Application
Planning Case No.
o q -10
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:
S'j~'f;~y l...~~b ~W\ pA.~"t
'P.D. 13>~ 4/70
t.\.-\~NhA.S$€:"N I MN 553/;
Contact: ""BiZ-€-j\.)T Hl S ~ ~
Phone: tol"Z-' 590. oe,1I Fax: ~v-
Email: b.,-~V\+. \.t\:s\6f a SY"1~'t lCL~C-omp(W\y"
Owner Name and Address:
15 IZ&l'3i .. KAtfe-N
B\D ~(rO'k:..
Vl~iA 1\.1.....
ontact:
Phone:
Email:
HlSwf
LN..
SS3 BLP
Fax:
NOTE: Consultation with City staff is reauired prior to submittal, including review of development
plans
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (V AC)
Interim Use Permit (IUP)
>< Variance (VAR) -tDl)
Non-conforming Use Permit
Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
Planned Unit Development*
Zoning Appeal
Rezoning
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
X. Notification Sign - $200
(City to install and remove)
Site Plan Review (SPR)*
x ~s w for Fjlic,g Fee~ey Cost**
"$5 UP/SPRlVA~AP/Metes & Bounds
- 450 Minor SUB
TOTAL FEE $ tt-SOS8'- c~ 5\"
Subdivision*
An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant
prior to the public hearing.
*Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11"
reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a diaital COpy in TIFF-Group 4 (*.tif) format.
**Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for
each application. .
PROJECT NAM E: r \ f,j(;:; ~\J >lZ- s..r ;Z ~ Ai)b I n oN
LOCATION: /'I~e. 0.1) /-Ake Lvt-{ ~b J41Ub
LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: Lor 9 Bt.-od( I
,.
4ALPIN 15t.-vb.
71A1e.;(f/IlJ'T 2 ~ AMI71pJ
TOTAL ACREAGE:
rID
. iD3 />..C- .
2.SLt> It 009 D
WETLANDS PRESENT:
YES
)<
NO
PRESENT ZONING:
'12 ~ ~ ,J:>E;f.;) "1, t>. L. <; ,F' .
12-E~ d>f:1'JT JM- ~,j::.
REQUESTED ZONING:
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION:
7Z€SI bc;UTO'U...
<;..~.
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION:
k$ I t>€:/V 'T I .4 '-
~.F,
J/,J INClsNStSTl:rNC-'f EXI sr5 /I'U tJ.{E.' Puuv.s/App/uve'b
I
l)oeV;;J1(!;~T) t:lSfL rift;. AtV€Jfv,qr 2"!!> Abl>I7"/lPU (A-f.fJl7.$V€.b iN Zaos;!2.00b7 ')
7H-E 1ZE!)u~S 1 ~ol2.. VA~,A-t-Jce ~ l;-y.U.J6S -"'0 ~LAell:f 7#.4,/ 14 IS i ser~
~/'l41I1 ril€ AJatLrf<fe,z.N -P1U>l'etJ-'Y L'Al€. (itS Sf.-fIf"lAJN (SY\) ApP/UJViEb "'Pt..ANS) IS
T#E ~tUlec:r kN~ ItVr61JbeA 5€r13AC-k,k,ie. nllS LcrLIT..:J& .VLEASE SbS Arrlki/€PJ
IV' /A-
I
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.
REASON FOR REQUEST:
FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees:
and new employees:
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.
1{tJ
/D e
7/f7
/ ate
Rev. 1/08
S"\1nergy Land Compdl}
'J _ _._ :-:-- ~l('
r Working together. Developingvalue!" ,
To:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director
Members ofthe Chanhassen Planning Commission
Date: 7/08/09
From: Brent & Karen Hislop
Synergy Land Company, LLC
Chanhassen. MN
brent.hisloo@SynergyLandComoanv.com
(612) 590-0811
RE: Approved Setbacks for Lot 9, BIlL 1, Pinehurst 2nd 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 ofthe Pinehurst subdivision)
received plat approvals trom 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' fro~t yard setback is required
for each of the lots. For the adjoining lots (lot to & 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 claritY 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.
s~nergy Lal1.d COmpill1
, J ~r_n--_ tJ?lc
J Working together. Developing value.m
You & { bave 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 I S' 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 fif' but rather, "how do we ensure
the lot's northern boundary maintains a IS' 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
IS' 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 1 0 & 11). On the same page it is noted that all lots fronting on the private drive were approved
with a 20' setback.
S)l1\~~Y ~and Co1l1paJ1.kc
"& 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
apllroving 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 StaffReoort
"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."
s~nergy Land Compall
'J __ w.~ ~lC
Working together. Developing value}"-
. Development Contract
Page SP-l 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 IS'.
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 IS' 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 buyerlbuilder.
/ ~
Best Regards, I ;4'
l-:< . J
Brent Hislop _ . / . ..._ ....../;//
Synergy Land Company,.LLC"'~'"'#'~'
(612) 590-0811
brent.hislop@SynergyLandCompany.com
Documents Below:
1. Lot Sketch Survey
2. GradinglLS Plan
3. ArialofPlat
NS"]012.20.W
123.49
~
,,,, ,-,_, "''' -,- A
, " , I I I I I "
\,.... ,... , L_ ,...., ,-.
..
Synergy Land Company, LLC
Attn: Brent Hislop
(612) 590 - 0811
brent.l1islop@SynergyLandCompany .com
. /
cf/
/
/
",-,- ,;If A
, , I I' , ,
L_ ,..... I , ,
, ".-
I , , I
L_ ,..... ,
'"
'"
'"
'"
~ ""
~~
/
cf/
If
7
/
'" /
"'<
"
,/
,/
,/
/
/
/
/
/
REQUESTED BY;
PLOWSHARES, INC.
LEGAL DESCRJP71ON:
Lot 9, Block 1, PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION,
according to the recorded plot thereof,
Carver County, Minnesota.
"~
----
==-~
-~
Mll --..u
nn_ .-.-
1IIIMtwocd
--
Print Data/Map
Page 1 of 1
PID# 256110090
; t "j,J:-i,
"'I l ~~ /~ ~
, ~.I.....-..
, -{,.]I
, .. p'
". .
.... \, ',',' v
... . .. ,~..... "7. .... .
....., ""~'.. . , ...! . .J
.. ',.\. .....".."l ,~'_I,
... ~. ,"lit.
\ JI!j!". ,~rfIi-?',.o .."'-
0~
"8
i
I:)
..,.
~
Legend
Carver Roads
uSIfl;hnrs
JI. L1~If~
/I CSAH Rco:k
CowtyR~
;I TOI'llSI:'pR~
;I Cq~
;I PrimR~
Lakes
Pa~ls
Color 2008
IParcellllformatioll
Property Add ress:.
6604 ALDER WAY
CHANHASSEN . MN
Taxpayer Information:
BRENT & KAREN HISLOP
810 OVERLOOK LN
VICTORIA. MN 55386
\Parcel Properties
G IS Acres: 0.62983814
Homestead: N
School District: 0276
IParcel Locatio"
Section: 03
Township: 116
Range: 023
IPayable Year 2010
Map Created: 7-8-2009
Est. Market Value Land: $242800
Est. Market Value Building: $0
Est. Market Value Total: $242800
Plat Information:
PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION
Lot-009 Block-OOt
IILast Sale Illformatioll
Sale Date: 12/14/2007
Sale Price: $267309
Qualified/llnqualified: QUALIFIED SALE
CARVER COUNTY GIS DISCLAIMER: This map was created using Carver County's Geographic Information Systems (GIS). it is a compilation #4
of information 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. '-"
http://carvergisweb l.co.carver.mn. us/arcims/gis/public/parcel_ search/printdatamap.asp?PID... 7/8/2009
Print Data/Map
Page I of I
PID# 256110090
~":~7~~if'
"*" --
~
~,-;,~ .~-.,:.~ . ,~,
~~' ~;.~~t "'~. "~-.' }.~ -~,
Legend
Carver Roads
USIf~
II UH lflt1rt,1
/I CSAIl Rbm
Co':lliyRbm
!Parcellliformatioll
Property Address:
6604 ALDER WAY
CHANHASSEN , MN
Taxpayer Information:
BRENT & KAREN HISLOP
810 OVERLOOK LN
VICTORIA, MN 55386
Parcels
Color 200B
IParcel Properties
GIS Acres: 0.62983814
Homestead: N
School District: 0276
IParcel Locatioll
Section: 03
Township: 116
Range: 023
IPayable Year 2010
;/ T~R"'"
tI CIyRco!<
tI Pm'1.R.""
Lakes
Map Created: 7-8-2009
Est. Market Value Land: $242800
Est. Market Value Building: $0
Est. Market Value Total: $242800
Plat Information:
PINEHURST 2ND ADDITION
Lot-009 Block-OO!
I\Last Sale lIiformatioll
Sale Dale: 12/14/2007
Sale Price: $267309
QualifiedlUnqualified: QUALIFIED SALE
CARVER COUNTY GIS DISCLAIMER: This map was created using Carver County's Geographic Infonnation Systems (GIS), it is a compilation _
of information and data from various City, County, State, and Federal offices. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be ~
used as a reference. Carver County is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein. -
http://carvergiswebl.co.carver.mn.us/arcims/ gis/public/parcel_ search/printdatamap.asp?PID... 7/8/2009
...-
~-~
--"'~~/'" ....
.//~.....-
a s~~er~~;and CompitllJr,c
Worklllg togetller. Developi/l~'
. ; i
I I I "~':'$~:
l I . "\',"
ri) I \ d. I "" ;
v::;. r. 11 -'~'" . r';/ .?"""
? I :' ~i ~I j:::::-.l.,'_ A \..A
o___J ~""......
'{~.
--'
-::-- _=.:......_ r;
....::-:- ::-'.--.
--.--- ~--~ ~ ---~~.'-.._. -. -.....-.-
---~.7::---.
:-::--:-=:=::\ - ----
-
l1:~~~~"t.!11
~~~oo~
~.."."'~ ., '~.f.
_ .--.z'....