Findings of Fact
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
IN RE: Planning Case No. 05-14
Application of The Pemtom Land Company for Subdivision with Variances, Rezoning and Wetland
Alteration Permit - Lake Harrison.
On April 19, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting
to consider the application of The Pemtom Land Company for preliminary plat approval with variances
for street grades, private street and front yard and bluff setbacks, a rezoning of the property to Single-
Family Residential District, RSF, and a 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 Rural Residential District, RR.
2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential- Low Density use.
3. The legal description of the property is: (see attached Exhibit A)
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 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 excessive 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. ill order to permit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions exist:
a. The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street.
ill making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and
homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands.
b. After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is
not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
c. The use of the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources
specifically bluffs and forested areas.
7. The city may grant a variance (street grade and private street) from the regulations contained within
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.
b. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or typographical conditions of
the land.
d. The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other
property .
e. The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in
accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan.
8. A variance (front yard setback) may be granted by the city if all of the following criteria are met:
2
a. The literal enforcement of the ordinance creates a hardship. For purposes of the definition of
undue hardship, reasonable use includes a use includes a use made by a majority of comparable
property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of
variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances
that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this
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 proposed setback variance enhances wetland
preservation.
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 facilitate wetland preservation.
d. The hardship is not self-created by the developer, but due to the fact that the applicant is
attempting to development within an area that is surrounded by wetlands.
e. The variance if approved 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.
9. Variance Findings - Bluff Setback
a. The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not creates a 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 allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize
that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-
existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Lots 11 and 12 could
be developed without encroaching in to the required bluff setback.
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are ftffl applicable, generally, to other
property within the same zoning classification. The proposed setback variance gooanggg tl'@g
)?l'@ggy.;ati€Jß would permit encroachment in to a sensitive environmental area which the city
has consistently attempted to protect.
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 facilitate development constrained by a bluff and a electrical transmission
line corridor easement.
d. The hardship is nm self-created by the developer., 1mt €lUg tg thg fagt that tkg 8Ítg ig ggRstramgll
hy a hhiff an€l a glggtfigaltFangmiggi€!R lrng ggmll€1r gasgmgftt There are alternate ways of
developing the area above the bluff without encroaching in to the bluff setback.
e. The variance if approved will ftffl be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land
or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located by potentially negatively
impacting the bluff, its trees and the wetland below.
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property.
3
10. The planning report #05-14 dated April 19, 2005, prepared by Robert Generous, et aI, is incorporated
herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Rezoning,
Preliminary Plat with Variances for street grades, private street and the front yard setback variances
for Block 3 and the Wetland Alteration Plan. The Planning Commission further recommends that
the City Council deny the bluff setback variance.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 19th day of April, 2005.
~a
BY:
Its Chairman
4
EXHIBIT A
That part of the South 835.33 feet of the East one-half of the Southwest Quarter, Section 3, Township 116,
Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, measured at right angles to and parallel with the south line of Said
East one-half of the Southwest Quarter lying westerly of the center line of Carver County Road 117.
Torrens Certificate Number 30251.
And,
That part ofthe Southwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota,
described as follows:
Commencing at the southwest corner of the Southwest Quarter; then running East on the section line
1335.00 feet to a point marked by a gas pipe; thence North 1320.00 feet to a point marked by an iron pipe;
thence West 1335.00 feet to a point in the section line marked by a gas pipe; thence South 1325.00 feet to
the place of beginning.
And,
That part ofthe Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 3, Township 116, Range 23, Carver
County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence northerly
along the west line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 2.10 feet; thence
easterly to a point in the east line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter distant 7.15 feet
northerly of the southeast corner thereof; thence southerly along said east line 7.15 feet to said southeast
corner; thence westerly along the south line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter to the point
of beginning.
And,
Lot 1, Block 1, Brenden Pond 2nd Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County,
Minnesota.
5