Findings of Fact
DL~- o!
(Denial)
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDA TION
INRE:
Application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use
Amendment, Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat,
Setback Variance and Site Plan Review.
On January 6,2004 and March 2, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission
met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Plowshares
Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use Plan Amendment From
Residential - Low Density to Residential - Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit
for Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Concept and Preliminary
Planned Unit Development - Residential rezoning (PUD-R) for an I8-Unit Townhouse
Project; Site Plan Review for an I8-Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for
18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District
Setback. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned
Unit Development 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 uses.
3. The legal description of the property is: see exhibit A.
4. Land Use Amendment. 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:
1
a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific
policies and provisions of and has been found inconsistent with the
official City Comprehensive Plan.
b) The proposed use is not compatible with the present and future land
uses of the area.
c) The proposed use does not conform with all performance standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, specifically the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
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. Planned Unit Development. It will be the applicant's responsibility to
demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the
following criteria:
a) The proposed development does not adequately preserve desirable site
characteristics and open space nor protect sensitive environmental
features, including mature trees, creeks and wetlands.
b) The proposed development does not efficiently and effectively use the
land, open space and public facilities.
c) The proposed development is a high quality of design and design
compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and
planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture reflect
higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community.
d) The proposed development provides sensitive development in transitional
areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors
within the city.
2
e) The proposed development is Development which is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
f) The proposed development does not adequately preserve the Bluff Creek Corridor
pnmary zone.
g) The proposed development provides alternate housing type but not affordable
housing.
h) The proposed development provides energy conservation through the use of the
clustering of buildings.
i) The proposed development will provide signage to reduce the potential for traffic
conflicts.
6. Subdivision
a) The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the zoning ordinance.
b) The subdivision does not meet all the requirements of the PUD, Planned Unit
Development District.
c) The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with all applicable city, county and
regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan.
d) 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.
e) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm
drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements
required by this chapter.
f) The proposed subdivision will cause significant environmental damage.
g) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record and will
dedicate all appropriate new easements.
h) The proposed subdivision is not premature since adequate public facilities are
available or will be constructed with the development. 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.
3
7. Conditional Use Permit. When approving a conditional use permit, the City must
determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed
uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include
the following 12 items:
a) The proposed development will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or
the city.
b) The proposed development is inconsistent 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.
4
I) The proposed development meets standards prescribed for certain uses as
provided in Bluff Creek Overlay District with the approval of the setback
vanance.
8. Variance. The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following
facts:
a) The literal enforcement of this chapter would not 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. A reasonable use of the property is for residential use. 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. The proposed variance
does not preserve the primary corridor. Variances that blend with these pre-
existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria.
b) The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not
applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification.
The site constraints of the primary zone and West 78th Street lead to the need
for a variance. An alternate development scenario may not require a variance.
c) The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land, but to develop a project consistent with
surrounding development.
d) The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship.
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.
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.
9. Site Plan. In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the
development's compliance with the following:
a) The proposed development is inconsistent 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;
5
b) The proposed development is inconsistent with the site plan review
requirements since it does not meet required setbacks;
c) The proposed development does not preserve the site in its natural state to the
extent practical;
d) The proposed development does not create a harmonious relationship of
building and open;
e) The proposed development 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 development 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.
10. The planning report #04-01 dated March 2, 2004, prepared by Robert Generous,
et ai, is incorporated herein.
6
RECOMMENDA TION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the Land Use
Plan Amendment From Residential - Low Density to Residential - Medium Density; a
Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District;
Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development - Residential rezoning (PUD-R) for
an 18-Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for an 18-Unit Townhouse Project;
Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff
Creek Overlay District Setback.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 2nd day of March,
2004.
CHANHAS~£JCOMMISSION
-~,.
BY: ~..........
Uli Sacchet, Chairman
7