The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-10_HISLOP SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST - 6604 ALDER WAYThomas J. Campbell Roger N. Knutson Thomas M. Scott Elliott B. Knetsch Joel J. Jamnik Andrea McDowell Poehler Soren M. Mattick John F. Kelly Henry A. Schaeffer, III Alina Schwartz Samuel J. Edmunds Marguerite M. McCarron 1380 Corporate Center Curve Suite 317 • Eagan, MN 55121 651-452-5000 Fax 651-452-5550 www.ck-law.com 69-1c) CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Direct Did: (657) 234-6222 E-mailAddress: snelson@ck-law.com November 11, 2009 RECEIVED Ms. Kim Meuwissen City of Chanhassen NOV 1 6 Z009 7700 Market Boulevard CITY OF CHANHASSEN P.O. Box 147 S l e> Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 O, - I C7 RE: CHANHASSEN SC. RECORDED DOCUMENTS ➢ Varianc 9-1 Hislop Setback Variance at 6604 Alder Way (Lot 9, Block 1, Pinehurst 2"d Addition) Dear Kim: Enclosed for the City's files please find original recorded Variance 09-15 for a 15-foot front yard setback variance to permit a 15-foot front yard setback on Lot 9, Block 1, Pinehurst 2"d Addition. The variance was recorded with the County on October 14, 2009 as Tonens Document No. T172815. SRN:ms Enclosure Regards, CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association R Nelson LegalAssistant SCANNED Document No. OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES T 172815 CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA Receipt # Cert # 33561 Fee $46.00 Certified Recorded on 10/14/2009 at 10:30 AM ❑ PM 172815 I'll CR�wra ofTitles` CFrY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, DIINNESOTA VARIANCE 09-10 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen Planning Commission as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approves a 15-foot front yard setback variance to permit a 15-foot front yard setback on Lot 9, Block 1, Pinehurst 2°d Addition. The granting of this variance is final. 2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: Lot 9, Block 1, Pinehurst 2Id Addition 3. Condition. The variance approval is subject to the following condition: a. Future construction plans shall take the wetland and gully features into consideration and utilize best management practices to avoid further degradation to the wetland and gully. b. In the event that sump pumps are installed with the construction of this house, they should be "soft" connected to the flinch drain tile located at the back of curb for the privatecul-de- sac. c. When a building plan is submitted for this property, a detailed erosion and sediment control plan will be required as part of the submittal. d. Additional address numbers will be required at the driveway entrance. Color of letters must be on a contrasting background color, six inches in height and adjacent to the driveway. If 1 SCANNED 1 1t landscaping is to be done near the numbers, consideration shall be given that growth of plandscrubs will not block the view of the numbers over time. e. The building shall continue the orientation and placement of the buildings located to the east of the site. Buildings shall not be placed within the northeast front triangle of the site, represented on the south by a continuation of the private street easement line to the northwest. f. Structures shall not encroach into any easements except for the driveway connecting to the private street access. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: August 18, 2009 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: t —� (SEAL) Thomas A. Furlong, ayo AND: �A/A Todd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this$ /.day of 2009 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City o hanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. 61NOTA&f PUBLIC \,KAREN J.ENGELHARDT Notary Public -Minnesota My Commissiw, Expires Jen 31, 2010 DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 E CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 227-1110 TO: Campbell Knutson, PA 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE JOB NO. 9/11/09 09-10 ATTENTION Sue Nelson RE: Document Recording ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Pay Request ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 8/18/09 09-10 Hislop Setback Variance Lot 9, Block 1, Pinehurst 2 nD Addition THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ For your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FORBIDS DUE REMARKS COPY TO: Brent Hislop ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return ® For Recording ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US SIGNED: copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, WNNFSOTA VARIANCE 09-10 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen Planning Commission as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approves a 15-foot front yard setback variance to permit a 15-foot front yard setback on Lot 9, Block 1, Pinehurst Zd Addition. The granting of this variance is final. 2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: Lot 9, Block 1, Pinehurst tad Addition 3. Condition. The variance approval is subject to the following condition: a. Future construction plans shall take the wetland and gully features into consideration and utilize best management practices to avoid further degradation to the wetland and gully. b. In the event that sump pumps are installed with the construction of this house, they should be "soft' connected to the flinch drain tile located at the back of curb for the private cul-de- sac. c. When a building plan is submitted for this property, a detailed erosion and sediment control plan will be required as part of the submittal. d. Additional address numbers will be required at the driveway entrance. Color of letters must be on a contrasting background color, six inches in height and adjacent to the driveway. If landscaping is to be done near the numbers, consideration shall be given that growth of plant/scrubs will not block the view of the numbers over time. e. The building shall continue the orientation and placement of the buildings located to the east of the site. Buildings shall not be placed within the northeast front triangle of the site, represented on the south by a continuation of the private street easement line to the northwest. f. Structures shall not encroach into any easements except for the driveway connecting to the private street access. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: August 18, 2009 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (SEAL) Thomas A. Furlong, Todd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thi4A/ 4ay of e+CioXhanhassen' 2009 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of th, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. (/NOTAOY PUBLIC KAREN J. ENGELHARDT r otary Public -Minnesota DRAFTED BY:j'WN �O""b^ Wires Jan 3t, 2010 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 WA August 25, 2009 CITY OF Mr. Brent Hislop CIIANIIASSEN Synergy Land Company P.O. Box 470 7700OBox 147 Market P PO Bo Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Variance Request for 6604 Alder Way Adminstration Planning Case #09-10 Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax:952.227.1110 Dear Mr. Hislop: Building Inspections Phone:952.227.1180 This letter is to confirm that on August 18, 2009, the Chanhassen Planning Fax:952.227.1190 Commission as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved the 15-foot front yard setback variance to permit a 15-foot front yard setback on Lot 9, Block 1, Phone:952.227.1160 Pinehurst 2°d Addition. The granting of this variance has not been appealed and is Fax:952.227.1170 therefore final. The approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: Force Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax:952.227.1110 1. Future construction plans shall take the wetland and gully features into consideration and utilize best management practices to avoid further Park & Remaion Phone:952,227.1120 degradation to the wetland and gully. Fax:952.227.1110 2. In the event that sump pumps are installed with the construction of this house, Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard they should be "soft' connected to the 4-inch drain tile located at the back of Phone: 952.227.1400 the curb for the private cul-de-sac. Fax: 952.227.14M Planning& 3. When a building plan is submitted for this property, a detailed erosion and lilmrral Resouces sediment control plan will be required as part of the submittal. Phone:952.227.1130 Fax:952.227.1110 4. Additional address numbers will be required at the driveway entrance. Color Pmiellorks of letters must be on a contrasting background color, six inches in height and 1591 Park Road adjacent to the driveway. If landscaping is to be done near the numbers, PFax:952.227.13100 Fax: 952221.1310 consideration shall be given that growth of plant/scrubs will not block the view of the numbers over time. Senior Cemw Phone: 52.227.1110 Fax: 952.227.1110 5. The building shall continue the orientation and placement of the buildings located to the east of the site. Buildings shall not be placed within the Web Site northeast front triangle of the site, represented on the south by a continuation www.ci.chanhassennn.us of the private street easement line to the northwest. SCANNED Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning VTommow Mr. Brent Hislop August 25, 2009 Page 2 6. Structures shall not encroach into any easements except for the driveway connecting to the private street access. The variance is valid for one year from the approval date. A building permit must be applied for prior to August 18, 2010 through the City's building department. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-227-1131 or by email at benerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, Robert Generous, AICP Senior Planner c: Building Permit File ec: Kate Aanenson, Community development Director Jerry Mohn, Building Official gAplan12009 planning cases\09-10 bislop setback variancelapproval letterAm El G9- Io CHANHASSEN PLANNING REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 18, 2009 Acting Chair Laufenburger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Dillon, Kathleen Thomas, Mark Undestad, Denny Laufenburger, Dan Keefe, and Tom Doll MEMBERS ABSENT: Debbie Larson STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Bob Generous, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING- HISLOP VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE ON PROPERTY SYNERGY LAND COMPANY, PLANNING CASE #09-10. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Laufenburger: Thank you staff. Let's start with you Mark. Do you have any questions? Undestad: No. Laufenburger: Kevin, how about you? Dillon: I have no questions. I thought it was laid out pretty clearly. I get it. I'm going to probably vote in favor of this one. Laufenburger: Any questions Tom? Doll: I just had a, regarding the erosion control plan. Does that bear any more burden to the homeowner? I mean there's certain, when they develop property there is silt fences established and I drove by the property and their silt fence is still up. I'm just kind of curious does that, does the City, do you guys take that into account when you come up with something? Aanenson: Well typically when it's sometimes a grade, custom graded lot, we would normally walk it. In this circumstance we actually did walk this one too to kind of see how it fit. So there will be typically silt fence put up during the construction. There is some silt fence out there that was done with the grading. This was kind of pre -graded and that kind of led to where we are today because it was graded in a different spot, so that is our responsibility through inspections and engineering to make sure they're maintained and then that they're removed after the construction and seed's taken hold. But I don't think that will be a burden. That was one of the issues, if you look at this lot is how this house sits. If you were to put it where the setback, it'd ec"NO Chanhassen Planning Commission — August 18, 2009 It actually be back, be back further. Kind of over that silt fence into the back so this kind of keeps it in with what's already been rough graded. Does that answer your question? Doll: Yeah, I guess the, it was the kind of the wording of that. They needed a plan or. Generous: With the building permit, yes. They would submit additional, well it's, we require it on all building permits that they have a survey and the topography plan. And we want to make sure that they're not encroaching any farther into the green area, if you will on this site. Doll: Okay. Aanenson: So the silt fence again would show, like so the dirt doesn't run into the neighbor's property. Kind of just shows the areas where people think it's going to flow and that's why it'd be established. So the inspector goes out he's got a plan too where... Doll: Okay. I was just kind of reading it as that you would have an erosion control expert that would need to come out. Aanenson: No. Doll: Okay. Aanenson: They would just show on the building and we just make sure that it's out there regard. It's, and the contractor would put it on there. Doll: Okay. Aanenson: The building contractor. Doll: That's all I have. Laufenburger: Alright, thanks Tom. Kathleen, any questions? Thomas: I don't have any questions. Laufenburger: Alright. Dan, any questions or comments? Keefe: I've got to back you up just a little bit Bob. I'm a little confused on my directions here more than anything. This says due to the angle of the lot relative to the northern property line, which is what? The one that borders the school? Generous: Exactly. Keefe: Okay. The western side of the property would place the house at the 15 foot setback. Aanenson: I think this grading plan's a little easier to see. 2 03WWA04 ..�_yrati r Chanhassen Planning Commission —August 18, 2009 Generous: Yeah their sketch plan should. Aanenson: This right here is kind of that unbuildable, through this right here so it pinches it. So if you move it down it pinches the lot width. Keefe: I see. Aanenson: And there's nobody on that side. The middle school's right here. Keefe: Right. So the variance that we're, that we'd be looking to grant is along which line? Can you run your. Aanenson: It's pushing the house forward. Keefe: I see. Generous: It would be on the northerly 15 foot easement line. Keefe: Okay. Generous: But then we were saying that. Keefe: But the front yard is the northern? Generous: Yes. Is the northern side. Aanenson: And that's a little quirk we have with the private street. Keefe: Yeah. And so there, and then you said there was a mistake made between the sort of normal setback, which is the 30 foot setback which is with this zoning classification, right? And then. Generous: And the 20. Keefe: And then the private street, okay. Generous: Which was a condition of the subdivision since the ordinance is silent on setbacks from a private street. Keefe: Okay. So the governing rule here is the zoning setback. The 30 foot setback. Generous: Right. Keefe: The 20 really has no. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission — August 18, 2009 Generous: Yeah. It's a little bit on the eastern side of this property. It wouldn't impact the real location of the house because they want it sitting in line with those other buildings. Aanenson: Right, and that's one of the criteria that we look at with variances. That it will, aligns up and when we went out there field checking, you're pushing that house significantly behind the house immediately next door. Keefe: Okay. So by approving the variance we're saving the trees because they've already, well but they've already taken the trees out. Generous: In the grading area. Keefe: Was that done prior to this application? Aanenson: Yes. Keefe: It was. It was done as a part of the development. Generous: The subdivision. Keefe: The subdivision development, okay. And if we were to not grant it they would be forced, based upon the allowed building site or pad site or? Say we were to push them back. Generous: You would push them back at least 15 feet, if not more into the treed area. Keefe: Would they then be limited in terms of their building pad size or? Aanenson: Well that's that pinch point we were talking about. This is the area of the setback from along here so it would pinch, it'd force the house to be narrower and it drops off significantly so it makes it a little bit more challenging. Keefe: Yeah, right. Generous: Yeah, it's a walkout so. Aanenson: The topography, yeah. Keefe: Okay so, hardship on this is? Because we're going to grant a variance, would be what? Because of the building paid size or because of? Generous: Well the grading. The configuration of the property. That northern property line. Normally the way all the other lots were configured the continuation of that would have been into the school site, but because the line didn't turn to the south, well went more westerly than northwesterly. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission — August 18, 2009 Keefe: So where do we fall in terms of hardship and what do we, you know I mean, it's kind of to grant a variance sort of technically you know. Aanenson: The topographic features. There'd be additional tree loss. Keefe: Yes. Aanenson: And then also it wouldn't line up with the rest of the neighborhood, which is one of the criteria that we look at for orientation. Keefe: Right. Aanenson: To be consistent with what's, or the pattern that's set in there. That was one of the things that we physically went out and checked too. Keefe: Right. Do you guys typically write that up in terms of a hardship? And I'm not sure whether you addressed that or not in here. I mean you know, I'm in agreement. Aanenson: Sure. Keefe: I just. Aanenson: We can. Generous: Yeah, it's on page 1 of the Findings of Fact. The literal enforcement of the setback requirement would cause an undue hardship. The house location would be forced further south into the wooded area that the City is trying to preserve. The house would also be pushed out of the building orientation and alignment being maintained by the rest of the houses along the private street. Keefe: Yes. Okay. Aanenson: So that's in your Findings of Fact. Generous: And you would adopt that. Keefe: That's all I have. Laufenburger: Alright. Thank you Dan. Do we have an applicant or builder present this evening? State your name and address please for the record. Brent Hislop: Good evening members of the commission. My name is Brent Hislop with Synergy Land Company. P.O. Box here in Chanhassen. 470 so. I live technically in Victoria. No specific comments. I think you all got my write up in your packet. I believe I stated everything probably 2 or 3 times in there as far as our interpretation. Just one note (a), I think it truly is very obvious that the original intent of this lot was similar to the abutting lots. I'm not Chanhassen Planning Commission — August 18, 2009 entirely convinced that this process was necessary in terms of a variance separate from the original private street but nonetheless we worked successfully with the City on many projects and certainly staff and appreciate their help in working this out so. We're supportive of staffs recommendations, our request, and certainly stand for questions if you have any. Thank you. Laufenburger: Okay. So you're comfortable with the outcome of the, the way the. Brent Hislop: With the city line? Essentially that's the change, yes. We'll move forward under that condition. Laufenburger: Any questions for the applicant? Alright, thank you very much. Anybody else want to speak on this item? You can something else if you want. Brent Hislop: One follow. I discussed this with staff briefly. Given the configuration and I think staff agrees, or at least understands, it's a yet to be determined thing. Very common but potentially we'd have a driveway easement across, well for sure across the triangle area but potentially within the 15 feet and we or the ultimate buyer would be responsible, just like any other driveway easement so I just wanted to note that as a side bar. Laufenburger: Okay. I think we heard that and staff say that that section would be reserved for driveway but no building. Aanenson: That's correct. Laufenburger: No structure. Brent Hislop: Okay, thank you. Laufenburger: Any other public comment? Then we'll close the public hearing and bring this back to commission. Comments. Let's start with you Tom. You have any comments or questions you'd like to address to any other member of the commission? Doll: No. Laufenburger: Okay. Kathleen, how about you? Thomas: I'm in support of the variance. I think it's a good idea and it will help keep them out of the wetlands. Get the house in line with the rest of the houses that will be developed there and seems acceptable. Laufenburger: Good point. Dan. Keefe: I'm good with it. Laufenburger: Alrighty. Kevin. 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — August 18, 2009 Dillon: I support it. Laufenburger: Alright. As am I. I'll entertain a motion. Dillon: I'll make a motion. Laufenburger: Kevin. Dillon: That the Chanhassen Planning, that's the wrong one. The Chanhassen Planning Commission as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approves a 15 foot front yard setback variance to permit a 15 foot front yard setback on Lot 9, Block 1, Pinehurst 2°d Addition, based on the attached Findings of Fact and subject to the following conditions 1 through 6. Aanenson: That's it. Just need a second. Laufenburger: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Undestad: Second. Laufenburger: Thank you Mark. Any further discussion? Dillon moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approves a 15 foot front yard setback variance to permit a 15 foot front yard setback on Lot 9, Block 1, Pinehurst 2°d Addition, based on the attached Findings of Fact and subject to the following conditions: Future construction plans shall take the wetland and gully features into consideration and utilize best management practices to avoid further degradation to the wetland and gully. 2. In the event that sump pumps are installed with the construction of this house, they should be "soft" connected to the 4 inch drain tile located at the back -of -curb for the private cul-de-sac. When a building plan is submitted for this property, a detailed erosion and sediment control plan will be required as part of the submittal. 4. Additional address numbers will be required at the driveway entrance. Color of letters must be on a contrasting background color, 6 inches in height and adjacent to the driveway. If landscaping is to be done near the numbers, consideration shall be given that growth of plant/shrubs will not block the view of the numbers over time. 5. The building shall continue the orientation and placement of the buildings located to the east of the site. Buildings shall not be placed within the northeast front triangle of the site, represented on the south by a continuation of the private street easement line to the northwest. Chanhassen Planning Commission — August 18, 2009 6. Structures shall not encroach into any easement except for the driveway connecting to the private street access. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING- ZELLNER VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE ON PROPERTY APPLICANT: RICHARD & CHANIN ZELLNER. PLANNING CASE 09-13. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Laufenburger: Alright, thanks staff. Start with you Tom. Any questions for staff. Doll: This is just kind of a learning thing for me. Comer lots, are there typically, are they equal setbacks? You know usually there's a side and a front. Aanenson: Yeah, we consider the front, the true front is where your front door is, but when you're on a comer lot you have a 30 and a 30 so you have two fronts and then you have, so this would be, this side would require 30. This side would require also that, and then 10 and then. Generous: It's 10 on the other. Aanenson: 10 on the other. Generous: You have two sides and two fronts. Aanenson: Right. Doll: I have no further questions. Laufenburger: Okay. Kathleen, how about you? Thomas: Um, no I don't have any questions. Good with it. Laufenburger: Dan, any questions? Keefe: Yeah, you know just so I'm clear on this. If I'm looking at the color coded, yeah this one right here. The blue box has, is in the encroachment. If you go down to that comer. Aanenson: This little triangle piece is what's in the encroachment. Keefe: Yeah, is there an eave on the existing building that is causing that? Aanenson: No, that's the existing garage. 93 dq-10 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Brent and Karen Hislop for a 15-foot front yard setback variance — Planning Case No. 09-10. On August 18, 2009, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Brent and Karen Hislop for a 15-foot front yard setback variance from the 30-foot setback requirement at 6604 Alder Way, located in the Single Family Residential District (RSF). The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance 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 Single -Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential -Low Density (1.2 — 4 units per acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 9, Block 1, Pinehurst 2"d Addition. 4. 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 these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of the setback requirement would cause an undue hardship. The house location would be forced further south into the wooded area that the City is trying to preserve. The house would also be pushed out of the building orientation and alignment being maintained by the rest of the houses along this private street. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. SCANNED Finding: Due to the angle of the lot relative to the northern property line, the proposed building pad encroaches into the setback on the western side of the property but maintains an approximately 70-foot setback on the east side of the property. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The proposed variance allows the house to maintain the building orientation and alignment being maintained by the rest of the houses along this road. Additional tree preservation and surface water benefits can be achieved through the granting of the variance. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The difficulty is due to the angle of the lot relative to the northern property line. 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. Finding: The proposed variance allows the house to maintain the building orientation and alignment of the houses along this private street and provides additional tree preservation and surface water benefits. 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. Finding: 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. The planning report #09-10, dated August 18, 2009, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. CONCLUSION The Planning Commission has determined that the granting of the variance is in conformance with the spirit and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. ACTION "The Planning Commission as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approves a 15-foot front yard setback variance, Planning Case #09-10, for the construction of a single-family home on property legally described as Ut 9, Block 3, Pinehurst 2°d Addition, based on these findings of fact." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 180' day of August, 2009. CHA l 3 CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 08/17/2009 3:04 PM Receipt No. 0107443 CLERK: katie PAYEE: Synergy Land Cc Property List- 500, of 6604 Alder Way GIS List -------------------------------------- 90.00 Total Cash Check 5127 Change 90.00 0.00 90.00 0.00 SCANNED Ol-I - I C) City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 OF (952) 227-1100 To: Mr. Brent Hislop Synergy Land Company P.O. Box 470 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Invoice SALESPERSON DATE TERMS KTM 8/6/09 upon receipt QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 30 Property Owners List within 500' of 6604 Alder Way (30 labels) $3.00 $90.00 TOTAL DUE $90.00 NOTE: This invoice is in accordance with the Development Review Application submitted to the City by the Addressee shown above (copy attached) and must be paid prior to the public hearing scheduled for August 18, 2009. Make check payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #09-10. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! SCANNED Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers CARVER&HE�NNEPIN State of Minnesota) COUNTIES )SS. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 09.10 County of Carver ) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, August 18, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: for a frontproperty zonedard t ack Single fiance on property zoned Single Family A These news have complied with the cements constituting qualification as a legal ( ) Pov� p r31 g9 Residential (ISF) located on Lot 9, newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 33 (A.07, and other applicable laws, as s, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition amended. (6604 Alder Way). Applicant: Brent Hislop, Synergy Land Company. �J (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. ) 0X 3 A plan showing the location of was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said the proposal is available for public Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of review on the City's web site at the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both wwwa.ci.chanhassimmin.us/sew plan/09-10.html or at City Hall inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition during regular business hours. All and publication of the Notice: interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and abcdefghbkhnnopgrstuvwayz express their opinions with respect to this proposal.I,A, Robert Generous, Senior Planner Email: By. bgenerousCci.chanhassen.mn.us Laurie A. Hartmann Phone: 952-227-1131 (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Thursday, August 6, 2009; No. 4231) Subscribed and sworn before me on this _day of ,) 2009 ✓ all JYMME J. BARK NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA My Commission Expires 01/31/2013 No blic , RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $31.20 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $31.20 per column inch Rate actually charged for die above matter ...............................................$12.43 per column inch SCANNED owl - IC) CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO.09-10 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, August 18, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a front yard setback variance on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) located on Lot 9, Block 1, Pinehurst 2°d Addition (6604 Alder Way). Applicant: Brent Hislop, Synergy Land Company. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/t)lan/09-10.htm1 or at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Robert Generous, Senior Planner Email: bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1131 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on August 6, 2009) SCANNED C C) - 10 Location Map (Subject Property Highlighted in Yellow) Hislop Setback Variance Request Planning Case 2009-10 SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN PROPOSED MOTION: PC DATE: August 18, 2009 CC DATE: August 24, 2009 REVIEW DEADLINE: CASE #: 09-10 BY: AF, RG, ML, JM F "The Chanhassen Planning Commission as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approves the 15-foot front yard setback variance to permit a 15-foot front yard setback on Lot 9, Block 1, Pinehurst Second Addition, based on the attached Findings of Fact and subject to conditions 1— 6 on page 5 of the staff report." Approval requires an affirmative vote of three -fourths of the members present. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 15-foot front yard setback variance. LOCATION: 6604 Alder Way Lot 9, Block 1, Pinehurst 2°d Addition 1 APPLICANT: Synergy Land Company Brent & Karen Hislop P. O. Box 470 810 Overlook Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Victoria, MN 55386 (612)590-0811 Brent.hislop@synergylandcompany.com PRESENT ZONING: Single -Family Residential District, RSF 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (net density 1.2 — 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 0.63 acres DENSITY: NA LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAIONG: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a 15-foot front yard setback variance from the required 30-foot front yard setback requirement in order to construct a house on the house pad illustrated with the grading plan for the subdivision. To the north, the property is zoned OI, and contains the Minnetonka West Middle School playfield. To the south and east, the properties are zoned RSF and contain single-family homes within the development. The property to the west is also zoned and contains permanent open space owned by the City. SCANNED Lot 9, Block 1, Pinehurst 2°d Addition Hislop Variance Planning Case 09-10 August 18, 2009 Page 2 of 5 Water and sewer service was provided to the site with the subdivision of the property. Access is via Alder Way, a private street at the end of Pnhehurst Drive. The site was graded in conjunction with the development of the subdivision creating a building pad area in the northern portion of the property. The southern half of the property is wooded. To the west in the City -owned property is a wetland complex and drainage gully. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article XII, "RSF" Single -Family Residential District, section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks BACKGROUND On February 27, 2006, the Chanhassen City Council approved the preliminary and final plat creating 41 lots and one outlot with variances for the use of two private streets, replatting the Pinehurst subdivision into Pinehurst 2"d Addition with two fewer lots. On March 14, 2005, the Chanhassen City Council approved the final plat for Pinehurst Addition creating 43 lots, 2 outlots and associated right -of --way for public streets. On January 10, 2005, the Chanhassen City Council approved the rezoning of the 27.62 acres located within the Pinehurst subdivision from Rural Residential (RR) to Single -Family Residential (RSF); and the preliminary plat for Pinehurst Addition with a variance for the use of private streets. The easterly 13.5 acres of the property was subdivided into two lots as part of the Old Slocum Tree Farm Addition on April 6, 1987, with lot areas of 4 and 9.5 acres, respectively. The rear 14.12 acres were required to be attached to Lot 2, Block 1, Old Slocum Tree Farm as a condition of the plat approval. At that time, the property was zoned RI a, Agricultural Residence. Hislop Variance Planning Case 09-10 August 18, 2009 Page 3 of 5 ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting relief from the front setback requirement to permit the construction of a single-family home. The proposed house placement continues the line of the building fronts as established during the platting process. Due to the angle of the lot relative to the northern property line, the western side of the property would place the house at the 15-foot setback while the eastern side of the property is approximately 70 feet back from the property line. In order to assure that this building line is maintained, staff is recommending a condition that would not permit the construction of any building within the northeast comer of the site. In conjunction with the platting of the property, the City identified a 30-foot front yard setback within the compliance table. However, in the discussion of the private street, the City specified a minimum 20-foot setback from the private street. The intent was to assure a minimum setback for those properties which had the private street within their property lines, since the Code does not specify any required setbacks from private streets. The applicant assumed that the 20-foot private street setback negated the 30-foot front yard setback. Furthermore, the grading plan continued a rectangular building pad that came within 15 feet of the northern property line in the northwest corner of the lot. This grading plan was utilized in the preliminary site grading for the property - Due to the enhanced environmental protection resulting from the granting of the variance, staff is recommending approval of the 15-foot front yard setback variance. WETLANDS There is one jurisdictional wetland on the adjoining property to the west. This wetland does not impinge upon the property but the setback does extend onto the property. This wetland is a seep type of wetland and a considerable amount of erosion has formed within the watershed of this wetland. Care should be taken in the design and construction of any structure on the property to avoid increasing the volume of water directed to this area and to avoid increasing rate of flow to this area. In the event that sump pumps are installed with the construction of this house, they should be "soft" connected to the 4-inch drain the located at the back -of -curb for the private cul- de-sac. The farther the structure can be placed from this area, the less likely that drainage from the roof area and drive areas will adversely affect the gully that is forming. Hislop Variance Planning Case 09-10 August 18, 2009 Page 4 of 5 LAKES AND BLUFFS The proposed project is not within any shoreland district. There are no bluff zones located on the property. However, there are areas west and southeast of the property that have slopes as steep as 40%. These are not considered bluff as they do not have the minimum rise of 25 feet. The soils throughout this area are considered highly erodible by the NRCS and care should be taken to avoid activities which could accelerate the erosion of the existing gully or create new nick points and gullies. This includes not increasing the volume or rate of runoff directed to the east; attempting to increase the travel time of runoff prior to discharging off property; connecting any future drain tile to the existing drain tile at the back -of - curb; maintaining a vegetative buffer; and using other recognized best management practices. As with wetland setbacks, the variance request for the front yard setback increases the distance between new hardcover and the highly erodible slope areas. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Because of the proximity to the wetland and the presence of highly erodible slopes when a building plan is submitted for this property, a detailed erosion and sediment control plan will be required as part of the submittal packet. TREE PRESERVATION Allowing the pad site to be located closer to the north property line would assist in preserving the wooded area located on the southern half of the lot. The lot was cleared with a building area that assumed the reduced setback. Requiring the standard 30-foot setback would necessitate additional clearing on the lot. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion and adoption of the attached findings of fact and recommendation: "Me Chanhassen Planning Commission as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approves the 15-foot front yard setback variance to permit a 15-foot front yard setback on Lot 9, Block 1, Pinehurst 2°d Addition, based on the attached findings of fact and subject to the following conditions: Hislop Variance Planning Case 09-10 August 18, 2009 Page 5 of 5 1. Future construction plans shall take the wetland and gully features into consideration and utilize best management practices to avoid further degradation to the wetland and gully. 2. In the event that sump pumps are installed with the construction of this house, they should be "soft" connected to the 4-inch drain tile located at the back -of -curb for the private cul-de-sac. 3. When a building plan is submitted for this property, a detailed erosion and sediment control plan will be required as part of the submittal. 4. Additional address numbers will be required at the driveway entrance. Color of letters must be on a contrasting background color, 6 inches in height and adjacent to the driveway. If landscaping is to be done near the numbers, consideration shall be given that growth of plant/scrubs will not block the view of the numbers over time. 5. The building shall continue the orientation and placement of the buildings located to the east of the site. Buildings shall not be placed within the northeast front triangle of the site, represented on the south by a continuation of the private street easement line to the northwest. 6. Structures shall not encroach into any easements except for the driveway connecting to the private street access." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Action. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Applicant's Narrative Dated July 8, 2009. 4. Pinehurst Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan Dated 01/05/06. 5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. gAplan\2009 planning cases\09-10 hi slop setback varianc6staff reporthislopAm CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Brent and Karen Hislop for a 15-foot front yard setback variance — Planning Case No. 09-10. On August 18, 2009, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Brent and Karen Hislop for a 15-foot front yard setback variance from the 30-foot setback requirement at 6604 Alder Way, located in the Single Family Residential District (RSF). The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance 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 Single -Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential -Low Density (1.2 — 4 units per acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 9, Block 1, Pinehurst 2°d Addition. 4. 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 he 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 these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of the setback requirement would cause an undue hardship. The house location would be forced further south into the wooded area that the City is trying to preserve. The house would also be pushed out of the building orientation and alignment being maintained by the rest of the houses along this private street. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: Due to the angle of the lot relative to the northern property line, the proposed building pad encroaches into the setback on the western side of the property but maintains an approximately 70-foot setback on the east side of the property. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The proposed variance allows the house to maintain the building orientation and alignment being maintained by the rest of the houses along this road. Additional tree preservation and surface water benefits can be achieved through the granting of the variance. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The difficulty is due to the angle of the lot relative to the northern property line. 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. Finding: The proposed variance allows the house to maintain the building orientation and alignment of the houses along this private street and provides additional tree preservation and surface water benefits. 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. Finding: 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. The planning report #09-10, dated August 18, 2009, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. CONCLUSION The Planning Commission has determined that the granting of the variance is in conformance with the spirit and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. ACTION "Me Planning Commission as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approves a 15-foot front yard setback variance, Planning Case #09-10, for the construction of a single-family home on property legally described as Lot 9, Block 3, Pinehurst 2nd Addition, based on these findings of fact." ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 180' day of August, 2009. CHANHASSEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION IM Its Chair 3 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION PLEASE PRINT Applicant Name and Address: -v Ns(WV 1-0.nlA I�MDAN P/�.j q70 l: i0,0hA.S5U-11 !MM SS3I7 Phone: (,, z • -590 o2,1 I Fax: SP Email: h.s i e Ri t i ;v la aYnP�v . Planning Case No. Q q — 10 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED JUN 0 9 2009 CHANHASSEN PLANNING 06PT �j rL�NT r kAeEN NlSlt3� \/�;�oR_;A iMN SS353ip NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)' Subdivision` Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) X Variance (VAR) 10 0 Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment �1 Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Es w for F)tiog FeesjA#wey Cost" - $5 UP/SPR/AP/Metes & Bounds 450 Minor SUBB TOTAL FEE $ 456� G S 11 An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. 'Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED PROJECT NAME: 7iNE!kuwZ i z ,D Abblrl6rJ LOCATION:_ /,/--E. .P t-AKE LUCy 7046 A."b C7A4-P1^) Fc-Vb, LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: LoT I Be-0C.(Q / "v2ST �rD SIP It 0090 TOTAL ACREAGE: • (03 Ae- . WETLANDS PRESENT: YES N' NO PRESENTZONING: IZES D+,a� S REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: ,Zef, M/Ur„ t- S. F, REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: A-S,DENr1AL S'. r, REASON FOR REQUEST: AA1 mrca 51.rrZ-AjW F)C, s rS ,n, rNe' Pc nN �RPr3+e✓ED Tr{C- REO✓ES: Fat ✓40-1 -MCE «tLUSS To Cc.v/rFu TNa> A IS' SETAACK S LoTLiruE _ ( P1-EASF SEE FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. S n ur f Appli Dafe ✓ 7 9 6 g t Fee O ate G:\plan\forms\D ment Review Application.DOC Rev. 1108 SCANNED Anergy Land Cone a Sy P ny� Working together. Developing value.^' To: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Date: 7/08/09 Members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission From: Brent & Karen Hislop Synergy Land Company, LLC Chanhassen. MN brent. h is lop6cbSyne rat,a ndCompanv.com (612)590-0811 RE: Approved Setbacks for Lot 9, Blk. 1, Pinehurst 2id Addition (6604 Alder Way) Thank you for our recent discussion and your site visit related to our lot at Pinehurst. Per our talk, we originally purchased this lot in December 2007 and have been actively marketing the property for sale over the past 18 months. Purpose of the Variance: The necessity of this variance is primarily administrative in nature. The lot (as part of the Pinehurst subdivision) received plat approvals from the Chanhassen City Council in 2005/2006. The subdivision approval included a variance for the use of a private drive to serve the 3 lots on Alder Way. The approved resolution and plans require a 20' "front yard" setback from the private drive of all 3 lots. This issue is relevant, but not in question. The specific question relates to a "compliance chart" notation suggesting that a 30' front yard setback is required for each of the lots. For the adjoining lots (lot 10 & 11) this 30' setback was reduced to 20' as part of the approved private drive variance. For Lot 9, the chart specifies the "front yard" as the northern property line which is opposite of the area from which this lot gains access to the private drive. Due to this classification, an inconsistency exists between the compliance chart requiring a 30' setback and the approved plans and documents which demonstrate a 15' setback to the northern property line. The traditional purpose of a front yard setback is to ensure that homes within a community are placed a reasonable distance from the street to achieve safe and attractive streetscapes. We believe there was "clear and obvious" intent by the City Council to approve this lot with the 15' northern setback and a 20' private drive setback. This is consistent with abutting lots and the approved plans. We request the City clarify this inconsistency in the approval documents by approving the requested variance. Background: Recently, we've discussed the sale of the lot to a qualified buyer interested in building a large custom-built rambler with a walkout basement. The buyer's builder representative called the City to discuss restrictions, permitting, etc. in advance of a final lot sale negotiation with the buyer. During this discussion, the City suggested that the approved project plans and lot sketch demonstrated an error in the "front" setback line. SCANNED nergy Land Coin a sy nyr Working together. Developing value.^' You & 1 have discussed and agreed to the "non -typical" character of this lot which is located "on" a private drive but does not have direct frontage on this private drive — it is accessed via an easement agreement through lot 10 which is located to the south of our lot 9. The lot is 27,000+ sq. ft. in size and roughly 100' wide and 270' deep. Given the unique character & shape of the lot, it does not have a "typical" front of the lot. The existing City approved plans demonstrate a 20' building setback from the private drive which is consistent with the other lots located on the Alder Way. Issue to Clarify: The issue in question relates to possible conflicting approval notes demonstrating a 15' vs. a 30' setback from the northern property boundary which abuts the Minnetonka Middle School West. This property line is physically separated by a 10' change in elevation and a wooded tree line. Upon learning of the issue, the builder and buyer notified me of the City's comments and suggested serious concerns related to the lot value and house fit if the lot is further restricted by a 30' setback vs. the 15' setback as shown on the approved grading plan, landscape plan, and lot fit survey. It's important to note that regardless of the specific plans currently being reviewed by this active buyer, we purchased the lot with the understanding that the northern property line had a 15' setback and agree with the buyer/builder that a change to a 30' setback has material negative impacts to the lot's value and home design flexibility. The issue is NOT as a discussion of whether we "can we make this buyer's plan fit" but rather, "how do we ensure the lot's northern boundary maintains a 15' setback as drawn on the approved plans". Interpretation of the Issue: After review of the plans and project approval documents, it is our belief that the lot is currently approved with a 15' building setback on the northern property line and this approval is consistent with the attached lot sketch survey noting the easement lines and setback lines. This lot sketch survey is consistent with the approved grading plan and other approved plans. We do not dispute that the "compliance chart" in the staff memorandum (dated 3.14.05) suggests a 30' "front" setback for the lot however, we believe this to be an unintended typographical error. The approval notes, resolution, and all approved plans suggest that the 15' setback was the intended approved setback along this property line. Furthermore, in reviewing the "compliance chart", it calls for a 30' front setback for the other lots fronting on the private drive (lots 10 & 11). On the same page it is noted that all lots fronting on the private drive were approved with a 20' setback. AWN-k Sivogy Land Cvom va n her. DeelopingnlY uy Workng toge The above being true, the issue boils down to whether is lot is subject to a "front" setback and if so, what is the appropriate and logical setback from the front of the lot. We've agreed with the City that this lot is truly unique in its size, shape, and wooded character. We believe that this lot does not fall neatly into typical zoning standards for the following reasons: • The lot is accessed via a private drive • The lot does not "front" onto the private drive, but accessed via an easement from lot 10. • The lot's size, location, woodlands, wetland buffer, shape is unique. • The lot meets the typical 20' setback from the private drive (similar to lots 10 & 11). The variance approving the private drive over -rides the "front yard setback" issue and therefore justifies that the northern property line need not be considered the "front". • The clear and obvious intent of the approved plans (i.e. grading, etc.) show a 15' northern setback. Approved Plans: As part of the conditions related to the private drive and the benefits which justified approval of the private drive, we believe this lot is not subject to a "front setback" line. Any typical "front" setback requirement was eliminated as part of the approved variance related to the private drive and instead was intentionally approved with a 15' northern property setback and a 20' setback from the private drive (the lot is also restricted by the wetland buffer per the approved plans). These sebacks exceed the 20' front, 10' side yard setbacks which govern the 2 other lots located on this private drive. This lot should not be further burdened beyond the criteria of the neighboring lots. We believe there was "clear and obvious" intent by the City Council to approve the lot with the 15' northern setback and a 20' private drive setback. Final Plat Staff Memo (Page 7 of 17) "Setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street. *This condition shall be modified as follows: Setbacks on Lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, Block 1 shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street." The staff memo and staff report (based on a review of the submitted drawings) makes no mention of this lot being out of compliance. There really is no "front" of the lot for this parcel, because there is no ROW frontage. • Preliminary and Final Plat Staff Report "Final Plat Approval RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council approves the Final Plat for Pinehurst Addition creating 43 lots, 2 outlots and associated right-of-way for public streets (plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc.) subject to the following conditions: 1. Setbacks on Lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, Block 1 shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street." �'` nergy Land Com a ^, Sy p x�Y Working together. Developing value.^ a Development Contract Page SPA of the development agreement indicates that plans shall be prepared in accordance with plans listed (A-D). As we have discussed, all of the plans are consistent in showing a 10' setback on the preliminary plans changing to a 15' north setback to match the drainage and utility easement If a 30' setback was intended, the change would have been to change the 10' to the 30' setback at this time. Clearly this issue and setback line was review and intentionally approved at 15'. Page SP-3 of the development agreement, item 8-C, again notes that the front setback shall be 20' from the back of the private street Our Request: We request the City provide us written confirmation that for the above reasons, the lot is currently approved with a 20' setback from the private drive and a 15' setback from the northern property line — consistent with the attached Lot Sketch Survey. Summary: Kate — We appreciate your timely review and thank you for your willingness to work with us to clarify this issue as noted above. I'm glad to meet with you to discuss your questions or thoughts. Once we've talked, I'll communicate the update to our potential buyer/builder. Best Regards, t� �w Brent Hislop / Synergy Land Company, LLC (612)590-0811 brent.hislo a SynemyL,andCompany.com Documents Below: 1. Lot Sketch Survey 2. Grading/LS Plan 3. Arial of Plat SCANNED 0 / / N8rl2r20'W 123.49 7 IN ` � DRIVEWAY EASEMENT,, 4v9b O / O `rPAD UNES 1\ / / LOT9//// Lot For Sale: wt Synergy Land Company, LLC 7�iI / � Attn: Brent Hislop 1 I DRAINAGE AND o (612) 590 - 0811 UTWTY �\ / '—EASEMENT 2+� brent.hislop�Syne f= y/ 1 ,SETBACK UNES 1` // •.� r n; i , 1 ./// �ASE. In1�02MATIDN Qr/ SKETC-1A SURVEY IS +AK 5/ 1@as p�v/S r\ \ LandCompany.com •/ �J REQUESTED BY. PL O WSHARES, INC. eFcrv. vEsarawnM •� ,•�, Lot 9, Black 1, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesoto. I VkatwOOd -- — SCANNED Print Data/Map Page I of l http://carvergisweb l .co.carver.mn.uslarcims/gis/public/parcel_searchlprintdatamap.asp?PI D... 7/8n/2009D Print Data/Map Page I of I http://Carvergisweb I .co.carver.mn.uslarcimslgislpublielparcel_smchlprintdatamap.aW. PID... 7/8/2009 SCANNED ,Synergy Land Compare � Working together. Developing vah�e. SCANNED Plowshares Development, LLG 9A IJ.OM Nw.. b d OUNtl u9 1Y�. Y��Y SE 4 M IYn lilPllfll ATE ONEY STATE ONE rn ms.� ev-w-mN wxi �auem• m'u zLsa� .KL sow ro minim >iv.wmrm w�mmws1p M.ro uwI"fO� MI ron Yosr mARYT xomunu art "'Nevi Mw40L�0r°1x rM ui1gX nmrvar W�in.cl4A w.Yl YI®.Rr XeT M pgADl K awn Pdrva[9 P vN.TpN IIIW MY. M WIA.CIu rs m M'r.RVAW n.R bA WL' M YRn 4Oa.lYNa a tar) ew-aom iCp61MCMY wxt tlNOY m LL4111UO NSINmO M x.ThNK aturwr mIYMa onw.Iui walol Mots) xonYl KYwawN �aVO. d.�iC�ambw0¢M a�R rYRfu AleWm .r NL 1Mf .u� rN you aavriwa �mml raLwm wa P L¢ uu oo x N er a rKL na Tr a ena aml .a.L� u� mNNnw • aT.muY wR s x maaYuxz YA xam .0 m.oYY T",• wR u area n eIImN KncYe aAeA .M.L w.Y K nMm Yin awm N .auTN¢.w M am unuo aAxN¢ sass Lorsm¢nM N1AM'� tiuvnYPoX�mPuc��Ne A41 K Yµr m�aM1 Y.Nc MAn = ma Yu emi m.aKa µO aW 8 mw.m rmnP1a�0mniw :,>w �ci w`w�c`w�ia'Nro:a '.voY°}wa"`w ee¢s x.x sxa trz. Kwmo er.mrcA/e.rz+l wru u xmww *o M O MN6 �mm10 tlYA.Clpl WLf ¢.rlAa NL dLINe µE RVOID tlaN® OAMO YK4Ywa.¢ I�aU M fA WCLMd�i�L wD .avpo m101¢iNi A �I¢ la.mW V WI wN MC fnali S1aIIi w9MV/CLUNA le K LWPWm OAr w .f KmLKv NLt MCRTPI N K LMNm Lw Ml aNV1I.IG MLIL m�N m K � YMI >L IRMa MIA rM.L PK( A M.piOglaµ¢ YM alai gAlf VIOa eMAe 19110.Ma 1 WM1G w WiN.Ldl Md C]CTd 1i Ml M1 airy aeq 94ny R AywyLlL NI RYPKY YIOC{ Lw0 A oMll 0� rolL q MLYi I.M YNr w MOY�('ma1.I�Y w M�K WTW. Y LA6I L1mYe wML K OINAma YM WwI�KIR P�9R aaYc FyR wAf COIIIYm YA M on eAM A WM vJRU ,Yl llpglMr SIWiL6 WaI YAN AI IA¢ MQe MPM911LL A IIVI �eiwf M IAYY(AT N!J Um .f .11Na1Kr e.91 wrLL L[ atµm WI MIP .Yr n.eemnP ¢Mart M. w.11 R. YM r a G.1 Y.RNIl.6.i LIYITY eAIM A AANA[ bl nOl K{ P eY.N �.XN� NAA IlllB1Q RMn] O. I.aMt [091n Ai rOYr LM[ t WOML al¢. >Q MMaI N PIIY Ai Id¢ (ML T II[ MMJ .� YONtA Mt IM[CIYY IA¢ ��W�� rRO1n m51Y1011]IIO.e¢ �•tei� dl1]R IKLO� f011aeN Ny A:I]RS MV04D AON YeA O—�b LOg2a [ATP'e tIAY ][aA +wv� [peR [L9M0 M[ LLK tee. nw Y A L�mn tuvAnM LOgIO POHM ¢NIML \AYM l+xeol aeu unTPr> m ea nl LMRf f0.xtLL AONI bKON / SIIYT MM 'e m.an —low PIRI/61 �e.e4 Pinehurst Grading Drainage & etofflan central PULL 0�6a Id�Y CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on August 6, 2009, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for the Hislop Variance Request — Planning Case 09-10 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1,,)+K day of 41 igj2,� 2009. Notary Pub is QQwKIM T.MEIJWISSEN Notary Public_Minnesota Canmis5ion� Jan 31, 2010 Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for a 15-foot front yard setback on property zoned Sin le Famil Residential RSF Applicant: Brent Hislo , Synergy Land Company, LLC Property 6604 Alder Way Location: (Lot 9, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition) A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/09-10.htmI. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Robert Questions & Generous by email at baenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Comments: phone at 952-227-1131. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciaVmtlustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersonlrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification, Date & Time: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the a enda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a 15-foot front yard setback on property zoned Proposal: Sin le Family Residential RSF Applicant: Brent Hislo , Synergy Land Company, LLC Property 6604 Alder Way Location: (Lot 9, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition) A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: 1, Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/i)lan/09-10.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Robert Questions & Generous by email at boenerous®ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Comments: phone at 952-227-1131. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any Interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercialAndustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. ALFREDO L PENTEADO III BEN & MARGARET LIAO BRENT & KAREN HISLOP C 001 INDNDYCE J PENTEADO 3645 FORESTVIEW LN 810 OVERLOOK LN EDE NDN PRAIRIE MN 55347-1205 EGO DR PLYMOUTH MN 55441-1336 VICTORIA MN 55386-3715 DE CHARLES R & KATHLEEN J MOW REY 6610 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7560 DANIEL C & JANE A MCKOWN 2171 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4579 DUANE R & SUSAN D MORRIS 343 SYDMOR DR E BOISE ID 83706-5668 JOHN G II & BARBARA K JACOBSON 6719 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7570 LECY BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION INC 15012 HIGHWAY 7 MINNETONKA MN 55345-3634 MICHAEL L & AMY C DEGENEFFE 6654 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7560 RICHARD E & KAREN HERRBOLDT 6464 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8994 STEVEN P & KIMBERLY A LATTU 840 FOX CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9283 CURTIS W & NOELLE W SWENSON 6614 ALDER WAY CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4581 DAVID L & HOLLY J JESSEN 6618 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7560 IND SCHOOL DIST 276 5621 HIGHWAY 101 MINNETONKA MN 55345 KEITH K & CHRISTINE M CLARK 6620 CHESTNUT LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4580 LEIGH STOCKER BERGER 2140 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4579 PAUL J & KRISTI L BORCHERT 6636 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7560 ROBERT A JR & BRENDA K NESS 2121 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8010 THOMAS & MARY KUHN 6693 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7560 DAN V & CYNTHIA M SEEMAN 6673 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7560 DOUGLAS E & MARY K JOHNSON 6474 MURRAY HILL RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8994 JOHN A & DEBORAH S MASCHOFF 6613 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7560 KIMBERLY K GOERS 6709 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7570 MICHAEL D & DEBRA H ANDERSON 6681 AMBERWOOD LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4582 PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT LLC 1851 WEST LAKE DR #550 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8567 SANG C & NHI T KY 6729 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7570 THOMAS J & REBECCA J HAGEN 6633 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7560 TIMOTHY P & HEIDI S LARKIN & TONKA DEVELOPMENT LLC TROY A BADER & GINA SAUER LECY BROS CONSTRUCTION ATTN: MARY TROY LAKE DER GI 2150 CRESTVIEW DR 18001 HIGHWAY 7 2244 L A E LU MN 55317-6706 EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8009 MINNETONKA MN 55345-4150 WILLIAM O & KRISTEN K FLANAGAN 6653 BRENDEN CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7560 Qf10F Date: July 15, 2009 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department Review Response Deadline: August 7, 2009 By: Robert Generous, Senior Planner Subject: Request for a 15-foot front yard setback variance on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) located on Lot 9, Block 1, Pinehurst 2°d Addition (6604 Alder Way). Applicant: Brent Hislop, Synergy Land Company Planning Case: 09-10 PID: 25-6110090 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on July 9, 2009. The 60-day review period ends September 7, 2009. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on August 18, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than August 7, 2009. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. City Departments: a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official L Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District 3. MN Dept. of Transportation 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. U.S. Fish& Wildlife 7. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 8. Watershed District Engineer a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Minnehaha Creek 9. Telephone Company (Qwest or Sprint/United) 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 13. School District 276 SCANNED PID# 256110090 Wk mprytipht 2009, Caruat — ; llinre9ota� Legend arcellnformation dtaarthlY Property Address: Taxpayer Information: 6604 ALDER WAY BRENT & KAREN HISLOP paasgs CHANHASSEN, MN 810OVERLOOKLN VICTORIA, MN 55396 ewe" arcel Properties rww GIS Acres: 0.62983814 r..yw Homestead: N qw School District: 0276 ww Parcel Location talc huak Section: 03 Plat Information: Township: 116 11 PINEBURST 2ND ADDITION C1111 Ip Range: 023 Lot-009 Block-001 [Payable Year 1010 Last Sale Information Sale Date: 12/142007 Est Market Value Land: S242800 Sale Price: $267309 Est. Market Value Building: $0 Qualified/Unqualifled: QUALHUD SALE Map Created: 7-15-2009 Est. Market Value Total: $242800 ER COUNTY GIS DISCLAIMER: This map was created using Carver County's Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation nation and data firma various City, County, State, and Federal offices. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Carver County is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein. SCANNED 0Synergy Land Corn pany� Working together. Developing vale To: Kate Aanenson Date: 7/01/09 Community Development Director City of Chanhassen From: Brent & Karen I islop Synergy Land Company, LLC Chanhassen, MN brent.hisigp@§3mglxLandComMy.com (612)590-0811 RE: Interpretation of Approved Setbacks for Lot 9, Blk. 1, Pinehurst 2'a Addition (6604 Alder Way) Thank you for our recent discussion and your site visit related to our lot at Pinehurst. Per our talk, we originally purchased this lot in December 2007 and have been actively marketing the property for sale over the past 18 months. Background: Recently, we've discussed the sale of the lot to a qualified buyer interested in building a large custom-built rambler with a walkout basement. The buyer's builder representative called the City to discuss restrictions, permitting, etc. in advance of a final lot sale negotiation with the buyer. During this discussion, the City suggested that the approved project plans and lot sketch demonstrated an error in the "front" setback line. You & I have discussed and agreed to the "non -typical" character of this lot which is located "on" a private drive but does not have direct frontage on this private drive — it is accessed via an easement agreement through lot 10 which is located to the south of our lot 9. The lot is 27,000+ sq. ft. in size and roughly 100' wide and 270' deep. Given the unique character & shape of the lot, it does not have a `typical" front of the lot. The existing City approved plans demonstrate a 20' building setback from the private drive which is consistent with the other lots located on the Alder Way. Issue to Clarify: The issue in question relates to possible conflicting approval notes demonstrating a 15' vs. a 30' setback from the northern property boundary which abuts the Minnetonka Middle School West. This property line is physically separated by a 10' change in elevation and a wooded tree line. Upon teaming of the issue, the builder and buyer notified me of the City's comments and suggested serious concerns related to the lot value and house fit if the lot is further restricted by a 30' setback vs. the 15' setback as shown on the approved grading plan, landscape plan, and lot fit survey. It's important to note that regardless of the specific plans currently being reviewed by this active buyer, we purchased the lot with the understanding that the northern property line had a 15' setback and agree with the buyer/builder that a change to a 30' setback has material negative impacts to the lot's value and home design flexibility. Synergy LandCompan, 4 << Working together. Developing value.'w The issue is NOT as a discussion of whether we "can we make this buyer's plan fit" but rather, "how do we ensure the lot's northern boundary maintains a 15' setback as drawn on the approved plans". Our Interpretation of the Issue: After review of the plans and project approval documents, it is our belief that the lot is currently approved with a 15' building setback on the northern property line and this approval is consistent with the attached lot sketch survey noting the easement lines and setback lines. This lot sketch survey is consistent with the approved grading plan and other approved plans. We do not dispute that the "compliance chart" in the staff memorandum (dated 3.14.05) suggests a 30' "front" setback for the lot; however, we believe this to be an unintended typographical error. The approval notes, resolution, all approved plans all suggest that the 15' setback was the intended approved setback along this property line. Furthermore, in reviewing the "compliance chart", it calls for a 30' front setback for the other lots fronting on the private drive (lots 10 & 11). On the same page it is noted that all lots fronting on the private drive were approved with a 20' setback. The above being true, the issue then really boils down to whether is lot is subject to a "front" setback and if so, what is the appropriate and logical setback from the front of the lot. We've agreed with the City that this lot is truly unique in its size, shape, and wooded character. We believe that this lot does not fall neatly into typical zoning standards for the following reasons: • The lot is accessed via a private drive • The lot does not "front" onto the private drive, but accessed via an easement from lot 10. • The lot's size, location, woodlands, wetland buffer, shape is unique. • The lot meets the typical 20' setback from the private drive (similar to lots 10 & 11). The variance aonroving the private drive over -rides the "front yard setback" issue and therefore justifies that the northern property line need not be considered the "front". • The clear and obvious intent of the approved plans (i.e. grading, etc.) show a 15' northern setback. Approved Plans: As part of the conditions related to the private drive and the benefits which justified approval of the private drive, we believe this lot is not subject to a "front setback" line. Any typical "front" setback requirement was eliminated as part of the approved variance related to the private drive and instead was intentionally approved with a 15' northern property setback and a 20' setback from the private drive (the lot is also restricted by the wetland buffer per the approved plans). This exceeds the 20' front, 10' side yard setbacks which govern the 2 other lots located on this private drive. We believe there was "clear and obvious" intent by the City Council to approve the lot with the 15' northern setback and a 20' private drive setback. Land Com3,5�jvergynyr K'orking together. Developing roalae.^ Final Plat Staff Memo (Page 7 of 17) "Setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street. *This condition shall be modified as follows: Setbacks on Lots 9, 10, 11, 14,15 and 16, Block 1 shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street." The staff memo and staff report (based on a review of the submitted drawings) makes no mention of this lot being out of compliance. There really is no "front" of the lot for this parcel, because there is no ROW frontage. • Preliminary and Final Plat Staff Report "Final Plat Approval RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council approves the Final Plat for Pinehurst Addition creating 43 lots, 2 outlots and associated right-of-way for public streets (plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc.) subject to the following conditions: 1. Setbacks on Lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, Block I shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street." • Development Contract Page SP-1 of the development agreement indicates that plans shall be prepared in accordance with plans listed (A-D). As we have discussed, all of the plans are consistent in showing a 10' setback on the preliminary plans, changing to a 15' north setback to match the drainage and utility easement. If a 30' setback was intended, the change would have been to change the 10' to the 30' setback at this time. Clearly this issue and setback line was review and intentionally approved at 15'. Page SP-3 of the development agreement, item 8-C, again notes that the front setback shall be 20' from the back of the private street. Our Request: We request the City provide us written confirmation that for the above reasons, the lot is currently approved with a 20' setback from the private drive and a 15' setback from the northern property line — consistent with the attached Lot Sketch Survey. Summary: Kate — We appreciate your timely review and thank you for your willingness to work with us to clarify this issue as noted above. I'm glad to meet with you to discuss your questions or thoughts. Once we've talked, I'll communicate the update to our potential buyer/builder. Best Regards, Brent lhslop Synergy Land Company, LLC (612) 590-0811 brent-hislop@SynergvLandComt)gny.com Documents Below: 1. Lot Sketch Survey 2. Grading/LS Plan 3. Arial of Plat F. ,gjISynergy Land Company lVorkiuq together. Developiug value."' LOT SKETCH / / a LOT 9 /,/ Lot Far Sale : 299,1A0 / Synergy Land Company. LLC b / nn Went Mrobp O I � AIMD M /// (612) 590-0811 bent h,alop@Gyma,gyL.ndConnpsny oom y-+rl�l1Mat Ia0 .- .. ... / / � all ( , 40 ataxslm ar PLOWSHARES, INC. LLE 9 BIPllW)4l1R5T 7M0 a001n0M, WE oceording to Na raaardad plat tharaoy, Carty County. M'maaeta. VFMWAMy aar r•- >o arar " B!M 03/09/D/ 2W41064.00 lueareaw9nrrns nergy Land Com a (P sy p ny<< Working together. Oeoeloning value. Background: Recently, we've discussed the sale of the lot to a qualified buyer interested in building a large custom-built rambler with a walkout basement. The buyer's builder representative called the City to discuss restrictions, permitting, etc. in advance of a final lot sale negotiation with the buyer. During this discussion, the City suggested that the approved project plans and lot sketch demonstrated an error in the "front" setback line. You & I have discussed and agreed to the "non -typical" character of this lot which is located "on" a private drive but does not have direct frontage on this private drive — it is accessed via an easement agreement through lot 10 which is located to the south of our lot 9. The lot is 27,000+ sq. ft. in size and roughly 100' wide and 270' deep. Given the unique character & shape of the lot, it does not have a "typical" front of the lot. The existing City approved plans demonstrate a 20' building setback from the private drive which is consistent with the other lots located on the Alder Way. Issue to Clarify: The issue in question relates to possible conflicting approval notes demonstrating a 15' vs. a 30' setback from the northern property boundary which abuts the Minnetonka Middle School West. This property line is physically separated by a 10' change in elevation and a wooded tree line. Upon learning of the issue, the builder and buyer notified me of the City's comments and suggested serious concerns related to the lot value and house fit if the lot is further restricted by a 30' setback vs. the 15' setback as shown on the approved grading plan, landscape plan, and lot fit survey. It's important to note that regardless of the specific plans currently being reviewed by this active buyer, we purchased the lot with the understanding that the northern property line had a 15' setback and agree with the buyer builder that a change to a 30' setback has material negative impacts to the lot's value and home design flexibility. The issue is NOT as a discussion of whether we "can we make this buyer's plan fit" but rather, "how do we ensure the lot's northern boundary maintains a 15' setback as drawn on the approved plans". Our Interpretation of the Issue: After review of the plans and project approval documents, it is our belief that the lot is currently approved with a 15' building setback on the northern property line and this approval is consistent with the attached lot sketch survey noting the easement lines and setback lines. This lot sketch survey is consistent with the approved grading plan and other approved plans. We do not dispute that the "compliance chart" in the staff memorandum (dated 3.14.05) suggests a 30' "front" setback for the lot; however, we believe this to be an unintended typographical error. The approval notes, resolution, all approved plans all suggest that the 15' setback was the intended approved setback along this property line. Furthermore, in reviewing the "compliance chart", it calls for a 30' front setback for the other lots fronting on the private drive (lots 10 & 11). On the same page it is noted that all lots fronting on the private drive were approved with a 20' setback. The above being true, the issue then really boils down to whether is lot is subject to a "front" setback and if so, what is the appropriate and logical setback from the front of the lot. We've agreed with the City that this lot is truly unique in its size, shape, and wooded character. We believe that this lot does not fall neatly into typical zoning standards for the following reasons: • The lot is accessed via a private drive • The lot does not "front" onto the private drive, but accessed via an easement from lot 10. • The lot's size, location, woodlands, wetland buffer, shape is unique. • The lot meets the typical 20' setback from the private drive (similar to lots 10 & 11). The variance approving the private drive over -rides the "front yard setback" issue and therefore justifies that the northern property line need not be considered the "front". • The clear and obvious intent of the approved plans (i.e. grading, etc.) show a 15' northern setback. Approved Plans: As part of the conditions related to the private drive and the benefits which justified approval of the private drive, we believe this lot is not subject to a "front setback" line. Any typical "front" setback requirement was eliminated as part of the approved variance related to the private drive and instead was intentionally approved with a 15' northern property setback and a 20' setback from the private drive (the lot is also restricted by the wetland buffer per the approved plans). This exceeds the 20' front, 10' side yard setbacks which govern the 2 other lots located on this private drive. We believe there was "clear and obvious" intent by the City Council to approve the lot with the 15' northern setback and a 20' private drive setback. • Final Plat Staff Memo (Page 7 of 17) "Setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street. *This condition shall be modified as follows: Setbacks on Lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, Block 1 shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street." The staff memo and staff report (based on a review of the submitted drawings) makes no mention of this lot being out of compliance. There really is no "front" of the lot for this parcel, because there is no ROW frontage. • Preliminary and Final Plat Staff Report "Final Plat Approval RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council approves the Final Plat for Pinehurst Addition creating 43 lots, 2 outlots and associated right-of-way for public streets (plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc.) subject to the following conditions: 1. Setbacks on Lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, Block lshall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street." • Development Contract Page SP-1 of the development agreement indicates that plans shall be prepared in accordance with plans listed (A-D). As we have discussed, all of the plans are consistent in showing a 10' setback on the preliminary plans, changing to a 15' north setback to match the drainage and utility easement. If a 30' setback was intended, the change would have been to change the 10' to the 30' setback at this time. Clearly this issue and setback line was review and intentionally approved at 15'. Page SP-3 of the development agreement, item 8-C, again notes that the front setback shall be 20' from the back of the private street. Our Request: We request the City provide us written confirmation that for the above reasons, the lot is currently approved with a 20' setback from the private drive and a 15' setback from the northern property line — consistent with the attached Lot Sketch Survey. RESPONSE: The applicant must request a variance from the zoning ordinance to permit a 15 foot setback. The sketch plan represents what the applicant would like to do, not necessarily what complies with code. RESPONSE: The lot is accessed via a private street. The northern property line was determined to be the front of the property, due to the lot's unique shape. Because of the angle of these parcels to the northeast, it was determined that the northern property lines for lots 9, 10 and 11 would be the front. The variance was approved for the use of a private street, not for smMer front yard setbacks. Section 20-615 (7) specifies the determination of the front yard. (7) The setbacks for lots served by private streets and/or neck lots areas follows: a. For front yard, 30 feet. The front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of- way that provides access to the parcel. The rear yard lot line is to be located opposite from the front lot line with the remaining exposures treated as side lot lines. On neck lots the front yard setback shall be measured at the point nearest the front lot line where the lot achieves a 100-foot minimum width. b. For rear yards, 30 feet. c. For side yards, ten feet. RESPONSE: The approved grading plan showed an approximately flat grading envelop to the 15 foot northern property easement. This area could be used for a yard or an additional parking pad. The actual building pad would be truncated on the western side of the property by the required 30 foot setback. 4 RESPONSE: The lot meets the minimum requirement of the zoning ordinance with 100 feet of lot width and over 125 feet of lot depth. It exceeds the minimum 15,000 square feet of lot area. There was no front yard setback variance approved for Lot 9. Response: The City wanted to ensure that at least a 20 foot driveway was provided for each lot accessed via the private streets. If you look at the plat, the private street easement covered the northerly 30 feet of lots 10 and 11. Without the condition for the additional setback, they could have built right to the easement line. City Code does not specifically require any setback from the private street. The compliance table in both the preliminary and final plats stated that the required setback for Lot 9 was 30 feet on the front. The frontage specified for Lot 9 was shown as 123 feet, which corresponds to the northern property line width. Area (square feet) Frontage (feet) Depth (feet) Setback (feet) Code 15,000 90,100 on private 125 Front — 30, side -10, street rear — 30, wetland buffer - 40 Lot 9,BlOck1 27,440 123 332 30,10,30,40 5 Section 18-57 (p) Private street standards. If the use of a private street is to be allowed, it shall be subject to the following standards: (1) The common sections of a private street serving two units or more in the A-2, RR, RSF, R4, and RLM (when less than four units per acre) districts must be built to a seven - ton design, paved to a width of 20 feet, utilize a maximum grade of ten percent, and provide a turnaround area acceptable to the fire marshal based upon guidelines provided by applicable fire codes. Private streets serving RLM (when equal to or greater than four units per acre), R-8, R-12, and R-16, shall be built to a seven -ton design, paved a minimum width of 24 feet, utilize a maximum grade of ten percent, and provide a turnaround acceptable to the fire marshal based on applicable fire codes. Private streets serving business, industrial and office districts shall be built to a nine -ton design, paved a minimum width of 26 feet, utilize a maximum grade of ten percent, and provide a turnaround area acceptable to the fire marshal based on guidelines provided by applicable fire codes. Plans for the street shall be submitted to the city engineer. Upon completion of the private street, the applicant shall submit a set of "as -built" plans signed by a registered civil engineer. (2) Private streets must be maintained in good condition and plowed within 24 hours of a snowfall greater than two inches. Covenants concerning maintenance shall be filed against all benefiting properties. Parking on the private street or otherwise blocking all or part of the private street shall be prohibited. (3) Private streets that are not usable by emergency vehicles because of obstructions, snow accumulation, or poor maintenance are a public safety hazard. The city may remedy such conditions and assess the cost back to the property pursuant to M.S. § 429.101, subd. l(C). (4) The private street shall be provided with adequate drainage facilities to convey storm runoff which may require hydrologic calculations for a ten-year storm should be included. In the RLM (when equal to or greater than four units per acre), R-8, R-12, R-16 business, industrial, and office districts, these improvements shall include concrete curb and gutter. (5) Street addresses or city approved street name sign, if required, must be posted at the point where the private street intersects the public right-of-way. 0 (6) The private street shall be designed to minimize impacts upon adjoining parcels. The city may require revised alignments, specific building orientation, increased setbacks, and landscaping to minimize impacts. An erosion control plan should be completed and approved prior to construction. (7) The private street in the A-2, RR, RSF, R-4 and RLM (when less than four units per acre) districts, must be located within a strip of property at least 30 feet wide extending out to the public right-of-way or covered by a 30-foot wide easement that is permanently recorded over all benefited and impacted parcels. Neither the area within the easement for the private street nor the impervious surface of the private street shall be included within the calculation of the lot area or lot coverage of the lot in which the easement is located. Once the private street terminates, the area of the easement and impervious surface of the driveway shall be included in the calculation of lot area and lot coverage for the lot. (8) Private streets serving RLM (when equal to or greater than four units per acre), R-8, R-12, R-16, business, industrial, and office districts, must be located within a strip of property at least 40 feet wide extending out to the public right-of-way or covered by a 40- foot wide easement that is permanently recorded over all benefited and impacted parcels. Both the area and the impervious surface of the easement and private street shall be included in the calculation of lot area and lot coverage of the lot in which the easement is located. (9) Maintenance and repair of private utilities located within the private street shall be the responsibility of the benefiting property. (s) Private streets serving up to four lots may be permitted in the A2, RR, RSF, R4 and RLM (when less than four units per acre) districts if the criteria in variance section 18-22 are met and upon consideration of the following: (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. (2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. (3) The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources, including wetlands and protected areas. g:\plan\2006 planning cases\06-07 pinehurst replafthislop response.doc Pinehurst 7/6/2009 Legal Address L7, B2 2050 Pinehurst Drive Ll, B3 2061 Pinehurst Drive L25, B 1 20181 Pinehurst Drive L22, B 1 2111 Pinehurst Drive 14, B 1 2140 Pinehurst Drive L13, B1 2171 PinehurstDrive L6, B3 2030 Edgewood Court L5, B3 2021 Edgewood Court L2, B 1 6620 Chestnut Lane L14, B 1 6681 Amberwood Lane L1Q, B1 6614 Alder Way ,Vyj MIX" Lot Width House Width % House/Lot House Type 132.85 72 54% R 118.13 75.96 64% WO 106.74 72 67% WO 113.21 77.96 69% WO 190 89.32 47% R 100.93 68.67 68% WO 94.45 72 76% WO 90.57 76 84% WO 110.31 66.67 60% LO 216.78 77.96 36% WO 100 66.66 67% WO 124.91 74.11 63% C:\Documents and Settings\KateA\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\LQFY26RL\Building- Lot analysis.xlsx tl SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 07/09/2009 3:46 PM Receipt No. 0104476 CLERK: bethany PAYEE: Synergy Land Company LLC PO Box 470 Chanhassen MN 55317 Hislop Setback Variance - Planning Case 09-10 ------------------------------------------------------- Use & Variance 200.00 Sign Rent 200.00 Recording Fees 50.00 Total Cash Check 5117 Change 450.00 0.00 450.00 0.00 SCANNED HISLOP SETBACK VARIANCE - PLANNING CASE 09-10 $200 Variance $200 Notification Sign $50 Recording Escrow $450 TOTAL $450 Less Check No. 5117 from Synergy Land Company, LLC $0 BALANCE DUE SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION V KIN 1 Applicant Name and Address: 1 ��JcR.1av (_aeA> Phone: .,,z,- 'n obi: Fax: 4' Email: egsynu n— Planning Case No. Owner Name and Address: yvj Phone: Fax: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development` Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)' Subdivision' Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) "< Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" - $50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. `Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (`.tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: / 1- c . I-° ke 'r " D ANC &ae P/!i b i•vb r , LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: Lv+ �' ��'� l� ntc �uP.�" .� 4t,n, r,�+J TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: Ac_ . YES �X NO PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: !'Ei-N'/f+r_ F• REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: IA S1. F. REASON FOR REQUEST: t+nf /Af-C6�u;/s1Z-,-)cu EXIS;/.f PI-4L�j 44fr- rvelD 7<: c:uY+?C`.N-Sl=a.2 �/ c P, nJcf%�A�' .0 �hjr T!FT-� ! iiA`if+�'✓�i� rW ?3ri`i/Ze37ta\ Gfr�'M. Tu,'r nlnr -f¢=2 n1 i%/r_..s.P�2:� frNF: !dam S:lri'.,J1�3 GYv1 r�PPP1iJ��%�L�a�]�� :S "fit �(/1'-cif GriL� ;iU:�71�-�)j '�fr TP�!�Z:-�G �tl Trlr lar; r'yE L s�LEF.��,L �-+✓ FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. t Dafe g/,% r Rev. 1 /08 �.•� nergyLandCom a t s�sy nY� Working together. Develapiug vnlue ^' To: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Date: 7/08/09 Members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission From: Brent & Karen Hislop Synergy Land Company, LLC Chanhassen. MN brent. h is lopR(S ynergv LandCom panv.com (612) 590-0811 RE: Approved Setbacks for Lot 9, Blk. 1, Pinehurst 2 d Addition (6604 Alder Way) Thank you for our recent discussion and your site visit related to our lot at Pinehurst. Per our talk, we originally purchased this lot in December 2007 and have been actively marketing the property for sale over the past 18 months. Purpose of the Variance: The necessity of this variance is primarily administrative in nature. The lot (as part of the Pinehurst subdivision) received plat approvals from the Chanhassen City Council in 2005/2006. The subdivision approval included a variance for the use of a private drive to serve the 3 lots on Alder Way. The approved resolution and plans require a 20' "front yard" setback from the private drive of all 3 lots. This issue is relevant, but not in question. The specific question relates to a "compliance chart" notation suggesting that a 30' front yard setback is required for each of the lots. For the adjoining lots (lot 10 & I I) this 30' setback was reduced to 20' as part of the approved private drive variance. For Lot 9, the chart specifies the "front yard" as the northern property line which is opposite of the area from which this lot gains access to the private drive. Due to this classification, an inconsistency exists between the compliance chart requiring a 30' setback and the approved plans and documents which demonstrate a IS' setback to the northern property line. The traditional purpose of a front yard setback is to ensure that homes within a community are placed a reasonable distance from the street to achieve safe and attractive streetscapes. We believe there was "clear and obvious" intent by the City Council to approve this lot with the 15' northern setback and a 20' private drive setback. This is consistent with abutting lots and the approved plans. We request the City clarify this inconsistency in the approval documents by approving the requested variance. Background: Recently, we've discussed the sale of the lot to a qualified buyer interested in building a large custom-built rambler with a walkout basement. The buyer's builder representative called the City to discuss restrictions, permitting, etc. in advance of a final lot sale negotiation with the buyer. During this discussion, the City suggested that the approved project plans and lot sketch demonstrated an error in the "front" setback line. nergy Land Coin a 2 sy nyt, r � Working together. Developing value.^' You & 1 have discussed and agreed to the "non -typical" character of this lot which is located 'bn" a private drive but does not have direct frontage on this private drive — it is accessed via an easement agreement through lot 10 which is located to the south of our lot 9. The lot is 27,000+ sq. ft. in size and roughly 100' wide and 270' deep. Given the unique character & shape of the lot, it does not have a "typical" front of the lot. The existing City approved plans demonstrate a 20' building setback from the private drive which is consistent with the other lots located on the Alder Way. Issue to Clarify: The issue in question relates to possible conflicting approval notes demonstrating a 15' vs. a 30' setback from the northern property boundary which abuts the Minnetonka Middle School West. This property line is physically separated by a 10' change in elevation and a wooded tree line. Upon learning of the issue, the builder and buyer notified me of the City's comments and suggested serious concerns related to the lot value and house fit if the lot is further restricted by a 30' setback vs. the 15' setback as shown on the approved grading plan, landscape plan, and lot fit survey. It's important to note that regardless of the specific plans currently being reviewed by this active buyer, we purchased the lot with the understanding that the northern property line had a 15' setback and agree with the buyer/builder that a change to a 30' setback has material negative impacts to the lot's value and home design flexibility. The issue is NOT as a discussion of whether we "can we make this buyer's plan fit" but rather, "how do we ensure the lot's northern boundary maintains a 15' setback as drawn on the approved plans". Interpretation of the Issue: After review of the plans and project approval documents, it is our belief that the lot is currently approved with a 15' building setback on the northern property line and this approval is consistent with the attached lot sketch survey noting the easement lines and setback lines. This lot sketch survey is consistent with the approved grading plan and other approved plans. We do not dispute that the "compliance chart" in the staff memorandum (dated 3.14.05) suggests a 30' "front' setback for the lot: however, we believe this to be an unintended typographical error. The approval notes, resolution, and all approved plans suggest that the 15' setback was the intended approved setback along this property line. Furthermore, in reviewing the "compliance chart", it calls for a 30' front setback for the other lots fronting on the private drive (lots 10 & 11). On the same page it is noted that all lots fronting on the private drive were approved with a 20' setback. Synergy Land Company e Working together. Developing value." The above being true, the issue boils down to whether is lot is subject to a "front" setback and if so, what is the appropriate and logical setback from the front of the lot. We've agreed with the City that this lot is truly unique in its size, shape, and wooded character. We believe that this lot does not fall neatly into typical zoning standards for the following reasons: • The lot is accessed via a private drive • The lot does not "front" onto the private drive, but accessed via an easement from lot 10. • The lot's size, location, woodlands, wetland buffer, shape is unique. • The lot meets the typical 20' setback from the private drive (similar to lots 10 & I I ). The variance approving the private drive over -rides the "front yard setback" issue and therefore justifies that the northern property line need not be considered the "front". • The clear and obvious intent of the approved plans (i.e. grading, etc.) show a 15' northern setback. Approved Plans: As part of the conditions related to the private drive and the benefits which justified approval of the private drive, we believe this lot is not subject to a "front setback" line. Any typical "front" setback requirement was eliminated as part of the approved variance related to the private drive and instead was intentionally approved with a 15' northern property setback and a 20' setback from the private drive (the lot is also restricted by the wetland buffer per the approved plans). These sebacks exceed the 20' front, 10' side yard setbacks which govern the 2 other lots located on this private drive. This lot should not be further burdened beyond the criteria of the neighboring lots. We believe there was "clear and obvious" intent by the City Council to approve the lot with the 15' northern setback and a 20' private drive setback. Final Plat Staff Memo (Page 7 of 17) "Setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street. *This condition shall be modified as follows: Setbacks on Lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, Block 1 shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street" The staff memo and staff report (based on a review of the submitted drawings) makes no mention of this lot being out of compliance. There really is no "front" of the lot for this parcel, because there is no ROW frontage. • Preliminary and Final Plat Staff Retort "Final Plat Approval RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council approves the Final Plat for Pinehurst Addition creating 43 lots, 2 outlots and associated right-of-way for public streets (plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc.) subject to the following conditions: 1. Setbacks on Lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, Block I shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street." ga+ Tier gy Land Com a :, SY�� c Working together. Developing aahre."' • Development Contract Page SP-I of the development agreement indicates that plans shall he prepared in accordance with plans listed (A-D). As we have discussed, all of the plans are consistent in showing a 10' setback on the preliminary plans, changing, to a 15' north setback to match the drainage and utility easement. If a 30' setback was intended, the change would have been to change the 10' to the 30' setback at this time. Clearly this issue and setback line was review and intentionally approved at 15'. Page SP-3 of the development agreement, item 8-C, again notes that the front setback shall be 20' from the back of the private street. Our Request: We request the City provide us written confirmation that for the above reasons, the lot is currently approved with a 20' setback from the private drive and a 15' setback from the northern property line — consistent with the attached Lot Sketch Survey. Summary: Kate — We appreciate your timely review and thank you for your willingness to work with us to clarify this issue as noted above. I'm glad to meet with you to discuss your questions or thoughts. Once we've talked, I'll communicate the update to our potential buyer/builder. Best Regards, t Brent Hislop Synergy Land Company, LLC (612)590-0811 brent.hislo a,SynergyLandCompany.com Documents Below: 1. Lot Sketch Survey 2. Grading/LS Plan 3. Arial of Plat FA i / / / / Nisr12'200W O ,. DRIVEWAY E r PAD UES i 123.49 n / LOTv / // ILot For Sale: / Y ' IBynergy CSLand Company, LLC II Attn: Brent Hislop / / o (612) 590 - 0811 �'.. DRAINAGE AND U1ILITY �` / or___ —_ ��EpSEMENT ✓/ lxent.hislop@SynergyLandCompany.com I ; SEIDACN LINES l` / / ; (' •• / ;. QD 'aA$E. If.1FOlL1rlATtOh1 T"% t )-eT SKETCH SuRvEy IS I 44P/ rT =REQUE5TEV6y- 1;WSHARES, INC. E LEGAL DIESCW7Xft ,.�. Lot 9, Block 1, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITI according to the recorded plat thereofON, , Carver County, Minnesota. Print Data/Map Page I of I PID# 256110090 s w. '-Y' a Y _ e Legend cAl" I" VD%b \r f/ wty.�t awtins errrlkin �/ TrarljMr! gamut Laws Paaab can= Map Created: 7-8-2009 COUNTY GIS DISCIAIMFR: on and data Rom various City. Cc rAdd RE�ZA �P LOD OVES 5ER P�^SN•MN IICfORI MN 5386II \cress 0.62983814 Weld: N I M District: 0276 cef Location oa: 03 plat intorwatlan. skip: 116 PINE URST 2ND ADDITION le: 023 Lot-009 Block-001 able Year 1010 Last Safe In on Sak Date: 12I14r2007 Market Value Land: $242800 Sak Price: S267309 Market Value Building: SO Qualifiedithpnalifled: QUALIFIED SALE Market Value Total: $242800 i was created using Carver Countys Geographic Information Systems IGIS), it is a compilation te, and Federal offices. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be .r r roam, is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein. http://Carvergisweb 1.co.carver.mn.ustarcimslgislpubliclparcel_searchlprintdatamap.asIPPID... 7/8/2009 Print Data/Map Page 1 of 1 hitp://carvergisweb I.co.carver.mn.ustarcims/gistpublic/parcel_search/printdatamaP.asp?PID... 7/8/2009 C$7'1A1S0fmy—nergyLand Compahy� Working toiether. DevelovinA oalue. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION rLCAJC r MIN 1 Applicant Name and Address: n?n -E3 Contact: $i?%:N-' i4Ls -a? Phone: oj?j i ; Fax: Email: h an`,.st�p �s<r�tow+:swp� Planning Case No. Owner Name and Address: r Phone: Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)` Subdivision' Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" - $50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. 'Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tif) format. *'Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME:—��,iJEi{vtz5i rL vfl FitSJ>j,r—i LOCATION: (i a !rJ �cm4� Z+vA cP bt vD LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: Lv% ? /nte TOTAL ACREAGE: A c- WETLANDS PRESENT: YES �X NO PRESENT ZONING t�ti5 3 .�`*° - `; 1 - REQUESTED ZONING: =s r D �. �• PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: i�t} ,N-/ 3r- F• REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: L � `• REASON FOR REQUEST: 4f t.AfOZI.:i S'7Z NIJ Ear s"S v rr;e �i:�f.uMt`r.1iS �62 Tfit P,Nct'�P�.' .G /*9j�i/fiv lfi?�+n�L�i rnl �cia'�/.i37{O� _ 1 rf✓= ZE �r6S"•' Fo2 �/.�z:a�.c= �crr��s -ry CC/=P(F!A iH%!T � /S� 'SETJ7a.:=_- FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: A�I=' and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that 1 am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Date Date Rev. 1/08 ,gow. nergyLandCom a Sc p nY Working together. Deaeloping value.^' To: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Date: 7/08/09 Members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission From: Brent & Karen Hislop Synergy Land Company, LLC Chanhassen. MN brent.hislo n,SvnerevLandCompany.com (612)590-0811 RE: Approved Setbacks for Lot 9, Blk. 1, Pinehurst 2id Addition (6604 Alder Way) Thank you for our recent discussion and your site visit related to our lot at Pinehurst. Per our talk, we originally purchased this lot in December 2007 and have been actively marketing the property for sale over the past 18 months. Purpose of the Variance: The necessity of this variance is primarily administrative in nature. The lot (as part of the Pinehurst subdivision) received plat approvals from the Chanhassen City Council in 2005/2006. The subdivision approval included a variance for the use of a private drive to serve the 3 lots on Alder Way. The approved resolution and plans require a 20' "front yard" setback from the private drive of all 3 lots. This issue is relevant, but not in question. The specific question relates to a "compliance chart" notation suggesting that a 30' front yard setback is required for each of the lots. For the adjoining lots (lot 10 & 1 I) this 30' setback was reduced to 20' as part of the approved private drive variance. For Lot 9, the chart specifies the "front yard" as the northern property line which is opposite of the area from which this lot gains access to the private drive. Due to this classification, an inconsistency exists between the compliance chart requiring a 30' setback and the approved plans and documents which demonstrate a 15' setback to the northern property line. The traditional purpose of a front yard setback is to ensure that homes within a community are placed a reasonable distance from the street to achieve safe and attractive streetscapes. We believe there was "clear and obvious" intent by the City Council to approve this lot with the IS' northern setback and a 20' private drive setback. This is consistent with abutting lots and the approved plans. We request the City clarify this inconsistency in the approval documents by approving the requested variance. Background: Recently, we've discussed the sale of the lot to a qualified buyer interested in building a large custom-built rambler with a walkout basement. The buyer's builder representative called the City to discuss restrictions, permitting, etc. in advance of a final lot sale negotiation with the buyer. During this discussion, the City suggested that the approved project plans and lot sketch demonstrated an error in the "front" setback line. owSynergy Land Conipa:, 2 Working together. Develoying value.^' You & 1 have discussed and agreed to the "non -typical" character of this lot which is located "on" a private drive but does not have direct frontage on this private drive — it is accessed via an easement agreement through lot 10 which is located to the south of our lot 9. The lot is 27,000+ sq. ft. in size and roughly 100' wide and 270' deep. Given the unique character & shape of the lot, it does not have a "typical" front of the lot- The existing City approved plans demonstrate a 20' building setback from the private drive which is consistent with the other lots located on the Alder Way. Issue to Clarify: The issue in question relates to possible conflicting approval notes demonstrating a 15' vs. a 30' setback from the northern property boundary which abuts the Minnetonka Middle School West. This property line is physically separated by a 10' change in elevation and a wooded tree line. Upon learning of the issue, the builder and buyer notified me of the City's comments and suggested serious concerns related to the lot value and house fit if the lot is further restricted by a 30' setback vs. the 15' setback as shown on the approved grading plan, landscape plan, and lot fit survey. It's important to note that regardless of the specific plans currently being reviewed by this active buyer, we purchased the lot with the understanding that the northern property line had a 15' setback and agree with the buyer/builder that a change to a 30' setback has material negative impacts to the lot's value and home design flexibility. The issue is NOT as a discussion of whether we "can we make this buyer's plan fit" but rather, "how do we ensure the lot's northern boundary maintains a 15' setback as drawn on the approved plans". Interpretation of the Issue: After review of the plans and project approval documents, it is our belief that the lot is currently approved with a 15' building setback on the northern property line and this approval is consistent with the attached lot sketch survey noting the easement lines and setback lines. This lot sketch survey is consistent with the approved grading plan and other approved plans. We do not dispute that the "compliance chart" in the staff memorandum (dated 3.14.05) suggests a 30' "front" setback for the lot; however, we believe this to be an unintended typographical error. The approval notes, resolution, and all approved plans suggest that the 15' setback was the intended approved setback along this property line. Furthermore, in reviewing the "compliance chart", it calls for a 30' front setback for the other lots fronting on the private drive (lots 10 & 11). On the same page it is noted that all lots fronting on the private drive were approved with a 20' setback. �. nergy Land Com a ^'S P ny� c Working together. Deoelopirrg value The above being true, the issue boils down to whether is lot is subject to a "front" setback and if so, what is the appropriate and logical setback from the front of the lot_ We've agreed with the City that this lot is truly unique in its size, shape, and wooded character. We believe that this lot does not fall neatly into typical zoning standards for the following reasons: • The lot is accessed via a private drive • The lot does not "front" onto the private drive, but accessed via an easement from lot 10. • The lot's size, location, woodlands, wetland buffer, shape is unique. • The lot meets the typical 20' setback from the private drive (similar to lots 10 & 11). The variance approving the private drive over -rides the "front yard setback" issue and therefore justifies that the northern property line need not be considered the `front". • The clear and obvious intent of the approved plans (i.e. grading, etc.) show a 15' northern setback. Approved Plans: As part of the conditions related to the private drive and the benefits which justified approval of the private drive, we believe this lot is not subject to a "front setback" line. Any typical "front" setback requirement was eliminated as part of the approved variance related to the private drive and instead was intentionally approved with a IS' northern property setback and a 20' setback from the private drive (the lot is also restricted by the wetland buffer per the approved plans). These sebacks exceed the 20' front, 10' side yard setbacks which govern the 2 other lots located on this private drive. This lot should not be further burdened beyond the criteria of the neighboring lots. We believe there was "clear and obvious" intent by the City Council to approve the lot with the 15' northern setback and a 20' private drive setback. Final Plat Staff Memo (Page 7 of 17) "Setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street. 'This condition shall be modified as follows: Setbacks on Lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, Block 1 shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street." The staff memo and staff report (based on a review of the submitted drawings) makes no mention of this lot being out of compliance. There really is no "front" of the lot for this parcel, because there is no ROW frontage. • Prelinduary and Final Plat Staff Report "Final Plat Approval RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council approves the Final Plat for Pinehurst Addition creating 43 lots, 2 outlots and associated right-of-way for public streets (plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc.) subject to the following conditions: 1. Setbacks on Lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, Block 1 shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street" nergyLandCom a Sy p ny�� together. Developing value.C'l • Development Contract Page SP-1 of the development agreement indicates that plans shall be prepared in accordance with plans listed (A-D). As we have discussed, all of the plans are consistent in showing a 10' setback on the preliminary plans, changing to a 15' north setback to match the drainage and utility easement. If a 30' setback was intended, the change would have been to change the 10' to the 30' setback at this time. Clearly this issue and setback line was review and intentionally approved at 15'. Page SP-3 of the development agreement, item 8-C, again notes that the from setback shall be 20' from the back of the private street Our Request: We request the City provide us written confirmation that for the above reasons, the lot is currently approved with a 20' setback from the private drive and a 15' setback from the northern property line — consistent with the attached Lot Sketch Survey. Summary: Kate — We appreciate your timely review and thank you for your willingness to work with us to clarify this issue as noted above. I'm glad to meet with you to discuss your questions or thoughts. Once we've talked, I'll communicate the update to our potential buyer/builder. Best Regards, Brent Hislop Synergy Land Company, LLC (612)590-0811 brent.hislop n SynergvLandCompany.com Documents Below: 1. Lot Sketch Survey 2. Grading/LS Plan 3. Arial of Plat LOT (0 1 / DRAINAGE AND UTILITY O-- ---�—EASEMENT rf, SETBACK ONES QO N87°12'20'W O _ 'st -- DRIVEWAY I $00 / ,PAID LEES / / / 123.49 9 / / Lot For Sale: / / .4. Synergy Land ComE.c...;, LLC / Attn: Brent Hislop at (612) 590 - 0811 mt.hislop@SynergyLars - w . r If r /i/ "�o.SE 1rs Foam aTtaN QT^! LOT SKETCH SURvE'I IS +AK / THE APPROJa:D / ,q'0-�1�, •° v eQ / / REQUESTED By. PLO WSHARES, INC. i Lot 9, Block 1, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION, according to the recorded plot thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. m« s�sram Mrlmood ..�.-�.� Print Data/Map Page 1 of 1 http://carvergisweb l .co.carver.mn.uslarcims/gis/public/parcel_searchlprintdatamap.asp?PI D... 7/8/2009 Print Data/Map Page 1 of I http://carvergisweb l .co.carver.mn.uslarcimslgislpublic/parcel_searchlprintdatamap.asp?PID... 7/8/2009 SeYgyLand Compare yt� Working together. Developing value./-'� �.. in 12 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Applicant Name and Address: r, Contact: trs aP Phone: ", z 59 o2ri i Fax: Email: : r.,1 . %,xis ,.I � syn<r vi p Planning Case No. Owner Name and Address: -Tj a- kAP_C-r,r Contact: Phone: Fax: ,Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development` Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)' Subdivision` Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) ,N Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" - $50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. 'Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME: 4 nle N4 azs l x r. Ai,, LOCATION:/�-c. of �akE L i4 446 !t-"P, LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: f'tjt- 2JI-Pii oci9D TOTAL ACREAGE: �03 aL . WETLANDS PRESENT: YES 'X NO PRESENT ZONING: - REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: S. iLFIUT!AL REASON FOR REQUEST: J !Nr'-mt�>rSi��CV �x<">T v v rr Pt�M�fRPr'ieA a �r¢N �t.4�'"S-' Gov 1/lt��•arve� {-2tJc5 -Td erJ�Pr s<.e FlRT � vS�='FrI�%i-rC s 10; L1^J FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: AIA-and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Date i u.F Rev. 1108 �.. nergyL.and Com a �� sy p nY Working together. Developing value.^' To: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Date: 7/08/09 Members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission From: Brent & Karen Hislop Synergy Land Company, LLC Chanhassen. MN brent hislop(cb,SynerevLandCompanv com (612) 590-0811 RE: Approved Setbacks for Lot 9, Blk. 1, Pinehurst 2'" Addition (6604 Alder Way) Thank you for our recent discussion and your site visit related to our lot at Pinehurst. Per our talk, we originally purchased this lot in December 2007 and have been actively marketing the property for sale over the past 18 months. Purpose of the Variance: The necessity of this variance is primarily administrative in nature. The lot (as part of the Pinehurst subdivision) received plat approvals from the Chanhassen City Council in 2005/2006. The subdivision approval included a variance for the use of a private drive to serve the 3 lots on Alder Way. The approved resolution and plans require a 20' "front yard" setback from the private drive of all 3 lots. This issue is relevant, but not in question. The specific question relates to a "compliance chart" notation suggesting that a 30' front yard setback is required for each of the lots. For the adjoining lots (lot 10 & 1 1) this 30' setback was reduced to 20' as part of the approved private drive variance. For Lot 9, the chart specifies the "front yard" as the northern property line which is opposite of the area from which this lot gains access to the private drive. Due to this classification, an inconsistency exists between the compliance chart requiring a 30' setback and the approved plans and documents which demonstrate a 15' setback to the northern property line. The traditional purpose of a front yard setback is to ensure that homes within a community are placed a reasonable distance from the street to achieve safe and attractive streetscapes. We believe there was "clear and obvious" intent by the City Council to approve this lot with the 15' northern setback and a 20' private drive setback. This is consistent with abutting lots and the approved plans. We request the City clarify this inconsistency in the approval documents by approving the requested variance. Background: Recently, we've discussed the sale of the lot to a qualified buyer interested in building a large custom-built rambler with a walkout basement. The buyer's builder representative called the City to discuss restrictions, permitting, etc. in advance of a final lot sale negotiation with the buyer. During this discussion, the City suggested that the approved project plans and lot sketch demonstrated an error in the "front" setback line. Synergy Land Company Working together. Developing value.^' You & l have discussed and agreed to the "non -typical" character of this lot which is located "on" a private drive but does not have direct frontage on this private drive — it is accessed via an easement agreement through lot I0 which is located to the south of our lot 9. The lot is 27,000+ sq. ft. in size and roughly 100' wide and 270' deep. Given the unique character & shape of the lot, it does not have a "typical" front of the lot. The existing City approved plans demonstrate a 20' building setback from the private drive which is consistent with the other lots located on the Alder Way. Issue to Clarify: The issue in question relates to possible conflicting approval notes demonstrating a 15' vs. a 30' setback from the northern property boundary which abuts the Minnetonka Middle School West. This property line is physically separated by a 10' change in elevation and a wooded tree line. Upon learning of the issue, the builder and buyer notified me of the City's comments and suggested serious concerns related to the lot value and house fit if the lot is further restricted by a 30' setback vs. the 15' setback as shown on the approved grading plan, landscape plan, and lot fit survey. It's important to note that regardless of the specific plans currently being reviewed by this active buyer, we purchased the lot with the understanding that the northern property line had a 15' setback and agree with the buyer/builder that a change to a 30' setback has material negative impacts to the lot's value and home design flexibility. The issue is NOT as a discussion of whether we "can we make this buyer's plan fit' but rather, "how do we ensure the lot's northern boundary maintains a 15' setback as drawn on the approved plans". Interpretation of the Issue: After review of the plans and project approval documents, it is our belief that the lot is currently approved with a 15' building setback on the northern property line and this approval is consistent with the attached lot sketch survey noting the easement lines and setback lines. This lot sketch survey is consistent with the approved grading plan and other approved plans. We do not dispute that the "compliance chart" in the staff memorandum (dated 3.14.05) suggests a 30' "front' setback for the lot: however, we believe this to be an unintended typographical error. The approval notes, resolution, and all approved plans suggest that the 15' setback was the intended approved setback along this property line. Furthermore, in reviewing the "compliance chart", it calls for a 30' front setback for the other lots fronting on the private drive (lots 10 & 11). On the same page it is noted that all lots fronting on the private drive were approved with a 20' setback. .. rI rgy Land Corn a %9 p:9t Working together. Developing value.^' The above being true, the issue boils down to whether is lot is subject to a "front" setback and if so, what is the appropriate and logical setback from the front of the lot. We've agreed with the City that this lot is truly unique in its size, shape, and wooded character. We believe that this lot does not fall neatly into typical zoning standards for the following reasons: • The lot is accessed via a private drive • The lot does not "front" onto the private drive, but accessed via an easement from lot 10. • The lot's size, location, woodlands, wetland buffer, shape is unique. • The lot meets the typical 20' setback from the private drive (similar to lots 10 & 11). The variance approving the private drive over -rides the "front yard setback" issue and therefore justifies that the northern property line need not be considered the "front". • The clear and obvious intent of the approved plans (i.e. grading, etc.) show a 15' northern setback. Approved Plans: As part of the conditions related to the private drive and the benefits which justified approval of the private drive, we believe this lot is not subject to a "front setback" line. Any typical "front" setback requirement was eliminated as part of the approved variance related to the private drive and instead was intentionally approved with a 15' northern property setback and a 20' setback from the private drive (the lot is also restricted by the wetland buffer per the approved plans). These sebacks exceed the 20' front, 10' side yard setbacks which govern the 2 other lots located on this private drive. This lot should not be further burdened beyond the criteria of the neighboring lots. We believe there was "clear and obvious" intent by the City Council to approve the lot with the 15' northern setback and a 20' private drive setback. Final Plat Staff Memo (Page 7 of 17) "Setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street. *This condition shall be modified as follows: Setbacks on Lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, Block 1 shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street." The staff memo and staff report (based on a review of the submitted drawings) makes no mention of this lot being out of compliance. There really is no "front" of the lot for this parcel, because there is no ROW frontage. • Preliminary and Final Plat Staff Report "Final Plat Approval RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council approves the Final Plat for Pinehurst Addition creating 43 lots, 2 outlots and associated right-of-way for public streets (plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc.) subject to the following conditions: 1. Setbacks on Lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, Block I shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street." nergYLandCo,my a Sy rrY�� Working together. Developing value."' • Development Contract Page SP-I of the development agreement indicates that plans shall be prepared in accordance with plans listed (A-D). As we have discussed, all of the plans are consistent in showing a 10' setback on the preliminary plans, changing to a 15' north setback to match the drainage and utility easement. If a 30' setback was intended, the change would have been to change the 10' to the 30' setback at this time. Clearly this issue and setback line was review and intentionally approved at 15'. Page SP-3 of the development agreement, item 8-C, again notes that the front setback shall be 20' from the back of the private sheet. Our Request: We request the City provide us written confirmation that for the above reasons, the lot is currently approved with a 20' setback from the private drive and a 15' setback from the northern property line — consistent with the attached Lot Sketch Survey. Summary: Kate — We appreciate your timely review and thank you for your willingness to work with us to clarify this issue as noted above. I'm glad to meet with you to discuss your questions or thoughts. Once we've talked, I'll communicate the update to our potential buyer/builder. l Best Regards, 1 Brent Hislop j Synergy Land Company, LLC (612)590-0811 brent.hislop a SmergyLandCompany.com Documents Below: 1. Lot Sketch Survey 2. Grading/LS Plan 3. Arial of Plat LOT 30 ' t' DRAINAGE AND UTILITY 1� -'�—EASEMENT i _ SETBACK LINES KD �- N87D12'20'W 123.49 0 75 '�. DRIVEWAY EASEMENT /, ,y Synergy Land Company, LLC / � Attn: Brent Hislop / o (612) 590 - 0811 `// 2� brent.hislop T A / 1I.11coa-ma,' td1`1 014 SKETCH SURVEY IS +AMA / �� ' // rscoat TNS AVPaa�a:D / / G(iAD1►JC�/UTtL1� 7LA S / LEGAL DESC 7XW Lot 9, Black 1, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. r� LandCompany.com � / / i_1: 1 i REQUESTED BY.* PLO WSHA RES, INC. e0� mp6lf Hues � yM wtwwood -- — Print Data/Map Page 1 of 1 PID# 256110090 aS 1 44 �'a T.Irsi" �.•. Came Roads PrainertyAddress; ALDER WAY Us HANHASSEN. MN CSkl °"' Parcel Properlie Ca Ra r/44 ? 4i d;p. v `. �+ o 035ft R KAREN HISLOP 3RLOOK LN IIA _ MN 55386 `/ rereyaan /- GIS Acres: 0.62983814 Homestead: N I ^/ eera-•>+ pool District: 0276 / � 1, Parcel Location Ukes Parcelsowaship: Cdn MW o: 03 116 Range. 023 Plat Information: PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION Lot-009 Block-001 Payable Year 2010 Last Sale Information Sale Date. 12/14fAW ,m, Market Value Land: f242800 Est. Market Value Building: $0 sale Priee: $267309 QualifiedlUaqulirwd: QUALIFIED SALE Map Created: 7-&2009 Est. Markel Value Total: $242800 CARVER COUNTY GIS DISCLAIMER: This map was created using Carver County's Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from vnriam City, County, State, and Federal olrt . This map a not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be . , — . —r— r.rver Cn or, it not rCWonsible for any Inaccuracies Contained herein. http://carvergisweb 1.co.carver.mn.us/arcinWgislpublic/parcel_search/printdatamap.asp?PI D... 7/8/2009 Print Data/Map Page 1 of 1 http://carvergisweb l.co.carver.mn.us/arcims/gis/public/parcel_search/printdatamap.asp?PID... 7/8/2009 C$Slvvergy Land Compary� Working together. Developing valve.'° �e r) 1� 7, s/ ij 50, �• r �• ��, . fib,) ; I , � � I ! I r� _ i2 `t✓ €1 ` I � , ,6I3 s/. y �•.. , CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION I'LLAW- YKIN I Applicant Name and Address: .J 1 1�R.t,u `j70 Contact: gz N- its Phone:__Q a .s ic? o9w Fax: Sp Email: r Planning Case No. Owner Name and Address: yA �_�A 513 NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)` Subdivision' Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" - $50 CUP/SPR/VACNAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. `Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. � A PROJECT NAME: r ,Yli{,25i iC a Hta�lJl�`^f LOCATION: Al-'c-. 4' I -A k '' X4)44" /4vJrl e-Pln! OLvA LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: *�: Uu3G t / n =� r,rj t �n�tiv,.1v'-r -ri� �ly�. TOTALACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING - {4r YES -X NO PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: �6� r a-,rrr_ ' �• REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: rAL 1;� f• REASON FOR REQUEST: YtJ lNe6'Ui' YtZ-a3Cy txa S S rnl 11FF Pt1tN �f?PP(�/CIl r A r�1 -1,>o uM�—�A.+i 1 Yd2 :3�t PNcnl .' iC.~ Yn. jr F/E'*� l iiOO'�•/c.D rev �c3a'�/z,TJ IO l 5E& f FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Da e t Date Rev. 1108 ,ergy Land Com a �, Sy p nY �' Working together. Developing voile.^' To: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Date: 7/08/09 Members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission From: Brent & Karen Hislop Synergy Land Company, LLC Chanhassen. MN brent. h is Iop(eDSynerayLandCom panv.com (612) 590-0811 RE: Approved Setbacks for Lot 9, Blk. 1, Pinehurst 2id Addition (6604 Alder Way) Thank you for our recent discussion and your site visit related to our lot at Pinehurst. Per our talk, we originally purchased this lot in December 2007 and have been actively marketing the property for sale over the past 18 months. Purpose of the Variance: The necessity of this variance is primarily administrative in nature. The lot (as part of the Pinehurst subdivision) received plat approvals from the Chanhassen City Council in 2005/2006. The subdivision approval included a variance for the use of a private drive to serve the 3 lots on Alder Way. The approved resolution and plans require a 20' "front yard" setback from the private drive of all 3 lots. This issue is relevant, but not in question. The specific question relates to a "compliance chart" notation suggesting that a 30' front yard setback is required for each of the lots. For the adjoining lots (lot 10 & 1 I) this 30' setback was reduced to 20' as part of the approved private drive variance. For Lot 9, the chart specifies the "front yard" as the northern property line which is opposite of the area from which this lot gains access to the private drive. Due to this classification, an inconsistency exists between the compliance chart requiring a 30' setback and the approved plans and documents which demonstrate a 15' setback to the northern property line. The traditional purpose of a front yard setback is to ensure that homes within a community are placed a reasonable distance from the street to achieve safe and attractive streetscapes. We believe there was "clear and obvious" intent by the City Council to approve this lot with the 15' northern setback and a 20' private drive setback. This is consistent with abutting lots and the approved plans. We request the City clarify this inconsistency in the approval documents by approving the requested variance. Background: Recently, we've discussed the sale of the lot to a qualified buyer interested in building a large custom-built rambler with a walkout basement. The buyer's builder representative called the City to discuss restrictions, permitting, etc. in advance of a final lot sale negotiation with the buyer. During this discussion, the City suggested that the approved project plans and lot sketch demonstrated an error in the "front" setback line. nenCom a nyrgyLad g together. Developing value "' You & I have discussed and agreed to the "non -typical" character of this lot which is located "on" a private drive but does not have direct frontage on this private drive — it is accessed via an easement agreement through lot 10 which is located to the south of our lot 9. The lot is 27,000+ sq. ft. in size and roughly 100' wide and 270' deep. Given the unique character & shape of the lot, it does not have a "typical" front of the lot. The existing City approved plans demonstrate a 20' building setback from the private drive which is consistent with the other lots located on the Alder Way. Issue to Clarify: The issue in question relates to possible conflicting approval notes demonstrating a 15' vs. a 30' setback from the northern property boundary which abuts the Minnetonka Middle School West. This property line is physically separated by a 10' change in elevation and a wooded tree line. Upon learning of the issue, the builder and buyer notified me of the City's comments and suggested serious concerns related to the lot value and house fit if the lot is further restricted by a 30' setback vs. the 15' setback as shown on the approved grading plan, landscape plan, and lot fit survey. It's important to note that regardless of the specific plans currently being reviewed by this active buyer, we purchased the lot with the understanding that the northern property line had a 15' setback and agree with the buyer/builder that a change to a 30' setback has material negative impacts to the lot's value and home design flexibility. The issue is NOT as a discussion of whether we "can we make this buyer's plan fit" but rather, "how do we ensure the lot's northern boundary maintains a 15' setback as drawn on the approved plans". Interpretation of the Issue: After review of the plans and project approval documents, it is our belief that the lot is currently approved with a 15' building setback on the northern property line and this approval is consistent with the attached lot sketch survey noting the easement lines and setback lines. This lot sketch survey is consistent with the approved grading plan and other approved plans. We do not dispute that the "compliance chart" in the staff memorandum (dated 3.14.05) suggests a 30' "front" setback for the lot; however, we believe this to be an unintended typographical error. The approval notes, resolution, and all approved plans suggest that the 15' setback was the intended approved setback along this property line. Furthermore, in reviewing the "compliance chart", it calls for a 30' front setback for the other lots fronting on the private drive (lots 10 & 11). On the same page it is noted that all lots fronting on the private drive were approved with a 20' setback. nergy Land Cojn A�Sy pa ny� Working together. Developing vah�e.^' The above being true, the issue boils down to whether is lot is subject to a "front" setback and if so, what is the appropriate and logical setback from the front of the lot. We've agreed with the City that this lot is truly unique in its size, shape, and wooded character. We believe that this lot does not fall neatly into typical zoning standards for the following reasons: • The lot is accessed via a private drive • The lot does not "front" onto the private drive, but accessed via an easement from lot 10. • The lot's size, location, woodlands, wetland buffer, shape is unique. • The lot meets the typical 20' setback from the private drive (similar to lots 10 & 1 I ). The variance approving the private drive over -rides the "front yard setback" issue and therefore justifies that the northern property line need not be considered the "front". • The clear and obvious intent of the approved plans (i.e. grading, etc.) show a 15' northern setback. Approved Plans: As part of the conditions related to the private drive and the benefits which justified approval of the private drive, we believe this lot is not subject to a "front setback" line. Any typical "front" setback requirement was eliminated as part of the approved variance related to the private drive and instead was intentionally approved with a 15' northern property setback and a 20' setback from the private drive (the lot is also restricted by the wetland buffer per the approved plans). These sebacks exceed the 20' front, 10' side yard setbacks which govern the 2 other lots located on this private drive. This lot should not be further burdened beyond the criteria of the neighboring lots. We believe there was "clear and obvious" intent by the City Council to approve the lot with the 15' northern setback and a 20' private drive setback. Final Plat Staff Memo (Page 7 of 17) "Setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street. *This condition shall be modified as follows: Setbacks on Lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, Block I shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street." The staff memo and staff report (based on a review of the submitted drawings) makes no mention of this lot being out of compliance. There really is no "front" of the lot for this parcel, because there is no ROW frontage. • Preliminary and Final Plat Staff Report "Final Plat Approval RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council approves the Final Plat for Pinehurst Addition creating 43 lots, 2 outlets and associated right-of-way for public streets (plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc.) subject to the following conditions: 1. Setbacks on Lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, Block I shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street." S tiergyLandCompanYc �� together. Developing value ^' • Development Contract Page SP-I of the development agreement indicates that plans shall be prepared in accordance with plans listed (A-D). As we have discussed, all of the plans are consistent in showing a 10' setback on the preliminary plans, changing to a 15' north setback to match the drainage and utility easement. If a 30' setback was intended, the change would have been to change the 10' to the 30' setback at this time. Clearly this issue and setback line was review and intentionally approved at 15'. Page SP-3 of the development agreement, item 8-C, again notes that the front setback shall be 20' from the back of the private street. Our Request: We request the City provide us written confirmation that for the above reasons, the lot is currently approved with a 20' setback from the private drive and a 15' setback from the northern property line — consistent with the attached Lot Sketch Survey. Summary: Kate — We appreciate your timely review and thank you for your willingness to work with us to clarify this issue as noted above. I'm glad to meet with you to discuss your questions or thoughts. Once we've talked, I'll communicate the update to our potential buyer/builder. Best Regards, / 1� �w Brent Hislop / Synergy Land Company, LLC (612)590-0811 brent.hisloy RpSynergyLandCompany.com Documents Below: 1. Lot Sketch Survey 2. Grading/LS Plan 3. Arial of Plat �'l / LOT !30 , t' AND UTIUTY SETBACK LINES N8r12'200W 123.49 O .` DRIVEWAY EASEMENT, / ^� PAD LNE5 Lot For'S Synergy Land Company, LLC / O Attn: Brent Hislop 00 (6121 590 _0811 h 11 .//' �A$�. IN�02yh AT1 O1J O1J L°T SV.ETcN SURVEY IS APPROVED / /UTILI ?A 5/ 1g, o v .com R£a!7£S7E0 BY. - PLOWSHARES, INC. Er Lot 9, Block 1. PINEHURST 2ND ADDI110N, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. A�� tmt(NS nnc sao-� Print Data/Map Page 1 of 1 http://carvergisweb l .ce.carver.mn.uslarcimslgis/public/parcel_searchlprintdatamap.asp?Pl D... 7/8/2009 Print Data/Map Page 1 of 1 http://carvergisweb I .co.carver.mn.uslarcims/gis/public/parcel_searchlprintdatamap.asp?PID... 7/8/2009 SYneYgyLand Company wnrlrino tnoathor. Develonincna[ue.'" - _. _ CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION rl_= aOm Applicant Name and Address: n Contact: &N , Ftr 5 �aP Phone:Fax: ;4 Email:rt+i'. .'vLi�t-.-,p �1 s•�n•u-,y iru„zo_.i�-r Planning Case No. Owner Name and Address: S--k�,N` a- kACC=N I-itSu5e Contact: Phone: Fax: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)* Subdivision* Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign - $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** - $50 CUP/SPR/VACNAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. `Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME: �\tu=ANt>"FI,5-' LOCATION: / i- c . �} I ° 'J D q � J�� INk aLPrrJ 6[,vD- LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: �� % / JL ` nK fv/ ii G �a File, n,�j TOTAL ACREAGE: • to"' AC-. WETLANDS PRESENT: YES NO PRESENT ZONING: tZ<S,_C� ,ML�- REQUESTED ZONING: 1--tsPRESENT LAND LAND USE DESIGNATION: i -� f !,&/N-/^"- F - REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: X;-1AL `• REASON FOR REQUEST: 7WE ��NsIP:Pr3��ieD 7 f irfc- -. T7- - � PGER_SEE `- & fir, FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: AIA' and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or cleady printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or 1 am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. f i S q ur . f_ Aapli Date ��f J ,,� I✓ , '? fyrs f � 7 SJ, g t Fee OHp er,. Oate G:\plan\forms\De ment Review Apphi bon.DOC Rev. 1108 Sy ner gy Land Comp Working together. Deaeioping un[ue.^' To: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Date: 7/08/09 Members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission From: Brent & Karen Hislop Synergy Land Company, LLC Chanhassen. MN brent.hislop(cdSyncrr yLandCompany.com (612)590-0811 RE: Approved Setbacks for Lot 9, Blk. 1, Pinehurst 2"" Addition (6604 Alder Way) Thank you for our recent discussion and your site visit related to our lot at Pinehurst. Per our talk, we originally purchased this lot in December 2007 and have been actively marketing the property for sale over the past 18 months. Purpose of the Variance: The necessity of this variance is primarily administrative in nature. The lot (as part of the Pinehurst subdivision) received plat approvals from the Chanhassen City Council in 2005/2006. The subdivision approval included a variance for the use of a private drive to serve the 3 lots on Alder Way. The approved resolution and plans require a 20' "front yard" setback from the private drive of all 3 lots. This issue is relevant, but not in question. The specific question relates to a "compliance chart" notation suggesting that a 30' front yard setback is required for each of the lots. For the adjoining lots (lot 10 & 1 1) this 30' setback was reduced to 20' as part of the approved private drive variance. For Lot 9, the chart specifies the "front yard" as the northern property line which is opposite of the area from which this lot gains access to the private drive. Due to this classification, an inconsistency exists between the compliance chart requiring a 30' setback and the approved plans and documents which demonstrate a 15' setback to the northern property line. The traditional purpose of a front yard setback is to ensure that homes within a community are placed a reasonable distance from the street to achieve safe and attractive streetscapes. We believe there was "clear and obvious' intent by the City Council to approve this lot with the 15' northern setback and a 20' private drive setback. This is consistent with abutting lots and the approved plans. We request the City clarify this inconsistency in the approval documents by approving the requested variance. Background: Recently, we've discussed the sale of the lot to a qualified buyer interested in building a large custom-built rambler with a walkout basement. The buyer's builder representative called the City to discuss restrictions, permitting, etc. in advance of a final lot sale negotiation with the buyer. During this discussion, the City suggested that the approved project plans and lot sketch demonstrated an error in the "front" setback line. nergy Land Coln Sy pa u .y< Working together. Deaelopirtg unlue.^' You & I have discussed and agreed to the "non -typical" character of this lot which is located "on" a private drive but does not have direct frontage on this private drive — it is accessed via an easement agreement through lot 10 which is located to the south of our lot 9. The lot is 27,000+ sq. ft, in size and roughly I OW wide and 270' deep. Given the unique character & shape of the lot, it does not have a "typical" front of the lot. The existing City approved plans demonstrate a 20' building setback from the private drive which is consistent with the other lots located on the Alder Way. Issue to Clarify: The issue in question relates to possible conflicting approval notes demonstrating a 15' vs. a 30' setback from the northern property boundary which abuts the Minnetonka Middle School West. This property line is physically separated by a 10' change in elevation and a wooded tree line. Upon learning of the issue, the builder and buyer notified me of the City's comments and suggested serious concerns related to the lot value and house fit if the lot is further restricted by a 30' setback vs. the 15' setback as shown on the approved grading plan, landscape plan, and lot fit survey. It's important to note that regardless of the specific plans currently being reviewed by this active buyer, we purchased the lot with the understanding that the northern property line had a 15' setback and agree with the buyer/builder that a change to a 30' setback has material negative impacts to the lot's value and home design flexibility. The issue is NOT as a discussion of whether we "can we make this buyer's plan fit" but rather, "how do we ensure the lot's northern boundary maintains a 15' setback as drawn on the approved plans". Interpretation of the Issue: After review of the plans and project approval documents, it is our belief that the lot is currently approved with a 15' building setback on the northern property line and this approval is consistent with the attached lot sketch survey noting the easement lines and setback lines. This lot sketch survey is consistent with the approved grading plan and other approved plans. We do not dispute that the "compliance chart" in the staff memorandum (dated 3.14.05) suggests a 30' "front' setback for the lot, however, we believe this to be an unintended typographical error. The approval notes. resolution, and all approved plans suggest that the 15' setback was the intended approved setback along this property line. Furthermore, in reviewing the "compliance chart", it calls for a 30' front setback for the other lots fronting on the private drive (lots 10 & 11). On the same page it is noted that all lots fronting on the private drive were approved with a 20' setback. �•. nergy Land Cone a p ny� '�' Working together. Deoeloping aalue ^' The above being true, the issue boils down to whether is lot is subject to a "front" setback and if so, what is the appropriate and logical setback from the front of the lot. We've agreed with the City that this lot is truly unique in its size, shape, and wooded character. We believe that this lot does not fall neatly into typical zoning standards for the following reasons: • The lot is accessed via a private drive • The lot does not "front" onto the private drive, but accessed via an easement from lot 10. • The lot's size, location, woodlands, wetland buffer, shape is unique. • The lot meets the typical 20' setback from the private drive (similar to lots 10 & 11). The variance approving the private drive over -rides the "front yard setback" issue and therefore justifies that the northern property line need not be considered the "front". • The clear and obvious intent of the approved plans (i.e. grading, etc.) show a 15' northern setback. Approved Plans: As part of the conditions related to the private drive and the benefits which justified approval of the private drive, we believe this lot is not subject to a "front setback" line. Any typical "front" setback requirement was eliminated as part of the approved variance related to the private drive and instead was intentionally approved with a 15' northern property setback and a 20' setback from the private drive (the lot is also restricted by the wetland buffer per the approved plans). These sebacks exceed the 20' front, 10' side yard setbacks which govern the 2 other lots located on this private drive. This lot should not be further burdened beyond the criteria of the neighboring lots. We believe there was "clear and obvious" intent by the City Council to approve the lot with the 15' northern setback and a 20' private drive setback. Final Plat Staff Memo (Page 7 of 17) "Setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street. *This condition shall be modified as follows: Setbacks on Lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, Block l shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street." The staff memo and staff report (based on a review of the submitted drawings) makes no mention of this lot being out of compliance. There really is no "front" of the lot for this parcel, because there is no ROW frontage. • Preliminary and Final Plat Staff Report "Final Plat Approval RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council approves the Final Plat for Pinehurst Addition creating 43 lots, 2 outlots and associated right-of-way for public streets (plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc.) subject to the following conditions: 1. Setbacks on Lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, Block 1 shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street" synergy Land Company c « Working together. Developing value: ' • Development Contract Page SP-1 of the development agreement indicates that plans shall be prepared in accordance with plans listed (A-D). As we have discussed, all of the plans are consistent in showing a 10' setback on the meliminary plans, changing to a 15' north setback to match the drainage and utility easement. If a 30' setback was intended, the change would have been to change the 10' to the 30' setback at this time. Clearly this issue and setback line was review and intentionally approved at 15'. Page SP-3 of the development agreement, item 8-C, again notes that the front setback shall be 20' from the back of the private street Our Request: We request the City provide us written confirmation that for the above reasons, the lot is currently approved with a 20' setback from the private drive and a 15' setback from the northern property line — consistent with the attached Lot Sketch Survey. Summary: Kate — We appreciate your timely review and thank you for your willingness to work with us to clarify this issue as noted above. I'm glad to meet with you to discuss your questions or thoughts. Once we've talked, I'll communicate the update to our potential buyer/builder. Best Regards, 1 Brent Hislop Synergy Land Company, LLC (612)590-0811 brent.hislop a SvnergyLandCompany.com Documents Below: 1. Lot Sketch Survey 2. Grading/LS Plan 3. Arial of Plat LOT (gyp / DRAINAGE AND UTIUTY-'� ,--EASEMENT I SETBACK LINES ro - N87D12'20'W 123.49 O DRIVEWAY EASEMENT o?ob @� .PAD Lff*3 v, 9 / / Lot For Sale: / Synergy Land Company, LLC / O Attn: Brent Hislop a1P (6 72) 590-0871 ^ D � ./j/ 'BASE 1h1�C2J^'1AT1dN Ot'� of / "-r SKETCH Sumv6,y is Ak / k' / rR,oMi t'N.E AppgOQGb / A i p \ I V� �- I,' REQUESTED SY.' PLO WSHARES, INC. LEGAL DE'SCRPDW Lot 9, Black 1, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County. Minnesota. rv� sm� Print Data/Map Page 1 of l hitp://carvergiswebl.co.carvcr.mn.us/arcims/gis/public/Parcel— search/printdatarnap.asp?PID... 7/8/2009 Print Data/Map Page 1 of 1 http://carvergisweb l .co.carver.mn.uslarcimslgislpublic/parcel_searchlprintdatamap.asp?PID... 7/8/2009 �S erLb j dCompax�y� wn.r;notnvethn.DeaeloninQaatne." CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Applicant Name and Address: _, ion( SS3t 7 Contact: L3 z - rF L 5 c�P Phone: <_ ? z � ?o of ; E Fax: Email: Planning Case No. [07,7�r�.�-►r�rr r_traM (�Aa� -f4 Ji.5t�3� NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)* Subdivision* Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) -'< Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost- - $50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. *Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format. **Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME: r NF Hi A S i AGES / 1 t '^S LOCATION: /�-c. �, k'k& m4., /4-jA CfLP/r'J br,vb. LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: z+=' ? y , !n!£:ivAsi ` .Z 41/'6; .•. b'f�s 2j/-v1!,009D TOTAL ACREAGE: ( 3 AC- . WETLANDS PRESENT: YES NO PRESENT ZONING: 1� <S i Ne" 7- REQUESTED ZONING:PRESENTLANDLAND USE DESIGNATION: TZ- S- N'r/+% • REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: wZeS:, 6C-A! ! A � f • REASON FOR REQUEST: � A q 1 r _+ rFr Zcd�c.1'' �tiQ 'd/�FP_:4N!w �c�>✓.ci 'Tr> CL/�OiGLp �F/4T f �S' SETyacK A i � 44z n MIJ . OP?1„Icli F7I iU5 C 1 T LL4-5' - FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: _4 �IA- and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. P r i Sn ur . f Applica D e Sig t Fee O � hate G:\planlforms\De m nt Review Application.DOC Rev. 1108 nergy Land Com a %O sh p ny`� Working together. Develoying vnlue.^' To: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Date: 7/08/09 Members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission From: Brent & Karen Hislop Synergy Land Company, LLC Chanhassen. MN brent.h islopoa,SyocrgvLandCompany.com (612)590-0811 RE: Approved Setbacks for Lot 9, Blk. 1, Pinehurst 2id Addition (6604 Alder Way) Thank you for our recent discussion and your site visit related to our lot at Pinehurst. Per our talk, we originally purchased this lot in December 2007 and have been actively marketing the property for sale over the past 18 months. Purpose of the Variance: The necessity of this variance is primarily administrative in nature. The lot (as part of the Pinehurst subdivision) received plat approvals from the Chanhassen City Council in 2005/2006. The subdivision approval included a variance for the use of a private drive to serve the 3 lots on Alder Way. The approved resolution and plans require a 20' "front yard" setback from the private drive of all 3 lots. This issue is relevant, but not in question. The specific question relates to a "compliance chart" notation suggesting that a 30' front yard setback is required for each of the lots. For the adjoining lots (lot 10 & 11) this 30' setback was reduced to 20' as part of the approved private drive variance. For Lot 9, the chart specifies the "front yard" as the northern property line which is opposite of the area from which this lot gains access to the private drive. Due to this classification, an inconsistency exists between the compliance chart requiring a 30' setback and the approved plans and documents which demonstrate a 15' setback to the northern property line. The traditional purpose of a front yard setback is to ensure that homes within a community are placed a reasonable distance from the street to achieve safe and attractive streetscapes. We believe there was "clear and obvious" intent by the City Council to approve this lot with the 15' northern setback and a 20' private drive setback. This is consistent with abutting lots and the approved plans. We request the City clarify this inconsistency in the approval documents by approving the requested variance. Background: Recently, we've discussed the sale of the lot to a qualified buyer interested in building a large custom-built rambler with a walkout basement. The buyer's builder representative called the City to discuss restrictions, permitting, etc. in advance of a final lot sale negotiation with the buyer. During this discussion, the City suggested that the approved project plans and lot sketch demonstrated an error in the "front" setback line. nergy Land Gom a Sy _n Working together. Developing value.^' You & I have discussed and agreed to the "non -typical" character of this lot which is located "on" a private drive but does not have direct frontage on this private drive — it is accessed via an easement agreement through lot 10 which is located to the south of our lot 9. The lot is 27,000+ sq. ft. in size and roughly 100' wide and 270' deep. Given the unique character & shape of the lot, it does not have a "typical" front of the lot The existing City approved plans demonstrate a 20' building setback from the private drive which is consistent with the other lots located on the Alder Way. Issue to Clarify: The issue in question relates to possible conflicting approval notes demonstrating a 15' vs. a 30' setback from the northern property boundary which abuts the Minnetonka Middle School West. This property line is physically separated by a 10' change in elevation and a wooded tree line. Upon learning of the issue, the builder and buyer notified me of the City's comments and suggested serious concerns related to the lot value and house f t if the lot is further restricted by a 30' setback vs. the 15' setback as shown on the approved grading plan, landscape plan, and lot fit survey. It's important to note that regardless of the specific plans currently being reviewed by this active buyer, we purchased the lot with the understanding that the northern property line had a 15' setback and agree with the buyer/builder that a change to a 30' setback has material negative impacts to the lot's value and home design flexibility. The issue is NOT as a discussion of whether we "can we make this buyer's plan fit" but rather, "how do we ensure the lot's northern boundary maintains a 15' setback as drawn on the approved plans". Interpretation of the Issue: After review of the plans and project approval documents, it is our belief that the lot is currently approved with a 15' building setback on the northern property line and this approval is consistent with the attached lot sketch survey noting the easement lines and setback lines. This lot sketch survey is consistent with the approved grading plan and other approved plans. We do not dispute that the "compliance chart" in the staff memorandum (dated 3.14.05) suggests a 30' "front" setback for the lot; however, we believe this to be an unintended typographical error. The approval notes, resolution, and all approved plans suggest that the 15' setback was the intended approved setback along this property line. Furthermore, in reviewing the "compliance chart", it calls for a 30' front setback for the other lots fronting on the private drive (lots 10 & 11). On the same page it is noted that all lots fronting on the private drive were approved with a 20' setback. �. ner5y Land Com a ^�,sy p Working together. Developing aaiue.^ The above being true, the issue boils down to whether is lot is subject to a "front" setback and if so, what is the appropriate and logical setback from the front of the lot We've agreed with the City that this lot is truly unique in its size, shape, and wooded character. We believe that this lot does not fall neatly into typical zoning standards for the following reasons: • The lot is accessed via a private drive • The lot does not "front" onto the private drive, but accessed via an easement from lot 10. • The lot's size, location, woodlands, wetland buffer, shape is unique. • The lot meets the typical 20' setback from the private drive (similar to lots 10 & 1 I ). The variance approving the private drive over -rides the "front yard setback" issue and therefore justifies that the northern property line need not be considered the "front". • The clear and obvious intent of the approved plans (i.e. grading, etc.) show a 15' northern setback. Approved Plans: As part of the conditions related to the private drive and the benefits which justified approval of the private drive, we believe this lot is not subject to a "front setback" line. Any typical `front" setback requirement was eliminated as part of the approved variance related to the private drive and instead was intentionally approved with a 15' northern property setback and a 20' setback from the private drive (the lot is also restricted by the wetland buffer per the approved plans). These sebacks exceed the 20' front, 10' side yard setbacks which govern the 2 other lots located on this private drive. This lot should not be further burdened beyond the criteria of the neighboring lots. We believe there was "clear and obvious" intent by the City Council to approve the lot with the 15' northern setback and a 20' private drive setback. Final Plat Staff Memo (Page 7 of 17) "Setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street. *This condition shall be modified as follows: Setbacks on Lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, Block I shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street." The staff memo and staff report (based on a review of the submitted drawings) makes no mention of this lot being out of compliance. There really is no "front" of the lot for this parcel, because there is no ROW frontage. • Preliminary and Final Plat Staff Report "Final Plat Approval RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council approves the Final Plat for Pinehurst Addition creating 43 lots, 2 outlots and associated right -of --way for public streets (plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc.) subject to the following conditions: 1. Setbacks on Lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, Block 1 shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street." ,rgy Land Comp a Sy ,y� e Working together. Developing value."' • Development Contract Page SP-1 of the development agreement indicates that plans shall be prepared in accordance with plans listed (A-D). As we have discussed, all of the plans are consistent in showing a 10, setback on the preliminary plans, changing to a 15' north setback to match the drainage and utility easement If a 30' setback was intended, the change would have been to change the 10' to the 30' setback at this time. Clearly this issue and setback line was review and intentionally approved at 15'. Page SP-3 of the development agreement, item 8-C, again notes that the front setback shall be 20' from the back of the private street Our Request: We request the City provide us written confirmation that for the above reasons, the lot is currently approved with a 20' setback from the private drive and a 15' setback from the northern property line — consistent with the attached Lot Sketch Survey. Summary: Kate — We appreciate your timely review and thank you for your willingness to work with us to clarify this issue as noted above. I'm glad to meet with you to discuss your questions or thoughts. Once we've talked, I'll communicate the update to our potential buyer/builder. Best Regards, i i' Brent Hislop Synergy Land Company, LLC (612)590-0811 brent.hislo rr.SynergyLandCom_pany.com Documents Below: 1. Lot Sketch Survey 2. Grading/LS Plan 3. Arial of Plat LOT N87a12'2o'W 123.49 MVENAY EASM /i ,PAD UNES / ry 9 / / Lot For Sa Synergy Land Company, LLC Alin: Brent Hislop / / (812) 590 -0811 AND UTIUTY �. / o b ent.hislopOSynergyLandC( LNES -1, / / a /: �ASE IMICOrCMATiOV4 2 sl I 1 / f �/ l.e-r SKETOA SuRvEY IS +A-K c ,gyp \ // rRAN1 Tu+a p�pp(tOJaiD / �� C�w.aag�unuy a S / 70 're. 1 �- 4 LEG L9. gi � t FiURsr 2No ADDITION. according to the recorded plat thereof. Carver County. Minnesota. .Com REQUESTED BY. - PLOWSHARES, INC. Print Data/Map Page 1 of t http://carvergisweb l .co.carver.mn.uslarcimslgislpublic/parcel_searchlprintdatamap.asp?PID... 7/8/2009 Print Data/Map Page I of I http://carvergisweb l .co.carver.mn.us/arcims/gis/public/parcel_search/printdatamap.asp?PID... 7/8/2009 SYneYgyLand Compaq z� Working together. Deaeloping aalue. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION VKIN I Applicant Name and Address: —� o 7,sx 147J M1.�aa N VON SS( 1 Planning Case No. Owner Name and Address: Phone: cnFz -�?o /o& Fax: 47 Phone: Email: ,n_Email: Fax: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)' Subdivision' Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" - $50 CUP/SPR/VACNARANAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. 'Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME: r ; NE }{V fz.S i o f Act> j-I r-! LOCATION: / i- c . �f '� ��c f �ta4� /fAik �j ccFt/J LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: �v *' ! r �' �' � � f�nlErlv!'.SF z%--j 2J1pIt oog1J TOTAL ACREAGE: . 6-'Z �A r WETLANDS PRESENT: YES '_ NO PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: A I- -rA REASON FOR REQUEST: / If rNCm >> rS'it UCy EY Y %S n� rti� trnii G) 'Y�iED 'fAP.,,4"ce %S' �ETj�PCk_ i L!'!MV, AAE AJ6%rJ,:,"r!%/C A7 1�!�- Pe�2.^�. �rN-_ I AS Sr-{6'�•]/�3 an) APP,,XAJEb -PL!?i i'� c FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 31zr/9 f Da e iOate Rev. 1/08 nergyLandCom a 7 Sy p ny�� Working together. Developing value To: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Date: 7/08/09 Members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission From: Brent & Karen Hislop Synergy Land Company, LLC Chanhassen. MN brent.hlslop a,SvncrgvLandCompanv.com (612)590-0811 RE: Approved Setbacks for Lot 9, Blk. 1, Pinehurst 2id Addition (6604 Alder Way) Thank you for our recent discussion and your site visit related to our lot at Pinehurst. Per our talk, we originally purchased this lot in December 2007 and have been actively marketing the property for sale over the past 18 months. Purpose of the Variance: The necessity of this variance is primarily administrative in nature. The lot (as part of the Pinehurst subdivision) received plat approvals from the Chanhassen City Council in 2005/2006. The subdivision approval included a variance for the use of a private drive to serve the 3 lots on Alder Way. The approved resolution and plans require a 20' "front yard" setback from the private drive of all 3 lots. This issue is relevant, but not in question. The specific question relates to a "compliance chart" notation suggesting that a 30' front yard setback is required for each of the lots. For the adjoining lots (lot 10 & 1 1) this 30' setback was reduced to 20' as part of the approved private drive variance. For Lot 9, the chart specifies the "front yard" as the northern property line which is opposite of the area from which this lot gains access to the private drive. Due to this classification, an inconsistency exists between the compliance chart requiring a 30' setback and the approved plans and documents which demonstrate a 15' setback to the northern property line. The traditional purpose of a front yard setback is to ensure that homes within a community are placed a reasonable distance from the street to achieve safe and attractive streetscapes. We believe there was "clear and obvious" intent by the City Council to approve this lot with the 15' northern setback and a 20' private drive setback. This is consistent with abutting lots and the approved plans. We request the City clarify this inconsistency in the approval documents by approving the requested variance. Background: Recently, we've discussed the sale of the lot to a qualified buyer interested in building a large custom-built rambler with a walkout basement. The buyer's builder representative called the City to discuss restrictions, permitting, etc. in advance of a final lot sale negotiation with the buyer. During this discussion, the City suggested that the approved project plans and lot sketch demonstrated an error in the "front" setback line. Synergy Land Company Working together.l7eaelopingvalue.^' You & 1 have discussed and agreed to the "non -typical" character of this lot which is located "on" a private drive but does not have direct frontage on this private drive — it is accessed via an easement agreement through lot 10 which is located to the south of our lot 9. The lot is 27,000+ sq. ft. in size and roughly 100' wide and 270' deep. Given the unique character & shape of the lot, it does not have a "typical" front of the lot. The existing City approved plans demonstrate a 20' building setback from the private drive which is consistent with the other lots located on the Alder Way. Issue to Clarify: The issue in question relates to possible conflicting approval notes demonstrating a 15' vs. a 30' setback from the northern property boundary which abuts the Minnetonka Middle School West. This property line is physically separated by a 10' change in elevation and a wooded tree line. Upon learning of the issue, the builder and buyer notified me of the City's comments and suggested serious concerns related to the lot value and house fit if the lot is further restricted by a 30' setback vs. the 15' setback as shown on the approved grading plan, landscape plan, and lot fit survey. It's important to note that regardless of the specific plans currently being reviewed by this active buyer, we purchased the lot with the understanding that the northern property line had a 15' setback and agree with the buyer/builder that a change to a 30' setback has material negative impacts to the lot's value and home design flexibility. The issue is NOT as a discussion of whether we "can we make this buyer's plan fit" but rather, "how do we ensure the lot's northern boundary maintains a 15' setback as drawn on the approved plans". Interpretation of the Issue: After review of the plans and project approval documents, it is our belief that the lot is currently approved with a 15' building setback on the northern property line and this approval is consistent with the attached lot sketch survey noting the easement lines and setback lines. This lot sketch survey is consistent with the approved grading plan and other approved plans. We do not dispute that the "compliance chart" in the staff memorandum (dated 3.14.05) suggests a 30' "front" setback for the lot; however, we believe this to be an unintended typographical error. The approval notes, resolution, and all approved plans suggest that the 15' setback was the intended approved setback along this property line. Furthermore, in reviewing the "compliance chart", it calls for a 30' front setback for the other lots fronting on the private drive (lots 10 & 11). On the same page it is noted that all lots fronting on the private drive were approved with a 20' setback. .T.•. nergy Land Com ay Workingtogether.Developingv u " The above being true, the issue boils down to whether is lot is subject to a "front" setback and if so, what is the appropriate and logical setback from the front of the lot. We've agreed with the City that this lot is truly unique in its size, shape, and wooded character. We believe that this lot does not fall neatly into typical zoning standards for the following reasons: • The lot is accessed via a private drive • The lot does not "front" onto the private drive, but accessed via an easement from lot 10. • The lot's size, location, woodlands, wetland buffer, shape is unique. • The lot meets the typical 20' setback from the private drive (similar to lots 10 & I I ). The variance approving the private drive over -rides the "front yard setback" issue and therefore justifies that the northern property Tine need not be considered the "front". • The clear and obvious intent of the approved plans (i.e. grading, etc.) show a 15' northern setback. Approved Plans: As part of the conditions related to the private drive and the benefits which justified approval of the private drive, we believe this lot is not subject to a "front setback" line. Any typical "front" setback requirement was eliminated as part of the approved variance related to the private drive and instead was intentionally approved with a 15' northern property setback and a 20' setback from the private drive (the lot is also restricted by the wetland buffer per the approved plans). These sebacks exceed the 20' front. 10' side yard setbacks which govern the 2 other lots located on this private drive. This lot should not be further burdened beyond the criteria of the neighboring lots. We believe there was "clear and obvious" intent by the City Council to approve the lot with the 15' northern setback and a 20' private drive setback. Final Plat Staff Memo (Page 7 of 17) "Setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street. 'This condition shall be modified as follows: Setbacks on Lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, Block I shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street" The staff memo and staff report (based on a review of the submitted drawings) makes no mention of this lot being out of compliance. There really is no "front" of the lot for this parcel, because there is no ROW frontage. • Preliminary and Final Plat Staff Report "Final Plat Approval RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council approves the Final Plat for Pinehurst Addition creating 43 lots, 2 outlots and associated right-of-way for public streets (plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc.) subject to the following conditions: 1. Setbacks on Lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, Block 1 shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street." nergyLandCom a :1Sy p nYr� Working together. Developing value."' • Development Contract Page SP-1 of the development agreement indicates that plans shall be prepared in accordance with plans listed (A-D). As we have discussed, all of the plans are consistent in showing a 10' setback on the preliminary plans, changing to a 15' north setback to match the drainage and utility easement. If a 30' setback was intended, the change would have been to change the 10' to the 30' setback at this time. Clearly this issue and setback line was review and intentionally approved at 15'. Page SP-3 of the development agreement, item 8-C, again notes that the front setback shall be 20' from the back of the private street. Our Request: We request the City provide us written confirmation that for the above reasons, the lot is currently approved with a 20' setback from the private drive and a 15' setback from the northern property line — consistent with the attached Lot Sketch Survey. Summary: Kate — We appreciate your timely review and thank you for your willingness to work with us to clarify this issue as noted above. I'm glad to meet with you to discuss your questions or thoughts. Once we've talked, I'll communicate the update to our potential buyer/builder. Best Regards, r/ Brent Hislop Synergy Land Company, LLC (612)590-0811 brent.hislo a,SynergyLandCompany.com Documents Below: 1. Lot Sketch Survey 2. Grading/LS Plan 3. Arial of Plat a Nar12'20'W 123.49 O n DRIVEWAY EASEMENT--- J 8 / / / 9 / / / Lot For Sa Synergy Land Company, LLC / Attn: Brent Hislop (612) 590 - 0811 brent.hisloppSynergyLandCompa INr.O4LMATldtJ a►J 1 I / 1,r Swe.TC A SuRVE.y IS 0,,30 � 1 �� r'st,ovh r+�. APPRaUED / �/ (�R.O.DINL�/Urll,lsy 5 / 1 LOT 1�. t DRAINAGE AND UTW1Y- aD r-------- -- ---EASEMENT ' SETBACK LINES 1` / r/ LEGAL DESCRIPION: Lot 9, Block 1. PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. REaDE57ED BY PLO WSHARES, INC. W� tllm� AOfI f9f4�1• iau� iart,r+ef nfamtwood Print Data/Map Page 1 of l PID# 256110090 � r • .y' � eJ yy ;!' l t"'hejs'' eVY 'sl _.P iR Ja1 'fly ` l tv�.� . t }!r 'd'n 0 35ft fopttylrozoo9,atemrmtmaaR�4au+ Legend Parcel information Property Address; ALDER WAY Taxpayer Information: BRENf & KAREN HISLOP 11600q HANHASSEN, MN VICTORIA, MN LN VICTORIA, MN 55386 �/ YXMrnn ltl cum °'" Parcel Properties Cv R n GIS Acres: 0.62983814 �✓ T, 0 ii" Homestead: N ctyllt a School District: 0276 P n Rxft Parcel Location lakes partals Section: 03 Township: 116 Plat Information: PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION Cdor 7•R Range: 023 LRr-M Block-00I Payable Year 1010 Last Sale /nforyMn On Sale Date: 12/14/2007 Est. Market Value Land: $242800 Est. Market Value Building: $0 Sale Price: $267309 Qualified/Unqualified: QUALIFIED SALE Map Created: 7-8.2009 Est. Market Value Total: $242800 CARVER COUNTY GIS DISCLAIMER: This map was created using Carver Countys Geogmphic In(ortution Systems (GIS), it is a compilation is surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be of information and data from variom City, County. State, and Federal olrites. This map not a used as a reference. Carver County is nod responsible for any inaccuracies connived herein. http://carvergisweb l .co.carver.mn.uslarcimslgislpubliclparcei_searchlprintdatamap•asp?PID... 7/8/2009 Print Data/Map Page 1 of 1 http://carvergisweb l .co.carver.mn.ustarcimslgislpublic/parcel_searchlprintdatamap.asp?PID... 7/8/2009 SyneYgyLand Company Working together. Developing valuc- CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION and Address: Phone: :,Izz•y'vi t Fax: Email: i::r 1i-cft p , sy�U u�c ram[. Planning Case No. Owner Name and Address: r kAPC-V4 I-1, NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development` Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)' Subdivision` Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) _,< Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign - $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" - $50 CUP/SPR/VACNARANAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. 'Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME: /1�` f LOCATION: is l�L� l+uR C�-/17[ Pln% Oz vl �t LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: 2-0 Y TOTAL ACREAGE: €n' AC WETLANDS PRESENT: YES ')C NO PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND LAND USE DESIGNATION: ? 5.N-[n[_ r'• REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: ;Zeg, 6Ew F,.4 L ec, REASON FOR REQUEST:L P[syrD nn �U4u/N e`JN IS f-a.2 r `r!t iZcp�cS",' +=02G:sf/-Ue;7 i F+RT fi i5 ScTJ'�t-K FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: �� and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Date '7/� 11, �) It to Rev_ IM Sy Land Comp a nyrgyne � Working together. Developing value.^' To: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Date: 7/08/09 Members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission From: Brent & Karen Hislop Synergy Land Company, LLC Chanhassen. MN brent.h islop�SynergyLandCompanv.com (612)590-0811 RE: Approved Setbacks for Lot 9, Blk. 1, Pineburst 2'd Addition (6604 Alder Way) Thank you for our recent discussion and your site visit related to our lot at Pinehurst. Per our talk, we originally purchased this lot in December 2007 and have been actively marketing the property for sale over the past 18 months. Purpose of the Variance: The necessity of this variance is primarily administrative in nature. The lot (as part of the Pinehurst subdivision) received plat approvals from the Chanhassen City Council in 2005/2006. The subdivision approval included a variance for the use of a private drive to serve the 3 lots on Alder Way. The approved resolution and plans require a 20' "front yard" setback from the private drive of all 3 lots. This issue is relevant, but not in question. The specific question relates to a "compliance chart" notation suggesting that a 30' front yard setback is required for each of the lots. For the adjoining lots (lot 10 & 11) this 30' setback was reduced to 20' as part of the approved private drive variance. For Lot 9, the chart specifies the "front yard" as the northern property line which is opposite of the area from which this lot gains access to the private drive. Due to this classification, an inconsistency exists between the compliance chart requiring a 30' setback and the approved plans and documents which demonstrate a IS' setback to the northern property line. The traditional puroose of a front yard setback is to ensure that homes within a community are placed a reasonable distance from the street to achieve safe and attractive streetscapes. We believe there was "clear and obvious" intent by the City Council to approve this lot with the 15' northern setback and a 20' private drive setback. This is consistent with abutting lots and the approved plans. We request the City clarify this inconsistency in the approval documents by approving the requested variance. Background: Recently, we've discussed the sale of the lot to a qualified buyer interested in building a large custom-built rambler with a walkout basement. The buyer's builder representative called the City to discuss restrictions, permitting, etc. in advance of a final lot sale negotiation with the buyer. During this discussion, the City suggested that the approved project plans and lot sketch demonstrated an error in the "front" setback line. ne -gy Land Com a � Sy n.Y<,� Working together. Developing value.^' You & 1 have discussed and agreed to the "non -typical" character of this lot which is located "on" a private drive but does not have direct frontage on this private drive — it is accessed via an easement agreement through lot 10 which is located to the south of our lot 9. The lot is 27,000+ sq, ft. in size and roughly 100' wide and 270' deep. Given the unique character & shape of the lot, it does not have a "typical" front of the lot. The existing City approved plans demonstrate a 20' building setback from the private drive which is consistent with the other lots located on the Alder Way. Issue to Clarify: The issue in question relates to possible conflicting approval notes demonstrating a 15' vs. a 30' setback from the northern property boundary which abuts the Minnetonka Middle School West. This property line is physically separated by a 10' change in elevation and a wooded tree line. Upon learning of the issue, the builder and buyer notified me of the Citys comments and suggested serious concerns related to the lot value and house fit if the lot is further restricted by a 30' setback vs. the 15' setback as shown on the approved grading plan, landscape plan, and lot fit survey. It's important to note that regardless of the specific plans currently being reviewed by this active buyer, we purchased the lot with the understanding that the northern property line had a 15' setback and agree with the buyerlbuilder that a change to a 30' setback has material negative impacts to the lot's value and home design flexibility. The issue is NOT as a discussion of whether we "can we make this buyer's plan fit" but rather, "how do we ensure the lot's northern boundary maintains a 15' setback as drawn on the approved plans'. Interpretation of the Issue: After review of the plans and project approval documents, it is our belief that the lot is currently approved with a 15' building setback on the northern property line and this approval is consistent with the attached lot sketch survey noting the easement lines and setback lines. This lot sketch survey is consistent with the approved grading plan and other approved plans. We do not dispute that the "compliance chart" in the staff memorandum (dated 3.14.05) suggests a 30' "front' setback for the lot: however, we believe this to be an unintended typographical error. The approval notes, resolution, and all approved plans suggest that the 15' setback was the intended approved setback along this property line. Furthermore, in reviewing the "compliance chart", it calls for a 30' front setback for the other lots fronting on the private drive (lots 10 & 11). On the same page it is noted that all lots fronting on the private drive were approved with a 20' setback. ,Phnergy Land Com a ^,sy p nyr Working together. Developing value.^' The above being true, the issue boils down to whether is lot is subject to a "front" setback and if so, what is the appropriate and logical setback from the front of the lot. We've agreed with the City that this lot is truly unique in its size, shape, and wooded character. We believe that this lot does not fall neatly into typical zoning standards for the following reasons: • The lot is accessed via a private drive • The lot does not "front" onto the private drive, but accessed via an easement from lot 10. • The lot's size, location, woodlands, wetland buffer, shape is unique. • The lot meets the typical 20' setback from the private drive (similar to lots 10 & 11). The variance approving the private drive over -rides the "front yard setback" issue and therefore justifies that the northern property line need not be considered the "front'. • The clear and obvious intent of the approved plans (i.e. grading, etc.) show a 15' northern setback. Approved Plans: As part of the conditions related to the private drive and the benefits which justified approval of the private drive, we believe this lot is not subject to a "front setback" line. Any typical "front" setback requirement was eliminated as part of the approved variance related to the private drive and instead was intentionally approved with a 15' northern property setback and a 20' setback from the private drive (the lot is also restricted by the wetland buffer per the approved plans). These sebacks exceed the 20' front, 10' side yard setbacks which govern the 2 other lots located on this private drive. This lot should not be further burdened beyond the criteria of the neighboring lots. We believe there was "clear and obvious" intent by the City Council to approve the lot with the 1.5' northern setback and a 20' private drive setback. Final Plat Staff Memo (Page 7 of 17) "Setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street. 'This condition shall be modified as follows: Setbacks on Lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, Block I shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street" The staff memo and staff report (based on a review of the submitted drawings) makes no mention of this lot being out of compliance. There really is no "front" of the lot for this parcel, because there is no ROW frontage. • Preliminary and Final Plat Staff Report "Final Plat Approval RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council approves the Final Plat for Pinehurst Addition creating 43 lots, 2 outlots and associated right-of-way for public streets (plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc.) subject to the following conditions: 1. Setbacks on Lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, Block 1 shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street." nergyLand Com a . � Sy p ny�� Working together. Developing value.- 0 Development Contract Page SP-1 of the development agreement indicates that plans shall be prepared in accordance with plans listed (A-D). As we have discussed, all of the plans are consistent in showing a 10' setback on the preliminary plans, changing to a 15' north setback to match the drainage and utility easement. If a 30' setback was intended, the change would have been to change the 10' to the 30' setback at this time. Clearly this issue and setback line was review and intentionally approved at 15'. Page SP-3 of the development agreement, item 8-C, again notes that the front setback shall be 20' from the back of the private sheet. Our Request: We request the City provide us written confirmation that for the above reasons, the lot is currently approved with a 20' setback from the private drive and a 15' setback from the northern property line — consistent with the attached Lot Sketch Survey. Summary: Kate — We appreciate your timely review and thank you for your willingness to work with us to clarify this issue as noted above. I'm glad to meet with you to discuss your questions or thoughts. Once we've talked, I'll communicate the update to our potential buyer/builder. Best Regar Brent Hish Synergy Land Company, LLC (612)590-0811 brent.hislop a SynergyLandCompany.com Documents Below: 1. Lot Sketch Survey 2. Grading/LS Plan 3. Arial of Plat FA LOT N87012'20'W 123.49 O � pravEwar EaSEatENT� � 'PAD UWS ter,' � • �' / / / 9 / / Lot For Sale:OOM Synergy Land Company, LLC / Attn: Brent Hislop o� (612) 590 - 0871 AND unurr , �,., / brenLhislog SynergyLandC, LINES �` /, IN, ' / h 11 � -//'/ "agSE. ta�O2yvtATtt71� Ot^� ' 1.er S{t6TC9 SURVEY is +A.K / o � ,yip /' rRovr� THE AppiteJBD / ' PLC S / � / �pAD1NC3/VTtt_tty � / Q -com , REaVEVED sr.' PLOWSHARES, INC. LEGAL DESCRAMM Lot 9, Block 1, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. MD• pOlif ten• � VAwkwood Print Data/Map Page I of I Legend Caner Roads Usa p 114( aYNHrq GAabn (rnrlbn TtiI1jYM rtrbY 1w Mibn Lam Pan% Celarm Map Created: 7$2009 CARVER COUNTY GIS DISCO of information and data from Various used as PID# 256110090 9 IN WAY .N . MN Homestead: N School District: 0276 �Parce! Location Benson: 03 Toweskip: 116 Rsnge: 023 Payable Year 2010 Est. Market Value land: $242800 Est. Market Value Battling: $0 Est. Market Valae Total: $242800 This map was created using Carver County's Geographic In only, State, and Federal offices. This map is not a surveyed not responsible For any inaccuracies e It & KAREN HISLOP iRLOOK LN LIA . MN 55396 HURST 2ND ADDITION 09 Block-00I t Sale Information Date: 12114f2007 Pritt. $267309 lified/Unqualirwd: QUALIFIEDSALE awn Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ,11V recorded map and is intended to be http://carvergisweb l .co.carver.mn.uslarcimslgislpubliclparcel_searchlprintdatamap.asp?PID... 7/8/2009 Print Data/Map Page 1 of 1 http://carvergisweb t .co.carver.mn.uslarcimslgislpublic/parcel_searchlprintdatamap.asp?PID... 7/8/2009 S eYgyLand ComMafuie�� c Warkinv tovether. DDeaeloni CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Name and Address: Phone: :y,z r0 o2,t; Fax: 1'' Email: ,;cam?. n« Snu Y(eCsn�r -e Planning Case No. Owner Name and Address: r-i rA Phone: Fax: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)* Subdivision* Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** - $50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTALFEE An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. *Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format. **Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME: r�i%��tiydLSl � At,�>/ iF^1 LOCATION: � ke TM4'J /4WD AePlz-J 6 t vD LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: �or y �i WGIC (i�F ,2Si ND TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: PRESENT ZONING: YES NO REQUESTED ZONING: 7-=S <!) �-,m._ 'S.F, PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: 7Z i , N,� N'; nr_ 1 . REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Z-eS,6F_iv-?A1 5'e". REASON FOR REQUEST: 1 r lAr,1Z7U . e rN�-' ��lF'Pr77�JcA �'��{;u/Vf G-Ni) Y62 f>Zt P,NciR�lGJ? �� 1?OL; %/C'�..1 ! I"'Pl�/�,'✓;� , fN 'tia� /..'6:7f0\ /'%� ZcE1✓ES,' 1✓02 i%%�,P_:'�!'NE-.�= C%111J��i '; Ci Cf/�Pi Gu rL'6T � �S� �iET/i^�C1�- 1--/? NS : �r ai,^_n —�$�n n/ -�,?..o,Pril�ti F..At: f AS- 5k4AS " cYv APP171iJED t�LANi tS WON FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions- Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. 1 have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. -71e%i t Date Date Rev. V08 riergy Land Com a �sy p ny� � Working together. Developiag aahre.^' To: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Date: 7/08/09 Members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission From: Brent & Karen Hislop Synergy Land Company, LLC Chanhassen. MN brent.hislop(@,SvncrgyLandCompany.com (612) 590-0811 RE: Approved Setbacks for Lot 9, Bilk. 1, Pinehurst 2ad Addition (6604 Alder Way) Thank you for our recent discussion and your site visit related to our lot at Pinehurst. Per our talk, we originally purchased this lot in December 2007 and have been actively marketing the property for sale over the past 18 months. Purpose of the Variance: The necessity of this variance is primarily administrative in nature. The lot (as part of the Pinehurst subdivision) received plat approvals from the Chanhassen City Council in 2005/2006. The subdivision approval included a variance for the use of a private drive to serve the 3 lots on Alder Way. The approved resolution and plans require a 20' "front yard" setback from the private drive of all 3 lots. This issue is relevant, but not in question. The specific question relates to a "compliance chart" notation suggesting that a 30' front yard setback is required for each of the lots. For the adjoining lots (lot 10 & 1 1) this 30' setback was reduced to 20' as part of the approved private drive variance. For Lot 9, the chart specifies the "front yard" as the northern property line which is opposite of the area from which this lot gains access to the private drive. Due to this classification, an inconsistency exists between the compliance chart requiring a 30' setback and the approved plans and documents which demonstrate a 15' setback to the northern property line. The traditional purpose of front yard setback is to ensure that homes within a community are placed a reasonable distance from the street to achieve safe and attractive streetscapes. We believe there was "clear and obvious" intent by the City Council to approve this lot with the 15' northern setback and a 20' private drive setback. This is consistent with abutting lots and the approved plans. We request the City clarify this inconsistency in the approval documents by approving the requested variance. Background: Recently, we've discussed the sale of the lot to a qualified buyer interested in building a large custom-built rambler with a walkout basement. The buyer's builder representative called the City to discuss restrictions, permitting, etc. in advance of a final lot sale negotiation with the buyer. During this discussion, the City suggested that the approved project plans and lot sketch demonstrated an error in the "front" setback line. 00� ergyLand Corn a P u zy Working together. Developing value."' You & I have discussed and agreed to the "non -typical" character of this lot which is located "on" a private drive but does not have direct frontage on this private drive — it is accessed via an easement agreement through lot 10 which is located to the south of our lot 9. The lot is 27,000+ sq. ft. in size and roughly 100' wide and 270' deep. Given the unique character & shape of the lot, it does not have a "typical" front of the lot. The existing City approved plans demonstrate a 20' building setback from the private drive which is consistent with the other lots located on the Alder Way. Issue to Clarify: The issue in question relates to possible conflicting approval notes demonstrating a 15' vs. a 30' setback from the northern property boundary which abuts the Minnetonka Middle School West. This property line is physically separated by a 10' change in elevation and a wooded tree line. Upon learning of the issue, the builder and buyer notified me of the City's comments and suggested serious concerns related to the lot value and house fit if the lot is further restricted by a 30' setback vs. the 15' setback as shown on the approved grading plan, landscape plan, and lot fit survey. It's important to note that regardless of the specific plans currently being reviewed by this active buyer, we purchased the lot with the understanding that the northern property line had a 15' setback and agree with the buyer/builder that a change to a 30' setback has material negative impacts to the lot's value and home design flexibility. The issue is NOT as a discussion of whether we "can we make this buyer's plan fit" but rather, "how do we ensure the lot's northern boundary maintains a 15' setback as drawn on the approved plans". Interpretation of the Issue: After review of the plans and project approval documents, it is our belief that the lot is currently approved with a 15' building setback on the northern property line and this approval is consistent with the attached lot sketch survey noting the easement lines and setback lines. This lot sketch survey is consistent with the approved grading plan and other approved plans. We do not dispute that the "compliance chart" in the staff memorandum (dated 3.14.05) suggests a 30' "front" setback for the lot; however, we believe this to be an unintended typographical error. The approval notes, resolution, and all approved plans suggest that the 15' setback was the intended approved setback along this property line. Furthermore, in reviewing the "compliance chart", it calls for a 30' front setback for the other lots fronting on the private drive (lots 10 & 11). On the same page it is noted that all lots fronting on the private drive were approved with a 20' setback. ^.., nergyLandCom �sy �ny�� ` Warking together. Developing vahte."' The above being true, the issue boils down to whether is lot is subject to a "front" setback and if so, what is the appropriate and logical setback from the front of the lot. We've agreed with the City that this lot is truly unique in its size, shape, and wooded character. We believe that this lot does not fall neatly into typical zoning standards for the following reasons: • The lot is accessed via a private drive • The lot does not "front" onto the private drive, but accessed via an easement from lot 10. • The lot's size, location, woodlands, wetland buffer, shape is unique. • The lot meets the typical 20' setback from the private drive (similar to lots 10 & 11). The variance approving the private drive over -rides the "front yard setback" issue and therefore justifies that the northern property line need not be considered the "front". • The clear and obvious intent of the approved plans (i.e. grading, etc.) show a 15' northern setback. Approved Plans: As part of the conditions related to the private drive and the benefits which justified approval of the private drive, we believe this lot is not subject to a "front setback" line. Any typical "front" setback requirement was eliminated as part of the approved variance related to the private drive and instead was intentionally approved with a 15' northern property setback and a 20' setback from the private drive (the lot is also restricted by the wetland buffer per the approved plans). These sebacks exceed the 20' front, 10' side yard setbacks which govern the 2 other lots located on this private drive. This lot should not be further burdened beyond the criteria of the neighboring lots. We believe there was "clear and obvious" intent by the City Council to approve the lot with the 15' northern setback and a 20' private drive setback. Final Plat Staff Memo (Page 7 of 17) "Setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street. *This condition shall be modified as follows: Setbacks on lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, Block 1 shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street." The staff memo and staff report (based on a review of the submitted drawings) makes no mention of this lot being out of compliance. There really is no "front" of the lot for this parcel, because there is no ROW frontage. • Preliminary and Final Plat Staff Report "Final Plat Approval RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council approves the Final Plat for Pinehurst Addition creating 43 lots, 2 outlots and associated right-of-way for public streets (plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc.) subject to the following conditions: 1. Setbacks on Lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, Block I shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street." nergyLandCom p any Sy �c Working together. Developing value.^' • Development Contract Page SP-I of the development agreement indicates that plans shall be prepared in accordance with plans listed (A-D). As we have discussed, all of the plans are consistent in showing a 10' setback on the preliminary plans, changing to a 15' north setback to match the drainage and utility easement If a 30' setback was intended, the change would have been to change the 10' to the 30' setback at this time. Clearly this issue and setback line was review and intentionally approved at 15'. Page SP-3 of the development agreement, item 8-C, again notes that the front setback shall be 20' from the back of the private street. Our Request: We request the City provide us written confirmation that for the above reasons, the lot is currently approved with a 20' setback from the private drive and a 15' setback from the northern property line — consistent with the attached Lot Sketch Survey. Summary: Kate — We appreciate your timely review and thank you for your willingness to work with us to clarify this issue as noted above. I'm glad to meet with you to discuss your questions or thoughts. Once we've talked, I'll communicate the update to our potential buyer/builder. Best Regards, V Brent Hislop j Documents Below: Synergy Land Company, LLC 1. Lot Sketch Survey (612) 590-0811 2. Grading/LS Plan brent.hislo aSynergvLandCompany.com 3. Arial of Plat — — — — — — — — — — - Nsr12'2OV 123.49 f4o• 0 _ DMVEWAY EASBENT,` / ryA b� / • eb 00 / n' / / It; PAD 1J1lE5 LOT9 Lot For S UTILITY LIMES n / // Synergy Land Company, LLC • / �� Attn: Brent Hisiop / / -po (612) 590 - OSt t / �3 Luent.hisl x� r twlFoRrltaTtawl orl. s, 2 1 A T SKETOA SUMVEY 1S +A-K /Rewt THE APPP- JGb / 5/C7isowntg�unLtey / _A 'Pe / f REOL ESIM RY.- PLOWSHARES, INC. Loft, Blodcl. PINFtIURST 2ND ADDITION, according to the recorded plot thereof, Carver County, M'mnewto. rya o iau�e sMsww Print Data/Map Page 1 of 1 http://r-arvergisweb I .co.carver.mn.us/arcims/gis/public/parcel_search/printdatamap.asp?PID... 7/8/2009 Print Data/Map Page 1 of I htip://carvergisweb 1.co.carver.mn.us/arcims/gis/public/parcel_search/printdatamap.asp?PID... 7/8/2009 %4�1'--W—�orkiuv 0 gLandCompa , tmther. DevelovinAvahie. MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Generous, Senior Planner FROM: Jerritt Mohn, Building Official DATE: July 16, 2009 SUBJ: Review of variance request regarding front -yard -setback on property located at 6604 Alder Way (Lot 9, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Add. Planning Case: 09-10 I have reviewed the above request for a variance and have no comment. GAPLAN\2009 Planning Cases\09-10 Hislop Setback Variance\buildingofricialwo mts.doc City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 Date: July 15, 2009 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department Review Response Deadline: August 7, 2009 By: Robert Generous, Senior Planner Subject: Request for a 15-foot front yard setback variance on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) located on Lot 9, Block 1, Pinehurst 2°d Addition (6604 Alder Way). Applicant: Brent Hislop, Synergy Land Company Planning Case: 09-10 PID: 25-6110090 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on July 9, 2009. The 60-day review period ends September 7, 2009. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on August 18, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than August 7, 2009. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments: a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official L Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District 3. MN Dept. of Transportation 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 8. Watershed District Engineer a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Minnehaha Creek 9. Telephone Company (Qwest or Sprint/United) 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 13. School District 276 PID# 256110090 Legend Ir ."e,. anJormuuorr p,arrirgaiy Property Address: Taxpayer Information: 6604 ALDER WAY BRENL & KAREN HISLOP ssap.rys CHANHASSEN, MN 810 OVERLOOK IN ../t IN xp.sls VICTORIA, MN 55386 arcel Properties GLS Acres: 0.62983814 Homestead: N ./ /' rsMLsa �✓ csLssso School District 0276 �,/ u.rslasr Parcel Location Lou Section: 03 Plat Information: FKW Township: 116 PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION cdw m Range: 023 Lot-009 Block-001 Payable Year 2010 Last sale Information Sale Date: 12/14/2007 Est. Market Value Land: $242,00 Sale Price: S267309 Est. Market Value Building: $0 Qualifsed/Unqualif ed: QUALIFIED SALE Map Created: 7-15-2009 Est Market Value Total: $242800 COUNTY GIS DISCLAIMER: This map was created using Carver County's Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation ion and data from various City, County, State, and Federal offices. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Carver County is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION PLEASE PRINT Applicant Name and Address: 4,K)hA5- �-N + MN ��3 Phone: oew Fax: Email: n—�,i. ��;.,.� :s sy n<,r;,'ica.cs1�+'a Planning Case No. Owner Name and Address: n t'--eno- +- KAPeN Phone: Fax: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)' Subdivision` Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost- - $50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTALFEE An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. `Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME: r : -vL- / t om LOCATION`c ��, 1pkE ��qLy LsLFA l�nr^ (i ae-ptl J ULvh LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: Lo ! t t ��tcnlrNv2ft _Z �4 TOTALACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: YES NO i+ r PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Zc-s Ap. —,At 5 .4 REASON FOR REQUEST: Yts 1W,6yUS157ZiAicy r=XIyrf .0 rH= Pu'w%t%��cD -F+'✓- [i `rit ZcFS�cS Got ✓/kP:f+'MCE <'-fu-=5 r� �'tnd. c�,. �tgar A i�� -2FT�V s 1.07-Z-'--QL� . (f Z-E-4SF FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: 'JIQ' and new employees: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. r Date Is Date Rev. 1 /08 A .. nergy Land Com a ��Sy Wp ny�� orking together. Developing vnlne. To: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Date: 7/08/09 Members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission From: Brent & Karen Hislop Synergy Land Company, LLC Chanhassen. MN brent. h is loo(ebSvnergyLandCom panv.com (612)590-0811 RE: Approved Setbacks for Lot 9, Blk. 1, Pinehurst 2sd Addition (6604 Alder Way) Thank you for our recent discussion and your site visit related to our lot at Pinehurst. Per our talk, we originally purchased this lot in December 2007 and have been actively marketing the property for sale over the past 18 months. Purpose of the Variance: The necessity of this variance is primarily administrative in nature. The lot (as part of the Pinehurst subdivision) received plat approvals from the Chanhassen City Council in 2005/2006. The subdivision approval included a variance for the use of a private drive to serve the 3 lots on Alder Way. The approved resolution and plans require a 20' "front yard" setback from the private drive of all 3 lots. This issue is relevant, but not in question. The specific question relates to a "compliance chart" notation suggesting that a 30' front yard setback is required for each of the lots. For the adjoining lots (lot 10 & 11) this 30' setback was reduced to 20' as part of the approved private drive variance. For Lot 9, the chart specifies the "front yard" as the northern property line which is opposite of the area from which this lot gains access to the private drive. Due to this classification, an inconsistency exists between the compliance chart requiring a 30' setback and the approved plans and documents which demonstrate a IS' setback to the northern property line. The traditional goose of a front yard setback is to ensure that homes within a community are placed a reasonable distance from the street to achieve safe and attractive streetscapes. We believe there was "clear and obvious" intent by the City Council to approve this lot with the 15' northern setback and a 20' private drive setback. This is consistent with abutting lots and the approved plans. We request the City clarify this inconsistency in the approval documents by approving the requested variance. Background: Recently, we've discussed the sale of the lot to a qualified buyer interested in building a large custom-built rambler with a walkout basement. The buyer's builder representative called the City to discuss restrictions, permitting, etc. in advance of a final lot sale negotiation with the buyer. During this discussion, the City suggested that the approved project plans and lot sketch demonstrated an error in the "front" setback line. ;Synergy Land Colnpanyc Working together. Developing value.^' You & I have discussed and agreed to the -non -typical" character of this lot which is located "on" a private drive but does not have direct frontage on this private drive - it is accessed via an easement agreement through lot 10 which is located to the south of our lot 9. The lot is 27,000+ sq. ft. in size and roughly 100' wide and 270' deep. Given the unique character & shape of the lot, it does not have a "typical" front of the lot. The existing City approved plans demonstrate a 20' building setback from the private drive which is consistent with the other lots located on the Alder Way. Issue to Clarify: The issue in question relates to possible conflicting approval notes demonstrating a 15' vs. a 30' setback from the northern property boundary which abuts the Minnetonka Middle School West. This property line is physically separated by a 10' change in elevation and a wooded tree line. Upon learning of the issue, the builder and buyer notified me of the City's comments and suggested serious concerns related to the lot value and house fit if the lot is further restricted by a 30' setback vs. the 15' setback as shown on the approved grading plan, landscape plan, and lot fit survey. It's important to note that regardless of the specific plans currently being reviewed by this active buyer, we purchased the lot with the understanding that the northern property line had a 15' setback and agree with the buyer/builder that a change to a 30' setback has material negative impacts to the lot's value and home design flexibility. The issue is NOT as a discussion of whether we "can we make this buyer's plan fit" but rather, "how do we ensure the lot's northern boundary maintains a 15' setback as drawn on the approved plans". Interpretation of the Issue: After review of the plans and project approval documents, it is our belief that the lot is currently approved with a 15' building setback on the northern property line and this approval is consistent with the attached lot sketch survey noting the easement lines and setback lines. This lot sketch survey is consistent with the approved grading plan and other approved plans. We do not dispute that the "compliance chart" in the staff memorandum (dated 3.14.05) suggests a 30' "front" setback for the lot; however, we believe this to be an unintended typographical error. The approval notes, resolution, and all approved plans suggest that the 15' setback was the intended approved setback along this property line. Furthermore, in reviewing the "compliance chart", it calls for a 30' front setback for the other lots fronting on the private drive (lots 10 & 11). On the same page it is noted that all lots fronting on the private drive were approved with a 20' setback. SyeY-m ynV oanC Working together. Deaeloping aah�e.^' The above being true, the issue boils down to whether is lot is subject to a "front" setback and if so, what is the appropriate and logical setback from the front of the lot. We've agreed with the City that this lot is truly unique in its size, shape, and wooded character. We believe that this lot does not fall neatly into typical zoning standards for the following reasons: • The lot is accessed via a private drive • The lot does not "front" onto the private drive, but accessed via an easement from lot 10. • The lot's size, location, woodlands, wetland buffer, shape is unique. • The lot meets the typical 20' setback from the private drive (similar to lots 10 & I I ). The variance droving the private drive over -rides the "front yard setback" issue and therefore justifies that the northern property line need not be considered the "front". • The clear and obvious intent of the approved plans (i.e. grading, etc.) show a 15' northern setback. Approved Plans: As part of the conditions related to the private drive and the benefits which justified approval of the private drive, we believe this lot is not subject to a "front setback" line. Any typical "front" setback requirement was eliminated as part of the approved variance related to the private drive and instead was intentionally approved with a 15' northern property setback and a 20' setback from the private drive (the lot is also restricted by the wetland buffer per the approved plans). These sebacks exceed the 20' front, 10' side yard setbacks which govern the 2 other lots located on this private drive. This lot should not be further burdened beyond the criteria of the neighboring lots. We believe there was "clear and obvious" intent by the City Council to approve the lot with the 15' northern setback and a 20' private drive setback. Final Plat Staff Memo (Page 7 of 17) "Setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street. 'This condition shall be modified as follows: Setbacks on Lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, Block 1 shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street." The staff memo and staff report (based on a review of the submitted drawings) makes no mention of this lot being out of compliance. There really is no "Front" of the lot for this parcel, because there is no ROW frontage. • Preliminary and Final Plat Staff Report "Final Plat Approval RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council approves the Final Plat for Pinehurst Addition creating 43 lots, 2 outlots and associated right -of --way for public streets (plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc.) subject to the following conditions: 1. Setbacks on Lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16, Block 1 shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street" nergyLand Conip a Sy ny�� c Working together. Developing value.- 0 Development Contract Page SP-1 of the development agreement indicates that plans shall be prepared in accordance with plans listed (A-D). As we have discussed, all of the plans are consistent in showing a 10' setback on the vreliminary plans. changing to a 15' north setback to match the drainage and utility easement. If a 30' setback was intended, the change would have been to change the 10' to the 30' setback at this time. Clearly this issue and setback line was review and intentionally approved at 15'. Page SP-3 of the development agreement, item 8-C, again notes that the front setback shall be 20' from the back of the private street. Our Request: We request the City provide us written confirmation that for the above reasons, the lot is currently approved with a 20' setback from the private drive and a 15' setback from the northern property line - consistent with the attached Lot Sketch Survey. Summary: Kate - We appreciate your timely review and thank you for your willingness to work with us to clarify this issue as noted above. I'm glad to meet with you to discuss your questions or thoughts. Once we've talked, I'll communicate the update to our potential buyer/builder. Best Regards, 1 Brent Hislop Synergy Land Company, LLC (612)590-0811 brent.hislo a SynergyLandComgany.com Documents Below: 1. Lot Sketch Survey 2. Grading/LS Plan 3. Arial of Plat t o I. /30 ' t' / LOT AND UPUTY LINES Nsr12'20'W 123.49 0 n w_ DRIVEWAY EASEMENT %0 _ r•PAD LSES / / / 9 /CY / / Lot For Sa , Synergy Land Company, LLC / Attn: arent Hislop / o (612) 590 _0811 - , 2+� brent.hisla r / � 1 LoT SKETCH Su2vE7/ IS � // rRow1 THE. APPROVi:D / / P-ttA.DINC3/UTll.l� 5 / 4 4 / / R£OUESTED BY. PLO WSHARES, INC. LEGAL TM* Lot 9, Block 1, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. muc ss�ras umkwwd Print Data/Map Page 1 of 1 http://carvergisweb l .co.carver.mn.uslarcimslgislpublic/parcel_searchlprintdatmnap.asp?PID... 7/8/2009 Print Data/Map Page 1 of 1 http://carvergisweb l .co.carver.mn.uslarcimsigisipublic/parcel_searchlprintdatamap.asp?PID... 7/8/2009 Synergy Land Company Working together. Developing value.,' Ati,�� OB/23/2009 09.02 FAX 952 942 106E LECY BROS HOMES IIa002/002 s, 100 v go YAT Pinehurst 6/24/2009 Legal Address L7, B2 2050 Pinehurst Drive L1, B3 2061 Pinehurst Drive L25, B 1 20181 Pinehurst Drive L22, B1 2111 Pinehurst Drive L4, B 1 2140 Pinehurst Drive L13, B1 2171 Pinehurst Drive 1-6, B3 2030 Edgewood Court L 5, B3 2021 Edgewood Court L2, B 1 6620 Chestnut Lane L14, B 1 6681 Amberwood Lane L10, B 1 6614 Alder Way kVERAGE Lot Width House Width % House/Lot House Type 132.85 72 54% R 118.13 75.96 64% WO 106.74 72 67% WO 113.21 77.96 69% WO 190 89.32 47% R 100.93 68.67 68% WO 94.45 72 76% WO 90.57 76 84% WO 110.31 66.67 60% LO 216.78 77.96 36% WO 100 66.66 67% WO 124.91 74.11 63% G:\PLAN\2006 Planning Cases\06-07 Pinehurst Replat\Building-Lot analysis.xlsx L-7 6z Ll g3 L,zs 61 I LZ81 � 45- � 2— L io (3) c-v coC) LD Wb Jason M. McCarty. PE. LEED• AP Director, Residential Development jason.mccartyeweAwvodpscom "• DIRECT MAIN 952--7446 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 WeSiWO nd TOLL FREE MB-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 www,westwoodps.com Jason M. McCarty, PE, LEED° AP Director, Residential Development W lason.mccarty®we,,,Wdps.com DIRECT 952-906-7446 MAIN 952-937-5150 Westwood FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 888-937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive Ellen Prairie, MN 55344 www.westwoodps.com ''�rnl-f ASBUILT SURVEY *ACANI LOT' WA SIDEWALK Lot Area = 18,669 sq. ft. Building and Egress window = 3,157 sq. ft. Driveway, sidewalk and stoop = 1,027 sq. ft. Revised Monument Sign = 34 sq. ft. Retaining Woll(Total as shown) = 137 sq. ft. Impervious area = 4,355 sq. ft. / 23.33 % of total Lot area x (900.00) CITY OF CHANHASSF Denotes proposed elevation RZC FIIW[h-1r; x 900.00 Denotes existing elevation Denotes surface drainage xxxx Denotes proposed sewer invert OCT 17 2008 ENGINEERING DEP1'. Scale: f "= 20 feet • Denotes iron monument found O Denotes iron monument set Bearings based on assumed datum. I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the lows of_-th State of Minnesota. i Craig e Morse, LS Dote 0 Kc 0 oc LEGAL DESCR1P710N: Lot 7, Block 2, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION, according to the recorded plot thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. *CURB AND GUTTER AND UTILITIES ARE EXISTING* REQUESTED BY. LUNDGREN BROS. 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 TOLL FREE 1-888-937-5150 Drown by: BTW I Dote: 06/15/06 I Job No:20052582.00 200525829802L 07. DWG 1 i f *t.R arma 14fr7otod SZoe _ LEGEND _ ` ---- Denotes Iron Monument • Denotes Surface Drainage - j" P I ^ I U p C Te RIVE o __ _,__, Denotes Proposed Elevation x (123.4) o ' \ J > Denotes ExistingElevation x ,u4 Denotes Top Iron Pipe TIP / �o �.-E- Denotes Retaining Wall Rill/ � � Denotes Proposed Contour Lines 1234 :. _' .- ': •.i 2 �`!� STORM SEWER - 04117) � '-5 SANITARY SEWER � ------ - - ---- 60 H I r J - i II - - - - ') WATERMAIN, HYDRANT, AND VALVE 105U N o f T 30 0 30 ' 9" I \n'._ t-DRAINAG LJ I HARD COVER CALCULATIONS I' . t1149A °1 T PER T 1040.4 / I N --/ J ,p.7pryy SIDEWALK 5 I LOT AREA = 22,694 SO. FT. CV /II199..02 6..-Oo � I , _- _ I SCALE IN FEET HOUSE/PORCH = 3,385 SO. FT416 SO . i I Q 4 STOOP 1 Io .00 SST IOOP/ PATIYS OS WA WALK = 7.545 SO. F(.�� i6$igj f d _ o c 17,g6 � 4 TOTAL HARD COVER = 5,3465O. FT / T. � • l 10.02 CANT' ,id63 PERCENT OF HARD COVER = 5,346l22,696 236% 19.98 a 10.02 I 0 NOTES: - (V ao 91 a $ u I I L = 1. Address: 2061 Pinehurst Drive * - ^- ` = f _m I I 2. Benchmarks: 1. T.N.H. Between Lots 3 8 4, Block 3, PINEHURST 2ND ADk)(TTIt N / II I' 104U j i ELEV. = 1037.42 ._ 13.01 RUTHERFORD CRAFTSMAN I /ATV 1�`� 2. T.N.H. lying west of Manchester Drive at Outlot's A and B. PINEHURST 2ND PROPOSED HOUSE I .41� p� �S ADDITION. °yh (WALKOUT) I p `�' ELEV. = 1028.88 �o n 36.00 IFE�(1041.,) I ((((L �1�'Q�,� d {. 25.00 p 3. TIP on the westerlyextension line of the front of proposed house. TIP is lying 49 _ 10.00 g c ,Dma I i� �.�' Q- „�� p p �-- -I- 2 PAT0 1612.96m 2X8 C T. aay� \ 0 '` NV JF ,�C + 10.00 feet westerly of the proposed intersection of building lines. �'--1040=L �I • 1 PATIO J 76.00' I \ vw p� QQ- `�d �t1 ELEV. = 1048.23 E0 0 /� / 10.0 (i9a4) - �10.0 -- \ /�+,�y �t]�pp 3. No elevations, either found in the field or on this certificate, should be used for construction without {Q1 itp SJ4 �p �� p being checked against the benchmarks shown on this survey. �1044 I i o� : t1179.4 15 I y p5 �O� p. O1Q��44 �(, 4. No building information provided by this survey should be used without being checked against , tome �(! architectural plans. Use architectural tans for buildingconstruction purposes. �',`�F�`p: 5. This house does have a brick ledge around the front face. We are not showing it in the survey, but (tom.5) tt�-�4 p3 ,V have accounted for it within the setbacks. 6. Proposed contours are per the grading plan created by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. P �147.98 N4ee T ,T ` ; / kJGpttiJe�� dated 2/21/05. _104 PER PII .�%y�' U1NlY EASEMETI 7. House was staked on August 3 , 2007. gUQ� I t_ -.pRAfNA& GE ',wae 'y / Proposed top of house foundation 1049.8 7b��Z Proposed garage floor elevation at overhead door 049.5 6p Proposed lowest floor elevation =1041 J rr PROPERTY DESCRIPTION a9 ,o to�4 ' Ov VOZ APPROVED Lot 1, Block 3, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION, Carver County, Minnesota O SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: -1040, Q S� DEPT:'F1G-.-, - � - - / I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and Q DATE: I Zt p that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. \ OV \ IOX4 (1037.9) DEPT: Dated this the 3i' day of August, 2007. ' - � EPTFd Q / CIT/ OF CHANHASScfd DATE 24-e- Mccort,bs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. RECEIVED � 6 � eFv : �C`--� �. �� SEP 2 1 2007 1038 AS BUILT SURVEY REQUIRED DATE: - �i7 Henn D. nd Surveyor Ltce N Minnesota License�o. 17255 BEFORE C/O WILL BE ISSUED ;I OHANHASSEN PLANNING DED- This certification 59not valid unless wet signed in blue ink. hr. Dm By 9enut¢ D,dmed I Dmr WE _ a,r< m�3oror -- ---- -- Oxe.i ID. ngmearinp Pram • - 09*9 $.%W WPM ,ax a9 44 s 94 is LENNA , ._ w.or •ark- Lot 1 Block 3 PLNE'HURST 3ND ADDITION Cartiacate of Staved Lnaohesss lfr4 0 10 � �I P \\ e 5 o y> 2IX 1u LN Wrn Uj OY a' I hl L� J 2.00Of o� g x v SN a t_ DRIWWAY 2.00 E S L IatZ GRADE $ o c $ s� X -L -- N I X .._ 3a.w n to mg zi, 58.54 � w7 g �•41 �x i5 c 8 �y N 1 C 8 � NO pµOP,it X �p63 I ( A-e� s !-� yet-1�-c-f' Li�wt � HARD COVER CALCULATIONS 4 c HOUSE = 3,0885F. BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY = 1,097 S.F. PORCH = 217 S.FX_ SIDEWALK = 120 S Leo TOOTAALL COVER = 4,522 S.. air TOTAL LOT S.F. PERCENT OF HARD COVER 22.1 % N> Dc BY Rseuls s 211 V o x PPP r\ I l V p 30 0 30 SCALE IN FEET x fviieej .35 1 ® BY. r, DEPT- �" DATE: V ® gU1LT SURREY REE QSBY: SUED -G AS E CIO WILL BDEPT/ x FOR DAT - 1+ LEGEND BY EROSION CONT7tOI.r�rV� DENOTES IRON MONUMENT W INSTALL TYPE,— ®YTHEPLAI4 AND;CR DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION X(123.4) _ ;ENCIN6 AS 5¢iOVvN DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION X 123.4 -SnTjrICgTE OF SURVEY PRIOR TAIL LOT t5 DYP IN---�DENOTES DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE LKCA'�rATION AND 1)1uRiNG 14 W1 P DATE: i I2- o'] DENOTES TOP IRON PIPE T,LP FULLY VEGETATED; DURIr1G BALES- MAY. BY: Lt'•+ STORM SEWER CONSTRUCTION ST FEN I14G 8� DEPT.:,, r) SANITARY SEWER °` s 3E f15Er0 IN LIEU OF FENCING, DA I f..r WATERMAIN, HYDRANT, AND VALVE uY: IE' 07�J NOTES: _ i. Benchmarks: 1037.42 ; DEPT.Aa. DA T ET—/9—o Zv.ve a'ID 2 ($(� (1) TNH @Lots 3 8 4, Block 3: ELEV. = Drive at Outlots A and B:.ELEV. = 1028.88 � "-"- - (2) TNH lying west of Manchester (3) TIP on the easterly lot linefrom the northeast extensimline of the proposed house. TIP is lying PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 33.38 feet southerly along east lot line. ELEV. = 1060.9 Lot 25, Block 1, PINEHURST 2No ADDITION, Carver County, Minnesota. 2. Address: 2081 Pinehurst Avenue SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION 3. No elevations, either found in the field or on this certificate, should be used for construction without being I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a checked against the benchmarks shown on this survey. duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. 4. No building information provided by this survey should be used without being checked against architectural Dated this 3rd day of January 2007. - plans. Use architectural plans for building construction purposes. There is a brick ledge on the front of this house. It is not shown on tins survey but is accounted for and is Mc ombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 5. within the setback requirements. EOT Si LOWEOST FDLOELEVATIONSOR ELEVATION = 1054.E C^vtdT ACT D(VcLG� c ERA • VrA. ryD.�e on, PLS S:+A Minneso cense No. 17255 TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION = 1064.3 SANITARY T)On( ,F LOCA U = 1064.0 GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION @ $ERNE`_ This certification is not valid unless wet signed in blue ink OVERHEAD DOOR plerd Preled Sheet Title al&9r rf011®of Eng/neertrlg • Plonn6rg • Surv'Nng I Lot 25, Block 1, 1/ J [A] W- [ Puke Hamer PIN HURST 2ND ADDRIDN Cerliiieute of Suruey1 D= lII5 q ae4, • SH% Iaa troea° Weer Wah-amc 2T447F-ex Eeltaz:, Nk , Ord,ed rlm: i YNrserFritbot c-rat mrasnrm,m, ( Charua=.., MN i j NFsh LHI�C.: ifi26& �_ _ uretick. r� RECEIVED Es' N MAY i ? 2008 o�r a -CHANHASSEN INSPECTIONS 6O 1 7 tasap� / 0rar FRr rot. 1°ro<vr F q ' LEGEND / Denotes Iron Monument Denotes Surface Drainage Denotes Proposed Elevation .�, Denotes Existing Elevation ' Denotes Top Iron Pipe ` `�"� \ Denotes Retaining Wall ,l\\l�i Denotes Proposed Contour Lines STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN, HYDRANT, AND VALVE lr to 1 .rvr � rw F X (iT14jAIM X JU TIP RW 1234 U JU HARD COVER CALCULATIONS 9� LOT AREA = 18,000 SO. FT. SCALE IN FEET HOUSEIPORCH = 3.453 SO. Ff. DRIVEWAYISIDEWALK = 925 SO, Fr. 1'' f PROPOSED PATIO = 100 SO FT. TOTAL HARD COVER = 4,478 SO. FT. s ri ; V- --RERCETOF HARD COVER 18,000=24.88�%f M4,4778.1 q / a5ax NOTES: 1. Address: 2111 Pinehurst Drive Benchmarks: 1. T.N.H. Betwe 3 8 4, Block 3, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION. 2. T.N.H. lying west of Manchester Drive at Outlot's A and B, PINEHURST 2ND \ \ ADDITION. ELEV. = 1028.88 3. TIP on the southwesterly extension line of the front of proposed house. TIP is vtvv/ tying 10.00 feet southwesterly of the proposed building corner ELEV. = 1050.26 MFRA Engineering • Prannng • T"^el+ng S 1 "1"9i, 1I0 APPROVED3. No elevations, either found in the field or on this certificate, should be used for construction without being checked against the benchmarks shown on this survey. ' BY: fc''-*)P` DEPT.: Pam^ 4. No building information provided by this survey should be used without being checked against architectural plans. Use architectural plans for building construction purposes. DATE: 5. This house does have a brick ]edge around the front face. We are not showing it in the survey, but BY: S LZ have accounted for it within the setbacks. DEPT.: (G A- , 6. Proposed Contours are per the grading plan created by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. DATE —� _ dated 2/21/05. BY: 7. House was staked on 913107. DEPT.: Bc<. C�c ! DATE: „ j y—D$' Proposed top of house foundation = 1054.1 Proposed garage floor elevation at overhead door = 1053.8 Proposed lowest floor elevation = 1045.4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ; nn,%C ED Lot 22, Block 1, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION, Carver County, Minnesota SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: BY: I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and DEPr\1'kVtr that I am a duty Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. DA% Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2007. BY: 5 Z 1! f DEPT.; Z' -0'7 f Mccom s Frank Roos Associates, Inc. DAT k 1 P -01 I BY: t He, D. Nel on Land Suryyor tDE T. I Minnesota Le e No. 17255 ATE: \t This certification is not valid unless wet signed in blue ink. Irk •eA'rvt 6 client Sheet Tit1E eel 01 I..Ot ZZ Block 1 � / �I LENT'ty AP PINERY T Z� A�JT MOB Cer i5rate of S > vac % € I B �- LiN f „mac<r; x—r<-' I A SBUIL T SURVEY 0 7 ' /A0~f 1 \ VACANT LOT / ��)D59B S asa ,N�5 26 4 / '059.9 DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT P �I \ � ofr.,, i PAno` 1ofia.2 Pp0 7993 o x 1060. ryol ,OyO N 8,0p c FLOOR= ry FLOOR= 1051.64 106p o 1060.0 1p6o a % 1060A rods s� X 7058.0 TREE PRESERVATION FENCE PER GRADING .. PLAN 2 { VACANT LOT CPO OLAS \x id68. 1 \ \ `a x '�j56. ' SETBACK LINE PB y BUILDING PAD V � 105d 11 'k 105g.7 / \ 13 1051.016 �0 SAN �STD� LEGAL DESCRIPTION: mot 4, Block 1, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. 2140 Pinehurst Drive Building Permit Number 2008-00549 *ELEVATIONS PROVIDED BY CLIENT* *BUILDING DIMENSIONS DO NOT REFLECT BRICK FACING* *BUILDING DIMENSIONS SHOWN REFLECT LOWER LEVEL PLAN* *CURB AND GUTTER ARE EXISTING* *UTILITIES ARE EXISTING* Lot Area = 20,477.8 sq. ft. Building, porch and stoop = 2,893 sq. ft. Driveway and sidewalk = 1,196 sq. ft. Patio and sidewalk = 474 sq. ft. Pool Deck ( pool not included ) = 520 sq. ft. impervious area = 5,083 sq. ft. 124.82 Z of total Lot area Elevations Provided by client Garage Floor = 1060.14(at overhead door) Top of Foundation Wall = 1060.47 Lowest Floor = 1051.64(9 Foot Basement) / • Denotes iron monument found rw' / O Denotes iron monument set W / Bearings based on assumed datum. 51.1 / hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that • I am a dui Licensed Land Surveyor under the lows he tote /Min 00 has 5 �D Craig WMorse, R.L.S. Date License No. 23021 SS Scale: I"-- 30 feet REQUESTED BY Kroiss Development, Inc. l I x (XXX.XX) Denotes proposed elevation viestwo Iod l I x XXX.XX Denotes existing elevation I Denotes surface drainage Drown by BTW 76" gran OrNa An Eden PrakW Aa SO" PHONE 952,M-5150 FAX 951-M-M TOLL FREE 1488-237-Stso www.wetwoofta CITY OF C"Ar* H, nffcl vkr; SEP 0 9 'M8 20082514*401L04.dwg t (!1/ E/C- 1/ f COLSON CUSTOM HOMES Eatablis6ed in 1%2 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF NINNESOTA 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 Fox No, 560-3522 §urvrijars T rrtifiratr a�¢OV ID\ Property located in Section GO �1 p�S 3, Township 16, Range Carver Co nty, M nnesota3 ` ti¢Opt� Q�O¢ilGN I ZyQ�S0 SJ y P��(¢G•t1`�P��S �p� pS OF 9 v¢�� spy 0 P Ora p� D �� G�dD P JG; ON Hardcover Iaao Lot area 1 %071 sq ft= FJy r1S�¢ �it� Bide Area 3,041 9q ft-_ GO �}Sti9 5ldewalt Ara 120 sq ft:± Drive Area 913 sq ft� r�59 Porch Area 270 eq ft /09+.>/ 903\ o%, ''• Rear Cont. Pabo I CO sq ft Total hardcover 4,444 eq ft1har// T roycs. Pc�w�e 23.3% `J lan./ dzo`�/ R, Nit �06 Address: 2171 Pinehutst Drive - a Tqraz] /a3ss -lass �' Tq WaB �c 1pt.o ty 103].9 'r IL /Ob.fd AS BUILT SURVEY REQUIRED BEFORE C/O WILL BE ISSUED bO�s" =ez 34 The only easements shown are from plots of record or information provided by client. We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey, of the boundaries of the above described land and the location of all buildings and visible encroachments, if any, from or an said land. INVOICE NO. 75955 F. B . N O . 1033-65 SCALE: 1 " = 30' • Denotes Found Iron Monument O Denotes Iran Monument O Denotes Wood Hub Set for � - excavation only x000.0 Denotes Existing Devotion rm+ss 000.0 Denotes Proposed Elevation w are Tqr;. a, 9Z 1 N \\ oSM �r \ \ Fruposed of P 5 • _..-ro57.v 1054.5 lipSi. �'1'•v ILW.6 eQ 103+.A., ' sG A local ,d'd I 4� aL�to �•.s' 0 3 /ns/s i lasan DATE BY: DEPT: Surveyed by us this 15th day of March 2007. P DEPT: uk� Rev 3-2e-0-1 C RR;e5U_�.-irr Drawn By 1`) ,p{.4 DATE:.,/I R. Name I ph2-t31f610.?365invT5955.dwg f 4— Denotes Surface Drainage rc*M NOTE: Proposed grades are subject to results of soil tests. Proposed building information :must be checked with approved building plan tP rn and development or grading plan before a excavation and construction. rc C7J Proposed grades shown on this survey 1033./a u1 �� are interpolations of proposed contours /Ms.+c -k from the drainage, grading and/or ` development plans. Proposed Top of Block a o *1I p S11L Proposed Garage Floor 1 ` o- �s Proposed Lowest Floor Ias3a3 Type of Building \`\ Igas3.9s ,lt,�l �a� �l J6.r�yg{711CAi%1' �. �, b T � . � �- � � C �•b-a.-�yi ,..i_'Ywa.,.-�.-vuf t,17 h� U am\ ~mod^ Lot 13, Block 1, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION CONTACT DEVELOPER FOR SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SERVICE LOCATION CITY OF v'.,4t. AP �, 7 200 ENGINEERING DEPT'. �1 Signed Charles F. Anderson, Minn. Reg. No. 21753 or Gregory R. Prosch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 a 0 a 0 LAT BOUNDARY— \ VACANT \ L 0 T S86°54'00"E Reviaons it. Dme 5, it"= Na Ift 6� a rlmia �a a uTlri ✓..'mt�. 'i 121.78 Dorms D�' DST �e .w 7P. t =nglne_ - o , Plonnma • surve-l; I1a10 � As � yyk HO APPROVED DATE: ° -7 LEGEND DENOTES IRON MONUMENT DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION DENOTES DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE 30 a 30 SCALE IN FEET X Q23,4) X 123.4 DENOTES TOP IRON PIPE T,IP STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER` WATERMAIN, HYDRANT, AND VALVE 4x,-- PROPOSED CONTOURS 1234 LOT AREA HARD COVER CALCULATIONS , `t =19,977 SQ. FT. 'Prx .e. BUILDING AREA = 3,090 SQ- FT. S(s DRIVEWAYS/PORCH'S/SIDEWALKS = "76 SO FT WERVIOUS AREA = 22.4 % OF TOTAL LOT AREA a2s'00 ivn .41 s 1. T.N.H. 8 Lots 3 8 4, Block 3, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION. ELEV. = 1037.42 2. T.N.H. @ W. side of Manchester Dr. Lot 27, OUTLOT B PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION. ELEV. = 1028.45 3. tI.R..aop the northwesterly lot line on the northwesterly extension of the front limy QfU4ebroposed house. 10.81 feet to the intersection of building lines ELEV. = 1034.6 3. No elevations, either found in the field or on this certificate, should be used for construction without being checked against the benchmarks shown on this survey. 4. No building information provided by this survey should be used without being checked against, architectural plans. Use architectural plans for building construction purposes. 5. This house does have a bock ledge around the front face. We are not showing it in the survey, but have accounted for h within the setbacks. -vacs- Proposed top of house foundation=1036.8 J" Proposed garage floor elevation=1036.5..r, `t Proposed lowest floor elevation=1028.1 _ PROPERTY DESCRIPTION , I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under thO laws„oft y, hate of Minnesota. l y eit v l lK Dated this the ttlh day of July, 2006 `x4 'j'si`.i .3.-fY C0NTR0#_ T.4` 4C�.T_ t. , 5'lut Pl$IRN %t?f McC mbs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. ~ L.� /F'� 7;s1(11 TC_ / LK ;•tt �y .ro ralU'_7 i4 'tt YLLYr T Henry D. N41soin, PUS ! Y'r'rt �. }r `. r,„f • n-... Minnesota License No. 17255 ` !I-E.,"Fr! This certificatidn is not valid unless wet signed in blue ink. Glle� Proted Lot 6 Block 31 V IN REGEW-Ectt MAP 2- 7 CHANHASSEN INSPECTIONS Sheet Title Sheet Revvisstio:': Certificate of Survey, ! . 1 1 ;� EDGEWOOD COURT x1a 6 �g. TLA5�7;, \ xla31\ � � o 5 EXISTING HOUSEE I I F -10366 N 1027.8 f O06' t\/l \ g +too 6 I X 1034.4 Sw W 5 �g tg> \ 1 at 1 �%t5 - _0 S I lozae I � 30 0 30 SCALE IN FEET 4 EXISTING o-4 HOUSE twat g �`o�t.s UNt' \ tote 10M.3 ° \ ry� / 30'i 1022.a map 1028.9 / ,n tooa�' � 1020 m $ \ 027.1 ^on ..ON,._7�_ YlJ - 0 mzs (TOO \ 1 tov`� —TS.22 1 N -RETAINING WALL i 12 � sil (T00 - - _ - _ ` _ _ _ _ _ _ DROW E h UTILITY EASELENT \ - - _ _ _ _ _ I (PER PLAT) x 1010.7 IN -PLAT BOUNDARY x 100&8 1 I / 1 X t0e24 N86054'00"W 229,76 1 A r/\ r\ r-%L) 1 rl/1r 1 Irl/1f ITS YY IJ IJL/I\I LJ\71_ r�1LI\ Fl I1: DaW d �� OrmIOAS alx \iji{�. I2rrlrtl 1UN Engelewling . Plmning • _14 wyirg MM 20 ha At. &W Aa Mare Aft* TSrj4 Denotes Iron Monument Denotes Surface Drainage Denotes Proposed Elevation Denotes Existing Elevation Denotes Top Iron Pipe Denotes Proposed Contour Lines STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN, HYDRANT, AND VALVE HARD COVER CALCULATIONS LOT AREA = 22,969 SO. FT. HOUSE/PORCH = 3,589 SO, FT. SIDEWALK DRIVEWAY /SID= 1494 S0 FT TOTAL HARD COVER = 5,083 SO. FT. PERCENT OF HARD COVER 5,083 122,869 = 22.2 % NOTES: 1. Address: 2021 EDGEWOOD COURT, Permit# 2006-02783 2. Benchmarks: 1. T.N.H. @ Lots 3 & 4, Block 3, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION. ELEV. = 1037.42 2. T.N.H. lying west of Manchester Drive at Court's A and B, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION. ELEV. = 1028.88 3. TIP on the easterly lot line from the northeasterly extension line of the proposed house. TIP is tying 40.86 feet southeasterly along easterly lot line. ELEV. = 1034.22 3. No elevations, either found in the field or on this certificate, should be used for construction without being checked against the benchmarks shown on this survey. 4. No building information provided by this survey should be used without being checked against architectural plans. Use architectural plans for building construction purposes. 5. This house does have a brick ledge around the front face. We are not showing it in the survey, but have accounted for it within the setbacks. Foundation As -built- 12/20/06 8 8/3/07 Existing first floor elevation = 1037.9 Existing top of house foundation = 1036.1 Existing garage floor elevation = 1035.8 Existing lowest floor elevation = 1027.4 Proposed top of house foundation = 1036.3 Proposed garage floor elevation = 1036.0 Proposed lowest floor elevation=1026.7 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 5, Block 3, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION, Carver County, Minnesota SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: I hereby certify that this survey, plan or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Dated this the 20th day of October, 2006. q, McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. •+ra 1-- 77 ry D. f el n, PLS - Minnesota Li ense No. 17255 t it This certl ca on is not valid unless at signed in blue ink. Lit Project Lot 5, Block 3, I ENNAR PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION Wayz" MN Chou, MIN shad rite Certificate of Survey (Foundation & Grading U4xuh) Sleet Revidm MIA IM F1LZ NO.: 16178 KROISS DEVELOPMENT INC. Property located in Section 3, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota Benchmark: Top Nut Hydrant between Lots 4 & 5, Block 1 Elevation=1060.00 A N V A 059.1 x C N-73 300\ Proposed 5 t Fence \ bc l064.62 1064. TOP Iron 2 Pos /C64.94 �\ oxs way frYe JA N o�. ,1062.1 o da d, '6 Proposed 'o, `\ Re5ldence 1062.0 I a, - 1; a, 1062 All \1L 12-- O5 x \ Drainage 4 \ Utility Easement I � \ CITY OF CHANHASSEN " I ENGINEERING DEPT, 1062.E 1061.7 G §' Rock nyd Construction Entrance Hard Cover Lot Ara = 16.001 sq ftt tti Onve Areat = 1,405 sq ft lOG4. 15 &dg Area = 2,324 sq ftt Porch Ara = 15 / sq frt 5deav/k Arta = 249 sq ftt Future Paco = 100 sq It Total CoVenge — 4,232 sq ftt — � � Percentage = 23.5;6 P s Denotes 6vsane Contour \� v <% , \ Denotes Proposed Contour _. * � 000 s� / Benchmark Top lron 1061.11 Lot 2, Block 1, PLNEHLRST 2ND ADDITION Ca_=er Counts. Minnesota. tc 1060.49 INVOICE NO. 77514 F.B.NO. 1042-20 SCALE: V = 20' • Denotes Found Iron Monument O Denotes Iron Monument Denotes Wood Hub Set for excavation only x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation 000.0 Denotes Proposed Elevation wailt— Denotes Surface Drainage NOTE'. Proposed grades are subject to results of soil tests. Proposed building information must be checked with approved building plan and development or grading plan before excavation and construction. Proposed grades shown on this survey are interpolations of proposed contours from the drainage, grading and/or development plans. NOTE: The relationship between proposed floor elevations to be verged by builder. I OG7.9 Proposed Top of Block I OGG.9 Proposed Garage Floor 1059.2 Proposed Lowest Floor Type of Building Full Basement Lookout Established in 1962 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNMOTA 760173rd Avenue Noob (763)560-3093 Minneapolis, I(imesom 5542E Fax No. 560-3522 urue��arg Terttfirate The only easanents shown are from plats of record or information provided by cent. We hereby cel ify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the above described land and the location of all buildingsand visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. Surveyed by us this 18th day of August 2008 d 41 Signed*!ii`� Charles F. Anderson, Minn. Reg. No. 21753 or Gregory R. Preach, Minn Reg. No. 24992 By 9. A. ile Name p2-2-1fb104220im 77514.dwg I\ \ \ VACANT/ �1pIf \�\LOT/ // <10 \ , x ,02E7 \ \ ao '}`� 2J \ \ VACANT I \, \ C - \ 6 \ LOT O\g` C _ '- DRAINAGE �&iU PUA�EAgYENT-' `\ \q , ` \ \ \ \ \ h p� It 1020 \\� If 1. lip1031.15 H I I x,OeA N a 4J I If E I m id I ` 103SE Q, \ P Sas J o1014.2 �� g\ CHM 9 Gz 1p� \ dv9 ,7� toy \\(10E),010.7 1�4 4t10g7.31 1O 'oJgq� �loo3.3.61 J 70 o it 1V.2,t oC S \ 1024U 1022— 'sO au \, 1020 M / V AM 0 (I _70347 � ,uv CLEAN ODr I 143ZZ-DRAINAGE h 30 0 30 —1024--J VACANT -1026_,_,LOT SCALE IN FEET 028 I-1 03 034 014.7 0 aiu art FJSEIENT x low 44 / r 4 ^tx x long 9 VACANT / LOT x 1027.9 / LEGEND Denotes Iron Monument 9 Denotes Surface Drainage �— Denotes Proposed Elevation x 02&4) Denotes Existing Elevation x 112L4 Denotes Top Iron Pipe 7P Denotes Proposed Contour Lines 1234 STORM SEWER ------ Ew SANITARY SEWER s WATERMAIN, HYDRANT, AND VALVE w AS BUILT SURVEY REQUIRED BEFORE C/O WILL BE ISSUED HARD COVER CALCULATIONS LOT AREA LESS STREET EASEMENT = 28.345 SO. Fr. HOUSE I PORCH = 3,467 SO. Fr. �F DRIVEWAY I SIDEWALK = 592 SO. Fr. * N RETAINING WALL = 654 SO Fr +.T' � (? ¢d. TOTAL HARDCOVER = 4,713 SO. Fr. 4M �PERCENT OF HARD COVER 4,713128,345 � CONTACT DEVELOPER FOR NOTES: SANITARY SEWER AND WATER 1. Address: 6681 AMBERWOOD LANE SERVICE LOCATION APPROVED BY: DEPT: pNd DATE: I" -L7 L- BY: CEP DATE; BY: DEP ; DATE: �o(�d3t37 INSTALL TYPE I EROSION CONTROL \ \ FENCING AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND/OR CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PRIOR TO / EXCAVATION AND MAINTAIN UNTIL LOT IS \ FULLY VEGETATED; DURING WINTER \ ft,ONSTRUCTION STAKED MAY BALES MAY \ USED IN LIEU OF FENCING � \ t 2. Benchmarks: 1. T.N.H. @ Lot 11, Block 1, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION. (Amberwood Lane Cul-de-sac) ELEV. = 1037.54 2. Southeasterly TIP. TIP is lying t11.6 feet southeasterly of the southeast corner of proposed house. ELEV. = 1033.61 3. No elevations, either found in the field or on this certificate, should be used for construction without being checked against the benchmarks shown on this survey. 4. No building information provided by this survey should be used without being checked against architectural plans. Use architectural plans for building construction purposes. 5. This house does have a brick ledge around the front face. We are not showing it in the survey, but have accounted for it within the setbacks. 6. Proposed contours are per the grading plan created by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. dated 2121105. Proposed top of house foundation = 1037.5 Proposed garage floor elevation at overhead door = 1036.5 Proposed lowest floor elevation = 1027.8 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 14, Block 1, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION, Carver County, Minnesota SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Dated this the 15th day of November, 2006. McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. -- He ry D. Nelteo4 PLS Minnesota Llce a No. 1725 This cerlific io is not valid unless wet signed in blue ink. ,� wo vy ru.Ca Nn Dot, ®y Rua a awiarod i Englneering • Plravlklg • SLN* FRIAg I I.Ot 14. Block 1 ,I p / ! ' A , N-ruia.oe �III rr arc a awwa mrae I I r /-4 raw ra nt e EN AP PINEHURST 2i4D ADDI`1710 ..etfincai o_`S ve i , 'pis/•:= -sic --_. �__�->,®,,. ,- c- �:� .n knv '-us �,;«4".'� we��1f^; csmL�Mt•: ; rL� w1(('4d*C "r Surzve.Y FoA 1049,b P °° Proposed top of block elevation tJ Sz 19 ''pli 5f..7p 31 eti ISIp FC.:0,=1047,55 RF, IP_UF� I-- r W Q bz � �G IV(rf'F�; �.t)�11Ct7t�f�S �h�fl �6,fip�S rt�O�L:) ruo 10/2.;3/zrx>h (� bF9DIF'tls') _VV": i.:O"rHDK\ Bearings are assumed IUJI,' Subject to easements of record, if any O Denotes set or found iron pipe monuments -a Denotes set wood hub and tack Te4.0 Denotes existing elevation- 9p Denotes proposed finish grade elevation 104t,� Denotes direction of surface drainage Proposed lowest floor elevation f UVF •' CMJ Ctwvc'v -[n vato On) I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundariea' 7 of Lets y &l a rk, �� 1 j��')(„ County, Minnesota es -on file and of record in the Office of the CountyRecorder in and for said County, also allowing the proposed location of a house as staked thereon, That I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. Dated: SEPTF ER 2Col ZOW f, REV tSE,D: _00 Vo p 4J 20a7 j� Q5CTovs R �C) Too-T R. r Allan R. Hastings Minnesota Registration No. 17009 21z First Avenue E. �r- p �_ (`( (1 ` 1 �p(I�VD�I r(�,(Z��(,Ca�( „� rQ plyi I~ Suite No. Shaapkopee, C Minnesota 55379 445 4027 OCT 3 0 2007 CHANHASSEN INSPECTIONS