CC Staff Report 11-14-05
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM:
Josh Metzer, Planner I
DATE:
November 14, 2005
SUBJ:CLINT & JENNIFER HURT:
Request for After-the-Fact Hard
Surface Coverage Variance for a Sport Court, 8491 Mission Hills
Circle – Planning Case #05-32
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item is being appealed to City Council by the applicant. Since this
application was presented to the Planning Commission the applicant has
proposed the removal of additional hard cover which has reduced the variance
percentage being requested and has eliminated the need for a 5 foot side yard
setback variance. The staff report has been revised to reflect these changes.
This is a request for a2.76% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum
25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a sport court on
property located in the Single Family Residential District at 8491 Mission Hills
Circle.
ACTION REQUIRED
City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 18, 2005, to review
the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to deny the
request for a 4.5% hard cover restriction variance and a 5 foot side yard setback
variance. That decision is being appealed by the applicant.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission recommends adoption of the motion as specified on page
7 of the staff report dated October 18, 2005.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 18, 2005.
2.Planning Commission Minutes dated October 18, 2005.
g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-32 hurt variance\executive summary.doc
PC DATE:
October 18, 2005
1
CC DATE:
November 14, 2005
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
REVIEW DEADLINE:
November 15, 2005
CASE #:
05-32
BY:
JM
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: 2.76
Request for 4.5% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard
surface coverage restriction and a 5-foot side yard setback variance for the addition of a
sport court on property located in the Single Family Residential District at 8491 Mission
Hills Circle. The sport court has been built.
LOCATION:
Lot 6, Block 2, Marsh Glen
8491 Mission Hills Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
APPLICANT:
Clint & Jennifer Hurt
8491 Mission Hills Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING:
Single Family Residential (RSF)
2020 LAND USE PLAN:
Residential – Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 – 4u/Acre)
ACREAGE:
0.47 acre
DENSITY:
N/A
SITE DATA
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: 2.76
The applicant is requesting a 4.5% hard surface coverage variance
from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction and a 5-foot side yard setback variance for the
addition of a sport court. The sport court has already been built.Staff is recommending denial of this
request.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed
project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high
level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established
standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
Marshland TrltrC dribkcalBE lliH yaW noissiMW lliH yaW noissiMtrC eciR
Hurt Variance
Planning Case #05-32
October 18 November 14, 2005
Page 2
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
Lake Susan
M
i
s
s
The subject property is located
i
o
n
H
i
l
l
s
southeast of Great Plains
e
L
l
a
c
n
r
i
Boulevard and north of West
e
C
d
th
s
86 Street on Mission Hills
v
l
l
l
i
B
H
Circle and is zoned Single
SUBJECT SITE
n
s
o
Family Residential (RSF). The
n
i
i
M s
a
s
l a applicant is requesting a 4.5
P
i
M
y
t
f
Hills
Mission
a
2.76
% (which represents 926.78
i
e
e
Crt
l
r
d
G
568.25
square feet of site
C
r
t
1
M
coverage) hard surface coverage
0
1
i
H
s
i
l
n
W 86th St
l
y
variance from the maximum
s
s
o
w
D
i
i
s
r
o
.
H
s
25% hard surface coverage
n
i
M
M
H
i
s
s
restriction for the addition of a
i
o
n
i
H
l
i
l
l
l
Fr
s
si
s
sport court, approximately 53’x
L
c
D
a
o
35
40 ’, bringing the hard
r
n
.
C
e
r
surface coverage to 29.5
t
W 86th St
27.76
%. This structure has
already been built.
APPLICABLE
REGUATIONS
Sec. 20-91. Zoning
compliance review.
(a) Zoning compliance
review shall be required
for the construction of
structures which do not
require building permits
to determine compliance
with zoning requirements
such as setback, site
coverage, structure
height, etc.
(b) Any zoning compliance
review application that
fails to meet zoning
ordinance requirements
shall be denied by the
community development director.
Impervious surface means any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of storm
water. It shall include, but not be limited to, gravel driveways, parking area, buildings and structures.
Hurt Variance
Planning Case #05-32
October 18 November 14, 2005
Page 3
Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
25 percent
(5) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is .
Sec. 20-904. Accessory structures.
(3) Tennis courts and swimming pools may be located in rear yards with a minimum side and rear
yard setback of ten feet, but must comply with applicable ordinary high water mark setbacks.
Sec. 20-908. Yard regulations.
(6) The placement of any structure within easements is prohibited, except for those structures
specified herein. Fences may be allowed within an easement with an encroachment agreement if
they do not alter the intended use of the easement. A driveway or sidewalk from the street to the
house crossing drainage and utility easements at the front of the property are exempt from this
requirement.
Hurt Variance
Planning Case #05-32
October 18 November 14, 2005
Page 4
BACKGROUND
The subject property was platted as part of
Marsh Glen which was recorded on
November 8, 2000. The house was built in
2001. The 60’x40’ sport court was not
shown on the plans for the building permit
application. The subject property is
located in the Single Family Residential
(RSF) district and has an area of 20,595
square feet. In the RSF district 25% is the
maximum permitted impervious surface
coverage for a lot. The applicant has a
hard cover of 32.11%, is proposing to
8974.35
remove 539 square feet (2.62 %)
Rear
of hard cover, and is requesting a 4.5
Property
2.76The
% hard cover variance.
Line
applicant is removing enough of the
sport court to eliminate the need for a
side yard setback variance.
The
applicant is also requesting a 5-foot side
yard setback variance for the sport court.
The hard cover issue came to the attention
of the City in the spring of 2005 with an
anonymous phone call from a resident
inquiring about construction of the sport
court close to the applicants’ property line. Upon inspection of the property, it was clear that various
portions of the improvements were on, or extended across property lines onto neighboring property. It
also appeared the lot could be over on the maximum hard cover percentage. When it was clear the sport
court did not meet required setbacks, the applicant was informed that the property would have to be
brought into compliance with City Code or a variance would be need to be applied for. After meeting
with staff to discuss the
issues surrounding the
sport court, the applicant
decided to have an as-
built survey completed on
their property. The as-
built survey revealed the
existing hard cover was
32.11%. Variance
requests for relief from
hard cover and setback
West
restrictions were applied
Side
for on September 16,
Property
2005.
Line
Hurt Variance
Planning Case #05-32
October 18 November 14, 2005
Page 5
ANALYSIS
The site is zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). The applicant has completed construction of the
sport court in question. Chanhassen City Code does not require building permits for sport courts.
However, such structures do require a zoning compliance review. The City uses zoning compliance
reviews to ensure that structures, which do not require a building permit, still comply with zoning
ordinances. Criteria of a zoning compliance review include setbacks, hard surface coverage and
structure height.
The applicant has proposed the removal of the concrete slab (120 sq ft), the area of the sport court lying
the area of
within the 10-foot drainage & utility easement on the south edge of the property (300 sq ft),
the sport court lying outside within the 5 foot side yard setback (265 sq ft)the paver patio in the
,
rear yard (93 sq ft)
, those portions of retaining wall located within drainage and utility easements
surrounding the sport court (119 sq ft) and that portion of retaining wall extending 9 feet across the
southern property line onto Mission Hills Garden Homes Homeowners Association property.
Existing Hard Cover Calculations:
Lot Area = 20,595 sq. ft.
House = 1,968 sq. ft.
Driveway = 1,473 sq. ft.
Walk, Stoop, Porch = 242 sq. ft.
*Patio = 93 sq. ft.
*Retaining Walls = 281 sq. ft.
*Concrete Slab = 120 sq. ft.
*Sport Court = 2,437 sq. ft.
TOTAL = 6,614 sq. ft. 32.11%
*
Portions of indicated items proposed to be removed.
Proposed Hard Cover Calculation:
House = 1,968 sq. ft.
Driveway = 1,473 sq. ft.
Walk, Stoop, Porch = 242 sq. ft.
Patio0
= sq. ft.
Retaining Walls = 162 sq. ft.
Concrete Slab = 0 sq. ft.
Sport Court1,872 sq. ft
= .
TOTAL = 6,075 sq. ft. 29.5%
TOTAL = 5,717 sq. ft. 27.76%
will be removing
The applicant would have to remove 5 feet by the entire length of the west side of the
.
court to comply with the 10-foot side yard setback while removing 926.25 square feet from the sport
The applicant would have to remove and additional 568.25 square feet of hard cover
court in order
1,303.75
to comply with ordinance. The applicant could maintain a 1,210.75 square-foot sport court
Hurt Variance
Planning Case #05-32
October 18 November 14, 2005
Page 6
38’x 35’
(approximately 40’x30’ ); this would allow the applicant to continue to enjoy their backyard
while complying with ordinance requirements. The area of a basketball court inside the three-point arc
is approximately 628 square feet. The applicant could maintain a sport court nearly twice this size and
still comply with ordinance. Another option for removal of hard cover would be reduction of driveway
area.
The post-construction runoff pattern appears to be consistent with the drainage pattern that existed
before the sport court was constructed. Drainage flows to the existing pond southwest of the Hurt
residence within the Mission Hills townhome development. Based on the Mission Hills storm water
design calculations, this pond can accommodate the additional runoff from the impervious area for
which the Hurts are requesting a variance. However, staff is concerned that, should the Hurt variance
request be granted, future requests for a variance within this drainage area may be requested and granted
based on precedence. Should future variances be granted, the capacity of the pond may be exceeded;
therefore, staff recommends that the hard cover variance request be denied.
While the applicant has expended money for the improvements, such expenditure does not justify the
granting of a variance. Approval of a variance is contingent upon proof that the literal enforcement of
the Chanhassen City Code would cause an undue hardship. Not having a reasonable use of the property
would constitute an undue hardship. Reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet. Reasonable use of this property, a single-family home with a two-
car garage, already exists. Any use of the property beyond that discussed above is strictly ancillary to
the principal use. Based on these facts, staff must recommend denial of this request.
FINDINGS
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a
variance unless they find the following facts:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means
that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or
topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500
feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize
that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-
existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria.
Finding:
The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. By having a
single-family home and a two-car garage the property owner has reasonable use of the property.
Additionally, the applicant could maintain a smaller sport court.
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other
property within the same zoning classification.
Finding:
The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie
within the Single Family Residential District.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of
the parcel of land.
Hurt Variance
Planning Case #05-32
October 18 November 14, 2005
Page 7
Finding:
The improvements increase the value of the property.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding:
Construction of the sport court was completed before a zoning compliance review was
performed; therefore, this is a self-created hardship.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land
or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding:
The granting of a variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located due to the increase in
runoff from this property.
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 variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission City Council
Staffrecommends that the Planning Commissionadopt the
following motion:
City Council 2.76
“The Planning Commission denies Variance #05-32 for a 4.5 % hard surface coverage
variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction and a 5-foot side yard setback variance
for the addition of a sport court on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) based upon the findings in
the staff report and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property.
City Council
The Planning Commission orders the property owner to:
1. Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements.”
Should City Council choose to approve this request staff recommends the adoption of the following
motion:
“The City Council approves Variance #05-32 for a 2.76% hard surface coverage variance from the
maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for the addition of a sport court on a lot zoned
Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following condition:
Hurt Variance
Planning Case #05-32
October 18 November 14, 2005
Page 8
1.The applicant shall remove the following areas of hard cover: concrete slab (120 sq ft), the
area of the sport court lying within the 10-foot drainage & utility easement on the south
edge of the property (300 sq ft), the area of the sport court lying outside within the 5 foot
side yard setback (265 sq ft), the paver patio in the rear yard (93 sq ft), those portions of
retaining wall located within drainage and utility easements surrounding the sport court
(119 sq ft) and that portion of retaining wall extending 9 feet across the southern property
line onto Mission Hills Garden Homes Homeowners Association property.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact.
2. Development Review Application.
3. Letter and Variance description from Clint & Jennifer Hurt stamped “Received September 16,
2005”.
4. Letter from Mission Hills Garden Homes Homeowners Association stamped “Received September
20, 2005”.
5. Numerous letters from various Chanhassen residents in support of Hurt Variance.
6. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List.
7. As-Built Survey.
g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-32 hurt variance\staff report.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND ACTION
IN RE: Application of Clint & Jennifer Hurt for 4.5% hard surface coverage variance from the
maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction and a 5-foot side yard setback variance
for the addition of a sport court – Planning Case No. 05-32.
On October 18, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly
scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Clint & Jennifer Hurt for 4.5% hard surface
coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction and a 5-foot side yard
setback variance for the addition of a sport court on property located in the Single Family
Residential District at 8491 Mission Hills Circle. The Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the proposed variance that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The
Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF).
2.The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential – Low Density (Net Density
Range 1.2 – 4u/Acre).
3.The legal description of the property is: Lot 6, Block 2, Marsh Glen.
4.The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not
grant a variance unless they find the following facts:
a.Literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship.
b.The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other
properties in the Single Family Residential district.
c.The improvements increase the value of the property.
d.The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship.
e.The granting of the variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located.
f.The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger
1
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
5.The planning report #05-32 Variance dated October 18, 2005, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al,
is incorporated herein.
ACTION
The Planning Commission denies the Variances from the impervious surface and side yard
setback restrictions for the addition of a sport court.
th
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 18 day of October, 2005.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY: ___________________________________
Its Chairman
g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-32 hurt variance\findings of fact.doc
2
Planning Case No. 6S - 3~
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227-1100
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
RECEIVED
SEP. 1 6 2005
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PLEASE PRINT
Applicant Name and Address:
--LU.n:t- at-.JeY) VI; -Fe r --t:h.u-t
-Men MISS ion -tfi 11.5 r J rd~
l J\aVlhO~Sf--tf\ M,~) 55?:> II
Contact: .Jc -!f' VI \ --k..-r
Phone:~ Fax:
Email: _bo:cnux--t@-fJe-Vd' V)~-t:
Owner Name and Address:
~<-- OS
Contact ~ Ca.rn-- J vr-€b
Phone: ax:
Email:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements
Interim Use Permit
'X.. Variance
Non-conforming Use Permit
Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Zoning Appeal
Rezoning
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Notification Sign** - $75 + $100 Damage Deposit
Site Plan Review*
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost***
- $50 CUP/SPRNACNARIWAP/Metes & Bounds
- $450 Minor SUB
TOTAL FEE $ doG ~
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.
* Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an aw' x 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet
along with a diaital COpy in TIFF-Group 4 (*.tif) format.
** Applicant to obtain notification sign from City of Chanhassen Public Works at 1591 Park Road and install upon submittal of
completed application. $100 damage deposit to be refunded to applicant when sign is returned following City Council approval.
*** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME:
LOCATION:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
TOTAL ACREAGE:
WETLANDS PRESENT:
YES
NO
PRESENT ZONING:
REQUESTED ZONING:
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REASON FOR REQUEST:
See, ctJtached
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
~
Signature of Applicant
...
Q-/S-V5
Date
q-/5-D5
Date
G:\plan\forms\Development Review Application.DOC
Rev. 4/05
Dear Planning Commissioners,
REceIVED
Sfp 1 6 2005
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
September 16, 2005
We are applying for a side setback and hard surface cover variance from the City
of Chanhassen. We'd like to share with you reasons why you should consider
recommending our variance to the City Council.
On June 10, 2005, a letter arrived in the mail from Josh Metzer, stating that
"your property is in violation of Chanhassen City Code." We were devastated.
When we built our sport court in May of 2005, we certainly did not intend for it
to be as big a deal as it has become. We are fully aware that our contractor did
not consult with the city before it was built, and we are taking responsibility for
that as well. There is nothing we can do about that, other than to apologize to
you. We are just average homeowners, so we weren't aware of what needed to
be done to build a sport court. That is why we hired a licensed contractor to do
the job. He assured us that he would take care of the permits and whatever else
needed to be done to build the sport court of our dreams.
When we received Josh's letter, we immediately phoned our contractor and had
him stop working on the sport court. Unfortunately, at that point, it was almost
completed.
We realize our retaining walls are abundant and will gladly take them out. That
is the least of our problems. But it hurts us that the sport court will have to be
cut off. Not only will it be a financial burden, but we LOVE our court. We had
enough room on the court to put a short court tennis court, along with a half
court basketball court.
The purpose of installing this sport court was not to increase the value of our
land. Rather, we thought it would be a great way for us, our neighbors,
children, and friends to have a safe place to play, close to home. The closest
park to our house is approximately a mile away, via walking trail. Another park
that we frequently visit requires us to cross Highway 101, which, in the future, is
going to be made into a four-lane highway. We thought that if we could provide
a safe place for our children and our neighbors' children to play, we would be
doing a great service to our neighborhood. In addition, our neighbors believe
our sport court to be an asset to the neighborhood. We have included several
letters from neighbors as well, all in support of our variance.
When we moved to Chanhassen two years ago, we planned to stay here forever.
We want to raise our children in this house and have them attend public schools,
so our intention was to make our home a great place to live forever. We are not
intransigent people, and that is why we are asking you to see that we ARE taking
measures to try and comply, but we are also asking for you to grant us a
variance in order for us to keep the remainder of our sport court.
What we'd like to do is ask that you come out to see the court. We don't want
you to come to the commission meeting in October and not have seen it in
person. We want you to understand our point of view as well and not just the
City Planner's point of view. Please consider this request, and being objective to
our situation.
Thank you for your time.
SinCereIY,~. / ....
/// ---
C/l-H.c . ~
~rHurt
8491 Mission Hills Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
952-974-8349
Description of Variance Request
An "as-built" survey was completed on July 18, 2005. Attached you will find a
copy of this survey.
The retaining walls need to be removed in order to comply with city code. We
will remove the wall on the entire west side of the sport court (75.5 sq. feet), the
entire south end of the court (33.5 sq. feet), and the 19.5 sq. feet that are in the
city easement on the southeastern corner of the sport court.
In addition, we will remove 8 feet off the south side of the sport court (320 sq.
feet) and the concrete slab (120 sq. feet) on the east side of our property.
With these removals, our total hard surface coverage will be 6055.5 sq. feet.
That brings our total hard surface coverage down to 29.4%. However, this
amount still exceeds the Single Family Residential District's maximum hard
surface coverage of 25%. Therefore, we are asking for a variance of 4.4% hard
surface coverage. In addition, to avoid cutting any more off of our sport court,
we are asking for a variance for a five-foot setback on the west side of our
property.
Please consider our variance with understanding.
RECEIVED
SE~ 1 6 2005
CIT'fOF CHANHASSEN
Justification of How Request Complies with the Findings for Granting a Variance
a. We do not consider this variance an undue hardship.
b. We did not intend for our property to be in violation of city code
and we are trying to make things work. That is why we are
applying for a variance for single family residential zoning. We also
realize that there hasn't been any history of variances for sport
courts.
c. We did not intend for this sport court to increase the value of our
home. Rather, we thought it would be a great way for us, our
neighbors, kids, and friends to have a safe place to play, close to
home.
d. This hardship is not a self-created one. Our builder didn't check
into the city for a zoning compliance review. We gave that
responsibility to our builder, and he let us down.
e. We don't believe that this variance will affect other neighbors and
have included several letters from neighbors in support of our
variance.
f. There will not be any inadequate air or light supply from our sport
court, no increase in congestion of public streets, and no
increase in the danger of fire or endangerment of public safety.
In addition, this variance will not diminish or impair property
values within the neighborhood. All of the neighbors we've talked
to are in support of our variance.
RECEIVED
SE~ 1 6 2005
CITV OF CHANHASSE~'
September 19,2005
Mr. Josh Metzer
Planning Department
City of Chanhassen
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mr. Metzer:
It has come to the attention of the Mission Hills Garden Homes Board of
Directors that the property owner's recreational improvement at 8491
Mission Hills Circle, Chanhassen MN is in violation of city codes.
The Board is also aware that the owner of that property has been canvassing
the residents of Mission Hills Garden Homes for petition signatures to gain
support for allowing a variance to the city codes.
The Mission Hills Garden Homes Board of Directors wishes to make it a
matter of record with the Chanhassen Planning Department that the property
bordering the improvements at 8491 Mission Hills Circle borders on
property owned by the Mission Hills Garden Homes Association. While the
border in question is closest to addresses 520 and 528 Mission Hills Drive, it
is the Boards position that any requests for variance should be addressed to
the Mission Hills Garden Homes Association and not the individual
residents.
It is also the position of the Mission Hills Garden Homes Board of Directors
that the City of Chanhassen not allow the property owner at 8491 Mission
Hills Circle a variance to city code due to the overall impact on properties of
Mission Hills Garden Homes.
Mission Hills Garden Homes,
Board of Directors /
,/ ~-/.
- ." / .~
/~',,// , ~
L~~~oI!
iPs:
September 15, 2005
RECEIVED
SE:P 1 6 2005
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Building Commissioner
City of Chanhassen
Dear Sir or Madam:
My husband and I live at 461 Mission Hills Court, here in Chanhassen. I am taking the
time to write a letter in support of a variance of a 5' setback and 29.4% hard surface
coverage for the sport court in the yard our next door neighbors, Clint and Jennifer Hurt.
Seeing as their yard directly abuts our yard, we are two of the most affected by their
landscaping choice and we have absolutely no problem with the size or design of the
sport court. It should also be noted that the property in question is quite secluded and
only two neighbors' views are directly even affected by what is in no means an eyesore.
At one time, some ofthe home owners approached our builder to see ifhe could reserve a
small plot of land or even sell a small lot to all of us so that we could have a playground
for all the children in the neighborhood to play on. However, in his interest to make as
much money as possible, he squeezed houses onto even the smallest lots he could. One
of the sport court's main uses is to serve as a tennis court for those children and without a
variance, it will no longer be anywhere near large enough for them to play.
My husband and I would find it much more intrusive to have such a large section of the
sport court tom back out. It is a blessing to have that yard finally landscaped, after the
previous owner left it completely untended and had not even bothered to sod the back
yard the entire time she lived at the address. (I've often wondered why the city did not get
involved then!) It wasn't until Clint and Jennifer Hurt moved in that the huge mass of
weeds in the back yard invading our lawn was finally dealt with, much to our relief.
I truly appreciate your time and consideration towards this matter. I should think that the
City could spend it's time on much more disturbing issues than one that the affected
neighborhood has little or no problem with.
Thank you once again.
Sincerely,
d~ vt()G(\l{}J
Lea N ordos
Building Commissioner
RE: Letter of support for Clint and Jemrlfer Hurtts variance
To whom it may concern:
On behalf of Clint and Jennifer Hurt, please accept this letter of support
concerning their sport court variance for a five foot side setback and 29.4% hard surface
coverage area. We live two houses down trom the Hurtts residence and were one of the
first residents to move into the Mission Hills development. We have seen our
neighborhood develop trom the onset and strongly feel the addition of the Hurtts sport
court is an asset to our community.
The court has provided a much needed safe haven for our children to play on a
daily basis. In addition, our neighborhood has held numerous social and recreational
gatherings on the Hurtts court and hope to do so in the future. Our only option in years
past was to hold these events in the street. The court is unobtrusive, blends in well with
the environment, and has contributed to the property values of our neighborhood. We
strongly support the addition of the Hurtts sport court and accordingly request that the
Building Commission grant the applicable variance for a fiVe foot setback and 29.4%
hard surface coverage.
Dan' Eastman and Leanne Eastman
Dan and Leanne Eastman
8451 Mission Hills Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
952-380-0245
September 12, 2005
RECEIVED
SE~ 1 6 2005
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Building Commissioner
7700 Market Boulevard
City of Chanhassen
Chanhassen, MN 55317
To Whom It May Concern,
This letter is in response to Clint & Jennifer Hurt's sport court variance. We are
John & Mary Gerogeorge and our address is 470 Mission Hills Court. Our back
yard property and the Hurt's back yard are adjacent to each other. Jennifer and
Clint Hurt approached us early on and asked if we had an issue about them
putting in a sport court. We had no objections to them installing the sport court.
Since the sport court has been in, there has been no problems. As a matter of
fact, it brings some of the neighborhood families together for some family fun of
tennis or basketball. Our opinion would be that we support the variance of the
sport court. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us at (952) 934-
7011.
Thank you,
RECEIVED
SE~ 1 6 2005
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
September li\ 2005
Dear Building Commissioner:
I am writing in support of Clint and Jennifer Hurt's request for a variance of a five foot
side setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage.
Since Clint and Jennifer installed their sport court, it has become a real asset for the
Mission Hills Lane neighborhood. It is continually being used by the neighborhood kids
and adults alike. It also has served as an excellent and safe play area and has filled a void
that existed due to the lack of a nearby park.
We humbly ask that you consider granting this variance and take into account the benefit
that it provides for this neighborhood.
Sincerely,
~j:~ ~;;:;j~
Scott and Micheh~ T~rQ9lg /
8455 Mission Hills Lane
Chanhassen MN 55317
952-906-1046
Dan and Jane Zureich
8490 Mission Hills Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
September 15,2005
REceiVED
SE~ 1 6 2005
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Building Commissioner
City of Chanhassen
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: 8491 Mission Hills Circle
Request for Variance
To Whom It May Concern:
Our property borders to the East that of Jennifer and Clint Hurt (8491 Mission Hills
Circle). Our family has used their sport court, which is the subject of their request for
variance.
We understand that the rock wall erected by the Hurts is currently situated on our shared
property line and that the sport court is currently five feet from that line, as opposed to
the ten feet required by the City of Chanhassen. It is our further understanding that if the
Hurt's request for variance is granted, this rock wall will be removed and that the area on
the east side of the sport court will be re-graded and re-sodded.
Weare writing this letter to inform you that based on our understanding of the above, we
support Jennifer and Clint Hurt's variance request for a five-foot side setback and 29.4%
hard surface coverage.
We take comfort in knowing that our children have someplace safe and close to play, and
do not have to worry about them playing in or crossing streets or venturing far from home
to play at a park. The sport court is especially timely since we understand that in the near
future Mission Hills Lane will be opened to Highway 101, which is being widened into a
four lane road.
If you have any questions, please contact us at 952-914-0879.
ffl"lcer. el y'.
r );#11)4JA&{;J
~.~
()
Dan and Jane Zureich
September 10, 2005
Subject:
RECEIVED
SEP 1 6 2005
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
I am a neighbor to the Hurt's. I live at 8460 Mission Hills Circle,
Chanhassen.
City of Chanhassen Building Commissioner
To:
Clint and Jennifer Hurt's Sports Court
I fully support the Hurt's Sport Court. It is as built as professional as
something to be found in a local park. Furthermore, I have had the
opportunity to use it and it will cause fewer injuries to children and
adults than a concrete court.
You should also be reminded that we do not have a public facility
similar to the Hurt's in close proximity to our neighborhood.
Therefore, I recommend you approve the five-foot side setback and a
29.40/0 hard surface coverage. As they said in the original movie; "Bad
News Bears 11" let the children play!
I can be contacted during the daytime at 952-932-4101.
REceiVED
SEp\ 1 6 2005
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
September 14, 2005
Building Commissioner
Re: Clint & Jennifer Hurt's Sport Court
Dear Sir/Madam:
Weare writing to you today in an effort to communicate to you that we support Clint and
Jennifer Hurt's variance of a five foot setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage. Our
home is located just off the back of the Hurt's backyard and have been given the
opportunity to play on and make use of their sport court. We currently do not have a
neighborhood park and find this sport court to be an asset to our neighborhood and a
privilege for our two children to have access to. Please take the time to consider this and
allow the Hurt's to keep their sport court at its current size, I believe if it is eliminated or
reduced in size it will no longer have the same benefit as it was originally intended for.
Thank-you!
Kelly, Dan, Cayman & Jordan Fasching
8550 Mission Hills Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
952-937-1229
REceiVED
SEP 1 6 2005
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
September 15, 2005
To the Chanhassen Building Commissioner:
Re: Sport Court Variance. Clint and Jennifer Hurt
As residents of 8444 Mission Hills Lane, we are in support of Clint and
Jennifer Hurt's variance of a five-foot side setback and 29.4% hard
surface coverage. The Hurt's sport court has been a gathering place for
BBQ's and other neighborhood events due to the fact they have the space
as well as the sport court for recreation for the children as well as the
adults. As a neighborhood we have had basketball games and anticipate
having the Hurt's host hockey games for the neighborhood in the winter
months. It should be noted that there is not a similar facility/recreation
space in the immediate vicinity. It would be a determent to the
neighborhood should this sport court be altered or removed.
Again, our full support is behind this variance application.
Sincerely,
/~~
\;
fw".~
Kim & Conrade Thomas
8444 Mission Hills Lane
(952) 937-7551
(Neighbors of Clint and Jennifer Hurt)
September 12,2005
RECEIVED
SEP 1 6 2005
CITVOF CHANHASSEN
Building Commissioner,
This letter is in support of Clint and Jennifer Hurt's variance of a five foot side setback
and 29.4% hard surface coverage of their sport court.
We live directly next door to the Hurt's residence at 8481 Mission Hills Circle. With over
65 kids in this relatively small neighborhood and no park nearby, this sport court is a
huge asset. We always know were our kids are and with our children in many City of
Chanhassen sports, this is a nice and close practice ground.
An approval of the Hurt's variance would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you so much for your time.
Sincerely,
/-1
J~~4~g~~
Dale and Rhonda Tirevold
September 14, 2005
REceIVED
SEp 1 62005
CITYOF CHANHASSEN
Chanhassen Building Commissioner,
We are neighbors ofCHnt and Jennifer and are familiar with the variance discussion
regarding their sport court.
We have used the sport court and enjoy having it in our neighborhood. We are also in
favor of them maintaining a variance of a five foot side setback and a 29.4% hard surface
coverage.
Please reconsider their plea and the support they have from the neighborhood to maintain
a healthy outdoor-living environment.
/
Sincerely,
t' \ ~fL~ ;,} _I I
. i, y-' /'-;f1i/ft4-/1~/J-
t '
ifer ike Hidding
5 Mission Hills Lane
september 11, 2005
REceiVED
SE~ 1 6 2005
CITY-OF CHANHASSEN
Dear Building commissioner,
we live at 8471 Mission Hills circle (2 houses from
clint & Jennifer Hurt). We are in support of Clint
and Jennifer Hurt's variance of a five foot side
setback and 29.4% hard surface coverage.
please consider this request at the upcoming
planning commission Meeting.
Thank you,
~~
caroline and John Herbeck
September 10, 2005
RECEIVED
SfP 1 6 2005
CITY 01= CHANHASSEN
To: The Building Commissioner ofChanhassen City Council
Clint and Jennifer Hurt are in our Mission Hills Lane Development. We would like you
to know we are in support of their variance of a five food side setback and 29.4% hard
surface coverage.
Thank you, ) /l--I--
/U:..d9~~~
Patrick and Lee Anne Eastman
8425 Mission Hills Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
~e~-
Date: 9/15/06
REceIVED
SfP 1 6 2005
CITVOF CHANHASSEN
To: City of Chanhassen MN
From: Michael Maule
8464 Mission Hills Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Sport Court/ Clint and Jennifer HurtlMission Hills Lane
This memo is to inform the City of Chanhassen, MN that we (Micheal Maule and spouse
Patricia Silva) are in support of Clint and Jennifer Hurt's variance of a five foot setback
and 29.4% hard surface coverage. If you have any questions regarding this matter, you
can reach us at 952 294 4545.
Sincerely,
Mi~AI
Patricia Silva
r;-;;~
({
/~0~
z
w
en
en
<C
:c
z
<C
:c
c...:>
~. ~
C/) ~
c...:>
QL!'?
W g
> C"J
_ e.t:l
w~
(.)
w
a:
.
Cl)
u
e
CO
'C
CO
>
~(J)
-e
::J
J:
1-
~
e
e
Cl)
~
"'0
e
CO
.I-J
e
.-
U
\.I-
o
.I-J
1-
o
0.
0.
::J
(J)
e
Cl)
1-
CO
Cl)
$
~
Cl)
..c
.I-J
..c
~
~
>-
.l-Jo.
ffi E,
E 8
Cl) 0
(J) .I-J
CO.I-J
Cl) 1-
~~
'0 U
.I-J.I-J
o 0
J2o.
I (J)
01-
M 'Cl)
Cl)..c
..c.I-J
.I-J \.l-
e 0
.- Cl)
:5"'0
.~ 'Vi
(J)..c
_ .I-J
- ::J
~ g
cnCl)
e..c
. _ .I-J
. e \.I-
co 0
:=.l-Jtt::
~ ~ 0
(J)..c.I-J
-e.I-JCI)
::J~~.I-J
J: (J) e
Cl) Cl) ~ Cl)
..c1-coE
.I-J:p::JCI)
.I-J e 0" (J)
co Cl) (J) co
:5 Cl) 0 Cl) ,
"'0 ..c N },~
e .I-J M .-
Cl) Cl) u
19> .I-J
(J)o~o
cuEEJ2
"'OCl)Cl)I
e 0::: 0:::0
::J M
Cl) · ·
$
-()
..~
~
-;-J
~ .--
C))
!
- j~
~ "- I 'f)
, \" ~ I
" ~~'~~:f.~
w ~~.,j ri' ~ \J';-
~I". \:::::. '- G NI \"" ~
~. <:) G'- ~<S ~
Q) ~ ~~ ~ ~
~O'- 0-: ~ i j l~ ~
D>.:- ~ ~ .JJ~ '1Jl
,<.~ ~
!?, ~ R~ ~~ ~
-3 ~ -'" ~ of. f "-
---z s~ .~ ,~ ~
c .~ ~ ~.~ '"
,5 I ~Y' 'C\Vl '\\r'}
~ ,<>~ ~ \f) ~
:J? ,~~~<S ~
Vl .z: lJ) s- c6 ~
Q)Vl n L>o /\. S s- .'"
L.. -.u '0 ~:S- - "
....."0<( 7: L~ \'C) ~ ~ ~ ~
'-J V) - \,.0
'i"'. ~ \0 iJ\ \n
Ui/'~ -.o'.~ ~ ~
--Q ~,,~~ ~ ~
21 N""\ """,," ~~ "- ~ ~
ra ~ ~ <S'"" -" ~ 0-
o '-...:... ~ ~
O-~C
J r .~ ~
P.t) ~ 'J ~
t CY~~ ~
irJ ~{i3~
~fB. ~.~ $,j l ~
& n~ '- ~(j _;>."" " -; ~ c.,~J
\ _.~ ~'\. ....::.t- .--J ":;j
i{j
~
""
\.()
"
~
~
.
.
.
I
RECEIVED
SE? 1 6 2005
D /3 " { . CITY OF CHANHASSEN
~(Itf/ . lAI / d LI:9 ,0 rnn1f"S510Y7ev/
1-10-05
We tll v~ ~1 v V G~!J Ul/l. --to tfLf~prvo V6
fh.t- V /tV{~Y7C -e..fu V C I/t II nf-~t1) h 100 v5 (!f / hf .
Itht1 Jcllr7lftv -/f-vll/r. W{ I/~ t?lf 4//0 fl/JI52f7il'vJ
!-hIls COfAvt I~ {Wtf,h~u;seVJ ttn -lhe &l.tl-c/{e-:::v/c
t{,t;o ve:.. tiCVlti( ~ sf of -fhe/ -fhfiv+ Yr-e5ilt:/et/7Ge"
,Wt S(A.;ppovi -rh<- -HiAvfj V#vV/t1(VlCe ibv
~ f7v-e foo+ Sia-( Se.fbaCK c{nd 2,~ vlo havd
,su,v p/l C~ {o v {,V f'lg~. JIV-t ha f/e -eKpei/iCt/l(('d
: h 0 n~~PLh'v-e.- I vYl J:>~c--j- (voYn +~ sp~v~f-
COlA vt Ano( se-t /1 (7M 'J a 5 a posr/1 ve,
ac;sc f ,---t-b -f'h-c, V7e.''!Jh bo(/' h Dod. 1+ pvv vrcles
(){ ,5at.e ana fu V7 place.. 'fov- -f1-K., VY1tf['y
[Chi lav.(n, In -ft~ AV~t1'-to PI?/" 51nCG
l+h-ev-c, J5n+ t1 ,PiA.l 1?AI/~ h:a.Vty. Ir #1./5D
IprO Vld-es t1 p/?tce ivy' j7t-m( II ec; .fD 3/~-fh-ev
,tIt/V) c1 e-tjO<j -fh-ewl Sc , V~ 5 .
. Theft VI k- youfvv jOUV COYlSid-cYPL-h'6h.
[a:,;1/t~~ ~
~d~--...
f2D b-c vt t7t h tit L f~ Get (A V f V\
~O (v'li~ifO'n }h'H ~ CoVlvt
L~V1~~ (P1Z;2)QO&-Vl4og
.
9- /S~()5
~1
I <. fke..
~
i
i
""\
.~
I
i \
VC0\ {~
J Ok ~cfl
~~ if
D......~. rl:'~\I!r.~
n,,~uik,B. ~u
SEP 2 2005
t
RECEIVED
SEP 3, 2 2005
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
City of Chanhassen
Attn Building Commissioner:
Scott and Shannon Fiedler
8511 Mission Hills Lane
Chanhassen MN 55317
952-975-9802
We live in the upper cul-de-sac of the neighborhood. Our children play back and
forth at each others houses. When the Hurt family decided to put the sport court
in their backyard, they were very kind to invite their neighborhood friends to use
the sport court at the Hurt home with parent supervision.
We are very much in support of Clint and Jennifer Hurt's variance of a five foot
side setback and 29-4% hard surface coverage.
The sport court of the Clint and Jennifer Hurt Family does not have a negative
impact on the city in any way. If the neighbors of Mission Hills Lane are in
support of Clint and Jennifer, then pass the variance and move on to more
important issues that the city should be focused on.
Best regards,
Scott and Shannon Fiedler
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING CASE NO. 05-32
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on Tuesday, October 18, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in
Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for
Variances
after-the-fact hard surface coverage and side yard setback for a sport court located at
8491 Mission Hills Circle. Applicant: Clint & Jennifer Hurt.
A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during
regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their
opinions with respect to this proposal.
Josh Metzer, Planner I
Email: jmetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Phone: 952-227-1132
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on October 6, 2005)
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
October 6, 2005, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public
Hearing for the Clint & Jennifer Hurt Variance Request - Planning Case 05-32 to the
persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope
addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United
States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were
those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and
by other appropriate records.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this~ day oft'JL4e.~ r ,2005.
~ 1)K..,:I.4Y1iH' ~<l<l'~
J Notary~
\ o11",~r1J.:~ K\M t. MEUW\SSEN i
.' . 'f~ r Minnesota
Notarx Pub"'~p~res Jan 31,2010
Wr-J CommISSIon <J'
0)
C
+:i
Q)
Q)
:!5
0)5
c.-
.- U)
J..U)
as._
Q) E
:l:e
o
._ 0
:co
~O)
c.c
.... .-
o c
Q) c
0.!2
+:ic.
o c
ZQ)
U)
U)
as
s::.
c
as
s::.
o
0)
c:
+:i
Q)
Q)
:!5
c
0)0
c.-
._ U)
J.. U)
as.-
Q) E
:l:E
.2 0
:cO
~O)
c.c
.-
....c
o c:
Q) as
0-
._ c.
-
o c
zQ)
U)
U)
as
s::.
c:
as
s::.
o
"0
.....
ro
>-
Q)
"0
'00
"0
C
ro
-o~
> ro
al(i)
- >
Q) 0
E -= U
ci ro Q)
o~alt:::
oo't::J
., 0 :J 0
""""""(/)U
(tj""""Ot:::
lC) ctl (ij 8-
0(i)L:(/)
O.coro
C\lEro
~..."'" 0
oowd,..... _
T""L:L:1Il .....
.....O+;Q) :J
Q) ._ ..... CJ :c
:8 g ~ la ......Q)....._
U :J ro.- C
00........
_0.E~ ~
~ctiti~ ....,
"O:c~alC\l06
~ ~ o-.c C? C
:J~Q)Q)lC)=
I-oa:(/)OO
Q)
E
j:: g
~~
s 5
CCU 0
..J
"i
III
o
c..
o
...
D.
"0
.....
m
>-
Q)
"0
'00
"0
C
m
-o~
> ro
al(i)
- >
Q) 0
E -= U
cimQ)
~alt:::
80't::J
f'-.R~8
(tj""""Et:::
lC)ctlm8-
0(i)L:(/)
O.com
C\lEm.....
-m"lO
OOL:Q).....
T""0L:1Il
'- ~ (1)
Q) ..... CJ
.co '13 2 I:
o 5 ro .S!
00........
_O.E~
~ctiti~
-g:c~alC\l
Q) .~ o-.c C? C
:J~Q)Q)lC)=
1-0 a: (/)00
Q)
E ..
j::1:
~~
S 5
cu 0
C..J
"i
III
o
c..
o
...
D.
Q) -g Q)
L:O:S
-L:"O
-.....m
g,g~
.cL:-
m 0>=
:J'(j) 3:
o c.=:
>-Q)m
GiE:SB
S.EEQ)cn
o ,!: e:s 0.
CUI 0::: ~2
-:J c'(/)
S(/)o..- 0)
-0 .~.5 Q) c
C Q)'-
Gl 'C'!: E 3:
~m$Q)g
GlQ).cL:O
UlL:O-.....
Q) as .2 0 0) ~
13 ~ :0 ; 'E -
_...:JC:JL:
.- Gl 0. moO)
0:5(/)_ :J
!!l C .- (/) ,0
o:SQ)O.c
:c ,!!! ..... :J Q) -
C C. 0 arc 0)
o III Q) ..... ..... C
.-(/) E (/) o.'c
o.(/) (/) m
.!!? C 0. c'- Q)
::2:.2 :; ro :S L:
...- '5 a..g S .Q
O)oQ)"O..o:O
"",-L:o..c:J
OO<l:l-mmo.
J!!
U:.;..:
gla~g
'c .~ Q) ~
I: ii. c.. cu
.!!!4 e g
D.<(D...J
ai
l.l
:;:;
o
C
UI
:E
...
-
o
Gl
"C
'jjj
Gl
UI
...
Q)Gl
C3~
........
t::: O~
i !!l-;;
o
.....Q) :c ,!!!
:!::: C C.
COlli
C (/) E
~.!!? C
06~:8
T""1lI
O)l.l
"",.2
00<1:
.!!
u: ..
~'E >1:
I:m1:0
.- CJ Q)'-
2 g'- c..-;
cu 0 CJ
_ ... 0
D.<CD...J
Q) '8 Q)
L:O:S
-L:"O
-.....m
g.8~
.cL:-
ro 0>=
:J'(j) 3:
o c.=:
>-Q)m
E:ScS
~E<D(ti
.!: e:s 0.
0::: ...;..2
- :J c'(/)
.!!? 0. +:: 0)
o>.!: Q) C
'E.!: ~':1:
ro$Q)g
Q).cL:0
L:O_"'"
.g 0 0> ~
:0 ; .!: -
:Jc:;L:
c..mo 0)
(/)_ :J
.- (/) ,0
:SQ)O.c
'+-:::1(1)......
o 0-'0' 0>
Q) ~ ..... C
(/) o.'c
o.(/) (/) m
e-ci:~
:Jro-
o.u-u
Q)'8-g~
L: o..c :J
I-roroo.
I
'5~-E
~ g- 00
~ ti ~C\I-g Q) E .:.
....: :J Q) _Q)C"')(/) :gSQ)~'
U U (/) ,cT""OQ)>'_.s::.-
Q) (/) roEO";"'-L:OIll-t)
.0'....: '0 ~ ci. Q) """ Q) - o..:E ~ Q)
..... u C 0.0 E ~ ~ .8 = - I: E
0. .~ 0 -...... 0 I ---'-'" .-
"0 0 .- 0) ....~ (/) C\I ~ c: 3: O:C I:
Q)......~ C""'olC)UO""'-Q)O
(/)0 Q)o.,g 'E- ii5 0 - 0) :J U ro 1: 3: 'iij
Q)-~_ Q)-0-1Il
g-:s -g E E E' cti m g, C en c.."! ,-
o .-..........0 Q)....E
..... C 0.0 Q) ro 0 Q) - ' ... r::: E
0. 0 Q) L: _ N Q) O>:t: '
Q) (/) L: Q) - 0 L: Q) en ~.!: cu 0 0
:S c-:S Q)e::! (/)OO:::::J ~-Q)-IIl"":O
..... ~ E"O 0 00 ':1:":: C ...... Q) CO ~
Oc..oc ..... - L:EoEQ)ol:
3:-c~m Q)~:J~':: .s::~.-
.c:JO c:JQ)I-......1:
.92 Q)"O"O (/) 0 >-...., Q)"'" L: ~ I:
~ (/) Q) Q) CL::!::O (/).Q-- '= cu
~ ~'$ ~ ~ Q) ,$ ~ ~ '0 5 .s:: c:
o = ~ U .g ~ C L: (/) Q)'OO - Q)
C ._ ..... (/) Q) :::: "0 0 C .- U (/) CU.s::
m 3: Q)'- :S 0 'C U ~ ~ ~'E Q) -
Q)_.....O) Q)~LL.~uctl>E.5g
> S ro.!: Q) .;- L: m'~ -c -g 0 -;: ...
"5> u J!l Ca ti (J) ::; C> ~ ~ Q) \\1 0 0 0
- '8- C Q) Q) .8"0 g 0. ~ E.!: Q) Q) 'S:
= 0. Q) L: '0 _ = ..... ~ Q) E - L: - ....
3:mEU=cmL:UNoc-.c~
1a Q) E ~ u ~:c ;'.92. Q) U ~ .8 ~ cu
_L:o:JQ)>>-moEc cu"O
en I- 0 a..:S :J O~ "0 0...= Q) ~ ~ > ~
o C (/) = :::: 0.'0. cu :s
>- >- 0._ m 'C Q) 0 Q) .s::
:!::.c~:SE3:"Ou.c1-
'i
,....:C\ic<:i-.:i
III 0)
I: I:
Q).-
c..t)
c..Q)
~==
-Q)
cu.s::
.s::-
:=-;
~..
1IlJ!!
I: I:
o Q)
~E
~E
:s 0
00
I
-Q)-
0. :J.....E
(/) 0 00
~ ti ~C\I-g Q) E .:.
(/) Q) Q)C"')(/) "OQ)Q)~'
....: :J (/) E~ C T"" 0 Q) 'S; :t:: :5 .5
U U m 0";"'-L:01ll -
Q) :B ~ ci. Q) """ Q) - o..:E ~ m
'e ti C c.. 0 E ~ ~ .8 = - I: E
0. .~ 0 cii C"') 0 I 0 >.'S: 0'" :=
"0 0'- .. (/) C\I .t:: 0. > .c I:
Q)..... (/) C""'OlC)UO""'-Q)0
(/) 0. cS .!!? ~ 0 - 0) U ro 1: 3: 'iij
oQ)=E Q)-~_:JQ)-O_1Il
g-:s-g E E~]j ~~5en g.~'E
.....co.o Q)mOQ)- ...."""E
c.. 0 Q) 0 L: - N Q) O):t: '
Q) (/) L: Q) - 0 L: Q) en ~.!: cu 0 0
L: C - L: .....0Q) ~ .~ ~ c=! L: ~ "Ui ;i 0
::::~E~ >L: 0 Q)o~
Oo.oc Q)ctl:J(/)E-E.s::C'\I1:
3:c~ m .c:;!2~ c'S Q)I-=:::'c
Q)Q)"O""" (/)0'--' Q).....L: ;';;1:
.- .... C L: :!:: 0 (/).Q- - ,~CU
i::(/)~Q) ro ro(/)Q)""'c_-
Q) Q) ._ (/) _ Q) . _ m L: 0 0 .s:: D.
> 0.. Q) ..Q o..g >. C L: (/) Q)'OO - Q)
o = ~ U Q) :::: {g 0 C ,- U (/) cu .s::
~':1: .....Q).!!? :S O'C U ~~ ~'E Q)-
Q) _ ..... 0> Q) ~LL. ~ ~ J1-6 E ~ g
> ~ m.!: ~'cL: m'13 C mOl:'"
'0, U .s (ij ....: :J g> - @) Q) coo .9
_ = C Q) ~ .8"0 0 0...... E .- Q) Q) ~
~ 8: EQ) L: '0' c '<<S .c tf ~ E c :S :c ~
ro .g == m:C - Q) - 0 Q) 0 cu cu
:::: Q) E:o ..... 3: >"0' Q) U E - := "0
mL:o:JQ) ~m.....Ect:::(/)culll
U5 I- 0 a..:S :J 0'- "0 0.::: 2 m .92 > ...
o C (/).- _ 0. 0. cu :s
>. >. 0 .- m'c Q) 0 Q).s::
:!::.c~:SE3:"Ou.c1-
'i
T""C\ic<:i-.:i
III 0)
I: I:
Q).-
0..-
c..Q)
cu Q)
:I:==
-Q)
cu.s::
.s::-
3:1il
~..
1IlJ!!
I: I:
o Q)
~E
~ E
:s 0
00
~E .oo.~Gl ~
~ g~Gl~~:5 _____~ ~ -g.c:
t'U 0.- Co cu- c:-- 0.Q) cu.9
~Gl"O i~~ ~oGl ~<(c.g_ o~
:!::5.~ Q)(J) 0 ~i m~g
~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~
~2g E~~cu~~ ~~~ ~.~ -~~
""Glcu ~ ~ a € ~ ~ t ''E -= ~ a ~ c: ~ ~ g,~
o ~~~cu[%~S~~!o ~-~
~c:2 ~cuo.E~Eoo~oE 0; ~~~
~'~5 ~Q)!~~Q)~~Bt ~~ ~~5
~~.~ c:2_a:s=ac:~w~ ~~ ~o~oc
~OU a:s~SE~E~w~~ >
E=Gl c=OGl;::'u;'->-Co ~~ .0"0
~~~ g~n~~roem~o -0 ~~Q)
JBa.~ niE~~~~Q)~~_.S:.e~ ~<3~
~roQ) ~~m~~~E~~~ Uti) ~~~
-g .~ ~ 0.. a. tI) - 8 c: > a:s m .- ~ - 0
a:s~o ~.~~a~~o~~~ ~I ~.9~
~~I~~I~~~~i~~~ ro. ~~~
~E;~~E~~~-gE~gE ~m 8~~
"0 Gl 0 ~ Gl 5 0. ~ - ~ ~ III ~;:: ':;; 0 ~ Gl (/)
5~~Gl~1~g~~~gE~ e~ csg
~~~5m,~~'~~Q)~~~! ~~ Q).~~
WE'~~mESQ)~~E~xo -~ ~~~
~<( ~c:"O o~..c ~o en~~ "C~ c;Q)-
.9:! t::: Q) :::J 0 Q).2 co "0 - 0 0."'5 ~ - c: "C a..
~~~i~oi~E~~:~~ ~~ .~~!
a: 0 g. 0 .- c: a. 0.== c: c: 0 tI) :J .- Q) c: -
cO~-~'Eo umE~~tI) o~ ..c'-U
~~~i~~Q)!~~"Cni~~ .g& ~!s
a..m~~g~~Q)8~m~~g.~:e ~ag
$ 23 ~.5 ~ ~.~ 00 ~~ E 0.- ~ 1i)'-"C a.;;: 0
mm'5~~SE~~~mmQ)c.~~g ~gm
-EC"~:"=- _Oc>Q)=~~E:+::..c J:::;::;cu
~ Q)t:::c.<($=Q)c:wm --S~ -roOl
c: u ~ ~ c.. .-:3:..c.-:J en w ..c '0 0 tI) U '*
Q)~~c.m~Q)c:~5"Oe5~~ffi~ ~li~
[Egi~~~.~~~j'5~gg~.~~~~E
.Q~ ~Cii:CC"c'~ ga:u ~g:5<;'a.~-E- 2; Q) ~
~~~~~~.QE~c~m&E~~Q)o~5~
~~~2Q)~ni~8.Q0~a:sSO~S~.~o!
~Q)bESQ)~Obnig~~.-!~~&EE~~
C:'~6~C:::C~Q)o"C'EI.()Effi-Q)::"'C ~.-
..:J~ ~omE..c ~0Q)0 ~c.._.mo~u
!uQ)c t:::~E~~E~SW~~~~~~e~
~~~.~~&~8~~~~i~~E~E~.~Q)~
C1) ~ c..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ {} 5rW.gJ -;:g g. B.~ 2 g.~
8~5E::a:smmgo~~2c~IDUU~~~ID
~~u~c:~~~~~~ID~;.~~8&~~~D
~ 5 qj o'c ~ 00. cu 0 -g 5 ~ W w ~ ~ -E e .c ~ 9-.s.
> ._ Ol 0 0. 1:: c Gl 'u; c .l!! .- .- ~ 0 ~ - - v; 52
.~ .!a c: g>~ ~ ~ o'~ E w :::J 0 S :: ~ ~ o'~ Q) ~.c
C1)~~~~Q.m~!E'~8~~5w.~gu~~i
~DNC:a=Q)~ oE~C>oo:JIDIDID~
>~Q)~o.S~IDIDUO~.5'~~~C:Q)'~~~E
~woc~a:sw~SS~OO~:3:~w<(~a.ma:s~
0.. ...
~ -0 0 ~
~ ~ c~i ~~ w ~ ~!
~ 0 g.~ ~ ~:::: c >.:!::: 8. <1> ~ .9
Q>Q)"C a:s~m a:::o mC:C> oJ::
~5~ ~Q)tI) Q)2 g<~ ~i iig
::;~::E Q)~~ S~ 8:tti~ ~Q) ~;::+::
i-Glog E~~m>.~ m~~ ~.~ ;g~,
Q) E.e~IDt.t:: .<1>a~ ~~ ~>..-
1D n .0 8 Q) g.ta o.CU .Q.Iq :5 E c - 0 a:s - '0
~go Gl>~E ~~(J)OGl 0; (J) C
.__ ~mau~E~~~E 2~ID
~ m 2 u Q) ~ c: >. Q)"o "'E _ t::: ~~ ~ g :5
w!~ c:.~_CU=0.C:~0a:s u~ ~~5
~.2~ a:s~~EBE~oo~i!~ .Ou
E ::c ....... g ~ .8 JB $:'00'(3 ~ 5 0 - 0 >. Q)
'53a.g ~::::a:s'Q;~CU4>UEg> ~~ ~B~
~cu: ~i~~~j~~~'~ ~: IDQ)C
u~s 0 R8.~EgoC:Q)a:s CU'- .g~5
~'5~ ~gw~~~~~~~ ~~ ~.s~
~i~ri'E~.9'~EQ)~:3:Q)! uw 5t:::o!!!
c~Q)C:Q)Q).2u.~Ea:su~- a:s oJ 10...1
.2 ~ -'-ai.~ E::c -g:::: -g ~ ~ S ~ Q) (ij 8 g.~
~ 53 8 Q) a5 5 a a:s ~ Q) ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ >. ~ U5
g~~~~~!~~~~gE~ e~ <3:5g
~~~~cu.~~.~~~ea.~~ ~~ Q)~'E
wE'~"C~ES!~oEQ);u _.~ :5u~
:3:< ~c:u ou ~u e.c-u U.c c;Q)-
.9:! t::: Q) ~ () Q).2 a:s "0 - 0 0."5 <1l - C U ~
~~~~gc>ffi~E~~;~~ ~g> .~~~
~oe.9i~~~~~Q)~~: g~ !E~
cu"O~iJ::cQ)~~~~~'ffi0 .g& u!a:s
~i~~~~n-o"O~~:5~~Q)~ ~=E
JB!9 ~.~ g Q)~ m~~ ~ 8:.9 e~ .~~ 5.'~ 8
mis.~~:5E~~~cum~Q.Q)~g IDg~
-Err~~- _O~<1l="O!E~~ .c:+::rn
~ Q) 1:: 0.< JB = Q) c: 00 m ..... - CG ~ ..... m Q)
c:~=cu~.'-::J::'E~0~~'(3cB ~.2a
Q)Q)Q)c.m_~c:~o"O~oc>cQ).c -a..
EEuuuffi~Q Ni'5~:JgwO.~c..t
g.<( ; JB .~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ - l:T ~ eo e'ffi:€ c: CG ~
_ c: woO l:Tc'- c u ~:..=:5 >oc.c c: 0 Q) Q)
~~~~~e.QE~~~m&E~~Q)o~:5~
~~~SQ)~~~8.2oo~a:sJBOc::5~~o!
~Q)~~:5Q)~Ob~~~Q).-!~~~E~~
c2C>-c~GlGl~~~~Ei-Gl;::"OE~-
..=>~ C:OmE.c"-'Q)O(l)O oc._so~u
~"O~c<(1::~E~~E~S(/)~~lll$lll~~~
~~~~~&~8~~~~i~~.5~EQ>.~Q)~
CD ~ c..~:-2 e @ @ ~ ~ C) ~ en.gJ -; ~ ffi" B"E 2 g.s:
8~~E~cumCGgo~~SC~<1>~u'~~~Q)
~~o~~~~~~~~~m~.~~g&i~2;~
~ 5 ~o c: ~ & CG g-g.2'g cu.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s g.~
~:~~~iID!E~~~~o~~~.co'~~!.5
~~'~'E~a.mi!E~8~~goo~g~~~i
~~~~a~!~Q)8~~~.~~i~:'~~>E
~w~~~w~~S~OO~~~Cii<(~~~~g
0.. ...
STATE OF MINNESOTA - DOT
METRO RIGHT OF WAY
1500 W CO RD B2
ROSEVILLE. MN 55113 -3174
LYNN S KROISS &
STEPHEN J & MARTHA K KROISS
5605 ZUMBRA DR
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -7760
MICHAEL J & JENNIFER J HIDDING
8415 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7712
PATRICK J & LEE ANNE EASTMAN
8425 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7712
SCOTT & KRISTIN NEUMAN
8435 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7712
LEROY MCCARTY
8445 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7712
SCOTT A & MICHELLE M TORBORG
8455 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7712
PETER R & ANNE M VOAS
8450 MISSION HILLS CIR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7720
STATE OF MINNESOTA - DOT
395 JOHN IRELAND BLVD
631 TRANSPORTATION BLDG
ST PAUL, MN 55155 -1801
DAVID R & BRENDA M WITZIG
8465 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 .7712
DANIEL EASTMAN &
LEANNE DODDS
8451 MISSION HILLS CIR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7720
JEFFREY A GORRALL &
PATRICIA C GORRALL
8460 MISSION HILLS CIR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7720
KIMBERLEY THOMAS
8444 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7712
SCOTT R & STEPHANIE K RICH
8475 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7712
J CHARLES & BONNIE J EHLERS
8485 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7712
PATRICIA SILVA &
MICHAEL D MAULE
8464 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7712
CHIU & HUNG CHING CHAN
8470 MISSION HILLS CIR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 .7720
JOHN N & CAROLINE 0 HERBECK
8471 MISSION HILLS CIR
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7720
STATE OF MINNESOTA-DOT
395 JOHN IRELAND BLVD
MAILSTOP 631
ST PAUL, MN 55155 -1899
CHARLES J & ELAINE M EASTMAN
8480 MISSION HILLS CIR
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7720
ROBERT A & LISA K GAUVIN
460 MISSION HILLS CT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7714
RANDY V ROSETH &
PENNY P WHITE
450 MISSION HILLS CT
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7714
TONY L & PATRICIA J FERGUSON
8495 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7712
DALE E & RHONDA R TIREVOLD
8481 MISSION HILLS CIR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7720
MISSION HILLS GARDEN HOMES
2681 LONG LAKE RD
ROSEVILLE , MN 55113 -1128
CLINT R & JENNIFER J HURT
8491 MISSION HILLS CIR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7720
JOHN G & MARIGO N GEROGEORGE
470 MISSION HILLS CT
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7714
PATRICK S & CONSTANCE SULLIVAN
8500 MAYFIELD CT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7719
SCOTT E & SHANNON L FIEDLER
8511 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7713
DANIEL M & JANE A ZUREICH
8490 MISSION HILLS CIR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7720
RICHARD A SWANSON
8520 MAYFIELD CT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7719
BONITA R MENDEN
8504 MAYFIELD CT
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7719
KARLA K THOMSON
8524 MAYFIELD CT
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7719
RICHARD & EVELYN J KETTLER
8521 MAYFIELD CT
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -7719
CONNIE M MOEHL
8540 MAYFIELD CT
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7719
STEVEN M & TRACY A SCHEID
451 MISSION HILLS CT
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7714
JEFFREY G & LEA J NORDOS
461 MISSION HILLS CT
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7714
VERNON W & BARBARA L LINDEMANN
552 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7716
RAYMOND C ORTMAN JR
JULIANNE E ORTMAN
8525 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7713
MICHAEL S & STEPHANIE R DILLE
291 TIMBER HILL RD
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9129
SUSAN M DEAN
8525 MAYFIELD CT
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -7719
JOHN A & JUDITH A HRUBY
419 PORTSIDE DR
AMELIA ISLAND
FERNANDINA BEACH. FL 32034 -4841
DIANE M DEPOE
548 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7716
JOCELYNE RYAN
576 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -7716
LAUREL J BOSECK
592 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7716
MATTHEW L & KATHLEEN ALBRECHT
6220 CASCADE PASS
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9476
LAWRENCE 0 & NANCY E STEIN
8541 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7713
MARCELLA HOWE & JOYCE HANSON
TRUSTEES OF TRUST
596 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7717
GEORGE 0 STACY
584 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7716
SANDRA E GEVING
536 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7716
DANIEL T & KELLY A FASCHING
8550 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7713
HAROLD JR & POLLY L HARTIN
540 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716
SUSAN M HOAGLUND
588 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7716
MARCIA L JOSEPHSON
528 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715
PETER W & GLORIA JEAN WILCZEK
581 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -7716
ROGER A WAINWRIGHT
532 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -7715
NINA J KREIENBRINK
520 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7715
LYNETTE R LARSON
512 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7715
ARDIS M OLUFSON
565 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7716
RICHARD K & THERESA A HESS
8561 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -7713
NADINE N NELSON
484 FRISCO CT
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7718
VIRGINIA A WELLUMSON
585 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716
DALE E & BETTY HETLAND
524 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7715
GEORGE J CARLYLE &
JANELLE VEILLEUX CARLYLE
8560 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7713
CURTIS & PATRICIA BRANDON
516 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7715
VERNIS M STROM
569 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7716
MARY A AINSWORTH
508 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715
RUTH M THONANDER
549 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 .7716
LENORE J MOLSTAD
589 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716
JANEEN D LANDSBERGER
480 FRISCO CT
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7718
KATHY J MCKIM
533 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7715
VIOLA M COLLING HAM
573 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7716
VERLE R & BETTE M POFFENBERGER
593 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716
ERWIN C & CLARA M SIDER
553 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7716
SUNITAGANGOPADHYAY &
SHUBHAGAT GANGOPADHYAY
8571 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7713
RONALD S & BAR BRA T EWING
8570 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7713
BARBARA J WELLUMSON
577 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716
BONNIE JEAN THURK
537 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7716
GRACE REGALADO
525 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715
CAROL K GELDERT
557 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7716
BEVERLY E CHRISTENSEN
517 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7715
MONICA M GALUSKA
509 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 .7715
LYNETTE LAABS
541 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716
JUBA FAMILY 1989 TRUST
8788 JEWEL RIDGE AVE
LAS VEGAS, NV 89148 -1435
FRANK J HANISH &
CAREN SOENS
561 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716
ROBERT J ZINNEL
TRUSTEE OF TRUST
504 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7715
THOMAS J BOURNE
471 FRISCO CT
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7718
ADELINE R HARRIS
529 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7715
JAMES E PARISH
545 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7716
BERNARD M & JOANN C GAYTKO
521 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7715
JAMES A & MARILYN L CRAWFORD
8581 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7713
BRIAN M & DAWN M RODELL RILEY
8580 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7713
ROBERT C & SUSAN J ERICKSON
513 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN ,~MN 55317 -7715
JANET E BROWN
501 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7715
CARL P & VIRGINIA R PRIOR
500 MISSION HILLS DR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7715
ROSEMARY B WILL
475 FRISCO CT
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7718
KATHLEEN M JOHANNES
430 MISSION HILLS WAY E
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7705
JEAN M KAMRATH
434 MISSION HILLS WAY E
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7705
AMANDA C WINBLAD-VONWALTER
438 MISSION HILLS WAY E
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7705
MICHELLE J ERICKSON-CODY
442 MISSION HILLS WAY E
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -7705
JENNIFER RENKL Y
446 MISSION HILLS WAY E
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -7705
JOHN 0 & MARY JO EICHLER
TRUSTEE OF TRUST
25628 CORDOVA LN
RIO VERDE, AZ 85263 -7146
ntrC d
Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet)
Hurt Variance
Planning Case No. 05-32
8491 Mission Hills Circle
City of Chanhassen
Lake Susan
M
i
s
s
i
o
n
H
i
l
l
s
L
a
e
n
l
e
c
r
i
C
s
d
l
l
v
i
H
SUBJECT SITE
l
B
n
s o
n
i
M
s
i
s
a
a
i
l
y
M
P
f
Hills
Mission
i
t
e
a
Crt
l
e
d
r
C
G
r
t
1
M
0
i
1
i
H
s
l
l
s
W 86th St
n
y
s
D
o
w
i
r
i
o
.
s
H
s
n
i
M
M
H
i
s
s
i i
o
n
l
H
l
i
l
l
s
s
Fr
i
s
L
c
D
a
o
r
n
.
e
C
r
t
W 86th St
t
r
C
e
c
i
R
M
i
Marshland Trl
s
s
i
o
E
n
W
l
l
i
a
H
y
B
H
y
i
l
l
l
W
aMonk Crt
W
M
a
i
s
s
ion
c
H
k
b
e
i
r
d
a
C
r
r
t
t
l
a
trj
rn
~
~
C'"
to--"
m'
::r
(D
0.
S'
~
co
~
l\)
~
0)
o
: ::cl ~
~~ 0
p.Gi
> U5 t-j
<~
~t.L'j
~ :::0 '( "
C'D ~ V.1
Z ti r-i
o c:: '---i
5:z l' ~
~~ -<
::OZtIj
~ t::i ~
t.L'j (f) lfJ
~C
w~ n
0< 0
'"%j t-r:j ~
w ~ I-rI
~ 0 u
~ ~ ::r>
M(j)Z
~ ~
~ -..
"J:j t-t
Po> .-. Z
>< ~ Z l--I
Z~ ~ l-7
o-w ~
"0 n
Ol~ ~
cno~ .
01
leu
tuo
Oleo
~eu
s::
S"
::s
(t)
Po>
"C
o
m"
~
S.
::3
('I)
rJ)
o
(""t"
P->
CJ1
CJ1
rt:r--
l\j
CD
1M ~
~ ~
~ r;
M tpI
~ ~
::c ~
cU=
~ ~
r;
~
~
~
~
~
~.
M;
~.
Vp
~
~
~
~~~
f-'S" ~
o
~ r-3~
I-"S 0 (!)
~ ;l
n::J'<
o if)
C::r~
::J f-I.O
('"I- '"d (j
"< ~
_ ~ r+
j-..:.(t)
~~(y:)o...
S' ~.
::J ~::J
(!) !.J)
ifJ ::J UJ
o GO ([)
r+-(DO
OJ r+-
[\) ~.
(,00
~ ::J
/
- Z
~ --------------, ~
~ 1 {~
-- I ~ Q
~~ I I\;JN
~ ~ I ~ "'-~
-. ~ I S \JJ-
q ~ I \)J
~ I ~
a I ~
-- __...I
\}l
r--{
\'>> ~ ~
......... --: (j)
~ (j) (1)
() ........
Q; ~.
w
~
:-..I
(\\
en
~
~
--------~~
~
<,jt
------
(j)
~
(\\
ill
~
~I& -. ~
'1W -t;~,
"~i\
a ~
------\\.1---.
to
~
t'-..)
x
lD
Q
x-.J
lOx
Q
"-1
fD-.
~
;J
~
c:-\J
~~~
::::-: ::i'
<.(?I.b
~~
<n -c...
~
~
fD~~
"-:.
'l
~
~
. .
S OOQ 3l '4l fI W
~J~,~X~
-- - --
','...~ :~ ': .. .,~., ,~ ,
, " .. , '
'..... " . . .
~ ~p ~ -tf\, ~'.."~
. ~ ': \) \} '. ~ ,e. .
t.~ ~;. ~'"
.~ ~ , '. '" ..... ; ,.: ~".'-
'b.t1)'. ....b~~.~ ..'10:',.
~'.~,.;, "','
:'...:j . . to .'.
lD
~
\.u
tB.....
~
1O ::
~l, &< ~
, t'b
'Jl t'b
lD
~
\Jl
-~
v ,~ 1.-1+
Ie) f--l/l I...), " I
I~ P ~ l=+?
I I :pq I~l r--L
I I \ --L
~.: l/'L , I" ,.
j('\) : 0/ P
~. 'E......., ,5:L N
IJ lr r C\'-
q .,., '-i ~
I ,.-(',' I '"'""" ~ . I
nv-J.. .....J (jj
I '
I
,.6-
'.J
" '"
. .I!L'
lD
~ &<
~ ~ \J,
~
(l)
LD
~
C)
~ 0fB-
:: (;)
;t ::
a ~
~
~
::;:-i
(\
(ll
2GS.45
E
N OQ:>31'4l
--
~
~
~
~
lD
C)
;--J
1.J.)
(J)'lz
CJCo<
)>. 0
rz-
fTlon
... r-rl
~
z
II 9
w
o
o 0
~o c?
o C1> !l)
...., ~ ,
(0 0 0
X r-+- .-
() (1) ro
o (f) en
a:E :;-
r-+- 0 0
0'0 ::)
:)0..
~
o I 0
::J C :j
-0- c:
"< 3
If) (I)
(1) ::)
.-r- .-
6 t@a8
-1 ~ ~
~ a C)
gtQg-:3~ o~ ~ ~ ~
0.. Q ::..: coo ~ ::s ::J
a..o..U>-o ""'-0 0 0 0
() :S" S" r-r- g rg ~ (b m m-
o to LO 0" ro C (I) L/) lJ) r.n
:J (t) CL ;::;: 0.
~ "'D -0 UJ (J) -0 fT1
2 0" 0 g. 0- 0 LO C 0 ~"
() ::) ::J (1) S. -. b ~"O ~
c: IT Q ~ Ci UJ 0. R 0 ~.
g (1) ::) (1)~' 0 ~ (b ~ to
· a 0.. o..LO =: Q..
...., 0 0 fTl
(D 0..:f:5" CD"'" 0 fTl m
(1) M= -t'\ r.n (I) - . m <
Cb ~:::Yo r-t- :J < 0
~oo3 ~~ ~ ~ g:
~ -0 'D C !!. Cb 0" ::J
o :3 -0 !:': (l) :::s
c:t: Cb b ,g ~
O::J<
::J r-r- Cb
00..
....,
-i lJ "lJ Ll
'< ...., ...., ~
u 0 0 0
(b -0 -0 -0
o 0 0
o (f) U> U)
- (l) C'D (1)
0.. Q.. 0...
CD
~ b f{ c;-1
9: ~ b-o
~mtOo
.-r- (1) -.
2! IJ rn
o 0 0
o 0 (')
...., , ^
~
OJ
~
0..
o
o
<:
(D
~
n
~
()
E
Oi
~
I-J .
o
::;
[/1
~nr.l2~~ut:C~
pjO"dPJO)~OO
i--'::; 0 r+ ~ ~. ~ rT-
r.; (j ~ o' ~ ro U)
. r+ - ~ C'D II
II r.12 n II u). CJ 7'-. "'\
~ 0 ~'< II lV
l\) CJ c: CD.O _0
c:.o u' ~ GJ 0 II ~ Ul
!-l. c-+- U c..o co
II [/1 ~ l--'- OJ CJl
U) II ~ ~ - OJ
~~ o~ rn
~ ru [\j ~.., '2 CIJ. ~
r+ 0 ,~ ~ () c..u t-O
~ 1+ l-l'" H-:.
1+ If} C.D r-J rt2 H, c-+-
~ -..l II ...0 1+ 1+
~[f1 H,
...-+ f""l 7''' c:-+-
i+~ ~I+
~ tV
1+ rt2
~
I-f)
r--
1+
I-[j~
(i) 0
~ c-'-
() PJ
rn I-oot
~~
OJ PJ
~ ~
roO-.
(j
II ~
com
['0~
N II
~
(],)
OJ
l:\)
~
cn
~
H,
r+
1+
tJ
<'U
c-+-
0)
I-' .
~
~
(Q
~
8,
8-
H
....-J
0-0
~
~
......
[12
MMZCfl~U) ~rfJZ
PJ ~ 0 0 (t) trj ...-. ~ ~
~L/'iU'1~~[f1 ~CL
::JrT-r+-c-+-cr+O(D~::r::~
~!-l OPJrooo
mOO 0 ~ ~ C
!20 ~ H, 0 0 !--+'::J ~ c::
~ H') -c:::; en ef)
~ [J](f) 'UJ~ a~ m (t)
S u ~ en CJ1"U ~
(D~~~~~::r:::c
,....(+r+-oor+OO~l--'-J--l.
~ ;1;1 ~~r-0Jl--'-
() (J (""] r.n rn (;t
:J;>O 0 Ono CD (1) efl
...,c~oo~ [/)..0
~ ~;1 S ~ ;1. l\) ['J .0 H')
.. I-.;l 0 ()1 r+-
r+- r+- ~ 1+
t---"' (Jl ~ r+-
eo (Jl CD CO C)l [f) (fl 1+
0, C.l1 ~j (;,...0 ..0
r.f1 ()l t-+.> ~
Ui ..0 r.f'l rn.;+- rt-
~ ..orn~I+I+
~ ~...o
~ r+-(--i- ~
1+ 1+ 1+ ~ 1+
1+
--3
o
c-+-
~
~
(f)
c-+
0)
S'
5'
(]q
~
~
ifJ
N
CD
f--'o
(f}
...0
~
r+-
1+
o
:<! C/') :D
6 J., m
.,,- .\:) 0
~, I-' m
):> ~ ......,
2. <
::J: ~ m
)> c:::J ~
en c..n ~
en
m
:z
U)
to"
:)
C'O
0..
r
o
r+-
OJ
to
1--.1
o
o
~
[\J
~
~
~
UJ.
~
C1
r
tIj
Z
~OO~-o-i
_. () (1) ~:J
O-o(J) 0(0
!::: C:::Y ~ ,
0-0:2(1) (LO
::J ::s (t)' (1):J
0- ~ (l) Q..,-<
"0 IT
-"'0'< 0-
--,.. ,<C'O
o () 0
=~(1) en
::Y:4- ~ C'O
o-CD~ n>3
c '< ::s C'O
=.: 0- ;+- ::J
0.. 0 rr ....-1-
-. C :J (fJ
~:::so
1.O c.. r-+- en
(J)o ::J
,....-1- 0
g (b"?: ~
0.. UJ u> ::J
< 0 w" 0
00' ~ ~
_. ,..,. 0
O":::T" -.
~ m 2" b
mO(l) :3
::JO-
n 0 0: -0
~<:J -
g me. ~
n a. () U>
::J Cl) 0 0
:3 (J) , ~
mO"'"
::3 :J, (1) ,
~ 0- () (l)
(J)(t)rt- ()
~ Q.. 0
_ . (D 0..'
-,., --0
0,
o ::J (1) 0
:) Q.. U> '
'< (1)
~ o:J -.
_:::s 0 ~
, a..-r- 0
o -. '
3........0 :3
:::T" ::) 0
(1) r-+-
o 0 -.
~ -n 0
:J
o
::s
~
c_
C
'0-<:
~,..)
o
o
(Jl
o
"""
o
~
::J
CD
'<
~
~
I
~
(1)
Z
Q
:3
(1)
:3
l.O
I
OJ
I
~
a-
o
01
01
::-!
::J
<
'-J
N
1O
(J1
Q
~
l.O
C) 0
...., ::J
Cb 0
LO :l.
o ('t)
~ l.J)
::;u ~
lJ 5-
...., Q..
o (0
(f) ~
() l.J)
:::Y 0
.. ~
s:
-. s::
::J _.
::J ~
. :::J
::;u
('[) :;0
t.C ('t)
. LC
z'
o z
. 0
N
~ N
c..o ~
CD '-J
N (J1
L-J
o
"\
CD
o
~
z
Z
m
a
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 18, 2005
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Uli Sacchet, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, Kurt Papke, and Jerry
McDonald
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Dan Keefe and Deborah Zorn
STAFF PRESENT:
Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Josh Metzer, Planner I; and Alyson
Morris, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AFTER THE FACT HARD SURFACE
COVERAGE AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A SPORT COURT ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8491 MISSION HILLS CIRCLE. APPLICANT, CLINT &
JENNIFER HURT, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-32.
Public Present:
Name Address
Vern Lindemann 552 Mission Hills Drive
Clint & Jennifer Hurt 8491 Mission Hills Circle
Jane Zureich 8490 Mission Hills Circle
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks. Questions from staff. Any questions? Not at this time? Alright, do we have
an applicant here? If you want to come forward. State your name and address for the record and
why don’t you tell us a little bit of what’s going on here from your point of view. And you may
want to take that microphone in front of you.
Jennifer Hurt: I’ll take it all the way down here. I’m used to that. Well first of all we want to
thank you for listening to our request. We want you to know that obviously we’re in a little bit
of a bind.
Sacchet: So you are Clint and Jennifer Hurt.
Jennifer Hurt: Yes, I’m Jennifer Hurt. This is Clint Hurt.
Sacchet: Just to be clear, thank you.
Jennifer Hurt: Yes, sorry forgot. Anyhow we now know that our Sport Court, which was built
in May of 2005 is not in compliance with city code. When we hired our contractor back in May
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
of 2005 he assured us that he would be taking care of everything for us, including checking in
with you to make sure that we were in compliance with the city. We felt confident that the work
would be done in accordance with the city but we were let down. We want you to know that we
would have never built the Sport Court had we known this would be in violation of city code, but
now we have to deal with the fact that we have a court that is way too big and that’s why we’re
applying for this variance. So what we’re requesting is a 4.4% hard surface coverage variance
and also a 5 foot side yard setback variance. We plan to remove 8 feet off of the south side of
the Sport Court, which is 320 square feet total. We will also remove a concrete slab that we had
planned on putting a shed, which is 120 square feet and we will also be removing 128 ½ total
square feet of retaining wall. So we have 16 letters from neighbors who support us and have
benefited from our Sport Court as part of our neighborhood. Several children in our
neighborhood have also used the Sport Court. We take comfort in knowing that our children are
in our back yard rather than a mile away or still playing in a park. While the parks are fun to
visit, the closest park to us is Rice Marsh Lake, which is accessible via walking trail but it’s
approximately a mile away. And we also have Lake Susan Park which is the park we visit
frequently but we have to cross over Highway 101 and in the very near future here we know that
Highway 101 is not going to be a safe thing to cross. So, let’s see our intent of installing the
Sport Court was not to increase the value of our home but rather provide a safe place for children
to play close to our house.
Clint Hurt: My wife being short I’ve got to always lift things up. We’ve also, my name is Clint
Hurt. We also went over to the town houses and actually I talked with several of the people right
in the existing that actually overlook our Sport Court, and by going with them you know we also,
we’re showing a willingness to take care of that, the setback, or the 8 foot. Cutting off the 8 off
the back would actually you know take the town houses and put everything on that back side. In
doing, talking so I did talk with two of the board members. I also talked with several of the
occupants there that a lot of them were just saying why can’t you just leave it all in you know,
it’s for the kids. There’s nothing better than to hear children laughing. It’s also nice to see the
kids playing somewhere not in the streets, and being a nurse I take care of kids you know and it’s
stuff that we don’t like to see happen when kids get hit by cars. This is exactly how we feel. We
absolutely love our Sport Court and we love seeing the kids play back there. It takes them off
the streets and puts them in a safe area. By also taking off that 8 feet off the back, we’re actually
making it so we aren’t able to play tennis anymore, which we already were able to do, so now
what we actually can do is, we can actually play 3 on 3 basketball without crowding each other.
We can Rollerblade on it with you know several kids on it. We can play volleyball. We can
play badminton. We can ice skate on it with the kids in the wintertime too. Keeping kids off the
streets is our main thing. We feel by cutting the Sport Court down to the allotted size that it says,
we wouldn’t be able to have as much fun on it and also we wouldn’t be able to allow as many
kids on the Sport Court at one time to keep that safe also. So please consider our request.
Sacchet: Thank you. Do we have any questions for the applicants? Alright, yep go ahead Jerry.
McDonald: I’ve got one. One of the things I read through here was, I guess you’re real reluctant
to want to, either to take it out or cut it down but what harm would it do to cut down the size of it
so it is in compliance. I mean you’ve got quite a bit area there and even if you were to cut down
2
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
a little bit more, there’s still more than enough area to play basketball on and those types of
things.
Clint Hurt: If we cut it down to the size that it’s, what it is. Wouldn’t have a, wouldn’t be able
to play volleyball. Wouldn’t be able to ice skate. Wouldn’t be able to Rollerblade. Keep the
kids off the you know streets.
Jennifer Hurt: I think in addition it’s, you know it’s somewhat of a financial burden for us. I
mean we invested this money and put this into a Sport Court. Now we have to take it out. I
mean I understand that there are certain rules and regulations and we did break those rules and
again it’s not something that we intended to do. You know like I said if we had, going all back
before this all started we would have never considered something like that but now we are stuck
in the situation and it would be a bit of a financial burden. I mean it’s already cutting, we’re
cutting off a decent chunk at the end of it so that we’re in compliance with the easement on the
townhouse side. On the south side of our court. And if we are to cut as much as we are
supposed to cut so that we can reach that 25% hard surface coverage, we’re cutting our court in a
little bit less than half of what it is.
McDonald: Okay, let me ask you a question about the contractor. When he put this together
were there guarantees that he was going to take care of all the permits and had he dealt with the
city before?
Clint Hurt: …times to make sure that he was going to talk with the council or whoever it was
here to check with any zoning or regulations or rules that we’d actually have to go through and
he said that he’d take care of everything for us.
McDonald: Okay, have you talked to him about any of the costs if you have to comply with the
ordinance?
Clint Hurt: We will have to do that yes. We have talked with him and he’s willing to work with
us but it’s.
Jennifer Hurt: It’s still going to be, we’ve invested the money and I don’t think we’re getting it
back.
Sacchet: So at least it won’t cost you more to change it.
Jennifer Hurt: It won’t cost us more but it sure wouldn’t have cost us so much to begin with.
Sacchet: It wouldn’t have cost you so much in the first place.
Jennifer Hurt: Right, because we pay by square footage.
Sacchet: Any other questions Jerry?
McDonald: No.
3
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
Sacchet: Actually I’d like to add on that a little bit. I mean are there any other possibilities to
reduce this hard cover?
Jennifer Hurt: Well I guess if there are suggestions from you we’d certainly would consider that
and.
Papke: Have you considered making a level grass area? Some people do play tennis on grass
courts for instance which would be permeable.
Jennifer Hurt: Okay, we haven’t thought of that.
Metzer: There’s some patio area they could possibly…some sidewalk area up front. That’d be
an option for me to, obviously some is still going to have to be removed from the Sport Court to
comply but.
Sacchet: It’s a pretty sizeable driveway. Almost 1,500 square feet and then there’s the walk
through porch. Maybe some of that could be made impervious.
Jennifer Hurt: Take off the driveway?
Sacchet: Well you need a driveway.
Jennifer Hurt: Well, not really.
Clint Hurt: Just got to shorten it up.
Larson: Or narrow it.
Jennifer Hurt: Narrow it.
Sacchet: And where do you need the side yard variance? Is that to the.
Jennifer Hurt: It appears as though we have the.
Metzer: That’d be the side.
Jennifer Hurt: Right.
Sacchet: So with what you take out to the, I guess that’s to the south. There you wouldn’t need
it on the south side but you would need it on the west side.
Jennifer Hurt: And on the south side we’re complying with the south side. It’s the west side that
we are asking for a variance as well.
Larson: Is that a 3 car garage you have?
4
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
Jennifer Hurt: Yes.
Larson: What if you were to make it closer to 2 car? Well, it kind of looks like it already is but,
you could make it quite narrow and then just at the very end scoot it over so you can get, you
know you could park in front of it if you needed to or whatever but. We’d like to work with you
on this.
Jennifer Hurt: Thank you. Appreciate that.
Sacchet: It looks like you have huge support from all the neighbors.
Jennifer Hurt: We do.
Sacchet: Did any of the neighbors have any reservations?
Jennifer Hurt: Reservations? No. Not that we’re aware of.
Sacchet: It seems like everybody is just.
Jennifer Hurt: Well we love it. I mean we.
Clint Hurt: …the retaining wall and everybody loves the boulder wall on one side.
Sacchet: Now you’re talking about taking out the retaining walls, most of them. What impacts
will that have on your?
Clint Hurt: On one side we actually have to come in with a grader. Hire a grading contractor
and actually be sloped off.
Sacchet: So you have to slope it a little bit, yeah.
Jennifer Hurt: But we met with Dan Remer, the city engineer when we met with Josh and we
talked about that and…
Sacchet: It can be sloped and…
Jennifer Hurt: …when it was originally and he said that would be fine. We didn’t finish it.
When we moved into this house 2 years ago it was obviously already built. There was a
previous owner there and she never finished off that back part so that was ideal to us because we
had plans of either putting a pool or a Sport Court back there so we thought well great, we don’t
have to rip up a bunch of sod and you know whatever else would have been back there.
Landscaping.
Clint Hurt: And I mean there was a lot of, I mean weeds and stuff like that so it’s taking control
over really our back yard.
5
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
Jennifer Hurt: Our neighbors are thrilled to see that it’s better than weeds that’s back there.
Larson: It’s beautiful. I mean there’s no doubt that it’s really.
Undestad: Is there, Josh is there, you back up to some townhomes and I noticed one of the
letters in here was from the neighboring association or something. Is there other, I mean is there
common areas out there in the townhomes or in that neighborhood that could be offset or
mitigated somehow with hard surface?
Metzer: We, you know we can’t do a hard surface easement. I don’t think we do that. I guess it
would have to come down to a sale of property to pick up land with the homeowners association.
Al-Jaff: Mission Hills has a totlot. That’s part of the homeowners association for Mission Hills.
Not part of.
Undestad: So there isn’t really any outlots or anything that they’d have an opportunity to buy a
piece of.
Al-Jaff: I can’t think of any.
Jennifer Hurt: To make up for extra land so it comes down our hard surface coverage.
Sacchet: And you said the contractor is not really willing to give anything back.
Jennifer Hurt: The contractor is willing to.
Sacchet: But he’s willing to help you at least not incur more costs.
Jennifer Hurt: Well he’ll take it out for us, you know.
Clint Hurt: He won’t be refunding anything.
Jennifer Hurt: He’s not going to be refunding any money to us and we’ve paid 90% of it.
Sacchet: I mean he did assure you that he would check and he’s.
Jennifer Hurt: Yes, and he’s well aware of the fact that he did assure us of that.
Sacchet: You’d have to have some leverage there.
Jennifer Hurt: We do.
Sacchet: Any other questions? No? Alright.
Jennifer Hurt: Thank you.
6
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
Sacchet: This is a public hearing. I’d like to open that. If anybody wants to comment, please
come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say.
Vern Lindemann: Good evening. I’m Vern Lindemann. I’m the President of Mission Hills
Garden Homes Association. The commons property that abuts the property in question here, and
let me give you a little background here. I don’t know who’s planning was involved in this Sport
Court or whatever the situation was but there wasn’t a lot of thought given to the neighborhood
impact when that was put in. No one talked to any of us ahead of time as to what we would
think about it. The Sport Court is very, very close to two bedroom windows of two of our
townhomes. As a matter of fact one of the residents has since sold because she could not put up
with the noise of the banging, of tennis balls of the Sport Court. He echo’s up the hill. It is very
noisy. I live and I realize this isn’t a noise issue but it is an issue of planning. When they put in
that court, they were running cement trucks on our private streets. We are a townhome
association. We own all the streets. We own all the utilities in our association. Cement trucks
were running down our streets. I had to actually kick them out and tell them they had to use the
city streets because of the weight restriction on our streets. No one asked us about that. And
we’re kind of thinking this is one of those situations where some people think it’s better to ask
for forgiveness than permission. And I heard the folks before me say that all the neighbors are in
favor of it. That is absolutely not true. The two townhome owners that are closest to the court
are definitely not in favor of it. They talked to board members, myself included. We refused to
sign the petition. I brought it to the townhome board and I’d like to have you, I’d like to read a
letter from the townhome board to the city. I believe you have a copy of that. It has come to the
attention of the Mission Hills Garden Homes Board of Directors that the property owners
recreational improvement at 8491 Mission Hills Circle, Chanhassen, Minnesota is in violation of
city codes. The Board is also aware that the owner of that property has been canvassing the
residents of Mission Hills Garden Homes for petition signatures to gain support for allowing a
variance to the city code. The Mission Hills Garden Homes Board of Directors wish to make it a
matter of record with the City of Chanhassen planning department that the property bordering on
the improvements at 8491 Mission Hills Circle borders on the property owned by Mission Hills
Garden Homes Association. While the border in question is closest to 520 and 528 Mission Hills
Drive, it is the Board’s position that any request for variance should be addressed to the Mission
Hills Garden Homes Association and not to individual residents. It is also the position of the
Mission Hills Garden Homes Board of Directors that the City of Chanhassen not allow the
property owner at 8491 Mission Hills Circle a variance to city code due to the overall impact on
property at Mission Hills Garden Homes. I think the City, my personal view is, I think the City
of Chanhassen has done a phenomenal job in the planning and building of the community. I
think it would be a mistake to give a variance to deviations from code after the fact rather than
having somebody apply before they put it in. Now I don’t know who’s fault it was, the
contractor’s or the homeowners, okay. I as a homeowner know that if I put something in, if I’m
going to do some improvement to my property, common sense tells me that I check with the city
and make sure that the contractor, because I as a homeowner I believe have the ultimate
responsibility for adhering to codes. The contractor does not, okay. And so I just think it’s, we
run into this. Mission Hills Garden Homes, we’re a microcosm of the City of Chanhassen. Our
Board of Directors is like City Council and the whole thing. We run into this all the time.
Where somebody does something and then wants a variance or permission and we have found
7
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
that every time we do that we get bit in the back end down the line by somebody who’s, we have
a person right now that’s saying, if you don’t let me do what everybody else has done, I’m going
to sue you for discrimination. Okay. So when you back off from good codes and you allow
variances because of poor planning in advance, I think it is a mistake and I think the variance
should be denied.
Sacchet: I’ve got a question. The townhomes you’re talking about are directly adjacent to the
south?
Vern Lindemann: I’m sorry.
Sacchet: The townhomes you’re representing are directly to the south.
Vern Lindemann: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. Just want to be clear.
Vern Lindemann: And our commons property abuts that property.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay.
Vern Lindemann: And the individual homeowners in Mission Hills Garden Homes do not have,
the individual homeowners do not have control of their property. As commons property and any
individual homeowner other than noise and nuisance or any other, really does not have unless
they come to our board and present their case. I don’t believe they have standing in suggesting a
variance on our property line.
Sacchet: Alright. I think you made yourself pretty understood. Thank you very much.
Anybody else wants to address this item? Please come forward. State your name and address
for the record. Let us know what you have to say.
Jane Zureich: Hi. My name is Jane Zureich and I live at 8490 Mission Hills Circle so I am Jen
and Clint’s next door neighbor and I am the property that will be directly affected by this
variance.
Sacchet: So you’re to the west?
Jane Zureich: I’m directly to the west. It’s a shared property line that the variance would be the
requested on. Once they fix the easement issue takes that back 8 feet off and are in compliance
with the 8 feet on the south side, it is the east side of their property line only that would be
requesting the variance. That is my property line. When we first moved into that property in
2002, as Jen and Clint mentioned, it was not, they had done nothing to the property. They had
brought the sod up not even to where their Sport Court starts now and it, when Clint says it was
weeds, in the summer it was waist high weeds. I could lose my 3 year old in the waist high
weeds. Jen and Clint immediately upon moving in, Clint mowed the lawn. I would say, I don’t
know, 100-200 mice came out of that property. So the fact that they have done this to this is an
8
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
immense improvement on that property from where it was before. You can’t even compare it to
where it was before. They could have I guess chosen to sod the land, but it’s an unusual property
in that it’s very deep. Both of our yards are very deep. Their’s is even deeper than our’s are, so
to have it sodded, yes that was probably an option but it’s a unique piece of property that really
lends itself very well to this Sport Court. I mean it really lends itself well to having something
there for you to use. So I’m kind of in, we absolutely, we’ve taken full advantage. They are
very, very open and welcoming with using the Sport Court. I mean we’ve used it quite a bit this
summer, along with a lot of our other neighbors. We have a 3 year old and a 5 year old and I’d
much rather see my 3 year old and 5 year old out in the back playing basketball, trying to play
basketball, than out in the street and things like that. I mean we do live in a cul-de-sac but we
have no sidewalks in the cul-de-sac. You know it’s gotten to the point where I send my kids,
because we don’t have sidewalks and I’m like, go play in the street and then I’m, what am I
saying? Telling the kids to go play in the street. Go play in their yard. Much better. So you
know to say, and the issue about asking about them to reduce it in size, I do think taking the back
8 feet off is going to be, that’s a manageable reduction in size. I do think if they have to cut it in
half, it’s really not going to be, they’re not going to be able to use it to the full effect. Or really
to that great of an effect. We’re the ones where the retaining wall right now butts up to our
property line. As soon as they remove that from there and then grade it so that it’s a slope, it’s
not going to even be, it’s going to be at least 4 or 5 feet away from our property line, which we
were even happy with the rock wall because as I said, anything was an improvement over what
was there before. I don’t feel, I agree that everything in a perfect world and everything would
have gone a, b, c, d and they would have had the variance beforehand and had all the permits that
they were supposed to have, that would have been obviously the optimal solution. I don’t feel
like you’re setting a precedence because as I mentioned, this is a unique piece of property. Who
else has the amount of space that they have to even put something like this on their property?
But even beyond that, even beyond because there are properties in Chan who do have that kind
of space. It is a unique property that I don’t feel that people are out there going, clamoring for
Sport Courts and this is going to set a unusual, awkward precedence. I think that if they have to
take it out, it’s going to make it a very, almost funny looking piece of, I’d rather have a full Sport
Court as my next door neighbor trying to sell my house, even to somebody who doesn’t have
kids, then I would to have a funny cut up thing. Right now it’s a beautiful Sport Court. I mean
as you see in the pictures, it’s beautiful. So it’s, do I think it’s going to affect my property value?
Absolutely not. Never. I don’t think it’s going to have any negative impact on my property.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Jane Zureich: Sure.
Sacchet: Anybody else wants to address this item? Seeing nobody getting up, I’m closing the
public hearing. Bring it back to the commission for discussion or comments. Kurt, you ready?
Papke: I’ll get the ball rolling. Couple points. First of all in terms of precedence setting. I
st
noticed that on our November 1 meeting we have two cases for hard surface coverage
variances, one of which is after the fact, so to have those two follow immediately on the heels of
this one I think is a tough spot. So I’m very sensitive to that precedent setting issue. I’m also
concerned with the environmental sensitivity to the area. This is very close to Lake Susan. Very
9
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
close to the creek and I think we have to be cautious of variance in environmentally sensitive
areas. The, my real concern is I think the applicants have come into this with the best of
intentions, and I’m starting to question whether our zoning compliance process that we put into
place, what was it 2 years ago? When, Sharmeen do you know when we started doing this?
Al-Jaff: It was about 2 years ago.
Papke: I’m questioning whether it’s working because you know we’re starting to get some
issues here that seem like people aren’t getting the message somehow properly. I don’t know if
it’s confusing people. People come in and say well do I need a building permit? No, you don’t
need a building permit so I think maybe they’re leaving saying well, I’m good to go. But there’s
this zoning compliance thing that we’re not, it was intended to catch exactly these situations and
it doesn’t so regardless of the outcome tonight, I think we need to take a serious look at that and
see, what can we do because I think they have the best of intentions it sounds like. A good
number of the neighbors are in support of this but because of all the issues, I’m not in favor of
approving this.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Jerry, you want to jump in?
McDonald: Yeah. First of all I did go out and I did check out the Sport Court and looked at it
and I have to admit that you’ve done quite a bit with your back yard. Yeah, it probably is a fun
place for kids to play and all of that. The problem we get into, you talk about precedence. If we
do this, there is another case within your same neighborhood that we turned down oh about 4-5
weeks ago and it was, it wasn’t a Sport Court but it was patios. So this will set a precedence and
it will set a precedence throughout the entire city. And before I came onto this I have to admit I
would have probably been more in favor of this because I am a person that believes in, it’s your
property. You should be able to do with it as you please. However what I have come to learn
over the past 6 months, and I’ll deviate a little bit. I got involved in, out in Woodbury a week
and a half ago. They had a serious flood out there and part of the problem was the City of
Woodbury. There were 3 systems that failed. The particular client that I ended up talking to
swamped out his basement all the way up to the top step. Total basement was wiped out. The
reason why was because of a non-compliance with zoning laws. A drainage ditch had been
covered up. Created a dam. Construction was going on. Debris flowed over into the main
culvert and it just continued to cascade from there. The people of Woodbury were going after
the City of Woodbury. They wanted a redress for all of this. They were blaming the city and the
city may or may not have some liability. That’s something that would be determined if we ended
up going to court. But the point of what that begins to show me is that it’s very important, these
zoning requirements are there for a reason. Especially whenever we talk about water, ponding,
drainage ditches, they’re all there. Everything is designed for a reason. Your back yard is
basically a bowl. If it were to flood, and I went out there and looked at it and tried to see where
the drainage patterns go and…it’s going to go right into her back yard. That’s going to go right
into her house.
Jane Zureich: Actually it’s been better since the Sport Court went in. We’ve had less of a wet
back yard since it went in than we did before. It changed, we actually have better drainage now.
10
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
McDonald: Well that, I’ll agree with you to a point but the thing is, I’ve seen it happen and we
just haven’t had the kind of flooding that could occur, and once that happens, the first place
you’re going to come is you’re going to come after the City because why didn’t we enforce
something. Or you’re going to go after your neighbors and you’re going to want to sue them for
creating a problem. The point is, is that these are put there for a reason and it’s not so much to
impede upon your use of your property. Your property is just one of many pieces that connect to
form a subdivision or a group of homes where people live. What you do on your property can
affect others, 2, 3, 4 houses away. Sometimes blocks away so there is a reason for this. I do
share the concern that you’re the second one I’ve dealt with. Contractor said they were going to
take care of everything and nothing was done. I’m a little concerned that our zoning compliance
isn’t working. I share your concern there. Something should be done because to find these
things after the fact, we are now going to impose a great burden upon the homeowner. Not only
do you lose the benefit of what you thought you had, but you may incur additional costs in the
process of complying with the zoning codes. Is that fair to you? No. I’ll be the first one to say
it’s not. But unfortunately you are ultimately responsible for compliance with zoning codes.
Anything with the contractor is a separate issue. It’s not the City’s job to go after these
contractors. I mean based upon all of that and the fact that I feel very strongly about the issue of
precedence and also about the issue of water flow and drainage and ponding and all of this, I
cannot support this. What I would suggest is, and I know in the other case they have worked
with staff to try to come up with solutions. There are a number of things that you can do. We’re
not asking you to give up your driveway, but there are other things you can do to your driveway.
You can make it a porous surface. There are other things to do. It comes down to how bad do
you want the Sport Court and what are you willing to do to offset it. Any offset to keep the Sport
Court, my suggestion would be your contractor should pay for it. But that’s between you and
your contractor. I do believe that we have to enforce this hard coverage surface code and
because of that I could not support it.
Sacchet: Give it a shot?
Undestad: Just have a question. Again I agree with everything you’re saying here. The zoning
ordinances are put in place for this but just a question. What if 2 or 3 or 4 neighbors all wanted
to get together and put in a Sport Court in one location?
Al-Jaff: If they meet requirements.
Undestad: So it would still come down to that lot that.
Metzer: It has to be on one lot and has to meet side yard, rear yard setbacks. And they’d better
pick a neighbor that has the least amount of hard cover to begin with.
Undestad: That’s all I have.
Al-Jaff: Typically we see these type of sites with planned unit developments or as a townhome
or subdivision comes in. Ashling Meadows is a good example. They have a swimming pool.
They have, I think there is a Sport Court out there, so the developer plans it in advance.
11
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
Undestad: One more. The boulder wall over in the west property line, that’s affecting the
drainage right now? That’s in that drainage easement? That’s why that boulder wall would
have to come out, is that it?
Metzer: This is the west property line here. Outlined in black.
Larson: Is that considered an improvement? In rocks.
Metzer: I’m not aware what the drainage was beforehand. Well I don’t know, apparently Dan
was okay with the removal of that lawn and berming.
Sacchet: I mean that does bring an interesting aspect. I mean the contractor having slipped with
the hard coverage is one thing but putting a retaining wall on the property line, I mean he didn’t
care a bit about any regulations. I mean everybody knows that we have setback requirements for
something we build. I mean something is definitely way off. Do you have anything else to add?
Larson: Yeah, I just, like I say it’s a lovely Sport Court but like Jerry had mentioned, these 20
year, or 100 year rain events that we’re getting, I’ve been in my home over 20 years. Never had
flooding and all of a sudden this year we’re having flooding and so your homes, your
neighborhood is quite a lot newer than where I live but who’s to say at some point this is going
to happen. You know where it’s all going to, I don’t know if it’s the settling or if it’s things fill
up or whatever but the environmental impact eventually may catch up to you. I personally
would like to see maybe if you can work with the city and see if you really want to keep this, you
know comply with what you said you would do on the Sport Court but then also see what else
you can maybe thin down your driveway or something and get it into that 25%. There are
options and maybe you can just look at some of those.
Jennifer Hurt: Okay so you’re saying though that if we take off, if we don’t take off in the back
but we take off in the front of it, that’s going to somehow affect the flooding issues? That
doesn’t make sense to me.
Larson: The whole purpose of having this coverage on your property is how much water will
actually go into the ground versus running off and going elsewhere and that’s where the issue
comes in and a lot of people don’t quite understand why that is but it really affects an entire
neighborhood. It affects the lakes, the ponds and everything. And so that’s why that
requirement is put in there because it’s really to protect you and to protect your neighbors.
Vern Lindemann: Could I make a comment here?
Sacchet: If it’s real brief because we’re really beyond comments here.
Vern Lindemann: Oh okay then. That’s okay. I was going to…drainage in the last heavy rain
we had, we had rivers running down into the drainage pond down there and a lot of the neighbors
rocks formed up…
Sacchet: Yeah, let’s keep the discussion up here at this point, if that’s alright.
12
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
Larson: So that’s all I had.
Sacchet: You know it’s an interesting situation. On one hand I’d like to be the good guy but
that’s not our role here. As a Planning Commission, as I stated in my opening remarks, our task
is to look at to what extent do the issues that are brought before the city comply with ordinance
and regulations. And when it comes to variances, we have a very clear set of standards that we
are to apply. The first one is does it cause a hardship? And that’s not a very fluffy type of
definition of hardship. It’s very clearly defined in the city code that a hardship means if you
cannot use the property in the way that property’s in the surrounding 500 or so feet are being
used, which in this case is to have a single family residence with at least a 2 car garage and you
have that. The addition of Sport Court is not a hardship. Then we have to look at, is it
applicable to other properties? The precedence thing which we heard several commissioners
already express concern, and it is a very big concern because we’ve come across this hard
coverage situation on a regular basis. It comes up a couple times a year at least. And it’s hard
when it’s after the fact. It does set a precedent and from our position at the commission, our aim
has to be to treat everybody the same. If we give him one, then we have to give another two, and
as Kurt you pointed out, we’re going to have similar cases come in front of us within a few
weeks, so that has to have some weight. Does another aspect that we have to look at, does it
increase the property value? Now obviously you didn’t do it for that purpose but the fact is it
does increase it. It’s a nice amenity to have. And then a very important thing that we also have
to look at is it self created. Is it self created? And that’s really a sticky thing because if we do
something and we don’t know the consequences, does that mean it’s not self created? You know
it’s a little bit like if we don’t know that the red light at the light on the street means we have to
stop and we go across and we get hit, it doesn’t mean we didn’t self create it, and that’s tricky. I
mean not knowing about something doesn’t take that out, that it’s self created. And then another
aspect, is it detrimental to public welfare? And as the discussion as we just had about the
impervious limitation is very directly linked with the public welfare, so if you look at these
things, then the last point that we have to look out is does it impair adequate light and the
adjacent properties, which it doesn’t. But if we look at this list of criteria that by ordinance
we’re supposed to look at, you’re really only coming out alright on one of them, and all the
others ones you come at best questionable. Or not good at all so if we go by the letter of the law,
we really don’t have a choice. We have to deny this. However, I do want to point out that you
can bring this in front of City Council and City Council does have the leeway to go beyond just
the letter of the law. In this group here we have a little bit of leeway but not quite that much. So
that is a little bit another aspect here to look at. Let me see whether I have something else there.
I would be willing to support the side yard setback variance based on the immediately neighbor
not having an issue with it, and that does not quite have the same weight. But with impervious, I
really feel very clear that I cannot support that. However, you have options to work around that.
You could reduce the impervious surface in your driveway. Maybe you could do something with
your walkways or patio type of things. Not get rid of them but make them permeable. I mean
there are ways to do it so I think there are alternatives that you could explore that you find a
balance and also we do have to also acknowledge the neighborhood association making a pretty
strong point that not everybody is in support of it. As a matter of fact there have been some
people that have an issue with the noise level, which I can understand. I mean you have kids.
You like to hear them out there having fun and there’s somebody in the condo next door that
13
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
their kids are grown or never had kids or what and they want the quiet. So you know, it’s just
life in the neighborhood. But I think I talked enough. If anybody wants to add anything further
or we can make a motion.
Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission denies Variance #05-32 for a
4.5% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction
and a 5 foot side yard setback variance for the addition of a sport court on a lot zoned Single
Family Residential based upon the findings in the staff and the following. Number 1. The
applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. Number 2. The property owner has reasonable use
of the property. The Planning Commission orders the property owner to remove sufficient
impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements.
McDonald: I second Mr. Chairman.
Sacchet: We have a motion. We have a second.
Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #05-32
for a 4.5% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage
restriction and a 5 foot side yard setback variance for the addition of a sport court on a lot
zoned Single Family Residential based upon the findings in the staff and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property.
The Planning Commission orders the property owner to remove sufficient impervious surface to
comply with ordinance requirements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Sacchet: And I do want to encourage you to bring this to City Council. In addition I would
encourage you to before you go to City Council, explore what options do you have that you
could mitigate the impervious surface, particularly further and then you’ll see where you get with
that.
Clint Hurt: I have a question.
Sacchet: Yes.
Clint Hurt: Taking care of that variance in the back, that 8 foot setback, does that take the
townhouses really out of the process situation?
Sacchet: No it doesn’t. I’m not really an expert to answer that but.
Clint Hurt: I’m just asking the question because there is no, we’re not, it’s not about the noise
ordinance. It’s not…the amount of people on the yard at a certain time so…complain about after
that?
14
Planning Commission Meeting – October 18, 2005
Jennifer Hurt: Even if we cut the sport court in half it’s still going to be a sport court…
Sacchet: Yeah, I would have to refer, I mean you’d have to take up discussion like that with
staff. I mean we’re not in a position here to counsel you on that. It’s, I mean as you well know
with complaining, everybody’s allowed to complain and that’s the purpose of the public hearing
so that everybody can come and make their statement and we try to listen to everybody to the
best of our abilities to try to make everybody happy. But that’s only possible to a certain extent,
and I would encourage you to discuss this further with staff as to how can you reduce the
infringement or maybe eliminate it ideally and if there’s some type of variance you need, you
can appeal our decision to City Council. Or alternatively if the situation gets enough changed,
you may want to start a new variance process, but that’s something you have to discuss with
staff. I mean that’s where you have to go with that, okay? Wish you luck.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR SPALON MONTAGE TO PLACE
A WALL SIGN OUTSIDE OF THE APPROVED SIGN BAND AREA ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 600 MARKET STREET, APPLICANT KRAUS-ANDERSON REALTY
COMPANY, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-33.
Public Present:
Name Address
Cindy McDonald Kraus-Anderson Realty
Mitchell Wherley 600 Market Street
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Jerry, go ahead.
McDonald: I have some questions for you. Okay, currently Americana Bank has got a gable
sign and I read in here that the developer did that in the beginning. That was part of the
negotiations. As far as building the building. Is that correct?
Metzer: That’s correct. If you were to zoom in right here. This is on page, well it’s one of the
attachments to the report.
McDonald: Well the question I’ve got then, why wouldn’t we allow signage in the gables? Was
the plan from the beginning that there would be signage there and we gave in for some reason
when the developer first came through?
Metzer: Well I guess we consider this a change to what was approved. If you notice on the
north elevation, actually you can see it on the west or the north elevation, there was no provision
for a sign on the second level. Only on the south elevation with the bank. I guess it was felt to
go outside of that would be over stepping our authority.
15