Loading...
3. Variance Ext for 9247 Lake Riley Blvd 1 CITYOF �---__ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I DATE: January 20, 1993 SUBJ: Variance Extension Request for 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard - James Jessup March 13, 1989, the Board of Adjustments Appeals approved Variance Request M 9, J PPe PP eq uest #89 -1 for a front, rear and both side yard setbacks for the construction of a new single family residence. Since then the owner was informed that his property was contaminated with petroleum products that had migrated from the neighboring property. The City Building Inspector and Fire Marshal ' issued a stop work order on October 13, 1989. The contamination was apparently from a gasoline storage tank used for seaplanes operating from the lake. The tank was removed at the MPCA's direction. The applicant has been unable to build his home until the parcel was given ' a clean bill of health by the MPCA. He requested and received several extensions to the one year time period for which variance approvals are valid. , x ' On February 10, 1992, the City Council approved a fourth request for a variance extension for the construction of the new single family residence at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. The City Council approved an extension for one year, .until February 10, 1993, with a review of the ' situation in six months on July 31, 1992. The City Council indicated a desire to see this situation resolved and it was indicated that it was unlikely that further extensions would be granted. On July 8, 1992, staff received a letter from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency concluding that 1 the investigation and clean-up performed on the subject property has addressed the petroleum contamination. The letter also stated that Mr. Jessup could begin construction at that time. Based on the MPCA's letter stating that the applicant could proceed with construction, the request by the City Council for a 6 month review was resolved and staff did not bring the issue back in July. ' Based upon the foregoing, staff sent a letter to Mr. Jessup informing him that he should apply for a building permit and start construction prior to February 10, 1993. Staff also indicated that 1 t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER t 1 1 _ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Don Ashworth January 20, 1993 I Page 2 failure to do so will result in the expiration of the variance. Mr. Jessup is proposing that a fifth I 1 year extension be granted stating that he is continuing to proceed towards construction. RECOMMENDATION 1 Staff is recommending that the extension requested by Mr. Jessup be denied. A letter was sent to Mr. Jessup on July 9, 1992, informing him that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency I concluded that the investigation and clean -up of contamination performed on his property had been addressed and that he may begin construction. The applicant had reasonable time to reapply for a building permit and begin construction. The applicant could have prevented the variance I application from expiring by starting construction seven months ago. Allowing the variance to expire is a self created hardship. We also note that this matter has created significant neighborhood controversy and conflict. Several residents who opposed the original request I continue to oppose the repeated extensions. During the past few years, there have been several instances where Mr. Jessup's use of the property and grading activity that has occurred have caused problems that staff had to resolve. It is not realistic for us to continually arbitrate 1 neighborhood disputes and we are frankly getting exasperated by the never - ending problems. If the variance extension is denied, Mr. Jessup would have the right to request a new variance I and it may be approved. At the same time, being able to take a fresh look at the request may be appropriate. 1 Should the City Council decide to approve an extension, the original conditions of the variance approval (approved by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals on March 13, 1989) should be adopted as follows: I Approval is subject to the plan dated March 6, 1989, and the following conditions: 1 PP subject P g 1. Drainage be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 1 2. The deck on the rear of the house is to remain a deck and no porch or any enclosed structure is allowed in the 75 foot setback from Lake Riley. (Note: The building plot I plan will need to show the actual ordinary high water mark for Lake Riley to determine actual setback. This will need to be identified on the property survey by a registered surveyor.) The area under the deck may be improved as a patio with no enclosures. 1 3. Plans are to be reviewed by Planning Staff prior to issuance of building permit to assure compliance with intent of and plans presented with variance. I 4. The attached plan is noted as the official plan for determining compliance. 1 1 1 Don Ashworth January 20, 1993 Page 3 5. The front setback may be no less than 16 feet from the property line. 1 6. The rear setback may be no less than 68 feet from the deck. 1 7. The west setback may be no less than 5.5 feet for any portion of the structure. 8. The east setback may be no less than 10 feet for any portion of the structure." 1 ATTACHMENTS 1 1. Letter from applicant. 1 2. Letters from the MPCA dated July 6, 1992, and Jun 11, 1992. 3. Letter from Rudolph and Lucille Remus dated January 14, 1993. 4. Staff reports dated February 10, 1992, January 30, 1991, February 20, 1990, March 8, I 1989 and February 27, 1989. 5. City Council minutes dated February 11, 1991, March 13, 1989, and February 27, 1989. 6. Letter from Nova Environmental Services, Inc. dated February 5, 1991. ' 7. Letters from MPCA dated February 4, 1991, September 9, 1991, November 4, 1991, January 3, 1992. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 II II January 7, 1993 Sharmin Al -Jaff 1 Planner I City of Chanhassen, 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN, 55317 II RE: Variance Extension request for 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. 1 Dear Sharmin: Thank you for the time and interest you have invested in II this property over the last several years. You have been very helpful to my goal of establishing my home at this site. The purpose of this letter is to ask for an extension of the variance for the above referenced property. A year ago the City I granted an extension for this property. I am asking to have a full year from the date of your okay to proceed with the project. I am referring to your letter of July, 1992. It is fair to have a full year to proceed with the II project. I am making progress in being able to start the building process. The contamination has added many steps to this process I requiring additional time and financial resources to address all the issues and requirements. These steps of meeting the additional regulatory, safety, financial requirements have I occurred since the discovery of the contamination. I have the soils investigation report as requested by the Chanhassen Building department. The foundation may need to be modified II because the soils report states that disturbed soils on the site need to be excavated and compacted. Design changes need to be to made in the heating of the structure, and vapor barriers, added due to the potential for fumes in the soils. The financing of I this site has been complicated by the existence of the contamination and is difficult to achieve. The former financing commitments are no longer available. I am developing alternative II arrangements for the financing. I share your frustrations with the time it has taken to complete this project. It has limited my family's ability to enjoy the property. Living in temporary housing has not been a I pleasnt experience. I can be reached at 853 -0222 during the day if you have any questions. 1 Thanks for your assistance in handling this matter. Sincerely, , mes F. ess 7021 Galpin Blvd. 1 Excelsior, MN 55331 11 v . 1 BRAUN SM 1 N T E RT E C A Geotechnical Evaluation Report for 1 Mr. Jim Jessup Geotechnical Evaluation for the Proposed House Located at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen, Minnesota 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project BABX - 92-473 August 17, 1992 t V Y -Engineers and Scientists Serving the Built and Braun Intertec Engineering, Inc. Natural Environments I. BRAUN' droun Inteetec Engineering, Inc. 6801 Washington Avenue South . 1NTERTEC Minneapolis, Box 39108 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 -0108 I 612- 941 -5600 Fax: 941 -4151 Engineers and Scientists Serving the Built and Natural Environments August 17, 1992 Project BABX - 92-473 1 � J Mr. Jim Jessup 3323 Lakeshore Court 1 Chaska, MN 55318 Dear Mr. Jessup: I Re: Geotechnical Evaluation for the Proposed House Located at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen, Minnesota I As you authorized, we have completed the geotechnical evaluation for the proposed house at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen, Minnesota. The geotechnical evaluation was I performed in general accordance with our proposal to you dated November 15, 1991. The purpose of the evaluation was to assist in evaluating the soil and groundwater conditions with regard to construction of a single - family dwelling on this site. 1 Summary of Results I Four standard penetration test borings were performed within the area of the proposed house. The typical soil profile consisted of approximately 4 to 8 feet of mixed fill soil consisting of silty sand and lean clay overlying naturally deposited glacial till consisting of clayey sand and I sandy lean clay to the termination depths of the borings at 15 1/2 to 20 1/2 feet. Groundwater was typically not encountered during the drilling process. However, one boring ' was left open for a period of several days and upon rechecking, groundwater was noted at a depth of 1 1/2 feet below the surface. This depth corresponds to an elevation of about 866. The elevation of the water level in Lake Riley was about 866 at the time of our investigation. 1 Summary of Recommendations Based on the blow counts obtained in the existing fill soils, it is our opinion they are unsuitable I for support of structural fill or footings due to the potential for compressibility under building loads. Therefore, we recommend removing these soils and replacing them with controlled fill to reestablish floor grade. I Based on the results of the soil borings, it is our opinion the native soils underlying the fill are suitable for support of structural fill and /or typical residential spread footings sized to exert a 1 maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Sump pumps should be available during the excavation process to assist in controlling water I seepage in the excavation. 1 Mr. Jim Jessup Project BABX - 92-473 August 17, 1992 Page 2 1 General 1 Please refer to the attached report for a more detailed summary of our analyses and 1 recommendations. We appreciate the opportunity to work on this project for you. If we can be of further assistance in evaluating this data or providing the recommended excavation observations and quality control testing services during construction, please call Don Armstrong at (612) 942 -1786 or Gregg Jandro at (612) 942 -4945. Sincerely, 1 Donal J. Armstrong Project Engineer � 1 Grey %. Jan ro , P.E. Senior Engineer Attachment: Geotechnical Evaluation Report 1 1 1 1 1 1 dja/grj:mjs\babx192473 \rpt 1 1 1 1 1 1 A Geotechnical Evaluation Report for Mr. Jim Jessup 1 Geotechnical Evaluation for the Proposed House Located at 1 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen, Minnesota 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project BABX- 92-473 1 August 17, 1992 1 Braun Intertec Engineering, Inc. 1 1 1 Table of Contents 1 Description 1 Page A. Introduction 1 I A.1 Purpose 1 A.2 Scope 1 I A.3 Available Information 1 A.4 Locations and Elevations 1 B. Results 2 1 B.1 Logs 2 B.2 Site Conditions 2 I B.3 Summary of Soils 3 B.4 Groundwater 3 C. Analysis and Recommendations 4 1 C.1 Proposed Construction 4 C.2 Discussion 4 C.3 House Pad Preparation 5 1 C.4 Foundation 6 C.5 Floor Slab Support 7 C.6 Exterior Backfill 7 1 D. Construction 8 D.1 Observations 8 I D.2 On -Site Soils 8 D.3 Testing 9 E. Procedures 9 I E.1 Drilling and Sampling 9 E.2 Soil Classification 9 111 E. Groundwater Observations 10 F. General Recommendations 10 I F.1 Basis of Recommendations 10 F.2 Review of Design 11 F.3 Groundwater Fluctuation 11 I F.4 Use of Report 11 F.5 Level of Care 11 Professional Certification 1 Appendix Boring Location Sketch I Log of Boring Sheets Descriptive Terminology I 1 U N s' Braun Intertec Engineering, Inc. BRA 6801 Washington Avenue South PO. Box 39108 J I N T E RT E C Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 -0108 612 - 941 -5600 Fax: 941 -4151 • Engineers and Scientists Serving the Built and Natural Environments A. Introduction i A.1 Purpose ' The purpose of the geotechnical evaluation was to assist Mr. James Jessup in evaluating the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen, ' Minnesota. A.2 Scope Four standard penetration soil test borings were performed to depths ranging from 15 1/2 to 20 1/2 feet below the existing ground surface elevation. The soil samples were returned to our laboratory where the field classifications were reviewed by a geotechnical engineer. Five moisture content tests were performed to assist in evaluating the suitability of the existing fill soils for reuse as structural fill. Finally, we reviewed the data and prepared this report to summarize our findings and professional opinions regarding the suitability of the subsurface soils for fill and house support. Our scope of involvement for this project did not include performing an environmental evaluation for contamination at this site. A.3 Available Information ' You indicated to us that two underground petroleum storage tanks have been removed from the east portion of the house area. The excavation to remove these tanks also extended onto the property directly east of the proposed house area. We understand the tank removal was ' monitored by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and that the tanks and any contaminated soils were removed from the excavated area. Approximately 8 to 10 feet of ' uncontrolled fill soil was placed in the excavation after the tanks were removed. You also provided us a Certificate of Survey prepared by Otto Associates, dated June 19, 1989. r The Certificate of Survey shows the proposed house location including existing and proposed grades. A.4 Locations and Elevations 1 The boring locations were chosen and staked in the field by representatives of Braun Intertec Engineering, Inc. The boring locations were referenced to the north and east property lines. 1 Mr. Jim Jessup 111, Project BABX - 92-473 August 17, 1992 Page 2 Elevations at the boring locations were referenced to the top of the manhole cover located 50 feet south of the lift station and 120 east of the east property line. You provided us an elevation of 872.0 for this benchmark. , B. Results , B.1 Logs ' Log of Boring sheets indicating the depths and identifications of the various soil strata, penetration resistances, laboratory test data and groundwater observations are attached. The 1 strata changes were inferred from the changes in the penetration test samples and auger cuttings. it should be noted that the depths shown as changes between the strata are only 111 approximate. The changes are Iikely transitions and the depths of the changes may vary between the borings. Geologic origins presented for each stratum on the Log of Boring sheets are based on the soil 111 S P S S types, blows per foot, and available common knowledge of the depositional history of the site. Because of the complex glacial and post - glacial depositional environments, geologic origins are frequently difficult to ascertain. A detailed investigation of the geologic history of the site was not performed. , B.2 Site Conditions The proposed house will be located at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen, Minnesota, south of Lake Riley Boulevard and immediately north of Lake Riley. This property is also designated as Lot 42 of the Shore Acres development in Carver County, Minnesota. Based on ' the elevations obtained at the soil borings and the elevations from the Certificate of Survey, it appears the lot slopes from a high elevation of about 872 at the north end of the lot to an elevation of about 866 at the south end of the lot at the lakeshore. Due to the past excavation and backfilling performed on this lot, the area is relatively devoid of vegetation. 1 1 Mr. Jim Jessup Project BABX - 92-473 August 17, 1992 Page 3 1 B.3 Summary of Soils ' The borings encountered 4 to 8 feet of surficial silty sand and clay fill overlying sandy lean clay and clayey sand glacial till to the termination depths of the borings at 15 1/2 to 20 1/2 feet. ' Based on the s enetration resistances recorded in the borings, sandy lean clay till soils P g� Y Y ' underlying the fill have a medium to very stiff consistency, while the clayey sand soils are in a medium dense condition. ' B.4 Groundwater - Groundwater was not encountered in the borings while drilling or after withdrawal of the auger. After withdrawal of the auger, cave -ins occurred at depths ranging from 6 to 16 feet below the surface. Boring ST -3 was left open for a period of three days. Upon rechecking this boring, groundwater was noted at a depth of about 1 1/2 feet below the surface. This depth 1 corresponds to an elevation of about 866. ' The clay soils encountered in the soil borings underlying the fill were mottled gray and brown. This indicates the presence of a fluctuating water table or the presence of perched water conditions. on the water level readings from our borings and the the i Based o a e g bo gs an discoloration of th soil, it is ou r ' opinion groundwater on this lot is related to the water level in Lake Riley. At the time of our soil investigation, the elevation of the water in Lake Riley was approximately 866. Therefore, potential does exist for groundwater to be encountered during the recommended excavation procedures. Because of the low permeability of the soils, the water levels encountered may not represent the actual water levels. A period of several days may be necessary for the water in the bore holes to stabilize at the groundwater level. 1 1 1 Mr. Jim Jessup I Project BABX - 92-473 August 17, 1992 • Page 4 1 i C. Analysis and Recommendations C.I Proposed Construction I We understand the lot is being developed for construction of a single - family home. The I building will be a wood -frame structure with a walkout basement to the south facing the lake. The main level and garage floor elevations will range from about 876 to 878. The lowest floor elevation will be approximately 868. Structural loads were not available at the time of the 1 preparation of this report. In order for us to prepare this report, we have assumed wall loads will be less than 2 kips (2,000 pounds) per linear foot and column loads (if any) will be less than 30 kips. If the proposed loads exceed these values, we should be informed. Additional analysis and revised recommendations may be necessary. C.2 Discussion 1 Based on the soil borings, it is our opinion the natural soils encountered underlying the fill are suitable for structural fill and house support. Existing fill soils encountered at the borings are not considered suitable for support of structural fill and the house due to their potential for compressibility under building loads. 1 We recommend complete removal of the fill soils within the building and oversized areas. We I anticipate the excavation will range in depth from 4 to 8 feet below existing ground levels. Sump pumps may be needed to remove water from the excavation. Prior to placement of footings or engineered fill, we recommend the bottom of the excavation be observed by a 1 qualified geotechnical engineer to assist in evaluating the suitability of the soils exposed in the bottom of the excavation for structural fill or house support. I Upon completion of the excavation and observation of the bottom, the excavation should be backfilled in a controlled manner to reestablish footing or floor grades. Once building grades 1 are reestablished with properly compacted fill, it is our opinion the fill soils and underlying glacial till will be suitable for support of typical spread footings sized to exert a maximum net I allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Details of our recommendations are contained in the following sections. 1 1 1. Mr. Jim Jessup Project BABX- 92-473 August 17, 1992 1 • Page 5 1 • I C.3 House Pad Preparation I We recommend using an excavation backfill approach for preparation of the proposed house and garage pad areas. Based on the soil borings, it appears about 4 to 8 feet of existing fill soil will need to be removed at the boring locations. Based on the elevations of the soil borings, I once the fill is removed from within the house and garage pad areas, the bottom of the excavation will be at approximate elevations ranging from 864 to 868 1/2 ±. 1 Based on the lowest floor slab elevation provided on the Certificate of Survey, after excavation, the area near Boring ST -1 will be at or near grade. Three to four feet of new, compacted fill I may be necessary at the other boring locations to reestablish floor grade. The footings will likely rest on the natural soils at an approximate elevation of 864. 1 Tabulated below are the recommended excavation depths at each of the boring locations. The depths of the excavations will likely vary between the borings. The maximum depth of the 1 existing fill may exceed the depths encountered by the borings. Also, it is typical to excavate 1/2 to 1 foot deeper than the minimum necessary to clean the bottom of the excavation. Approximate Existing Ground Recommended Excavation Bottom 1 Borg Surface Excavation Depth Elevation in Number Elevation (feet) (feet) I ST -1 872.7 4± 8681/2+ ST -2 871.8 8± 864± 1 ST -3 869.6 5+ 8641/2+ ST-4 870.3 6± 864 If excavations extend below footing grade, the excavations should be oversized to provide 1 lateral stability for the backfill. The bottom of the excavation should be oversized 1 foot beyond the edges of the footings for each foot of excavation below the bottoms of the footings (1:1 I oversizing). Loosened soil in the bottoms of the excavations should be compacted prior to backfilling. 1 1 Mr. Jim Jessup 1 • Project BABX- 92-473 August 17, 1992 Page 6 111, r During excavation work, we recommend the excavator be informed to be alert for possible soil contamination which may have been left in place during the initial excavations to remove existing tanks. We are available to provide trained technicians with specialized monitoring , devices to aid in checking for contamination if the owner or MPCA feels it is necessary. Groundwater was not observed above the design floor slab elevations. However, with Lake Riley located immediately south of the house, and the discoloration of the soils encountered in the borings, groundwater may be encountered during the excavation process. We recommend , sump pumps be on site during excavation to aid in dewatering excavations if groundwater is encountered. 1 If water is present in the excavation, we recommend clean sand be placed in the lower portions of the excavation. The clean sand should have less than 50 percent passing the number 40 sieve 1 and less than 10 percent passing the number 200 sieve. The clean sand is recommended for use in wet conditions due to its ease of placement and compaction. Sand meeting the above gradation was not encountered by the borings and may need to be imported. Acceptable soil types for structural fill include sandy gravel, sand or clay with a plastic index of less than 15. Sandy gravel and sand are generally preferred fill material due to their ease of placement and compactability. The on -site existing fill soils will likely meet this criteria. However, based on the results of the moisture content tests, the existing on -site fill soils are likely wetter than their optimum moisture content and will require drying prior to use as structural fill. If on -site fill soils are not dried to a point near their optimum moisture content, , achieving the recommended compacted densities may be difficult. We recommend each lift of structural fill placed be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of 1111 the maximum dried density determined in accordance with American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Method of Test D 698 (Standard Proctor). , C.4 Foundation Once the building pad has been completed as discussed, it is our opinion the structural fill and soils underlying the fill will be suitable for support of typical spread footings sized to exert a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Minimum footing widths should comply with applicable building codes. We recommend all perimeter footings in heated portions 1 1 Mr. Jim Jessup Project BABX -92 -473 August 17, 1992 ,1 Page 7 1 i 1 of the house and garage be a minimum of 3 1/2 feet below exterior grade for frost protection. Interior footings may be placed immediately beneath the slab, leaving enough room for a sand 1 cushion below the slab. I If a garage is constructed which will be unheated, and for exterior concrete steps, we recommend the footings be a minimum of 5 feet below exterior grade for frost protection. 1 C.5 Floor Slab Support All fill for floor slab support should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the standard I Proctor maximum dry density. At this time, it is unknown whether clay or sand will be used to establish the floor subgrade. 1 With the relatively wet clay soils encountered in the borings and the proximity of Lake Riley, we recommend a sand pad be installed beneath the floor slab. The sand pad should consist of I sand with less than 50 percent passing the number 40 sieve and less than 10 percent passing the number 200 sieve. The sand will act as a capillary break to reduce moisture migration to the floor slab and thus reduce the dampness of the slab. If an impermeable floor covering, a 1 hardened concrete finish, or a sealer will be used, a moisture vapor barrier should be installed under the sand pad. 1 Because of the large quantity of water in the area, it may be prudent to install a subfloor drain system. This system should include a geotextile filter fabric over the soil subgrade, a layer of 1 drainage gravel and drain pipes leading to a sump pump. I C.6 Exterior Backfill We recommend backfill placed on exterior sides of the basement walls in landscape areas be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. Under 1 structural areas such as steps, slabs and pavements, fill should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent. 1 If imported sandy gravel or sand is used as backfill against the basement walls, a lateral earth pressure of 50 psf per foot of depth should be used to design the basement wall. If clay soils 1 are used as backfill, we recommend using a lateral earth pressure of 90 psf per foot of depth for designing the wall. 1 1 Mr. Jim Jessup 1' • Project BABX - 92-473 August 17, 1992 Page 8 1 1 When using clay soils as exterior wall backfill, the potential exists for water to percolate down alongside the walls. The water may become perched on a clay layer and then enter the basement through shrinkage cracks in the concrete. Collecting runoff and discharging it well 1 away from the foundations and sloping the ground surface down and away from the basement walls, are two common methods of reducing infiltration and percolation. In general, surface grades should be designed to drain away from the structure in all directions. As a precaution against basement seepage, we recommend installing a perimeter foundation 1 drain system. The system should include a perforated pipe with a invert within 2 inches of bottom -of- footing elevation. Collected seepage should be routed to a sump and then drained by a pump or gravity to a storm sewer or low area on the site. The seepage control system should include permeable material against the basement wall, such 1 as a synthetic wall drainage system or at least 2 feet (horizontal) of permeable sandy gravel or sand backfill. The sandy gravel or sand backfill should have less than 5 percent of the particles by weight passing a 200 sieve. Where the sandy gravel or sand backfill extends outside the footprint of the building, it should be capped by a slab, pavement or at least 1 foot of topsoil and clay. 1 D. Construction D.1 Observations We recommend all excavations be observed by a qualified soils engineer or his representative to evaluate if the subgrade soils are similar to those encountered by the borings. The purpose of i these observations is to assist in evaluating these soils for their adequacy in supporting the proposed construction. Observations should be conducted prior to placing backfill, fill or forms for footings. In addition, as a precaution, the owner may wish to monitor soils for contamination as discussed in Section C.3 of this report. D.2 On - Site Soils At Boring ST -1, non- to slightly - organic lean clay was encountered in the upper 5 feet. These soils are considered unsuitable for use as structural fill due to the potential for compressibility 1 1 Mr. Jim Jessup Project BABX - 92-473 August 17, 1992 ' 1 • Page 9 1 under building loads. The remainder of the fill encountered by the borings consisted of nonorganic lean clay and silty sand. These soils are considered suitable for reuse as structural fill. However, based on the laboratory tests, these soils are likely wetter than their optimum moisture content and will need to be dried prior to use to achieve the recommended compacted densities. D.3 Testing We recommend representative density tests be performed in backfills and fills placed beneath footings, slabs and drive areas to determine if the soil compaction levels are suitable for support of the proposed construction. Samples of proposed backfill and fill materials should be submitted to a testing laboratory at least three days prior to placement for evaluation of their suitability and determination of optimum moisture content and maximum dry density. Density tests should be taken at 2 -foot vertical intervals as fill is placed. E. Procedures E.1 Drilling and Sampling The penetration test borings were performed on July 30, 1992, with a truck - mounted core and auger drill equipped with 3 1/4 -inch inside diameter hollow -stem auger. Sampling for the borings was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D 1586, "Penetration Test and Split - Barrel Sampling of Soils." Using this method, we advanced the bore hole with the hollow - stem auger to the desired test depth. A 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches was then used to drive the standard 2 -inch split - barrel sampler a total penetration of 1 1/2 feet below the tip of the hollow -stem auger. The blows for the last foot of penetration were recorded and are an index of soil strength characteristics. Samples were taken at 2 1/2 -foot vertical intervals to the 15 -foot depth and then at 5 -foot intervals to the termination depths of the borings. A representative portion of each sample was then sealed in a glass jar. E2 Soil Classification Soils encountered in the borings were visually and manually classified in the field by the crew 1 chief in general accordance with ASTM D 2487, "Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes," and ASTM D 2488, "Description and Identification of Soils (Visual -Manual 1 1 Mr. Jim Jessup 1 Project BABX- 92-473 August 17, 1992 Page 10 I. 1 Procedures)." A summary of ASTM D 2487 is attached. All samples were then returned to our I laboratory for review of the field classifications by a soils engineer. Representative samples will remain in our Minneapolis office for a period of 60 days to be available for your examination. 1 E.3 Groundwater Observations Immediately after taking the final samples in the bottoms of the borings, the holes were probed through the hollow -stem auger to check for the presence of groundwater. Immediately after withdrawal of the auger, the holes were again probed and the depths to water or cave -ins were 1 noted. Three of the borings were rechecked and backfilled just prior to our leaving the site. One of the borings was left open for a period of several days. After rechecking, the boring was then backfilled. 1 F. General Recommendations F.1 Basis of Recommendations The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the attached sketch. Variations occur between these borings, the nature and extent of which will not become evident until additional exploration or construction is conducted. A reevaluation of the recommendations of 1 this report should be made after performing on -site observations during construction and noting the characteristics of the variations. The variations may result in additional foundation costs, and it is suggested that a contingency be provided for this purpose. To permit correlation of the soil data obtained to date with the actual soil conditions 1 encountered during construction and to provide continuing professional responsibility for the conformance of the construction to the concepts originally contemplated in this report and to the I plans and specifications, it is recommended that we be retained to develop and perform' the recommended observation and testing program for the excavation and foundation phases of the project. 1 If others perform the recommended observations and /or testing of construction, professional ' responsibility becomes divided since, in doing so, they assume responsibility for evaluating that 1 1 Mr. Jim Jessup Project BABX - 92-473 August 17, 1992 Page 11 • soil conditions throughout the the so g construction areas are similar to those encountered in the borings or recognizing variations which require a change in recommendations. F.2 Review of Design This report is based on the design of the proposed structure as submitted to us for preparation of this report. It is recommended that we be retained to briefly review the final design and specifications to determine whether any changes in design may have had an effect on the validity of the recommendations contained in this report, and whether our recommendations have been correctly communicated to you so that their intent has been implemented in the design and specifications. If we are not permitted to make this recommended review, we will not be liable for losses arising out of such design changes or misinterpretation or misapplication of our recommendations. F.3 Groundwater Fluctuation 111 Water level readings have been made in the borings at the times and under the conditions stated on the boring logs. These data have been reviewed and interpretations made in the text of this report. However, it must be noted that the period of observation was relatively short and that fluctuations in the groundwater level may occur due to rainfall, flooding, irrigation, spring thaw, drainage, seasonal and annual variations and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made and reported herein. Design drawings and specifications and construction planning should recognize the possibilities of variations. F.4 Use of Report This report is for the exclusive use of the addressee and their representatives to use to design the proposed structure described herein and prepare construction documents. The data, analyses and recommendations may not be appropriate for other structures or purposes. We recommend that parties contemplating other structures or purposes contact us. In the absence of our written 1 approval, we make no representation and assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. F.5 Level of Care Services performed by Braun Intertec Engineering, Inc., for this project have been conducted with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area under similar budget and time restraints. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 1 1 Mr. Jim Jessup 1 Project BABX -92 -473 August 17, 1992 Page 12 1 Professional Certification I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. i 1 Gregg R. Jandro, P.E. Senior Engineer Registration Number: 18221 Date: August 17, 1992 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Appendix 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 It /....‘ -,„. 4'1 ii-k- R,pFY I / N4, S S 1 N I PROPOSED \ BUILDING / j -\\\ / 1 T -3 I I �� ST -4 LSSKO RILEY e— APPROXIMATE =atom DCATI@I DF STANDARD PDETRATICN I TEST DURING. LAKE 1 INT REVISION SHEET 1 BRAUN- SOIL BORING LOCATIONS B' DAJ 08/17/92 1 DRAM GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AP''D BY: DA OF INTERTEC JIM JESSUP � Na BABX 92 -473 1 CHASKA. MN DM Na 92473 FIGURE / SCALE 1- - 15' 1 .I LOG OF BORING PROJECT: BABX92 -473 BORING: S T - GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION LOCATION: I Proposed House 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard See attached sketch. Chanhassen, Minnesota I DATE: 7/30/92 SCALE: 1" = 4' Elev. Depth ASTM Description of Materials I 872.7 0.0 Symbol (ASTM D 2488) BPF WL Tests or Notes R77 7 . 0 5 FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium - grained, dark Benchmark: Top of manhole , ,1 ; `brown. /- cover 50' south of lift station ;;:; FILL: Lean Clay, Non to Slightly Organic, black. and 120' east of east property ' 1 ' I' x 5 line. Elevation = 872.0 II - ,,.I�, i ,,, , x 868.7 4.0 ` I CL % SANDY LEAN CLAY, with a trace of fine Gravel, - % mottled brown and gray to 11' then gray, wet, 7 M.C. = 25% medium to very stiff. - - (Glacial Till) - 1 X 13 _ x _ _.x 18 _ x 14 — —x 10 - 111 x 11 752.2 20.5 A END OF BORING. 1 - Water not observed with 19' of hollow -stem auger - in the ground. I Water not observed to cave -in depth of 16' - immediately after withdrawal of auger. - - Boring left open. - 1 Water not observed to cave -in depth of 16' 1 hour after withdrawal of auger. - II - Boring then backfilled. - BABX92 -473 Braun Intertec ST -1 page 1 of 1 1 1 • LOG OF BORING PROJECT: BABX92 -473 BORING: ST -2 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Proposed House LOCATION: 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard See attached sketch. Chanhassen, Minnesota DATE: 7/30/92 SCALE: 1" = 4' Elev. Depth ASTM Description of Materials 871.8 0.0 Symbol (ASTM D 2488) BPF WL Tests or Notes ' ';;;■; FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium - grained, brown, ti;: moist. - 869.8 2.0 l' l l' 1 i FILL: Lean Clay, brown, wet. X 2 M.C. = 18% ;.,,,, x i!o 867.8 4.0 '�! l ∎; : ; FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, brown, ; 1 ,,; wet. l WH ,,, - — !;1,i, : ;i,i x 6 M.C. = 21% 863.8 8.0 hi , x CL �,j LEAN CLAY, mottled brown and gray to 14' then _ � gray, wet, rather stiff to very stiff. - (Glacial Till) 11 1 - 7 20 _ x 1 ^856.3 15.5 �, i 11 END OF BORING. Water not observed with 14' of hollow -stem auger 1 in the ground. - Water not observed to cave -in depth of 6' — immediately after withdrawal of auger. - B oring immediately backfilled. - I 1 1 1 BABX92 -473 Braun Intertec ST -2 page 1 of 1 i • 11 LOG OF BORING 11 PROJECT: BABX92-473 BORING: ST-3 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION I Proposed House LOCATION: 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard See attached sketch. Chanhassen, Minnesota 1 DATE: 7/30/92 1 SCALE: 1" = 4' Elev. Depth ASTM Description of Materials I 869.6 0.0 Symbol (ASTM D 2488) BPF WL Tests or Notes FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, brown, wet. _ - ', : I_ x I 864.6 5.0 >7 5 M.C. = 11% SC /... CLAYEY SAND, fine-grained, mottled brown and >1 - . : gray, moist, medium dense. I - , . : (Glacial Till) -- 11 861.6 8.0 / x CL / SANDY LEAN CLAY, gray, moist to wet, rather I - stiff to stiff. (Glacial Till) - ' 14 I — _ 7 17 ..x a - 111 - 7 15 — —% 111 — 2c — II — — R 11 I — 8 - 49.1 20.5 END OF BORING. - a _ II - Water not observed to 19' of hollow-stem auger in - the ground. - .. - I — Water not observed to cave-in depth of 16' immediately after withdrawal of auger. - Water down 13 1/2' 2 hours after withdrawal of - 1 - auger. - Water down 1 1/2' 3 days after withdrawal of auger. - 1 - Boring then backfilled. - BABX92-473 Braun intertec ST-3 page 1 of 1 1 11' LOG OF BORING . 11 • • , PROJECT: BABX92-473 BORING: ST GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION 1 Proposed House LOCATION: 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard See attached sketch. Chanhassen, Minnesota DATE: 7/30/92 SCALE: 1" = 4 1 Elev. I Depth I ASTM Description of Materials 870.3 0.01 Symbol (ASTM D 2488) BPF WL Tests or Notes 1 FILL: Silty Sand, fine- to medium-grained, brown, - wet '1 1,10. • - - 2 M.C. = 16% 1 _ i 1,1 - 1 _5‹ 8 I 1i; 864.3 6.0 .... - CL 7 SANDY LEAN CLAY, mottled brown and gray to 1 - 12' then gray, wet, rather stiff. (Glacial Till) 7 12 x 1 — x 1 - I 1 10 ...x I - _ 7 11 — —x 1 _ - - - 1 1 - i - I - P9.8 20.5 . _„ il 1 1 END OF BORING. _ . Water not observed with 19' of hollow-stem auger .- _ 1 in the ground. - _ Water not observed to cave-in depth of 16 1/2' 1 — immediately after withdrawal of auger. - - Boring left open. 1 Water not observed to cave-in depth of 16 1/2' 2 .. - hours after withdrawal of auger. - - Boring then bacldilled. _ 1 BABX92-473 Braun Intertec ST-4 page 1 of 1 • 1 Descriptive Terminology p 1 M Designation D 2487 — 83 Standard Test Method for CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES PARTICLE SIZE IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNING GROUP SYMBOLS AND WWD SOIL CLASSIFICATION GROUP NAMES USING LABORATORY TESTS a SYMBOL GROUP NAME o Boulders over 12" GRAVELS CLEAN 6RAVE.S C > 4 and 1 < < < 3 t Cad Yell - graced gravel t Cobbles 3" to 12" � ` 1 More 00 of Lets than 50 hoes c " Gravel c 1 coarzc th an 4, 5 010n C. < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3 1 GP Poorly graded gravel f Coarse retained on N3, 4 sieve More g1AYEL1 01TX FI 'Fines cIiss +f , aS K or MX GM Silty gravel f•9 .h Fine No. 4 — 3 /a' than 110 tines 4 'Fines CIasT+ty as CL or CX GC CIoy,y gravel f.9.^ Sand A r • ti SANDS CLEgM SANDS C > 6 and 1 < C < 3 1 SY Yell- aced sand + g = 1 501 or of Le thin ss ones d j — `' �' Coarse No 4 — No. 10 coarse m fr action 1 Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc > 3 e sP Poorly graded sand 1 Medium No. 10 — No. 40 _ t mosses 40. 4 sieve SANDS WITH FINES ' Fines classify as Me or MX SM Silty sand 9.h.' Fine No. 40 — No. 200 E i Mtn than 121 fines d' Fines classify as CL or C" SC Clayey sand 9,h• Silt No. 200 — .005 mm P: • 7 end plots on or above CL Lean clay 8.1.. Clay less than .005 mm •a• line 3 SILTS AND CLAYS inorganic Le F. Liquid th ait P: . 4 or plots below •A• line 3 Ml Silt 8 • 1 .a less ° ^'^ 500 RELATIVE DENSITY OF 0r L'° 'i °^ °r'e0 < 0.75 a p ' a "it clay :• n COHESIONLESS SOILS . belt • not area Org silt o iY a :" P: plots on or Move 'a• line CX Fat 41ay WO" very loose 0 — 4 BPF . . SILI5 Ana CLAYS loose 5 — 10 BPF E ^0r "'� medium dense 11 — 30 BPF Liquid limit P1 plots Delve 'A• line OH Elastic silt A. LL ; 501 0 more dense 31 — 50 BPF : Bait - oven Organic clay k, 1 . •. P very dense 50+ BPF or •,Dula limit - not area Organic 0.75 a1 Organic silt k, 1 . 0 , 9 Pr,adrily or9,n,c matter, dere •n color, and PT Peat Highly or9a ^" ' °''' drga ^" od °' CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS a. Based on the wter+,l passing the 3 -in (75-m) sieve. very soft 0 — 1 BPF D. If field sample Contained cobbles and/or boulders, add 'with C08510 and /or boulders' to group name. soft 2 — 3 BPF I c. Gravels mitt 5 to 121 fines require dual Smbol$ 04-GM well graded grovel with s11t rather Soft 4 — 5 BPF pc-0C well graded gravel with clay GP-GM poorly graded grovel • +tai silt medium 6 — 8 BPF Gp - poorly graded gravel with cloy rather stiff 9 — 12 BPF d. Sands with 5 to 121 fines rrouve due. symbols sY -s2 0011 graded sand with silt stiff 13 — 16 BPF SW-SC well graded sand with clay sP -SM poorly graded sand with silt very stiff 17 — 30 BPF SP-SC poorly graded sans mith tidy hard 30+ BPF (0 e . C • Dw'D1 C • 117 f. 1f soil contains > 150 sand, add 'with sand' to group name 9. If fines cleSs ad CL-ML, use dual symbol GC -GM, 5C.Sf! DRILLING NOTES h. If tines are organic, add 'with organic fines' to group owe. i If soil contains > 155 gravel, add 'with gravel' to group name. 3 If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil 13 a 0141, silty clay. Standard penetration test borings were advanced by 3' /" or 6'i." 6. If soil contains 15 to 291 plus No. 200, add 'with sand' or 'with gravel' whichever is aedoainent. I. If soil contains > 301 plus No. too, prtdam sand. ea •samy to group name. I.D. hollow -stem augers unless noted otherwise. Jetting water was a. If soil contains > 301 plus No ''00. predoninantly gravel, add 'gravelly' ne to group t n. PI > 4 and plots En or above 'A' line. used to clean out auger prior to sampling only where indicated on O. PI </ or plot: below 'A• line. Togs. Standard penetration test borings are designated by the P. PI plots on or ,bore •. line. 0 prefix "ST" (Split Tube). q. PI plots Delp. •A• line. eo Power auger borings were advanced by 4" or 6" diameter, ror C'a55'f on Of ' grained so „ S l continuous- flite, solid stem augers. Soil classification and strain and fine yroinee frpct coarse- grdified / depths are inferred from disturbed samples augered to the surface H so - soils / and are therefore somewhat approximate. Power auger borings a couation o . a . - one ate MON3Ont dl of PI -a •o - -m 25 5. .,,y zip are designated by the prefix - 'B” la then PI - 0 ° 3 _ - - 2.. ' "/ e •o`' Hand probings were advanced manually with a 1'/2" diameter Z Eaudt•o^ o' u' , ne i : probe and are limited to the depth from which the probe can be Vert,col at ..--- h0 Pi =' r rnen vI = 0 9 u BI � , Cr manually withdrawn. Hand probings are indicated by the prefix - 30 - / H .. u / / SAMPLING — All samples are taken with the standard 2" O.D. 4- con / / V split tube sampler, except where noted. TW indicates thin -wall Z0 / cf, MH oa OH (undisturbed) sample. d / / 0 BPF — Numbers indicate blows per foot recorded in standard t o - /' penetration test. also known as "N" value. The sampler is set 6" t - -- MLcROL CI into undisturbed soil below the hollow -stem auger Driving resistances are then counted for second and third 6" increments ° o 0 6 zo 30 •o SO 60 70 eo 90 00 „o and added to get BPF Where they differ significantly, they are L !QUID I M I T (LL) reported in the following form — 2/12 for the second and third 6" increments respectively III WH — WH indicates that sampler penetrated soil under weight of hammer and rods alone, driving not required. LABORATORY TESTS NOTE — All tests run in accordance with applicable ASTM standards. DD Dry Density pcf OC Organic Content. % BRA N SAY • WD Wet Density pcf S Percent of Saturation. % MC Natural Moisture Content. % SG Specific Gravity LL Liquid Limit. 0 0 C Cohesion PL Plastic Limit. °p - 0 Angle of Internal Friction 1 N T E RT E C PI Plasticity Index. : <o qu Unconfined Compressive Strength e '� Cefebratio �� -5 t • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1 li Celebrating our 25th anniversary and the 20th anniversary of the Clean Water Act RECEIVED JUL 0 8 1992 1 C!7 Y Vt t;nrurhASSEN July 6, 1992 • Ms. Sharmin Al -Jaff City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Ms. Al -Jaff: • Re: Rudolph 1 h Remus Petroleum Release Site Site ID #: 0001700 The purpose of this letter is to clarify the MPCA's position with respect to 1 the recent letters sent to Mr. Rudolph Remus and Mr. James Jessup. Although not expressly stated in either of the letters, the MPCA staff has no objection over Mr. Jessup beginning construction of his new home. The June 11, 1992, letter to Mr. Jessup provides the MPCA's recommendations for assessing contaminant levels in soil and ground water. We see no reason why he cannot begin footing and foundation construction at this time. 1 I thank you for your interest and patience in this matter. Should you have any questions, please call me at 297 -8613. • Sincerely, Ic-7 John R. Moeger Project Leader Tanks and Spills Section Hazardous Waste Division JRM:np 1 cc: Rudolph Remus, Chanhassen James Jessup, Chaska Anita Crews, Peterson and Bektner, Minneapolis John Bonner, Parsienne, Bowman, Levy, Minneapolis 11 • 1 520 Lafayette Rd.; St. Paul, MN 55155 -3898; (612) 296 -6300; Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Ostroff Lakes • Marshall • Rochester I Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on Recycled Paper Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 9 , ' 1 520 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 -3898 z 2S, rs X>01 Telephone (612) 296 -6300 >, c e Ce4.? / II June 11, 1992 /5 • II Mr. Rudolph Remus 9245 Lake Riley Road Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 1 Dear Mr. Remus: II Re: Remus Property Petroleum Release Site Site ID #: LEAK00001700 The MPCA staff has reviewed the most recent soil gas survey results as reported 1 by your consultant, Bruce A. Liesch and Associates (BAL) in their letter dated May 29, 1992. II The results indicate petroleum contamination below 10 parts per million (ppm) exists along the the Remus - Jessup property line. The highest level recorded was 8 ppm near the former underground storage tank (UST) basin. Based on this last round of samples, the MPCA staff conclude that the investigation and cleanup II performed in response to the petroleum tank release at the above - referenced site has substantially addressed the petroleum contamination. However, please be advised that you remain responsible for identifying and remediating any soil and I ground water contamination caused by the release from your tanks which may be found on the Jessup property if and when he begins building his home. II Mr. Jessup has asked the MPCA staff several valid questions dealing with the testing and management of petroleum contaminated soil and ground water if found during building construction. These questions, with the MPCA staff's responses will be forwarded to you. II Thank you for your time and patience in addressing this petroleum tank release. Should you have any questions, please call me at 297 -8613 or Mr. Jim Lundy at 11 297 -8600. Sincerely, i7 John R. Moeger I Project Leader Tanks and Spills Section Hazardous Waste Division 11 JRM:mmm cc: Mark Miller, Bruce a. Liesch and Associates, Inc. II Anita Crews, Peterson and Hektner, Ltd. John Bonner, Parsienne, Bowman, Levy Steve Kirchman, City of Chanhassen II Dave Koubsky, Nova Environmental Consultants, Inc James Jessup, Chaska Robin Hanson, Commerce Department II Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshall • Rochester FnuJAI (nnnrtunity Emnlnver • Printed on Recycled Paner cele 6rati n 2s o �. otmAt Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1 mapoiniamima Celebrating our 25th anniversary and the 20th anniversary of the Clean Water Act June 11, 1992 Mr. James Jessup 3323 Lake Shore Court Chaska, Minnesota 55318 Dear Mr. Jessup: 1 Re: Rudolph Remus Petroleum Release Site Site ID #: LEAK00001700 I received your letter that asks several questions concerning the existence and fate of petroleum contaminated soil and /or ground water that may be encountered as you begin construction of your new home. First of all, if I am to understand your letter clearly, I am assuming you are in fact prepared to begin construction very shortly, therefore, we will answer your questions as follows: 1. "What is to be done with the excavated contaminated soil on my property at the time of digging the footings for my house? Nova's test results indicate contamination exists." An extensive excavation in April 1990 removed over 1100 cubic yards of contaminated soil, mostly from your property. The excavation extended laterally across the entire footprint of the proposed foundation (to the best of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff's knowledge), and to a depth ranging from approximately 5 to 12 feet. The only known remaining contaminated soil is located adjacent to the Remus residence, which has suffered no impacts. MPCA staff direct that during the foundation excavation, a consultant with the expertise to reliably measure soil contaminants with a field meter be present. Since it is uncertain whether field meters have been operating properly during past work phases, MPCA staff direct the use of the polyethylene bag sample analysis (PBSA) method (guidance document #8), using a flame ionization detector (FID) during foundation excavation. Instrument calibration records and standard curve preparation will be especially important. Please notify MPCA staff when this work is scheduled. 2. "What is to be done with the stinky water that will extracted (sic) in the dewatering process ?" Although ground water sample analytical results from beneath the tanks (at a depth of 7 feet) at the time of their removal (April 1990) were relatively high, these types of samples are frequently not representative of ground water conditions anywhere but directly beneath the tanks. Furthermore, most of the soil containing this water has been removed. Laboratory analysis showed a ground water sample collected by Bruce A. Liesch and Associates (BAL) approximately 50 feet south of the underground storage tank basin was less than 0.50 parts per million (ppm) total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), 520 Lafayette Rd.; St. Paul, MN 55155 -3898; (612) 296 -6300; Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshall • Rochester .1 Mr. James Jessup Page 2 June 11, 1992 below the taste /odor threshold (1 ppm). Investigation of ground water west of the former UST basin has been hampered by disagreements over access to your property. ' According to Pete Sandberg of the Water Quality Division of the MPCA, there are no special monitoring or disposal requirements for dewatering projects that extract clean water. Lake Riley is Class 2B, needing no special protection. However, if the extraction of contaminated water is expected, you should send a "request for no action" letter to the MPCA Water Quality Division, including the following information: a description of the dewatering project, including the expected duration; the expected flow rate; disposal of extracted water. In this case, the extracted water will need to be monitored at regular intervals for TPH, depending upon the flow rate and project duration. If the extracted water is below 10 ppm TPH, it can be disposed of normally (sewer, lake, etc.). If the extracted water exceeds 10 ppm TPH, treatment will be necessary (separation tank, diffused aeration tank, etc.) prior to normal disposal. Prior to foundation construction, you will need to arrange for a single water sample to be collected from a borehole in the approximate position of the dewatering pump. Analyze the sample for TPH. If the sample exceeds 10 ppm TPH, the dewatering project will need to be monitored, and the extracted water treated. If TPH is detected but <10 ppm, the dewatering project will need to be monitored but no special treatment of the extracted water is necessary. If TPH are not detected, no further monitoring of ground water will be necessary. If a permanent dewatering system is to be installed on your residence, you ' may need a permit from the Water Quality Division of the MPCA. 3. "The BAL report dated April 24, 1992, indicated the samples were taken at a depth of 2 to 5.3 feet. Why so shallow ?" According to Mark Miller of BAL (telephone conversation on June 2, 1992) the soil vapor probe sampling depth was selected primarily because of the ' possibility of encountering a high water table. In fact, two probes (GP -5 during the first survey attempt, April 21, 1992; and GP -2 during the second, May 14, 1992) intersected the water table. The probes were retracted ' slightly prior to making survey measurements. Aside from the inability to collect soil vapor from beneath the capillary fringe, the likelihood of drawing water into the sampling apparatus, thus fouling it, is greatly increased when the probe depth approaches the water table. MPCA staff feel the survey adequately represented site conditions at the time it was conducted. 1 1 Mr. James Jessup Page 3 June 11, 1992 1 On the issue of reimbursement, you will need to discuss your eligibility with Ms. Robin Hanson, Commerce Department, at 297 -4017. You must also cooperate with Mr. Remus on an appropriate course of action with respect to your building plans since he is ultimately responsible for ensuring steps are taken to 'identify and mitigate petroleum contamination according to MPCA clean up goals and action levels. 1 Your cooperation will be appreciated. Should you have any questions, please call me at 297 -8613 or Mr. Jim Lundy at 297 -8600. Sincerely, John R. Moege Project Leader Tanks and Spills Section Hazardous Waste Division JRM:mmm cc: Mark Miller, Bruce A. Liesch and Associates, Inc. Anita Crews, Peterson and Hektner, Ltd. John Bonner, Parsienne, Bowman, Levy Steve Kirchman, City of Chanhassen Dave Koubsky, Nova Environmental Consultants, Inc Rudolph Remus, Chaska Robin Hanson, Commerce Dept. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .1 January 14, 1993 1 ' Mr. Don Ashworth City Manager City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 . Dear Mr. Ashworth: We do not oppose the extending of the variance that James Jessup has requested for the property next to ours. He needs the additional year to build his house. The contamination issue has taken longer to resolve than we anticipated. We want to assist him in his variance request. Sincerely, 7 // � ' 1 Rudo h Remus . 6442.I.A) 1 ' Lucil Remus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITYOF „10 0 CHANHASSEN i 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 6 5531 5- 7 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) AL4.- ' : x. _ �.4A MEMORANDUM P. - r r ;7— 6—Al Cc.:, :, TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals /City Council FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I 1 " " l THROUGH: Paul Krauss, Planning Director a -/o - 4 y ., DATE: February 10, 1992 II SUBJ: Variance Extension Request for 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard - James Jessup 1 On March 13, 1989, the Board ofAdjustments and Appeals approved Variance Request #89 -1 for the front, rear and both side yard II setbacks for the construction of -.-a new single family residence. Since then the owner was /informed that his property was contaminated with petroleum products that had migrated from the neighboring property. Therefore, the City Building Inspector and II Fire Marshal issued a stop *York order on October 13, 1989. The contamination is from a gasoline storage tank used for seaplanes operating from the lake. The tank has been removed at the MPCA's II direction. Apparently, the applicant has been unable to build his home until the parcel has been given a clean bill of health by the MPCA. He requested and received several extensions to the one year I time period, which a`variance approval is valid. The MPCA has undertaken work in the cleaning of the Jessup parcel but it is as yet unclear as whether or not it is safe for home construction. In addition, the adjacent parcel, owned by itemus, was the source of I the contamination, remains polluted. Further work is required to clean this lot which may involve related work in the Jessup parcel. At the present time, it is unclear as to when and how this will be I resolved. It is also unclear as to whether or not - all parties are working cooperatively' together to resolve the natter. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals and City Council had granted II an extension on February 20, 1990, and on February, 11, 1991. The variance will expire on February 11, 1992, unless the owner starts construction before that date. II On February 4, 1992, staff contacted the MPCA and spoke to Mr. John Moeger, Hazardous Waste Division Project Leader. Mr. Moeger stated I that further testings and vapor analyses is required to determine if additional corrective action is required on the Jessup property. Is 1 IN 4i PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 Jessup Variance Extension Request January 30, 1992 Page 2 ' The soils under the neighboring property which caused the contamination in the first place are still contaminated. These ' soils are located under the foundation of the residence. Should the MPCA try to remove the soils from under the foundation, they will cause the residence to collapse. The MPCA gave June 1, 1992 as a deadline for construction of a remedy. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the extension requested by Mr. Jessup be granted with the condition he cooperate and complies with the MPCA's requirement to complete the clean up process, in addition to the conditions of approval attached to the original variance. We are further recommending that this variance extension be re- evaluated by July 30, 1992. We are concerned that while the owners and MPCA are unable to reach a settlement, there remains a potential that the remaining contamination is impacting Lake Riley and the surrounding area. By re- evaluating this in 7 months, we do not want to infer any blame on Mr. Jessup or any other party. ' Simply that we will want to intervene, if possible, to get this matter resolved. The following conditions, including the original conditions are recommended: 1. The applicant shall cooperate and comply with the MPCA requirements to complete the clean up process. 2. A re- evaluation of the site will be done in 7 months. ' The original conditions of variance approval - approved by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals on March 13, 1989, are as follows: Approval was subject to the plan dated March 6, 1989, and the following: 1 1. Drainage be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. The deck on the rear of the house is to remain a deck and no porch or any enclosed structure is allowed in the 75 foot setback from Lake Riley. (Note: The building plot plan will need to show the actual ordinary high water mark for Lake Riley to determine actual setback. This will need to be identified on the property survey by a registered surveyor.) The area under the deck may be improved as a patio with no ' enclosures. 3. Plans are to be reviewed by Planning Staff prior to issuance of building permit to assure compliance with intent of and 1 1 Jessup Variance Extension Request 1 January 30, 1992 Page 3 plans presented with variance. 4. The attached plan is noted as the official plan for , determining compliance. The City Council also reviewed the action of the Board of Adjustments and endorsed their action and added the following conditions: 5. The front setback may be no less than 16 feet from the property line. 6. The rear setback may be no less than 68 feet from the deck. 7. The west setback may be no less than 5.5 feet for any portion of the structure. 8. The east setback may be no less than 10 feet for any portion of the structure. ATTACHMENTS 1 1. Letter from applicant. 2. Staff reports dated February 20, 1990, March 8, 1989 and February 27, 1989. 3. City Council minutes dated February 11, 1991, March 13, 1989 and February 27, 1989. 4. Letter from Nova Environmental Services, Inc. dated February 5, 1991. 5. Letters from MPCA dated February 4, 1991, September 9, 1991, November 4, 1991, January 3, 1992. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CI1VOF .2.i, ---�- II ii ,,_ _itoi CHANHASSEN „, �/ I , *�� 1 0 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 N. (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Ati n by (;.,; • , - MEMORANDUM !.:'`` _ -- ------ 1 TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals /City Council o. ° -a =�-` l •�..., FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I THROUGH: Paul Krauss, Planning Director bay :A. '.V.4 1 .-- - _? 7,11:11.--.._ DATE: January 30, 1991 1 SUBJ: Variance Extension Request for 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard - James Jessup 1 On March 13, 1989, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved Variance Request #89 -1 for the front, rear and both side yard setbacks for the construction of a new single family residence. 1 Since then the owner was informed that his property is contaminated with petroleum products. Therefore, the City Building Inspector and Fire Marshal issued a stop work order on October 13, 1989. The contamination is apparently from a gasoline storage tank used for II seaplanes operating from the lake. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals had granted an extension on February 20, 1990. The variance will expire on February 20, 1991, unless the owner starts 1 construction before that date. Staff contacted the MPCA and spoke to Ms. Janet Barryhill on 1 January 28, 1991. Ms. Barryhill stated that the majority of the contaminated soils have been removed. The MPCA will install vents that will test the level of vapor in the soil during the spring of 1991. At the present time, no vapor is occurring due to frozen 1 ground, therefore, no vents will pick up any vapor and consequently, the level of contamination cannot be determined. The MPCA expects that by spring, 1991, the applicant will be able to 1 resume construction. RECOMMENDATION 1 Staff is recommending that the extension requested by Mr. Jessup be granted. While staff supports granting the variance extension, it should be made clear that the gas tank which was located on an 1 adjoining parcel was a non - conforming use and it is staff's position that it should not be replaced. 1 II 1 James Jessup Variance Extension 1 January 30, 1991 Page 2 ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from applicant. 2. Staff reports dated March 8, 1989 and February 27, 1989. 3. City Council minutes dated March 13, 1989 and February 27, 1990. 4. Memo dated February 20, 1990. 5. Letter from Nova Environmental Services, Inc. dated February 5, 1991. 6. Letter from MPCA dated February 4, 1991. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 January 16, 1991 Jo Ann Olson Sr. Planner City of Chanhassen, 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN, 55317 RE: Variance Extension request for 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. Dear Jo Ann: The purpose of this letter is to ask for an extension of the variance for the above referenced property. A year ago the City granted an extension for this property. The site is still contaminated. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is directing the investigation for the cleanup. It appears doubtful that any construction will take place in 1991 given the speed of the cleanup to date. Therefore, I am asking for an extension of the variance for another year. The cleanup process speed is beyond my control. I ' am unable to build on my property due to remaining contamination. I can be reached at 448 -7148 during the day if you have any questions. Please advise me ten days in advance of the scheduled meeting. Thanks for your assistance in handling this matter. ' Sincerely, / IP "*.#1 ' James F. Jessup 3323 Lake Shore Ct. Chaska, MN 55318 ED RECEIV r q JAN 1 8 1991 ' en T ur vnrtrvriHSSEN 1 CITY OF '‘ CHANHASSEN • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937- 5739 Action by Cr ar^r!nittrata , Endorsed - MEMORANDUM Mea t ier' - Rej;cte ---- -- 2 -2. -ci 'TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals �2t Date Submrced to Cc-m :ssioa FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I II Date Sub. ted to Council DATE: February 20, 1990 1.--10 SUBJ: Variance Extension Request for 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard, James Jessup On March 13, 1989, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved variance request #89 -1 for the front, rear and both side yards setbacks for the construction of a new single family residence. Since then the owner was informed that his property is con- taminated with petroleum products; therefore, the City Building Inspector and Fire Marshal issued a stop work order on October 13, 1989. The contamination is for a gasoline storage tank used for seaplanes operating from the lake. The variance will expire on March 13, 1990 unless the owner starts construction before that date. The applicant expects construction to resume some time in mid - summer of 1991. The applicant is requesting an extension of the variance until one year after the receipt of certification by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency stating that the site is ready to be built upon. The rationale for the year is that it will take time to evaluate if design changes are necessary to prevent contamination from re- entering the site or the structure itself. Staff recommends the extension be granted. While we support the variance extension, it should be made clear that the gas tank was a non- conforming use and it is staff's position that it should not be replaced. ATTACHMENTS ' 1. Letter from applicant. 2. Staff Report dated March 8, 1989. ' 3. City Council minutes dated March 13, 1989. 4. City Council minutes dated February 27, 1989. 1 1 1 January 30, 1990 Jo Ann Olsen Sr. Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Variance extension request for 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. Dear Jo Ann: The purpose of this letter is to ask for an extension for the variance of the above referenced property. This letter is in response to the conversation you had with Gary Hempel, the City Engineer, concerning the delay in the construction of the house on the referenced property. ' The delay in the construction is forced because of the discovery of an unknown condition that exists on the property. The condition is subsurface contamination of petroleum products. The city building inspector and fire marshall issued a stop work order on October 13, 1989. The source and total area impacted are not known at this time. It is expected to take some time to I determine the source, area involved, a appropriate plan of action, and time to execute the plan. It maybe midsummer of 1991 before construction may resume. i Therefore, I an asking for an extension of the variance until one year after the receipt of certification by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency stating the site is ready to be built ' upon. The rationale for the year is that it will take time to evaluate if design changes are necessitated to prevent contamination from reentering the site or the structure itself. I can be called at 341 -6028 during the day if you have any questions. ' Thanks for your prompt handling of this request. Sincerely, 1 ..‹,; James F. Jessup ' 3323 Lake Shore Ct. Chaska, MN 55318 FEB 0 21999 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 p. CITYOF . --t `!r r ,� cHANHAssEN III .` "'-' _tS 6?0 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 • (612) 937 -1900 • Er. k'.d II MEMORANDUM ' TO Board of Adjustments and Appeals r-° .ii FROM: Stephen Hanson, Planning Director Z %;1 2.(Z7/8l- I DATE: March 8, 1989 __3113L�r_�- --- SUBJ: Variance for Construction of a Single Family Residence II Requested Variances for Front, Rear and Both Side Setbacks #89 -1 Variance This application was presented to the Board of Adjustments at II their meeting of February 27, 1989. At that time the item was tabled by the Board of Adjustment: This item was tabled for two reasons. First of all, the Boardrfelt that the variances seemed ' to be excessive for the piece of property and the building that was being proposed. The second reason was to request staff to 11 look at other variances along :Lake Riley Boulevard and provide a summary of what variances have been allowed in that area. In response to the first reason, the applicant has submitted II revised plans for the property. The changes to the requested setback variances are as follows. Front setback - To be 17 feet at the closest point from the II front property line. The driveway itself would be 18i feet long at its shortest point and 21 feet long at the longest point be- tween garage and the edge of the right -of -way. These distances II are adequate to allow•vehicles to pull off the right -of -way and park in front of the garage. Side Setback East Side - The required setback is 10 feet. II Previously, the applicant had asked for a 5 foot variance on the east side. The revised plans show the required 10 foot setback II on the east side. No variance would be required on the east edge of the property. Side Setback West Side - The required setback is 10 feet. The II original plan submitted showed a 1 foot setback from the property line to the edge of the deck and a 6 foot setback from the prop- erty line to the edge of the house. After the staff report was II written, the applicant had submitted a revised plan dated February 22, 1989, which showed a 10 foot setback on the west property for the house and a 6 foot setback for the deck. The II II Board of Adjustments March 8, 1989 Page 2 r latest revised plan dated March 6, 1989, on the west side indica- tes a 5 foot setback from the property for the building as well as the deck. This results in a 5 foot variance to the side yard setback on the west side of the property. Previously, the appli- cant had noted the potential for doing a land trade with the adjacent property owner on the west to align their property line 11 with the existing fence on the west side of the property. If the properties were to agree to move the lot line over to the existing chain link fence, the resulting setback on the west side ' at the closest point to the building would increase to approxima- tely 7i feet. Rear Setback - The required setback along Lake Riley is 75 feet from the high water mark. The applicants have revised their building plans to eliminate the porch on the rear of the building which on the previous plan encroached into the 75 foot setback. r The latest plan shows the rear of the structure being right on the 75 foot setback and a 10 foot deck extending into the 75 foot setback along the rear of the property. The deck is considered a structure and would require a 10 foot variance to the rear yard setback for its construction. Lot Coverage - This lot is approximately 7,500 square feet. The maximum lot coverage in the RSF District is 25 %. This translate to 1,875 square feet that can be devoted to lot coverage on the property. Lot coverage includes all impervious surfaces which covers the structure as well as driveways, sidewalks and decks. If the applicant were to meet all setbacks for the lot, the area which could be built on would cover an area of approximately 1,380 square feet. Then you would also need to add in, at a ' minimum, a driveway to serve the structure, assuming a two car garage, a 30 foot setback and a 16 foot wide drive, we would have another 480 feet added onto that figure. That would bring the total up to 1,860 square feet. This would comply with the maxi- mum coverage requirement of the code. ' Lot coverage for the proposed home based on the plan dated March 6, 1989, breaks out as follows. Deck 330 sq. ft. I Driveway 320 sq. ft. Sidewalk and front stoop 100 sq. ft. Proposed Building Footprint 1,650 sq. ft. (garage included) Total 2,400 sq. ft. This total, 2,400 square feet, is approximately 525 square feet larger than the maximum allowable lot coverage for this piece of property. 1 11 Board of Adjustments March 8, 1989 Page 3 In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance to the 30 foot front yard setback to allow for a 17 foot setback. They are asking for a side yard setback of 5 feet on the west side from the required 10 feet. They are requesting a variance to the 75 foot rear yard setback from the lake for a 10 foot encroachment for a deck on the rear of the home. Lastly, they are requesting a lot coverage variance of approximately 525 square feet over what is allowed. The second item requested by the Board of Adjustment was a sum- 11 mary of other variances that have been granted along Lake Riley Boulevard. These are summarized below, however, staff would advise the Board of Adjustment that each application is to be considered on its own merits and the unique characteristics that may apply to a particular lot or circumstance. Case ' 82 -9 Variance 9239 Lake Riley Boulevard In this particular case, the applicant was granted a 5 foot side ' yard setback variance and a 42 foot shoreland setback variance. 86 -1 Variance 9235 Lake Riley Boulevard , In this case, the variance approved for the property was to allow a single family residence to be 50 feet from the southerly ordi- nary high water mark and 35 feet from the westerly ordinance high water mark. These are the two variances that staff has identified on Lake Riley Boulevard in this particular neighborhood. Also, there was another area that people have mentioned, which was a reconstruc- tion on an existing foundation footprint. This particular pro- perty does not meet setback requirements but plans were approved under a section of the code which allows for the improvement of an existing structure as long as that footprint is not extended beyond what was there previously. This does not require the owner to come before the Board of Adjustments for a variance to improve that existing structure. In order for the Board of Adjustments to grant the variances as requested by the applicant, the Board still needs to make findings that the application satisfies the five criteria. While ' the applicant's revised plans are an improvement over what they had requested previously, the issue remains, is there a hardship that is not self- imposed, are the variances necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of property rights on this parcel, and third, are the circumstances self- imposed or a result of a unique situation? 1 1 11 Board of Adjustments March 8, 1989 Page 4 1 This is the determination that the Board of Adjustment needs to make in reviewing this particular request. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff report for BOA Hearing on February 27, 1989. 2. Revised plot plan dated March 6, 1989, showing setbacks as p roposed. 3. R evised plot plan showing the proposed structure overlayed on existing improvements on property. 4. Letter from applicant dated February 28, 1989. 5. Letter from adjacent property owner dated February 2, 1989. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - • - :�, D ATE: l; ITY O F ¶ S OA Feb. 27, 1989 \ � 1 CHANHASSEN C.C. DATE: 1 CASE NO: 89 -1 Variance Prepared by: Hanson /v STAFF REPORT 1 1 PROPOSAL: • Variance for Construction of a Single Family Residence, Requested Variances for Front, Rear and Both Side Setbacks and Maximum Lot Coverage :2: II a V • LOCATION: Lot 42, Shore Acres - Southern end of Lake Riley II mm i Boulevard Actb3 ty Cx,• ., 7; Er. :r V 7) ) 1 APPLICANT: James & Mary Ellen Jessup T-'..: - Q 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard ;, . ;_a. . : ..i._7:::3_7-,k - Chanhassen, MN 55317 D. _ . ' PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: .17 acres (7,500 + s.f.) II DENSITY: 1 _ ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- PUD -R; residential single family S- RD; Lake Riley 1 ar E- RSF; residential single family 1 ( W- RSF; residential single family w 1 WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services are available • 1 PHYSICAL CHARAC.: Site slopes to lake 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential II 1 -IL ! ' /111 1 86 TH S. /� �t �_/ P, ,oluit ill o • • �'- -- 8600 t I N RSF z 1 R1 CP0ND 8800 t- W 11 cr (.., i • - 0 R. 18 " f /1 \ ner �r it iiiii I RD 2 s�oo PUD ?rid i 0/7 - Varimee, ■ �� • �� -_� i ` 9200 ►. % 1�� y ARE 1 � - 9300 • SF R /LEY , ,.,.,, . i , 1 (pavo 1 0 11-6 . 9400 _ _ 1 , . /1111ri 9300 s !�F .�I 9600 I Pogo 9700 _,AIL \� - Cfl r ---- �� ./ - 9800 =0 r .4.3 X 00 Q 4.* —200 ri-, 0 , / W 300 `essup Variance February 27, 1989 1 Page 4 coverage of 34% versus the code requirement of 25 %. The encroachment into the 75 foot lakeshore setback is not something the city has allowed except in unique areas. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of Adjustments and Appeals not approve the variances as proposed based on findings that the request does not comply with the conditions for granting a variance. Staff recommends the Board adopt the following motion: • "The Board of Adjustments and Appeals have reviewed the proposed variances for Variance Request #89 -1, James Jessup, 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard, and denies the requested variances to the side yard setbacks, rear yard setback and maximum lot cover of the ^ity Code based on the following findings: 1. Literal enforcement would not cause undue hardship and prac- , tical difficulty. 2. The variances are not necessary for the preservation and 1 enjoyment of substantial property rights. 1 . The circumstances are a self created hardship due to the size and design of the proposed structures. 11 ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from applicant dated February 20, 1989. 2. Letter from applicant dated February 21, 1989 Application. 3. Existing plot plan. 4. Proposed plot plan. 1 1 1 1 II. • , I lib ruary 20, 1989 1 and of Adjustment arty of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN 5531 11 : Variance request at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. Dear Board: Il I am requesting variances on the setbacks on the front, rear, d both sides of the property. This is a lot that fronts unto Lake Riley and is pie shaped with the narrow portion of the lot to the I ke. It was platted decades ago therefore is not upto current andards of lot size. ji The current situation is that a one story structure exists there w. The structure is within six feet of the east side property line rather than the suggested ten feet. The back of the structure IL only twenty feet from the back property line rather than the ggested thirty feet. The ten foot wide deck is within the enty five setback from the lake. A portion of the garage sets on the neighbors property on the West property line. The one car I rage is not attached to the house. This home was purchased from D as a repossessed house. Structurally the house is not fit to remodel and add stories to obtain adequate spacce. I have several alternatives uses for the current site. One is to do nothing and rent the house out as it is too small for my use. is rebuild using the existing foundation location. This J ernative would require building a structure three stories tall would not conform to setback requirements but is grandfathered. This alternative would not conform to the requirement of having an attached two car garage either. Three is to build within all the backs and include a two car garage. This would require building a four story house as the first floor would be comprised primarily of garage and stairs to gain access to the other floors. The fourth ernative is one I propose. It requires building a two story ructure so as to minimize the visual impact of having a tall structure on this narrow lot. It does require variances on the ndard setbacks but is an improvement over the existing a g ditions and is consistent with other nearby lake lots. The deoff for heighth versus width is perferable. II ,1 CITY OF CHANHA 22; RE: . 03 II FEB 21 1989 II CHANHASSEN P! P!W!NC DEPT. ( f The literal enforcement of the setbacks would cause me to build 1 a structure that would be three stories tall and main floor comprised of garage, deck, and stair way to the upper levels. The - neighbors are opposed to this idea. Their concern is of the visual impact of a tall structure. I find the idea not appealing also. The situation is pecular to my lot as it was platted many decades ago. The lot is pie- shaped and not to current standards. The setback requirements have changed since this lot was platted. These conditions evolved over time. I am planning a house that will allow me enjoyment of lake living. The structure is consistent with other homes in the area. The home on the east side of my property is totally new construction after an unfortunate fire last July. The home on the west side was remodeled and enlarged in the past year. The planned structure enhances the adjoining properties. The variances will not be injurious or adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of the residents. The neighbors disapprove of the current structure and like the idea of a new structure. I appreciate your time and interest in this variance request and look forward to starting construction this Spring. Sincerely, 1 James F. Jessup property owner of 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. 1 1 1 1 1 I/ 1 1 1 1 t ` CITY OF CHANHASSEN II (o February 21, 1989 lA]'S IRO il Board of Adjustment FE B ;:119189 City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN 5531 ENGINEE II RE: Variance request at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. Dear Board: 11 The goal is to make a home that is consistent with other lake residences. That will enhance the adjoining properties and provide II me long term residence. I am requesting variances on the setbacks on the front, rear, and both sides of the property. This is a lot that fronts unto Lake I Riley and is pie shaped with the narrow portion of the lot to the lake. I The current situation is that a one story structure exists there now. The structure is within six feet of the east side property line rather than the suggested ten feet. The back of the structure is only twenty feet from the back property line rather than the II suggested thirty feet. The ten foot wide deck is within the seventy five setback from the lake. A portion of the garage sets on the neighbors property on the West property line. The one car t garage is not attached to the house. This home was purchased from HUD as a repossessed house. Structurally the house is not fit to remodel and add stories to obtain adequate space. The lot is too l small and narrow by current standards. I have several alternatives uses for the current site. One is to do nothing and rent the house out as it is too small for my use. Two is rebuild using the existing foundation location. This II alternative would require building a structure three stories tall and would not conform to setback requirements but is grandfathered. This alternative would not conform to the requirement of having an I attached two car garage either. Three is to build within all the setbacks and include a two car garage. This would require building a four story house as the first floor would be comprised primarily II of garage and stairs to gain access to the other floors. The fourth alternative is one I propose. It requires building a two story structure so as to minimize the visual impact of having a tall structure on this narrow lot. It does require variances on the II standard setbacks but is an improvement over the existing conditions and is consistent with other nearby lake lots. The tradeoff for height versus width is preferable. II The request for variances is consistent with other lake properties along Lake Riley Blvd. The houses to the east of mine II have approximately twenty feet between the garage and property line. The house under construction currently on Lot 35 of Shore Acres, was recently granted twenty -five and forty feet variances for the lake setbacks. The cottage on Lot 29 of Shore Acres is II being rebuilt. It meets neither of the required set backs from the II lake or side yard. The literal enforcement of the setbacks would cause me to build a structure that would be three stories tall and main floor comprised of garage, deck, and stair way to the upper levels. The neighbors are opposed to this idea. Their concern is of the visual impact of a tall structure. The situation is peculiar to my lot as it was platted many decades ago. The lot is pie- shaped. It is too narrow and too small in square footage by current standards. The setback requirements have changed since this lot was platted. These conditions evolved over time. 1 am planning a house that will allow me enjoyment of lake living. The structure is consistent with other homes in the area. The home on the east side of my property is totally new construction after an unfortunate fire last July. The , home on the west side was recently remodeled and enlarged. The planned structure enhances the adjoining properties. The variances will not be injurious or adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of the residents. The neighbors disapprove of the current structure and like the idea of a new structure. I appreciate your time and interest in this variance request and 1 look forward to starting construction this Spring. Sincerely, James 4'. Jessup resident /property owner of 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 . I. q le er Ti rica re (.. t ?„ ,... . ,_ ,30 I w 1 { � � R RAILROAD ne / O « N 8 90 �� c RETAINING wALL 40. ` Y b .F y • fi 1 i I z ,00A I ....tirr,„, „ ,„, , .. i ; ... .... # ....... ~ ^tip i~ 1 ...i 1 '' s f Illr, EXISTING z •• 'S 4 � ENCE SINK I O Nom h MN MN t p LV i 8 N i ' • '''' / / / • g. Y i _ Pik f EXISTING I I t t CNAIN LINK .- FENCE �. S ss' ��// c- 2 OF StCTION 2 TT. 116 N • 11. 23 W ........5 ACCORCNG TO T HE RECORD FLAT O P OF SHORE ACRES 1 kC o .. L �� R) 1 .416: --se lo S.D � i / , ♦G 6.6 eCy Le 0 1 X 1 S 6s.4s DD 4. Ahc .1 fp 1 / ' 1 ' O I tV . ..3 .1 / ............\..............., Ri, _ • LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937 -1900 1 APPLICANT: , trne As GcutJ€2 OWNER: J,4nI6 F. Ma� e[.Etl JESSU ADDRE ADDRESS 9247 LA-s✓E gc.( -�(.l 13•c.va, i-lA Cs5nl // 55 Zip Code Zip Code I TELEPHONE (Daytime) 34/ • ( o O 28 TELEPHONE 4g G • 63 58 REQUEST: 1 Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal - Sketch Plan 1 Preliminary Plan ✓ Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment Platting Metes and Bounds Conditional Use Permit Street /Easement Vacation Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME 1 PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION • REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION 1 PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING t USES PROPOSED ' SIZE OF PROPERTY / 9/ P7 X 330 pr. X i 5a X 7 7 loT. LOCATION q217 , L , ¢ , tE ,r/LE/ at.i 4 . SRN NAs,FeI. 1 REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST NFs c'oN 577 'a e_71 v' m N 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) LOT 42 F S,-o � S , g Y Q 1 1 II City of Chanhassen it il Land Development Application Page 2 FILING INSTRUCTIONS: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or I clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and_ plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements II applicable to your application. II --. FILING CERTIFICATION: The and ersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all II applicable City Ordinances. 1 Signed By Date �p licant _ �1 2 , /9F 1 1 The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein • described. Signed By Date 1' /9g II e ner 1 q II Date Application Received v? -eq •g? Application Fee Paid ItV00 6 75.0 1 City Receipt No. A02041 1 vim' ' p oS l td This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/ I Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their meeting. 1 1 • £ • '4, 1 . / �D V j `4 R ETAINI RAILROAD 7 O II W P 'N 690 / C RE 7AINING WALL / 4p• - ��JO 00 N. I Li �V e 1 4 N O i o f �� , ` ` / f 0' / 2h 1 s !_ / • • I EXISTING W E X I S T I N G O e G A RAGEn�i n 2 w 1 a Ij £• I NousE Xi,- - r: i: EXISTING ' CHAIN LINK ✓ R' : O w m `te / ... - f C N I I I .... I EXISTING �'Ya OWN LINK t'O / • FENCE � � t OR S SE CTIO N O T7 E16 N , R. 23 W., W ACCORSOING RE TO ACRES THE RECORD PLAT I {.•.; OF NO ` I — i ;: q 4 •. 1 A S no. d100 _ �R � s ; •..E t'i..1 1 Lip„ ,1 !•f^0 �t4V('t/P-, • I WI CV . ,,t, / .....-"••••.„..ss...s....., 1 RI / . R � I % - t� R 1 ( • ' • ,� I � i ' `-- • 4 • 1 4 � RAILROAD TIE / 0 0 / H 69•/�, RETAINING wALL �p� > > Jp p p ` N Iv / JE j / w 1 / . . 0 0 4 Olit ' " 1 / 1 rs • ' 10h.bt ` sillir 4a . ... .. 7 1 6m,,, I f 1 irli 61-• • / EX t-4' i I - • 'L ( � • - CM IST'NG K 1 7. /0 �' ENCE AA - iv p o 4 � • 1 y • • 1 s EKISTING . LINK FENC • iENCE F r ST INE Of iME S. E. I/ �" 4 " OF S • MN tK T 116 N. • 2! W A • 11 < / =OR NG TO THE RECORD ►L T 1 tt C'f S •RE ACRES 4 ; 'IS . I • / .. . , s.* r •. aa :� t f ` 1 t N 1 .. i 1 C ASE A "--••• .. / . \\; 1 February 28, 1989 Mr. Steve Hanson , Director of Planning City of Chanhassen( 11 Chanhassen, MN, 55317 RE: Variance Request *89 -1 Dear Steve: I ask you to place my request first on the agenda for the Board of Adjustment meeting. I would like to have adequate time to present uninterrupted rather than being forced to present as people come strolling in at 7:30 p.m. to attend the City Council meeting. If I can be of assistance to you in writing a staff report recommending the proposed site plan dated February 22, 1989 I would appreciate the opportunity. The issue is not the size of the proposed structure as we both recognize the grandfather clause. The issue is do I build two or three stories plus basement to obtain the same living space that I/ I have proposed. The perpetuation of the existing single car garage location is not what I prefer but provides the only garage under a grandfather clause. , I think the elimination of the encroachment and improving side setbacks to a minimum of five feet is in the best interest of the neighborhood. If you wish to walk over the property please call a day in advance to set the time. I work during the day and will need to make special arrangements to be there. Thanks for your time and patience on this matter. 1 Sincerely, a James F. Jessup resident /owner MAR 11989 �� ► r OF CHANHASSEN 11 ebr u: r r 2, 1989 11 Hy. Steve Hanson C i t y Planner, City of Chanhassen Re: The proposed i cr4irovements to the property at 9241 Lake Riley Blvd. Dear Mr. Hanson: I would like to thank you and the City Engineer for taking your time to speak with me last Wednesday regarding my next ' door neighbor's intentions to remodel his home. As I explained to you in our meeting, we are very much in favor of seeing the property next to ours improved. However, we want to be clear on. the City's planning process and regulations, and to I:now our property rights. From our discussion, 1 understand the following points to be how the City of Chanhassen views the situation: 1. The City of Chanhassen will allow Mr. Jessup to ' rebuild on the existing foundation without any special permits as long as it does not further impose on any of the setback requirements. The City is aware that the existing structures do not comply with the current building code. 2. The maximum building height is 3 stories. (maximum 40 feet overall) 3. If Mr. Jessup chooses to build on the existing foundation, he might be allowed to attach the house to the garage, but he could not add any living space over the garage. 4. There is a question as to if he could rebuild anything on the existing garage foundation because it already lies on my property. ' 5. If he does decide to completely destroy the existing structures and rebuild, the City would allow a variance to the 30 foot required setback from the road, to approximately 20 feet. t This would line up with the two homes to the East of the property ) ' b. The City w i l l not allow any variances to the 75 foot setback from the lake. This includes decks, 3 season porches, and patios in front of a walk out basement. 11 7. For variances to the 10 foot side setbacks to be allowed, a hardship ( non self- created as per section 20 -58 #4.) would have to be established. It -_ - was your opinion that you knew of. no such hardship 11 • FE5 g7 PA because Mr. Jessup was well aware of the size of the lot and the pertinent city codes when he purchased the property last year. C. The City's opinion is that I would have easement rights across the northwest corner of his lot for access to my two driveways. This is because I have owned my property for over eight years and I have used and maintained the corner of his property for access to my property. Also, this condition has existed in this form since the home and garage were built in the early 60's. 9. The City cannot provide jurisdiction as to how he reroutes the rain water runoff, even if he redirects it onto my property, because this is an individual legal question for a judge to decide. 1C >. The City will inform us in writing when the actual applications and plans have been submitted and when 1 the Board of Adjustments and Appeals will meet to discuss the variances. I understand that the earliest date of this meeting would be February 27th. If I have misunderstood any of the above points, I would appreciate if you would let me know as soon as possible. If I do not hear from you by February 15th, I will assume the above points to be correct. Again, I would like to thank you for your time and information. Sir eiy, W Donald Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, Mn. 55317 445-5728 cc Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager 1 1 1 1 1 L q , uer TiTica re , ! 4 3... - 1 • '3 -0 .1 N 1 Lf* 0 RAILROAD TIE I 0 N 69. � RETAINING WALL \J / Q� y F p. w // � Jp ei _ '.. / e • 6F * 1 1 'N 1 • / 48 i E� � / i m +1 V 1 / Mink 14Nh •4G to ..../ r s 1 _ Z. 1 • • 1 ff"1. r1. •- � EXISTING 3 CRAW LINK 8. s ... `vENCE t 115 o _ Ilf 4 . / 4 II I a i OUP- 1 EXISTING / CRAIN LINK —` FENCE ` WEST INE Of THE S + I 1 Of SE DON 24, T 116 N � , 23 W , L ACC• ING TO THE RE••RO PLAT i / OF S •RE ACRES / C I / sr 1 6e—At - + / 1, 1 >>a i S � q V�. i / f I L /NE .. �' - 1 1 I N �� �\ r / 1 ., 1 4 ‘ s • R ig "-"---..._ 1-- q A- "4I1 ,,1;Loki 1 U 1 { 4 i Rai. ROaO TIE q ill R "/. F 1 RE TAINING WALL 004 IY • 1 7? 30 1 A t I • 1 ;/1 . ° / I:- • I +co t / !II 1 iE / 1 EXIS T � '' L 11.. If1 C . S T I N G 1 c e G A R • ! I 12 4 . .22.4 ft /It . p i as {OM4b lt/'hALtfi ' �� I N o u s E 1 l.. � I 2. E K /STING CHLW LIi.K ' � + e e � Tr . • I • c ^ 1 a o 2.7 _ � N A N L p 11, x N 4 A Arili Z 1 / Cr 'STING s'_ CHAIN LINK -7 FENCE 1 t WEST INE Of THE ' I2l W. . fs Of SE iION 2 f 116 S N IH� ACCORNG TO THE RE• Oi S •RE ACRES RO PLAT r , i D 5.b. /O' S b r 3/ G/8 1 F6.8 F Sy 4yEr 9' f . '. I 1 N .6, / .-...., �� / I/ Y / E 1 March 6, 1989 Donald W. Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, Mn. 55317 Stephen R. Hanson Planning Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen Mn. 55317 ' Dear Mr. Hanson: This letter is intended to formalize our concerns with regards to the request for variances on the Jessup property at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. We do want to see the property improved, however we would ' like to insure that the house plans are consistent with the rest of the homes in the neighborhood and that the plans make sense for the lot it will be on. As for the hardship, I do not see that the Jessups have established any hardships that are not self- created. They knew the size of the lot, the city's setback ordinances and the condition of the home before they purchased the property. Also, there is plenty of room to build a fine home within the setback requirements (approx. 1470 sq. ft. on one level). ' Specifically, we are concerned with the following points: 1. The proposed overall size of the house is too big for the lot. The preliminary plans show a 3000 square foot home with a potential 6 bedrooms placed on a lot having just over 7000 square feet and only 25 feet of shoreline. ' Because we have still not seen full plans or elevations, if these variances are granted, the actual total square feet could expand even more. I feel the city should demand full plans and elevations be submitted before they consider ruling on any of these variance requests. 2. We feel very strongly that the house should not be built any closer to the lake than the 75 foot setback requirement. This is mainly for environmental concerns. This should definitely include not only 3 season porches, I but also decks and patios which could easily be enclosed in the future, thereby obstructing neighbor's views of the lake. 3. We still feel the plans show the house being too close to our property line. It is true that his garage now lies 1 f • 1 slightly on our property and it would appear to be an improvement to move it over 6 feet. But as it is now, all their traffic and activities go between their garage and house with the garage acting as a buffer for us. If they incorporate garage in the house as the plans show, all their traffic would go around the house on our side. Therefore we would want the full 10 foot setback requirement enforced to prevent their activities from spilling over onto our property. ' 4. The overall height that we saw on a preliminary drawing showed it to be 3 stories high and to be approximately 35 feet over the road. I realize this is within the 40 foot requirement, but it does not fit with the neighborhood when the 2 homes to the east are only one story high. 5. We are very concerned with the drainage problems that will be caused by the size and placement of the planned structure. Originally all the rain water flowed through the Jessup property. The Jessups have already piled gravel on the back of their lot enough to re -route the water onto our property. Now if they build this house as planned and totally change the grade thereby blocking the natural water path, all the water must go somewhere else. I believe the city should demand the Jessups submit drainage plans to show how they will handle the water drainage problem. 6. We also think the activities associated with a house of this size do not fit on such a small lot. We are concerned that eventually their activities will end up spilling over on the adjacent properties. Finally, in response to the comments Mr. Jessup stated in the meeting on Feb. 27th, we feel he was greatly exaggerating some of the points. As for what exists now on the property, he was claiming that the shed attached to the garage, the pumphouse, and the deck are now existing permanent structures that were not shown on his plans. The reason 11 these were not shown is because they are not permanent structures. The facts are that the "shed" is a "basket- weave" fence with a few pieces of plastic for a roof, the "deck" is a large step out the front of the house without railings and is simply sitting on a few concrete blocks, and the "pump house" is a "structure" only about three feet square and only one foot above the ground level. He also claimed the driveway to be permanent asphalt when in fact it is only loose gravel, and I am not sure the garage itself would even qualify as a permanent structure. I hope you have time before the next meeting to come out and view the property yourself to verify these facts. As for a precedence being set by other homes in the 1 neighborhood, I don't believe any exist. The new home under 1 4 construction on the point ( I believe Lot #35 ) had many extenuating circumstances because within the setbacks, there ' was little or no room left to build. I know this plan was reviewed very closely by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals prior to granting any variances. The small blue house Mr. Jessup mentioned that is currently being remodeled on 9221 Lake Riley Blvd., is also a different story. This was supposedly built on the existing foundation and was not brought up to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for ' review. There were no variances needed for what they wanted to do. Because I believe they built beyond the extents of the original foundation and I believe this is unfortunate, 11 this should be handled as a separate issue and should no way be viewed as setting a precedence for the Jessup situation. In conclusion, We would like very much to work with the Jessups to achieve a plan that will be acceptable to all. But as for the requested variances, we feel the only one that would be acceptable is to allow them to go within 20 feet of the road which is similar to the adjacent houses to the east. All the other requested variances, we feel very strongly should not be granted. Thank you very much to your attention to this matter. 1 Sincerely, gLeWjj?k Donald W. Sitter 1 1 11 1 1 1 City Council Members 1 City of Chanhassen February 27, 1989 Dear Council Members: Due to other committments I am not able to attend tonight's meeting. I would, however, like to comment on the proposed building of a home on the lot located at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. My concern is the overbuilding of this lot. It is my understanding that the proposed structure would be over 3300 square feet in total area with a 2 car garage and a large amount of deck in addition to that. I like large homes as much as anyone but the size of this home on the lot that they have proposed it for is unreasonable. I am speaking on this subject with many interests: 1) I am a resident in the neighborhood in question and feel overbuilding of any lot would be a detriment to it; and 2) I 1 own 9223 Lake Riley Blvd. which is also a buildable lot in the neighborhood and located on Lake Riley. While I am all for nice homes coming into the neighborhood, I believe that there should be 1 guidelines established by the city to control the size of building on any given lot. It is indeed unfortunate that the situation should get to the point where neighbors or potential neighbors have to pit themselves against each other to achieve a solution. True, there is a procedure for granting variances and that is needed. However, there should be a ratio of building size to lot size so that there is • I some firm guidance as to what can be expected by both parties. If there is a guideline as such on the books, then I believe it should be enforced by the city so the neighbors wouldn't have to. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 1 Sincerely, Alan H. Dirks 1 1 1 1 1 March 6, 1989 Board of Adjustments and Appeals City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive ' Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 To: Board of Adjustments and Appeals This Letter serves to voice our feelings of opposition to granting variances for front, side, rear setbacks and ' maximum lot coverages at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. It is our understanding that the applicants wish to construct a 3 story, 3000 -3600 square foot house on this very small Lakeshore lot. To grant the variances for this lot will set a precedence for the remaining small lots around the area. What will happen is that the other owners may elect to do the same, thus creating a very close complex of oversized houses that would not be very appealing. This we feel will detract and ' degrade from the esthetic appearance of the neighborhood as well as the country openness this area has grown to enjoy. These are reasons we chose to move to where we are. We recommend denial of these variances and will appreciate our concerns being given the fair attention deserved. Please 1 visit the site, observe the neighborhood, and recognize the impact to the neighborhood if the variances are approved. Thank You in advance for your consideration in this matter. 11 Respectfully, 'Ce/Aftw4L Kenneth and Katherine Wolter 341 Deerfoot Trail Chanhassen, MN. 55317 (612) -496 -1337 1 1 City Council Meeting - F1 11, 1991 ' 0' Request to Extend Approval of Front, Rear and both Side Yard Variances, 9247 Lake Riley Blvd., James Jessup i. Ordinance Amending Chapter 9, Article 3 of the City Code Regarding the Fire Code, Second Reading. cry.iO j. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow Emission Control Testing Stations as A k Conditional Use Permits in the BH and IOP Districts, Second Reading. „ k. Approval of Accounts. ' 1. City Council Minutes dated January 28, 1991 as amended by Councilman Workman on pages 18 and 19. 11 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 22, 1991 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ' g. APPROVE SOUTH LOTUS LAKE BOAT ACCESS SITE AND DRAINAGE STUDY. Mayor Chmiel: I pulled this off because I thought that there were some specific ' things of concern to me. One of those being the estimate of a probable cost that we're looking totally at this, the total estimated project cost is going to run roughly about $40,587.00 and I think there are some things in here that could be shaved a little. I'm looking at some specifics regarding fieldstone boulder wall that we're looking at as a little rip rapping down at the park. In addition to that, I know that they've had some problems within a specific area ' whereby there was a problem with that 100 year storm caused some erosion within a particular part. Quite ironic we had two of those in one year. Supposedly _ j not to happen within 100 years but we did have two within one specific year. I've had some discussions with Todd on this and I had one other question in the VanDoren Report. Page 1. They indicate this additional area, in the last paragraph the fourth line from the bottom. The additional area has caused . retention ponds to frequently overflow causing erosion, sedimentation deposits throughout the project area. Do you know how many times that did happen by chance? Todd Hoffman: To quantify the word frequently? , Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Todd Hoffman: Over the past, it would just be an estimated over the past 3 years. Specifically I think what they were reporting on is the area of those two times. Other than that, unless we're into a 2 inch rain, I wouldn't think , that we're not going to overflow that upper area...corrections they are proposing will handle. We are restricted by the physical area which is available there. Corrections to that upper area which they had outlined there will help that so the frequency of that will go down. There still is the chance that we may have that overflow in that upper parking but that's not where the... Getting the water down to that low area and then...lower holding pond on out. That's where the major concern is. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, okay. I see that financing the project can be funded from the following sources. We have the Soil Conservation, Environmental Trust Fund ' 2 1 II City Council Meeting • abruary 26, 1990 II can pursue to buy the 2 foot of property, fine. If not, then he has to care before the board again and we'll make a decision at that time. We would hope he t can buy 2 feet. 11 Mayor av iel: So the action for us to do is just table this? I Willard Johnson: Just table any action until we get a response within 90 days. Mayor Oriel: Good. Thank you. II Councilwcran Dialer moved, Cbuncilman Workman seconded to table the rear yard setback variance request for James McAllister at 620 Foxhill Drive. All voted I in favor and the motion carried. r * . ' VARIANCE EXTENSION REQUEST, 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, JAMES JESSUP. P �� Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the applicant requested an extension because of pollution from a leaking gasoline tank apparently from an adjoining property II that's preventing him fraa, building. He wanted an extension that was valid for a year past the date the PCA says the site's cleaned up. The Board was uncomfortable with that since we had no idea when that was going to occur and II agreed to a 1 year extension with the possibility of further extensions if the problem's not resolved in the next 12 months. li Mayor Ch iel: Okay, any discussion? Councilman Bout: u ' I know you just Rerutioned this but we do have to nrodify the variance right? Didn't you say in here it should be clear that the gas tank is II not a conforming use? Paul Krauss: Ch, I need to clarify that. 1 Councilman Johnson: It's not on his property. Paul Krauss: Right. When I had heard about this problem I had heard about the II leaking gas tank and it turns out it's on a neighboring property. Councilman Boyt: Okay. Got it. Fine. Councilman Boyt moved Councilman Johnson Co J seconded the variance extension II request for James Jessup at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Johnson: What were we voting on? II Mayor Cmiel: Exactly what Paul said. t II Councilman Boyt: An extension. Councilman Johnson: Oh. It was passed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals unanimously. Did we need to vote too? II 35 1 City Council Meeting - Fe dry 26, 1990 Councilwoman Dismler: Yes. Councilman Hoyt: We did or didn't? 1 Paul Krauss: You wouldn't have needed to acted. It wasn't appealed and the 1 board approved it. Mawr Chmdel: Okay, we'll withdraw it. , Councilman Johnson: Well it doesn't matter. Mayor Oriel: It's alright. We like to do it twice. 1 REVISED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR COUNTRY HOSPITALITY SUITES, DAVE HEMMINGER, D.W. 1 HUTT CONSTRUCTION. Paul Krauss: As the City Council is aware, the developers for Hospitality Suites proposed sops changes to the site plan that staff felt were sufficiently substantial that it took the proposal back to the City Council for action last December. The Council determined that the revised roof line and roofing materials were acceptable but insisted that a canopy over therein entrance be provided and in addition indicated that at that point in time you were unwilling to accept the shortening up of the building by approximately 12 feet which had been proposed. You did however indicate that if anymore changes were proposed, since the project seemed to be in something of a state of flux, or if any of those decisions warranted further consideration, that the applicant could go back to the Planning Commission through channels for an amendment site plan. And that is in fact the case, an amended site plan is being requested. Again, , r • the applicant is continuing to request approval to delete a 12 foot section of the building. A satisfactory canopy design was also presented to the Planning Commission contingent upon same issues that have to be resolved between the applicant and the City Engineer. Staff raised issues regarding preservation of a landscaped courtyard to the east of the building and a related issue providing mdnimum building separation to meet building code requirements. Staff is reccprending approval of the revised plans and that recommendation has been supported by the Planning Canhission. Staff is continuing to recomend approval . of the wended site plan. We believe it's consistent with the intent of the original approval and resolves issues that have been raised. As to the deletion of the 12 feet of the building, we really did feel it's not going to be visible. Unless you know where to look, you won't know that that section of building's going to be absent. It's not taken out of the residential rooms itself. It's taken out of the lobby /pool area and we really don't think it's going to be visible or disruptive to the architecture of the building. As I eluded to earlier, there's still a remaining concern concerning the drive under canopy. We're recoprending that condition 4 be corrected to read the final canopy plans be approved by the City Engineer contingent upon the applicants demonstrating that there is sufficient room to ranuever buses. We'd also like to add a 5th condition if we could to the effect that all other conditions of the original approval remain in effect. We neglected to do that earlier assuming that it was the case but it doesn't hurt to state it. Councilwoman Dimler: Is there anyone that would like to address this? I/ 36 IF - City Council Meeting .rch 13, 1989 ( ~ l Resolution #89 -34: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve a resolution proclaiming the week of March 12 -18, 1989 as Girl Scout Week in Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 11 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: ( There were no visitor presentations. VARIANCE TO THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION ��� UCT N OF A NEW „,INGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, JAMES JESSUP. kl.g0 Mayor Chmeil: We have moved up item number 7 which we held at the Board of Appeals and Adjustments just prior to the Council meeting. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments had reviewed the proposal and because of the many conditions and many things that have happened within the area of the setback requirements that were done previously for other homes, had approved this particular item. Now of course it canes to Council for discussion. I'm not sure whether Mr. Jessup would like to make a presentation. If so, please proceed. Councilman Johnson: Was this passed unanimously? Councilman Boyt: It was. Councilman Johnson: Does any member of the Council have a problem with it? Councilman Boyt: Yes. James Jessup: I am James Jessup. My wife, Mary Ellen is here with me this evening. The two kids are at home and the goal of our request is to establish a long term residence with the proposed property changes... The action that we're 11 requesting is for you to approve Site Plan dated 3 -6 -89. I apologize if you looked at the staff report at the number of site plans that have been modified and changed along the way. The fact is we tried to accommodate input from neighbors and staff and do other things to the project. What I've got is an existing structure and this is covered in your handout on page 4. This same drawing... The orange highlighting shows portions of the existing structure or outside of the project. The proposed structure sets inside the existing structure on 3 of the 4 sides. On the east side of the property the existing setback is 4 1/2 feet. I'm proposing a 10 foot setback. On the street side of the property or the front, there's an existing 16 foot setback. I'm proposing 17. On the west side of the property, the garage actually encroaches onto the neighbor's property which is not a good situation but I'd like to change that. I would propose a 5 foot setback on that side of the property, the west side. So it's...8 1/2 feet. On the back of the property, I propose a 10 foot setback that would have a whole new deck in that setback. Behind that sketch is a rough house plan that I put together that shows the main level of this 2 story home with 3 bedrooms. We have a 2 car garage, kitchen, dining room area and den are all...pretty standard home. ...3 bedroom home, 2 bathroom. Similar to what you probably. We're trying to build a home here that's similar to what's already existing... I think the colored pictures there that you've got, the front page has that red home there, that's the existing structure and garage. It's not the greatest. That's what's existing there today. If this is approved, that would be gone. It's a tough site and the reason for the setback requirements are the fact that the lot... The minimum frontage across the street side is less than 19 C�.ty Council Meeting - M,. 13, 1989 minimal standards. It's a tough situation. ' oug on. It' s an existing situation that I d like to improve. I'd like to get rid...I'd like to improve the setback...and ii/ the Board of Adjustments agrees. As an alternate, not as an alternate but to further talk about the hardship... That's the setback as proposed by the guidelines. Within that area you can see that there's very little space on a main floor to build, after you include your 2 car garage, a stairway to get to the upper level, a deck and a shall room for... Councilman Johnson: You're putting a bigger deck on that example than on the house you're planning. James Jessup: I think they're the same size. What I've got here is a situation that's difficult by design of the lot. It was a pre - existing condition. The 1 previous owner experienced similar frustrations in that property is too close to the street and too close to the east side. The garage encroaches on the west side and the deck sits in the lake area. The situation is, I appreciate your consideration. The precedent for this situation as the staff has reported in the report to you, variance 89 -2, a home 250 feet down Lake Riley Blvd.. Here are some pictures on 13, page 13 of your handout, excuse me the fourth page. The bottom home. The hone that's tall. That home was granted a 5 foot variance from the property line. It was granted a 33 foot variance on the lake side and the front yard setback also so there's precedence very close by... Just in summary, I'd just like to restress the hardship criterias. I think this meets pretty well and this plan shows what's there, what's proposed. There's just not roam to... I think I've got a pretty reasonable strcuture that's 2,000 square feet on two levels...so I would ask for your approval. 1 Mayor Chmiel: I know we have a neighbor here who would also like to address this. Don Sitter: First of all we would definitely like to see this property improve. The house next to us right now is an eyesore. I have no concerns about that at all. We want to make sure that the plans are consistent with the neighborhood and fit on the lot that it's being put on. The City ordinances call for an establishment of a hardship of some sort. I don't believe any hardship has been established. If you look at the site plan, they have approximately 1,470 square feet within setbacks which they can build this plan. I think that's plenty of roan to build a fine home. If they want to go two levels, they've got nearly the 3,000 square foot. Specifically we're concerned about a few things. One is the overall size of the house. What Jim calls a 2 story house, I call a 3 story house. His plans show for a full basement which is a walkout basement and being on the lake, that's nearly road level or whatever so it is literally a very large hone. The 3 bedrooms upstairs, if you include the den and playroom and a piece of the rec room that could be finished off, we could be looking at a 6 bedroom home on a lot of 7,000 square feet and lakeshore of 25 feet. I think the Jessup's are fine people. What if they sell to a family of 6 teenage kids? Where's all that activity going to fit on a lot of that size? As for the precedence being set, the house down the road I think was 40 feet back from the lake which is a 35 foot variance or whatever. The house is approximately 30 feet deep. That means the back of their house is 75 feet from the lake and they're already too close to the road. They literally had no room to build on their lot. As far as the 50 foot wide lot...so as far as the side setbacks, I 1 think there's a considerable difference in that condition and in this condition. We also have a concern with the drainage on the property. Right now you can see 20 1 City Council Meeting ' u,_ch 13, 1989 their existing garage, the existing home, all the water runs out... It was brought up at the Board of Adjustment meeting before us that some of the water is coming from our house, running down the driveway and through their property. That's a small problem. The big problem is the entire area north...and I think you can ask them. I know of at least 3 or 4 times in the last few years that they've ended up with 6(inches of water in their house and they had plenty of water damage to show that. He had to do a lot of repairs on his home to fix that. That's no shall problem and I see no drainage plans at all whatsoever for this. We're also a little worried about the overall height. The two homes to the east are single story homes. His is up close to 35 feet in the air. I'm not sure that really fits with the rest of the neighborhood. You might ask why I'm opposed to this and it seems kind of strange. They're looking at building a very, very nice home which would help improve our property values and I think 11 that's a good point and like I said, we want to see it improved. We think it's too much improvement. We think the house is just too big for the lot. I'm also very concerned about the encroachment on the lakeside. Because there has been 11 no hardship established here and you're allowing than a 10 foot variance there, you're basically saying the City Ordinance is not good at 75 feet and you're basically changing it to 65 feet. I'm not too sure that's what you really want to do here. I guess if I saw same hardship or some reason why these variances should be granted I'd say fine but I think they can do very well within the setbacks and I'm pretty sure we're maybe establishing precedence on this one. Not a precedence on the ones that were done down the road. I don't think they apply to this case. I think it's different. Thank you for your time. Councilman Boyt: I think that the important point here is that there are criteria that are set up by the State to use when we're considering variances. Variances are not meant to write ordinances. Variances are meant to handle hardship situations that the ordinance could not be written to adjust to because it was in fact a unique hardship. If we're unhappy with our ordinances, we should rewrite than but if we're going to give a variance, we really ought to follow the guidelines the State has set down for us. Now we as a Council are acting on this kind of variance for the first time. Previous Oruncils have acted on it and they have made decisions. We might be able to make a pretty strong argument that that does not bind us to making similar variances but once we make it, we've then created a precedence for this particular body and anyone who wants to come in and say I want to extend my house within 65 feet of the lake and we say to that person you do not have a hardship, they can say to us, and neither did this situation. So I think from that standpoint, Mr. Jessup's presentation is a good one. He makes a lot of very good points. The one about the existing footprint of the home I think is an excellent point and should allow us to make some reasonable adjustments. So I can understand the need to allow some variances but I think we have to be very careful that we don't allow any that haven't already been approved for this particular location. I would prefer to see us have a building, house, that does not cane closer than the 68 feet the current residence comes. I think anytime we can improve and as Mr. Jessup's second plan, his modifications from 2 weeks ago is certainly an improvement over the first plan and in some regards we might be able to make an argument that it's an improvement over the existing variances on the current house. But where it's not an improvement I think that we can't afford to pass that. Not when he can not show a hardship and he can't because he can develop this property without variances so I think we should consider this very carefully. This is not simply a matter of looking at this particular instance but it's establishing our willingness to grant anyone the opportunity to build 21 ;sue ' 1/ • City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989 i within 65 feet of the lake. Mayor Chmi.el: I guess there's been several thoughts on that portion. Steve, ti 1 will you read the specific conditions that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals have indicated? Steve Hanson: Yes, the Board of Adjustments in their recommendation for approval had...as follows. First was that the drainage in the area be reviewed by the City Engineer to come up with a viable means for handling that between , the neighbors specifically. The second condition was that the deck remain a deck and no porch or any type of enclosure be allowed either up on that top level or on the walkout level below. The third condition was that the plans for the building be reviewed-by staff as pert of the building permit process to insure that what they're asking for in the building permit complies with what the Board of Adjustment approves. Then the fourth condition was to specifically make a plan that's contained in your packet and dated March 6th as the official plan...Board of Adjustments specifying what those setbacks were. That was the extent of the conditions placed on there. Mayor Cniel: As we looked further into this, and in a particular case on a 1 variance that was granted previously just in an adjacent, in addition to the one that Mr. Jessup has indicated, in this particular case the applicant was granted a 5 foot sideyard setback variance and a 42 foot shoreland setback variance as 1 well. That was at 9239 Lake Riley Blvd.. At 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. there was also a single family residence be 50 feet from the southerly ordinary high water mark and 35 feet from the westerly ordinary high water mark. Unfortunately, as I see it, there has been an awful lot of variances within that specific area granted on all those homes. True it was granted by the previous Council. I don't think in my good conscience and probably from the...aspect, can we deny those variances with all the other variances that have already been granted. I/ Councilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor, if I might respond to that particular part of it. What you were granting a variance can not be limited to one lake in town. When you grant this variance, you in effect grant a variance for anybody that can come in and make the argument that they have a similar situation and you have taken hardship out of our criteria. Don Sitter: I'd also like to make a point on those two instances. Both of those lots were reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and they determined that they were literally unbuildable if there weren't variances granted because they had no roan left to build. So if that's the same conditions that this is, I don't see that as being a precedence for this issue. I think that they were considered very carefully and if you don't allow some variances in those, you were deeming that property unbuildable and therefore taking away the value of the land altogether and I think that's totally different and I don't picture this... Councilman Johnson: I'm going to agree with Bill a little bit here. When you look at a variance that was granted in 1982 which is a long time, 7 years ago, and you look at another one is 1986 which was 2 Councils ago and the variances that were granted with the last Council have had primarily totally unbuildable lots. There was down on Lake Riley that I don't think is on this list that we granted where I think he got down to several hundred.square feet of buildable property by the time all the variances. He was on a peninsula and the 75 feet 22 1 ' City Council Meeting 1/ —I:ch 13, 1989 came in from 3 sides on the guy and it was an improvement. I do not think that there is in any variance, every variance has to stand totally on it's own. I've been staunch on variances for years, or for 2 years. That there has to be a hardship shown. I don't want to put, I agree with Bill, 68 feet was the existing setback there. I would say if we can go to 68 feet there. I think he's trying to put more house into here than there has to be. I think that it can fit with the neighborhood. I'd like to know if he tried to get the neighboring property where his fence is that appears to be his yard, whether he tried to obtain that from his neighbor and whether his neighbor is willing to negotiate some of that which would change that setback because there is no house 11 right next door on the one side. I think the neighbor is actually here. James Jessup: What was the question? Councilman Johnson: Have you negotiated for the purchase of part of your land where his fence is on your land up to his existing fence so his fence that designates his yard is actually your yard. James Jessup: We talked about that. If you'll also notice from the plans, my driveway cuts across the corner of his property so we were talking about swapping back and forth there or same easements or whatever. But in the area where the fence is, we're only talking about a foot or 2 on my property so it's no... Councilman Johnson: Well it does change the variance a little bit but I think that needs to continue to be worked on. I'm against expanding a bad situation and going any closer to a lake. While I don't buy the argument that if we do this sanebody else someplace else, each variance has to stand completely on it's own. If we do this, tomorrow his next door neighbor could come in and ask the same variance and we could turn it down. It'd be tough. It doesn's seen reasonable that way but we would have to justify this variance and for some particular reason on this lot does he need that variance to put that deck on there? In my opinion is no. There is no hardship. If you can justify in your mind that there's a hardship that he has to have that deck. That he has to have 2,000 square feet of home plus a full basement underneath it and a double car garage, the double car garage is required, I think that there's just overbuilding for this lot. That's the long and the short of it. I'm going to vote against it. Mayor Chmiel: Willard, would you like to come up to the mic? Willard Johnson: I'd like to defend the first two issues of the variances up the street. I was on the Board in both cases. We could have deemed the both unbuildable if we would have wished to and then does the City want to purchase the property? That comes into effect and I feel this one here is the same situation. If you want to maybe you can negotiate with the gentleman to chop off the 10 foot deck. I'm always for negotiating if that's the proper procedure ' and maybe he's willing to take the deck off because I don't see nothing wrong with this piece of property either. I felt the same on the two in the past. The gentleman says we could, they were unbuildable, you've got either two choices. Either make then unbuildable and the City buy then or that's all I have to say. 1 23 City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989 II/ Councilman Boyt: I have a question. Willard you said that the previous two were unbuildable. This is not any way unbuildable. Willard Johnson: No, I didn't 'say. The gentleman here says the Board says they were unbuildable. Councilman Boyt: You're saying the previous two were not unbuildable? 1 Willard Johnson: He says the previous two were unbuildable. I guess what I'm getting at, he's trying to say that the Board says the previous two are unbuildable. We could have just told then no, we won't grant no variance and if the City didn't want to grant a variance, he couldn't build. Councilman Boyt: That makes than unbuidable doesn't it? Willard Johnson: Yes. , Councilman Boyt: Okay, so they were unbuildable? Willard Johnson: Well you could put something on it. 1 Councilman Boyt: 200 square feet or something? Willard Johnson: Let me word it this way. There isn't a lot in this whole city 1 you can't design to fit a house, even if it's 90 feet tall and 10 foot wide. That's what I'm getting at. Councilman Boyt: Alright, but what we were saying earlier was those two lots, as you recall, would have required an extremely small house? Willard Johnson: Yes. I/ Councilman Boyt: So we gave a variance to make them more buildable. This allows a house of 1,300 square feet. Are you saying that makes it unbuildable? Willard Johnson: I guess I compare it to some of the planned developments we've got in this city and it's up in my neighborhood too. You've got, let's use x number of dollars, $250,000.00 homes in there from lot line to lot line so I guess how do you compare apples to organes? I guess he wants to put a decent sized home on there and I feel that maybe you can chop off the deck if that's what the Council would wish to bring it within the 75 foot of the lake. The rest I have no problems with. The 5 foot on the west side. The 10 foot on the east side and the street. I don't have no problem with that. If you wish to chop 10 feet off the deck, I have no problem with that either. I'm not sticking up for the applicant but I'm just saying, it's a hard thing to do. We've got three areas in the City, Carver Beach is one, Red Cedar Point is one and Lake Riley is another one. We've just got lots that you've got to work out individually. Councilman Boyt: I agree with you where a lot is unbuildable and the City has to look at purchasing the lot or granting the variance but that's not the case here. 1/ 24 1 • City Council Meeting �, Y g March 13, 1989 Willard Johnson: No, I realize that but what kind of he can you put on it? I'm looking from the standpoint, a building standpoint too. Councilman Boyt: A 1,200 square foot home. Willard Johnson: That sounds dumb. You might as well put up a good one in order to put it up. Not that I'm sticking up for the applicant. Make a decent home instead of a house that, he's going to put a garage in the bottom part so 11 you're losing quite a bit of home space. We require a 2 car garage. I don't know if it's a good arguing point. I hope I made my point clear. Councilman Workman: I'm not going to argue with the expertise of Willard. To me it all looks like a little bit of a hardship case with these lots. Going all the way back to when they were designed. To me it looks as though this is kind of, this is cleaning up this lot a little bit and improving it. A bad situation 11 into maybe not as bad a situation. I'm going to take the advice of the Board of Appeals and approve this. 1 Councilman Boyt: Show me the hardship. Not that you have to but show me the hardship. Councilman Workman: You're right, I don't have to. But we've got a situation if you just look at this map right here alone and we've got problems with the oranges. I don't see where, we can keep it the way it is and we've got all sorts of problems along both sides. I don't see where taking this and bringing it in, maybe up, bringing it closer to the lake. I'm looking at before and after situations here. It's like the southern area of Chanhassen. It's not - going to turn into a wheat field down there no matter how hard we wish. This situation, all along this lakeshore isn't going to improve because we wish it to. So to me, this is a situation, they're coming in and spending an awful lot of money to improve a situation. Councilman Boyt: Well, why don't we just have them build it up to the lake then? Mayor Chmiel: Well that's silly. Let me ask Mr. Jessup, would you be willing to remove your deck from that particular building? James Jessup: I would ask if you would be willing to buy a lake house without a deck? Mayor Chmiel: I might. r James Jessup: The neighbors on one side of me have...and the neighbors on the other side have a three season porch and they have a door in... Decks and a lake home go together. Look at the pictures that I provided you. You'll see many decks on Lake Riley. Mayor Chmi.el: Let me ask another question. Bill's concern is the setback 68 feet to be in conformance with the other homes. Would you be willing to cut 3 feet off that deck? James Jessup: It makes it very difficult to put a table on top of that deck. We have a round table. • 25 i .J City Council Meeting - Ma. 13, 1989 Mayor Chmi.el: What's the total length of that deck? Is the total 10 feet? James Jessup: It's 10 foot width but...would be less than 7. By the time you get a railing you have a 6 1/2 foot wide deck to put a nice round table...how do you get around it? Mayor Chmiel: I've got one. My deck is exactly that and we have a round table on it. Don Ashworth: If I may ask the question. The 3 feet wouldn't necessarily have to come off the deck. It would be maybe adjusting deck and house. The important point is that it's back 68 feet. It would appear as though your plan might be able to be adjusted to allow the back portion to be increased one dimension slightly more to lose the 3 feet the other way. Councilman Johnson: To follow on that Don, how big is your garage? I don't see ' any dimensions on here? Janes Jessup: It's 23 1/2 by... 1 Councilman Johnson: Saying that the existing pump house is the existing setback where I think they went to the wall of the house rather than the pump house before but that's 16 foot. Sliding the house forward to meet the existing 16 foot setback, going to a 22 x 22 foot garage versus the 23 1/2, losing a foot and a half there. Sliding the entire house to the right to give you a little more because if you lost a little bit there. Then we're to a 9 1/2 foot deck. II See what I'd say is go to a 22 x 22 foot garage versus a 23 1/2 x 23 1/2. I realize that that's getting small but that's what I've got actually is a 22 x 22 and my wife's big Chevy fits in there with my little Horizon. I think that would also give you a little bit more on your west side if you went a little narrower on :the garage. If there's anything you can cheat on and not mess up your living space, it's your garage. You just have to walk a little tigher when you bang your doors into each other's cars. 1 Councilman Workman: How much are we going to gain by doing this? Councilman Johnson: We'11 gain 2 1/2 feet if we cut a foot and a half off the 1 garage and slide it towards the street a foot to get to the 16 foot mark. That gives us 2 1/2 feet so take a half foot off his deck, he's added a 68 foot. He's got a 9 1/2 foot deck. So he has not exceeded the previous deck footprint ' of the previous variance that was on there. I think it's workable. It's not that big of a deal. Councilman Boyt: That would certainly be acceptable from my standpoint. - because we're not exceeding any variances... Councilman Johnson: In the existing condition. , Councilman Boyt: In the existing condition. Mary Ellen Jessup: How does that affect then what we discussed during the Board of Adjustments? One of the addendums or whatever where you mentioned that we had to use that exact footprint as the exhibit for approval? For this permit 1 26 1 City Council Meeting `,._ _ch 13, 1989 { E li r— to construct? How does that affect it? Councilman Johnson: We're modifying it. Mayor Chmiel: It's being modified right now. The Council has the final consent for proceeding with what you have. As it looks right now, you're looking at a 2 to 2 vote where it's not going to go anywhere so I think discuss this with your husband real quickly to see whether or not you can go in that particular way. 11 Mary Ellen Jessup: What I needed to know i.s, are we going to have to come back for an appeal? Mayor Chmiel: No. It could be resolved right now and see it proceed. Councilman Johnson: While it seers like we're really measuring the straws to an inch degree when we talk about a half foot there, but it does seen to crawl on you. A half foot this time. A foot, just to give that some time to get some patter going here. James Jessup: If we would establish the guidelines as being a 16 foot setback from the road and 68 from the lake and let us maneuver around inside the house and let us make the tradeoff for whether shrink the garage 2 feet or whether we shrink something else a little bit, is that agreeable? Councilman Johnson: Eine. Mayor Chmiel: And that's a part of what the conditions basically are. James Jessup: Very good. Thank you. Councilman Boyt: I would move approval as just mentioned that we retain the 68 foot setback from the lake. The 16 foot setback from the Lake Riley Blvd.. 10 r feet from the property to the east. And is it 7 feet? ■ Councilman Johnson: It's 5 unless he gets the property next door. Then it goes to 7. Councilman Boyt: Are you going to work out the property next door? Don Sitter: We'11 certainly work together. I guess I would like to ask one more consideration of the Council here. Your suggestion of him shrinking the garage and pulling in another couple feet off of my property will help my attitude a lot. Could we make that instead of the 5 foot setback from his 11 property line, 7 or 8 foot setback and have that... Councilman Boyt: I don't think his garage isn't over on that side of the house. Don Sitter: No. What I'm saying is shrink the garage so he can pull it farther off of my property. Councilman Boyt: No, I don't think that was how that was going to work Don. Councilman Johnson: I was doing that too Bill. That was in my suggestion too 1 is make the garage narrower and then they could move further away from the 5 i 27 City Council Meeti.n, Ma- 13, 1989 Y ` foot setback. The existing condition is that he's 2 1/2 feet into your property. This would be an improvement over being 2 1/2 feet into your property by 7 1/2 feet but this fence remains into your property quite a bit when it gets down to the lake. • Don Sitter: But as I mentioned in the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, right now that garage is on our property but it acts as a buffer between their activities and ours. It's like a little wall or fence. By removing that garage, all the activities are coming around our side of the property. That's why I'm standing on that setback a little bit. 1 Councilman Boyt: I would make the motion that it's either 5 feet or 7 feet. I'm open. To follow my logic, we're staying in the existing footprint and to me that's critical. So the'situation with the garage I think is maybe something you can work out in your property swap, if you're going to swap property but from my standpoint of protecting our ordinances, I think we don't want to exceed the existing building footprint and 68 feet from the lake is part of that. 1 Councilman Johnson: Previously, the closest sideyard setbacks was 6.8 feet. On the previous house. If you don't count the garage. Now his closest sideyard setback is going to be 5 feet. Councilman Poyt: Well I hate to get into a situation where we've got a negotiations that's open ended. 1 Councilman Johnson: So what do you want the west side property setback in your motion? That's what we're down to. Mayor Cgmiel: That presently is 5 feet right? Councilman Boyt: Presently it says it's 5 feet. We all agree 5 feet? 1 Mayor Chmi.el: Yes, 5 feet. Councilman Boyt: 5 1/2? I would make my motion that it's 10 feet on the west ' side and 5.5 feet on the east side. 68 feet from the lake and 16 feet from Lake Riley Blvd.. If you can work out something better between you, marvelous but I think from the City's standpoint we've got to require that. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Johnson: I'll second that. r James Jessup: I'd rather you keep it 10 feet from the east side. 1 Councilman Johnson: We did. James Jessup: You said west. • Councilman Boyt: Which side do you want what on Willard? Willard Johnson: 10 foot from the east side. Councilman Boyt: Okay, and what do we do on the west side? 1 28 City Council MeeL..ng - ,,,,tch 13, 1989 Willard Johnson: 5.5. The reasons I come up... Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the variances to the front, side and rear yard setbacks for the construction of a new single family residence at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard with the following setbacks: 68 feet from the lake, 16 feet from Lake Riley Boulevard, 10 feet from the east side of the property and 5.5 feet from the west side of the property. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: A. DOWNTOWN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 87 -17 FOR THE NORTH SIDE PARKING LOT. B. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR NORTH SIDE PARKING LOT. Mayor Chmiel called the public hearing to order. Gary Warren: I don't know that it needs much of an introduction. I didn't see, our facsimile machine at the last minute today a letter came in from Mericor the owners of the Town Square retail center. They're in support of the project. Just had a concern about the assessment issue as far as the 23 parking units that were added to the building which I guess from an assessment standpoint, this is not an assessment hearing but the discussion and the request in the letter is appropriate that City staff meet with than to explain the rationale and that. Basically I'll speak for Fred Hoisington but in general terms, they were added to the assessment roll for two purposes. One, they have drainage that flows to this new parking lot area for which we will be accommodating their flow. Secondly, because they have a more intense use than what was originally planned and that intense use ends up using more parking stalls and has impacts on the Riveria...they were assessed the parking and 23 units so we have gone through and applied the logic basically from that standpoint. But we certainly will follow up as requested in the letter and talk with Mr. Winkle from Mericor and review that with him. There will be the option at the assessment for getting further into that when the project is complete. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone wishing to address this public hearing? Brad Johnson: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. I'm Brad Johnson. 7425 Frontier Trail representing the Heritage Park Apartments and the professional building. We've gone on record in your, I believe the staff also outlines the fact that we do not feel nor do our experts, whoever they are, they're not here tonight, that there's additional need for the water line that's furnishing the water to the hydrant. That's an additional cost to the project of $50,000.00. We've been requested by the City to upgrade our building from originally, especially the apartment building, from the original unsprinkled building to a totally sprinkled building with additional costs to us of $100,000.00 thus far. In checking with all those that know and we're willing to listen but we have not heard anybody feel that the additional fire hydrants on the south side of the apartment building is anything but overkill in the case of fire protection. In 1 29 f1 #: City Couuci.l Meeting - F LLuary 27, 1989 subdivision plat, the actual survey showing that lot split of the lot and it also includes an outlot. That's been reviewed by the staff and it does conform with the zoning requirements so staff is recommending the Council approve the final plat of Eight Acre Woods S Addition. Grant Johnson: My name is Gant Johnson, 6270 Murray Hill Road. I believe the packet that you've got is relatively self explanatory. For those of you who were on the Council a year or so ago when the Murray Hill Addition was approved, it was somewhat obvious at the time or we had kind of implied that this was our intent eventually and the time has just come now that we can put this together so I'm just willing to answer any questions that anyone may have. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I myself don't have any questions on this. To me it looks like it's self explanatory. I don't know if anyone else on the Council has any questions. Councilman Workman: Steve, can you explain to me meets and bounds? t Steve Hanson: It's a legal description. In other words, it's described as far as the bearings and distances rather than being an actual plat where you refer to it as Lot 1, Block 1. So it's surveyed in as opposed to the normal formal plat that you would see. Councilman Workman: Why wouldn't this need a formal plat? 1 Steve Hanson: There's a provision in the Statute as well as in the City Code that allows you to do it this way for a simple subdivision rather than going through the expense of doing a full detailed plat. It's really cost savings for them. Councilman Workman: I guess then give me one reason why they have to have a plat versus meets and bounds. What makes the difference? Steve Hanson: This is basically a lot under special circumstances when you're 1 splitting just one lot into two. If you're making it more than that, you'd go through the full blown subdivision process. Councilman Workman: So basically you're saying if one line is involves] to split it, then you can do it this way? Okay. 11 Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 1 Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Final Plat for Eight Acre Woods Second Addition ( #89 -1 Subdivision) as shown on the plat stamped "Received February 6, 1989 ". All voted in favor and the motion carried. , , /' VARIANCE TO THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS, 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, JAMES JESSUP. Steve Hanson: This item was presented to the Board of Adjustments earlier tonight and the item was tabled by the Board of Adjustment to allow additional I/ 4 1 II City Council Meeting ( oruary 27, 1989 r ill input so I would suggest that you just continue this item and that you need to take no action. s VARIANCE TO THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DAYCARE � FACILITY LOCATED ON THE LAKE DRIVE EAST, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF TOTAL MART U CONVENIENCE STORE, G.1. BAJR INC.. II \l' i Steve Hanson: I might explain this one also. This item was also up before the Board of Adjustments earlier tonight. This particular request was denied by the Board of Adjustments by unanimous vote. The applicants have requested that it 11 not be considered by Council at this meeting and pending their decision whether they'd like to bring it to Council or not. They have a 10 day period to make that decision. SET LIQUOR 1989/90 UOR LICENSE FEES. / 4 II Don Ashworth: The 1989 budget anticipated an increase in liquor license fees of approximately 5 %. Each of the license holders were given notice of this meeting. Some of the licenses are established under State Statutue and I have I asterisked those that are again set by the State. Staff is recommending that the license fees be increased generally by 5%. We rounded in some cases as shown in your report dated February 8th. II I Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone who would like to address this that is in the audience? Just for general public, for your information. Some of the fees that s we're adjusting is just two specific items. It's the off sale non - intoxicating license which is existing $30.00. We're raising that to $50.00. The on sale IV non - intoxicating which the existing was $205.00 and that's being proposed at $250.00. I feel they are fairly reasonable and to be in compliance with the II requirements as stated by Mr. Ashworth. I would like to ask for a motion. • Don Ashworth: May I make one quick point? The motion also includes the intoxicating liquor schedule. The City's schedule there is based on both restaurant and non - restaurant type of uses. The schedule again is shown as about 5% higher than in 1988. II Councilman Boyt: Were you able to get those figures Don? Don Ashworth: No. They may be in here. Councilman Boyt had asked for a II comparison of fees with some of our other communities. I was looking for that information late this afternoon and I was not able to have that available. Resolution #89 - 29: Councilman Boyt :roved, Councilman Johnson seconded to II approve the Liquor License Fee Schedule as presented by staff. All in favor and the motion carried. I - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXTENSION FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD THAT WAS GRANTED ON FEBRUARY 8, 1988 FOR ADMIRAL WASTE MANAGEMENT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TH ) ' 212 AND THE EAST SIDE OF TH 101, PATRICK BLOOD AND NANCY LEE. Steve Hanson: This is a request to extend an existing conditional use permit. The conditional use permit had a one year limitation to put in the improvements II II 5 ' S.R. Cummings President J.E. Findley Chief Executive Officer Environmental Services, Inc. D.D. Vieau Executive Vice President Ms. Jo Anne Olson February 5, 1991 Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55318 1 RE: JESSUP PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA Dear Ms. Olson: 1 On behalf of Mr. James Jessup I am writing this letter to present my concern about the variance status being considered for the property located at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen, Minnesota. In October, 1989 strong gasoline odors were encountered in the footing excavation at the above address. Two underground gasoline tanks on a neighboring property were determined to be the source of the gasoline. Over 600 cubic yards of gasoline impacted soil was excavated from around the tanks and Jessups property. Due to site constraints not all of the impacted soil was excavated. To date, the full impact of the gasoline release has not been determined. Mr. Jessups immediate concern is the potential for gasoline vapors to migrate back onto his F Po g Po gr property and enter his proposed residence. Liesch and Associates has designed and submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) a remediation system that they feel will adequately address the gasoline vapor concern. As per my conversation on February 5, 1991 with MPCA staff assigned to this site, the MPCA has not yet reviewed or approved the remediation design nor have they issued a letter indicating that the release has been adequately investigated. 1 RECEIVED i- E E C 71991 1 an equal opportunity employer e11 : VI' it r!Mt /HASSE Suite 400 Hazeltine Gates 1107 Hazeltine Boulevard Chaska, MN 55318 612/448 -9393 FAX 448 -9572 1 Ms. Jo Anne Olson —2— February 5, 1991 City of Chanhassen Nova feels until these issues are resolved it would be premature to expect Mr. Jessup to begin construction. Sincerely, NOVA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. David J. Koubsky Hydrogeologist Group Manager DJK:ab pc: Ms. Janet Berryhill, MPCA Mr. James Jessup 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 QUICK MEMORANDUM FORM MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 520 Lafayette Road St.Paul, Minnesota 55155 RECEIVED Telephone (612) 296 -6300 Date: February 4, 1991 F EB 0 61991 TO: bharmin Al -Jaff City of Chanhassen CI Y yr 4nANHAsiP 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 FROM: Janet Berryhill Tanks and Spills ection Division of Hazardous Waste (612) 643 -3427 __ ___________________ _________________ RE: Summary of Our February 28, 1991 Phone Conversation Site: Remus Residence Site IDS: LEAY.00001700 The purpose of this memo is to summarize our February 28, 1990 phone conversation regarding the cleanup work on the properties belonging to Rudy Remus and Jim Jessup on Lake Riley Boulevard. 1 As we discussed, Mr. Remus' underground gasoline tanks were removed in April 1990. A large amount of petroleum contaminated soil was removed, however some contaminated soil remains, and ground water under the site has probably been impacted. MPCA staff asked Mr. Remus to design and install a system to protect Mr. Jessup's house from the petroleum contamination that remains at the site. This system would include a gas vapor barrier on Mr. Jessup's house, and a venting system at the tank basin on Mr. Remus' property. Mr. Jessup could not go ahead and build his house until Mr. Remus' consultant designed the gas vapor I/ barrier. The gas vapor barrier was not designed for many months because Mr. Remus' consultant would not design it until they had been paid for previous work. Mr. I/ Remus could not pay his consultant until he was reimbursed by the MPCA tanks program. Mr. Remus received his reimbursement check from the State of Minnesota on November 24, 1990, and paid his consultant. Then, on November 27, 1990, Mr. Jessup informed the MPCA that he did not want a vapor barrier installed on his house, and that any system designed to protect his house would have to be on Remus property. The MPCA met with both parties and their consultants on December 17, 1990 to discuss alternative protective systems. The following was agreed upon: A vapor barrier will not be installed on Mr. Jessup's house. Mr. Remus' consultant will be installing a well to determine whether ground water was impacted by the gasoline release, and designing and installing a venting system on Remus property to vent gas vapors from the remaining contaminated soil. i 1/ 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff Page 2 February 4, 1990 11 For added protection, Mr. Jessup's consultant will be designing a clay barrier to be installed between Mr. Remus' old tank basin and Mr. Jessup's house. 11 If you have any questions about this memo, please call me at 612/643 -3427. ___-- -____- ========================= This informal way of responding to you saves us the time and expense of pre- paring a formal letter. Please contact us if we can help you further or you have questions on this matter. Regional Offices: Duluth, Brainerd, Detroit Lakes, Marshall, Rochester Equal Opportunity Employer copy 1- addressee copy 2 -site file 11 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 11 FEET - 044 —'92 TUE 15:56 ID:w4TERFIELD W ST PAUL TEL NO:612- 451 -3739 #913 P02 I }1 `K� . lr t, .7 BRUCE A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC, u• DROGEOLOG :STS ENGINEERS 4 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS r.. ' T . .134S0 95th Avenue No. • Plymouth, MN 55441 •612- 559.1423 • FAX N0; 559.2202 PZITED 3 r November 25, 1991 . DEC 0 2 1991 MPCA, HAZARDOUS 1 WASTE DIVISION Mr. John Moeger Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Tanks and Spills Section 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 -38g8 1 RE; Remus Property Leak #00001700 Dear Mr. Moeger: 1 As per our telephone conversation of November 5, 1991, Bruce A. Liesch Associates, Inc. • ( Liesch) believes that installation of a vapor barrier to a depth of 12 feet would not be a feasible method of remediation due to several factors. An installation depth of 12 feet would require removal of' the reinstalled concrete pad adjacent to the Remus garage and the Remus garage would have to be protected by shoring or similar method to prevent - undcrmining of the foundation. Excavations in excess of six feet require a trench box or other means of support to be Implemented to protect workers within the excavation. The trench box would require increased time and expense to install the vapor barrier. Because of the depth, dewatering of the excavation would be necessary, further adding to the time and expense of the remediation. Finally because the depth of the excavation access to the Jessup property would be necessary. Prior to receiving your Corrective Action Approval letter dated November 4, 1991, Liesch requested, in writing, for permission to access the Jessup property. To date, the permission to gain access to the Jessup property has not been granted. Due to the aforementioned factors, Liesch believes that installation of a vapor barrier to specifications identified in your corrective action approval letter is not feasible. Liesch is proposing to conduct a soil vapor survey along the Remus /Jessup property boundary. The soil vapor survey would use soil gas probes. The gas probes would then be driven into soils along the property boundary, and soil gas samples will be collected and analyzed. Once the soil gas probes are installed, the probes will be purged, to ensure soil gas is being analyzed, and not ambient air. The soil gas sample will then be analyzed by an organic vapor monitortr on -site. The OVM will have a photoionization detector equipped with a 19/electron volt lamp. 1 1 FEE- 04 -'92 TUE 15:57 ID:1 ST PAUL TEL NO:612- 451 -3739 #913 P03 , • Page Two November 25, 1991 • Liesch proposes action level standard of 10 parts per million (ppm) organics vapors as • measured by the OVM. soil gas concentrations are above 10 ppm, a vapor barrier or approved alternative remedial action will be implemented. If soil gas concentrations are at or below 10 ppm, Liesch will petition MPCA to close the site. Your immediate attention and responses to this letter is requested. If you have any ' questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 559 -1423. Sincrt'rtly, 4'g 1 ,. /1iA 1 Mark S. Miller .... Project Manager MSM /maw cc: Rudy and Lucille Remus Mr. Earl Snell maw :ltrl 1- 20/65039.00 • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 c' 4 � / / P I i Control Agency ( Q � Minnesota Pollution Co t ' � Kk� 4M6 520 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155-3898 / 4*00,01 Telephone (612) 296 -6300 II • II Septedxr 9, 1.991 1 Mr. Rudolph Remus ,' - 9245 Lake Riley Boulevard RECEIVED • Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 II Dear Mr. Remus: SEP 1 Q 1991 CITY Of CriANHASSEN Re: Remus Property Site ID #: Leak0001700 II I would like to introduce myself to you and others as the project manager vho has taken over this project from Janet Berryhill, vho recently left the I/ Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). This letter also provides MPCA staff comments on the most recent Bruce A. Liesch and Associates, Inc. (BAL), letter dated August 6, 1991, which presents the results of the I investigative /cleanup activities taken in May and June of 1991. Rather than re -hash past events, I would much rather focus on what further work needs to be done in order to close this file. - 1 From what I have read from the file, and based on BAL,s latest work, the MPCA staff makes the-folloving conclusions: - The soil contamination plume has been examined as completely as possible given the site access constraints. Contaminated soil identified by soil borings extends about 30 feet south of the former underground storage tank (UST) basin. Contaminated soil beneath ther water table (about 4 feet) is II not expected to cause a vapor problem at the Remus or Jessup properties; A recent ground eater sample taken by indicates that ground water is not II impacted above the Recommended Allowable Levels, therefore a significant contaminant migration problem impacting the lake does not exist; - Site constraints (access, space limitations, and significantly altered II subsurface materials) make further ground eater monitoring problematic;_ permanent monitor wells are not possible due to a seasonally high eater table and extreme vater level fluctuations. - - Although measured soil and ground eater contaminant concentrations to date have been low, MPCA staff consider a residential setting to be particular sensitive and in need of some level of protection. II • II Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshall • Rochester - - C......1 M........w.. C- .- Iw..w. O•.... 1 .... Ply -.�I�J fl��... 1 Mr. Rudolph Remus Page 2 at:tarter 9, 1991 REQUIREMENTS Based on the above comments, a vapor barrier must be installed along the entire length of the Remus /Jessup property line. The design of the vapor barrier must be based on previously collected information, and may employ any relatively I - impermeable material such as grout or high density polyethylene (HDPE) liner, etc. The proposed design, if approved, will be considered a corrective action and a reimbursable expense. Questions regarding eligible costs for reimbursement should be directed to Ms. Robin Hanson at 297 -4017. The water table must be sampled in the following locations: (Hand auger borings OK) Please refer to figure 2 in the BAL report dated June 1990. 1. Approximately 20 feet vest of caps #2 (avgas) at sample location 11; 2. Approximately 35 feet south of above sample location at approximate 11 location of headspace sample "D ". Samples must be analyzed for benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, xylene, and total hydrocarbons as gasoline. Please submit the proposed vapor barrier design to me within 30 days of the date of this letter. MPCA staff will review and respond within 10 days of receipt. Based on the results of the ground water sampling, the MPCA may require further actions to address this release. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please call me at 297 -8613. Sincerely, k I:7 421j-(*"-- John R. Moeger Project Leader Tanks and Spills Section Hazardous Waste Division 1 1 JRM:np cc: Steve Kirchman and and JoAnn Olson, Chanhassen - James Jessup, Chanhassen • Mark Hiller, Bruce A. Liesch And Associates, Plymouth Dave Koubsky, Chaska 11 e D II 499is Minnesota Pollution Control Agency '4 f <i 520 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 -3898 a Q 14045" Telephone (612) 296 -6300 I . RECEIVED II November 4, 1991 NO': iI r 1991 O il .......,r1r SEN Mr Rudolph Remus 1 9245 Lake Riley Boulevard Chanhassen; Minnesota 55317 Dear Mr. Remus: II RE: Corrective Action Approval Remus Property II Site ID #: 0001700 . The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has reviewed the report II entitled, "Corrective Action Plan, Remus Property on Lake Riley, Chanhassen, Minnesota ", dated September 1991 as prepared by Bruce A. Liesch and Associates, Inc. (BAL). 1 In general, the proposed vapor barrier is hereby approved for installation subject to the following modifications: I/ - The vapor barrier shall be installed to a depth of 12 feet such that it connects with the native clay found at the base of the excavation. - Clean sand shall be used as backfill in order to prevent tears and punctures II to the membrane during placement. Installation of the vapor barrier should proceed immediately to take advantage II of the weather. Please notify the City of Chanhassen and the MPCA at least 5 days in advance of installation. This qualifies you for partial reimbursement of your costs for the development II of this corrective action plan and for the costs you will incur after construction is completed. 1 We expect, based on the available information, that completion of the approved corrective action will support a determination by the MPCA Commissioner that the release has been adequately addressed pursuant to Minn. 115C.09, II subd.2(b)(1) (1990). We therefore do not expect any additional cleanup • enforcement action by the MPCA will be necessary. However, if subsequently obtained information indicates that the approved corrective actions are II inappropriate or inadequate, the MPCA may require additional vork or modifications in the approved vork. _ II Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshall • Rochester II C......1 ^v....09 CT "InvC• • Printarl nn Rai vrlari Panor • Mr. Randolph Remus Page 2 November 4, 1991 1 • In approving the plan, the MPCA does not assume any liability for the design or implementation of this remedy. You remain solely responsible for ensuring that this plan results in a successful cleanup and that its implementation does not • result in any harm to public health or the environment. Moreover, the MPCA does not guarantee reimbursement of your costs from the Petro Board. 11 Application for reimbursement must be made to the Petro Board (612/297- 4017). However, that decision is based on factors such as the adequacy of cleanup, compliance with notification laws and cooperativeness with the MPCA. Please submit a final report after implementation of the corrective action. Thank you for your cooperation in responding to this release. Should you have any questions, please call me at 297 -8613. Sincerely, • John R. Moeger Project Leader • Tanks and Spills Section Hazardous Waste Division JRM:np cc: Steven Kirchman and JOAnn Olson, City of Chanhassen James Jessup, Chanhassen Mark Miller, Bruce A. Liesch and Associates, Inc., Plymouth Dave Koubsky,•Nova Environmental Consultants, Inc., Chaska 1 1/ • • 1 1 1 11 1 49i) r' Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 9 i e II 5 20 Lafayette Road, Saint Paui, Minnesota 55155 -3898 V ) XX51 i Telephone (612) 296 -6300 4 { January 3, 1992 1 , . 11 il Mr. Mark Miller Bruce A. Liesch and Associates, Inc. 13400 15th Avenue North II Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 . Dear Mr. Miller: 1 Re: Rudolph Remus Property Site INC: LEAK0001700 II Having received and reviewed your November 25, 1991, letter describing the limitations of placing a vapor barrier along the Remus /Jessup property line, your alternative proposal to conduct a soil vapor survey along the same line is approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff. As we discussed on December 29, 1991, a 10.2 eV lamp shall be used in the organic vapor monitoring device. I also ask for a scaled map which shows the locations of the proposed sample points and the approximate depth each probe will be advanced. The proposed action level of 10 parts per million (ppm) is acceptable to MPCA • staff. Levels above 10 ppm may require further corrective action at the discretion of MPCA staff. 1 Please respond to this letter with the information requested above, prior to beginning any work at the site. 11 Sincerely, Vr ...--1 7;..y.c., II John R. Moeger Project Leader II Tanks and Spills Section Hazardous Waste Division JRM:mk II cc: Rudolph Remus, Chanhassen James Jessup, Chanhassen II Steve Kirchman, City of Chanhassen • RECEIVED JAN 0 t3 1992 1 Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshall • Rochester Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on Recycled Paper CITY OF CHANHASSENI QUICK MEMORANDUM FORM II MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 520 Lafayette Road II St.Paul, Minnesota 55155 Telephone (612) 296-630 Date: a /6/9 �- TO: She min Al -Jaff ( / II City Of Chanhassen PR OM: John R. Moeger 11 Tanks and Spills Section Division of Hazardous Waste (612) 297 -8613 wwn= caws= c xww =- - m wc = =www e... =ewu ==s===sww=aww=- - I SUBJECT: Rudolph Remus Petroleum Release Site Site ID #0001700 1 As we ave • scusse•, t e MPCA sta 's pos tion regarding the cleanup at the above - captioned site is this: il Petroleum contaminated soils have been removed from the Jessup property to background levels with the the east - central property line that does not warrant II Ground water has been impacted by the release, however samples show contaminant levels below Minnesota Dept. of Health Recommended Allowable Levels (RAL) for drinking water. Furthermore, MPCA staff has concluded that downgradient _ receptors such as Lake Riley will not be impacted by the release. • Petroleum contaminated soils remain on the Remus property above MPCA action levels ( >l0ppm). A vapor analysis of these soils as well as the small area mentioned above has been proposed to provide information for the selection of appropriate cleanup remedies. This has been approved by MPCA staff. The corrective action may include excavation, venting, air injection, barrier or no 1 action. Cooperation is needed from both parties in order to carry out the corrective II action effectively and on a timely basis. The MPCA staff proposes a deadline of June 1, 1992 for completing all corrective actions at this site. In the event of a no action determination, II the MPCA staff will then proceed to close out the file. we= w == === xwww ra..=....===ewws.: == eaaw :ea ==== wswr.= wwasocac.... awso This informal way of responding to you saves us the time and expense of pre- II paring a formal letter. Thank you for your interest, and please contact us if we can help you further or you have questions on this matter. Regional Offices: Duluth,Brainerd,Detroit Lakes,Marshall,Rochester II Equal Opportunity Employer copy 1- addressee copy 2 -site file 1 II 2 'd 31SeM'ZeH - eDd'NW WUET :TT 26, 90 83J 1 i 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL 1 January 25, 1993 1 1 New Business Agenda item 3. 1 Variance Extension Request 1 for 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. 1 By James Jessup Family 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _________________ 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II s Thank you for your time and interest in helping my family to establish our permanent home here. 1 I an requesting an extension of the variance for my property to allow me time to revise the building plans and meet the additional requirements created by contaminated soil. ' ** I have spent to date in excess of $50,000 for contamination consultants. ' ** The soils report done at the City's request in August 1992 indicates all the fill material must be removed and compacted. The builder has bids for this portion of the work at $30,000. ** This property is now very difficult to finance because of its contamination history and potential for recontamination. ' ** The house footings, heating system and a vapor barrier must all be redesigned due to the contamination. ** I have nothing to gain by the delay. The loss of use of the property and expense of renting are major incentives to build as quickly as possible. ' ** It takes time and financial resources to address all the issues. The short time since July is inadequate to have accomplished all these items. I am willing to commit to not applying for an extension of the variances in 1994. THANK YOU FOR GRANTING THE EXTENSION. 1 1 1 1