Loading...
3 Variance 361 Deerfoot TrailCITY BOA DATE: 5/20/97 CC DATE: CASE #: 97-3 By: Kirchoff:v STAFF REPORT LLI I~,ROPOSAL: EOCATION: /~.PPLICANT: ,. PI ~ESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: A~_~ JACENT ZONING M~D LAND t~SES: V~ATER AND SEW~ER: pI[IYSICAL CHARACTER: 211100 LAND USE PLAN: A request for a 1.6 foot variance for the construction ora deck. 361 Deeffoot Trail (Lot 8, Block 1, Sunny Slope Addition) Scott Wirth 361 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN 553 i7 PUD R, Planned Unit Development Residential Approximately 12,000 sq. ~t. (.29 Acres) N/A RSF, Residential Single Family A-2, Agricultural Estate District Available to the site The site contains an existing single-family residence and a drainage eaSement. Low Density Residential / v'~....~g iOi .'g',,,H !.VJ.L Wirth Variance lh~ay 20, 1997 Phge 2 PiPPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 20-615 of the City Code requires all structures to maintain a minimum of a thirty (30) foot setback from the front property line (Attachment 2). Section 20-908 of the City Code states that unenclosed decks may project five (5) feet into a r~uired yard (Attachment 3). ^C aOUN T~e applicant is requesting a 1.6 foot variance to construct a deck on the rear of' an existing home. City Code permits a deck to project ~ feet into a required yard. This property has double street frontage. The residence is setback 20 feet fi'om Deerfoot Trail and 33 feet from Lake Riley B~ulevard. The lot is located in a planned unit development which permitted a 20 foot fi'ont yard setback, along Deerfoot Trail, but required a 30 foot setback along Lake Riley Boulevard. The lot is a ~l~prommately 110 feet in depth and 115 feet in width. Stinny Slope Addition was developed in the late 1970s and early 80s. The developer granted a la~e drainage easement on the subject property to comply with Watershed District requirements for run. off sedimentation. In 1989, the City constructed a pond in this easement as part of a m.~intenance project on Lake Riley because it was not constructed as part of the subdivision d&elopment. During that same year, the applicant constructed the residence that exists on the property. A~ALYSIS T .~1~. applicant believes that without the additional 60 sq. ft. the deck will be useless. The site plan sh~ws that the deck wraps around the rear of the home to the eastern side. (Note: The deck will n~ cause the removal of the tree in the rear yard). There are two sets of stairs which provide access to ~he deck. The proposed deck will be approximately 580 sq. ft. with the variance, and will still be ov~:~ r 500 sq. ft. without the variance. A~ording to the applicant, the smaller deck will cause an undue hardship. An undue hardship m~ans that property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. The real issue is that the applicant has a reasonable opportunity to construct a deck while meeting the setback requirements. Staff believes that the smaller deck will be just as functional as the proposal and will allow the applicant complete use and enjoyment of the property. TI~ inability to construct a 580 sq. ft deck is not a hardship. Sta~ff surveyed the remaining 11 properties in this subdivision and found that all decks meet current se~ack requirements. The applicant contends that several of the properties along Lake Riley have t, Wirth Variance May 20, 1997 Page 3 received variances. This is true, however, this request cannot be compared to those properties located on Lake Riley as that development predates the zoning ordinance. This request should only be compared to the properties within this subdivision. The drainage easement is not the origin of the hardship. The home plan and size of the lot make it difficult to locate a deck in the rear yard. Even though the residence is located 20 feet from Deerfoot Trail, it is only 33 feet from the property line which abuts Lake Riley Boulevard. The style of home, with the protruding garage, makes it difficult to have ample room for a deck on the rear of the home, even without the easement. However, the applicant does have an opportunity to construct a large deck in the eastern portion of the property. The applicant has stated that the easement is constricting the stairs on the western side. The applicant is not required to have stairs at that location because this is not the main entrance to the home. Although this request is small in terms of measurement, staff believes that the applicant can make a reasonable use of the property without a variance. This property was developed for a single-family home. The subject property does have a single family home with a double garage. It is not a hardship if the property does not have a deck. The applicant believes that the deck will be unusable without the additional 1.6', meanwhile staff believes that the deduction of 60 sq. ft. will not prohibit the applicant from enjoying the deck. 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: That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: Staff believes that the easement does not create a hardship. The applicant was aware of the easement prior to construction of this home. If a hardship truly exists, the home would have not been built. The style of the home, that the applicant is responsible for, leaves little room for a deck on the rear of the home. The applicant does have a reasonable opportunity to construct and enjoy a deck. The size of the lot does not meet the requirements of the ordinance, but this property was developed as a planned unit development. The PUD allowed 20 foot setbacks along Deerfoot Trail on all 12 lots. This may have been permitted to protect the rear of the residence from Lake Riley Boulevard. Wirth Variance May 20, 1997 F~age 4 Approving the variance would defeat the purpose of the reduced front yard setback. Additionally, if the setback had not been reduced this home would probably have not been built on this site. Approving this variance request will depart from pre-existing standards in this neighborhood as all of the homes in this subdivision meet ordinance requirements. eo 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 a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. 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 purpose of the variation does not appear to be based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. However, the applicant did state in the attached letter that this variance would improve the property value of this home as well those in the surrounding area. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: Staff believes the hardship is self-created. The applicant knew prior to constructing the home that a drainage easement was located on the property. The applicant also was aware if the size of the lot and is responsible for the style of the home and its location. 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 the variance could be detrimental to the public welfare. If the variance is approved, the applicant will be allowed to encroach further into the setback that abuts a public street. Staff is concerned with the distance the deck will be from Lake Riley Boulevard. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase Wirth Variance May 20, 1997 Page 5 Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff'recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals adopt the following motion: "The Board of Adjustments and Appeals recommends the denial of a 1.6 foot variance based upon the findings presented in the staff'report and the following: . The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. 2. The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to construct and enjoy a deck." ATTACHMENTS 1. Application and Letter 2. Section 20-615, Lot requirements and setbacks 3. Section 20-908, Yard regulations 4. Site Plan 5. Deck Elevation 6. Property Owners CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION A P. P R 81 9 zJ97 APPLICA IT: %-'-' ! TELEPH~E (Day time) ~,- S~ '-/- '7 G~mprehensive Plan Amendment £ G0}nditional Use Permit .{ In,dm Use Permit N ~dn-conforming Use Permit PlSnned Unit Development' R~oning Si~n Permits Si~n Plan Review · Sit~ Plan Review* Sul~division* TELEPHONE: ~z/5"' -- -7' ~// Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements ~,,/ Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign X Escrow for Filing FeeslAttomey Cost** ($50 CUPISPRNACNARIVVAPIMetes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ ~7 ~ ~-~ ('-') -' A ist of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the ai~lication. B~iidinfl material samples must be submitted with site plan re¥iews. 'T~tenty-$i× full si:,e folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8W'.× 11" reduced ¢op¥ of trat~sparenc¥ for each plan sheet. ~" I~scrow, will be required for other applications throu§h the development contract NOTE - VVIlen multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME LOCATION ~ ~/ ( LEGAL DESCRIPTION TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT YES NO PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST 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 ten business days of application submittal. A notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten 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 ali 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. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. Signature of Applicant Date. Signature of Fee Owner Application Received on L~Ii O~ lq ~ Fee Paid Date Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. Scott A. Wirth 361 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 April 18, 1997 City of Chanhassen The Board of Adjustments and Appeals 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Board of Adjustments and Appeals: I am requesting a variance for a property line set-back of 23'.36" instead of the normal 25' for the construction of an unenclosed deck. 1. The literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause hardship and practical difficulty because without the additional space the deck would resemble more ora hallway, instead of a workable deck. This space would be limited strictly to walking. It would be impossible to have a simple table and chaks in this area. The value of the deck, and thus, the home would be reduced. The value difference between 8' and 10' in decking area is immense. 2. Special conditions are present on this property. A storm-sewer draining easement exist mediately to the west of the property which requires building stairs beginning 8' in from the south-west comer of the deck, down to a platform and then north to a porch area. The standard width of the stairs is 42", thus less than 5 ' deck width would be present in this area. The backdoor to the house is located in this area. Building the stairs in this fashion is needed to remain out of the easement area which is my property, but controlled by the City of Chanhassen. Please see the attached drawings and the pictures of the easement. 3. The additional square footage of the deck that this variance would provide would help the property value of this home as well as the value of all the homes in the area, which is needed because of the unsightly easement area. (Again, please observe the enclosed pictures.) In addition, no existing trees or shrubbery will need to be removed and the deck will be constructed of beautiful cedar wood. 4. When the lot was purchased in 1989, it did not look anything like it does now. It was a fiat nice looking lot. After the lot was purchased, the easement was carved out, a catch-basin and other fixtures were installed. The easement area was on the plot, but I had no idea what was to be done with the area. I have worked extensively with the city and Dave Hempel in attempting to keep the area looking as good as possible. I initially seeded the area, and after flooding, the city laid sod there. I also built a small deck over the catch basin for esthetics and also safety. Small children could easily fall into the catch-basin. I have spent much effort and money over the years to maintain an area that I have no access to, which is 1/3 of my property. Without the easement, the house could have been laid-out in a manner that would have provided more room at the back of the house for decking. 5. The variance will not affect the welfare of the nearby residents in anyway. Many of the homes in the area already are much closer to the road behind my house than what is intended for the deck. The front side of homes directly across the street are less than 20 feet from the street. I am asking for an unenclosed deck to be 331/2 feet. Thank you for your time in this matter. If you have any questions I can be reached at 445-7811, or 854- 7568. Sincerely, Scott Wirth Enclosure: ZONING § 20-613 Sec. 20-596. Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the RR" District: (1) Commercial kennels and stables. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-00) Editor's note--Inasmuch as there exists a § 20-595, the provisions added by § 3 of Ord. No. 120 as § 20-595 have been redesignated as § 20-596. Secs. 20-597--20-610. Reserved. ARTICLE xrI. ,~q~Sl~, SINGLE.FAMII.Y RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sec. 20-611. Intent. The intent of the "RSF" D/strict is to provide for single-family residential subdivisions. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-1), 12-15-86) following uses are permitted in an "RSF" District: Single-family dwellings. Public and private open space. State-licensed day care center for twelve (12) or fewer children. State-licensed group home serving six (6) or fewer persons. Utility services. Sec. 20-612. Permitted uses. . The (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Temporary real estate office and model home. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-2), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-613. Permitted accessory uses. The (1) (2) (3) £ (4) (5) [ : (6) (7) (8) following are permitted accessory uses in an "RSF" District: Garage. Storage building. Swimming pool. Tennis court. Signs. Home occupations. One (1) dock. Private kennel. ~(Ord. No. 80, Axt. V, § 5(5-5-3), 12-15-86) No. S 1209 § 20-614 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 20-614. Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an "RSF" District: (1) Churches. (2) Reserved. (3) Recreational beach lots. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5.4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 120, § 4(4), 2-12-90) State law reference-Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter and chapter 18: (1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand '(15,000) square feet. For neck or flag lots, the lot area requirements shall be met after the area contained within the "neck" has been excluded from consideration. (2) The minimum lot frontage is ninety (90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac "bubble" or along the outside curve of curvilinear street sections shall be ninety (90) feet in width at the building setback line. The location of this lot is conceptually illustrated below. Lore Where Frontlge Me&lured At Setbaok Une (3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125) feet. The location of these lots is conceptually illustrated below. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed · by private driveways shall be one hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building Supp. No. 8 1210 setback line. ZONING Neck I Fi,g Lot~ Lot § 20-615 lO0#Lot Width _! I . I I I ! I('0. ~e~ i I I I L _ L._._I_..j (4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent. (5) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet. b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. (6) The setbacks for lots served by private driveways and/or neck lots are as follows: ~ - a. For front yard, thirty (30) feet. The front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel. The rear yard lot line is to be located opposite from the front lot line with the remaining exposures treated as side lot lines. On neck lots the front yard setback shall be measured at the point nearest the front lot line where the lot achieves a one-hundred-foot minimum width. b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. ~ c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. ! (7) The maximum height is as follows: ~ a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet. : b. For accessory structures, twenty (20) feet. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 90, § 1, 3-14-88; Ord. No. 127, § 3, 3-26-90; Ord. No. 145, § 2, 4-8-91; Ord. No. 240, § 18, 7-24-95) ~ Editor's note--Section 2 of Ord. No. 145 purported to amend § 20-615(6)b. pertaining to 4ccessory structures; such provision were contained in § 20-615(7)b., subsequent to amend- ~ent of the section by Ord. No. 127. Hence, the provisions of Ord. No. 145, § 2, were included ~s amending § 20-615(7)b. f · ~l~pp. No. 8 1210.1 ZONING § 20-908 increased in width or depth by an additional foot over the side and rear yards required for the highest builcl~ug otherwise permitted in the district. (Ord. No. 80, Art. VI, § 10, 12-15-86) Sec. 20-908. Yard regulations. The following requirements qu~liry or supplement district regulations. Yard measure- ments shall be taken from the nearest point of the wall of a building to the lot line in question, subject to the following qu-li5cations: (1) Every part of a required yard or court shall be open and unobstructed. (2) A yard, court, or other open space of one (1) building used to comply with the provi- sions of this chapter shall not again be used as a yard, court, or other open space for another bu/lding. (3) Except as provided in the business, industrial, and office districts, the front yard setback requirements shall be observed on each street side of a corner lot; provided, however, that the remaining two (2) yards will meet the side yard setbacks. (4) On double frontage lots, the required front yard shall be provided on both streets. Whenever possible, structures should face the existing street. (5) The following shall not be considered to be obstructions: a. Into any required front yard, or required side yard adjoining a side street lot line, cornices, canopies, eaves, or other architectural features may project a distance not exceeding two (2) feet, six (6) inches; fire escapes may project a distance not exceeding four (4) feet, six (6) inches; an uncovered stair and necessary landings may project a distance not to exceed six (6) feet, provided such stair and landing shall not extend above the entrance floor of the building; bay windows, balconies, open porches and chimneys may project a distance not exceeding three (3) feet; unenclosed decks and patios may project a distance not exceeding five (5) feet and shall not be located in a drainage and utility easement. Other canopies may be permitted by conditional use permit. b. The above-named features may project into any required yard adjoining an inte- rior lot line, subject to the lim/tations cited above. c. Porches that encroach into the required front yard and which were in existence on February 19, 1987 may be enclosed or completely rebuilt in the same location provided that any porch that is to be completely rebuilt must have at least a ten-foot m/nimum front yard. d. Subject to the setback requirements in section 20-904, the'following are per- mitted in the rear yard: enclosed or open off-street parking spaces; accessory structures, toolrooms, and similar buildings or structures for domestic storage. Balconies, breezeways and open porches, unenclosed decks and patios, and one- story bay windows may project into the rear yard a distance not to exceed five (5) feet. supp. No. 6 1233 f DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION' i.)ENO'rES PROPOSED ELEVA'FION INDICATES DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE &[~i05o = FINISHED GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION . e373.77 BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION TOP OF BLOCK ELEVATION .% ,, -~,. ~'.&.g. - , - ~ by testily tirol tiffs is a hue al~d collect ~ep~ese~tatio~ ol a tract ol lined, a~slmwn I~tld desclibed hereon, As l)~epa;ed by tnt~ ot~ tiffs '77~ day ol ,,gU~,OS'T' ,19 .8.?_ . Miru'b Reg. Ho. lesign Works (R), Knox Lumber, # 217, Phone # 933-1046 (IOn Apr 07 11:29:19 1997 7he materials in this deck will cost $5053.29 ;his Price does not include any'SPecial Order Items. 'lan ID: CQ4338 D View · ..[,,,,.~,..m.~ ...... ,~,.,,.~ ...... .,,.....; _f:-.:~;..-':'::~!: '-' ' . ........ , ............................... , ....... ,,,, ......... ;~,,,,,,,,, ..... ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,?:,~-:,~1~ II IIIItll'll Il Ii[~ ....... · '.'.:"' · .......... , ..... . ...':: .... .-"".t%' .... .'. ........... . ........... . '~l~.~;:-:i~l)n ,, ,lu.a'~--al,_.la__.lk..IL-' ..1: .ltl !! Iii! "!lllqlll!tll q'lltl m.!,..?.,.~, I~l ' "" '"' '"' 'mi! ?... !Y..::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Ii ii i:,. ,iii ,, i ihlli iii,l', tZlli i il,,,iiiii, .,ii i im,liii~iiiiimii, il l iiimi i,,qiili i~l ,l I ii ,,tlliiiil~;:' i:!i .'.''";--"'"~""~'"~?~-'" ~. ,, llllilIIlll illl h 11 11---~--= II ii I f I IIIIIIII I&i~' II I ii I I ~i. il I I Ilill II ~:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:~:i:i:i:~:~::!:i:i:i:i:i..~:~:i:~:~:i:i:~:~:~:::~: .l~ ~ :' - ' ...... ~ ...... .-~---~ ~ ' ================================================================================= ::: : ~`~::-~..~:.:~:.:~:.~:~:~.`.::~:.~:~.~:~:~:~.~.~:~:~:`.`..`:~:;`.`.~.~;:`...:;.;.¥:;:;::...~::::~ ............................. ? ................. ~:~:i ........... ::::::::::,::?: : '-: ............ ...... ................. ::.,~:l~i i' ,, ~ -' ~ ':.'":?::~'i':-':':':~':-~,":':c'.'-".-':;:~:':::;:;':'; .......... ~.~:.~:~.:~:`:.:.;`.:.:``~::~.`:`.~:.~i~i~.......:.~e.~...~..:...e..~.~:~:'''''' -.: ~:; ~i~,,' L Ask For A Cbnstruction Detail Sheet Before You Begin Your Project MEETING RESCHEDULED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Tuesday, May 20, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. Cky Hall - 690 Coulter Drive CoUrtyard Conference Room SUBJECT: Rear Yard Setback Variance APPLIC,~J~IT: Scott Wirth LOCATI 3N: 361 Deerfoot Trail Lake Riley NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Scott Wirth, is requesting a 1.6 foot variance to the 25 foot rear yard setback to alloy[, the construction of a deck on property zoned RSF and located at 361 Deerfoot Trail. What F appens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the develoSer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Sta~ will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. Th~Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The' commission will then mal~ a recommendation to the City Council. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall dur~g office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to somoon~ about this project, please contact Cindy at @37-1@00 ext. 117. If you choose to submit v~ritten comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice ~ this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 15, 1997. UNDGREN BROS. 35 E. WAYZATA BLVD. ,~AYZATA, MN 55391 GREGORY L & KELLY R HASTINGS 9217 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOY A SMITH 9243 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 'ODD PORTER 261 KIOWA TRL ;HANHASSEN, MN 55317 DENNIS R & ANN BAKER 9219 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LUCILLE LOUISE REMUS 9245 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 )ONALD & KATHRYN SITTER 1249 LAKE RILEY BLVD ;HANHASSEN, MN 55317 EUNICE ELIZABETH KO~-FKE 9221 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CATHY HARGREAVES 300 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ~ARRY A & HARRIET F BERSHAW J)271 KIOWA TRL 3HANHASSEN, MN 55317 ALAN & KAREN DIRKS 331 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT D & KRISTIN S REBERTUS 320 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PETER PEMRICK JR & 9251 KIOWA TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID DUHAIME 4401 COUNTRY CLUB RD EDINA, MN 55424 PAMELA N GUYER 340 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 5531 JAMES F & PATRICiA M DOLEJSI 9260 KIOWA TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RONALD YTZEN 9227 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT MURRAY 360 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CRAIG W & KATHRYN HALVERSON 9283 KIOWA TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 FREDERICK POTFHOFF III & 9231 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KEVIN M & LINDA P SHARKEY 380 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ALAN H & KAREN L DIRKS 9203 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOHN W ARDOYNO 9235 LAKE RILEY BLVD - CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PAUL E & GAlL A TERRY 400 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LELAND G SAPP & DIANE K TAYLOR 9209 LAKE RILEY BLVD. CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PAUL KENT OLSON 9239 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD R & JILL M MADORE 381 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 5531 CURTIS G KRIER 9211 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SUNNYSLOPE HOMEOWNERS ASSN 341 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SCOTT ALAN WIRTH 361 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVEN A & F~TRICIA A SEKELY EERFO~ TRL HASSE~ MN 55317 ROBERT EVAI~ S 331 DEERFO~, TRL CHANHASSEh,,. MN 55317 KENT TAGE R~MLIDEN & 321 DEERFOO'r IFil_ GH~NH~SSENiMN 55317 DAlE B & DI^N~ KUTIER 301 OEERFOO'" TRL CH^NH^SSEN ',M~ 55317 · !