Findings of Fact and Recommendation - SignedCITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
IN RE: Application of Black Cherry Development, LLC - Planning Case No. 2021-12, Ethart
Farm
Request for Rezoning from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Single-Family Residential
District (RSF), Subdivision Approval creating 2l lots and seven outlots with a variance for a
public street cross section, and Variances for lot fiontages, front yard setback and wetland buffer
setback.
On July 20, 2021, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application of Black Cherry Development, LLC for a single-family
residential development. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed
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 FACT
l. 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. REZONINGNNDINGS
The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse
affects ofthe 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 consistent with the offrcial City Comprehensive
Plan;
b. The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the
atea;
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;
I
The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not
overburden the City's service capacity;
f. Traffrc generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the
property.
5. SUBDIVISIONFINDINGS
a. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and meets all ofthe
requirements of the "RSF ' Single-Family Residential District;
b. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limiled to the City's Comprehensive Plan;
c. The physical characteristics ofthe site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and stornwater
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
suMivision ordinance;
e. The proposed suMivision will not cause sigrrificant environmental damage subject to
compliance with the conditions of approval;
f. The proposed suMivision will not conflict with easements of record, but rather will expand
and provide all necessary easements;
g. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A suMivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
1 ) tack of adequate stormwater drainage.
2) lack of adequate roads.
3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
4) Lack of adequate oflsite public improvements or support systems.
a. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience by providing reasonable access to Lots 2 through
10, Block I while reducing potential impacts to the natural featrues on the site;
b. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical
conditions ofthe land including trees; a fi:ll sized public street is not necessary to provide
access to these properties within the development, while preserving trees;
e
2
6. VARIANCE FINDINGS WITH A SUBDIVISION
c. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally
applicable to other property because ofthe development design and wetland preservation;
d. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is
in accord with the purpose and intent of subdivision regulations, the Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan since it will reduce potentially significant impacts on the site and
within the neighborhood.
7. VARIAI{CE FINDINGS - Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for
the granting of a variance:
a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding: A setback variance to permit the home on Lot 1 to remain in line with those of the
existing development to the north is in harmony with the zoning standards. The lot
frontages for Lots 3 through 9 are slightly below the 90-foot standard, but all lots meet the
lot width at the building setback line.
b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance' "Practical
difficulties" as used in connection with the gmnting of a variance, means that the property
owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter'
Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for
solar energy systems.
Finding: The applicant's proposed setback on Lot I is consistert with what is found on
other properties in the neighborhood to the north and is predicated by the location of the
existing road and wetland. The street frontages on Lots 3 through 9 are due to the tight radii
on Eagle Ridge Way and the attempt to minimize the roadway width.
c. That the purpose ofthe variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations' but to
create a development in harmony with the environment.
d. The plight ofthe landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The plight ofthe landowner is due to the existing development to lhe north ofthe
parcel, the wetland located east ofthe proposed lots, and the design to preserve significant
environmental features on the site.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will be compatible with the existing development to the
north (Foxwood), will create single-family detached homes on lots exceeding those in that
development, and is compliant with City Code.
3
f. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes
Section 216C.06, suMivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter.
Finding: This does not apply to this request.
8. The planning repofi #2021-12 dated July 20,2021, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is
incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the proposed rezoning
from Agricultural Estate District (A2), to Single-Family Residential District (RSF); Preliminary
Plat approval for 21 lots and seven outlots; a Variance for public street cross-section; and Variances
for lot frontages, front yard setback and wetland buffer setback for a single-family detached
residential suMivision subject to the conditions of the staffreport.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 20s day of July, 2021.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
0(44* vo,, o vgJ , v rcE Q'frer'(
,l
EXHIBIT A
ked Descriotim
prcel l: Lot I, Block 1, hdlemut Ridge Additioo, ac{ordirg to the recorded plat theteof m file and of
reco,rd fu the o6ce of tle couty rccor&t, Cafl'er Comty. Mimesota-
Abstrect ProP€rtY
Parcel l: Ornlot A Brxtemut RiQa Additim. Crver Coutry, Mimesora-
EXCEPTING THEREFROM the followiag:
Tract A: Ot tld A, Brtt€mut fudge Addito,D. Canrer Coutrty, Minnesota: which hes weslerly
and norrthwestedy of Line I described below:
Lire 1: Commciog at tbe m(lh quarter ccoer of Sectioa 26. To*mhip I f 6 NofiL Range 23
Wes. thence nm eas16a sa nzimrnfi of 89 degrees 58 miartres 'rc secoods aloog the oott line of
said section for for 523.29 feet to lte pomt of begrming of Line I to be described: lteoce m m
azimufr of 2lO &gfees 3l miautes l0 secotrds for 125.85 feet.lheoce on m 4'imdh of 251
deprees 33 minutes 26 secmds for 421.16 feeti thencf oo aa azimrrh of l7l &Prees 19 mrnrltes
17 sronds for 594.73: thence on an azinruth of 180 degrees.tS minutes 53 seconds fu 493.70
feet to a pohl oa the scnrth lirc of said Tract A aod ttere termi[ating'
ALSO D(CEPTING THEREFROM the follo*rng:
That pen of Ortlor A. Brnttmut Rrdge Addihoo- Can'et Comty. Minnesota- lliag u'ester$ of the
westet$ right of way lim of Tnrd< Hipfi*'ay No. I 0 1 . MDbtEsoTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION RIGI{T OF WAY PLAT NO- 10-46. AND 10-47. ac{ordiog to tte
recorded plats theteof. Crler Couaty. Min:resota. aad eastetly oflhe follo*rng described line
Cotrmeocing ar polot 87 of said right of E'ay platt lheme South 89 deEees 3'l minutes 41
secoods West. assumed beaing, almg the sorth lme of sard Ot(lot A 32-21 feet to the point of
besimhg of a line to be described: theoce nctledy 200.91 feet dong a non tmpgotial orve-
_
corcal'e to tie n'esr, ctotd angle 20 degrces 1l oloues 4l secoods. radius 570-00 feet. chord
bering North 09 degr€es 18 mrmrtes 16 secoods Wesl: tb€nce norlhE'eslerl}' 435.88 feet aloqr a
coryanod orn'e, coreve to the sortht'est, radius 701.00 feet. ceatral aagle 35 deprees 31
mimrtes 29 seconds: thmce North 54 deprees 55 mimrtes 36 l€conds Wesr. aloog tangeot. 516.07
feet to a point on said wetefly right of way ltne md said line there temtmating-
ALSO D(CEPTING THEREFROM tie follo*rns:
)
That pan of Outlot A. Bdt€mut Rdge Additim according to fte recmded plat thecof, Can'er
Cormty, Mimesota lying westoly of a line descnbed as follows:
Comneociag at the Soutt corner oflot 2. Block 4. Foxwood, accudrng to the recoded plat
tb€reof Cever Coun$-., Mioaesota. theoce o an assumed bearing of Nortt 0O degrees 0J
orimtes 05 secoods West along th East lirc of seid ht 2 I distece of 189.51 feet to lhe
Northead csmer of said l.ot 2 and the point of begioomg of said line; lbeme Souti 48 tlegrees 05
mimrtes 58 secoo& Ea$ 61.09 feer: thence Sorih 41 &pgees 54 minutes 02 lecoods West 134.'()
feet lo the Southwenedy line of said Irl 2 ard said lim thete terornatrng.
AIso:
That part of Irt 2, Bloc& 4, Foxw-ood, according to lfie recorded plat thereot Cafl'er Colmty.
Minmsota lyirg easraly of a line described as folloqs:
Co,"meocing at the Soultedy cmner oflot 2, Block 4. Fox*ood, accordirg to the reccded plat
thereof, Crver Comty, Mimesota; 6ence on ao assumed beaing of Ncth 0O degrees 02
miflrtes 05 seconds Wesl aloag tte East lim of said Lot 2 a distmce of 189-51 feet to the
Northeast corn€r of s&id Lot 2 ad the pornt ofbegiooiog of said line; theDce Soutr 48 deerees 05
minutes 58 seeoods East 61.09 feet; theoce South 4l dep6ees 54 minutes 02 secoods West 134.'lO
feet to the Sor hwestedy lirc of said Lot 2 and said llne ttere terminating.
Abstract Propert]'
g:VlalU02 I pl$ning casesu I - 12 775 96lh strEet w. rez sub va v&\findings of fer & recornmmdatim.docx
6