7. Jessup Variance 89-1CITY OF 7.
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
"M by city /0, ,
' MEMORANDUM:=
��=
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager ' ' to Cr.-mission
.. •• �d to Council
FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner H
DATE: February 24, 1994
' SUBJ: Direction from City Council for Variance 89 -1, 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard -
James Jessup
' Background:
On March 13, 1989, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved Variance Request #89 -1
' for a front, rear and both side yard setbacks for the construction of a new single family residence.
Shortly after the approval, the owner was informed that his property was contaminated with
petroleum products that had migrated from the neighboring property. The City Building Official
' and Fire Marshal issued a stop work order on October 13, 1989. The. contamination was
apparently from a gasoline storage tank used for seaplanes operating from the lake. The tank was
located on an adjacent parcel. The tank was removed at the MPCA's direction. The applicant
was unable to build his home until the parcel was given a clean bill of health by the MPCA. He
requested and received several extensions to the one year time period for which variance
approvals are valid.
' On February 10, 1992, the City Council approved a fourth request for a variance extension for
the construction of the new single family residence at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. The City
' Council approved an extension for one year, until February 10, 1993, with a review of the
situation in six months on July .31, 1992. The City Council indicated a desire to see this situation
resolved and it was indicated that it was unlikely that further extensions would be granted. On
' July 8, 1992, staff received a letter from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency concluding that
the investigation and clean-up performed on the subject property has addressed the petroleum
contamination. The letter also stated that Mr. Jessup could begin construction at that time.
Based on the MPCA's letter stating that the applicant could proceed with construction, the
request by the City Council for a 6 month review was resolved and staff did not bring the issue
back in July.
� Don Ashworth
February 24, 1994
' Page 2
Staff sent a letter to Mr. Jessup informing him that he should apply for a building permit and
' start construction prior to February 10, 1993. Staff also indicated that failure to do so would
result in the expiration of the variance. On January 25, 1993, Mr. Jessup proposed a fifth one
year extension be granted stating that he is continuing to proceed towards construction. The City
' Council gave Mr. Jessup a six month extension, until July 25, 1993 with the following
conditions:
' 1. Drainage be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building
permit.
I I
2. The deck on the rear of the house is to remain a deck and no porch or any enclosed
structure is allowed in the 75 foot setback from Lake Riley. (Note: The building plot
plan will need to show the actual ordinary high water mark for Lake Riley to determine
actual setback. This will need to be identified on the property surveyed by a registered
surveyor.) The area under the deck may be improved as a patio with no enclosures.
3. Plans are to be reviewed by Planning Staff prior to issuance of a building permit to assure
compliance with the intent of plans presented with variance.
4. The attached plan is noted as the official plan for determining compliance.
5. The front setback may be no less than 16 feet from the property line.
6. The rear setback may be no less than 68 feet from the deck.
7. The west setback may be no less than 5.5 feet for any portion of the structure.
The east setback may be no less than 10 feet for any portion of the structure.
9. Mr. Jessup will provide monthly progress reports to the City for review by any interested
neighbors.
10. If a new variance request is required, the fees will be waived.
Staff received three letters from the applicant dated March 19, 1993, March 21, 1993, and May
20, 1993, outlining progress the applicant was making toward building his house. On June 15,
1993, the applicant applied for a building permit. On July 22, 1993, the applicant was notified
that the building permit was reviewed and ready to be picked up (The review process took longer
than usual due to staff shortage in the Inspection Division). The applicant waited until August
5, 1993 to pick up the permit.
�
Don Ashworth
February 24, 1994
Page 3
'
On November 12, 1993, the applicant contacted the Inspection Division to request a building
permit extension. Planning staff reviewed the applicant's variance file and realized that the
'
variance had expired because substantial construction had not taken place on the site as required
by ordinance.
,
On December 7, 1993, Planning staff sent a memo to the Building Official informing him that
the variance has expired and consequently, the building permit must be revoked.
'I
On December 22, 1993, the revocation of the building permit was canceled pursuant to the
Planning Director's letter dated December 22, 1993. This extension was given for one month,
until January 31, 1994. The extension was contingent upon continuous and substantial
,
construction taking place until the residence is complete. This action was taken in good faith and
to give the applicant one more chance to build his residence.
'
4 1994 the Building Official received a hone call from !e applicant notifying
On January 2 , g P
him that excavation requires dewatering of the property and work could not proceed due to cold
temperatures. Other than some minor excavation, no construction activity has been observed at
'
the site. Staff contacted Mr. Jessup by phone to inform him that the variance application will
has
be brought before the City Council for direction. We informed him that at work
stopped on his property, it was inconsistent with the City Council action and the Planning
'
Director's letter. Therefore, we would be bringing the matter back to the City Council for
resolution.
The City Council has several options. You can approve a further extension. You can confirm
that the variance is no longer valid. If it is not valid, the applicant would have the option of
reapplying through the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. While he would likely be eligible
'
for some type of variance on this lot, it may not be the same as what was originally approved.
Staff is aware that several neighbors would like to have the opportunity to testify on the matter.
i
,
RECOMMENDATION
'
Staff is extremely frustrated with this situation. This is the sixth time this application appears
before the City Council. The applicant has been granted more than the benefit of the doubt. He
was made aware that by January 31, 1994, continuous and substantial construction has to take
'
place, and this would have to continue until the residence is complete. He was also informed
that failure to meet that condition would result in the expiration of the variance and revocation
of the building permit.
,
The applicant had reasonable time to comply and begin construction. Thei applicant could have
prevented the variance application from expiring by starting construction 18 months ago.
'
Allowing the variance to expire is a self created hardship. We also note that this matter has
created significant neighborhood controversy and conflict. Several residents who opposed the
l
Don Ashworth
February 24, 1994
Page 4
original request continue to oppose the repeated extensions. During the past few years, there
have been several instances where Mr. Jessup's use of the property and grading activity that has
occurred have caused problems that staff had to resolve. It is not realistic for us to continually
arbitrate neighborhood disputes and we are frankly getting exasperated by the never - ending
problems.
If the City Council concurs with staff that the variance has expired, Mr. Jessup would have the
' right to request a new variance and it may be approved. At the same time, being able to take
a fresh look at the request may be appropriate.
I ATTACHMENTS
u
1. Photos of property dated February 17, 1994.
2. Memo from Sharmin Al -Jaff, dated December 7, 1993.
3. Letter from Steve Kirchman, dated December 13, 1993.
4. Letter from Steve Kirchman, dated January 7, 1994.
5. Letter from Paul Krauss, dated December 22, 1993.
6. Letter from Steve Iirchman , dated July 26, 1993.
7. Letter from Jim Jessup, dated March 19, 1993.
8. Letter from Jim Jessup, dated March 21, 1993.
9. Letter from Jim Jessup, dated May 20, 1993.
10. Letter from Don Sitter Dated February 20, 1994.
11. Staff report dated January 20, 1993.
j tl�,w v
-
At-
AT
7"W
-
CITY OF
cHA�HASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Kirchman, Building Official
FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I
DATE: Decerpt ber -7193
SUBJ: 89 -1 Variance �ocated at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard, James Jessup
This memo is to inform you that Variance 89 -1 located at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard, has
expired. Consequently any new construction must comply with current Residential Single Family
setback requirements.
Based upon this, I request that the currently active building permit for 9247 Lake Riley
Boulevard be revoked.
PC: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
Mayor and City Council
December 13, 1993
Mr. James F. Jessup
7021 Galpin Lake Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
CITY OF
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
CERTIFIED
Re: Revocation of permit #6325 at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd, Chanhassen)
Dear Mr. Jessup:
I received a memorandum from the Planning Department on December 7, 1993 informing me that
the variance #89 -1 has expired and requesting that your building permit be revoked.
Accordingly, pursuant to Uniform Building Code, Section 303, you are hereby notified that
building permit #6325 for the construction of a single family dwelling at 9147 Lake Riley Blvd.
has been revoked.
You may call me or Sharmin Al -Jaff if you have any questions.
rs
1
Sincerely, '
Steve A. Kirchman '
Building Official
PC: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director
'
Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I
Roger Knutson, City Attorney
Building file, 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
'
City Council, adnim packet
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
January 7, 1994
Mr. James F. Jessup
7021 Galpin Lake Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
CERTIFIED
Re: Cancellation of revocation of permit #6325 at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd, Chanhassen
Dear Mr. Jessup:
I received copy of the 12/22/93 letter extending variance 89 -1. Accordingly, the revocation of
permit #6325 is cancelled.
You may call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Steve A. Kirchman
Building Official
PC: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director
Paul Krauss, Planning Director
Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I
Roger Knutson, City Attorney
Building file, 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
City Council, adnim packet
CITY OF
CHAWHA SISEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1
December 22, 1993
Certified Mail
Mr. James Jessup
7021 Galpin Boulevard
Excelsior, MN 55331 -8026
Re: 89 -1 Variance Located at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard, James Jessup
Dear Mr. Jessup:
This letter is to inform you that I will extend the Variance 89 -1 located at 9247 Lake Riley
Boulevard, until January 31, 1994. This extension is contingent upon continuous and substantial
construction taking place until the residence is completed. Failure to meet this condition will
result in the expiration of the variance and revocation of the building permit. As I indicated on
the phone, I would then bring this back to the City Council for action, In so doing, I want you
to realize that I am granting you more than the benefit of the doubt since the City Council
instructed me to cancel your variance on July 25, 1993, if no action had occurred and you failed
to meet this deadline. I am only taking the action after discussing ix, with the Mayor and
discussing these conditions directly with you.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
.LC
Paul Krauss, AICP
Planning Director
c: Roger Knutson, City Attorney
Sham-in Al -Jaff, Planner I
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN,.M INN ESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
July 26, 1993
Mr. Jim Jessup
7021 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
Re: Building permit @ 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
Dear Jim:
The purpose of this letter is to confirm our
your variance.
Although your variance may expire before y
applied well in advance of the expiration da
delays in reviewing submitted documents ani
for additional documentation have been tiri
were not caused by you.
of 07/25/93 concerning expiration of
permit for 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. is issued, you
Changes in staff at City Hall have caused some
suing tfie permit. Your responses to our requests
and any delays in the permit issuance process
The City will not rigidly enforce the expiration date of
issuance process continues to pro — in a timely fashion.
Sincerely,
Steve A. Kirch
Building Officia
cc: Building file, 9247 Lake
variance as long as the permit
49s
t wo PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
' 1 993
Al,3aft • •
. .
1
.
annassen mitring ► I
1 1t r MN 5531 l dinc we are a pe�3i i •
sse toward pul tY c od a t °wa the
� 1
ogr esslon pY the areas of manf and t
r armin • ll the i n low Stev on irpe e es a Y for
f 1 o our '
Tol °wi ro on in to te
c ss none wie� Y do ne ps n ctive
f ldi ng P Pd on to t he 1p g eb is an a rospe
i p
P nave taaepartm pu lding off t hem • g° alea
ee io g Pr d tS , tenance c itn ion
in n p 'Main t w I
;Caration an in c °nta s•
pp peen Pct.
On
on
We f the prod on financing
bui lder ° wo rK
t
con tlnae
we 1
ncer ell
Si `� 3essap P Blvd•
me Halpin LaK 55331
7O elsior MN
1
x
rtzv
March 21, 1993
Sharmin Al -Jaff
Planner I
City of Chanhassen,
690 Coulter Dr.
' Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Progression toward building
' Dear Sharmin:
To fulfill the request by the city council, we are submitting
the following information to show areas of action toward beginning
' the building process on our lot.
We have talked on the phone with you , Steve Kirchman, and the
engineering department to gather information pertaining to
excavation permits, building permits and the steps necessary for
application and maintenance of them.
' We have been in contact with Don Rouleau, a prospective
builder for the project.
We continue to work on financing options.
Sincerely,
�
�Jame
7021 Galpin Lake Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
1
May 20, 1993
Sharmin Al -Jaff
Planner I
City of Chanhassen,
690 Coulter Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Progression toward building
Dear Sharmin:
To fulfill the request by the city council, wel are submitting
the following information to show areas of action toward beginning
the building process on our lot.
We have met with our builder to further revise house plans and
draw new blue prints.
We are continuing to get bids on recompaction of the soils.
We continue to work on financing options.
Sincerely,
James F! Je sup
7021 Galpin Lake Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
February 20. 1994
Mr. Paul Krauss
Planning Director
' City of Chanhassen
Chanhassen Mn. 55317
I Thanks you for your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely,
Dear Mr. Krauss,
t I
am writing this letter to you regarding again the Jessup
'
property that is adjacent to our property on Lake Riley.
'
I believe that the permit and associated variances for the
Jessup building have expired. Should Mr. Jessup now decide
to start his construction, he would be proceeding against
city ordinances. I am aware that he was granted one more
'
good faith" extension, in which he was informed in writing,
that if he did not start and show continuous progress, that
'
his permit and variances would expire at the end of January
1994.
As you are well aware. he has done nothing to start his
construction except to dig a hole and make a very unsightly
'
mess. He has not started construction by the definition of
city ordinances and did not meet any of the requirements of
'
the letter he was sent.
Therefore. I am requesting that you immediately issue a stop
work order to prevent him from starting construction without
'
valid permits in place.
I understand from our conversation that the City Council
will soon review the extension of the variances and building
'
permit one more time. If the council chooses to extend the
permits and variances, they have the authority to do so, but
until that decision is made, I am asking you to follow
'
through on the agreements of the last letter to Mr. Jessup
and issue a stop work order at this time.
I Thanks you for your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely,
Don Sitter
'
9249 Lake Riley Blvd.
Chanhassen Mn. 55317
MEMORANDUM
1
CITY OF .. Im
CHANHASSEN
I
690 COULTER DRIVE 0 P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHAiSSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I
DATE: January 20, 1993
SUBJ: Variance Extension Request for 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard - James Jessup
On March 13, 1989, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved Variance Request #89 -1
for a front, rear and both side yard setbacks for the construction of a new single family residence.
Since then the owner was informed that his property was contaminated with petroleum products
that had migrated from the neighboring property. The City Building Inspector and Fire Marshal
issued a stop work order on October 13, 1989. The contamination was apparently from a
gasoline storage tank used for seaplanes operating from the lake. The tank was removed at the
MPCA's direction. The applicant has been unable to build his home until the parcel was given
a clean bill of health by the MPCA. He requested and received several extensions to the one
year time period for which variance approvals are valid.
On February 10, 1992, the City Council approved a fourth request for a variance extension for
the construction of the new single family residence at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. The City
Council approved an extension for one year, until February 10, 1993, with a review of the
situation in six months on July 31, 1992. The City Council indicated a desire to see this situation
resolved and it was indicated that it was unlikely that further extensions would be granted. On
July 8, 1992, staff received a letter from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency concluding that
the investigation and clean -up performed on the subject property has addressed the petroleum
contamination. The letter also stated that Mr. Jessup could begin construction at that time.
Based on the MPCA's letter stating that the applicant could proceed with construction, the
request by the City Council for a 6 month review was resolved and staff did not bring the issue
back in July.
Based upon the foregoing, staff sent a letter to Mr. Jessup informing him 'that he should apply
for a building permit and start construction prior to February 10, 1993. Staff also indicated that
4fs
VISO PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
J
1
Don Ashworth
January 20, 1993
' Page 2
failure to do so will result in the expiration of the variance. Mr. Jessup is proposing that a fifth
' 1 year extension be granted stating that he is continuing to proceed towards construction.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the extension requested by Mr. Jessup be denied. A letter was sent
to Mr. Jessup on July 9, 1992, informing him that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
concluded that the investigation and clean-up of contamination performed on his property had
been addressed and that he may begin construction. The applicant had reasonable time to reapply
for a building permit and begin construction. The applicant could have prevented the variance
' application from expiring by starting construction seven months ago. Allowing the variance to
expire is a self created hardship. We also note that this matter has created significant
neighborhood controversy and conflict. Several residents who opposed the original request
' continue to oppose the repeated extensions. During the past few years, there have been several
instances where Mr. Jessup's use of the property and grading activity that has occurred have
caused problems that staff had to resolve. It is not realistic for us to continually arbitrate
' neighborhood disputes and we are frankly getting exasperated by the never - ending problems.
If the variance extension is denied, Mr. Jessup would have the right to request a new variance
' and it may be approved. At the same time, being able to take a fresh look at the request may
be appropriate.
' Should the City Council decide to approve an extension, the original conditions of the variance
approval (approved by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals on March 13, 1989) should be
' adopted as follows:
Approval is subject to the plan dated March 6, 1989, and the following conditions:
' 1. Drainage be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building
permit.
' 2. The deck on the rear of the house is to remain a deck and no porch or any enclosed
structure is allowed in the 75 foot setback from Lake Riley. (Note: The building plot
' plan will need to show the actual ordinary high water mark for Lake Riley to determine
actual setback. This will need to be identified on the property survey by a registered
surveyor.) The area under the deck may be improved as a patio with no enclosures.
' 3. Plans are to be reviewed by Planning Staff prior to issuance of building permit to assure
compliance with intent of and plans presented with variance.
4. The attached plan is noted as the official plan for determining compliance.
Don Ashworth
January 20, 1993
Page 3
5. The front setback may be no less than 16 feet from the property line.
6. The rear setback may be no less than 68 feet from the deck.
7. The west setback may be no less than 5.5 feet for any portion of the structure.
8. The east setback may be no less than 10 feet for any portion of the structure."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from applicant.
2. Letters from the MPCA dated July 6, 1992, and Jun 11, 1992.
3. Letter from Rudolph and Lucille Remus dated January 14, 1993.
4. Staff reports dated February 10, 1992, January 30, 1991, February 20, 1990, March 8,
1989 and February 27, 1989.
5. City Council minutes dated February 11, 1991, March 13, 1989, and February 27, 1989.
6. Letter from Nova Environmental Services, Inc. dated February 5, 11991.
7. Letters from MPCA dated February 4, 1991, September 9, 199 1, November 4, 1991,
January 3, 1992.
IJ
1 January 7, 1993
Sharmin Al -Jaff
Planner I
City of Chanhassen,
' 690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN, 55317
RE: Variance Extension request for 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
' Dear Sharmin:
' Thank you for the time and interest you have invested it
this property over the last several years. You have been very
helpful to my goal of establishing my home at this site.
The purpose of this letter is to ask for an extension of the
' variance for the above referenced property. A year ago the City
granted an extension for this property.
I am asking to have a full year from the date of your okay
' to proceed with the project. I am referring to your letter of
July, 1992. It is fair to have a full year to proceed with the
project. I am making progress in being able to start the building
' process.
The contamination has added many steps to this process
requiring additional time and financial resources to address all
the issues and requirements. These steps of meeting the
' additional regulatory, safety, financial requirements have
occurred since the discovery of the contamination. I have the
soils investigation report as requested by the Chanhassen
Building department. The foundation may need to be modified
because the soils report states that disturbed soils on the site
need to be excavated and compacted. Design changes need to be to
made in the heating of the structure, and vapor barriers, added
' due to the potential for fumes in the soils. The financing of
this site has been complicated by the existence of the
contamination and is difficult to achieve. The former financing
' commitments are no longer available. I am developing alternative
arrangements for the financing.
I share your frustrations with the time it has taken to
' complete this project. It has limited my family's ability to
enjoy the property. Living in temporary housing has not been a
pleasnt experience.
I can be reached at 853 -0222 during the day if you have any
' questions.
Thanks for your assistance in handling this matter.
'
sincerely,
' mes F. ess
7021 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
A Geotechnical Evaluation Report for
Mr. Jim Jessup
Geotechnical Evaluation for the Proposed House Located at
9247 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen, Minnesota
I
Project BABX - 92-473
August 17, 1992
Braun Intertec Engineering, Inc.
sM Braun Intertec Engineering, Inc.
B R A U N 6801 Washington Avenue South
P.O. Box 39108
NT E RT E C Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 -0108
612 - 941 -5600 Fax: 941 -4151
Engineers and Scientists Serving
' the Built and Natural Environments
August 17, 1992 Project BABX - 92-473
Mr. Jim Jessup
' 3323 Lakeshore Court
Chaska, MN 55318
' Dear Mr. Jessup:
Re: Geotechnical Evaluation for the Proposed House Located at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard
in Chanhassen, Minnesota
As you authorized, we have completed the geotechnical evaluation for the proposed house at
' 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen, Minnesota. The geotechnical evaluation was
performed in general accordance with our proposal to you dated November 15, 1991. The
purpose of the evaluation was to assist in evaluating the soil and groundwater conditions with
regard to construction of a single - family dwelling on this site.
Summary of Results
' Four standard penetration test borings were performed within the area of the proposed house.
The typical soil profile consisted of approximately 4 to 8 feet of mixed fill soil consisting of
' silty sand and lean clay overlying naturally deposited glacial till consisting of clayey sand and
sandy lean clay to the termination depths of the borings at 15 1/2 to 20 1/2 feet.
' Groundwater was typically not encountered during the drilling process. However, one boring
was left open for a period of several days and upon rechecking, groundwater was noted at a
depth of 1 1/2 feet below the surface. This depth corresponds to an elevation of about 866. The
elevation of the water level in Lake Riley was about 866 at the time of our investigation.
' Summary of Recommendations
' Based on the blow counts obtained in the existing fill soils, it is our opinion they are unsuitable
for support of structural fill or footings due to the potential for compressibility under building
loads. Therefore, we recommend removing these soils and replacing them with controlled fill to
' reestablish floor grade.
Based on the results of the soil borings, it is our opinion the native soils underlying the fill are
suitable for support of structural fill and /or typical residential spread footings sized to exert a
maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf).
' Sump pumps should be available during the excavation process to assist in controlling water
seepage in the excavation.
i
Mr. j im Jessup
Project BABX- 92-473
August 17, 1,992
Page 2
General
Please refer to the attached report for a more detailed summary of our analysesi and
recommendations. We appreciate the opportunity to work on this project for you. If we can be
of further assistance in evaluating this data or providing the recommended excavation
observations and quality control testing services during construction, please calil Don Armstrong
at (612) 942 -1786 or Gregg Jandro at (612) 942 -4945.
Sincerely,
did lrj-a 1
Donal J. Armstrong
Project Engineer
4 GreJan ro, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Attachment:
Geotechnical Evaluation Report
djs/gd : mjslb&W924731cpt
A Geotechnical Evaluation Report for
Mr. Jim Jessup
Geotechnical Evaluation for the Proposed House Located at
9247 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen, Minnesota
Project BABX- 92-473
August 17, 1992
Braun Intertec Engineering, Inc.
Table of Contents
Description
Page
A. Introduction
................................................
1
A.1
Purpose ..... ............................... ......
1
A.2
Scope .............................................
1
A.3
Available Information ...........................
1
A.4
Locations and Elevations .................................
1
B. Results
........... ............................... ......
2
B.I
Logs ....... ............................... .......
2
B.2
Site Conditions ............................... ......
2
B.3
Summary of Soils ............. ............... ......
3
B.4
Groundwater ... ............................... .......
3
C. Analysis and Recommendations ...........................
4
C.1
Proposed Construction ........................... ......
4
C.2
Discussion ................................... i•
4
C.3
House Pad Preparation .......................... ......
5
C.4
Foundation ... ............................... ......
6
C.5
Floor Slab Support .............................
7
C.6
Exterior Backfill ......................................
7
D. Construction ...............................................
8
D.1
Observations .. ............................... ......
8
D.2
On -Site Soils . ............................... ......
8
D.3
Testing ................. .........................
9
E. Procedures ..... ...............................
9
E.1
Drilling and Sampling ...........................
9
E.2
Soil Classification ..............................
9
E.3
Groundwater Observations ........................ ......
10
F. General
Recommendations .............................. ......
10
F.1
Basis of Recommendations ........................ ......
10
F.2
Review of Design ............................... ;.......
11
F.3
Groundwater Fluctuation .......................... ......
11
F.4
Use of Report ........................................
11
F.5
Level of Care .. ............................... ......
11
Professional
Certification
Appendix
Boring
Location Sketch
Log
of Boring Sheets
Descriptive Terminology
1
BRAUN
I NTE RTEC
A. Introduction
A.1 Purpose
Braun intertec Engineering, Inc.
6801 Washington Avenue South
P.O. Box 39108
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 -0108
612 -941 -5600 Fax: 941 -4151
Engineers and Scientists Serving
the Built and Noturai Environments
The purpose of the geotechnical evaluation was to assist Mr. James Jessup in evaluating the
subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen,
Minnesota.
A.2 Scope
' Four standard penetration soil test borings were performed to depths ranging from 15 1/2 to
20 1/2 feet below the existing ground surface elevation. The soil samples were returned to our
laboratory where the field classifications were reviewed by a geotechnical engineer. Five
moisture content tests were performed to assist in evaluating the suitability of the existing fill
' soils for reuse as structural fill. Finally, we reviewed the data and prepared this report to
summarize our findings and professional opinions regarding the suitability of the subsurface
soils for fill and house support.
' Our scope of involvement for this project did not include performing an environmental
evaluation for contamination at this site.
A.3 Available Information
' You indicated to us that two underground petroleum storage tanks have been removed from the
east portion of the house area. The excavation to remove these tanks also extended onto the
property directly east of the proposed house area. We understand the tank removal was
monitored by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and that the tanks and any
contaminated soils were removed from the excavated area. Approximately 8 to 10 feet of
' uncontrolled fill soil was placed in the excavation after the tanks were removed.
' You also provided us a Certificate of Survey prepared by Otto Associates, dated June 19, 1989.
The Certificate of Survey shows the proposed house location including existing and proposed
grades.
' A.4 Locations and Elevations
' The boring locations were chosen and staked in the field by representatives of Braun Intertec
Engineering, Inc. The boring locations were referenced to the north and east property lines.
fl
i
Mr. .,,m Jessup
Project BABX - 92-473
August 17, 1992
Page 2
Elevations at the boring locations were referenced to the top of the manhole cover located
50 feet south of the lift station and 120 east of the east property line. You provided us an ,
elevation of 872.0 for this benchmark.
B. Results
B.1 Logs
Log of Boring sheets indicating the depths and identifications of the various soih, strata,
penetration resistances, laboratory test data and groundwater observations are attached. The
strata changes were inferred from the changes in the penetration test samples and auger
cuttings. It should be noted that the depths shown as changes between the strata fare only ,
approximate. The changes are likely transitions and the depths of the changes may vary
between the borings. '
I
Geologic origins presented for each stratum on the Log of Boring sheets are basted on the soil
types, blows per foot, and available common knowledge of the depositional history of the site. I
Because of the complex glacial and post - glacial depositional environments, geologic origins are
frequently difficult to ascertain. A detailed investigation of the geologic history of the site was ,
not performed.
B.2 Site Conditions '
The proposed house will be located at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen, Minnesota,
south of Lake Riley Boulevard and immediately north of Lake Riley. This property is also '
designated as Lot 42 of the Shore Acres development in Carver County, Minnesota. Based on
the elevations obtained at the soil borings and the elevations from the Certificate of Survey, it '
appears the lot slopes from a high elevation of about 872 at the north end of they lot to an
elevation of about 866 at the south end of the lot at the lakeshore. Due to the past excavation
and baclfilling performed on this lot, the area is relatively devoid of vegetation.' I
1
7
Mr. i im Jessup
Project BABX - 92-473
August 17, 1992
Page 3
B.3 Summary of Soils
The borings encountered 4 to 8 feet of surficial silty sand and clay fill overlying sandy lean
clay and clayey sand glacial till to the termination depths of the borings at 15 1/2 to
20 1/2 feet.
Based on the penetration resistances recorded in the borings, the sandy lean clay till soils
underlying the fill have a medium to very stiff consistency, while the clayey sand soils are in a
medium dense condition.
B.4 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in the borings while drilling or after withdrawal of the
auger. After withdrawal of the auger, cave -ins occurred at depths ranging from 6 to 16 feet
below the surface. Boring ST -3 was left open for a period of three days. Upon rechecking this
boring, groundwater was noted at a depth of about 1 1/2 feet below the surface. This depth
corresponds to an elevation of about 866.
The clay soils encountered in the soil borings underlying the fill were mottled gray and brown.
This indicates the presence of a fluctuating water table or the presence of perched water
conditions.
Based on the water level readings from our borings and the discoloration of the soil, it is our
' opinion groundwater on this lot is related to the water level in Lake Riley. At the time of our
soil investigation, the elevation of the water in Lake Riley was approximately 866. Therefore,
' potential does exist for groundwater to be encountered during the recommended excavation
procedures.
' Because of the low permeability of the soils, the water levels encountered may not represent the
actual water levels. A period of several days may be necessary for the water in the bore holes
to stabilize at the groundwater level.
r
Mr. j im Jessup
Project BABX -92 -473
August 17, 1992
Page 4
C. Analysis and Recommendations
CA Proposed Construction
We understand the lot is being developed for construction of a single - family home. The
building will be a wood -frame structure with a walkout basement to the south facing the lake.
The main level and garage floor elevations will range from about 876 to 878. The lowest floor
elevation will be approximately 868. Structural loads were not available at the time of the
preparation of this report. In order for us to prepare this report, we have assumed wall loads
will be less than 2 kips (2,000 pounds) per linear foot and column loads (if any) will be less
than 30 kips. If the proposed loads exceed these values, we should be informed! Additional
analysis and revised recommendations may be necessary.
C.2 Discussion
Based on the soil borings, it is our opinion the natural soils encountered underlying the fill are
suitable for structural fill and house support. Existing fill soils encountered at t borings are
not considered suitable for support of structural fill and the house due to their 01otential for
compressibility under building loads.
We recommend complete removal of the fill soils within the building and oversized areas. We
anticipate the excavation will range in depth from 4 to 8 feet below existing ground levels.
Sump pumps may be needed to remove water from the excavation. Prior to placement of
footings or engineered fill, we recommend the bottom of the excavation be observed by a
qualified geotechnical engineer to assist in evaluating the suitability of the soils ;exposed in the
bottom of the excavation for structural fill or house support.
Upon completion of the excavation and observation of the bottom, the excavation should be
backfilled in a controlled manner to reestablish footing or floor grades. Once building grades
are reestablished with properly compacted fill, it is our c,pinion the fill soils and underlying
glacial till will be suitable for support of typical spread footings sized to exert ai maximum net
allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Details of our
recommendations are contained in the following sections.
1
� I
7
L
u
r
'
Existing Ground
Surface
Elevation
Recommended
Excavation Depth
(feet)
Mr.., im Jessup
ST -1
Project BABX -92 -473
4±
August 17, 1992
ST -2
Page 5
8 +
864+
ST -3
869.6
C.3 House Pad Preparation
' We recommend using an excavation backfill approach for preparation of the proposed house
and garage pad areas. Based on the soil borings, it appears about 4 to 8 feet of existing fill soil
' will need to be removed at the boring locations. Based on the elevations of the soil borings,
once the fill is removed from within the house and garage pad areas, the bottom of the
excavation will be at approximate elevations ranging from 864 to 868 1/2 ±.
' Based on the lowest floor slab elevation rovided on the Certificate of Survey, excavation
P Y> >
' the area near Boring ST -1 will be at or near grade. Three to four feet of new, compacted fill
may be necessary at the other boring locations to reestablish floor grade. The footings will
likely rest on the natural soils at an approximate elevation of 864.
t Tabulated below are the recommended excavation depths at each of the boring locations. The
P g
' depths of the excavations will likely vary between the borings. The maximum depth of the
existing till may exceed the depths encountered by the borings. Also, it is typical to excavate
1/2 to 1 foot deeper than the minimum necessary to clean the bottom of the excavation.
Boring Number
Existing Ground
Surface
Elevation
Recommended
Excavation Depth
(feet)
Approximate
Excavation Bottom
Elevation
(feet)
ST -1
872.7
4±
868 1 / ±
ST -2
871.8
8 +
864+
ST -3
869.6
5 ±
864 1 / ±
ST-4
870.3
6±
864
If excavations extend below footing grade, the excavations should be oversized to provide
lateral stability for the backfill. The bottom of the excavation should be oversized 1 foot beyond
the edges of the footings for each foot of excavation below the bottoms of the footings (1:1
oversizing). Loosened soil in the bottoms of the excavations should be compacted prior to
backfilling.
Mr.. ,m Jessup
Project BABX- 92-473
August 17, 1992
Page 6
During excavation work, we recommend the excavator be informed to be alert for possible soil
contamination which may have been left in place during the initial excavations to remove
existing tanks. We are available to provide trained technicians with specialized monitoring
devices to aid in checking for contamination if the owner or MPCA feels it is necessary.
Groundwater was not observed above the design floor slab elevations. However; with Lake
Riley located immediately south of the house, and the discoloration of the soils encountered in
the borings, groundwater may be encountered during the excavation process. W�e recommend
sump pumps be on site during excavation to aid in dewatering excavations if groundwater is
encountered.
If water is present in the excavation, we recommend clean sand be placed in the lower portions
of the excavation. The clean sand should have less than 50 percent passing the number 40 sieve
and less than 10 percent passing the number 200 sieve. The clean sand is recommended for use
in wet conditions due to its ease of placement and compaction. Sand meeting the above
gradation was not encountered by the borings and may need to be imported.
Acceptable soil types for structural fill include sandy gravel, sand or clay with a plastic index
of less than 15. Sandy gravel and sand are generally preferred fill material due to their ease of
placement and compactability. The on -site existing fill soils will likely meet this criteria.
However, based on the results of the moisture content tests, the existing on -site fill soils are
likely wetter than their optimum moisture content and will require drying prior to use as
structural fill. If on -site fill soils are not dried to a point near their optimum moisture content,
achieving the recommended compacted densities may be difficult.
We recommend each lift of structural fill placed be compacted to a minimum of i95 percent of
the maximum dried density determined in accordance with American Society for Testing
Materials (ASTM) Method of Test D 698 (Standard Proctor).
CA Foundation j
Once the building pad has been completed as discussed, it is our opinion the structural fill and
soils underlying the fill will be suitable for support of typical spread footings siz to exert a
maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Minimum footing widths should
comply with applicable building codes. We recommend all perimeter footings inl heated portions
G
1
7
� I
t
C
-1
Mr.. im Jessup
Project BABX - 92-473
August 17, 1992
Page 7
of the house and garage be a minimum of 3 1/2 feet below exterior grade for frost protection.
' Interior footings may be placed immediately beneath the slab, leaving enough room for a sand
cushion below the slab.
' If a garage is constructed which will be unheated, and for exterior concrete steps, we
recommend the footings be a minimum of 5 feet below exterior grade for frost protection.
' C.5 Floor Slab Support
' All fill for floor slab support should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the standard
Proctor maximum dry density.
' At this time, it is unknown whether clay or sand will be used to establish the floor subgrade.
With the relatively wet clay soils encountered in the borings and the proximity of Lake Riley,
' we recommend a sand pad be installed beneath the floor slab. The sand pad should consist of
sand with less than 50 percent passing the number 40 sieve and less than 10 percent passing the
number 200 sieve. The sand will act as a capillary break to reduce moisture migration to the
' floor slab and thus reduce the dampness of the slab. If an impermeable floor covering, a
hardened concrete finish, or a sealer will be used, a moisture vapor barrier should be installed
' under the sand pad.
Because of the large quantity of water in the area, it may be prudent to install a subfloor drain
' system. This system should include a geotextile filter fabric over the soil subgrade, a layer of
drainage gravel and drain pipes leading to a sump pump.
' C.6 Exterior Backfill
We recommend backfill placed on exterior sides of the basement walls in landscape areas be
' compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. Under
structural areas such as steps, slabs and pavements, fill should be compacted to a minimum of
' 95 percent.
If imported sandy gravel or sand is used as backfill against the basement walls, a lateral earth
' pressure of 50 psf per foot of depth should be used to design the basement wall. If clay soils
are used as backfill, we recommend using a lateral earth pressure of 90 psf per foot of depth
for designing the wall.
D.2 On -Site Soils
At Boring ST -1, non- to slightly -organic lean clay was encountered in the upper 5 feet. These '
soils are considered unsuitable for use as structural fill due to the potential for compressibility
I
li
Mr. tm Jessup
Project BAB ?C- 92-473
August 17, 1992
,
Page 8
i
I
When using clay soils as exterior wall backfill, the potential exists for water to; percolate down
alongside the walls. The water may become perched on a clay layer and then enter the
'
basement through shrinkage cracks in the concrete. Collecting runoff and discharging it well
away from the foundations and sloping the ground surface down and away from the basement
In
'
walls, are two common methods of reducing infiltration and percolation. general, surface
grades should be designed to drain away from the structure in all directions.
'
against basement seepage, a we recommend installing a erimete foundation
As a precaution g p g, g p ,
drain system. The system should include a perforated pipe with a invert within 2 inches of
bottom -of -- footing elevation. Collected seepage should be routed to a sump and then drained by
'
a pump or gravity to a storm sewer or low area on the site.
The seepage control system should include permeable material against the basement wall, such
as a synthetic wall drainage system or at least 2 feet (horizontal) of permeable sandy gravel or
'
sand backfill. The sandy gravel or sand backfill should have less than 5 percent of the particles
by weight passing a 200 sieve. Where the sandy gravel or sand backfill extends outside the
footprint of the building, it should be capped by a slab, pavement or at least 1 foot of topsoil
,
and clay.
D. Construction
i
i
D.1 Observations
We recommend all excavations be observed by a qualified soils engineer or hisi representative to
'
evaluate if the subgrade soils are similar to those encountered by the borings. The purpose of
these observations is to assist in evaluating these soils for their adequacy in supporting the
proposed construction. Observations should be conducted prior to placing backfill, fill or forms
'
for footings. In addition, as a precaution, the owner may wish to monitor soils I for
contamination as discussed in Section C.3 of this report.
'
D.2 On -Site Soils
At Boring ST -1, non- to slightly -organic lean clay was encountered in the upper 5 feet. These '
soils are considered unsuitable for use as structural fill due to the potential for compressibility
I
li
' Mr. „m Jessup
Project BABX -92 -473
August 17, 1992
Page 9
under building loads. The remainder of the fill encountered by the borings consisted of
nonorganic lean clay and silty sand. These soils are considered suitable for reuse as structural
fill. However, based on the laboratory tests, these soils are likely wetter than their optimum
' moisture content and will need to be dried prior to use to achieve the recommended compacted
densities.
' D.3 Testing
We recommend representative density tests be performed in backfills and fills placed beneath
footings, slabs and drive areas to determine if the soil compaction levels are suitable for
support of the proposed construction. Samples of proposed backfill and fill materials should be
submitted to a testing laboratory at least three days prior to placement for evaluation of their
suitability and determination of optimum moisture content and maximum dry density. Density
tests should be taken at 2 -foot vertical intervals as fill is placed.
E. Procedures
EA Drilling and Sampling
' The penetration test borings were performed on July 30, 1992, with a truck - mounted core and
auger drill equipped with 3 1/4 -inch inside diameter hollow -stem auger. Sampling for the
' borings was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D 1586, "Penetration Test and
Split - Barrel Sampling of Soils." Using this method, we advanced the bore hole with the hollow -
stem auger to the desired test depth. A 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches was then used to
' drive the standard 2 -inch split - barrel sampler a total penetration of 1 1/2 feet below the tip of
the hollow -stem auger. The blows for the last foot of penetration were recorded and are an
' index of soil strength characteristics. Samples were taken at 2 1/2 -foot vertical intervals to the
15 -foot depth and then at 5 -foot intervals to the termination depths of the borings. A
representative portion of each sample was then sealed in a glass jar.
' E.2 Soil Classification
Soils encountered in the borings were visually and manually classified in the field by the crew
chief in general accordance with ASTM D 2487, "Classification of Soils for Engineering
Purposes," and ASTM D 2488, "Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual
Mr. , im Jessup '
Project BABX- 92-473
August 17, 1992
Page 10
1
Procedures)." A summary of ASTM D 2487 is attached. All samples were theca returned to our
laboratory for review of the field classifications by a soils engineer. Representative samples will ,
remain in our Minneapolis office for a period of 60 days to be available for your examination.
i
E.3 Groundwater Observations
Immediately after taking the final samples in the bottoms of the borings, the holes were probed
through the hollow -stem auger to check for the presence of groundwater. Immediately after t
withdrawal of the auger, the holes were again probed and the depths to water or cave -ins were
noted. Three of the borings were rechecked and backfilled just prior to our leaving the site.
One of the borings was left open for a period of several days. After rechecking! the boring was '
then backfilled.
F. General Recommendations ! '
F.1 Basis of Recommendations
The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the ( data obtained '
from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the attached sketc) . Variations
occur between these borings, the nature and extent of which will not become evident until '
additional exploration or construction is conducted. A reevaluation of the recommendations of
this report should be made after performing on -site observations during construction and noting
the characteristics of the variations. The variations may result in additional foundation costs, '
and it is suggested that a contingency be provided for this purpose.
To P ermit correlation of the soil data obtained to date with the actual soil conditions '
encountered during construction and to provide continuing professional responsibility for the
conformance of the construction to the concepts originally contemplated in this report and to the I
plans and specifications, it is recommended that we be retained to develop and perform the
recommended observation and testing program for the excavation and foundation phases of the '
project.
i
If others perform the recommended observations and /or testing of construction, professional
responsibility becomes divided since, in doing so, they assume responsibility for;, evaluating that
1
1
F B I
J
Mr. , im Jessup _.
Project BABX - 92-473
August 17, 1992
Page 11
the soil conditions throughout the construction areas are similar to those encountered in the
borings or recognizing variations which require a change in recommendations.
F.2 Review of Design
This report is based on the design of the proposed structure as submitted to us for preparation
of this report. It is recommended that we be retained to briefly review the final design and
specifications to determine whether any changes in design may have had an effect on the
validity of the recommendations contained in this report, and whether our recommendations
have been correctly communicated to you so that their intent has been implemented in the
design and specifications. If we are not permitted to make this recommended review, we will
not be liable for losses arising out of such design changes or misinterpretation or misapplication
of our recommendations.
F.3 Groundwater Fluctuation
Water level readings have been made in the borings at the times and under the conditions stated
on the boring logs. These data have been reviewed and interpretations made in the text of this
report. However, it must be noted that the period of observation was relatively short and that
fluctuations in the groundwater level may occur due to rainfall, flooding, irrigation, spring
thaw, drainage, seasonal and annual variations and other factors not evident at the time
measurements were made and reported herein. Design drawings and specifications and
construction planning should recognize the possibilities of variations.
I F.4 Use of Report
This report is for the exclusive use of the addressee and their representatives to use to design
' the proposed structure described herein and prepare construction documents. The data, analyses
and recommendations may not be appropriate for other structures or purposes. We recommend
that parties contemplating other structures or purposes contact us. In the absence of our written
' approval, we make no representation and assume no responsibility to other parties regarding
this report.
I F.5 Level of Care
Services performed by Braun Intertec Engineering, Inc., for this project have been conducted
with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently
practicing in this area under similar budget and time restraints. No warranty, expressed or
implied, is made.
Mr. ..m Jessup
Project BABX- 92-473
August 17, 1992
Page 12
Professional Certification
I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and that I am a duly
Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
Gregg R. Jandro, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Registration Number: 18221
Date: August 17, 1992
1
i
u
Appendix
L�J
i
i
ST -2
1 '
PROPOSED
BUILDING
I
T -3
ST -4
l i
LEGENp
R ILEY
— T�EST13X L13CATU N 113F STANDARD PEW - MTION
LAKE
IM REVISION SHEET
B RAY N " SOIL BORING LOCATIONS �VMI". DAJ 08/17/92 1
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION APP'O i"• DA OF
INTERTEC JIM JESSUP No. 92_4;3 1
CHASKA, MN Mr. No. 92473 FIGURE �
scALE 1 1' - 15' 1
it
LOG OF BORING
PROJECT: BABX92 -473
BORING: ST -1
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Proposed House
LOCATION:
9247 Lake Riley Boulevard
See attached sketch.
Chanhassen, Minnesota
DATE: 7/30/92
SCALE: 1" = 4'
Elev.
Depth
ASTM
Description of Materials
872.7
0.0
Symbol
(ASTM D 2488)
BPF
Tests or Notes
FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium - grained, dark
Benchmark: Top of manhole
brown.
cover 50' south of lift station
FILL: Lean Clay, Non to Slightly Organic, black.
;
and 120' east of east property
x 5
line. Elevation = 872.0
868.71
4.0
i°
CL
SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of fine Gravel,
mottled brown and gray to 11' then gray, wet,
x 7
M.C. = 25%
medium to very stiff.
(Glacial Till)
13
I
18
1
14
10
75 2.2
20.5
i l
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 19' of hollow -stem auger
in the ground.
Water not observed to cave -in depth of 16'
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring left open.
Water not observed to cave -in depth of 16' 1 hour
after withdrawal of auger.
Boring then backfilled.
I
I
L
I
I BABX92 473 Braun Intertec ST -1 page 1 of 1
PROJECT: BABX92 -473
BORING: 1 -2
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
LOCATION:
Proposed House
9247 Lake Riley Boulevard
See attached sketch.
Chanhassen, Minnesota
DATE: 7/30/921
LOG
SCALE: 1 = 4'
OF
Depth
BORING
Description of Materials
PROJECT: BABX92 -473
BORING: 1 -2
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
LOCATION:
Proposed House
9247 Lake Riley Boulevard
See attached sketch.
Chanhassen, Minnesota
DATE: 7/30/921
SCALE: 1 = 4'
Elev.
Depth
ASTM
Description of Materials
871.8
0.0
Symbol
I
(ASTM D 2488)
BPF
Tests or Notes
FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium- grained, brown,
1'.
moist.
869.8
2.0
+,
2
M.C. = 18%
FILL: Lean Clay, brown, wet.
867.8
4.0
FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium- grained, brown,
'
wet.
wH
6
M.C. = 21%
863.8
8.0
CL
LEAN CLAY, mottled brown and gray to 14' then
gray, wet, rather stiff to very stiff.
(Glacial Till)
11
20
11
56.3
15.5
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 14' of hollow -stem auger
in the ground.
Water not observed to cave -in depth of 6'
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring immediately bacldilled.
i
I
BABX92 -473 nraun intertec o • -� pasu • .•
1
1
I i
fl
I BABX92 -473
LOG OF BORING
PROJECT: BABX92 -473
BORING: ST -3
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Proposed House
LOCATION:
9247 Lake Rilev Boulevard
See attached sketch.
Chanhassen, Nhnnesota
DATE: 7/30/92
SCALE: 1" = 4'
Elev.
I Depth
I ASTM
Description of Materials
869.61
0.0
1 Symbol
(ASTM D 2488)
BPF
WL
Tests or Notes
FILL: Silty Sand, tine- to medium - Grained, brown,
wet.
5
864.6
5.0
x 5
M.C. = 11
C
CLAYEY SAND, fine- grained, mottled brown and
gray, moist, medium dense.
y
(Glacial Till)
861.6
8.0
SANDY LEAN CLAY, gray, moist to wet, rather
11
CL
stiff to stiff.
(Glacial Till)
14
17
15
9.1
20.5
11
END OF BORING.
Water not observed to 19' of hollow -stem auger in
the ground.
Water not observed to cave -in depth of 16'
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Water down 13 1/2' 2 hours after withdrawal of
auger.
Water down 1 1/2' 3 days after withdrawal of auger.
Boring then bacldilled.
uraun tntertec
Sr -3 page 1 of 1
I I
LOG OF BORING
PROJECT: BABX92-473
BORING: : ;ST -4
LOCATION: i
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Proposed House
9247 Lake Riley Boulevard
See attached sketch.
Chanhassen, Minnesota
DATE: 7/30/92
,
SCALE: ill = 4
Elev. I
Depth j ASTM
Description of Materials
870.31
0.0 Symbol
(ASTM D 2488)
BPF
WLI
Tests or Notes
i,
iii
FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, brown,
iii:
wet.
i
i.
!M.C. = 16%
8
864.3
6.01
.....
I
i CL
SANDY LEAN CLAY, mottled brown and gray to
12' then gray, wet, rather stiff.
IP
12
(Glacial Till)
x
12
II
10
— P9.81
20.51
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 19' of hollow-stem auger
in the ground.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 16 1/2'
immediately after withdrawal of auger.
Boring left open.
Water not observed to cave-in depth of 16 1/2' 2
hours after withdrawal of auger.
Boring then backfilled.
BABX92-473 VUBIAU UALC&tO -- - r-.-- --
I
I
I
I
I
I �
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Descriptive Terminology
'
9 S I M Designation D 2487 — 83
i
2— 3 B PF
rather soft ..... ...............................
Standard Test Method for
LABORATORY
TESTS
'
CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING
PURPOSES
PARTICLE SIZE IDENTIFICATION
WD
Wet Density. pcf
SOLI CLASSIFICATION
Percent of Saturation.
,AOUD
Natural Moisture Content.
° d SG
CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNING GROUP SYMBOLS AND
' LL
PL
Liquid Limit. °o
Plastic Limit. 1 '0
GROUP NAMES USING LABORATORY TESTS a
SYMBOL
GROUP NAME b
. ..... .. ..... ............ ..
Boulders over 12"
qu
Cobbles ..::::::..::::::::::.: ' ... , . 3" to 12"
Gravel
GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVES C > a and 1 < C < 3 e
' More In,, 502 Jf -ass than 5s `'Ines a
GM
Nell - graded gravel +
GP
Poorly graded gravel +
i
i coarse fraction C < 4 and /or 1 > C > 3 e
retained on
No. < sieve GRAVELS WITH FINES Fines classif as ML or MN
_ Nora than 12% ones c � Fines classify as CL or CH
Coarse '"" — 3"
Fine .............................. No. 4 — 3 /4 "
Sand
GM
Silt ravel f•9."
GC
Clayey gravel f•9•n
SANDS CLEAN SANDS C > 6 and 1 < C < 3 e
- — —
$OS or more of ,ass than Ss noes o
SW
Nell- graded sand '
Coarse NO. 4 — NO. lO
SP
Poorly graded sans
'
<
IF coarse Iract+on Cu < 6 ana7or 1 > Cc J e
passes no. 4
E Steve SANDS N:TN f:YES Fines classify es ML or MN
More thaI 12s foes d Fines classify as CL dr CM
Medium No. 1 0 — No. 40
:::::::::::::::::::::.:::::
Fine .. No. 40 — No. 200
Silt .. ............................... No. 200 —.005 mm
SX
Silt Sand 9•n•
SC
Clayey sand 9,n•
=: , ; and Plots on or wove
ne ]
SILTS AND C.ArS ino r g anic
CL
Lean clay k,l,m
y ..............................
Clay less than .005 mm
ML
Silt k,l,m
Liquid I,m,t 4 dr Plots belo. 'A• line 3
"s ` "n 50 i
RELATIVE DENSITY OF
OL
Organic clay k. I. m, n
Oryani< silt k, 1, w, o
' Jr,dnic uia limit - oven dried ,. G
— duia ,t - of dried ''S
COHESIONLESS SOILS
very loose ..... ............................... 0 4 BPF
loose ......... .............................. .. 5 — 10 BPF
%f Plots on or a,ovo • -.. 'imp
CN
fat clay k.l ,m
MN
EIaSN[ silt k, l,m
_
I
E
Liquid '. m : pl Delo. "A' line
y = w: dr'mdre
r
medium dense . 11 — 30 BPF
. .............................
dense ........ ............................... 31 — 50 BPF
'
n,uid lim;t - oven dried
ordeni< < 0.75
.•du Tim+t - no: Jr •rd
ir,marily organic matter, dark �n cn..or, and
Nignly organic sails organic door
very dense ........ ............................... 50+ BPF
CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS
OM
PT
Organic clay k, p
Or an is silt k, '.. m, q
Peat
1 60
N 50
a
X
0 40
Z
~ 30
U
V,
20
to
' (L
a
i
to
7
4
0 0
10 16 20 30 40 so 60 70 80 90 l00 110
LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
a. Based on the material Passing the 3 — (75-mm) sieve.
b. If field samole contained cobbles anafor boulders, add ".fin cobbles anal., W,lders" to group nano.
c. Gravels .itn 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols
111-GM .cll graaea gravel .itn silt
01 -GC .ell gr adea ,revel .,tn c!ay
GP -GM Poorly gradea gravel nth s
GP -GC poorly dradea gravel -'in clay
a. Sands .ith 5 to 2s ' nes r equ,re dual symbols
SN•SM .ell gr ade0 Sena with " it
SN -SC well gr aced sand .i to clan
SD -SM Poorl graded sans nth n!t
SD - poorly gredea sans nth
iD
e. Cu • 0 60' 0 10 - ,, 60
f. N soil corta,ns :5s Sand, add ' n send' to group name.
.. 1f fines efdS S as .L JaI, use anal symbol GC -Cgs, 5C -3'.
n. If fines are organic, add •nth organic fines to group name.
;, if soil contains > 15% gravel, aad -.,ti, l- to group none.
If 0.tterberg I,m,is plot in natcnea area, soil is a LL-ML, silty clay.
L. 1/ soil contains 15 to 29s of us No. 200, age •.i to sans" or ".i to gravel• .n icnever Is predominant.
1 if soil contains > 30% plus No. 2DO, oreddminantly sand, add "sandy to group name.
If soil con tens > 301. plus No. 1 00, predominantly gravel, add - gravelly to group name.
r. PI > 4 and Plots on or a>ove 'A• line,
d. DI T 4 or olots bolo. 'A' vine.
P. 01 of otS on or apove "A' line.
q. D1 plots del o. 'A• line.
0 — 1 BPF
i
2— 3 B PF
rather soft ..... ...............................
4— 5 BPF
LABORATORY
TESTS
' DD
Dry Density. pcf
OC
Organic Content.
WD
Wet Density. pcf
S
Percent of Saturation.
MC
Natural Moisture Content.
° d SG
Specific Gravity
' LL
PL
Liquid Limit. °o
Plastic Limit. 1 '0
C
0
Cohesion
Angle of Internal Friction
PI
Plasticity Index. Oa
qu
Unconfined Compressive Strength
a. Based on the material Passing the 3 — (75-mm) sieve.
b. If field samole contained cobbles anafor boulders, add ".fin cobbles anal., W,lders" to group nano.
c. Gravels .itn 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols
111-GM .cll graaea gravel .itn silt
01 -GC .ell gr adea ,revel .,tn c!ay
GP -GM Poorly gradea gravel nth s
GP -GC poorly dradea gravel -'in clay
a. Sands .ith 5 to 2s ' nes r equ,re dual symbols
SN•SM .ell gr ade0 Sena with " it
SN -SC well gr aced sand .i to clan
SD -SM Poorl graded sans nth n!t
SD - poorly gredea sans nth
iD
e. Cu • 0 60' 0 10 - ,, 60
f. N soil corta,ns :5s Sand, add ' n send' to group name.
.. 1f fines efdS S as .L JaI, use anal symbol GC -Cgs, 5C -3'.
n. If fines are organic, add •nth organic fines to group name.
;, if soil contains > 15% gravel, aad -.,ti, l- to group none.
If 0.tterberg I,m,is plot in natcnea area, soil is a LL-ML, silty clay.
L. 1/ soil contains 15 to 29s of us No. 200, age •.i to sans" or ".i to gravel• .n icnever Is predominant.
1 if soil contains > 30% plus No. 2DO, oreddminantly sand, add "sandy to group name.
If soil con tens > 301. plus No. 1 00, predominantly gravel, add - gravelly to group name.
r. PI > 4 and Plots on or a>ove 'A• line,
d. DI T 4 or olots bolo. 'A' vine.
P. 01 of otS on or apove "A' line.
q. D1 plots del o. 'A• line.
very soft ....... ...............................
0 — 1 BPF
i
2— 3 B PF
rather soft ..... ...............................
4— 5 BPF
car •059 eta On Of ` 50
6— 8 BPF
rather stiff ...... ...............................
9 — 12 BPF
stiff ............ .............................13
— 16 BPF
and fine- aromea frOCT o of coarse - grinned
SOi:9 /
.............. 17 — 30 =' PF
hard ............. ...............................
30+ BPF
.;
_quat ;On of 'A - re
HOri2antcl at PI =-1
then PI ^
Nom
r
Eo:oT or _' •- he
vertical a _ _ =76 ro Pi =7
ttlen PI =C 9 LL -81 '
i
a
v
i
MH OR
OH
-- _
Z CL
ML
OL
_
I
very soft ....... ...............................
0 — 1 BPF
soft ........... ...............................
2— 3 B PF
rather soft ..... ...............................
4— 5 BPF
medium ....... ...............................
6— 8 BPF
rather stiff ...... ...............................
9 — 12 BPF
stiff ............ .............................13
— 16 BPF
very stiff ....................
.............. 17 — 30 =' PF
hard ............. ...............................
30+ BPF
DRILLING NOTES
Standard penetration test borings were advanced by 3'. %" or 6
I.D. hollow -stem augers unless noted otherwise. Jetting water was
used to clean out auger prior to sampling only where indicated on
logs. Standard penetration test borings are designated by the
prefix °ST" (Split Tube).
Power auger borings were advanced by 4" or 6" diameter.
continuous- flite. solid stem augers. Soil classification and strain
depths are inferred from disturbed samples augered to the surface
and are therefore somewhat approximate. Power auger borings
are designated by the prefix B.
Hand probings were advanced manually with a V. -" diameter
probe and are limited to the depth from which the probe can be
manually withdrawn. Hand probings are indicated by the prefix
„
SAMPLING — All samples are taken with the standard 2" O.D.
split tube sampler, except where noted. TW indicates thin -wall
(undisturbed) sample.
BPF — Numbers indicate blows per foot recorded in standard
penetration test, also known as "N" value. The sampler Is set 6"
into undisturbed soil below the hollow -stem auger. Driving
resistances are then counted for second and third 6" increments
and added to get BPF. Where they differ significantly they are
reported in the following form — 212 for the second and third 6"
increments respectively.
WH — WH indicates that sampler penetrated soil under weight of
hammer and rods alone, driving not required.
NOTE — All tests run in accordance with applicable ASTM
standards.
BRAUN
INTERTEC
` ��, t Cefehratro zsi
n
5ti ✓'�� _ �� z
July 6, 1992
Minnesota Pollution
k
Control A
Celebrating our 25th anniversary and the 20th anniv
1
ncy I
ry of the Clean Water Act ,
RECEIVED
JUL 0 81992 ,
C11 Y Ut k;MAINIMASSEN I
Ms. Sharmin Al -Jaff
City of Chanhassen '
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
I
Dear Ms. Al -Jaff:
I
Re: Rudolph Remus Petroleum Release Site
Site ID #: 0001700 '
The purpose of this letter is to clarify the MPCA's position with respect to
the recent letters sent to Mr. Rudolph Remus and Mr. James Jessup. Although
not expressly stated in either of the letters, the MPCA staff has no objection '
over Mr. Jessup beginning construction of his new home. The June 11, 1992,
letter to Mr. Jessup provides the MPCA's recommendations for assessing
contaminant levels in soil and ground water. We see no reason why he cannot '
begin footing and foundation construction at this time.
I thank you for your interest and patience in this matter. Should you have any
questions, please call me at 297 -8613.
i
Sincerely, '
u1 A
John R. Moeger
Project Leader
Tanks and Spills Section j
Hazardous Waste Division '
JRM:np
cc: Rudolph Remus, Chanhassen '
James Jessup, Chaska
Anita Crews, Peterson and Hektner, Minneapolis
John Bonner, Parsienne, Bowman, Levy, Minneapolis '
i
i
520 Lafayette Rd.; St. Paul, MN 55155.3898; (612) 296 -6300; Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshall • Rochester ,
Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on Recycled Paper 1
P �
16A
June 11, 1992
Mr..Rudolph Remus
9245 Lake Riley Road
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Remus:
c
,6 S -X
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 9 sO
520 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 -3898
Telephone (612) 296 -6300 ����`Po�,
55317
Re: Remus Property Petroleum Release Site
Site ID #: LEAK00001700
The MPCA staff has reviewed the most recent soil gas survey results as reported
by your consultant, Bruce A. Liesch and Associates (BAL) in their letter dated
May 29, 1992.
' The results indicate petroleum contamination below 10 parts per million (ppm)
exists along the the Remus - Jessup property line. The highest level recorded was
8 ppm near the former underground storage tank (UST) basin. Based on this last
' round of samples, the MPCA staff conclude that the investigation and cleanup
performed in response to the petroleum tank release at the above - referenced site
has substantially addressed the petroleum contamination. However, please be
advised that you remain responsible for identifying and remediating any soil and
' ground water contamination caused by the release from your tanks which may be
found on the Jessup property if and when he begins building his home.
' Mr. Jessup has asked the MPCA staff several valid questions dealing with the
testing and management of petroleum contaminated soil and ground water if found
during building construction. These questions, with the MPCA staff's responses
' will be forwarded to you.
Thank you for your time and patience in addressing this petroleum tank release.
Should you have any questions, please call me at 297 -8613 or Mr. Jim Lundy at
' 297 -8600.
Sincerely,
' John R. Moeger
Project Leader
Tanks and Spills Section
Hazardous Waste Division
' JRM:mmm
' cc: Mark Miller, Bruce a. Liesch and Associates, Inc.
Anita Crews, Peterson and Hektner, Ltd.
John Bonner, Parsienne, Bowman, Levy
' Steve Kirchman, City of Chanhassen
Dave Koubsky, Nova Environmental Consultants, Inc
James Jessup, Chaska
Robin Hanson, Commerce Department
' Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshall • Rochester
Fniml ()nnortiinity Emnlovar • Printed on Recvrler! Panar
-{ Ce(ebration --I"
Minnesota Pollution Co
n
rol Agency I
Celebrating our 25th anniversary and the 20th anniversary of the Clean Water Act
i
i
Mr. James Jessup
3323 Lake Shore Court
Chaska, Minnesota 55318
Dear Mr. Jessup:
Re: Rudolph Remus Petroleum Release Site
Site ID #: LEAK00001700
I received your letter that asks several questions concerning the existence and
fate of petroleum contaminated soil and /or ground water that may be encountered
as you begin construction of your new home. First of all, if I am to understand
your letter clearly, I am assuming you are in fact prepared to begin
construction very shortly, therefore, we will answer your questions as follows:
1. "What is to be done with the excavated contaminated soil on my property at
the time of digging the footings for my house? Nova's test results indicate
contamination exists."
An extensive excavation in April 1990 removed over 1100 cubicjyards of
contaminated soil, mostly from your property. The excavationlextended
laterally across the entire footprint of the proposed foundation (to the
best of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff's kn+ edge), and to
a depth ranging from approximately 5 to 12 feet. The only known remaining
contaminated soil is located adjacent to the Remus residence, ',which has
suffered no impacts.
MPCA staff direct that during the foundation excavation, a consultant with
the expertise to reliably measure soil contaminants with a field meter be
present. Since it is uncertain whether field meters have been operating
properly during past work phases, MPCA staff direct the use of the
polyethylene bag sample analysis (PBSA) method (guidance document #8), using
a flame ionization detector (FID) during foundation excavation. Instrument
calibration records and standard curve preparation will be especially
important. Please notify MPCA staff when this work is scheduled.
2. "What is to be done with the stinky water that will extracte& (sic) in the
dewatering process ?"
Although ground water sample analytical results from beneath the tanks (at a
depth of 7 feet) at the time of their removal (April 1990) were relatively
high, these types of samples are frequently not representative of ground
water conditions anywhere but directly beneath the tanks. Furthermore, most
of the soil containing this water has been removed. Laboratory analysis
showed a ground water sample collected by Bruce A. Liesch andlAssociates
(BAL) approximately 50 feet south of the underground storage tank basin was
less than 0.50 parts per million (ppm) total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH),
1
I
520 Lafayette Rd.: St. Paul, MN 55155 -3898: (612) 296 -6300: Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshall • Rochester
June 11, 1992
it
Mr. James Jessup
Page 2
June 11, 1992
' below the taste /odor threshold (1 ppm). Investigation of ground water west
of the former UST basin has been hampered by disagreements over access to
' your property.
According to Pete Sandberg of the Water Quality Division of the MPCA, there
are no special monitoring or disposal requirements for dewatering projects
' that extract clean water. Lake Riley is Class 2B, needing no special
protection.
However, if the extraction of contaminated water is expected, you should
' send a "request for no action" letter to the MPCA Water Quality Division,
including the following information: a description of the dewatering
project, including the expected duration; the expected flow rate; disposal
' of extracted water. In this case, the extracted water will need to be
monitored at regular intervals for TPH, depending upon the flow rate and
project duration. If the extracted water is below 10 ppm TPH, it can be
' disposed of normally (sewer, lake, etc.). If the extracted water exceeds
10 ppm TPH, treatment will be necessary (separation tank, diffused aeration
tank, etc.) prior to normal disposal.
' Prior to foundation construction, you will need to arrange for a single
water sample to be collected from a borehole in the approximate position of
the dewatering pump. Analyze the sample for TPH. If the sample exceeds
' 10 ppm TPH, the dewatering project will need to be monitored, and the
extracted water treated. If TPH is detected but <10 ppm, the dewatering
project will need to be monitored but no special treatment of the extracted
' water is necessary. If TPH are not detected, no further monitoring of
ground water will be necessary.
If a permanent dewatering system is to be installed on your residence, you
' may need a permit from the Water Quality Division of the MPCA.
3. "The BAL report dated April 24, 1992, indicated the samples were taken at a
' depth of 2 to 5.3 feet. Why so shallow ?"
According to Mark Miller of BAL (telephone conversation on June 2, 1992) the
soil vapor probe sampling depth was selected primarily because of the
' possibility of encountering a high water table. In fact, two probes (GP -5
during the first survey attempt, April 21, 1992; and GP -2 during the second,
May 14, 1992) intersected the water table. The probes were retracted
slightly prior to making survey measurements. Aside from the inability to
collect soil vapor from beneath the capillary fringe, the likelihood of
drawing water into the sampling apparatus, thus fouling it, is greatly
increased when the probe depth approaches the water table.
MPCA staff feel the survey adequately represented site conditions at the
' time it was conducted.
Mr. James Jessup
Page 3
June 11, 1992
On the issue of reimbursement, you will need to discuss your eligibility with
Ms. Robin Hanson, Commerce Department, at 297 -4017. You must also cooperate
with Mr. Remus on an appropriate course of action with respect to your building
plans since he is ultimately responsible for ensuring steps are taken to
identify and mitigate petroleum contamination according to MPCA clean up goals
and action levels.
Your cooperation will be appreciated. Should you have any questions, please
call me at 297 -8613 or Mr. Jim Lundy at 297 -8600.
i
Sincerely,
John R. Moege;�
Project Leader
Tanks and Spills Section
Hazardous Waste Division
JRM:mmm
cc: Mark Miller, Bruce A. Liesch and Associates, Inc.
Anita Crews, Peterson and Hektner, Ltd.
John Bonner, Parsienne, Bowman, Levy
Steve Kirchman, City of Chanhassen
Dave Koubsky, Nova Environmental Consultants, Inc
Rudolph Remus, Chaska
Robin Hanson, Commerce Dept.
I
� I
� I
January 14, 1993
� I
' Mr. Don Ashworth
City Manager
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
' Dear Mr. Ashworth:
We do not oppose the extending of the variance that James
Jessup has requested for the property next to ours. He needs the
' additional year to build his house. The contamination issue has
taken longer to resolve than we anticipated. We want to assist him
in his variance request.
Sincerely,
Rudolph Remus
Lucille Remus
CITY OF �'' �
CHANHASSEN
MEMORANDUM
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHA,, SEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1'
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1
TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals /City Council '
FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I
THROUGH: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
DATE: February 10, 1992
SUBJ: Variance Extension Request for 9247 Lake!Riley Boulevard ,
- James Jessup
On March 13, 1989, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved
Variance Request #89 -1 for the front, rear and ;both side yard
setbacks for the construction .of a new single family residence.
Since then the owner was °informed that hisi property was
contaminated with petroleum products that had migrated from the
neighboring property. Therefore, the City Building Inspector and
Fire Marshal issued a stop work order on October 113, 1989. The
contamination is from a gasoline storage tank used for seaplanes
operating from the lake. The tank has been removed at the MPCA's
direction. Apparently, the applicant has been unable to build his
home until the parcel has been given a clean bill of health by the
MPCA. He requested and received several extensionsIto the one year
time period, which a variance approval is valid. The MPCA has
undertaken work in the cleaning of the Jessup parcel but it is as
yet unclear as whether or not it is safe for home construction. In
addition, the adjacent parcel,, was the source of
the contamination, remains polluted: Further workJs required to
clean this lot which may involve, related, work yin tho Jessup parcel.
At the present time, it is unclear as to when and how this will be
resolved. It is Also unclear as to whether or not ill parties are
working cooperatively together,to resolve the matter.
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals and City Council had granted
an extension on February 20, 19,±00; and on February,j11, 1991. The
variance will expire on February 11, 1992, unless the owner starts
construction before that date.
i
On February 4, 1992, staff contacted the MPCA and spoke to Mr. John
Moeger, Hazardous Waste Division Project Leader. Mr. Moeger stated
that further testings and vapor analyses is required to determine
if additional corrective action is required on the Jessup property.
4"
%4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
' Jessup Variance Extension Request
January 30, 1992
Page 2
The soils under the neighboring property which caused the
contamination in the first place are still contaminated. These
soils are located under the foundation of the residence. Should
the MPCA try to remove the soils from under the foundation, they
will cause the residence to collapse. The MPCA gave June 1, 1992
' as a deadline for construction of a remedy.
T T /1A1f1lT -1--
A11
Staff is recommending that the extension requested by Mr. Jessup be
granted with the condition he cooperate and complies with the
MPCA Is requirement to complete the clean up process, in addition to
' the conditions of approval attached to the original variance. We
are further recommending that this variance extension be re-
evaluated by July 30, 1992. We are concerned that while the owners
' and MPCA are unable to reach a settlement, there remains a
potential that the remaining contamination is impacting Lake Riley
and the surrounding area. By re- evaluating this in 7 months, we do
not want to infer any blame on Mr. Jessup or any other party.
Simply that we will want to intervene, if possible, to get this
matter resolved.
The following conditions, including the original conditions are
recommended:
1. The applicant shall cooperate and comply with the MPCA
requirements to complete the clean up process.
2. A re- evaluation of the site will be done in 7 months.
The original conditions of variance approval - approved by the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals on March 13, 1989, are as follows:
' Approval was subject to the plan dated March 6, 1989, and the
following:
' 1. Drainage be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior
to issuance of a building permit.
2. The deck on the rear of the house is to remain a deck and no
porch or any enclosed structure is allowed in the 75 foot
setback from Lake Riley. (Note: The building plot plan will
' need to show the actual ordinary high water mark for Lake
Riley to determine actual setback. This will need to be
identified on the property survey by a registered surveyor.)
The area under the deck may be improved as a patio with no
' enclosures.
3. Plans are to be reviewed by Planning Staff prior to issuance
of building permit to assure compliance with intent of and
Jessup Variance Extension Request
January 30, 1992
Page
3
plans presented with variance.
4.
The attached plan is noted as the
official plan for
determining compliance.
The
City Council also reviewed the action of the Board of
'
Adjustments and endorsed their action and
addedi the following
conditions:
5.
The front setback may be no less than 16 ',feet from the
property line.
6.
The rear setback may be no less than 68
feet from the deck.
,
7.
The west setback may be no less than 5.5
feet for any portion
of the structure.
8.
The east setback may be no less than 10
feet for any portion
of the structure.
i
'
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Letter from applicant.
I
2.
Staff reports dated February 20, 1990,
March 8, 1989 and
February 27, 1989.
3.
City Council minutes dated February 11,
1991,IMarch 13, 1989
and February 27, 1989.
'
4.
Letter from Nova Environmental Services,
Inc.1dated February
5, 1991.
5.
Letters from MPCA dated February 4, 1991,
September 9, 1991,
November 4, 1991, January 3, 1992.
I
�
1
I
i
C11 Y OF .2 "=��
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH:
DATE:
Board of Adjustments and Appeals /City Council
Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I
Paul Krauss, Planning Director
January 30, 1991
a - ;
SUBJ: Variance Extension Request for 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard
- James Jessup
On March 13, 1989, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved
Variance Request #89 -1 for the front, rear and both side yard
setbacks for the construction of a new single family residence.
Since then the owner was informed that his property is contaminated
with petroleum products. Therefore, the City Building Inspector
and Fire Marshal issued a stop work order on October 13, 1989. The
contamination is apparently from a gasoline storage tank used for
seaplanes operating from the lake. The Board of Adjustments and
Appeals had granted an extension on February 20, 1990. The
variance will expire on February 20, 1991, unless the owner starts
construction before that date.
Staff contacted the MPCA and spoke to Ms. Janet Barryhill on
January 28, 1991. Ms. Barryhill stated that the majority of the
contaminated soils have been removed. The MPCA will install vents
that will test the level of vapor in the soil during the spring of
1991. At the present time, no vapor is occurring due to frozen
ground, therefore, no vents will pick up any vapor and
consequently, the level of contamination cannot be determined. The
MPCA expects that by spring, 1991, the applicant will be able to
resume construction.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the extension requested by Mr. Jessup be
granted. while staff supports granting the variance extension, it
should be made clear that the gas tank which was located on an
adjoining parcel was a non - conforming use and it is staff's
position that it should not be replaced.
James Jessup Variance Extension
January 30, 1991
Page 2
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from applicant.
2. Staff reports dated March 8, 1989 and February 27, 1989.
3. City Council minutes dated March 13, 1989 and February 27,
1990.
4. Memo dated February 20, 1990.
5. Letter from Nova Environmental Services, Inc.dated February
5, 1991.
6. Letter from MPCA dated February 4, 1991.
1
January 16, 1991
Jo Ann Olson
Sr. Planner
City of Chanhassen,
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN, 55317
RE: Variance Extension request for 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
Dear Jo Ann:
The purpose of this letter is to ask for an extension of the
variance for the above referenced property. A year ago the City
granted an extension for this property.
The site is still contaminated. The Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency is directing the investigation for the cleanup. It
appears doubtful that any construction will take place in 1991
given the speed of the cleanup to date.
Therefore, I am asking for an extension of the variance for
another year. The cleanup process speed is beyond my control. I
am unable to build on my property due to remaining contamination.
I can be reached at 448 -7148 during the day if you have any
questions. Please advise me ten days in advance of the scheduled
meeting.
Thanks for your assistance in handling this matter.
Sincerely,
' James F. Jessup
3323 Lake Shore Ct.
' Chaska, MN 55318
.JAN 181-
RECEIVED
(;11 t Or k,ni- sivnHbSEN
CITY
CHAKE
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHAN
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals
FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I
F
.;?. 1
SEX
SEN, MINNESOTA 55317
- 5739
Date , t � 7 — _
DATE: February 20, 1990
SUBJ: Variance Extension Request for 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard,
James Jessup
On March 13, 1989, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved
variance request #89 -1 for the front, rear and both side yards
setbacks for the construction of a new single family residence.
Since then the owner was informed that his property is con-
taminated with petroleum products; therefore, the City Building
Inspector and Fire Marshal issued a stop work orderjon October
13, 1989. The contamination is for gasoline storage tank used
for seaplanes operating from the lake. The variance will expire
on March 13, 1990 unless the owner starts construction before
that date. The applicant expects construction to resume some
time in mid- summer of 1991. The applicant is requesting an
extension of the variance 'until one year after the receipt of
certification by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency stating
that the site is ready to be built upon. The ratio ale for the
year is that it will take time to evaluate if design changes are
necessary to prevent contamination from re-entering the site or
the structure itself. Staff recommends the extension be granted.
While we support the variance extension, it should be made clear
that the gas tank was a non - conforming use and it is staff's
position that it should not be replaced.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from applicant.
2. Staff Report dated March 8,',
3. City Council minutes dated March 13, 1989.
4. City Council minutes dated February 27, 1989.
L I
January 30, 1990
Jo Ann Olsen
Sr. Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Variance extension request for 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
Dear Jo Ann:
The purpose of this letter is to ask for an extension for the
variance of the above referenced property. This letter is in
response to the conversation you had with Gary Hempel, the City
Engineer, concerning the delay in the construction of the house
on the referenced property.
The delay in the construction is forced because of the
discovery of an unknown condition that exists on the property.
The condition is subsurface contamination of petroleum products.
The city building inspector and fire marshall issued a stop work
order on October 13, 1989. The source and total area impacted
are not known at this time. It is expected to take some time to
determine the source, area involved, a appropriate plan of
action, and time to execute the plan. It maybe midsummer of 1991
before construction may resume.
Therefore, I am asking for an extension of the variance until
one year after the receipt of certification by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency stating the site is ready to be built
upon. The rationale for the year is that it will take time to
evaluate if design changes are necessitated to prevent
contamination from reentering the site or the structure itself.
I can be called at 341 -6028 during the day if you have any
questions.
Thanks for your prompt handling of this request.
Sincerely,
/ James F. Jessup
3323 Lake Shore Ct.
Chaska, MN 55318
FEB ® 21999
Ci � OF CHANHASSEN
CITY
CHANHAS
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHAN
(612) 937 -1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Adjustments and'Appeals
FROM: Stephen Hanson, Planning Director
DATE: March 8, 1989
F
BEN
7 �
L
MINNESOTA 55317 ,
SUBJ: Variance for Construction of a Single Family;Residence
Requested Variances for Front, Rear and Both;Side Setbacks
#89 -1 Variance
This application was presented to the Board of Adjustments at
their meeting of February 27, 1989. At that time the item was
tabled by the Board of Adjustment: This item was tabled for two
reasons. First of all, the Boardfelt that the variances seemed
to be excessive for the piece of property and the building that
was being proposed. The second reason was to reque: t staff to
look at other variances along `Lake Riley Boulevard provide a
summary of what variances have been allowed in that'iarea.
In response to the first reason, the applicant has submitted
revised plans for the property. The changes to the Requested
setback variances are as follows.
Front setback - To be 17 feet at the closest point from the
front property line. The driveway itself would be 181 feet long
at its shortest point and 21 feet long at the longest point be-
tween garage and the edge of the right -of -way. These distances
are adequate to allow vehicles to pull off the right, -of -way and
park in front of the garage.
Side Setback East Side - The required setback is 10 ;feet.
Previously, the applicant had asked for a 5 foot variance on the
east side. The revised plans show the required 10 foot setback
on the east side. No variance would be required on the east edge
of the property.
Side Setback West Side - The required setback is 10 Meet. The
original plan submitted showed a 1 foot setback from�the property
line to the edge of the deck and a 6 foot setback from the prop-
erty line to the edge of the house. After the staffireport was
written, the applicant had submitted a revised plan dated
February 22, 1989, which showed a 10 foot setback on the west
property for the house and a 6 foot setback for the deck. The
Ur
Board of Adjustments
March 8, 1989
Page 2
f latest revised plan dated March 6, 1989, on the west side indica-
tes a 5 foot setback from the property for the building as well
' as the deck. This results in a 5 foot variance to the side yard
setback on the west side of the property. Previously, the appli-
cant had noted the potential for doing a land trade with the
adjacent property owner on the west to align their property line
' with the existing fence on the west side of the property. If the
properties were to agree to move the lot line over to the
existing chain link fence, the resulting setback on the west side
' at the closest point to the building would increase to approxima-
tely 7f feet.
' Rear Setback - The required setback along Lake Riley is 75 feet
from the high water mark. The applicants have revised their
building plans to eliminate the porch on the rear of the building
which on the previous plan encroached into the 75 foot setback.
' The latest plan shows the rear of the structure being right on
the 75 foot setback and a 10 foot deck extending into the 75 foot
setback along the rear of the property. The deck is considered a
structure and would require a 10 foot variance to the rear yard
setback for its construction.
' Lot Coverage - This lot is approximately 7,500 square feet. The
maximum lot coverage in the RSF District is 25 %. This translate
to 1,875 square feet that can be devoted to lot coverage on the
property. Lot coverage includes all impervious surfaces which
' covers the structure as well as driveways, sidewalks and decks.
If the applicant were to meet all setbacks for the lot, the area
which could be built on would cover an area of approximately
1,380 square feet. Then you would also need to add in, at a
minimum, a driveway to serve the structure, assuming a two car
garage, a 30 foot setback and a 16 foot wide drive, we would have
' another 480 feet added onto that figure. That would bring the
total up to 1,860 square feet. This would comply with the maxi-
mum coverage requirement of the code.
' Lot coverage for the proposed home based on the plan dated March
6, 1989,.breaks out as follows.
' Deck 330 sq. ft.
Driveway 320 sq. ft.
Sidewalk and front stoop 100 sq. ft.
Proposed Building Footprint 1,650 sq. ft.
(garage included)
Total 2,400 sq. ft.
This total, 2,400 square feet, is approximately 525 square feet
larger than the maximum allowable lot coverage for this piece of
property.
Board of Adjustments
March 8, 1989
Page 3
In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance to the 30 foot
front yard setback to allow for a 17 foot setback. iThey are
asking for a side yard setback of 5 feet on the west side from
the required 10 feet. They are requesting a variance to the 75
foot rear yard setback from the lake for a 10 foot encroachment
for a deck on the rear of the home. Lastly, they are requesting
a lot coverage variance of approximately 525 square feet over
what is allowed.
The second item requested by the Board of Adjustment was a sum-
mary of other variances that have been granted along Lake Riley
Boulevard. These are summarized below, however, staff would
advise the Board of Adjustment that each application is to be
considered on its own merits and the unique characteristics that
may apply to a particular lot or circumstance.
Case
82 -9 Variance 9239 Lake Riley Boulevard
i
In this particular case, the applicant was granted a 5 foot side
yard setback variance and a 42 foot shoreland setback variance.
86 -1 Variance 9235 Lake Riley Boulevard
In this case, the variance approved for the property was to allow
a single family residence to be 50 feet from the southerly ordi-
nary high water mark and 35 feet from the westerly ordinance high
water mark.
These are the two variances that staff has identified on Lake
Riley Boulevard in this particular neighborhood. Also, there was
another area that people have mentioned, which was areconstruc-
tion on an existing foundation footprint. This particular pro-
perty does not meet setback requirements but plans were approved
under a section of the code which allows for the improvement of
an existing structure as long as that footprint is not extended
beyond what was there previously. This does not require the
owner to come before the Board of Adjustments for a variance to
improve that existing structure.
In order for the Board of Adjustments to grant the variances as
requested by the applicant, the Board still needs to:make
findings that the application satisfies the five criteria. While
the applicant's revised plans are an improvement over what they
had requested previously, the issue remains, is there a hardship
that is not self- imposed, are the variances necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of property rights on this parcel, and
third, are the circumstances self- imposed or a result of a unique
situation?
1
F , ',
�I
i I
Board of Adjustments
March 8, 1989
Page 4
This is the determination that the Board of Adjustment needs to
make in reviewing this particular request.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff report for BOA Hearing on February 27, 1989.
2. Revised plot plan dated March b, 1989, showing setbacks as
proposed.
3. Revised plot plan showing the proposed structure overlayed on
existing improvements on property.
4. Letter from applicant dated February 28, 1989.
5. Letter from adjacent property owner dated February 2, 1989.
aITY OF
CHANBASSEN
UA DATE :
C. C. DATE:
CASE NO:
Prepared b
STAFF REPORT
Z
Q
V
{.ice
1.1..
Q
0
W
B
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
J.
Feb. 27, 1989
89 -1 Variance
y: Hanson /v
Variance for Construction of a Single Family Residen
Requested Variances for Front, Rehr and Both Side
Setbacks and Maximum Lot Coverages
I
i
Lot 42, Shore Acres - Southern end of Lake Riley
Boulevard
-: ✓ D0 Pr
James & Mary Ellen Jessup
9247 Lake Riley Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
WATER AND SEWER:
PHYSICAL CHARAC.:
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
RSF, Residential Single Family
.17 acres (7,500 + s.f.)
I
N- PUD -R; residential single family
S- RD; Lake Riley
i
E- RSF; residential single family
W- RSF; residential single family
i
i
Municipal services are available
Site slopes to lake
i
Residential
a
J
m
N
Z
; / � O ' :
1 A2
1
1
1
1 1
AIL
t
IM7 �
(C. P.
66 TH S,
P
RSF
gag
PUD-
Y
SF
POND
Q
•
9800 =0
100
200
300
- 8600
8700
R 1
8800
PONO
O
-
8900
9000
RD
9100
9200
LAKE
9300
RILEY
9400
9500
9600
9800 =0
100
200
300
!_l
Jessup Variance
February 27, 1989
Page 2
SUMMARY OF REQUESTED VARIANCES
i
'
RSF Existing Existing. Proposed Proposed
Description Require. Situation Variance Situation Variance
Setback 30' 20' -10' 20! -10'
Front
Side (east) 10' 6.8' - 3.2' 5 - 5'
Side (west) 10' -2.5' -12.5' 1! - 9'
i
Rear 75' 78' + 3' 61' -14'
'
Maximum Lot 25% 23% + 2% 34% - 9%
Coverage
,
The applicant is requesting variances to all setback requirements
of the RSF zoning district. The present improvements on the
'
property encroach into all but the rear setback. The rear set-
back for the lot is 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark of
Lake Riley which is at an elevation of 864.5. The survey of the
property does not include the elevation so the exact jocation of
,
the rear property line is unknown. The present structure appears
to meet the rear setback. The applicant is requesting to
encroach into the setback 14 feet.
'
The side setback (west) is requested to be 1 foot. The existing
garage on the property is located 2.' feet off the property. The
'
other side setback (east) is presently 6.8 feet and the proposal
is for this to be 5 feet at the garage and 10 feet along the
side of the house. With a modification to the entrance, the
garage could be shifted to the west to meet the setback. Also,
'
the garage appears to be oversized and reducing the width would
help this situation. On the west side the deck could be removed
and there would be a 6 foot setback. With modification the cor-
'
ners of the house would be out of the setback.
The front yard setback presently is at 20 feet and t)is is con-
sistent with other lots along Lake Riley Boulevard a d this
neighborhood. Twenty feet is minimum to allow a car7to park in
the driveway. The rear setback is 75 feet. Removallof the deck
and porch would bring this into compliance with codejrequire-
ments.
The lot coverage under the proposed plan is a significant
'
increase over the allowable in the RSF District. Removal of the
deck and porch would likely bring the plan into conformance with
this requirement.
,
rl
- essup Variance
February 27, 1989
Page 3
The zoning code provides five findings that the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals must make in order to grant the variance
' request. These criteria and staff analysis are as follows:
A. That the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause
undue hardship and practical difficulty.
' * The literal enforcement of this chapter would not preclude
use of the property, however, enforcement of the front set-
' back would require a setback which is not characteristic of
the homes east of this lot on the lake side of Lake Riley
Boulevard.
' B. That the hardship is caused by special conditions and cir-
cumstances which are peculiar to the land and structure
involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to
' other lands of structures in the same district.
* Special conditions are that this lot is narrower and
' smaller than would be required under the present codes if
it were to be created now. The question is can the lot be
developed and comply with code requirements, and the answer
is yes, the lot could be developed but not with a home of
' the size that is proposed.
C. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preser-
vation and enjoyment of substantial property rights.
* The property could be developed without the variances
' although the house would have to have a smaller foot print.
The granting of the front yard variance allows some flexi-
bility and is in keeping with the lots to the east.
' D. That the special conditions and circumstances are not a con-
sequence of a self - created hardship.
' * The home to be built is a new home and it is difficult to
say that non - compliance with the setbacks is not self -
imposed. The present zoning was in effect when the owners
' purchased the property and there has been no change in
requirements.
E. That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect
the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City of
the neighborhood wherein the property is situated and will be
in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance.
' * The front setback is in character. Some side yard setbacks
may be appropriate but a 90% reduction on the side and 50%
on the other indicates the structure is simply to large for
' the site. This is further noted by the proposed lot
I
- essup Variance
February 27, 1989
Page 4
coverage of 34$ versus the code requirement ofi The
encroachment into the 75 foot lakeshore setback is not
something the city has allowed except in unique areas.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board of Adjustments and Appeal p not approve
,
the variances as proposed based on findings that thelrequest does
not comply with the conditions for granting a variance. Staff
recommends the Board adopt the following motion: f
'
"The Board of Adjustments and Appeals have reviewed the proposed
variances for Variance Request #89 -1, James Jessup, 9247 Lake
Riley Boulevard, and denies the requested variances to the side
,
yard setbacks, rear yard setback and maximum lot cover of the
^ity Code based on the following findings:
1. Literal enforcement would not cause undue hardship and prac-
tical difficulty.
2. The variances are not necessary for the preservation and
'
enjoyment of substantial property rights.
�. The circumstances are a self created hardship due to the size
,
and design of the proposed structures.
ATTACHMENTS
i
'
1. Letter from applicant dated February 20, 1989.
2. Letter from applicant dated February 21, 1989
^ Application.
'
3. Existing plot plan.
4. Proposed plot plan.
A bruary 20, 1989
and of Adjustment
ty of Chanhassen
anhassen, MN 5531
: Variance request at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
Dear Board:
A I an requesting variances on
d both sides of the property.
Riley and is pie shaped with the
l ke. It was platted decades ago
andards of lot size.
the setbacks on the front, rear,
This is a lot that fronts unto Lake
narrow portion of the lot to the
therefore is not upto current
l The current situation is that a one story structure exists there
The structure is within six feet of the east side property
line rather than the suggested ten feet. The back of the structure
iv only twenty feet from the back property line rather than the
gested thirty feet. The ten foot wide deck is within the
enty five setback from the lake. A portion of the garage sets
on the neighbors property on the West property line. The one 'car
rage is not attached to the house. This home was purchased from
D as a repossessed house. Structurally the house is not fit to
model and add stories to obtain adequate spacce.
1 I have several alternatives uses for the current site. One is
to do nothing and rent the house out as it is too small for my use.
I is rebuild using the existing foundation location. This
'ernative would require building a structure three stories tall
would not conform to setback requirements but is grandfathered.
This alternative would not conform to the requirement of having an
T ached two car garage either. Three is to build within all the
backs and include a two car garage. This would require building
a four story house as the first floor would be comprised primarily
of garage and stairs to gain access to the other floors. The fourth
ernative is one I propose. It requires building a two story
ucture so as to minimize the visual impact of having a tall
s ructure on this narrow lot. It does require variances on the
standard setbacks but is an improvement over the existing
dEnditions and is consistent with other nearby lake lots. The
deoff for heighth versus width is perferable.
CITY OF CHANHAZZ. d
R arm: 's
FFB 21 M
I CHANHASSEN P! MN!M0 DEPT.
James F. Jessup '
property owner of
9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
I
I
F-I
Ij
�7
The literal enforcement of the setbacks would cause me to build
a structure that would be three stories!'tall and main floor
comprised of garage, deck, and stair way to the upper levels. The
neighbors are opposed to this idea. Their concern.is of the visual
impact of a tall structure. I find the idea not appealing also.
The situation is pecular to my lot as it was platted many decades
ago. The lot is pie- shaped and not to current standards. The
setback requirements have changed since this lot was platted. These
conditions evolved over time. I am planning a house that will allow
me enjoyment of lake living. The structure is consistent with other
homes in the area. The home on the east side of my propertyjis
,
totally new construction after an unfortunate fire last July,'. The
home on the west side was remodeled and enlarged in the past year.
The planned structure enhances the adjoining properties. The
variances will not be injurious or adversely affect the hearth,
,
safety, or welfare of the residents. The neighbors disapprove of
the current structure and like the idea of a new structure.;
'
I appreciate your time and interest in this variance request and
look forward to starting construction this Spring.
Sincerely,
'
James F. Jessup '
property owner of
9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
I
I
F-I
Ij
�7
r
I
n
February 21, 1989
Board of Adjustment
City of Chanhassen
Chanhassen, MN 5531
CITY Of CNANNkSSEN
Q" N ORNM
FEB 2 J 1°89
RE: Variance request at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
Dear Board:
ENGINEERING 91pT.
The goal is to make a home that is consistent with other lake
residences. That will enhance the adjoining properties and provide
me long term residence.
I am requesting variances on the setbacks on the front, rear,
and both sides of the property. This is a lot that fronts onto Lake
Riley and is pie shaped with the narrow portion of the lot to the
lake.
The current situation is that a one story structure exists there
now. The structure is within six feet of the east side property
line rather than the suggested ten feet. The back of the structure
is only twenty feet from the back property line rather than the
suggested thirty feet. The ten foot wide deck. is within the
seventy five setback from the lake. A portion of the garage sets
on the neighbors property on the West property line. The one car
garage is not attached to the house. This home was purchased from
HUD as a repossessed house. Structurally the house is not fit to
remodel and add stories to obtain adequate space. The lot is too
small and narrow by current standards.
I have several alternatives uses for the current site. One is
to do nothing and rent the house out as it is too small for my use.
Two is rebuild using the existing foundation location. This
alternative would require building a structure three stories tall
and would not conform to setback requirements but is grandfathered.
This alternative would not conform to the requirement of having an
attached two car garage either. Three is to build within all the
setbacks and include a two car garage. This would require building
a four story house as the first floor would be comprised primarily
of garage and stairs to gain access to the other floors. The fourth
alternative is one I propose. It requires building a two story
structure so as to minimize the visual impact of having a tall
structure on this narrow lot. It does require variances on the
standard setbacks but is an improvement over the existing
conditions and is consistent with other nearby lake lots. The
tradeoff for height versus width is preferable.
The request for variances is consistent with other lake
properties along Lake Riley Blvd. The houses to the east of mine
have approximately twenty feet between the garage and property
line. The house under construction currently on Lot 35 of Shore
Acres, was recently granted twenty -five and forty feet variances
for the lake setbacks. The cottage on Lot 29 of Shore Acres is
being rebuilt. It meets neither of the required set backs from the
lake or side yard.
The literal enforcement of the setbacks would cause me to build ,
a structure that would be three stories tall and main floor
comprised of garage, deck, and stair way to the upper levels. The
neighbors are opposed to this idea. Their concern i of the visual '
impact of a tall structure. The situation is peculiar to my lot as
it was platted many decades ago. The lot is pie- shaped. It is too
narrow and too small in square footage by current standards. The
setback requirements have changed since this lot was platted. These '
conditions evolved over time. I am planning a house that will allow
me enjoyment of lake living. The structure is consistent with other
homes in the area. The home on the east side of my property is '
totally new construction after an unfortunate fire last July. The
home on the west side was recently remodeled and lenlarged. The
planned structure enhances the adjoining properties.' The variances ,
will not be injurious or adversely affect the health, safety, or
welfare of the residents. The neighbors disapprove of the current
structure and like the idea of a new structure.
I appreciate your time and interest in this variance request and
i
look forward to starting construction this Spring.
Sincerely,
James Jessup
resident /property owner of '
9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
Gertaicate
Ao
RAIL#tOAO TIE
RETAINING WALL 10,
00.
0 W.
R/4 e)e
Ly
EXISTING
C AIR LINK
7 -c FENCE
go
O C4
(Y
0
0
Po /
EXISTING
CHA IN LIN,
FENCE
NE OF THE S.E. W4
USE NION 24 T. of G E N. 23W
ACCORC ING TO THE RECORD PLAi
OF SH )RE ACRES
0
A
s e)• JJ 0
SuRVFy J q"
0*e.
C
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
' (612) 937 -1900
APPLICANT: me A s 6cu1Je,1P, OWNER JAtytf-5 r. � MA►zca ��1 J, tSSUf
' ADDRESS ADDRESS 92-11 LAd=E P Va.
6"14 -N �4A5 50-N 5 5 311
Zip Code Zip Code
TELEPHONE (Daytime) 3 4/ 6 U ZS TELEPHONE 49G 0 3 59
' REQUEST:
Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development
' Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
Preliminary Plan
Zoning Variance Final Plan
' Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision
' Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
Conditional Use Permit Metes and Bounds
' Street /Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review
Wetlands Permit
' PROJECT NAME
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
PRESENT ZONING
' REQUESTED ZONING
' USES PROPOSED
SIZE OF PROPERTY ,y • 3o Fj . X / Sa r-r, X 7 7 /9;
LOCATION _q,?-¢ 7 ,[, F'i iL�Y ,�LU�. �Rn/ ,S/ASS€�1'•
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST /Vf44/ I-1-o /YiE c'eiV S7 gea 0- -WiA1
1
' LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) ssary ) LOT 42
City of Chanhassen
Land Development Application
Page 2
FILING INSTRUCTIONS
This application must be completed in full and be
clearly pewritten or
y 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 City Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements
applicable to your application.
FILING CERTIFICATION
The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies
that he is familiar with the procedural requiremenits of all
applicable City Ordinances.'
Signed By .. 2
Date
p licant _
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
authorized to make this application for the property herein
described.
Signed By A z A Date
e ner
Date Application Received
Application Fee Paid 4 ?5.00
City Receipt No.
/9
B9
7.5. ono
�W
* This Application will be considered b the he Planning Commission/
Board of Adjustments and A '
ppeals at their
meeting.
.
a A
i
RAILROAD TIE ' O N
RETAINING WALL
V q q
1163
PIRIA 1 E X 15 T I N G
M O U S E
O �
O
42
N
WEST LINE OF THE S. E. 1/4
OF SECTION 24, T. 116 N. , N 23 W.,
ACCORDING TO THE RECORD PLAT
OF SNORE ACRES
i;
W;
(
S 6PO J100
Sv,4�Er 8 00 + '
�
N
44
~W
N
If
R/4 FY
L
- (Aro hFi(e�P►��
y
$P _
EXISTING
" CMAIN LINK
FENCE
g
M O U S E
O �
O
42
N
WEST LINE OF THE S. E. 1/4
OF SECTION 24, T. 116 N. , N 23 W.,
ACCORDING TO THE RECORD PLAT
OF SNORE ACRES
i;
W;
(
S 6PO J100
Sv,4�Er 8 00 + '
�
N
44
~W
N
If
R/4 FY
L
- (Aro hFi(e�P►��
w
�.
o
y�
RAL tic f �� h 69• , �/�
RETAINING WALL
y � i
Ig•
� I
o
s ,
r
F^
rJ /(, EXISTING '
�J •`
CHAIN LINK
h • �O OE ENCE
N 0
C ,1
EXIST
C04AIN
CNAIN L NK
iENCE
EST INE OF THE S. E. 1
SE T70N 2K , N. , 6 23 W ,
L.' - CCOR NG TO THE RECORD PL T
4 F SOORE ACRES _
C '
I
6.4
A ' s e,. Jso
S 9 0 .
�ej,Er E
I re
a � i
N
I
February 28, 1989
Mr. Steve Hanson
' Director of Planning
City of Chanhassen
Chanhassen, MN, 55317
1 RE: Variance Request #89 -1
Dear Steve:
' I ask you to place my request first on the agenda for the
Board of Adjustment meeting. I would like to have adequate time to
present uninterrupted rather than being forced to present as people
' come strolling in at 7:30 p.m. to attend the City Council meeting.
If I can be of assistance to you in writing a staff report
' recommending the proposed site plan dated February 22, 1989 I would
appreciate the opportunity.
' The issue is not the size of the proposed structure as we both
recognize the grandfather clause. The issue is do I build two or
three stories plus basement to obtain the same living space that
' I have proposed. The perpetuation of the existing single car garage
location is not what I prefer but provides the only garage under
a grandfather clause.
' I think the elimination of the encroachment and improving side
setbacks to a minimum of five feet is in the best interest of the
neighborhood.
' If you wish to walk over the property please call a day in
advance to set the time. I work during the day and will need to
make special arrangements to be there.
' Thanks for your time and patience on this matter.
Sincerely,
Q
' James F. Jessup
' resident /owner
1
MAR 11989
' %A I r Ur CHANHASSEN
�ebruary 2, 1989
Mr' Steve Hanson � N�
City Planner, City of Chanhassen
Re: The proposed improvements to the property at 92 Lake N�
Riley Blvd. i
�
Dear Mr. Hanson: �
| ~~
I would like to thank you and the City Engineer for taking
your time to speak with me last Wednesday regarding my next
door neighbor's i-ntentions to remodel his home. A I N�
explained to you in our meeting, we are very much i favor of
seeing the property next to ours improved. However we want
to be clear on the City's planning process and regu ations, N�
and to know our property rights.
From our
discussion, I understand the following poin ts to be
how the
City of Chanhassen views the situation: .
�
N�
1'
The City of Chanhassen will allow Mr. Jessbp
to
rebuild on the existing foundation without 1 any
N�
special permits as long as it does not further
impose on any of the setback requirements. he City
is aware that the existing structures do n t comply
with the current building code. (
N�
2'
�
The maximum building height is 3 stories. `
(maximum 40 feet overall >
N�
`�.
If Mr. Jessup chooses to build on the existing
foundation, he might be allowed to attach the house
I
to the garage, but he could not add any li ing space
over the garage.
N�
4'
There is a question as to if he could rebuild
anything on the existing garage foundation because
it already lies on my property. |
|
0�
5.
If he does decide to completely destroy the isting
m�
structures and rebuild, the City would all a
variance to the 30 foot required setback f the
8�
road, to approximately 20 feet. ( This would line
0�
up with the two homes to the East of the property )
6.
/
The City will not allow any variances to tlile 75 foot
U�
setback from the lake. This includes decks, 3 season
�
porches, and patios in front of a walk out basement.
7.
For variances to the 10 foot side setbaci.- be
w�
allowed, a hardship ( non self-created as p er
section 2O-58 #4.) would have to be establ shed. It
was your opinion that you knew of no such ardship
'
�^��
because Mr. Jessup was well aware of
the size of the
lot and the pertinent city codes when
he purchased
N�
the property last year.
S. The City's opinion is that I would have
easement
N�
rights across the northwest corner of
his lot for
access to my two driveways. This is
because I have
owned my property for over eight years
and I have
N�
used and maintained the corner of his
property for
access to my property. Also, this condition
has
existed in this form since the home and
garage were
built in the early 60's.
9. The City cannot provide jurisdiction
as to how he
reroutes the rain water runoff, even
it onto my property, because this is
if he redirects-
an individual
legal question for a judge to decide.
10. The City will inform us in writing when the actual
applications and plans have been submitted and when
the Board of Adjustments and Appeals will meet to
discuss the variances. I understand that the
N� earliest date of this meeting would be February
27th.
If I have misunderstood any of the above points, I would
appreciate if you would let me know as soon as possible. If
I do not hear from you by February 15th, I will assume the
above points to be correct.
Again, I would like to thank you for your time and
information.
Si l
Donald "Bitter
9219 Lake Riley Blvd.
Chanhassen, Mn. 55317
445-5728
cc Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager
u F
erTlTlCQre
q
n O
I ��P
RAILROAO TIE
RETAINING WALL
1 I
IN
/ Lion hP!4C. M
Nl
vt►1 % ,
It
rt
� 1
I
r'PH, h�1 ExISTING
_
t ; .II •. II j '(: H.i1N LINK
s 6.6 `FENCE
O N
' y
1 / EXISTING
F ENC E
LINK
. ,
FENCE R
WEST JNC OF THE S I/4
S I OF SE TION 24, T 116 N , R 23 W ,
-3" ACCOR ING TO THE RE ORO PLAT /•
OF S RE ACRES /
rr � I
i � 1 ! •� y/J
Ln
it
68
9'
i S�q q4 •• E , �
I N \
44 �\ ,1
a A
RAA.R°AO TIE ' °p\ N 6 .9 r
RETAIN MO WALL —\.r, 4 O 21
/ / , 0 �.• w
' f J
PJ rl t r
�* r y
' �• / E X I S T ir G �1A (/
} S T I N G
1 0
' # G 4 R G E h
£ 0 -1
N o
O
_ I
Etl 's'f1j y AffA4w z.
N O O S E
1
r _7 MLIM IIr.K
��• `\ENCE
3 r
� N
O N
-
H
EXISTING
CHAIN LINK —�
' - FENCE
WEST INE OF THE S Q A
OF SE TION 2A, T 116 N , 23 W.,
ACCOR NG TO THE RE ORO PLAT
OF 5 RE ACRES
r'
7 i'• , h
015. �0
I @ /o
t a
6.e �
I 3 6)03300
3 9'
S V9y t . Y �� E' r
1 N
1
� �� 1
Dear Mr. Hanson:
'
March 6, 1989
'
Donald W. Sitter
9249 Lake Riley Blvd.
'
Chanhassen, Mn. 55317
'
Stephen R. Hanson
'
Planning Director
City of Chanhassen
'
690 Coulter Drive
'
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen Mn. 55317
'
established any hardships that are not self- created. ,They
Dear Mr. Hanson:
'
This letter is intended to formalize our concerns with
regards to the request for variances on the Jessup property
at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
'
We do want to see the property improved, however we would
like to insure that the house plans are consistent with the
'
rest of the homes in the neighborhood and that the plans make
sense for the lot it will be on.
have
'
As for the hardship, I do not see that the Jessups
established any hardships that are not self- created. ,They
knew the size of the lot, the city's setback ordinances and
the condition of the home before they purchased the property.
,
Also, there is plenty of room to build a fine home within the
setback requirements (approx. 1470 sq. ft. on one level).
,
Specifically, we are concerned with the following points:
1. The proposed overall size of the house is too bigfor the
lot. The preliminary plans show a 3000 square foot home
'
with a potential 6 bedrooms placed on a lot having just
over 7000 square feet and only 25 feet of shoreline.
Because we have still not seen full plans or elevations,
'
if these variances are granted, the actual total square
feet could expand even more. I feel the city should demand full plans and elevations be submitted before they
consider ruling on any of these variance requests';.
'
2. We feel very strongly that the house should not be built
any closer to the lake than the 75 foot setback I
requirement. This is mainly for environmental concerns.
This should definitely include not only 3 season ;porches,
but also decks and patios which could easily be enclosed '
in the future, thereby obstructing neighbor's views of
the lake.
3. We still feel the plans show the house being too close to
our property line. It is true that his garage now lies
#
r
slightly on our property and it would appear to be an
improvement to move it over 6 feet. But as it is now,
all their traffic and activities go between their garage
and house with the garage acting as a buffer for us. If
' they incorporate the garage in the house as the plans
show, all their traffic would go around the house on our
side. Therefore we would want the full 10 foot setback
' requirement enforced to prevent their activities from
spilling over onto our property.
4. The overall height that we saw on a preliminary drawing
' showed it to be 3 stories high and to be approximately 35
feet over the road. I realize this is within the 40 foot
requirement, but it does not fit with the neighborhood
' when the 2 homes to the east are only one story high.
5. We are very concerned with the drainage problems that
will be caused by the size and placement of the planned
' structure. Originally all the rain water flowed through
the Jessup property. The Jessups have already piled
gravel on the back of their lot enough to re -route the
' water onto our property. Now if they build this house as
planned and totally change the grade thereby blocking the
natural water path, all the water must go somewhere else.
' I believe the city should demand the Jessups submit
drainage plans to show how they will handle the water
drainage problem.
' 6. We also think the activities associated with a house of
this size do not fit on such a small lot. We are
concerned that eventually their activities will end up
' spilling over on the adjacent properties.
Finally, in response to the comments Mr. Jessup stated in the
meeting on Feb. 27th, we feel he was greatly exaggerating
some of the points. As for what exists now on the property,
he was claiming that the shed attached to the garage, the
' pumphouse, and the deck are now existing permanent
structures that were not shown on his plans. The reason
these were not shown is because they are not permanent
structures. The facts are that the "shed" is a "basket- weave"
' fence with a few pieces of plastic for a roof, the "deck" is
a large step out the front of the house without railings and
is simply sitting on a few concrete blocks, and the "pump
' house" is a "structure" only about three feet square and only
one foot above the ground level. He also claimed the
driveway to be permanent asphalt when in fact it is only
loose gravel, and I am not sure the garage itself would even
' qualify as a permanent structure. I hope you have time
before the next meeting to come out and view the property
yourself to verify these facts.
' As for a precedence being set by other homes in the
neighborhood, I don't believe any exist. The new home under
.
I
construction on the point ( I believe Lot #35 ) had m ny
extenuating circumstances because,within the setbacks? there
was little or no room left to build. I know this pla was
reviewed very closely by the Board of Adjustments and7Appeals
prior to granting any variances. The small blue hous' Mr.
Jessup mentioned that is currently being remodeled on�9221
'
Lake Riley Blvd., is also a different story. This was
supposedly built on the existing foundation and was n'ot
brought up to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for
review. There were no variances needed for what they wanted
to do. Because I believe they built beyond the extents of
the original foundation and I believe this is unfortunate,
this should be handled as a separate issue and shouldino way
'
be viewed as setting a precedence for the Jessup situation.
In conclusion, We would like very much to work with the
,
Jessups to achieve a plan that will be acceptable to ;all.
But as for the requested variances, we feel the only one that
would be acceptable is to allow them to go within 20 feet of
the road which is similar to the adjacent houses to tihe east.
,
All the other requested variances, we feel very strongly
should not be granted.
'
Thank you very much to your attention to this matter.;
Sincerely,
c ! '
Donald W. Sitter '
City Council Members
City of Chanhassen
February 27, 1989
Dear Council Members:
Due to other committments I am not able to attend tonight's
' meeting. I would, however, like to comment on the proposed
building of a home on the lot located at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
My concern is the overbuilding of this lot. It is my
understanding that the proposed structure would be over 3300
square feet in total area with a 2 car garage and a large amount
of deck in addition to that. I like large homes as much as anyone
' but the size of this home on the lot that they have proposed it for
is unreasonable. I am speaking on this subject with many
interests: 1) I am a resident in the neighborhood in question and
feel overbuilding of any lot would be a detriment to it; and 2) I
own 9223 Lake Riley Blvd. which is also a buildable lot in the
neighborhood and located on Lake Riley. While I am all for nice
homes coming into the neighborhood, I believe that there should be
guidelines established by the city to control the size of building on
' any given lot. It is indeed unfortunate that the situation should
get to the point where neighbors or potential neighbors have to pit
themselves against each other to achieve a solution. True, there is
' a procedure for granting variances and that is needed. However,
there should be a ratio of building size to lot size so that there is
some firm guidance as to what can be expected by both parties. If
' there is a guideline as such on the books, then I believe it should be
enforced by the city so the neighbors wouldn't have to.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
i
' Alan H. Dirks
F
i
i
March 6, 1989
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Box 147
'
Chanhassen, MN 55317
To: Board of Adjustments and Appeals
'
This Letter serves to voice our feelings of opposition to
granting variances for front, side, rear setbacks and
maximum lot coverages at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. It is
'
our understanding that the applicants wish to construct a 3
story, 3000 -3600 square foot house on this very small
lakeshore lot.
To grant the variances for this lot will set a precedence
for the remaining small lots around the area. What will
happen is that the other owners may elect to do the same,
thus creating a very close complex of oversized houses that
would not be very appealing. This we feel will detract and
degrade from the esthetic appearance of the neighborhood as
'
well as the country openness this area has grownjto enjoy.
These are reasons we chose to move to where we are.
We recommend denial of these variances and will appreciate
our concerns being given the fair attention deserved. Please
visit the site, observe the neighborhood, and recognize the
impact to the neighborhood if the variances are approved.
'
Thank You in advance for your consideration in this matter.
'
Respectfully,
Kenneth and Katherine Wolter
341 Deerfoot Trail
Chanhassen, MN. 55317
,
(612)- 496 -1337
Cit Council Meeting - F4—ary 11, 1991
q
Request to Extend Approval of.Front, Rear and both Side Yard Variances, 9247
Lake Riley Blvd., James Jessup
i. Ordinance Amending Chapter 9, Article 3 of`the City Code Regarding the Fire
Code, Second Reading.
-10 j.
I sOk '.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow Emission Control Testing Stations as
Conditional Use Permits in the SH and IOP Districts, Second Reading.
Approval of Accounts.
' 1. City Council Minutes dated January 28, 1991 as amended by Councilman Workman
on pages 18 and 19.
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 22, 1991
' All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
E. APPROVE SOUTH LOTUS LAKE BOAT ACCESS SITE AND DRAINAGE STUDY.
' Mayor Chmiel: I pulled this off because I thought that there were some specific
things of concern to me. One of those being the estimate of a probable cost
that we're looking totally at this, the total estimated project cost is going to
' run roughly about , $ 40,587.00 and I think there are some things in here that
could be shaved a little. I'm looking at some specifics regarding fieldstone
boulder wall that we're looking at as a little rip rapping down at the park. In
' addition to that, I know that they've had some problems within a specific area
whereby there was a problem with that 100 year storm caused some erosion within
A particular part. Quite ironic we had two of those in one year. Supposedly
' not to happen within 100 years but we did have two within one specific year.
I've had some discussions with Todd on this and I had one other question in the
VanDoren Report. Page 1. They indicate this additional area, in the last
paragraph the fourth line from the bottom. The additional area has caused
' . retention ponds to frequently overflow causing erosion, sedimentation deposits
throughout the project area. Do you know how many times that did happen by
chance?
' Todd Hoffman: To quantify the word frequently?
I Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Todd Hoffman: Over the past, it would just be an estimated over the past 3
Years. Specifically I think what they were reporting on is the area of those
' two times. Other than that, unless we're into a 2 inch rain, I wouldn't think
that we're not going to overflow that upper area... corrections they are
proposing will handle. We are restricted by the physical area which is
' available there. Corrections to that upper area which they had outlined there
will help that so the frequency of that will go down. There still is the chance
that we may have that overflow in that upper parking but that's not where the...
' Getting the water down to that low area and then ... lower holding pond on out.
That's where the major concern is.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, okay. I see that financing the project can be funded from
' the following sources. We have the Soil Conservation, Environmental Trust Fund
2
City Council Meeting • Jbruary 26, 1990
35
i
can pursue to buy the 2 foot of property, fine. If not, then) he has to came
before the board again and we'll make a decision at that time;. We would hope he
can buy 2 feet.
,
I
Mayor Ctmiel: So the action for us to do is just table this ?j
Willard Johnson: Just table any action until we get a response within 90 days.
'
Mayor Ctrdel: Good. Thank you.
Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table the rear yard
setback variance request fox Jmves McAllister at 620 Foxhill Drive. All voted
in favor and the notion carried.
'
r...� VARIANCE EXTENSION REQUEST, 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, JAMES JESSUP.
'
�t Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the applicant requested an extensioni,because of
pollution fray, a leaking gasoline tank apparently fray, an adjoining property
'
that's preventing him frm building. He wanted an extension that was valid fox
a year past the date the PCA says the site's cleaned up. The�Boaxd was
uncanfortable with that since we had no idea when that was going to occur and
agreed to a 1 year extension with the possibility of further extensions if the
'
problem's not resolved in the next 12 months.
Mayor Ctrdel: Okay, any discussion? I
'
Councilman Boyt: I know you just mentioned this but we do hale to modify the
variance right? Didn't you say in here it should be clear that the gas tank is
'
not a conforming use?
Paul Krauss: Oh, I need to clarify that.
'
Councilman Johnson: It's not on his property.
Paul Krauss: Right. When I had heard about this probler, I had heard about the
I
leaking gas tank and it turns out it's on a neighboring property.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. Got it. Fine.
'
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded the variance extension
request fox James Jessup at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. All voted in favor and
'
the notion carried.
Councilman Johnson: What were we voting on?
'
Mayor Cmitiel: Exactly what Paul said.
Councilman Boyt: An extension.
'
t Councilman Johnson: Oh. It was passed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
unanbiously. Did we need to vote too?
'
35
i
City Council Meeting - Fe ary 26, 1990
Councilwa*an Dirrler: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: We did or didn't?
Paul Krauss: You wouldn't have needed to acted. It wasn't appealed and the
board approved it.
' Mawr Chmiel.: Okay, we'll withdraw it.
Councilman Johnson: Well it doesn't natter.
Mawr Ordel: It's alright. We like to do it twice.
. REVISED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR COUNTRY HOSPITALITY SUITES, DAVE HD"INGER, D.W.
HUTT CONSTRUCTION.
' Paul Krauss: As the City Cbuncii is aware, the developers for Hospitality
Suites proposed sere changes to the site plan that staff felt were sufficiently
substantial that it took the proposal back to the City Council for action last
' Decerber. The Council detemined that the revised roof line and roofing
materials were acceptable but insisted that a canopy over the main entrance be
provided and in addition indicated that at that point in time you were unwilling
' to accept the shortening up of the building by approximately 12 feet which had
been proposed. You did however indicate that if any more charges were proposed,
since the project seemed to be in sanething of a state of flux, or if any of
those decisions warranted further consideration, that the applicant could go
' back to the Planning Commission through channels for an amendment site plan.
And that is in fact the case, an amended site plan is being requested. Again,
the applicant is continuing to request approval to delete a 12 foot section of
' the building. A satisfactory canopy design was also presented to the Planning
Camission contingent upon sane issues that have to be resolved between the
applicant and the City.Engineex. Staff raised issues regarding preservation of
a landscaped courtyard to the east of the building and a related issue providing
minimr, building separation to meet building code requirements. Staff is
reccrr.ending approval of the revised plans and that recommendation has been
supported by the Planning Cwmission. Staff is continuing to recommend approval
' . of the amended site plan. We believe it's consistent with the intent of the
original approval and resolves issues that have been raised. As to the deletion
of the 12 feet of the building, we really did feel it's not going to be visible.
' Unless you know where to look, you won't know that that section of building's
going to be absent. It's not taken out of the residential roans itself. It's
taken out of the lobby /pool area and we really don't think it's going to be
visible or disruptive to the architecture of the building. As I eluded to
' earlier, there's still a remaining concern concerning the drive under canopy.
We're recommending that condition 4 be corrected to read the final canopy plans
be approved by the City Engineer contingent upon the applicants demonstrating
' that there is sufficient roan to manuever buses. We'd also like to add a 5th
condition if we could to the effect that all other conditions of the original
approval remain in effect. We neglected to do that earlier assuming that it was
' the case but it doesn't hurt to state it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Is there anyone that would like to address this?
36
19 1
L
City Council Meeting i rch 13, 1989
i
—
Resolution #89 -34: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve a resolution proclaiming the week of March 12 -18, 1989 as Girl Scout
Week in Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried'
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: There were no visitor presentations.
'
S
VARIANCE TO THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NL11
'
INGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, JAMES JESSOP.
Mayor Chmei.l : We have moved up item number 7 which we held at ; the Board of
Appeals and Adjustments just prior to the Council meeting. The Board of Appeals
'
and Adjustments had reviewed the proposal and because of the many conditions and
many things that have happened within the area of the setback requirements that
were done previously for other homes, had approved this particular item. Now of
course it comes to Council for discussion. I'm not sure whether Mr. Jessup
'
would like to make a presentation. If so, please proceed.
Councilman Johnson: Was this passed unanimously?
Councilman Boyt: It was.
'
Councilman Johnson: Does any member of the Council have a problem with it?
Councilman Boyt: Yes.
James Jessup: I am James Jessup. My wife, Mary Ellen is here with me this
evening. The two kids are at home and the goal of our request':i.s to establish a
long term residence with the proposed property changes... Thejacti.on that we're
'
requesting is for you to approve Site Plan dated 3 -6 -89. I apologize if you
looked at the staff report at the number of site plans that have been modified
and changed along the way. The fact is we tried to accommodate input from
'
neighbors and staff and do other things to the project. What 've got is an
I+
existing structure and this is covered in your handout on page 14. This same
drawing... The orange highlighting shows portions of the existing structure or
outside of the project. The proposed structure sets inside they existing
'
structure on 3 of the 4 sides. On the east side of the propert, the existing
setback is 4 1/2 feet. I'm proposing a 10 foot setback. On the street side of
the property or the front, there's an existing 16 foot setback.! I'm proposing
'
17. On the west side of the property, the garage actually encroaches onto the
neighbor's property which is not a good situation but I'd like to change that.
I would propose a 5 foot setback on that side of the property, the west side.
So it's ... 8 1/2 feet. On the back of the property, I propose a!10 foot setback
'
that would have a whole new deck in that setback. Behind that 'sketch is a rough
house plan that I put together that shows the main level of this 2 story home
with 3 bedrooms. We have a 2 car garage, kitchen, dining room area and den are
t
all—pretty standard home. ...3 bedroom home, 2 bathroom. Similar to what you
probably. We're trying to build a home here that's similar to what's already
existing... I think the colored pictures there that you've goty the front page
'
has that red home there, that's the existing structure and garage. It's not the
greatest. That's what's existing there today. If this is approved, that would
-
be gone. It's a tough site and the reason for the setback requirements are the
fact that the lot... The minimum frontage across the street side is less than
,
19 1
City Council Meeting - M: -, 13, 1989
minimal standards. It's a tough situation. It's_, > an existing d
situation that I ' --
like to improve. I'd like to get rid...I'd like to improve the setback ... and
' the Board of Adjustments agrees. As an alternate, not as an alternate but to
further talk about the hardship... That's the setback as proposed by the
guidelines. Within that area you can see that there's very little space on a
' main floor to build, after you include your 2 car garage, a stairway to get to
the upper level, a deck and a small room for...
Councilman Johnson: You're putting a bigger deck on that example than on the
' house you're planning.
James Jessup: I think they're the same size. What I've got here is a situation
' that's difficult by design of the lot. It was a pre - existing condition. The
previous owner experienced similar frustrations in that property is too close to
the street and too close to the east side. The garage encroaches on the west
'
side and the deck sits in the lake area. The situation is, I appreciate your
consideration. The precedent for this situation as the staff has reported in
the report to you, variance 89 -2, a home 250 feet down Lake Riley Blvd.. Here
are some pictures on 13, page 13 of your handout, excuse me the fourth page.
The bottom home. The home that's tall. That home was granted a 5 foot variance
from the property line. It was granted a 33 foot variance on the lake side and
the front yard setback also so there's precedence very close by... Just in
' summary, I'd just like to restress the hardship criterias. I think this meets
pretty well and this plan shows what's there, what's proposed. There's just not
room to... I think I've got a pretty reasonable strcuture that's 2,000 square
' feet on two levels ... so I would ask for your approval.
Mayor Chmiel: I know we have a neighbor here who would also like to address
this.
' Don Sitter: First of all we would definitely like to see this property improve.
The house next to us right now is an eyesore. I have no concerns about that at
' all. We want to make sure that the plans are consistent with the neighborhood
and fit on the lot that it's being put on. The City ordinances call for an
establishment of a hardship of some sort. I don't believe any hardship has been
established. If you look at the site plan, they have approximately 1,470 square
' feet within setbacks which they can build this plan. I think that's plenty of
roan to build a fine home. If they want to go two levels, they've got nearly
the 3,000 square foot. Specifically we're concerned about a few things. One is
' the overall size of the house. What Jim calls a 2 story house, I call a 3 story
house. His plans show for a full basement which is a walkout basement and being
on the lake, that's nearly road level or whatever so it is literally a very
' large home. The 3 bedrooms upstairs, if you include the den and playroom and a
piece of the rec room that could be finished off, we could be looking at a 6
bedroom home on a lot of 7,000 square feet and lakeshore of 25 feet. I think
the Jessup's are fine people. What if they sell to a family of 6 teenage kids?
' Where's all that activity going to fit on a lot of that size? As for the
precedence being set, the house down the road I think was 40 feet back from the
lake which is a 35 foot variance or whatever. The house is approximately 30
feet deep. That means the back of their house is 75 feet from the lake and
they're already too close to the road. They literally had no room to build on
their lot. As far as the 50 foot wide lot ... so as far as the side setbacks, I
think there's a considerable difference in that condition and in this condition. —
We also have a concern with the drainage on the property. Right now you can see
1 20
21
City Council Meeting = u.,_ch 13, 1989 .
their existing garage, the existing home, all the water runs out... It was
brought up at the Board of Adjustment meeting before us that some of the water
is coming from our house, running down�the driveway and through their
'
property.
That's a small problem. The big problem is the entire area no>th ... and I think
you can ask them. I know of at least 3 or 4 times in the lastifew years that
they've ended up with 6 inches of water in their house and they, had plenty of
'
water damage to show that. He had to do a lot of repairs on his home to fix
that. That's no small problem and I see no drainage plans at �,11 whatsoever for
this. We're also a little worried about the overall height. The two homes to
the east are single story homes. His is up close to 35 feet in the air. I'm
,
not sure that really fits with the rest of the neighborhood. You might ask why
I'm opposed to this and it seems kind o'.f strange. They're looking at building a
very, very nice home which would help improve our property values and I think
'
that's a good point and like I said, we want to see it improved{. We think it's
too much improvement. We think the house is just too big for the lot. I'm also
very concerned about the encroachment on the lakeside. Because there has been
,
no hardship established here and you're allowing them a 10 foot variance there,
you're basically saying the City Ordinance is not good at 75 feet and you're
basically changing it to 65 feet. I'm not too sure that's what you really want
to do here. I guess if I saw scene hard "ship or some reason why these variances
'
should be granted I'd say fine but I think they can do very well within the
setbacks and I'm pretty sure we're maybe establishing precedence on this one.
Not a precedence on the ones that were done down the road. I don't think they
'
apply to this case. I think it's different. Thank you for your time.
Councilman Boyt: I think that the important point here is that there are
criteria that are set up by the State to use when we're considering variances.
'
Variances are not meant to write ordinances. Variances are meant to handle
hardship situations that the ordinance could not be written to adjust to because
it was in fact a unique hardship. If we're unhappy with our ordinances, we
should rewrite them but if we're going to give a variance, we really ought to
follow the guidelines the State has set down for us. Now we asla Council are
acting on this kind of variance for the first time. Previous Councils have
,
acted on it and they have made decisions. We might be able to snake a pretty
strong argument that that does not bind us to making similar variances but once
we make it, we've then created a precedence for this parti.cularibody and anyone
who wants to come in and say I want to extend my house within 65 feet of the
,
lake and we say to that person you do not have a hardship, they'can say to us,
and neither did this situation. So I think fram that standpoint, Mr. Jessup's
presentation is a good one. He makes a lot of very good points. The one about
'
the existing footprint of the home I think is an excellent point and should
allow us to make some reasonable adjustments. So I can understand the need to
allow some variances but I think we have to be very careful that we don't allow
'
any that haven't already been approved for this particular location. I would
prefer to sE•e us have a building, house,, that does not come closer than the 68
feet the curent residence comes. I think anytime we can improve and as
Mr. Jessup's second plan, his modifications from 2 weeks ago is certainly an
,
improvement over the first plan and in some regards we might beiable to make an
argument that it's an improvement over the existing variances on the current
house. But where it's not an improvement I think that we can'tiafford to pass
'
that. Not when he can not show a hardship and he can't becauselhe can develop
this property without variances so I think we should consider this very
carefully. This is not simply a matter of looking at this, particular instance
but it's establishing our willingness to grant anyone the oppor� unity to build
'
21
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
within 65 feet of the lake.
' Mayor Chmi.el: I guess there's been several thoughts on that portion. Steve,
will you read the specific conditions that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
have indicated?
' Steve Hanson: Yes, the Board of Adjustments in their recommendation for
approval had ... as follows. First was that the drainage in the area be reviewed
by the City Engineer to come up with a viable means for handling that between
the neighbors specifically. The second condition was that the deck remain a
deck and no porch or any type of enclosure be allowed either up on that top
level or on the walkout level below. The third condition was that the plans for
' the building be reviewed-by staff as part of the building permit process to
insure that what they're asking for in the building permit complies with what
the Board of Adjustment approves. Then the fourth condition was to specifically
' make a plan that's contained in your packet and dated March 6th as the official
plan ... Board of Adjustments specifying what those setbacks were. That was the
extent of the conditions placed on there.
Mayor Chmi.el: As we looked further into this, and in a particular case on a
variance that was granted previously just in an adjacent, in addition to the one
that Mr. Jessup has indicated, in this particular case the applicant was granted
a 5 foot sideyard setback variance and a 42 foot shoreland setback variance as
well. That was at 9239 Lake Riley Blvd.. At 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. there was
also a single family residence be 50 feet from the southerly ordinary high water
' mark and 35 feet from the westerly ordinary high water mark. Unfortunately, as
I see it, there has been an awful lot of variances within that specific
area granted on all those homes. True it was granted by the previous Council. I
' don't think in my good conscience and probably from the ... aspect, can we deny
those variances with all the other variances that have already been granted.
Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor, if I might respond to that particular part of it.
' What you were granting a variance can not be limited to one lake in town. When
you grant this variance, you in effect grant a variance for anybody that can
come in and make the argument that they have a similar situation and you have
' taken hardship out of our criteria.
Don Sitter: I'd also like to make a point on those two instances. Both of
those lots were reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and they
determined that they were literally unbui.ldable if there weren't variances
granted because they had no room left to build. So if that's the same
conditions that this is, I don't see that as being a precedence for this issue.
' I think that they were considered very carefully and if you don't allow some
variances in those, you were deeming that property unbui.ldable and therefore
taking away the value of the land altogether and I think that's totally
' different and I don't picture this...
Councilman Johnson: I'm going to agree with Bill a little bit here. When you
look at a variance that was granted in 1982 which is a long time, 7 years ago,
' and you look at another one is 1986 which was 2 Councils ago and the variances
that were granted with the last Council have had primarily totally unbui.ldable
lots. There was down on Lake Riley that I don't think is on this list that we
' granted where I think he got down to several hundred square feet of buildable
property by the time all the variances. He was on a peninsula and the 75 feet
1 22
City Council Meeting ? arch 13, 1989 .
came in from 3 sides on the guy and it was an improvement. I do not think that
there is in any variance, every variance has to stand totally on it's own. I've
been staunch on variances for years, or for 2 years. That there has to be a ,
hardship shown. I don't want to put, I agree with Bill, 68 feet was the
existing setback there. I would say if we can go to 68 feet there. I think
he's trying to put more 'house into here than there has to be. J think that it '
can fit with the neighborhood. I'd like to know if he tried to get the
neighboring property where his fence is that appears to be hisyard, whether he
tried to obtain that from his neighbor, and whether his neighbor is willing to '
negotiate some of that which would change that setback because there is no house
right next door on the one side. I think the neighbor is actually here.
James Jessup: What was the question? '
Councilman Johnson: Have you negotiated for the purchase of part of your land
where his fence is on your land up to his existing fence so his, fence that ,
designates his yard is actually your yard.
James Jessup: We talked about that. If you'll also notice from the plans, my
driveway cuts across the corner of his.property so we were talking about
'
swapping back and forth there or some easements or whatever. But in the area
where the fence is, we're only talking about a foot or 2 on my ; property so it's
no...
'
Councilman Johnson: Well it does change the variance a little Ibit but I think
that needs to continue to be worked on.' I'm against expanding is bad situation
and going any closer to a lake. While I don't buy the argument: that if we do
'
this somebody else someplace else, each variance has to stand completely on it's
own. If we do this, tomorrow his next .door neighbor could come in and ask the
same variance and we could turn it down. It'd be tough. It doesn's seem
,
reasonable that way but we would have to justify this variance ;and for some
particular reason on this lot does he need that variance to put, that deck on
there? In my opinion is no. There is no hardship. If you can .justify in your
mind that there's a hardship that he has to have that deck. That he has to have
,
2,000 square feet of home plus a full basement underneath it aria a double car
garage, the double car garage is required, I think that there's, just
overbuilding for this lot. That's the long and the short of it!. I'm going to
'
vote against it.
Mayor Chmiel: Willard, would you like to come up to the mic?
'
Willard Johnson: I'd like to defend the first two issues of the variances up
the street. I was on the Board in both cases. We could have deemed then both
unbuildable if we would have wished to and then does the City want to purchase
'
the property? That canes into effect and I feel this one here is the same
situation. If you want to maybe you can negotiate with the gentleman to chop
off the 10 foot deck. I'm always for negotiating if that's the,proper procedure
I
and maybe he's willing to take the deck off because I don't seenothi.ng wrong
with this piece of property either. I felt the same on the twoiin the past.
1
The gentleman says we could, they were unbuildable, you've got either two
'
choices. Either make them unbuildable and the City buy then orithat's all I.
L
have to say.
23
,
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
Councilman Boyt: I have a question •'Wil:lard 'yoti ' - . said that the previous two
were unbuildable. This is not any way unbuildable.
Willard Johnson: No, I didn't say. The gentleman here says the Board says the
were unbuildable.
' Councilman Boyt: You're saying the previous two were not unbuildable?
' Willard Johnson: He says the previous two were unbuildable. I guess what I'm
getting at, he's trying to say that the Board says the previous two are
unbuildable. We could have just told them no, we won't grant no variance and if
the City didn't want to grant a variance, he couldn't build.
' Councilman Boyt: That makes then unbuidable doesn't it?
I Willard Johnson: Yes.
' Councilman Boyt: So we gave a variance to make them more buildable. This
allows a house of 1,300 square feet. Are you saying that makes it unbuildable?
' Willard Johnson: I guess I compare it to some of the planned developments we've
got in this city and it's up in my neighborhood too. You've got, let's use x
number of dollars, $250,000.00 homes in there from lot line to lot line so
I guess how do you compare apples to organes? I guess he wants to put a decent
t sized home on there and I feel that maybe you can chop off the deck if that's
what the Council would wish to bring it within the 75 foot of the lake. The
rest I have no problems with. The 5 foot on the west side. The 10 foot on the
' east side and the street. I don't have no problem with that. If you wish to
chop 10 feet off the deck, I have no problem with that either. I'm not sticking
up for the applicant but I'm just saying, it's a hard thing to do. We've got
' three areas in the City, Carver Beach is one, Red Cedar Point is one and Lake
Riley is another one. We've just got lots that you've got to work out
individually.
' Councilman Boyt: I agree with you where a lot is unbuildable and the City has
to look at purchasing the lot or granting the variance but that's not the case
here.
24
r
L
Councilman Boyt:
Okay, so they were
unbuildable?
'
Willard Johnson:
Well you could put
something on it.
Councilman Boyt:
200 square feet or
something?
Willard Johnson:
Let me word it this
way. There isn't a lot in this whole city
you can't design
to fit a house, even
if it's 90 feet tall and 10 foot wide.
'
That's what I'm getting at.
Councib Boyt:
Alright, but what we were saying earlier was those two lots,
'
as you recall, would have required an
extremely shall house?
Willard Johnson:
Yes.
' Councilman Boyt: So we gave a variance to make them more buildable. This
allows a house of 1,300 square feet. Are you saying that makes it unbuildable?
' Willard Johnson: I guess I compare it to some of the planned developments we've
got in this city and it's up in my neighborhood too. You've got, let's use x
number of dollars, $250,000.00 homes in there from lot line to lot line so
I guess how do you compare apples to organes? I guess he wants to put a decent
t sized home on there and I feel that maybe you can chop off the deck if that's
what the Council would wish to bring it within the 75 foot of the lake. The
rest I have no problems with. The 5 foot on the west side. The 10 foot on the
' east side and the street. I don't have no problem with that. If you wish to
chop 10 feet off the deck, I have no problem with that either. I'm not sticking
up for the applicant but I'm just saying, it's a hard thing to do. We've got
' three areas in the City, Carver Beach is one, Red Cedar Point is one and Lake
Riley is another one. We've just got lots that you've got to work out
individually.
' Councilman Boyt: I agree with you where a lot is unbuildable and the City has
to look at purchasing the lot or granting the variance but that's not the case
here.
24
r
L
i
City
Council Meeting — March 13, 1989
l ;you
Willard Johnson: No, I realize that but what kind of home can put on it?
I'm looking from the standpoint, a building standpoint too.
Councilman Boyt: A 1,200 square foot home.
Willard Johnson: That sounds dumb. You might as well put up a good one in
'
order to put it up. Not that I'm sticking up for the applicant. Make a decent
home instead of a house that, he's going to put a garage in the bottom part so
you're losing quite a bit of home space. We require a 2 car garage. I don't
'
know if it's a good arguing point. I hope I made my point clear.
i
Councilman Workman: I'm not going to-argue with the expertiseof Willard. To
me it all looks like a little bit of a hardship case with these lots. Going all
,
the way back to when they were designed. To me it looks as though this is kind
of, this is cleaning up this lot a little bit and improving it.� A bad situation
into maybe not as bad a situation. I'm going to take the advice of the Board of
'
Appeals and approve this.
Councilman Boyt: Show me the hardship. Not that you have to but show me the
,
hardship.
Councilman Workman: You're right, I don't have to. But we'velgot a situation
if you just look at this map right here alone and we've got problems with the
'
oranges. I don't see where, we can keep it the way it is and we've got all
sorts of problems along both sides. I don't see where taking this and bringing
it in, maybe up, bringing it closer to the lake. I'm looking at before and
'
after situations here. It's like the southern area of Chanhasgen. It's not
- going to turn into a wheat field down there no matter how hard;we wish. This
situation, all along this lakeshore isn't going to improve because we wish it
to. So to me, this is a situation, they're coming in and spending an awful lot
'
of money to improve a situation.
Councilman Boyt: Well, why don't we just have them build it up to the lake
,
then?
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's silly. Let me ask Mr. Jessup, would you be willing
'
to remove your deck from that particular building?
James Jessup: I would ask if you would be willing to buy a lake house without a
deck?
'
Mayor Chmiel: I might.
'
James Jessup: The neighbors on one side of me have—and the neighbors on the
other side have a three season porch and they have a door in... Decks and a
lake home go together. Look at the pictures that I provided yoF. You'll see
'
many decks on Lake Riley.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask another question. Bill's concern is the setback 68
f feet to be in conformance with the other homes. Would you be willing to cut 3
,
feet off that deck?
James Jessup: It makes it very di.ffi.cult to put a table on top of that deck.
'
We have a round table.
25
City Council Meeting - Ma 13, 1989
Mayor Chmi.el: What's the total length of that deck? Is the total 10 feet?
` 1
James Jessup: It's 10 foot width but ... would be less than 7. By the time you
get a railing you have a 6 1/2 foot wide deck to put a nice round table—how do
you get around it?
Mayor Chmiel: I've got one. My deck is exactly that and we have a round table
on it.
Don Ashworth: If I may ask the question. The 3 feet wouldn't necessarily have
to come off the deck. It would be maybe adjusting deck and house. The
important point is that it's back 68 feet. It would appear as though your plan
might be able to be adjusted to allow the back portion to be increased one
dimension slightly more to lose the 3 feet the other way.
Councilman Johnson: To follow on that Don, how big is your garage? I don't see
any dimensions on here?
James Jessup: It's 23 1/2 by...
Councilman Johnson: Saying that the existing pump house is the existing setback
where I think they went to the wall of the house rather than the pump house
before but that's 16 foot. Sliding the house forward to meet the existing 16
foot setback, going to a 22 x 22 foot garage versus the 23 1/2, losing a foot
and a half there. Sliding the entire house to the right to give you a little
more because if you lost a little bit there. Then we're to a 9 1/2 foot deck.
See what I'd say is go to a 22 x 22 foot garage versus a 23 1/2 x 23 1/2. I
realize that that's getting small but that's what I've got actually is a 22 x 22
and my wife's big Chevy fits in there with my little Horizon. I think that
would also give you a little bit more on your west side if you went a little
narrower on.the garage. If there's anything you can cheat on and not mess up
your living space, it's your garage. You just have to walk a little tigher when
you bang your doors into each other's cars.
Councilman Workman: How much are we going to gain by doing this?
Councilman Johnson: We'll gain 2 1/2 feet if we cut a foot and a half off the
garage and slide it towards the street a foot to get to the 16 foot mark. That
gives us 2 1/2 feet so take a half foot off his deck, he's added a 68 foot.
He's got a 9 1/2 foot deck. So he has not exceeded the previous deck footprint
of the previous variance that was on there. I think it's workable. It's not
that big of a deal.
Councilman Boyt: That would certainly be acceptable from my standpoint because
we're not exceeding any variances...
Councilman Johnson: In the existing condition.
Councilman Boyt: In the existing condition.
Mary Ellen Jessup: How does that affect then what we discussed during the
Board of Adjustments? One of the addendums or whatever where you mentioned that
we had to use that exact footprint as the exhibit for approval? For this permit
26
f
L
City Council Meeting._ _ch 13, 1989 IJ �
to construct? How does that affect it?
Councilman Johnson: We're modifying it.
Mayor Chmiel: It's being modified right now. The Council hasthe final consent
for proceeding with what you have. As it looks right now, you!re looking at a 2
to 2 vote where it's not going to go anywhere so I think discuss this with your
husband real quickly to see whether or not you can go in that particular way.
Mary Ellen Jessup: What I needed to know is, are we going to have to come back
'
for an appeal?
Mayor Chmiel: No. It could be resolved right now and see it proceed.
,
Councilman Johnson: While it seams like we're really measuring the straws to an
inch degree when we talk about a half foot there, but it does seam to crawl on
you. A half foot this time. A foot, just to give than some time to get some
'
patter going here. j
James Jessup: If we would establish the guidelines as being a116 foot setback
'
from the road and 68 from the lake and let us maneuver around inside the house
and let us make the tradeoff for whether shrink the garage 2 f4et or whether we
shrink something else a little bit, is that agreeable? j
Councilman Johnson: Fine.
Mayor Chmiel: And that's a part of what the conditions basically are.
i
'
James Jessup: Very good. Thank you.
,
Councilman Boyt: I would move approval as just mentioned that Me retain the 68
foot setback from the lake. The 16 foot setback from the Lake Riley Blvd.. 10
feet from the property to the east. And is it 7 feet?
'
Councilman Johnson: It's 5 unless he gets the property next door. Then it goes
to 7.
Councilman Boyt: Are you going to work out the property next door?
Don Sitter: We'll certainly work together. I guess I would like to ask one
more consideration of the Council here. Your suggestion of him shrinking the
,
garage and pulling in another couple feet off of my property will help my
attitude a lot. Could we make that instead of the 5 foot setback from his
property line, 7 or 8 foot setback and have that...
,
Councilman Boyt: I don't think his garage isn't over on that side of the house.
Don Sitter: No. What I'm saying is shrink the garage so he can pull it farther
off of my property.
Councilman Boyt: No, I don't think that was how that was going; to work Don.
'
Councilman Johnson: I was doing that too Bill. That was in my suggestion too
is make the garage narrower and then they could move further away from the 5
,
27
c"
V
City Council Meeti.n Ma_ 13, 1989
foot setback. The existing condition is that he's 2 1/2 feet into your
property. This would be an improvement over that, he's
1/2 feet into your property
by 7 1/2 feet but this fence remains into your property quite a bit when it gets
down to the lake.
Don Sitter: But as I mentioned in the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, right
' now that garage is on our property but it acts as a buffer between their
activities and ours. It's like a little wall or fence. By removing that
garage, all the activities are coming around our side of the property. That's
why I'm standing on that setback a little bit.
Councilman Boyt: I would make the motion that it's either 5 feet or 7 feet.
I'm open. To follow my logic, we're staying in the existing footprint and to me
that's critical. S`: the'situation with the garage I think is maybe something
you can work out in your property swap, if you're going to swap property but
from my standpoint of protecting our ordinances, I think we don't want to exceed
' the existing building footprint and 68 feet from the lake is part of that.
Councilman Johnson: Previously, the closest sideyard setbacks was 6.8 feet. On
t the previous house. If you don't count the garage. Now his closest sideyard
setback is going to be 5 feet.
Councilman Boyt: Well I hate to get into a situation where we've got a
negotiations that's open ended.
Councilman Johnson: So what do you want the west side property setback in your
motion? That's what we're down to.
Mayor Chmi.el: That presently is 5 feet right?
Councilman Boyt: Presently it says it's 5 feet. We all agree 5 feet?
Mayor Chmi.el: Yes, 5 feet.
' Councilman Boyt: 5 1/2? I would make my motion that it's 10 feet on the west
side and 5.5 feet on the east side. 68 feet from the lake and 16 feet from Lake
Riley Blvd.. If you can work out something better between you, marvelous but I
think from the City's standpoint we've got to require that.
' Mayor Chmi.el: Is there a second?
Councilman Johnson: I'll second that.
' James Jessup: I'd rather you keep it 10 feet from the east side.
Councilman Johnson: We dial.
James Jessup: You said west.
Councilman Boyt: Which side do you want what on Willard?
' Willard Johnson: 10 foot from the east side.
I Councilman Boyt: okay, and what do we do on the west side?
r
1 28
City Council MeeL..ng - .k:rch 13, 1989
i
Willard Johnson: 5.5. The reasons I come up...
� I '
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the variances to
the front, side and rear yard setbacks for the construction ofla new single
family residence at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard with the following setbacks: 68
feet from the lake, 16 feet from Lake Riley Boulevard, 10 feet from the east
side of the property and 5.5 feet from the west side of the property. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
A. DOWNTOWN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 87 -17 FOR THE NORTH SIDE PARKING
LOT.
'
B. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR NORTH SIDE PARKING
LOT.
'
Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order.
Gary Warren: I don't know that it needs much of an introduction. I didn't see,
our facsimile machine at the last minute today a letter came in from Mericor the
owners of the Town Square retail center. They're in support ofj the project.
Just had a concern about the assessment issue as far as the 23 parking units
that were added to the building which I guess from an assessment standpoint,
'
this is not an assessment hearing but the discussion and the request in the
letter is appropriate that City staff meet with them to explain!, the rationale
and that. Basically I'll speak for Fred Hoisington but in general terms, they
'
were added to the assessment roll for two purposes. One, they have drainage
that flows to this new parking lot area for which we will be accommodating their
flow. Secondly, because they have a more intense use than what1 was originally
'
planned and that intense use ends up using more parking stalls and has impacts
on the Riveria ... they were assessed the parking and 23 units soave have gone
through and applied the logic basically from that standpoint. But we certainly
will follow up as requested in the letter and talk with Mr. Winkle from Mericor
and review that with him. There will be the option at the assessment for
getting further into that when the project is complete.
Mayor Chmi.el: Is there anyone wishing to address this public hearing?
i
Brad Johnson: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. I'm Brad Johnson. 7425
Frontier Trail representing the Heritage Park Apartments and the professional
building. We've gone on record in your, I believe the staff also outlines the
fact that we do not feel nor do our experts, whoever they are, they're not here
tonight, that there's additional need for the water line that'slfurni.shing the
,
water to the hydrant. That's an additional cost to the project;of $50,000.00.
We've been requested by the City to upgrade our building from originally,
especially the apartment building, from the original unsprinklec building to a
'
totally sprinkled building with additional costs to us of $100,600.00 thus far.
In checking with all those that know and we're willing to listep but we have not
heard anybody feel that the additional fire hydrants on the south side of the
apartment building is anything but overkill in the case of firelprotection. In
29 1
City Coupci.l Meeting - F eL uary 27, 1989
subdivision plat, the actual survey show pg that' - --et split of the lot and i.t
also includes an outlot. That's been reviewed by the staff and it does conform
' with the zoning requirements so staff is recommending the Council approve the
final plat of Eight Acre Woods Second Addition.
' Grant Johnson: My name is Grant Johnson, 6270 Murray Hill Road. I believe the
packet that you've got is relatively self explanatory. For those of you who
were on the Council a year or so ago when the Murray Hill Addition was approved,
it was somewhat obvious at the time or we had kind of implied that this was our
' intent eventually and the time has just come now that we can put this together
so I'm just willing to answer any questions that anyone may have.
' Mayor Ctani.el: I guess I myself don't have any questions on this. To me it
looks like it's self explanatory. I don't know if anyone else on the Council
has any questions.
' Councilman Workman: Steve, can you explain to me meets and bounds?
Steve Hanson: It's a legal description. In other words, it's described as far
' as the bearings and distances rather than being an actual plat where you refer
to it as Lot 1, Block 1. So it's surveyed in as opposed to the normal formal
plat that you would see.
' Councilman Workman: Why wouldn't this need a formal plat?
Steve Hanson: There's a provision in the Statute as well as in the City Code
' that allows you to do it this way for a simple subdivision rather than going
through the expense of doing a full detailed plat. It's really cost savings for
them.
1 Councilman Workman: I guess then give me one reason why they have to have a
plat versus meets and bounds. What makes the difference?
' Steve Hanson: This is basically a lot under special circumstances when you're
splitting just one lot into two. If you're making it more than that, you'd go
through the full blown subdivision process.
Councilman Workman: So basically you're saying if one line is involved to split
it, then you can do it this way? Okay.
Councilman Bo t moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Final Plat
for Eight Acre Woods Second Addition ( #89 -1 Subdivision) as shown on the plat
' stamped "Received February 6, 1989 ". All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VARIANCE TO THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS, 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, JAMES JESSUP.
Steve Hanson: This item was presented to the Board of Adjustments earlier
' tonight and the item was tabled by the Board of Adjustment to allow additional
r
L
City Council Meeting S oruary 27, 1989
I
input so I would suggest that you just continue this item and that you need to
take no action.
VARIANCE TO THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DAYCARE
FACILITY LOCATED ON THE LAKE DRIVE EAST, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF TOTAL MART
T CONVENIENCE STORE, G.P. BAJR INC..
Steve Hanson: I might explain this one also. This i.tecn was also up before the
Board of Adjustments earlier tonight. This particular request was denied by the
Board of Adjustments by unanimous vote. The applicants have requested that it
not be considered by Council at this meeting and pending their decision whether
they'd like to bring it to Council or not. They have a 10 day period to make
that decision. {
SET 1989/90 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES.
'
Don Ashworth: The 1989 budget anticipated an increase in liquor license fees of
approximately 5 %. Each of the license holders were given notice of this
meeting. Some of the licenses are established under State St4tutue and I have
asterisked those that are again set by the State. Staff is recommending that
'
the license fees be increased generally by 5 %. We rounded injsome cases as
shown in your report dated February 8th.
'
Mayor Chmi.el: .Is there anyone who would like to address this that is in the
audience? Just for general public, for your information. Some of the fees that
we're adjusting is just two specific items. It's the off sale non - intoxicating
'
�.
license which is existing $30.00. We're raising that to $50.00. The on sale
non- intoxicating which the existing was $205.00 and that's being proposed at
$259.00. I feel they are fairly reasonable and to be in compliance with the
requirements as stated by Mr. Ashworth. I would like to ask for a motion.
Don Ashworth: May I make one quick point? The motion also includes the
intoxicating liquor schedule. The City's schedule there is based on both
'
restaurant and non - restaurant type of uses. The schedule again is shown as
about 5% higher than in 1988.
those figures Don?
Councilman Boyt: Were you able to get
I
Don Ashworth: No. They may be in here. Councilman Boyt had Masked for a
comparison of fees with some of our other communities. I was looking for that
information late this afternoon and I was not able to have that available.
Resolution #89 -29: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
'
approve the Liquor License Fee Schedule as presented by staff.! All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXTENSION FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD THATWAS GRANTED ON
j
FEBRUARY 8, 1988 FOR ADMIRAL WASTE MANAGEMENT LOCATED ON THE FORTH SIDE OF TH
212 AND THE EAST SIDE OF TH 101, PATRICK BLOOD AND NANCY LEE.
Steve Hanson: This is a request to extend an existing conditional use permit.
The conditional use permit had a one year limitation to put in' the improvements
'
5
Environmental Services, Inc.
I Ms. Jo Anne Olson
I Dear Ms. Olson:
S.A. Cummings
President
J.E. Findley
Chief Executive Officer
D.D. Vieau
Executive Vice President
February 5, 1991
RE: JESSUP PROPERTY LOCATED AT
9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
' On behalf of Mr. James Jessup I am writing this letter to present my concern about the variance
status being considered for the property located at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen,
Minnesota.
In October, 1989 strong gasoline odors were encountered in the footing excavation at the above
address. Two underground gasoline tanks on a neighboring property were determined to be the
' source of the gasoline. Over 600 cubic yards of gasoline impacted soil was excavated from
around the tanks and Jessups property. Due to site constraints not all of the impacted soil was
excavated. To date, the full impact of the gasoline release has not been determined.
' Mr. Jessups immediate concern is the potential for gasoline vapors to migrate back onto his
property and enter his proposed residence.
' ; ' the Minnesota Pollution.
�leseh and �.ssoc,aies has designed and submitted to � �:, Control Age..ey
(MPCA) a remediation system that they feel will adequately address the gasoline vapor concern.
' As per my conversation on February 5, 1991 with MPCA staff assigned to this site, the MPCA
has not yet reviewed or approved the remediation design nor have they issued a letter indicating
' that the release has been adequately investigated.
ttB� (te -. . e{ Y `.'�a�F'�
RKEN AD
> i
an equal opportunity employer � ;99
Suite 400 Hazeltine Gates 1107 Hazeltine Boulevard Chaska, MN 55318
612/448 -9393 FAX 448 -9572
Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55318
I Dear Ms. Olson:
S.A. Cummings
President
J.E. Findley
Chief Executive Officer
D.D. Vieau
Executive Vice President
February 5, 1991
RE: JESSUP PROPERTY LOCATED AT
9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
' On behalf of Mr. James Jessup I am writing this letter to present my concern about the variance
status being considered for the property located at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen,
Minnesota.
In October, 1989 strong gasoline odors were encountered in the footing excavation at the above
address. Two underground gasoline tanks on a neighboring property were determined to be the
' source of the gasoline. Over 600 cubic yards of gasoline impacted soil was excavated from
around the tanks and Jessups property. Due to site constraints not all of the impacted soil was
excavated. To date, the full impact of the gasoline release has not been determined.
' Mr. Jessups immediate concern is the potential for gasoline vapors to migrate back onto his
property and enter his proposed residence.
' ; ' the Minnesota Pollution.
�leseh and �.ssoc,aies has designed and submitted to � �:, Control Age..ey
(MPCA) a remediation system that they feel will adequately address the gasoline vapor concern.
' As per my conversation on February 5, 1991 with MPCA staff assigned to this site, the MPCA
has not yet reviewed or approved the remediation design nor have they issued a letter indicating
' that the release has been adequately investigated.
ttB� (te -. . e{ Y `.'�a�F'�
RKEN AD
> i
an equal opportunity employer � ;99
Suite 400 Hazeltine Gates 1107 Hazeltine Boulevard Chaska, MN 55318
612/448 -9393 FAX 448 -9572
Ms. Jo Anne Olson -2— February 5, 1991
City of Chanhassen
Nova feels until these issues are resolved it would be premature to expect Mr. Jessup to begin
construction.
DJK:ab
PC: Ms. Janet Berryhill, MPCA
Mr. James Jessup
Sincerely,
NOVA ENVIRONMENTAL SER?VICES, INC.
i
David J. Koubskv
Hydrogeologist
Group Manager
' The gas vapor barrier was not designed for many months because Mr. Remus'
consultant would not design it until they had been paid for previous work. Mr.
Remus could not pay his consultant until he was reimbursed by the MPCA tanks
' program. Mr. Remus received his reimbursement check from the State of
Minnesota on November 24, 1990, and paid his consultant.
Then, on November 27, 1990, Mr. Jessup informed the MPCA that he did not want a
vapor barrier installed on his house, and that any system designed to protect
his house would have to be on Remus property. The MPCA met with both parties
and their consultants on December 17, 1990 to discuss alternative protective
systems. The following was agreed upon:
A vapor barrier will not be installed on Mr. Jessup's house.
Mr. Remus' consultant will be installing a well to determine whether ground
water was impacted by the gasoline release, and designing and installing a
venting system on Remus property to vent gas vapors from the remaining
contaminated soil.
QUICK MEMORANDUM FORM
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
'
520 Lafayette Road
St.Paul, Minnesota 55155 RECEIVED
Telephone (612) 296 -6300
Date: February 4, 1991 E B
6 991
T0: Sharmin Al -Jaff
'
City of Chanhassen C! , jr
,rit�NHAS
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
FROM: Janet Berryhill (�
'
Tanks and Spills Section
Division of Hazardous Waste
(612) 643 3427 ___________________________ _______________________________
RE: Summary of Our February 28, 1991 Phone Conversation
Site: Remus Residence
Site ID #_ LEAP..00001700
- - - -- --------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of this memo is to summarize our February 28, 1990 phone
conversation regarding the cleanup work on the properties belonging to Rudy
Remus and Jim Jessup on Lake Riley Boulevard.
As we discussed, Mr. Remus' underground gasoline tanks were removed in April
1990. A large amount of petroleum contaminated soil was removed, however some
'
contaminated soil remains, and ground water under the site has probably been
impacted.
'
MPCA staff asked Mr. Remus to design and install a system to protect Mr.
Jessup's house from the petroleum contamination that remains at the site. This
system would include a gas vapor barrier on Mr. Jessup's house, and a venting
system at the tank basin on Mr. Remus' property. Mr. Jessup could not go
ahead and build his house until Mr. Remus' consultant designed the gas vapor
barrier.
' The gas vapor barrier was not designed for many months because Mr. Remus'
consultant would not design it until they had been paid for previous work. Mr.
Remus could not pay his consultant until he was reimbursed by the MPCA tanks
' program. Mr. Remus received his reimbursement check from the State of
Minnesota on November 24, 1990, and paid his consultant.
Then, on November 27, 1990, Mr. Jessup informed the MPCA that he did not want a
vapor barrier installed on his house, and that any system designed to protect
his house would have to be on Remus property. The MPCA met with both parties
and their consultants on December 17, 1990 to discuss alternative protective
systems. The following was agreed upon:
A vapor barrier will not be installed on Mr. Jessup's house.
Mr. Remus' consultant will be installing a well to determine whether ground
water was impacted by the gasoline release, and designing and installing a
venting system on Remus property to vent gas vapors from the remaining
contaminated soil.
Sharmin Al --Jaf f
Page 2
February 4, 1990
For added protection, Mr. Jessup's consultant will be designing a clay barrier
to be installed between Mr. Remus' old tank basin and Mr. Jessups house.
If you have any questions about this memo, please call me at 612/643 -3427.
This informal way of responding to you saves us the time and expense of pre-
paring a formal letter. Please contact us if we can help you further or you
have questions on this matter.
Regional Offices: Duluth, Brainerd, Detroit Lakes, Marshall, Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer
copy 1- addressee copy 2 -site file
FEB- 04 - °92 TUE 15:56 ID: W ST PAUL TEL N0:612- 451 -3739 #913 P02
ERR - r
BRUCE A, LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC,
HYDROGEOLOGISTS - ENGINEERS • ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
134'.0 15th Avenue No. • Plymouth, MN 5544 • 612 - 559.1423 - FAX No; 559.2202
c IR E
'
DECO 2 1991
November 25, 1991
Mr. John Moeger
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Tanks and Spills Section
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155 -3898
MPCA, K414MOUS
WASTE DIVISION
RE: Remus Property Leak #00001700
' Dear Mr, Moeger;
' As per our telephone conversation of November 5, 1991, Bruce A. Liesch Associates, Inc.
(Liesch) believes that installation of a vapor barrier to a depth of 12 feet would not be
' a feasible method of remediation due to several factors. An installation depth of 12 feet
would require removal of the reinstalled concrete pad adjacent to the Remus garage and
the Remus garage would have to be protected by shoring or similar method to prevent
' undermining of the foundation. Excavations in excess of six feet require a trench box or
other means of support to be implemented to protect workers within the excavation. The
trench box would require increased time and expense to install the vapor barrier. Because
' of the depth, dewatering of the excavation would be necessary, further adding to the time
and expense of the remediation. Finally because the depth of the excavation access to
the Jessup property would be necessary. Prior to receiving your Corrective Action
' Approval letter dated November 4, 1991, Liesch requested, in writing, for permission to
access the Jessup property. To date, the permission to gain access to the Jessup property
has not been granted.
Due to the aforementioned factors, Liesch believes that installation of a vapor barrier to
specifications identified in your corrective action approval letter is not feasible. Liesch
' is proposing to conduct a soil vapor survey along the Remus /Jessup property boundary.
The soil vapor survey would use soil gas probes. The gas probes would then be driven into
soils along the property boundary, and soil gas samples will be collected and analyzed.
Once the soil gas probes are installed, the probes will be purged, to ensure soil as is be S $ g
analyzed, and not ambient air. The soil gas sample will then be analyzed by an organic
' vapor monitor U)VWon -site. The OVM will have a photoionization detector equipped with
a 10Yelectron volt lamp.
FEB- 04 - TUE 15:57 ID:WgTERFIELD.W ST PAUL TEL N0:612- 451 -3739
•
r Page Two
November 25, 1991
#913 FG3
Liesch proposes action level standard of 10 parts per million (ppm) ;organics vapors as
measured by the OVM. if soil gas concentrations are above 10 ppm,l a vapor barrier or
approved alternative remedial action will be implemented. If soil gasj concentrations are ,
at or below 10 ppm, Liesch will petition MPCA to close the site.
Your immediate attention and responses to this letter is requested. It you have any ,
questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 559 -1423.
$itscrr�ly,
Mark S. Miller
Project Manager ,
MSM /maw
cc: Rudy and Lucille Remus
Mr. Earl Snell
m a w: l tr 11-20/65039.00
1 0
r
.t.
SWteifer 9, 1991
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 -3898
Telephone (612) 296 -6300
Mr. Rudolph Remus
9245 Lake Riley Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Mr. Remus:
I Re: Remus Property
Site ID #: Leak0001700
RECEIVED
SEP 10 1991
CITY O� CmANHASSEN
' I would like to introduce myself to you and others as the project manager vho
has taken over this project from Janet Berryhill, who recently left the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). This letter also provides MPCA
staff comments on the most recent Bruce A. Liesch and Associates, Inc. (BAL),
' letter dated August 6, 1991, vhich presents the results of the
investigative /cleanup activities taken in May and June of 1991. Rather than
re -hash past events, I would much rather focus on vhat further vork needs to be
' done in order to close this file.
From what I have read from the file, and based on BAL,s latest work, the MPCA
' staff makes the -following conclusions:
The soil contamination plume has been examined as completely as possible
given the site access constraints. Contaminated soil identified by soil
' borings extends about 30 feet south of the former underground storage tank
(UST) basin. Contaminated soil beneath ther vater table (about 4 feet) is
not expected to cause a vapor problem at 'the Remus or Jessup properties;
' A recent ground water sample taken by indicates that ground water is not
impacted above the Recommended Allovable Levels, therefore a significant
' contaminant migration problem impacting the lake does not exist;
Site constraints (access, space limitations, and significantly altered
subsurface materials) make further ground water monitoring problematic;-
' permanent monitor vells are not possible due to a seasonally high water
table and extreme vater level fluctuations.
' - Although measured soil and ground vater contaminant concentrations to date
have been lov, MPCA staff consider a residential setting to be particular
sensitive and in need of some level of protection.
' Regional Offices: Duluth - Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshall • Rochester - -
Mr. Rudolph Remus
Page 2
STtstter 9, 1991 '
REQUIREMENTS
,
Based on the above comments, a vapor barrier must be installed along the entire
length of the Remus /Jessup property line. The design of the vapor barrier must
be based on previously collected information, and may employ anyirelatively
,
impermeable material such as grout or high density polyethylene (HDPE) liner,
etc. The proposed design, if approved, will be considered a corrective action
and a reimbursable expense. Questions regarding eligible costs for
reimbursement should be directed to Ms. Robin Hanson at 297 -4017!
'
The water table must be sampled in the following locations: (Ha4a auger
borings OK) Please refer to figure 2 in the BAL report dated June 1990.
1. Approximately 20 feet west of caps #2 (avgas) at sample location 11;
2. Approximately 35 feet south of above sample location at apprdximate
location of headspace sample "D ".
'
Samples must be analyzed for benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, xylene, and
total hydrocarbons as gasoline.
'
Please submit the proposed vapor barrier design to me within 30 days of the
date of this letter. MPCA staff will review and respond within 10 days of
,
receipt. Based on the results of the ground water sampling, the,MPCA may
require further actions to address this release.
Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please callme at
,
297 -8613.
Sincerely, '
John R. Moeger ,
Project Leader
Tanks and Spills Section ,
Hazardous Waste Division -
JRM:np
cc: Steve Kirchman and and JoAnn Olson, Chanhassen
James Jessup, Chanhassen
Mark Miller, Bruce A. Liesch And Associates, Plymouth '
Dave Koubsky, Chaska
1
1
FI
I
I -
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
4S;Aw a 520 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 -3898
N UU 04
Telephone (612) 296 -6300
RECEIVED
November 4, 1991
199
Mr Rudolph Remus
9245 Lake Riley Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Mr. Remus:.
RE: Corrective Action Approval
Remus Property
Site ID #: 0001700
Gi 1 1 v, V1 ,..,,r AS
�Z �<
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has reviewed the report
entitled, "Corrective Action Plan, Remus Property on Lake Riley, Chanhassen,
Minnesota ", dated September 1991 as prepared by Bruce A. Liesch and Associates,
Inc. (BAL).
In general, the proposed vapor barrier is hereby approved for installation
subject to the following modifications:
- The vapor barrier shall be installed to a depth of 12 feet such that it
connects with the native clay found at the base of the excavation.
- Clean sand shall be used as backfill in order to prevent tears and punctures
to the membrane during placement.
Installation of the vapor barrier should proceed immediately to take advantage
of the weather. Please notify the City of Chanhassen and the MPCA at least 5
days in advance of installation.
This qualifies you for partial reimbursement of your costs for the development
of this corrective action plan and for the costs you will incur after
construction is completed.
We expect, based on the available information, that completion of the approved
corrective action will support a determination by the MPCA Commissioner that
the release has been adequately addressed pursuant to Minn. 115C.09,
subd.2(b)(1) (1990). We therefore do not expect any additional cleanup
enforcement action by the MPCA will be necessary. However, if subsequently
obtained information indicates that the approved corrective actions are
inappropriate or inadequate, the MPCA may require additional work or
modifications in the approved work.
Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd - Detroit Lakes • Marshall • Rochester
r — . - i n.+r.nrh,r. ;{., c.....i....or . Printari nn Rmwelo,i Panor
Mr. Randolph Remus
Page 2
November 4, 1991
In approving the plan, the MPCA does not assume any liability for the design or
implementation of this remedy. You remain solely responsible for ensuring that
this plan results in a successful cleanup and that its implementation does not
result in any harm to public health or the environment. Moreover;, the MPCA
does not guarantee reimbursement of your costs from the Petro Board.
Application for reimbursement must be made to the Petro Board (612/297- 4017).
However, that decision is based on factors such as the adequacy off cleanup,
compliance with notification laws and cooperativeness with the MPCA.
Please submit a final report after implementation of the corrective action.
Thank you for your cooperation in responding to this release. Should you have
any questions, please call me at 297 - 8613.
Sincerely,
John R. Moeger
Project Leader
Tanks and Spills Section
Hazardous Waste Division
JRM:np
cc: Steven Kirchman and JOAnn Olson, City of Chanhassen
James Jessup, Chanhassen
Mark Miller, Bruce A. Liesch and Associates, Inc., Plymouth
Dave Koubsky,- Nova Environmental Consultants, Inc., Chaska
�
1
L7
I P n�rol Agency
�'
Minnesota Pollut Co
520 Lafayette Road, Saint Paui, Minnesota 55155 -3898 1 5 {
Telephone (612) 296 -6300
January 3, 1992
' Mr. Mark Miller
Bruce A. Liesch and Associates, Inc.
13400 15th Avenue North
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
Dear Mr. Miller:
Re: Rudolph Remus Property
Site ID #-: LEAK0001700
Having received and reviewed your November 25, 1991, letter describing the
limitations of placing a vapor barrier along the Remus /Jessup property line,
your alternative proposal to conduct a soil vapor survey along the same line is
approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff.
As we discussed on December 29, 1991, a 10.2 eV lamp shall be used in the
organic vapor monitoring device. I also ask for a scaled map which shows the
locations of the proposed sample points and the approximate depth each probe
will be advanced.
The proposed action level of 10 parts per million (ppm) is acceptable to MPCA
staff. Levels above 10 ppm may require further corrective action at the
discretion of MPCA staff.
' Please respond to this letter with the information requested above, prior to
beginning any work at the site.
Sincerely,
' John R. Moeger
Project Leader
Tanks and Spills Section
' Hazardous Waste Division
JRM:mk
cc: Rudolph Remus, Chanhassen
James Jessup, Chanhassen
Steve Kirchman, City of Chanhassen
RECEIVED
JAN 0 G 1992
Regional Offices: Duluth -. Brainerd - Detroit Lakes - Marshall - Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer - Printed on Recycled Paper CITY OF CHANH4SSE14
QUICK MEMORANDUM FORM
�.
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
520 Lafayette Road
St.Paul, Minnesota 55155
Telephone (632) 296 -6300 Date:
,
TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff
City Of Chanhassen
R. Moeger
FROM: John l
Tanks and Spills Section
'
Division of Hazardous Waste
(612) 297 -8613
ww�.== aws===
SUBJECT: Rudolph Remus Petroleum Release Site
,
Site ID #0002700
ave 's pos ion regarding the cl eanup at the
As we s cu sse , the MPCA eta
'
above captioned site is this:
Petroleum contaminated soils have been removed from the Jessup property to
the east - central
background levels with the exception of a small area near
property line that does not warrant action at this time.
Ground water has been impacted by the release, however samples show contaminant
Allowable Levels (RAL) for
levels below Minnesota Dept. of Health Recommended
Furthermore, MPCA staff has concluded that downg;radient
_
drinking water.
receptors such as Lake Riley will not be impacted by the release.
Petroleum contaminated soils remain on the Remus property above!MPCA action
as well as the small area
levels ( >10ppm). A vapor analysis of these soils
has been to provide information for the, selection of
,
mentioned above proposed
appropriate cleanup remedies. This has been approved by MPCA staff. The
no
corrective action may include excavation, venting, air injection, barrier or
action.
i
Cooperation is needed from both parties in order to carry out the corrective
action effectively and on a timely basis.
,
The MPCA staff proposes a deadline of June 1, 1992 for completing all
action determination,
corrective actions at this site. In the event of a no
the MPCA staff will then proceed to close out the file.
'
-
'
wwwcw� == asawsc�=== wwwm== = =awws - --- mc.�.. -.:
the time an d expense of pre=
This informal way of responding to you saves us
a formal. letter. Thank you for your interest, and please contact us if
paring
we can help you further or you have questions on this matter.
Regional Offices: Duluth,Brainerd,Detroit Lakes,MarshallRochester
Equal Opportunity Employer
'
copy 1- addressee copy 2 -site file
Z d 31SIJM'ZdH - dCd'NW WUET:titi E6, 96 933
w
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
February 28, 1994
New Business Agenda Item #7
Staff request for direction regarding variance 89 -1, 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
James Jessup family goal
continues to be the establishment our residence at this location,
renting is not fun.
TDAE LINE OF RECENT EVENTS FOR 9247 LAKE RILEY BLVD.
1/25/93 -City of Chanhassen (COC) issues extension of variances.
' 6/10/93 JFJ requests building permit.
7/26 COC issues letter stating delay in issuing permit is COC responsibility.
8/5/93 COC makes building permit available for pickup. JFJ picksup permit.
8/12/93 JFJ completes first construction activity erecting soil erosion fence required by COC.
8/21/93 Excavation on site starts.
'
8/22/93 Ground breaking ceremony attended by neighbors and other guests.
'
9/15/93 Additional excavation of site by contractor unsure of exact # of truckloads.
10/15/93 JFJ continues excavation of site.
'
11/4/93 JFJ letter to COC providing information about status of reimbursement request.
'
12/11/93 Buck starts excavating site for footings scheduled on 12/15.
12/13/93 Buck excavating site, COC appears on site issues stop work order preventing further
'
work from being completed.
1/5/954 JFJ letter to COC questioning status of site, stop work order still posted.
'
1/28/94 JFJ investigates dewatering alternatives and purchases dewatering equipment.
1/7/94 COC removes stop work order from site.
2/22/94 COC informs JFJ verbally that no building is to take occur, will not put that in writing
though. The situation is to be reviewed by COC Council. JFJ is totally stunned by call.
1/24/94 Buck is excavating site for footings on 1/26/94. Dayco Concrete schedules footing
'
inspection with COC for 1/26.
1/25/94 Buck has front half of site excavated 7 feet to bottom of footings. Soil type changes and is
'
too wet to continue excavating. Braun Intertec is on site to do soil inspection in preparation for scheduled
footings on 1/26. Is able to inspect a portion of the excavation. soil is acceptable. Confirms the soil type
has changed and is too wet to excavate. Buck excavates in excess of 20 truck loads of material.
'
1/2694 JFJ COC
notifies Steve Kirchman that soil conditions require dewatering
'
1/28/94 JFJ investigates dewatering alternatives and purchases dewatering equipment.
1/29/94 JFJ installs dewatering equipment. Temperature is too cold and pump freezes.
'
2/30/94 JFJ tries again to get dewatering equipment to work, again too cold.
2/19/94 JFJ again on site with dewatering equipment able to work.
2/20/94 JFJ on site again with dewatering equipment working..
2/22/94 COC informs JFJ verbally that no building is to take occur, will not put that in writing
though. The situation is to be reviewed by COC Council. JFJ is totally stunned by call.
W
Data provided by: State Climatology Office
Series 1 is actual temperature. Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul MN
Series 2 is 32 degrees, the temperature water freezes. Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit.
BUCK'S EXCAVATING, INC.
' 1180 Pioneer Trail
Chaska, Minnesota 55318
445 -1861
' Can't move heaven — only the earth!
SS• Co .z_ 1 �cr v
MI N
I RE Ji i Jessup House
Lahe Riley
R GF
Sty:: /dJ
F
L
Sincerely,
R odney G. (Buck be
I q
= t:r compa -Is doing the excavati r ` f cj the . l ess - _
1 I "' i C•G �I'.IC :]� C %L tilat the
? a till ey. he purpose of th s ' e e �.. y �
, i r it r ^ r1 } y - era
lay we ha I]�i r t._�t :g iJ _r.c .r e`. S12 loL: e I:a� !. -e �1: caus
d ,a
L
�S' all �1C [a _a�_� b' n�OLI:�e t'i.. W*e have lad t o s ._ to
allow the de- waterjn;= io prccce'd.
`vy.z_I:
th wea t her got so cold, the Le could not be de-wa
so ainc �l �S su. _cam _
a':d 41.ie21 - l 4u32'??]eCi L'a r' dr G'..._ IIiC�I "'e "f iac Lei' f _QWe
_nto the hole because ::. =..� ' noW ...'saw, so even mor de Watering.
'
raas necessary.
13e of cou rse, it has turned cold again, and all we can do is
'
,
Wait for the weather to wa> >In so tine Se water can be cc!r:•pleted.
At the soonest time possiL•le we w111 dig again, as we are all
anxialas to continue this project.
R GF
Sty:: /dJ
F
L
Sincerely,
R odney G. (Buck be
I q
' BRAUN
i NTE RTES
Braun Interme Cerpore6on
6801 Wathimston Avenuo South
P.O. Box Solos
Minneap04, Minnoaoto 55435 -0108
612.9415600 fax: 911.4151
!n9inezrs and 56ent,s.s SeM.-Ig
the Built and Noturol fnvironmer,
Project BA.BX•94 -018
Re: Sons Observations for Proposed House Located at 9247 Lake Valley Boulevard in
Chanhassen, Minnesota
' At your request, we are submitting this letter regarding the site observation we performed for
the above - referenced project on January 25, 1994. On that date Gregg Jandro, P.E., visited the
site and observed that your excavator was working. We. met with you and the excavator and
observed the excavation bottom soil conditions at the southeast corner of the site.
' At the time of our visit,.the excavator had completely removed the existing and fill soils a
g t the
southeast building corner and exposed the underlying naturally occurring sandy lean clay glacial
' till soils. One hand auger boring placed in the glacial till soils indicated they were is a stiff
condition and would be suitable for footing or fill placement. However, the sand fill soils
north of the excavated area were saturated and were running into the other areas of the site
' which the excavator was attempting to excavate. You and your excavator had already noted
this and, following discussions among ourselves, we recommended excavation work stop and
the area be dewatered to minimize any future problems. In addition, we recommended that the
excavation along this east side of the proposed building area be performed in segments so as to
' not open up a large area at any given time. We recommended excavation should proceed with
caution.
' You indicated you would be looking into various dewatering methods and proceed to follow our
recommendations. You indicated we would be notified to perform additional observations of
the excavation.
' If you have any questions regarding this letter or rewire additional observations or tests, please
call me at (612) 942-4945.
' Sincerely,
Professional Certification
' I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me and
that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
Gre J , P.E.
' 0o Eng
Registration Number: 18221
Date: February 28, 1994
Loren W. Braun, P.E.
Senior Engineer
*Uab:,ajolDabx:940181rpt
February 28, 1994
'
Mr. Jim Jessup
7021 Galpin Boulevard
Excelsior, MN 55331
'
Dear Mr. Jessup:
Braun Interme Cerpore6on
6801 Wathimston Avenuo South
P.O. Box Solos
Minneap04, Minnoaoto 55435 -0108
612.9415600 fax: 911.4151
!n9inezrs and 56ent,s.s SeM.-Ig
the Built and Noturol fnvironmer,
Project BA.BX•94 -018
Re: Sons Observations for Proposed House Located at 9247 Lake Valley Boulevard in
Chanhassen, Minnesota
' At your request, we are submitting this letter regarding the site observation we performed for
the above - referenced project on January 25, 1994. On that date Gregg Jandro, P.E., visited the
site and observed that your excavator was working. We. met with you and the excavator and
observed the excavation bottom soil conditions at the southeast corner of the site.
' At the time of our visit,.the excavator had completely removed the existing and fill soils a
g t the
southeast building corner and exposed the underlying naturally occurring sandy lean clay glacial
' till soils. One hand auger boring placed in the glacial till soils indicated they were is a stiff
condition and would be suitable for footing or fill placement. However, the sand fill soils
north of the excavated area were saturated and were running into the other areas of the site
' which the excavator was attempting to excavate. You and your excavator had already noted
this and, following discussions among ourselves, we recommended excavation work stop and
the area be dewatered to minimize any future problems. In addition, we recommended that the
excavation along this east side of the proposed building area be performed in segments so as to
' not open up a large area at any given time. We recommended excavation should proceed with
caution.
' You indicated you would be looking into various dewatering methods and proceed to follow our
recommendations. You indicated we would be notified to perform additional observations of
the excavation.
' If you have any questions regarding this letter or rewire additional observations or tests, please
call me at (612) 942-4945.
' Sincerely,
Professional Certification
' I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me and
that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
Gre J , P.E.
' 0o Eng
Registration Number: 18221
Date: February 28, 1994
Loren W. Braun, P.E.
Senior Engineer
*Uab:,ajolDabx:940181rpt
1993/94 Expenditures for 9247 Lake Riley
1. Building permit expense $1,795
2. Site construction expense $5,700
W O
January 14, 1993
Mr. Don Ashworth
City. Manager
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. Ashworth:
We do not oppose the extending of the variance that James
Jessup has requested for the property next to ours. He needs the
additional year to build his house. The contamination issue has
taken longer to resolve than we anticipated. We want to assist him
in his variance request.
Sincerely,
Rudol h Remus
Lucille Remus
6.57
CITY OF
4 ,
" 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 0 FAX (612) 937 -5739
January 7, 1994
CERTIFIED
Mr. James F. Jessup
7021 Galpin Lake Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
Re: Cancellation of revocation of permit #6325 at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd, Chanhassen
Dear Mr. Jessup:
I received copy of the 12/22/93 letter extending variance 89 -1. Accordingly, the revocation of
permit #6325 is cancelled.
You may call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Steve A. Kirchman
Building Official
pc: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director
Paul Krauss, Planning Director
Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I
Roger Knutson, City Attorney
Building file, 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
City Council, adnim packet
7
February 9, 1993
CITY OF
CHARRASSZK
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 6 FAX (612) 937 -5739
' 1vIr. James Jessup
3323 Lake Shore Court
Chaska, MN 55318
' Re: 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. Jessup:
This letter is to confirm that on January 25, 1993, the City Council approved your request for
a variance extension ( #89 -1) for the construction of a new single family residence at 9247
Lake Riley Boulevard. The City Council approved an extension for six months, until July
' 25, 1993, with the following conditions:
1. Drainage be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a
' building permit.
2. The deck on the rear of the house is to remain a deck and no porch or any enclosed
' structure is allowed in the 75 foot setback from Lake Riley. (Note: The building plot
plan will need to show the actual ordinary high water mark for Lake Riley to
' determine actual setback. This will need to be identified on the property surveyed by
a registered surveyor.) The area under the deck may be improved as a patio with no
enclosures.
3. Plans are to be reviewed b Planning Staff prior to issuance of a building permit to
Y .. P gP
assure compliance with the intent of plans presented with variance.
' 4. The attached lan is noted as the official plan for determining compliance.
P P g P
5. The front setback may be no less than 16 feet from the property line.
6. The rear setback may be no less than 68 feet from the deck.
49s
�� �r� PRINTED ON REC1"0ED PAPER
Mr. James Jessup
February 9, 1993
Page 2
7. The west setback may be no less than 5.5 feet for any portion of the structure.
8. The east setback may be no less than 10 feet for any portion of the structure.
9. Mr. Jessup will provide monthly progress reports to the City for review by any
interested neighbors.
10. If a new variance request is required, the fees will be waived.
Should you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Sharmin Al -Jaff
Planner I
c: Roger Knutson, City Attorney
July 26, 1993
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 0 FAX (612) 937 -5739
Mr. Jim Jessup
7021 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
Re: Building permit @ 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
' Dear Jim:
The purpose of this letter is to confirm our conversation of 07/25/93 concerning expiration of
' your variance.
Although your variance may expire before your permit for 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. is issued, you
' applied well in advance of the expiration date. Changes in staff at City Hall have caused some
delays in reviewing submitted documents and issuing the permit. Your responses to our requests
for additional documentation have been timely, and any delays in the permit issuance process
were not caused by you.
The City will not rigidly enforce the`' expiration date of your variance as long as the permit
issuance process continues to proceed in a timely fashion.';
Sincerely, ^ ;
Steve A. Kirchman
Building Official
cc: Building file, 9247 Lake Riley Blvd..rc..
n �v
�� «►� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
x
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
October 26, 1993
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Jim Jessup
9247 Riley Lake Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
133 EAST 7th STREET
ST. PAUL. MN 55101
612/296 -4026
FAX: 612/296 -4328
RE: Petrofund reimbursement application filed by Rudolph Remus
1 Leak #1700
L - 1
I �-
LJ
Dear Mr. Jessup:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation, this letter is to advise
you that the Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Board received a
reimbursement application from Rudolph Remus on January 11, 1993.
The application requests reimbursement for a settlement of a third
party liability claim.
On September 3, 1993 a letter was sent to Mr. Remus attorney
requesting additional information. As of this date the application
remains pending as we have not received a response from the
attorney.
If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please
contact the undersigned.
verr.r) truly yours,
Robin H. Hanson
Commerce Analyst
(612) 297 -4017
I AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
• _ .a . _ r.da.
c
MINNESOTA PETROLEUM TANK
Wig
- -_ � .ti �v. -•4. �..'• o i v � ix. ���tt� <.s.� r �' v1 '�Y -, - . ,•fie, -`x �'�.`
t ; � °' r k�? r '�'_ �"'- _�.'L:f� i•-2�^tr."'��.� rx �'�Wx''
COMPENSATION BOARD
�•' +4 "`. •'�` 4 �^' �. - -. t i y . ,�.l � 3 ._ � 1y +��' -� A �4'A v. V 3 ii.�
.. c:. _ � - .i ......- +n` 'x ► -'i: �rly..�, ... - .: ._... - � - F .��� , �'3• y .� x s . = z_
t? f APPLICATION .FOFIREIMBUEMENT r_ r ` Xr�
a dc ,;� - +ci S. �T � ,.� - � .T"5• ti � r -a' ^'.1S+M'Y+ - `+ ii
- f f y. _ h z� ^'"iLT "Ty� ,{ �` y,, t..: '� 2c. I, �+ p"d' I
r'. '� _ x y..+Il u L �� '"r>` "*�i ��� � ��•y„ � ' �' -L ' :"a a _ t s` - ��'.n.. ��tc
... _ -.- .. '� � \F� s_ �. "�:3+ . ,+". -. - L • .. y,x'#t.,. } mt.. .Y-- . ?�'��4�"fe"ty -,«"�' . y - y � p�.: y � 4•- ICI
W ' . �rr F ..'�• w* ?.e�•^�` ,
+°`s �+1 s ; o �., '�t�L' vet ii,,,i,�"•' _' lS� •\at�vK'��� \��- lyF'�"�$�F.�iC `r ,� '`�'
SITE ID . 000
_ � s s., i i +tt "�- aa - r 9 7 �F� ( C+s _ ��'•�. -+'Y y � ,,,��• 3Fi.3"� S � �:
. t 'ES i�5 � : m S � �v�; ••.�.fr �r.Z :�` ''3` a _ F'2'K�,,{
a v. 4sayif F+ y v
s•,�{, " ..- '•.., - ' +�'?^s�.+.s�, -!°s . ; , . "" }���' u Y. +,y<, .'2.• `.r-
�
2 9 -
P_ REPARED FOR:
'
-LAKE RILEY :ra-
' CHANHASSEN; MINNESOTA
JANUARY 1993 -
.PRE BY.
je
_B .A LIESCH ASSOCIATES,INC..
NYDROGEOtOGIST3 �. ENGINEE • %:ENVONMENTAL
MINNEAPOLIS, MN • Ai&Ri EAR NIN • M ADISON, WI +
- - . -�F'%tiC�,u�i� v`'�� -. ,� `E;uA6''Ba�.. ^f - :u - � - 1 q ,'r.,, x..r� . <-�+•
71;fpp - T
1� MINNESOTA PETROLEUM TANK RELEASE
COMPENSATION BOARD
Application for Reimbursement
I RT I APPLICATION PROCESS
eck Check appropriate Phase and complete the information requested for the
ie) Phase checked (see Application Guide).
(' Phase 1. MPCA approval of Soil Corrective Action Plan (SCAP)
a) Date of SCAP approval / / (Attach Copy)
b) Date SCAP was submitted to MPCA / /
[, Phase 2. Submission Documentation of Soil Treatment
Date Documentation was submitted to MPCA
Phase 3. . MPCA approval of Comprehensive Corrective Action Plan (CCAP)
a) Date of CCAP approval / / (Attach Copy)
b) Date CCAP was submitted to MPCA
[, Phase 4. Submission of CCAP Installation Letter to MPCA
Date of CCAP Installation Letter / / (Attach Copy)
A RT 11
1.
=1.
� e:
7.
1
1
1
Ongoing Expenses Following Phase 4 Reimbursement or MPCA Site Closure or Conditional
Closure -
APPLICANT INFORMATION
"Responsible Person" [X] "Volunteer" [ ] or "None- Responsible Person" [ ]
(check one) (see application guide)
\name:_ Mr. Rudolph Remus
Nlailina address: ___ 9245 Riley Lake Road. Chanhassen MN 55317
Phone: (612) 445 - 3370
Site ID: Leak = 00001700
The applicant is a: [ ] Corporation [ ] Partnership [X] Individual
[ ] Other
Applicant was the owner or operator of the tank from 1970 to rp esent
"Volunteer" Applicant owned property from ! / to
Has applicant executed any Petrofund assignment agreements? Yes _ No X .
Name of assignees) NA (attach cope of agreement)
Page 1 of 7
1.3
TANK FACILITY
Name of "Tank Facility" (see application guide) where the petroleum release occurred:
' Rudolph Remus property
Tank Facility address: 9245 Rilev Lake Road, Chanhassen, MN 55317
' Contact Person at Tank Facility: Mr. Rudolph Remus
' Phone: (612) 445 -3370
To the best of your knowledge, list all other persons besides the applicant who were owners or
operators of the tank during or after the petroleum release:
Darb Inc.
' Did any of the persons listed in question 4 incur corrective action costs related to this petroleum
release? yes_ no X If yes, list name and address if known:
N/A
Date when petroleum release was detected: 10/13/90
What test was performed to initially establish that a release occurred? PID
Date when petroleum release was reported to the MPCA: 10/13/90
Which tanks (or associated piping) were the source of the release at this tank facility? (see
application guide)
Tanks 001 and 002
What was the cause of the release?
Holes and corrosion
Was this tank(s) used only to store heating oil for consumptive use on the premises where
stored?
(check one) YES [ ] NO [X]
:, TANK INFORMATION AND COMPLIANCE
' Underground Storage Tanks. Complete the following information to reflect the status of the
under2round storage tanks at the time the release was discovered. Refer to the attachment "Do
Underground Storage Tanks and Piping Requirements Apply to your Petroleum Tank ?" and
"What Do You Have To Do? /When Do You Have To Act ?" to determine the applicability of
' rezistration, leak detection, corrosion protection, and spill /overfill protection.
Tank Petroleum Capacity Type of Tank Date Registered Date
Product (gallons) Installed Yes /No /Unk Removal
Regular
001 gasoline 500 Steel 1970 5/27/90 4/18/90
Aviation
002 Gas 500 Steel 1970 5/27/90 4/18/90
Page 2 of 7 /4
C
rl
L
RT VI
1.
If yes, provide the following:
Insurance Company Policy T Policv Limits Deductible Period Covered
N/A
Total of all eligible costs as listed
in the Eligible Cost Worksheet:
Insurance Reimbursement (subtract) -
$ 210.000
x 90%
$ 189.000
$ ( 0.00 1
Total Reimbursement Request = $ 189.000
(see application guide)
CONTRACTORS /CONSULTANTS
Complete the following for all contractors, subcontractors, consultants, engineering firms or
others who performed corrective actions at this release site. (see application guide) Failure
to provide this information for ALL persons who performed corrective action may result
in an action to recover any reimbursement which may be paid. (Attach additional sheets
if necessary.)
Name of individual or Firm: Bruce A. Liesch Associates, Inc.
I Page 5 of 7
/ 5
Mailing Address: 13400 15th Ave. N.,
Plymouth, MN 55441
/l.h; iC 5 - hi X71 c r
Contact person: r
Phone: (612)559 -1423
Name of individual or firm:
'
Mailing address:
Contact person:
Phone:
Name of individual or firm:
'
✓Mailing address:
'
Contact person:
Phone: ( 1
Name of individual or firm:
'
Mailing address:
Contact person:
Phone: ( 1
I Page 5 of 7
/ 5
2. Describe below any relationship, financial or otherwise, between the applicant and any
contractor who performed work at this site:
There are no significant relationships financial or otherwise, between the applicant
and anv contractors who performed work at this site.
RT VII CERTIFICATION (see application guide)
A. "I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my
' direction or supervision to accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel
properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or
persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate
and complete.
"I certify that if I have submitted invoices for costs that I have incurred but that remain unpaid,
' I will pay these invoices within 30 days or receipt of reimbursement from the board. I
understand that if I fail to do so, the board may demand return of all or any portion of
reimbursement paid to me and that if I fail to comply with the board's demand, that the board
' may recover the reimbursement, plus administrative and legal expenses in a civil action in
district court. I understand that I may also be subject to a civil penalty."
-- r �
nature of Applicant
me (Please Print)
� /
Every applicant must sign Pan A.
�irication must alto be made:
I fu certify that I am authorized
urt .
Witnessed by:
Name
l/ 7/x'3
Date
above. If applicant is a corporation or partnership, the following
to sign and submit this application on behalf of
nature Name (Please Print)
le (See
send this e (See Application Guide, Pan VI) Date
. pp accompanying application and documents to:
F O P
' Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Board
Minnesota Department of Commerce
133 East Seventh Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
(612) 297 -4107
esch Petrofund Registration =1167
raw: TS /6039 /prop 1693
1�
Page 6 of 7
DEC
i 5
I F MINNESOTA Nov % 0 1992 DISTRICT COURT
OF CARVER CCUt5Y COURTS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT FILE NO:91 -28156
�essup,
Plaintiff,
,t Remus, Lucille
nd DARB, Inc.,
.nesota I corporation,
' Defendants.
FINDINGS OF FACT
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
AND ORDER FOR JUDGMENT
It e above matter came on before the court on its trial
r on November 10, 1992. John F. Bonner, III, Esq., appeared
shalf of the Plaintiff; Thomas E. Peterson, Esq. appeared on
of Defendants Rudolph and Lucille Remus; and Dawn
I elbein, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant DARB, Inc., a
-ota corporation.
�ased upon all cf the testimony of witnesses, the evidence
ced at trial, the stipulations and the agreements of the
i s, and the files, records, and proceedings herein, and the
b2ine fully adysed in the premises, the court makes :.ts
' FINDINGS OF FACT
�. That at all times relevant, James Jessup owned property
Lion Carver County in the southwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4
24, Township 116M, Range 23W.
Il
17
�J
V •
2. That at all times relevant Defendant Lucille Remus owned
property located immediately adjacent to the Jessup property.
t efendant Rudolph Remus has no interest in this property.
3. That prior to April, 1990, there were two 500 gallon
u nderground fuel tanks located on the Remus property. one tank was
F wned by Lucille Remus and stored gasoline. The second tank.was
owned and operated by DARE, Inc. and stored aviation fuel.
' 4. That in the fall of 1989 petroleum was discovered in the
ground at the Jessup property during construction of a residence on
hat property. The petroleum contamination was the direct result
of leaks from the two underground petroleum storage tanks.
5. That remediation of the Jessup property has taken place
under the direction of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
6. That as a result of the petroleum contamination from the
'leaking underground storage tanks Plaintiff has sustained damage in
the ar.ount of !$210,000.
CONCL USIONS OF Lr4 W
1. The Plaintiff is entitled to judg✓ent against Defendants
.,ucille Remus and DARB, Inc. in the amount of $210,000.
ORDER
Judgrient shall be entered accordingly. The entry of
, judgment shall be stayed at this time pending further order of this
court.
Dated: 7 - 7 2-
BY THE COURT:
Robert J. Go
gciiis /
Judge of Distric- Court