Loading...
2e. Subdivision 915 Pleasant View road 2.107 into Two Lots C ITY OF ��` PC DATE: 2/19/92 ` 1 . CHAA1 CC DATE: 3/9/92 I CASE #: 92 -2 SUB 1 1 STAFF REPORT 1 1 '.. PROPOSAL: Request to subdivide an existing metes and bounds parcel, 2.107 acres Z `,, in size, into two lots of 1.246 acres and .86 acres. P, c ,.., , ; ,.,,_ , C I E � ++, - V LOCATION: 915 Pleasant View Road ; , 1 �, k k_____ -- I 5/' rk..,---, - 0; 1 ( 1 ,7 - u. APPLICANT: Scott W. Edwards e-1.41-.%1 1 4 915 Pleasant View Road � � .x, Chanhassen, MN 55317 3 - °- 9 _ 1 1 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential ACREAGE: • 2.107 acres I DENSITY: 1.05 u/a I ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF; single family residence S - RSF; Vineland Forest Subdivision 1 Q E - RSF; single family residence W - RSF; single family residence WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. W PHYSICAL CHARAC I'ER: The site contains one single family home with a detached garage. 1 The site is relatively flat. There is a large .stand of trees in the (/) southeast corner. 1 1 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential 1 1 Edwards Vogel Subdivision February 19, 1992 Page 2 1 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a subdivision of a lot located at 915 Pleasant View Road. The applicant is requesting to split a lot that is 2.107 acres. The lot split would create two lots, Lot 1 would be 1.246 acres and Lot 2 would be .86 acres. There is a existing home and ' detached garage on Lot 1. This property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. The minimum lot size in the RSF zone is 15,000 square feet. Both lots exceed this requirement. The requested .subdivision is consistent with a conceptual layout that was revised several years ago in conjunction with the Vineland Forest plat. On the surface, this would appear as a simple lot split but there are a couple areas of concern. The first issue is that the creation of the second lot also creates a nonconforming setback to the existing lot. The second issue is that the second lot does not have frontage on a public right -of -way, a requirement of the subdivision regulations. 1 The creation of the new lot makes the existing lot nonconforming to the rear setback requirements of the zone. The minimum rear setback in the RSF zone is 30 feet. The ' location of the proposed lot split would create a 20 foot setback from the existing detached garage. The proposed lot split line should be moved 10 feet to the south so as not to create a nonconforming rear yard setback. By moving the line 10 feet to the south both lots would still exceed the minimum square footage requirement for the zone. Staff has proposed an appropriate condition to resolve this matter. 1 Lot 2, the lot being created, does not have frontage on a public street. When the Vineland Forest Subdivision was created in 1989, staff proposed a street layout for all of the parcels in this area. The developers of Vineland Forest platted two outlots. Outlot A was created to give access to the existing home on Lot 1, Block 2 of Vineland Forest. Outlot A is not being used and the property owner to the north, Mr. Cunningham, is pursuing purchasing it. Outlot B was dedicated to the city for access and utility purposes. The city would like to retain ownership of this property for utility purposes. Outlot B will provide acceptable access. Based upon our review, staff is recommending that the plat be approved without variances subject to appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND 1 This lot is a portion of Vineland Subdivision platted in 1887. Vineland Subdivision had 11 lots, this lot is part of the original Lot 3. Most of the original Vineland Subdivision has been replatted, including most recently Vineland Forest and Troendle Subdivisions. During the Vineland Forest plat, the potential division of this site was reviewed. Outlot B was specifically created to provide access consistent with that which is requested in the current 1 proposal. 1 1 Edwards Vogel Subdivision February 19, 1992 Page 3 STREETS /ACCESS 1 The lot being created does not have frontage on a public street. Thus, it is subject to standards provided for a flag lot. The existing home on the lot has a private drive onto Pleasant View Road. When Vineland Forest subdivision was platted, one of the issues raised was limiting accesses onto Pleasant View Road. Access to the lot being created can be achieved a couple of ways. The first option would be along the 30 foot easement to the south. This easement, at one time, was a low area but has been filled. It now could be used as a driveway. The second option would be to access Nez Perce via Outlot B. The Engineering Department would like to maintain ownership of this lot for utility easements. The City Attorney has stated that the city may convey use of the property to the homeowner. Because there is no direct public frontage on a public street this lot will be developed as a flag lot. Staff agrees with the applicant that use of Outlot B constitutes the best option. 1 LANDSCAPING /TREE PRESERVATION There is a significant amount of vegetation on the southeastern edge of the property. g g g e p ope ty. A driveway onto Nez Perce would result in the elimination of some trees. Not all of these trees are of high value. Staff would recommend that a home placement plan be provided, as well as a landscaping /tree preservation plan, to ensure minimal tree loss. It appears that the vegetation would be the least disturbed by locating the home in the northwestern portion of the property. GRADING /DRAINAGE 1 It appears there will be no grading on this lot. The lot is very flat. The storm water run off flows to the pond to the southwest of this site. No additional drainage controls are required. EASEMENTS /RIGHT -OF -WAY 1 Pleasant View Road will eventually be upgraded which will require additional right -of -way. Currently, the road is 66 feet in width and will eventually be 80 feet when it is classified as 1 a Collector -Class II. The applicant should be required to dedicate an additional 7 feet of right -of -way. The plat shows the standard utility easements on the front, side, and rear property lines. 1 1 1 1 1 Edwards Vogel Subdivision February 19, 1992 Page 4 COMPLIANCE TABLE RSF District Lot 1 Lot 2 Minimum Lot 15, 000 sq ft 54,289 sq ft 37,483 sq ft Lot Frontage 90 feet 169 feet 168' flag Min Depth 125 feet 333 feet 226 feet ' Impervious 25% 23% Front Setback 30 feet 125 feet Rear Setback 30 feet 20 feet* Side Setback 10 feet 60 feet 20' flag lot * A variance to this standard has been proposed with this lot split. Staff is recommending that by moving the rear lot line 10 feet to the south this variance will not be necessary. Except for the rear setback on Lot 1, the lots meet all of the standards for the RSF zone. Staff is recommending that the proposed property line split be moved a minimum of 10 feet to the south. A home placement plan has not been submitted for Lot 2 but the lot is 1 sufficient in size to meet all of the setback requirements, even after the lot sizes have been altered to satisfy the setback requirements for Lot 1. ' PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE At the February 19, 1992, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended approval of the subdivision subject to the six conditions in the staff report. The Planning Commission made two clarifications to staffs recommendations. There was some concern about the timing of the landscaping and tree preservation plan, referring to Condition #3. The Planning Commission wanted this condition clarified that a landscaping, tree preservation, and home placement plan should be submitted at the time of the building ' permit application. The other change noted by the Commission was on Condition #5. The Commission wanted ' it made clear that although the city will provide and install sanitary sewer and water to the property, it will be at the developer's expense. 1 1 1 1 1 Edwards Vogel Subdivision February 19, 1992 Page 5 1 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: 1 "The City Council approves Subdivision #92 -2 with the following conditions: 1 1. The proposed property line for the lot split be moved a minimum of 10 feet to the south so that the existing home meets the setback standards of the RSF zone. 2. Lot 2 gain access by receiving a right to use Outlot B to Nez Perce, from the city. 3. A landscaping, tree preservation, and home placement plan be submitted for at the time of the building permit application for staff review and approval. 4. At the time of building permit issuance of Lot 2, Block 1, a connection charge 1 in the amount of $7,732.68 (1992 balance) shall be collected. 5. The City will provide and install sanitary sewer and water to the property, at 1 the developer's expense, at the time a building permit is issued for Lot 2. 6. The applicant shall dedicate to the City by final plat an additional 7 feet of 1 right -of -way along Pleasant View Road." 1 Attachments 1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated February 5, 1992. 2. Preliminary plat dated February 3, 1992. 3. Planning Commission minutes dated February 19, 1992. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 1992 - Page 4 Krauss: Why on't I give you at the next meeting that list. I had Y 9 Y g my secretary make it up. I'll bring it in. • Conrad: Okay. But we're not going to get another time where we have 4 appointments at the same year? That's the only thing I want to validate so ' whether we do it in terms of amending our By -laws or just administratively doing it Paul, I don't care. And I think you've taken care of it but I just want to make sure. We should not have 4 re- appointments in one year. ' Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Batzli: Okay. Is that taken care of then? Conrad: Nobody cared. Batzli: No, I think it's important but I think Paul's going to tell us how we're staggered. I think in the past what happened was there was a lack of record keeping which created part of the problem. It was unsure for example when someone filled in a position where someone had left early, there was a lack of communication of how the length of time that ' appointment was for. So I think that was part of the problem. There was a turnover in the Planning department which I think created kind of a lack of records. In any event. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 2.107 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON ' PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 915 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, EDWARDS VOGEL SUBDIVISION. SCOTT EDWARDS AND DAVID VOGEL. Public Present: Name Address • Scott Edwards Applicant Daryl Fortier Representing Frank Beddor Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: Just for my own education, when we're treating something as a flag lot, normally on a flag lot aren't they sharing a common drive? Aanenson: You don't have to, no. There's a private drive, you can have up to 4 homes but the only addition on the flag lot would be the side yard setback which have to be 20 and that lot significant. What you do is take the frontage back to a depth of where it's a square lot. You wouldn't include this piece right here. You'd take the frontage based right there which he has over 120 feet. 125 feet and the minimum would be 100 so. Technically you can't develop on a lot that doesn't have public frontage. Batzli: Right. So you're treating it as a flag lot solely for the purpose of allowing them to subdivide it? Is that what you mean? Aanenson: Yeah. That he does have access. He does have enough frontage further back in even though it's not on the public street. 1. Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 1992 - Page 5 1 Batzli: Is the applicant here and want to say anything at this time or do you agree with the staff report? Scott Edwards: Yes. My only question was the need for...7 feet on Pleasant View... Batzli: Okay. Are you actually the applicant? 11 Scott Edwards: Yes. ' Batzli: So you're Scott Edwards? Okay. No one else wants to speak at this time. Okay. Daryl Fortier: I'm Daryl Fortier representing Frank Beddor who's the adjacent property owner. Batzli: Can you come up to the podium please. ' Daryl Fortier: I'm Daryl Fortier. I'm representing Frank Beddor, Jr. who is the property owner of the Vineland lots immediately adjacent to the west. We're in favor of it providing access off of Outlot B which is the staff recommendation. My only question tonight is who currently owns Outlot A? Your staff report says someone is, Mr. Cunningham would like to I purchase it. The question is from whom? Aanenson: The developer of Vineland Forest Subdivision. Daryl Fortier: Alright, thank you. Aanenson: And that was created just so there was an existing home on Vineland Forest. That was just created so that person could have a drive and they don't even need it anymore. Emmings: Say Daryl? Daryl Fortier: Yes. Emmings: On the Vineland Forest plat, you had a similar issue over the 7 feet. Extra 7 feet along Pleasant View Road, isn't that right? Do you remember that? 1 Daryl Fortier: That's correct. Emmings: You didn't want to give that to us either but you did, didn't 1 you? Daryl Fortier: Actually it was on Troendle. Vineland did not give up the II 7 feet. Troendle plat did. Emmings: Oh, okay. It was Troendle. 1 Daryl Fortier: I believe it was deemed as an oversight on the Vineland plat. ' 1 • • Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 1992 - Page 6 11 Emmings: Yeah, you're right. ' Aanenson: Those three lots. • Batzli: Anyone else want to speak to this matter at this time? Erhart moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Batzli: Tim, do you want to lead us off? Erhart: Yeah, what's Outlot B? Why does that City want that? What is it ' used for now? Aanenson: Utility easements is what we'd like to maintain ownership for. ' Erhart: Okay, you still have those easements though if you allow this to be used as a driveway? ' Hempel: It's currently owned by the City, Outlot B is. We do not, with the plat we do not have any drainage or utility easements over it because we own the property. ' Erhart: I know but you would maintain the right to go over that? Hempel: Undoubtedly an agreement the City Attorney would prepare. Erhart: That's your intention here? ' Hempel: That's right. Erhart: Okay, essentially he's getting almost like a driveway easement then? Aanenson: Right. • ' Erhart: And moving the property line to the south 10 feet, you feel that's required because the rear yard setback, because the house actually faces east. There is no way to view it as the back yard being the west I property line? Aanenson: Even if it's the rear, the supplementary regs as far as this. Krauss: Yes, it's frontage is on Pleasant View regardless of which way the house if oriented. Aanenson: But even so, the size of that garage, because it's almost, well it's 755 square feet and an accessory structure has to be less than 400 to be get that benefit of being up closer to the setback. If we interpret it ' the other way. Erhart: Item number 3. You say you want a landscaping and tree preservation and home placement plan at the time the subdivision is done. Isn't that normally done with the building permit application? • Planning Commission Meeting 1 February 19, 1992 - Page 7 Aanenson: Home placement plan be submitted? Erhart: What you're trying to do now is essentially tie down where the home is going to be? Aanenson: Well he's going to submit a home building plan. 1 Krauss: It's in the building permit. Erhart: Okay, does that have to be in here as a requirement then? 1 Krauss: Yeah. It's here as a requirement and it's tripped when they come in for a building permit. We can't add requirements to building permits 1 unilaterally. Erhart: You want to do it in here? Aanenson: Condition of the subdivision. Erhart: Should that state to be submitted with the building permit? 1 Krauss: Sure. Erhart: And item number 5. Who pays for that sanitary sewer and water brought to the property? Hempel: That would be paid for at'time of building permit application. 1 Erhart: By the applicant? Hempel: By the applicant. Erhart: Okay, I would read this as, the City just assume responsibility for it. The way the condition reads. Maybe it's not an issue. If I was the applicant, that's the way I'd read it. And 7 additional feet, what total right -of -way does that give us then on that side of it? Aanenson: It would be half of the 80 so it'd be a 40 foot half width. Erhart: 40 foot half width? 1 Aanenson: So we still need 7 on the other side. Erhart: Okay, that's pretty good for Pleasant View. That's the one that's all chopped up isn't it? That's all the questions I've got. Conrad: I agree with staff report. 1 Ledvina: No questions. Emmings: I agree with the staff report. 1 Farmakes: No further comments. 1 Planning Commission Meeting February 19, 1992 - Page 8 Batzli: Have we ever granted driveway easements over outlots that we own for access purposes before? ' Aanenson: I spoke with Roger and he said that that shouldn't be a problem but not that I know of. Batzli: Is this setting a precedent that the city has to do this everytime we get a landlocked? Krauss: What was unusual in this case was that we thought ahead enough when we platted the Vineland Forest to know that some kind of provision there was required and we just took possession of it. It's somewhat of an ' unusual situation in that regard. We've only allowed access to lots via private driveway for the last year and a half so it probably is the first time we've done it this way but that's the reason. ' Batzli: Is there any problem allowing access points onto Nez Perce, either because it's on the curb or because it's close to the house to the, whichever way to the right on the map is. Is that south? Aanenson: To the south, yeah. We looked at that. The way the driveways lineup and the homeowner came in and spoke with me oil that one and it 11 looks like it shouldn't conflict with his driveway at all. Batzli: Okay. Aanenson: But there was a concern but actually the best sight distance was right at that corner. The other way to develop it would be, I mean if they combine private driveways and come out on Pleasant View but we felt like it makes more sense to put it onto Nez Perce and allow more access onto • Pleasant View. It will be a Class II and 80 foot wide. Batzli: I guess my only comments are, I agree with the staff report. I'd like to see that several technical things happen when somebody makes the motion, including that the plans are included in the motion somewhere. That item number 1 reads so that the existing home meets the setback ' standards. I think we're talking about proposed Lot 1 or the garage and not necessarily the existing home. Just so that it's clear as to what we're trying to do there. And then an additional 7 feet of right -of -way, ' they're not giving us anything under this subdivision other than the 7 feet right? So it's not necessarily an additional 7 feet. They're just giving us 7 feet that isn't shown on the plan? ' Aanenson: Right. Batzli: Okay. I'd accept a motion. Erhart: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that we approve Subdivision #92 -2 as shown on the plans dated January 21, ' 1992 with the following conditions. Item number 1, delete the word home and substitute Lot 1 as shown on the plans. Item 3 to add the phrase, at the time of the building permit. And item 5, the phrase that states that the expense is the responsibility of the developer. 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 February 19, 1992 - Page 9 Conrad: Second. Erhart moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning. Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #92 -2 as shown on the plans dated January 21, 1992 with the following conditions: 1. The proposed property line for the lot split be moved a minimum of 10 II feet to the south so that the existing Lot 1 meets the setback standards of the RSF zone. 2. Lot 2 gain access by receiving a right to use Outlot B to Nez Perce from the city. 3. A landscaping, tree preservation and home placement plan be submitted at the time of the building permit for staff review and approval. 4. At the time of building permit issuance of Lot 2, Block 1, a connection' charge in the amount of $7,732.68 (1992 balance) should be collected. 5. The City will provide and install sanitary sewer and water to the property, at the developer's expense, at the time the building permit is issued for Lot 2. 6. The applicant shall dedicate to the City by final plat an additional 7 II feet of right -of -way along Pleasant View Road. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' PUBLIC HEARING: ' AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WEST 79TH STREET AND MARKET BOULEVARD: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 7, BLOCK 1, CROSSROADS PLAZA INTO ONE I LOT. B. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 7,268 SQUARE FOOT (2 STORY) BUILDING FOR PHASE I' AND PHASE II CONSISTING OF 4,200 SQUARE FEET. Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. , Batzli: Engineering, do you want to comment at this time before we hear from the applicant or about the traffic study or anything? , Hempel: As Sharmin had pointed out Mr. Chairman, kind of a last minute traffic study by the City's traffic engineer consultants, Strgar- Roscoe- Fausch, they had prepared the downtown traffic study so they're quite familiar with our future land use and potential number of cars using Market Blvd.. We also have the Eastern Carver County Transportation study that was prepared, in the year 2010 and full development, they estimated 7,400 trips per day on the street. That had engineering somewhat concerned with a full access onto Market Blvd.. Based on their calculations that Strgar- Roscoe performed, if future land uses intensify in the downtown area, we may have to relook at this intersection. If the number of accidents become' 1 • • 1 a CITYOF �4 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Planner II FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician DATE: February 5, 1992 ' SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Edwards /Vogel Addition LUR 92 -2 Upon review of the preliminary plat dated October 16, 1991 prepared by DeMars - Gabriel Land Surveyors, Inc., I offer the following II comments: Utilities ' Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the parcel. Individual sanitary sewer and water service have been extended from Pleasant View Road to the property line for proposed Lot 1. However, for Lot 2 the City will need to extend sewer and water service to the property line either from Nez Perce Drive or ' the utility lines located adjacent the westerly property line of the parcel. ' The City's assessment records indicate this parcel was previously assessed one connection charge. With the proposed subdivision, an additional connection charge should be collected at the time of building permit issuance for Lot 2, Block 1. The connection charge payable in 1992 is $7,732.68. The City will be responsible for extending the sanitary sewer and water service to the property line. As with all subdivisions, typically a development contract is prepared. However, since this is a simple lot split and there are no public improvements being installed, staff feels it is not necessary to prepare a development contract. The preliminary plat indicates no lot grading in conjunction with the subdivision. Storm sewer improvements have been installed with Vineland Forest Addition that would accommodate this parcel. 1 Is PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 Kate Aanenson February 5, 1992 Page 2 1 Appropriate erosion control measures will be employed at the time a building permit is issued. Streets Pleasant View Road currently exists with 33 feet of right -of -way south of centerline (66 feet total). Eventually, Pleasant View Road will be upgraded which will require additional right -of -way. According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study, Pleasant View Road is classified as a Collector -Class II which recommends 80 feet of right -of -way. Therefore, it is recommended the applicant dedicate to the City by the final plat, an additional 7 feet of right -of -way along Pleasant View Road. Recommended Conditions of Approval 1. At the time of building permit issuance of Lot 2, Block 1, a connection charge in the amount of $7,732.68 (1992 balance) should be collected. • 2. The City will provide and install sanitary sewer and water 1 service to the property at the time a building permit is issued for Lot 2. 3. The applicant shall dedicate to the City by final plat an 1 additional 7 feet of right -of -way along Pleasant View Road. jms 1 c: Charles Folch, City Engineer 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,., s- 5 . - - - � _.,, `Yr+'�a -„ .sew..,- 'd"i.F.� ;,-,: - t� dip+ �g - "`r�wa `- -7 iY - .. -� - z 'e - ° - 3 �`''�`r ffi_.':. fFS- 0 1 _ O O 0 fl i -- 0) co ti tD i - (I I / . I \ C 1 I HR /STMAS ' ' Ilir LAKE inivAir V 4k ow K E c MVP , _____________ 4. ■�� ` II 1 i SUBJECT SITE 41N lim IL (41 P IPA ■ IIt� 4' "lc ,, � a '` ` VINELAND FOREST . As ILIBIL ‘ ...k4C. N 4 ' 4 mr }vn V..v.v ■ 4 A .44 in . . ;: • • lia w„., 911Fiko fili, JE 1 1 il g Pr ; 11. Milliiii O (11 \ S * 1.• FrV4 -AS E i RI 111131 Uli j: 2„„ • A rAVAIM p i c k Viega\ .., -A, Mill I MEV rr& Illik 11 10:\ V 111 II TROENDLE tA.lf 1 i� _. ���r . . _ ham 1 N , . /Z. CARVO'/ `� erin►L .. �' _,*z t a� . ■ • , BEACH SHENEN 4 . 4 , PARK CIRCLE DO ei Q Q 1_ A . _ �■ ' �j , VIOLET :,. 4 ■311111111 Pill ,_. i ,‘‘‘ ,,,,___ .4 r 1i ' + - P illi 11.17 V 4 04 t . A Tr I- ri, v P q \\ __ OM li CIPO W 4c, fir - Aii, ■ RIM% . V. v c ° r ■ 17 1 • o p * . 1 t I st4 4 V • ET b a It ' 4 - \.„... .. k.k..,. ,„ ze , digh 7 11 .' ‘0t ■ ■ i Van ... ,.:„ FRANK JR & M BEDDOR GORD & P WHITEMAN WILLIAM P CUNNINGHAM II C/O VICTORY ENVELOPE 825 PLEASANT VIEW RD 865 PLEASANT VIEW RD 1000 PARK ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1 HENRY JR & S GRAEF FRANK - JR & M BEDDOR • WM & B GULICKSON I 855 PLEASANT VIEW RD 649 5TH AVE SO 830 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NAPLES FL 33940 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1 • DENNIS & G MATHIESEN ARTHUR & R OWENS COUNTRYSIDE MANAGEMENT -850 PLEASANT VIEW RD 6535 PEACEFUL LANE 1935 WAYZATA BLVD W I CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 - LONG LAKE MN 55391 DAVID & L LUNDAHL S THOMAS & S MORGAN JAMES & K LEDIN II 11852 HARVEST LANE 880 VINELAND COURT 840 VINELAND CT EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1 RICHARD & N HAJT BENJAMIN & M LAMMERS CARTER & K KELLY 1 820 VINELAND CT 861 VINELAND CT #126 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 5101 BOARSHEAD RD MINNETONKA MN 55345 1 DAVID & P DONNA DANIEL & J SYVERSON 881 VINELAND CT 921 VINELAND CT F BRUNO & M SKALICKY 1 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 6560 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1 WM BOIRE JONATHAN & L MCGRATH TIMOTHY & T KLOUDA II 801 PLEASANT VIEW RD 6381 FOX PATH 6401 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1 ERICK & J JOHNSON EIDEN CONSTRUCTION CHARLES & B ENDERSON il 6411 FOX PATH 4100 BERKSHIRE 6431 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PLYMOUTH MN 55441 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 1 STEVEN HACHTMAN JIMMY & M ROANE 860 FOX CT 6571 FOX PATH II CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 . 1 . 1 1