Findings of Fact
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
IN RE: Application of Semper Development, Ltd./W algreens for Site Plan Review with
Variances and Conditional Use Permit for an LED Sign- Planning Case No. 05-03
On January 4,2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application of Semper Development, Ltd. for a site plan review
with Variances and Conditional Use Permit for an LED Sign for the property located
North of West 79th Street, east of Market Boulevard, and south of Chicago, Milwaukee, St.
Paul, and Pacific Railroad. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the _
proposed site plan with variances and conditional use permit which were preceded by
published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from a11
interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the fo11owing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Highway Business District.
2. The property is guided for Commercial by the Land Use Plan.
3. The legal description of the property is: Lots 1, Block 1, Gateway East.
4. Section 20-110:
(1) 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;
(2) Is consistent with this division;
(3) 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;
(4) 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;
(5) Creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site
features, with special attention to the fo11owing:
a. 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;
1
-
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
c. 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
d. 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.
(6) 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.
5. Section 20-232:
(1) Sec. Will not be detrimental to or damage the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood of the city.
(2) Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this
chapter.
(3) Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as 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.
(4) Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
(5) 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.
(6) Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will
not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
(7) Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and condition
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.
2
(8) Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic
congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
(9) Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic
or historic features of major significance.
(10) Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
(11) Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
(12) Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article.
6. Section 20-58:
(1) That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause 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 a110w a proliferation of variances but to recognize that
and develop neighborhoods where pre-existing standards exist. Variances that
blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them,
meet this criteria.
(2) The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable,
genera11y, to other property within the same zoning classification.
(3) The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land.
(4) The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
(5) 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.
(6) 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
increases the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially
diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
7. The staff report dated May 4,2004 for Planning Case #2004-15, prepared by Sharmin
AI-Jaff, et aI, is incorporated herein.
3
RECOMMENDA TION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the site
plan review with variances and conditional use permit.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 4th day of January,
2005.
CHANHASS PLANNINcr,9fJ\1MISSION
BY: c16-...V
Uli Sacchet, Its Chairman
g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-03 walgreens\finding offactdoc
4