7. Potential Acquisition 6921 Yuma Drive Carver Beach 1
,,,li
• 1 ,
C ITYOF
1 CHANHASSEN
0 4111r4
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1 MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
I FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
1 DATE: February 2, 1993
SUBJ: Follow -Up Memorandum, Potential Acquisition of Property Located at 6921 Yuma
1 Drive, Carver Beach
BACKGROUND, '
I .
the January i o meetin , �. .a s related to this
At ary 2 actions property were under
25, 19 3 , City ry C un cil eetm __ P perry er
consideration. The first was a request by the , , er ?, d buyer for approval of variances to make
I this property buildable. As you probably ; rec y , this lot is severely coin y
presence of d undeveloped cl v right -o ay. Earlier that evening, the Board of
I A lustments had voted to approve a mot '.n ed vanan equest due in large part to the fact that
this is a lot of record and there seems = k' be some ►,, ed obligation on behalf of the city, to
make it buildable. The City Council . ided not to rev ` • this action on appeal.
I The second action had to do with potential acquisition this. property. Several members of
the City Council had already scussed the potential acqui 'on of it wittrstaff due to a belief
that the lot is severely impacted by storm water and by the wetland. Staff indicated some belief +
I that the lot could : g piit to use to support the city's Surface Water Management Program. .
However, we indicat a lliiMe gurfa Water Managiiiiiiit find has already allocated all of its
I resources for 1993 1923 Iiindrwite appropriated e ~for cquisition,.4_considered to be
warranted by the City Council, would need to come from other sources. Staff was directed to
• research the matter furdieFifitljeport back to the City Council. Wewere'3ecifically asked to
I
further refine potential uses of the pr operty < =relative to suppor a City's SWMP program, get
a handle on potential costs to the city, dete "' a vl ether or not city funds were available for
purchase, and to ascertain whether these funds od be better spent elsewhere supporting SWMP
1 programs. s .,,z,
STAFF COMMENT
1 Staff has had an opportunity to visit the site with Ismael Martinez from Bonestroo Engineering,
PP t3'
Engineering Department Staff and Mike Wegler, our Street Superintendent. We concluded that
I •
•
i It
t 4.7 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
"' Don Ashworth
February 2, 1993
1 Page 3
the buck elsewhere with other projects. However, this does not appear to be the situation that
confronts us. If these funds are not allocated to purchase the property, we are not anticipating
receiving them into the SWMP program. Therefore, all the benefit that would be gained by
owning the property would be lost and we would have no compensating dollars to spend
1 elsewhere.
Staff finds it difficult to make a recommendation to the Council on this matter. There are a
1 number of issues involved, some of which are technical, others relate to neighborhood concerns,
and still others relate to the level of discomfort that has been expressed with knowingly allowing
people to build a home on a lot like this. If we have this property in our possession, we will put
1 it to good use. It will facilitate our efforts to protect wetlands and improve water quality that
is discharged into Lotus Lake. Lastly, we believe that the $20,000 purchase price is something
of a bargain. If we do not have ownership of the parcel, we will work around it, lose some long
' term flexibility that we believe to be important in the Carver Beach neighborhood, and may
ultimately have to acquire drainage easements over portions of the property if SWMP program
1 improvements occur in this area.
ATTACHMENTS
1 1. Memo from Paul Krauss dated January 21, 1993.
2. Memo from Sharmin Al -Jaff dated January 20, 1993.
3. City Council minutes dated January 25, 1993.
MANAGER'S NOTE
A project was double funded within the "Environmental Protection Fund." Monies therefore exist
for this project and to provide minor dollars to the Tree Board - a program missed during the
budgetary process.
1
1
1
1
1
Don Ashworth
February 2, 1993
Page 2 1
the property does offer some short and long term opportunities to both protect the adjacent
wetland and impr w a ers flc wing downstream into Lotus Lake. In the short term, we believe
that an existing retention basin located west of the site can be expanded or supplemented by a
second basin which would encroach onto the property in question. Secondly, we note that this
wetland is likely to be impacted at other points where storm water flowing into it needs to be
managed. Having this property in our possession would allow us to expand the wetland onto this
site to mitigate wetland loss that might occur elsewhere. We have attempted to sketch up this
option in an attached exhibit. 1
In a related matter, we note that the city may have to expend funds to acquire drainage rights to
portions of this property and /or to mitigate some impacts from SWMP programs even if
acquisition does not proceed. The water quality improvement project already programmed for
this area will have the result of raising the water level two feet. In this instance, the water level
and wetland elevation will coincide; however, since city ordinance requires that the lowest
1
elevation of the home be built 2 feet above the flood elevation, the home must be that much
higher. Secondly, we note that the city has no right to put more water into the area nor to make
any alterations to the wetland or flow across this property because there is no existing easement.
1
In some cases, a property owner will simply allow the city to make improvements in these areas
but in many instances we must pay them for the right to do so. Thus, any expansion of
retention/sedimentation basins on this property could well cost the city some funds. Additionally,
1
we would have no ability to expand the wetland onto this property for the simply fact that there
would be a home in the way.
Staff and the City Attorney have met with the owner to discuss a possible land purchase as
directed by the City Council. At this time it appears as though the potential purchases has
cancelled his option. The seller is willing to give the city the same contract which is a $20,000
purchase price, pro -rating the 1993 payable taxes. The seller is responsible for all back taxes and
penalties.
The City Manager has attached a comment to this report indicating information on the availability
of funds and where they may be found. Staff was asked the question as to whether or not these
funds could be put to better use elsewhere. This is an extremely difficult question to answer
although it appears as though our answer would have to be that we may be able to put it to better
use elsewhere. To define this answer any further, we would have had to expend additional
dollars with the city's consultant to definitively layout the plan for use of this property but we
did not feel it was prudent to do so. Additionally, as you know that we have already stated that
the SWMP program does not have sufficient funds to support purchase of this property without
eliminating expenditures already budgeted for 1993. Thus, we have stated a recommendation that
if funds are to be found to acquire the property, that they would have to be found elsewhere.
The question that staff was asked was whether or not these dollars could be expended elsewhere.
To rephrase this question, one could ask if the Council is con iderin: allocatin: an add' • na
$20,000 to the SWMP program in 1993. To that I could state that we would get better bang for
1
1
• 1
1\1 .
.11
ita .
I '
•
, 1 \
..
H 1 i _ _ _ ____L _ • '''''' -
,
I 1 . - 1 – - f „...„ 7...s" .3. eov„e, • , ....
-!. / 1, \ I-. . .,.'. -_ '7 0 f , 6 .. i .. • ',
• f: : :: .1.4.--'' .1
I
% • \ . ,:i 0 : :;•:ii,hii.A:MY
1 i . .. .... . . .. .. A
11/;: i J --' L -.-il V . r i - 4":::::••:::::.
••••••:::
- r
r. . - , vet
I — .. 1 777. • 6 -
10..9gs. 1 a x/sr iz "c
It $;:::::...A.:.P;':.11:.:.•::.'.•::4
L
• / °1 . - V/WA4 fa.:::'.!..::::i:.gagi
t ay MIMI! a al= 3 :4 - Ei z imis , t i 4 1 41 . 1
A
,.....--
..".- „.:..._____ ii.L - ic , ' •:•0.:amv.:::::::i
---*%. h---"li'lul.—ul‘-'""Pjbm . " 1 ";=3 , -" -- w-41■■ 44 I ' 6 Il ____.----- ---- --- /
i
ihal Ng 4 \ . 0 iti '' , OPORON - • - - - 0 i' O
1 I ' '''---.. - -mem NM imm... ---■ -- ...--■ S . - ' "; 1 :t \ 1%,; 'i.e.::: .,. ti:s. ,..„
-•:.7
4 ,, 1 ,,,,, !....,ii:.:.:
—11111,111A111 I
,,,, ,,...,,
II:---- - 1- - - . d; ' '.
1 '.0 ,'0).• . ./... .. :.::
..
_ 1
.;, 4 ;; ‘, , __ ,
e t: I
-- . ,„ ,„,.,, A ..,,c. A ' ' ,, . -- - e 'N ---
-. - • '
' 7p A, v . . . 1
---____ I, ..,•1 `•• - / 4 //'',/ , t ... i *.- o'er
, .A.4e.
a ,- ,`•.L --- ... ..„ 1.\\\ - 1 1 . f.: . ' 1 1 144itl - c - ::. •
- .
4 ' , i •• 4
- .
1 / , , ■ ,
j A .
- - - - - . • . . . „... - .. - . --z . . - , -k . ---
At.,/ ,'°
11_ - i'%r,.%%/, : A .,: :: it ti) 4
- _
-- - --,.' • - --..":-. N, .- //% I i• 4 ; 1 : . . : .-= - • ICKI • - ,,
/1 ./
OP of • 4 er 'Zs- JO
) 1 \ . : - • ' r - -,.,,, ,i, \ eix, ,21.5 C •
1 t . 0 y F •••00 Al
AO 1 \ NOT F V A G. • g i
I - 1 -
t. . ...,
\....41MME.R ‘•43\\.*.-\.%%'6....011.8
< .
1 1
4
\ \ i C ■-.
i i ----•-.-..
I . _. - \ ‘ )1 \ •-...: --' ''• ---- C- '4"i'' ''''%*.--
• k - -
N \
! 11127.7,11 FUTURE SEDIMEMT BASIN .01:1
11 WETLAND MITAGATION AREA
POTENTIAL POND EXPANSION
C ITYOF
--
. O t°'"I'll .
1
.. CHANHASSEN 1 4
6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Action by City Admi - nis st t ator
i Endorsed__ A I
MEMORANDUM .. W''' :ir
1
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Det+
set. Submitted to CommissloA
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Dem su:,mitted to Council
DATE: January 21, 1993
SUBJ: Potential Acquisition of Property Located At 6921 Yuma Drive, Carver Beach 1
: I Staff's involvement with this property originated with the owner's request for variances to make
this lot buildable. The parcel in question is it lot of record that is severely impacted by the
location of a wetland, public rights -of -way, `ind utility lines which result in unusually small
usable area. While theoretically buildable with variances, significant questions have been•iaised
regarding on -site soil conditions, flood elevations and other matters pertaining to the low and wet
nature of this parcel. Given these factors, plus conversations individually with a number of I
members of the City Council, we thought it might be prudent to offer you some input regarding
potential acquisition of this property by the city for water retention and ponding.
As the Council is aware, the city's Surface Water Mana Program is proceeding towards
undertaking several construction projects this spring. One of the project areas where we have
already completed significant investigation includes the parcel in question. Thus, we are readily
I
able to present to you information regarding how this lot fits into the city's drainage and water
quality protection `program. 1 might add that 1 believe having this type of planning available is
another example of the wisdom of the city's investment and commitment to this program. In 1
an attached memorandum, the Assistant City Engineer details how thisparcel may reasonably fit
into the city's storm water and water quality efforts. What we have concluded in general is that
:.p
there is some short term benefit in providing an ability 1ao "� "create an additional water
I
impoundment area. At some point in the future when area streets in Carver Beach are improved
and provided with curb, gutter and storm sewer, the importance of this site will increase. At that
point, we will be able to direct substantial quantities of storm water into impoundment basins that
I
could be constructed on this site which would result in a net improvement in water quality for
water flowing out to Lotus Lake. The Carver Beach area offers few opportunities to obtain open I
land for water protection purposes. This site represents one of the few remaining undeveloped
parcels that could reasonably be put to this use. In summary, it may be reasonable for the city
to consider acquisition of this property should the opportunity arise.
vs 4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1
1 Don Ashworth
January 21, 1993
•
1 Page 2
While we would encourage the City Council to look into this option, one note of caution is in
I . order. As the Council is a,.//are from staff's comments during budgetary reviews of the past two
years, we believe that the SWMP program is under funded. We have agreed that the program
needs to demonstrate its utility to the community by offering a number of successes and we are
' prepared to do so. However, as originally outlined, this program would have generated enough
funds for acquisition of individual parcels. Unfortunately, this is not the case and SWMP
funding levels are going to be sorely pressed to meet the demands of undertaking the projects
' we have committed to in 1993. Therefore, it is staff's recommendation that if City Council
wishes to proceed with acquisition of this property, that we look into utilizing some other source
of 1_2.ds so that the 1993 SWMP fund can continue unimpeded.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
CITYOF
1;
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director 1
FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer if 41
DATE: January 21, 1993
SUBJ: Potential Acquisition of Property in Carver Beach for Storm Water Quality
Purposes, Carver Beach Lots 2919 -2943 and Lots 2877 -2897
File No. PW -201F
As requested, staff has reviewed the potential usage of the above - referenced lots for 1
additional storm water ponding facilities in the Carver Beach neighborhood. Back in
September of 1992 the City authorized the report on storm water quality improvements for
Lotus Lake and Lake Riley drainage areas. The report was prepared by Bonestroo, Rosene,
Anderlik & Associates (BRA) which described a number of storm water improvements.
One of the projects includes modifying the wetland which encroaches upon the subject
parcel. I have attached three excerpts from the report on storm water quality improvements
prepared by BRA. These excerpts describe modifications to a wooded natural depression
to improve storm water quality prior to discharging into Lotus Lake.
F
The report on page 28 (Attachment No. 2) proposes improvements at this ponding location
(subject site) may not have as substantial an impact on storm water quality as the other
ponds proposed downstream. However, from a cost- effectiveness standpoint, the proposed
improvements at this location (LL- P10.14) are less expensive than the other proposed
improvements. As described on excerpt page 30 (Attachment No. 3), the existing pond LL-
P10.14 is a natural depression and contains heavy vegetation with no ponding water and is
considered a natural wetland.
The proposed ponding improvements include construction of an earth berm of
approximately three to eight feet in height across the southerly portion of the wetland.
Construction of the berm would also include an outlet structure to control the water
elevation to approximately three feet in depth. The proposed high water elevation for a
100 -year storm event is calculated at 929.0 feet. According to City ordinance, the house
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1 Paul Krauss
January 21, 1993
Page 2
' would have to be a minimum of two feet above the 100 -year storm event or three feet above
the water table, whichever is greater.
Acquisition of the subject parcel in Carver Beach may be of some benefit to the proposed
storm water improvement project. Part of the project will involve encroachment upon the
- subject parcels where no drainage or utility easements exist. Eventually, if the City proceeds
' with this project, the appropriate drainage utility easements will have to be acquired from
the existing property owners. Therefore, if the City was to outright purchase the lot at this
time, it would be at some cost savings down the road in lieu of acquiring the drainage /utility
' easements at that time. In addition, the City would be able to utilize a portion of the lot
for pretreatment or sedimentation basin prior to discharging storm runoff into the wetland
area. This would provide a higher degree of water quality treatment prior to discharging
storm runoff into the wetland.
The City storm water consultant, Mr. Ismael Martinez of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik &
Associates (BRA), also has reviewed this proposal. Mr. Martinez has also indicated that a
portion of the lot may be utilized for future storm water treatment from the neighborhood
' streets. The existing streets, Woodhill Drive and Yuma Drive, are currently built to rural-
type street construction without curb and gutter or storm sewer facilities. The drainage is
basically over land via streets and lawns. There is currently a small detention basin located
1 south of Woodhill Drive to accommodate most of the storm runoff from Woodhill Drive.
However, storm runoff from Yuma Drive is directly discharged into the natural wooded
wetlands adjacent to and over a portion of the subject property.
In conclusion, acquisition of this parcel would be of some benefit to the City in the long run.
A portion of the parcel could be utilized as a pretreatment pond prior to discharging runoff
into the wetland from Yuma Drive. Eventually the City will be required to acquire a
drainage easement over this parcel if the prescribed storm water improvements are to be
completed.
jms
' Attachment: 1. Location map.
2. & 3. Excerpts from report on storm water quality
improvements dated September, 1992.
' c: Charles Folch, City Engineer
1 •
u ,,.. • , j / •■• • t I
a 1 . .:,-,,-. '''' 7 .. .-tr.7.7 ...; :',.:.'' '
41kk
I NWL#9_90 t 1 i
fl , , v wg=g0c-rhb et b
1 I • ly._
... 4AF?' c., ‘• , ! - 1' • • - 4.8,4A.
- u -,-..-n....,..-7. :: .. _••,,
..... .,
l757 Urti i . - 12 --. '' i
- •-•kfig4'2-:..:1.-,,1.;;41..:•....Tg".•;41:441r...
! . -
L.••■ a-P1
•■••=. ...,...• : 1 . ,tr- t ' :••••-•' ' ...r
AWWL-=9K. - --■4) " =4....tH:• • 1 e. • -- --- • 4 ..). V' •'''''.: r
! .. 44,6=0.41 -- . , • -- ='::•= 4 W;... 1 ,I 1 . '', •••4
Z . t • • ; • • - .-..: .--: _,;.,
• ' • L .".44 - 4 v , _
. , .. , ....„...„ • ,,
,, " r ; . • --' =••,%4_,••efm.,•••,,xtm-'7,--1.---21:::•,?...s.2.7r1.4.n...
- ":'• -24, - -- -- - 1.r".-.2:•4t:-•••-•:.:-... ,
ti.i • -„..,!, • .... - !" i i *. riTril :;---' - .0. ,.., ,.,- \ • A ih..
- • ' L.; =-4r, ..• . • ... ns,,- \ - .4. 7.'Fg.14 "
I • — x - • ' ' ' .. A/ r ‘i\ , 6t ....' „ i 11?" i FA' . . ,, , - .orsi.Z171 4 74.' . 'a. : , \ `......--0 w' - - - '4A1 7
DR 1 • -" • 21.1Ao.. \-.,\•17- ,.., . 1.•
-, . .- ::,,, -; • • ligi - ..p. -_::, - __ -,..i
r. W - i ' i • • .,,f--,,, ,' A. 01 ,..A. •• 0■11.1b, -1. ,-- -'.7. ........... : . ...
• a• •r ,,,...,;; • .. ',.,.., _,,,
i 0 8 Urb I .11 , \ •.‘k
-,,, „, \ • .,- -,, ..i.- 1, 0 - '' - ../: it:) , i i : : l e N, •
' • s •y A,
/ . , ` -.'"'"i t'' i i ' • . s ' >. I 'T sk 7 .... ,:'" ' -
-- • \
•-•.... 7.- . . . \ a ...i. . ikvivi=„ „.. ....
V•-• • _10,.4 .-."
.->•• s•-•-•,. i 1 t ",•;>. --,:- 1, . 4 ,--? . ' - • -- -.- 1 "' -'".. • :- . '-' .
,,,, -. , , -7 . -4F-1„, • i : .
1 A
Rive tq - _t 2 litt C ,s,•
- -- - • • - F ••• .,-,...v,_4,,•-• 17
am ...-._.- --
e p..* ! 7 =9243. ; • .,.....,,,,. _:,... A .1 ,,,..:.0* , Ipp. _ -moo , i,- z..-- • --.i:_._•-i-z-_,.
\17 ..... i: ,
= -4 :" • ---,..-.---,:--.::.--. --:-,.------ ii-
•
Rut . . _•-; .-.-' • --
,.... ...... L., . „.....,,,,\ 1 \.
MA ti. **". • , , ., " • '...›, N " !
: - , •ft r ,,,,, x. At?,
'."' . . i •
SITE LOCATION -
.- timi• .-,4-./ :,--_,...:w ,iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiik_.
• -,,-..„......„,..
- ,.....„ ,-- ......„,- ...
. .
, Str h i, ""r t • :?) \ i''''''''' ) --
• >. ' , . .--yr•I '.'r a i ' l fe 4 M j _ • '' i \ \ x , s , N > l i Z .... 1 " 1 N4 . ' 2 •1.-‘7 , .... s
CI i ... '.•- .. " L:=95 k i .; i-.• . •-,,, s /1:.- ; ?)-,. - -_---- .,._,,,---\_: _
1 i . i i . •_ '."\.• ! 1 ".."1,1,._ ■''' ...Tft I i i . .1 \\,, t‘ ,
. 'ElAc : • • S,.., 1 A \ t 1 , - •-
- wi ::±‘ • • I.-
``r•-t •
- .4. .;.!'• k,.....f / f s • • • . ' -- . s t -
\ sccit
I i 46 '.--i—i `' _pi ... ,, e
. . , ., , ....y: ."
.-4-. , ...1.-- - 1 - ‘ 4 ... !" •••: ta ‘.r• \ ' • \
( „ :,-.4-:_ 7 i-.4-.4," • -I Ia '5\,, 43AC\ '.. :0, 9 A 24 x
L924
1 . , •• _
.1 i -j ' A `1..i . • , 1 Ni.,.,,;;;., N-
t.. • ' \ AlliA . 11 -. . . '
ill =OK -
- - 112.6.4c. „. 7 1 1 --5 . „,. • , 0 i 0 tilli tiii,1 T,,.... s .... g
Mg/A tIAD\
...'
• Y I: I 1 1 10 \ '4 lift
. -, /ht. , • ; : t ' :: ......._ 4 \
* I. \ i : ;4 Lc/ fii •:'.'Cia • P ! . ° 4i4Ac: 1 1
. ......, •
-1r 7 ,., 4._ !7
\ ...
• ,... ; :..:,,,,;,.......
/4",....,, , ;., .
• •
7 V :
A. i i - irt • "
\ "
4 1 i -.7. ...'''' t rl'A.47.:` . 7 - 7,:..i‘ .: . 7 . V . • - i . -r*f i Mkt 9 W
t V - - • \ ii - - T-::..... . %.,,,..- ;:v • i : ,\.1 " ' ' 1 * '''. ' • im, : - r Y
...
,,,. ...-s „... :„...",.„..,,. ek A __" 1, . , . .( •,,;,, ) i : f ' ,m,. .,, , .
.;f4. - . • A,.... ' Apia ." 't- . 1 . • ...."
. „ ,{:„ , k . , • ,....;., I -.L...i ....1*.•••% 111111i O IT allib
/I/ \ !.i• -1 ,. ,
r ,
, .
tp iiima
IP 416 onneil
i \\4 ‘ ., i lital'hel IIIIIIII
ii iZC. =13. • • -....•
-
‘ 7r ' 111 1 1 .9111049 ,IIRMEe,
: LLP10.2 r
NWL=990
. - .
■Iellit lirsistiv 191 .1 1111 /MI`t
„Alb - 4 _,Nor it A 111111 Alb
34.3Acy ‘ 1 1 4,
„ .
1 1. i
pr i filet wz Iv v olvp11111111 ,
1 :
III AI Oil um -v 4 d urin j
til at 1411r .it 1.0171 044 -4, *7 .
1111111ft ” - ""11•■ Ve ,• 91 .' 14 N
el , t 4, kek .
Ili' it Pit
' WI U
I VW kl '
0 650 1300
1
. .....................
;E AREA f Scale in feet
I '
ATTACHMENT 11
1
COMM. 39309
Water Quality Improvement Alternatives
Following the creation of a stormwater quality model for ultimate conditions in the
drainage area, the most effective locations for water quality improvements in the area were
determined. The main results of this initial analysis are as follows:
1. Water bodies LL-P10.11, LL- P10.14, and LL-P10.16 were identified as the best
i .
locations for improvements. The direct drainage area to each of these ponds is 78.3
acres, 23.4 acres, and 66.0 acres, respectively.
2. Because of the total drainage area to Pond LL- P10.16 (66 acres direct drainage +
260.7 indirect drainage), any improvements performed at this pond will have a
lir substantial impact in stormwater quality.
3. The second best location for improvements in terms of total phosphorus reduction was
Pond LL- P10.11. This pond has a total drainage area of 133.1 acres.
provements at Pond LL- P10.14 would not have as substantial an impact on
stormwater quality as Ponds LL- P10.16 and LL- P10.11. On the other band,
improvements at LL-P10.14 are less expensive than those at Ponds LL- P10.16 and LL-
1 P10.11.
1 5. Excavation of Pond LL•P10.17 would be expensive. Nevertheless, Pond LL- P10.17
would provide direct treatment of an extra 19.7 acres and would add one more level
1 of treatment to the runoff coming from Pond LL-P10.16 before entering Lotus Lake.
11
f The added benefit of raising the normal water level of Pond LL-P10.16 four feet instead
F of three feet does not justify the extra cost of the higher and bigger earth berm needed to
1
1 39309IV ' 28 ' ATTACHMENT C MENT 2
i
1
• * RCP inlet trunk at 949.8 ft.
Pon Z. i.rP10.11. Keep invert elevation of 48 -inch, 950.5 ft.)
Pr ti • 24 -inch outlet culvert at 950.5 (NwL = 956.0 ft.
* High water level for 100 year storm event
* Total wet volume = 3.0 ac. ft.
• * Simmer structure at outlet.
•
1
depression ression and channel heavily vegetated with no
Pond I,I,.P10.14• * P
ponding water. Natural wetland.
•
Po
l.. j,U. )1"4:4: * Earthen berm from elevation 924 ft. to 932 ft 927.0 ft).
Csed * 18-inch RCP outlet at elevation 927.0 ft. (NWL =
New wet pond with 3 ft. of ponding water.
* High water level for 100 -year storm event = 929.0 ft.
• Total Wet Volume = 63 ac. ft.
Pond surface area = 2.4 Acres.
• Outlet skimmer structure.
raacimatelY at 921.0 ft. 1
F rict i1 Pond 1�P • 18 -inch outlet culvert appp storm event = 925.6 ft.
* High water level for 100-year
• 200 - foot earth berm at 925.0 ft. 1
* Total wet volume = 1.8 ac. ft.
Pond surface 8?ea = 1.0 acres.
•
Basement of lowest house = 938 ft.
1
Pon 1- 14".16: * 36 -inch outlet culvert at 924.0 1
Prod * High water level for 100 -year storm event = 927.1 ft.
* Earth berm at 929 ft.
* Total wet volume = 112 ac. ft.
Pond surface area = 2.6 acres.
* Outlet skimmer structure.
1
Pon * Natural channel into Lotus Lake.
F�sti d LIrP10.17• 1
•
p Pon IrP10.17.
• • Man -made pond with 3.2 ac. ft. of wet volume, 018 acres of 1
area and 4.0 ft. of average depth.
• Riprapped, broad - crested weir outlet trap Lotus �
lion
* Submerged berm with vegetation 1
II w F n 1
9 1-6,6r
. ... - ,47,,,4 % i ' ° ATTACHMENT 3 1�
(to T MA r /J� �./t
_ _
0 1411-1
C ITY O
F
1
' X 590 COULT DRIVE P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESO 55317
( 612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1
1 MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals
1 Mayor and City Council
' FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I
DATE: January 20, 1993
SUBJ: Variance Request #92 -13 for a 49 foot Wetland Setback Variance and a 30 foot
front yard setback variance for the construction of a Single Family Residence,
1 6921 Yuma Drive
On January 11, 1193, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals tabled action on this application
(Attachment #2). The applicant requested a 49 foot wetland setback variance and a 0 foot
setback from the front property line for the construction of a single family residence
' (Attachment #4). The Zoning Ordinance requires a 30 foot front yard setback and a 75 foot
setback from the edge of the wetland. The Board members did not feel comfortable with the
location and the type of soils on the parcel. They commented that they believed the
foundation will not be stable and wanted to deny the variance. Staff was directed to prepare
findings of fact in order for the Board of Adjustment and Appeals to deny this application.
Attachment #3 reflect the Findings of Fact prepared by the City Attorney.
On January 15, 1993, the applicant submitted a report from the Geotechnical Engineering
Corp. prepared on January 25, 1989 (Attachment #3). This report indicated that the soils are
' suitable for building provided that the lowest floor slabs of the house be at least four feet
above the water table. This can be accomplished by designing a house with a walkout design
rather than a basement and by bringing in fill. It should be noted that the report was based
upon an earlier home design being proposed by another party. It is not tailored for the
current request although similar recommendations are likely to result.
1 Staff is aware that the requested variances and proposal to build on this parcel is causing a
good deal of neighborhood concern. We empathize with the situation and agree that a
' significant portion, if not all of the lot is wet on a constant or intermediate basis. We agree
tof PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
Board of Adjustments /City Council
January 20, 1993
Page 2 1
many have some value to the city in providing room for a ponding area for a water quality
and retention basin that would fit into the system and that ultimately protects Lotus Lake.
Staff has prepared a report to the City Council on this matter for consideration at their
January 26 meeting. The Board may wish to continue action on the matter to allow the City
Council time to consider public acquisition. 1
Staff continues to recommend that the Board consider granting the variance for reasons
outlined in our January 11 staff report with conditions outlined below. Should the Board 1
wish to deny the variance request, we have asked the City Attorney to prepare a Findings of
Fact which follows this report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of Variance #92 -13 for a 5 foot front yard setback and a 31 1
foot wetland setback with the following conditions:
1. The applicant maintain a 15 foot setback from the center of the watermain located in 1
Yuma Drive.
2. The applicant shall reduce the depth of the deck to 10 feet to minimize impact on the 1
wetland.
3. The applicant shall submit a tree preservation plan prior to issuance of a building 1
permit.
4. Type III erosion control be maintained during the construction season along the edge 1
of the wetland.
5. No additional construction is permitted without a variance application.
6. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the city providing for private
construction and maintenance of the driveway in public right -of -way.
7. The applicant shall retain a qualified soils engineer to evaluate the site for the
proposed structure.
8. The applicant shall retain a structural engineer to design the foundation if soil 1
conditions are such that a conventional foundation would be deemed inadequate.
9. A drainage plan shall be submitted for approval by the city prior to building permit
1
issuance.
1
1
1
-1 Board of Adjustments /City Council
January 20, 1993
1 Page 3
ATTACHMENTS
1 1. Findings of Fact.
2. Board of Adjustments and Appeals minutes dated January 11, 1993.
I 3. Geotechnical Engineering Corp. report for the lot.
4. Staff report dated January 11, 1993.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
1
1
1
01/20/93 14:47 $612 452 5550 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 444 CHAN, CITY HALL 2002.005
1 `
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
1
IN RE:
Application of Shannon T. Terry
for a 49 foot wetland setback FINDING OF FACT
variance and a 30 foot front yard AND DECISION
setback variance.
1
On January 11, 1993, the Chanhassen Board of Adjustments and 1
Appeals met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the
application of Shannon T. Terry for two variances to allow ,
construction of a single family home on approximately 84,000
square feet of property. The board conducted a public hearing on
the proposal preceded by published and mailed notice. The
applicant was present. The Board heard testimony from all
interested parties wishing to speak at the meeting and now makes ,
the following Findings of Fact and Decision:
FINDINGS OF FACT 1
1. Section 20-58 of the Chanhassen City Code delineates the
standards for granting a variance:
•
A variance may be granted by the Board of Adjustments
and Appeals or City Council only if all of the
following criteria are met:
a. That the literal enforcement of this Chapter would 1
cause undue hardship. "Undue hardship" means the
property cannot be put to reasonable use because
of its size, physical surroundings, shape or
topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by
a majority of comparable property within 500 feet
of it. The intent of this provision is not to
allow a proliferation of variances, but to
recognize that in developed neighborhoods pre -
1
11 01%20%93 14:48 $612 452 5550 CAMPBELL KNUTSON -»-> CHA CITY HALL 1003%005
.1
existing standards exist. Variances that blend
with these pre- existing standards without
departing downward from them meet this criteria.
b. That the conditions upon which a petition for a
variance is based are not applicable, generally,
to other property within the same zoning
classification.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based
upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
' d. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a
self - created hardship.
e. That the granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
' other land or improvements in the neighborhood in
which the parcel of land is located.
f. That the proposed variation will not impair an
adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion
of the public streets, or increase the danger of
fire, or endanger the public safety or
substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
2. The property is zoned RSF (Single Family Residential).
3. The applicant proposes to construct a single family home
on Carver Beach Lots 2919 -2943 and Lots 2877 -2897 ("subject
propertyn). The subject property is approximately 84,000 square
feet. The minimum lot size in the RSF zoning district is 15,000
1 square feet. A protected wetland exists on the subject property.
4. The proposal requires a wetland setback variance from
' Section 230 -409 of the City Code.
' 5. The proposal requires a front yard setback variance from
Section 20 -615 of the City Code.
1
-2-
01 %20 %93 14:49 22612 452 5550 CAMPBELL KNUTSON .443 CHAD. CITY HALL (1004 %005
1.
6. The applicant's proposal, if approved, would result in a
front yard setback of zero (0), and a wetland setback of twenty- 1
six (26) feet.
7. The applicant's proposal would require access to the
subject property via a private driveway constructed in a public 1
right of way. This would create a liability problem for the
City. 1
8 The applicant's proposal would result in the structure
being located within ten (10) feet of the watermain, which is an '
insufficient distance to allow proper maintenance and repair of
the watermain.
9. The applicant has the burden of showing what is a 1
reasonable use of the property. The applicant has failed to
demonstrate that it is feasible to construct a single family home
due to the existing soil conditions, wetland, and drainage
conditions existing on the subject property.
10. The subject property may be put to reasonable use, such 1
as recreation, picnicking, hiking and camping.
11. The average minimum front yard setback of homes within 1
five hundred (500) feet of the subject property is twenty (20)
feet. All homes
within five hundred (500) feet of the subject
property meet the seventy -five (75) feet wetland setback. '
12. The conditions upon which this application is based, to
wit, a protected wetland, are applicable, generally, to other '
property within the RSF.
13. The purpose of this variance is to increase the value of
the subject property.
-3-
1
01/20.93 14:49 $612 452 5550 CAMPBELL KNUTSON -+-» CHAA. CITY HALL Z005/005
11
14. The granting of this variance would be detrimental to
public improvements (i.e. the existing watermain) in the
neighborhood.
15. Granting the variance would create a traffic safety
11 problem if the platted roads were improved, since the proposed
r ,sway lies in the public right of way.
16. The zero (0) front yard setback would diminish or impair
property values within the neighborhood.
DECISION
The application of Shannon E. Terry for two variances is
denied.
Adopted this day of 1993
CHANHASSEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
AND APPEALS
1 BY:
1 Its Chairperson
ATTEST:
1 BY:
Its Secretary
1
1
1
1
1
-4-
1
IF
CHANHASSEN ZONING BOARD OF IF
ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 11, 1993
Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Watson, Willard Johnson and Don Chmiel
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner
I; Steve Nelson, Building Inspector; and Elliott Knetsch, City Attorney 1
FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE AND A WETLAND SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6921 YUMA DRIVE, SHANNON TERRY.
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report. 1
Chmiel: What type of soils are there Steve? Do you want to come up to
the mic.
Nelson: Attached you'll find a copy of the Carver County Soils survey and
most of them are glencoe silty clays, soils. Organic, very wet. Poorl
drained soils. Marsh, which again is usually typical to lowlands. It Jily
be unsuitable but corrective measures can be taken sometimes by use of
pilings. Surcharging with clean fill. Brining back oversizing buildin
pads, that type of thing. It's possible that it may not be cost effect?"
but it's something that we'd like to have at least a soils engineer take a
look at the soils. Would recommend that at the building excavation.
Johnson: Do you have any idea how deep it is?
Nelson: Not really. It's real difficult to say because you may have aril
organic layer a couple of feet, 3 feet, maybe 4 feet and underneath that'll
you're going to have a very saturated gray clay which is also considered
soft. So a soils engineer would take a look at that and determine, may
sizing up the width of the footings, that type of thing. We have no id
without an actual soils engineer going out and taking some borings.
Watson: One of my questions and I'm sure no one here can answer is how In
heavens name did this become a lot of record? I mean where was the
building pad when we allowed this subdivision? Where did they think they
were going to put the house? 1
Al -Jaff: I don't know.
Watson: Because even what's considered buildable back there is not dry.1
I mean it's not like.
Al -Jaff: Our guess is whoever approved the subdivision didn't. 1
Krauss: You go back to the original platting of Carver Beach in what, the
1920's where you have the Star and Tribune giving away lots for selling 1
newspaper subscriptions and this was all platted then and frankly.
Watson: Yeah, but this was divided up.
1
1
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
January 11, 1993 - Page 2
Krauss: It was redivided I think in the early 70's, if I remember right.
Was it later than that?
1 Watson: '84. '84 we split it up and left this very large piece. I mean
I don't know if the assumption was made because it's a large piece, it was
buildable or what. But I'm a little puzzled as to how something like this
' ever becomes buildable and I hope that it wouldn't happen now.
Krauss: Well I honestly don't know. I mean the City had no maps. We
' only had topographic maps done in '89. So I'm not sure how they would
have known how they were going to do it. Yeah, it is an unfortunate
situation.
' Johnson: This is a considered a lot of record?
Krauss: It's a lot of record.
1 Johnson: I was going to say, we've got a lot of outlots...
Watson: Has sewer and water been paid on this?
Al -Jaff: It was assessed for it. I don't know if it's been paid or not.
Watson: So we don't know that any sewer and water charges have ever been
collected or paid?
Al -Jaff: No, but that's something that they will pay at the time of.
Watson: Right, but nothing has been paid?
Johnson: It's never been assessed.
Watson: Has not been assessed?
1-aff: I can check into it.
Watson: It's becoming increasingly difficult to get these lots of record
which are not buildable and come in here and then they want a variance to
put them into something buildable. That one on Pleasant View Road will be
the bain of my existence as long as I live in the city. I hate to see
that continue to happen. I don't know. I can't see building on this
piece of ground. There's nothing back there to build on. There's no land
to build on. And I don't know what the City's position on buying it would
' be. I know we don't exactly have cash lying around to buy up wet pieces
of ground.
Chmiel: You're right.
Watson: But I can't honestly in good conscience say that I would
recommend that they build anything on this lot. Because I don't think the
house is going to stay put. Or it's going to have water or there's going
to be problems with this structure one way or another. And it's all going
to come back to us. I mean someone someday down the line is going to say,
you gave me a permit. That must mean you thought that we could build
II
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
January 11, 1993 - Page 3 1
here. And I'd hate to have my name wearing that confusion. Saying that
actually believed that somewhere along the line.
Krauss: Well, your reservations are I think well founded. We share the
same sentiments as does our inspections department. We've learned over il
the years that virtually anything is fixable if you throw enough money a
it. I'm not sure if that equation balances in this case or not but it's
clear that no permits will be issued until the soil work -up is done by a
soils engineer and is properly corrected. At which time that engineer hi
some liability for what happens. I don't know what else we could do. I
mean we have an educated buyer. They're certainly aware of the situatio li
Johnson: I had a concern and a neighbor over there called me just before
I left home and he says, do you realize what happens when we get a 3 incil
rain? ...walked it a couple years ago and it came up...and the year I
walked it there was water standing. And that wasn't after a big rain.
That was just on a normal...and I've got problems with that too. Saying
geez, that dumb board gave us a permit and the house is tipping over...
dumb board gave us a variance to build and I saw it here a number of yea
ago. Somebody in Chanhassen...built a home on the end of a cul -de -sac and
the water was running through their garage and they blamed the city for II
that. I don't feel that was the city's fault at that time and we didn't
grant no variance on it. I'm just giving a for instance. There was water
running through his garage and out the back and he blamed the city becauir
he had a house there.
Watson: The bottom line is always right here in this building. ,
Krauss: Well I don't deny that Carol. I'm one of the people that's get
those phone calls. I think the best we can do is try to let the buyer
beware and try to educate the buyer. Variances have to be filed against"
the property. Is there a way of putting some concerns in the variance
that's filed?
Elliott Knetsch: Well you know both Carol and Willard, you're both makil
points about is the city incurring some potential liability by issuing
these permits or variances and cities were faced with that problem.
Within the last couple of years the State Municipal Court Liability Act
was changed. Now there's a specific State law that says, you can't sue
because we issued you a permit. All we're doing here is saying, yes you
can have a building permit. We're not saying it's a good place to build"
house. We're simply saying your plans and your specifications for your
house meet the building code. We're not saying that you won't have a wet
basement or you won't have water running through your garage. You as th
buyer and your engineer and your staff have to make those decisions for
you. This case is slightly different than that because it's not a
building permit. It's a variance but we're caught in a position where
it's a lot of record and you don't really have a choice, as I think stafil
point out earlier. So the mere fact that we give them a variance I don'
believe opens us up to liability. I think we would be immune from a
lawsuit for something like that.
Watson: I'm concerned about more than a lawsuit though because I mean III
live within a mile of this place the entire 46 years of my life. I hate
II
1
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
January 11, 1993 - Page 4
to be embarrassed literally by the fact that things are being done that
really shouldn't be done. And we're always stuck between a rock and a
hard place with these lots of record and we have. to bend over backwards
1 repeatedly because something, we have to allow something to be done on a
lot where it shouldn't be allowed to be done. It shouldn't happen.
' Elliott Knetsch: It's a question of funds you know. If we had a fund in
existence and we were putting a little something in each year to acquire
properties where it makes sense, like maybe it does with this one, that'd
be one thing but unfortunately, we don't have that sort of a fund.
Watson: It's a luxury we're not in possession of right?
Elliott Knetsch: Right.
Chmiel: I get rather hesitant with some of these because right now we
have a suit that's initiated against the City in something not quite as
' similar but close. And it's probably not from that existing property
owner coming in. It's the second removed property owner now coming in,
and I don't like to see that done only because of the fact that no one
' really wins in that particular situation. But they do want to sue us. It
does cost the city money and I don't like spending that money. Because
the only ones that really come out of it, Elliott is you know who. The
' attorneys. And normally it gives me a lot of real deep concern with it.
I know that we have a few other things here too with that variance. The
setback requirement for a 20 foot deck, as you mentioned. Cutting that
back down to 10. We're also into the wetland with not the proper setback
' requirements with that as well. I think that the buyer should be aware of
the fact that if the soils are going to need removal, it's a very costly
effort. We don't know what the depths are because it could be 2 feet, it
could be 3, could be 5, could be more. And this position of that problem
in itself plus the fact of bringing fill back in, cost really gets up
there. And still whether or not it would be a buildable and a viable
' buildable lot, that's another question. So I have some real concerns with
that. That part of it. Wetland, as I say, is going to be what, 30 feet
back as opposed to 75?
Al -Jaff: 31.
Chmiel: 31.
Watson: And in reality, it's right there.
Chmiel: Wetlands are something that we do protect within the city and
1 have done for a period of years. Only because it's the best thing to
really do.
j Watson: And this one's really working. I mean this one's working for
Lotus Lake. It is truly filtering. The vegetation is natural. I mean
it's there actually doing the job that needs to be done for a lake that's
11 already in danger. It's just a nice, natural.
Johnson: There is severe runoff from those big hills you know...
1
1
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
January 11, 1993 - Page 5
Watson: And it is really wet. Holds a lot of water. 1
Johnson: My concern is too, it gets wet down there normal. You can't
tell now but in the summertime when I walked it, it was wet under normal
We haven't had real wet summers for quite a few years now. We've had su
some outbursts of rain but under severe conditions.
Al -Jaff: I've been out there when it... '
Chmiel: I'm just wondering whether the, I'd like to get some input from,
the applicant too. Some of the concerns maybe...
Johnson: Do you wish to speak?
Dave Hamlin: Yeah. My name is Dave Hamlin. 1
Chmiel: Could you come up to the microphone so we can.
Dave Hamlin: Oh sure. My name is Dave Hamlin. I work with LDK
Builders. We're the builders who's going to be, hopefully building the
proposed structure on that particular lot. A couple questions that I ha
for you guys. Number one, I'm a bit confused because at this point in t
process, and Shannon who's the actual applicant and correct me if I'm
wrong, we're not trying to ascertain whether or not the lot soil conditilr
is buildable and as is condition. This is a two part process. Number
one, we have a problem. We don't know if that soil is going to bear that
structure. Number two, we have the problem of the edge of the wetland a
the setbacks creating a lot that is in essence unbuiidable due to setbac
requirements. We're not making any representations here tonight or tryi
to figure out if the soils are good. You guys have jumped one step in the
process here it seems to me in asking the question. '
Watson: We have to.
Dave Hamlin: Well I understand that. Here's our point. The first step'
is to find out if the city will allow a variance that will allow those
lines to be drawn on that survey that would create a possibility of
building a home. Then the next question after that is, if it's possible
that the city will allow this structure to be built there, does it make
sense to build it there? The buyers aren't going to want to live on a lot
with their house sinking into the ground. We, as a builder, who
participate in the Minnesota Statutory Warranty Coverage and are insured'
by the Home Buyers 210 Warranty Program, aren't going to.want that
situation either. If we go out there and spend $600.00 and $1,200.00 t
do soil borings for our own information and find that that lot is a piec
of crap, then at that point we can make one of two decisions. Number on ,
to walk away from it and that's a provision that's built into the purchase
agreement between the applicant and the current owner. The seller of th'
lot. Or we can choose to, as you say, throw money at the situation and
try to correct it. I don't think we're going to be interested in pounding
down pilings out there. I can't see the applicant choosing that course
action. I mean you're going to be running into tens of thousands of
dollars to correct that lot. Again, I guess I want to ask you, why is i
that you're jumping this one step in the process ahead of just simply
1
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
January 11, 1993 - Page 6
saying, okay. We're looking at this and yes. We could set back this
proposed structure 10 feet from the one. 5 feet from the front and deal
with the wetlands issue'and then require the building department to have
us evidence to them(the fact that we can build this structure on the lot
and make sure that it doesn't disappear into the ground. I guess that's
what we're trying to establish here. The reason, you know you may be
asking in your own mind, why didn't you do it the reverse way? Well I'll
' tell you why. Because it'd be senseless to pound $1,200.00 worth of soil
surveys out to an engineer only to find out that the City won't grant the
variance. That's money flushed down the toilet and we chose this course
of action first. Another quick question before you.
Chmiel: Yeah, but that's a condition. That's one of the things that
I mentioned in the first place. Is I didn't feel the variance was
warranted to do this because all the rest of this hinges right back to it.
Dave Hamlin: To the soils?
Chmiel: That's correct. And my concerns were those specifics. We, right
' now have another situation occurring whereas you as a builder have to
provide the owner the rights that there's nothing wrong with what's
existing. We have another suit happening within the city right now
whereas the builder is not solvent any longer and is not able to take care
of the cost to do the rennovating and put it back to where it was in the
first place. So I guess I have a few different concerns with that. And my
concern there again is, the city is being brought into that suit. We have
to defend ourselves and I don't like spending our money for those
specifics, and that's the first reason that I have. And that will be my
number one objective. To eliminate the problems that could be incurred
' because of conditions or whatever might be on that particular site.
Dave Hamlin: Okay. Just to address that briefly. Number one, the
situation that you have with the builder that you're dealing with is the
1 result of the fact that that builder is not participating obviously in a
HOW or a 210 Warranty, is that correct? Well, there is a major
difference. If the builder's insured by a warranty program and the
' builder goes insolvent 60 days after the closing, it doesn't matter. The
structure warranty exists in place for a period of 10 years and even is
transferrable to a new buyer. I don't know if you're aware of that type
of thing that goes on. And we would be putting that type of warranty on
it, but I understand the concerns that you guys have about it. I guess
the only thing that we can say is that, we've tried to figure out how to
go through this process and this is where we chose to start the process.
Is to find out if we can get a variance dealing with these lines on paper
and not dealing with the dirt because we don't know the dirt until we
punch holes. And if the city wants to, If you would feel more comfortable
setting specific requirements on us providing evidence that this soil is
really buildable, that's not going to be a problem for us because we want
to know it for ourselves as well. And if we get in there and find out
it's crap, we're not going to build on that lot, but.
Chmiel: I'm sure you've looked at that lot Dave.
1
I/
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
January 11, 1993 - Page 7
Dave Hamlin: We have but I have to tell you honestly, we have done no II
soil tests whatsoever. We've gone to the trouble of surveying it to
provide the data that you guys need. I am also .a little confused by one
thing. We met with/Jo Ann out of your department there at the city and II
I'm sorry, I forget her last name. And it was explained to us somehow
that the setback requirement is not 75 feet but is in fact a total of 60,
and that's an average setback. And I guess I'm a little confused how it 1
went from 60 to 75.
Krauss: If I could. Jo Ann was referring to a new wetland ordinance that
we adopted a few months ago. If you're platting new lots today, there ill
a decreased setback requirement on the new lots. In exchange for that
you've got to set aside a buffer strip around the wetland with native
vegetation. And that's got to be monumented and then we have setbacks flif
structures beyond that and it comes out that you have a little more
flexibility with a decreased setback. But the ordinance also provides
that if you have a lot of record, a pre- existing lot, which is most of t
city that's been platted to date, then the standard of 75 feet is still
enforced.
Dave Hamlin: Okay, that isn't quite how it was explained to us and that
how we proceeded to come up with this proposal actually.
Krauss: No, that hasn't changed in this context.
II
Johnson: Dave, and I don't feel...jump the issue because once we grant
you the variance, the variance has been granted. Correct me if I'm wron ,
but we've got to look into all the aspects like the Mayor mentioned. If
we're granting you this variance, there's all the things associated to g
ahead with it.
Watson: We're saying it is if we grant the variance. 1
Johnson: That's right.
Watson: We're saying it's okay. II
Dave Hamlin: To build that house on that lot? 1
Watson: That's right. And so when we say that, that's kind of unnerving
when we feel the house may sink into the, we can't be assured of the soi
or that those, I mean.
Dave Hamlin: Don't we have to, as part of the application process for the
building permit, if it's not an engineered building pad, we have to give 1
evidence of what's under there per a soil engineer test. I mean that's
part of the, I mean the building permit can be denied based on what the
bearing capacity of the soil is. 1
Nelson: Right. We won't necessarily deny the permit itself... (In
II speaking from the audience, his comments were not picked up on the tape.
Watson: There's two of them, two houses just over in Shorewood from me
that they installed...and they're working on one now, and they were both
1
•
1
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
January 11, 1993 - Page 8
put in the lake as far as I'm concerned and one I saw the basement fall
in. 18 courses of block and I just feel that...I can't give my approval
on something that I feel personally...I just don't feel comfortable with
I that.
Steve Nelson made a comment from the audience.
' Johnson: Shannon, did you want?
Shannon Terry: Well I'm not sure exactly what I'm going to add to what
Dave has said basically but I feel I have the same concerns that Dave has
also. We don't intend on investing all of our money into a home that's
going to fall into the ground either. And this will be our second home.
We live right now in Hopkins. We just sold. We're going to be moving
pretty soon with the hopes of building somewhere in Chanhassen. We like
this area. This land became available. It came up on our realtor's list.
We came and looked at the lot. Again, we really began looking at the lot
in the fall. The leaves were on the ground. Again, there were no soil
' samples done at that time whatsoever so we're really, again what we did is
we basically came to the city and asked what process do we have to go
' through to where we can obtain this land and get building on this land.
And it was told that we needed to go through the variance process first.
Upon that, coming to a success, then you go to the soil samples. So I'm
not sure what more I can add but I guess it's just that, first of all I'm
' unaware of, obviously because I don't live in this area, of the condition
of the land first of all. And secondly, I guess we need to find out first
of all if we meet the requirements of the city first of all for setbacks
' and positioning of the house first of all. We've done basically almost
everything we can to the home to make sure it meets those requirements.
We've reversed the plan. It was going to be a full walkout. Due to the
slope of the lot from front to rear elevation, it is a split level home.
' But it's going to be built basically into the ground. It's going to be,
as far as I know, the whole bottom of the exterior of the home in the rear
is going to be exposed. I believe we're just going to be just pushing up
' fill to accommodate the front portion of the home. So I don't believe
it's going to be building very deeply into the soil. We had some
information supplied by a survey that basically said that the elevation of
' the wetland was at a level of 929 feet. And determined the area of the
wetland and maintaining the 2 feet above that level of the wetland, we
would meet that basically with the digging of the small foundation we need
to supply for the home. So I guess so far as we're concerned, it seems
' like we're meeting everything that we can so far. Obviously we have a
problem with the size of the home for the wetland area itself. Looking at
some of the other homes, one of the drawings that Jo Ann had given to us
' before, when we came in to meet with her for the variance request, another
home that was proposed to be built on the lot was quite large. It was a
very large L shaped and would obviously not fit. At that time we were
told basically a future house is a little more in line with the size of
' property. Things may go a little more smoothly but again, we weren't
aware of the wetland level of the property at that time, but.
' Janis Schultac: I'm Janis Schultac and I'm representing Joe Martin who's
out of town, who's the owner of 6911 Yuma who would be on that property's
left. And when he bought the property, and I have lived there right now
1
11
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
January 11, 1993 - Page 9
for over a year so I can tell you some things about standing water and
flooding. Not on our property but where Woodhill and Yuma meet, there's,
always standing water there when it rains. And sometimes it gets to the
point that if we didn't have our Forerunner, it gets very difficult to g
through that water and we have stalled. Also, where that property, wher
the pavement...to that wetland area and we're afraid that if there was to
be some buildings there, our property there built that, it would cause
additional flooding in that area because where would the water go? It
would probably go into that property. We do have the, there's a pond ou
back of the property and I think it's on, would be on that. land. I'm not
sure and that does get pretty filled and is constantly wet. Even when
was pretty dry this summer, it was always water in there. I'm pretty
sure, I can't quite for sure but he did look at purchasing that land in
hopes that nobody would build and that if it was buildable, later on he
could sell the house and then sell the land right next to it. He did ha
it tested. I'm pretty sure he told me he had it tested. This is based
our phone coversation last night from San Diego. And that it would cost a
lot of money to do pilings or something. I'm not real knowledgeable on�
all this terminology. And that it wasn't worth him purchasing it or el
he would have bought it 3 years ago. Currently his house is totally paid
for so he does have the funds to buy it outright. This spring we did
discuss buying it. We looked into it again and it just wasn't worth
buying because it was unbuildable. Because his builder did tell him at
that time or they did do testing that it was not, but don't quote me.
It's not for sure because he's not here to tell you. He's in an airpla
right now on his way home. When he did buy the property, he was told th
to the right and to the left of him, no one could build because the
property wasn't buildable due to city ordinances and he was pretty
surprised when they put a house next door to us onto the right because h,
did not have the chance to come and give his little speech. And they were
granted a variance and they did build and their house is on 8,000 squar
feet right now but they're not affected by wetland or anything. But it
did upset him because that was the reason why he bought the land to begs
with. He feels that the City of Chanhassen has variances for a reason.
Wants to know why they have the variances. What are the reasons and why'
are they so willing to change them and let people build when they're not
meeting the city ordinances. My notes are real quick on the back of a
paper here. Let's see, what else did he have to say. I think that was ,
really about all. He does have more information. He was saying it so
fast and it was way over my head so, but he just kind of wanted to give
his two cents. So thanks.
Watson: The lot next door is another one of those lots of record? That
variance on the other house that he's talking about was another lot of
record...remember doing it. Now what?
Johnson: I'd like to see a motion for denial. It's your choice.
Watson: I make a motion to deny the variance for 6921 Yuma Drive, Lots
29 -18 thru 29 -43, also Lots 28 -77 thru 28 -97.
Johnson: I'll second that. ,
1
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
January 11, 1993 - Page 10
11 Watson: At this point time I'll just say, at this point in time that lot
is not buildable piece of property.
' Chmiel: That's true.
Watson: In it's present condition, it would not be buildable.
' Chmiel: Could we put an addendum to that? An addition that it should
probably be reviewed by City Council too with potentially acquiring this
property to use it as a drainage area. Therefore eliminate.
' Watson: Let's deny the variance and then let's make another motion that
the City Council look into, can we do it that way? So that we don't mix
up the City's purchasing the property with the variance.
' Chmiel: I don't know if we can have two motions on the, counseler?
' Elliott Knetsch: Well, I think you can do it with two motions. Yeah, you
can do the first motion. If you're signaling out the variance with the
reason for it and then secondly, you can.
' Johnson: Make a motion that the Council review it.
Elliott Knetsch: Right.
Chmiel: Okay.
' Krauss: Normal practice for us, if something is going to be denied is to
ask you to continue it to get a findings of fact to support your denial.
For the record. Might that be adviseable in this case? In the meantime
we can refer this up to the City Council?
Chmiel: I would suggest that we table it then.
' Watson: Yeah. It shouldn't come to the Council as though we didn't do
it.
I Elliott Knetsch: What you ought to do then is to direct staff to prepare
findings consistent with denial and then you can review those. Are you
going to meet before the next Council meeting then? Well, we're supposed
to act on the application within 15 days of the hearing. I think.
Krauss: Our next Council meeting is on the 25th. Is this working days,
well actually either way.
' Chmiel: You'd still have the proper amount of days until the next Council
meeting.
' Watson: It would normally be working days wouldn't it Paul?
Krauss: It's 10 working days until the next City Council meeting.
Watson: Wouldn't it usually be working days?
1
1
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
January 11, 1993 - Page 11
Chmiel: Most of them are. Refer to those.
Krauss: It's 14 days if you count them all.
Watson: So we're okay, either. ,
Johnson: I'll call for the question.
Watson moved, Johnson seconded to deny the Front Yard Setback Variance alL
Wetland Setback Variance for 6921 Yuma Drive and directing staff to
prepare a Findings of Fact to be brought back on January 25, 1993. All II
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Watson: Now, if we want to direct City Council to look at it, that can
a separate motion.
Chmiel: I don't know what we have for dollars, number one.
Watson: Well let's finish this in 14 days. We can at that point, when IL
see it, direct Council if that's what we desire to do at that point. We
don't have to do that tonight. '
Krauss: Well, you may want to. You may want to pass this on up.
Chmiel: There's an opportunity, the point was made and I think you
indicated that possibly the owner of that home now may be looking at
acquiring that property. Have it all as part of one parcel.
Janis Schultac: Well we looked at it but it was unbuildable. That's wh1
we never bought it.
Chmiel: Okay. But there's no intent. ,
Janis Schultac: There was at one time.
Chmiel: Because of the buildability on it but there's no, so you're not!'
interested in it? Sometimes you might want that extra land just because
you want extra land.
Watson: Well I think this would be a wonderful thing to watch. I mean
I bet there's wildlife and stuff around there.
Janis Schultac: There's 4 deer...that live around here..
Watson: Oh yeah. The deer herd in this area is huge. I'm sure the
wildlife is wonderful to watch.
Johnson: Sometimes it's nice to have a buffer zone between you and the ,
neighbors.
Dave Hamlin: You're talking about a piece of land that's owned by
somebody that's been sold to somebody else. You're not talking about a II
land that's sitting out there waiting for something to be done with it.
The Terry's have a rider interest, a legal rider interest created in this
1
1
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
January 11, 1993 - Page 12
land by a purchase agreement. I guess I'm kind of mystified why you're
talking about other people buying it. This is the Terry's land.
Chmiel: I was talking about the city acquisencing that. Just to take it
off the books so something doesn't ever happen on that piece of property.
Dave Hamlin: Who's going to pay the $9,000.00 in special assessments that
are...
Watson: That's the city's, it be owed the city anyway so the city
' wouldn't have to owe the city the $9,000.00. Isn't that part of what
occurs when the city purchases land?
1 Chmiel: I think from a.
Dave Hamlin: I guess why is the city choosing to take action now, now
that there's a viable buyer who's talking about moving into your
' community. It seems suddenly this issue, this land has become valuable
simply because somebody else is interested in it.
' Chmiel: That's not the point. That's an assumption under your part.
Johnson: I don't think the city feels it's any value. It's an eyesore.
Watson: It's unbuildable.
A comment was made from the audience that was not picked up on the tape.
' Krauss: It wouldn't be done today. It was done many years ago and it
created a situation that we would have preferred not exist. The fact that
' it does exist, I don't know what else I can say about that. If you knew
what we know today, we would not have allowed that lot to be platted.
Watson: Our information gets better all the time.
Krauss: Possibly too, in the interest of expediting it, we should have
Findings of Fact for the next meeting and be prepared to take the appeal
' and the possibility of purchase to the City Council also at that same
evening.
•
Chmiel: Yes.
Watson: So you want the motion to have the City Council.look into the
purchase of the property? You want that now so that it can be ready?
' Krauss: I think it would be appropriate because to...this thing over 3
meetings really isn't.
Watson: Okay, well I'll make a motion that.
Chmiel: It's not that we don't want you moving into our community. That's
not the point. We have some concerns with what's there.
1
I/
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
January 11, 1993 - Page 13 1
Shannon Terry: I have just a couple concerns. First of all, I'm a litt
concerned that, first of all...is our realtor by the way. First of all,
like she said, the property's listed...and then finding out that it's no
even buildable whatsoever. Secondly, going as far as we have...that's a
lot of time and money invested and we've got this far and... It's just II
really frustrating. It's gone this far. It shouldn't have gotten...
Chmiel: That's the other thing that we're looking at. Potentially
II
removing it out of that. And no longer having it as a buildable lot.
Strictly as a drainageway. -
Watson: I made a motion that we direct the Council to look into the
II
possible purchase of this property for use as a drainageway.
Johnson: I'll throw a second on that. 1
Watson moved, Johnson seconded to direct the City Council to look into the
possible purchase of the property located at 6921 Yuma Drive for use as II
drainageway. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES=
Watson moved, Johnson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Board of II
Adjustments and Appeals meeting dated September 14, 1992 as presented.
All voted in favor except Don Chmiel who abstained and the motion carrie1
Watson moved, Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
II
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim I
II
1
1
1
1
1
REPORT ON
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
FOR
RESIDENTIAL LOT
6921 YUMA ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
•
GEC JOB NO: 89 -21
Prepared for:
Ms. Marge Rossin.g
130 Cygnet Lane
Long Lake, MN 55356
January 25, 1989
retvot tnratiww.�,x. ra arsinati�waa�wtu� �.u�a .� �>
1
GEOTECH ` J . ' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION
Consulting Engineers • Soil Testing
January 25, 1989
Ms. Marge Rossing
130 Cygnet Lane
Long Lake, MN 55356
•
Re: Subsurface exploration (GEC Job No: 89 - 21) 1
Residential Lot
6921 Yuma Road
Chanhassen, MN '
This is our report on the subsurface exploration program we recently
conducted at the residential lot near Yuma Road and Wood Hill Road in
Chanhassen. The report documents the basic results and our conclu-
sions and recommendations.
Please call us if you have questions about the report now or later on
in the project.
Very truly yours, 1
" :414 ' 76-44 • 41-7777°-1
Lawrence F. Feldsien, P.E.
Vice President
LFF /ck
enc. ,
1
1
1
i
1925 Oakcrest Avenue • Roseville, Minnesota 55113 • (612) 636 -7744
Aonle Valley. Minnesota • (612) 431 -5266
.4avAmw.4s►a:.w*+ bwmortansxoa arassereftwoutar, nat v+,
1
• REPORT ON
I SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
FOR
RESIDENTIAL LOT
II 6921 YUMA ROAD •
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
i GEC JOB NO: 89 -21 •
i
CONTENTS II i INTRODUCTION
II Scope and Purpose of This Report
Use of This Report
I Design and Construction Information
Criteria for Suitability of Subsurface Conditions
II FIELD WORK
Overview
Limitations of Subsurface Exploration
I Field Sampling and Testing Methods
Soil Classification Procedures. Sample Retention.
f The Boring Log
1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORING
i Soils
i ll Ground Water
1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
11 Suitability of Subsurface Conditions for Proposed osed Construction
Recommendations for Corrective Earthwork and Design Bearing Pressure
II Recommendations for Continuing Geotechnical Services
CLOSURE
II EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Test Boring Information
II Boring Location Plan
Boring Log
Boring Logs: Abbreviations, Notations, and Symbols
II Boring Logs: Ground Water Information
Identification of Soils: Visual- Manual Procedures
Geologic Terminology
General Terminology
II
a
REPORT ON
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
FOR
RESIDENTIAL LOT
6921 YUMA ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
11 GEC JOB NO: 89 -21
INTRODUCTION
11
Scope And Purpose Of This Report
On January 19, 1989, Geotechnical Engineering Corporation drilled one test
boring at 6921 Yuma Road in Chanhassen for the proposed construction of a
single family residential house. The boring was made as part of a subsur-
I face exploration program requested by Paul Nelson of Merrill Lynch Realty
and authorized by Ms. Marge Rossing, the property owner.
1 This report: 1) outlines the design and construction information upon which
we based our evaluation; 2) presents the boring log and information to
help understand the log; 3) describes the soil and ground water conditions
encountered in the boring; 4) discusses the suitability of subsurface con -
ditions for construction; and 5) presents recommendations for corrective
earthwork, a design bearing pressure for footings, and continuing geotech-
nical services.
Use Of This Report
To protect the client, the public, and Geotechnical Engineering
Corporation, we authorize use of this report only by the addressees and
only for the purposes of designing and constructing the house. In addi-
tion, even though this report is not intended to provide sufficient infor-
mation to accurately determine quantities or locations of particular
materials, we recommend (consistent with a policy of disclosure of
available information) that contractors be advised of the availability of
this report.
1
1
1
r inumi"
GEC #89 -21 - Page 2
I
Design And Construction Information
Design and construction information for the house is quite limited. The
I qui
' available design information is based on a conversation with Mr. Paul Nelson
and is preliminary. Our understanding of this information is stated below,
1 along with assumptions we made when specific information was not available.
1 The conclusions and recommendations of this report may not apply if the
1 building is not designed and constructed consistent with these assumptions
1 and the available design information.
1 We understand that the building will:
1 ° Be located in the general area of the test boring (the location of the
test boring is shown in Exhibit 1).
1 ° Be one or two stories high (above grade).
{ ° Have a full basement, with the lowest floor level at about elevation 93
�
f
I (i.e. about 4' below the present ground surface at the boring location). J`•
97 , j
1 ° Have relatively light foundation loads normally associated with single
family residential construction.
In addition, we have assumed that the building will:
° Be designed and constructed in accordance with standard procedures
1 applicable to this type of structure.
° Be constructed in accordance with applicable building code requirements.
1
1
1
GEC #89 -21 - Page 3 II
•
Criteria For Suitability Of Subsurface Conditions .
1
The suitability of soil conditions for construction depends on the 1
compressibility and strength of the soil relative to the settlement and
stability requirements of the structure. The weight of a structure (live 1
load and dead load) and the weight of fill placed around and below a struc-
ture puts pressure on the underlying soil. The underlying soil deforms 1
(compresses) under this pressure, causing the structure to settle. In
turn, settlement can cause cracking and other forms of distress in the
structure. If the pressure on the soil exceeds the soil strength, the soil
will fail and the structure will settle severely or even collapse.
II
Soil conditions are considered suitable for normal construction if 1)
unacceptable cracking or other distress is not expected to occur as a
result of soil settling, or 2) the soil has an adequate factor of safety
against failure under the proposed loading. Conversely, soil conditions
II
are considered unsuitable if 1) the anticipated settlement is likely to be
detrimental to the structure, or 2) the soil does not have an adequate fac-
tor of safety against failure under the proposed loading. 1
In terms of the position of ground water relative to proposed structures,
II
conditions are considered suitable if the water table is below the lowest
floor elevation of the proposed building and unsuitable if the water table
is above the lowest floor elevation of the proposed building. When II
financing is arranged through the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban
Development, the lowest floor slabs of the house must be at least 4' above 1
the water table. The presence of a ground water table, or a source of
water, is important in paved areas too because of the frost heave phenome- 1
non. Freezing temperatures, the nature of the soils with reference to the
soils capillary characteristics, and the presence and elevations of a
ground water table are factors that contribute to the growth of ice layers
in subgrade soils (i.e. the frost heave phenomenon). The heave associated '
with freezing, and the loss of supporting capabilities associated with
thawing of the soil, can produce detrimental effects on bituminous and
concrete pavements (and also on aggregrate surfaces). Some soils are more II
frost prone or frost susceptible than others. Generally, clean coarse sand
or gravel are considered frost susceptible; on the opposite end of the 1
spectrum, soils with a high silt content are extremely frost susceptible.
GEC #89 -21 - Page 4
1
11
Various methods of design can be used to minimize the potential detrimental
effects of frost heave (and thaw). Such methods could include insulating
(i.e. protect the subgrade from freezing), draining (i.e. remove or lower
the ground water table by installing drain tile, ditches, etc.), or
replacing the frost susceptible soils with non -frost susceptible soils. It
should be noted that the ground water table fluctuates depending on
seasons, precipitation, subsurface conditions, drainage, etc. Therefore,
' present ground water conditions do not necessarily represent the future or
past ground water conditions. Even if subsurface conditions are con-
sidered unsuitable for normal construction, structures can be built suc-
cessfully if special design and construction procedures are used.
Selection of the most feasible procedure depends not only upon subsurface
conditions, but also upon economics and other factors (factors with which
we are not involved).
FIELD WORK
' Overview
Our work on the project included soil sampling and testing in the field
• II and interpreting and analyzing the field data. In the field, our drill
crew obtained soil samples, identified the soils geologically, and made
ground water observations and measurements. We sampled one boring to a
depth of 16 feet.
The boring location is shown in Exhibit 1. The number of borings and
boring location was selected by Mr. Paul Nelson. The boring location was
' surveyed by measuring with a fiber tape. The elevation of the ground sur-
face at the boring was determined using _a construction level with refer-
ence to the basement floor slab of the house to the north of the proposed
house. A temporary bench mark elevation of 100.0 for this reference point
was assigned by us. The location and elevation of the boring should be
considered accurate only to the degree implied by the survey methods used.
1
1
GEC #89 -21 - Page 5
•
1
Limitations Of Subsurface Exploration 1
The data derived through this sampling and observation has been used to
develop our opinions about subsurface conditions. However, because no 1
exploration program. can reveal totally what is in the subsurface, con-
ditions between borings and between samples and at other times may differ 1
from conditions described herein. The exploration we conducted identifies
subsurface conditions only at those points where we took samples or
observed ground water conditions. Depending on the sampling method and
frequency, every soil layer may not be observed, and some materials or
layers which are present in the ground may not be noted on boring log.
i
If conditions encountered during construction differ from those indicated
[ by our boring, it may be necessary to alter our conclusions and recommen-
dations and to modify construction procedures, and the cost of construction
may be affected.
The extent and detail of information about the subsurface conditions is
directly related to the scope of exploration. It should be understood,
therefore, that additional information can be obtained by means of addi-
tional exploration.
Unless actually observed in a sample, contacts between soil layers are
estimated based on the spacing of samples and the action of drill tools.
Thus, most contacts shown on the log are approximate, with the possible
upper and lower limits of contacts defined by the position of the
overlying and underlying soil samples.
Cobbles, boulders, and other large objects generally cannot be recovered
from test borings, and they may be present in the ground even if they are
not noted on the boring log. Other than as indicated by standard penetra-
tion resistance values and by borings being obstructed, drilling and
sampling methods do not permit us to form specific opinions about the pre-
sence of boulders and other large objects, and none are stated in this
report. In general, boulders and large objects commonly are in deposits
such as coarse alluvium, uncontrolled fill, till, tumblerock, and weathered
11 bedrock.
II
' GEC 189 -21 - Page 6
Our conclusions and recommendations regarding design and construction do
not take into account geoenvironmental conditions such as pollution and
' contamination. Environmental engineers or geohydrologists may be consulted
for that.
Field Sampling And Testing Methods
I We used the standard penetration /split -spoon sampling method to drill the
boring and to sample and test soils in the field. In this method, a steel
II split- barrel sampling tube is driven into the soil with a 140 -pound hamper
dropped from a height of 30 inches (the hammer is dropped onto a rod
attached to the sampler). The number of hammer blows required to drive the
sampler tube 1 foot into the ground (after an initial set of 1/2 foot) is
recorded as the standard penetration resistance (N- value) of the soil for
the sampling interval. When driving is complete, the sampler is retracted
and opened, and soil samples are taken from the tube. The bore hole is
t advanced between sampling intervals with an auger, casing, or rotary drill
(with drilling fluid). When the ground surface is frozen, soil samples
' from the frozen zone are taken off the flights of the hollow -stem auger.
Soil Classification Procedures. Sample Retention.
Soil samples obtained in the field were returned to our laboratory and exa-
mined and identified by our project manager. The soil identifications were
' in accordance (generally) with the ASTM 02488 procedures as described in
Exhibit 1.
' We save soil samples for 45 days after sampling, then discard them- -
P 9. them--unless
we are requested to do otherwise.
The Boring Log
' The typed boring log is presented in
YP 9 9 P Exhibit 1. This typed log is based on
our field log, observations of field samples, and the results of field
tests. (NOTE: We keep a copy of the field log on file in our office for
five years.) The meanings of abbreviations and terms on the typed log,
along with general information on how the log was developed and how infor-
mation is presented, are outlined on several sheets following the log in
' Exhibit 1. Read and understand this information in order to interpret the
log correctly.
GEC #89 -21 - Page 7
9 1
II
1
11 The information on the boring log includes the estimated depth to boun-
daries between soil layers, the geologic description and soil identifica- II
II tion of each layer, ground water observations and measurements, and
standard penetration resistances (N- values), and other information. 1
II SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORING
1
I Soils
The general soil profile encountered in the boring (from the top down) con- II li sists of surficial soils over basal soils. The surficial soils (top layer)
are topsoil and are 2' thick. The basal (load- bearing) soils include till 1
II and coarse alluvium.
II
11 Ground Water
Ground water was measured at a depth of about 6.8' (corresponding elevation II
11 of 90) two days after completion of the boring. We emphasize that the
ground water table fluctuates depending on seasons, precipitation, subsur- 1
11 face conditions, drainage, etc. Therefore, present ground water conditions
do not necessarily represent the future or past ground water conditions. 1
II CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
II
Suitability Of Subsurface Conditions For Proposed Construction
We conclude that the subsurface conditions are basically suitable for the 1
II proposed construction. This conclusion is based on the results of the
boring, field tests, and the design and construction information. 1
41 *
R ecommendations For Corrective Earthwork And Design Bearing Pressure
1
III Remove all unsuitable materials from below the proposed building. At this
site, the unsuitable materials are the surficial soils which were encoun- 1
tered in the boring to a depth of 2 feet. In addition to the topsoil,
vegetation, debris, roots, etc. should also.be removed. 1
1
t .
" X
II GEC #89 -21 - Page 8
1 11
111 To accommodate lateral stress distribution, oversize the excavation and
ll fill outward to meetca 45° angle from the base of the building footings to
basal soils (i.e. a 1:1 oversize ratio). Elevations of footings may be
I lowered to reduce the amount of excavation and fill needed to meet oversize
requirements.
Replace all excavated materials with con
111 P controlled fill to the proposed
finished grades, compacting the fill to at least 95 percent of standard
1 11 Proctor density.
1 11 For quality control, consideration should be given to having a geotechnical
engineer present during earthwork operations to determine the suitability
of existing soils and the density of the fill.
1 11
Use a design pressure of up to 2500 psf for footings placed on either fill
1 11 placed in accordance with our recommendations or basal soils.
Recommendations For'Continuing Geotechnical Services
III
, oper implementation of our previous recommendations in this report,
III also recommend that Geotechnical Engineering Corporation be:
li ° Retained before construction to meet with appropriate parties involved
in the project (owner, architect, engineer, contractor, financial
institutions and so n
o o ) to explain geotechnical findings and to
1 review the adequacy of plans and specifications relative to geotech-
' nical issues.
Informed of any changes in the design information u
1111 ° upon which this 9 P
report is based. We should then be retained to verify or modify our
11 conclusions and recommendations before - construction proceeds.
I Retained during construction to identify variances from predicted con -
ditions, conduct additional tests as needed, and recommend solutions to
li geotechnical problems that are encountered.
l i
II
GEC 189 -21 - Page 9
1 CLOSURE
Report Prepared By:
1 Char e s W. B1 6;11-
Project Manager
Under the Supervision of:
aAoiae_,yv_,--7-
awrence F. Fel Bien, P.E.
MN Reg. No. 9103
1
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
1
1
•
1
1 .
1
1
1 .
1
1
1 -
1 EXHIBIT 1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
a"-----.8—
1 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CORP. joe 69 2-1 Yu Road 89-2 1
1925 Oakcrest Avenue 7373 W. 147th Street SHEET NO. OF
Roseville, MN 55113 Apple Valley, MN 55124
1 (612) 636-7744 (612) 431.5266 CALCULATED BY DATE
CHECKED BY DATE.
SCALE
I . .
. . .
1
.. ' • . 0 i i / . EgiOinj HotAse . /
4 • i 1
• •
i ' 0 1 i i •
. --- -, • cc ;
i / 1
I - ' • • l`t , . .
// /
1
E , . • ' I. I
/
1 , -
. . ,
1
• , , • i • , _ Temporar
I WOOD HILL
ROA Basemen+
-Floe e•P eaistin I
..
I • • "
' hoxse = 100.0
1
1 .
1
a .
89'
I
1
I
I
N .
I
1
1
1
I I
1
No Scd/e. 1
a
1 . BoRIKG L 0C AT ION PLAN
9
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION
I GEC JOB NO: 89-21 LOG OF BORING NO. 1
II PROJECT: RESIDENTIAL LOT; 6921 YUMA ROAD; CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
I DEPTH, FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
IN SURFACE ELEVATION: qfi -R N MC SAMPLE REC. L.L_
111 FEET DENTIFICATION QEOt.00Y BPF TYPE WC DEN Pl ( lc
1 1 Organic soil, black (OL /OH) TOPSOIL M HSA
II 2 --
1 3 - 20 M SS 9
1 . - Lean clay with sand, light
gray, mottled, (CL)
� g
lin S-
• 10 M SS 14
6-
7 - TILL
Ili a- Lean clay, gray, mottled, (CL)
13 M SS 18
' 9 1O- Lean clay, gray, (CL)
with a waterbearing lense of 9 W SS 15
i 11- silty sand
II 12-
_
Silty sand, gray - tne-- g-ra�-ned -, - -- - COARSE
13- (SM) ALLUVIUM 7 W SS 18
1 14 -
Lean clay with sand, gray, (CL) TILL
II 15-
9 M SS 8
16- END OF BORING
1 17-
18 -
19-
1 -
21 -
I DEPTH DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
_ NOTE: REFER TO
0- 14 -1/2: 3 -1/4 "HSA DATE TIME S DEPTH DEP DEPTH ORILUNV WATER
FLUID LEVEL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
1 -19 10:30 16 4 -1/2' 14.5 wet SHEETS FOR AN
1 - 19 10:35 16 4 - 1/2 12.8 11.2 EXPLANATION OF
- COMPETED 1 - 89 12:00 1 - 19 11:35 16 4 - 1/2 11.2 10.1 TERMINOLOGY
cc: GN CA: JDF Ri 55 1 -19 11:55 16 ) 4-1/2 10.1 9.0 ON THIS LOG
1_77 7.A7 0 r
g
1111 -
II
BORING LOGS: ABBREVIATIONS, NOTATIONS, AND SYMBOLS
(Page 1 of 2)
This list defines some of the abbreviations, notations, and symbols used on the"
boring logs. .
II
A,B,H,N: Size of casing or core
AC: At completion of boring
II
CA: Crew assistant
CAS: Casing II CC: Crew chief
III CONS: One- dimensional consolidation test
COT: Clean -out tube II
II D: Sampled soil appears dry
DEN: Dry density, pounds per cubic foot 1
II DM: Drilling mud or bentonite slurry
FA: Power - driven flight auger; P- pulling procedures; S- spinning procedure 1
HA:
an auger
HSA: Hollow -stem auger
HYD: Hydrometer analysis
11 LL: Liquid limit
M: Sampled soil appears moist 1
11 MC: Column used to describe moisture condition of samples and for the
ground water level symbol.
III N (BPF): Standard penetration resistance (N- value) in blows per foot (see note
#2 below)
PAP: Paper plug II
PL: Plastic limit '
q Pocket penetrometer strength, tons per square foot 1
III qc: Static cone bearing pressure, tons per square foot
qu: Unconfined compressive strength, pounds per square foot
Rotary drilling with fluid and cone-type roller bit 1
RD: y 9 YP
REC: In split -spoon and thin - walled -tube sampling, the length (in inches)"
of sample recovered (see note #2 below). In rock coring, the length
III of core recovered (expressed as per cent of the total core run).
REV: Revert drilling fluid II
III SA: Sieve analysis
SR: Skid rig; non - rotary drill (skid- mounted)
II
ill
1
BORING LGS GROUND LOGS: R N WATER INFORMATION
(Page 1 of 2)
1
Ground water information is shown under "Water Level Measurements" at the
' bottom of the log and in the "MC" (moisture condition) column on the right
side. Because the presence of water in the soil and the level of the
ground water table can change over time, the information presented is
accurate only for the date and time the observations and measurements were
made.
The following information (in addition to the sampling date and time)
appears under "Water Level Measurements ":
1 ° The sampled depth, which is the lowest depth of soil sampling at
the time of the measurement.
' ° The casing depth, which is the depth to the bottom of the casing
or hollow -stem auger at the time of the measurement.
' The cave -in depth, which is the depth at which the measuring to
P . P 9 e P
stops in the bore hole. ,
° The water level, which is the point in the bore hole at which free-
1 standing water is encountered with the measuring tape. If free-
standing water was not present above the cave -in depth, the word "wet"
1 or "dry" in this column indicates whether soil adhering to the end of
the measuring tape appeared to be wet or dry at the cave -in depth.
° The drilling fluid level is similar to the water level, except that the
liquid in the bore hole is drilling Mid.
The water level, drilling fluid level, and cave -in depths are measured with
a weighted measuring tape.
1
1
1
1
BORING LOGS: ABBREVIATIONS, NOTATIONS, AND SYMBOLS
(Page 2 of 2)
•
1
SS: Standard split -spoon sampler (steel; 1 -3/8 -inch inside diameter;
2 -inch outside diameter)
TW: Thin - walled tube (2" and 3" diameter)
VANE: Vane shear strength, pounds per square foot; L- laboratory; F -field 1
we: Water content, as percent of dry weight
W: Sampled soil appears wet '
WASH: Sample of material obtained by screening returning rotary drilling
fluid or by taking a split -spoon sample of material which has
collected inside the bore hole after "falling" through drilling fluid II
WAT: Water •
WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod and 140 -pound hamper
WR: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod
-200: Percent of material finer than 1200 sieve
: Water level symbol 1
25: Diedrich Model 25 rotary drill (skid or truck - mounted)
55: Central Mine Equipment Model 55 rotary drill (truck- mounted) 1
57: Mobile Drill Company Model 57 rotary drill (truck - mounted)
550: Central Mine Equipment Model 550 rotary drill (rubber tire- mounted) 1
NOTES: 1
1. The size of drilling tools and related equipment is indicated by a
number or letter. Examples: 1) a hollow -stem auger with an inside
.diameter of 3 -3/4 inches is shown as 3 -3/4 HSA; 2) a B size core barrel
is shown as B core.
2. In highly resistant material, the N -value (in the "N" column) may be 1
shown as a "fraction," with an upper and a lower number separated by a
slash (/) or a bar ( —). The lower number is the distance the sampler
is driven, in inches (below the initial 1/2 foot set) and the upper
figure is the number of hammer blows to drive the sampler that distance
(after the initial 1/2 foot set). Also, the length of sample recovered,
as shown on the "REC" column, may be greater than the distance indicated
in the N column. The disparity is because the N value is recorded below
the initial 1/2 foot set, whereas length of sample recovered is for the
entire sampler drive.
1
I I
BORING LOGS: GROUND WATER INFORMATION
(Page 2 of 2)
The "MC" column indicates the moisture condition of soil samples. A "D"
' in the column means that a soil sample appears dry (absence of moisture,
dusty, dry to touch); "M" means moist (damp but no visible water), and "W"
' means wet (visible free water). (NOTE: An isolated "W" at the top of the
1 boring, over a column of "D's" or "M's" max be an indicator of recent
' thawing of frozen soil in the top layer.)
The water level symbol Z in the "MC" column indicates the estimated posi-
tion of the ground water table in the boring. A water level symbol with a
downward- pointing arrow means that the water table is interpreted to be at
or below the level indicated. A water level symbol with an upward- pointing
1111 arrow means that the water level is interpreted to be at or above the depth
' indicated. The absence of the water level symbol on a log does not
necessarily mean that ground water was not encountered or that the water
table or piezometric surface was not penetrated.
Overall, determining the position of the ground water table is an interpre-
tive process that depends on such factors as water level measurements, the
presence and type of drilling fluid, the condition of samples, subsurface
conditions, site conditions, whether the bore hole is covered or open, and
' weather conditions. Because of these factors and those noted previously,
the actual ground water level in the field may vary from that shown on the
' boring logs.
•
1
IDENTIFICATION OF SOILS
(VISUAL- MANUAL PROCEDURE)
5% fine. treWellereded --- — - - - - ►GW r •:15% sand -ter Well'radad err I
II / . ` � +C1sx vend —+ sera 7rw.d p.r.l with vane
Poorly graded — �rGP - -- - -► • 15% ►end —+ Poorly graded gravel
/ 1 ' -- ►_1S% sand —er Poorly waded navel with sand
�s Well waded - ML or AIM - _ GW -G M T -. : —• — s• I" 151 and ---0 W.n er.JW pa..I with ,di
GRAVEL ' J' 1� le '/S% sand ••••••••"41. Well graded gravel with silt end sand
% gravel > _ 10X fIMS< a _ Irrwf•CL M CH ......--.--..--. GW"GC — ►� tSX lend --ea Wea7radad gravel with clay
% lend ` �. -_ r _ 15% lewd —► Wallirded it aim! with clay and rand
Poorly r•dad •. trnas•ML or MH- _ GP-GM ` • :15% lend - -► PoodW raided ravel *or oft
`r >1S % and —► Poorly waded gravel earth tilt and sand
_r ein., CL or CH + GP'GC ` —r 15% sand —► Poorly graded gravel with clay
--- -sir >1S% Mid ----se Poorly eroded ravel wdh cur and sand
_ � mM
- trs•L or MH - -e- G M _ - - : •- ly pa
s• 15% sand — Silne
15% line. � 1. _15% sand —+ Silly gravel won sand
- - - --ylnrs•CLor CH -- --►GC _ _ - - - - ►• tt% wnd--- rCI.y.yyra,.i
--- -•15% sand ^► CMwy P er. l wdh send
J �rW .tl 7rded •SW_�• ---- —.• 1Sieraval— +Wdt7radadlane
/,,,„„,..„....poco, � - ,.1S% gravel --. Well-ed rad sand with gravel
We117rWad �+- ailed — - SP. = . - ------------w.,------------w.,.15% � • 15x ,...1-_,.. Poorly graded sand
- - /5% gravel —•r Poorly graded sand with Brawl
_ -�► 1.n. .--0.0.04_ .. S W' SM tea- :-...•--o• • 15% genet --r Wen•grded lend with silt
c c ---- _15'.. rase —or Wrllj wrt
radad sand h silt and gravel SP ND �' ltnes•CL a CH • -- - -en S W' S C -... ,----in •:15% gravel - -r Well -raded sand with Clay
if, land 10% fsons - - r >15 % ravel - - -. W.ItfradW sand wrth cloy and ravel
%ward �rfrMS•ML of MH -- - SP"SM - - -_ --0- - I S% raves --or Poorly reread lend "nth eels
'�Poorlygraded•l ------------or Lr 15 %graver- 0 Poorlv MWed und with silt and gravel
Irms•Cl of CH--- .SP'SC : - +• 15 %raves - -- -0. Poorly waded sand with clay
l - -_r -. Is% awl --. Poorly r reread sand wrth clay wed rare
_--------- teset•ML or MH -o•SM -w: ~ - - 15% Wesel ----1. ----1. Sant sand
I/ o
;215% fines ~ '•15% le..el — -in Silty sand with r avel
fines-CL or CH -- - In SC , — - • 1S% newt -- -.. Curs sand
e _ 15 %ravel --•• Gavot send wish pine
<30% plus No 200 <15% plus No 200 • Lean clay
1 1525% plus No. 200 - --► % sand 2% gravel • Lean clay with sand
`' L % sand <% gravel • Lean clay with gravel
% % of gravel <15% gravel —+ Sandy lean clay
>30% plus No. 200`z " >15% graves -+ Sandy lean clay with gravel
`• % sand <% gravel ---► <15% sand • Gravelly lean clay
'' sand --- 0. Gravelly lean clay with sand
• <30% plus No. 200 z`w <15% plus No 200 - -► Silt
15.25% plus No. 200 —ay. % sand 2% gravel - - -- Silt with sand
I M L - % sand -:% gravel ---0 Silt with gravel
% sand >% of gravel - -; <15% gravel - --+ Sandy silt
>30% plus No. 200 ` ----• >15% gravel ----av Sandy silt with gravel
-'> % sand <% gravel -t► <15% sand - -. Gravelly silt
'15% sand —a- Gravelly silt with sand
<30% plus No. 200 -.-- <15% plus No. 200 tr -Fat clay
_• 15.25% plus No. 200-1 sand .. -1 6 gravel —► Fat clay with sand
C H • % sand <% gravel ----► Fat clay with gravel
% sand •% of gravel <15% gravel — • Sandy fat clay
>30% plus No. 200 >15% gravel --ev Sandy fat clay with gravel
% sand <% gravel <l5% san •0 Gravelly fat clay
215% sand • Gravelly fat clay with sand
1 :30% plus No. 200 • <15% plus No 200 Elastic silt
15.25% plus No. 200 % sand 2% gravel -- . Elastic silt with sand
M H % sand < % gravel ► Elastic silt with gravel
% sand '2% of gravel ....--� - -+' c gravel --• Sandy elastic silt
- --------- :_ i : >30% plus No. 200 � ~0 - , 15% gr avel — on Sandy elastic silt with gravel
% sand c.% gravel —v. <15% sand Gravalty elastic silt
• 215% sand - Gravelly elastic silt with sand
fil; •:30% plus No. 200 '--------7--•.--.' x .15% D•us No. 200 ►- Organic wet
_� 1525% plu No 200 — S sand _% gravel —*— Organic soil with sand
OL/OH -- -6-% sand •:% gravel - -► Organic soil with gravel
% sand 2% grave <15% gravel — • Sandy organic soil
1 >30% plus No 200 215% gravel -- - Sandy organic soil with gravel
% sand <% gravel -._ ► <15% sand ---+ Gravelly organic wit
5 `may 215% sand -- -► Gravelly organic soil with se •
Not E - Percent:yes are based on estimating amounts of fines. sand. and gravel to the nearest S ei•
1
II GEOLOGIC TERMINOLOGY
II The geologic description indicates the apparent depositional origin or
stratigraphic name. geologic identification is interpretive and subject
1 to error.
General categories of geologic deposits, and descriptive information is
I as follows:
ALLUVIUM COARSE ALLIUVIIUM: Sandy (and gravelly). Stratified.
Deposited from fast moving waters
II in streams and rivers. (Includes
glacial outwash.)
I FINE ALLUVIUM: Clayey and /or silty. Stratified.
Deposited from slow moving waters
in streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds.
II BEDROCK Wide range of characteristics: from hard, dense,
consolidated rock; to soft, compressible, and uncon-
solidated soil -like material.
II FILL CONTROLLEO: Compact, uniform material; inorganic;
no debris.
II UNCONTROLLED: Loose or variable density. Mixture
of soil types. Often contains debris
and organic material.
II TILL Normally contains a wide range of grain sizes, from
boulders through clay. Usually non - stratified.
II Deposited directly from glaciers.
LOESS Silty. Non - stratified. Upper layer. Deposited from
' wind.
SLOPE WASH Organic and /or inorganic material washed from slopes
and redeposited.
I SWAMP DEPOSITS Peat, muck, and marl, and organic soil. Formed through
accumulation of organic material under water.
II TOPSOIL Contains both inorganic and organic material. upper,
black layer of soil. Formed by weathering of inorganic
I soil and accumulation of organic material.
TUMRLEROCK Dominantly gravel, boulders and rock slabs. Deposited
from gravity flow down hills or cliffs.
I WEATHERED BEDROCK Bedrock which has been substantially weathered through
disintegration or decomposition. Texture and composi-
' tion grades into bedrock.
WEATHERED SOIL Texture, composition, and position is intermediate
between topsoil and non - weathered soil.
II
t
GENERAL TERMINOLOGY NOTES 1
FOR
SOIL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
Grain Size
Term Size II
Boulders >12"
I
Cobbles 3 " -12"
Gravel 14 sieve - 3"
Sand 1200 - #4 sieve
Fines (silt & clay) <0200 sieve
II
Stratification
Term Thickness II
Layer >1/2' II
Lease 1/2" - 1/2'
Lamination <1/2"
Fiber Content of Peat (ASTM 02607)
I
i Fiber Content
Term (Visual Estimate)
II
1 Fibric >67%
Hemic 33 - 67%
Sapric <33%
Consistency and Strength of Fine Grained Soils
II Unconfined Compressive
Strength, psf N- value, II
Term (Normal Range) BPF
II
11 Very soft <500 <2
Soft 500 -1000 2-4
Medium stiff 1000 -2000 4-8
Stiff 2000 -4000 8 -15
■ Very stiff 4000 -8000 15 -30
Hard >8000 >30
il Relative Density of Coarse Grained Soils
JI Term N- value, BPF
Very loose <5
Loose 5 -10
i Medium dense 10 -30
Dense 30 -50
Very dense - >50
1
1
1
111 SYMPTOMS OF INNER S O NN PEACE
Be on the lookout for of inner peace. The hearts of a
I great many have already been exposed to inner peace and it is
possible that people everywhere could come down with it in
epidemic proportions. This could pose a serious threat to what
' has up to now been a fairly stable condition of conflict_in the
world.
•
1 Some signs and symptoms of inner peace:
1 • A tendency to think and act spontaneously rather than ors
fears based on past experiences.
• An unmistakable ability to enjoy each moment.
• A loss of interest in judging other people.
• A loss of interest in judging self.
• A loss of interest in interpreting the actions of others.
• A loss of interest in conflict.
1 • A loss of the ability to worry (This is a very serious
symptom).
• Frequent overwhelming episodes of appreciation.
• Contented feelings of connectedness with others and
' nature.
• Frequent attacks of smiling.
' • An increasing tendency to let things happen rather than
make them happen.
' • An increased susceptibility to the love extended by others
as well as the uncontrollable urge to extend it.
1 W.z ning: If you have some or all of the above symptoms,
please be advised that your ,.• ondition of inner peace may be so
far advanced as to not be curable. If you are exposed to anyone
1 exhibiting any of these symptoms, remain exposed at your own
risk.
1
by Saskia Davis
1
1
C 1 T T O F B OA DATE: 1/11/93
1
CHANHASSEII C CDATE: 1
�> CASE #: 92 -13 VAR
By: . Al -Jaff
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: A 49 foot Wetland Setback Variance and a 30 foot front yard setback
variance for the construction of a Single Family Residence.
z LOCATION: 6921 Yuma Drive - Lots 2919 thru 2943, also Lots 2877 thru 2897
Z
4
V APPLICANT: Shannon T. Terry
J One Hawthorne Road
Q.. Hopkins, MN 55343
0
4
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: Approximately 84,000 square feet
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - RSF; single family
S - Class B Wetland
E - Class B Wetland
W - RSF; single family
6 J WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site
w
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains a Class B wetland and is covered with
(f� natural vegetation. The wetland acts as a natural drainage
way causing the site to be wet throughout the year with the
exception of the winter months.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
• 1
1
1 Terry Variance
January 11, 1993
1 Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
I The Zonin g Ordinance requires a 30 foot front yard setback, and a 75 foot setback from the edge
of the wetland.
I
BACKGROUND
1 Until May 21, 1984, the following lots in Carver Beach were under single ownership:
1 Lots 2873 - 2876 Lots 2921 - 2922
Lots 2914 - 2918 Lots 2923 - 2943
Lots 2919 - 2920 Lots 2877 - 2897
1 On May 21, 1984, the City stamped approval of the deed permitting the subdivision of Lots 2872
- 2876 and Lots 2914 - 2918 from the remaining above mentioned parcels. The lot that was split
I off from the total piece was then sold to Mr. Joe Morton and is now under separate ownership.
The approval of the subdivision created two lots that met the minimum requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance. The remaining piece (subject property) contains a protected wetland and a
I small buildable area outside the wetland. Due to the wetland setbacks, it is not possible to
construct a home without a setback variance.
I Since the subdivision had been approved by the city, has been recorded with Carver County and
the two lots are now under separate ownership, the city would have to consider the remaining
parcel consisting of Lots 2919 -2943 and Lots 2877 -2897 as a lot of record. As a lot of record
1 it should be allowed to be put to its intended use, even if variances are required, or the city has
some exposure to legal action for taking property without compensation.
1 In December, 1990, Mr. Thomas Rhode submitted a street vacation and a variance application
for the subject property to build a single family residence. While drainage and wetland issues
concerning this parcel were being reviewed, Mr. Rhode decided to withdraw his application.
I
ANALYSIS
1 The applicant is requesting two variances. The first is a 30 foot front yard variance to allow a
front setback of 0 feet and the second is a variance to allow a 31 foot (as modified by staff)
I wetland setback versus the 75 feet that is required by ordinance. The site contains a protected
wetland and fronts on 3 public right -of -ways, none of which are improved streets. Access would
be provided by a private driveway constructed in the public right -of -ways.
1 The site contains forty-six Carver Beach lots (Lots 2919 -2943 and Lots 2877 - 2897). It has 320
feet of street frontage on Yuma Drive, 290 feet of frontage on Dogwood Drive and 540 feet of
1 frontage on Ringo Drive.
1
1
1
Terry Variance
January 11, 1993 I
Page 3
There is an existing watermain located on Yuma Drive. The applicant is proposing to locate the
residence 10 feet from the watermain. The Assistant City Engineer is requiring the house be III
setback a minimum of 15 feet from the watermain. This will result in pushing the house 5 feet
closer to the wetland and further reducing the setback. The applicant is also proposing to build I
a 20 foot deep deck located 26 feet from the edge of the wetland. Staff is recommending the
depth of the deck be reduced to 10 feet to minimize the wetland setback variance. Under this
scenario there would be a 31 foot setback from the wetland where as the ordinance requires 75
feet.
Attachment #2 shows the required setbacks for the proposed site. A single family residence
I
could not be located within the setback requirements of the RSF District. Without a variance to
the required lot area, the lot would be unbuildable.
The proposed location of the home and driveway provides the best site distance for access onto I
Yuma Drive. The home is also located where it will preserve existing trees on the site.
A variance may be granted by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals or City Council only if all I
of the following criteria are met:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship I
means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority
1
of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow
a proliferation of variances but to recognize that and develop neighborhoods pre- existing
I standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing
downward from them meet this criteria.
* Staff conducted a survey within 500 feet of the surrounding area and found that I
the average minimum front yard setback is 20 feet. We also found that all homes
in the area meet the normal 75 foot setback standard. However, in this case, the
city created the parcel and approved it as a buildable lot. Without a variance, the
applicant would be denied reasonable use of his property.
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, 1
to other property within the same zoning classification. .
* The conditions upon which this petition for a variance is based are not generally 1
applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification outside of the
immediate area. They only apply to lots located in the Carver Beach subdivision
I
and more specifically to lots of record that are impacted by wetland protection
regulations.
1
1
1
Terry Variance
January 11, 1993
Page 4
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
* This does not appear to be the case. The applicant is attempting to utilize the
' parcel for single family residential uses it was created for.
1 d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship.
* The hardship is not self created. The parcel is an existing lot of record. Denying
the variance would mean depriving the applicant reasonable use of his property.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare of injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
* The granting of the variance will not be detrimental or injurious to other land or
' improvements in the neighborhood.
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
' property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property
values within the neighborhood.
' * The antin of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air
�' g
to those properties, nor will it increase the congestion of the public streets or
' increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish
or impair property values within the neighborhood.
' Staff is aware that the requested variances and proposal to build on this parcel is causing a good
deal of neighborhood concern. We empathize with the situation and agree that significant portion
' if not all of the lot is wet on a constant or intermediate basis. We agree that the parcel could
be valuable to the city in ponding area for a water quality and retention basin that would fit into
the system and that ultimately protects Lotus Lake. We even would agree that building on this
' lot is probably a poor idea from the standpoint of construction limitations.
However, it is a lot of record and without allowing it legitimate use we may be exposed to a
' "takings" issue. Therefore, we must recommend that the variance, as modified by staff, be
approved.
Under the circumstances, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals may wish to continue the item
to give the City Council an opportunity to explore purchasing the land but it should be clear that
staff has no assurances that this will occur.
1
1
Terry Variance 1
January 11, 1993
Page 5 1
RECOMMENDATION
For the above mentioned reasons, staff is recommending approval of Variance #92 -13 for a 5 foot 1
front yard setback and a 31 foot wetland setback with the following conditions:
1. The applicant maintain a 15 foot setback from the center of the watenmain located in 1
Yuma Drive.
2. The applicant shall reduce the depth of the deck to 10 feet to minimize impact on the 1
PP P
wetland.
t shall submit a tree preservation plan prior to issuance of a building permit. 1
3. The applican sh p p p g Pe
4. Type III erosion control be maintained during the construction season along the edge of 1
the wetland.
5. No additional construction is permitted without a variance application. 1
6. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the city providing for private I
construction and maintenance of the driveway in public right -of -way.
7. The applicant shall retain a qualified soils engineer to evaluate the site for the proposed I
structure.
8. The applicant shall retain a structural engineer to design the foundation if soil conditions
are such that a conventional foundation would be deemed inadequate.
9. A drainage plan shall be submitted for approval by the city prior to building permit
I
issuance.
ATTACHMENTS 1
1. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated January 8, 1993.
2. Site plan showing location of proposed home and buildable area on site. 1
3. Typical trench excavation limits.
4. Elevation of proposed home.
5. Letter from the applicant (Variance Requirements). 1
1
1
1
1
1 CITYOF
1 CIIIINEASSEN
1 '390 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORAN ' ' 1 . ,tt
l o: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I
k^ k
OM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official a
ATE: 01/08/93
1 UBJECT: 92 -13 VAR (Shannon T. Terry)
r ACKGROTJND
he Planning Department requested my presence at the 01/11/93 Board of Appeals
and Adjustments meeting to discuss soils and foundations for the proposed
erry dwelling. I am unable to attend, and will try and address concerns of
IF
he Inspections Division in this memo. ,-
f
ANALYSIS
I. Soils. The Carver County Soils Survey (attachment #3) indicates two soil
types on the subject property, Glencoe silty clay loam (Ge) and Marsh
(Ma). Unaltered Glencoe soils are periodically flooded and retain high
1 levels of moisture in dry periods. They also have a high organic matter
content. These factors give sites with glencoe soils a building site
rating of 10 (on a scale of 1 to 11 with 11 being the worst). Marsh soils
are wet most of the time and also have a building site rating of 10.
IL . Foundations. Due to soils likely to be present on the building site
extreme care must be exercised in foundation design. Water tables are
I likely to be encountered at about 12 ", which makes the installation of
below grade finished areas subject to water problems and structural
problems. The potential for frost damage, structural damage and wet walls
II and floors is very high. The generally high organic content of glencoe
soils in conjunction with high water tables make special engineering for
foundations a necessity. Surcharging, corrected house pads, pilings, and
deep footing are some methods which may need to be employed to adequately
1 support the structure. The most appropriate, cost effective method will
need to be determined by a structural engineer who is experienced with
these types of problems and has a knowledge of the soils particular to the
1 site.
3. Site. Grade changes on the site to accommodate the proposed structure may
affect general drainage patterns in the area. A drainage plan should be
1 designed to address this concern.
1
1 T«, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
1
1
Sharmin Al -Jaff
01/08/93
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
Approval is recommended with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall retain a qualified soils engineer to evaluate the site
for the proposed structure.
2. The applicant shall retain a structural engineer to design the foundation
if soil conditions are such that a conventional foundation would be deemed 1
inadequate.
3. A drainage plan shall be submitted for approval by the City prior to
building permit issuance.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ito 3
i • ..). i• N
dt , ,#. ' A O ' \q . ' k ,..12, ,
ti • : - .ve • • a •
5 -.41-4 , ... ..4 • \ 4 7; 4. 4 ' .r... i , I ".. , j.k ,
\•-' ; - - . ' A . \x- ii., Gi-.^ ----,p, I V k I
. H a B • • .
;--
,_ ..,, ... ....
,..,
., .„.... . ,)•• . .-; ...,„,. .. eltr.
- i 4.... • .n. A \.\
idielti. . 4 vt ::
• 4 - ' , P4wi
•gitttridi • ;$ •-s
. .....tog , . . .
ist ' ''' • • I ' -'1
_.,' • .,- - i V 9 . 4 r .„ „ . • • 0.7,
1
. ,, , .,-......,..,... .,
• ...
. . ...„. . ..
.„ ........., ... ...,,...„.....,_
,.....,.....,,,„..„.. ..
. • ' • 1r
.. . • ' . -
' • • . :'"
, ■
0 . 'Q ,' .• . a 0 :
. .
_s,
-}.. A .,-- . A . :.,..".. • -
. • -, , , .
•
-. 'it •,,, .
.c... - :•,.• .-
• I ,- .P :is -- ..1:
. ,.., 4 • • r . 1
• .,.___%.4
. 1 • # - ..• •
V
.
• .. ' .1. Niir '
irSatilko $ "!
■ • • do g \ vs. 1 ,, K4 !::- . .. • , .
z „i k • 4. • . .41! :'' * \ \
- >- • T - .
.;.• . .2,-sr_ _„ s . s,.`"! , .. . \ .s N .•.. ..
A.. - •.• .:„..J.,..,
.
H a • • ; I a -
P" PO /sl.brk0S11.---
A '
.. . .
qi .4111!.71N4t111P• '
.. . ., - • -
... - . •
- , ...• • :..
'' zr. -- •‘•.s. -
**..• .: . - , 11 .4IIIV: 4 ! . .f.- 4='''' . , it" 4 ‘ . - '
:....-;:-
. s . , 44 4 . 1 s.,■: ',0 .../- ^ • iri.....„... _ s. Vim, :
. 4irl .ire... "4. ;.f. a . ..'7, 11 % •' ., .... C....'".1.. . . . . ,'
111 * Allit#0t 7 4 : . s 3 ;„,, iii -I''N.- • ' - 'kW" • ftUt 1 ' . - ■
4.11N• ::, • '':a. ..."' .. s'1..,/k
:.;••• ...,. '.. ---. ..ret rm p..,t,t- t. - T ,.. -;,..„
A .:110 .trik - •t• IX.- . -.. .. ". -
., • \
N . .,,..•
..,....
. .....4,.. .
.. „
i.„,',A. g . .._..7 .16:1F_VA4V., 4.• -, . . .:' ■ ii
.., . - • " _..,,,, . ...%■••• -, -, a.- •• , ..
' '-. -....; •-•( ..:!, . „ .„9,...t -........-'' ' *dr . . %, , • .., . ;A . - . . ft
.....- ..;. .„,....,,,,.....,„ : - .‘ ,, 6 . '"-• e . - : IPA?' r ,
- . . ...7 .4 •. ':ick:A , t:." . ., . ,-..," .. :.-,-. -i
-As'.. . l
. 1116 AP- . ,i s t , s ' ',.` . \ ililb 44r. . 1 '': . ' :.,1 .: 1 , :;;; . •
1 .........
, -, 4 .4: 4. •'1 /4\.
In se. 2 -z.:4 , -.1,-,i. , , , 2* - 4 . 4 ,-,, „.;. A: :!, f; - . .... ... f.e ....
1 I . re: ...kati 40. - --....:-.- , - -, -,,, t ... ' 1%,.. ., • zae . :-: -- ' ..< l ik■
\ V- * P.,Osili& - • - "Yl o tr- .. 11- ...?.,e. ,,,I. • -,....: _
. ..:44 - -- 144 4 -.' :'-....-*;.:? 0 : . • "4, - .- r/i L
X 1 - ai 2 , %t
.... _ .0-, - i i
1 - ......, . 4, .... i t f ,,,„ , ..1", . .• II p gir . . ,. ,__ .. . - .,--
rti - • , . - f" 0 .1-
‘ # ..‘Fr T . - - • - ..4.k ....'•."-' - t ' . •
..,;. .-:... A • - -. ... 0 . - -vorsew 14
tueo.ac,-r pRopaR 7T f:ij -.! -'7- . < .. 4.2 ,....
„r- ..te.,. . - Pe
• • ' ik fiela - " ' ' . . . • ' - N' t a ,
.,.. .._ ...,..
,, .., ...„... „.. •• •••.,.. „..6 ,4:z... .1!
fit ,
NI ' - ' .,.. .., IP - w v , • ,
• , 40ENAt.. ,f'.!•_ : - .- .. II
i i ■ , i ;4,, I t( . . • -- • . . s' IV - . " P'
z . : ,„.. - .m: 4! . s k, 4 ' ...,11 - ••
/ C? LiSa• k. • it . 4 . .'N's %,,, l if t 4 A. tUti:;:. i 14,
, ztis
,) . .-
( . - . •••.. I am , V I .
.. -* -.
' 44. . e. J.. 116 "Vgg,
. t.i4" ,.., , , r„ ■ Illprjp Z "if , 0 ' ( AtiNi. AI ..; 111 2 .. 3 . _,,,
- 111,44 • 4 -.
- i:- \''r-*-. -; t 4 '' . - .. -, '*". . . g•
•... 174.4f.- .,.P... 6 4 ,,i hk
1 3 it ;...alk, .:.gc . . T ris . ; •. t. - '
1 . 2 H a C , .... • --:. .w. , .-714:... , . -:. ,
t. t • .71,
• )( .‘ ' *••• . 1
• . : . *. • ...s,,,, . . . , „ 1 . ..;s . . ' k .. ' )1 , , :.• • 41 AIR '...ppoWir•Vnali ....
. .. 1 4...... - .k. . • •^ • ' . ; "a Viamit Arri ...11k44. )4 , .- ■• Ii .., 7 ,,,„,,,,. .„.
.,.....,... ...
.., . ...... ,..,. , .. .._ ,,....„.....,..,,,,. . iir - . Aro . • . • . 4.44 ,..1 - "Arit
4 'Z • '44 ‘: 5 .... I le , ft, . ` Il , ...' , . ..; , , i A • N .
. .. ,...••■• .... .. : • tw. 1401: . . . 4tf . m••• J , •.>. iiii.,... -. .1), - Ine .4
.$ : 4 i . ., .41..,, • d ,„.. 11
. ■ •■• • • '',., qi At . ......!`. i : . • r.,11
'.'' . , Ik20)..:." k ,.....,,, • . . - gv".••:4 ..". - ... 4 14,• • • n • - .1 -....:,,,,, ,.‘,11 ,-1. ,V,i7 . ,,:,.• - .13- 21 .
..,
....• .,-, t et,. 4 :40 .'. a di am ti,k, ;Z:IS, , _,,,,.!... .. ;.:44 'hr. s
. . 4 -a ..: .' ..: ^ ., • .• • . 4 ... I' , it ..• • k.,- ___„e TIN, v p,...`x. - tric,;agu‘ • • ..
41110 •.' •- .1. 41
- p 0 !'. • . A .c *I s . 1. . 4" ?"%.06 '14 . ''' 4 07.4:! ' . e'l-t i - .4-4; -:84-: . . -- l '" 4 -
. --- .5 ‘ 14 4,., : •., .....,....,:-......• •• ,...„...,..4,(,:ci..„0.1 .... .0........ . ... ,
, • k - - • a • 4 .4 4 4 ;•:ir i i.a.., : ,-..3 t . * '''. • ' *.S :41 ' • Ok
....' ;
• .6.- * • *
. .. - 44 , .1. . i e . . . . b..
tO • Oe -3' ' 4 /74 7 4$ r n i. * - * • .%•': . ' • * ,.r •
f "tol• ..'! ' ' '. : - .' . ...
Te :4-''' ,•.„4. • - -
. .
.
v .., ,,,.
k • •
k., :. • • , 4,•,,,...4.„... f .. ti . •-• f.....- •
4 i. - . • - •
1 O.. • /
• • • .i ' "•‘• .. . Wil , ;at. .0 ..'. '=-a , - t f.• - 0'. .
i . . . ■ *-• ff . • . "' .. • IV : 7. • '''
' e i • ..
A . •
Ili, • ,.. --? - •
. , • to
X .•
A , . , 0- '--,;•.,)
.... • • - . -...... , • .... . ..• :.
. . L s B ..
-, ., - -,•.--- ''''''''''''' itC . - •
....it: ki.,.....41 -. ..- ..
., 2 r• -,.. - ... ,11 • . • - A - .....t ., ,Y 1 ' . *Ali r '. ' ..-- .0
• ..„,•_,„.„ • ,,, - '' -4•V'Ei.. , 1/ F U --
......:.•; . - ,v...., ..,.. • .A -
. 111 .01.- . ....•.-. 4 1‘....."••• • ..
...IA ' •••••.:■* 7 r "Ai.'!••
, f, i .f.t It g • . 't(116C F.1 • rik:41.... iira•Pt.tJ *
....
-.!..... . . • :,
jer„...
. . 0.,...•
4 • . 0' Zr - y.t." ' V , /
,.... lirt ■ ...7-
,‘,. 14 ..:•• . 4/
A 1 . • Ogb'
0 41 t
1" •••'• . 4 / i n„ . .
• . A 4. .44 , . j ,t, . ai ri.; , ' • ..._ .
- le 1 4
- ■ .
:.,.•., le... ,
/ ..-- t • .• ,, . . ir "' ' ii-' .-
. - .- ' - T , „ - ..., 1' ' i .- . • ..•
• A
I (. 1 i • .
• / • /' 4 .. ..
IOW
• $ t 0
4. 1 \ • .4 al 4. ft
•
q i e lifillirr ,... I ' ‘ IP .• \ \\ • • I
a 44 r ) I 4 J ill t
-it . . .•....... *Z.' S :. , ••• „
..1
• !it - • ' _ 11..'
Established in 1962
1
lif LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC.
LAND SURVEYORS
REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA
f B�NO NO 533112
SCALE 1" _ '�'
o Denotes Iron Monument
O Denotes Wood Hub Set
7601.73rd Avenue North b60 3099 For Excavation Only
Minneapolis. Minnesota 56428
A x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation 1
Q Denotes Proposed Elevation 1
icru>rgur,� ft ev1Lflt ie Denotes Surface Drolnoge
L.D.X. DUILDERS Proposed Top of Block
' Proposed Geroge Floor
1
Proposed Lowest Floor
Type of Building -
\ 1
. , \
., '
i
_„p / , � 1
I.
b' ..,..l.„, �' \ I:\
1
• / j
WA 1
....---- ti,.. 7. - ... ..------ ----\\ .......------- - .....„----
\ ?\( e ,,a • ;� ' ;, J / / / � I � / \ t 1 ` . O •� , 1 ,--- O f
1
' `v ��,/ .. •-• • \
1
, - O -- W �_
�a
S Q ��
1 ✓%
le\
a P \ I
\� P
y 1
•
1
Lots 2919, through 2923, also Lots 2877, through 2881, CARVER BEACH, 1
Carver County, Minnesota
1
•
The only seasrtrnts shown ars horn plats of record or InfomsUon provided by i'
client 1
nt �'
boundaries nasty pertly that this Is a b m
true and correct nprssont of b survey a of the / a .i -G�1/'!/�
�\
bounoartas w a n,. above aadescribed >ed lend and the location of all cation a �i buildings gs g. snd rtvie. SiteC ( ,� • �A�►t .
f
ibis enere wronta. if srty, fro or on bald tend. d r
Surveyed by llth of of Nov ember t0 92 1
ymond A. Prosch Minn. Reg. No. 6743
\\,.\...,, ■,... ,;.,,.. . 0 400 ,
:c.,, '•.,-., •
ON'S
il ..'"
..--'" IMPERIAL IR `.; - - -
_. ._ .
.
li.g. •
.,
-,...... .
" -....:.---- •
I I 1 1 ' , -t . _:" G - - "75-
-- ii‘V
A ° 001;371)1
' -- ' -1 ■ - i ---. --- . .- -■ -------- */, 0 Oil 4\
0 Vkk 1:1.
•.....'--.„
--- .---.. .
' \ --.........
1 1
1 I I 1 —451
11 i i i % \\
...____ - ....._
•
PONDEROSA DRIVE !ir''' ■
%
_ .,..401 VI C A % \ V il % 171*0110" )2
.' .
.;., , I „ i 1 1 I • 1 NMI .......,,,,, ;...-_„. , 11P ..5.
ao l e)
l! W ill illi .
GLE DR \ \
- - \ ■
LONE 4. EA • -- ■I''
\\
II P IP •00. -.,„ -Pcs*OillitO1/4 ili I I II II \ litkoi 40
0 .
...- v
----,• * 0 I i j 4.:4 i t\lil%\t i v g i %110_ _ , 0 0 4 C - - - \ \ i
WOOD .7 +ILL DRIVE 701.4.04
\
I • 0 000 00; 44. VIP ..--;.---..
• . 'eA .•" _ ow--k;„„0,... ', 0 .,.,........_
, 1 1 4 ”. '100 100., __,....s.„0 , _4, _ ______. ...,,.... si500/.e J t
i ' 2 3 . .':, 4 5 . trk,,.:•:g: '‘ .. • -- 0. Co: o .........--- ,
oui -k_0 1 ' ' vink.;. ,aic•A. I C? : ,
Irk.:.::...:4 _ i% . __-
, ... . ...... ,..,,• ,..._ ,:•••- • - .. .
. ii 14 4: . .....• . : :•:::.:•.:"::,:i:::? , ::::::::•::'•?::-..----.. ,t.ii
..- 0 , ‘ 16.-;:.:00. 01,44, ..,. •
• 7 :JON A. LANG
, • j•• 9so I C • 7 .. F NO 15965
2 PREA 4 NESS s
' L 4 4/6, 9 -147 4..:‘, 44._. VitIorp•-\, m "" . 7,2 ;89 CC..114C::14"4:.1.6.:
— . . *IV VI% Itlit N 3
8q° I 29 IN
' 'i 4 ■• • ■■' NA
i ... . l
9 8 1 f i l OW - -.6. 4 U1v000 14°‘Akik° .
14 • . . II
. .
. ' ■
OUTLOT , • A
• ' - , . .., , ,
,
K.. ESrA7e , , • ;
.:.. ul-_, -- ffr - oeec - +/ .,
. •
. . t i.., . , , . . .
, . .
.•
am . low swvoirtveli. 4Iiii'l 14a .........; Illis.. , ..i. . .
111111 MI ... ION
1
TYPICAL TRENCH EXCAVATION LIMITS 1
1
1
PROPERTY 1
LINE 1
40FT. R/W 1
1
K 20'
1
� Im ply
I
j>--
10 SLOPE EXCAVATION LIMIT
EXISTING WATERMAIN 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 it =
, .... :
■ tl L .-1
4 .'f
I, r
- t
1 , . s
:,.- .7.- *: .• a . , ' T i
r...,. • - -i. .. ..:
• • A - -- ill. - ;.- - , •• , ::
" Wzdiii=:;i4 iiiii.,;:,. ` - .. . -,,,,„ •
, ,..• .
, , ,. „ , p ,,.,:! i ...1 : -...
,
,•,-
. ,. : :T•iii•tlrotr,"rnew - . - -- , i., f, ,:, 'it',,, r..„:1•:
; ii'l 4i A ..,i i I • 1\ 1
I n t111( :','
. i 1 `. • Min: . liiia E I li,', qt : ; ;, j --
Ism , 'ais '- oil lit!. 41iii it
1. i i di . • N .,
1
, , , rommiis NeE•.•:, •'.11,;. 1,11..,t,'.,.
ilic.; 1 111111112'
. _
, tau 1 „1, ,
-
,
1,, 11,1111 I
'I II! i . ,, 7. Willi i l - . I Ii.:1•11....j 1 i: 11 1111 •
1 ___ 1 ''l I
. i A .11141 i ■:1! .
I ! ,* - 11 4•10; 0 •
1 • 1 i ' i l:11 ' 1 : ■ %; i ;
■ .! . ....:„....'e . ....._. L _ .„ \
1 : . .1 . ' 11111 : alginIM : \ . l I. 1.C.. 1 1 • C. II
. ' I . .. n ..1 11 / / 111/1/1!:" '' ■
• 1 .Crealill...
Ll' I' l ' I 1 ;1'1' 1 1 1 ; 1. i• 1, -- ,•
— ow,
.. . E: •hia, . ' I 1,. : Iiii,:if IN - 1 ,:i. ,
_______i 13- . • 1 . . i
H - ,_. '..r.k. . - , ! litil_ 4 -: . . .i 01 i IV, i
# i' I . .. -7 :- . 41,:r. : ;• 1 74- - . s.- kin i:i -. - ' 1; - .11
:.•- %; 7.- \ .. . „ ..
;• al§ 1
-,,,....., `TrammosTitari■ \ ;,
, t• I
. 'I :: .: . . ‘ 1 1 . I ' '' 1 1 , • •
.pgi, . . 1__:_, • i, • .1 i...;.:
i . t...• , . . 1
,
7 c
l'
,-,
• , /.i
. ;.1...., . . , .
1 , ,
. 7 2 2 , - •
• I . --- -1 ! i I 1
/I
1 • .
. 11• i : 7 • ' ! '
I 1 1ll 1
V I .
., .■ ,
-
I t - " lil r 1 I
,•
. _ ' . t ,
, • •
'
. I I 0 ; • I
I'
I ) .
' —
1 111 -- 11
t 1
1 • •• .: ,I . I III; 1\ r•
illF1 1 , III 1 ! f\I 1
i i 11' ' ■ '' ''
I - .-. i . It) .. ',. ( 1. .. e . !- .. ' ' ,.., : : ,:11 , ,,. 1:: ,:,, 1 , I 1 i ..,.., ■ . '..,
II
........... .- . . ,
. 01:',::: f'-it-,--. -....,-.:A,V I r \}.. !t.: •,:.'''' r -4
c i ' ' VIA 1 . - ::-,•..t.:-..;; ' • . t. .
... . —. . • ''' ' ' • . N ir
,
- ; ft .- . -
li 4; ,
Iv .
41
. ■ :1 t i
• rT, _ ' --:
.— ... ■ LY •-
.1 ..
I
1
1
1
,.. .,.
6,„,--„ \ i__. I ,
r r.
1 ' il
:
, ,,, •
T
it 1
I TF14177 ------
_
....
7P-f 74?: .
. — 1 • r —
r - t f
Ta _ _• _ . 1/4 . 1. , ",
—
' r_
I. .
In .
44 1
. I
u . I
. ' I
! t
....: 11
1 i
FS
•••1
:PtL !
? I'
X .4 ;
1
V
•
IL_
C
il
i 4
1 c
i
. ,.
■ •
, •
' .
:
E.
c\
i
15
; -e . 6 i
_ .
• - . — \
r
5 ti
1
; 1
1 ,
i
i 1)
,/,,,,,,
./
/
it 1 I
1
1
1 . i
------ It- -- - -. 1 LI ---- -- - &
i: 1 • - i
. )-1- •
I
■ ,_. i • L:
z
' — "
\ i F1 1 . -- -.-
i .
I
I _
r • ,.. , .
I
II .1
v.
i v■ ,i, 7LT &
t'l —',. f -:-7 -,!' r2 ,
; r
. rs 1 t- V r ,7
; i ,..... ,- r . ., e ) '1'•
I r z v -,.......1-• '• ; 8 % r
ti r C • . "' ,:pr-r, x 1,, ;
C
.-C - ' C i',, N .t. V 1,-A _ g :1 ,I,, 5, - •
II (Z:
, .. c•cs ,, c., •,,, .
$
...: I'
I
_
1
1
1
1
. .
_ 4 .______. I-
1 , i
. 1111 . MIII
.
;
I
g 4 A
11 11 1 ' il I • r
. 11
. p
I '7 ,
4 f
I I 4 11F-r t i l
i ' ----.-
• I
1 '
1
, '!,. I/6 !I , : • ,i, I - ---- - ' '''. — , r
.
I 'f
1 . ....
.......,- 0 . C:3 1 - 4 i
1,-- ....,.,..........,. . -_- 7_:: za - r t.,,, If •;;;
1 '
je 4 .. - - 4 . 11141 .......7,0 - • -, ,, ,, r..• /
I . \
: 1 • , ' i =NCI '00 Ir......■..... t
i .
11 ;141
;!) Fj- I
2. 4 ........„141 0'
.. .
1
' 42
'Fl \ s 1 • lo< 4' '
p. f%
. i
...
(v V'r I 1 NJ. F
15 . x f - ‘ ;,1 :-t 'cq ii
i ..,
—
- r.s. ,
••:] 0..0
I 1 4
•. r y • -
...._
-.- - -A
I, ..0._ ...
b . .i.
• „..-. ,
- ,::- de - '&04
_ )4:
...,
• - c t\ 111104119.1 A 7 ': ''-'•; ',,
I MI
1 —.4-
i -MEM= .g• 7 t it ' f ,
...
,. • .-
/ ly:.(,* - . -
V • • i r • . %. :,.,_
I
1
.
r . I § "te f_f_ ( $ Tv•I..1"0‘,5 Z
■ --4 :
' ' •" It
7 N
' I
.4 la . § f A
' Zn.
-T.
v.,
id•-• '' Ligii.
;• t• f
.. .T, i •
(.:
I \ 1' ' — — : —
I .: •
i ..,:/; . .1 I N
IF .,
S • ,
S. i 1 \
.'\ .
. i A . 11ir
/ 0 i / / . ' ' .
1
11 . 1
. ....- ..-4 •
I i 4 i • t . .. i . f....:•• . . • • ‘;', V
\ : _ ,-; " ..) . ____, 1
i
1 r.
.b • J1 t'l -
, r
, t
• "I ' I
`
11 • -14.4:4? -11
ai.e....
._..i.„, _ 1 ... r ; --_-.:-. 0 .1.
.z • . ..., #-"- in f r-1
li N • .4 ic 5 •••••.1c-b•
iv .TI
• - .
•
: ,- •
I .. L!:
—
—; :
if '.,
a. ..A ,11 " _
tj uk ,
,. E .., . .„
..:- N 11 . , A' , / .
. (II 1 V - . ...
VA': IA
..". ..S-
- C‘ .
* kl,
f -ii i -• - 1 °-
I ..1. .10)
1 .I 7 F • 1
• • ..; - T
‘T• i i.,,,-.., ..,!re. 1 3
._.: r, :: -- — -= ' • •
i 2 i,
.ir.....0.., . . ; , , l }
........
.-.. . g 4," 4+4 inagneint i l
- .. ■... -
.4. f
• ' 1
I
1 ;
,. tr -i . 4•0
. e........1-
1 1
1
I
..
1 --- - - zc.L -a
.-- - ,
1 I .
-. -
... 1.... ...•
1
.
t --------' - -- — - 1:-- - - - -- . — —
1
44 .
I I n
•
t
. 2 .0 4 44 ^BC 41
, • 9
1
l / / / '10
\ ‘ i
[ . I l ';' 14 I . t If' •
! I 1 I. . 4 6 1 '11 r,‘E)-----1
) t .
I.
..._ fril.:7;; ' .....1. ,
..........,*
P W .. ■ : k1 ,, - . .: ! • - '.
sockery . .
1 . ; • tf? , 1 _ --• • v
_. 1 t I
lit.
I , ---a--.--,._...
i lit. • ...
\,.., i R, ...- 1,..• .r. •.2.
.......,_,,
•
( ,..v.. 4 . 1 .
• I - ! .. D , . •
, . i
• - g • ! . pi , A ,1, _ ..
v r --
IMP `, ' •
— , . • iii , ..0r. 11 •
I air= i
! ..0
i sINt ! • ,
1 I 41r 4 ! r7 • . -- i i .11-
.
• 1 lis .
I
. . til i viik r. #
. - I , f ,o t • . --...,, pi i
• 1 , . 1- , , _.._.
, • ,,, _____E . 4 ,
— . 4:4.
:. t • '.,. 4 / 4 I -4 41
II
tr, 14
- -- --- -- - ...., .... . , / t• t.
* • .0,
i •••••■1*. 126111116wp .• '''' . f
4t. • - ' e l fa,. . j,it
. k Tv_ .. i trAVAI
• 6
0, III
. ...
6,,..,_ 1 1 : - ', . ,.., • . . -,- 1
fffl- I .
i • t ,1% .. ,.
4 i . c ■ N
• .r.___, . ,,,... _ 1 .
- - . ■ .
tp 1. ti I
- .
; at
! Irt ii. ;g , "lprIP
j i . c 1 a f ii3111 t
.---,_
k . N • U . j al 5'
• -
tt IL . • . L 01 ..
1 I MT" . .., *I - I • ...--::-.... 1 - ..,. . :
---
. , 4 A) .g • , 1- Ze . ' ,
ti .1 •:-
, r ai, 4 let
iii gall ---.. "; ). s. .-
. 1
• 1
; )
i I _- P;
_ ! ,
I . .. .. 7-
0'
. . / r
/
i .. r-- Aamxr.T----
• .
F I
.
1 I
I
• ..- , it ZZio II : 2CA g
i • I ' ..
4b 4 • ...•••■;•.•
i 1
• 1 : 7 ; 1 . ik 1;01 ..■■
,. .
4. .
. .......
. .
• . . •
I
.
N - )
1 • . 1 . s.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 . ..r
, ':•r',A • .
.. . .i
111 .
• .i:
• , !.. , 1 ,1 . 1 .\
..:, \ A
'
. - 4
1 Lit -- 1 . • V- ,
.. .1
MI 1 t . I /
tr . .-
to
,..
1 .
111 li
E
- i
r • ,, ..-.
i : f
r t: 7
., ..._ .t....,„.
1 .
....
a
1
. r•-•--1
- 7
•
1
. 1
1
.-......,........4T- - ...)
.. '
i ,/ t.,)
r ...
IN I ' / ,,■
I
* IS'
.. ' :.,..•:,..,. ,
1
1 431 !va l ' i - 4 '. ii - 1 .
0 -
. i 1t3
1 ;
t • ■M• 11■• • • q 11
l;=E f 11
1 1 ..
1 A i
1 1
il
.
I —IF1
4-,
I
1
Variance Requirements I
•
8. Request to allow the rear boundary of proposed home to exceed set
back from wetland requirement 4 feet, with an additional amount of I
20 feet from rear boundary of proposed attached deck, the total
amount is not to exceed 24 feet.
9. a. Variance request is due to undue hardship. Several previous 1
attempts by other buyers to purchase said property have been
unsuccessful because of the set back requirement of 50 feet from
1
the arbitrarily chosen 929 feet elevation requirement. The current
visible wetland perimeter is considerably farther away than what is
dictated by the elevation. The proposed plans have been modified to I
best accommodate the property boundaries, i.e., positioning, reversal
of plan, and change of plan. Observance of all set back requirements
inhibits the use of the property for the proposed plan.
Please note that the front -to -rear slope of the property indicate
that it is best suited for a walk -out floor plan. The house plans
require 2 to 3 rear exits, some of which will be 4 to 8 feet above the
ground level, requiring a deck to connect the exits, so the deck is not
1
a cosmetic luxury it is a necessity for the home to be fully utilized.
b. Adjacent properties had sufficient land area and /or no wetland 1
restrictions as not to require a variances.
c. The purpose of this variance is only to allow the addition of the 1
proposed plan to the property.
d. We do not currently own the property P
so the hardship is not self-
I
created. The sale of the property is contingent upon the approval of 1
the variance.
•
e. The purpose of the variance is to allow the addition of a home to 111 the said property, no detriment will be caused to other land or
improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed plan is consistent
with the values of the surrounding dwellings. 1
f. Proposed home plans are not unreasonable and do not pose threat
to adjacent properties in any way. 1
1
1
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
II PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6921 YUMA DRIVE. CARVER BEACH:
A. DISCUSS POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF THIS PROPERTY FOR STORMWATER PURPOSES.
B. FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE AND WETLAND SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. SHANNON TERRY.
i
1 Mayor Chmiel: This is some'hing that was just at the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals. To cover and discuss potential acquisition of this property for
stormwater purposes. The other portion of it is the decision was to grant the
' variances on this with the two variances involved. The 10 foot variance, 20
foot setback and a 16 foot setback from the wetland. Who would like to go
through Paul?
II Paul Krauss: I'll take it Mr. Mayor. We became involved with this property a
couple years ago when a potential home placement was being proposed and started
to look at acquisition of it at that time. The idea was dropped and was never,
I the home was never proceeded with and it was also before we had the surface
water management planning effort largely completed as it is today. As the Mayor
indicated, there is a variance request that has been approved. Now it could be
' appealed to you on the next item but it has been approved to allow a home to be
placed on this lot and the lot's outlined in the black. On that map. This lot
is severely impacted by wetland. It does have a small area of high ground that
is potentially buildable. The variances that have been approved do allow a home
II to be placed on it. What we try to do is go in and try to anticipate. We
talked to a number of you that, to look at the possibility of, is this lot
useful for the city to improve water quality and water protection in that area.
II Interestingly enough, we had already gone into some significant planning effort
in this area because this is one of the projects that we wanted to take care of
this spring. And it is a part of the drainage system from Carver Beach into
Lotus Lake. There is a real scarcity of area to put sedimentation and water
11 qulaity basins in this area. Now the plan that was devised by Bonestroo
Engineering would raise, as I recall, raise the elevation of this wetland. These
two wetlands essentially work together. I don't think they're really that
I divided in reality and eventually they drain down into the lake. The idea is to
increase the size of the dike here to back more water up and get more retention
time because that's one of the last remaining possibilities for intercepting
' water before it dumps into Lotus Lake and carrying a lot nutrients and sediment
with it. Now that was on the program for this year. Potential acquisition of
this property would facilitate, would give us a few more alternatives. There is
II a fairly significant amount of storm water that does come across this property
and a lot more could. If we look ahead to one day needing to rebuild some of
the streets in Carver Beach, which obviously don't meet anywhere near current
standards, and incorporate some drainage provisions. • Some curbing and storm
1 sewer, we could force a lot more of the water into a potential basin that could
be built there. So it does have some short term benefit. It could have more
long term benefit to maintain and protect the quality of Lotus Lake. Now while
' we think it's a useful thing to consider acquisition of this, I honestly don't
know where the funds would come from. We do have the surface water utility fund
out there. For those of you who were in the budget sessions last fall, may
recall that I indicated we had 3 projects on tap for this year and part of it
II was to fund the potential hiring of a filling of an engineering position to work
this program. In part work this program. That basically flat lined our funding
for 1993. The program under the current funding level, with the funding level
8
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 ,
that was set 3 years ago when we started out does not provide us sufficient
latitude to going out and acquiring properties unless we do it at the expense of
not doing projects that we had slated for this year. So while I would encourage
you to think about acquisition, I'd also encourage you to look for other sources
of funding because it really is not available in the SWMP fund. At least not
without making some concessions elsewhere. I guess that does it for me. I can
explain in more detail I think, I can try to explain how this might work if we
do get ahold of it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Senn: A coule real quick questions now. Is that, where does the
storm sewer empty into the lake?
Paul Krauss: Actually it's an overland flow. Charles, you might want to help ,
me on this but what happens is, you've got a line coming from here. It comes in
here and then out, there's a double line and out in the dike there...
Councilman Senn: That's not where that culvert is?
Paul Krauss: Yeah. '
Councilman Senn: It is where the culvert is? Okay. Second question. If we
were to acquire the parcel that's there, can what you're suggesting be done
anyway? Or is this plan predicated upon the acquisition of that parcel?
Paul Krauss: No. We had assumed not. We had gone ahead and designed the
program to get the improvement without the use of this parcel. And what that '
meant is some compromises to this wetland. Essentially what we're doing is
we're raising the elevation of this dike and backing up more water in here.
You're basically sacrificing this wetland for the lake. Now, that may be a
reasonable thing to do. Acquisition of this property gives us a few more
options. We can actually pre -treat the water before it gets into the wetland
and achieve what we'd like to while minimizing damage to the wetland, and 11 probably don't have to build as big a dike while we're doing it. Those kinds of
details need to be worked out but Bonestroo has that in their model and we can
juggle that around.
Councilman Senn: Okay, but one is not predicated on the other then? Okay.
Those are the only questions I had for now.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael, do you have any questions? ,
Councilman Mason: First comment, being a Carver Beach resident. And just when
is the City planning on putting curb and sewer into Carver Beach? I can hear
that phone ringing now.
Paul Krauss: I was about to suggest that but. ,
Councilman Senn: Everybody call Mike Mason.
Councilman Mason: Is that in the hopper? '
9 1
1
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
Paul Krauss: No.
Councilman Mason: You know, as many of you know, I live on the top of that hill
and my concern about a home being there, and I know this has some implications
as to whether it's a buildable lot or not. I've been down there in a rain storm
and I know how much water. All of Carver Beach goes through there. I don't
know how close the perspective buyer wants to live next to water. I think
' that's an issue but then we have it platted as a buildable lot so this is, I see
this as a can't win situation for everybody. So I think we need to hammer it
out. If the funds are available, I would certainly like to look into acquiring
' it just because, well for two reasons. I think being a member of the SWMP
committee, I see some benefits there. I'm also concerned about what's going to
happen to a home and a perspective homeowner that builds on that lot.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah that, if I could just touch on that. As you sitting in on
the conversation, that's why I wanted to make sure that the City does not have a
problem or will have a problem at a later time by putting in that hold harmless
clause. And you're probably right. There is a good flow that goes down there
without any question. But on the other hand, if it can be a buildable lot yet
and they don't have those concerns, I guess I'm still open. Colleen?
1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I have a more basic question. How much money are
we talking about?
Paul Krauss: We honestly don't know.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Not even ballpark?
II Mayor Chmiel: I can see the price going up.
Paul Krauss: I can't verify it but Sharmin is telling me that the purchase
' agreement was something on the order of $20,000.00. Now there are two parties
involved here now. There is the underlying owner and the people that wanted to
build the home, which adds some light of complexity to it.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: And in your opinion, is this necessary or it's just
kind of convenient given all the circumstances?
M Paul Krauss: There is definitely a potential benefit to be gained by having it.
Our flexibility does improve. We can work this project probably a little
better. Do more things. Accomplish a better level of protection for the lake.
We have a method of getting it done without it that's probably a little more
costly. Well, in terms of construction dollars. Not acquisition dollars. And
will result in some more damage to that. Basically 'it's a balancing situation
' where you sacrifice the quality of that wetland for the lake. Now that's often
a reasonable compromise to make but what we're doing is dumping a lot more water
into that area. Also in the future, there is a lot of water that comes down the
' street from Carver Beach and behind the homes and between homes, it's just all
over the place. It's just not directed very well. At some point in the future,
there's going to be a need to direct that somewhere.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Particularly with curb and gutter.
' 10
r
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 '
Paul Krauss: Yeah. Well, curb and gutter's probably the way to go. There's
just too much water flowing around too many homes for it to work forever. And
at that point we may need to acquire easements across this property or parts of
this property to get the water to where it needs to be. There's always that
possibility.
Councilman Mason: You're saying that if we move to acquire that, that wetland
will be damaged more? Is that what I'm hearing? 1
Paul Krauss: No. No. If it's acquired, we have the potential of damaging the
big wetland less. Lowering the impact. Basically you can construct a pre-
treatment
basin on the area of what is sort of high ground on this lot outside
the wetland.,
Mayor Chmiel: Actually you're saying there would be more retention time there
before it eventually goes into the lake.
Councilman Mason: Before it goes into the wetland and then into the lake. 1
Paul Krauss: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? '
Councilman Senn: I guess two more quick questions. The property is zoned
residential? ,
Paul Krauss: Yes.
Councilman Senn: And the person has been paying residential property taxes?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Senn: For quite a number of years I'm assuming?
Paul Krauss: Yes. And it also does have assessments against it. '
Councilman Senn: And they've been paying those assessments too?
Paul Krauss: To the best of my knowledge. Do we know if the assessments are '
current?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: I don't know. 1
Paul Krauss: We're assuming that they are.
Councilman Senn: So if we look at acquiring, you not only look at, in effect ,
acquiring the property rights of two different parties at this point but you're
also probably looking at issues like that too.
Paul Krauss: Well the City would basically, yeah. Eat the hook up charges that
would have gone against it.
Councilman Senn: It sounds like this gets real expensive real quick.
11 1
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Yes. Please just state your name and your address please.
Margaret Rossing: I am Margaret Rossing. I own this piece of property. I live
in Long Lake now. You have questions regarding the assessments and those kinds
of things. That property has not been assessed per se. What I was told way
back when. I thought I had done my background work. I came into the city. I
said, will I be able to get a, if I find a buyer for this property, will they be
' able to get a permit to build on it. They said because it was split way back in
1984 to give another man part of it, and I was left with the rest and because
I'd been taxed on it as a residential lot, that it would be indeed a buildable
l site. Well, so as far as the assessments are concerned, they have not been
paid. The only thing I think that has been paid was a road fee type thing. We
were assessed a small amount in the beginning for that. I have not paid the
' taxes because they are astronomical, so I have back taxes on it. This puts me
in a real bind because I've got all these bills coming at me and I have no way
of paying for it. I can't sell it. I can't do anything. I feel like I'm
between a rock and a hard place and I would really like to get some input from
somebody as to what I can do about this. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Shannon Terry: My name is Shannon Terry. I'm the perspective buyer of this
property. I currently reside in Hopkins. I do have one question concerning the
issues of the drainage for those two wetland areas there. Do we have any idea
what water level's we're speaking of. Is it going to encroach? Is the wetland
going to move farther out if that's done in the future as far as redirecting the
water flow through the wetland or is that elevation going to stay at that level
that it is right now? Any idea on that? My concern basically is putting a home
there. Is it going to encroach on that in the future and get water backing up
closer to the home or is it going to be okay the way it is?
Paul Krauss: We asked our consultant that question and informed us that the
high water elevation would not be any greater than the wetland edge is today.
Now that's one of the balancing acts here is that we can't really do everything
I that we'd like to do in that water basin because you start flooding out homes.
So that's one of the limitations you have to factor in. To the best of my
knowledge this would be about the lowest home in there. It's the lowest home
that sets the elevation.
Councilman Mason: Well I'd love for the City to buy it but where are we going
' to find the money?
Mayor Chmiel: Therein lies the big question is the dollars and as Paul has
eluded, the fund that I thought we could probably get something from is
I depleted. There's nothing in the fund this year period. Unless our wizard of
dollars knows areas that there might be a couple of dollars around to acquiesce.
Councilman Senn: Don, can we undo what we budgeted the money for and redirect
it?
Councilman Mason: I was just going to ask as a member of the SWMP committee, if
II this is an issue. When are we meeting? The 17th of February?
' 12
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 I
Paul Krauss: February. 1
Councilman Mason: If this would be an issue that would be worth discussing at
that point. 1
Paul Krauss: We can certainly put it on the agenda. Again, what it would mean
is, I mean we've been, I don't want to say pushed but we've been asked to get
projects done showing success for the program and that's been kind of a primary
goal since the program was set up. We now have three projects on tap to do and
between the funding commitments for that and part of that salaried position, not
the full position, we've wiped out the fund for 1993. So if you do that, you
can do it but you're going to sacrifice those other items.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don.
Don Ashworth: If I could respond to both your question as well as Councilman
Senn's. I don't think it's an issue of whether or not we can undo the budget
that has been established. I think it's more so the question of whether certain
funds that we may have done better in than we originally though that we might
have. That is a possibility. The environmental protection fund, I am fairly
well sure it will show a much higher balance than had originally been
anticipated for the end of 1992. One of my problems there is that goods or
services that may have been received or provided in the end of December, we may
not yet have been billed for and if that bill comes in in February, it will
reduce that account as of the end of the year. So we're still looking and
monitoring what our cash balances were in comparison to what we anticipated we
would be at the end of the year. At the end of 1992. If the Council would like
to pursue this, I would suggest approaching it from two fronts. One in which
myself be directed to determine what type of balances we might have and whether
or not those might approach the dollars needed for this type of an acquisition.
Secondarily, that the Attorney's office was planning to meet with the owners and
see what type of dollars we're talking about and potentially come back. I think
we're all sitting with too many if's.
Mayor Chmiel: Too many if's is right.
Councilman Mason: I agree.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly. One of the things I would like
looked at though is, you know I think this is a little bit of a situation where
you're caught between the rock and the hard place whether you like it or not but
at the same time I think we need to look at the overall issue of solving the
ultimate problem. You know we've got 6 of the, what is it 6 of these culverts
or storm sewers dumping into Lotus Lake now. I think our priority is getting
those out. If 2 or 3 of those can be alleviated or treated with the same funds
that it would take to acquire this one parcel, I think that's definitely
something that we should consider in relationship to the exercise here. Because
what I'm hearing is, while it would be nice, it's not essential and that's what
I mean. Being caught between a rock and a hard place. And ultimately I think
that's our goal that we should be working for so I think that's really the light
we should put it in in relationship to the cost issue.
13 1
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: True. I don't disagree with that at all. Plus the fact that, we
on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals had approved the variances for this as I
mentioned before and we can either sit back and table this discussion until Don
' has indicated what balances we have on hand. As well as determining what the
costs are going to be for this property. And so we're right at that one point.
Even though there's been action by the Board of Adjustments, we still could
table this to find out and determine where we're coming from with this.
II Councilman Mason: If we do move to table, I think we have to act as quickly as
we can because I think we both the owner and the seller, I think all of us feel
' like we're caught on this and I share both their concerns. My personal feeling
is, and I'm sure Mr. Terry would not be too pleased with this but I think if we
can buy it, I think we need to at least take a real hard look at it. But I
' think in deference to the seller, we need to give out some information pretty
quickly. But I'd also just like to comment, I like the idea of seeing it, not
saying we will buy it but seeing if there are any funds and then making a
decision based on that. I mean if the money's not there well.
' Councilman Senn: Given the option by the board of building adjustments, is
there a timeframe that now that's been passed onto the Council, that the Council
must act on it?
Roger Knutson: On the acquisition.
1 Councilman Senn: No, not in relation to the acquisition. I'm talking in
relationship to the variances.
Roger Knutson: Well the Board of Adjustment and Appeals has granted. Their
' decision is final unless someone appeals that decision here. So unless someone
appeals that decision to you, that variance has been granted. No further action t
' is necessary.
Councilman Mason: Can we get the information by the next Council meeting?
' Don Ashworth: I know that the financial information can be obtained within 30
days. Within 14 is pushing. As far as potential purchases. Purchase price, I
don't know. Assuming we can meet with the owners but whether or not we can
obtain any numbers or not, I'm not real sure.
Roger Knutson: I think we can learn what the purchase agreement says but as far
' as giving our own appraisal or judging what we think it's worth, we couldn't do
that in 2 weeks. We could try. We could do our best but 30 days is probably
more realistic.
Councilman Senn: I don't think we're talking about getting into full appraisals
and all that sort of thing.
Mayor Chmiel: No, yeah. And I don't think the potential buyer of that property
is in any position to start construction now.
Roger Knutson: I can do this much. We certainly can come back in 2 weeks from
what I would have to do, is meeting with the landowner and saying, let's see
your purchase agreement and then I can draft one that's agreeable to them.
1 14
1
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And how long would it take for the city to work up
some numbers for where we could get the money from? 1
Don Ashworth: I think I could have a pretty fair estimate within 2 weeks. You
know again, there may be some bills out there that I'm not aware of at this
point in time. That's my biggest problem.
Councilman Senn: Again, I'd also like to see that Paul, plugged back into the
plan for those dumps into the lake and the cost that you've estimated in
relationship to alleviating or treating those dumps into the lake because again,
to me that's the key issue. What's the comparison.
Councilman Mason: The SWMP committee will be meeting on the 17th of February so
maybe that could be put on the agenda at least for discussion in lieu of what
Councilman Senn has said and this could be tabled until the 22nd of February. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to make that into a motion?
Councilman Mason: I would make a motion to table the potential acquisition of
said property until, tabled until the 22nd of February and hopefully by that
time the SWMP committee will have met and been able to discuss it and Mr.
Ashworth and Mr. Knutson can see what they can find out. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. 1
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to table potential
acquisition of property located at 6921 Yuma Drive until February 22, 1993. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Paul Krauss: I just wanted you all to be aware, and I think you are, that
should we get a request for a building permit from them, between now and then,
we would have to honor that because it's, a variance has been approved. Now
I don't know what the reality is of building on soils like that in the winter.
If that's a possibility but that is a possibility.
Don Ashworth: My question back to Roger was, any party can make that appeal.
In my own mind, which then once it is appealed it comes back to the City Council
and I know in previous years there has been at issue was if a Council member was
able to make that appeal. In this case I would look at it, if the Council as a
whole is asking to look at it, the Council as a whole is in fact appealing that
decision.
•
Roger Knutson: Maybe the simple way is to ask the applicant if he'll agree not
to pull a building permit until you look at this in 2 weeks. February 22nd,
excuse me. Otherwise you'll have a foundation in the ground when we start
acquiring your property.
Shannon Terry: I don't know. As our situation is right now, our house is sold.
We're living in temporary limbo hoping to find a lot to build on almost
immediately. That's our present situation. This whole process started back in
October, we pretty much started looking at the lot. It's been going on this
15 1
1
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
far. We were hoping that this meeting we'd find out if it's a go or not. As
far as I was told from our builder, we can start building anytime in the winter
with on effect on it at all. Once you get down below the frost line, it's fresh
soil again. Again, I'm not answering you. I really don't know what the status
is...verify with the builder.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I share your frustration. I know we've had, when we
built in Chanhassen we had thousands of yards of engineered fill put in to build
a foundation for our house and it's a headache. You're asking for a big
heahache that's all I can tell you. Really.
Mayor Chmiel: I think with the decision we've come up with, for tabling, I
think we can be comfortable with that at this particular time. The concerns of
' the issuance of a building permit, granted it can be done but I think it would
behoove the owner, potential owner of that property to just wait and see what
shakes out. I think that additional month is not going to hurt one way or the
other, at least in my own opinion. So with that I'd like to move onto item
number 3. Thank you.
REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE EXTENSION FOR JAMES JESSUP. 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD:
' Public Present:
Name Address
' James Jessup 7021 Galpin Boulevard
Don Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Boulevard
' Leslie Tidstrom
Willard Johnson 340 Oeerfoot Trail
Board of Adjustments and Appeals 1
' Sharmin Ai -Jaff: On March 13th of 1989 the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
approved a variance request for a front, rear, both side yards setbacks for the
construction of a single family residence. As construction began it was
discovered that the parcel was contaminated. The City Building Inspector and
Fire Marshal issued a stop work order on October 13, 1989. The contamination
was from gasoline storage tank used for seaplanes operated from the lake. The
tank was removed at the MPCA's direction. The applicant has been unable to
build his home until the parcel has been given a clean bill of health by the
MPCA. Four variance extensions were granted by the City Council for the
construction of the new single family residence. On July 8th of 1989, staff
received a letter from the MPCA stating that the investigation and clean -up
performed on the subject had addressed the petroleum contamination. It also
stated that the applicant could begin construction at this time. 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. The
applicant is requesting a fifth extension. Staff is recommending that the
extension request be denied. We believe that the applicant had reasonable time
to reapply for a building permit and begin construction. He could have
prevented the variance application from expiring by starting construction 7
months ago and allowing the variance to expire is a self created hardship. We
are recommending denial of this extension. Should the City Council decide to
approve this application, the original conditions of the variance approval
should be adopted. Staff would like to point out that today at approximately
' 16
1