1977 08 10
*
REGULAR CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 10, 1977
e
PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED REZONING TO R-1B
PORTION OF CARVER BEACH, RED CEDAR POINT, SHORE ACRES AND ST. HUBERTUS
Dick Dutcher called the hearing to order at 7:35 with the following
members present: Hud Hollenback, Roman Roos, Jerry Neher, and Walter
Thompson. Les Bridger came at 7:50. Mal MacAlpine was absent. The
following interested people were present:
Lillian Hague, 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
C. M. Niemeyer, 6998 Huron
C. A. Pedersen, 3713 So. Cedar Drive
David Hempel, 3707 So. Cedar Drive
George Way, 3831 Red Cedar Point Drive
Averil Lund, 3711 SO~f Cedar Drive
John Hunsinger, 4030 Kings Road
Jerold Meyer, 3935 Brown Lane, Minnetonka
Vernon Kerber, 7241 Powers Blvd.
Donald Heath, 4942 Drew So., Mpls. (9235 Lake Riley Blvd.)
Joyce Thompson, 3733 Hickory Ave.
Mr. and Mrs. Leo Rask, 3728 Hickory Ave.
Robert Thompson, 3733 Hickory Ave.
Mr. and Mrs. Ben Swenson, 74 Judith Drive, Chaska
Russell Tenney, 725 Kimball St. NE, Fridley
e
The City Planner read the official notice as published in the Carver
County Herailid. Over 300 notices were sent out regarding this proposed
rezoning.
Certain lots in Chanhassen do not meet the lot size requirements of
the present zoning. The proposed rezoning will have the following
requirements, if approved:
Minimum lot size will be reduced to 10,000 square feet, 60 foot
frontage, 20 foot front yard setback, and 7 foot side yard.
In Carver Beach this would include the area east of Nez Perce. The
city has assessed a local improvement project in this area. Within
the area 127 sewer and water units were assessed. Presently there
are 88 homes. There were 211 lots (20' x 100') which were assessed
an area charge. The majority of these lots will never be built on.
Approximately 15 of these will be assembled together to form building
sites. People, in response to the Carver Beach plan were assessed
on 10,000 square foot lots.
The St. Hubertus area was platted in 1887 in 60' x 140' lots. Because
the area is zoned R-l, coupled with previous planning techniques
renders the vast majority of the lots and structures as non-conforming.
The Red Cedar Point area was platted in 1913 in 40' x 120' lots.
The city has assessed 47 sanitary sewer and water units. Presently
there are 45 structures. All the structures for the most part are
non-conforming. Some residential growth is anticipated in the interior
area.
e
Shore Acres was platted in 1951 in 50' x 120' lots. Presently the city
is studying the feasibility of extending sanitary sewer to Shore Acres.
All structures in the area are non-conforming because the lots do not
meet dimension requirements.
Planning Commission Meeting August 10, 1977
-2-
Staff recommended that these lands be rezoned R-lB. If Shore Acres
is not served by sanitary sewer it remain as it is.
e
The hearing was opened for comments from persons present:
Dave Hempel - I am wondering how long until a decision is made? How
long do we have to get a petition to the Council to the opposite?
Dick Dutcher - We anticipate the Planning Commission will be making
a recommendation at the next regular meeting.
Bruce Pankonin - I would say l~ months.
Dave Hempel - I have talked to quite a number of people on the point
that were all opposed to it because of the density out there already.
In fact some of us are buying the land to keep housing out and paying
the assessments.
George Way - How far does Red Cedar Point go? To County Road l5?
Bruce Pankonin - Kirkham Road is about the western extent of Red Cedar
Point.
George Way - My property joins Kirkham Road. I have a garden there
that I can't take care of. It's a little over an acre. They put
two sewer assessments on it. They are on the easement. I only have
85 feet on the front lot on a city road. When I plot it, they couldn't
get a permit to build. The back lot has no city street just an
easement.
Bruce Pankonin - This proposed rezoning does not affect your property.
The city requires that all lots that are created front on a pUblic
street.
George Way - Under the new ordinance I could build. The other way,
I have only got 85 feet on a city street. This would give me a chance 4It
to use that property.
Mike Niemeyer - I think there are a lot of issues related to this
question. I think zoning is a very difficult thing to understand.
The one point that is of interest to me is the question of fiscal
disparity in the community. The neighborhood that you are lookingc
at now as. .potentially rezoning to smaller lots are those that tend
to be the older neighborhoods that have grown from consolidating
smaller lots. The guide plan for the Carver Beach area was put
together with the eye towards encouraging consolidation. It was
thought that the sewer and the roadway system would also assist in
encouraging consolidation. The question then, the older neighborhood,
smaller lots, tend to attract persons like myself with a small
income that it appealed to me to move to that area. There then, I
think, per capita probably a lower income level, a higher rate of
unemployment in this neighborhood and greater aid coming from the
government to assist families. If the 10,000 lot size does not
tend to reinforce and encourage an economic situation which you may
not want to encourage in Chanhassen, that of developing small lots
that encourage smaller homes and also satisfy the need of lower
income people.
In the text related to describing the R-lB single family district,
it states that the plot deficiencies in these neighborhoods,
neighborhoods rendered it impossible for certain of the lots within
said plats to meet the minimum yard, area, and lot width and depth ~
regulations of the current subdivision and zoning ordinances. I ,.,
suggest that maybe a possibility would be to allow the continuation
of variances on those hardship situations where a lot cannot be
made larger. Allow Y9urself the latitude of looking at each case.
e
e
e
.
Planning Commission Meeting August 10, 1977
-3-
Bruce Pankonin - The criteria on which the city not only established
the sewer project but also the assessment policy and also the rezoning
petition was the Carver Beach Plan. The Carver Beach Plan recognized
the unique qualities of that area. It recognized that there were
substandard ownership patterns dominate the eastern part of Carver
Beach. .
Mike Niemeyer - Hopefully, I will try and get a meeting of the Carver
Beach Association and respond back to the city in writing.
Pat Swenson - Does this 10,000 square foot lot size apply to all
property in the area, developed lakeshore and undeveloped?
Bruce Pankonin - In the Shore Acres area it applies only to those
platted lots, 1 through 42. It doesn't take into consideration the
land on the other side of Lake Riley Blvd. This does not preclude
any property owner in the city petitioning to have their land zoned
R-lB.
Roman Roos - Being a member of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
from the Planning Commission, it becomes very, very difficult, you
talk about variances, to deny a variance to these people so the
density question, I don't think, is of prime importance at this point.
If he has 10,000 square feet and applies for a variance and meets
the setback requirements there is not a lot we can do about it at
this point.
Dave Hempel - I know I could get 80% against this on Red Cedar Point.
I am trying to buy some land now to keep housing out. Other people
are doing the same thing. There aren't that many lots leftbl.:ttldable
out there. Should I present a petition to somebody on the board
here or to the Council?
Roman Roos - I think you could take to Bruce Pankonin and it would
run through it's natural course.
Russell Tenney - I have five lots on Carver Beach Road and Ivy.
I don't even come up to 10,000 feet. What are we going to do with
them?
Bruce Pankonin - Carver Beach Road cuts at a diagonal. The upper lots are not 100
feet long. This rezoning would not help him out at all.
Russell Tenney - I think it is pretty close to 9,000.
Dick Dutcher - You, just as any other property owner in the city have the right
to petition for a variance. That is an avenue available to you.
Mike Niemeyer - If you have a requirement of 15,000 square feet and someone comes
in and asks for a variance to 10,000, you assume it's a one-third reduction, it's
a possibility but if it came in and the requirement was 15,000 and they asked for
a variance down to 6,000 that represents more than a 50% reduction and you would
probably say no. If you redefine the criteria down to 10,000.so now at 10,000
they come in and ask for a one-third reduction or 7,000 and you feel obliged
because it's such a small increment and it's almost making the 10,000. Are we
setting up a situation where we are going to start to encourage a condition to
go 'even; beyond where you recommend?
Bruce Pankonin - That is a variance consideration and doesn't enter into the
picture. The ordinance is rather explicit as to what the criteria you use to
grant a variance.
John Hunsinger - I would like to go back to Mr. Way's lot for a moment. This is
just on the west side of Kirkham Road. What affect will this have on his road?
Bruce Pankonin - None. He would have to petition,as an owner of real property
"
Planning Commission Meeting August 10, 1977
-4-
to have his property rezoned to R-1B.
Pat Swenson - If this ordinance is not passed and the sewer goes through Shore 4It
Acres, we have a summer house which we are looking forward to remodeling or
replacing, at the present time we are a non-conforming piece of property. If we
are assessed and something were to happen to that cabin, would we have to go
through the process of getting a variance in order to build again?
Russell Larson - If the property were assessed a unit we would be hard pressed,
I think, to deny them the right to rebuild or build.
A letter. was read from Tim Stone. Said letter is attached to these minutes.
Roman Roos moved to close the p~blic hearing and allow 25 days for submission
of petitions and letters. Motion seconded by Les Bridger and unanimously
approved. Hearing closed at 8:50 p.m.
Jerry Neher left the meeting.
MINUTES: Amend.the July 27, 1977, Planning Commission minutes under APPLE VALLEY
RED-E-MIX by adding: Jerry Neher reminded Mr. Ericson that the previous silo
was to be a fly ash silo. Mr. Ericson felt that was not the case and the
reason for the request at this time is because they need the fly ash in order
to compete.
A motion was made by Hud Hollenback and seconded by Walter Thompson to approve
the July 27, 1977, Planning Commission minutes as amended. The following voted
in favor: Dick Dutcher, Hud Hollenback, Roman Roos, and Walter Thompson. Les e
Bridger abstained. Motion carried.
ALLEN GRAY SUBDIVISION - SKETCH PLAN: The City Planner explained the proposal.
The petitioner is requesting two actions on the part of the Planning Commission
and Council. The first is to rezone 5.42 acres located on the extreme end of
Lake Riley Blvd. from R-1A to P-l and to subdivide into 12 residential lots.
The City is taking bids to consider constructing sanitary sewer in the area.
The developer is proposing to construct a Ipll loop private street in the plat.
The City Planner felt the developer should be encouraged to widen the two-way
part of the street to 24 feet. The Planner recommended the Planning Commission
look with"favor on the proposal and the developer proceed to preliminary plan
if the city orders sanitary sewer in the area.
Allen Gray and John Cosmos were present. An outlot is proposed to be owned by
the 12 property owners. It will be a recreation area with a tennis court and
possibly a putting green.
Members generally liked the proposal and t1r. Gray will proceed to preliminary
plan if the Council approves the bids on the sanitary sewer.
STATE WIDE AUTO PARTS: The property is located on Highways 212 and 169. Mr. Vasser
is proposing to build a pole building to be used for storage. The property is
is the flood plain of the Minnesota River and is zoned R-1A. Auto salvage yards
are not permitted in the R-1A Use District. The City Planner views this proposed
addition as an intensification of a non-conforming use status and a building
permit should not be granted.
The City Attorney explained the history of this salvage yard. This matter was
the subject of litigation right after the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance.
e
l ",f
.
e
-
Planning Commission Meeting August 10, 1977
-5-
In 1958 the Township of Chanhassen issued a permit for this operation subject
to the then zoning ordinance which required a security bond in the amount of
$1,000. This bond has been maintained to the present time. Objection was made
by the owner under the zoning ordinance whereby we attempted to put them out
of business within one year after the enactment of the ordinance. In 1974 the
ci.ty entered into. a stipulation in Hennepin County District Court concerning
this matter which contained certain provisions.
Russell Larson - It is my view at this point that we have two matters here that
concern us; 1) this would be an intensification of a non-conforming use and 2)
the ordinance recently enacted #64 may have application here which is the
moratorium ordinance. It would be my recommendation that the matter be referred
to the Council for a decision with the recommendation that no permit be issued.
Howard Kaplan and Vern Vassar were present.
Howard Kaplan - The stipulation was entered into between Russ (Larson) and
myself back in 1974.Pursuant to the stipulation the Hennepin County District
Court entered a Judgment and Decree incorporating all the terms of the stipulation.
Paragraph 11 is very clear and what it says is if Mr. Vassar comes in and
applies for a building permit the Council and the Planning Commission can't say,
I am sorry we can't give it to you because that use on your property is a
non-conforming use and you do not have the right to alter any structure or add
any structure or intensify the buildings on that particular parcel of land
pursuant to Section 20.02. The agreement says you can1t do that. We envisioned
this when we sat down and drafted the stipulation. That's why we put it in.
The primary concern of the city at that particular time was that there might
be some problem because it was a flood plain zone and we might need the approval
of the Lower Minnesota River Waters'hed District. Because of that this provision
was put in. We are not automatically entitled to a building permit but it can't
be denied because of the fact that we are a'non-conforming use. That's what
the lawsuit was all about. Now, we come about a year later in 1975 and we
appear before the Council with the application for a building permit. The
plans meet all the applicable code requirements. The consideration by the
Council at that time was, well, you are a non-conforming use and you are
altering the building and adding on and that1s a violation and you can't do it.
At that point we reminded them of the stipulation and they said perhaps you are
right on that, what we are going to do is this, we are going to refer it back
to the Planning Commission with a directive that there be approval by the Lower
Minnesota River Watershed District in order to proceed any further. We have
recently received the approval of the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District
for construction of the plan as submitted to the Planning Commission. At this
point there is no legal basis to deny the application for a building permit.
The purpose of the building is to take auto parts that are sitting in various
location of the lot, exposed where anyone can see them, and put them into a nice
looking building.
Russell Larson - I would like to study these matters that cover the
interim period_from 1974 to date. I don't have anything in my files.
Howard Kaplan - The Commission has all the relevant facts ,before it.
There are no further facts that I can conceive of that could be brought
before the Commission.
Bruce pankonin - I did recommend that Mr. Vassar and Mr. Kaplan seek
the approval of the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District and the
State Environmental Quality Council if necessary. I can't believe
that these people are not concerned about the run off of dismantled
vehicles into the Minnesota River. This operation is within the flood
plain of the Minnesota River. I am very concerned about that aspect.
I have to abide by the attorney's agreements as to what uses are
permitted on here. It's taking it out of the hands of the planner.
Planning Commission Meeting August 10, 1977
-6-
'.
I am very concerned about tires floating in the river and oil
perculating down into the flood plain of the river. I don't know
what regulatory agency has that control.
Howard Kaplan - They came on site before they approved the motion.
The engineer appeared on site. He looked at the screening and
concluded that there would not be any adverse affects by the
construction of this building.
Bruce pankonin - The basis of my concern for any run off perculating
through daily is the attempt of the federal government, Department
of the Interior, to acquire all the land around this property as a
federal wildlife refuge and I want to make sure that anything that
happens on this property won't be detrimental to that.
e
Hud Hollenback - They have gone through the procedures they are
required to go through. The court ruled in their favor. I don't
really see where we have to much of an argument. I think it should
be out attempt to check out and see if, with a permit we could agree
on certain conditions that we might think would improve the appearance
of the property. As far as the building, I think it would be an
improvement. I would suggest we move to approve the application nor
a' building permit after we see the drawings and,with Russ's help,
see if we can't establish some other conditions to the issuance of
the permit.
Howard Kaplan - We would work with the Commission.
Walter Thompson - If you have driven by this location recently and
just casually looked at it, it's very well organized. I was by it
three or four weeks ago and it caught my eye for the appearance of
this sort of thing. Plus the fact it's already down there in an 4Ia
area where you have got the motel and a couple of oil stations and
I don't think it's distracting from it at all. I am inclined to
think that a building there would be very adequate to this situation.
Hud Hollenback moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council that they issue a building permit to construct a 150' x
70' storage, building as described in the plans submitted to the City
Planner. We would also like to hold open an option whereby the
Planning Commission work with Mr. Vassar as to type of building and
any other improvements, such as additional screening,that we might
agree would improve the area. Motion seconded by Walter Thompson
and unanimously approved.
Dick Dutcher - I have got some serious problems with some of the
issues that were raised tonight and I think they should be made a
part of the record and forwarded to the City Council for consideration.
1. Application of the Shore land Management Act.
2. I think we do have some serious reservations not only about
aesthetics and also the long term affect of ground water pollution.
3. We recognize the time frame and the procedures in which the
petitioner has been placed and recommend that this process be
expedited as soon as possible because it is not fair to the petitioner.
Mr. Kaplan requested this be placed on the September 19 Council
agenda.
e
1978 PLANNING COMMISSION BUDGET: The Planner and Planning Commission
members discussed the proposed budget.
Planning Commission Meeting August 10, 1977
-7-
COUNCIL MINUTES: Members discussed previous Council action.
tit Roman Roos moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Les Bridger and
unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Don Ashworth
City Manager
e
e
I.
I
I
I
It
August 5, 1977
.
City of Chanhassen
Chanhassen City Counci I
City Planning Commission and City Administrator Don Ashworth
City Planner Bruce Pankonin
Chanhssen, Minnesota
Dea r Sirs:
In as much as I wi I I be out of town during the week in which the Chanhassen
City,Planning Commision wil I hold its publ ic hearing to discuss the
proposed ammendment to the zoning ordinance to permit construction on lots
of 10,000 square feet in selected sections of the city, ! felt that I
should indicate my feel ings on this matter by letter~
I. Whi Ie I do not oppose the proposal to permit construction on 10,000
square feet lots perse, I do object to the catagoral way in which
the proposed ordinance'would permit this to occur.
a,
If 10,000 square foot lots are in fact acceptable perse, then
why are they not acceptable on a city wide basis (as opposed to
the rather "selective" neighborhood basis being contemplated),
e
I can only hope that whatever minimwm standards the planning
commission would set for such a parcel would not be descriminative
on the basis of some preconceived economic or social preconceptions
or presumed City economic requirement. Surely a lot which is
classified as bui Idable in Carver Beach or Red Cedar Point by
area, must also be considered bui Idable in Bloomberg's Addition,
Western Hi I Is etc. The alternative lends itself to the equivalent
of "spot zoning", a concept which seems somewhat inconsistent
with my understanding of city planning objectives,
b.
I'm sure that lots which are in the 10,000 square foot range
must, by virtue of their smaller size and yard setbacks, pose
some rather specific problems, which would require a more careful
examination than those at the size currently included in the
ordinance. As i understand the proposed ordinance change, ~
parcel which met the area and yard setbacks would automatically
be considered bui Idable. This indescriminate and catagorical
authorization encourages the possibi I ity of overlooking problems
whrch are mostly undoubtedly going to occur with respect to
adjoining properties, drainage, topography, natural vegatation
etc. on lots and yards of this size.
"
2. assume that the city wishes to encourage consol idation of parcels
rather than subdivision of larger existing parcels into substandard
lot sizes. It seems reasonable to assume that if 10,000 square foot
lots are permissable, I as a land developer, or owner of a larger
plotted parcel, would be strongly encouraged to subdivide on the
- continued -
It
City of Chanhassen
August 5, 1977
Page 2
smal lest parcel size permitted (for obvious economic reasons). Is
this consistent city-wide planning objectives?
It seems that a more viable alternative to the proposed ordinance,
assuming that 10,000 square foot lots are desireable from the city's
point of view, would be to adopt the minimum lot size of 10,000 square
feet, but on a city-wide basis and only for previously plotted and
subdivided parcels and only when an analysis on an individual case-by-
case ,bas i s of the parce I in questIon i nd i cates that the parce lis su itab I e
for this zoning.
Thank you for your time.
--::rS!---
TS/cs
e
.
~
.' ..
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DISTRICT COURT
e
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Court File No. 688494
Calendar No. 86015
Valley Auto Parts,
Plaintiff ,
vs.
STIPULATION FOR SETTLEMENT
Village of Chanhassen,
Defendant.
WHEREAS, the plaintiff commenced the above entitled action
to enjoin defendant from interfering with the use of the subject property
involved herein by the plaintiff, his heirs, assigns, and successors as an
-
automobile salvage yard; and
WHEREAS, defendant interposed an Answer in this matter
alleging that plaintiff was not entitled to operate an automobile salvage
yard on the subject property; and
WHEREAS, the trial in the above entitled matter was set for
March 18, 1974, before the above named Court; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto have reached an agreement for
the complete settle'ment of the above entitled action.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by and between the parties
hereto as follow s :
1. That the Court may enter its Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law and Order for Judgment in accordance with the terms and conditions
of this Stipulation upon pIa intiff' s presenting its Motion for the Order to
the Court at a special term thereof.
-...
"".,;.~
..
.'
.
2. Valley Auto Parts Company agrees to comply with all of the
conditions and requirements as set forth in Section 6 (l7) (a) under the
zoning ordinance enacted for the Townst~~ of Chanhassen I Carver County I
I? I-It..... ,.It })12c.1-I '3 ,q 5 2.. J
Minnesota I effective M~}l 2J I (S-GJ. (For purposes of this agreement
any reference herein to Valley Auto Parts Company shall include the following:
(a) LaVerne M. Vassar d/b/a Valley Auto Parts Company; (b) LaVerne M.
Vassar, and (c) State Wide Auto Salvage I Inc. (successor to Valley Auto
Parts Company) and any references to the City of Chanhassen shall be the
same as if there was a reference to the Village of Chanhassen).
3. It is acknowledged by the City of Chanhassen that Valley
Auto Parts Company is presently operating its salvage yard pursuant to a
e
permit granted to it in 1958 by the Township of Chanhassen under the
authority granted in Section 6 (16) (a) of Amendment 6 to the Chanhassen
Township Zoning Ordinance I effective May 29, 1958.
4. Valley Auto Parts Company shall furnish to the City of
Chanhassen on or about April 1 of each year an inventory of all cars
situated on its property as of March 15.
5. Valley Auto Parts Company agrees that the mobile home
situated on its property shall not be rented or leased to any individual or
family and shall only be used for purposes of providing housing for a watch-
,
man. LaVerne M. Vassar may reside in the mobile home in the capacity of
a watchman for his property I but not including family residence use.
6. The automobiles situated on the subject property shall not
be stacked on top of each other except in the southwest corner of the subject
property where the cars may be stacked subject to the following conditions.
a. The car bodies situated in the southwest corner
shall be removed monthly from the subject property
-2-
'.
I
~.
during the period of May 1 through November 1.
b.
During the period from November 1 through May I,
the car bodies situated in the southwest comer
shall be removed every other month, to wit; on or
about January 1 and on or about March 1.
7. Valley Auto Parts Company agrees to provide screening
along the Highway 169 side of the subject property. The screening
shall consist of lilac bushes, poplar trees, or similar screening, which shall
be planted as soon as poss ible and shall be continuously ma intalned
by Valley Auto Parts Company, its successors, and assigns. Valley
Auto Parts Company further agrees that in the event the existing natural
screening on the other three sides of the subject property is destroyed
it will plant lilac bushes or similar screening along those s ides of the
.
property.
8. The City of Chanhassen agrees that Valley Auto Parts
Company its successors and assigns, shall be permitted to operate an
automobile salvage yard on the subject property as a non-conforming
use under Section 20 of Ordinance No. 47 in accordance with the provisions
therein except as modified by the terms of this settlement agreement.
9. The City of Chanhassen agrees that Section 20.05 of
Ordinance No. 47 of the City of Chanhassen shall not be applicable to
the subject property. (Section 20.05 deals in part with a year amortization
period for junk yards.)
10. The City of Chanhassen agrees that Section 20.01 of
Ordinance No. 47 of the City of Chanhassen which sets forth a time table of
amortization for various types of buildings will not be applicable to the
building presently situated on the subject property, nor to the subject property
. itself.
-3-
~
.,
.
11. Valley Auto Parts Company agrees that it w ill not enlarge
the subject property by purchasing any abu,tting property to the subject
property for purposes of expanding its bus iness. It is understood
by the City of Chanhassen and Valley Auto Parts Company that this agreement
is without prejudice to Valley Auto Parts Company applying to the City of
Chanhassen, the State of Minnesota, or any other governmental agency with
respect to obtaining permission to construct a building on the subject
property. With respect to any applications for a building permit made by Valley
Auto Parts Company, Section 20.02 of Ordinance No. 47 of the City
of Chanhassen which provides in part that no structural alterations shall
be permitted for a non-conforming use, shall not be applicable in considering
e
whether the permit shall be granted.
12. The City of Chanhassen and Valley Auto Parts Company
agree that Section 20.04 of Ordinance No. 47 of the City of Chanhassen
shall be applicable to the subject property. (Section 20.04 deals with
termination of use) .
13. It is agreed that Valley Auto Parts Company shall have
the right to transfer, convey, and sell the subject property to any person I
entity, or corporation for use as an automobile salvage yard on the condi-
tion that the terms of this agreement shall be binding upon its successors
and assigns. The above shall include but not be limited to transfer of the
property to the Estate of LaVerne Vassar upon his death and the further
conveyance by the Estate.
14. The City of Chanhassen agrees that it will incorporate the
terms of the settlement agreement in its Village Council Meeting Minutes
and adopt a resolution approving the same.
15. Valley Auto Parts Company agrees that on its behalf
the Stipulation entered into herein shall be executed by:
,,~
-4-
~.. +>...,~----_.._._-- -.,-
,
:; ~
..
.
a. LaVerne M. Vassar I individually.
b. LaVerne M. Vassar I d/b/a Valley Auto Parts Company.
c. State Wide Auto Salvage I Inc. I by LaVerne M.
Vassar I (its president) successor to Valley Auto
Parts Company.
16. Valley Auto Parts Company agrees that it shall be governed
by all other ordinances and regulations duly enacted by the City of Chan-
hassen I except as otherwise provided herein.
,pA. A'A..LI:t
DATED this II day of ~
, 1974.
\5~o/?,~
Witness
('~
/J /'---:~ 0 Q j
/'
Y; &//-r -./1 ~'1?15' rJ,1A1-"~ '1. J
Witnes# t
l~o ",)'''"' II. ~GSbQ'/
Witness. . (}
)fklt ) r'fl&.. b, 0 ~ I; (). j
Witnes~ 0
,~
~ /~(/7; /1 i.,-y) < /J f6_9 ~
Witness I . cr
Y11].A J,pV/J1e ~ qLf~
Witness) {
FOR PLAINTIFF:
~p;~&~~
LaVerne M. Vassar, Individual y
e
':L%~- ~;:(H/?
LaVerne M. Vassar I d/b/a valley
Auto Parts Company
'd:~7n/~f/
State Wide Auto Salvage, Inc.
(Successor to Valley Auto Parts
Company) by LaVerne M. Vassar,
its President.
~--n cUu-L ,,-1/dA~vJ
Witness
0'nC,)1~,C{ /rn. 1/~--C Q,CA/nI!rTJ7
Witness
e'
-5-
, "',\'
(
e
sd',:
ST}\l:~ ()i;! :..~TI~.8SGT!\.
633 49~}
DISTRICT COU~7
COT.E:J::f m' IT2J::m:::;PTII
FOURTH ,TL'JJICI1\L DISTRICT
Valley Auto?urts,
Pluintiff,
vs.
JUDGEEIIT
Vill~~c of Chunhussen,
l4inncsota
April 26, 1.971~
Defenda.'1t,
The above entitled action having been regularly placed upon the
calendar of the above nomed CO".1r"t for the September A.D. 1973 General
.
Term thereof, came on for trial before the Court on the 11th day of
April A.D. 1974, ~'1d the Court, after hearing the evidence adduced
at said trial and being f'ully advised in the premises, did, on the
11th day of April A.D. 1974, duly make and file its findings and
order for judgment herein.
NO"'~T, :pursuant to said order and on ~otion of Eessrs.. Rosen, Kv:plan
& Ballcnthin by lIov;ard t.. Kapla..'1., Esq., Attorneys for the plaintiff, IT
IS HEREBY ADJUDGED PJID DECREED:
1. That V.Uley Auto Parts Company shall comply with all of the
conditions and requirements asset forth in Section 6 (17) (a) under
the zoning ordinance enacted for the Tmrnship of Chanhassen, Carver
County, NiU1'1esota" effective Haren 3, 1952. Any reference herein to
Valley Auto Parts COrrIpcmy shall include the follmling: (a) LaVerne H.
e
Vassar dfbf a Vnlley Auto Parts Corr;:p~; (b) LaVerne M. Vassar, and
(c) State Wide Auto Salvage, Inc. (succ~ssor to Valley Auto Parts Com-
J;la..1.Y) und any references to the City of C1w.zlh2.sse~kh8.D_ be the S2I'1e us
if "there 'was a Teference to the Village of Chmu'l<lssen.
2. TLmt Valley Autp Pexts CompCL'lY is presently apcratin.3 its
__~.r'-"_"''' ~,.....~_"."1 "'l'..,..-.............."...... -Tr""II"" ~'"::\~. .........-...<:1... .........:J ,.." 1 ~" l.~!~?, 1-,_,-,..: :--.1.,.~ J:'-~0.-."",..."",
~)-~:~~."'-\'__.-.; 1'1'--;'\"-''' ;~;...I.:"'~':'i.....:....~...t tu c. :...~;:::.;.;..l:L.t C,L.._,:-~t~.....:~U..t'_l ~.t .~:-. ~..--.?-- --.' ~'--;.- --- ......-
S111:9 of Ch~ll1.o.~::o;e:n under the <'J.uthority grO-'1ted in S2CtiO~'l 6 (16) (a)
-1~
"-
~ ....
of AI",c:1d.;:'ent 6 t~ th~
C'n2.llitr '1 S:3 C n
r"1 .. .
l. O~r-rnSlll P
i',onins Onlin::.nce,
ef.fcl~ti\"c
~,l<)y ?9, 195.1) .
e
'3.. Tho.t Valley kJ.to Parts COl."1I'.:rr.y shall fu'r'nir;h to the City of
Ch~~lo.sscn on or about April 1 of each year an invcntolJT of all Ca?3
situ~2.tccl on its prop0rty ss of l!a.rch 15.
I~. 'Illo:t the mobile ho,ne situated on the subject property sh':1.11
not be rented or leased to any individual or fiimily and shall only be
used for pur:poses of' providing hou.sing for a iiatchY:1Dfl. LaVerne H. Vnsso.r
1'1<:ty' reside in the nobile h01':.e in the cap'.city of a ,\';2:CCM0.21 for his
property, but not including f'mnily reside"ce use.
5. The autor.'!obiles situated on the subject property sh3.11 not be
stacl:ed on top of each other except in tha SOllth1Jest corner of the 300-
ject property uhere the cars may be stacked subject to the following
c ondi"'cions :
e
A. ~'he Cm" bodies situated in the south1~-est corner
shall be removed monthly froo the subject prop-
eWJ during the period of gay 1 through Novem.ber}l.
B. During the period from Hovember 1 through }',!ay 1,
the car bodies situa.ted in the south,'rest corner
shall be removed every other month, to-1.rit; on or
about January 1 and on or' 8:bOUt Harch 1.
6. That Vnlley Auto Parts Corrrparw shnll provide screening along
the Higi:l,,;,ra:y 169 side of the subject property. The screening shall
consist of lilac bushes, poplar trees, or similar screening, li'nich
shall be r>la..'1.ted as soon as possible and shall be continuously main-
t$,ined by Vulley Auto Pa-'l"i;s CO'!l!}?a.ny, its successors and a.ssigns to In
the event the existing natural screening on the other -Gltree sides of
the subject propel""bJ is destroyed Valley Auto Parts Compa.71Y 1lill plant
lilac bushes or similar screening along those si.des of the property.
-
7. ~L'hat the City of Chanhassen sho.11 permit Vp..lley Auto Parts
Company, its successors and assigns to operate a..YJ. automobile salvage
yoxd on the subject property as a non-COnf0!11ing use, under Dectioi20
of Ordinance'No~ 47 in accordance with the provisions therein except
8.S T1'oc1ified by the terms of thi3 scttlenent <'lgTcerrent.
o. S8ctio~~ 20~05 of" Orct5_n(.:..:.lce I[08 lV7of' t.1L~ C~~'cJ o"i"' CT::.~'G.11~).~"33~;?;.
sh:J,ll not be 8.pplicdSlc to the subject property. (Section 20.05 dellS
-2-
";"."""""-,
~___~_d___L_---'--------'-'_.~~.~~~ '<'"'<
~ ~~C"-~..\.~.__""~....__ ~__.
,- .,~..- ,_.."-.-.-_.~,...,,,.-.............:~c.~~.....,~~"'" <._~ ~~
.~:
< r
~,
.
.
.-4,i
\,
~7:'a~..tlz~:..t ~ C~. '9::''':(:.:~ :0r jll~'-'"
ds).
in :J~~"":'
.,': ~ "tr1 ~
.. r("'o "" 1~
.} -. -.~
.
"J. ~:;ct~O:1 2;~'.Cl of O~'Ci.LYlnc'; ~b. 4'{ of tilt: Clty 0[' ChcJth1.'-i:H'~'1
'.ihic:l s~ts fOI'th J.. t ::'::::2 'bole of n!:'o::-t~ z[,',tion foL' ~Jc~riouZ t:r'P'28 of
bnJ.lr1i~";:s sh7.111 not be 2.p'plica'ble to the building presently sitU'lced.
on i~hc~ su~)jcct. -Pl'op.:;rty, :lor to the subject prO})0rty itself.
10. Valley Auto ?m'ts Cowp:,-ny shall not enlarge the subject
prcports' by purchasing ~~y abutting property to the subject property
for pUl'poses of e^~anding, its bU3iness. The Courts' OrJcr herein
entol'cd upon the Stir>u.lEltion for Settlement by the p0.rties hereto is
/,'
\'TUhaut prejudice to Va.lley Auto Part.s Corr,patl.y applying to the City or
Chanl1n.ssen, the state of i,~innesota, or any other' governmental agency
with respect to obtaL~ing peTI~ission to constl~ct a building on the
subject property. With respect to any applications for a building permit
yaade by Valley Auto Furta Conpauy, Section 20.02 of Ordinance He. t~7 of
the City of Chanhassen which provides in "part that no structural alterations
shall be permitt.ed for a nonconforming use, shall not be applicable in
considering vThether the }?el.'mi t shall be granted.
11. That Section 2Q.04 of Ordinance No. 1}7 of the City of Cha..."L"l}a.ssen
shall be applicable to the subject property. (Section 20.04 deals v."ith
termination of use).
12. That V 21.1ey Auto Parts Company sha...U have the right to trans-
fer, convey, and sell the subject property to any person, ent.ity, or
corporation for use as 3.n automobile salvage yard on the condit.ion that
the terms of this agreement shall be binding upon its successors and.
, assigns. The abov.e Shall include but not be limited to tra..'1si'er of the
property to the Estate of LaVerne Vassar upon his death and the further
conveyo.nce by the Estate.
13. The City of Cbanhassen shall incorporate the terms of the
settlereent 2,greement in its Village Council I.ieeting}-1inutes and a.dopt
a resolution e:pproving the smne.
14. Valley Auto Parts Company shall be governed by all other ordi-
ne-mccs and rersulat:i.ons duly enacted by the City of Ch::nlnssen except as
c-:~:--: ',_:~'~~.Il ~2 2 }?:'o'.r5*(1t~~rl ht~Y2in.,
? 'l' 1 D' f"l ~\" 1':' ->, l ........
.,/ J ~~.i,:,., 1"'\
c.>"""" .....; 1.1..:~ _"J jj.
D ("\'T '!(
~'). ~ ;L,:.....
bY 'TEE COURT:
Fife::! April 26, 1971~
Clerk of District Court
By (//1,/7 }/!j/ " fl
- (;J' (7'/'7 ~/i.i'~J/
STME Of MINNLSOTi<, COUNTY Of HUWEPIN
Coctifi\'<i to De a lFln12nd CP",\Ct copy of the
orig1ll31 on f:!e ~lid of rr.:c",j in mf o/lice,
~r,AY 1 3 rS74 .
~' :Ii:;i:',C:'Y' 01 fJlStpct CGur1
~y 'dj f' ,;(,/,
.' ~;,.;::J-.f:s.-'=:L~':/?'!Il-' [J,-,putv
1./ .
CI:T~I~:.~.:~ Of J)IST~'iCT COTJI~l'
Depirty
,c' J
fl" '.' ;." }2./~ - };" D'
)'I~__ ,/, ,..-....f':.i,P///VJ1t", J~.....~i: ::r~~:..Y
--~ ~-'''-7J~
-3-