Loading...
Findings of Fact CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION INRE: Application of Sienna Corporation for Planned Unit Development rezoning the property from RI2, High Density Residential, to Planned Unit Development - Residential, PUD-R, with a Variance for a 30-foot perimeter setback on the east side of the project; Preliminary Plat for 29 building lots, two outlots and right-of-way for public streets; Site Plan Review for a 233-unit residential development, including two-, three-, four- and condominium-unit buildings with Variances for building height, and a community building; and a Conditional Use Permit for a recreational beach lot with Variance to the standard that 80% of the units be within 1,000 feet of the beach lot. On June 20, 2006, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Sienna Corporation for Planned Unit Development rezoning property from High Density Residential District, RI2, to Planned Unit Development - Residential, PUD-R. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit 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 OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned High Density Residential District, RI2. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential - High Density. 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 to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b. The proposed use is or will be 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 with the granting of the variances outlined in the staff report. d. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. I 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, specifically the Planned Unit Development standards; 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 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. Site Plan a. The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive land use designation for residential- high density residential with a net density of 9.9 units per acre; b. The proposed development complies with the city's site plan requirements; 2 c. The proposed development 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; d. 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; e. The proposed development creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: 1) 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; 2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping; 3) 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 4) 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. f. 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. 7. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That 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. 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. 3 1) The potential exclusion of 93 units from the association beach lot would be a hardship for the development since it would exclude neighborhood residents from enjoyment of common facilities. 2) The east perimeter setback variance would be a hardship due to nature of adjacent development. The PUD perimeter setback is usually necessary to separate a more intensive use from a less intensive use. However, the property to the east is a golf course with ample open space. 3) The height limitation would not permit the development of the site in conformance with the intent of the comprehensive plan, nor permit the high quality development as required by the PUD ordinance and envisioned by the project developer. 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 variances are specific to the development design. 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 fulfill the expectations of the city and the developer for the redevelopment of this site. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship, but is due to the city expectations and requirements for the redevelopment of the site. 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. 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. 8. Conditional Use Permits a. The proposed beach lot will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. b. The proposed beach lot will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. c. The proposed beach lot will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so 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 d. The proposed beach lot will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. e. The proposed beach lot 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. f. The proposed beach lot will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. The proposed beach lot 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. h. The proposed beach lot will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. 1. The proposed beach lot will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. J. The proposed beach lot will be aesthetically compatible with the area. k. The proposed beach lot will not depreciate surrounding property values. 1. The proposed beach lot will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in the conditional use permit standards with the granting of the distance variance. 9. The planning report #06-26 dated June 20, 2006, prepared by Robert Generous, et ai, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDA TION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development: Rezoning the property from R12, High Density Residential, to Planned Unit Development - Residential, PUD-R, with a Variance for a 30-foot perimeter setback on the east side of the project; Preliminary Plat for 29 building lots, two outlots and right-of-way for public streets; Site Plan Review for a 233-unit residential development, including two-, three-, four- and condominium-unit buildings with Variances for building height, and a community building; 5 and a Conditional Use Permit for a recreational beach lot with Variances to the standard that 80% of the units be within 1,000 feet of the beach lot. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 20th day of June, 2006. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION g:\plan\2006 planning cases\06-26 lakeside\findings of fact.doc 6