The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-32_HURT, CLINT & JENNIFER1j CITY OF CIIANIIASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PC Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone:952227.1100 Fax 952227.1110 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 MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Josh Metzer, Planner I DATE: February 13, 2006 SUBJ: CLINT & JENNIFER HURT: Request for After -the -Fact Hard Surface Coverage Variance for a Sport Court, 8491 Mission Hills Circle — Planning Case #05-32 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item appeared before City Council on November 14, 2005 where the request for a 2.76% impervious surface coverage variance was tabled so the applicants could meet with staff to explore ways to further reduce their hard cover percentage. The applicants were unable to purchase additional land from neighboring properties to increase the size of their lot, which would have reduced their hard cover percentage. They also looked at the possibility of reducing the size of their driveway, but due to its steep, curvilinear design, a reduction was not practical. At City Council's behest, the applicant has decided to keep the rear yard patio in place. The decision has been made to propose the removal of an additional 212 square Recreation center 2310 Coulter Boulevard feet from the sport court. The applicant is proposing to remove a total of 777 Phone:952.227,1400 square feet from the existing sport court leaving a sport court with approximate Fax:952.227.1404 dimensions of 53' x 31'. The dimensions of a high school basketball court is Planning & 50' x 84', a half court measures 50' x 42'. The Hurt's are requesting a sport Natural Resources court with less area than that of a basketball half -court. They are also proposing Phone:952.227.1130 the removal of a 120 square -foot concrete slab and 119 square feet of retaining Fax: 952.227.1110 walls. Public Works 1591 Park Road Existing Hard Cover Calculations: Proposed Hard Cover Calculation: Phone: 952.227.13W Lot Area = 20,595 sq. ft. Lot Area = 20,595 sq. ft. Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center House = 1,968 sq. ft. House = 1,968 sq. ft. Phone: 952.227.1125 Driveway = 1,473 sq. ft. Driveway = 1,473 sq. ft. Fax: 952.227.1110 Walk & Porch = 242 sq. ft. Walk & Porch = 242 sq. ft. Patio = 93 sq. ft. Patio = 93 sq. ft. Web site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Retaining Walls= 281 sq. ft. Retaining Walls= 162 sq. ft. Concrete Slab = 120 sq. ft. Concrete Slab = 0 sq. ft. Sport Court = 2,437 sq. ft. Sport Court = 1,660 sq. ft. TOTAL = 6,614 sq. ft. TOTAL = 5,598 sq. ft. 32.11% 27.18% The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Todd Gerhardt February 13,2006 Page 2 This is a request for a 2.18% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a sport court on property located in the Single Family Residential District at 8491 Mission Hills Circle. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 18, 2005, to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to deny the request for a 4.5% hard surface coverage variance and a 5-foot side yard setback variance. That decision is being appealed by the applicant. The City Council considered this item on November 14, 2005. City Council voted 5 to 0 to table the applicants' request for a 2.76% hard surface coverage variance, asking the applicants to meet with staff to explore ways to further reduce their hard cover percentage. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council denies Variance #05-32 for a 2.18% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a sport court on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) based upon the findings in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. The City Council orders the property owner to: 1. Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements." Should City Council choose to approve this request, staff recommends the adoption of the following motion: "The City Council approves Variance #05-32 for a 2.18% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a sport court on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following condition: 1. The applicants shall remove areas of impervious surface as shown on the plans." ATTACHMENTS 1. Revised Staff Report dated November 14, 2005. 2. City Council Minutes dated November 14, 2005. 3. Survey Illustrating Impervious Surface Removal Proposal. glplan\2005 planning ca XOS-32 hurt varianceUeb 13 executive summaryAm CITY OF CHMSEN 7700 Markel Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone, 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952227.1180 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 6 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 www.achanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Josh Metzer, Planner I DATE: November 14, 2005 SUBJ: CLINT & JENNIFER HURT: Request for After -the -Fact Hard Surface Coverage Variance for a Sport Court, 8491 Mission Hills Circle — Planning Case #05-32 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item is being appealed to City Council by the applicant. Since this application was presented to the Planning Commission the applicant has proposed the removal of additional hard cover which has reduced the variance percentage being requested and has eliminated the need for a 5 foot side yard setback variance. The staff report has been revised to reflect these changes. This is a request for a 2.76% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a sport court on property located in the Single Family Residential District at 8491 Mission Hills Circle. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. PLANNING SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 18, 2005, to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to deny the request for a 4.5% hard cover restriction variance and a 5 foot side yard setback variance. That decision is being appealed by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommends adoption of the motion as specified on page 7 of the staff report dated October 18, 2005. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 18, 2005. 2. Planning Commission Minutes dated October 18, 2005. g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-32 hurt varianw\ezecutive sununary.dim The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DA&: October 18, 2005 CC DATE: November 14, 2005 REVIEW DEADLINE: November 15, 2005 CASE #: 05-32 BY: JM PROPOSAL: Request for 43 2.76% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction and a 5 feet side 5wd setbaek varianse for the addition of a sport court on property located in the Single Family Residential District at 8491 Mission Hills Circle. The sport court has been built. LOCATION: Lot 6, Block 2, Marsh Glen 8491 Mission Hills Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 APPLICANT: Clint & Jennifer Hurt 8491 Mission Hills Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.47 acre DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 4 5 2.76% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a sport court. The sport court has already been built. Staff is recommending denial of this request. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. 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. 0 Hurt Variance Planning Case #05-32 Oeteber 1 November 14, 2005 Page 2 Lake Susan -1 SUBJECT SITE I APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 20-91. Zoning compliance review. (a) Zoning compliance review shall be required for the construction of structures which do not require building permits to determine compliance with zoning requirements such as setback, site coverage, structure height, etc. (b) Any zoning compliance review application that fails to meet zoning ordinance requirements shall be denied by the community development director. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The subject property is located southeast of Great Plains Boulevard and north of West 86a' Street on Mission Hills Circle and is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The applicant is requesting a 43 2.76% (which represents 926:78 568.25 square feet of site coverage) hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a sport court, approximately 53'x 40 35', bringing the hard surface coverage to 29.5 27.76%. This structure has already been built. Impervious surface means any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of storm water. It shall include, but not be limited to, gravel driveways, parking area, buildings and structures. Hun Variance Planning Case #05-32 9eteber18 November 14, 2005 Page 3 Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (5) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 percent. Sec. 20-904. Accessory structures. (3) Tennis courts and swimming pools may be located in rear yards with a minimum side and rear yard setback of ten feet, but must comply with applicable ordinary high water mark setbacks. Sec. 20-908. Yard regulations. (6) The placement of any structure within easements is prohibited, except for those structures specified herein. Fences may be allowed within an easeigent with an encroachment agreement if they do not alter the intended use of the easement. A driveway or sidewalk from the street to the house crossing drainage and utility easements at the front of the property are exempt from this requirement. 0 • Hurt Variance Planning Case #05-32 9eteber 18 November 14, 2005 Page 4 BACKGROUND The subject property was platted as part of Marsh Glen which was recorded on November 8, 2000. The house was built in 2001. The 60'x40' sport court was not shown on the plans for the building permit application. The subject property is located in the Single Family Residential (RSF) district and has an area of 20,595 square feet. In the RSF district 25% is the maximum permitted impervious surface coverage for a lot. The applicant has a hard cover of 32.11 %, is proposing to remove 334 897 square feet (2-.Q 4.35%) of hard cover, and is requesting a 43 2.76% hard cover variance. The applicant is removing enough of the sport court to eliminate the need for a side yard setback variance. The appheant is also requesting a 5 feet side The hard cover issue came to the attention of the City in the spring of 2005 with an anonymous phone call from a resident inquiring about construction of the sport court close to the applicants' property line. Upon inspection of the property, it was clear that various portions of the improvements were on, or extended across property lines onto neighboring property. It also appeared the lot could be over on the maximum hard cover percentage. When it was clear the sport court did not meet required setbacks, the applicant was informed that the property would have to be brought into compliance with City Code or a variance would be need to be applied for. After meeting with staff to discuss the issues surrounding the sport court, the applicant decided to have an as - built survey completed on their property. The as - built survey revealed the existing hard cover was 32.11%. Variance requests for relief from hard cover and setback restrictions were applied for on September 16, 2005. Hurt Variance Planning Case #05-32 Oeteber 18 November 14, 2005 Page 5 ANALYSIS The site is zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). The applicant has completed construction of the sport court in question. Chanhassen City Code does not require building permits for sport courts. However, such structures do require a zoning compliance review. The City uses zoning compliance reviews to ensure that structures, which do not require a building permit, still comply with zoning ordinances. Criteria of a zoning compliance review include setbacks, hard surface coverage and structure height. The applicant has proposed the removal of the concrete slab (120 sq ft), the area of the sport court lying within the 10-foot drainage & utility easement on the south edge of the property (300 sq ft), the area of the sport court lying outside within the 5 foot side yard setback (265 sq ft), the paver patio in the rear yard (93 sq ft), those portions of retaining wall located within drainage and utility easements surrounding the sport court (119 sq ft) and that portion of retaining wall extending 9 feet across the southern property line onto Mission Hills Garden Homes Homeowners Association property. Existing Hard Cover Calculations: Lot Area = 20,595sq. ft. House = 1,968 sq. ft. Driveway = 1,473 sq. ft. Walk, Stoop, Porch = 242 sq. ft. *Patio *Retaining Walls *Concrete Slab 93 sq. ft. 281 sq. ft. 120 sq. ft. *wort Court = 2,437 sq. ft. TOTAL = 6,614 sq. ft. 32.11% *Portions of indicated items proposed to be removed. Proposed Hard Cover Calculation: House Driveway Walk, Stoop, Porch Patio Retaining Walls Concrete Slab 1,968 sq. ft. = 1,473 sq. ft. 242 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 162 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. Sport Court = 1,872 sa. ft. TOTAL 6,,07-5 sq- ft. 29-5,% TOTAL = 5,717 sq. ft. 27.76% The applicant will be removing 5 feet by the entire length of the west side of the court to comply with the 10-foot side yard setback. eexrt The applicant would have to remove and additional 568.25 square feet of hard cover in order to comply with ordinance. The applicant could maintain a1,'� 1,303.75 square -foot sport court is Hurt Variance Planning Case #05-32 9etober 1 November 14, 2005 Page 6 (approximately 49'Y,30' 38'x 35% this would allow the applicant to continue to enjoy their backyard while complying with ordinance requirements. The area of a basketball court inside the three-point arc is approximately 628 square feet. The applicant could maintain a sport court nearly twice this size and still comply with ordinance. Another option for removal of hard cover would be reduction of driveway area. The post -construction runoff pattern appears to be consistent with the drainage pattern that existed before the sport court was constructed. Drainage flows to the existing pond southwest of the Hurt residence within the Mission Hills townhome development. Based on the Mission Hills storm water design calculations, this pond can accommodate the additional runoff from the impervious area for which the Hurts are requesting a variance. However, staff is concerned that, should the Hurt variance request be granted, future requests for a variance within this drainage area may be requested and granted based on precedence. Should future variances be granted, the capacity of the pond may be exceeded; therefore, staff recommends that the hard cover variance request be denied. While the applicant has expended money for the improvements, such expenditure does not justify the granting of a variance. Approval of a variance is contingent upon proof that the literal enforcement of the Chanhassen City Code would cause an undue hardship. Not having a reasonable use of the property would constitute an undue hardship. Reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. Reasonable use of this property, a single-family home with a two - car garage, already exists. Any use of the property beyond that discussed above is strictly ancillary to the principal use. Based on these facts, staff must recommend denial of this request. FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. By having a single-family home and a two -car garage the property owner has reasonable use of the property. Additionally, the applicant could maintain a smaller sport court. 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 that lie within the Single Family Residential District. C. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Hurt Variance Planning Case #05-32 9eteber-1S November 14, 2005 Page 7 Finding: The improvements increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: Construction of the sport court was completed before a zoning compliance review was performed; therefore, this is a self-created hardship. 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 due to the increase in runoff from this property. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. RECOMMENDATION Staff Planning Commission recommends that the Planning Commis City Council adopt the following motion: "The Plaargag GeffHnis City Council denies Variance #05-32 for a 4-5 2.76% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a sport court on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) based upon the findings in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. The City Council orders the property owner to: 1. Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements." Should City Council choose to approve this request staff recommends the adoption of the following motion: "The City Council approves Variance #05-32 for a 2.76% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a sport court on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following condition: 0 Hurt Variance Planning Case #05-32 Petigher 98 November 14, 2005 Page 8 1. The applicant shall remove the following areas of hard cover: concrete slab (120 sq it), the area of the sport court lying within the 10-foot drainage & utility easement on the south edge of the property (300 sq it), the area of the sport court lying outside within the 5 foot side yard setback (265 sq it), the paver patio in the rear yard (93 sq it), those portions of retaining wall located within drainage and utility easements surrounding the sport court (119 sq ft) and that portion of retaining wall extending 9 feet across the southern property line onto Mission Hills Garden Homes Homeowners Association property." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Letter and Variance description from Clint & Jennifer Hurt stamped "Received September 16, 2005". 4. Letter from Mission Hills Garden Homes Homeowners Association stamped "Received September 20, 2005". 5. Numerous letters from various Chanhassen residents in support of Hurt Variance. 6. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List. 7. As -Built Survey. gAplan\2005 planning mm\05-32 huwt varia e\slaff mportAm CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Clint & Jennifer Hurt for 4.5% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction and a 5-foot side yard setback variance for the addition of a sport court — Planning Case No. 05-32. On October 18, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Clint & Jennifer Hurt for 4.5% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction and a 5-foot side yard setback variance for the addition of a sport court on property located in the Single Family Residential District at 8491 Mission Hills Circle. 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 (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 6, Block 2, Marsh Glen. 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. Literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other properties in the Single Family Residential district. c. The improvements increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship. e. The granting of the variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 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 0 i of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #05-32 Variance dated October 18, 2005, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Planning Commission denies the Variances from the impervious surface and side yard setback restrictions for the addition of a sport court. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 18th day of October, 2005. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION II.", gAp1ant2005 planning casw\05-32 hurt vaiianc6ftndings of factdoc Its Chairman 2 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Name and + . IP 1/1 ✓l i I none: H5;(-yly-93D Fax: Email: h0ZV)urt (@ e'5'9 • h e_t Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review' Subdivision' Planning Case No. OS_,3a RECEIVED SEP 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Owner Name and Address: �.-/. - — — Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements -)4*10_ Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign" - $75 + $100 Damage Deposit X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"' - $50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $d-on 00 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. Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'/z" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital cop v in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tif) format. Applicant to obtain notification sign from City of Chanhassen Public Works at 1591 Park Road and install upon submittal of completed application. $100 damage deposit to be refunded to applicant when sign is returned following City Council approval. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME: - t/ f/J / VLW t mal =t//j' OS/ — LOCATION: R_' 1 SSI(a/1_ ) 1/5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TOTALACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: YES / i/ NO � PRESENT ZONING: _SI/Lalk Lyz 51((< REQUESTED ZONING: I , PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: I REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: !�f: e. o ached 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. 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. Signature of Applicant 9-15-(0S Date of Fee Owner Date GAplanVonns0eve"ent Review Applicatlon.DOC Rev. 4/05 wui. os RECEIVED September 16, 2005 SEP 16 2005 Dear Planning Commissioners, C17-YOFCHANHASSEN We are applying for a side setback and hard surface cover variance from the City of Chanhassen. We'd like to share with you reasons why you should consider recommending our variance to the City Council. On June 10, 2005, a letter arrived in the mail from Josh Metzer, stating that "your property is in violation of Chanhassen City Code." We were devastated. When we built our sport court in May of 2005, we certainly did not intend for it to be as big a deal as it has become. We are fully aware that our contractor did not consult with the city before it was built, and we are taking responsibility for that as well. There is nothing we can do about that, other than to apologize to you. We are just average homeowners, so we weren't aware of what needed to be done to build a sport court. That is why we hired a licensed contractor to do the job. He assured us that he would take care of the permits and whatever else needed to be done to build the sport court of our dreams. When we received Josh's letter, we immediately phoned our contractor and had him stop working on the sport court. Unfortunately, at that point, it was almost completed. We realize our retaining walls are abundant and will gladly take them out. That is the least of our problems. But it hurts us that the sport court will have to be cut off. Not only will it be a financial burden, but we LOVE our court. We had enough room on the court to put a short court tennis court, along with a half court basketball court. The purpose of installing this sport court was not to increase the value of our land. Rather, we thought it would be a great way for us, our neighbors, children, and friends to have a safe place to play, close to home. The closest park to our house is approximately a mile away, via walking trail. Another park that we frequently visit requires us to cross Highway 101, which, in the future, is going to be made into a four -lane highway. We thought that if we could provide a safe place for our children and our neighbors' children to play, we would be doing a great service to our neighborhood. In addition, our neighbors believe our sport court to be an asset to the neighborhood. We have included several letters from neighbors as well, all in support of our variance. When we moved to Chanhassen two years ago, we planned to stay here forever. We want to raise our children in this house and have them attend public schools, so our intention was to make our home a great place to live forever. We are not intransigent people, and that is why we are asking you to see that we ARE taking SCANr,,D measures to try and comply, but we are also asking for you to grant us a variance in order for us to keep the remainder of our sport court. What we'd like to do is ask that you come out to see the court. We don't want you to come to the commission meeting in October and not have seen it in person. We want you to understand our point of view as well and not just the City Planner's point of view. Please consider this request, and being objective to our situation. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, intint and Hurt 8491 Mission Hills Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-974-8349 SCA;Jr,LD Description of Variance Request An "as -built" survey was completed on July 18, 2005. Attached you will find a copy of this survey. The retaining walls need to be removed in order to comply with city code. We will remove the wall on the entire west side of the sport court (75.5 sq. feet), the entire south end of the court (33.5 sq. feet), and the 19.5 sq. feet that are in the city easement on the southeastern corner of the sport court. In addition, we will remove 8 feet off the south side of the sport court (320 sq. feet) and the concrete slab (120 sq. feet) on the east side of our property. With these removals, our total hard surface coverage will be 6055.5 sq. feet. That brings our total hard surface coverage down to 29.4%. However, this amount still exceeds the Single Family Residential District's maximum hard surface coverage of 25%. Therefore, we are asking for a variance of 4.4% hard surface coverage. In addition, to avoid cutting any more off of our sport court, we are asking for a variance for a five-foot setback on the west side of our property. Please consider our variance with understanding. RECEIVED SEP 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SCANNED Justification of How Request Complies with the Findings for Granting a Variance a. We do not consider this variance an undue hardship. b. We did not intend for our property to be in violation of city code and we are trying to make things work. That is why we are applying for a variance for single family residential zoning. We also realize that there hasn't been any history of variances for sport courts. C. We did not intend for this sport court to increase the value of our home. Rather, we thought it would be a great way for us, our neighbors, kids, and friends to have a safe place to play, close to home. d. This hardship is not a self-created one. Our builder didn't check into the city for a zoning compliance review. We gave that responsibility to our builder, and he let us down. e. We don't believe that this variance will affect other neighbors and have included several letters from neighbors in support of our variance. f. There will not be any inadequate air or light supply from our sport court, no increase in congestion of public streets, and no increase in the danger of fire or endangerment of public safety. In addition, this variance will not diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. All of the neighbors we've talked to are in support of our variance. RECEIVED SEP 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHAND BCANNED September 19, 2005 Mr. Josh Metzer Planning Department City of Chanhassen PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mr. Metzer: RECEIVED SEP 2 0 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN It has come to the attention of the Mission Hills Garden Homes Board of Directors that the property owner's recreational improvement at 8491 Mission Hills Circle, Chanhassen MN is in violation of city codes. The Board is also aware that the owner of that property has been canvassing the residents of Mission Hills Garden Homes for petition signatures to gain support for allowing a variance to the city codes. The Mission Hills Garden Homes Board of Directors wishes to make it a matter of record with the Chanhassen Planning Department that the property bordering the improvements at 8491 Mission Hills Circle borders on property owned by the Mission Hills Garden Homes Association. While the border in question is closest to addresses 520 and 528 Mission Hills Drive, it is the Boards position that any requests for variance should be addressed to the Mission Hills Garden Homes Association and not the individual residents. It is also the position of the Mission Hills Garden Homes Board of Directors that the City of Chanhassen not allow the property owner at 8491 Mission Hills Circle a variance to city code due to the overall impact on properties of Mission Hills Garden Homes. Mission Hills Garden Homes, Board of Directors SCANNED r September 15, 2005 Building Commissioner City of Chanhassen Dear Sir or Madam: RECEIVED SEP 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN My husband and I live at 461 Mission Hills Court, here in Chanhassen. I am taking the time to write a letter in support of a variance of a 5' setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage for the sport court in the yard our next door neighbors, Clint and Jennifer Hurt. Seeing as their yard directly abuts our yard, we are two of the most affected by their landscaping choice and we have absolutely no problem with the size or design of the sport court. It should also be noted that the property in question is quite secluded and only two neighbors' views are directly even affected by what is in no means an eyesore. At one time, some of the home owners approached our builder to see if he could reserve a small plot of land or even sell a small lot to all of us so that we could have a playground for all the children in the neighborhood to play on. However, in his interest to make as much money as possible, he squeezed houses onto even the smallest lots he could. One of the sport court's main uses is to serve as a tennis court for those children and without a variance, it will no longer be anywhere near large enough for them to play. My husband and I would find it much more intrusive to have such a large section of the sport court tom back out. It is a blessing to have that yard finally landscaped, after the previous owner left it completely untended and had not even bothered to sod the back yard the entire time she lived at the address. (I've often wondered why the city did not get involved then!) It wasn't until Clint and Jennifer Hurt moved in that the huge mass of weeds in the back yard invading our lawn was finally dealt with, much to our relief. I truly appreciate your time and consideration towards this matter. I should think that the City could spend it's time on much more disturbing issues than one that the affected neighborhood has little or no problem with. Thank you once again. Sincerely, Lea Nordos SCANNED • RECEIVED SEP 16 2005 September I0, 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Building Commissioner RE: Letter of support for Clint and Jennifer Hurt's variance To whom it may concern: On behalf of Clint and Jennifer Hurt, please accept this letter of support concerning their sport court variance for a five foot side setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage area. We live two houses down from the Hurt's residence and were one of the first residents to move into the Mission Hills development. We have seen our neighborhood develop from the onset and strongly feel the addition of the Hurt's sport court is an asset to our community. The court has provided a much needed safe haven for our children to play on a daily basis. In addition, our neighborhood has held numerous social and recreational gatherings on the Hurt's court and hope to do so in the future. Our only option in years past was to hold these events in the street. The court is unobtrusive, blends in well with the environment, and has contributed to the property values of our neighborhood. We strongly support the addition of the Hurt's sport court and accordingly request that the Building Commission grant the applicable variance for a five foot setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage. Dan Eastman and Leanne Eastman Dan and Leanne Eastman 8451 Mission Hills Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-380-0245 SCANNED RECEIVED September 12, 2005 SEP 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Building Commissioner 7700 Market Boulevard City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN 55317 To Whom It May Concern, This letter is in response to Clint & Jennifer Hurt's sport court variance. We are John & Mary Gerogeorge and our address is 470 Mission Hills Court. Our back yard property and the Hurt's back yard are adjacent to each other. Jennifer and Clint Hurt approached us early on and asked if we had an issue about them putting in a sport court. We had no objections to them installing the sport court. Since the sport court has been in, there has been no problems. As a matter of fact, it brings some of the neighborhood families together for some family fun of tennis or basketball. Our opinion would be that we support the variance of the sport court. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us at (952) 934- 7011. Thank you, Joh i & ary t /V- SCANNED RECEIVED SEP 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN September 12'h, 2005 Dear Building Commissioner: I am writing in support of Clint and Jennifer Hurt's request for a variance of a five foot side setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage. Since Clint and Jennifer installed their sport court, it has become a real asset for the Mission Hills Lane neighborhood. It is continually being used by the neighborhood kids and adults alike. It also has served as an excellent and safe play area and has filled a void that existed due to the lack of a nearby park. We humbly ask that you consider granting this variance and take into account the benefit that it provides for this neighborhood. Sincerely, Scott and Mz elle To g 8455 Mission Hills Lane Chanhassen MN 55317 952-906-1046 SCANNED U • Dan and Jane Zureich 8490 Mission Hills Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 September 15, 2005 Building Commissioner City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: 8491 Mission Hills Circle Request for Variance To Whom It May Concern: RECEIVED SEP 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Our property borders to the East that of Jennifer and Clint Hurt (8491 Mission Hills Circle). Our family has used their sport court, which is the subject of their request for variance. We understand that the rock wall erected by the Hurts is currently situated on our shared property line and that the sport court is currently five feet from that line, as opposed to the ten feet required by the City of Chanhassen. It is our further understanding that if the Hurt's request for variance is granted, this rock wall will be removed and that the area on the east side of the sport court will be re -graded and re -sodded. We are writing this letter to inform you that based on our understanding of the above, we support Jennifer and Clint Hurts variance request for a five-foot side setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage. We take comfort in knowing that our children have someplace safe and close to play, and do not have to wont' about them playing in or crossing streets or venturing far from home to play at a park. The sport court is especially timely since we understand that in the near future Mission Hills Lane will be opened to Highway 101, which is being widened into a four lane road. If you have any questions, please contact us at 952-914-0879. ;/vVVrely, Dan and Jane Zureich I tG _Z,�� SCANNED is September 10, 2005 To: City of Chanhassen Building Commissioner Subject: Clint and Jennifer Hurt's Sports Court I am a neighbor to the Hurt's. I live at 8460 Mission Hills Circle, Chanhassen. RECEIVED SEP 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN I fully support the Hurt's Sport Court. It is as built as professional as something to be found in a local park. Furthermore, I have had the opportunity to use it and it will cause fewer injuries to children and adults than a concrete court. You should also be reminded that we do not have a public facility similar to the Hurt's in close proximity to our neighborhood. Therefore, I recommend you approve the five-foot side setback and a 29.4% hard surface coverage. As they said in the original movie; "Bad News Bears II" let the children play! I can be contacted during the daytime at 952-932-4101. Sincerely yours, to the City of Chanhassen SCANNED RECEIVED SEP, 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN September 14, 2005 Building Commissioner Re: Clint & Jennifer Hurt's Sport Court Dear Sir/Madam: We are writing to you today in an effort to communicate to you that we support Clint and Jennifer Hurt's variance of a five foot setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage. Our home is located just off the back of the Hurt's backyard and have been given the opportunity to play on and make use of their sport court. We currently do not have a neighborhood park and find this sport court to be an asset to our neighborhood and a privilege for our two children to have access to. Please take the time to consider this and allow the Hurt's to keep their sport court at its current size, I believe if it is eliminated or reduced in size it will no longer have the same benefit as it was originally intended for. Thank -you! Kelly, Dan, Cayman & Jordan Fasching 8550 Mission Hills Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-937-1229 SC;: FC RECEIVED SEP 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN September 15, 2005 To the Chanhassen Building Commissioner: Re: Sport Court Variance. Clint and Jennifer Hurt As residents of 8444 Mission Hills Lane, we are in support of Clint and Jennifer Hurt's variance of a five-foot side setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage. The Hurt's sport court has been a gathering place for BBQ's and other neighborhood events due to the fact they have the space as well as the sport court for recreation for the children as well as the adults. As a neighborhood we have had basketball games and anticipate having the Hurt's host hockey games for the neighborhood in the winter months. It should be noted that there is not a similar facility/recreation space in the immediate vicinity. It would be a determent to the neighborhood should this sport court be altered or removed. Again, our full support is behind this variance application. Sincerely, Kim & Conrade Thomas 8444 Mission Hills Lane (952) 937-7551 (Neighbors of Clint and Jennifer Hurt) SCANNED RECEIVED SEP 16 2005 September 12, 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Building Commissioner, This letter is in support of Clint and Jennifer Hurt's variance of a five foot side setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage of their sport court. We live directly next door to the Hurt's residence at 8481 Mission Hills Circle. With over 65 kids in this relatively small neighborhood and no park nearby, this sport court is a huge asset. We always know were our kids are and with our children in many City of Chanhassen sports, this is a nice and close practice ground. An approval of the Hurt's variance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much for your time. Sincerely, Dale and Rhonda Tirevold SCANNED RECEIVE® SEP 16 2005 September 14, 2005 CITY OFCHANHASSEN Chanhassen Building Commissioner, We are neighbors of Clint and Jennifer and are familiar with the variance discussion regarding their sport court. We have used the sport court and enjoy having it in our neighborhood. We are also in favor of them maintaining a variance of a five foot side setback and a 29.4% hard surface coverage. Please reconsider their plea and the support they have from the neighborhood to maintain a healthy outdoor -living environment. Sincerely, SCLN;JEC 0 September 11, 2005 Dear Building commissioner, RECEIVED SEP 16 2005 CITMF CHANHASSEN We live at 8471 Mission Hills circle (2 houses from Clint & Jennifer Hurt). we are in support of Clint and Jennifer Hurt's variance of a five foot side setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage. Please consider this request at the upcoming Planning commission Meeting. Thank you, lI�' Caroline and John Herbeck SCANNED RECEIVED September 10, 2005 SEP 16 2005 To: The Building Commissioner of Chanhassen City Council C'T' OF CHANHASSEN Clint and Jennifer Hurt are in our Mission Hills Lane Development. We would like you to know we are in support of their variance of a five food side setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage. Thank you, Patrick and Lee Anne Eastman 8425 Mission Hills Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 SCANNED • 11 Date: 9/15/06 To: City of Chanhassen MN From: Michael Maule 8464 Mission Hills Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Sport Court/ Clint and Jennifer Hw /Mission Hills Lane RECEIVED SEP 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN This memo is to inform the City of Chanhassen, MN that we (Micheal Maule and spouse Patricia Silva) are in support of Clint and Jennifer Hurt's variance of a five foot setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage. If you have any questions regarding this matter, you can reach us at 952 294 4545. Sincerely, Mic� Patricia Silva : SCANNED RECEIVED We are in support of Clint and Jennifer Hurt's variance. SEP 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN' We understand that the Hurts will • Remove the entire south retaining walls within the 10-foot city easement • Remove 320 square feet off of the south side of their sport court to comply with the 10-foot city easement , Printed Name Date Address _ Phone ture Sag l ,;n /Vlc(Aer�1 q� fr�os S`1KS r� �'ss;oti/�l�sL�� %OL 2107 kiYy ikovw� ilrs10 jr 8tf ff �c-t iss�i� f {�YJs Laic `T3� ASS/ s/Ds 51 a 01 5s M I-fijk — qsa-9;q-.� aLT�� 7��b� -n LLAr ssh ys-�0kQ9 1-5 CAN V��/�h/oo , • N E • RECEIVED SEP 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN D-r,(4li B(o%C t00 �Oi��ISSI�YI�v� 1-lo -oS We aVC urotm j 901A JI) appoof, v�Z✓cahc� fL� oov kviq�hbo�s el,kif w� 11�6 e-l-F tfi1�5 Gur��t cn Cklohhasse,, o), -lhe cizl-�fc 5�c It �O V6 a o Gl E-z4 Sf 67 f -f he 1 i A ✓-f l?iMO-e✓76C. M S(tipport -fi)c,- See , fie c-e co vle ✓<q-f . wt -expr✓;e✓7«d ilo n-eqct�'Ve, lv-vi pAet f VY-, he Spatef Gov v-�- '11L kld Sep' up, ly e4- S cr Posrfi-ve ASSef - -i'GrC /f pnocles Gt .s6c f a v1C( f Lr c�✓ pl acc fay vyvlt . y Gl'I�IGfv-Cvl /� �l'Le Gt✓CGt � �IG1y sir-�c� ✓r, pyo o'cl es 4 prate -for- f7irr (1 c S JO�iil�ev Gt ✓1Gj �r7 I o() -tG-)noSt I ve5. �Avl� you -ft✓ yocwv cn�tS;fit✓wfi a,,. P v 6f o �, d L ( ;e4 6-a cA V IV) SCANNED (�— v,Nk-asen MG2)'10&-el4o9 i • - /5,05 KnU its I 014rckat a o d e kctwcO RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2005 r I RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN City of Chanhassen Attn Building Commissioner: Scott and Shannon Fiedler 8511 Mission Hills Lane Chanhassen MN 55317 952-975-9802 We live in the upper cul-de-sac of the neighborhood. Our children play back and forth at each others houses. When the Hurt family decided to put the sport court in their backyard, they were very kind to invite their neighborhood friends to use the sport court at the Hurt home with parent supervision. We are very much in support of Clint and Jennifer Hurt's variance of a five foot side setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage. The sport court of the Clint and Jennifer Hurt Family does not have a negative impact on the city in any way. If the neighbors of Mission Hills Lane are in support of Clint and Jennifer, then pass the variance and move on to more important issues that the city should be focused on. Best regards, Scott and Shannon Fiedler 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO.05-32 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, October 18, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for after -the -fact hard surface coverage and side yard setback Variances for a sport court located at 8491 Mission Hills Circle. Applicant: Clint & Jennifer Hurt. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Josh Metzer, Planner I Email: imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on October 6, 2005) CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on October 6, 2005, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for the Clint & Jennifer Hurt Variance Request — Planning Case 05-32 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. C K n J. En el ardt, uty Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me thisl,4h dayofrx--4Igo_✓ ,2005. Notary kblic, :AT!''� •Ij.31 ENPlnesotaNy n , 2010Yl_, Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, October 18 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for after -the -fact hard surface coverage and side yard Proposal: setback Variances for a sport court Planning File: 05-32 Applicant: Clint & Jennifer Hurt Property 8491 Mission Hills Circle Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Meltzer at 952-227-1132 or e- Questions & mail imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online at http://206.10.76.6/weblink7 the Thursdayprior to the PlanningCommission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested parry is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that Includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for after -the -fact hard surface coverage and side yard Proposal: setback Variances for a sport court Planning File: 05-32 Applicant: Clint & Jennifer Hurt Property 8491 Mission Hills Circle Location: 1 A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 41 What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e- Questions & mail imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online at htto://206.10.76.6tweblink7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterabo Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council, The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciaUndustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersontrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the CityCounoff If you wish to have somethin to be included in the report, lease contact the Planningm Staff arson naed on the notfcaton. STATE OF MINNESOTA - DOT LYNN S KROISS 8 METRO RIGHT OF WAY STEPHEN J & MARTHA K KROISS MICHAEL & JENNIFER J RIDDING 1500 W CO RD B2 5605 ZUMBRA DR 8415 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN, ROSEVILLE , MN 55113 -3174 EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -7760 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7712 PATRICK J & LEE ANNE EASTMAN SCOTT & KRISTIN NEUMAN LEROY MCCARTY 8425 MISSION HILLS LN 8435 MISSION HILLS LN 8445 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7712 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7712 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7712 SCOTT A & MICHELLE M TORBORG PETER R & ANNE M VOAS STATE OF MINNESOTA - DOT 8455 MISSION HILLS LN 8450 MISSION HILLS CIR 395 JOHN IRELAND BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7712 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7720 631 TRANSPORTATION BLDG ST PAUL , MN 55155 -1801 DAVID R & BRENDA M WITZIG DANIEL EASTMAN & JEFFREY A GORRALL & 8465 MISSION HILLS LN LEANNE DODDS PATRICIA C GORRALL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7712 8451 MISSION HILLS CIR 8460 MISSION HILLS CIR CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-7720 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7720 KIMBERLEY THOMAS SCOTT R & STEPHANIE K RICH J CHARLES & BONNIE J EHLERS 8444 MISSION HILLS LN 8475 MISSION HILLS LN 8485 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7712 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7712 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7712 PATRICIA SILVA & CHILI & HUNG CHING CHAN JOHN N & CAROLINE O HERBECK MICHAEL D MAULE 8470 MISSION HILLS CIR 8471 MISSION HILLS CIR 8464 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7720 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7720 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7712 STATE OF MINNESOTA-DOT CHARLES J & ELAINE M EASTMAN ROBERT A & LISA K GAUVIN 395 JOHN IRELAND BLVD 8480 MISSION HILLS CIR 460 MISSION HILLS CT MAILSTOP 631 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7720 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7714 ST PAUL , MN 55155 -1899 RANDY V ROSETH & TONY L & PATRICIA J FERGUSON DALE E & RHONDA R TIREVOLD PENNY P WHITE 8495 MISSION HILLS LN 8481 MISSION HILLS CIR 450 MISSION HILLS CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7712 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7720 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-7714 MISSION HILLS GARDEN HOMES CLINT R & JENNIFER J HURT JOHN G & MARIGO N GEROGEORGE 2681 LONG LAKE RD 8491 MISSION HILLS CIR 470 MISSION HILLS CT ROSEVILLE , MN 55113 -1128 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7720 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7714 PATRICK S & CONSTANCE SULLIVAN SCOTT E & SHANNON L FIEDLER DANIEL M & JANE A ZUREICH 8500 MAYFIELD CT 8511 MISSION HILLS LN 8490 MISSION HILLS CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7719 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-7713 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7720 RICHARD A SWANSON BONITA R MENDEN KARLA K THOMSON 8520 MAYFIELD CT 8504 MAYFIELD CT 8524 MAYFIELD CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7719 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7719 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7719 RICHARD & EVELYN J KETTLER CONNIE M MOEHL STEVEN M & TRACY A SCHEID 8521 MAYFIELD CT 8540 MAYFIELD CT 451 MISSION HILLS CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7719 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7719 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7714 JEFFREY G & LEA J NORDOS VERNON W & BARBARA L LINDEMANN JULIRAYMOND C ORTMAN JR ORTMAN 461 MISSION HILLS CT 552 MISSION HILLS DR 8525 MIS E N HILLS CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7714 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7713 MICHAEL S & STEPHANIE R DILLE SUSAN M DEAN JOHN A & JUDITH A HRUBY 291 TIMBER HILL RD 8525 MAYFIELD CT 419 PORTSIDE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9129 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7719 AMELIA ISLAND FERNANDINA BEACH, FL 32034 -4841 DIANE M DEPOE JOCELYNE RYAN LAUREL J BOSECK 548 MISSION HILLS DR 576 MISSION HILLS DR 592 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 MATTHEW L & KATHLEEN ALBRECHT LAWRENCE D & NANCY E STEIN MARCELLA HOWE & JOYCE HANSON 6220 CASCADE PASS TRUSTEES OF TRUST 8541 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9476 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7713 596 MISSION HILLS CHANHASSEN, MN 55 55317 -7717 GEORGE D STACY SANDRA E GEVING DANIELT & KELLY A FASCHING 584 MISSION HILLS DR 536 MISSION HILLS DR 8550 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7713 HAROLD JR & POLLY L HARTIN SUSAN M HOAGLUND MARCIA L JOSEPHSON 540 MISSION HILLS DR 588 MISSION HILLS DR 528 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 PETER W & GLORIA JEAN WILCZEK ROGER A WAINWRIGHT NINA J KREIENBRINK 581 MISSION HILLS DR 532 MISSION HILLS DR 520 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 LYNETTE R LARSON ARDIS M OLUFSON RICHARD K & THERESA A HESS 512 MISSION HILLS DR 565 MISSION HILLS DR 8561 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7713 NADINE N NELSON VIRGINIA A WELLUMSON DALE E & BETTY HETLAND 484 FRISCO CT 585 MISSION HILLS DR 524 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7718 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 GEORGE J CARLYLE & CURTIS & PATRICIA BRANDON VERNIS M STROM JANELLE VEILLEUX CARLYLE 516 MISSION HILLS DR - 569 MISSION HILLS DR 8560 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 56317-7713 MARY A AINSWORTH RUTH M THONANDER LENORE J MOLSTAD 508 MISSION HILLS DR 549 MISSION HILLS DR 589 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 JANEEN D LANDSBERGER KATHY J MCKIM VIOLA M COLLINGHAM 480 FRISCO CT 533 MISSION HILLS DR 573 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7718 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7716 VERLE R & BETTE M POFFENBERGER ERWIN C & CLARA M SIDER SUNITA GANGOPADHVAV & 593 MISSION HILLS DR 553 MISSION HILLS OR S 71 MISSIOHAGATN HILLS L ADHVAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7713 RONALD S & BARBRA T EWING BARBARAJ WELLUMSON BONNIE JEAN THURK 8570 MISSION HILLS LN 577 MISSION HILLS DR 537 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7713 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 GRACE REGALADO CAROL K GELDERT BEVERLY E CHRISTENSEN 525 MISSION HILLS DR 557 MISSION HILLS DR 517 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 MONICA M GALUSKA LYNETTE LAABS JUBA FAMILY 1989 TRUST 509 MISSION HILLS DR 541 MISSION HILLS DR 8788 JEWEL RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-7716 LAS VEGAS, NV 89148-1435 FRANK J HANISH & ROBERT J ZINNEL THOMAS J BOURNE CAREN SOENS TRUSTEE OF TRUST 471 FRISCO561 MISSION HILLS DR 504 MISSION HILLS DR HASS CT CHANHASSEN, CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 CHEN, MN 55317 -7718 ADELINE R HARRIS JAMES E PARISH BERNARD M & JOANN C GAYTKO 529 MISSION HILLS DR 545 MISSION HILLS DR 521 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 is JAMES A & MARILYN L CRAWFORD 8581 MISSION HILLS UN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7713 JANET E BROWN 501 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 KATHLEEN MJOHANNES 430 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-7705 BRIAN M & DAWN M RODELL RILEY 8580 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7713 CARL P & VIRGINIA R PRIOR 500 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 JEAN M KAMRATH 434 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7705 ROBERT C & SUSAN J ERICKSON 513 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-7715 ROSEMARY B WILL 475 FRISCO CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7718 AMANDA C WINBLAD-VONWALTER 438 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7705 MICHELLE J ERICKSON-CODY JENNIFER RENKLY JOHN D & MARY JO EICHLER 442 MISSION HILLS WAY E 446 MISSION HILLS WAY E TRUSTEE OF TRUST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7705 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7705 RIO28 VERDEDE ,ACORDOALN IO AZ 85263 -7146 Public Hearing Notification Area i (500 feet) Hurt Variance Planning Case No. 05-32 8491 Mission Hills Circle City of Chanhassen Lake Susan M/SS�On Hills U \Ja = SUBJECT SITE 0 0 N_ Mission ills Crt r U) s o � CD m 86th St Marshland Trl �� CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2005 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uh Sacchet, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, Kurt Papke, and Jerry McDonald MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Keefe and Deborah Zom STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Josh Metzer, Planner I; and Alyson Moms, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR AFTER THE FACT HARD SURFACE COVERAGE AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A SPORT COURT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8491 MISSION HILLS CIRCLE. APPLICANT, CLINT & JENNIFER HURT, PLANNING CASE NO.05-32. Public Present: Name Address Vern Lindemann 552 Mission Hills Drive Clint & Jennifer Hurt 9491 Mission Hills Circle Jane Zureich 8490 Mission Hills Circle Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item Sacchet: Thanks. Questions from staff. Any questions? Not at this time? Alright, do we have an applicant here? If you want to come forward. State your name and address for the record and why don't you tell us a little bit of what's going on here from your point of view. And you may want to take that microphone in front of you. Jennifer Hurt: I'll take it all the way down here. I'm used to that. Well first of all we want to thank you for listening to our request. We want you to know that obviously we're in a little bit of a bind. Sacchet: So you are Clint and Jennifer Hurt. Jennifer Hurt: Yes, I'm Jennifer Hurt. This is Clint Hurt. Sacchet: Just to be clear, thank you. Jennifer Hurt: Yes, sorry forgot. Anyhow we now know that our Sport Court, which was built in May of 2005 is not in compliance with city code. When we hired our contractor back in May Planning Commission Meeting — October 18, 2005 of 2005 he assured us that he would be taking care of everything for us, including checking in with you to make sure that we were in compliance with the city. We felt confident that the work would be done in accordance with the city but we were let down. We want you to know that we would have never built the Sport Court had we known this would be in violation of city code, but now we have to deal with the fact that we have a court that is way too big and that's why we're applying for this variance. So what we're requesting is a 4.4% hard surface coverage variance and also a 5 foot side yard setback variance. We plan to remove 8 feet off of the south side of the Sport Court, which is 320 square feet total. We will also remove a concrete slab that we had planned on putting a shed, which is 120 square feet and we will also be removing 1281/2 total square feet of retaining wall. So we have 16 letters from neighbors who support us and have benefited from our Sport Court as part of our neighborhood. Several children in our neighborhood have also used the Sport Court. We take comfort in knowing that our children are in our back yard rather than a mile away or still playing in a park. While the parks are fun to visit, the closest park to us is Rice Marsh Lake, which is accessible via walking trail but it's approximately a mile away. And we also have Lake Susan Park which is the park we visit frequently but we have to cross over Highway 101 and in the very near future here we know that Highway 101 is not going to be a safe thing to cross. So, let's see our intent of installing the Sport Court was not to increase the value of our home but rather provide a safe place for children to play close to our house. Clint Hurt: My wife being short I've got to always lift things up. We've also, my name is Clint Hurt. We also went over to the town houses and actually I talked with several of the people right in the existing that actually overlook our Sport Court, and by going with them you know we also, we're showing a willingness to take care of that, the setback, or the 8 foot. Cutting off the 8 off the back would actually you know take the town houses and put everything on that back side. In doing, talking so I did talk with two of the board members. I also talked with several of the occupants there that a lot of them were just saying why can't you just leave it all in you know, it's for the kids. There's nothing better than to hear children laughing. It's also nice to see the kids playing somewhere not in the streets, and being a nurse I take care of kids you know and it's stuff that we don't like to see happen when kids get hit by cars. This is exactly how we feel. We absolutely love our Sport Court and we love seeing the kids play back there. It takes them off the streets and puts them in a safe area. By also taking off that 8 feet off the back, we're actually making it so we aren't able to play tennis anymore, which we already were able to do, so now what we actually can do is, we can actually play 3 on 3 basketball without crowding each other. We can Rollerblade on it with you know several kids on it. We can play volleyball. We can play badminton. We can ice skate on it with the kids in the wintertime too. Keeping kids off the streets is our main thing. We feel by cutting the Sport Court down to the allotted size that it says, we wouldn't be able to have as much fun on it and also we wouldn't be able to allow as many kids on the Sport Court at one time to keep that safe also. So please consider our request. Sacchet: Thank you. Do we have any questions for the applicants? Alright, yep go ahead Jerry. McDonald: I've got one. One of the things I read through here was, I guess you're real reluctant to want to, either to take it out or cut it down but what harm would it do to cut down the size of it so it is in compliance. I mean you've got quite a bit area there and even if you were to cut down 2 Planning Commission Meeting — October 18, 2005 a little bit more, there's still more than enough area to play basketball on and those types of things. Clint Hurt: If we cut it down to the size that it's, what it is. Wouldn't have a, wouldn't be able to play volleyball. Wouldn't be able to ice skate. Wouldn't be able to Rollerblade. Keep the kids off the you know streets. Jennifer Hurt: I think in addition it's, you know it's somewhat of a financial burden for us. I mean we invested this money and put this into a Sport Court. Now we have to take it out. I mean I understand that there are certain rules and regulations and we did break those rules and again it's not something that we intended to do. You know like I said if we had, going all back before this all started we would have never considered something like that but now we are stuck in the situation and it would be a bit of a financial burden. I mean it's already cutting, we're cutting off a decent chunk at the end of it so that we're in compliance with the easement on the townhouse side. On the south side of our court. And if we are to cut as much as we are supposed to cut so that we can reach that 25% hard surface coverage, we're cutting our court in a little bit less than half of what it is. McDonald: Okay, let me ask you a question about the contractor. When he put this together were there guarantees that he was going to take care of all the permits and had he dealt with the city before? Clint Hurt: ...times to make sure that he was going to talk with the council or whoever it was here to check with any zoning or regulations or rules that we'd actually have to go through and he said that he'd take care of everything for us. McDonald: Okay, have you talked to him about any of the costs if you have to comply with the ordinance? Clint Hurt: We will have to do that yes. We have talked with him and he's willing to work with us but it's. Jennifer Hurt: It's still going to be, we've invested the money and I don't think we're getting it back. Sacchet: So at least it won't cost you more to change it. Jennifer Hurt: It won't cost us more but it sure wouldn't have cost us so much to begin with. Sacchet: It wouldn't have cost you so much in the first place. Jennifer Hurt: Right, because we pay by square footage. Sacchet: Any other questions Jerry? Planning Commission Meeting — October 18, 2005 Sacchet: Actually I'd like to add on that a little bit. I mean are there any other possibilities to reduce this hard cover? Jennifer Hurt: Well I guess if there are suggestions from you we'd certainly would consider that and. Papke: Have you considered making a level grass area? Some people do play tennis on grass courts for instance which would be permeable. Jennifer Hurt: Okay, we haven't thought of that. Metzer: There's some patio area they could possibly... some sidewalk area up front. That'd be an option for me to, obviously some is still going to have to be removed from the Sport Court to comply but. Sacchet: It's a pretty sizeable driveway. Almost 1,500 square feet and then there's the walk through porch. Maybe some of that could be made impervious. Jennifer Hurt: Take off the driveway? Sacchet: Well you need a driveway. Jennifer Hurt: Well, not really. Clint Hurt: Just got to shorten it up. Larson: Or narrow it. Jennifer Hurt: Narrow it. Sacchet: And where do you need the side yard variance? Is that to the. Jennifer Hurt: It appears as though we have the. Metzer: That'd be the side. Jennifer Hurt: Right. Sacchet: So with what you take out to the, I guess that's to the south. There you wouldn't need it on the south side but you would need it on the west side. Jennifer Hurt: And on the south side we're complying with the south side. It's the west side that we are asking for a variance as well. Larson: Is that a 3 car garage you have? El Planning Commission Meeting — October 18, 2005 Jennifer Hurt: Yes. Larson: What if you were to make it closer to 2 car? Well, it kind of looks like it already is but, you could make it quite narrow and then just at the very end scoot it over so you can get, you know you could park in front of it if you needed to or whatever but. We'd like to work with you on this. Jennifer Hurt: Thank you. Appreciate that. Sacchet: It looks like you have huge support from all the neighbors. Jennifer Hurt: We do. Sacchet: Did any of the neighbors have any reservations? Jennifer Hurt: Reservations? No. Not that we're aware of. Sacchet: It seems like everybody is just. Jennifer Hurt: Well we love it. I mean we. Clint Hurt: ... the retaining wall and everybody loves the boulder wall on one side. Sacchet: Now you're talking about taking out the retaining walls, most of them. What impacts will that have on your? Clint Hurt: On one side we actually have to come in with a grader. Hire a grading contractor and actually be sloped off. Sacchet: So you have to slope it a little bit, yeah. Jennifer Hurt: But we met with Dan Remer, the city engineer when we met with Josh and we talked about that and... Sacchet: It can be sloped and... Jennifer Hurt: ...when it was originally and he said that would be fine. We didn't finish it. When we moved into this house 2 years ago it was obviously already built. There was a previous owner there and she never finished off that back part so that was ideal to us because we had plans of either putting a pool or a Sport Court back there so we thought well great, we don't have to rip up a bunch of sod and you know whatever else would have been back there. Landscaping. Clint Hurt: And I mean there was a lot of, I mean weeds and stuff like that so it's taking control over really our back yard. • • Planning Commission Meeting — October 18, 2005 Jennifer Hurt: Our neighbors are thrilled to see that it's better than weeds that's back there. Larson: It's beautiful. I mean there's no doubt that it's really. Undestad: Is there, Josh is there, you back up to some townhomes and I noticed one of the letters in here was from the neighboring association or something. Is there other, I mean is there common areas out there in the townhomes or in that neighborhood that could be offset or mitigated somehow with hard surface? Metzer: We, you know we can't do a hard surface easement. I don't think we do that. I guess it would have to come down to a sale of property to pick up land with the homeowners association. Al-Jaff: Mission Hills has a totlot. That's part of the homeowners association for Mission Hills. Not part of. Undestad: So there isn't really any outlots or anything that they'd have an opportunity to buy a piece of. Al-Jaff: I can't think of any. Jennifer Hurt: To make up for extra land so it comes down our hard surface coverage. Sacchet: And you said the contractor is not really willing to give anything back. Jennifer Hurt: The contractor is willing to. Sacchet: But he's willing to help you at least not incur more costs. Jennifer Hurt: Well he'll take it out for us, you know. Clint Hurt: He won't be refunding anything. Jennifer Hurt: He's not going to be refunding any money to us and we've paid 90% of it. Sacchet: I mean he did assure you that he would check and he's. Jennifer Hurt: Yes, and he's well aware of the fact that he did assure us of that. Sacchet: You'd have to have some leverage there. Jennifer Hurt: We do. Sacchet: Any other questions? No? Alright. Jennifer Hurt: Thank you. 0 Planning Commission Meeting — October 18, 2005 Sacchet: This is a public hearing. I'd like to open that. If anybody wants to comment, please come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say. Vern Lindemann: Good evening. I'm Vern Lindemann. I'm the President of Mission Hills Garden Homes Association. The commons property that abuts the property in question here, and let me give you a little background here. I don't know who's planning was involved in this Sport Court or whatever the situation was but there wasn't a lot of thought given to the neighborhood impact when that was put in. No one talked to any of us ahead of time as to what we would think about it. The Sport Court is very, very close to two bedroom windows of two of our townhomes. As a matter of fact one of the residents has since sold because she could not put up with the noise of the banging, of tennis balls of the Sport Court. He echo's up the hill. It is very noisy. I live and I realize this isn't a noise issue but it is an issue of planning. When they put in that court, they were running cement trucks on our private streets. We are a townhome association. We own all the streets. We own all the utilities in our association. Cement trucks were running down our streets. I had to actually kick them out and tell them they had to use the city streets because of the weight restriction on our streets. No one asked us about that. And we're kind of thinking this is one of those situations where some people think it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission. And I heard the folks before me say that all the neighbors are in favor of it. That is absolutely not true. The two townhome owners that are closest to the court are definitely not in favor of it. They talked to board members, myself included. We refused to sign the petition. I brought it to the townhome board and I'd like to have you, I'd like to read a letter from the townhome board to the city. I believe you have a copy of that. It has come to the attention of the Mission Hills Garden Homes Board of Directors that the property owners recreational improvement at 8491 Mission Hills Circle, Chanhassen, Minnesota is in violation of city codes. The Board is also aware that the owner of that property has been canvassing the residents of Mission Hills Garden Homes for petition signatures to gain support for allowing a variance to the city code. The Mission Hills Garden Homes Board of Directors wish to make it a matter of record with the City of Chanhassen planning department that the property bordering on the improvements at 8491 Mission Hills Circle borders on the property owned by Mission Hills Garden Homes Association. While the border in question is closest to 520 and 528 Mission Hills Drive, it is the Board's position that any request for variance should be addressed to the Mission Hills Garden Homes Association and not to individual residents. It is also the position of the Mission Hills Garden Homes Board of Directors that the City of Chanhassen not allow the property owner at 8491 Mission Hills Circle a variance to city code due to the overall impact on property at Mission Hills Garden Homes. I think the City, my personal view is, I think the City of Chanhassen has done a phenomenal job in the planning and building of the community. I think it would be a mistake to give a variance to deviations from code after the fact rather than having somebody apply before they put it in. Now I don't know who's fault it was, the contractor's or the homeowners, okay. I as a homeowner know that if I put something in, if I'm going to do some improvement to my property, common sense tells me that I check with the city and make sure that the contractor, because I as a homeowner I believe have the ultimate responsibility for adhering to codes. The contractor does not, okay. And so I just think it's, we run into this. Mission Hills Garden Homes, we're a microcosm of the City of Chanhassen. Our Board of Directors is like City Council and the whole thing. We run into this all the time. Where somebody does something and then wants a variance or permission and we have found 7 Planning Commission Meeting — October 18, 2005 that every time we do that we get bit in the back end down the line by somebody who's, we have a person right now that's saying, if you don't let me do what everybody else has done, I'm going to sue you for discrimination. Okay. So when you back off from good codes and you allow variances because of poor planning in advance, I think it is a mistake and I think the variance should be denied. Sacchet: I've got a question. The townhomes you're talking about are directly adjacent to the south? Vern Lindemann: I'm sorry. Sacchet: The townhomes you're representing are directly to the south. Vem Lindemann: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. Just want to be clear. Vern Lindemann: And our commons property abuts that property. Sacchet: Okay. Okay. Vern Lindemann: And the individual homeowners in Mission Hills Garden Homes do not have, the individual homeowners do not have control of their property. As commons property and any individual homeowner other than noise and nuisance or any other, really does not have unless they come to our board and present their case. I don't believe they have standing in suggesting a variance on our property line. Sacchet: Alright. I think you made yourself pretty understood. Thank you very much. Anybody else wants to address this item? Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Let us know what you have to say. Jane Zureich: R. My name is Jane Zureich and I live at 8490 Mission Hills Circle so I am Jen and Clint's next door neighbor and I am the property that will be directly affected by this variance. Sacchet: So you're to the west? Jane Zureich: I'm directly to the west. It's a shared property line that the variance would be the requested on. Once they fix the easement issue takes that back 8 feet off and are in compliance with the 8 feet on the south side, it is the east side of their property line only that would be requesting the variance. That is my property line. When we first moved into that property in 2002, as Jen and Clint mentioned, it was not, they had done nothing to the property. They had brought the sod up not even to where their Sport Court starts now and it, when Clint says it was weeds, in the summer it was waist high weeds. I could lose my 3 year old in the waist high weeds. Jen and Clint immediately upon moving in, Clint mowed the lawn. I would say, I don't know, 100-200 mice came out of that property. So the fact that they have done this to this is an Planning Commission Meeting — October 18, 2005 immense improvement on that property from where it was before. You can't even compare it to where it was before. They could have I guess chosen to sod the land, but it's an unusual property in that it's very deep. Both of our yards are very deep. Their's is even deeper than our's are, so to have it sodded, yes that was probably an option but it's a unique piece of property that really lends itself very well to this Sport Court. I mean it really lends itself well to having something there for you to use. So I'm kind of in, we absolutely, we've taken full advantage. They are very, very open and welcoming with using the Sport Court. I mean we've used it quite a bit this summer, along with a lot of our other neighbors. We have a 3 year old and a 5 year old and I'd much rather see my 3 year old and 5 year old out in the back playing basketball, trying to play basketball, than out in the street and things like that. I mean we do live in a cul-de-sac but we have no sidewalks in the cul-de-sac. You know it's gotten to the point where I send my kids, because we don't have sidewalks and I'm like, go play in the street and then I'm, what am I saying? Telling the kids to go play in the street. Go play in their yard. Much better. So you know to say, and the issue about asking about them to reduce it in size, I do think taking the back 8 feet off is going to be, that's a manageable reduction in size. I do think if they have to cut it in half, it's really not going to be, they're not going to be able to use it to the full effect. Or really to that great of an effect. We're the ones where the retaining wall right now butts up to our property line. As soon as they remove that from there and then grade it so that it's a slope, it's not going to even be, it's going to be at least 4 or 5 feet away from our property line, which we were even happy with the rock wall because as I said, anything was an improvement over what was there before. I don't feel, I agree that everything in a perfect world and everything would have gone a, b, c, d and they would have had the variance beforehand and had all the permits that they were supposed to have, that would have been obviously the optimal solution. I don't feel like you're setting a precedence because as I mentioned, this is a unique piece of property. Who else has the amount of space that they have to even put something like this on their property? But even beyond that, even beyond because there are properties in Chan who do have that kind of space. It is a unique property that I don't feel that people are out there going, clamoring for Sport Courts and this is going to set a unusual, awkward precedence. I think that if they have to take it out, it's going to make it a very, almost funny looking piece of, I'd rather have a full Sport Court as my next door neighbor trying to sell my house, even to somebody who doesn't have kids, then I would to have a funny cut up thing. Right now it's a beautiful Sport Court. I mean as you see in the pictures, it's beautiful. So it's, do I think it's going to affect my property value? Absolutely not. Never. I don't think it's going to have any negative impact on my property. Sacchet: Thank you. Jane Zureich: Sure. Sacchet: Anybody else wants to address this item? Seeing nobody getting up, I'm closing the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission for discussion or comments. Kurt, you ready? Papke: I'll get the ball rolling. Couple points. First of all in terms of precedence setting. I noticed that on our November 0 meeting we have two cases for hard surface coverage variances, one of which is after the fact, so to have those two follow immediately on the heels of this one I think is a tough spot. So I'm very sensitive to that precedent setting issue. I'm also concerned with the environmental sensitivity to the area. This is very close to Lake Susan. Very W Planning Commission Meeting — October 18, 2005 close to the creek and I think we have to be cautious of variance in environmentally sensitive areas. The, my real concern is I think the applicants have come into this with the best of intentions, and I'm starting to question whether our zoning compliance process that we put into place, what was it 2 years ago? When, Sharmeen do you know when we started doing this? Al-Jaff: It was about 2 years ago. Papke: I'm questioning whether it's working because you know we're starting to get some issues here that seem like people aren't getting the message somehow properly. I don't know if it's confusing people. People come in and say well do I need a building permit? No, you don't need a building permit so I think maybe they're leaving saying well, I'm good to go. But there's this zoning compliance thing that we're not, it was intended to catch exactly these situations and it doesn't so regardless of the outcome tonight, I think we need to take a serious look at that and see, what can we do because I think they have the best of intentions it sounds like. A good number of the neighbors are in support of this but because of all the issues, I'm not in favor of approving this. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Jerry, you want to jump in? McDonald: Yeah. First of all I did go out and I did check out the Sport Court and looked at it and I have to admit that you've done quite a bit with your back yard. Yeah, it probably is a fun place for kids to play and all of that. The problem we get into, you talk about precedence. If we do this, there is another case within your same neighborhood that we turned down oh about 4-5 weeks ago and it was, it wasn't a Sport Court but it was patios. So this will set a precedence and it will set a precedence throughout the entire city. And before I came onto this I have to admit I would have probably been more in favor of this because I am a person that believes in, it's your property. You should be able to do with it as you please. However what I have come to learn over the past 6 months, and I'll deviate a little bit. I got involved in, out in Woodbury a week and a half ago. They had a serious flood out there and part of the problem was the City of Woodbury. There were 3 systems that failed. The particular client that I ended up talking to swamped out his basement all the way up to the top step. Total basement was wiped out. The reason why was because of a non-compliance with zoning laws. A drainage ditch had been covered up. Created a dam. Construction was going on. Debris flowed over into the main culvert and it just continued to cascade from there. The people of Woodbury were going after the City of Woodbury. They wanted a redress for all of this. They were blaming the city and the city may or may not have some liability. That's something that would be determined if we ended up going to court. But the point of what that begins to show me is that it's very important, these zoning requirements are there for a reason. Especially whenever we talk about water, ponding, drainage ditches, they're all there. Everything is designed for a reason. Your back yard is basically a bowl. If it were to flood, and I went out there and looked at it and tried to see where the drainage patterns go and ... it's going to go right into her back yard. That's going to go right into her house. Jane Zureich: Actually it's been better since the Sport Court went in. We've had less of a wet back yard since it went in than we did before. It changed, we actually have better drainage now. 10 Planning Commission Meeting — October 18, 2005 McDonald: Well that, I'll agree with you to a point but the thing is, I've seen it happen and we just haven't had the kind of flooding that could occur, and once that happens, the first place you're going to come is you're going to come after the City because why didn't we enforce something. Or you're going to go after your neighbors and you're going to want to sue them for creating a problem. The point is, is that these are put there for a reason and it's not so much to impede upon your use of your property. Your property is just one of many pieces that connect to form a subdivision or a group of homes where people live. What you do on your property can affect others, 2, 3, 4 houses away. Sometimes blocks away so there is a reason for this. I do share the concern that you're the second one I've dealt with. Contractor said they were going to take care of everything and nothing was done. I'm a little concerned that our zoning compliance isn't working. I share your concern there. Something should be done because to find these things after the fact, we are now going to impose a great burden upon the homeowner. Not only do you lose the benefit of what you thought you had, but you may incur additional costs in the process of complying with the zoning codes. Is that fair to you? No. I'll be the first one to say it's not. But unfortunately you are ultimately responsible for compliance with zoning codes. Anything with the contractor is a separate issue. It's not the City's job to go after these contractors. I mean based upon all of that and the fact that I feel very strongly about the issue of precedence and also about the issue of water flow and drainage and ponding and all of this, I cannot support this. What I would suggest is, and I know in the other case they have worked with staff to try to come up with solutions. There are a number of things that you can do. We're not asking you to give up your driveway, but there are other things you can do to your driveway. You can make it a porous surface. There are other things to do. It comes down to how bad do you want the Sport Court and what are you willing to do to offset it. Any offset to keep the Sport Court, my suggestion would be your contractor should pay for it. But that's between you and your contractor. I do believe that we have to enforce this hard coverage surface code and because of that I could not support it. Sacchet: Give it a shot? Undestad: Just have a question. Again I agree with everything you're saying here. The zoning ordinances are put in place for this but just a question. What if 2 or 3 or 4 neighbors all wanted to get together and put in a Sport Court in one location? Al-Jaff: If they meet requirements. Undestad: So it would still come down to that lot that. Metzer: It has to be on one lot and has to meet side yard, rear yard setbacks. And they'd better pick a neighbor that has the least amount of hard cover to begin with. Undestad: That's all I have. Al -Jaffa Typically we see these type of sites with planned unit developments or as a townhome or subdivision comes in. Ashling Meadows is a good example. They have a swimming pool. They have, I think there is a Sport Court out there, so the developer plans it in advance. Planning Commission Meeting — October 18, 2005 Undestad: One more. The boulder wall over in the west property line, that's affecting the drainage right now? That's in that drainage easement? That's why that boulder wall would have to come out, is that it? Metzer: This is the west property line here. Outlined in black. Larson: Is that considered an improvement? In rocks. Metzer: I'm not aware what the drainage was beforehand. Well I don't know, apparently Dan was okay with the removal of that lawn and berming. Sacchet: I mean that does bring an interesting aspect. I mean the contractor having slipped with the hard coverage is one thing but putting a retaining wall on the property line, I mean he didn't care a bit about any regulations. I mean everybody knows that we have setback requirements for something we build. I mean something is definitely way off. Do you have anything else to add? Larson: Yeah, I just, like I say it's a lovely Sport Court but like Jerry had mentioned, these 20 year, or 100 year rain events that we're getting, I've been in my home over 20 years. Never had flooding and all of a sudden this year we're having flooding and so your homes, your neighborhood is quite a lot newer than where I live but who's to say at some point this is going to happen. You know where it's all going to, I don't know if it's the settling or if it's things fill up or whatever but the environmental impact eventually may catch up to you. I personally would like to see maybe if you can work with the city and see if you really want to keep this, you know comply with what you said you would do on the Sport Court but then also see what else you can maybe thin down your driveway or something and get it into that 25%. There are options and maybe you can just look at some of those. Jennifer Hurt: Okay so you're saying though that if we take off, if we don't take off in the back but we take off in the front of it, that's going to somehow affect the flooding issues? That doesn't make sense to me. Larson: The whole purpose of having this coverage on your property is how much water will actually go into the ground versus running off and going elsewhere and that's where the issue comes in and a lot of people don't quite understand why that is but it really affects an entire neighborhood. It affects the lakes, the ponds and everything. And so that's why that requirement is put in there because it's really to protect you and to protect your neighbors. Vern Lindemann: Could I make a comment here? Sacchet: If it's real brief because we're really beyond comments here. Vern Lindemann: Oh okay then. That's okay. I was going to ... drainage in the last heavy rain we had, we had rivers running down into the drainage pond down there and a lot of the neighbors rocks formed up... Sacchet: Yeah, let's keep the discussion up here at this point, if that's alright. 12 Planning Commission Meeting — October 18, 2005 Larson: So that's all I had. Sacchet: You know it's an interesting situation. On one hand I'd like to be the good guy but that's not our role here. As a Planning Commission, as I stated in my opening remarks, our task is to look at to what extent do the issues that are brought before the city comply with ordinance and regulations. And when it comes to variances, we have a very clear set of standards that we are to apply. The first one is does it cause a hardship? And that's not a very fluffy type of definition of hardship. It's very clearly defined in the city code that a hardship means if you cannot use the property in the way that property's in the surrounding 500 or so feet are being used, which in this case is to have a single family residence with at least a 2 car garage and you have that. The addition of Sport Court is not a hardship. Then we have to look at, is it applicable to other properties? The precedence thing which we heard several commissioners already express concern, and it is a very big concern because we've come across this hard coverage situation on a regular basis. It comes up a couple times a year at least. And it's hard when it's after the fact. It does set a precedent and from our position at the commission, our aim has to be to treat everybody the same. If we give him one, then we have to give another two, and as Kurt you pointed out, we're going to have similar cases come in front of us within a few weeks, so that has to have some weight. Does another aspect that we have to look at, does it increase the property value? Now obviously you didn't do it for that purpose but the fact is it does increase it. It's a nice amenity to have. And then a very important thing that we also have to look at is it self created. Is it self created? And that's really a sticky thing because if we do something and we don't know the consequences, does that mean it's not self created? You know it's a little bit like if we don't know that the red light at the light on the street means we have to stop and we go across and we get hit, it doesn't mean we didn't self create it, and that's tricky. I mean not knowing about something doesn't take that out, that it's self created. And then another aspect, is it detrimental to public welfare? And as the discussion as we just had about the impervious limitation is very directly linked with the public welfare, so if you look at these things, then the last point that we have to look out is does it impair adequate light and the adjacent properties, which it doesn't. But if we look at this list of criteria that by ordinance we're supposed to look at, you're really only coming out alright on one of them, and all the others ones you come at best questionable. Or not good at all so if we go by the letter of the law, we really don't have a choice. We have to deny this. However, I do want to point out that you can bring this in front of City Council and City Council does have the leeway to go beyond just the letter of the law. In this group here we have a little bit of leeway but not quite that much. So that is a little bit another aspect here to look at. Let me see whether I have something else there. I would be willing to support the side yard setback variance based on the immediately neighbor not having an issue with it, and that does not quite have the same weight. But with impervious, I really feel very clear that I cannot support that. However, you have options to work around that. You could reduce the impervious surface in your driveway. Maybe you could do something with your walkways or patio type of things. Not get rid of them but make them permeable. I mean there are ways to do it so I think there are alternatives that you could explore that you find a balance and also we do have to also acknowledge the neighborhood association making a pretty strong point that not everybody is in support of it. As a matter of fact there have been some people that have an issue with the noise level, which I can understand. I mean you have kids. You like to hear them out there having fun and there's somebody in the condo next door that 13 Planning Commission Meeting — October 18, 2005 their kids are grown or never had kids or what and they want the quiet. So you know, it's just life in the neighborhood. But I think I talked enough. If anybody wants to add anything further or we can make a motion. Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission denies Variance #05-32 for a 4.5% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction and a 5 foot side yard setback variance for the addition of a sport court on a lot zoned Single Family Residential based upon the findings in the staff and the following. Number 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. Number 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. The Planning Commission orders the property owner to remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements. McDonald: I second Mr. Chairman. Sacchet: We have a motion. We have a second. Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #05-32 for a 4.5% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction and a 5 foot side yard setback variance for the addition of a sport court on a lot zoned Single Family Residential based upon the findings in the staff and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. The Planning Commission orders the property owner to remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Sacchet: And I do want to encourage you to bring this to City Council. In addition I would encourage you to before you go to City Council, explore what options do you have that you could mitigate the impervious surface, particularly further and then you'll see where you get with that. Clint Hurt: I have a question. Sacchet: Yes. Clint Hurt: Taking care of that variance in the back, that 8 foot setback, does that take the townhouses really out of the process situation? Sacchet: No it doesn't. I'm not really an expert to answer that but. Clint Hurt: I'm just asking the question because there is no, we're not, it's not about the noise ordinance. It's not ... the amount of people on the yard at a certain time so ... complain about after that? 14 Planning Commission Meeting — October 18, 2005 Jennifer Hurt: Even if we cut the sport court in half it's still going to be a sport court... Sacchet: Yeah, I would have to refer, I mean you'd have to take up discussion like that with staff. I mean we're not in a position here to counsel you on that. It's, I mean as you well know with complaining, everybody's allowed to complain and that's the purpose of the public hearing so that everybody can come and make their statement and we try to listen to everybody to the best of our abilities to try to make everybody happy. But that's only possible to a certain extent, and I would encourage you to discuss this further with staff as to how can you reduce the infringement or maybe eliminate it ideally and if there's some type of variance you need, you can appeal our decision to City Council. Or alternatively if the situation gets enough changed, you may want to start a new variance process, but that's something you have to discuss with staff. I mean that's where you have to go with that, okay? Wish you luck. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR SPALON MONTAGE TO PLACE COMPANY, PLANNING CASE NO.05-33. Public Present: Name Address Cindy McDonald Kraus -Anderson Realty Mitchell Wherley 600 Market Street Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Jerry, go ahead. McDonald: I have some questions for you. Okay, currently Americana Bank has got a gable sign and I read in here that the developer did that in the beginning. That was part of the negotiations. As far as building the building. Is that correct? Metzer: That's correct. If you were to zoom in right here. This is on page, well it's one of the attachments to the report. McDonald: Well the question I've got then, why wouldn't we allow signage in the gables? Was the plan from the beginning that there would be signage there and we gave in for some reason when the developer first came through? Metzer: Well I guess we consider this a change to what was approved. If you notice on the north elevation, actually you can see it on the west or the north elevation, there was no provision for a sign on the second level. Only on the south elevation with the bank. I guess it was felt to go outside of that would be over stepping our authority. 15 Established in 1962 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 Yard Avenue North (763) 560-3093 YaweapolLs, Minnesota 55428 Far No. 560-3622 3ururgurs (2ertifirtttr _JENNIFER HURT Property located in Section 13, Township 116, Range 23. Carver County, Minnesota The I eosemre ents shown are from plats of cord or information provide A by client. We hereby certify that this is a true and correct a m.ento6on of a survey of the boundaries of the above described and and the location of all buildings and viable encroachments, if any, from or on raid load. us this 16th day of July 2005. INVOICE NO. 72195 F.B.NO. 1006-67 SCALE: 1 " = 30' O Donald. Iron Monument p Denotes Woad Hub Set for excavation only x0OoD Denotes Existing Elevation 000.0 Denotes Proposed Elevation Denotes Surface Drainage NOW: Prepared grades am subject to result, 01 eoil feet.. Proposed building information must be checked with approved building plan and development or grading plan "fore excavation and con3Wction. _ Proposed Top of Block Prepared Garage Floor Proposed Lowest Floor Type of Building Hardcover Calculations Lot = 20,595 sq fit House = 1.966 sq fit Driveway = 1,473 sq ft± Walk, Stoop, Porch = 242 sq ft± Patio = 93 sq ft± Sport Court = 2.437 sq ft± Cana. Slab = 120 sq ft± Walls = 291 sq ft± Total Hardcover = 6,624 sq ft± Percentage = 32.29. Detail retaining Walls NW House 11 sq ft± SW House 16.5 sq ft± Middle Wall at Rear of House 25 sq fit SE Comer House 20 sq ft± West of Sport Court 75.5 sq ft± South of Sport Court 33.5 sq ft± North of Sport Court 35 sq U± East of Sport Court 55 sq ft± East of Sport court In easement Area 19.5 sq ft± Total Retaining Walls 291 sq ft± RECEIVED SEP 16 2005 CITI`OF CHANHASSEN Lot 6, Block 2, MARSH GLEN Signed Charles F. Anderson, Minn. Reg. No. 21753 or Gregory R. Preach, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for 4.50A hard surface coverage restriction and 5- o court on property located —in the Single Circle. The sport court has been built. LOCATION: Lot 6, Block 2, Marsh Glen 8491 Mission Hills Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 01K,;� APPLICANT: Clint & Jennifer Hurt 8491 Mission Hills Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 PC DATE: October 18, 2005 CC DATE: November 14, 2005 REVIEW DEADLINE: November 15, 2005 CASE #: 05-32 BY: 0/1 52 the maximum 25% hard surface ance for the addition of a sport tial District at 8491 Mission Ifills Kurd - v I revt 4 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low DenZfu-r+ (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre ACREAGE: 0.47 acre MbV25 4v- d tol d DENSITY: N/A V v q " /J al r, 01 4- SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 4.5% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction and a 5-foot side yard setback variance for the addit of a sport court. The sport court has already been built. Staff is recommending denial of this request. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. 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. Hurt [variance Planning Case #05-32 October 18, 2005 Page 2 Lake Susan I SUBJECT SITE I •♦:� APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 20-91. Zoning compliance review. (a) Zoning compliance review shall be required for the construction of structures which do not require building permits to determine compliance with zoning requirements such as setback, site coverage, structure height, etc. (b) Any zoning compliance review application that fails to meet zoning ordinance requirements shall be denied by the community development director. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The subject property is located southeast of Great Plains Boulevard and north of West 86`s Street on Mission Hills Circle and is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The applicant is requesting a 4.5% (which represents 926.78 square feet of site coverage) hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a sport court, approximately 53'x40', bringing the hard surface coverage to 29.5%. This structure has already been built. Impervious surface means any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of storm water. It shall include, but not be limited to, gravel driveways, parking area, buildings and structures. Hurt Variance Planning Case #05-32 October 18, 2005 Page 3 Sec. 20.615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (5) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 oercent. Sec. 20-904. Accessory structures. (3) Tennis courts and swimming pools may be located in rear yards with a minimum side and rear yard setback of ten feet, but must comply with applicable ordinary high water mark setbacks. Sec. 20-908. Yard regulations. (6) The placement of any structure within easements is prohibited, except for those structures specified herein. Fences may be allowed within an easement with an encroachment agreement if they do not alter the intended use of the easement. A driveway or sidewalk from the street to the house crossing drainage and utility easements at the front of the property are exempt from this requirement. Hurt Variance Planning Case #05-32 October 18, 2005 Page 4 The subject property was platted as part of Marsh Glen which was recorded on November 8, 2000. The house was built in 2001. The 60'x40' sport court was not shown on the plans for the building permit application. The subject property is located in the Single Family Residential (RSF) district and has an area of 20,595 square feet. In the RSF district 25% is the maximum permitted impervious surface coverage for a lot. The applicant has a hard cover of 32.11%, is proposing to remove 539 square feet (2.62%) of hard cover, and is requesting a 4.5% bard cover variance. The applicant is also requesting a 5-foot side yard setback variance for the sport court. The hard cover issue came to the attention r of the City in the spring of 2005 with an anonymous phone call from a resident inquiring about construction of the sport court close to the applicants' property line. Upon inspection of the property, it was clear that various portions of the improvements were on, or extended across property lines onto neighboring property. It also appeared the lot could be over on the maximum hard cover percentage. When it was clear the sport court did not meet required setbacks, the applicant was informed that the property would have to be brought into compliance with City Code or a variance would be need to be applied for. After meeting with staff to discuss the issues surrounding the sport court, the applicant decided to have an as - built survey completed on their property. The as - built survey revealed the - — existing hard cover was .�.. 32.11%o. Variance • requests for relief from Side hard cover and setback ft.'or, Property _ restrictions were applied Line for on September 16, 2005. Hurt Variance Planning Case #05-32 October 18, 2005 Page 5 ANALYSIS The site is zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). The applicant has completed construction of the sport court in question. Chanhassen City Code does not require building permits for sport courts. However, such structures do require a zoning compliance review. The City uses zoning compliance reviews to ensure that structures, which do not require a building permit, still comply with zoning ordinances. Criteria of a zoning compliance review include setbacks, hard surface coverage and structure height. 53ySQ.�-F. o��cq�o- (srosfly�a,,lDEvs� The applicant has proposed the removal ofhe concrete slab (120 sq ft), the area of the sport court lying within the 10-foot drainage & utility easement on the south edge of the property (300 sq ft), those portions of retaining wall located within drainage and utility easements surrounding the sport court (119 sq ft) and that portion of retaining wall extending 9 feet across the southern property line onto Mission Hills Garden Homes Homeowners Association property. Existing Hard Cover Calculations: Lot Area = 20,595 sq. ft. House = 1,968 sq. ft. Driveway = 1,473 sq. ft. Walk, Stoop, Porch = 242 sq. ft. Patio = 93 sq. ft. *Retaining Walls = 281 sq. ft. *Concrete Slab = 120 sq. ft. *Sport Court = 2,437 sq. ft. TOTAL = 6,614 sq. fL 32.11 % *Portions of indicated items proposed to be removed. Proposed Hard Cover Calculation: House = 1,968 sq. ft. Driveway = 1,473 sq. ft. Walk, Stoop, Porch = 242 sq. ft. Patio = 93 sq. ft. Retaining Walls = 162 sq. ft. Concrete Slab = 0 sq. ft. Sport Court — 2,137 so. ft. TOTAL = 6,075 sq. ft. 29.5% The applicant would have to remove 5 fee tte length of the west side of the court to comply with to 10-foot side and setback while removingRJ26.25 square fee from the sport court in order tc Con S rang the hardcover to 25°0. The applicant could maintain a-1,210.75 s oot sport court v�m�t'rvatry (approximately 40'x30'); this would allow the applicant to continue to enjoy their backyard while complying with ordinance requirements. The area of a basketball court inside the three-point arc is approximately 628 square feet. The applicant could maintain a sport court nearly twice this size and still comply with ordinance. Another option for removal of hard cover would be reduction of driveway area. Hun Variance Planning Case #05-32 October 18, 2005 Page 6 The post -construction runoff pattern appears to be consistent with the drainage pattern that existed before the sport court was constructed. Drainage flows to the existing pond southwest of the Hurt residence within the Mission Hills townhome development. Based on the Mission Hills storm water design calculations, this pond can accommodate the additional runoff from the impervious area for which the Hurts are requesting a variance. However, staff is concerned that, should the Hurt variance request be granted, future requests for a variance within this drainage area may be requested and granted base&on precedence. Should future variances be granted, the capacity of the pond may be exceeded; therefore, staff recommends that the hard cover variance request be denied. While the applicant has expended money for the improvements, such expenditure does not justify the granting of a variance. Approval of a variance is contingent upon proof that the literal enforcement of the Chanhassen City Code would cause an undue hardship. Not having a reasonable use of the property -5tZ1-v5e Iwould constitute an undue hardship. Reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of P1i� mparabie property withinwithin 5 0 ~eetfeetf Reasonable use of this property, a single-family home with a two- cazgarage, already exists. Any use of the property beyond that discussed above is strictly ancillary to the principal use. Based on these facts, staff must recommend denial of this request. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. By having a single-family home and a two -car garage the property owner has reasonable use of the property. Additionally, the applicant could maintain a smaller sport court. 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 that he within the Single Family Residential District. 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 improvements increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Clint & Jennifer Hurt for 4.5% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction and a 5-foot side yard setback variance for the addition of a sport court — Planning Case No. 05-32. On October 18, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Clint & Jennifer Hurt for 4.5% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction and a 5-foot side yard setback variance for the addition of a sport court on property located in the Single Family Residential District at 8491 Mission Hills Circle. 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 (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 6, Block 2, Marsh Glen. 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. Literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other properties in the Single Family Residential district. c. The improvements increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship. e. The granting of the variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 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. 5. The planning report #05-32 Variance dated October 18, 2005, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Planning Commission denies the Variances from the impervious surface and side yard setback restrictions for the addition of a sport court. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 18s' day of October, 2005. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION Its Chairman gAplan\2005 planning cases\05-32 hurt variance\findings of fact.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION PLEASE PRINT Planning Case No. Oa_ 3a RECEIVED SEP 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN MMIr< : ■l Ii U • AII111110i,1111 MAN R' A mil-vFell i"ANNI Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review' Subdivision' Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign" - $75 + $100 Damage Deposit X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"' - $50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $.;[on - 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. ' Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'/z" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital cop v in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tif) format. Applicant to obtain notification sign from City of Chanhassen Public Works at 1591 Park Road and install upon submittal of completed application. $100 damage deposit to be refunded to applicant when sign is returned following City Council approval. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TOTALACREAGE: IV-f -e"A0fL WETLANDS PRESENT: #YES -A 0� PRESENT ZONING:. REQUESTED ZONING: 7 �� PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: �ee. %i acked 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 1 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. 9-15-05 Date -15-c)5 Date GAplanUenl Review Apprication.DOc Rev. 4/05 RECEIVED September 16, 2005 SEP 16 2005 Dear Planning Commissioners, CITYffFCHANHASSEN We are applying for a side setback and hard surface cover variance from the City of Chanhassen. We'd like to share with you reasons why you should consider recommending our variance to the City Council. On June 10, 2005, a letter arrived in the mail from Josh Metzer, stating that 'your property is in violation of Chanhassen City Code." We were devastated. When we built our sport court in May of 2005, we certainly did not intend for it to be as big a deal as it has become. We are fully aware that our contractor did not consult with the city before it was built, and we are taking responsibility for that as well. There is nothing we can do about that, other than to apologize to you. We are just average homeowners, so we weren't aware of what needed to be done to build a sport court. That is why we hired a licensed contractor to do the job. He assured us that he would take care of the permits and whatever else needed to be done to build the sport court of our dreams. When we received Josh's letter, we immediately phoned our contractor and had him stop working on the sport court. Unfortunately, at that point, it was almost completed. We realize our retaining walls are abundant and will gladly take them out. That is the least of our problems. But it hurts us that the sport court will have to be cut off. Not only will it be a financial burden, but we LOVE our court. We had enough room on the court to put a short court tennis court, along with a half court basketball court. The purpose of installing this sport court was not to increase the value of our land. Rather, we thought it would be a great way for us, our neighbors, children, and friends to have a safe place to play, close to home. The closest park to our house is approximately a mile away, via walking trail. Another park that we frequently visit requires us to cross Highway 101, which, in the future, is going to be made into a four -lane highway. We thought that if we could provide a safe place for our children and our neighbors' children to play, we would be doing a great service to our neighborhood. In addition, our neighbors believe our sport court to be an asset to the neighborhood. We have included several letters from neighbors as well, all in support of our variance. When we moved to Chanhassen two years ago, we planned to stay here forever. We want to raise our children in this house and have them attend public schools, so our intention was to make our home a great place to live forever. We are not intransigent people, and that is why we are asking you to see that we ARE taking SCANNED measures to try and comply, but we are also asking for you to grant us a variance in order for us to keep the remainder of our sport court. What we'd like to do is ask that you come out to see the court. We don't want you to come to the commission meeting in October and not have seen it in person. We want you to understand our point of view as well and not just the City Planner's point of view. Please consider this request, and being objective to our situation. Thank you for your time. Si/ erely, int�C/�L, u C Jtwd--- nnifer Hurt 8491 Mission Hills Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-974-8349 SCANNED Description of Variance Request An "as -built" survey was completed on July 18, 2005. Attached you will find a copy of this survey. The retaining walls need to be removed in order to comply with city code. We will remove the wall on the entire west side of the sport court (75.5 sq. feet), the entire south end of the court (33.5 sq. feet), and the 19.5 sq. feet that are in the city easement on the southeastern corner of the sport court. In addition, we will remove 8 feet off the south side of the sport court (320 sq. feet) and the concrete slab (120 sq. feet) on the east side of our property. With these removals, our total hard surface coverage will be 6055.5 sq. feet. That brings our total hard surface coverage down to 29.4%. However, this amount still exceeds the Single Family Residential District's maximum hard surface coverage of 25%. Therefore, we are asking for a variance of 4.4% hard surface coverage. In addition, to avoid cutting any more off of our sport court, we are asking for a variance for a five-foot setback on the west side of our property. Please consider our variance with understanding. RECEIVE® SEP 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SCANNED Justification of How Request Complies with the Findings for Granting a Variance a. We do not consider this variance an undue hardship. b. We did not intend for our property to be in violation of city code and we are trying to make things work. That is why we are applying for a variance for single family residential zoning. We also realize that there hasn't been any history of variances for sport courts. C. We did not intend for this sport court to increase the value of our home. Rather, we thought it would be a great way for us, our neighbors, kids, and friends to have a safe place to play, close to home. d. This hardship is not a self-created one. Our builder didn't check into the city for a zoning compliance review. We gave that responsibility to our builder, and he let us down. e. We don't believe that this variance will affect other neighbors and have included several letters from neighbors in support of our variance. f. There will not be any inadequate air or light supply from our sport court, no increase in congestion of public streets, and no increase in the danger of fire or endangerment of public safety. In addition, this variance will not diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. All of the neighbors we've talked to are in support of our variance. RECEIVED SEP 16 2005 CITY Of CHANHASSD SCANNED September 19, 2005 Mr. Josh Metzer Planning Department City of Chanhassen PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mr. Metzer: RECEIVED SEP 2 0 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN It has come to the attention of the Mission Hills Garden Homes Board of Directors that the property owner's recreational improvement at 8491 Mission Hills Circle, Chanhassen MN is in violation of city codes. The Board is also aware that the owner of that property has been canvassing the residents of Mission Hills Garden Homes for petition signatures to gain support for allowing a variance to the city codes. The Mission Hills Garden Homes Board of Directors wishes to make it a matter of record with the Chanhassen Planning Department that the property bordering the improvements at 8491 Mission Hills Circle borders on property owned by the Mission Hills Garden Homes Association. While the border in question is closest to addresses 520 and 528 Mission Hills Drive, it is the Boards position that any requests for variance should be addressed to the Mission Hills Garden Homes Association and not the individual residents. It is also the position of the Mission Hills Garden Homes Board of Directors that the City of Chanhassen not allow the property owner at 8491 Mission Hills Circle a variance to city code due to the overall impact on properties of Mission Hills Garden Homes. Mission Hills Garden Homes Board of Directors_`' SCANNED September 15, 2005 Building Commissioner City of Chanhassen Dear Sir or Madam: RECEIVED SEP 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN My husband and I live at 461 Mission Hills Court, here in Chanhassen. I am taking the time to write a letter in support of a variance of a 5' setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage for the sport court in the yard our next door neighbors, Clint and Jennifer Hurt. Seeing as their yard directly abuts our yard, we are two of the most affected by their landscaping choice and we have absolutely no problem with the size or design of the sport court. It should also be noted that the property in question is quite secluded and only two neighbors' views are directly even affected by what is in no means an eyesore. At one time, some of the home owners approached our builder to see if he could reserve a small plot of land or even sell a small lot to all of us so that we could have a playground for all the children in the neighborhood to play on. However, in his interest to make as much money as possible, he squeezed houses onto even the smallest lots he could. One of the sport court's main uses is to serve as a tennis court for those children and without a variance, it will no longer be anywhere near large enough for them to play. My husband and I would find it much more intrusive to have such a large section of the sport court torn back out. It is a blessing to have that yard finally landscaped, after the previous owner left it completely untended and had not even bothered to sod the back yard the entire time she lived at the address. (I've often wondered why the city did not get involved then!) It wasn't until Clint and Jennifer Hurt moved in that the huge mass of weeds in the back yard invading our lawn was finally dealt with, much to our relief. I truly appreciate your time and consideration towards this matter. I should think that the City could spend it's time on much more disturbing issues than one that the affected neighborhood has little or no problem with. Thank you once again. Sincerely, Lea Nordos a SCANNED RECEIVED SEP 16 2005 September 10, 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Building Commissioner RE: Letter of support for Clint and Jennifer Hurt's variance To whom it may concern: On behalf of Clint and Jennifer Hurt, please accept this letter of support concerning their sport court variance for a five foot side setback and 29.41/o hard surface coverage area. We live two houses down from the Hurt's residence and were one of the ffrst residents to move into the Mission Hills development. We have seen our neighborhood develop from the onset and strongly feel the addition of the Hurts sport court is an asset to our community. The court has provided a much needed safe haven for our children to play on a daily basis. In addition, our neighborhood has held numerous social and recreational gatherings on the Hurfs court and hope to do so in the future. Our only option in years past was to hold these events in the street. The court is unobtrusive, blends in well with the environment, and has contributed to the property values of our neighborhood. We strongly support the addition of the Hurt's sport court and accordingly request that the Building Commission grant the applicable variance for a five foot setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage. Dan Eastman and Leanne Eastman Dan and Leanne Eastman 8451 Mission Hills Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-380-0245 SCANNED September 12, 2005 Building Commissioner 7700 Market Boulevard City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN 55317 To Whom It May Concern, RECEIVED SEP 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN This letter is in response to Clint & Jennifer Hurt's sport court variance. We are John & Mary Gerogeorge and our address is 470 Mission Hills Court. Our back yard property and the Hurt's back yard are adjacent to each other. Jennifer and Clint Hurt approached us early on and asked if we had an issue about them putting in a sport court. We had no objections to them installing the sport court. Since the sport court has been in, there has been no problems. As a matter of fact, it brings some of the neighborhood families together for some family fun of tennis or basketball. Our opinion would be that we support the variance of the sport court. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us at (952) 934- 7011. Thank you, rge SCANNED RECEIVE® SEP 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN September 12'', 2005 Dear Building Commissioner: I am writing in support of Clint and Jennifer Hurt's request for a variance of a five foot side setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage. Since Clint and Jennifer installed their sport court, it has become a real asset for the Mission Hills Lane neighborhood. It is continually being used by the neighborhood kids and adults alike. It also has served as an excellent and safe play area and has filled a void that existed due to the lack of a nearby park. We humbly ask that you consider granting this variance and take into account the benefit that it provides for this neighborhood. Sincerely, Scott and Mi� elle To g 8455 Mission Hills Lane Chanhassen MN 55317 952-906-1046 Dan and Jane Zureich 8490 Mission Hills Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 September 15, 2005 Building Commissioner City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: 8491 Mission Hills Circle Request for Variance To Whom It May Concern: RECEIVED SEP 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Our property borders to the East that of Jennifer and Clint Hurt (8491 Mission Hills Circle). Our family has used their sport court, which is the subject of their request for variance. We understand that the rock wall erected by the Hurts is currently situated on our shared property line and that the sport court is currently five feet from that line, as opposed to the ten feet required by the City of Chanhassen. It is our further understanding that if the Hurt's request for variance is granted, this rock wall will be removed and that the area on the east side of the sport court will be re -graded and re -sodded - We are writing this letter to inform you that based on our understanding of the above, we support Jennifer and Clint Hurts variance request for a five-foot side setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage. We take comfort in knowing that our children have someplace safe and close to play, and do not have to worry about them playing in or crossing streets or venturing far from home to play at a park. The sport court is especially timely since we understand that in the near future Mission Hills Lane will be opened to Highway 101, which is being widened into a four lane road. If you have any questions, please contact us at 952-914-0879. 7erely, Dan and Jane Zureich SCANNED September 10, 2005 To: City of Chanhassen Building Commissioner RECEIVED SEP. 16 2005 Subject: Clint and Jennifer Hurt's Sports Court CITY OFCHANHASSEN I am a neighbor to the Hurt's. I live at 8460 Mission Hills Circle, Chanhassen. I fully support the Hurt's Sport Court. It is as built as professional as something to be found in a local park. Furthermore, I have had the opportunity to use it and it will cause fewer injuries to children and adults than a concrete court. You should also be reminded that we do not have a public facility similar to the Hurt's in close proximity to our neighborhood. Therefore, I recommend you approve the five-foot side setback and a 29.4% hard surface coverage. As they said in the original movie; "Bad News Bears II" let the children play! I can be contacted during the daytime at 952-932-4101. Sincerely yours, �erFall to the City of Chanhassen SCANNED RECEIVED SEP_ 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN September 14, 2005 Building Commissioner Re: Clint & Jennifer Hurt's Sport Court Dear Sir/Madam: We are writing to you today in an effort to communicate to you that we support Clint and Jennifer Hurt's variance of a five foot setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage. Our home is located just off the back of the Hurt's backyard and have been given the opportunity to play on and make use of their sport court. We currently do not have a neighborhood park and find this sport court to be an asset to our neighborhood and a privilege for our two children to have access to. Please take the time to consider this and allow the Hurt's to keep their sport court at its current size, I believe if it is eliminated or reduced in size it will no longer have the same benefit as it was originally intended for. Tbank-you! Kelly, Dan, Cayman & Jordan Fasching 8550 Mission Hills Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-937-1229 SCANNED RECEIVED SEP 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN September 15, 2005 To the Chanhassen Building Commissioner: Re: Sport Court Variance, Clint and Jennifer Hurt As residents of 8444 Mission Hills Lane, we are in support of Clint and Jennifer Hurt's variance of a five-foot side setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage. The Hurt's sport court has been a gathering place for BBQ's and other neighborhood events due to the fact they have the space as well as the sport court for recreation for the children as well as the adults. As a neighborhood we have had basketball games and anticipate having the Hurt's host hockey games for the neighborhood in the winter months. It should be noted that there is not a similar facility/recreation space in the immediate vicinity. It would be a determent to the neighborhood should this sport court be altered or removed. Again, our full support is behind this variance application. Sincerely, i,,n�A�xx Kim & Conrade Thomas 8444 Mission Hills Lane (952) 937-7551 (Neighbors of Clint and Jennifer Hurt) SCANNED September 12, 2005 Building Commissioner, RECEIVE® SEP 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN This letter is in support of Clint and Jennifer Hurt's variance of a five foot side setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage of their sport court. We live directly next door to the Hurt's residence at 8481 Mission Hills Circle. With over 65 kids in this relatively small neighborhood and no park nearby, this sport court is a huge asset. We always know were our kids are and with our children in many City of Chanhassen sports, this is a nice and close practice ground. An approval of the Hurt's variance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much for your time. Sincerely, Dale and Rhonda Tirevold i SCANNED RECEIVED September 14, 2005 SEP 16 2005 CITYOF CHANHASSEN Chanhassen Building Commissioner, We are neighbors of Clint and Jennifer and are familiar with the variance discussion regarding their sport court. We have used the sport court and enjoy having it in our neighborhood. We are also in favor of them maintaining a variance of a five foot side setback and a 29.4% hard surface coverage. Please reconsider their plea and the support they have from the neighborhood to maintain a healthy outdoor -living environment. Sincerely, j' Al r' e 'fer a Hidding 5 Mission Hills Lane SCANNED RECEIVED September 11, 2005 SEP 16 2005 CITy-OF CHANHASSEN Dear Building Commissioner, we live at 8471 Mission Hills circle (2 houses from Clint & Jennifer Hurt). we are in support of Clint and Jennifer Hurt's variance of a five foot side setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage. Please consider this request at the upcoming Planning commission Meeting. Thank you, Caroline and John Herbeck SCANNED RECEIVE® September 10, 2005 SEP 16 2005 To: The Building Commissioner of Chanhassen City Council Clr' OF CHANHASSEN Clint and Jennifer Hurt are in our Mission Hills Lane Development. We would like you to know we are in support of their variance of a five food side setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage. Thank you, Patrick and"Lee Anne Eastman 8425 Mission Hills Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 SCANNED Date: 9/15/06 To: City of Chanhassen MN From: Michael Maule 8464 Mission Hills Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Sport Court/ Clint and Jennifer Hurt/Mission Hills Lane RECEIVED SEP 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN This memo is to inform the City of Chanhassen, MN that we (Micheal Maule and spouse Patricia Silva) are in support of Clint and Jennifer Hurt's variance of a five foot setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage. If you have any questions regarding this matter, you can reach us at 952 294 4545. Sincerely, Michae Patricia Silva —�V, SCANNED RECEIVED We are in support of Clint and Jennifer Hurt's variance. SEP 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN We understand that the Hurts will • Remove the entire south retaining walls within the 10-foot city easement • Remove 320 square feet off of the south side of their sport court to comply with the 10-foot city easement Printed Name Date Address Phone tureve J1 AG(Ae-r<1GlOL2107 7L kph ikov.as �l�is�o�' 8 �f f Ss��— {fills (ate (9- `�3--ass/ * -' �_ynei i of/i5/oS �I a mtss ors lfilk D �iSd-�ba _� ayy RECEIVED SEP 16 2005 n CITY OF CHANHASSEN v-cAv �ufld�h, Co�vn,s�ic�-rev, q-io -05 '�l L v�2via, oft v Y1eriTi bo &-S j Gz1�d! J�. v�i f�v #x vt W-( 11'6 of 4 ,o /W i5�do,, f 115 (ovvt rn -Yhe cLzl d� see A �o v6 a od Etc St of �� -1-h4w f- lTmAdeoce.. 016 Stkp j2Ori +hvls VAviAoce -fink- 4 f7 of fvo-t sid--f seek A✓id Zq % hard S5"K fp ce Go vt vA,9e,. wt have -exKvieocird h o ae jah've t rr pAc+ fwNjq -f� spov4- Gbuv,E- A -via Sep o, ly As a pose-Hve GY Sse t -tom -lie v�ea, ski hov h ood . ! I pvo vtde5 et �,Ci fe Gc ✓id fir rq places fa,- -�' ✓v7olj-yj 6h,'/dv-cvl A✓- a Jv Pla 51hc -fkYv-G ish G� p iciy j�k �tiea v5y i1- Also OYo vIG�eS e i pivacic -for- d 64�j'Ovl -f-herylseive5. Thavik- you -ftK youv f2-06,Ct-+ o k-, d L �- 6-4 (l vi ' SCANNED 4w) M i tw a-�, I I S cmxv-& 6 V> 11 (M r.2) got,-14oA — iS-105 o, --- L. 1n , a i. ,rD rAn.n, M _ - -- -- RECEBVED - - - - -- SEP 2 2 2005 RECEIVED SEP 2 2 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN City of Chanhassen Attn Building Commissioner: Scott and Shannon Fiedler 8511 Mission Hills Lane Chanhassen MN 55317 952-975-9802 We live in the upper cul-de-sac of the neighborhood. Our children play back and forth at each others houses. When the Hurt family decided to put the sport court in their backyard, they were very kind to invite their neighborhood friends to use the sport court at the Hurt home with parent supervision. We are very much in support of Clint and Jennifer Hurt's variance of a five foot side setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage. The sport court of the Clint and Jennifer Hurt Family does not have a negative impact on the city in any way. If the neighbors of Mission Hills Lane are in support of Clint and Jennifer, then pass the variance and move on to more important issues that the city should be focused on. Best regards, Scott and Shannon Fiedler CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO.05-32 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, October 18, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for after -the -fact hard surface coverage and side yard setback Variances for a sport court located at 8491 Mission Hills Circle. Applicant: Clint & Jennifer Hurt. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Josh Metzer, Planner I Email: imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on October 6, 2005) CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF ME NESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on October 6, 2005, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for the Clint & Jennifer Hurt Variance Request — Planning Case 05-32 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. K n J. En el ardt, uty Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this �,-1 h day of (1C -4c Cle t' 2005. Notary blic KIM T. MEUW�SSEN Q Public -Minnesota $ Notary liras Jen W, 2010 Oa; My C«Mp11 40A^AWe Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for after -the -fact hard surface coverage and side yard Proposal: setback Variances for a sport court Planning File: 05-32 Applicant: Clint & Jennifer Hurt Property 8491 Mission Hills Circle Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952-227.1132 or e- Questions & mail imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online at http://206.10.76.6/weblink7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application In writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the Item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciaUndustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard, Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an Item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff Is also available to review the Project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be Included In the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the reoort, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd. Request for after -the -fact hard surface coverage and side yard Proposal: setback Variances for a sport court Planning File: 05-32 Applicant: Clint & Jennifer Hurt Property 8491 Mission Hills Circle Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952.227-1132 or e- Questions & mail imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online at http://206.10.76.6/weblink7 the prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure:Thursday • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The Item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercialnndustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersorVrepresentative Is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff Is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be Included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. STATE OF MINNESOTA - DOT LYNN S KROISS & METRO RIGHT OF WAY STEPHEN J & MARTHA K KROISS 8415 MISSION HILLS LN & JENNIFER J RIDDING 1500 W CO RD B2 5605 ZUMBRA DR CHANHASSEN, M ROSEVILLE , MN 55113 -3174 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7760 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7712 PATRICK J & LEE ANNE EASTMAN SCOTT & KRISTIN NEUMAN LEROY MCCARTY 8425 MISSION HILLS LN 8435 MISSION HILLS LN B445 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7712 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7712 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7712 SCOTT A & MICHELLE M TORBORG PETER R & ANNE M VOAS STATE OF MINNESOTA - DOT 8455 MISSION HILLS LN 8450 MISSION HILLS CIR 395 JOHN IRELAND BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7712 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7720 631 TRANSPORTATION BLDG ST PAUL. MN 55155 -1801 DAVID R & BRENDA M WITZIG DANIEL EASTMAN & JEFFREY A GORRALL & 8465 MISSION HILLS LN LEANNE DODDS PATRICIA C GORRALL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7712 8461 MISSION HILLS CIR 8460 MISSION HILLS CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7720 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7720 KIMBERLEY THOMAS SCOTT R & STEPHANIE K RICH J CHARLES & BONNIE J EHLERS 8444 MISSION HILLS LN 9475 MISSION HILLS LN 8485 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7712 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7712 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7712 PATRICIA SILVA &MICCHIU & HUNG CHING CHAN JOHN N & CAROLINE O HERBECK B464 MI L MAULE 8470 MISSION HILLS CIR 8471 MISSION HILLS CIR CHANHASSEN. MNHASSEN . MN 55317 -7712 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7720 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7720 CHA STATE OF MINNESOTA-DOT CHARLES J & ELAINE M EASTMAN ROBERT A & LISA K GAUVIN 395 JOHN IRELAND BLVD 8480 MISSION HILLS CIR 460 MISSION HILLS CT PAUL , MN 55155 -1899 631 ST CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7720 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7714 ST PAUL RANDY V ROSETH & TONY L & PATRICIA J FERGUSON DALE E & RHONDA R TIREVOLD PENNY P WHITE 55317 -7714 8495 MISSION HILLS LN 8481 MISSION HILLS CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55 450 MISSION HILLS CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7712 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7720 MISSION HILLS GARDEN HOMES CLINT R & JENNIFER J HURT JOHN G & MARIGO N GEROGEORGE 2681 LONG LAKE RD 8491 MISSION HILLS CIR 470 MISSION HILLS CT ROSEVILLE , MN 55113 -1128 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7720 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7714 PATRICK S & CONSTANCE SULLIVAN SCOTT E & SHANNON L FIEDLER DANIEL M & JANE A ZUREICH 8500 MAYFIELD CT 8511 MISSION HILLS LN 8490 MISSION HILLS CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7719 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7713 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7720 RICHARD A SWANSON BONITA R MENDEN KARLA K THOMSON 8520 MAYFIELD CT 85D4 MAYFIELD CT 8524 MAYFIELD CT CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7719 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7719 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7719 RICHARD & EVELYN J KETTLER CONNIE M MOEHL STEVEN M & TRACY A SCHEID 8521 MAYFIELD CT 8540 MAYFIELD CT 451 MISSION HILLS CT CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7719 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7719 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7714 JEFFREY G & LEA J NORDOS RAYMOND C ORTMAN JR VERNON W & BARBARA L LINDEMANN JULIORTMAN 461 MISSION HILLS CT 552 MISSION HILLS DR 8525 MISSION E N HILLS CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7714 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7716 CHA MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7713 MICHAEL S & STEPHANIE R DILLE SUSAN M DEAN JOHN A & JUDITH A HRUBY 291 TIMBER HILL RD 8525 MAYFIELD CT 419 PORTSIDE DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9129 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7719 AMELIA ISLAND FERNANDINA BEACH . FL 32034 -4841 DIANE M DEPOE JOCELYNE RYAN LAUREL J BOSECK 548 MISSION HILLS DR 576 MISSION HILLS DR 592 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7716 MATTHEW L & KATHLEEN ALBRECHT LAWRENCE D & NANCY E STEIN MARCELLA HOWE & JOYCE HANSON 6220 CASCADE PASS TRUSTEES OF TRUST 8541 MISSION HILLS IN CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9476 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7713 596 MISSION HILLS CHANHASSEN , MN 55 55317 -7717 GEORGE D STACY SANDRA E GEVING DANIEL T & KELLY A FASCHING 584 MISSION HILLS DR 536 MISSION HILLS DR 8550 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7713 HAROLD JR & POLLY L HARTIN SUSAN M HOAGLUND MARCIA L JOSEPHSON 540 MISSION HILLS DR 588 MISSION HILLS DR 528 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7715 PETER W & GLORIA JEAN WILCZEK ROGER A WAINWRIGHT NINA J KREIENBRINK 581 MISSION HILLS DR 532 MISSION HILLS DR 520 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7715 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7715 LYNETTE R LARSON ARDIS M OLUFSON RICHARD K & THERESA A HESS 512 MISSION HILLS DR 565 MISSION HILLS DR 8561 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7715 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7713 NADINE N NELSON VIRGINIA A WELLUMSON DALE E & BETTY HETLAND 484 FRISCO CT 585 MISSION HILLS DR 524 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7718 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 GEORGE J CARLYLE & CURTIS & PATRICIA BRANDON VERNIS M STROM JANELLE VEILLEUX CARLYLE 516 MISSION HILLS DR 569 MISSION HILLS DR 8560 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7713 MARY A AINSWORTH RUTH M THONANDER LENORE J MOLSTAD 508 MISSION HILLS DR 549 MISSION HILLS DR 589 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 JANEEN D LANDSBERGER KATHY J MCKIM VIOLA M COLLINGHAM 480 FRISCO CT 533 MISSION HILLS DR 573 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7718 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 VERLE R & BETTE M POFFENBERGER ERW IN C & CLARA M SIDER SUNITA GANGOPADHYAY & 593 MISSION HILLS DR 553 MISSION HILLS DR S 71 MISSIOHAGATN HILLS L ADHYAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55377 -7713 RONALD S & BARBRA T EWING BARBARA J WELLUMSON BONNIE JEAN THURK 5570 MISSION HILLS LN 577 MISSION HILLS DR 537 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7713 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 GRACE REGALADO CAROL K GELDERT BEVERLY E CHRISTENSEN 525 MISSION HILLS DR 557 MISSION HILLS DR 517 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 MONICA M GALUSKA LYNETTE LAABS JUBA FAMILY 1989 TRUST 509 MISSION HILLS DR 541 MISSION HILLS DR 878E JEWEL RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 LAS VEGAS, NV 89148-1435 FRANK J HANISH & ROBERT J ZINNEL CAREN SOENS TRUSTEE OF TRUST THOMAS J BOURNE 561 MISSION HILLS DR 504 MISSION HILLS DR 471 FRISCO CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7718 ADELINE R HARRIS JAMES E PARISH BERNARD M & JOANN C GAYTKO 529 MISSION HILLS DR 545 MISSION HILLS DR 521 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 JAMES A & MARILYN L CRAWFORD BRIAN M & DAWN M RODELL RILEY ROBERT C & SUSAN J ERICKSON 8581 MISSION HILLS LN 8580 MISSION HILLS LN 513 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7713 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7713 CHANHASSEN ,.MN 55317 -7715 JANET E BROWN 501 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7715 KATHLEEN MJOHANNES 430 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7705 CARL P & VIRGINIA R PRIOR 500 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7715 JEAN M KAMRATH 434 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7705 ROSEMARY B WILL 475 FRISCO CT CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7718 AMANDA C W INBLAD-VONWALTER 438 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7705 MICHELLE J ERICKSON-CODY JENNIFER RENKLY JOHN D & MARY JO EICHLER 442 MISSION HILLS WAY E 446 MISSION HILLS WAY E TRUSTEE OF TRUST CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7705 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7705 25628 CORDOVA LN RIO VERDE , AZ 85263 -7146 Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Hurt Variance Planning Case No. 05-32 8491 Mission Hills Circle City of Chanhassen Established in 1962 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. LAND SURVEYORS RECAST ERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 2901 nolL Avenue March (W3) NO -Mel Fax No. 5613-3522 Micasel-is, Womenta 55120 27urvegurs Trriifirate JENNIFER HURT Property located in Section 13, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota r� save Mission 141115 rc Circle "`o' ass \ N 89'22'13' W - 43.43 eaeo 1. IBE CCR rW l wi sno y s l � ,.m Y 6 sale e mq� 1 W e 8 l sa— r l v sms m.o o sm sm.i or i n ear: evrr ,� 8 a erk z �ry l O eios s r unuryessamenr Ott � sn r v fw >ro s u �u es s Hie only easements shown are from plats of record or information provide A by client. We hereby certify that this is o W< and correct re sentabon of a survey of the bourskines of the above described land and the location of all buildings and risible encroachments, if any, from or an said lan& us this 18th day of July 2005. INVOICE NO. 72195 F.B.NO. 1D06-67 SCALE: 1 " = 30' O Denotes von mmorm it D Derives Wood Hub Set for excavation Only x to Denotes Existing Desation 000.0 Denotes Proposed Devotion wt— Denales Surface Drainage NOTE_ Proposed gmdes are subject o to results f soil tots. Proposetl buildingg information must be check eE with opprored bolding plan oral devabpment or Wading plan before excavation and cnnsInertias. Proposed Top of Black Proposed Garage Haar Proposed Lowest Floor Type of Oulding Hardcover Calculations Lot = 20.595 eq ft± House = 1.968 sq ft± Driveway = 1,473 sq ft± Walk. Stoop, Porch = 242 sq fl± Patio = 93 sq ft± Sport Court 2.437 sq It± Conc. Slab = 120 sq ft± Walls = 291 sq ft± Total Hardcover = 6,624 sq ft± Percentage = 322% Detail retaining Walls NW House 11 sq ft± SW House 16.5 sq it± Middle Wall at Rear of House 25 sq ft± SE Corner House 20 sq R± West of Sport Court 75.5 sq ft± South of Sport Court 33.5 sq ft± North of Sport Court 35 sq ft± East of Sport Court 55 sq ft± East of Sport court In easement Area 19-5 sq ft± Total Retaining Walls 291 sq ft± RECEIVED SEP 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Lot 6, Block 2, MARSH GLEN ,r L/L Signed Charles F. Anderson, Minn. Reg, No. 217S3 or Wa0557-72195dw9 Gregory R. Prosch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 INVOICE NO. 72195 Established in 1962 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. F.B,NO. 1006-67 " SCALE: 1 = 30' LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA O Denotes Iron Monument 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093 0 Denotes Wood Hub Set Fax No. 560-3622 for excavation only Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 fva+s Trr x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation U� ifirt}r 000.0 Denotes Proposed Elevation oglf--- Denotes Surface Drainage JENNIFER HURT NOTE: Proposed grades are subject to results of soil tests. Proposed building information Property located in Section must be checked with approved 13, Township 116, Range 23, building plan and development or grading plan before excavation Carver Count Minnesota Y and construction. Proposed Top of Block Proposed Garage Floor Proposed Lowest Floor \\ Type of Building N SS'22'l3" W - 43.43 - sos o rc 90C.77 N I I I Trws � s Mission Hells rc Circle m I m / .Lee I � i I 90tl O I I O 510.I / 910.0 I T 9109 Hardcover Calculations I 4 ^ TrN sit 433 8911.4 $1151 p Lot = 20,595 sq ft± I 9II.9 8 I House = 1,968 sq ft± Tar Ocnc y GAR FLOOR I Driveway = 1,473 sq ft± Slle ells r Walk, Stoop, Porch = 242 sq ft± roe 131c& kwCORTOO ' I Patio = 93 sq ft± 909./ 944111 Soo 2A 51heNo. 9491 � 1361 /9.9 Sport Court = 2,437 sq ft± W 910 i Cone. Slab = 120 sq ft± s i Walls = 291 sq ft± °O 905. E 112.1 j' Z 50.93. T14 711" I N Total Hardcover = 6,624 sq ft± 9o.a 1 F ^� 'S 90O 910 ` 1 w Percentage = 32.2% x p'� I so4. a 90s. a. 906 I 7 901.7 902.7 907.b I 504, �- x x % ZO 903.0 905.E 905.7 r 9° 9G4.5 9 1 90/.7 x501.7 507 4 909. Zdi 1 x 900..0 0 Ztl^Tr6m'9 ra•nnp,e Z Detail retaining Walls ,„,16"TMA' �¢ I Ora nags r i NW House 11 sq ft± 9013 UtilityEaasm t SW House 16.5 sq ft± 9005 902.4 ,4 22^71" I s 1 i' Middle Wall at Rear House 25 fti- 909.05 '0 , of sq 5. 9O I SE Corner House 20 sq ft± West of Sport Court 75.5 sq ft± ;:. South of Sport Court 33.5 sq ft± North of Sport Court 35 sq ft± r 6 ne I Q4 co East of Sport Court 55 sq ftrt p Gourt,,..' :..•:. xu.5 i East of Sport court o , xf 5 I o *0�7 In easement Area 19.5 sq ft± sos.9 rcancreed .' I. I ^907 •e - �' 1 Total Retaining Walls 291 sq ft± o n 90i.5 I ' IT'^ IZ'Trst r i =°^T,ss I - Z 'r" RECEIVED ph"K N� I I `-- '30.00 589'22'13^ e--' 9°z' SEP 16 2005 903.7 I c r YYlO U �� CITY OF CHANHASSEN r Lot 6, Block 2, MARSF The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the above described land and the location of all buildings and visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. Surveyed by us this 18th day of July 2005. , . I n_1. 11 1-- I Signed Charles F. Anderson, Minn. Reg. No. 21753 or Gregory R. Prosch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 SCANNED Lake Susan Marshland Tit SUBJECT SITE 4y' CITY OF 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 This mp is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used IS; one. This map is a comislation of records, iMormation and data located in various city, county, ptete and fedeeal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for refer purooses only. The qfy does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) D used to prepare this MP ere error has, and the City does not represent that rile GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring eaae cting mapa surerrrt of distance or direction or precision in M�bon of flwgrapry'c features. tl errors or discrepanciegme found Pleases contact 952-227-1., edlng disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minn Sfatutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), the user of this map acknowledges that Me City shall nogg, liade for any damages, and e,yressly warvek'all daims and agrees to defendonderm y and hold han iless the City from any and all darts brougpgby User, its employees dr agepts, or tint paNes which arm out of the users access or use of . PLST-GE-: �3-� Q37 y ((II�VE1r.n 1 s \Fe0137Ge I c Nov tu05 CITY Or Cr1r-•NI jthJz, N MISSION HILLS GARDEN HOMES vl HOMEOWNERS ASSN 2681 LONG LAKE RD W ROSEVILLE MN 55113ky p� Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Da & Time: uesday, October 18 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Lo on: City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd. Pr sal: Request for after -the -fact hard surface coverage and side yard setback Variances for a sport court Pla in File: 05-32 A ant: Clint & Jennifer Hurt Pr rty 8491 Mission Hills Circle LoC Ion: I A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the F, applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following stets Wh .' ppens at t eating: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e- Que ns & mail imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn,us. If you choose to submit Com nts: written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online at http://206.10.76.6/weblink7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. 7 _ ty Review Procedure; • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan ReYiews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any Interested party is Invited to attend the meeting. . Staff .,spares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The Item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the Item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciaNndustdal. . Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersonlrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any Interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have --thin m h.. Inoo,ded in the renort. please contact the Planning Staff Damon named on the notification. City Council Meeting — November 14, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: We've got the issues with right-of-way and all that, or easements taken care of? Across the Degler property and all that. Todd Gerhardt: For this portion of the project. Phase II we're still working on a couple of easements there. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions on this? If not, without objection we certainly can handle all three of these items with a single motion. If there is a motion consistent so is there a motion to adopt staff's recommendation and the assessment roll on each of the items? Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve staffs recommendation in the packet. Mayor Furlong: For each, 3 (a), (b) and (c). Councilman Lundquist: 3(a), (b) and (c). Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjomhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Is there any discussion? Again hearing none we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the following items for the 2005 MUSA Improvements, Phase 1, Project 04-05: a. Resolution#2005-94: Adoption of the Assessment Roll. b. Resolution#2005-95: Award of Contract to Veit & Company, Inc., in the amount of $1,615,113.00. C. Approve Consultant Work Order with Kimley-Horn and Associates in the amount of $187,000 for construction phase services for Phase I of the 2005 MUSA improvements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PLANNING CASE 05-32. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site is located off of Mission Hills Circle in the Marsh Glenn subdivision. This subdivision was built, or approved in approximately the year of 2000 and this home was built without the survey showing a sport court on the site. It's an after the fact variance request. It did not go through any approval process. The variance is for hard surface coverage and side yard setbacks. It did go to the Planning Commission on October 18t6. City Council Meeting — November 14, 2005 A public hearing. At that time the Planning Commission recommended 5-0 to deny the request for the 5.4 hard surface coverage. In summary I'll point out how this house sits on the lot and then go through and show you some pictures. But this is the existing home and this is the sport court. It was recommended here, that's shown in pink is the elimination to reduce some of the hard surface coverage. You can see on the pictures here where the property line is and the retaining wall going into a portion of that. One of the recommendations was to pull out some of the hard surface coverage and one of them being the patio in the back. Staff has some concerns about that. We have requests all the time that people would recommend taking out their front sidewalk. We believe there's some reasonable use of property and a sidewalk and sometimes patios coming out of a door like that makes some sense. Some sort of hard surface there when it's being used as a doorway. Again this came to the city staff via a neighbor's complaint regarding the size and the location of the sport court, so the applicants again are proposing to remove some of the hard surface but it still would require the variance for total square footage. If you look on the staff report on page 5 of the staff report it goes through the actual square footage of all the area and the, that could be removed including the concrete slab of 120 square feet. Go back to the survey here. The area outside the sport court, and then removing some of the sport court itself to get, but it would still be over but it would meet all the setback requirements and they're going to remove the boulder wall. You can see there's a boulder wall on the property line and one extending over which would go into the Mission Hills. Their common area. This property just to the south of that. So discussing with the Planning Commission, they had some concerns about again that size of the patio. One of the issues that we also put in the staff report was regarding drainage and I just wanted to go over that with you briefly. This may be a little hard to read but this is the lot itself. Everything shown in pink drains to that pond. This was the original pond with Mission Hills. It was made larger to accommodate the development of this area but this is a large area that drains into this pond. The homes along the back have the minimum 3 foot from the lowest level. The homes in Mission Hills actually have a greater separation. There's more bounce on that pond, but this is one of the things that we look at when we have, as we discussed earlier today, the larger rain events. When we were, not only the velocity but the, how fast it's coming down and the ability for it to actually percolate into the soil when there's that much hard surface, and those are some of the things that I think was on the Planning Commission's mind. Looking at that. While this may not be in, by itself so egregious but if you accommodate that all the way around. One of the other questions that was asked to me was, has there been other variances in this immediate area and there hasn't been in this particular subdivision itself. So with that the Planning Commission did recommend denial. We do have another motion in here for you too if you did choose to approve and that would include eliminating some of the additional square footage. Again one of the concerns that we have is that we have some sort of patio or a landing space coming outside of the, this sliding glass doors out to the back. Any questions? Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Ms. Aanenson, in the storms that we had both Labor Day weekend and early October, were there any issues in this area with the pond? Kate Aanenson: No. Not that we received. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the drainage from here basically runs across the property to the west, is that correct? 0 City Council Meeting — November 14, 2005 Kate Aanenson: Yes. It would go to the west and actually goes along 101. Then it's piped underneath 101 and that's the direction it goes. Mayor Furlong: Eventually down to Lake Susan or down to Bluff Creek? Kate Aanenson: Yep. Down to the creek, correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for staff at this time? Councilman Peterson: Kate, in your discussions with them, are they opposed. I know we'll hear from them in a few minutes but are they opposed to your proposed hard surface cover calculations, the new ones that get you down 27% or not? Kate Aanenson: No, I think they've agreed to those. Correct. It's still over but they've agreed to that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? If not, I know the Hurt's are here. If you'd like to come forward. Can't wait to talk to the council. Jennifer Hurt: Yeah, I can't wait to talk. It's been several months so I'm just, I'm kind of ready to be done with this. Jennifer Hurt, my husband Clint Hurt. Council members, thank you. I want to thank you of course for the time and listening to our request for a variance. We want you to know, and obviously we're in a little bit of a bind. We hired a licensed contractor back in March of 2005. He assured us that he would take care of everything. Checking in with the City to make sure that we were in compliance with the City. We felt very confident that paying the amount of money that we paid him to build our sport court, and the fact that he was a licensed contractor, that he would get the job done according, in accordance with the City. However we were very let down and we want you to know that first of all we would never build a sport court this large had we known that it would violate city code. We are not looking to be sneaky at all. That was never our intent. But now we have to deal with the fact that our sport court is too big and that is why we are applying for this variance. So at this point what we are requesting is a 2.7% hard surface coverage variance. Our original plan was to remove 8 feet off the south side of the sport court, which is 320 square feet. Removing the concrete slab, which is 120 square feet and removing 128 1/2 total square feet of retaining wall. The Planning Commission did not approve of our variance at the October meeting but encouraged us to come with you with our request. After the meeting we sat down with Josh Metzer again and discussed some options and we decided that we, one of the options that he presented to us is that we could remove our patio on the lower level to decrease the amount of square footage but in hearing that, that's maybe not a great option and after thinking about it, I'm not so sure I want to remove my patio either. We also decided that we definitely could afford the extra 5 foot, or 5 feet of square footage on the west side of the sport court saving us another 260 square feet. If we are not going to be removing a patio we would be very willing to remove the equivalence of the patio surface coverage from our sport court. We are really trying to bring down our hard surface coverage with the above mentioned items so that we can still keep as much of our sport court as possible. We live in a very unique neighborhood. There are 8 houses in our development that are directly 10 City Council Meeting — November 14, 2005 on the marshland. They are well aware of the fact that when they built their houses they were not allowed to cut down or build anything on that marshland, and we noticed that that is part of the drainage system that drains with our pond. So we feel that maybe our variance could somewhat balance their property. Those neighbors support our variance. Also we know that our drainage flows to an existing pond near us and that this pond can accommodate the additional runoff. We have 16 letters from neighbors who... neighborhood have already used our sport court and we take comfort in knowing that our children are in our back yard rather than a mile away playing in a park. While the parks are very fun to visit, the closest park to us is Rice Marsh Lake which is accessible via walking trail but approximately a mile away. And Lake Susan Park, which we must cross over Highway 1 and in the near future we know is not going to be a safe thing to do. So you see our intent of installing a sport court was not to increase the value of our home but rather provide a safe place for children to play close to home. We've also tried to gain support from the townhome owners to the south of us and in talking with some of the townhome neighbors, there were several people that spoke. One woman said to leave it all. I don't have a problem with it. Another woman said there's nothing better than to hear children laughing. And yet another comment was, it's nice to see the kids playing off the streets. This is exactly how we feel. We absolutely love our court. In taking the 8 feet off of the south end we can no longer have a short court tennis court, which is one of the things I love. To comply with ordinance requirements you are asking us to cut our sport court from 2,437 square feet to 1,210 square feet. This is less than half. So we're asking you, how do you play safely in a court that size with more than 3 or 4 people? So the advantage of our sport court being the size that it is, is that many people can benefit from it all at once. We have lots of different things that we have done on the sport court and obviously because of it's size we're all able to enjoy it at once. We realize that you've had a number of hard surface coverage requests for variances within the past months. We hope that you will consider our request as an individual case. We would like for you to come out and see our sport court before you make your decision so we're asking that if you aren't going to approve our variance tonight, that you table it. Thank you. Clint Hurt: The other thing I'd like to bring up, I know that we have pictures of our sport court, is the fact that. Mayor Furlong: If you could speak into the microphone so the people at home. Clint Hurt: Is a fact of a lot of these pictures are taken, our sport court is not totally complete. These rock walls would totally be moved off of the lot line and back onto our property, really butting up to what would be the sport court so the only problem is that we did have the retaining wall in this back side, which we would have removed that anyway so, but with this variance we are going to be taking on all of this back side and the side side of the rocks, and pretty much whatever we can do to kind of be in compliance with the city here. But we would like to keep as much of the sport court as possible and hopefully we'd... and maybe see what else we could do... Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for the Hurt's at this point? Councilman Peterson: Either Kate or you guys. Feel free to respond but if you take out the retaining wall, is the setback issue mitigated or is it still there? 11 City Council Meeting — November 14, 2005 Jennifer Hurt: No, we are taking an additional 5 feet off of what we had originally planned and so there is not a setback issue at all. We are complying with city easements. We're complying with side setback. The only thing that we're not in compliance with is the amount of hard surface coverage. Kate Aanenson: On this side there's a 5 foot drainage utility easement so that wall's currently on the property in the easement so there's a 5 foot easement. So if they were to remove this, just to be clear, then they would be in compliance but it would have to be removed to meet the 10 foot setback. Councilman Peterson: Okay. Mayor Furlong: When you say remove, the pink shadow there? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: The sport court and then move the rock wall in. Kate Aanenson: That's correct, yes. Then you get compliance to get the 10 foot. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And that's what you're proposing? Clint Hurt: That we would do, correct. Mayor Furlong: To do as part of the. Clint Hurt: Yeah, we would take everything away in pink on here. Mayor Furlong: And move the wall back to the outside that side yard setback or that utility easement? Clint Hurt: No, because this back wall here, we'd actually remove it. That whole back wall along the, or that 8 feet. We'd actually move the sport court on the west. The retaining wall on the west. The retaining wall on the south and then up to 10 feet back on the east side of that. Mayor Furlong: Those walls would come out and not be replaced? Clint Hurt: Correct. We would remove it all. Take the rock away. Kate Aanenson: Let me just try to clarify it. There's a couple things we're talking about. One is setbacks. In order to meet the setbacks the area in pink would have to be removed. Then the second issue is impervious surface, which even if they removed everything in pink they would still be over. I guess the position's is on the patio coming out of the porch. We need to make a house inferior. We believe that may not be the best thing to select to take out. 12 City Council Meeting — November 14, 2005 Jennifer Hurt: But again we're trying to be, we're trying to cooperate with the city because that was one of the recommendations that was given to us. From Josh Metzer, so we're trying to comply and that's one of the things we're sacrificing. Mayor Furlong: But what I heard you say tonight too is if you kept that you would take. Jennifer Hurt: Well it sounds like they probably maybe don't want us to do that. Kate Aanenson: I'm not saying that. That's the council's decision. I'm just saying as a staff, as it would be if you were going to take out your front sidewalk, I'd just don't think that's a good solution to solving a problem. Jennifer Hurt: And honestly I would like to keep my patio. So I would, I mean we would be willing to take the equivalence of that off of this, the west side of our sport court. Mayor Furlong: Additionally? Jennifer Hurt: Yes. So that would be approximately another 2 feet off of this side. Councilman Peterson: Had you contemplated or pursued acquiring additional property so you wouldn't have to take out the? Clint Hurt: Ali yes we have. Jennifer Hurt: Yes we have. And that wasn't an option. Councilwoman Tjornhom: But you do have I think an unusual driveway shape too. Is that correct? Jennifer Hurt: Yes we do and that was another option Josh Metzer gave to us was that to take off some of the driveway. Unfortunately we have this kind of odd driveway and it curves around and it is rather large, and maybe someone could come and draw sidewalk chalk out there for us to tell us where we could take some. It's another option for us but the way that our driveway goes, I mean we are driving on our grass all the time anyways. No one can drive out of our driveway backwards the way it is because it's so curvy. So if someone has a recommendation for us as to where the best place might be to take off of our driveway, we certainly would consider that as well. Councilman Lundquist: Have you had any discussions with that contractor that you hired about responsibility for removing and things? Jennifer Hurt: Yes we have. As far as monetary dissolutions, I guess we haven't gotten to that point. We were kind of waiting to hear how the variance process went and go from there. He is well aware of the fact that it is his responsibility. He did not check in with the city as he was told, he claims he has never had a problem with the City of Chanhassen. He knew that he did not need a permit and that was one of the things that at the Planning Commission meeting it was 13 City Council Meeting — November 14, 2005 mentioned that a lot of builders, contractors, people who are doing their own work, kind of stop there at the permit because they know they don't need a permit, and then they kind of stop and so, and I'm not saying that that's the fault by all means but it is one of the things that it kind of stops there so. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions? Councilman Labatt: So a point of clarification? Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Councilman Labatt: So they take out all the pink stuff, then they're asking for 2. whatever percent. Jennifer Hurt: It's approximately 2.7%. Councilman Labatt: Right? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilman Lundquist: That's about half. The pink is about, removes it or cuts it in about half. Mayor Furlong: Of what's over on the hard surface but it also eliminates the need for a side yard setback. Councilman Lundquist: And the easement and all that good stuff. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, any other questions at this time? Okay, thank you. Appreciate it. Any follow-up questions for staff? If not we'll bring it back to council for discussion. Thoughts on this one. Councilman Lundquist: I actually took a drive out there this afternoon. You can see it pretty good from the Mission Hills area. There you get pretty close to it. I guess overall I'm sympathetic with the Hurt's because of the, you hire a contractor. You think that they're going to do all the stuff they're supposed to do. However, I know they've got signatures and all of that but I've also had some contacts from some of your neighbors that aren't overly impressed with it either. So I think it's a difficult one. Appreciate all of the work that's gone in so far and your ability, or your willingness to cooperate and do that things. Wouldn't support, I wouldn't support taking the patio out. You're not going to walk in and out of the mud to get in and out of your house so that's just going to go back someday so that's not going to really do anything. But I don't, this isn't really one tonight that I'm ready to say yes to even with the pink stuff taken out. I just think this is a use that is, I mean the Hurt's raise a lot of good points about the kids playing in the back yard and keeping them close to home and off of the streets and safe and all of those things are excellent points and there's a lot of truth to that. But the rules are the rules as well and I'm not sure that I'm compelled to say that this is one I'm willing to go on. You know we have hard surface variance issues where people build garages and other things that are bigger 14 City Council Meeting — November 14, 2005 and different things so I think I would like to see a little more work done to see what else we can do to try to get down as low as possible. If there's some other solutions or look at a picture of the sport court of what it would be to get at the 25% extra stuff taken out. I know the numbers are in the staff report but a picture's worth a thousand words right so. I guess the overall I'd like maybe take a couple of more weeks, take a look at it. Continue to have the Hurt's work with staff and see where they're at and try to get a little bit lower on that if we can closer to that 25. Mayor Furlong: Ahight. Appreciate your comments. Other comments or discussion. Councilman Peterson: I would agree with Councilman Lundquist. I mean we were successful earlier tonight with the Kakacek's and letting staff work their magic. Although I think this is a bit more of a challenge, I certainly wouldn't disagree with giving the ball back to staff and letting them be creative. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjomhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I totally also agree. I think that if they're, the Hurt's are going to make a sacrifice, to try to preserve what they have in their yard now, certainly I don't know why we wouldn't give them more time to try. To try to work something out somehow. And make everyone happy maybe. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Well, for this one I disagree with my fellow councilors. I think they've come up with a solution here with removing the, we'll call it the shaded area according to their drawings in the pink and when you look at that and the fact that their contractor put them in this position, granted you know, ultimately it's the homeowner's responsibility but I think that you know 2% is about what, 100 and some square feet? I can live with that so I would support the variance. Mayor Furlong: And that's fine. I think point of clarification, I think it's closer to 400 or 500, isn't it? Councilman Lundquist: 6 something. 620. Mayor Furlong: The 2.76. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Labatt: It's 568. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, well I appreciate the comments. I want to commend the Hurt's for coming back with some proposal other than just saying we need it all. I think that's admirable that they're looking to work, and it sounds even tonight they're willing to be flexible there. While I'm not willing to say, I'm certainly not willing to say no either. That there isn't something that might work out so I too would certainly support council's action if that was to 15 City Council Meeting — November 14, 2005 give it some more time. There's not going to be much tennis playing in the next couple months here, especially if the forecast is right so I think we've got a little bit of time to work on this one before anything has to happen anyway so let's take advantage of the time we have and let's, you know work with staff. ...and come back when we come up with a plan that's workable, but better than the one we have, and that's what I'm hearing from my council members as well. So. Roger Knutson: Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Sir. Is there a deadline? Roger Knutson: Mayor, there is a deadline. What we'd need from them is to agree on an extension and I've picked the date, January 15d'. Since you only have one meeting in December. I have written... Mayor Furlong: Okay. Would that be acceptable? We need to get that, if you could come up and agree to this? Then we'll proceed with the motion to table, I think that's where we're going and then, at this point. Is there any further discussion on this or is there a motion to also consider? Councilman Lundquist: I would move that we table item 4... the agreement. Mayor Furlong: So we're tabling item 4. Bring back at a future meeting. Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjomhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion to table's been made and seconded. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to table the request for an after the fact hard surface coverage and side yard setback variances for a Sport Court at 8491 Mission Hills Circle, Planning Case 05-32. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. MIKE & CINDY KOENIG: REOUEST FOR A HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE AND A FOUR SEASON PORCH, 8005 CHEYENNE AVENUE. Kate Aanenson: This is located in the Chan Estates neighborhood. Again this is an after the fact variance. It did go to the Planning Commission on November 0 and the Planning Commission voted 6 to 1 to deny the variance. Again there was some additions put onto the house that were not permitted. Did not go through any building permit approval process so it was discovered when someone was actually looking at purchasing the house. They did some research that, noticed there were some additions put on, so that was one issue. And then the, trying to remove the hard surface coverage which was over. So what we're trying to eliminate is everything, the applicant's, everything that they could besides taking out the existing building portion. So there's a couple of new differences between this one and the one we just saw. This is a lot that ffl LOT2 �l LOT4 bl� �T LM �l �13 W3 QAJNX2 A) mw .4 W.%AI I A f UjT:.C;7 Hi IaT sag*22*03% o-�i-:T A .,Ay WETLAND OfUhNEATION BENCHMARK TNH EL A 894.34- 19' Lwe UM .1 1W C L 1. BE K2PYWE0 AT 1. OF l- A, LEGEND Y OUTLOT 8 OHW EL 877.00 EXISTING CRADE MOFDSEX) GRADE .. .. . ..... . M-ELEVATHM SHOT AGE ARROWS ..... ..... . WE%ANO MUNEAVON b ea BUILT -- ----- OR z ft bbbbb( LOT A WALKOUT OR LOOKOUT BLEVATON 4 GARAGE FLORNR EUEYAnON • 2 FOOT HOLE-DOW ON OARALE 5 ` -A. !'i_. - i / ' 4`" lr,TRNA[-_ -..._C . / W by r/.: .... / / .. ..... .\ �r..-\ _' -'--- a�qm . . . . . . . . . . . 2%2 QbAbi w OMfhbM i0RAbE M rp Jp e4 ------- --------- - ------ - - ------------ % -BENCHMARK: MH I tdgt IT 9�,- - . — �P ;;a, r I -, N CA m SCALE �� N Mft e—�� 1 11 t INCH - ET 2.49 'NR 7,vi, NBSA22-.J-. A' W4, A N07: THE EMERGENCY OVERFLOW SWALE BETWEEN LOTS 9 A: BLOCK 2 U. BE, 10. GRACING Of LOT 9 (�OMPUETEO AS PAR OF THE CUSTOM WRFLOW ELEVATION TO BE 896.00 RECORD DRAWINGS: OCTOBER 30, 2000 'n CONSTRUCTION STAKING: DEVELOPMENT ENG. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS: 6 UTILITIES: BROWN & CHRIS INC, EARTHWORK: BUSSE CONSTRUCTION 7a AF> . i %. D-0 by 1 5-12 OR pow Em RUSK. mb SU47 Ow by (612) 934-OM IW4 DRAMOPMENT LmNREFURR. PA SAM W0 ft P, bw 32 a --RECORDMAWS b MMADMTP� we .*. 60 6 s 2 im MMSRAa 7 3. CIIR5 -Ir A AAo zo 0. yl 00- W, 11 A I-C It HE- " OD Q s: era/ n H P P,4, '� c A N� 'o VAR I I A acF- AT, 8 yY1 r,\ ► s s: o� /4 1-Is c ; i2c LF— P�C 1, N9 od r1 . L J A iff�.,okR A PA,;c. icl-' -0-ri 4m. /S. Z0o ,f, ;J.Jti F Y }: U /, v' • a r Ream � 4w s �. Line jo i • . t db%. I Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) CITY OF CHANHASSEN Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly swom, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized CARVER & HENNEPIN agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- COUNTIES lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 05-32 (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 33IA.02, 33IA.07, and other applicable laws, as Commission will hold a public amended. hearing on Tuesday. October 18, 2005, at 7:00 P.M. in the Council (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. Chambersin Chanhassen City Hall, was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper staled in the attached Notice and said 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of thishearingistoconsiderarequest the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both for after -the -fact hard surface inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition coverage and side yard setback Variances for a sport court located and publication of the Notice: A lica Mission Hills Circle. Applicant Clint &Jennifer Hurt. abcdefghllklmnopgrs Vwxyz A plan showing the location of n the proposal is available for 40v�� public review at City Hall during ti regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to Laurie A. Hartmann attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Josh Metzer, Subscribed and sworn before me on Planner Email: imetzerLci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952- 2005 227-1132 (Published in the Chanhassen this day of , GWEN M. RADUENZ NOTA.9Y PU8UC-NJNNESOTA Villager on Thursday, October 6, 2005; No.A527) !,i C�rnmaskn Fxpu%Jat 31,2010 Notary Public RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $22.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $22.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $11.18 per column inch SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Clint & Jennifer Hurt for 4.5% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction and a 5-foot side yard setback variance for the addition of a sport court — Planning Case No. 05-32. On October 18, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Clint & Jennifer Hurt for 4.5% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction and a 5-foot side yard setback variance for the addition of a sport court on property located in the Single Family Residential District at 8491 Mission Hills Circle. 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 (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 6, Block 2, Marsh Glen. 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. Literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other properties in the Single Family Residential district. c. The improvements increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship. e. The granting of the variance maybe detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 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 SCANNED of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #05-32 Variance dated October 18, 2005, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Planning Commission denies the Variances from the impervious surface and side yard setback restrictions for the addition of a sport court. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 18'h day of October, 2005. CHANHASSEN1�NG COMMISSION BY: Its Chairman gAplan\2005 planning casest05-32 hurt vatiance0;ndings of factAm Location Map Hurt Variance Planning Case No. 05-32 8491 Mission Hills Circle City of Chanhassen Lake Susan M�ss�On Hies < a a o SUBJECT SITE �N (A Mission ills Crt CO f N S o w CD 86th St CD Marshland TO n-m E \ i {CANNED October 26, 2005 To Whom It May Concern: We attended a planning commission meeting on Tuesday, October 18, 2005. The commission did not approve our variance. We would like to appeal. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, U&� -�^ 4P-j1' Clint and Jenni r Hurt 8491 Mission Hills Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-974-8349 0 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2005 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, Kurt Papke, and Jerry McDonald MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Keefe and Deborah Zom STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Josh Metzer, Planner I; and Alyson Morris, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR AFTER THE FACT HARD SURFACE JENNIFER HURT, PLANNING CASE NO.05-32. Public Present: Name Address Vern Lindemann 552 Mission Hills Drive Clint & Jennifer Hurt 8491 Mission Hills Circle Jane Zureich 8490 Mission Hills Circle Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks. Questions from staff. Any questions? Not at this time? Alright, do we have an applicant here? If you want to come forward. State your name and address for the record and why don't you tell us a little bit of what's going on here from your point of view. And you may want to take that microphone in front of you. Jennifer Hurt: I'll take it all the way down here. I'm used to that. Well first of all we want to thank you for listening to our request. We want you to know that obviously we're in a little bit of a bind. Sacchet: So you are Clint and Jennifer Hurt. Jennifer Hurt: Yes, I'm Jennifer Hurt. This is Clint Hurt. Sacchet: Just to be clear, thank you. Jennifer Hurt: Yes, sorry forgot. Anyhow we now know that our Sport Court, which was built in May of 2005 is not in compliance with city code. When we hired our contractor back in May Planning Commission Meeting — October 18, 2005 of 2005 he assured us that he would be taking care of everything for us, including checking in with you to make sure that we were in compliance with the city. We felt confident that the work would be done in accordance with the city but we were let down. We want you to know that we would have never built the Sport Court had we known this would be in violation of city code, but now we have to deal with the fact that we have a court that is way too big and that's why we're applying for this variance. So what we're requesting is a 4.4% hard surface coverage variance and also a 5 foot side yard setback variance. We plan to remove 8 feet off of the south side of the Sport Court, which is 320 square feet total. We will also remove a concrete slab that we had planned on putting a shed, which is 120 square feet and we will also be removing 1281h total square feet of retaining wall. So we have 16 letters from neighbors who support us and have benefited from our Sport Court as part of our neighborhood. Several children in our neighborhood have also used the Sport Court. We take comfort in knowing that our children are in our back yard rather than a mile away or still playing in a park. While the parks are fun to visit, the closest park to us is Rice Marsh Lake, which is accessible via walking trail but it's approximately a mile away. And we also have Lake Susan Park which is the park we visit frequently but we have to cross over Highway 101 and in the very near future here we know that Highway 101 is not going to be a safe thing to cross. So, let's see our intent of installing the Sport Court was not to increase the value of our home but rather provide a safe place for children to play close to our house. Clint Hurt: My wife being short I've got to always lift things up. We've also, my name is Clint Hurt. We also went over to the town houses and actually I talked with several of the people right in the existing that actually overlook our Sport Court, and by going with them you know we also, we're showing a willingness to take care of that, the setback, or the 8 foot. Cutting off the 8 off the back would actually you know take the town houses and put everything on that back side. In doing, talking so I did talk with two of the board members. I also talked with several of the occupants there that a lot of them were just saying why can't you just leave it all in you know, it's for the kids. 'There's nothing better than to hear children laughing. It's also nice to see the kids playing somewhere not in the streets, and being a nurse I take care of kids you know and it's stuff that we don't like to see happen when kids get hit by cars. This is exactly how we feel. We absolutely love our Sport Court and we love seeing the kids play back there. It takes them off the streets and puts them in a safe area. By also taking off that 8 feet off the back, we're actually making it so we aren't able to play tennis anymore, which we already were able to do, so now what we actually can do is, we can actually play 3 on 3 basketball without crowding each other. We can Rollerblade on it with you know several kids on it. We can play volleyball. We can play badminton. We can ice skate on it with the kids in the wintertime too. Keeping kids off the streets is our main thing. We feel by cutting the Sport Court down to the allotted size that it says, we wouldn't be able to have as much fun on it and also we wouldn't be able to allow as many kids on the Sport Court at one time to keep that safe also. So please consider our request. Sacchet: Thank you. Do we have any questions for the applicants? Alright, yep go ahead Jerry. McDonald: I've got one. One of the things I read through here was, I guess you're real reluctant to want to, either to take it out or cut it down but what harm would it do to cut down the size of it so it is in compliance. I mean you've got quite a bit area there and even if you were to cut down Qsiut� 4 :� Planning Commission Meting — October 18, 2005 • a little bit more, there's still more than enough area to play basketball on and those types of things. Clint Hurt: If we cut it down to the size that it's, what it is. Wouldn't have a, wouldn't be able to play volleyball. Wouldn't be able to ice skate. Wouldn't be able to Rollerblade. Keep the kids off the you know streets. Jennifer Hurt: I think in addition it's, you know it's somewhat of a financial burden for us. I mean we invested this money and put this into a Sport Court. Now we have to take it out. I mean I understand that there are certain rules and regulations and we did break those rules and again it's not something that we intended to do. You know like I said if we had, going all back before this all started we would have never considered something like that but now we are stuck in the situation and it would be a bit of a financial burden. I mean it's already cutting, we're cutting off a decent chunk at the end of it so that we're in compliance with the easement on the townhouse side. On the south side of our court. And if we are to cut as much as we are supposed to cut so that we can reach that 25% hard surface coverage, we're cutting our court in a little bit less than half of what it is. McDonald: Okay, let me ask you a question about the contractor. When he put this together were there guarantees that he was going to take care of all the permits and had he dealt with the city before? Clint Hurt: ...times to make sure that he was going to talk with the council or whoever it was here to check with any zoning or regulations or rules that we'd actually have to go through and he said that he'd take care of everything for us. McDonald: Okay, have you talked to him about any of the costs if you have to comply with the ordinance? Clint Hurt: We will have to do that yes. We have talked with him and he's willing to work with us but it's. Jennifer Hurt: It's still going to be, we've invested the money and I don't think we're getting it back. Sacchet: So at least it won't cost you more to change it. Jennifer Hurt: It won't cost us more but it sure wouldn't have cost us so much to begin with. Sacchet: It wouldn't have cost you so much in the first place. Jennifer Hurt: Right, because we pay by square footage. Sacchet: Any other questions Jerry? lm1Z0 1512Zn KI Planning Commission Meeting — October 18, 2005 Sacchet: Actually I'd like to add on that a little bit. I mean are there any other possibilities to reduce this hard cover? Jennifer Hurt: Well I guess if there are suggestions from you we'd certainly would consider that and. Papke: Have you considered making a level grass area? Some people do play tennis on grass courts for instance which would be permeable. Jennifer Hurt: Okay, we haven't thought of that. Metzer: There's some patio area they could possibly... some sidewalk area up front. That'd be an option for me to, obviously some is still going to have to be removed from the Sport Court to comply but. Sacchet: It's a pretty sizeable driveway. Almost 1,500 square feet and then there's the walk through porch. Maybe some of that could be made impervious. Jennifer Hurt: Take off the driveway? Sacchet: Well you need a driveway. Jennifer Hurt: Well, not really. Clint Hurt: Just got to shorten it up. Larson: Or narrow it. Jennifer Hurt: Narrow it. Sacchet: And where do you need the side yard variance? Is that to the. Jennifer Hurt: It appears as though we have the. Metzer: That'd be the side. Jennifer Hurt: Right. Sacchet: So with what you take out to the, I guess that's to the south. There you wouldn't need it on the south side but you would need it on the west side. Jennifer Hurt: And on the south side we're complying with the south side. It's the west side that we are asking for a variance as well. Larson: Is that a 3 car garage you have? El Planning Commission Met — October 18, 2005 • Jennifer Hurt: Yes. Larson: What if you were to make it closer to 2 car? Well, it kind of looks like it already is but, you could make it quite narrow and then just at the very end scoot it over so you can get, you know you could park in front of it if you needed to or whatever but. We'd like to work with you on this. Jennifer Hurt: Thank you. Appreciate that. Sacchet: It looks like you have huge support from all the neighbors. Jennifer Hurt: We do. Sacchet: Did any of the neighbors have any reservations? Jennifer Hurt: Reservations? No. Not that we're aware of. Sacchet: It seems like everybody is just. Jennifer Hurt: Well we love it. I mean we. Clint Hurt: ... the retaining wall and everybody loves the boulder wall on one side. Sacchet: Now you're talking about taking out the retaining walls, most of them. What impacts will that have on your? Clint Hurt: On one side we actually have to come in with a grader. Hire a grading contractor and actually be sloped off. Sacchet: So you have to slope it a little bit, yeah. Jennifer Hurt: But we met with Dan Remer, the city engineer when we met with Josh and we talked about that and... Sacchet: It can be sloped and... Jennifer Hurt: ... when it was originally and he said that would be fine. We didn't finish it. When we moved into this house 2 years ago it was obviously already built. There was a previous owner there and she never finished off that back part so that was ideal to us because we had plans of either putting a pool or a Sport Court back there so we thought well great, we don't have to rip up a bunch of sod and you know whatever else would have been back there. Landscaping. Clint Hurt: And I mean there was a lot of, I mean weeds and stuff like that so it's taking control over really our back yard. M Planning Commission Meeting — October 18, 2005 Jennifer Hurt: Our neighbors are thrilled to see that it's better than weeds that's back there. Larson: It's beautiful. I mean there's no doubt that it's really. Undestad: Is there, Josh is there, you back up to some townhomes and I noticed one of the letters in here was from the neighboring association or something. Is there other, I mean is there common areas out there in the townhomes or in that neighborhood that could be offset or mitigated somehow with hard surface? Metzer: We, you know we can't do a hard surface easement. I don't think we do that. I guess it would have to come down to a sale of property to pick up land with the homeowners association. Al -Jaffa Mission Hills has a totlot. That's part of the homeowners association for Mission Hills. Not part of. Undestad: So there isn't really any outlots or anything that they'd have an opportunity to buy a piece of. Al-Jaff: I can't think of any. Jennifer Hurt: To make up for extra land so it comes down our hard surface coverage. Sacchet: And you said the contractor is not really willing to give anything back. Jennifer Hurt: The contractor is willing to. Sacchet: But he's willing to help you at least not incur more costs. Jennifer Hurt: Well he'll take it out for us, you know. Clint Hurt: He won't be refunding anything. Jennifer Hurt: He's not going to be refunding any money to us and we've paid 90% of it. Sacchet: I mean he did assure you that he would check and he's. Jennifer Hurt: Yes, and he's well aware of the fact that he did assure us of that. Sacchet: You'd have to have some leverage there. Jennifer Hurt: We do. Sacchet: Any other questions? No? Alright. Jennifer Hurt: Thank you. 0 Planning Commission Me•g — October 18, 2005 • Sacchet: This is a public hearing. I'd like to open that. If anybody wants to comment, please come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say. Vern Lindemann: Good evening. I'm Vern Lindemann. I'm the President of Mission Hills Garden Homes Association. The commons property that abuts the property in question here, and let me give you a little background here. I don't know who's planning was involved in this Sport Court or whatever the situation was but there wasn't a lot of thought given to the neighborhood impact when that was put in. No one talked to any of us ahead of time as to what we would think about it. The Sport Court is very, very close to two bedroom windows of two of our townhomes. As a matter of fact one of the residents has since sold because she could not put up with the noise of the banging, of tennis balls of the Sport Court. He echo's up the -hill. It is very noisy. I live and I realize this isn't a noise issue but it is an issue of planning. When they put in that court, they were running cement trucks on our private streets. We are a townhome association. We own all the streets. We own all the utilities in our association. Cement trucks were running down our streets. I had to actually kick them out and tell them they had to use the city streets because of the weight restriction on our streets. No one asked us about that. And we're kind of thinking this is one of those situations where some people think it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission. And I heard the folks before me say that all the neighbors are in favor of it. That is absolutely not true. The two townhome owners that are closest to the court are definitely not in favor of it. They talked to board members, myself included. We refused to sign the petition. I brought it to the townhome board and I'd like to have you, I'd like to read a letter from the townhome board to the city. I believe you have a copy of that. It has come to the attention of the Mission Hills Garden Homes Board of Directors that the property owners recreational improvement at 9491 Mission Hills Circle, Chanhassen, Minnesota is in violation of city codes. The Board is also aware that the owner of that property has been canvassing the residents of Mission Hills Garden Homes for petition signatures to gain support for allowing a variance to the city code. The Mission Hills Garden Homes Board of Directors wish to make it a matter of record with the City of Chanhassen planning department that the property bordering on the improvements at 8491 Mission Hills Circle borders on the property owned by Mission Hills Garden Homes Association. While the border in question is closest to 520 and 528 Mission Hills Drive, it is the Board's position that any request for variance should be addressed to the Mission Hills Garden Homes Association and not to individual residents. It is also the position of the Mission Hills Garden Homes Board of Directors that the City of Chanhassen not allow the property owner at 8491 Mission Hills Circle a variance to city code due to the overall impact on property at Mission Hills Garden Homes. I think the City, my personal view is, I think the City of Chanhassen has done a phenomenal job in the planning and building of the community. I think it would be a mistake to give a variance to deviations from code after the fact rather than having somebody apply before they put it in. Now I don't know who's fault it was, the contractor's or the homeowners, okay. I as a homeowner know that if I put something in, if I'm going to do some improvement to my property, common sense tells me that I check with the city and make sure that the contractor, because I as a homeowner I believe have the ultimate responsibility for adhering to codes. The contractor does not, okay. And so I just think it's, we run into this. Mission Hills Garden Homes, we're a microcosm of the City of Chanhassen. Our Board of Directors is like City Council and the whole thing. We run into this all the time. Where somebody does something and then wants a variance or permission and we have found 7 Planning Commission Meeting — October 18, 2005 that every time we do that we get bit in the back end down the line by somebody who's, we have a person right now that's saying, if you don't let me do what everybody else has done, I'm going to sue you for discrimination. Okay. So when you back off from good codes and you allow variances because of poor planning in advance, I think it is a mistake and I think the variance should be denied. Sacchet: I've got a question. The townhomes you're talking about are directly adjacent to the south? Vern Lindemann: I'm sorry. Sacchet: The townhomes you're representing are directly to the south. Vern Lindemann: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. Just want to be clear. Vern Lindemann: And our commons property abuts that property. Sacchet: Okay. Okay. Vern Lindemann: And the individual homeowners in Mission Hills Garden Homes do not have, the individual homeowners do not have control of their property. As commons property and any individual homeowner other than noise and nuisance or any other, really does not have unless they come to our board and present their case. I don't believe they have standing in suggesting a variance on our property line. Sacchet: Alright. I think you made yourself pretty understood. Thank you very much. Anybody else wants to address this item? Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Let us know what you have to say. Jane Zureich: Hi. My name is Jane Zureich and I live at 8490 Mission Hills Circle so I am Jen and Clint's next door neighbor and I am the property that will be directly affected by this variance. Sacchet: So you're to the west? Jane Zureich: I'm directly to the west. It's a shared property line that the variance would be the requested on. Once they fix the easement issue takes that back 8 feet off and are in compliance with the 8 feet on the south side, it is the east side of their property line only that would be requesting the variance. That is my property line. When we first moved into that property in 2002, as Jen and Clint mentioned, it was not, they had done nothing to the property. They had brought the sod up not even to where their Sport Court starts now and it, when Clint says it was weeds, in the summer it was waist high weeds. I could lose my 3 year old in the waist high weeds. Jen and Clint immediately upon moving in, Clint mowed the lawn. I would say, I don't know, 100-200 mice came out of that property. So the fact that they have done this to this is an Planning Commission Meeting — October 18, 2005 • immense improvement on that property from where it was before. You can't even compare it to where it was before. They could have I guess chosen to sod the land, but it's an unusual property in that it's very deep. Both of our yards are very deep. Their's is even deeper than our's are, so to have it sodded, yes that was probably an option but it's a unique piece of property that really lends itself very well to this Sport Court. I mean it really lends itself well to having something there for you to use. So I'm kind of in, we absolutely, we've taken full advantage. They are very, very open and welcoming with using the Sport Court. I mean we've used it quite a bit this summer, along with a lot of our other neighbors. We have a 3 year old and a 5 year old and I'd much rather see my 3 year old and 5 year old out in the back playing basketball, trying to play basketball, than out in the street and things like that. I mean we do live in a cul-de-sac but we have no sidewalks in the cul-de-sac. You know it's gotten to the point where I send my kids, because we don't have sidewalks and I'm like, go play in the street and then I'm, what am I saying? Telling the kids to go play in the street. Go play in their yard. Much better. So you know to say, and the issue about asking about them to reduce it in size, I do think taking the back 8 feet off is going to be, that's a manageable reduction in size. I do think if they have to cut it in half, it's really not going to be, they're not going to be able to use it to the full effect. Or really to that great of an effect. We're the ones where the retaining wall right now butts up to our property line. As soon as they remove that from there and then grade it so that it's a slope, it's not going to even be, it's going to be at least 4 or 5 feet away from our property line, which we were even happy with the rock wall because as I said, anything was an improvement over what was there before. I don't feel, I agree that everything in a perfect world and everything would have gone a, b, c, d and they would have had the variance beforehand and had all the permits that they were supposed to have, that would have been obviously the optimal solution. I don't feel like you're setting a precedence because as I mentioned, this is a unique piece of property. Who else has the amount of space that they have to even put something like this on their property? But even beyond that, even beyond because there are properties in Chan who do have that kind of space. It is a unique property that I don't feel that people are out there going, clamoring for Sport Courts and this is going to set a unusual, awkward precedence. I think that if they have to take it out, it's going to make it a very, almost funny looking piece of, I'd rather have a full Sport Court as my next door neighbor trying to sell my house, even to somebody who doesn't have kids, then I would to have a funny cut up thing. Right now it's a beautiful Sport Court. I mean as you see in the pictures, it's beautiful. So it's, do I think it's going to affect my property value? Absolutely not. Never. I don't think it's going to have any negative impact on my property. Sacchet: Thank you. Jane Zureich: Sure. Sacchet: Anybody else wants to address this item? Seeing nobody getting up, I'm closing the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission for discussion or comments. Kurt, you ready? Papke: I'll get the ball rolling. Couple points. First of all in terms of precedence setting. I noticed that on our November 1" meeting we have two cases for hard surface coverage variances, one of which is after the fact, so to have those two follow immediately on the heels of this one I think is a tough spot. So I'm very sensitive to that precedent setting issue. I'm also concerned with the environmental sensitivity to the area. This is very close to Lake Susan. Very Planning Commission Meeting — October 18, 2005 close to the creek and I think we have to be cautious of variance in environmentally sensitive areas. The, my real concern is I think the applicants have come into this with the best of intentions, and I'm starting to question whether our zoning compliance process that we put into place, what was it 2 years ago? When, Sharmeen do you know when we started doing this? AI -Jaffa It was about 2 years ago. Papke: I'm questioning whether it's working because you know we're starting to get some issues here that seem like people aren't getting the message somehow properly. I don't know if it's confusing people. People come in and say well do I need a building permit? No, you don't need a building pen -nit so I think maybe they're leaving saying well, I'm good to go. But there's this zoning compliance thing that we're not, it was intended to catch exactly these situations and it doesn't so regardless of the outcome tonight, I think we need to take a serious look at that and see, what can we do because I think they have the best of intentions it sounds like. A good number of the neighbors are in support of this but because of all the issues, I'm not in favor of approving this. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Jerry, you want to jump in? McDonald: Yeah. First of all I did go out and I did check out the Sport Court and looked at it and I have to admit that you've done quite a bit with your back yard. Yeah, it probably is a fun place for kids to play and all of that. The problem we get into, you talk about precedence. If we do this, there is another case within your same neighborhood that we turned down oh about 4-5 weeks ago and it was, it wasn't a Sport Court but it was patios. So this will set a precedence and it will set a precedence throughout the entire city. And before I came onto this I have to admit I would have probably been more in favor of this because I am a person that believes in, it's your property. You should be able to do with it as you please. However what I have come to learn over the past 6 months, and I'll deviate a little bit. I got involved in, out in Woodbury a week and a half ago. They had a serious flood out there and part of the problem was the City of Woodbury. There were 3 systems that failed. The particular client that I ended up talking to swamped out his basement all the way up to the top step. Total basement was wiped out. The reason why was because of a non-compliance with zoning laws. A drainage ditch had been covered up. Created a dam. Construction was going on. Debris flowed over into the main culvert and it just continued to cascade from there. The people of Woodbury were going after the City of Woodbury. They wanted a redress for all of this. They were blaming the city and the city may or may not have some liability. That's something that would be determined if we ended up going to court. But the point of what that begins to show me is that it's very important, these zoning requirements are there for a reason. Especially whenever we talk about water, ponding, drainage ditches, they're all there. Everything is designed for a reason. Your back yard is basically a bowl. If it were to flood, and I went out there and looked at it and tried to see where the drainage patterns go and ... it's going to go right into her back yard. That's going to go right into her house. Jane Zureich: Actually it's been better since the Sport Court went in. We've had less of a wet back yard since it went in than we did before. It changed, we actually have better drainage now. 10 Planning Commission Mee• g — October 18, 2005 • McDonald: Well that, I'll agree with you to a point but the thing is, I've seen it happen and we just haven't had the kind of flooding that could occur, and once that happens, the first place you're going to come is you're going to come after the City because why didn't we enforce something. Or you're going to go after your neighbors and you're going to want to sue them for creating a problem. The point is, is that these are put there for a reason and it's not so much to impede upon your use of your property. Your property is just one of many pieces that connect to form a subdivision or a group of homes where people live. What you do on your property can affect others, 2, 3, 4 houses away. Sometimes blocks away so there is a reason for this. I do share the concern that you're the second one I've dealt with. Contractor said they were going to take care of everything and nothing was done. I'm a little concerned that our zoning compliance isn't working. I share your concern there. Something should be done because to find these things after the fact, we are now going to impose a great burden upon the homeowner. Not only do you lose the benefit of what you thought you had, but you may incur additional costs in the process of complying with the zoning codes. Is that fair to you? No. I'll be the first one to say it's not. But unfortunately you are ultimately responsible for compliance with zoning codes. Anything with the contractor is a separate issue. It's not the City's job to go after these contractors. I mean based upon all of that and the fact that I feel very strongly about the issue of precedence and also about the issue of water flow and drainage and ponding and all of this, I cannot support this. What I would suggest is, and I know in the other case they have worked with staff to try to come up with solutions. There are a number of things that you can do. We're not asking you to give up your driveway, but there are other things you can do to your driveway. You can make it a porous surface. There are other things to do. It comes down to how bad do you want the Sport Court and what are you willing to do to offset it. Any offset to keep the Sport Court, my suggestion would be your contractor should pay for it. But that's between you and your contractor. I do believe that we have to enforce this hard coverage surface code and because of that I could not support it. Sacchet: Give it a shot? Undestad: Just have a question. Again I agree with everything you're saying here. The zoning ordinances are put in place for this but just a question. What if 2 or 3 or 4 neighbors all wanted to get together and put in a Sport Court in one location? Al -Jaffa If they meet requirements. Undestad: So it would still come down to that lot that. Metzer: It has to be on one lot and has to meet side yard, rear yard setbacks. And they'd better pick a neighbor that has the least amount of hard cover to begin with. Undestad: That's all I have. Al -Jaffa Typically we see these type of sites with planned unit developments or as a townhome or subdivision comes in. Ashling Meadows is a good example. They have a swimming pool. They have, I think there is a Sport Court out there, so the developer plans it in advance. 11 Planning Commission Meeting — October 18, 2005 Undestad: One more. The boulder wall over in the west property line, that's affecting the drainage right now? That's in that drainage easement? That's why that boulder wall would have to come out, is that it? Metzer: This is the west property line here. Outlined in black. Larson: Is that considered an improvement? In rocks. Metzer: I'm not aware what the drainage was beforehand. Well I don't know, apparently Dan was okay with the removal of that lawn and berming. Sacchet: I mean that does bring an interesting aspect. I mean the contractor having slipped with the hard coverage is one thing but putting a retaining wall on the property line, I mean he didn't care a bit about any regulations. I mean everybody knows that we have setback requirements for something we build. I mean something is definitely way off. Do you have anything else to add? Larson: Yeah, I just, like I say it's a lovely Sport Court but like Jerry had mentioned, these 20 year, or 100 year rain events that we're getting, I've been in my home over 20 years. Never had flooding and all of a sudden this year we're having flooding and so your homes, your neighborhood is quite a lot newer than where I live but who's to say at some point this is going to happen. You know where it's all going to, I don't know if it's the settling or if it's things fill up or whatever but the environmental impact eventually may catch up to you. I personally would like to see maybe if you can work with the city and see if you really want to keep this, you know comply with what you said you would do on the Sport Court but then also see what else you can maybe thin down your driveway or something and get it into that 25%. There are options and maybe you can just look at some of those. Jennifer Hurt: Okay so you're saying though that if we take off, if we don't take off in the back but we take off in the front of it, that's going to somehow affect the flooding issues? That doesn't make sense to me. Larson: The whole purpose of having this coverage on your property is how much water will actually go into the ground versus running off and going elsewhere and that's where the issue comes in and a lot of people don't quite understand why that is but it really affects an entire neighborhood. It affects the lakes, the ponds and everything. And so that's why that requirement is put in there because it's really to protect you and to protect your neighbors. Vern Lindemann: Could I make a comment here? Sacchet: If it's real brief because we're really beyond comments here. Vern Lindemann: Oh okay then. That's okay. I was going to ... drainage in the last heavy rain we had, we had rivers running down into the drainage pond down there and a lot of the neighbors rocks formed up... Sacchet: Yeah, let's keep the discussion up here at this point, if that's ahight. 12 Planning Commission Meeting — October 18, 2005 Larson: So that's all I had. Sacchet: You know it's an interesting situation. On one hand I'd like to be the good guy but that's not our role here. As a Planning Commission, as I stated in my opening remarks, our task is to look at to what extent do the issues that are brought before the city comply with ordinance and regulations. And when it comes to variances, we have a very clear set of standards that we are to apply. The first one is does it cause a hardship? And that's not a very fluffy type of definition of hardship. It's very clearly defined in the city code that a hardship means if you cannot use the property in the way that property's in the surrounding 500 or so feet are being used, which in this case is to have a single family residence with at least a 2 car garage and you have that. The addition of Sport Court is not a hardship. Then we have to look at, is it applicable to other properties? The precedence thing which we heard several commissioners already express concern, and it is a very big concern because we've come across this hard coverage situation on a regular basis. It comes up a couple times a year at least. And it's hard when it's after the fact. It does set a precedent and from our position at the commission, our aim has to be to treat everybody the same. If we give him one, then we have to give another two, and as Kurt you pointed out, we're going to have similar cases come in front of us within a few weeks, so that has to have some weight. Does another aspect that we have to look at, does it increase the property value? Now obviously you didn't do it for that purpose but the fact is it does increase it. It's a nice amenity to have. And then a very important thing that we also have to look at is it self created. Is it self created? And that's really a sticky thing because if we do something and we don't know the consequences, does that mean it's not self created? You know it's a little bit like if we don't know that the red light at the light on the street means we have to stop and we go across and we get hit, it doesn't mean we didn't self create it, and that's tricky. I mean not knowing about something doesn't take that out, that it's self created. And then another aspect, is it detrimental to public welfare? And as the discussion as we just had about the impervious limitation is very directly linked with the public welfare, so if you look at these things, then the last point that we have to look out is does it impair adequate light and the adjacent properties, which it doesn't. But if we look at this list of criteria that by ordinance we're supposed to look at, you're really only coming out ahight on one of them, and all the others ones you come at best questionable. Or not good at all so if we go by the letter of the law, we really don't have a choice. We have to deny this. However, I do want to point out that you can bring this in front of City Council and City Council does have the leeway to go beyond just the letter of the law. In this group here we have a little bit of leeway but not quite that much. So that is a little bit another aspect here to look at. Let me see whether I have something else there. I would be willing to support the side yard setback variance based on the immediately neighbor not having an issue with it, and that does not quite have the same weight. But with impervious, I really feel very clear that I cannot support that. However, you have options to work around that. You could reduce the impervious surface in your driveway. Maybe you could do something with your walkways or patio type of things. Not get rid of them but make them permeable. I mean there are ways to do it so I think there are alternatives that you could explore that you find a balance and also we do have to also acknowledge the neighborhood association making a pretty strong point that not everybody is in support of it. As a matter of fact there have been some people that have an issue with the noise level, which I can understand. I mean you have kids. You like to hear them out there having fun and there's somebody in the condo next door that 13 Planning Commission Meeting — October 18, 2005 their kids are grown or never had kids or what and they want the quiet. So you know, it's just life in the neighborhood. But I think I talked enough. If anybody wants to add anything further or we can make a motion. Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission denies Variance #05-32 for a 4.5% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction and a 5 foot side yard setback variance for the addition of a sport court on a lot zoned Single Family Residential based upon the findings in the staff and the following. Number 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. Number 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. The Planning Commission orders the property owner to remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements. McDonald: I second Mr. Chairman. Sacchet: We have a motion. We have a second. Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #05-32 for a 4.5% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction and a 5 foot side yard setback variance for the addition of a sport court on a lot zoned Single Family Residential based upon the findings in the staff and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. The Planning Commission orders the property owner to remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Sacchet: And I do want to encourage you to bring this to City Council. In addition I would encourage you to before you go to City Council, explore what options do you have that you could mitigate the impervious surface, particularly further and then you'll see where you get with that. Clint Hurt: I have a question. Sacchet: Yes. Clint Hurt: Taking care of that variance in the back, that 8 foot setback, does that take the townhouses really out of the process situation? Sacchet: No it doesn't. I'm not really an expert to answer that but. Clint Hurt: I'm just asking the question because there is no, we're not, it's not about the noise ordinance. It's not ... the amount of people on the yard at a certain time so ... complain about after that? 14 Planning Commission Mee• g — October 18, 2005 • Jennifer Hurt: Even if we cut the sport court in half it's still going to be a sport court... Sacchet: Yeah, I would have to refer, I mean you'd have to take up discussion like that with staff. I mean we're not in a position here to counsel you on that. It's, I mean as you well know with complaining, everybody's allowed to complain and that's the purpose of the public hearing so that everybody can come and make their statement and we try to listen to everybody to the best of our abilities to try to make everybody happy. But that's only possible to a certain extent, and I would encourage you to discuss this further with staff as to how can you reduce the infringement or maybe eliminate it ideally and if there's some type of variance you need, you can appeal our decision to City Council. Or alternatively if the situation gets enough changed, you may want to start a new variance process, but that's something you have to discuss with staff. I mean that's where you have to go with that, okay? Wish you luck. LOCATED AT 600 MARKET STREET, APPLICANT KRAUS-ANDERSON REALTY COMPANY, PLANNING CASE NO.05-33. Pubhe Present: Name Address Cindy McDonald Kraus -Anderson Realty Mitchell Wherley 600 Market Street Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Jerry, go ahead. McDonald: I have some questions for you. Okay, currently Americana Bank has got a gable sign and I read in here that the developer did that in the beginning. That was part of the negotiations. As far as building the building. Is that correct? Metzer: That's connect. If you were to zoom in right here. This is on page, well it's one of the attachments to the report. McDonald: Well the question I've got then, why wouldn't we allow signage in the gables? Was the plan from the beginning that there would be signage there and we gave in for some reason when the developer first came through? Metzer: Well I guess we consider this a change to what was approved. If you notice on the north elevation, actually you can see it on the west or the north elevation, there was no provision for a sign on the second level. Only on the south elevation with the bank. I guess it was felt to go outside of that would be over stepping our authority. 15 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Payee: JENNIFER HURT Date: 10/12/2005 Receipt Number: DW / Clerk: DANIELLE GIS LIST 05-32 ITEM REFERENCE ----------------------- GIS GIS LIST 05-32 GIS LIST Total: Check 6475 Time: 3:39pm 6667 AMOUNT -------------- 300.00 --------------- 300.00 300.00 --------------- Change: 0.00 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT! OCANNEO City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 CM OF (952) 227-1100 To: Clint and Jennifer Hurt 8491 Mission Hills Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ship To: Invoice SALESPERSON DATE TERMS KTM 10/6/05 upon receipt QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 100 Property Owners List within 500' of 8491 Mission Hills Circle (100 labels) $3.00 $300.00 TOTAL DUE S300.00 NOTE: This invoice is in accordance with the Development Review Application submitted to the City by the Addressee shown above (copy attached). Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #05-32. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Hurt Variance Planning Case No. 05-32 8491 Mission Hills Circle City of Chanhassen Lake Susan M/Ss��n Hills �G �p V� \,a SUBJECT SITE 0 (n N_ Mission ills Crt ate t N s v � CD 1� m 86th St Marshland TO L STATE OF MINNESOTA - DOT LYNN S KROISS 8 METRO RIGHT OF WAY STEPHEN J & MARTHA K KROISS 8415 MISSION HILLS LN & JENNIFER J RIDDING 1500 W CO RD B2 5605 ZUMBRA DR CHA M ROSEVILLE , MN 55113 -3174 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7760 HANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7712 PATRICK J & LEE ANNE EASTMAN SCOTT & KRISTIN NEUMAN LEROY MCCARTY 8425 MISSION HILLS LN 8435 MISSION HILLS LN 8445 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7712 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7712 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7712 SCOTT A & MICHELLE M TORBORG PETER R & ANNE M VOAS STATE OF MINNESOTA - DOT 8455 MISSION HILLS LN 8450 MISSION HILLS CIR 395 TRAJOHNSPORTATION PORT D ON B CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7712 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7720 ST TRANSPORTATION BLDG ST PAUL , MN 55155 -1801 DAVID R & BRENDA M WITZIG DANIEL EASTMAN & JEFFREY A GORRALL & 8465 MISSION HILLS LN LEANNE DODDS PATRICIA C GORRALL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7712 8451 MISSION HILLS CIR 8460 MISSION HILLS CIR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7720 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7720 KIMBERLEY THOMAS SCOTT R & STEPHANIE K RICH J CHARLES & BONNIE J EHLERS 8444 MISSION HILLS LN 8475 MISSION HILLS LN 8485 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7712 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7712 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7712 PATRICIA SILVA & CHILI & HUNG CHING CHAN JOHN N & CAROLINE O HERBECK MICHAEL D MAULE 8470 MISSION HILLS CIR 8471 MISSION HILLS CIR 8464 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7720 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7720 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7712 STATE OF MINNESOTA-DOT CHARLES J & ELAINE M EASTMAN ROBERT A & LISA K GAUVIN 395 JOHN IRELAND BLVD 8480 MISSION HILLS CIR 460 MISSION HILLS CT MAILSTOP 631 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7720 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7714 ST PAUL , MN 55155 -1899 RANDY V ROSETH & TONY L & PATRICIA J FERGUSON DALE E & RHONDA R TIREVOLD PENNY P WHITE 8495 MISSION HILLS LN 8481 MISSION HILLS CIR 450 MISSION HILLS CT CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7712 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7720 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7714 MISSION HILLS GARDEN HOMES CLINT R & JENNIFER J HURT JOHN G & MARIGO N GEROGEORGE 2681 LONG LAKE RD B491 MISSION HILLS CIR 470 MISSION HILLS CT ROSEVILLE , MN 55113 -1128 CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7720 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7714 PATRICK S & CONSTANCE SULLIVAN SCOTT E & SHANNON L FIEDLER DANIEL M & JANE A ZUREICH 8500 MAYFIELD CT 8511 MISSION HILLS LN 8490 MISSION HILLS CIR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7719 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7713 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7720 RICHARD A SWANSON BONITA R MENDEN KARLA K THOMSON 8520 MAYFIELD CT 8504 MAYFIELD CT 8524 MAYFIELD CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7719 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7719 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7719 RICHARD & EVELYN J KETTLER CONNIE M MOEHL STEVEN M & TRACY A SCHEID 8521 MAYFIELD CT 8540 MAYFIELD CT 451 MISSION HILLS CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7719 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7719 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7714 JEFFREY G & LEA J NORDOS VERNON W & BARBARA L LINDEMANN RAYMOND C ORTMAN JR 461 MISSION HILLS CT 552 MISSION HILLS DR JULIANNE E ORTMAN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7714 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 8525 MISSION HILLS UN CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-7713 MICHAEL S & STEPHANIE R DILLE SUSAN M DEAN JOHN A & JUDITH A HRUBY 291 TIMBER HILL RD 8525 MAYFIELD CT 419 PORTSIDE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9129 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7719 AMELIA ISLAND FERNANDINA BEACH. FL 32034 -4841 DIANE M DEPOE JOCELYNE RYAN LAUREL J BOSECK 548 MISSION HILLS DR 576 MISSION HILLS DR 592 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 MATTHEW L & KATHLEEN ALBRECHT LAWRENCE D & NANCY E STEIN MARCELLA HOWE & JOYCE HANSON 6220 CASCADE PASS 8541 MISSION HILLS LN TRUSTEES OF TRUST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9476 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7713 596 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7717 GEORGE D STACY SANDRA E GEVING DANIEL T & KELLY A FASCHING 584 MISSION HILLS DR 536 MISSION HILLS DR 0550 MISSION HILLS UN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7713 HAROLD JR & POLLY L HARTIN SUSAN M HOAGLUND MARCIA L JOSEPHSON 540 MISSION HILLS DR 588 MISSION HILLS DR 528 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 PETER W & GLORIA JEAN WILCZEK ROGER A WAINWRIGHT NINAJ KREIENBRINK 581 MISSION HILLS DR 532 MISSION HILLS DR 520 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -7715 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -7715 LYNETTE R LARSON ARDIS M OLUFSON RICHARD K & THERESA A HESS 512 MISSION HILLS DR 565 MISSION HILLS DR 8561 MISSION HILLS UN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7713 NADINE N NELSON VIRGINIA A WELLUMSON DALE E & BETTY HETLAND 484 FRISCO CT 585 MISSION HILLS DR 524 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7718 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 GEORGE J CARLYLE & CURTIS & PATRICIA BRANDON VERNIS M STROM JANELLE VEILLEUX CARLYLE 516 MISSION HILLS DR 569 MISSION HILLS DR 8560 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7713 MARY AAINSWORTH RUTH M THONANDER LENORE J MOLSTAD 508 MISSION HILLS DR 549 MISSION HILLS DR 589 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 JANEEN D LANDSBERGER KATHY J MCKIM VIOLA M COLLINGHAM 480 FRISCO CT 533 MISSION HILLS DR 573 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7718 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 VERLE R & BETTE M POFFENBERGER ERWIN C & CLARA M SIDER SUNITA GANGOPADHYAY & 593 MISSION HILLS DR 553 MISSION HILLS DR S 71 HAGATMISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7713 RONALD S & BARBRA T EWING BARBARA J WELLUMSON BONNIE JEAN THURK 8570 MISSION HILLS LN 577 MISSION HILLS DR 537 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7713 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 GRACE REGALADO CAROL K GELDERT BEVERLY E CHRISTENSEN 525 MISSION HILLS DR 557 MISSION HILLS DR 517 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 MONICA M GALUSKA LYNETTE LAABS JUBA FAMILY 1989 TRUST 509 MISSION HILLS DR 541 MISSION HILLS DR 8788 JEWEL RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 LAS VEGAS , NV 89148 -1435 FRANK J HANISH & ROBERTJ ZINNEL CAREN SOENS TRUSTEE OF TRUST 471 FRISCOTHOMAS J BOURNE 561 MISSION HILLS DR 504 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, CT CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-7716 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-7715 HASSEN,MN 55317 -7718 ADELINE R HARRIS JAMES E PARISH BERNARD M & JOANN C GAYTKO 529 MISSION HILLS DR 545 MISSION HILLS DR 521 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 JAMES A & MARILYN L CRAWFORD BRIAN M & DAWN M RODELL RILEY ROBERT C & SUSAN J ERICKSON 8581 MISSION HILLS UN 8580 MISSION HILLS LN 513 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7713 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7713 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 JANET E BROWN 501 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN. MN 65317-7715 KATHLEEN MJOHANNES 430 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7705 CARL P & VIRGINIA R PRIOR 500 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -7715 JEAN M KAMRATH 434 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7705 ROSEMARY B WILL 475 FRISCO CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7718 AMANDA C WINBLAD-VONWALTER 438 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -7705 MICHELLE J ERICKSON-CODV JENNIFER RENKLY JOHN D & MARY JO EICHLER 442 MISSION HILLS WAY E 446 MISSION HILLS WAY E TRUSTEE OF TRUST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7705 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7705 25628 RIO VERDECORA LN , A DE AZ 85263 -7146 STATE OF MINNESOTA - DOT LYNN S KROISS & METRO RIGHT OF WAY STEPHEN J & MARTHA K KROISS MICHAEL & JENNIFER J RIDDING 1500 W CO RD B2 5605 ZUMBRA DR 8415 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN, ROSEVILLE , MN 55113 -3174 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7760 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317.7712 PATRICK J & LEE ANNE EASTMAN SCOTT & KRISTIN NEUMAN LEROY MCCARTY 8425 MISSION HILLS LN 8435 MISSION HILLS LN 8445 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-7712 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-7712 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7712 SCOTT A & MICHELLE M TORBORG PETER R & ANNE M VOAS STATE OF MINNESOTA - DOT 8455 MISSION HILLS LN 8450 MISSION HILLS CIR 395 JOHN IRELAND BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7712 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7720 631 TRANSPORTATION BLDG ST PAUL . MN 55155 -1801 DAVID R & BRENDA M WITZIG DANIEL EASTMAN & JEFFREY A GORRALL & 9465 MISSION HILLS LN LEANNE DODDS PATRICIA C GORRALL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7712 8451 MISSION HILLS CIR 8460 MISSION HILLS CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7720 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7720 KIMBERLEY THOMAS SCOTT R & STEPHANIE K RICH J CHARLES & BONNIE J EHLERS B444 MISSION HILLS LN 8475 MISSION HILLS LN 8485 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-7712 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-7712 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7712 PATRICIA SILVA & CHILI & HUNG CHING CHAN JOHN N & CAROLINE O HERBECK MICHAEL D MAULE 8470 MISSION HILLS CIR B471 MISSION HILLS CIR B464 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7720 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7720 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7712 STATE OF MINNESOTA-DOT CHARLES J & ELAINE M EASTMAN ROBERT A & LISA K GAUVIN 395 JOHN IRELAND BLVD 8480 MISSION HILLS CIR 460 MISSION HILLS CT MAILSTOP 631 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7720 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7714 ST PAUL, MN 55155 -1899 RANDY V ROSETH & TONY L & PATRICIA J FERGUSON DALE E & RHONDA R TIREVOLD PENNY P WHITE 8495 MISSION HILLS LN 8481 MISSION HILLS CIR 450 MISSION HILLS CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7712 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7720 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7714 MISSION HILLS GARDEN HOMES CLINT R & JENNIFER J HURT JOHN G & MARIGO N GEROGEORGE 2681 LONG LAKE RD 8491 MISSION HILLS CIR 470 MISSION HILLS CT ROSEVILLE , MN 55113 -1128 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7720 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7714 PATRICK S & CONSTANCE SULLIVAN SCOTT E & SHANNON L FIEDLER DANIEL M & JANE A ZUREICH 8500 MAYFIELD CT 8511 MISSION HILLS LN 8490 MISSION HILLS CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7719 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7713 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7720 RICHARD A SWANSON BONITA R MENDEN KARLA K THOMSON 8520 MAYFIELD CT 8504 MAYFIELD CT 8524 MAYFIELD CT CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7719 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7719 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -T719 RICHARD & EVELYN J KETTLER CONNIE M MOEHL STEVEN M & TRACY A SCHEID 8521 MAYFIELD CT 8540 MAYFIELD CT 451 MISSION HILLS CT CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7719 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7719 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7714 JEFFREY G & LEA J NORDOS VERNON W & BARBARA L LINDEMANN RAYMOND C ORTMAN JR 461 MISSION HILLS CT 552 MISSION HILLS DR JULIANNE E ORTMAN CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7714 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7716 8525 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7713 MICHAEL S & STEPHANIE R DILLE SUSAN M DEAN JOHN A & JUDITH A HRUBY 291 TIMBER HILL RD 8525 MAYFIELD CT 419 PORTSIDE DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9129 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7719 AMELIA ISLAND FERNANDINA BEACH, FL 32034 -4841 DIANE M DEPOE JOCELYNE RYAN LAUREL J BOSECK 548 MISSION HILLS DR 576 MISSION HILLS DR 592 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7716 MATTHEW L & KATHLEEN ALBRECHT LAWRENCE D & NANCY E STEIN MARCELLA HOWE & JOYCE HANSON 6220 CASCADE PASS 8541 MISSION HILLS LN TRUSTEES OF TRUST CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9476 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7713 596 MISSION HILLS CHANHASSEN , MN 55 55317 -7717 GEORGE D STACY SANDRA E GEVING DANIEL T & KELLY A FASCHING 584 MISSION HILLS DR 536 MISSION HILLS DR 8550 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7713 HAROLD JR & POLLY L HARTIN SUSAN M HOAGLUND MARCIA L JOSEPHSON 540 MISSION HILLS DR 588 MISSION HILLS DR 528 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7715 PETER W & GLORIA JEAN WILCZEK ROGER A WAINWRIGHT NINA J KREIENBRINK 581 MISSION HILLS DR 532 MISSION HILLS DR 520 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7715 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7715 LYNETTE R LARSON ARDIS M OLUFSON RICHARD K & THERESA A HESS 512 MISSION HILLS DR 565 MISSION HILLS DR 8561 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7715 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7713 NADINE N NELSON VIRGINIA A WELLUMSON DALE E & BETTY HETLAND 484 FRISCO CT 585 MISSION HILLS DR 524 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7718 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 GEORGE J CARLYLE & CURTIS & PATRICIA BRANDON VERNIS M STROM JANELLE VEILLEUX CARLYLE 516 MISSION HILLS DR 569 MISSION HILLS DR 8560 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-7713 MARY A AINSWORTH RUTH M THONANDER LENORE J MOLSTAD 508 MISSION HILLS DR 549 MISSION HILLS DR 589 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 JANEEN D LANDSBERGER KATHY J MCKIM VIOLA M COLLINGHAM 480 FRISCO CT 533 MISSION HILLS DR 573 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7718 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -7715 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -7716 VERLE R & BETTE M POFFENBERGER ERW IN C & CLARA M SIDER SUN ITA GANGOPADHYAY &7 593 MISSION HILLS DR 553 MISSION HILLS DR SHUBHAGAT GANGOPADHYAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHA MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7713 RONALD S & BARBRAT EWING BARBARAJ WELLUMSON BONNIE JEAN THURK 8570 MISSION HILLS LN 577 MISSION HILLS DR 537 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7713 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 GRACE REGALADO CAROL K GELDERT BEVERLY E CHRISTENSEN 525 MISSION HILLS DR 557 MISSION HILLS DR 517 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 MONICA M GALUSKA LYNETTE LAABS JUBA FAMILY 1989 TRUST 509 MISSION HILLS DR 541 MISSION HILLS DR 8788 JEWEL RIDGE AVE CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -7715 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -7716 LAS VEGAS , NV 89148 -1435 FRANK J HANISH & ROBERT J ZINNEL CAREN SOENS TRUSTEE OF TRUST 471 FRISCO THOMAS J BOURNE 561 MISSION HILLS DR 504 MISSION HILLS DR CT CHANNHASSHASS CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -771 B ADELINE R HARRIS JAMES E PARISH BERNARD M & JOANN C GAYTKO 529 MISSION HILLS OR 545 MISSION HILLS DR 521 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 JAMES A & MARILYN L CRAWFORD BRIAN M & DAWN M RODELL RILEY ROBERT C & SUSAN J ERICKSON 8581 MISSION HILLS LN 8580 MISSION HILLS LN 513 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7713 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-T713 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7715 JANET E BROWN 501 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.7715 KATHLEEN MJOHANNES 430 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-T705 CARL P & VIRGINIA R PRIOR 500 MISSION HILLS DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715 JEAN M KAMRATH 434 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7705 ROSEMARY B WILL 475 FRISCO CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7718 AMANDA C WINBLAD-VONWALTER 438 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -7705 MICHELLE J ERICKSON-CODV JENNIFER RENKLY JOHN D & MARY JO EICHLER 442 MISSION HILLS WAY E 446 MISSION HILLS WAY E TRUSTEE OF TRUST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7705 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7705 RIO VE ORDOVAIO RDE . AZ 8525263 -7146 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 Date: September 21, 2005 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Josh Metzer, Planner I Subject: Request for after -the -fact hard surface coverage and side yard setback Variances for a sport court on property located at 8491 Mission Hills Court. Applicant: Clint & Jennifer Hurt. Planning Case: 05-32 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on September 16, 2005. The 60day review period ends November 15, 2005. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on October 18, 2005 at 7:00 p.m in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your continents by no later thanker J,1,2065., You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments: b. Environmental Services a. City Engineer 8. Watershed District Engineer b. City Attorney Jack - As le.' "s y. v ie n a e.nw1P c. City Park Director ,1 as �c•vl, 1 l,w• "• d. Fire Marshal .11:#o µt c.nn,r.ls_ Lef me LINO c. Building Official % s" e f. Water Resources Coordiillatt r ,;, �u, 9. g. Forester 2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District 3. MN Dept. of Transportation 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Minnehaha Creek Telephone Company (Qwest or SprintlUnited) 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 13. Other - 14. Other - Carver County a. Engineer Established in 1962 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093 Fax No. 560-3522 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 1�Tr��>yurs (Gertifirate JENNIFER HURT Property located in Section 13, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota \ N Be'22'13" W -- 43,43 Tc 904.77 I I I i I I 5 Mission I I Hills rc , I Circ/E 905.07 ryto I dp h •� 7905 lO" ben �U� 1 I '"^, 0 900 r -.cam '4p��O\ � 8•Tr1er.W�'I d 1 9aa o 1 0 I $lot 91o.o * I H' re" 911.4 911.4 elto I r71.33 '8 I 91J.3 T 11,00 1 - GAR FLOOR I WOa+c 8 • PwcM �• .. 911.9 s TOb B/dr 8 p, NOE GOR 708 90ee ace 90D7 n 9IJ.a No. 0491 I ro 100 I z J gas. e 9G4. 7y i oz 904. a 90).7 907.7 1 x k907. 9D1.7 8 x907. 7 wo 47®' 971.0 � I I if) 't i I .o Triple I �`� 14" Tree I e PJIe $' wooe Deck 907W2. ya 907.e 903.0 9L'5.6 905, 7 90a ! 0 9G4.5 x 9 907.4 903.2 ;05 6 90a0 x O& 9 Tree 904.9 la"maple y.,1b•Tr" Drainage 4 3 utility Easement 907 7' Tree 5 o @ 3 t 51 r I, ;,\ i Sport •. o Court .: O i;...%. s Wi.•I 1 lccncretel Q) 1 �,:, �907, 4 III area �'Y1G1 rl<>✓ � 11'1 ' e� PoK N'111 he removed e Ie" bee 9Qf.5 e06.5 905.3 9065 17 • 17' Tree 'RT TO" Tree I O /T •Tree b!b" Tree 7 89'22'13" The only easements shown ore from plots of record or information provided by client. We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the above described land and the location of all buildings and visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. Surveyed by us this 18th day of July 2005. i 15 I I I I I I 1 I w r V i- t+1 8 Z 04 4 9073 INVOICE No. 72195 F. B. NO. 1006-67 SCALE: 1 " = 30' O Denotes Iron Monument ❑ Denotes Wood Hub Set for excavation only x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation 000:0 Denotes Proposed Elevation 4- Denotes Surface Drainage NOTE: Proposed grades are subject to results of soil tests. Proposed building information must be checked with approved building plan and development or grading plan before excavation and construction. Proposed Top of Block Proposed Garage Floor Proposed Lowest Floor Type of Building Hardcover Calculations Lot = 20,595 sq ft± House = 1,968 sq ft± Driveway = 1,473 sq ft± Walk, Stoop, Porch = 242 sq ft± Patio = 93 sq ft± Sport Court = 2,437 sq ft± Cone. Slab = 120 sq ft± Walls = 291 sq ft± Total Hardcover = 6,624 sq ft± Percentage = 32.2% Detail retaining Walls NW House 11 sq ft± SW House 16.5 sq ft± Middle Wall at Rear of House 25 sq ft± SE Corner House 20 sq ft± West of Sport Court 75.5 sq ft± South of Sport Court 33.5 sq ft± North of Sport Court 35 sq ft± East of Sport Court 55 sq ft± East of Sport court In easement Area 19.5 sq ft Total Retaining Walls 291 sq ftJ RECEIVE® SEP 16 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Lot 6, Block 2, MARSH Drawn By 5r. .,!(unnern, Signed Name rrg-6-2fb100667inv72195.dwg Charles F. Anderson, Minn. Reg. No. 21753 or Gregory R. Prosch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Payee: JENNIFER HURT Date: 09/21/2005 Time: 2:llpm Receipt Number: DW / 6601 Clerk: DANIELLE 05-32 HURT VARIANCE ITEM ------------------------------------------- REFERENCE AMOUNT DEVAP 05-32 HURT VARIANCE USE & VARIANCE 200.00 --------------- Total: 200.00 Check 6445 200.00 --------------- Change: 0.00 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT! SCANNED City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 Date: September 21, 2005 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Josh Metzer, Planner I Subject: Request for after -the -fact hard surface coverage and side yard setback Variances for a sport court on property located at 8491 Mission Hills Court. Applicant: Clint & Jennifer Hurt. Planning Case: 05-32 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on September 16, 2005. The 60day review period ends November 15, 2005. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on October 18, 2005 at 7:00 p.m in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than October 7, 2005. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments: a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District 3. MN Dept. of Transportation 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 7. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 8. Watershed District Engineer a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Minnehaha Creek 9. Telephone Company (Qwest or Sprint/United) 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 13. Other - 14. Other - Established in 1962 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093 Fax No. 560-3622 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 3ururgors 6ertifirate JENNIFER HURT Property located in Section 13, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota \ N 89'22'13" W -- 43.43 904.77 01 I � I I I 1 I E' Tree 5 Mission 1 � Ni //s 7C I I Circ/e 90901 �p 0 h II lo• nee i4 TO U ary 905 C6 3001 1 0' Tree II o % I 90H.0 I � I O r 9101 I ' R 910.0 I r 910.. 9 I I 911.4 911.4 91L5 I 111.33 .g 111.00 911-9 8 N Top Ga�c y GARWIn RLOOR 910.6 _ Wks m Ew 3L07 , . . . T093 01dr cot N9E OOR T06 I 509.1 Well 500..1 , 9148 No. 8491 / 13 6T 13-3 90a I I m 911.0 I � I I 00 12,1 ; l903.1 50.33• Triple I W. 14'Tree I I Paver 6 .5 906 97001 ' 904.Ix 01.a Patio �1 Wood d1 COCA o; 501.9 x 506 1 901.7 9O1'7 W2..a 9091 x 903.0 90.5.6 90..7 x 401.0 904.5 t76.9 001.1 8 1 x901.7 902.4 903.1 .b 90dO x9Aa 9 I Ia'7ree 9049 16' I'laple _ Ib" Tree t I I I Drairmge ! I 501.3 Utility EasemBnt Soo, i i 502.4 904.4 12' Trae 1 5. 9 �4ri'i r, IN) 9 440 '.i port SCourt �. fcw+crstel ? , 902.6 'a • e , a. 33.s 3Q2U(4 906.3 I I Jb' Tree 149 9065 906.5 I 9os.3 I I I I 906.5 I 11' 11"Tr6e T I 10" Tree -&7.k,2J O - Q4/1'Tree 1 908.0 1 I N Tres Tree 4 /204 + �Ib Tree ., 904.E 589'22'13" _- 907.3 i. 7 The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the above described land and the location of all buildings and visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. Surveyed by us this 18th day of July 2005. INVOICE N0. 72195 F.B.NO. 1006-67 SCALE: 1 " = 30' O Denotes Iron Monument ❑ Denotes Wood Hub Set for excavation only x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation 000.0 Denotes Proposed Elevation milt-- Denotes Surface Drainage NOTE: Proposed grades are subject to results of soil tests. Proposed building information must be checked with approved building plan and development or grading plan before excavation and construction. Proposed Top of Block Proposed Garage Floor Proposed Lowest Floor Type of Building Hardcover Calculations Lot = 20,595 sq ft± House = 1,968 sq ft± Driveway = 1,473 sq ft± Walk, Stoop, Porch = 242 sq ft± Patio = 93 sq ft± Sport Court = 2,437 sq ft± Conc. Slab = 120 sq ft± Walls = 291 sq ft± Total Hardcover = 6,624 sq ft± Percentage = 32.2% Detail retaining Walls NW House 11 sq ft± SW House 16.5 sq ft± Middle Wall at Rear of House 25 sq ft± SE Corner House 20 sq ft± West of Sport Court 75.5 sq ft± South of Sport Court 33.5 sq ft± North of Sport Court 35 sq ft± East of Sport Court 55 sq ft± East of Sport court In easement Area 19.5 sq ft± Total Retaining Walls 291 sq ft± RECEIVED SE? 16 2005 CITY -OF CHANHASSEN Lot 6, Block 2, MARSH Signed Charles F. Anderson, Minn. Reg. No. 21753 or Gregory R. Prosch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 SCANNED 1p, 31S.5 4oW a S:Ig8.75 = z STATEMENT OF PROPERTY TAX PAYABLE IN 2005 R25A470140 ��rDFNTNICA770N NO.: J CARVER COUNTY TOM KERBER-TREASURER MARK LUNDGREN - AUDITOR EAST 4TH STREET • P.O. BOX 69 CHASKA, MN 55318-0069 COUP ER 952-361-1980 • www.co.carver.mu.us 'New Improvements/ Expired Exclusions: Estimated Market Value: Taxable Market Value: RES.HSTD 440,000 474,900 435,600 474,900 TAX BILL# 30606 DESC: ID# 21773 Sect-13 Twp-116 Range-023 MARSH GLEN Lot-006 Block-002 CLINT R & JENNIFER J HURT RECEIVE® aC31 8491 MISSION HILLS CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7720 SEP I,Itlt,l,Itt,ll,,,,Illt, lltttllt,tl l,lll 1111111111111111 G 1 6 2005 . CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2004 2005 You may be eligible or one or even two refunds to reduce your property 5 6,266.00 tax. If applying use this amount on form M-IPR. Make a photocopy of this tax statement and include it with your fort M-IPR. File by August 15th. If box is checked, you owe delinquent taxes and are not eligible. 2. Use this amount for the special property tax refund on schedule l of form M-IPR. S 6,425.00 Your Property Tax And How It Is Reduced By The State 3. Your property tax before reduction by state -paid aids and credits. $ 14.338.02 $ 13.267.42 4. Aid paid by the State of Minnesota to reduce your property tax. 7,913.02 7,012.42 5. A. Homestead and agricultural credits paid by the State of Minnesota to reduce 0.00 0.00 your property tax. B. Other credits paid by the State of Minnesota to reduce your property tax. 0.00 0.00 6. Your property tax after reduction by state -paid aids and credits. 6.425.00 6,255.00 Where Your Property Tax Dollars Go 7. County A. CARVER COUNTY S 2,110.46 $ 2,094.73 B. 0.00 0.00 8. City or Town. CHANHASSEN CRY 1,434.08 1,335.32 9. State General Tax: 0.00 0.00 10. School District: 0112 A. Voter approved levies. 1.992.00 1,939.25 B. Other local levies. 378.36 362.40 11. Special Taxing Districts: A.METRO DISTRICT 153.99 130.89 B, OTHERS 99.06 136.77 C. 0.00 0.00 D. 0.00 0.00 12. Non -school voter approved referenda levies. 257.05 255.64 13. Total property taxes before special assessments. $ 6,425.00 $ 6,255.00 14. Special assessments added to this property tax bill: PRINCIPAL 23.00 21.00 23.00 RECYCLE MGT 23.00 I5. YOUR TOTAL PROPERTY TAX AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. $ 5,445.00 = 5,Y70.00 If you pay your taxes late, you will be charged a penalty. Pay this amount no later than MAYIS t 3,139.00 Read the back of this statement for penalty rates and Pay this amount no later than OCTOBER 15 $ 3,139.00 applying for refund information. SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 Planning Case No. Gs — RECEIVED SEP 16 2005 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION PLEASE PRINT Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development` Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review' Subdivision` CITY OF CHANHASSEN and X Co�0 IQ I�a1riPhone:1.' rraiF- - Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements _�� Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign" - $75 + $100 Damage Deposit X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"` - $50 CUP/SPRA/AC/VAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $Xn O�c� 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. Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital cop v in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tif) format. Applicant to obtain notification sign from City of Chanhassen Public Works at 1591 Park Road and install upon submittal of completed application. $100 damage deposit to be refunded to applicant when sign is returned following City Council approval. 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. {CANNED PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: I— TOTALACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESE PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING: fVrlk,GLt' PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: k // REASON FOR REQUEST: �C e. CA asked 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. Signature of Applicant of Fee Owner 9-15-C`� Date 9-15-Ds Date GAplanVorms0evelopment Review Application.DOC CL .—.." 4 Rev. 4105