The URL can be used to link to this page

3. Gleason Variance CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952,227,1100 Fax: 952,227,1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952,227,1180 Fax: 952,227,1190 Engineering Phone: 952,227,1160 Fax: 952,227.1170 Finance Phone: 952,227.1140 Fax: 952,227,1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952,227,1120 Fax: 952,227,1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952,227,1400 Fax: 952,227,1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952,227,1130 Fax: 952,227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952,227,1300 Fax: 952,227,1310 Senior Center Phone: 952,227,1125 Fax: 952,227,1110 Web Site WNw,ci ,chanhassen, mn, us 3 - MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Angie Kairies, Planner I Dt(. . November 23, 2009 ~ Gleason Hard Surface Coverage Variance 2111 Pinehurst Drive - Planning Case #09-17 DATE: SUBJ: PROPOSED MOTION: A. "The Chanhassen City Council denies an after-the-fact 1.38% hard- surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adoption of the Findings of Fact And Recommendation." Or, B. ''The Chanhassen City Council approves an after-the-fact 0.8% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and denies 0.58% hard surface coverage variance for a future patio, Planning Case #09- 17; and adoption of the Findings of Fact And Action." City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a 1.38% hard surface coverage variance to exceed the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation by 248 square feet. Approval of the variance would allow the property owner to keep the existing driveway configuration and permit a 100 square-foot patio to be constructed in the rear yard. If the 100 square-foot future patio is eliminated, the request is for a 0.8% (148 square feet) hard surface coverage variance for an after-the-fact driveway. Plannilll:! Commission Update A public hearing was held at the November 3,2009 Planning Commission meeting for this item. The Planning Commission voted 4 to 2 to deny the variance request. The decision was less than three-fourths of the members present; therefore, the decision acts as a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council's decision requires a majority of members present. Chanhassen is a Community for life. Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow Todd Gerhardt November 23, 2009 Page 2 of 2 The Planning Commission discussed a number of issues pertaining to the variance request: . The approved driveway proposed on the building permit application was deemed by the builder as not functional. The builder made the decision to increase the area of the driveway, exceeding the hard surface coverage. The homeowner then purchased the home "as is"; not realizing the site did not comply with the hard surface coverage limitation. The homeowner did not create this situation. . Would approval of the request set a precedent for building permits to reflect one driveway, receive approval, then construct a larger driveway and request an after-the-fact variance? . The homeowner would be willing to eliminate the 100 square-foot patio from the request and just request the existing driveway to remain on the site. The revised request would be for a 0.8% or (148 square-foot) variance, as stated in attached letter dated October 30,2009. . Two previous hard-surface coverage variances were denied in the Pinehurst Subdivision: ~ 2101 Pinehurst Drive requested a 3.3% (648 square-foot) variance. ~ 2081 Pinehurst Drive requested a 2.6% (538.25 square-foot) variance. Staff Update Since the November 3, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, the erosion issues located on Outlot B, which is owned by the City, have been repaired. The City Council minutes for November 3, 2009 are item 1a of the November 23, 2009 City Council Packet. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the following motion: A. "The Chanhassen City Council denies an after-the-fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation." Or, B. "The Chanhassen City Council approves an after~the-fact 0.8% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and denies 0.58% hard surface coverage variance for a future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Action." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Action. 2. Letter from homeowner dated October 30,2009. 3. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated November 3,2009. g:\plan\2009 planning cases\09-17 2111 pinehurst drive variance\11-23-09 executive summary.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of U.S. Home Corporation, on behalf of Todd and Amy Gleason, for a 1.38% hard-surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio -Planning Case No. 09-17 . On November 23,2009, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of U.S. Home Corporation, on behalf of Todd and Amy Gleason, for a 1.38% hard-surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard-surface coverage limitation for an existing driveway and future patio at 2111 Pinehurst Drive, located in the Single-Family Residential (RSF) District on Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed variance on November 3, 2009 and recommended denial. The City Council reviewed the Planning Commission minutes, 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 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd 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 this criteria. Finding: The original building permit survey showed a hard surface coverage of 24.88%, which included a future 100 square-foot patio. Upon receipt of the as-built survey, the hard surface coverage exceeded the 25% limitation by 0.8%; this increase was due to the driveway and sidewalk area increasing in size. The 100 square-foot patio was never constructed. The builder states the proposed driveway submitted as part of the building permit was inadequate for the size and function of the garage, thus it was increased. The homeowner 1 purchased the property "as is" and was not aware that the driveway exceeded the hard surface coverage of the site. The original variance request included constructing the 100 square-foot patio in the rear yard. However, the homeowner eliminated the future 100 square-foot patio from the request, reducing the variance request to 0.8% or 148 square feet. 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: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties within the Pinehurst 2nd Addition (RSF). The RSF district limits the hard surface coverage to 25% of the total lot area. The builder/developer was aware of the site coverage limitations when going through the subdivision process in 2006. The developer eliminated two lots to increase the size of some of the lots to accommodate the potential homes on the lots. Additionally, in 2007, there were two requests for hard surface coverage variances within this subdivision, one of which was an after-the-fact variance. Both requests were denied. 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 intent of the proposed addition is not based on the desire to increase the value of the home. The intent of the request is to maintain the larger driveway and sidewalk constructed by the building, prior to the homeowner moving into the home. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The building permit submitted in August 2007 showed the site at 24.88% hard surface coverage. The proposed hard surface coverage included the house, sidewalk, driveway, and a 100 square-foot future patio. The driveway increased 240 square feet and the sidewalk increased 30 square feet during construction. The builder stated the driveway was inadequate for the size and function of the garage. The homeowner purchased the home "as is" and was not aware that the increased driveway exceeded the hard surface coverage permitted on the site. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The runoff from the increased driveway is directed to the street and into the storm sewer. However, increasing the runoff in the rear yard with an additional 100 square-foot patio may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Increasing the site coverage beyond the capacity of the storm water pond located in Outlot B could be detrimental to the neighborhood and cause problems with flooding in heavy rains. The homeowner has agreed to eliminate the 100 square-foot patio from the request and just request a variance to keep 2 the existing driveway which exceeds the 25% hard surface coverage by 0.8% or 148 square feet. 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 increased hard surface coverage will not impair 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; however, it could diminish property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #09-17, dated November 23,2009, prepared by Angie Kairies, et aI, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Chanhassen City Council approves an after-the-fact 0.8% hard-surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and denies a 0.58% hard-surface coverage variance for a future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adoption of these Findings of Fact and Action. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council on this 23rd day of November, 2009. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL BY: Its Mayor g:\plan\2009 planning cases\09-17 2111 pinehurst drive variance\cc findings offact.doc 3 October 30,2009 To: Chanhassen Planning Commission Fr: Todd and Amy Gleason Re: 2111 Pinehurst Drive, Chanhassen Su: Nov 3rd After-the-fact variance hearing Members of the Planning Commission - Thank you for allowing us to submit written comments as they pertain to the November 3,2009 variance hearing associated with our property. Unfortunately, because of work- related travel conflicts, we will be unable to attend the hearing. We understand several representatives from the building company (Lennar) responsible for construction of our home / hardscape will be at the hearing. We submit this written request to strongly urge the commission for variance approval. We understand and are sensitive to the local zoning requirements. The staff report recommending against the variance may be technically correct and certainly we are sensitive to the natural reluctance to set precedence. However, clearly the variance hearing process exists for a reason - and therefore, the case-by-case nature of the hearing process must at times yield a variance approval. Here are the facts or circumstances as we see them: 1) We moved from NJ to MN in late 2007 and targeted Chanhassen given its community reputation. 2) In May, 2008 we purchased and moved into 2111 Pinehurst Drive. 3) We did not design the home or manage the construction...the home was already built when we purchased the home. Additionally, we did not request any property modification prior to purchase. 4) Prior to moving in the city inspectors (we are not sure of exact titles) notified Lennar that certain windows did not meet code. Lennar replaced the specific windows and we were provided with an occupancy certificate. At that time we fully expected the residence met all code/zoning (why wouldn't we). 5) Subsequent to May of 2008, we have made significant enhancements to landscaping, decking, etc., but have added no hardscape. 6) In December 2008 (7 months after moving in) we received notification that our current property exceeded hardscape by 148 sq/ft.. .and that we could not add the "in design plan" 100 sq/ft patio. 7) Over the past months we have confirmed with Lennar (builder) that through no fault of our own the driveway was constructed larger than had been designed. We have also concluded with Lennar that the "designed" driveway would greatly detract from the functionality of the driveway / garage space. In short, the Gleasons (us) are the only people that have a financial and emotional impact on the decision rendered in this hearing. We occupied the home for 7 months prior to notification that the hardscape issue existed. And, we made investments and purchases we otherwise may not have made. What else could ao wrona? Our experience, to date, with the city offices of Chanhassen has been less than stellar. While not directly germane to the topic of hardscape we have struggled to understand how the following incidences could also occur in the 12 months since we purchased the home: 1) During the inspection of our newly constructed deck the city inspector made the erroneous assumption that we were also finishing our basement without a permit. The inspector saw an electrician in our basement and jumped immediately to the conclusion that we were finishing our basement without a permit. The inspector did not ask us, the home owners, for confirmation or clarification. Instead, we were slapped with an embarrassing "cease and desist" order which shown brightly on our door for days. We spent time and energy (and frustration) getting this error corrected and removed from our record (we assume). We never received an apology and were specifically treated with disdain when we contacted the named inspector. 2) At the edge of our property is a substantial retaining wall. The wall was constructed, inspected and approved prior to our purchase of the property. A portion of the wall is on our property and certain sections are on city property immediately adjacent to our yard. Despite "passing inspection" the wall allows for erosion and numerous times, large and clearly dangerous holes exist. We have continuously repaired holes on our property to ensure safety and responsibility. Despite numerous conversations with the city to have them repair a very large (8 feet in diameter) hole on the city property, no corrective action has occurred. The individual we spoke with (Terri Jeffries) has not fulfilled their commitment to fix the hole. We also spoke with the city Engineering Office as well as Terri and it was indicated the wall was not built correctly. We, the home owner, are now responsible for repairs or continuous erosion issues. Congratulations. So, while admittedly not directly pertinent to the hardscape variance, I'd remind the committee that we are residents of Chanhassen and struggling to understand how all of this is our responsibility? Proposal We request approval of the variance. Approval would avoid, in our opinion, unnecessary and potentially costly modifications to our driveway. If necessary, we agree to not install the patio or add any additional hardscape to our property. In essence, what we're asking is for approval to keep things the way they are. If approved, we acknowledge appreciation but do not feel as though we've won anything. Instead, approval would be great but honestly just allow us to cross one of the disappointments off the list. Sincerely, Todd and Amy Gleason Residents of Chanhassen CC DATE: 11/23/09 ITJ PC DATE: 11/3/09 CITY OF CHANHASSEN REVIEW DEADLINE: 12/11/09 CASE #: 09-17 BY: AK, AF, JM, TJ PROPOSED MOTION: A. "The Chanhassen City Council Planning Comm.ission, as the Board of .'\ppeals and ..^~djustments, denies an after-the-fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adoption of the Findings of Fact And .A~ction Recommendation." Or, B. "The Chanhassen City Council approves an after-the-fact 0.8% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and denies 0.58% hard surface coverage variance for a future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adoption ofthe Findings of Fact And Action." PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting an after-the-fact 1.38% hardcover variance to construct a driveway and patio on property zoned Single-Family Residential (RSF). LOCATION: 2111 Pinehurst Drive, Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition APPLICANT: Jim Weaver US Home Corporation 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, MN 55391 Todd and Amy Gleason 2111 Pinehurst Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential- Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.41 (18,000 square feet) DENSITY: N/ A LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING: 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 variance to allow a 26.38% hard surface coverage. The Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum of25% hard surface coverage. The property is zoned Single-Family Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3,2009 Page 2 of8 Residential (RSF). It is located on Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition. Access to the site is gained off of Pinehurst Drive. On August 27, 2007, the City issued a building permit for the subject site that reflected a 24.88% hard surface coverage. The plans had adequate area to accommodate a future patio. Following completion of the building, the builder provided the City with an as-built survey. The as-built survey showed an increase in the sidewalk and driveway widths which resulted in an increase in hard surface coverage beyond the maximum 25% permitted by City Code. Staff notified the builder, who notified the homeowner. The builder stated that the proposed driveway was not feasible for the position of the garage and was therefore increased. The builder then submitted a variance request for the subject site. Staffis recommending denial ofthe applicant's request based on the fact that the applicant has reasonable use of the property; the approved building permit met the 25% hard surface coverage requirement, which included a 100-square foot future patio. Alternatives exist that comply with the hard surface coverage. The total hard surface coverage on the site must be reduced by 148 square feet. Adequate access can be provided to the garage using less hard surface. Approval of this application could set a precedent within the Pinehurst subdivision. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20 Division 3. Variances Section 20-615 (4) RSF District Requirements; Hard Surface Coverage Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3,2009 Page 3 of8 Sec 20-905 (6) Single-family dwellings BACKGROUND The property is located on Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition, which is zoned Single- Residential Family (RSF). The subject property has an area of 18,000 square feet, frontage of 91.2 feet and approximate depth of 141.30 feet. The minimum lot dimensions in the RSF district are 15,000 square-foot lot area, 90-foot lot frontage and 125-foot lot depth. The subject site exceeds the minimum requirements for the RSF district. The building permit for the proposed home, driveway, and front sidewalk on the site was approved on August 28,2007. The building permit reflected a hard surface coverage of24.88%. The maximum impervious surface in the RSF district is 25%. The proposed 24.88% coverage included a 100-square foot future patio as required by City Code. Based on the building permit application, there was up to 122 square feet of hard surface in which to accommodate a patio. #' {I .f?4' \, \ HARQ_G9~1L~_UbI'-TIQtl:! LOT AREA HOUSE I POf\'CH ORIVEWAY/SIDEWALK ~~OPATIO TOT N.. HARO COVl:R P'ERCENT 01' ~tN1D COVEll = IS,COO so. FT. = 3.45350, FT. = 925SQ, FT. ~ 1Ql.1J:i..ct,ll ~ 4,47a sa. FT. 4.~78/ 18,000' 24.83';4 Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3, 2009 Page 4 of8 The developer was aware of the limited availability of additional square footage for future improvements or additions within the Pinehurst Subdivision. In 2006, as part of the approval process of the Pinehurst Development, staff expressed concern over the potential future hard surface coverage within the subdivision. The proposed lots were too small to accommodate the size of homes that were proposed in this development. As a result, Pinehurst was re-platted in 2006 from 43 lots to 41 lots to increase the area of some of the lots. Also, on July 6, 2006, in an attempt to avoid future hard cover issues due to the increased size of homes on lots, the City amended Sec. 20-905 of the City Code. This section requires all applicants requesting a building permit for the construction of a new home to show a minimum 10' x 10' patio area. This section reads as follows: Single-family dwellings (6) "Where access doors are proposed from a dwelling to the outdoors, which does not connect directly to a sidewalk or stoop, a minimum ten-feet by ten-feet hard surface area shall be assumed. Such surface area must be shown to comply with property lines, lake and wetland setbacks; may not encroach into conservation or drainage and utility easements; and shall not bring the site's hard surface coverage above that permitted by ordinance." ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a 1.38% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage. This variance would permit the existing size of the driveway and sidewalk, as well as a 10' x 10' patio. The lot area is 18,000 square feet. Based on the 25% maximum coverage allowed, the home, driveway, walkway, future patio, etc. may occupy 4,500 square feet. The original building permit showed 4,478 square feet of hard cover. The remaining impervious surface allowed was 22 square feet. 1$:0<:' s<;1 "'{> Building Permit Survey As-built Survey The size of the driveway was increased from the original building permit by 240 square feet and the sidewalk from the front door to the driveway was increased by 30 square feet. This brought the site to 25.8% (excess of 148 square feet); this does not include the future 100 square foot patio as shown in the original approval. Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3,2009 Page 5 of8 In addition to the increased driveway and sidewalk area, the applicant is also requesting a 100 square foot patio in the rear yard. The increased driveway and proposed patio exceed the 25% hard surface coverage limitation by 1.38% or 248 square feet. Ordinance Building Permit Existing Proposed Increase Lot Area 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 House 3,309 3,309 3,309 Stoop 144 144 144 Driveway 822 1,062 1,062 +240 Sidewalk 103 133 133 +30 Future patio 100 100 HSC 4,500 4,478 4,648 4,748 +248 Percentage 25% 24.9% 25.8% 26.38% + 1.38% A variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage may set a precedent in this neighborhood, as well as other neighborhoods, to apply for variances for hardscape improvements beyond the restrictions set forth in the City Code, as well as encourage after-the- fact variance requests. In 2007 there were two hard surface coverage variance requests within the Pinehurst Development, one of which was an after-the-fact request. Both variances were denied. Site Characteristics The topography of the site slopes in the rear yard from a high of elevation of 1045.1 at the back of the house to 1038 at the rear property line. There is an outlot containing a storm water pond located just south of the site. The runoff from these lots will run directly into the storm water pond. While increasing the hard surface coverage for one lot may not impact the storm water pond significantly; increasing the hard surface coverage for a number oflots in this development will significantly impact the storm water system. The water from this pond eventually runs into the Minnesota River. According to the Hydrology Guide for Minnesota by the V.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, the recommended hard surface coverage for a one-half acre (approximately 21,000 square-foot) lot is 25%. This information is based on the Hydrologic Curve which translates to the amount of runoff produced from a particular surface. The Hydrologic Curve for the Pinehurst Subdivision Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3,2009 Page 6 of8 is 72. This is consistent with the U.S.D.A Soil Conservation Service for soil types Band C, soils containing non-permeable material, such as clay. Outlot B South of the subject site is an outlot, platted as part of the Pinehurst Subdivision, which contains a retaining wall and stormwater pond for the development. Outlot B is owned and maintained by the City. Staff researched the possibility of allowing the homeowner to purchase a portion of Outlot B. However, based on review of the plans and storm water calculations for the development, it is not recommended to sell a portion of Outlot B. The basis for this conclusion is due to the pond's modeled high-water level relative to the bottom of the retaining wall. During a 100-year storm event, the pond is designed to bounce to an elevation of 1027.2 feet. Under the proposed plan, the toe of the retaining wall was to be at an elevation of 1028 feet which would have allowed for 0.8 feet of free board. However, the Certificate of Survey for the grading as-built shows that the base ofthe wall is at an elevation of 1025.9 feet which is less than two feet above the normal water level for the pond. Thus, the wall goes under water. In addition, there is a stormwater outlet just south ofthe subject site directing runoff into the stormwater pond. Relocating the property line to the south of the structure would put the outlet Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3,2009 Page 7 of8 on private property, making it difficult to ensure the outlet is functioning and maintained properly. The outlet is necessary for the runoff of the site and should remain part of Outlot B. Permitted Use The site is zoned RSF, Single-Family Residential. Reasonable use of a property within the RSF district is a single-family home with a two-car garage. A single- family home with a three-car garage is currently constructed on the property. The driveway is aligned virtually straight out from the three car garage. The width is 30 feet at the garage and 24 feet at the right-of-way. The width could be reduced on the left side of the two-car garage and angled inward as it comes in contact with the right-of-way and Pinehurst Drive. . -..-...... ......... -';;'-.- _. ~-... ~..;.:- ;..-. . The driveways shown to the right are adjacent to three-car garages within the RSF district. The width at the garage ranges from 26 to 28 feet. The width at the right-of-way ranges from 17 to 20 feet. Reduction of the driveway width will result in an overall reduction in hard surface coverage and provide adequate access to the garage. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the following motion: A. "The Chanhassen City Council Planning Commission, as the Board of Appeals and L\djustments, denies an after-the-fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17, and adoption of the findings of fact and aetiefl recommendation." Or, Gleason Variance Planning Case # 09-17 November 3,2009 Page 8 of8 B. "The Chanhassen City Council approves an after-the-fact 0.8% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and denies 0.58% hard surface coverage variance for a future patio, Planning Case #09-17; and adoption of the Findings of Fact And Action." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Aetiofl Recommendation. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Reduced copy of proposed lot survey. 4. Reduced copy of as-built lot survey. 5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. g:\plan\2009 planning cases\09-17 2111 pinehurst drive variance\cc staff report.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of U.S. Home Corporation, on behalf of Todd and Amy Gleason, for a 1.38% hard-surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio - Planning Case No. 09- 17. On November 3,2009, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of U.S. Home Corporation, on behalf of Todd and Amy Gleason, for a 1.38% hard-surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation for an existing driveway and future patio at 2111 Pinehurst Drive, located in the Single-Family Residential (RSF) District on Lot 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition. 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 22, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd 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 this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. The subject site is 18,000 square feet, which is 3,000 square feet larger than the minimum lot size in the RSF district. The original building permit survey showed a hard surface coverage of 24.88%, which included a future 10' x 10' patio. Upon receipt of the as-built survey, the hard surface coverage exceeded the 25% limitation by 0.8%; this increase was due to the driveway and sidewalk area increasing in size. The builder states the driveway submitted with the building permit was inadequate for the size and use of the garage, thus it was increased. In addition to the increased hard surface coverage, the applicant is also requesting a lO'x 10' patio in the rear yard. In 2006 the Pinehurst subdivision was re- I platted due to staff's concerns with the potential hard surface coverage on the lots. The builder was aware of the 25% hard surface coverage limitation prior to submitting the building permit. The literal enforcement of the code does not cause an undue hardship and is a self-created hardship. 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: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties within the Pinehurst 2nd Addition (RSF). The RSF district limits the hard surface coverage to 25% of the total lot area. In 2007, there were two requests for hard surface coverage variances within this subdivision, one of which was an after-the-fact variance. Both requests were denied. 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 intent of the proposed addition is not based on the desire to increase the value of the home. The intent of the request is to maintain the larger driveway and sidewalk as well as construct a 100-square foot patio in the rear yard. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The request to exceed the 25% hard surface coverage limitation is a self-created hardship. The building permit submitted in August 2007 showed the site with 24.88% hard surface coverage. The proposed hard surface coverage included the house, sidewalk, driveway, and a 100 square-foot future patio. The driveway increased 240 square feet and the sidewalk increased 30 square feet during construction. The builder stated the driveway was inadequate for the size and use of the garage; however, there are alternatives to realign the driveway and comply with the 25% hard surface coverage requirement. 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 granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located, in that additional storm water runoff is generated from the hard surface on the property. 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 increased hard surface coverage will not impair 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; however, it could diminish property values within the neighborhood. 2 L 5. The planning report #09-17, dated November 3, 2009, prepared by Angie Kairies, et aI, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Chanhassen Planning Commission, as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, recommends that the City Council deny an after-the-fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council on this 3rd day of November, 2009. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Its Chair G:\PLAN\2009 Planning Cases\09-17 2111 Pinehurst Drive Variance\PC Findings of Fact.doc 3 Planning Case No. Oq - \1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227-1100 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED SEP 2 4 2009 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT PLEASE PRINT Applicant Name and Address: \ 18 ~\'C\,{0 CJ~'1~(ml("\ ~ 5S ""E Y'-J l'kl..l, 'f)f~ ~ ycl . W n. t ~Q.Cdd 10.r:;I ~~::t2,~ \ Contact. ~t'lJ()~e 'TOC'\ \r-€~ l~ \ffi 'r-Je.o..v er Phone:9""2B.. 8L\q. ~Fax~'Sa' a.<-\C\. ~-=t-':::> Email: (\n_:,o\~....t"oC~~\.QJ"\fYLY" . (om ()) \ "~t"\ fY\ Owner Name and Address: }J y-. ~ N '( 'S . ('"" W(\&,\\\ A- \ \ \ 'V \ 'f"\e'x\\ l...'f'S+ "Dr. (' '0C\ \'"\ M ~"3-.-e r'\ I J-.j 'N ":::>':) ~ C \ Contact: Phone~'j8.5(3.9,\"":f3 Fax: Email: tecB. '0 \~C1S6n CQ peD-tcU. '1. LO ('(', 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 (VAC) ~Variance (VAR) #'2..to Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review y... Notification Sign - $200 (City to install and remove) Subdivision* x ~ for Filing Fee~orney Cost** UP/SPR/VAc:fI:Y.@NAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ ~ ~ 1t'f5D Site Plan Review (SPR)* 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. SCANNED WETLANDS PRESENT: YES ~ NO PRESENT ZONING: t\\Y\~1.0, ~rY\\\~\ REQUESTED ZONING: . U 1 'Pr PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION, ~~. . ~ ~ rr. \, \ REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: ~P(1_~, 1:J:R 0. ~(' hR ('1 \-.-9 -H-f'r- 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. q I~Jo~ Date 9/19/09 Date G:\PLAN\Forms\Development Review Application.DOC Rev. 1/08 SCANNED September 11, 2009 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 To Whom It May Concern: We are requesting an impervious surface variance for 2111 Pinehurst Drive on behalf ofthe homeowner. The constructed home (include driveway and sidewalk) is currently over the impervious surface maximum by .8%. The size of the driveway changed from what was originally proposed in the building permit survey. The proposed driveway was inadequate to support the size and use of the garage for this home. The driveway built today is wider, thus causing the slight increase in impervious surface. In addition, this homeowner would like the ability to build a small patio offthe back of his home. Ifthis patio is added, it would increase the total impervious surface to 26.37%. When reviewing this variance application, we respectfully request the staff and City Council of Chanhassen to look at the big picture. This particular homesite backs up to an open outlot, which could be added to the homesite's overall pervious surface calculation. The homeowner has been living in this home with this larger driveway and has acquired belongings based on this driveway. To force the homeowner to change their driveway or way of living at this point would be hardship. With this variance request, we are requesting to work with the City of Chanhassen to find a reasonable solution to this minor error. Below is our point by point narrative for the variance request. a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause 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 and develop neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. The literal enforcement of the 25% impervious surface prevents this homeowner from the quiet enjoyment of his home. The driveway that was ultimately constructed was built to fit the type and intended use of the garage with this home. This homeowner has purchase items based on this driveway and its intended use. To take away the driveway would limit his use of his whole home. The literal enforcement of the 25% impervious surface prevents this homeowner from the quiet enjoyment of his backyard Prior to finding out that the driveway was constructed larger than originally shown, we had always anticipated on a 10' x 10' patio in the backyard of this home. It would be a hardship to take away something based on the driveway error. SCANNED 545 Indian Mound E., Wayzata, MN 55391 · Phone: 952-473-0993 · Fax: 952-476-0194 LENNAR.CDM e OPPORlUNrrY b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. This impervious request is specific to this homeowner due to the fact that there was an understanding when he purchased the home. He has desired to build a 10' x 10' patio in his rear yard We had calculated this with the original survey. However, the original driveway was not sized appropriately, thus putting him over the 25% maximum coverage. Without a variance, he is unable to have the patio that he originally desired, nor the driveway that is now sized appropriately for him home. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. The purpose of this variance application is not for profit or income. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship. This hardship was not created by the homeowner. It was an error on the builder's part for not having an appropriate sized driveway on the original survey. 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. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public or cause injury. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion ofthe public streets or increases the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property value within the neighborhood. The proposed variation will not impair the supply of light or air to adjacent property. It will not create congestion of the public streets. In fact, by granting this variance and providing this homeowner with an adequately sized driveway, they will be less likely to store their vehicles in the street, thus reducing potential congestion. This proposed variation will also not impair neighboring property values. If you have any questions, please contact us at 952-249-3000 Sincerely, LENNAR CORPORATION ~- .,----~ SCANNED .liaH t~x j III E I ~t I I ~ tl ~ II ~ I ~~ ~ ~ ~~. fi 15 ~; ~ i ill 15 I ... !!. 1- * 2 ~ K- e~ ;8 _co c. ~I ~$ ~~ i: dS J!/'6 "'... i'i~ lljl& Ig; ~j~ !gW :.g i=~ ~b c z ... '" l:! => :<: W z ii: oi 'g .. 0( i o 10 ~ o j ~ ~ ~ 'S ~ 10 " .. ~ iiI ~zm :<0 ~~ N~ ~ 'i i t ~ i <I> '" '!l o ii s~ U Jl" :55 8'" ~I ,,~ /!~ !I U "dl S,s hi :Ii'" .." ,rg> ~i ~~ ~.c ..~ 0'" zS .dl " JO ~ ~ ~ ~ 11 fJ i ~ <>. ;j' ~: 1 :;~ -. 55, g 'j c: e '9.~ .. ~fi ~ ~8 J UJ t'g ! ~J1 ~0 ...c 5-! ~i! if} h ~~ "" ,g'" ~~ ~i .~i ill" 1l~ 0'" 3~ i .. t '" I 4A ~ 8 i " .. JO '" ~ t: t:t: tll g g - ~ ! " ~ II 1I1l'it: ..q ~ ;: i5 o <( o Z N t; a: => :<: w z " ,.; il 51 .. .. .oN 1i"'J~ ~~ g II, ~ !~ i: ~ii1 o :i i ~ 0: ] ~ I co " ~ .. l & i ~ a ; .., ~ i V&ri : 'OS! ; i~ g 0.., ~i ~ ~ ~.:2 &liJ -.oS "'$ J~ ;~ "" ~'=: oS! ~J !5 00 .c8 ~i C1 Z W o l.&.J .....J ~ ; &~ & 3 C ~Q~'- .B ~ ~ .g.!!! g 8.~ g ,..: ::lsL&J..!! Cl: (,J :z ~8g';;.g;-g ~~ 0&.:5'=.5 ~ ~>- 'C: "t :0 CI): 0.......0 g.ffi 1.&,1 :I: ,g0id:~~~ ~~(I):z ilimlt'''' il"'~< 1)o~1)~~ 1)::i~-~ 5t:c:ccs:: c~~~ Q8~~.~~ ~~(ij~ N ~ u;1 j ~.! ! i..: N o I') I - 1-- a "- " "- " "- , , , , , ~ .-;<<!"t. ~i;l~ ~~~ . . . ! i ~ ii~ 2i! Sl5:s l!!8 '$&i ~!~ rn n~ ~~~ ~ .. '" .0 -;; ~ i' ~ '5i ~:! .s 'C.w .g 5~ :sO j. ~I f ~-! o ~'S U !t ~ &~ 8 i~ :i "li 2 f! g a~ -< c:~ ~ l~ Iii >O"CS ~ ~ ~ i! f ~ ff. ,:i fS ~ ~ oS! f3 a: ~ :! ~~~~~ ffi ~ ~ 8~ Q. ~ >_ ~i o t\I 0: i: IE 3 ;; !1-! ~ ~ i J .. l'l ! a i l - .. .. .. i -; " 0 ! ~ "'- .S ~ :D ;s; ! ,~ i a ~ ftR ; ~~ i ~~. g ... HI ~11 b... :%.-2 E 6oP'3SV8-1>l3""",:o\"ns\~\..""'tm\.\>I/OJ<l\ " "'lI3SI\-","""."-l!iCI<~16nv r ~ o .. B ~ .8 ~ 8 ~ ~ -~ ~I.E--l~ ~ If ! :S1~J '::l~ ~ ~I ~:I!~~ J III i !t i I t ~I J; gitU :!! ~~c. .1 i ~" i:i t x x l'3 I II "\~', t !f~~ I . I I miLd 1"1 I' I I ()C> m .~ i5 * ~ ~ ~ "a ~ ~ II ~ :> Q UJ ... ~ ~:iW :<:0 zi= r=o N~ Cl Z N t- "' 0: ::J :r: UJ z ii: ai " o o '" ll. i= ~ ~ " . . ~di [~ '0" -'" co ,g~ ~.E -" o~ 00 ~g- c~ .9. ~~ 1(0 .~ ~~~ i1~ i5-- ~~~ .UJ ~~~ :5ci ll.~ i=g coi~ i o E Cl o '" Cl 15 t- "' 0: ::J :<: UJ z ii: '" " o Cii -i "N ",": ~t::; .3~ ~ ". .> Q) ~~ ~ coW Cl '" I ~ ii: ~ o " o "- I(i t: r: ~ t ~ g ~~d~g co IJJOfJ) co ~ m(IJC\lUJ"" ~ 3;f~E:. ~ II 1111 n II n ~ :-t: <.:., ~ ." '" I; I ~ g 1< ~g~ 01-<" "'<hO ffi 1> '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" !z: '" ~ ~ o z w " W .....J ~ ~ :J ~ 5 c 5 0 +' &:g ~ .s ~ ~.~i;g8.=a a t-=' Ef:tLIQ)Q:=:U z gC-g(ijc~"'O ~ ~83.SgE i~f5~ c't 8-:! a..~ elS!~ .. ~~d:~~a:= a.G:i>-~ (I)(I')a:::~ ~~~~ H~~~ itj~ UJ" t-" 0'" z.-' . N i! ~ "fi ~ '" ol ~mmmm~ ...................- 000000 c:cc~cc G.l G.l 4) Q) G.l G.l 000000 o I") J-- W W u.. / - (-- " " " " " " " " " " " " " '\ " o -" ", c o 1 c .~ " . " u . -" ~~ .f ~ 2 ~ g ~ g .so. (l:J jg \'0 ~'g ~ "" ~g B ~~ j ~~ m ~~ .c .. :E~ ;:~ ~~ ~~ ~e .g: .::J E " -E~ .s~ ,," ~~ o=:- zij ..tm o " ~ . " " I i~ ~~ ~~ -"c -"0 ;;c ~~ ~~ . . oS] .sg ". c.o " m 2:5 I.~ .Q .m 0" g~ . u ~~ mu OQ ~~ ,;. i m -" .; E ~ .~ "' ~ .0 .~ '5 0: " o ~ ~ ~ .0 " m m m u c m 0- Q C ! ~ ~ ~ ~ g e " . m ~ ~ o uui U'I ~~ ~ R~ ~ e-g 0 ~~ ~ " o . o " ". ." .u Q" ~~ ~i :i ~~ -"'" ~~ ~~ .c "" 00 -"8 .0 :2m ~~ " 0"'''' CJ:itt:ilri "''''.... ~:=~ u . :5ro ~O : ~ ~.E c:; ~o ~.!! E;; ~~ eo m. ~~ ~ 0.- '" m~ C) ~" Z to) o &.-g ~~" ~ e ~ ... ~ ~t j 6~5f~! j:: :J u: .sa ~ '0 ~ ~ ti :5~ ~ g a: ~ ~:3 ~ ~ CIJ ~-5 Ql ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ffi ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ N Fe !- Gl [ 3 ~ ~~ ~ " c c o ;;; "i I[Q]~ .~i ~ m - :a o ~ ~ ai!l~ ~~g -'l $ -<! ~ ~~ i"~ 128 S... m o . m c c >E f C) o o " " m -" m > o o Cc ~j ~m 00 ~~~ u. ... ~;~ u..c:l-l / '" ,....\ \....' -/ ~ I y _ v / I , / , .......-<-'y.... S E ~ ...~ -"'IE-< .9~~ a:l d' N 2 }~~! ~ it ...,. .. !"~i ~ ~~~~ ~ ~j~t f i~! it i' ~ ~ .J. i! o f 1 ~:I!;I~ ~ l <; j ,ll 6MP"3SVa-1H30;i\.J.3.\Hns\6MP\vZ09tN3l\~OJd\ =1 ~~ wsn - WD9J.:1. - aoo~ '50 OOQ CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDA VIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTYOFCARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on October 22, 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 Variances to 2111 Pinehurst Drive - Planning Case 09-17 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 thi~hctay of Cx_+e..6e t""" , 2009. 1" MEUW\SSEN ) K\M. . Minnesota Notary Pub"C~!es Jan 31,2010 My commissIon EllP 0') I:: :;:; Q) Q) ~ 0')5 .5 'ii) (ij.~ Q) E :E:E .~ 0 :cu :JO') 0.1:: - 'c: o I:: Q) as 0- :;:;0. o I:: ZQ) tJ) tJ) as J: I:: as .s::: U 0') I:: i Q) ~ I:: 0')0 1::'- ._ tJ) :a.. tJ) as.- Q) E :E:E 00 :cU :JO') 0.1:: -I:: o I:: Q) as 0- ._ a. .... o I:: zQ) tJ) tJ) as .s::: I:: as .s::: (.) a>-gjg (/) '0 .!:o- a> C -.!:-o (/) >- - ..... C1:l (/) OJ. :Joa>:J E.{g ..8.0- u 0 g> a5 -0 C1:l .g,::= a> .!!? 'S OJ ~ :J 'CD ~ '0' .po.; -0 CD Ol 0 0 c .:: 0. as .6_ .c .c -0 N >. a> C1:l -0 '0' CIl::_> >. E.!:.!: a>..... ~ ~~O)t ~.....-o (/)~ti- .~_~ ~.E~jg(/)&a>:5E E ~ a> e 0 .S ..... - ~ 0 :S :J E o..:.::~ 1:0..... .a>.....c~O ci.~ ~ c c.!!! - "5 g>oo ~ 0 a> () o -:2: 0 .Q -5 .!!? ~:;::: 0) a> (/).!: a> 0..50(/) ~-~Ca>c:Sc-.!: a> -0 0 ...".- a>'- C1:l E - ~ 00 -o~ccE~o--o -~~c <~~~ o~oc C1:l-g~C1:lLL "O'CijC1:la>-a>=~-~C1:l 0> Ol .';:: (f) c: .0 .!: 0 a> c -0 OOl~C1:la: C\l~.!:o_.....-a>a>-O O~a>> oo~~00)a>~m2m C\l.o- .....>--c.!:a>..... a> 0 . - E ~ = :J l!! .g -0 .;:: ~ 6 ~ 0 U M.5~~E ~~m~~~~c=~0 <D a5.!: c:b If > c -5 (/) _ :J.... .~ a> .- .o>O.!: -- -(/) ow 0) E~=~~ O~5:Sa>~.....a>c~c a>.coa> _~0.....:Jo>:S2C1:l(/)~.po.; > - c :::::: c (/) .- 0 0-'0' 0) 0) 0 _ C1:l 0 o~:J~~()~~~m~o.E::=~ijg~ ~~80~a>~~Eo~(/)~~~Eoe >. ~ = .....:;::: E c Uol I: ~ - .- a>..... E = C1:l 'E C1:l 00 C 0'- . 0 ..... S.!: .!: 1a a> .0 Q) -0 o>Q)I~C\l-~w- _.!:o~ (/)~I:J-o C\l~~~"5~(f)~O~:S a> t:: o-'en u5 ,... (5 ~ a> c.. 0 :0 :J OJ O~ a:a> a:a> """" ,... --l - .!: ~.o:J . C\l' ,...; .....: ~ <n -' C\l -<I: ~ C1:l C1:l ~,... ,._ '" o Q) _ ~ .S:iS >. (/) (/) C ca ~ '> .~ a> >. a> a> ~ III a> :J .- .0 C E .!: > :a.. (/) 0g>.....2--ca~ C1:l >........ 0 =-....._ ~ 0 Q) .!: a> ...... (/) ~-.o~ 0.. ::::u:J~a>(/)_Q) g> g ~ E 'E ~ .~ ~ ; :;::: .!:o ..o:SoE>r:: a> ~OC::lo 0'- a> .....a>a>(/)_a>S.oG:l E ,(/)(/)o>.:-Q'-caQ) 0>C1:l(/)-~>1Il a> ~~~a>oe:c"CE :S c~c~o~....Sr:: a> C1:l .C1:l0 a>-:a.. III 0 ..... -u.!:.!:c=o::'- .E >a>t:!oo~-Q):g a> Cii <D '0'0 :J a> :::: ;:: :t::: 'E- .0 (/).....@)o>C1:l01ll (/) ~-- ~ (/) >. C1:l (j) o..oE c...,,(/)(/)......!: Q)Q) C1:l ~ =! :c .~ -: 0 .... ~ P- o.. c - .- C\l - 0):= """ a>.g E "5 ~ C") :J .S ca t) .!: ~ C 0 C1:l ::: a. CD 1i) Q) .5 -a> (/) a>c'ilCii--' a.; a> Q)'or:: - (/) ,- .!: E.c ... r:: a>0(/)a>=C\l I-o.ca (/) a> C1:l c C1:l C\l .!!? a> ... ft o '~.!: 0 E' .!: "" .... -eca>a>~=:-c.cQ) c ~ ~ E >. 0> en 0 .Q ~ .c C1:l.(/) t:! o.oCiic a> ~ 0....0 ~ ~'(3 (/) en (]) 0 'E- CI) - :Jo'- . 0 a> a> E C r::... o ~ -.;:: C E C1:l E'- 0 >. a> ~ ~ '@,g 0 -6 0 c .;: :::::S ~.s~ ~o C1:l0 0 III .. r::Cl Q) Q).5 ~ E 0..... 1Il~ .... 0.Q) i= r:: Cii r:: >.r:: ca Q) r:: r:: 0 III ca ;::0 ::I:::iiE o Q) ~ :,;::::; 0 .~ Q):';::::; ....Q) :';::::;E Q) ca 0. o.ca ca.c m E .... (,) 0 0(,) .c.... ~ 0 ca 0 ... ... 0 3:10 c ...J D. c:( D....J 00 a>-gjg '0 .!:o- (/) C -.!:-o a> >- - ..... C1:l (/) OJ. :Joa> (/) E.{g o.o_.po.;:J g> a5 -0 ~ .g,= 0 ~ .~ OJ ~ :J 'CD ~ .~ .po.; '5 OlOl 0 OC~ .....0 C .c.c . N >'a> C1:l ~a> 0 CIl - -0 >. E .!: .!: -0'0' 'en Eo~t ~.....-O a>..... (/) ~~O)a> uOE (/)~ti- .~-~ '-'EojgUioo>=E E 0 ~ ~ g .- ~ -. ar g-:s -g E ci.~ ~ C co!!.8 - 0)00 0. C ~8 o -:2: 0 o.c: (/) ~.S 0 a> OC :;:::--c-O)a>(/).!:a> .. 0 0 (/) '5 '0 0).- ~.S:S c - :S ~ 0 ~ -0 ~ .S c E ~ ..... ~ E ~~~c <~.....~ oo~o-o .v~~ C1:lLL "O'Cij C1:la>- a>= ""_..... 5 0> a5 en';:: (f) c: .0 .!: 0 "" c ..... .v oOl.....C1:la: C\l~.!:o_.....~a>-o-o o~a>> ~(00)a>>(/)a>a> C\l .0- >=-c.!:.....a>>(/) - 0 - Q) .0 -0 .;:: - a> ..... 'CD ..Q ~cEC1:l~ ~:Jc:J.!:6~00 ..... 'c C1:l "T C1:l ~ C1:l 0 0) = a> O>~O.!:jgLLC1:l> (/)_ :Jc~""'~ .0 Ol _ a> ..... .- a: I: :c (/) . 0 C1:l a> 0) EOl=~- 0 a>u.ca>-..... a>.c 0 a> _ ~ 0 :::: :J a> - > 5 C1:l'2 . > - c - c (/) .- 0 o-'~ 0)'- <:) (/) C1:l _ O~:J~~().......:.:: a>a>eCO)=Ca>O ~O..... :JO~ .....~._-~ a> Z 2 0 0 ~ a>.!:..Q E ~ .(/) ~ '5 ~ a> .!: '0 . OJ ......- E a> 0) ~ - .!!? a> ;> C1:l Eo..... >.- = - C C 1:..... C .!: ..... E = C1:l~C1:l(/)a>oa:~~:JC1:l-.!:1aa> .oa> i~I~-oI C\l~~g"5g_.!:o:J.!: a> t:: o-'w u5 ::: - u a> c.. 0 ::0 (f) ~ 0 ~ - :J al =: a> a> .......3.2.!:~'O:J ~<nOa:a:::JC\l-<l:~C1:lC1:l~.....C\lC")",," Q) E i= ~ Q) .... ca C IIlCl r:: r:: Q).- 0.- 0.Q) ca Q) ::I:::iiE -Q) ca.c .c- :5:10 .... r:: ca g r:: o :,;::::; ca (,) o ...J >.r:: ;::0 Q):';::::; o.ca o (,) ... 0 D....J ca III o 0. o ... D. c:( .8 Q) .!: .S:iS >. ,!!? c ca ~ ~a>>. a>a>~1Il :J .- .0 C E .!: > ... 0g>.....2t-ca~ >.< 0 1: ~.8 Q) I- ::::_(/)~a>(/).oQ) 0::1 .......a>- 0) E C1:l c ~ ...,.- = .c C cEEjgg-~; :;::: Eo ..o-oE>r:: a> r...:oc:Jo 0'- a> ..-a>a>(/)_a>S.oG:l E '(/) (/) 0 >.:-Q.- ca Q) 0>C1:l(/)-~>1Il a> oa>~a>oo.-"CE :S e:o..c ~ 0 o.:5S r:: a> C1:l .C1:l0 a>-...1Il 0 ..... -u.!:.!:c=o::'- .E..>a>t:!oo~-Q):g ~ Cii <D '0'0 :J a> :s ;:: :t::: 'E- ~ (/).....ts::.'0>~01ll (/) a>-.....;. ~~ >.C1:l(f) 0..0 E cO)(/)(/)(/)......!: Q) C1:l C1:l :J.- a> - ... Q) 0 0.. ~ c :S :~ C\i .8 ci>:= ~ 0 a>.g E"5~C"):J.S cat) .!: ~ C 0 C1:l ::: a. CD 1i) Q).5 ~ (/) a>c'ilCii~ a.; a> Q)'or:: a>-(/) _C\l.!:E.c...r:: (/) as ~ ~'(i1 C\l .!!? a> I- ~ ~ o '~.!: 0 E' .!: "" .... -eca>a>~=:-c.cQ) c ~ ~ E >. 0> en 0 ,Q ~ .c C1:l .(/) t:! 0.0 Cii C a> ~ 0 -; ~ .c '0 (/) (/) a> o'E Q) .... ~ (5 ~ .8,~ ~ ~ fa E .5 0 >. a> ~ ~ '(i1 ,g 0 -6 0 c: .;: :::::S ~.s~ ~o C1:l0 0 - '(j) '> a> (/) C1:l a> 0.. ~ 1Il~ r:: r:: OQ) :';::::;E m E ~ 0 ou ui -0 0> ~ C ~ Ot .~ID ~ ~ g - 5~~ 2~ 2 ID ~o ~ Q} 0 ~.~ ~ .!!! '0 ~ ~'o g. ~ to ~ ' :m .c -g '0 CD en a... Q) ,~ <( ,S (j) i ~ ,~ 5 <(;~ ffi>tO ~o is.. ,"E ~Q) ~~:p 'O~~ EO~ -> a2tO '0'$ s~~ c$c Erooo~~~ tO~~ eQ) CDO~ :m 15 .aQ) 0 €Q) 8.~ ~ '~<lS 1? ~.:: 2 ~ ~~:g CD u otOa,-,-- e 5- oo-c ~~B ~~~E~~~~8~ ~ 2~Q) uf'~ 2 to (]) Q) -g 0 CD -5 ~ B t i- ~ ~ 'g :5 ~~'~ ~.~StO~a.5~~~ 'G~ ~~5 ~uu m~~E.cE~oo-CD CD> 0'0 E:.=Q> e=oQ.)~'~'<3>..ao.crn ...; Q) ,-~E g~~~~tO~~E~ ~o g~E ~~~ ~~~~~Q.)~o_.5 S~ ooo~ 5tOQ) ~~~-o~Em~~ n,~ ~~c 'O~S 0 -a.~E-o.S:~m s_ '0-0 ~'5'O ~.~~~~~~€~~ 5E ~g; -g- 'c1i5-'~EQ)-~Q)~ uw et ~ ~ CD g> Q) Q).~ '0 ,:: E ~ '0 ~ - to .....: ~ 8.~ ,Q2Si~E~-g~-g~~~~ ~~ o~~ ~ 53 8 Q) (j; e i5. tU ~ CD ~ 81 ~ :: 'S: 0 Z' a> en cE~E~gQ)aIE~oE~ o~ G~ 8~~~~,~5~(j;:~K~~ ~~ Q)~'~ uf~j;~~~m~~EQ)~E B.~ ~~~ ~ <( >- ffi -g 0 '0 ~ >-~ g ~ Ci~ ~ 5 g>~ a... '-Q)t=-uCD=tOc~-Eo aa ,c-Q) 5>'O~tOgodi5.gEcacooo.c ec tOg:5 rr80B=,5a.a.~Q)Q)5~~ g~ ~'-a ~~~~~~~~~~~~'ffi~ ,g~ ,2~S ~e=~-~~-o'Oc.~5~g>Q)! ~~5 tOtU>ea...=Q)OcQ)lioo:p(/) ~::u 2 2 ~,~ g Q) '~ . ~ >- ~ E 0.. - 0. ~ '0; -g a. e Q) ~~'~$~~E~6g:=~~E~~ ~g~ 2~~~~<(~~~.~~=~~~~~ oo~~ ~a3~~t'tJ~~e~~~.~,~~~m~ ~1~ KEg~~~~~~Q)~~~e8~'~~.croo ~~,~~~g~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a; sg "E ~ en ~:8 E 0 a ctS ~ ~ ~ 0 C :5 ~ .~ 0> ~ o~o~~~~oO~~~Q)~Q)i.c~E,5- :t:: Q) ~'- - ..9:! c 0 ~~.~ ,- E c:5 ~.'!: E "E ,S c'~5~c~Q)Q)G~cmom~~~~oro'O .. ~ ~ <( O.!Q E..c Q) 2 2 (I) ~.E (f.l ID t5 u g> <D (1)'0 Q) c t'ea E~ ~ E Q) ~ ,.2 O>~ Q) <D o>~-g ~~~,Qci8.~8~~E'::E~~~oE~.5~u ~ ~ ~~:E ~ CD ~ ~- 8 g-en~~-5 g-B~ 2 ~,~ g~~~im~m~~~~*~~~~~~~~! 0:. viU ~,~ ~~-g o..ro~~U5t5.~~.,g ~<U ID 0 0 == 5 ufu e ~8.~ g>-g.Q'g ro,~:m'O o:;~:5 g-- .~ :~ ~ g>~ ~ ~ (;.~ ~ ,~ 5 g 5 :: @ :@ 8 :: ~ ~ ~ >,~~'-~a.Q)~IDEEOQ)~c~oeU~o- ~E2~==~@.coE~e~~2'ffiQ)~~~~ ~~&~~~~~~~85~~~~~~~~~g U . Q) ~ ~ ~o ,~m ~ ~ o ~ g::~ e.c ~ - 'O~ e 15 :p Q) ~ @:::: c ~'o ~ m ~ g ~~"t:JQ) ClS'~ClS ~~ ~<(,5 ~~ e.cc ~ -g Q) en Q) - ~, "E > ~ ~ '~ ~ ~~~ ~~i~~~ il~ ~~ ;~~ ~ 25 25 ~ ~ ~~ r~~ ~ ~ E 2;; ~ ~g ~~B ~~~E~~~~8~ 0; ~i~ ~.~.~ ~<D1?-g~<D~~.st: ~fJ Cc; (f.l.c(f.l c.~=~~a€~!~ ~~ ~~5 ~.~~ to_~E~E~WEQ) ~~ ,U'O E~.~ g~B2~'~'<3~oO -0 ~c.b_Q)E 'c~~ :p_tO';~ro~~E~ ~~ 2Cl..~ ro(ij~..c:.oQ)Eo-,- -en ~()Q)~ sma> E-ro-o~Em~~ noo ~~:5 ~~!~E-o,5~~ s= ~:55 @'S15 ,5,~~~(;~~€~a... 5~ ~B~ -5$- 'cID-'~EQ)-~<D~ ow c:t: ~~Q)~mQ)u'O~E~"t:J~_ ro 6~~ 022~.5E~~~-g~mS:5 ~~ u~_ ~~8Q)ig~m~ID~~~'~ '$[ Z'Q)(I) g~~E~'~!~~~~gE~ ee 5Ee oe~~ro~~'~~~~~~~ ~~ ~,~'~ vi~'i'O~EQ!~oEQ)~u -'ffi ~i~ ~ <( >- ~ -g 0'0 u >~.g ~ a.~ ~ :5 ~-g a... '$Q)t=-o~=roC(f.l-Eo a~ 'c-ID a>~~rogo>53.gErocCl)o.c ec rog:5 OC8oS=E~Cl..~Q)Q)5~(f.l 6~ ~'-n e ~ ctS C 0 Q) e 00 E '-,- (f.l u ~ CD ro sg~~2S~~:56~~~~~cia3~ g~~ ~::~.~a...~~U@ID~g~~,~~ !'~8 ~_::.__Q)~o~_ECl.. am<DO em oo~'~~,~:5ETIG~:~~Q)E~.,g ~g~ wEQ)>-a.~Q)~<Dg>(f.lro"t:J:5-m~ ~ro(]) E'O~io..,.~~~~~en~~~E2 ~g- Q)a3lCl..~~~g~S~.~.Q~~m~ ~~~ KEg~~~~~~ID~~~e8~~~.cctSO o<(ro-Eu,oogrr'OQ).~~ a.C~5Q)ID (j)e,5~~~e~~ ,e~a-~~Q)O'~S~ 5J ~ "E ~ C/J >-. ~ E 0 g ro ~ g. ~ 0 C.:5 ~ ,~ 0> ~ o~oc~n~oO~~~Q)~Q)i.cmE.5- ~~~'--~CU~~,S~Ec:5~~a.EE,~ e'-5~C~IDQ)6ecmom~~>~oro~ .. :J ~ <( 0 ~ E.c <l> 2 2 (j) ~.E CI) 1i5 en U ~ Q) ~i~c .E~~~~E~2 ,g~~Q)~~~-g ~c~,Q~a.ctSO~o~-S~S=8.E2'Eu~ -g ~ c.. ~ '.0::: ~ (]) ~ ~ ~ 0 g. (/) ~ 0 -6 en S ,5 c 53'S g~~'~'~:~ctS~~!~~~~~-g~~~~2 ~wo~,~~~~c..m~~~~~~.,g~m(])oB :s: 5 en 0 c ~ 8. ~ g> -g .Q 'g ro,~.~"O 0 ~:2 :oS ~ ~:~,~gg~~~'~~,~~~:5~~:@8~~~~ ~ ~ 5 'E .~ ~ 35 ~ ~ E E u ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ai ~ ~ 8 ill ~.g~~~~~W(])8~~.5'~~~C!'~~~~ ~~~~m(/)~~~~OO~;:~w~m~mmw 5. . . BEN & MARGARET L1AO 3645 FORESTVIEW LN PLYMOUTH MN 55441-1336 CHARLES R & BEVERLY J JACKSON 2110 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8009 DOUGLAS G & SARAH P HIPSKIND 2061 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4578 GREGORY S LOHRENZ 2165 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6705 JOHN MARK & JANICE RAE MOBERG 6738 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6700 LARRY A & SUE A MARTY 2117 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6705 OJARS A PAPEDIS TRUSTEE OF 0 PAPEDIS TRUST 2101 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4579 RICHARD & MARIE JENNINGS 2021 EDGEWOOD CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4577 SCOTT D & CYNTHIA L BOEDDEKER 6710 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6700 THOMAS J WOODS 2031 EDGEWOOD CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4577 BRIAN K & JOAN 0 SCHIMKE 2040 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6704 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 JAYSON C DREHER 2144 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6705 JOSHUA T KRIENKE & CHRISTINA A KRIENKE 2375 STONE CREEK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7403 LEIGH STOCKER BERGER 2140 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4579 PAUL S TUNGSETH 2051 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8008 ROBERT A JR & BRENDA KNESS 2121 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8010 SCOTT D & SONYA B SCHROEDER 2081 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4578 TODD R & AMY A GLEASON 2111 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4579 BRUCE S & HELEN TERESA SMITH 9 HAWKINS DR NORTHPORT NY 11768-1527 DANIEL J DOHSE & MAR IT S LEE- DOHSE 2058 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6704 ERIC W & GRETCHEN G LOPER 2076 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6704 JOHN M & NICOLE L THAYER 2122 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6705 KEITH K & CHRISTINE M CLARK 6620 CHESTNUT LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4580 MICHAEL D & DEBRA H ANDERSON 6681 AMBERWOOD LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4582 PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT LLC 1851 WEST LAKE DR #550 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8567 S R SOMURI & NISHA AGRAWAL 2091 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4578 STEVEN S & LORI A ABBLETT 2081 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8008 TONKA DEVELOPMENT LLC ATTN: MARY 18001 HIGHWAY 7 MINNETONKA MN 55345-4150 U S HOME CORP 935 EAST WAYZATA BLVD WAYZATA MN 55391-1849 WILLIAM F & JEANNE A KRAKE 6739 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6700 WILLIAM V & NANCY M SWEARENGIN TRUSTEES OF FAMILY TRUST 2080 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8007 XUEBING FENG & XIAOGUANG DENG 6724 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6700 YURIFARBER 2135 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-6705