2b. Wetland setback Variance 6921 Yuma Drive (2.
C ITY OF
C 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1
1 MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals
' Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I
1 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,
6921 Yuma Drive
1
On January 11, 1193, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals tabled action on this application
1 (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.
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
� 07 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
.1
1 Board of Adjustments /City Council
January 20, 1993
1 Page 2
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
1 Council time to consider public acquisition.
Staff continues to recommend that the Board consider granting the variance for reasons
1 outlined in our January 11 staff report with conditions outlined below. Should the Board
wish to deny the variance request, we have asked the City Attorney to prepare a Findings of
Fact which follows this report.
RECOMMENDATION
1 Staff is recommending approval of Variance #92 -13 for a 5 foot front yard setback and a 31
foot wetland setback with the following conditions:
1 1. The applicant maintain a 15 foot setback from the center of the watermain located in
Yuma Drive.
1 2. The applicant shall reduce the depth of the deck to 10 feet to minimize impact on the
wetland.
1 3. The applicant shall submit a tree preservation plan prior to issuance of a building
permit.
1 4. Type III erosion control be maintained during the construction season along the edge
of the wetland.
1 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
construction and maintenance of the driveway in public right -of -way.
1 7. The applicant shall retain a qualified soils engineer to evaluate the site for the
proposed structure.
1 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.
1 9. A drainage plan shall be submitted for approval by the city prior to building permit
issuance.
1
1
I
Board of Adjustments /City Council 1
January 20, 1993
Page 3 1
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact. 1
2. Board of Adjustments and Appeals minutes dated January 11, 1993.
3. Geotechnical Engineering Corp. report for the lot. I
4. Staff report dated January 11, 1993.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
01%20%93 14:47 $612 452 5550 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 44-> CHA 's, CITT HALL 1 j 002405
1
CITY OP CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
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.
On January 11, 1993, the Chanhassen Board of Adjustments and
'
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:
' 'XNDINGS OF FACT
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
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-
,
01.20%93 14:48 '8`812 452 5550 CAMPBELL KNTJTSON 4-44 CHAN. CITT HALL 2003%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
property"). The subject property is approximately 84,000 square
feet. The minimum lot size in the RSF zoning district is 15,000
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.
r
t
-2-
01.20/93 14:49 $612 452 5550 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 444 CHAN. CITY HALL Z004/005
6. The applicant's proposal, if approved, would result in a
front yard setback of zero (0), and a wetland setback of twenty -
six (26) feet.
7. The applicant's proposal would require access to the
subject property via a private driveway constructed in a public
right of way. This would create a liability problem for the
' City.
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
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.
1 10. The subject property may be put to reasonable use, such
as recreation, picnicking, hiking and camping.
' 11. The average minimum front yard setback of homes within
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-
01.20.93 14:49 $612 452 5550 CAMPBELL KNU'TSON 4.94 CHAN. CITT HALL Z005 005 I
1
14. The granting of this variance would be detrimental to
public improvements (i.e. the existing watermain) in the 1
neighborhood.
15. Granting the variance would create a traffic safety
problem if the platted roads were improved, since the proposed 1
driveway lies in the public right of way.
16. The zero (0) front yard setback would diminish or impair 1
property values within the neighborhood.
DECISION
The application of Shannon E. Terry for two variances is 1
denied.
Adopted this day of , 1993. 1
CHANHASSEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
AND APPEALS
BY: '
Its Chairperson
ATTEST:
BY: 1
Its Secretary
1
1
1
1
1
-4-
1
1
CHANHASSEN ZONING BOARD OF
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
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.
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. Poorly
drained soils. Marsh, which again is usually typical to lowlands. It may
be unsuitable but corrective measures can be taken sometimes by use of
pilings. Surcharging with clean fill. Brining back oversizing building
pads, that type of thing. It's possible that it may not be cost effective
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 an
' organic layer a couple of feet, 3 feet, maybe 4 feet and underneath that
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, maybe
sizing up the width of the footings, that type of thing. We have no idea
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?
' Al -Jaff: I don't know.
Watson: Because even what's considered buildable back there is not dry.
I mean it's not like.
Al -Jaff: Our guess is whoever approved the subdivision didn't.
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
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 1
Krauss: It was redivided .I think in the early 70's, if I remember right'
Was it later than that?
Watson: '84. '84 we split it up and left this very large piece. I mea
I don't know if the assumption was made because it's a large piece, it w
buildable or what. But I'm a little puzzled as to how something like th
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.
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? 1
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?
Al -Jaff: 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 t
put them into something buildable. That one on Pleasant View Road will
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 la
to build on. And I don't know what the City's position on buying it wou
be. I know we don't exactly have cash lying around to buy up wet pieces
of ground. 1
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 t
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 goi
to come back to us. I mean someone someday down the line is going to sae
you gave me a permit. That must mean you thought that we could build
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
January 11, 1993 - Page 3
here. And I'd hate to have my name wearing that confusion. Saying that Y 9 hat I
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
the years that virtually anything is fixable if you throw enough money at
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 has
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 situation.
' 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 inch
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 years
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
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 because
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 making
' 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 us
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 a
house. We're simply saying your plans and your specifications for your
house meet the building code. We're not saying that you have a wet
basement or you won't have water running through your garage. You as the
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 staff
point out earlier. So the mere fact that we give them a variance I don't
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 though because I mean I
live within a mile of this place the entire 46 years of my life. I hate
1
1
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
January 11, 1993 - Page 4
to be embarrassed literally by the fact that things are being done that II
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
repeatedly because something, we have to allow something to be done on ail
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 i
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'
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? 1
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 II
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. I
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 ir
the fact that if the soils are going to need removal, it's a very costlyll
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 problell
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 wi
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. 1
Chmiel: Wetlands are something that we do protect within the city and
have done for a period of years. Only because it's the best thing to II
really do.
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 11
it's there actually doing the job that needs to be done for a lake that's
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.
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 sure
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?
1 Dave Hamlin: Yeah. My name is Dave Hamlin.
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 have
for you guys. Number one, I'm a bit confused because at this point in the
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 condition
is buildable and as is cond'ti ion. 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 and
the setbacks creating a lot that is in essence unbuildable due to setback
requirements. We're not making any representations here tonight or trying
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.
11 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 to
' do soil borings for our own information and find that that lot is a piece
of crap, then at that point we can make one of two decisions. Number one,
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 the
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 of
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 it
that you're jumping this one step in the process ahead of just simply
1
1
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
January 11, 1993 - Page 6 1
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 till
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 i1
Dave Hamlin: To the soils?
Chmiel: That's correct. And my concerns were those specifics. We, rig
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 thell
first place. So I guess I have a few different concerns with that. And di
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
result of the fact that that builder is not participating obviously in all
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. Th
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 II
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 pape
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 comfortab e
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
1
1
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
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
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
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 is
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 for
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 the
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's
how we proceeded to come up with this proposal actually.
Krauss: No, that hasn't changed in this context.
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 wrong,
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 go
ahead with it.
Watson: We're saying it is if we grant the variance.
Johnson: That's right.
Watson: We're saying it's okay.
Dave Hamlin: To build that house on that lot?
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 soils
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
' 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.
Nelson: Right. We won't necessarily deny the permit itself... (In
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
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 hall
also. We don't intend on investing all of our money into a home that's II
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 lis
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 li
samples done at that time whatsoever so we're really, again what we did
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'
unaware of, obviously because I don't live in this area, of the conditio
of the land first of all. And secondly, I guess we need to find out fir
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 II
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 u
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 II
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
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, anothi
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'
out of town, who's the owner of 6911 Yuma who would be on that property'
left. And when he bought the property, and I have lived there right now
1
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 Oiere when it rains. And sometimes it gets to the
point that if we didn't have our Forerunner, it gets very difficult to get
through that water and we have stalled. Also, where that property, where
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 out
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 it
' 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 have
it tested. I'm pretty sure he told me he had it tested. This is based on
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 else
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 airplane
right now on his way home. When he did buy the property, he was told that
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 he
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 square
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 begin
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.
1 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
1
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
January 11, 1993 - Page 10 1
Watson: At this point time I'll just say, at this point in time that loll
is not buildable piece of property.
•
Chmiel: That's truq.
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, y
can do the first motion. If you're signaling out the variance with the r
reason for it and then secondly, you can.
Johnson: Make a motion that the Council review it. 1
Elliott Knetsch: Right.
Chmiel: Okay. 1
Krauss: Normal practice for us, if something is going to be denied is t
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 II
it.
Elliott Knetsch: What you ought to do then is to direct staff to prepay
findings consistent with denial and then you can review those. Are you
going to meet before the next Council meeting then? Well, we're suppose
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? 1
Krauss: It's 10 working days until the next City Council meeting.
Watson: Wouldn't it usually be working days? 1
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 and
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
' voted in favor and the motion carried.
Watson: Now, if we want to direct City Council to look at it, that can be
' 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 we
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 why
we never bought it.
Chmiel: Okay. But there's no intent.
Janis Schultac: There was at one time.
11 Chmiel: Because of the buiidability 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
I 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
11 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
11
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
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 tit.
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 I
occurs when the city purchases land?
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 II
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. 1
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 I
evening.
Chmiel: Yes. 1
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
not the point. We have some concerns with what's there.
1
I/
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
January 11, 1993 - Page 13
Shannon Terry: I have just a couple concerns. First of all, I'm a little
' 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 not
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
really frustrating. It's gone this far. It shouldn't have gotten...
Chmiel: That's the other thing that we're looking at. Potentially
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
possible purchase of this property for use as a drainageway.
Johnson: I'll throw a second on that.
' 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 a
1 drainageway. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
1 Watson moved, Johnson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals meeting dated September 14, 1992 as presented.
All voted in favor except Don Chmiel who abstained and the motion carried.
Watson moved, Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
1 Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.MilhwmW IeideMBA!!!Ff MA MINltlFf'kit!!IFMPEaN1IS� �+ ��;ia�s�s�.: r:: r
.._��.� 1
1
1
1
1
REPORT ON 1
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
FOR
RESIDENTIAL LOT
6921 YUMA ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
0 • 1
1
GEC JOB NO: 89 -21
1
Prepared for: 1
Ms. Marge Rossing
130 Cygnet Lane
Long Lake, MN 55356
1
1
January 25, 1989
1
1
+�0Q1/IrN)II+OIbr____�Yflt • . 146411.Vailliirrhd4...li+igasp16' 1416 �1info AWKL.IL'.
1
C3EOTECH . • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION
Consulting Engineers • Soil Testing
' 1
January 25, 1989
Ms. Marge Rossing
' 130 Cygnet Lane
Long Lake, MN 55356
' Re: Subsurface exploration (GEC Job No: 89 -21)
Residential Lot
6921 Yuma Road
Chanhassen, MN
1
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,
' Lawrence F. Feldsien, P.E.
Vice President
LFF /ck
enc.
II
1
•
II
r
' 1925 Oakcrest Avenue • Roseville, Minnesota 55113 • (612) 636 -7744
Annie Valley. Minnesota • (612) 431 -5266
-i lit ►i r 'mrr 'AY[+'f. l/q `rytamKCn..6~1•0...uvt.w1F} lir _ w
1
I
il
REPORT ON
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 1
FOR
RESIDENTIAL LOT
6921 YUMA ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA II
I GEC JOB NO: 89 -
II
I
CONTENTS 1
I INTRODUCTION
Scope and Purpose of This Report II
Use of This Report
Design and Construction Information
1 Criteria for Suitability of Subsurface Conditions
FIELD WORK 1
Overview
Limitations of Subsurface Exploration
Field Sampling and Testing Methods
II
j Soil Classification Procedures. Sample Retention.
1 The Boring Log
II SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORING
1 Soils
Ground Water II
I CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Suitability of Subsurface Conditions for Proposed Construction II
Recommendations for Corrective Earthwork and Design Bearing Pressure
Recommendations for Continuing Geotechnical Services
II
CLOSURE
EXHIBITS
II
Exhibit 1: Test Boring Information -
Boring Location Plan
II
Boring Log
Boring Logs: Abbreviations, Notations, and Symbols
Boring Logs: Ground Water Information
II
Identification of Soils: Visual- Manual Procedures
Geologic Terminology
General Terminology
II
II
REPORT ON
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
FOR
2 1 RESIDENTIAL LOT
6921 YUMA ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
GEC JOB NO: 89 -21
INTRODUCTION
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-
face exploration program requested by Paul Nelson of Merrill Lynch Realty
and authorized by Ms. Marge Rossing, the property owner.
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.
lir
1
GEC #89 -21 - Page 2 II
1
•
l
1
I Design And Construction Information
I Design and construction information for the house is quite limited. The
1
available design information is based on a conversation with Mr. Paul Nelson 1
and is preliminary. Our understanding of this information is stated below,
I along with assumptions we made when specific information was not available.
The conclusions and recommendations of this report may not apply if the II
1 building is not designed and constructed consistent with these assumptions
and the available design information. 1
1 We understand that the building will:
II
1 ° Be located in the general area of the test boring (the location of the
test boring is shown in Exhibit 1). 1
1 ° Be one or two stories high (above grade).
II
I ° Have a full basement, with the lowest floor level at about elevation 93 it
(i.e. about 4' below the present ground surface at the boring location). P- 1
57
1 ° Have relatively light foundation loads normally associated with single
family residential construction. II
I In addition, we have assumed that the building will:
II
1 ° Be designed and constructed in accordance with standard procedures
applicable to this type of structure. II
1 ° Be constructed in accordance with applicable building code requirements.
1
1
1
1
I/
I
II
2 •
GEC #89 -21 - Page 3
Criteria For Suitability Of Subsurface Conditions
' The suitability of soil conditions for construction depends on the
compressibility and strength of the soil relative to the settlement and
stability requirements of the structure. The weight of a structure (live
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
(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.
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
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.
In terms of the position of ground water relative to proposed structures,
' 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
financing is arranged through the U.S. Department of Housing b Urban
Development, the lowest floor slabs of the house must be at least 4' above
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-
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
frost prone or frost susceptible than others. Generally, clean coarse sand
or gravel are considered frost susceptible; on the opposite end of the
spectrum, soils with a high silt content are extremely frost susceptible.
GEC #89 -21 - Page 4
1
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 1
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 1
we are not involved).
FIELD WORK
Overview '
Our work on the project included soil sampling and testing in the field
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 1
considered accurate only to the degree implied by the survey methods used.
1
1
il .
GEC #89 -21 - Page 5
1
' Limitations Of Subsurface Exploration
The data derived through this sampling and observation has been used to
II develop our opinions about subsurface conditions. However, because no
exploration program. can reveal totally what is in the subsurface, con -
II ditions between borings and between samples and at other times may differ
from conditions described herein. The exploration we conducted identifies
II 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
I layers which are present in the ground may not be noted on boring log.
l
II If conditions encountered during construction differ from those indicated
l 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
I directly related to the scope of exploration. It should be understood,
therefore, that additional information can be obtained by means of addi-
1 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.
1 Thus, most contacts shown on the log are approximate, with the possible
1 upper and lower limits of contacts defined by the position of the
1 overlying and underlying soil samples.
Il il II 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-
11 11
II 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
bedrock.
41
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 1
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
split- barrel sampling tube is driven into the soil with a 140 -pound hammer
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
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 D2488 procedures as described in 1
Exhibit 1.
We save soil samples for 45 days after sampling, then discard them -- unless
we are requested to do otherwise.
The Boring Log
The typed boring log is presented in 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 1
log correctly.
GEC #89 -21 - Page 7
The information on the boring log includes the estimated depth to boun-
daries between soil layers, the geologic description and soil identifica-
tion of each layer, ground water observations and measurements, and
standard penetration resistances (N- values), and other information.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED IN THE BORING
Soils
The general soil profile encountered in the boring (from the top down) con-
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
and coarse alluvium.
Ground Water
Ground water was measured at a depth of about 6.8' (corresponding elevation
of 90) two days after completion of the boring. We emphasize that the
ground water table fluctuates depending on seasons, precipitation, subsur-
face conditions, drainage, etc. Therefore, present ground water conditions
do not necessarily represent the future or past ground water conditions.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Suitability Of Subsurface Conditions For Proposed Construction
We conclude that the subsurface conditions are basically suitable for the
proposed construction. This conclusion is based on 'the results of the
boring, field tests, and the design and construction information.
Recommendations For Corrective Earthwork 'And Design Bearing Pressure
Remove all unsuitable materials from below the proposed building. At this
site, the unsuitable materials are the surficial soils which were encoun-
tered in the boring to a depth of 2 feet. In addition to the topsoil,
vegetation, debris, roots, etc. should also.be removed.
t � _
.rrrr
1
GEC #89 -21 - Page 8
1
To accommodate lateral stress distribution, oversize the excavation and
fill outward to meet a 45° angle from the base of the building footings to
basal soils (i.e. a 1:1 oversize ratio). Elevations of footings may be
lowered to reduce the amount of excavation and fill needed to meet oversize
requirements.
Replace all excavated materials with controlled P tr lied fill to the proposed
finished grades, compacting the fill to at least 95 percent of standard
Proctor density.
1 For quality control, consideration should be given to having a geotechnical
engineer present during earthwork operations to determine the suitability
1 of existing soils and the density of the fill.
Use a design pressure of up to 2500 psf for footings placed on either fill
1 placed in accordance with our recommendations or basal soils.
Recommendations For'Continuing Geotechnical Services
For proper implementation of our previous recommendations in this report,
1 we also recommend that Geotechnical Engineering Corporation be:
° Retained before construction to meet with appropriate parties involved
in the project (owner, architect, engineer, contractor, financial
institutions, and so on) to explain geotechnical findings and to
review the adequacy of plans and specifications relative to geotech-
nical issues.
° Informed of any changes in the design information upon which this
report is based. We should then be retained to verify or modify our
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
/I geotechnical problems that are encountered.
1
11
GEC #89 -21 - Page 9
1
11 CLOSURE
11 Report Prepared By:
1/ ha
66/441\4*
C r es W. B1sek
Project Manager
Under the Supervision of:
i
/ - X44/
11 awrence F. e Isien, P.E.
M N Reg. No. 9103
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CORP. .,,,. 6921 YLkrna Road B9-2.1
1925 Oakcrest Avenue 7373 W. 147th Street SHEET NO. OF
111 Roseville, MN 55113 Apple Valley, MN 55124
(612) 636-7744 (612) 431-5266 CALCULATED BY DATE
CHECKED BY DATE.
1
. ,
. , • 1/
i ' ■ ' ■
i I / . EgiOinj House
1 ' •
' ' 0
1 < i
i• ; ; • ; I
i i I 1
4 1 ,
' i 0
I • i
/ • /
1 - r• ' ,
. i
. .
1 cc
E ,
4 I ! *
>••• ' ,
• !
I '
, •
• Temporary
Beftchma
I WOOD HILL
Basemen+
ROA
flop DC 4exiStInj
11 .••■ _. .. : .• .
hoi.se = 100.0
•
. .
1
1
89
i
A
N
IIII . .
1
—01571— .
i v
I
d
IIII No Scale-
J BORING LOCATION PLAN
41
1
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION 1
1 GEC JOB NO: 89-21 LOG OF BORING NO. 1
PROJECT: RESIDENTIAL LOT; 6921 YUMA ROAD; CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
1
I OE N H, SURFACE ELEVATION: 96 -R N SAMPLE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS
FEET IDENTIFICATION VOLOGY BPF MC TYPE REC. WC DEN L.I P _
L gli
I ,_ Organic soil, black (OL /OH) TOPSOIL M HSA
z-
■ 3 - 20 M SS 9
II 1 4- Lean clay with sand, light
gray, mottled, (CL)
5- ' 10 M SS 14
1 6-
7- TILL II
1 Lean clay, gray, mottled, (CL)
e 13 M SS 18
II
1 s-
lo - Lean clay, gray, (CL) 1
with a waterbearing tense of 9 W SS 15
1 11- silty sand
12- 1 1 Sil sand, gray, fine grained, COARSE
13_ (SM ALLUVIUM 7 W SS 18
14- i
1 15 - Lean clay with sand, gray, (CL) TILL 9 M SS 8 II
I 16 - END OF BORING
19 - 1 20 -
r
2,_ 1
DEPTH DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TOII
0- 14 -1/2: 3 -1/4 "HSA DATE TIME S DEPTH D DEPTH DEPTH I FLUI LE EL LEVEL THE ATTACHED
1 -19 10:30 16 4 -1/2 14.5 wet SHEETS FOR AN I
1 -19 10:35 16 4 -1/2 12.8 11.2 EXPLANATION OF
COMPLETED. 1 -19 -89 12:00 1 -19 11:35 16 4 -1/2 11.2 10.1 TERMINOLOGY
CC: GN CA: JDF Rig: 55 1 -19 11:55 16 4 -1/2 10.1 9.0 ON THIS LOG
01 '
01 BORING LOGS: ABBREVIATIONS, NOTATIONS, AND SYMBOLS
01 (Page 1 of 2)
ill This list defines some of the abbreviations, notations, and symbols used on the
boring logs. .
I II A,B,H,N: Size of casing or core
AC: At completion of boring
CA: Crew assistant
CAS: Casing
ill CC: Crew chief
CONS: One- dimensional consolidation test
COT: Clean -out tube
AI D: Sampled soil appears dry
DEN: Dry density, pounds per cubic foot
DM: Drilling mud or bentonite slurry
! FA: Power- driven flight auger; P- pulling procedures; S- spinning procedure
HA: Hand auger
HSA: Hollow -stem auger
HYD: Hydrometer analysis
LL: Liquid limit
M: Sampled soil appears moist
li MC: Column used to describe moisture condition of samples and for the
ground water level symbol.
41 N (BPF): Standard penetration resistance (N- value) in blows per foot (see note
#2 below)
PAP: Paper plug
ili PL: Plastic limit
qp: Pocket penetrometer strength, tons per square foot
ill qc: Static cone bearing pressure, tons per square foot
qu: Unconfined compressive strength, pounds per square foot
RD: Rotary drilling with fluid and cone -type roller bit
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
ill of core recovered (expressed as per cent of the total core run).
REV: Revert drilling fluid
III SA: Sieve analysis
SR: Skid rig; non - rotary drill (skid- mounted)
III
1
BORING LOGS: GROUND 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
I 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)
1 appears under "Water Level Measurements ":
° 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.
1 ° The cave -in depth, which is the depth at which the measuring tape
stops in the bore hole. ,
1 ° The water level, which is the point in the bore hole at which free-
standing water is encountered with the measuring tape. If free -
standing water was not present above the cave -in depth, the word "wet"
or "dry" in this column indicates whether soil adhering to the end of
1 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 fluid.
1 The water level, drilling fluid level, and cave -in depths are measured with
a weighted measuring tape.
1
1
1
BORING LOGS: ABBREVIATIONS, NOTATIONS, AND SYMBOLS
II ( Page 2 of 2)
il SS: Standard split -spoon sampler (steel; 1 -3/8 -inch inside diameter;
2 -inch outside diameter)
1 TW: Thin - walled tube (2" and 3" diameter)
II VANE: Vane shear strength, pounds per square foot; 1-laboratory; F -field
we: Water content, as percent of dry weight
W: Sampled soil appears wet
II 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
•
W {l: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod and 140 -pound hamper
1 WR: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod
-200: Percent of material finer than 1200 sieve
I 5 : Water level symbol
25: Diedrich Model 25 rotary drill (skid or truck - mounted)
II 55: Central Mine Equipment Model 55 rotary drill (truck- mounted)
57: Mobile Drill Company Model 57 rotary drill (truck- mounted)
550: Central Mine Equipment Model 550 rotary drill (rubber tire- mounted)
II
NOTES:
II 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 NSA; 2) a B size core barrel
is shown as B core.
I 2. In highly resistant material, the N -value (in the "N" column) may be
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
11 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
I 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
'
4
BORING LOGS: GROUND WATER INFORMATION
(Page 2 of 2)
The "MC" column indicates the moisture condition of soil samples. A "D"
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
boring, over a column of "D's" or "M's" m�a+ be an indicator of recent
thawing of frozen soil in the top layer.)
The water level symbol in the "MC" column indicates the estimated P osi-
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
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
I 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
1
1
1
1
d ilt
di . IDENTIFICATION OF SOILS
(VISUAL- MANUAL PROCEDURE)
i /
5'Xfln•s Weligrdd - - ►GW ♦• :15 % sand —t. Well aided si eves • r -- ..�,5 % ,.na —a- Wall grddraulwrth
� Peorly ratted rGP --..,_ -- --►. 1s% sand —a. Poorly waded gravel
/ -- ` +_15% sand —0- Poorly rdd afoul worth and
_•, Wall ruled -... -4. fines ML er MH - - GW -GM,.- • • . lb% sand - -In Well veiled veiled g and nod, sill
GROVEL r � -- -
- •� •` •n IS% sand or. Wall graded r worth gravel sal and sand
% it vti > _ 10% fins < a 1 "'In flnw -C1. or CH ----. G W GC � — +. t5% sand — wall 51.dd 11111 *r11 clay
%sand ` ►' 15 %sand ----O. W.II7rdd ravel worth cloy 111%1 and
� .. Poo.w rdd -‘ - . 1.r»uMLaMH- - - ► GP• GM ;:15% .and - -lw Poorw Waded Irma *ilk ,11
ti N15% land — ... Poorly rdd gravid *Ill tilt and sand
_ h•..s•CI or CH e. GP•GC� •• -.15% sand - -01 Poorly graded gravel wnh clay
�`• >15% sand —► Poorly traded pawl will clay and ,and
-__ - hne,•ML or PM - Gm .— •: --► 1S% sand — •y Silty pawl
1S % line; ..... ------ >15% ',and --or Salty gruel withsand
' - �-ur trna.•CL or CH--- -..GCi' _ ^.- - ♦ is % sand - -a- Clayey yawl
_.� • 15% land —or Clayey ravel non sand
r ^ �W.Il gr S W --a- - 15% revel —w W.11•graded sand
,5 % Imes +' �'' --- O.�15%ravel ---• Well grad.dYnd wishrival
P / �'�►Poorly rdd— -- ► .SP�.�_ • 15 % F rain - - Poorly Waded land
15% ravel - -o- tootle In ailed sand week rand
��Imat•MIorMH— — .-SW SM - - _ -►• 15% revel -- W.Ilirdd sand wrlts
WWI irrdd' — ---- _
15'.: rant — Well pdd sand with silt and pawl
$E ND � '-+ UnerCL a CH • -- - -+
S W Ci - -c— 15% gruel - --or W.Iliradd swill san swill clay
--� 4 0 % sand _ 10% fines •• '+ _15% pawl -• -- w Wdlgrdd sand nnh clay and rend
% valid ____________•.linw•MIo MH - - -- .SP•SM -- —►. %gravel — o- Poorly grddsand sulk WI
'� �
Poorly graded � ' t5% rani — Poorly 'bead sand with ,dl and gravel
- +In., - se CH - ---- .-S P - + . - • 15% ravel Poorly rd«I sand w1 doe
' -01 1S% gravel --w• Poorly rdd sand weds clay and rand
ill -__ Irnet•ML or MH .a. SM - .r-----------01 15% gr avel --o- Salty sand
;_15% 1, ., '� _ � w '•15% ravel — - Silty sand weth gravel
- fines .CL. Of CH —. • w SC ----an • 15% rant ----sr Clayey sand
t■ _ 15% p awl - - -• Clayey land week gravel
•
<30% plus No. 200 —• <15% plus No 200 • Lean clay
0 15.25% plus No. 200 - -► % sand 2% gravel - --0- Lean clay with sand
CL % sand <% gravel — as- Lean clay with gravel
% sand % of gravel <15% gravel —i Sandy lean clay
;30% plus No 200C X15% gravel --r Sandy lean clay with gravel
`w• % sand <X gravel --► <15% sand — •--- -+ Gravelly lean clay
?15% sand - -► Gravelly lsen clay with sand
<30% plus No. 200 • - -w- <15 % plus No 200 - -0-Silt
III �► 15.25% plus No. 200 -- --a % sand >% gravel ---e. Silt with sand
M L '----- % sand •% gravel — Silt with gravel
% sand e% 01 gravel �•--► <15% gravel ----- . Sandy ells
230% plus No. 200 �� `'+' ? 15% gravel --dn. Sandy silt with gravel
i� % sand <X gravel — ---r <15% sand - -+ Gravelly silt
---0 ... L15 %sand —� Gravelly salt with and
<30% plus No 200 ----______--0. <15 f6 plus No. 200 Fat clay
15.25% plus No. 200 -+- % sand _X gravel —s as clay with sand
C H —.lc sand •:% gravel —► pat clay with gravel
rr ��.... % sand ?% of gravel <15% gravel w. Sandy fat clay
>30% plus No. 200 >15% gravel --- —o- sandy fat clay with gravel
% sand <% gravel <15% sand • • Gravelly fat clay
z15% sand ► Gravelly fat clay with sand
1 .:"..30% plus No. 200 -....._ <15% plus No 200 — — =► Elastic silt
•∎ 15.25% plus No. 200 % sand Gti gravel - -� Elegise
M H % sa nd % grav ► El s tilt w with gravel sand
j
% sand 2% of gravel -- a <15% gravel -- +Sandy elastic silt
k30% plot No. 200 - mow• 215% gravel e. Sandy elastic silt with gravel
% sand c % gravel —i• <15% sand -- —a Gravelly elastic silt
0 .215% sand - -w. Gravelly elastic silt with sand
I <30% plus No. 200 -- -► -'15% No. 200 200 5 OrgPn,c ganic sod
'SS _�� 1525S plus plus No. Z —� % sand % gravel 5 Or soil with sand
OL /OH -- --.-x sand .:% gravel - -• Organic soil with gravel
% sand 2% gravel ---- -
<15% gravel 1. Sandy organic soil
111 >30% plus No 200 215% gravel ---w- Sandy organic soil with gravel
4 S sand <% gravel ___ <15% sand --iv- Gravelly organic soil
Z15% sand --- ---0. Gravelly organic ail with sand
I NorE- Percentages are based on estimating amounts of fines. und. and gravel to the nearest 5 `i.
II
GEOLOGIC TERMINOLOGY I
The geologic description indicates the apparent depositional origin or II
stratigraphic name. Geologic identification is interpretive and subject
to error.
II
General categories of geologic deposits, and descriptive information is
as follows: II ALLUVIUM COARSE ALLUVIUM: Sandy (and gravelly). Stratified.
Deposited from fast moving waters
in streams and rivers. (Includes
glacial outwash.) II
FINE ALLUVIUM: Clayey and /or silty. Stratified. II Deposited from slow moving waters
in streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds.
BEDROCK Wide range of characteristics: from hard, dense,
II
consolidated rock; to soft, compressible, and uncon-
solidated soil -like material.
FILL CONTROLLED: Compact, uniform material; inorganic; 1
no dehris.
UNCONTROLLED: Loose or variable density. Mixture 1
of soil types. Often contains dehris
and organic material.
TILL Normally contains a wide range of grain sizes, from II
boulders through clay. Usually non - stratified.
Deposited directly from glaciers.
II
LOESS Silty. Non - stratified. Upper layer. Deposited from
wind. II 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 hoth inorganic and organic material. upper, II i black layer of soil. Formed by weathering of inorganic
soil and accumulation of organic material. I
I TUMRLEROCK Dominantly gravel, boulders and rock slabs. Deposited
from gravity flow down hills or cliffs.
WEATHERED REDROCK Redrock which has been substantially weathered through 1
disintegration or decomposition. Texture and composi-
tion grades into bedrock.
I WEATHERED SOIL Texture, composition, and position is intermediate II
between topsoil and non - weathered soil.
1 II
il
1 GENERAL TERMINOLOGY NOTES
FOR
SOIL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
Grain Size
11 • Term Size Boulders >12"
1 I Cobbles 3 " -12"
Gravel 14 sieve - 3"
Sand 1200 - 14 sieve
Fines (silt & clay) <1200 sieve
Stratification
1 1 Term Thickness
Layer >1/2'
0 Lense 1/2" - 1/2'
Lamination <1/2"
I/ Fiber Content of Peat (ASTM 02607)
Fiber Content
Term (Visual Estimate)
ill Fibric >67%
Hemic 33 - 67%
11 Sapric <33%
m Consistency and Strength of Fine Grained Soils
II Unconfined Compressive
Strength, psf N- value,
(11
Term
Very soft (Normal Range)
<500 BPF
<2
Soft 500 -1000 2-4
il Medium stiff 1000 -2000 4-8
Stiff 2000 -4000 8 -15
Very stiff 4000 -8000 15 -30
ill Hard >8000 >30
Relative Density of Coarse Grained Soils
i Term N- value, BPF
Very loose <5
Loose 5 -10
Medium dense 10 -30
Dense 30 -50
Very dense - >50
1
1
SYMPTOMS OF INNER PEACE
1
Be on the lookout for 'symptoms of inner peace.•The hearts of a
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 1
world.
•
Some signs and symptoms of inner peace: 1
• A tendency to think and act spontaneously rather than on 1
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 toss of interest in interpreting the actions of others.
• A loss of interest in conflict.
• A loss of the ability to wory (This is a very serious
symptom).
• Frequent overwhelming episodes of appreciation. 1
• Contented feelings of connectedness with others and
nature. 1
• Frequent attacks of smiling.
• An increasing tendency to let things happen rather than
1
make them happen.
• An increased susceptibility to the love extended by others
as well as the uncontrollable urge to extend it.
Warning: If you have some or all of the above symptoms, 1
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
exhibiting any of these symptoms, remain exposed at your own
risk.
b y Saskia Davis
1
1
C ITY 0 F BOA DATE: 1/11/93
k �
CHAfl1AII CC DATE:
I 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
1 fi
Z
— APPLICANT: Shannon T. Terry
I 52 One Hawthorne Road
a Hopkins, MN 55343
Q
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: Approximately 84,000 square feet
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - RSF; single family
Q S - Class B Wetland
E - Class B Wetland
f" — W - RSF; single family
d .
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site
W
1 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
Terry Variance 1
January 11, 1993
Page 2 1
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
The Zoning Ordinance requires a 30 foot front yard setback, and a 75 foot setback from the edge
of the wetland.
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
On May 21, 1984, the City stamped approval of the deed permitting the subdivision of Lots 2872 1
- 2876 and Lots 2914 - 2918 from the remaining above mentioned parcels. The lot that was split
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 1
Zoning Ordinance. The remaining piece (subject property) contains a protected wetland and a
small buildable area outside the wetland. Due to the wetland setbacks, it is not possible to
construct a home without a setback variance.
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
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.
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.
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)
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.
The site contains forty-six Carver Beach lots (Lots 2919 -2943 and Lots 2877 - 2897). It has 320 1
feet of street frontage on Yuma Drive, 290 feet of frontage on Dogwood Drive and 540 feet of
frontage on Ringo Drive.
1
1
Terry Variance
January 11, 1993
1 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
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
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
1 feet.
Attachment #2 shows the required setbacks for the proposed site. A single family residence
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
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
of the following criteria are met:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship
means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority
of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow
a proliferation of variances but to recognize that and develop neighborhoods pre - existing
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
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,
to other property within the same zoning classification.
* The conditions upon which this petition for a variance is based are not generally
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
and more specifically to lots of record that are impacted by wetland protection
regulations.
1
1
1
Terry Variance 1
January 11, 1993
Page 4 1
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land. 1
* 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 rantin of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare of injurious to 111 g g
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
* The rantin of the variance will not be detrimental or injurious to other land or
g g injurious
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 granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air 1
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.
1
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
Tent' Variance
January 11, 1993
1 Page 5
RECOMMENDATION
For the above mentioned reasons, staff is recommending approval of Variance #92 -13 for a 5 foot
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 watermain located in
Yuma Drive.
2. The applicant shall reduce the depth of the deck to 10 feet to minimize impact on the
wetland.
3. The applicant shall submit a tree preservation plan prior to issuance of a building permit.
PP P
1 4. Type III erosion control be maintained during the construction season along the edge of
the wetland.
1 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 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
issuance.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated January 8, 1993.
2. Site plan showing location of proposed home and buildable area on site.
3. Typical trench excavation limits.
4. Elevation of proposed home.
5. Letter from the applicant (Variance Requirements).
1
1
1
C ITYOF
1 11111 1 111 11!
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
MEMORAN - (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 4 K
DATE: 01/08/93 I
SUBJECT: 92 -13 VAR (Shannon T. Terry)
BACKGROUND
The Planning Department requested my presence at the 01/11/93 Board of Appeals"
and Adjustments meeting to discuss soils and foundations for the proposed
Terry dwelling. I am unable to attend, and will try and address concerns of
the Inspections Division in this memo. ;
ANALYSIS
1. 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 II
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.
2. Foundations. Due to soils likely to be present on the building site 1
extreme care must be exercised in foundation design. Water tables are
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
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
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 thell
site.
3. Site. Grade changes on the site to accommodate the proposed structure may I
affect general drainage patterns in the area. A drainage plan should be
designed to address this concern.
1
v PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
II
II
'Sharinin Al -Jaff •
01/08/93 (
Page 2
COMMENDATION
pproval is recommended with the following conditions:
I(
. The applicant shall retain a qualified soils engineer to evaluate the site
for the proposed structure.
. The applicant shall retain a structural engineer to design the foundation
if soil conditions are such that a conventional foundation would be deemed
IL inadequate.
. A drainage plan shall be submitted for approval by the City prior to
building permit issuance.
II
11
1
1
II
II
II
II ,
II
II
II
II
*3
.. ..... ..,,. .....„ „. • ,,...i.
d" . •_, so -- 4 i- AQ • ''T ;AI . i- N
- . ,•• . / '‘-; ./. • ' ik . ' .
\‘., . '04... 4 e . ' ->, '.. -11: . . • \ 4 ITA.. .‘ s r '
r * H a ....11110‘ ■••
B . . .', s, -- 44 . ,, A ,\'''‘frt , 1 '
i t
. .,
,...... s''
.. .0 \\ tii . 1
• . ....'‘ .' . il i -
w • • '. T. Id .,,,,
- • - •-. I ..A.... - • v
-•• •-•' - ' "' . . I -. lit s t rifP -
41dieb■. .. 4
• -,,-*•:-' ' I.
uwAti. • .
k . ••=sw41. 1 ,
.
? ",
. .-.4 .. 4.-
--k- -. i r '
4 „ •.„ . , ....,,._.. .. ....
• - • a 4.
.4, e• . • .
, r. . . ' ••••
4 -- - A.... - •
ft \
4 * i • - -4•? '' • - " ' e a ' a •
0 - .... ..,-1 , . ,. ,
A :. '. ; • , . s
- - -, ,
) m ,
* i" = o' 1. .-: .1. - .;:- . . ..- I. . - • . - h, - •,„ ' -
t .6/ • ' * . - i „.....• .', •Z ..- • " • • •
- „ • . 4 , -- tat
. F .-- •
V •
. •
• . 3 ..... .. . : • _....:,
. - • 4011 g , 1 ; - •:.• .0. „,-.
. 14 . •.:. ::: 31P \ 't4' . . - - ..
..-
...:- . ....„-_ - ...41 1 ."-* -
. • .4 .. __. J :. . . .
.,:.px.... . :
. . . .. ,. .
• 1 ...
H a .• . b.- Po xI.Drislos,4.- 4
ABP- 1 • • A ' ._
. . - v.
ilr. : - :-...x.4* :,.. •.. . • ••
•: . .... .._...,... . , ...42....,,,..-ab'
. v . . - . . - 7,0 . ,,,,„.. , • • ,,,..... ‘• cos I . . 1 v, :
.- - •V,-,.. :.,!:',f,... *; -a r._ • g _ : „
A , gl iit......•,.., ,,, - - -kw . re.,.. t, • .-- - :,04,. - -- ,-
...., •:., --- • ...„. c .. „...: : ,;,. irt* .
. ...,2.7 dli ON, .,41.., ..,...„.• V,.4,* ... . . -..
i•ttk, . i e •c.... AC* ' • . - •4.4
....,. . 4 3
-.. ,.....: •••■: ; zs tst!,444:.4 , . , s * *I * 4, , ' .4,.t •'. ;*,. is ' . , .
- . . ....7 4- ' .*; A t'ke 6 "• .: 4• • * 6 e :"`'-tokt , :..-, -- .ir '
-7 - AC, ..- - :".. IV- -- • , , ._ .. .., s-
""■....._ in ...- t..,..-.7"""`„ ,,,..- 4. ,- •,.. _ -; .4- AT . ' a, ' , 1 - ,11\ V tlut PI • .
1 . id, :.-i . . ..f.`. •"•,;‘ '...). 4 '''
; ' . • t- *t "': 111‘,:ti4,
. 4
1 P - 1 . 4 1 4,;•••AI ' . 47.•i ? •11 . - •3•• • • . * r.
.....'s•••■..........• . t Alrl y ** r . t • •‘AeWPWA -. '-j. * 1 4 i 1 . .. .. .* ti x 1 .. \ ... . : ‘'' ., , . ',
4•••••;..---- *.c - • -'-.- • • 2- - ' 1
ill ` . • 4 .1••• tip....,..1, vt . I •• Iri 1*
-. • • -.. , . . c. c:? - 4. • .. . 6 , . ii, ir.
P "'" .• 5 (.4 B) PRoPER 7y P f J.": "'? • . a
3 B 44
WI - = -z---. •, -. ..„.......1 , • -:.- .„ • ipir....:** r. -1. ti
.. -.....,.. :. .. , .- . -..t . - -;;,- • p) I
\ V.‘
. //) , i
t$4 . . Jr • 4'.$4.. - 6 . -.T. . 11. ._'•N,•- 4 . jA - ..;._ >0' '''' ;446s ,
e ; .. r .. ., t e.. . - .,, :.,..$ ,ti . < i t ie lt ,.. 4: ,- 9i .e 'oo kr" ' .0 0 3 116 . ; .4'.'• t , 4 1.
- . • i,, . .. 14,4 r t‘ - -• -..c.....x; -
..,, .T . • . . 111F . % lc. ;.' ( li t . . „ A s - ' 11;: ... . '10. !Yrkiervzgr.. • .
• t. i pt-.17:-.• - Ix' VW .- vPio ‘" M ... ' ' .4
. ..., •• N .,_ • • '''''' . t - . ;.. "a tItbit'e ,„4: 4440:1%; I , 1 .. 6 „, . ;.,!,* ielliciriWi
C-I -
• s l' -4 '''".• . *414 ..': C.." "" it" .t illIC10 ' . 7 Ndrifit 4 A w ' . • -4, . .
1,••• ,... 7 :A' ' - k •.!. - .71.** 4 •‘'''' w lb • : IF s , ; `.•..e • +, •• • A • : •i' - 1•••"'IL-' - ? •
... .., - 4 i • " . t - .1 e..: • 4e ,,. 3, - • , .,,,,.... .401z• ...• 1 ,6 .".4
. .. „ A %. ',... • •
•, ,,,.. '' • -.4 *... 4 .4 . 4 . A - 0 - .c o t ., -t. .A: - • -- -, g-; . - 11 1 :-.: • - • - ,
`:,10 ' - . ; di 4: ' • ii ' ••• ce,,, "1:er...,,• , i 4 " • . i ' •
,/..6 0 • .
. . 4 3. t ••• I • ir.es4 i.■ zo..... . i p,„- - .. .4e- 4 . , -
' '- - - r \ 7: * . jilii i 1 - 41. ' ' 1 4 ' - - .. ...4,...f.... .. . 4 4-•.
A to ss ... - %.i: .* • • ' .. -- ... - 0;:rs1/4tV -I i. *k ' • '
. , .", , • e , ':„, ' 11 ? 11 4t:•■••■ • .1 , .... 0.... ..., ...1,11. i '
Te atti •-. • P" lw,-r..:,,., :-
4 ,,,,,,,,„,,, , - . .,,,,,.....,..,,,... • .. .. - .1/4,.:•. .. !, t. i,
. ......• • . ,.. .•:,.• •. • .. t r
•„;,,, .0 • • t • 1 z .„,.4 • ( Z!:' - - •;:ittA.- . 0■... ; . • •,,,t, .. . . . - I
•. •
, Iii i• •• - . • • • k.... ..- .
• • vol.: • - •••,. „ • 01 • • . X. li • •••• f ft-
• - v. ,..„0,4 .... _ is .
• y ...!..
• ..,-, - .
• -.
- :• - . : .... ' .:' • A iy,
• f -- _ k. -
s s '
1.1. ir
a • t •A . *- •
Sr E3,. ,
... 4 ts . li g lal ir.' l• . • .
s:, ' • g' '' --- •
toq•- . s' IP V
• ..44 !, # ' .7 . . '-'
7\03; L s B .. • ,
..• ...........,.. • .: 4 . 1 2 r • -- ri .
. ." • . • ••' • ••
rr ....1 • - ir
, ..14•4'. I I . ••
. Olt ' .„. ! - .24•■ • %#: • v. • •IIIV4. • .
...It% . `;':6 7 , oi.''. • - , E , u . „..,.., /IF 4 .
•• tr „ , ,.. /,
$ • .t.,.
11111. :ag,, 4S.• a / •
r; ■e•Iri . w /, '
- • • . - • •••••• % • ; i ... . * • h
0 4
....- --- -,, - - • .., ,:„.
r ''' , 2-..."'. it . .... • ,
• 40 ,
.. ..... :,.i. • b * 0 7'4'. •‘ • N #.* •
•
/ # r e lerp . ; ., . j p, ,, .. IL •
• A
1 , ". ...r ':. • 4/ , .„ • a , / 1 . .7 :
• • i i .
. '
. ' 4110 *le dger ' I P X • : \ \
- . , .•!.. ' • ; ••
•
Z • '1 li," i 1 .. t
., k 4 ". IF • • , . ... . st. ' \ I 1
Established in 1962
i f LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. F. B. NO 545
LAND SURVEYORS SCALE 1" _ '
0 Denotes Iron Monument
REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 0 Denotes Wood Hub Set
7601.73rd Avenue North 660-3093 For Excavation Only
Minneepolis, Minnesota. 66428 x000.0 Denotes Esisting Elevation
O Denotes Proposed Elevation
',unmoor), sari i dde .4-- Denotes Surface Drainage
L.D. BUILDERS Proposed Top of Block
' Proposed Garage Floor
Proposed Lowest Floor
•
Type of Building
•
. \
l7'• / -� • ' ' / ''
- � •'
` \off , '"•9 t.-- .- ' \, ` Z.
q 9
/ • 'ieYi `LL
ir'? 14 A 7
t....., c ...
s • 9eL f k iTD
' <3 - \ c jt- " ____ : 1 6 , . R ___\_.---------- _,
, \ .
o•p \ _ " '0
(.1 ./...
.192-"e: '� _-
le\
r ,,,,� A.,\
` y
Lots 2919, through 2923, also Lots 2877, through 2881, CARVER BEACH,
Carver County, Minnesota
i .
The only easements shown are horn piste of road or Inlonnstlon provided by
C ala t certiy that this Is a true and axrset representation of a survey of the /1 , //�� /) //��
01 the above o n said lend. location of all buildings and vls • l / 1
Id encroachment*, o �i �f / !
Ida enoroenwnts, /T /L�/
surveyedbyustnls 11th day of November t9 92 Sipud A
ymo nd A. Preach Mim. Reg. No. 6743
In
T i MI
. al. 11111 MIN all. liali • OM
1DD ' I Li
1
.. e. ./'......
il ,. - " - . ' \ •
A \ s ,
.... ... ---
110, -,..-•.; ,
...,-... ,
1 1 1 I . II .4 - 7---
-:-..--- .
! 1 i T_T__ ---- _- 3 '' 4,
Os .._ .„ .
--------
--11 — 1 4 - - ■ ‘ - 1. 0 \ O 33
. - - _ - ---.
-1 I
1 I 1 -
1 1--7-7- A ' \ it‘t % ‘ C \,
1 . '
•
PONDEROSA DRIVE - ? ■
I
‘\' j l.' Vil ‘ 1;747*
LOTUS TRAIL k i
- -
••■--%
-• „-----
• , • ...--- 0 , -_-5,„.____ ... 0 iiiimplitiPtirp „ ,
,\ •
OR
LONE --"---._ - „ap,0,10twior,ii- t 0..ori•_. .‘;
.? EAGLE ,.- l;
PCACk°*1 r 0 ,
\\
,.,...,„
1) ./.::„.■••%.■•• ,..
■..- --. i — i—..- .--.--1—t- . •■••—•""—•—• dr— ..... \...,' %
(10
il 1
. — .
\ k i
WOOD .7 HILL DRIVE Ir ■11
$00, - 3 0 ,• : __,.--- .tk° - fot . : ..- 015 0/ E
■ 40-- ,,-cdi
3 .- :, 4 5 \ \
i ' 2 ‘ ft •"" 0 % ...-----",-• \ ■
.... . s.' --!°*-.. of lo st - E •••- \\
WOODCREgir otcrt- -
0' ' '
../....... --..-' t- ..
1 40000114 ;°' ..'' ..' 0.-004.‘AtilfAl ..• '
4.1•7....... -
- - 0 , .., ' WitiOtr"A°0 01■°;\ ,
p i... 3 N 4 5 6 1 7 8 ,'s Vi A 4 04P F-1 ' ... t . V A Ireope .` -* I. ti i
:W • ; 'JON A. LANG
CI F NO I59eS
7•9 .
_ . . ‘.‘k 1 ...;: _- . __.- -- - 7 ._-_- -Ls ". -- - - - -
- ---
PREA 1 NESS 1 .
. Lliv
3--3-1 50 2 50 - r - 4 -1::; 1i ; vi
4 ' X • > AL A
s '4° 4741k ,V A l 0 0,) ( 4 k X)
0 I
i Ch,
9 8 I e li)0 . W . -- 24.
t , ,. . .,
,..4, ... .,
: .OUTLOT
ex4y ,..: 69r.elrx- I •
f f
2 ' ,
' .
• .
• a i
1 . • I , 0.. ,
>9P( UniM proved. hA1:-.3k 'lc_ -- R N - •:\M . -:- 9 ''- ( Al: Y. .., , . . . .
,• • - - --;...: ..)k ,• , - /
•
1
TYPICAL TRENCH EXCAVATION LIMITS
1
1
1 PROPERTY
LINE
40FT. R/W
2
t
t •
6- 10' +/ UWE EXCAVATION LIMITS
EXISTING WATERMAJN
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3 J t' . i■ `• - i.. • . . -
. ..1
1
i ... • gr...., . , :. .i ......t ,1 „ , ", 4,
• -. I '-. 4*-1--;.!. '\ ' .-. .''.
•
1 i
. , ''''4q14 : •T , i 44 t 01 : . V 4- • . 111 1
0 . n " .;•
Z , •: . t n. fl.nr N ' A ? S '' t. • ': „I • . .. , ". .•
• 1 ,t IA, . ht - • t
'I '41011:
• . 7 t ill:1 1 ,. - • tc:I.:, tl ',rt •
- r. ,Ilik; ,. _ F_11111,111 ._ .....„. i 1 411• i 1,,i u• le ','J 1. A
• .'iiiiill'•'0; i't' ki
1
ri Ismirst‘' tibia ' IP . 4.1'! ...r
.. r 1.
Mgt • .. . -;••1: , ,•,:.! • :: . ,):
-r—tr
1
1
1 ' 111112 to • 1
; - 1 . [II i i
, ; ., 11
, 0,„100 .1
::,. -• -, . .
.. ..: 9 •
.._,_, I, ki0 ''', .
..,.„ 1
, • i ti ; i ,‘,
.,, . ,......- ihi,,,,,:i 1 i i Iiii.,,,l,Iiii„,',1,1•Iiiiit 1
— • •
i .
..,,... ._.-...,.._.. _ .:._ _ ._ •-;,1,
. ; 1 •;, 1 liniirmunnn : ! ill, • ..L. it -
. • s i .. 1, ..„, -- _i____ :I
. ., .
.. ._ , . _ ., _ ipmeteriNia 1 7. •1!
• 1 /- . . Immo -- fz:] t .1!,, I ? ' - .
I
1
'• .1- .: ', ' ii 41 . i
.ffisilsw ' ‘..), i• . .......-4-
, I ! • ,.-
- i .■ 1 !I
. . il l' I
.1 11'
• . , I
I I • 1
, , .,::,' i i :111
:'2■;%....
r ti t A ill .7 - E '-'. - - • ___- ,
ii...i v.
. l \m 111
.. .i _ nil • \ 1 1 1 1 ' i• 14. tA 1
!, 1 i Il ion i ,. 1
I
_.,..... [II , i
. ,
\ 1 i \ is ;
4 p i
im .P1 1 1 ill ii II
il / I •
'''' zt.• , YJI i 'H 1 \ 41'
7 Ef5' . 7 . : Y . rs.• ; -- i - 1.1 --li' . •
/ ji•,
-4•25•..., .....11 11 .
- . ' , ____. ._____1.11,
1
- 7. lir, — I.; • ,. , I
\' / 1 1 I 1
=1.,., : — 1
i' .) I LL i . .i, • 1
1 I c • i; H f— . i
- • 1 I 1 , - - ,
, ' .1 I I •
li 11 1 " . . ,-, - .
t
i I' 4•1: r' •
• I
,. 7, •- •t T i ,
0 ;
1 X 11 1 • 1 ' ' ir ' ' - ' I I , 1 n I r II
tm ....- • - • .--- • - - • ; • '. ,- / .1101 1, III 1
t t,' ' c. • ' '','. '-' E. , I • • I. III j 1 ! 10;1 it 1
1 R li Mt . _ : ' II': 0. t t III i I. • \
; f L", __i: ' • Iiii. .1 11•41 ! .
II MENNINor ' ,II,,1 11 II , ,I1 ; I il , .1 ; 4 g r '' •
I . ' ,-; 1 ' ' ' ' - • MIN '; . I , ti :IL, iljil ill .. •'.' .. J .... vl I
womasimmae.../ ; • , I .
''' •, t - I
1 ! W • .- P:.•:.- - -t9i11WrZ4 1 ' , .• , r C`
-i
..._
- t.: •
: - • — • - • • , 1 'N. r
....
. ..-__ _ • - , . , ,_ .
N p
\I 1
i tv i
:.;
_. 3 : • ,:•• i •,= I). c• 1
. . •, • , --;
- - 7 l c :, _ ....---- i ,, it i
i • - 1
.• -- f_ ft- N i ,.
1 • '
1
.11
1
1
t . ' ...■ 2 .. • • , • • ...... „-, „..,„ ,
, , ....
—....,. 1--- 1. .,1 •-rr , A=.471
•
----- I% i• AA.- e...e.v---Ft.
-, r ft ..1 1
tc..E. sir. C4?•.- isir re.
la .,„,,,,,
/ /L
• 1-.4.0 Fiv_41A •
- 2..X4- LOOK -our
.....■• ... 1 — - Frcr .4
11--- ,-
, _....N4.
-
. _
_
.- .
.i., ;
....
•
7, .1.0
c t4r) r'-n' v,_ .17
I I
Z-
11 ' r_.,?. • ill, Fs= Z.0 is
, ,i (..,0 1t-0- Iss.z V14:10
i 1 , Put_•• ‘.. ct..
-
_ ./.. el,siv • fIX W .- "ir"
I 4 ,
; t ,
1- ---. - ' -,-/—".
-ir. :i ‘ ll'c '' ' i :2-,...:.
. ; p _ I
r --) 1 ..s.i... ., 1 „. 6 _
- _ .
: .
7 -• . ik i , — -.-- .. Jr . V ■ I 1
z t - z.,. , ....> ,,,,.... 1
., 7 1
d.
, - ,P4 tll 1 ,
/ \ • -7
1 .
'' .
- I
,.....y: ,.
. .
_. .4
1/4.. :• ___.......f;
r -1-0 -.,... -7.... v-, .., ,,,,_,......,•..„,. „,
-.....,... :......, p...., ,..... z.,..... _ e ,.. ,..
..-_,, ' ---- i .'..*4 t..cyNt- .....■•■_- ; ..___./
i
,.,
n-L.. L,....__ — ! A A
;.I. 141 .. •i zi• c Do 4 V ...;..., -.• .,
4.-• lEol_K .. 1.. ■ 1
.
1 ,
157 -, --
Om Rim MN MIK NI. all 11111 =II 1 ll all- AN EMI MN me
_ 1 r-
,_
I. .
t .
. Mr NMI - 1 I
i e
F ,3 i
.
I
1 !
---— a 1?
. :, p
1 E :T i t urr -- k F
7
f q
,
t ,.•.„ -r --, , ....,
1 i il :II
1 41. I .-
1 . .
1 . 1,6. .., , • .
/ 4 ?
1
1 1:e..,• 1
I
1
• c....-r- IN • c.:5 - c... is, 1 GI"
7 %747 -----;--..:‘ , •=
/ • — • -k k 1 --.-- F 1 R
, ...._. .......Mo -. / .
- G I
1 . it CX.t./ 'S•1 VIt...._.— f
/ - ' . lb -I> uto z• 1 . :, 4
W :1$ 1 •st 0 1 C.1
Illk ; 4 F:3-• .. .?!.. li
X
f ,.,. ., • . . :. , . - alp
- , p_ .. ;-• t i \ *ft ; 1 i 4I • , 4 , .. , •
T V ' V 1 ' Ns
.'; i -
_ ....
r--) 0-- k - ' 1
' --I
.„ — • _
1 .-. 1
-•-- -4 CS - . . . ilk b ''' '41. 111114
I • • LC,
. k ! -,.. - il ': ;:. •
• ' - . - .1 . V. WON a- ,'" 1 = 1 .1. i '.." ....,,•. i M i I
I t ,... 1 I o
t- - - 4; d•ZAic . il 1, i
# A '
( 1 ,;.Col • '••• A t.- A . ''". a ;.■_* ; ?
' ) 1 • D '' 1 1— • I. 1 i= i
.
( 1 ,m0 z i•
'I! 31 r- t ; r 24004- — ., : •-•
7 , f .. ? . :7-4:7 11 _ P' Z, . .•: .-
v I.1-415„.
1
4
-,d , .7'
f , t § i ,- .4(
... _
.., 1 t 3 I-
...,..,,,
• /I'SV ' ) . , el , t‘
. .
'..) I
• I it •
I 4 • a • r . _ ..40- • ..., ;
; !
4 ,il 0: : •
1: 1 -■ ‘i'C It
I
z• ! •N \ 4P,*\- .. . .
_____ _ ... <IF I
N. h.
41 • . ..:..-...! . , • 1i
1 . , •° .' 4(Y V LJ 71
13
\ ::
,, - —J
...
I • 1 r. 3 a -.'" s
_ 2
.D • l'I' 1.1' I il
.. 14: . N _ _
• li:l..■ e
•
---- 01::
I- c -4 ....0,:.1-
:: - S z ID 1 1, N • 4 6 E.' .3.:
14: '
/
.%
V., • • . A 'n -
. Ir
..il
. I : .. If ' • ,
w :: C 1 -1 ! ',.- , • , t - ' i
Fi
s. i • 0 ' --.1- -e
r. _
:11 I .44b • 1-+— ' •
I -._ % ■ 1 N • *
• . t
•-• eL \ ■ ■ 4
, .4 _ . -#. 3 , 1 t4
- c - - -- 1 t
Z Y . iv,0 - !a,., . I n f
IA. " 2 4"04..i. _ o u - ...!
i 1 -
- -1 z •, -.:.,
t ,, . • ...,...„...., _ /.1..
-
• . - - - -.. 1
f.,. i
•
.1 . /1-- •.......„
,2_1..,i 4-4 i. I
..
i _....1.-.e,.... __ 1 _ .___ 1 t...t.,_.1
1
I
-
I
I ---- _ _ ...... ..
. 1- to '' .
t ------- - — — - . I. —
111 •
2 ■C' 4 4.4 Mk vg ; ,.1
i 0
It
1
1
1 —
1 ,
I- r
- 1 kr-, 1 .
! , ;I 1 . a .
x ttit ;
ii__ ! • m-,...,.
-,_ 1 ._._,,
i ,. v • .1-A.-....\-1 - ,
., I* . 1, lieV.-
et,...__IxertATact "N t 0
t C R
I. I 1:1
I W. • ..
it 1 N-
, - 1 .
r, - , .\\
1 ‘; if i i ' ", • _-- ' 7 4.... , -.
_
E !
1 1 -6-1
, 1 . - - - - - - - - T . t , • ,
/ - all•" I , .
tt IN■Idl , r
....1 ' •
t 1 ,
7 1 . 4 1
; 1 I ' 4 • ' v L g 1 'Ll.. • i it k
2 . 74441 1 * iii A —. 1 R I. ig • -----
1 ; IQ. . ,
fo
. --I ! ' ` I ' -. , ,,-, ,
. le
_ , I ; * -- '4 , 1
I lob .. .
g. r ,AA1 •
.
Arr.. 11
I !
i
• ... • -..../ l ir '
1 i • 0 ...._. _ ...
„ • ,
i • IT-., t'r.‘"VV r -,..t :.•:.c)
... • ..-., „
1
• 0 N 6 iiir* ,
1
P 1'01 5'
1
I ' l'Ut6 oi l - i a A; .. . -:: s . 1 •
5 ,
: ...., ,:.
, , .: t..
; 1 f , i: , ... _
1. 7..4. ) 1 ,...
,, - .-
„
et.
i I alit
. P ' r,
11 I • i
f )
- ._ , ... , iiii_H s.....
.
- / 1 —
i 4° • • • .• 216‘ Z
I,
'
.
i S•4•' -
1 i
I ...4 2(0
/ .----
4 I
; 3 .
4 •---;.::
-....• i
i !. { •
; 1 ;
,.. •
I :2 el •
. ...,- . •1
.
' .
.
• ' ,
111 :f 1 4
' )
I
1
1
1
1
•
-AA '
..- - . 1
11111. 1
i «I i .1 '. : V AI C II I II- t. • 21.
14
i
..• ' .
• .....—.7 - - lit . 4 •
..: f
. S ONINAMMINMON
i
, - n
j .
. .1 •
7" -‘
.t.
L—.—L
. .• •
, ,...
I
J t '
• .•
, L_...... • ,
/ V •
1 i i....‘
L.=—...• ...• LI .. 3
—..—
., _ . • ..- Oil
— ,— " I '
. • .
. . . ' . ..'-.
I/4 ,
4 , - - v -ill • .
. .
01 —
■
1, I,
f E..
— ni-
Ili
r
I I
1 1 --1- 1 '
i o
—IFI --131
v
T
• .1--
ii ' 1
T cl
1
1 Variance Requirements
1 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.
1 9. a. Variance request is due to undue hardship. Several previous
attempts by other buyers to purchase said property have been
1 unsuccessful because of the set back requirement of 50 feet from
the arbitrarily chosen 929 feet elevation requirement. The current
visible wetland perimeter is considerably farther away than what is
1 dictated by the elevation. The proposed plans have been modified to
best accommodate the property boundaries, i.e., positioning, reversal
of plan, and change of plan. Observance of all set back requirements
1 inhibits the use of the property for the proposed plan.
Please note that the front -to -rear slope of the property indicate
1 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
I ground level, requiring a deck to connect the exits, so the deck is not
a cosmetic luxury it is a necessity for the home to be fully utilized.
I b. Adjacent properties had sufficient land area and /or no wetland
restrictions as not to require a variances.
1 c. The purpose of this variance is only to allow the addition of the
proposed plan to the property.
1 d. We do not currently own the property so the hardship is not self -
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
1 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.
I
f. Proposed home plans are not unreasonable and do not pose threat
I to adjacent properties in any way.
1
1
01/21/93 14:18 $812 452 5550 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 12 002
��.��
' CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, RA.
ALimiic .i Uivy
T1-4,111,.r. J Conzprncll (612) 4 52. O00
tii g c l N Attu Ls. Ott P.,t (612( •=02-55%)
Th,,r,,.,,M...,,,,rr January 21, 1993
' Cary 0 Puch,
J;i nes K. W.rl,wtr
f nirr li. K; cv._lr
Mich;icl A. IirtE',tck CONFIDENTIAL
Kr:n. 1).6Wmcr
' CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
Donald J. Chmiel Mayor
Colleen Dockendorf, Councilwoman
Mike Mason, Councilman
Richard Wing, Councilman
Mark Senn, Councilman
1 Re: Shannon T. Terry
Variance Application
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
The Board of Adjustment and Appeals has voted to deny the
Shannon Terry variance application. without the requested
variance, it will be impossible to construct a home on the
property. Minn. Stat. § 462.357 provides a variance should be
approved to prevent an "undue hardship" which is defined as "the
' property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size,
physical surroundings, shape or topography." The Terry variances
satisfy this requirement.
1 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that if a property
owner is deprived of all viable use of property the landowner
must be compensated. kicas_v. California Costal Commission,
' U.S. (1992). It is only in the rarest of situations that
the City can use its zoning regulations to prevent all use of
property without paying compensation_ This is not one of the
' rare situations.
Ve truly yours,
1 CAMPBELL KNUTSON, SCOTT
•S, P.A
•oger N. utson
' RISK: rlt
cc: Mr. Don Ashworth
Board of Adjustment and Appeals
' X1
26 .
�iiitr� '1 • I- : .�g,•in{�r�le Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve &ly'i.tIl, MN 55I?1