Findings of FactCITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
IN RE:
Application of J & S Ventures 1, Inc. and Chestnut Group, LLC for a Land Use Map
Amendment from Residential -Low Density to Residential -Low and Medium Density; Rezoning
from Single Family Residential (RSF) and Mixed Low Density Residential (R4) to Planned Unit
Development - Residential (PUD -R); Subdivision of 13.22 acres into 16 lots and 2 outlots with
Variances; Site Plan Review; and Wetland Alteration Permit.
On July 16, 213, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to
consider the application of J & S Ventures 1, Inc. and Chestnut Group, LLC for a Land Use
Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density to Residential -Low and Medium Density;
Rezoning from Single Family Residential (RSF) and Mixed Low Density Residential (R4) to
Planned Unit Development - Residential (PUD -R); Subdivision of 13.22 acres into 16 lots and 2
outlots with Variances; Site Plan Review; and Wetland Alteration Permit. 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 Single - family Residential District, RSF.
2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential -Low Density use.
3. The legal description of the property is as follows:
All that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 115,
Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, lying north of the MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10 -17, according to the recorded plat
thereof, said Carver County.
Except the North 30.00 feet of the west half of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter.
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 or will be 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. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider the following when
evaluation a Site Plan:
2
a. The proposed site plan 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 proposed development is consistent with the site plan review requirements of city
code;
c. The proposed site plan preserves a portion of the site in its natural state to the extent
practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal;
d. The proposed site plan 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 proposed site plan 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. The proposed site plan 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. Wetland Alteration Permit:
a. The proposed development will not be detrimental to or degrade the public health, safety,
comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
b. The proposed development will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive
plan and this chapter.
c. The proposed development 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. The proposed development will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned
neighboring uses.
e. The proposed development 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. The proposed development will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
g. The proposed development 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. The proposed development will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not
create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
i. The proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access,
natural, scenic or historic features of major significance.
j. The proposed development will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
k. The proposed development will not depreciate surrounding property values.
1. The proposed development will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in the
Conditional Use article.
S. Variance Findings — Section 20 -58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the
granting of a variance: The fourth request is to allow reduced setbacks from Highway 212
and length of a cul -de -sac. There will be a noise wall that will separate this development
from the highway. The City code requires a minimum setback of 50 feet along the parameter
of a planned unit development. The applicant is requesting a 30 -foot setback.
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 50 -foot perimeter setback was established to separate potentially
incompatible uses. In this area a noise wall will separate the uses. Additional setbacks
are not necessary.
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 wetlands on the property and the location of the Highway 212 right -of-
way create a practical difficulty in locating houses at the 50 -foot setback. In this area a
noise wall will separate the uses. Additional setbacks are not necessary.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The purpose of the variance is not based on economic considerations alone.
The applicant is proposing to construct single - family home on residential property at a
typical building setback.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self - created hardship. The wetlands
on the property and the location of the Highway 212 right -of -way create unique
circumstances for the placement of homes.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. (Similar
home sizes)
Finding: The homes will be compatible with the surrounding area.
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.
9. The city may grant a Variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision ordinance as
part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist:
a. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience, but is due to the property being accessed from
West 86th Street and then meandering around the wetlands. No additional street access is
available to the property due to the wetlands;
b. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical
conditions of the land with wetlands located to the north, south and east and west of the
site;
c. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally
applicable to other property since it is located on property that is hemmed in by wetlands;
d. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and
is in accord with the purpose and intent of the subdivision ordinance, the zoning
ordinance and the comprehensive plan.
10. The planning report #2013 -12, dated July 16, 2013, prepared by Sharmeen Al -Jaff, et al, is
incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preserve at
Rice Lake development.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 16th day of July, 2013
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
It's Chairman
0