Findings of Fact
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
INRE:
Application of Mark Leutem, KLMS Group, LLC for the following:
Request for Minor PUD Amendment to allow a drive-thru window; a site plan amendment to
add a drive-thru window; and a variance to the required number of parking spaces on property
zoned Planned Unit Development.
On October 21,2008, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application of Mark Leutem, KLMS Group, LLC for a Planned Unit
Development Amendment, Site Plan Amendment, and Variance. The Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing on the proposed application 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 District.
2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Commercial.
3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Shopping Center.
4. Planned Unit Development Amendment
The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse
effects of the proposed amendment to the Arboretum Village PUD design standards to permit a
drive-thru window as a permitted use. The six (6) effects 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 inconsistent with the official City Comprehensive
Plan as drive-thru in a neighborhood related commercial changes the commercial
character of the development to cater to commuter retail user.
b. The proposed use is or will be incompatible with and compete with the present and future
land uses of the area in that the amendment will permit commuter commercial uses,
rather than neighborhood service uses, potentially changing the character of the
development.
1
c. The proposed use would not conform to all performance standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance including compatibility with adjacent uses, parking requirements, and
traffic circulation requirements.
d. The proposed use may depreciate the values of the surrounding area by permitting a use
that may negatively impact traffic circulation and access to users.
e. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not
overburden the city's service capacity as the subdivision is provided with adequate
infrastructure to accommodate the use.
f. Traffic generation by the proposed use may be within capabilities of streets serving the
property. However, internal traffic circulation may become a problem.
5. In evaluating a site plan and building 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.
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.
2
f. 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 request for a drive-thru window is inconsistent with the standards in the PUD.
6. Variance
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 not cause an undue hardship. The
applicant has the ability to provide parking spaces. All the retail facilities within this
development have provided the required number of spaces.
b) The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally,
to other property within the same zoning classification.
Findin2: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties
that lie within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District.
c) The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Findin2: The applicant has stated that they do not wish to incur the cost of replacing the
parking spaces. However, the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land.
d) The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Findin2: The variance is a self-created hardship. The applicant is requesting to remove the
parking spaces without replacing them.
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.
Findin2: The granting of a variance will cause a parking problem.
3
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.
Findilll!: The proposed variation could cause traffic/circulation issues.
7. The planning report #08-22, dated October 21,2008, prepared by Sharmeen AI-Jaff, et aI, is
incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDA TION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny Site Plan
Amendment, Planned Unit Development Amendment and Variance 2008-22.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 21 st day of October, 2008.
BY:
4