CC Staff Report 11-10-08
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax: 952,227,1110
Building Inspections
Phone: 952,227.1180
Fax: 952.227,1190
Engineering
Phone: 952,227.1160
Fax: 952.227,1170
Finance
Phone: 952.227,1140
Fax: 952.227.1110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952.227,1120
Fax: 952.227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax: 952.227.1404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax: 952.227.1110
Public Works
1591 Park Road
Phone: 952.227.1300
Fax: 952,227,1310
Senior Center
Phone: 952.227.1125
Fax: 952,227.1110
Web Site
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM:
Angie Auseth, Planner ~ e'~ /'J
November 10, 2008 ~
DATE:
SUBJ:
Shoreland Setback Variance - Planning Case #08-19
PROPOSED MOTION:
"The Chanhassen City Council denies Planning Case #08-19 for a 15-foot shoreland
setback variance to convert an existing deck into a porch and construction of a 6 x 8
foot deck on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition, and adoption of the attached
Findings of Fact and Action."
City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a 15-foot shoreland setback variance to convert an
existing deck to a screened porch and the construction of a 6 x 8 foot deck.
OCTOBER 27, 2008 CITY COUNCIL: TABLED ACTION
This item was tabled at the October 27,2008 City Council meeting. The City
Council heard the applicant's request to convert the existing deck into a screened
porch and add an additional 8 x 31 foot deck on the lake side of the home. While the
conversion of the deck to the screened porch seemed a reasonable request, the
additional 248 square-foot deck encroaching into the setback did not constitute a
hardship; Council directed the applicant and staff to develop a compromise for the
request.
A Public Hearing was held at the October 7,2008 Planning Commission meeting for
this item. The Planning Commission voted 3 to 2 to deny the variance request. The
Planning Commission discussed whether the request constituted a hardship and if
there was an alternative location for an expansion to the home to increase the living
space. The Planning Commission also provided an alternative motion to approve the
conversion of the existing deck into a screened porch and deny the construction of
the new deck. The applicant chose not to deviate from the original request.
Since the October 27,2008 City Council meeting staff and the applicant have had
discussions to work toward a revised request. Staff and the applicant were unable to
agree on a revised plan.
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
Todd Gerhardt
Shoreland Setback Variance
November 10, 2008
Page 2
<0
~~
ij\
<,~
-~. shol"tl;md
sf'fback
The applicant's original request consists of:
1. Enclosing the 15 x 20 foot deck into a screened
porch.
2. A 5-foot encroachment to construct an
additional 8 x 31 foot (248 square-foot) deck.
<0
~~
ij\
<,~
~
7~' sh01'f'I~Ulcl
stlll,uk
The applicant's alternative request consists of:
1. Enclosing the existing 15 x 20 foot deck.
2. A 5-foot encroachment to construct an
additional 6 x 8 foot (48 square-foot) deck with
stairs.
While the length of the encroachment request remains the same, the applicant's alternative proposal
significantly reduces the area of the proposed deck. The original proposal was for a 248 square-foot
deck and the current proposal is for a 48 square-foot deck. The area of the deck within the
shoreland setback changes from a 108 square-foot to a 27 square-foot encroachment. Both
proposals include stairs and landings as part of the deck, which may encroach within the shoreland
setback.
<0
~
U'
~~
75-' shorthmd
.'~tlb.\(k
Staffs goal is to reduce the overall
nonconformity of the existing deck. In order
to recommend approval to intensify the
structure from an open deck to a screened
porch, the nonconforming lakeshore setback
should be reduced.
Staff's alternative consists of:
1. Reducing the nonconforming setback of
existing deck by 4 feet (10 x 20 foot
deck).
2. Enclosing 10 x 20 foot deck.
3. Constructing an additional 3.5 x 7 foot
(24.5 square-foot) deck with stairs (no
encroachment into setback).
Todd Gerhardt
Shoreland Setback Variance
November 10, 2008
Page 3
Staff is recommending denial of the IS-foot shoreland setback variance and the construction of
the additional 6 x 8 foot deck.
The City Council minutes for October 27,2008 are item Ia of the November 10, 2008 City
Council Packet.
RECOMMENDA TION
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the following motion:
"The Chanhassen City Council denies Planning Case #08-19 for a 15-foot shoreland setback
variance to convert an existing deck into a porch and construction of a 6 x 8 foot deck on Lot 12,
Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition, and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Action.
2. Revised Survey dated October 28, 2008.
3. Email from Rich Peters to Angie Auseth dated October 15, 2008.
4. Email from John Gleason, MN DNR Waters, to Angie Auseth dated October 6, 2008.
5. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated October 7,2008.
G:\PLAN\2008 Planning Cases\08-19 Peters Variance\10-27-08 Executive Summary. doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND ACTION
IN RE: Application of Richard and Eunice Peters for a 15-foot shoreland setback variance to
convert a 15 x 20 foot deck into a porch and construction of a 6 x 8 foot deck - Planning Case
No. 08-19.
On October 7, 2008, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application of Richard and Eunice Peters for a I5-foot shoreland setback
variance from the 75-foot shoreland setback to convert a 15 x 20 foot deck into a porch and
construct of a 6 x 8 foot deck at 7301 Laredo Drive, located in the Single Family Residential
District (RSF) on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills Addition. The Planning Commission conducted a
public hearing on the proposed variance that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The
Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak. The
decision of the Planning Commission was less than % majority vote.
The City Council reviewed the item at the November 10, 2008 City Council meeting and now
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF).
2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential-Low Density (1.5 - 4 units per
acre ).
3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills Addition.
4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not
grant a variance unless they find the following facts:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship
means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this
neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward from them meet this criterion.
Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. The
parcel predates the shore land zoning ordinance, as it was platted in 1956. Of the properties
within 500 feet of the parcel, four do not meet the 75-foot structure setback, three of which
were granted variance approval for the encroachment, including the subject property. The
applicant has reasonable use of the property as there is a single-family home and a two-car
garage and an existing deck located on the property. The conversion of the deck into a
1
porch and the addition of the new deck is a self-created hardship as defined in the city code.
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 Farnily Residential District. The applicant was granted a 15-foot
lakeshore variance in 1996 to construct the existing deck on the lake side of the home.
While conversion to the porch and the new deck will not change the setback to the lake or
increase the impervious coverage, the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship with which
to grant a variance. The applicant currently has reasonable use of the property.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Finding: The intent of the proposed porch and deck is not based on the desire to increase
the value ofthe home. The property owner's intent is to increase the livable area of the
home and enjoy the lake view more months out of the year. The property has space
available within the required setbacks in which to create more livable space in the side or
front yard, and would be limited only by the site coverage on the property. According to
the calculations on the certificate of survey (house, driveway, sidewalks, patio, and
cement stairs), the site has the potential for additional site coverage on the lot.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The alleged hardship is self-created as the applicant has reasonable use of the
property and was granted a variance in 1996 to construct the existing deck.
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 will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
The applicant's proposal will not increase the amount of hard surface coverage on the site,
nor will it decrease the current shoreland setback. However, it would be an additional
structure within the shoreland setback
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed home will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values within the
neighborhood.
2
5. The planning report #08-19, dated October 7,2008, prepared by Angie Auseth, et aI, is
incorporated herein.
ACTION
''The City Council denies Planning Case #08-19 for a IS-foot variance from the 75-foot
shoreland setback for the conversion of a deck to a porch and construction if a 6 x 8 foot deck on
Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills Addition, based on these findings of fact."
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council on this 10th day of November, 2008.
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
BY:
Its Mayor
G:\PLAN\2008 Planning Cases\08-l9 Peters Variance\ll-l 0-08 Denial Findings of Fact.doc
3
'(
\
-r,,~
e>vN."..r?~~
,..~. ~t~:'.
'..~.""'~','
,',",,~~ tnJ.
'/.N'~ " ,
f/'~J,~.t,( t"'.~
" ,
t:7
0,
/'
\:/
\
.......
-\.-
I
/
\\
f::)(. \?;;;." W~\,
t
-Z
'-
~
\[\
,-..I
If(j
I::
I-P'\ \'L ~ \
~~x tI:'V-J.-,~ \~, ~W*
C:J\"\tG T~, \\\-;;-4a'
I
/
K\~D'C\:-BJl--1\Lt- ~C:> ~-E:L..::J.
1;;Ss;P\ Lk~"b..o ~\~e
. /1)1 1ft/' ~ ..'
~"..
{
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
OCT 2 8 2008
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPi
Auseth, Angie
Subject:
Variance Request
From: Rich Peters [mailto:richpeters@mchsi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 7:37 PM
To: Auseth, Angie
Subject: Variance Request
Angie:
Couple things concerning the variance:
1. We had planned on adding a "sun room". In the variance request that went to the Planning Commission it
reflected a "porch". Maybe there is no difference as far as the city is concerned but we had planned on using this
room year around, if possible, including winter. I didn't make a big deal about that because the variance was
denied by the PC so no reason to bring it up.
Is this a major issue or not? I don't want this to be an issue down the road, if indeed, it is an issue.
2. As it concerns the "hardship" issue:
When we moved into this house in 1994 we were empty nester's. Since that time our family has grown to ten
including both our sons, their spouses and children. They do not live with us but do live in the area and spend a
lot of time with us. The original house was 2100 sq ft. walkout rambler built in 1960 with no additions ever
made to it, although we were able to add couple hundred square feet of finished space through remodeling. The
only way to add any more floor space to our home is to finish off the deck. We cannot expand to the north due
to the lot line. To the South is the drainage area for the lot as well as two, 100 year old trees which we have no
intention of removing. In the front of the house we again have very old oak trees.
We are environmentally concerned citizens of Chanhassen and Lotus Lake. We do not want to do anything that
is not environmentally friendly to the Lake. In fact, this summer we replaced all the grasss on the shore line
with 1150 plants to protect the Lake from fertilizer run-off. This is approximately 20% of our total lot planted in
wild flowers and grasses indigenous to Minnesota.
Give me a call if you have any questions. I can drop up and discuss further thursday morning if you wish.
Thanks
Rich Peters
1
Auseth, Angie
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
John Gleason [John.Gleason@dnr.state.mn.us)
Monday, October 06,20083:58 PM
Auseth, Angie
DNR Comment on Peters Variance Request
Dear Ms.
Auseth:
I am responding to the memo from you dated September 8, 2ee8 regarding review of the Peters
Variance request.
The DNR objects to issuance of this variance. We oppose any structural variance unless there
is demonstrated "hardship" as defined in Minnesota statute, unique to the property. Based on
the materials distributed, no such hardship exists.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Regards,
Jack
John (Jack) Gleason,
Area Hydrologist -West Metro
MN DNR Waters
12ee Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 551e6
651-259-5754 (W)
651-772-7977 (F)
John.Gleason~dnr.state.mn.us
Visit our website at:
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/index.html
1
PC DATE: 10/7/08
OJ
CC DATE: 10/27/08
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
REVIEW DEADLINE: 11/4/08
CASE #: 08-19
BY: AA, JM, JS, ML
PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission City Council denies Planning
Case #08-19 for a 15- foot shoreland setback variance to convert an existing deck into a porch and
construct a new deck on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition, based on the staff report and
adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Action."
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 15-foot variance from the 75-foot
shoreland setback for the conversion of an existing 15 x 20 foot deck into a porch and the
construction of an additional deck within the shoreland setback.
LOCATION: 7301 Laredo Drive
Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills Addition
APPLICANT: Richard and Eunice Peters
7301 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF)
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density (1.5 - 4 units per acre)
ACREAGE: 0.58 acres
DENSITY: N/ A
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the
proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a
relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation
from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
In 1996 the applicant received a 15-foot variance from the 75-foot shoreland setback to construct a
15 x 20 foot deck on the lake side of the home, as well as a 25- foot bluff setback variance. The
applicant is requesting a variance to convert the existing deck to a three-season porch, which
intensifies the use, and construct an additional deck on the lake side of the home. The proposed
deck would be71 feet from the ordinary high water mark and would lead to the incremental
encroachment of the stairs and landing toward the lake, which is set back 67 feet from the ordinary
high water mark. The proposed structures will not decrease the distance to the lake. The property is
zoned Single Faritily Residential (RSF).
Peters Variance Request
Planning Case 08-19
October 7, 2008 October 27, 2008
Page 2 of6
The existing nonconforming deck was approved in 1996 to allow a reasonable use of the property.
While the conversion of the deck to a porch and the addition of the deck will have minimal impact
to the site, from a site coverage standpoint, enclosing the deck increases the nonconformity. Since
the applicant currently has reasonable use of the property, including the existing outdoor living
areas, this request is a self-created hardship, as defined by the City Code. The proposed porch
enclosure increases the habitable space which is proposed to be located closer to the lake than
would be permitted in other circumstances. Staff is recommending denial of the variance request.
ADJACENT ZONING: The property to the north is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The
properties to the south are zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The lake is located to the east
and the cul-de-sac is located to west.
WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer service is available to the site.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
. Chapter 20, Division 3, Variances.
· Chapter 20, Article XII, Shoreland Management District.
· Chapter 20, Article XII, Single Family Residential (RSF) District.
Peters Variance Request
Planning Case 08-19
October 7,2008 October 27, 2008
Page 3 of6
BACKGROUND
The property is located on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition, which is zoned Single Family
Residential (RSF). Sunrise Hills Addition was created in 1956 and consists of 28 lots. The
subject property was developed in 1960 prior to the adoption of the Shoreland District
Regulations and does not meet the current standards for a riparian lot. The lot has an area of
23,701 square feet (0.58 acres). Minimum lot area for a riparian lot in the RSF district is 40,000
square feet.
The applicant received
approval for a IS-foot
shoreland setback variance
in 1996 to allow a 60- foot
shoreland setback to
construct the existing 15 x
20 foot deck. The deck was
built over an existing patio;
therefore, it did not increase
the hard surface coverage on
the property. The applicant
is proposing to convert the
existing deck into a porch
and maintain the existing
footprint.
The intent ofthe applicant's
proposal is to use the deck area more months out of the year and to create more livable space.
The property has space available within the required setbacks in which to create more livable
space in the side or front yard, and would be limited only by the site coverage on the property.
According to the calculations on the certificate of survey (house, driveway, sidewalks, patio, and
cement stairs), the site has the potential for additional site coverage on the lot.
From a lakeview standpoint, the proposed 8 x 31 foot deck and stairs within the shoreland
setback (to be located over a portion of an existing paver patio) will increase the projection of the
structure to the lake from that area of the structure. While the proposed deck will not increase
the hard surface coverage on the site; it is an additional structure within the setback which
increases the nonconformity on the lot.
ANAL YSIS
The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance.
Reasonable use within the RSF district is defined as a single-family home and a two-car garage;
according to criteria outlined in the City Code for granting a variance. As such, the applicant has
Peters Variance Request
Planning Case 08-19
October 7,2008 October 27, 2008
Page 4 of6
a reasonable us of the property with the existing home and garage. In addition, in 1996 the
applicant was granted a IS-foot variance to the 75-foot shoreland setback and a 25-foot variance
from the bluff setback for the construction of a 15 x 20 foot deck on the lake side of the home.
The applicant would like to convert this deck into a sun room so they can enjoy the lake view and
additional space more months out ofthe year. The applicant is also proposing to add an additional
deck along the lake side of the house that will maintain a greater setback to the lake than the existing
deck, but will bring that portion of the structure closer to the lake.
/""
The applicants' proposal for the porch and deck will not change the distance from the existing
structures to Lotus Lake. The original deck was built over an existing patio, therefore, the
impervious coverage will not be affected; however, enclosing the deck and adding the new 8 x 31
foot deck increases the nonconformity and therefore requires variance approval.
The City Code states that a variance may be granted if the literal enforcement causes undue
hardship and the property owner does not have reasonable use of the property, which includes
comparable properties within 500 feet.
Reasonable use within the Single Family Residential (RSF) District is described as a single-
family home with a two-car garage, which is currently constructed on the property. The property
was granted a variance to construct the existing deck in 1996, which is consistent with the
neighborhood. There is also a paver patio on the lake side of the home.
Peters Variance Request
Planning Case 08-19
October 7,2008 October 27, 2008
Page50f6
Staff surveyed the neighboring properties within 500 feet of the subject site to determine if there
were preexisting conditions throughout the neighborhood that would warrant granting of a
variance to enclose the deck and add a new deck.
There have been four variance requests, which include three lakeshore setback variances and one
non-lakeshore variance. There are two variances to construct outdoor living areas on the lake
side of the home (one of which is the subject property). The third request was to construct an
addition on the lake side of the property.
Case # Address Ri arian Re uest Action
25- foot shoreland setback
85-15 7300 Laredo Drive YES variance for the Approved
construction of a 32 x 20
foot deck and porch
21-foot front yard setback
89-3 7307 Laredo Drive NO variance for the Denied
construction of a garage
and deck
8- foot shoreland setback
95-9 7343 Frontier Trail YES and a 16-foot bluff setback Approved
for the construction of an
addition
15- foot shoreland setback
7301 Laredo Drive variance and a 25- foot
96-2 (subject site) YES bluff setback variance to Approved
construct a 15 x 20 foot
deck
Of the lakeshore lots within 500 feet of the subject
property, with and without a variance, the subject site is
the second closest to the lake at 60 feet.
The applicant was granted a variance for the deck which
provided an outdoor area in which to enjoy the lake. This
is consistent with the previous variance requests. There
is also an existing 320 square-foot patio on the lake side
of the property, which provides an outdoor living area
and reasonable use of the property.
While the proposed additions will not increase the
impervious coverage on the property or decrease the
distance to the lake; the hardships listed by the applicant
are inconsistent with the criteria specified in the Zoning
Peters Variance Request
Planning Case 08-19
Oetober 7,2008 October 27, 2008
Page 6 of6
Ordinance for granting a variance. Staff, therefore, is recommending denial of the variance.
If the Planning Commission feels that this variance request is a reasonable request and does not
adversely affect the surrounding properties, as they are not increasing the impervious coverage or
decreasing the distance to the lake, the Planning Commission may decide to approve the
application.
Should the Planning Commission decide to approve the variance request, they would need to
amend the findings of fact consistent with such approval. Staff would further recommend that,
as a condition of such approval, the Planning Commission adopt the following conditions:
1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit prior to construction.
2. Erosion control, as required by City Code, must be installed prior to construction.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and recol'Bi'l.'lends taat the Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the
following motion and the adoption of the attached findings of fact and action:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission City Council denies Planning Case #08-19 for a 15- foot
shoreland setback variance to convert an existing deck into a porch and construct a new deck on
Lot 12, Block 1, Sunrise Hills Addition, based on adoption ofthe attached Findings of Fact and
Action."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Action.
2. Development Review Application.
3. Reduced copy oflot survey.
4. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing.
G:\PLAN\2008 Planning Cases\08-19 Peters Variance\CC 10-27-08 Staff Report.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND ACTION
IN RE: Application of Richard and Eunice Peters for a IS-foot shoreland setback variance to
convert a 15 x 20 foot deck into a porch and construct a new deck - Planning Case No. 08-19.
On October 7, 2008, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application of Richard and Eunice Peters for a IS-foot shoreland setback
variance from the 75-foot shoreland setback to convert a 15 x 20 foot deck into a porch and
construct a new deck at 7301 Laredo Drive, located in the Single Family Residential District (RSF)
on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills Addition. The Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the proposed variance that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The
Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF).
2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential-Low Density (1.5 - 4 units per
acre) .
3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills Addition.
4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not
grant a variance unless they find the following facts:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship
means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this
neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward from them meet this criteria.
Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. The
parcel predates the shoreland zoning ordinance, as it was platted in 1956. Of the properties
within 500 feet of the parcel, four do not meet the 75-foot structure setback, three of which
were granted variance approval for the encroachment, including the subject property. The
applicant has reasonable use of the property as there is a single-family home and a two-car
garage and an existing deck located on the property. The conversion of the deck into a
porch and the addition of the new deck is a self-created hardship as defined in the city code.
1
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. The applicant was granted a IS-foot
lakeshore variance in 1996 to construct the existing deck on the lake side ofthe home.
While conversion to the porch and the new deck will not change the setback to the lake or
increase the impervious coverage, the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship with which
to grant a variance. The applicant currently has reasonable use of the property.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Finding: The intent of the proposed porch and deck is not based on the desire to increase
the value of the home. The property owner's intent is to increase the livable area of the
home and enjoy the lake view more months out of the year. The property has space
available within the required setbacks in which to create more livable space in the side or
front yard, and would be limited only by the site coverage on the property. According to
the calculations on the certificate of survey (house, driveway, sidewalks, patio, and
cement stairs), the site has the potential for additional site coverage on the lot.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The alleged hardship is self-created as the applicant has reasonable use of the
property and was granted a variance in 1996 to construct the existing deck.
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 will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
The applicant's proposal will not increase the amount of hard surface coverage on the site,
nor will it decrease the current shoreland setback. However, it would be an additional
structure within the shoreland setback
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed home will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values within the
neighborhood.
5. The planning report #08-19, dated October 7,2008, prepared by Angie Auseth, et aI, is
incorporated herein.
2
ACTION
''The Board of Adjustments and Appeals denies Planning Case #08-19 for a 15-foot
variance from the 75-foot shoreland setback for the conversion of a deck to a porch and
construction if a new deck on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills Addition, based on these findings of
fact."
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 7th day of October, 2008.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
Its Chairman
g:\plan\2008 planning cases\08-l9 peters variance\findings of fact.doc
3
Planning Case No. () 8 -)9
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 Market BOulevard - P.O. Box 147
. Chanhassen, MN 55317:- (952) 227-1100
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
PLEASE PRINT
A~ant Na~ ?dAddress: ~ .
'~r. b~/t:~ Y-5
~~;Jf fi tt~/ 7
Contact: t (oY'J
Phone: =-~-f7~ax:
Email: /,.. ~. )"3 @ A1c1;s),~hl
.
.Owner Name~~)ess:
Contact
Phone:
Email:
Fax:
NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development
plans
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use PermIt (CUP)
Interim Use Permit (IUP)
Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements 01AC)
+- Variance (VAA)
Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
Non-conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development..
Zoning Appeal
R zoning
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
Sign Plan Review
SEP 0 5 Z008
)( Notification Sign - $200
(City to Install and remove)
X Escrow for FHing Fees/Attorney Cost"'''
- $50 CUPJSPRNACNARlWAPJMetes & Bounds
- $450 Minor SUB CK~Sl<>'6c g:J
L.l c-: Q') l-~ <;1.:>181 7JP
TOTAL FEE $ r::.JD=- (.~51.:>t8Z. zo~
Site Plan Review <SFtmtNHASSEN PLANNlNG QW'
Subdivision.
An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant
prior to the public hearing.
'*Sixte n (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submItted, including an 8%" X 11"
reduc d copy for each plan sheet.along with a diaital COpy in TIFF-Group 4 (*.tif) format.
*"'Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract.
. Building m~terial samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for
each application.
SCANNED
LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID:
SV"J"6lW1 A~~hDAJ if 1'~/,ocale... clRCJL
/~O/ Lorellu or-
L of /:? /.?/tkI~ // rV/7/';le Mils / sf- AltI;~(JA).
PROJECT NAME:
LOCATION:
TOTAL ACREAGE:
WETLANDS PRESENT:
PRESENT ZONING:
oh7
)( YES
.
R-/
NO
REQUESTED ZONING:
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION:
J?tJ~ ~f/tP'~./.7ee.
.. ...
REQUESTED lAND USE DESIGNATION:
REASON FOR REQUEST: Rert?~~7 t/o/'h?~ee ~ ~/J.J~/ZYl ~/'r'f~~f
:r::;Fi7f::1h1i:~~~cI::.~~
_~N t?9_ _ _-,-/IJJ 4 d~('~L L/~I VO/Jd/Je~.~ #e
r-e !5U) r~jJ /~I ~~O"'k '} - ~t€- F I~~s fo~ ,l\~\. .~r'\e-o.
FOR sITe PLAN REVIEW: Include number of exisling employees: and new employees:
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application. you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordi.nance 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 h~ve attached a copy of proof of ovvnership
(either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Tide. Abstract otTilie 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.
C ~reo
Signature of F
<o/t".b.:? f
Date
Cfis/ ZlNJ 'iJ
lopment Review Application. DOC
Rev. 1/08
SCANNED
!m'rt.I....ZS6 :XV,! ~~~Kl."'ZS6 :3NOHd
9StS!I NIII '3>IYl aNO, 3JInIO MO"IM oN m
SH3NNV1d QNV1'WOA3l\llnS ONV1'SH33IOON3 1W:>
":lNI 'S3.l VI:lOSSV 'll 9113BN01l9
~~
~
,>tb
O~
V
!.,~.
.....
z
. 0
0 i=
0 i5
c
Z c(
a:: I- ~
0 0 f/)
II. .... 0
~ i= f/) f/)
...I W
~ 0 ...I Z
~ Z I-
:;) w
:J W :5 -=<tr w
f/) 0::: f/) u.
II. t- o:: ~ ~
0 Z Z
w en :J :J w
l- f/) ..J
Z 0 <(
c( 0 0
0 0 .... rJ>
ii: ~ a::
~ 0 0 W
~ 9 ~
w m c(
0 ii: N 0
....
:;) l-
N 0
...I
C II.
0
ffa.
"P-l/""'3l'IO
-
#O);u,Y1S3M1;1C\SMn3M1tB11\~~OH
lEB<<ifEI____IBSt8:II1J.....VINIJ.'tItIlOH
~~=.:I.~~....=I
'"
!
J
~.
i~~
it'
:11
ill
~h
~.I
Ii"
~ IJI
0~ !!i
enD ~~~
~~ =u
u.:J: I~i
"'001 jlt
ii:~ fi~~
5~ j!(Jj
lil~ ~~ii
~; ill
~!l !I
\
\!
~
~
r ~\
\ i,
",I :\
-r I<i\
1\ ~\
\ ::>
\ ~\
\ ~\
1 ~I
\ 5 . \
\ \
\ \
Ig ~,
\~ ~\
r'"
\ xl
\ ~\
\ ffi\
\ i\
I ~I
\
\ il
1 I
"'<>
0,
..,
lid
.
5>,,,"''''
SNOII^
E
!
I
i
Ii
8-
i.,
.ll'"
1;0
~d
h.e
~f'
:::~
.mi!
.:
m1;i · t.1 ~
i5!:? i" g
~ 0 ~ i
.. f i= i!"fie.
~ ~I! f S g
~ ~~ ~ ~ i
~ 9l;l~", 0 ~
lil 0~8!ll;l g !
2 ~~~i5 i i
f I~!~ ~ i
.:
..
I,NlOo.O"IIO.....".......1
=~g;:::~fOC..... H...._
'"
l;l
o
!l! ~
~ ~
::> :I':l:!i
3 :!i ~~~
;5 ~ Of"w :i
iii 0 "w
9 ~ ~ ~fi
i ti~~",lli!l!
% ~~~~f~
..
'"
g m
.. ..
.. ..
Iii :;;
., w
u..z
zoo
8<>-
....
AS 31\'0
.,
~
g
.,
.:~
..,
~ .
~i
110
>-~
OM
-'3
.....
~~!t
e~ 51
to
to
~
III
o
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDA VIT 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
September 25, 2008, 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 Peters Variance - Planning Case 08-19 to the persons named on attached Exhibit
"A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing
the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid
thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the
records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this~5~kdayof ~'P\em~r ,2008.
\) ~\.~
~Jm, .
- Notary bI"
I
KIM T. MEUWISSEN I
Notary Public-Minnesota
My Commission Expires Jan 31. 2010
a
s::
~
CI)
::
as
.5 '0
i.!!!
CI) E
:J:E
.~ 0
:CO
::Sa
o.s::
-'2
o s::
as
(J-
~o.
o s::
Z
a
s::
:;
CI)
::
s::
ao
s::'-
._ tn
Jo. tn
as.-
CI) E
:J:E
.~ 0
:cO
::sa
0..5
-s::
o s::
CI) as
(J-
._ a.
....
o s::
ZCl)
tn
tn
as
.s::
s::
as
.s::
()
tn
tn
as
.s::
s::
as
.s::
o
t::
<ll
'lii
'0
c
>>
<ll
E .
g.g
'iij 55 . ctl
~ <ll ~.o
(])-Q5 ai
.!!l.calCll (,)
'==Q3"C :;:;
o ~ C g
. "- '- ctS
E.g)ctlCi5~"O 1/1
c:i.. (;:2: 0 (.) 'Ci) ;S
0(])0.c{gQ) '0
O"sOCll a: Gl
"cl'-Q)O>"O 'C
I'- 0 I'- .c .!: Q) 'iij
~ .-EC
""!:~E""'O ~
CO-gQ)OEN lii
g(]).o~Ct~ ii
C\I(])5Q)8Q)Q) ...
_"0 !"u c.> I +--' CD
I'- -.c C C 0 Q) :5
..... c: 0 .S!;! 0 ..... 0.. Q)
Q) .- - ..... C Q) .>_ 5
.0 55'u ctl - C (.)
.8 6; C > ~ 0 'c o.!!!
(.)(])::lctlQ)~::loo.
o.co.....-(.)w"OClIE
.~OE 0lQ)_>c Q)
>.._ = _ .!: "0 "U ..... I:
ctl~-tJ)-....."Octlo
"0 2 'u Q).!!2 Q) ..... ...J;;:;
CIl<llI::lx.cctl.,-<ll
Q);;_ 0-Q)013 08
::l "E'- Q) C C .- C')-
I- ::loa: ctl ctla: 1'-<1:
E
i=
~
c
o
+:
ca
u
o
..J
'ii
lh
o
C.
o
..
a.
....
ca
C
~ "00>
1ii c:.~
'0 ~:g~
c: x ctl .-
~ Q)"OE
E. ocLLctl
Cl <ll - ctl
.!: -g t5 .c ~
~(]) ctl(.)-;:;
mg"O.o.....~
.c <ll > _ 0._
w (]) m Q) 0..CJ)
:c"s_CIlctlca
t- - Q) "0 0'-
.~~c:cc
E (]) ... .SS!.- Q)
" 'U Q) ~ "0
c:i.. (;:2: 0 -0 'Ci)
0(])0.c{gQ)
O"sOCll a:
.. c: I'- Q) Ol"O
I'- 0 I'- .c.!: Q)
(tis< .-EC
'!:~E""'O
~-gQ)eEN
o~.o_c€,~
C\I(])5Q)8Q)Q)
."'u(,), 6.-
I'-g.c C C 0 Q)
..... c: 0 .S!;! 0 ~ 0..
Q)'- .....c......Q)
.0 55'u ctl - C (.)
.8 6; C > ~ 0 'c
(.) (]) ::l ctl Q) ~ ::l
o.cO.....-(.)w
. ~ 0 E g>{g ~
>,.-- - +-" .-
ctl~ctlCll-""'"O
"0 2 I Q).!!2 Q) Cti
tJ)..!!!~::lXS.c
Q)=.;:::o-Q)o(.)
::l "E'- Q) C C .-
I-::loa:ctlctla:
.;.;
c >. c
.~ ti :8
c.ca
e g
<ca...J
"OQ)
Q)0.c tJ)
.c0- Q)
-.c"O tJ)
-.....ctl tJ)
::l 0 Q) ::l
0.0_""': (.)
.o.c_ (.) tJ)
ctl Ol= Q) :;::;
::l'Q)?i: .0'.....: .....
..... (.) C
o C .= o...~ 0
>. Q) ctl .
E .c .c "0 e 'Ci)
..... - 0 ~ 0.. cS .!!2
OEQ)oooQ)=E
1:: o.c ~ o...c .0 E
.- ..... - 0 - ;;:! 0
0::::: 0>2 0.. C ~o
-::lCCIl OQ)
.!!2 0..:;::; Ol Q) CIl .c Q)
Ol.!: Q) C S C - S
C C Q).~ - .SS! E "0
'i:: '(ij E 0 0 0.. 0 C
Sh5Q)~?i:c~ctl
.c 0 S - .~ Q) "0 "0
(.)OOlQ)CCll~Q)
= - c.c Q) ~ .- CIlO
.0 ~ .- - > 0.. Q)
::l ..... ......c 0 (.) u
0..~6 Olc= ~ CIl
CIl ::l?i:'-
.- ii.) . 0 ctl _ ~ Ol
S Q) t)..c Q) C ctl .!:
_::lQ)_>ctl ......
o 0- '0 Ol '0>.2 JB ctl t)
Q)Q).....c--;:::;cQ)Q)
CIl ..... o..'i:: = 0: Q) .c '0
o _tJ) CIl ctl ?i: ctl E (.) .....
2-c:cQ):::::Q)E:5
::Jctl-.cctl.co::JQ)
o..g"5gwl-Oc..S
Q) a. 0.0
.c o...n::l .
I- ctl ctl 0...,- C\I C') '<t
lhC)
C C
0).-
c.....
c.0)
ca 0)
:I::2:
....0)
ca.c
.c....
S:1li
ai
.~
'0
I:
1/1
;S
'0
Gl
'C
'iij
Gl
~
Gl
>
Gl
...
Gl
.c
Q)~
.~ 0
.....1/1
0.-
00.
"O<ll
Q)E
.....1:
ctlo
...J;;:;
.,-<ll
0(,)
C')..2
1'-<1:
Q)'8~
.c0- CIl
-.c"O Q)
-.....ctl CIl
::l0Q) CIl
B~=.....: 6
ctl 0>= ~ CIl
::l 'Q)?i: '0' .....: :0
o c.= ..... (.) C
>'Q) ctl 0..Q) 0
E .c .c "0'0' 'Ci)
..... - 0 Q)...... CIl
o E CIl 0.. (.) .-
1::o~CJ:joQ)=E
.- ..... _ 0.. o...c .0 E
0- .Q)O-;;:!o
- "5 Olii.) 0.. C ~o
CIl~C OQ)
.- c:;::; Ol Q) CIl .c Q)
Ol'- ~.!: S C - S
'E .S: E ?i: - .SS! E "0
ctlE! ..Qoo..ec
Q).o~o?i:c-ctl
.c 0 _ - .~ Q) "0 "0
(.)OOlQ)>CIlQ)Q)
=-C.c.....Q)>CIl
.0 "0 .- - Q) ..... 'Q) 0
::lc~.c60"(.)u
o..ctlO g>c= ~ CIl
.!!2 ii.) . 0 ctl ?i: Q)'-
SQ)t)..cQ)cCtig>
- ::l Q) - > ctl .-
o o-.~ Ol'- CIl Cti .....:
Q) Q) 0 C 0l.2 - Q) (.)
..... ......_ _ - C Q)
~ _CIl 0.. Cti :s; ~ Q) .c '0
0.. - .!!2 Q) :> ctl E .2 ~
~~S.c:::::Q)E::Ou
0..(.)_(.)E!.c0::lQ)
Q)'E..5:5CJ)I-Oc..S
.c 0...0 ::l
I- ctl ctl 0...,- C\i cr) ~
.8 0)
-.c .!::O >.
CIl.!!2 c.!2 .g
'S; ?i: Q) >. Q) Q) 'Iii lh
Q) ::l .- .0 C E.c > Jo.
CIl o Ol.....Q)t_ca::l
ctl >.cOEctloO).c
Q) _<(CIl.....o..-..o1-
0.. --::l?i:Q)CIl_O)
-= g C == "0 .~ :: .c
g> ScEE~g-::""
:;::; .cOc-g-(.)E>c
~ ())~~CIl.8Q)S,g~
E '7 CIl CIl 0 >.32.- ca 0)
COctlctl-o..>lh E
Q) QQ).cQ)oo.-'O
S co..c ~ (.) o..=S C
Q) ..!!! .ctlOQ)-..lhO
..... -.c.cc=O'-'-
E .. -.. ~.3 (.) 0 ?i: - a; :g
Q) (ti C '0' (.) ::l Q)::::: 1:: ::: .-
.0 ~""'@)o>ctlolhE
CIl Q) -.. o...c >. ctl W c...o E
COlCllCll__.c 0)0)
ctl ctl ::l .- Q) - 0 .. ~ 0
0.. 0.. C S CIl C\i - 0,= ;> 0
Q).g E "5 ~ C') :;.!: ca U
.c ?i: c 0 ctl ::: a. Q5 1ii 0).5
-Q) CIl Q) .0 Cti-- I Ci5 Q) 0) '0 C
Q)_CIlctl_I'-.cE.c"c
CIl ~ ~ ~'(ij ~.!!2 Q) I- ~ ~
o '~.c 0 E I .c - ...
-ecQ)Q)~==-c.cO)
c 0.. ~ E >. ()) en '5 .Q -;; .c
ctl.CIl (.) 0.0 (tic Q) ~ o~
?i: c 'cj CIl .c Q) (.)'E 0) _
50 :s:.8Q5 ~ EE ~ E.5 0
>'Q)?i:~~,g 0-6 oe';:
=S ?i:E!<( 0..(.) ctlO 0
~
lh,:!
c C
o 0)
+:E
lB E
::l 0
00
.8 0)
==.c .!::O >-
CIl CIl - caca
'S; .~ >. ~ ~ ~
Q) ::l .~ .0 C E ~ > ..
CIl og>.....Q)t-Cll::l
ctl =>.<( 0 E ctl 0 0) .cl-
Q) CIl 5: 0.. - ..0
0.. t)::l:>Q)CIl_O)
Ol ~~~E~'~~=~
C .co ..o.cO 0)....,
:a5 C::l-(.)E>c
Q) ())(.)Q)CIloQ)O),g+:
E '7~~O;'32:::Cllm
COctlctl-o..>lh E
.c_Q) Q Q) .c Q) 0 e:c '0
co.. C ~ (.) 0...... S C
Q) ctl .ctlOQ)-..lhO
..... ]5t)13.cc=o='iij
E .. '> Q) ....: (.) 0 ?i: - 0) lh
Q)(ti .....'O(.)::l Q):::::1:::::'-
.0 ~""'@)o>ctlOlhE
CIl ~ -.. o...c >. ctl W c...o E
C ctl ~ .!!2 Q5 = .c ~ 0) 0
.SS!0.. ..cCll .0 '-::0
0.. C - ::l C\I - Ol_
Q) .g E "5 ctl C') :; .!: ca u Q:
.c ?i: c 0 ctl ::: a. Q5 1ii 0) .5
-Q) CIl Q) .0 (ti I Ci5 Q) 0) '0 C
Q)_CIlctl I'-.cE.c"c
CIl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .!!2 Q) I- ~ ~
o '~.c 0 E I .c - ...
-ecQ)Q)~==-c.cO)
c 0.. ~ E >. ()) en '5 .Q -;; .c
ctl.CIl q 0.0 (ti C Q) ~ 0 ~
?i: c'u CIl .c Q) (.) 'E- 0) ....
::l 0'- '.8 Q5 Q) E C C"
o?i: C E ctl E'- 0
>'Q)?i:~~,g 0-6 oe';:
=S ?i:E!<( 0..(.) ctlO 0 Q
lhC)
Q) C C ~
0).- ..
E c..... lh,:!
.. .... .. c.0)
i= c 'ii c >.c ca 0) c c
0 lh Cll1::0 :I::2: o 0)
~ :;:: 0 .2 0):;:: ....0) +:E
0) ca c. ~c.ca Cll.c lB E
.... u 0 o u .c- ::l 0
Cll 0 .. .. 0 S:1li
c ..J a. <Ca...J 00
rb -'0 0> ~
g ~ .Ot .~~ ~ ~ u~
~ 0 ,2 ~ ~ ~:: c >--- ~ CD ~ .9
Q:;Wu ca'~ro a:::0 roeg>.2= e.t:c
~=ID ~IDoo 2 g<~ ID~ ID~O
<(ID:S 53E;~ ~o a.ai~ a;.~ ~;:~
-g.E g E(ij m co:;;' g.~ ~ ~ ~ ; gJ?
ro Q) E.o 0 Q) t.c . Q) a. ~ ID "- ~ >.+:::
1E .0 ~ 8 ID g.7d ro .Q.~ :5 E c ;::: .9 : ~ g
~g>.9 ~>~E~E~~8Q) o~ ~=Q)
en'~ ~ co ~ ID "0 0 Q) ~ ~ B ~ ~ .g ~ g ==
~~.~ ~.~~~~a~~~~ .5~ ~~g
~ou ro~~E~Emoo-Q) ID> OU
E := .~ e 3 0 2 :: '~'5 ~ g 0 s CU <5 >- Q)
_D~ .Q>D.->,cu~"OEO ~o e~E
~~~ ~~~!~Q)~o_.5 R~ 000~
EcoQ) ~~m;~~E~m~ ~.~ ~!e
~~~ ~cii~~i8~~~ E~ ~~~
~ g ~ . E ~ .9 .~ 0 53 .9 ';: ~! 8 (j) g t Q)
~,,-Q)g>Q)Q)~"O.~E(ij"O~_ co~ ~o=
.Q~~~.5E~-g~~~~S== ~~ O~S
:6 53 g Q) i 5 a co - Q) ~ ~ ~.~ .S; 0 z. Q) en
eEl!) E a..w Q) 0 ~ E.~ 0 E ~ ~ g. 0 :5
o"OeQ)-oo~e~~Q)O 0 ~~ ~
053~:5(ij~~.~~~~~~~ o~ !.5~
enE.~"O~E~!~oEQ)~o ;~ ~i~
~ < >. 53 -g 0"0 0 >.~,g ~ a.~ Q) == g-g c..
-IDC=_OID=mcoo-Eo ~~ -_ID
~uQ)cogo53gE~Eooo~ ~e ~g==
a: 0 a. 0 .- e a. ~= Q) Q) e 0 00 ::3 :s Q) ._ _
eoe-~~OQ)gwE~_~oo 8~ ~Q)~
~~~i=~~=5~~~!~ci53~ g~E
c..rn~~ea:::=Q)oeQ)~~g~oo~ g.~8
.~ -E .~ .5 ~ ! ';: ~ ~ ~ ~ g.; ~ ~ .m "8 c. e Q)
enQ)~.~o-Eo5wQ)-::3Q)E.~2 !~~
enEQ)>-~~Q)=Q)g>oo~"O=-~~ -mID
E"O,,-tc. ~~~.~::3oo~~~cB ~g-
Q)53m~~~~g~2-g.~.Q~~~~.~&~
KEg"O~~~.w=Q)~~~e8!~~~~O
~<~m~u..~g~~Egs>..~~~gmm
IDe.~m::3~gE::3.e a.E=!mo.(i)==~
~.S!"E Q; 00 >.+=' E 0 5 co ~ g. Q) 0 C: = t'! .~ C>>!
O~O~Q)D~OO~~~ ~Q)O~Q)E~-
~~~.-:5~eO~~.5~~e:5~~a.E~.5
e.-o>"e.oQ)Q)5ee~oCO~~~ioco"O
.. ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ E ~ Q) 2 2 (/) ::.E (/) Q5 "t5 0 ~ Q)
!i!c .g~~~~E~2 .go~Q)~g>~-g
~e~.~~a.coo~o~-S~~~&E2.2~TI
-g; a.w+::: ~ Cl> ~ m- 0 g.(/)~ o~ (/)2.5 c 53.5
uoa:::E.~.irn~cogg~~2e~~~"O>.~u~
~ oE wwu"-~wQ)COCOe~oIDe~e
~enOo.5~~e~CO~=m~~~EgmCl>oS
:::5 enO e ~8.~ ~-g.Q g co.~.~"O (;:;E:5 i
~:~g~~~~0.~~.~5~=::~~8::~~~
~.~~.~~~~~Cl>EEoID~gw.~eU~8~
~"02e~~w~~oE~e>w::3m~ID~ E
g~~a.g!Cl>Q)oo~.~'~Q;~e~~Q)~o
~CIl~~~CIl~==~(')O~~a~<mammoo
o ..
ID
~ m 00 ~ ~
._Q :5 ~~t '2~ ~ ~ "O~
co 0 .Q Q) ~ ~ = E >.'- ~ ID ~ g
Q;Q)-c ~.~co a:::o co5~.2== e~c
~~m "OQ)(/) Q) ~~.- Cl>~ m.~o
<(~~ ~>co !o ~.~ ~ID ~~~
~.E g E ~ m co;' ~ ~~ ~ ~.~ ; 5.g
co Q) ED 0 Cl> t= =E . Q) a. ~ ~ ~ ~ >-~
1E .c ~ 8 Q; ~~ co .Q.lQ :5 E c ;::: .2 co ~ g
~~B ~>~E~~~~8ID o~ 2~ID
en.~2 m~Q)~oCl>-a~B~ ~~ ~.g:5
~~.~ -g.~~co~~.~~~[ ~~ ~5g
~oo m~SE~E~w-Cl> ID> o~
E~.~ e=s;02~.(i).5~:50 ~co c5>..Q)
._.c~ .Q>.c.->,,~'--cEC>> ,-0 e.~E
~&~ ~i~!~Q)~o_.5 2~ wO~
ECOID ~"t5m-O~Em~~ o~ ~!~
"O~== 0 _~~E-o.S~rn S= ~-o
~.5~ ~.~~~(;~~€~a::: gs ~B~
-g-ciE1ii-'~EQ)~::Q)~ O(f) e~a.
~~meQ)m.g"O.~E~"O~_ co~ ::30~
o~~~.5E~"O=~~~S:5 Cl>CU 8is
~ 53 g ~ "53 :5 & ~ m_ ~ ~ ~ ~'i ~ ~ ~ ~ en
cEmEa~ID~~E~uE~ e~ 0=9
8-g~!~.~:5'~~:~~~~ ~~ ID.5~
en~~;~~~~~~EQ).~~ ~.~ ~i~
~ <( >. 53 -g 0"0 0 ~-6,g ~ ~~ Q) == ~-g CL
.SIDi~uO!~~e~-Eo ~C>> .cTI!
~ ~ g. 0 .5 g> ~ &= ~ 53 ~ 8 ~ :;:5 ~.5 =
eO~-m~oIDgwE+:::.~w 8~ ~Q)~
~-g~~~~~~5~~~~~ci~~ ~~E
~::.~ga:::=~o~m~g~~.~~ ~';:8
~c.~._~!~.2~~~g.m~~Cl>O em
~Cl>~.~g=E~5&ID=~!E~2 ~~~
wECl>~~<ID=IDewro"O_-co~ COCl>
E"O'-i~ :~~.~~w~~'5cB ~g~
ID53ma.~~!g~2-g.~.Q~~~~.~fr~
[E g~ ~ ~~.(i);::; Q).!2 5-~ e8 ~.iDUi~ co Q
o<~m~rr .wg~"'CID.g~>.a.e~gCl>M
~e.5~::3~g.~::3 .e~a.-~~IDo~:5~
~ ~"E Q; 00 >.~ E 0 a as ~ g. ~ 0 c:5 ~ .~ o!
oc..oc!.c~OO+='~~ID:IDg~~E.5-
~~~.--~eO~~~~Ee==~~a.EE~
e'-5~e.cCl>~5ee~oco~&~io~~
..:::>~ <o.!]!E.c ID~2C1l~QooQ;~05l'ID
0)"0 Q) c t::.cu E~! E Q):J ..2 o~ Q) Cl> o~-g
~~i.Qci&~8~~E~E"E~.5oE~~~TI
-g e 0. ~ ~ ~ Cl> ~ m - 8 g. CJ) ~ ~ ~ i.9 ~ ~ e.5
g~E.~.~m~cogg~~2e~Q)"'C~>'.!2~~
~~8Ee~~~~~~Cl>~m.5~g&~~go
~ e en8.~ ~ 0 m o~.Q 13 co.!!l ~.; -E ~:5 ~ iQ'
:> 0 0 0 a. ~ t e Q) w e _ .s::: '3: e 0 ::3.s; Q) e
~:~e~+:::~~o'~E~5g- ~~8>~~E
~ .~ '2.~ ~ ~ Cl> g. ID E E 0 Q) ~ g w .2> e C3 ::3 8 1ii
~~Oe:==W~~oE e.~(/)2IDID.~~ E
~~~~S!Q)IDUO~.~COQ;coe~eQ)~o
~CIl~~~CIl~==~OO~~a~<mammoo
C:3.. ...
Print Labels
Page 1 of 2
MATTHEW J VALEN
7208 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9782
JOSEPH & KATHELEEN WITKEWICS
TRUSTEES OF TRUST
7210 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9782
JACK R & KARLENE M MIKESELL
7207 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9605
ROBERT A & CELlNE R SCHOLER
7212 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9782
WILLIAM L HEIMAN &
MARY C BIELSKI HEIMAN
7209 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9605
WILLIAM D & SHERRI L MALONEY
7211 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9605
JAMES R & LINDA D KRAFT
7213 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9605
BRUCE K & SUSAN C SAVIK
7215 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9605
JOEL SCOTT JENKINS
7305 FRONTIER TRL
PO BOX 158
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -0158
ERIC WALETSKI
7333 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9796
RICHARD & GWENDOLYN J PEARSON
7307 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7904
ROBERT L & GLORY D WILSON
7336 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9778
JAMES J & RITA M WALETSKI
7334 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9778
MICAH THEIS
7332 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9778
ROLF G ENGSTROM &
LAWRENCE P LEEBENS
7201 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9605
ARCHIE D & EVELYN L GLASER
7200 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9782
PATRICK F & KATHRYN A PAVELKO
7203 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9605
JON H & JANET B HOLLER
7206 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9782
SUNRISE HILLS
C/O CHARLES ROBBINS
7340 LONGVIEW CIR
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9797
RICHARD J & EUNICE M PETERS
7301 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9608
STEPHEN T & REBECCA L CHEPOKAS
7304 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9608
JOHN J & JULIE C BUTCHER
7299 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -4600
ALEX N CASTERTON
7301 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9704
RONALD V & ANN L KLEVE
7307 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9608
DAVID J & SUSAN K WOLLAN
7303 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -7904
DAWNA MCKENNA MILLER
7331 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9796
DENNIS W & LINDA A LANDSMAN
7329 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9796
ROBERT H & SALLY S HORSTMAN
7343 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9796
ALAN & ANNABEL FOX
7300 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9608
RICHARD & DEBORAH LLOYD
7302 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9608
http://carvergiswebl.co.carver.mn . us/ arcims/ gi s/ government! generallparceLbuffer/prin clabels.asp
9/17/2008
Print Labels
DAVID M & JOANNA POINAR
7303 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9608
GERALD & JANET D PAULSEN
7305 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9608
JOHN C LEE
7337 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9796
FELIX & LOIS WHITE
7306 LAREDO DR
CHANHASSEN ,MN 55317 -9608
ARLlS A BOVY
TRUSTEE OF A BOVY REV TRUST
7339 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9796
FRED L CUNEO JR
7335 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9796
JAMES & LINDA MADY
7338 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9778
MICHAEL R & DORTHEA F SHAY
7230 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9778
THOMAS R & SHIRLEY J PZYNSKI
7340 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9778
STEVEN A & CAROL K DONEN
7341 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9796
http://carvergiswebl.co.carver.mn . usl arcimsl gisl government! general/parcel_buffer/prinClabels.asp
Page 2 of 2
9/1712008