Findings of Fact-Signed
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
IN RE: Planning Case No. 04-40 Village on the Ponds Building C-1 (Food Coop)
Application of VOP I, LLC for Site Plan Review with a variance from the commercial design
standards to permit less than fifty (50) percent of the first floor façade that is viewed by the
public to include transparent windows and/or doors.
On November 16,2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly
scheduled meeting to consider the application of VOP I, LLC for a site plan review with a
variance from the commercial design standards for the property located at the southeast comer of
Lake Drive and Great Plains Boulevard. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on the proposed site plan 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, PUD, Mixed Use.
2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Mixed Use.
3. The legal description of the property is: Outlot A, Villages on the Ponds 8th Addition to
be platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 9th Addition.
4. Site Plan Findings:
1
(1) The proposed development 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) The proposed development is consistent with the site plan review requirements;
(3) The proposed development is designed to be in keeping with the general appearance
of the neighboring developed or developing areas;
(4) The proposed development 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) The proposed development creates a functional and harmonious design for structures
and site features, with special attention to the following:
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;
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) 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.
5. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not
grant a variance to the design standards unless they find the following facts:
a. 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. The use of the building requires that some areas not
have windows, e.g., storage and coolers. The developer is proposing a reasonable
alternative, which provides additional building articulation and architectural detailing.
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 city design
2
standards require that buildings have 50 percent windows. However, the function of a
commercial-retail building requires that some areas not have openings.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel ofland, but to facilitate the use ofthe site for a grocery.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. The use of the building
for a coop grocery is permitted in the zoning district, but the standards interfere with the
operation of the store.
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.
Development of the site will enhance the neighborhood and community.
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.
6. The planning report #04-40 dated November 16, 2004, prepared by Robert Generous, et
aI, is incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDA TION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the site plan
review with a variance from the commercial design standards to permit less than fifty (50)
percent transparent windows and/or doors on the first floor façade that is viewed by the public.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 16th day of November, 2004.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
---~~~
BY:
C~~~~~~,-í--
--
Its Chairman
g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-40 - village on the ponds building c-l food coop\findings of fact.doc
3