Site Information
Applicant: 814 Development
Property Owner: Shakopee Crossings Limited Partnership
Location: Southwest corner of CSAH 21 & CSAH 18
Current Zoning: Highway Business (B-1) Zone

Adjacent Zoning: North: Planned Residential District (PRD)
South: Planned Residential District (PRD)

East: Highway Business (B-1) Zone/PUD
West: Planned Residential District (PRD)
Lot Size: 1.15 Acres

Introduction
814 Development has made application for a conditional use permit for a day care facility, and variances of front and side yard setbacks in the Planned Residential District (PRD). The proposed project would consist of a new day care structure; approx. 11,000 sq. ft. in size. They also proposed a driveway with a 0’ setback and a trash enclosure that would have a 0’ side yard setback and a 20’ front yard setback, where 5’ & 30’ respectively is required.

The site is located off Crossings Boulevard, between the Kwik Trip bldg. at 8225 Crossings Blvd. & the U.S. Bank bldg. at 8325 Crossings Blvd. The property is zoned PRD, which lists the proposed project as a conditional use in that zone. Setbacks in the PRD zone defer to the Urban Residential (R-1B) Zone, unless otherwise provided [Section 151.037 (E)]. The day care facility itself will comply with the setback requirements; it is only the trash enclosure and driveway that will encroach into the setbacks, thus requiring the Variances.

Day care facilities are listed conditional uses in the PRD Zone [Section 151.037 (C) (11)], with specific conditions of approval, as follows [Section 151.013 (B) (10)]:
(a) Shall have drop-off and pick-up areas located outside of the public right-of-way, and designed to enhance vehicular and pedestrian safety; and
(b) Shall have outdoor play areas located and designed to mitigate visual and noise impacts on adjoining residential uses.

The applicant is also proposing a Final Plat, which will be reviewed by the City Council at their May 18th meeting. The proposed Final Plat is consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat.

The proposed Variances are the result of the desire to provide as many parking spaces as possible, thus placing the driveway and trash enclosure up to the south property line. The property owner of the adjacent property supports this setback, as he is anticipating proposing the same concept on that lot at the time of development of that lot. The proposed site is tight, due to existing easements which are not in their typical location (the southerly easement is 40 feet wide, and not located at the perimeter of the lot). Parking is required at 1 space for every five (5) children.  The developer is proposing 41 parking spaces, which would exceed the City Code requirement.  

Planning staff did receive comments from several reviewing agencies, and have incorporated those comments as conditions of the draft resolution. Planning staff will review the site for compliance with the City Code design and performance standard requirements at time of building permit submittal.

Variance Findings:
Criterion 1
The strict enforcement of the ordinance provisions would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Practical difficulties mean the following:

1.A. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance:
Finding 1.A. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance, with the driveway and trash enclosure located so as to provide additional parking spaces and efficient traffic circulation.

1.B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property;
Finding 1.B. The property is unique in that it is considered a through lot, although access to the CSAH 18 right-of-way is not allowed. The applicant and the adjacent property owner are working together to create the most efficient design for their trash enclosures – by placing them close together, it minimizes the visual impact.

1.C. The circumstances were not created by the landowner;
Finding 1.C. The circumstances generally lie with the PRD City Code requirements, which restrict or limit the location of this enclosure due to the through lot regulations.

1.D. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and
Finding 1.D. The variances would not alter the character of the locality. By all appearances, the proposed trash structure will mirror a similar structure on the adjacent lot in the future.

1.E. The problems extend beyond economic considerations. Economic considerations do not constitute a practical difficulty if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance.
Finding 1.E. The request is not economic in nature, the variance request allows for construction of a structure with setbacks generally similar to other proposed adjacent structures.

Criterion 2
It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
Finding 2 The proposed variances would in keeping with the spirit and intent of Chapter 151.

Criterion 3
The request is not for a use variance.
Finding 3 The request is not a use variance.

Criterion 4
Conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will insure compliance to protect the adjacent properties.
Finding 4 The conditions proposed will result in a similar/compatible situation with the most adjacent property.

Criterion 5
Variances in the flood plain overlay zone also shall meet the following criteria:
Finding 5 (Not applicable since this property is not within the flood plain overlay zone.)

Conditional Use Permit Findings:
Criteria #1 The use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity;

Finding #1: The Board has not received any evidence that the use will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the vicinity, if conducted in accordance with proposed conditions.

Criteria #2 The amendment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses allowed in the area;
Finding #2: The Board finds that the conditional use permit for a day care facility will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property.

Criteria #3 Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities have been or will be provided;
Finding#3: The Board finds that adequate utilities, access, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or will be provided for the site.

Criteria #4 The use is consistent with the purposes of the zone in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use; and
Finding #4 The Board finds that this use is consistent with the purposes of the Planned Residential District (PRD).

Criteria #5 The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding #5 The Board finds that the use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.