Findings of Fact
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
INRE:
Application of Chaska Gateway Partners, LLP and S. Asim Gu] for Subdivision approval for
two lots and one outlot (Arboretum Business Park ih Addition), Conditional Use Permit for
development within the Bluff Creek Corridor and Site Plan Approval for a 51,800 square-foot
office/warehouse building (Mamac Systems) with Variances.
On May 15,2007, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting
to consider the application of Chaska Gateway Partners, LLP and S. Asim Gul for Subdivision
Approval for two lots and one outlot (Arboretum Business Park ih Addition), Conditional Use
Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Corridor and Site Plan Approval for a 51,800
square-foot office/warehouse building (Mamac Systems) with Variances. The Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed subdivision preceded by published and
mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to
speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD).
2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Office/lndustria] and Parks/Open Space.
3. The legal description of the property is: Outlot C, Arboretum Business Park
4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible
adverse affects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) affects and our findings regarding
them are:
a. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
b. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and region a] plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
c. The physic a] characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water
drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
d. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
e. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
f. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and
1
g. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
1) Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
2) Lack of adequate roads.
3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
4) Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
5. Conditional Use Permit Findings:
a. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or
general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
b. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter.
c. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance
with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the
essential character of that area.
d. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
e. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets,
police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems
and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the
persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use.
f. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be
detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
g. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of
operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because
of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash.
h. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or
interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
1. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or
historic features of major significance.
J. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
k. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
1. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article.
6. Site Plan Review Findings:
2
a. Is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including
the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted;
b. Is consistent with this division;
c. Preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil
removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the
neighboring developed or developing or developing areas;
d. Creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features
and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development;
e. Creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special
attention to the following:
1) An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a
desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community;
2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
3) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design
concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures
and uses; and
4) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking
in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior
drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and
vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking.
f. Protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface
water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those
aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial
effects on neighboring land uses.
7. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not
grant a variance (for transparent windows and doors) unless they find the following facts:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue
hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size,
physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a
majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to
allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in
this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward from them meet these criteria.
3
Finding: The literal enforcement of the fenestration standards would cause an undue
hardship due to the site topography, which is approximately three feet above the ground
floor elevation and does not permit larger windows. In order to meet the standard, the
windows would have to extend up in to the roof structures.
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The need for the variance is due to the unique site characteristics and building
type.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel, but to accommodate site topography in the architectural
design of the building.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship, but due to the
topography of the site.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located
since the fenestration proposed is greater than in adjacent buildings.
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase
the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property
values within the neighborhood.
8. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not
grant a variance (for Bluff Creek Primary Zone setback) unless they find the following facts:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue
hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size,
physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a
majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to
4
allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in
this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward from them meet these criteria.
Finding: The literal enforcement of the Bluff Creek primary zone setback standards would
cause an undue hardship due to the meandering of the primary zone boundary. In order to
meet the standard, the developer would not be able to provide a driveway access to the
parking on the east side of the building, which is separate from the truck access.
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The need for the variance is due to the unique site characteristics and a desire to
separate truck from employee access and parking.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel, but to accommodate site constraints.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship, but due to the
configuration of the primary zone.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located,
but should improve safety for site users.
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase
the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property
values within the neighborhood.
9. The planning report #07-10 dated May 15,2007, prepared by Robert Generous, et aI, is
incorporated herein.
5
RECOMMENDA TION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the subdivision,
conditional use permit and site plan with variances.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15th day of May, 2007.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
6