Findings of Fact/a -)1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
IN RE:
Application of Ron Clark Construction and Home Federal Savings for an amendment to the
Lakeside Planned Unit Development to convert the condominium building on the north end of
the development into 17 townhouse units and revisions to the design standards regarding
setbacks; subdivision approval for 17 lots and 7 outlots; and site plan approval for 17 townhouse
units with a variance to permit decks to encroach into setbacks.
On September 4, 2012, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly
scheduled meeting to consider the application of Ron Clark Construction and Home Federal
Savings for an amendment to the Lakeside Planned Unit Development to convert the
condominium building on the north end of the development into 17 townhouse units and
revisions to the design standards regarding setbacks; subdivision approval for 17 lots and 7
outlots; and site plan approval for 17 townhouse units with a variance to permit decks to
encroach into setbacks. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed
Planned Unit Development which 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 Planned Unit Development - Residential (PUD -R).
2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential -High Density.
3. The legal description of the property is: Outlots A and D, Lakeside Addition and Outlot A,
Lakeside Second Addition.
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.
b. The proposed use is compatible with the present and future land uses of the area.
c. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning
Ordinance.
d. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
e. 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.
5. 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 regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
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;
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
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.
6. Site Plan Findings:
a. The townhouse project 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. The townhouse project is consistent with this division;
c. The townhouse project 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. The townhouse project 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. The townhouse project 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;
2
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. The townhouse project 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. Variance — Section 20 -58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of
a variance:
a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
Finding: The granting of the variance is in keeping with the purpose and intent of the
zoning ordinance. The setback standards are to assure adequate separation between
structures. In this case, there are no structures to separate, only project perimeters.
Additionally, the wetland setback requirements have been revised to permit accessory
structures to encroach up to half the required setback, which would allow a 15 foot
setback from the wetland buffer edge.
b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical
difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the
property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this
Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct
sunlight for solar energy systems.
Finding: The practical difficulty with the construction of the decks is due to the wetland
in the western portion of the property, the city standards for street widths, which requires
a 24 -foot wide drive aisle, and the dimensions of the house and decks. Only the decks
encroach into the setback.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The purpose of the variance is not based upon economic considerations, but is
to permit the owner to utilize the property in a reasonable manner.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
3
Finding: The property a wetland complex on the western 30 percent (approximately 200
feet). Due to the property the wetland in the western portion of the property, the city
standards for street widths, which requires a 24 -foot wide drive aisle, and the dimensions
of the house and decks, a variance is needed to accommodate a 10 foot wide deck.
The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The construction of decks is a normal use associated with a townhouse and
would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.
f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota
Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter.
Finding: This does not apply to this request.
8. The planning report #2012 -11 dated September 4, 2012, prepared by Robert Generous, et al,
is incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Planned Unit
Development amendments, subdivision and site plan with variances for deck setbacks for
Lakeside 7 Addition.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 4th day of September, 2012.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
c �
BY:
Its Chairman
4