08-01 Findings of Fact
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
IN RE:
Application of Kraus-Anderson Realty Corporation for the following:
1. Planned Unit Development Amendment to the existing standards.
2. Variance to allow reduced setbacks from collector roads.
3. Preliminary Plat to subdivide 14.90 acres into 5 lots and 1 Outlot - CROSSROADS OF
CHANHASSEN.
4. Site Plan Review for the construction of eight buildings.
On February 19,2008, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application of Kraus-Anderson Realty Corporation for a Planned Unit
Development Amendment, Variance, Preliminary Plat and Site Plan review. 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-Mixed Use, PUD-Mixed Use.
2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Mixed Use.
3. The legal description of the property is shown on the attached Exhibit A.
4. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse
affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are:
a. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and
provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive
Plan.
Finding: It complies with providing mixed use (residential and neighborhood
commercial) at the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 312. The plan also
requires all mixed use developments to be developed as a Planned Unit Development.
b. The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the
area.
1
Findin2: The proposed uses are and will be compatible with the present and future land
uses of the area through the implementation of the design standards, landscaping,
architecture, etc.
c. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning
Ordinance.
Findin2: The proposed uses will conform with all performance standards contained in
the Zoning Ordinance such as design standards, signage, durable materials, uses, etc., if
the setback variance is approved.
d. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
Findin2: The proposed uses are intended to meet the daily needs of the area. It could
potentially add convenience to the homeowners in the area.
e. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not
overburden the city's service capacity.
Findin2: The site is located within the Municipal Urban Service Area. The proposed
use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's
service capacity.
f. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the
property.
Findin2: Based upon traffic studies conducted by the applicant's traffic engineer, traffic
generation by the proposed uses is within capabilities of streets serving the property.
5. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not
grant a variance 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.
Findin2: The literal enforcement of this chapter does cause an undue hardship. Due to the
type of development the applicant is proposing, it is imp0l1ant to bring the buildings closer
to the street. All the parking lots are hidden from views by the buildings.
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
2
Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are not applicable to all
properties that lie within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. PUDs may provide
flexibility in the standards in an effort to meet comprehensive plan policies for the creation
of a better design. This is a mirror of standards established east of the subject site.
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 proposed variance is necessary to accommodate the proposed development
style. This is a mixed-use development with urban retail. Such uses are generally located
closer to the right-of-way and have a sidewalk around them.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The proposed variance is necessary to accommodate the proposed building
within 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 a 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.
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 still maintains extensive areas of open space and will not
impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the
congestion of the public streets.
6. 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.
Finding: The subdivision meets the intent of the city code subject to the conditions of the
staff report and the PUD.
b. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan.
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans.
3
c. The physical 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.
Findin2: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified
in this report.
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.
Findin2: The proposed subdivision will be served by adequate urban infrastructure.
e. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage.
Findin2: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to
conditions of approval.
f. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements ofrecord.
Findin2: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather
will expand and provide all necessary easements.
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.
Findin2: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure.
7. In evaluating a site plan and bui lding plan, the city shall consider the development's
compliance with the following:
a. Consistency 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. Consistency with this division.
c. Preservation of 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 areas.
4
d. Creation of 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. Creation of 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.
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.
h. Protection of 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.
Findin2: The proposed development is consistent with the City's design requirements, the
comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, the design standards, and the site plan review
requirements with the exception of the setbacks which will require a variance and PUD
amendment. Staff is recommending approval of both. The site design is compatible with the
surrounding developments. It is functional and harmonious with the approved development
for this area.
The Planning Commission regards the project as a reasonable use of the land. The overall design
is sensitive to the City's image.
8. The planning report #08-01, dated February 19,2008, prepared by Sharmeen AI-Jaff, et aI, is
incorporated herein.
5
RECOMMENDA TION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Planned Unit
Development Amendment, Variance for perimeter, Preliminary Plat and Site Plans.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this _ day of
BY:
6