Loading...
findings of fact and recommendation cc denial1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Application of U.S. Home Corporation, DBA Lennar, and Comerica Bank and Trust, NA, for the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson and Paisley Park Enterprise, Inc. for Rezoning, Preliminary Plat with a Wetland Alteration Permit. On January 15, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of U.S. Home Corporation, DBA Lennar, and Comerica Bank and Trust, NA, for the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson and Paisley Park Enterprise, Inc. for a Rezoning from Rural Residential District, RR, to Planned Unit Development – Residential, PUD-R; Preliminary Plat approval creating 181 lots and three outlots with and approval of a Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and alter wetlands on site. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed rezoning, subdivision and wetland alteration permit preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and at the conclusion of the public hearing and discussion by the Planning Commission, McGonagill moved, Tietz seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the rezoning for 191 acres from Rural Residential District (RR) to Planned Unit Development Residential (PUD-R) including the PUD ordinance for Galpin Design Standards; the wetland alteration permit and the subdivision preliminary plat creating 191 lots, three outlots and dedication of the right-of-way as shown in plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated December 5, 2018. Commissioners McGonagill, Tietz and Randall voted in favor of the motion for denial. Commissioners Madsen, Weick and Aller voted against the motion for denial. The motion tied with a vote of 3 to 3 and, therefore, failed. On March 5, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public comment meeting. No formal action was taken. On March 11, 2019, the City Council met and reviewed the proposed development. They reviewed the testimony from the Planning Commission. The City Council 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 (net density 1.2-4.0 units per acre) use. 3. The legal description of the property is: (See Exhibit A) 2 4. The Zoning Ordinance directs the city 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 inconsistent with the official city Comprehensive Plan since the zoning and resultant cluster development does not create a homogeneous development with the single-family zoning to the north and south of the project; b. The proposed use is not compatible with the present and future land uses of the area since it consists of cluster housing development, rather than the single-family residential uses to the west, north and south on 15,000 square foot or larger lots; c. The proposed use does not conform to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance for any existing residential zoning categories; d. The proposed use may not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed since the use is similar, but not the same as surrounding uses; e. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity since adequate infrastructure is available to the site; and f. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the city to consider seven (7) possible adverse effects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) affects and our findings regarding them are: a. The proposed subdivision does not comply with the zoning ordinance; b. The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with all applicable city plans including but not limited to the city's Comprehensive Plan since it does not create a homogeneous development with the single-family zoning to the north and south of the project; c. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and stormwater 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 the subdivision ordinance; e. The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage; f. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record, but will provide additional required easements; and g. The proposed subdivision is not premature since it is providing all required infrastructure improvements necessary for residential housing as well as improving existing stormwater issues for adjacent properties. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: 1) Lack of adequate stormwater 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 6. Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfers of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the use of other, more standard zoning districts. The applicant has not demonstrated that the city's expectation is to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria. Planned unit developments are to encourage the following: a. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. b. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. c. High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. d. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city. e. Development that is consistent with the comprehensive plan. f. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the comprehensive park plan and overall trail plan. g. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate within the PUD. h. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. i. Use of traffic management and design techniques including the provision of transit and pedestrian linkages to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Where appropriate, the use of transportation demand management strategies may be required within a project. 7. When approving a Wetland Alteration Permit, the city must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Sec. 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. While the development impacts several wetlands, the majority of the wetlands (97 percent) are being preserved and protected. The developer shall mitigate any wetland impacts as well as preserve significant areas of permanent open space for enjoyment by the community. b. The proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the city's Comprehensive Plan and the subdivision and zoning ordinances. The developer shall meet all water quality standards required of it. c. The proposed residential development is not designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing and intended character of 4 the general vicinity and will change the essential character of that area. The project proposes the development of single-family homes that are on smaller lots than currently exist to the south, west and north of this parcel. d. The proposed development will not be hazardous, but are disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. The project proposes single-family homes on smaller lots than surrounding development. 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 and 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 but will increase the value of the community through the provision of additional housing as well as a significant public open space. 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 since the use is similar to adjacent uses. h. The proposed development will have vehicular approaches to the property that do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Primary access is provided via full intersections off of a collector street. i. The proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Wetland impacts will be mitigated. j. The proposed development will not be aesthetically compatible with the area since it consists of lots smaller than adjacent development. The project proposes the development of single-family homes on smaller lots than to those in the developments to the north, south and west. k. The proposed development will not depreciate surrounding property values. The project proposes the development of residential uses. l. The proposed development will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in Chapter 20, Articles VI, VII, VIII, XIV - Division 1, XXIII and XXIV of the Chanhassen City Code. 8. The Planning Report #2019-01 dated January 15, 2019, and updated March 11, 2019, prepared by Kate Aanenson, et al, is incorporated herein. 5 MOTION The City Council denies the rezoning of the property from Rural Residential District, RR, to Planned Unit Development - Residential, PUD-R; Preliminary Plat approval creating 181 lots and three outlots; and a Wetland Alteration Permit; and an ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the City Code. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 11th day of March, 2019. BY: BY: Todd, Gerhardt, City Manager Elise Ryan, Mayor 6 EXHIBIT A Legal Description: Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 89, files of Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota. Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 89, files of Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota. Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 89, files of Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota. That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the North Quarter corner of said Section 10; thence South along the North- South Quarter line of said Section 10 as distance of 409.69 feet; thence West along a line parallel with the South line of the North Half of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 435.76 feet to the centerline of the Excelsior-Shakopee Road; thence Northeasterly along said centerline a distance of 419.39 feet to the North line of side Section 10; thence East along the North line of said Section 10 to the point of beginning, all according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof. That part of the South half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 Carver County, Minnesota lying easterly of the centerline of County Road No. 117, also known as Galpin Boulevard, and lying North of the South 186.00 feet of said South half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter thereof. Together with: That part westerly 183.00 feet of each of the following two tracts: (1) That part of the South 186.00 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Easterly of the centerline of County Road No. 117 (also known as Galpin Lake Road and formerly known as Chaska and Excelsior Road and as Excelsior and Shakopee Road). (2) That part of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Easterly of the centerline of County Road No. 117 (also known as Galpin Lake Road and formerly known as Chaska and Excelsior Road and as Excelsior and Shakopee Road). Which lies northerly of lines described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said South Half of the Northwest Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 49 minutes 08 seconds West, along the North line of 7 said South half of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 588.71 feet, to the beginning of the lines to be described; thence South 65 degrees 37 minutes 15 seconds West a distance of 98.69 feet; thence Northwesterly a distance of 141.37 feet along a non-tangential curve concave to the Southwest having a radius of 180.00 feet and a central angle of 45 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, the chord of said curve is 137.77 feet in length and bears North 46 degrees 52 minutes 45 seconds West; thence North 69 degrees 22 minutes 45 seconds West, tangent to said curve a distance of 40.00 feet and said line there terminating.