06-30 Findings of Fact
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
(Denial)
IN RE: Application of Jeff Helstrom, Golf Zone for an amendment to Interim Use Permit #98-2
and Site Plan Review with Variances for a proposed addition to the principal structure-
Planning Case No. 06-30.
On October 3,2006, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application of Jeff Helstrom, Golf Zone for an amendment to Interim
Use Permit #98-2 and Site Plan Review with Variances for a proposed addition to the principal
structure for the property located at 825 Flying Cloud Drive. The Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing on the proposed !UP amendment and Site Plan with Variances that
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 Agricultural Estate, A2.
2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential-Large Lot and Parks/Open
Space.
3. The legal description of the property is: Attached as Exhibit A.
4. Site Plan Findings:
(1) Is inconsistent 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) Is inconsistent with Chapter 20, Article II, Division 6 of the Chanhassen City Code;
(3) 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 areas;
(4) Does not create 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 due to its excessive size;
(5) Creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special
attention to the following:
1
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 is incompatible 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) 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. Interim Use Permit Findings::
(1) Does not meet the standards of a conditional use permit set forth in section 20-232 of the
City Code.
a. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience
or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
b. Will be inconsistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this
chapter.
c. Is not 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 due to its excessive size.
d. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
e. 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. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not
be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
g. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of
operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare due
to excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash.
2
h. Will have vehicular approaches to the property, which do not create traffic congestion
or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
1. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or
historic features of major significance.
J. Will not be aesthetically compatible with the area due to the proposed size of the
building and exterior materials used in construction.
k. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
1. Does not meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this ordinance
because the proposed structure exceeds the 800 square foot building area restriction
for structures located on golf driving ranges.
(2) Does not conform to the zoning regulations for golf driving ranges.
(3) The use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning district. However, the proposed
improvements will progress the current use from temporary to permanent in nature.
(4) The date of event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. However, the
proposed improvements will progress the current use from temporary to permanent in
nature.
(5) The use may impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the
property in the future.
(6) The user agrees to any conditions that the City Council deems appropriate for permission of
the use.
6. Variance Findings:
(1) That the literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. The
applicant currently has reasonable use of the property.
(2) The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification. The applicant wishes to expand the
interim use to a more permanent operation.
(3) The purpose of the variation is to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land.
(4) The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship due to the requested expansion of
the operation.
(5) The granting of the variance may be detrimental to the future development of the
neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
3
(6) 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.
7. The planning report #06-30 dated October 3,2006, prepared by Josh Metzer, et aI, is
incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the !UP amendment and
Site Plan with Variances.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 3rd day of October, 2006.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMIS ON
g:\plan\2006 planning cases\06-30 golf zone\findings of fact denial.d
4