.
4 . The applicant must submit any necessary information deter-
mined necessary by the City Building Official in conjunction
with the building permit application.
5 . The applicant shall report to the City Council in writing
' on or before June 1 , 1988 , and as is deemed necessary by the
City Council to verify that adequate progress is made on
compliance with the terms of the conditional use permit.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council con-
sider revoking the conditional use permit for Lowell Carlson.
Brian Batzli voted against the motion because he felt that the
City shared the responsibility for lack of compliance.
' After the motion, the Planning Commission suggested that the
applicant prepare a specific plan as to where the building was to
be located on site and if there was to be any other accessory
buildings existing or proposed on site. The applicant' s attorney
spoke with city staff on March 9 , 1988, and stated that such a
plan was in the process of being prepared. At that time the
' applicant was apparently out of town and it was not known whether
or not the plan could be submitted in time for packet distribu-
tion for Council consideration. The applicant' s attorney stated
' that he would contact staff on Monday to determine whether or not
the item would be requested to be tabled.
1
Carlson Excavatin g CUP
February 17 , 1988
Page 5 ,
STAFF UPDATE '
There were a number of issues regarding the conditional use per-
mit and the non-conforming use raised by the applicant and
discussed by the Planning Commission. The City Attorney has
responded to some of those questions that were raised during the
meeting. His letter states that the City Council does have the
ability to revoke the conditional use permit for non-compliance;
however, the applicant would have the right to continue his
operation as a non-conforming use. But, he could not expand the
operation beyond that which existed in 1972. The attorney also
advised that storage of junk or other violations can be prose-
cuted by the city. Mr. Carlson also raised the issue of the
building permit fee. Staff asked the City Attorney to review
whether or not the Council could waive the building permit fee.
The attorney has advised that although the city can legally waive
the fee requirements, the city would be establishing a signifi-
cant precedent for waiving building permit fees. Staff agrees
with the attorney' s position on both issues and would recommend
that upon submission of a detailed plan by the applicant, that
the City Council review that plan to determine a workable solu-
tion
to this issue.
At the time of writing this report, staff has not been able to
review the applicant' s plan or his intentions which, given these
facts, staff would recomend that the item be tabled. However,
staff did indicate to the applicant' s attorney that they can
speak at the Council meeting to discuss and state their case to
the Council.
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Conditional use permit dated November 18, 1985 .
2 . Building permit application dated January 12, 1988
3 . Submitted site plan.
4 . City Council minutes dated November 4, 1985.
5 . Planning Commission minutes dated November 14, 1984 .
6 . Planning Commission minutes dated October 23, 1985 .
7 . Planning Commission minutes dated June 12, 1973.
8 . City Council minutes dated June 18, 1973 .
9 . Letter from Barbara Dacy dated January 26, 1988 .
10 . Planning Commission minutes dated February 16, 1988 .
11. Letter from Roger Knutson dated March 10, 1988 .
1
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 .
1
5 . Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this
conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor. II
II
Dated: /I /ftfS .
I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
II
By: ' /61:91/4a,' , ---e: (------
j Its Mayor I
I 'wtio II
By: Xl2/ .
Its Clerk
II
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss _ II COUNTY OF CARVER )
,,..--��,,¢¢ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
/X"" day of ,tQ, , 1985, by Thomas L. Hamilton, I
Mayor, and Don Ashworth, City Manager of the City of Chanhassen,
a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
II
tit-e ter,
ary Pu lic I
-••l� KAREN J. ENGELHARDT I
:y,. NOTARY PUBLIC- MINNESOTA
4...4, CARVER COUNTY
' `•- My commission swims 10.18.91
1
I
I
I
I
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
GENERAL INFORMATION �) BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
Date: / 1 fij Single Family: Multiple Dwelling: No. or Units:
I Site A d21 ress: 4/ y( -`r'
Owner a '.w-e7,'R__,, v et -i-,•r_
IAddress: ._//7 i �i
Contractor: --•µc.C� (21.,. ,,,,,,,
IIAddress: 's11/ `�f �„ � Phone:
Lot No: Block No: Subdivision:
I Parcel Identification No: Section No: Ni:___ _S}: Zoning District:
Estimated Completion Date:
*********************************************************************************************************
NEW DWELLING
IValuation of Home Excluding Land:
Square Footage:
II1st Floor: 2nd Floor: 3rd Floor: 4th Floor: Total:
Heating System: Oil: Gas: Electric: Forced Air: Hot Water:
IAir Conditioning: Yes No
Na. of } Baths: No. of 3/4 Baths: No. of Full Baths: No. of Bedrooms:
II No. of Fireplaces: Type - Masonry: Metal: Other:
Basement Finished: Explain: Unfinished:
Garage: Attached Detached Tuck-under Dimensions
IIIs a variance required: Yes No If so, has variance been approved: Yes No
********************************************************************************************************
MISCELLANEOUS IMPROVEMENTS, ETC.
IValue of Improvement: J �'""� f �l/���(��v
E.New: X Alter: Repair: Addition:
1 Explain:
•
Dimensions: 1.0 Y l `/G .^774' A' e/4T Square Feet:
ITHIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A BUILDING PERMIT AND NOT TO BE MISUNDERSTOOD AS THE ACTUAL BUILDING PERMIT,
1HE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY AGREES TO DO ALL WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AND THE RULINGS OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
I � '
Signatur !1-r..c-1-e__, !\ a t�r-,` Address: -3./%.V>. -1-4 s ,,,
Telephone No.:(Work) �7" 7 Y �`�v
(Home)
*********************************************************************************************************
I APPROVALS: FEES:
Permit Fee $
Plan Check Fee
II Building Official State Fee
SAC
Sewer Surcharge
1-ire Marshal Park Dedication Fee
II Trail Dedication Fee
City Planner Planning Lase No. Water Unit
Sewer Unit
Interest
Assessment Clerk Water Meter
II TOTAL $
Park and Recreation
I • -
1
33I --K 1
ENN L
8K162ET H P., 103 UND
6 Res.--- 7 ----:
M 40 rods ; 8rods i ROAD 32 rods M 1
---- 4-' E --- ,
o
o 1
o ELMER CARLSON y z
co cw. BK 86, P 316 t i a MORSE AVENUE HOLDING CO.
Z: co DOC NO 73501 1
D:cc
aA v O v o
32 rods '- U
c a
N W __
>I
1
W°D
o v z 1
W
■ � DAVID C. TRUMBLE etal o {i.-
33 N BK 151, R 482
62.65'_, 1:
a 32 RODS 8 rods 8 rods il
° 1
N • I i•N
r
LUCIAN S TRUMBLE etal
i
t� ,
2 rods-=
BK 152, P 201-207 1 / 1
\\
40 )) \\\
/ _c4.0 \\ It
„,, \\ .,\\
N /
-_/ 1444%!
CO
•
60ND i : /) 1 ,
;' 6 2;�3 \%,_---------/ I I
j rods / '
1
I k-
iii
Q
�
\ t 1
w
d N
°'Z HOWARD S. BOLE Y I ) / 1
��= CTF NO. 1831 ��/,
Council Meeting, November 4, 1985 -9-
1 . That a structure be erected on site in conformance with the setbacks
' of the R-1A District and in conformance with all building code require-
ments by June 30 , 1986 .
I2 . 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 .
Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson . The following voted in-- favor: Mayor
Hamilton , Councilwomen Watson and Swenson , Councilmen Horn and Geving . No negative
votes. Motion carried .
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DENSIFIED REFUSE DERIVED FUEL FACILITIES AS A
CONDITIONAL USE IN THE P-4 DISTRICT:
' Mayor Hamilton : The Planning Commission reviewed this and passed it on to the City
Council without comment other than to say that they thought that the subject should
be studied further . I certainly agree with that . What I would like to do is appoint
' a committee of four people to do a rather quick but thorough study of the densified
refuse derived fuel facilities . I would like to appoint a committee of Dale Geving,
Pat Swenson , Bill Ryan and myself to do a study on this issue .
' Councilwoman Swenson moved to table this item for a period of two months so that the
committee that was appointed by Mayor Hamilton (Councilwoman Swenson , Councilman
Geving, Bill Ryan and Mayor Hamilton) can research this matter further . Motion was
1 seconded by Councilman Horn . The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton,
Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving . No negative votes .
Motion carried .
' Councilwoman Watson : As a member of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee , if we do
consider such a thing in Carver County that if this is going to be done , that it be
Carver County ' s refuge . Let ' s solve our own problems and not be hauling -garbage in
' from Hennepin County to be used here .
APPROVE FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOUTH LOTUS LAKE (PHASE I ) AND BOAT
ACCESS :
Mark Koegler: The utility improvements that are going to be involved, starting with
sanitary sewer, there were two elements from the extension of the santary sewer in
this project all of which were attributable to Mr. Bloomberg 's development . There is
an extension from this point to this point of the existing gravity line , which provi-
des service to Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1 . There was the additional improvement which
occurred down below which would come up through the park property and then go off
' this direction which provides sanitary sewer service to the balance of the Bloomberg
property as well as this Lot 1 and Block 3, which was added to the final plat . So
the sanitary sewer is put in entirely for the benefit of the residential development
itself. None of the the costs , therefore , are attributable to the park . Looking at
the streets, the streets break down into a couple of major segments . There are two
different street patterns. With the park , the paving that is there will be part of
the grant . South Shore Drive coming in is a 31 foot , back to back street . The Hill
Council Meeting, November 4, 1985 -8- ,
Councilman Geving: I noticed a year ago you listed five vehicles . Now you indicate
that you have ten . Is that correct?
Mr . Carlson : Yes . I have some that are not licensed and I, am using them as storage
purposes right now . We don 't always use them.
Councilman Geving: Let me ask the staff, Barb, can the City force a person who has a
vehicle on their lot to have it licensed if they don ' t use it?
Barb Dacy : Yes. An unlicensed vehicle is also in violation of the nuisance ordi-
nance . If it is not being used and it is not licensed it can be considered as a junk
vehicle . I believe the Commission 's intent was that whenever vehicles or whatever
machines, etc. are used in conjunction with the applicant ' s business that the ulti-
mate objective is to have the building on site and to put that material inside so it
cannot be seen . Sometimes people restore old vehicles without a license .
Councilman Geving: My feeling, Mr. and Mrs. Carlson, is I would like to see you stay
in business in Chanhassen and hopefully we can work this thing out .
Councilwoman Watson: How big of a building did you hope to erect to cover these
materials .
Mr. Carlson : We are looking at about 50 ' to 60 ' wide and 100 ' - 150 ' long.
Mayor Hamilton: What do you do with these old cars?
Mr. Carlson : The old cars do not have to be there . We use parts off the old cars to
put on the other cars if something happens to them . They can go , that is no problem .
Mayor Hamilton : What business are you in?
Mr. Carlson : Excavating.
Mayor Hamilton: So the junk cars could go , they are not part of a contractor ' s yard
anyway . Anything that doesn 't pertain to a contractor ' s yard should not be there .
Councilwoman Swenson: I just think we have to do something because this has been
delayed much too long. The other people have been told to conform and they have con-
formed. I am pleased to hear that the Carlson 's are ready to do something about it .
I don 't find the Planning Commission ' s recommendations at all restrictive . I just
want to emphasize the intensification situation, Barbara . We want to be very sure
that this does not grow . The applicant does know that any building that is moved
onto the premises must be conforming to our ordinance , does he not?
Barb Dacy : Yes , he does .
Councilman Geving: I want to make sure that we have recent photos of this facility
and this site . A part of our condition is that it will not be an expanded area . I
would like to have a vehicle list, and in addition to that , pictures of the area . We
have had instances in the past where this has been very helpful to us . I would also
like to see another condition placed on the Planning Commission ' s recommendations
that we do an annual review .
Councilman Geving moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit #84-19 for a
Contractor ' s Yard at 4141 Kings Road, Carlson Excavating with the following con-
ditions: '
11 Council Meeting, November 4, 1985 -?-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTOR ' S YARD , CARLSON EXCAVATING, 4141 KINGS ROAD :
Barb Dacy : The site is located south of and adjacent to King 's Road , west of
Minnewashta Parkway in the western part of the City . As you recall , in August of
1984, a zoning ordinance amendment was passed to allow a contractor ' s yard as a con-
II ditional use in the R-1A District . Also , part of the Council action was to direct
staff to have all existing contractor 's yards come through the conditional use permit
process and that was completed last fall . The Carlson 's applied last fall and the
matter was tabled at the Planning Commission level so that additional site plans and
' information as to screening could be developed between staff and the applicant . A
year has transpired and we have met with the applicant on a couple of occasions . We
provided the applicant with information as to the cost of a pole barn, the cost of
fencing and the applicant has now reapplied . The Planning Commission ' s recommen-
dation at the last meeting was to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to
continue contractor ' s yard activities subject to 1) that a structure be erected on
site in conformance with the setbacks of the R-1A District by June 30 , 1986; 2) all
vehicles must be stored inside the structure; 3) all unlicensed vehicles, litter, and
debris must be removed from the site by December 1, 1985; and 4) expansion of the
contractor 's yard activity beyond what has been represented in the application must
' be approved by a conditional use permit .
Councilman Geving: I remember the applicant coming before us in the past and we had
anyone who had a contractor ' s yard come before us and we could get a handle on
planning for the community . This is the last one that came in . Had this original
application come in after or before we had gone through this whole process, I think
it would have been a different story . I would like to see a building out there . It
is difficult for us as a Council to force an applicant to actually build a building.
When throughout the discussion and the history of this application , and all we are
really asking them to do is to screen the area , fence or berm the area so that it
isn ' t unsightly . That is really what we are looking for . Whether the applicant
wants to build a building or not , that is entirely a different matter . His financial
position might be extremely different than it was when he made his original applica-
tion . That time he wanted to build and the City wouldn ' t let him build . Whatever
happens to this site , I would like to see it be cleaned up , I would like to see that
there be an annual inspection of any contractor ' s yard whether it is approved as a
conditional use or not . I don ' t get the impression right now whether or not this
applicant really wants to build this facility , do you know , Barb?
Barb Dacy : The applicants are here tonight .
' Councilman Geving : Is it your intention , Mr . Carlson, that if you were to get apSro-
val for a conditional use permit for this site that you would actually build a pole
barn? Is that your present plan?
' Mr . Carlson : Yes . I live on the south side of the road . A fence or a berm would
just cause a drifting problem.
' Councilman Geving: So your present plan is to build . I kept reading in here that
you prefer to find a building and move it in there and reconstruct it . That might be
' hard to do .
Mr . Carlson : I have been working with a fellow and he has come up with some nice
buildings.
Councilman Geving: If you do that , it has to come before the Council because you are
going to move a building. I don 't know if you would move it intact .
Mr . Carlson: It would be erected .
r
1
'
I a
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 1984
Page 12
I
Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit Request #84-19 for
Contractor ' s Yard Activities on Property Zoned R-la, Agricultural II
Residence District and located at 4141 Kings Road , Carlson
Excavating , Applicant
Public Present II
Mr . Carlson 4141 Kings Road
II
David Trumble 4151 Kings Road
Doris Brickley 4380 Parklawn , Minneapolis
Dacy explained that the applicant is applying for conditional use II
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
I
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
I
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
II
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 I
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 I
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
II
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 . I
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 ,
II
either build a building or screen one area of the yard.
Robert Wilson questioned if this conditional use permit would be I
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 . II
Carlson asked about what would happen if he did not meet the
deadline.
II
i
-- Dacy replied that the City can issue citations and begin court
action to force compliance. I
II
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
behind the property line rather than having them right out in
front .
Carlson stated that the property in back slopes and is to steep
to do that . He stated that there are ten vehicles on his property 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
of cleaning the debris .
' 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.
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. -
r
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 1
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 1
Mr . and Mrs . Carlson applicant
Al Klingelhutz
Dacy stated that this item was tabled from last fall until '
1 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?
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.
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 .
t ? 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 .
1
Planning Commission Minutes
October 23 , 1985
Page 3
M. Thompson moved , seconded by Emmings , to close the public I
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? I
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 I
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? I
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-
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 21 feet lower than the road and a ten
foot fence would have to be put up to screen the lower area . I
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 .
I
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
--....— .
-- --- ,..._
,,
.-1-
•
. — /2 , ,
REGULAR PLANNMG CONIESSION MEETING JUN.7,' 12, 1973
IThe meeting was called to order by Chairrazui John Neveaux. The T.'.'ollowing rii-mbers
were present: Jim laelke„ Arnie .Rybap Dan Herbst.: Toni Gabber tr John N. vea.u..x,
Tim Stones and Nick klaritz,„ Counciliman golf, Councilwoman 11, .; ls, and Mayo:::,
I
Klingelhutz were present,
MUTES: A motion was made by Dan Perbst and secordec.:. by Tim Stone to approve
I
TE6727-22, 19731 regula-2 Planning Commission minutesn hot,-i on unar• "i..-y- -a ---- - -
c„,, i..9 -
The first sentence of the fourth paragraph under PUBLIC H2VI.FIN:.11 P.;--DFOSET) PRELTILTAL:
DEITP.;10PMENT PLAN AND pREL_
TNINARY PLAT in June 55 1973,, public h-aring minutes
to read: alight Adams, Attorney for McKeon Constimotion Company gave the first
part of the presentation.,
A motion was made by Jim /aelke and seconded by Dan Herbst to approve the Wood
Hill altdivision public hearing minutes of Jim° 5:, 1973:: as amencied4 Kot:Lor,
unanimously approved.
IROUSEIZVE - RICISAF_D SCHMIDT: Ivirs,, Ric-I-lard Sc:lmidt zar.7_)e=,-0,---‘d before the P1-.Train-,:
imn==i-r7i.--.c7ire-Eri-77-..-:Errafgs-ion to move a house into Cnapilassenc. The lot -i E--
located :in Bardwari Jic-res.. south c State Hignway 7. and west of. Hazeltiz-,
on Oriole Lane. The housc_ is 14.2r- x. 28 and aomx.1.: mately 15 to 20 years a1-.1,
The Schmidtls plan to fix it up and sell it The house has to be moved b:- Ji.i.2.7.- -...
The Planning Commission asked •rs. Schmidt to get 2.ettc...rs f. m neighbor so -Loa', I
they are aware of what is happen-in2;,
A motion was made by Dan Herbst and seconded, by ilriliG Ryba that the Plann.:...r=.;
I
Commission recormiend the Council a-oProve a buildin.-7 permit for 'cihe Richarf.
Sc.hmidt.ls on Lot .1L, The Schmidt:s agree to once the home is on the site to
finish and landscape it within six months,. Motion'. unanimously approved.
IPUBLIC HEARING CONDTTTONAL USE PERMIT - -MIMI CAPT.,SON: Dan Herbst Presided a .T-
=/567F,3717.757-7,7a,',77FEEZ:,--=. ciTiM7o.-a-4-57-FEE-F-ii--7---cuilding -i s -to be 7'se c. :c
The structure is net a typical accessory use for au agrioulturz14 use of the lanc4o
A motion was made by Dan Herbst, and seconded by Tom Gabbert that the Planning
I
Commission recommends the Council deny the Condition-al Use Permit as 7)re.sente:Z.
,
The following votes were cast: Arnie Ryba., Tom Gabber-b. Nick v,aritzy Jim i-ac llzer
and Dan Herbst voted in ..C..,ver. John Neveauz:. and Tim Stone abstained as they were
not present at the public hearing. notion carried.
I
Reasons for the recomendod denial arc:
There are two garages on the property°
,
. It is a warehousing typo of operation.
If e.7Tanded it could be used for repair,
II
PUBLIC HEARING cONDTTIONAL USE PPRITIT3 - 1---TALTER GRIEr-Z171.'R'r.);:-.: Dzii Herbst pzesf.O.ed.
1
over this portion °I Idle Ice:::tin; ,, .;.. i'3',7,::::c; :!..10:1: 6- L04.— ,.)L..... ,...1.,..-..,--..;
dated April lia 1973r uas reed,
A motion was mark: by Nick rrn-itc and seconded by Jim r.'-..o to t:.:!.ble this matter
Ilj
for 30 days until recoil:me:1:i a-tione are nia(1:-:! Y.:ec.)21. the 1.1-1 1-i a:"FJ Attenr;F, The
following votes Ir el',7 C2.SC: Jir.: nic.-11:c: Ilzmica iii(,..;*;:c:. 1.1.'clii i.a.cal: .-ar.:.....tz.-
Dan lierbst . and Tim'Stone voted in favor. John ifaveaux abr...,-6ained ac h:‘ was no-;-.
Present for the ea-tire public hear-i5a!--;,. Lotion car:rir,-.. L.
I1.:
/1-77ArifieleotJ7--14,
1.
CHANHASSEN VILLAGE COUNCIL MINUTES - June 18, 1973
-5-
IUTILITY EMPLOYMENT CON'T:
A motion was made by Councilman Neils and
seconded by Councilman Wolf to recind the motion in the June 7 , 1973
' t Special Council minutes on hiring Mike Dorsey. The following voted in
favor thereof: Mayor Klingelhutz, Councilmen Bennyhoff, Neils and Wolf.
No negative votes. Motion carried.
RAISE FOR JACK ERNST: A motion was made by Councilman Wolf and seconded
by Councilman Neils to give Jack Ernst a 50 per hour increase in pay.
I The following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Klingelhutz, Councilmen
Bennyhoff, Neils and Wolf. No negative votes. Motion carried.
II STOP 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,
Councilmen Bennyhoff, Neils and Wolf. No negative votes. Motion carried.
ITWIN HILLS PCA REPORT: The Village Attorney gave a report on Twin Hills
Farm. He will write a letter to the PCA acknowledging the two reports
that were sent to the Village about the Twin Hill Farms.
I VILLAGE HALL REMODELING: A motion was made
seconded by Councilman Neils to reject all bids osubmitted Bonn the fVillage
I Hall remodeling. The following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Klingelhutz,
Councilmen Bennyhoff, Neils and Wolf. No negative votes. Motion carried.
If_ TELEPHONE - LAKE ANN PARK: A motion was made by Councilman Wolf and sec-
onded by Councilman Bennyhoff to have a telephone installed at Lake Ann _
Park. The following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Klingelhutz, Councilman
IIBennyhoff, Neils and Wolf. No negative votes. Motion carried.
LAWN MOWER FOR PARKS: A motion was made by Councilman
by Councilman Bennyhoff to y lman Wolf and seconded
Y purchase a new Roof 60 inch demonstrator mower
I 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
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
I following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Klingelhutz, Councilmen Bennyhoff,
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.
I A 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
IllKlinglehutz, Councilmen Bennyhoff, Neils and Wolf. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
GEDNEY PROPERTY: A motion was made by Councilman Bennyhoff and seconded by
I 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.
No negative votes. Motion carried.
CITY OF
•
\11/4 CHANHASSEN
�� ., 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
January 26 , 1988 1
Mr. Lowell Carlson
4141 Kings Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Dear Mr. Carlson:
. I met with the City Attorney on January 21, 1988 , regarding your
application for a 12 ,000 square foot pole barn building on your
property. In reviewing the conditional use permit that was
granted to you by the City Council on November 4 , 1985, the
attorney advised that because one of the conditions required the
construction of the building prior to June 30 , 1986 , and because
the size of the building is large enough to constitute an expan-
sion of the contractor' s yard activity, your application must be
reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council .
Please be advised that the city is currently evaluating an ordi-
nance amendment to limit the size of buildings such as the one
you are proposing to be limited to 1 ,000 square feet. Because of
the nature of your use, however, the Planning Commission and City
Council may consider waiving that requirement given the tremen-
dous storage needs that you have. The next available Planning
Commission meeting is February 17, 1988 , at 7 : 30 p.m. here at
City Hall . Upon recommendation by the Planning Commission , the
matter would be considered by the City Council at the March 14 ,
1988 , meeting.
The size of this building is equal to the size of a typical com- 1
mercial or industrial building in the city' s commercial and
industrial districts .
Because of this fact, the Building Department will require struc-
tural calculations to analyze the beam and truss details and also
proper footing calculations , and wall and roof framing cross sec-
tions . As was discussed when you were in the office, you need to
submit a site plan showing the location of the building on the
property as well as any grading activity to be conducted on the
site. Runoff from the building would also need to be addressed.
- 1
Mr. Lowell Carlson
January 26 , 1988
Page 2
' Therefore, in order for the Planning Commission and City Council
review you should submit a site plan showing the proposed loca-
tion of the building on site, setbacks, proposed grades , etc.
' Twelve additional copies of the building plans should also be
submitted ( 7 for the Planning Commissioners and 5 for the City
Council members) .
Sincerely,-
\
757A/L1
Barbara Dacy
City Planner
t
' BD:v
ViA 71701 -17/
1
1
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 NOR WEST BANK BUILDING DAVID L. HARMEYER
ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH
VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE MICHAEL J.MAYER
PATRICK A. FARRELL SOUTH ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 55075 TIMOTHY BERG
DAVID L. GRANNIS, III J
ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661
March 10, 1988
Ms. Barbara Dacy, City Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Barb: '
Your letter of February 25, 1988 , asked me to respond to
several questions.
la. "Average Underdeveloped Land Value" is not a direct
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
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
for every plat. The purpose in doing so was administrative
convenience.
lb. I have not received the revised language.
lc. One ordinance can include all the changes in the zoning
ordinance. Reference should be made to the new City Code
numbering. '
2. Findings are enclosed.
3. Findings are enclosed. '
4. Enclosed is the revised Agreement.
5a. The City Council can revoke the CUP for non-compliance.
Carlson would, however, have the right to continue his operation
as a non-conforming use. He could not, however, expand the
operation over what existed in 1972. If by reason of exterior
storage of junk and the like a nuisance exists or if he has
expanded his operation, we could prosecute him.
t E�
MAR 10 1988 '
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
/1//'
Ms. Barbara Dacy
March 9, 1988
Page Two
5c. The City could waive the fee, but I can think of no
good reason for doing so.
Ve ly yours,
GRANNIS RANNIS, FA RE L
TSON, P.A.
1 BY:
aMr. r N. Kn s• -
RNK: srn
Enclosures
1 . _
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
t
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, Annette 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:
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 1
Wayne McCorney Applicant's Attorney
Mr . Chamberlain 4151 Kings Road
Jean Chamberlain 4151 Kings Road I
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
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.
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
I
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. 1
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
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 1
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. 1
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
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
•
1
P anning 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.
I 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
•
Planning Commission Meeting II
February 17 , 1988 - Page 7
II
Conrad : Have you done anything since November 4, 1985 to clean up the
II
area?
Lowell Carlson: Oh yes . You bet. Come out and look at it. The
II
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
I
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 II 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
II
things?
Lowell Carlson: Yes . That ' s where the whole trouble is . I 'm getting
II
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
II
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 I
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 II
memory.
Conrad : Usually we want to know how many pieces of equipment there are.
II
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
II
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
II
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
II
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
II
property. It' s very hard to keep track.
Erhart : According to your Minutes of your 1984 Planning Commission II 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
I
Dump Truck. Those were the vehicles that were listed during that time
II
'
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17 , 1988 - Page 8
II
I 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
I 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
Ihad 16 vehicles , licensed and unlicensed.
Conrad: You were there when?
IErhart : Today.
Conrad : It' s staff posture basically that not much has been done?
IDacy: That' s correct.
I Headla : What was your comment? We've got to look at this as a 1985
application?
I 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
I 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
Irecommend 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
Ithe 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
I 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
I couldn ' t resolve the debate with assessments and taxes on that expanded
building.
II 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
I aesthetics of the building. Do those requirements apply to someone
who 's grandfathered in?
I 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
I 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
II
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17 , 1988 - Page 9
permit. The applicant' s attorney is contesting the whole conditional
use permit process in the first place. What I 'm saying is that the City
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 .
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
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
into another problem. In our area , even Minnewashta Parkway, it' s
questionable from that shoulder is 66 feet wide. It ' s never been taken 11 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
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
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?
Lowell Carlson: No , it can' t be.
Headla : I thought it said 18 feet to an inch. If that ' s the case , I
get 37 feet.
Dacy: That' s the same dimension that I came up with on the scale '
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 .
Headla: 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
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
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
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
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
some type of control . I 'm not looking for an answer but that' s just an
opinion I have. 1
I
Planning Commission sszon Meetzng
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?
IDacy: Over the past year and a half, as Mr. Carlson relayed, we talked
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
I 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.
IBatzli : 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
I
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
I 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
I 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
1
Planning Commission Meeting
February 17, 1988 - Page 11
least some best efforts basis of going ahead with something toward
meeting these conditions from, Tim' s mention of the number of vehicles
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
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
cover 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
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
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
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
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
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
if you have this 12,000 square foot building? Will you take down all
those garages that are jammed to the rafters with stuff?
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
square feet, would that eliminate your need for all those other
buildings on the place or not? '
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
square feet?
Emmings : No , I said if you built your 12, 000 square foot building that
you' re asking for , would you still have a need for all those other
buildings out there?
Lowell Carlson: Yes, some.
Emmings : The other thing is, I noticed in a letter here you were asking
for structural calculations on the building. Did you ever get those?
I Planning Commission Meeting
ng
February 17 , 1988 - Page 12
IDacy: No . Depending on what size is approved, that would eventually be
required .
IEmmings: 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
I 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
I 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
II 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
I 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,
I 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
I 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.
I 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
I 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
I 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
I 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 .
I 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 . Volk, he could continue operation as long as the
Iterms of the conditional use were met.
Erhart : Okay, so it stays with the land .
IDacy: 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.
I
II
Planning
I
P ng Commission Meeting
February 17 , 1988 - Page 13
Erhart : The question was non-conforming . That ends with the sale of
the property. II
Dacy: The City staff ' s position is that they were , Mr . Carlson was II 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 I
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? I
Lowell Carlson: The little bit there is , all the neighbors , I see smoke 11 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 I
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 II 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
II
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
II
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 II 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?
I
Erhart : Yes .
Conrad : My feeling is , I think the 12, 000 square foot building is II
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 II 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.
II
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 II
II
Planning Commission
g 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?
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
I 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 .
IConrad : 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
I 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 .
' Erhart moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to
the City Council revoke the conditional use permit for Lowell Carlson .
IHeadla: Now we' re talking strictly the building?
Conrad : No .
IHeadla : His whole operation?
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
Planning Commission ommzsszon 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 .
I Conrad : Mr . Emmings said that if you build a 12,000 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 .
ILowell Carlson: Yes, that I did say.
I 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
I 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
I 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.
IEmmings : 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
Ibuilding. 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
Planning Commission n 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 1
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 March 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 an agreement 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
i