Loading...
Findings of Fact \C.6~ CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION INRE: Application of Bobby Jensen, on behalf of James Schaffran, for a Variance to construct a retaining wall within the Bluff Impact Zone on property zoned Agricultural Estate (A2) - Planning Case No. 10-05. On February 16, 2010, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Bobby Jensen, on behalf of James Schaffran, for a Variance to construct a retaining wall within the BluffImpact Zone on property zoned Agricultural Estate (A2), located at 845 Creekwood Drive, Lot 1, Block 1, Vogel Addition. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Variance that was 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 Agricultural Estate District, A2. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 1, Block 1, Vogel Addition. 4. 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. Due to the topography of the site, the construction of the storm water pond in the primary zone is a reasonable request. Finding: The subject site and the home predate the adoption of the Bluff Creek Overlay District and the Bluff Protection Ordinance. The home and existing retaining wall were built within the bluff setback and Bluff Impact Zone. Much of the vegetation within the bluff was removed prior to the current owner purchasing the property. The removal of the vegetation has caused significant erosion and runoff issues into Bluff Creek, as well as unstable soils to support the home. The proposed retaining wall will reinforce the existing retaining wall and mitigate the erosion and runoff into the creek. The applicant proposes to plant additional vegetation to further stabilize the bluff and eliminate the erosion problems on the site. 1 b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification because of the topography of the property. Finding: The subject site is one of four homes located off of Creekwood Drive, all of which predate the adoption of the Bluff Protection Ordinance. The topography of the site, the location of the home and previous clear cutting of vegetation along the bluff has created erosion and runoff problems. The addition of the second wall and re-vegetation will have a positive impact on the bluff and Bluff Creek. 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 request is not based on the desire to increase the value or income potential of the site. The intent is to reinforce the existing retaining wall supporting the home, to stabilize the bluff and mitigate the erosion and runoff into Bluff Creek. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship, but is due to site topography. Finding: The request is not a self-created hardship. The Vogel subdivision and construction of the home predates the adoption of the Bluff Creek Overlay District and the Bluff Protection Ordinance. The majority of the home is located within the Bluff Impact Zone. There is a boulder retaining wall that replaced a failing timber retaining wall supporting the house. Many of the trees and natural vegetation within the bluff were removed prior to the current owner purchasing the home, which has resulted in significant erosion and runoff issues into Bluff Creek. The proposed wall will mitigate the erosion of the bluff and reinforce the existing retaining wall. As part of the application the applicant is proposing to revegetate the bluff with plant species to further stabilize the slope and reduce the rate of runoff. 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. The retaining wall will have a positive impact on the surrounding area, including Bluff Creek by mitigating the erosion and runoff into the creek and stabilizing the bluff. 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 retaining wall will not impair the supply of light and air to adjacent 2 property or impact traffic congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or public safety or diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The retaining wall will have a positive impact on the neighborhood and Bluff Creek. 5. The planning report #10-05 dated February 16, 2010, prepared by Angie Kairies and Terry Jeffery, et aI, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Chanhassen Planning Commission, as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves a Variance to construct a retaining wall within the Bluff Creek Overlay District and Bluff Impact Zone, Planning Case #10-05, based on these findings of fact. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 16th day of February 2010. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: 3