CC Staff Report 09-12-20119
CITY OF
CHANBASSEN
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: 952.2271110
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 Kairies, Planner I
Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator
DATE: September 12, 2011
SUBJ: Burrough's Hard Surface Cr overage Variance
Planning Case #11 -07
PROPOSED MOTION:
"The Chanhassen City Council denies Planning Case #11 -07 for a hard
surface coverage variance to construct a sport court and adopts the
Findings of Fact and Decision."
Approval requires a majority of City Council present.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a 4.3% variance (681 square feet) from the 25%
maximum hard surface coverage limitation for the construction of a sport court on
property zoned Single - Family Residential (RSF).
Planning Commission Update
A public hearing was held at the July 19, 2011, Planning Commission meeting for
this item. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to deny the variance request. The
applicant is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council.
The City Council's decision requires a majority of members present.
Staff recognizes that currently there are no approved pervious surfaces, but a
properly engineered low impact development (LID) best management practice
(BMP) could be considered as a mitigating factor as part of a variance request
from hardcover limitations. Mitigating factors alone, shall not be reason to grant
a variance, rather approval or denial of a variance shall be based on reasonable
use and Practical Difficulties.
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
Todd Gerhardt
Burrough's Variance
September 12, 2011
Page 2
Staff met with the applicant on July 25, 2011 and discussed what supporting documentation he
would need to provide, if he wanted to make the argument that the proposed improvement would
mitigate for any increased impervious surfaces on the property. The information would include
site specific hydrologic and hydraulic calculations. The applicant waived the 60 day review
period in order to ensure adequate time to prepare and submit such supporting documentation.
To date, supporting documentation has not been provided.
Without site specific information, approval of this variance may be seen as an interpretation that
this material is an acceptable pervious alternative. This interpretation will likely have future
implications.
The Planning Commission did not find any objection to staff s recommendation for the variance
request.
The Planning Commission minutes for this variance request are included in item 1 a of the City
Council Packet.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the following motion:
"The Chanhassen City Council denies Planning Case #11 -07 for a hard surface coverage
variance to construct a sport court and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision."
ATTACHMENTS
1. 60 -day Development Review Deadline extension letter dated July 25, 2011.
2. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated July 19, 2011.
GAPLAN\2011 Planning Cases \11 -07 Burroughs Variance -10036 Trails End Road \9 -12 -11 Executive Summary.doc
Kairies, Angie
From: Josh Koller Ukoller @southviewdesign.com]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 11:33 AM
To: Kairies, Angie; Jeffery, Terry
Cc: Burroughs, Philip; kevin zwart; Craig Jones
Hello Angie this is Josh Koller with Southview Design and after meeting with you and Terry the following is what we would
like to do.
1) We would like to appeal the decision of the planning commission that we meet with on July 19 We are waiving
the 60 day review as well as the 120 day review so that we can bring the engineering material needed to Terry so
that we can set our appeal up for the meeting on September 12 If you could let me know what time that will be
and where that would be great. I will also need to know when you need the engineering material since we are
setting up to meet in the 12
2) Terry like we talked about in the meeting today I would also like to be involved in looking for and coming up with
permeable applications throughout this winter so that we can find solutions for the upcoming spring if that is a
possibility.
3) Also Terry, I did take notes from the meeting today however if you could give me anymore guidance if there is
anything also you need that is not on the sheet you gave me that would be great.
Thanks,
Josh Koller
Josh Koller J Southview Design I Landscape Designer
Office 651.203.3028 1 Mobile 651.248.39611 Fax 651.455.1734
Website I Blog ( Facebook
SCANNED
PROPOSED MOTION• "The Chanhassen Planning !'',,,,,,,,; ; ,,, ; the Board of
an ^ djustmei s City Council, denies Planning Case #2011 -07 for a hard surface coverage
variance to construct a sport court and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision."
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 4.3% variance (681 square feet)
from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation for the construction of a sport court on
property zoned Single- Family Residential (RSF).
LOCATION: 10036 Trails End Road
Lot 15, Block 4, Settlers West
APPLICANT: Josh Koller Philip and Stacey Burroughs
Southview Design 10036 Trails End Road
1875 East 50 Street Chanhassen, MN 55317
Inver Grove Heights, NIN 55077
PRESENT ZONING: Single - Family Residential (RSF)
2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Low Density (1.2/4 units per acre)
ACREAGE: 0.36 (15,847 square feet) DENSITY: NA
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION - MAKING:
The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the
proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a
relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation
from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 29.3% hard surface coverage, or 4,646 square feet,
for the construction of a 681 square -foot sport court in the rear yard of property zoned Single -
Family Residential (RSF). The RSF zoning district permits a maximum of 25% hard surface
coverage. The subject site is permitted 3,964 square feet site coverage.
The as -built survey for the subject site reflects 24.7% hard surface coverage and includes the single -
family home, attached three -stall garage, driveway, patio, stoop and front sidewalk.
Burroughs Variance Request
Planning Case 11 -07
T dy 19 , 2 September 12, 2011
Page 2 of 7
The southern portion of the Settlers West Addition is bordered by a bluff. In addition to the bluff,
the Hennepin County Regional Trail Corridor is located northwest of the site. To the east of the site
are single - family homes and the border between the City of Chanhassen and the City of Eden
Prairie.
Water and sewer services are available to the site. Access to the site is gained off of Trails End
Road, which connects to Pioneer Trail in Eden Prairie.
The site is currently being used in a reasonable manner and contains a single - family home and
three -car garage. The request to exceed the 25% hard surface coverage limitation for the
construction of a sport court does not constitute a practical difficulty. There are other alternatives,
such as installing a basketball hoop in the front yard abutting the driveway. Causing additional
impact to the bluff by way of increased runoff is not in harmony with the intent and sensitivity of
the development.
Staff is recommending denial of the applicant's request based on the fact that the applicant has
reasonable use of the property and has not demonstrated that a practical difficulty exists.
Burroughs Variance Request
Planning Case 11 -07
July 19 , 2 September 12, 2011
Page 3 of 7
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 20, Division 3. Variances
Section 20 -615 (4), RSF District Requirements, Hard Surface Coverage
Sec 20 -905 (6) Single - family dwellings
BACKGROUND
The property is located on Lot 15, Block 4, Settlers West, which is zoned Single - Family
Residential (RSF). The subject property is 15,847 square feet in area. It has a lot frontage of 80
feet (90 feet at the building setback line) and approximately 150 feet in depth. The minimum lot
dimensions in the RSF district are 15,000 square -foot lot, 90 -foot lot frontage and 125 -foot lot
depth. This lot exceeds the minimum requirements for the RSF district.
The building permit for the proposed home, garage, driveway, front sidewalk, and a 180 square -
foot patio on the property was approved on June 6, 2006. The building permit reflected a hard
surface coverage of 24.7% or 3,922 square feet. The maximum impervious surface in the RSF
district is 25% or 3,964 square feet.
In an attempt to minimize hard cover issues and ensure residential properties have a minimum
100 square -foot future patio expansion area, on July 6, 2006, the City amended Sec. 20 -905:
Single- family dwellings (6) "Where access doors are proposed from a dwelling to the outdoors,
which does not connect directly to a sidewalk or stoop, a minimum ten -feet by ten -feet hard
surface area shall be assumed. Such surface area must be shown to comply with property lines,
lake and wetland setbacks; may not encroach into conservation or drainage and utility easements;
and shall not bring the site's hard surface coverage above that permitted by ordinance."
While the building permit for the subject site was approved prior to the above ordinance
amendment, the building permit included a 180 square -foot patio in the hard surface coverage
calculations.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a 4.3% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard
surface coverage. The lot area is 15,847 square feet. The original building permit occupied
3,922 square feet of hard cover, this included outdoor improvements.
Burroughs Variance Request
Planning Case 11 -07
T "'" 19 , 2 September 12, 2011
Page 4 of 7
r� to
*w
•i01 y8 `'`
A I I A J R
PV.YSrr
M A tYY SW
A I %
4
- Eylyb - .4 vP ._s SOd B.d w rrt.k.
W /� Ir.i ••� P.a� fbA
I+'iil" P Or +
jf
��, E1E4EIESE7F L• I ❑ n f
l �.
y S 1 1 ' p�yC.. - -o-orrrr - —!
l YbI n T &n
y GAR
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a
t 1 == 1
� r
1
Burroughs Variance Request
Planning Case 11 -07
T gy 19 , 2 September 12, 2011
Page 5 of 7
Prior to the public hearing, the applicant applied for a Residential Zoning Permit to remove the
existing patio and install a 168 square -foot patio and 54 square feet of stone steppers. These
improvements bring the site to 25% hard surface coverage, maximizing the site coverage.
In addition to the previous improvements, the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a
681 square -foot sport court, which brings the site to 29.3% hard surface coverage.
The applicant contends that the proposed sport court would be pervious and would allow for
more infiltration than would occur if the area was left as traditional lawn. To support this
position, the applicant has provided a study prepared, at the request of Sport Court, Inc., by the
Utah Water Research Laboratory at Utah State University. In summary the study finds that the
Hydraulic Conductivity, or the rate at which water passes through the SportTile is greater than
gravel, sand and other soil types. This indicates that the sport tile would not be the limiting
factor for the infiltration rates in the area but rather that the underlying materials would limit
infiltration. The authors draw the same conclusion on page 7 of the report.
The soils in this area are Kilkenny- Lester Loams. These soils are in the Hydrologic Group C
which has a high potential for runoff and can have an infiltration rate as low as 0.05 inches per
hour. The seasonally high water table is within three (3) feet of the surface and the soil has
approximately 40% clay by volume. These soils compact readily to the point where they are
virtually impervious. The Installation Instructions SportBaseTM prepared by Sport Court, and
provided by the applicant, instructs on page 2 of 6 that after excavation, the subgrade shall be
compacted It then goes on to state in the next section that the base material should be
com ap cted as well. This will effectively render the sport court area impervious; negating any
benefit derived from the hydraulic conductivity of the SportBaseTM
When storm sewer systems are
designed, it is inherent that certain
assumptions are made in order to
model anticipated runoff volumes
and rates. One assumption is that
no lot will have greater than 25%
hardcover. If several individual
lots exceed this 25 %, then the
storm sewer infrastructure
becomes inadequate for the new
conditions and localized flooding,
infrastructure damage, erosion,
stream degradation and other
deleterious effects may result.
Currently, Chanhassen City Code
does not recognize any alternative
Surface
Building Permit
Square Footage
Proposed Square
Footage
Lot area
15,847
15,847
House /Garage /
Stoo
2,825
2,825
Driveway
765
765
Sidewalk
152
152
Patio
180
168
Steppers
-
54
Total
3,922
3,964
HSC %
24.7%
25.0%
Sport Court
681
Total HSC
4,645
HSC %
29.3%
Burroughs Variance Request
Planning Case 11 -07
September 12, 2011
Page 6 of 7
hard surface materials. If the City were to allow alternate pervious surfaces, a number of issues
including site design, engineering of soils and materials, construction observation, long -term
maintenance and long -term preservation would have to be addressed. Even with the resolution
of these issues, it is important to note why the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and
numerous other agencies are considering alternative hard surface materials with a high hydraulic
conductivity.
The agency shall develop performance standards, design standards, or other tools
to enable and promote the implementation of low - impact development and other
storm water management techniques. For the purposes of this section, "low -
impact development" means an approach to storm water management that
mimic's a site's natural hydrology as the landscape is developed. Using low -
impact development approach, storm water is managed on -site and the rate and
volume ofpredevelopment storm water reaching receiving waters is unchanged.
The calculation ofpredevelopment hydrology is based on native soil and
vegetation. - Minnesota Statutes 2009, section 115.03, subdivision Sc
The intent is to reduce runoff by mimicking the hydrology and hydraulics of the natural
environment, not to allow for the maximization of allowed hardcover on a lot of record and then
further increase hardscaping. Not only are there implications to surface water management, but
there are also aesthetic implications that accompany the loss of green space.
Settlers West Subdivision
Significant efforts were made during the development of Settler's West to protect the bluff areas
by controlling the rate and volume of runoff and maintaining existing drainage conditions.
Sensitive areas were put into protective outlots and discharge points from the storm sewer
conveyance system were designed and constructed with extraordinary stabilization and energy
dissipation methods. As this area ultimately drains to the bluffs along the Hennepin County
Regional Rails to Trails System, any potential increase in runoff rate or volume could potentially
result in erosion along the bluff.
While it is evident that the actual SportBaseTM tiles are pervious, the construction method and the
existing site conditions would not result in a truly pervious system but rather in a highly
compacted clay subgrade with less hydraulic conductivity than currently exists. Even in the
event that proper engineering and construction could provide for adequate infiltration, the
Chanhassen City Code does not make allowances for alternate pervious hard cover. If in the
future the City considers allowing certain pervious surfaces, it will be important to consider the
reason behind limiting hard cover and the implications and limitations of any such system. Until
such a time as these issues are resolved and City Code allows for some use of alternate pervious
systems in certain redevelopment or hardship circumstances, staff cannot recommend approval
of the request to exceed the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation.
Burroughs Variance Request
Planning Case 11 -07
my 19 , 2 September 12, 2011
Page 7 of 7
Currently, the property owners have reasonable use of a property within the RSF district as a
single - family home with a three -car garage, as well as an outdoor patio /seating area already
constructed on the property. While the purpose of the proposed sport court is for residential use,
it is not a practical difficulty to exceed the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the
following motion and the adoption-of the attached Findings of Fact and Decision:
"The Chanhassen Planning Gonifnission as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments City Council
denies Planning Case #2011 -07 for a 4.3% variance from the 25% maximum hard surface
coverage limitation for the construction of a sport court on property zoned Single - Family
Residential (RSF), based on adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Decision.
2. Development Review Application.
3. Reduced copy of lot survey.
4. Utah Water Research Laboratory at Utah State University Study.
5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing.
GAPLAN\2011 Planning Cases \11 -07 Burroughs Variance -10036 Trails End Road \CC Staff Report.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
Application of Josh Koller of Southview Design on behalf of Philip and Stacey Burroughs for a
4.3% variance (681 square feet) from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation for the
construction of a sport court on property zoned Single - Family Residential (RSF) — Planning Case
#2011 -07.
On July 19, 2011, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and
mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Single - Family Residential (RSF).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
3. The legal description of the property is Lot 15, Block 4, Settlers West.
4. Variance Findings — Section 20 -58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the
granting of a variance:
a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
Finding: The request to exceed the hard surface coverage in the RSF district on a lot that
exceeds the minimum lot requirements for the construction of a sport court is not in
harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter. Significant efforts were
made during the development of Settlers West to protect the bluff areas by controlling the
rate and volume of runoff and maintaining existing drainage conditions. Sensitive areas
were put into protective outlots and discharge points from the storm sewer conveyance
system were designed and constructed with extraordinary stabilization and energy
dissipation methods. As this area ultimately drains to the bluffs along the Hennepin
County Regional Rails to Trails System, any potential increase in runoff rate or volume
could potentially result in erosion along the bluff.
b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical
difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the
property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this
Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct
sunlight for solar energy systems.
Finding: Currently, the property owners have reasonable use of a property within the
RSF district as a single- family home with a three -car garage, as well as an outdoor
patio /seating area already constructed on the property. While the purpose of the proposed
sport court is for residential use, it is not a practical difficulty to exceed the 25%
maximum hard surface coverage limitation.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The purpose of the variance is not based on economic considerations. The
applicant is requesting a variance to exceed the 25% hard surface coverage limitation in
the RSF district for the construction of an outdoor sport court for personal use.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The request is not based on a unique circumstance; the subject site exceeds the
minimum lot requirements within the RSF district. The building permit for the proposed
home, garage, driveway, front sidewalk, and a 180 square -foot patio on the property was
approved on June 6, 2006. The building permit reflected a hard surface coverage of
24.7% or 3,922 square feet. The maximum impervious surface in the RSF district is 25%
or 3,964 square feet. The applicant has reasonable use of the property.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: While the addition of a sport court will not alter the essential character of the
locality; exceeding the hard surface coverage and any increase in runoff rate or volume
could potentially result in erosion along the bluff.
f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota
Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter.
Finding: This does not apply to this request.
5. The planning report #2011 -07, dated July 19, 2011, prepared by Angie Kairies, et al, is
incorporated herein.
2
DECISION
The Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies Planning Case 2011 -07 for a 4.3% variance
from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation for the construction of a sport court on
property zoned Single - Family Residential (RSF).
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments this 19 day of July,
2011.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Itra
Chairman
g: \plan \forms \findings of fact and decision - variance.doc
Planning Case No 0 - 6
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227 -1100
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
JUN 1 7 2011
PLEASE PRINT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
CHANHASSEN PLAWNO DEPT
Applicant Name and Address:
5o ew
J91'75' E c s+ 50 A' 5 #remit
Truer- j_je' + 5 MA 5 0 — T
Contact:
Phone: 651-14V- 3c((y I, Fax: 6 5 1 - LI55'= 1139
Email: � Ld&l
Property Owner Name and Address:
5+ c d h' v f
1 " A I rcA )'IS R hCL Q
C'6, a,�► � � Sir, yh � � 5 � 17
Contact:
Phone: R52- 1�£Sg7 Fax:
Email: 8 cl o[sdn -- Sfuc.e� � ,tMa��. egel
Ir
NOTE Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development
plans
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Interim Use Permit (IUP)
Non - conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Rezoning
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Site Plan Review (SPR)*
Subdivision*
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of Right -of- Way /Easements (VAC)
(Additional recording fees may apply)
_ Variance (VAR) (
Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
x Notification Sign q2OO
(City to install and remove)
X Ea"Qw for Filing Fees /A **
rney Cost
5 UP /SPWVAC A AP /Metes & Bounds
- $450 ` Miinor SUB
TOTAL FEE $ 14501 — j pd G64 g
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.
*Five (5) full -size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8 %" X 11" reduced
copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ( *.tif) format.
* *Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for
each application.
SCANNED
06/17/11 FRI 09:44 FAX MCI Z001
PROJECT N
LOCATION:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND.PID: [21r W
TOTAL ACREAGE:
WETLANDS PRESENT: YES �V ; NO
PRESENT ZONING:.
REQUESTED ZONING:
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: —tv tF
REASON FOR REQUEST: _Hko- _ _ - 5 u i ,4 4ep 6 .:I>
FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW. Include number of existing employees. and new employees:
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all informawn.
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 writi; n
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 krimedcte.
�
/17/ it
Date
AT
' µ
's
g: 1planlrnttnsldevolopmentreviewapplication .doc #A:� a "'
#s
I am requesting a variance for a sport court that appears to exceed the
hardcover limitations.
.
This is a recreational family sport court designer for residential use.
B)
Our goal is to install a sport court. The sport court system we have
chosen is a completely permeable system designed to allow all water to pass
through. We will install the system on a sand base that is also completely
permeable, allowing all water to be able to infiltrate into the ground.
Therefore this system should not be considered hardcover, so the landscape
being installed will not exceed the hardcover requirements.
C)
This sport court is used for the homeowners use with there family not
to charge a fee or to make money in any way.
D)
We are asking to do a sport court in the back because the front drive is
steep and the street is busy with cars. The homeowners with like the use of
there backyard.
E)
This is sport court is designed for residential applications. This will
not in any way affect the character of the locality.
SCANNED
rx
all
1 / /
1 1
1 1
1 1 1
1
LANDSCAPE DESIGN FOR met1w DESIGN INFORMATION SCALE _
by o 10'
REVISIONS �1: 1" = »E A
Stacey Burroughs ,y;; ;" DESIGN /SALES REPJO5N KOLLER uon� gOUTHYIE
10036 Trails Road w a. _ DESIGN ASST:5EAN NICNOLA5
Chanhassen, MN 55317 .D`ESIGNa
DATE: 4/b/2011 "" "
Sport Court Infiltration Findings
Prepared for
Sport Court, Inc.
June 1, 2010
l \
UTAH WATER RESEARCH LABORATORY
Utah State University Hydraulic Report No. 2210
Logan, Utah
Sport Court Infiltration Initial findings
Prepared for
Sport Court Inc.
Gary Day
Dave Campbell
Prepared by
Blake P. Tullis, Ph.D.
Zac Sharp
Utah State University
Utah Water Research Laboratory
Logan, Utah 84322 -8200
June 1, 2010
Utah State University Hydraulic Report No. 2210
Logan, Utah
Introduction
A water infiltration test of SportBase tiles was performed to determine the rate at which
water passes through the drain holes and tile joints. The infiltration test bench was
constructed, which featured a sealed and painted 6 -ft x 6 -ft x 2 -ft deep wooden box with
16 SportBase tiles as the floor. The floor had 9 whole tiles in the center, 6 tiles were cut
in half for the edges, and the remaining tile was cut in fourths to place in the corners.
Each tile was supported by two 2 -inch by 4 -inch wooden studs and the box was leveled to
create a uniform pool depth over the entire floor. Water was introduced at different rates
as a point source in the center of the floor. The water was introduced into a diffusing
structure that would produce even water distribution in all directions. The test set up can
be seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1. The model setup.
The objective of the test was to determine a representative infiltration rate for the tiles,
which was done by calculating a representative hydraulic conductivity (k) value for each
flow condition. Hydraulic conductivity is calculated per Equation (1). Permeability is
related to hydraulic conductivity per Equation (2).
K =— QL (1)
L
k = Kp (2)
P9
In Equations (1) and (2), Q is the volumetric flow rate (cfs) per tile, L is the length of the
porous media (tile height), A is the flow area (total area of the test box floor divided by
the number of tiles), hL is the energy gradient (depth of water in the box), µ is the water
dynamic viscosity (lb- s /ft p is the water density (slugs /ft and g is the gravitational
constant (ft/s The test results report Q in terms of gallons per minute (gpm); a
conversion factor is applied for calculating k.
Test Results
Different flow rates were supplied to determine the infiltration rate of the tiles. As shown
in Figure 1, the discharge into the box was concentrated at the center of the box; a baffle
structure was used to uniformly distribute the flow radially.
Drain Holes Open
At 12.5 gpm/tile and the drain holes open, the tiles passed water efficiently enough that
tiles in the corner of the box remained dry. At flow rates of 62.5 gpm/tile and less, the
flow exiting the baffle in the center of the box was supercritical (shallow flow depth, high
velocity), with a hydraulic jump transitioning the flow to subcritical (deeper flow depth,
slower velocity) some distance from the center, resulting in a non - uniform reservoir
conditions. At 75 gpm/tile, a uniform flow depth was present in the box (no supercritical
flow was present) with a flow depth of 4 inches. Figures 2 through 6 show images of
different flow rates being introduced into the box.
The test results for the open drain hole tests are shown in Table 1. As previously
discussed, a uniform flow depth did not exist in the box for the majority of the test
conditions due in part to the high drainage capacity of the tiles and the point- source
method of supplying water to the test facility. The flow depth around the perimeter of the
box (subcrtical flow) was used as the representative flow depth (h Consequently, the
reported k values should be considered conservative (actual k values would be higher if a
uniform flow depth existed for all flow rates). k decreased as hL increased; the average
value of k was 0.076 ft/sec.
Drain Holes Closed
The same tests were repeated with the tile drain holes plugged (corks were used to plug
the drain holes). The test results are also reported in Table 1. The drain holes appear to
provide little contribution to drainage, relative to the test conducted (k values essentially
unchanged from the drain hole open testing). If the supercritical flow condition did not
exist and a uniform flow depth were present in the box for all flow conditions, the holes
would likely have made a more significant contribution to the total drainage capacity of
the tiles. The average k value for the closed drain hole condition was 0.070.
4
Table 1. Summary of infiltration test data
Tile height (ft)
0.167
Tiles
16
Total Area (sf)
36
Flow Rate
Drain Holes O en
Drain Holes Closed
Area/Tile (sf)
2.25
Q
Q /tile
V /tile
Pond Depth
I K
k
Pond Depth
K
k
(gp
m /tile)
(f s
inches )
(ft/s)
inches
ft/s
(m )
Water Temp (deg F)
45
viscosity, p (lb -s /ft
0.00002982
200
12.5
0.012
0.2
0.124
5.921 E -08
0.2
0.124
5.921 E -08
g (ft/s
32.2
400
25.0
0.025
0.5
0.099
4.736E -08
0.63
0.079
3.759E -08
density, p (slug /ft
1.94
600
37.5
0.037
1.125
0.066
3.158E -08
1.125
0.066
3.158E -08
800
50.0
0.050
-
-
-
1.5
0.066
3.158E -08
1000
62.5
0.062
2.25
0.055
2.631 E -08
2.5
0.050
2.368E -08
1200
75.0
0.074
4
0.037
1.776E -08
4.5
0.033
1.579E -08
1400
87.5
0.087
-
-
-
7.25
0.024
1.143E -08
Average 1
0.076
3.644E -08
0.063
3.012E -08
Utah State University Hydraulic Report No. 2210
Logan, Utah
Figur 2. Drain holes open, 2.5 m /tile Figure 3. Drain holes open, 25 m; the
MEN&,
Figure 4. Drain holes open, 37.5 gpm/tile I Figure 5. Drain holes open, 62.5
Ile
"
Figure 6. Drain holes open, 75 gpm/tile
Conclusions
Typical K values for gravel, sand, silt, and clay are shown in Table 2. A comparison of
the data presented in Tables 1 and 2 indicates that the SportBase tiles have a hydraulic
conductivity that falls within the gravel category ( >0.003 fps), exceeding the conductivity
Utah State University Hydraulic Report No. 2210
Logan, Utah
of sand, silt, and clay. The substrate materials above which the tiles would be installed
will likely control the infiltration capacity of the SportBase tiles. One factor that may
influence the composite conductivity of a tile /substrate assembly is that fact that the
water draining though the tiles is confined to the area between the tiles (and the drain
holes if included), meaning that the water will not be uniformly supplied at the
tile /substrate interface and the composite conductivity will likely be reduced.
Table 2.
Material
Typical Hydraulic Conductivity (K) values
(fps)
(mm/sec)
Graver'
>0.03
>10
Sand'
0.03 - 3E -7
10 — lE -4
Silt
3E -7 - 3E -9
lE -4 — lE -6
Cla t
<3E -9
< lE -6
Pervious Concrete
3E -5 — 3E -6
0.01-0.02
SportBase Tiles with holes
0.076
23
SportBase Tiles without holes
0.07
21
based on Dunn et al. (1980).
$ based on Sumanasooriya et al. (2009) (water temperature of 20 °C assumed).
Sumanasooriya et al. (2009) conducted tests to determine the permeability of pervious
concrete. They reported pervious concrete permeability values of — lE -9 to 2E -9 m2,
which produce K values of 0.01 to 0.02 mm /s for water at 20 °C, as shown in Table 2.
For the conditions under which it was tested (no substrate material), the permeability of
the SportBase tiles, shown in Table 1, is an order of magnitude higher (— 3E -8 m2) than
the pervious concrete values. Figure 7 summarizes the hydraulic conductivity values of
the SportBase tile (with and without drain holes), the substrate materials listed in Table 2,
and the pervious concrete. Consistent with the conductivity discussion, the composite
permeability of the SportBase tiles and an underlying substrate material will likely
decrease, relative to the value reported in Table 1 due to the fact that the water draining
through the SportBase tiles is limited to a small cross - sectional area (gaps between the
tiles) at the point where it transitions to the substrate.
7
Drainage Rates (Hydraulic Conductivity) of Base Materials
4000-
L 3500
c
3000 -
j
2500-
c
U 2000--
U
'= 1500
� 1000-
2
500 -
3283
Figure 7. Hydraulic conductivity chart for SportTile, common substrate materials, and
pervious concrete* ( *based on Sumanasooriya et al., 2009)
References
Dunn, Anderson, and Kiefer (1980). Fundamentals of Geotechnical Analysis, John Wiley
& Sons, New York, pp.60.
Sumanasooriya, M.S.; Bentz, D.P., and Neithalath, N. (2009). "Predicting the
Permeability of Pervious Concrete from Planar Images." www.nist.gov /manuscript-
publicaiton- search.cfm ?pub_i d= 902014 &division =861.
SportBase SportBase Gravel Sand Silt Clay Pervious
(with holes) (no holes) Concrete
S P O R T
C O U R T
Installation Instructions
SportBaseTM*
Sport Court Playing Surface
SportBase Panels
- Geotextile Fabric
s Compacted Sub -Base
-
0 Flat, Prepared Subsurface
o po o ��c ao ° pc�opb o o
OO oOdO.O O O
Q 0
�vuRr � r
0
SportBase Panel
Patent Pending
SI- 0018 -A
Corner Lock Edge Lock
Page 1 of 6 05/03/2011
Site Prep
SportBase may be installed above or below grade depending on the scope of the project and intended
application.
Below Grade
1. Excavation
Remove existing pavement, turf, or existing soil to the proper depth. The proper depth will be the
finished surface, less the modular flooring thickness, SportBase thickness, and compacted base
material. The amount of base material is often determined by a local soil engineer and will depend on
the ground's water retention, saturation, and expansion properties. Typical base thickness will range
from 4 inches to 8 inches.
2. Compact Subgrade
After excavation is down to the proper level, compact the subgrade. Depending on the type of soil,
compaction maybe done with a roller, rammer, or a vibraplate compactor.
3. Install Forms
Select forms tall enough to accommodate the depth of the compacted base. Secure the forms around
the perimeter of the court area using stakes to hold the forms upright. Make sure frames are square at
each corner.
4. Install Base Material
Select a base material that is granular and compacts easily. Suggested bases include sand, 5/8" minus
gravel, crusher fines, etc. Spread and compact the base in 4 -inch lifts using a compactor. Screed the
compacted base to level off the surface. For best results, use a powered roller- screed. Compact the
surface a final time making sure the base material is level by filling in low spots and removing high
spots.
5. Install Geotextile Fabric
Roll out geotextile fabric across entire subsurface, overlapping each roll to ensure no gaps exist. Make
sure geotextile fabric is smooth and contains no wrinkles. If fabric stakes are used, be sure to press
them flush with the compacted base surface.
Above Grade
1. Excavation
Remove existing pavement, turf, or existing soil. The amount of base material is often determined by a
local soil engineer and will depend on the ground's water retention, saturation, and expansion
properties. Typical base thickness will range from 4 inches to 8 inches.
2. Install Forms
Select forms tall enough to accommodate the depth of the compacted base. Secure the forms above
the ground around the perimeter of the court area using stakes to stabilize the forms. The forms must
be sturdy enough to contain several inches of fill material and avoid blowout during compaction. Make
sure forms are square at each corner.
3. Install Base Material
Select a base material that is granular and compacts easily. Suggested bases include sand, 5/8" minus
gravel, crusher fines, etc. Spread and compact the base in 4 -inch lifts using a compactor. Screed the
compacted base to level off the surface. For best results, use a roller- screed. Compact the surface a
final time making sure the base material is level by filling in low spots and removing high spots.
4. Install Geotextile Fabric
Roll out geotextile fabric across entire subsurface, overlapping each roll to ensure no gaps exist. Make
sure geotextile fabric is smooth and contains no wrinkles.
SI- 0018 -A Page 2 of 6 05/03/2011
Installing SportBase
1. Begin installing SportBase panels at any corner of the court. Align the SportBase corner with the
corner of the subsurface.
2. Install one row of SportBase panels along the width of the court, aligning the edge of the panels with
the subsurface edge. Install panels by inter - locking the puzzle piece connections with the previous
panel (see Figure 2). Pull each panel so that the gap between each is roughly 1/8 ". Install edge locks
between each panel to help maintain the proper panel spacing (see Figure 1). SportBase panels may
overhang the edge of subsurface opposite from the starting location.
3. Install one column of SportBase panels along the length of the court, aligning the edge of the panels
with the subsurface edge (see Figure 2). Pull each panel so that the gap between each is roughly 1/8 ".
Install edge locks between each panel to help maintain the proper panel spacing (see Figure 1). Leave
a gap of 3/8" —1/2" between the panel edges and the inside edge of the compacted base form.
SportBase panels may overhang the edge of the subsurface opposite from the starting location.
Figure 1
O 0
0 0
0 0
O 0
O 0
0 0
N
O O
O 0
O O
O O
e,
0 0
O 0
0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
Figure 2
Si- 0018 -A Page 3 of 6 05/03/2011
4. Once a row and column of panels has been installed, the rest of the SportBase grid can be filled in.
Install the next row of SportBase panels along the width of the court by inter- locking the puzzle piece
features and setting the panel straight down. Pull the panels so that there is an even gap measuring
roughly 1/8" between each of the panels.
5. As you proceed, install the corner locks at each intersection where four SportBase panels come
together (see Figure 3). It is critical to install the corner locks as each SportBase is laid down in
order to allow for the correct spacing between each panel.
Figure 3
6. Continue installing the SportBase panels and corner locks until the entire subsurface is covered.
7. Any panels overhanging the compacted subsurface must be trimmed 3/8 " -1/2" from the edge of the
compacted base forms. Snap a chalk -line along the length and width of the court to indicate whereto
trim.
8. Use a circular saw, or other suitable cutting device, to trim the SportBase panels.
9. (Optional) The male end puzzle piece may be trimmed off the SportBase panel and inserted into the
female puzzle piece to fill in the holes along the edge of the SportBase surface (see Figure 4).
L3
i
Cut. Puzzle 1'icce
I A�
R otate Ptu?alc Piece
Insert Fuz,.zlc Piece
Figure 4
SI- 0018 -A
Page 4 of 6
05/03/2011
10. Once trimming is complete, install any remaining edge locks to secure the perimeter SportBase panels
(see Figure 1). Note: panels trimmed beyond the locking feature will not be compatible with the edge
lock pieces.
11. Once SportBase panels are installed over the compacted subsurface, use a vibrating plate compactor
to seat the SportBase panels. Any high or low spots will require removal of SportBase panel followed
by leveling the surface.
12. Install Sport Court modular flooring products following pre- designed layout and color scheme.
Disassembly
If any repairs need to be made to the compacted subsurface or if a SportBase panel is damaged and requires
replacement, individual panels can be removed without disturbing the adjacent panels installed. It may be
necessary to remove Sport Court modular products in the area that needs replacement or repair.
1. Using the corner lock removal tool, align the forks with the slots in the SportBase panels.
2. Firmly press the lock removal tool straight down to disconnect the corner lock piece from the SportBase
panels.
3. Lift lock removal tool and corner connector piece from the floor.
Tit
" .
1 7
Figure 5
4. Remove the corner lock piece from the lock removal tool.
5. Repeat the previous steps on the corresponding corners to the SportBase panel that needs to be
removed.
6. Remove any SportBase panels in areas that need repair or replacement.
7. Make any repairs to the compacted subsurface.
8. Install SportBase panel and corner lock pieces.
9. Install Sport Court modular products over SportBase panels.
SI- 0018 -A
Page 5 of 6
05/03/2011
A
Setting Anchors for Components
If the court requires installation of components (hoops, lights, etc.) be aware that the concrete footings need to
accommodate the additional 2" height of the SportBase product. Install forms around the hole for the anchor to
raise the height of the concrete footing to be flush with the top of the SportBase surface. This will ensure that the
net hole locations on hoop and light systems will be located at their appropriate heights (see Figure 6).
SportBase
System
0o m /
i
r ^se o
"p O �• 0.0'� O
o'
p
pie.9a oC7 of ti 'n �. � On O od o
p..q . p
a c o
Concrete Footing
Forms (Flush with SportBase surface)
Figure 6
Compacted Base Maintenance
The compacted base materials may need to be repaired and re- compacted over the life of the court in order to
maintain the best performance and stability. Repair the sub -base when the surface has become soft, washed
away, or the flatness has been compromised. Follow the "Disassembly" steps from above to remove SportBase
panels for maintenance.
SI- 0018 -A Page 6 of 6 05/03/2011
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 July
7, 2011, 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
Burroughs Variance — Planning Case 2011 -07 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.
Engel ' "' Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this '1 411 day of 3 , 2011.
Notary Publi
KIM T. MEUWISSEN
1 Notary public- Minnesota
;;N "` My Commisslon Expires Jan 31, 2015
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until
later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Proposal:
Request for Variance to build a sport court on property zoned
Single Family Residential RSF
Applicant:
Josh Koller - Southview Design
Property
10036 Trails End Road
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
What Happens
public hearing through the following steps:
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 visit
the City's projects web page at:
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us /sery /plan /11- 07.html . If you wish
to talk to someone about this project, please contact Angie
Questions &
Kairies by email at akairies(c)_ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by
Comments:
phone at 952 - 227 -1132. If you choose to submit 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 on the project web site listed above the Thursday
prior to the Planning Commission me eting.
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 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, July 19, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until
later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Proposal:
Request for Variance to build a sport court on property zoned
Single Family Residential RSF
Applicant:
Josh Koller - Southview Design
Property
10036 Trails End Road
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
What Happens
public hearing through the following steps:
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 visit
the City's projects web page at:
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us /sery /plan /11- 07.html . If you wish
to talk to someone about this project, please contact Angie
Questions &
Kairies by email at akairies(cD-ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by
Comments:
phone at 952 - 227 -1132. If you choose to submit 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 on the project web site listed above the Thursday
prior to the Planning Commiss meetin
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 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.
JEREMY & LYNN EATON WALTER E MANEY PHILIP R & STACEY M BURROUGHS
10017 TRAILS END RD 10024 TRAILS END RD 10036 TRAILS END RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4594 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4594 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4594
JOE MORRISON WILLIAM & ELIZABETH PETA CHRISTOPHER & ERIN WETMORE
10053 TRAILS END RD 10065 TRAILS END RD 10072 TRAILS END RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4594 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4594 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4594
CUSHMAN ENTERPRISES INC STEVE LEIVERMANN DANIEL W ABERCROMBIE
12300 SINGLETREE LN STE 200 14248 BEDFORD DR 1572 CLEMSON DR #B
EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 -7964 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 -3030 EAGAN MN 55122 -4806
CENTRAL BANK NORTH AMERICAN BANKING HENNEPIN CO REG RR AUTHORITY
2104 HASTINGS AVE COMPANY 300 6TH ST S SW STREET LEVEL
NEWPORT MN 55055 -1501 2230 ALBERT ST MINNEAPOLIS MN 55487 -0999
ROSEVILLE MN 55113 -4206
KURT & HEIDI SCHEPPMANN ROBERT A PARKER RICK & HEATHER EHRMAN
40 SETTLERS CT 50 SETTLERS CT 60 SETTLERS WEST CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4595 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4594 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4595
MICHAEL J KANE CATHERINE L MEYERS JOHN E LONSTEIN
8574 SARATOGA LN 9841 DEERBROOK DR 9861 DEERBROOK DR
EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 -1611 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8550 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8550
JOHN M & LINDA J REVIER RYAN & COURTNEY DUNLAY MICHAEL J & PATRICIA A CONROY
9881 DEERBROOK DR 9901 DEERBROOK DR 9921 DEERBROOK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8550 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8552 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8552
NICHOLAS JOHNSON TRAVIS & JENNIFER PALMQUIST ROBERT G DAUB
9941 DEERBROOK DR 9948 TRAILS END RD 9953 TRAILS END RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -8552 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4592 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4592
XIANGDONG LIN STEVEN D & MARY E DODGE JAMES DOBCHUK
9960 TRAILS END RD 9965 TRAILS END RD 9972 TRAILS END RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4592 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4592 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4592
STEVEN R PASCHKE RANDALL S & MELODEE D BROOKS ROBERT G & SUSAN D BUSCH
9977 TRAILS END RD 9984 TRAILS END RD 9989 TRAILS END RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4592 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4592 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -4592
SOUTHVIEW DESIGN
ATTN JOSH KOLLER
1875 EAST 50TH STREET
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS MN 55077