6.5 Request to Extend Variance 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. I .
CITY T ..............
ir
;Itillir 0 1..„..,,,, CHANHASSEN
,
1
6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 a ,, . , ,. ,�. r` i;
I.
MEMORANDUM r .7-- 6 - f c)-7:-
II TO: Board of Adjustments "and Appeals /City Council - ' " +t ''
FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I i' '^
THROUGH: Paul Krauss, Planning Director a /o - q �:.,
11 DATE: February 10, 1992
II SUBJ: . Variance Extension Request for 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard
- James Jessup
On March 13, 1989, the Board o d'
�.., 7 ustments and Appeals approved
II Variance Request #89 -1 for the `front, rear And both side yard
setbacks for the construction >of #a new single family residence.
Since then the owner was AnfOrmed that his property was
II contaminated with petroleum produC?ts that had migrated from the
neighboring property. Therefore, the City Building Inspector and
Fire Marshal issued a stop ?.work order on October 13, 1989. The
contamination is from a gasoline storage tank used for seaplanes
11, operating from the lake. The tank has been removed at the MPCA's
direction. Apparently, the applicant has been unable to build his
home until the parcel has`been given a )Clean bill of health by the
II MPCA. He requested and,' -received several extensions to the one year
time period, which a °`variance approvalis valid. The MPCA has
undertaken work in the cleaning of the J essup parcel but it is as
I yet unclear as whether or not it is safe fOr home construction. In
addition, the adjacent_,,parce1, ,y4emus, was the source of
the contamination remainspo1luted"`Pu her work is required to
I clean this lot which. may involve related _pry_ g .th :Jessup parcel.
At the present time, it is unclear as to•when and how"rthis will be
resolved. It is also unclear as to whether or not11 parties are
working cooperatively`together. resolve,: el atter.
T he Board of Adjustments and A and City Council had granted
an extension on February 20, 1990, and on February, 11, 1991. The
II variance will expire on February a il, 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
that further testings and vapor analyses is required to determine
if additional corrective action is required on the Jessup property.
II
Tee PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
11
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.
11 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.
II 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.
11 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:
11 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
11 enclosures.
3. Plans are to be reviewed by Planning Staff prior to issuance
of building permit to assure compliance with intent of and
•
f
Jessup Variance Extension Request
January 30, 1992
Page 3
plans presented with variance.
4. The attached plan is noted as the official plan for
determining compliance.
The City Council also reviewed the action of the Board of
Adjustments and endorsed their action and 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. 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 CI1Y
ca...A.
--�
I 11
1,,,,, CHANHASSEN „, r
..,..
1 0,..,, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • C MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
I N
IL' o- -a by C`;
E __V 1 t'3
1 MEMORANDUM - r -
a _7 -q!
TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals /City Council
FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I
THROUGH: Paul Krauss, Planning Director =‘=
DATE: January 30, 1991
II SUBJ: Variance Extension Request for 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard
- James Jessup
On March 13, 1989, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved
II Variance Request #89 -1 for the front, rear and both side yard
setbacks for the construction of a new single family residence.
Since then the owner was informed that his property is contaminated
11 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
construction before that date.
1 Staff contacted the MPCA and spoke to Ms. Janet Barryhill on
January 28, 1991. Ms. Barryhill stated that the majority of the
II contaminated soils have been removed. The MPCA will install vents
that will test the level of vapor in the soil during the spring of
1991. At the present time, no vapor is occurring due to frozen
ground, therefore, no vents will pick up any vapor and
11 consequently, the level of contamination cannot be determined. The
MPCA expects that by spring, 1991, the applicant will be able to
resume construction.
11 RECOMMENDATION
I Staff is recommending that the extension requested by Mr. Jessup be
granted. While staff supports granting the variance extension, it
should be made clear that the gas tank which was located on an
adjoining parcel was a non - conforming Use and it is staff's
11 position that it should not be replaced.
li .
II
James Jessup Variance Extension
January 30, 1991
Page 2
ATTACHMENTS 1
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.
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
January 16, 1991
11 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:
11 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.
II Thanks for your assistance in handling this matter.
Sincerely,
11
James F. Jessup
3323 Lake Shore Ct.
Chaska, MN 55318
1
RECEIVED
JAN 181991
C11 T ur L.nr,ivnHSSEN
1
•
C ITYOF -
07 , / 1
1
4 •
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Action by City Aer'`n" !75'•x' 1
Ender cd._ -- ✓ 0 't` II
MEMORANDUM Med.i:.C,.�
Rejec'ee,..
TO: Board of Adjustments and Appeals '2 ' � '4 —
Date Sum `d to G: .ssioa
FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I 1
Date ;u -7,.,3c. to —
DATE: February 20, 1990 1- -) b - 5 0
SUBJ: Variance Extension Request for 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard, 1
James Jessup
On March 13, 1989, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved
II
variance request #89 -1 for the front, rear and both side yards
setbacks for the construction of a new single family residence. II
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 II
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
II
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
II
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. II
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
II
position that it should not be replaced.
ATTACHMENTS - - 1
1. Letter from applicant.
2. Staff Report dated March 8, 1989.
3. City Council minutes dated March 13, 1989. II
4. City Council minutes dated February 27, 1989. .
II
. 1
1
i
r
January 30, 1990
Jo Ann Olsen
Sr. Planner
11 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.
I The city building inspector and fire marshall issued a stop work
order on October 13, 1989. The source and total area impacted
are not known at this time. It is expected to take some time to
' determine the source, area involved, a appropriate plan of
action, and time to execute the plan. It maybe midsummer of 1991
before construction may resume.
I Therefore, I am asking for an extension of the variance until
one year after the receipt of certification by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency stating the site is ready to be built
I 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.
11 Thanks for your prompt handling of this request.
Sincerely,
,7-15AL,f7
James F. Jessup
' 3323 Lake Shore Ct.
Chaska, MN 55318
11 •�•�L.. r..: L a_:�
FEB 0 21999
C17 Y OF CHANHAS
SEN
r
CITY
.1.„1.
, if ,,.
v -it'-c,;, , ,
\ ii:" 4 ,- -
. :.
= 0...4. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
--:-5111110 cHANBAssEs
(612) 937 -1900
E f t/ N II
MEMORANDUM
TO Board of Adjustments and Appeals C :-...:/ /i -.ii9
II
FROM: Stephen Hanson, Planning Director ; %;� �- =/=_ _
D
II
ATE: March 8, 1989 __Vain- - --
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 Boardsfelt that the variances seemed
II
to be excessive for the piece of property and the building that
was being proposed. The second reason was to request staff to
look at other variances along' Lake Riley Boulevard and provide a
II
summary of what variances have been allowed in that area.
In response to the first reason, the applicant has submitted
revised plans for the property. The changes to the requested
setback variances are as follows.
Front setback - To be 17 feet at the closest point from the 1
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
on the east side. No variance would be required on the east edge
II
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
written, the applicant had submitted a revised plan dated
February 22, 1989, which showed a 10 foot setback on the west II
property for the house and a 6 foot setback for the deck. The
II
1
Board of Adjustments
II March 8, 1989
Page 2
II 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
11 setback on the west side of the property. Previously, the appli-
cant had noted the potential for doing a land trade with the
adjacent property owner on the west to align their property line
with the existing fence on the west side of the property. If the
1 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-
1 tely 7i feet.
Rear Setback - The required setback along Lake Riley is 75 feet
II from the high water mark. The applicants have revised their
building plans to eliminate the porch on the rear of the building
which on the previous plan encroached into the 75 foot setback.
The latest plan shows the rear of the structure being right on
1 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
II setback for its construction.
Lot Coverage - This lot is approximately 7,500 square feet. The
II 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.
II 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
II 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-
II mum coverage requirement of the code.
Lot coverage for the proposed home based on the plan dated March
1 6, 1989, breaks out as follows.
Deck 330 sq. ft.
1 Driveway 320 sq. ft.
Sidewalk and front stoop 100 sq. ft.
Proposed Building Footprint 1,650 sq. ft.
(garage included)
II Total 2,400 sq. ft.
This total, 2,400 square feet, is approximately 525 square feet
1 larger than the maximum allowable lot coverage for this piece of
property.
1 .
1
Board of Adjustments
March 8, 1989
Page 3
In summary, the applicant is requesting a variance to the 30 foot 1
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-
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
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 1
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?
.- :
Board of Adjustments
1 March 8, 1989
Page 4
This is the determination that the Board of Adjustment needs to
make in reviewing this particular request.
1 ATTACHMENTS
' 1. Staff report for BOA Hearing on February 27, 1989.
2. Revised plot plan dated March 6, 1989, showing setbacks as
proposed.
3. Revised plot plan showing the proposed structure overlayed on
existing improvements on property.
4. Letter from applicant dated February 28, 1989.
5. Letter from adjacent property owner dated February 2, 1989.
1
1
1
1
1-
1
1
1
1
1
1
_ ....3
ITY O F (A DATE: Feb. 27, 1989 II
\ � `, CHANHASSEN C.C. :: 891 CASE Variance ,
Prepared .by: Hanson /v
1 . ,
STAFF REPO RT .1
li
PROPOSAL: • Variance for Construction of a Single Family Residence'
Requested Variances for Front, Rear and Both Side
Setbacks and Maximum Lot Coverage
z 1
a
V • LOCATION: Lot 42, Shore Acres - Southern end of Lake Riley
Boulevard II
Act#;syrt , —_
II APPLICANT: James & Mary Ellen Jessup 1..,
Q 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard K.! ::•_,.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 p,;,_,_ � _ 1 :3
- ` .22 _.__ II
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: .17 acres (7,500 + s.f.) 1
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING 1
AND LAND USE: N- PUD -R; residential single family
SC
S- RD; Lake Riley 1
E- RSF; residential single family
Q W- RSF; residential single family II
W WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services are available - II
PHYSICAL CHARAC.: Site slopes to lake 1
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential 1
1
i h r T - : 86TH S .
P ' 1(� ID • 8600
o
J
m
8700
111 Z
RSF
R 1 2 8800
POND
Q
e , „ • G 8900
o
YARD R. 18 .i 11 1 � 1 b ------
1 Ar = 9000
C J RD
1 A2'
/..
9100
PUD- � - � ` optisesl ._.„ 0/7 voficutf,
4 - W AN � ��� � � � ,. //� 9200
Far ic, i�iiq' � ��� L AIDE
�` � 9300
it -- SF R /LEY
Iv a r . _ - 9400
r
111 s ` I �, ._.
- 9500
1 ■
.. - -9600
N
41_
POND 9700
� 41111 // i J �
�> 0 9800 =0
0‘ 1).
v
t
� goo
4v 200
1 I NO I /
I � i 300
•
Jessup Variance
February 27, 1989
Page 2
II
SUMMARY OF REQUESTED VARIANCES
•
1
RSF Existing Existing Proposed Proposed .I
Description Require. Situation Variance Situation Variance
Front Setback 30' 20' -10' 20' -10'
Side (east) 10' 6.8' - 3.2' 5' - 5'
Side (west) 10' -2.5' -12.5' 1' - 9' 1
Rear 75' 78' + 3' 61' -14'
Maximum Lot 25% 23% + 2% 34% - 9% 1
Coverage
The applicant is requesting variances to all setback requirements II
of the RSF zoning district. The present improvements on the
property encroach into all but the rear setback. The rear set-
back for the lot is 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark of II
Lake Riley which is at an elevation of 864.5. The survey of the
property does not include the elevation so the exact location of II the rear property line is unknown. The present structure appears
to meet the rear setback. The applicant is requesting to
encroach into the setback 14 feet.
The side setback (west) is requested•to be 1 foot. The existing II
garage on the property is located 2. feet off the property. The
other side setback (east) is presently 6.8 feet and the proposal
is for this to be 5 feet at the garage and 10 feet along the II
side of the house. With a modification to the entrance, the
garage could be shifted to the west to meet the setback. Also,
the garage appears to be oversized and reducing the width would
II
help this situation. On the west side the deck could be removed
and there would be a 6 foot setback. With modification the cor-
ners of the house would be out of the setback. 1
The front yard setback presently is at 20 feet and this is con-
sistent with other lots along Lake Riley Boulevard and this I
neighborhood. Twenty feet is minimum to allow a car to park in
the driveway. The rear setback is 75 feet. Removal of the deck
and porch would bring this into compliance with code require-
ments.
The lot coverage under the proposed plan is a significant
increase over the allowable in the RSF District. Removal of the
deck and porch would likely bring the plan into conformance with II
this requirement. •
II
II
to-
' essup Variance
February 27, 1989
Page 4
1
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
1 ^ity Code based on the following findings:
1. Literal enforcement would not cause undue hardship and prac-
1 tical difficulty.
2. The variances are not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights.
' 2 . The circumstances are a self created hardship due to the size
and design of the proposed structures.
' 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
1
1 •
1
1
February 20, 1989 1
Board of Adjustment
City of Chanhassen
Chanhassen, MN 5531
RE: Variance request at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
Dear Board: 1
I am requesting variances on the setbacks on the front, rear, 1
and 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
lake. It was platted decades ago therefore is not upto current
standards of lot size. 1
The current situation is that a one story structure exists there
now. The structure is within six feet of the east side property 1
line rather than the suggested ten feet. The back of the structure
is only twenty feet from the back property line rather than the
suggested thirty feet. The ten foot wide deck is within the
seventy five setback from the lake. A portion of the garage sets
on the neighbors property on the West property line. The one car
garage is not attached to the house. This home was purchased from
HUD as a repossessed house. Structurally the house is not fit to
remodel and add stories to obtain adequate 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.
Two is rebuild using the existing foundation location. This
alternative would require building a structure three stories tall
and would not conform to setback requirements but is grandfathered.
This alternative would not conform to the requirement of having an
attached two car garage either. Three is to build within all the
setbacks and include a two car garage. This would require building
a four story house as the first floor would be comprised primarily 1
of garage and stairs to gain access to the other floors. The fourth
alternative is one I propose. It requires building a two story
structure so as to minimize the visual impact of having a tall
structure on this narrow lot. It does require variances on the
standard setbacks but is an improvement over the existing
conditions and is consistent with other nearby lake lots. The
tradeoff for heighth versus width is perferable. 1
1
CITY OF CHANHA M
R....:.• `: 13
FEB 2t 1989 1
CHANHASSEN P! L.NN!NC DEPT.
1
( c
1
The literal enforcement of the setbacks would cause me to build
II structure that would be three stories tall and main floor
mprised of garage, deck, and stair way to the upper levels. The
ighbors are opposed to this idea. Their concern is of the visual
impact of a tall structure. I find the idea not appealing also.
e situation is pecular to my lot as it was platted many decades
o. The lot is pie- shaped and not to current standards. The
tback requirements have changed since this lot was platted. These
conditions evolved over time. I am planning a house that will allow
enjoyment of lake living. The structure is consistent with other
mes in the area. The home on the east side of my property is
totally new construction after an unfortunate fire last July. The
me on the west side was remodeled and enlarged in the past year.
e planned structure enhances the adjoining properties. The
riances will not be injurious or adversely affect the health,
safety, or welfare of the residents. The neighbors disapprove of
li e current structure and like the idea of a new structure.
I appreciate your time and interest in this variance request and
ok forward to starting construction this Spring.
ncerely,
I mes F. Jessup
property owner of
9147 Lake Riley Blvd.
1
II •
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
II
February 21, 1989
T� Board of Adjustment F 1989
City of Chanhassen 1
Chanhassen, MN 5531 ENGINEERING pfpr,
RE: Variance request at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
II
Dear Board:
The goal is to make a home that is consistent with other lake 1
residences. That will enhance the adjoining properties and provide
me long term residence.
I am requesting variances on the setbacks on the front, rear, II
and 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 II lake.
The current situation is that a one story structure exists there
now. The structure is within six feet of the east side property
II
line rather than the suggested ten feet. The back of the structure
is only twenty feet from the back property line rather than the
suggested thirty feet. The ten foot wide deck is within the
II
seventy five setback from the lake. A portion of the garage sets
on the neighbors property on the West property line. The one car
garage is not attached to the house. This home was purchased from II HUD as a repossessed house. Structurally the house is not fit to
remodel and add stories to obtain adequate space. The lot is too
small and narrow by current standards.
I have several alternatives uses for the current site. One is
II
to do nothing and rent the house out as it is too small for my use.
Two is rebuild using the existing foundation location. This
alternative would require building a structure three stories tall
II
and would not conform to setback requirements but is grandfathered.
This alternative would not conform to the requirement of having an
attached two car garage either. Three is to build within all the II setbacks and include a two car garage. This would require building
a four story house as the first floor would be comprised primarily
of garage and stairs to gain access to the other floors. The fourth
alternative is one I propose. It requires building a two story
II
structure so as to minimize the visual impact of having a tall
structure on this narrow lot. It does require variances on the
standard setbacks but is an improvement over the existing II conditions and is consistent with other nearby lake lots. The
tradeoff for height versus width is preferable.
The request for variances is consistent with other lake
II
properties along Lake Riley Blvd. The houses to the east of mine
have approximately twenty feet between the garage and property
line. The house under construction currently on Lot 35 of Shore
II
Acres, was recently granted twenty -five and forty feet variances
for the lake setbacks. The cottage on Lot 29 of Shore Acres is
being rebuilt. It meets neither of the required set backs from the
II
II
•
lake or side yard.
The literal enforcement of the setbacks would cause me to build
11 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. I am planning a house that will allow
me enjoyment of lake living. The structure is consistent with other
homes in the area. The home on the east side of my property is
totally new construction after an unfortunate fire last July. The
home on the west side was recently remodeled and 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
look forward to starting construction this Spring.
II Sincerely,
James .F'. Jessup
resident /property owner of
9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
II
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
(
•
t,er��ricate
-, 1
!• 0
w i •
s / 6' / C
RAROAD TIE / � f ` ~ '. 1
RETAINING WALL IL 6 9. ` Y
b / 7 1O w. 111
A: N •
r.
1 � *. • 1 1 Vt.
t
/
I / i.,
../ ie't
0. / .. K i 4 a i i i i 8 8 1 i 111,,, 51
t / 1
I �t''� ^ yam
-----ts 1
r
I
at_ .
I
1
EX ISTING 1
X [NCE •' Inn
out
O 1...
M
MIN
141 r i
O
n 1c
N
a •• N -
p +
i• _
y p4 •
Pip
' E XISTING
t CNAIN L INK .
FE I
�•.� SIC LINE OF THE if. . R 4 2 'i'� _ OF 1DN N , L U6 S , 3 w,
» ACCORdNG TO THE RECMD PLAT
OF SN)RE ACRES
s S +' to' ily
11 i Ir:
lo' S.b. y. 1
I i ' '
•• 1
A I/1se-e 001 JS
. s SF. 400 1
Si,* dA• T
tip
.
1
1 It
N
4 01 / ..*.....\..,..s.s..............
1
ti
4 qkF I
R\ \
1
(' (`
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 937 -1900
11 APPLICANT: 4.01e As Ocui.JE.42. OWNER: j F. 4 M,Q40.{i �JI( �LC SS Uf
1 ADDRESS ADDRESS 4241 LAIC g[,(, ,1 / a-c ub.
(c,/4.4 -tu � A s sent 5 5 ,1-
Zip Code Zip Code
II TELEPHONE (Daytime) 34/ • (o2 8 TELEPHONE 4qG • 6 3 5®
REQUEST:
II Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development
II Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
Preliminary Plan
Zoning Variance Final Plan •
1 Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision
Land Use Plan Amendment Platting
I Metes and Bounds
Conditional Use Permit
Street /Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review
1 Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME
1 PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
%
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
II PRESENT ZONING
II REQUESTED ZONING
USES PROPOSED
II SIZE OF PROPERTY V7 F7; X _60,4 X 1621 Al: A 1 ' 7 /
LOCATION Q.l7 44 - K R i /L&/ BLI'Z . d V f/ASsE
I REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Nfk/ Mn' t"oNSnPu
1
111 LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) LOT 42 QF Slfo .K.&S
1 .
1
' \ I
City of Chanhassen
Land Development Application
Page 2 s
FILING INSTRUCTIONS:
This application must be com in full and
clearly printed and must be accompanied by all informationtand..
plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before • 1
filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements
applicable to your application. 1
-. FILING CERTIFICATION:
The undersigned representative of the applicant hereb II
lfles
that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all
applicable City Ordinances.
Signed By .. _ Date 2 /9'1 1
p licant
1
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
• authorized to make this application for the property herein 1
described.
1 •
Signed By . •
e �O Z Date X /9gq
ner J / i
, .1
Date Application Received a •oZ �6 1
Application Fee Paid 1P7500 ,Q !l� 75.0 ,
City Receipt No. o2,�p2.Q1 I
rop2.ct Du .o hAll
* This Application will be considered by the
Planning Commission/
Board of Adjustments and Appeals•at their
II
meeting.
s
1
1
.( I *' •; I • •
13 .0
IS y
1 RAK.R0A0 TIE C P N s 9. i _
RETAINING WALL 4 0' Y
• ' ��Jppp*.
tO
1 .
�� •
•
;/1
I o o�
' \� N ,
1
' �t E / 4.h�
— . Q.s i • •
/ I E X I S T I N G w
I •
E X 1ST ! N G
e
e G • RA6 Eh
I v
i
• 7 2.s
r
J
F.
fiu M O U S E
L Al
FF r
EXISTING
3 t J1F0ENCE LINK
A
a m 2s?
Q N ` /
1 • N `` I
I . •
EXISTING
CHAIN LINK 6.6!
FENCE
WEST LINE OF THE S. E. 7/' OP i It
SECTION 24, T NS N. , H 23 W.,
AC
. ACCORDING TO THE RECORD PLAT
..: OF SHORE ACRES i
b0 ' s ‘ te
1 . _
/
1
1 6.6 • • /
A
- s s�.'�JOO f t/1%0I �7 I 0 k
R •
f t„,,, f ., - - �Aro 'i�
•, • •
1 N
. . _ ig . . . $ / / a ��
1 4,4
/re ....• .... „:"................ /
/ •
1 %I�v
• of •
1
1• � '' , •
— - `. 1J 0
Ili + • I
R RETAINING i
,c i
RE W ILL
/ �' / N 6 R/� C
fJININ W * °.
>> d° °° ` y
fit• , /
ai-
r
a i
� � � / 41 1
t /
ir /
` t
/ re
I0 6.tt 1
1 1 •
•
I cream,
1
4.
•
1: 1
.A
-'E C Nt 1 L NR
111
� ,,� O NC E
o 4,......... �� 1
al r
[XIS7ING
CHAIN l 1 LINK f„ is FENCE
r IRE OF HE . E.
rte • f f, 2� L p6 3 M. 23 w ,
• RE T REC •L T - -
/ --:
�i II
1 1
[—s.S I /
F � .
•
• O
N
Of / ..%"'s..„„.s.........
1
Hi
/ •
\i
•,..
February 28, 8
y 2 19 9
Mr. Steve Hanson
Director of Planning
City of Chanhassen
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
1 ' three stories plus basement to obtain the same living space that
I have proposed. The perpetuation of the existing single car garage
location is not what I prefer but provides the only garage under
a grandfather clause.
I think the elimination of the encroachment and improving side
II setbacks to a minimum of five feet is in the best interest of the
neighborhood.
If you wish to walk over the property please call a day in
advance to set the time. I work during the day and will need to
make special arrangements to be there.
Thanks for your time and patience on this matter.
Sincerely,
1 a*
James F. Jessup
resident /owner
•
i
1
MAR 11989
(-1 i r OF CHANHASSEN
1
t
1
= tt�ru�ar 'vim, 1989 ► 1
Mr. Steve Hanson II City Planner, City of Chanhassen '
Re: The proposed improvements to the property at 9247 Lake
Riley Blvd. 1
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
II
seeing the property next to ours improved. However, we want
to be clear on. the City's planning process and regulations,
and to know our property rights. 1
From our discussion, 1 understand the following points to be
how the City of Chanhassen views the situation:
II
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.
II
2. The maximum building height is 3 stories.
(maximum 40 feet overall)
'
II
lf 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
II
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 1
structures and rebuild, the City would allow a
variance to the 30 foot required setback from the
road, to approximately 20 feet. ( This would line I
up with the two homes to the East of the property )
o. The City will not allow any variances to the 75 foot II setback from the lake. This includes decks, 3 season
porches, and patios in front of a walk out basement.
7. For variances to the 10 foot side setbacks to be
I
allowed, a hardship ( non self- created as per
section 20 -5B #4.) wom1 d have to be established. It
was your opinion that you knew of no such hardship 1
FER Q 7 PP
^ .
'
•
N� because Mr. Jessup was well aware of the size of the
lot and the pertinent city codes when he purchased
the property last year.
•
0� 8. 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
N� 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
N� 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
N� 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.
10. The City will inform us in writing when the actual
applications and plans have been submitted and when
N� the Board of Adjustments and Appeals will meet to
discuss the variances. I understand that the
earliest date of this meeting would be February
1 27th.
If I have misunderstood any of the above points, I would
N� 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, l would like to thank you for your time and
information.
Sir . el y,
N� 4olp 4
Donald Sitter
9249 Lake Riley Blvd.
Chanhassen, Mn. 55317
N� 445-5/28
cc Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager
1 •
��
. � 1 4q (. rTIT!CQTe
_ ,
( . V ii 0
+
s ‘ } /
• � p
RAILROA I �� N 6 9° • r / c
RETAINING WALL J / - 0'
? OOM ‘' `'/
. ■ / Jp w 1
b / I
H.
5 J6 K /
/
Ca I ;/ 1
/ �.'
/ O
�O
I
- i
Ay .. LiAh�4` 1
I oal
1
r �,, "
z•
.. -
1
. rr,
01. NI. f <ISn/rc
•- —. cNSIIr ow(
1 c \J
A I
n
N
1 ° N
/ 1 I 0
O .... / . CXISTING /
FE LILINK '
FENCE
WEST INE OF TIE 5 14 /
• Or SE. TION 24, T 116 N , 23w
,3" ACCU TO THE RE••RO PEAT /
OF S •RE ACRES
y /
IS / _ `' /�
N r ti�
lo S.P. % ro lSed�SE1�
j
I s. X ••. 3 � � / .
I � ?
I
1 *-6 11--ot - A
1 I S 6jO J 00 l ,
� 9
i S4R fEr Iv. 1
, 1
N ` �\
I `\
s
•
/ - 0 r
■
( • 4 v tot f j i I% S.+ I L
V 1j •O
{ •
4 ,
1 J� R
RAR ROAO TIC r O!`
i eV 6 9 , e 1
RETYNINO WAIL - � / 90.00w
i 1 Jo w
_ • 1
Jay e • 1
I f /
...1. / I '. .
. 41 gir
1 t. it i
ir
/ . = EXIST , l�
VI
C S T I N G
I c e G A R o
1 N •
•
V •
1 } 12 a
14.14r11. Pi fi to i I
S{OM4ti 11nM f,
4 . M O U S E
2
_ E EuC( G
C/14 LI•.•
I tti. t � 1ENCE
C ^ • ii
O ?07
laillftir 111 / 4
f•-• • i „ alio,
IS of
s ExISTING
/ .
i CM•IN LINK
Y MK( wE ST INE OF THE S i;023
IT 1 0 SE• TION 24, T 116 N W.,
ACCOR•NG TO THE RE•ORO PLAT
1 s OF 5 •RE ACRES , 4/
p
I _ ID1 5.b. IA /p/ � �cNSE10:
e.
r 5 .�• 4 3/G/S9
1
I
s •
[-e
S t)eJ -
SU9 S f O F r
m
N
1
/
( ��
/
KF �,
-.F
1 to •
1
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 1
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
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.
1
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,
but also decks and patios which could easily be enclosed
1 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
slightly on our property and it would appear to be an
improvement to move it over 6 feet. But as it is now,
all their traffic and activities go between their garage
and house with the garage acting as a buffer for us. If
they incorporate the garage in the house as the plans
show, all their traffic would go around the house on our
side. Therefore we would want the full 10 foot setback
requirement enforced to prevent their activities from
spilling over onto our property.
4. The overall height that we saw on a preliminary drawing
1 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
1 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.
I 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
1 spilling over on the adjacent properties.
Finally, in response to the comments Hr. Jessup stated in the
meeting on Feb. 27th, we feel he was greatly exaggerating
' some of the points. As for what exists now on the property,
he was claiming that the shed attached to the garage, the
pumphouse, and the deck are now existing permanent
' structures that were not shown on his plans. The reason
these were not shown is because they are not permanent
structures. The facts are that the "shed" is a "basket - weave"
' fence with a few pieces of plastic for a roof, the "deck" is
a large step out the front of the house without railings and
is simply sitting on a few concrete blocks, and the "pump
house" is a "structure" only about three feet square and only
one foot above the ground level. He also claimed the
driveway to be permanent asphalt when in fact it is only
loose gravel, and I am not sure the garage itself would even
' qualify as a permanent structure. I hope you have time
before the next meeting to come out and view the property
yourself to verify these facts.
•
As for a precedence being set by other homes in the
neighborhood, I don't believe any exist. The new home under
1
.
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,
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. 1
Thank you very much to your attention to this matter.
1
Sincerely,
r i 1
Donald W. Sitter
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
• .
r r
1
City Council Members
City of Chanhassen
February 27, 1989
' Dear Council Members:
Due to other committments I am not able to attend tonight's
meeting. I would, however, like to comment on the proposed
' building of a home on the lot located at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd.
My concern is the overbuilding of this lot. It is my
understanding that the proposed structure would be over 3300
square feet in total area with a 2 car garage and a large amount
of deck in addition to that. I like large homes as much as anyone
but the size of this home on the lot that they have proposed it for
' is unreasonable. I am speaking on this subject with many
interests: 1) I am a resident in the neighborhood in question and
feel overbuilding of any lot would be a detriment to it; and 2) I
own 9223 Lake Riley Blvd. which is also a buildable lot in the
neighborhood and located on Lake Riley. While I am all for nice
homes coming into the neighborhood, I believe that there should be
I 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
1 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
1 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.
1 Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
1 Sincerely,
1 .
Alan H. Dirks
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
March 6, 1989
Board of Adjustments and Appeals 1
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Box 147
•
Chanhassen, MN 55317
To: Board of Adjustments and Appeals 1
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 1
our concerns being given the fair attention deserved. Please
visit the site, observe the neighborhood, and recognize the
impact to the neighborhood if the variances are approved.
Thank You in advance for your consideration in this matter.
Respectfully,
1
Kenneth and Katherine Wolter
341 Deerfoot Trail
Chanhassen, MN. 55317
(612)- 496 -1337
•
1
1
1
Council Meeting - F - uary 11, 1991
1 fry Lake Riley Blvd., James Jessup
�� Request to Extend Approval of Front, Rear and both Side Yard Variances, 9247
•
' i. Ordinance Amending Chapter 9, Article 3 of the City Code Regarding the Fire
Code, Second Reading.
IV IC) j. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow Emission Control Testing Stations as
l n fk 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
II on pages 18 and 19.
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 22, 1991
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
II I. APPROVE SOUTH LOTUS LAKE BOAT ACCESS SITE AND DRAINAGE STUDY.
I 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
I 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
II whereby there was a problem with that 100 year storm caused some erosion within
a particular part. Quite ironic we had two of those in one year. Supposedly _
not to happen within 100 years but we did have two within one specific year.
t I've had some discussions with Todd on this and I had one other question in the
VanOoren 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
II throughout the project area. Do you know how many times that did happen by
chance?
II Todd Hoffman: To quantify the word frequently?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
II 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
I that were 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
I 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.
j 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
II
City Council Meeting • abruary 26, 1990 '
•
can pursue to buy the 2 foot of property, fine. If not, then he has to cone 1
before the board again and we'll make a decision at that titre. We would hope he
can buy 2 feet.
Mayor Chmiel: So the action for us to do is just table this?
Willard Johnson: Just table any action until we get a response within 90 days. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you.
Councilwoman Dirtier moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table the rear yard
setback variance request for James McAllister at 620 Fbxhill Drive. All voted
in favor and the motion carried. 1
� ( VARIANCE EXTENSION REQUEST, 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, JAMES JESSUP.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the applicant requested an extension because of
pollution from a leaking gasoline tank apparently from an adjoining property
that's preventing him frocr, 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
agreed to a 1 year extension with the possibility of further extensions if the
problem's not resolved in the next 12 months.
Mayor Ordel: Okay, any discussion?
Councilman Boyt: I know you just mentioned this but we do have to modify the
variance right? Didn't you say in here it should be clear that the gas tank is
not a conforming use?
Paul Krauss: Ch, I need to clarify that.
Councilman Johnson: It's not on his property. '
Paul Krauss: Right. When I had heard about this problem I had heard about the
leaking gas tank and it turns out it's on a neighboring property. ,
Councilman Boyt: Okay. Got it. Fine.
1
Councilman Boyt roved, Councilman Johnson seconded the variance extension
request for James Jessup at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
Councilman Johnson: What were we voting on?
Mayor C miel: Exactly what Paul said.
Councilman Boyt: An extension. '
Councilman Johnson: Ch. It was passed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
unanimously. Did we need to vote too?
35
City Council Meeting - Fe Lary 26, 1990
Councilwoman Dinler: Yes.
Councilman Hoyt: We did or didn't?
Paul Krauss: You wouldn't have needed to acted. It wasn't appealed and the
board approved it.
' Mayor Ctrdel: Okay, we'll withdraw it.
Councilman Johnson: Well it doesn't matter.
Mayor Ctrrde1: It's alright. We like to do it twice.
REVISED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR COUNTRY HOSPITALITY SUITES, DAVE HEMMIt ER, D.W.
HUTT CONSTRUCTION.
' Paul Krauss: As the City Council is aware, the developers for Hospitality
Suites proposed sa 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 the main entrance be
provided and in addition indicated that at that point in time you were unwilling
to accept the shortening up of the building by approximately 12 feet which had
' been proposed. You did however indicate that if anymore changes were proposed,
since the project seemed to be in swathing of a state of flux, or if any of
those decisions warranted further consideration, that the applicant could go
II back to the Planning Commission through channels for an amendment site plan.
And that is in fact the case, an amended site plan is being requested. Again,
the applicant is continuing to request approval to delete a 12 foot section of
the building. A satisfactory canopy design was also presented to the Planning
I �am�
Cission contingent upon sane 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
; , minimum building separation to meet building code requirements. Staff is
recaTrending approval of the revised plans and that recommendation has been
supported by the Planning Commission. Staff is continuing to recamend approval
of the amended site plan. We believe it's consistent with the intent of the
II 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 roars 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 recom 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 roar to manuever buses. We'd also like to add a 5th
I 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.
II Councilwoman Dimler: Is there anyone that would like to address this?
36
-- ' City Council Meeting 1,7 rch 13, 1989
Resolution #89 -34: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve a resolution proclaiming the week of March 12 -18, 1989 as Girl Scout
Week in Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: There were no visitor presentations.
1
'60. VARIANCE TO THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
„�9INGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, JAMES JESSUP.
\ ��,f:r Mayor Chmeil: We have moved up item number 7 which we held at the Board of '
' `1 Appeals and Adjustments just � j prior to the Council meeting. The Board of Appeals
and Adjust=ments had reviewed the proposal and because of the many conditions and
many things that have happened within the area of the setback requirements that
were done previously for other homes, had approved this particular item. Now of
course it comes to Council for discussion. I'm not sure whether Mr. Jessup
would like to make a presentation. If so, please proceed. ,
Councilman Johnson: Was this passed unanimously?
Councilman Boyt: It was. '
Councilman Johnson: Does any member of the Council have a problem with it?
Councilman Boyt: Yes.
James Jessup: I am James Jessup. My wife, Mary Ellen is here with me this
evening. The two kids are at home and the goal of our request is to establish a
long term residence with the proposed property changes... The action that we're
requesting is for you to approve Site Plan dated 3 -6 -89. I apologize if you
looked at the staff report at the number of•site plans that have been modified
and changed along the way. The fact is we tried to accommodate input from
neighbors and staff and do other things to the project. What 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`i.ty Council Meeting - M. 13, 1989
minimal standards. It's a tough situation. 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
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
previous owner experienced similar frustrations in that property is too close to
the street and too close to the east side. The garage encroaches on the west
side and the deck sits in the lake area. The situation is, I appreciate your
consideration. The precedent for this situation as the staff has reported in
the report to you, variance 89 -2, a home 250 feet down Lake Riley Blvd.. Here
are some pictures on 13, page 13 of your handout, excuse me the fourth page.
The bottom home. The home that's tall. That home was granted a 5 foot variance
from the property line. It was granted a 33 foot variance on the lake side and
the front yard setback also so there's precedence very close by... Just in
summary, I'd just like to restress the hardship criterias. I think this meets
' pretty well and this plan shows what's there, what's proposed. There's just not
roan 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 hone. If they want to go two levels, they've got nearly
the 3,000 square foot. Specifically we're concerned about a few things. One is
the overall size of the house. What Jim calls a 2 story house, I call a 3 story
' house. His plans show for a full basement which is a walkout basement and being
on the lake, that's nearly road level or whatever so it is literally a very
large home. The 3 bedrooms upstairs, if you include the den and playroom and a
piece of the rec room that could be finished off, we could be looking at a 6
I 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
II they're already too close to the road. They literally had no room to build on
their lot. As far as the 50 foot wide lot...so as far as the side setbacks, I
think there's a considerable difference in that condition and in this condition. —
We also have a concern with the drainage on the property. Right now you can see
20
City Council Meeting t i::ch 13, 1989
their existing garage, the existing home, all the water runs out... It was 11 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
that's a good point and like I said, we want to see it improved. We think it's
too much improvement. We think the house is just too big for the lot. I'm also
very concerned about the encroachment on the lakeside. Because there has been
no hardship established here and you're allowing then 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 sane 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
1! criteria that are set up by the State to use when we're considering variances.
Variances are not meant to write ordinances. Variances are meant to handle
hardship situations that the ordinance could not be written to adjust to because
it was in fact a unique hardship. If we're unhappy with our ordinances, we
should rewrite them but if we're going to give a variance, we really ought to
follow the guidelines the State has set down for us. Now we as a Council are
acting on this kind of variance for the first time. Previous Councils have
acted on it and they have made decisions. We might be able to 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 fran 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 11 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
II City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
within 65 feet of the lake.
Mayor i.el
yo Chm I guess there's been several thoughts on that portion. Steve,
will you read the specific conditions that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
have indicated?
Steve Hanson: Yes, the Board of Adjustments in their recommendation for
approval had...as follows. First was that the drainage in the area be reviewed
by the City Engineer to come up with a viable means for handling that between
' the neighbors specifically. The second condition was that the deck remain a
deck and no porch or any type of enclosure be allowed either up on that top
level or on the walkout level below. The third condition was that the plans for
the building be reviewed•by staff as part of the building permit process to
' insure that what they're asking for in the building permit complies with what
the Board of Adjustment approves. Then the fourth condition was to specifically
make a plan that's contained in your packet and dated March 6th as the official
' plan...Board of Adjustments specifying what those setbacks were. That was the
extent of the conditions placed on there.
Mayor Chmi.el: As we looked further into this, and in a particular case on a
' variance that was granted previously just in an adjacent, in addition to the one
that Mr. Jessup has indicated, in this particular case the applicant was granted
a 5 foot sideyard setback variance and a 42 foot shoreland setback variance as
well. That was at 9239 Lake Riley Blvd.. At 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. there was
also a single family residence be 50 feet from the southerly ordinary high water
mark and 35 feet from the westerly ordinary high water mark. Unfortunately, as
[__
' I see it, there has been an awful lot of variances within that specific
area granted on all those homes. True it was granted by the previous Council. I
don't think in my good conscience and probably frcan the...aspect, can we deny
those variances with all the other variances that have already been granted.
II 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 room left to build. So if that's the same
conditions that this is, I don't see that as being a precedence for this issue.
I think that they were considered very carefully and if you don't allow some
' variances in those, you were deeming that property unbuildable and therefore
taking away the value of the land altogether and I think that's totally
different and I don't picture this...
I 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 primarill unbuilda
lots. There was down on Lake Riley that I don't think y is on tota this ly list tha t 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
A t 1
City Council Meeting r —ich 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
right next door on the one side. I think the neighbor is actually here.
James Jessup: What was the question? 1
Councilman Johnson: Have you negotiated for the purchase of part of your land
where his fence is on your land up to his existing fence so his fence that
designates his yard is actually your yard.
James Jessup: We talked about that. If you'll also notice from the plans, my
driveway cuts across the corner of his property so we were talking about ,
swapping back and forth there or some easements or whatever. But in the area
where the fence is, we're only talking about a foot or 2 on my property so it's
no...
Councilman Johnson: Well it does change the variance a little 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 somebody else someplace else, each variance has to stand completely on it's
own. If we do this, tomorrow his next door neighbor could come in and ask the
same variance and we could turn it down. It'd be tough. It doesn's seem
reasonable that way but we would have to justify this variance and for some
particular reason on this lot does he need that variance to put that deck on
there? In my opinion is no. There is no hardship. If you can justify in your
mind that there's a hardship that he has to have that deck. That he has to have
2,000 square feet of home plus a full basement underneath it 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 cane 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 them 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 them unbuildable and the City buy them or that's all I
have to say.
1
23 ,
(1c
City Council Meeting - March 13, 1989
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?
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 than 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.
Councilman Boyt: 200 square feet or something?
II Willard Johnson: Let me word it this way. There isn't a lot in this whole city
you can't design to fit a house, even if it's 90 feet tall and 10 foot wide.
That's what I'm getting at.
' Councilman Boyt: Alright, but what we were saying earlier was those two lots,
as you recall, would have required an extrenely small house?
II • Willard Johnson: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: So we gave a variance to make them more buildable. This
allows a house of 1,300 square feet. Are you saying that makes it unbuildable?
Willard Johnson: I guess I compare it to some of the planned developments we've
got in this city and it's up in my neighborhood too. You've got, let's use x
number of dollars, $250,000.00 homes in there from lot line to lot line so
I guess how do you compare apples to organes? I guess he wants to put a decent
' 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
II to look at purchasing the lot or granting the variance but that's not the case
here. ,
1
24
�` r -
City Council Meeting -larch 13, 1989 `�
1
Willard Johnson: No, I realize that but what kind of home can you put on it?
I'm looking from the standpoint, a building standpoint too.
II Councilman Boyt: A 1,200 square foot home.
Willard Johnson: That sounds dumb. You might as well put up a good one in
II
order to put it up. Not that I'm sticking up for the applicant. Make a decent
home instead of a house that, he's going to put a garage in the bottom part so
you're losing quite a bit of home space. We require a 2 car garage. I don't II 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
II
the way back to when they were designed. TO me it looks as though this is kind
of, this is cleaning up this lot a little bit and improving it. A bad situation
into maybe not as bad a situation. I'm going to take the advice of the Board of
Appeals and approve this. II
Councilman Boyt: Show me the hardship. Not that you have to but show me the
hardship. • II
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 II 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
II
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
II
of money to improve a situation. .
Councilman Boyt: Well, why don't we just have them build it up to the lake
II
then?
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's silly. Let me ask Mr. Jessup, would you be willing
to remove your deck from that particular building?
II
James Jessup: I would ask if you would be willing to buy a lake house without a
deck? 1
Mayor Chmiel: I might.
James Jessup: The neighbors on one side of me have...and the neighbors on the 1
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. 1
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
II
feet off that deck?
James Jessup: It makes it very difficult to put a table on top of that deck.
II
We have a round table.
25 1
City Council Meeting - Ma 13, 1989
C:
Mayor Chmie1: 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 Cmiel: 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: Zb 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...
' Councilman Johnson: Saying that the existing pump house is the existing setback
where I think they went to the wall of the house rather than the pump house
' before but that's 16 foot. Sliding the house forward to meet the existing 16
foot setback, going to a 22 x 22 foot garage versus the 23 1/2, losing a foot
and a half there. Sliding the entire house to the right to give you a little
more because if you lost a little bit there. Then we're to a 9 1/2 foot deck.
' See what I'd say is go to a 22 x 22 foot garage versus a 23 1/2 x 23 1/2. I
realize that that's getting small but that's what I've got actually is a 22 x 22
and my wife's big Chevy fits in there with my little Horizon. I think that
would also give you a little bit more on your west side if you went a little
narrower on•the garage. If there's anything you can cheat on and not mess up
your living space, it's your garage. You just have to walk a little tigher when
' you bang your doors into each other's cars.
Councilman Workman: How much are we going to gain by doing this?
Councilman Johnson: We'll gain 2 1/2 feet if we cut a foot and a half off the
garage and slide it towards the street a foot to get to the 16 foot mark. That
gives us 2 1/2 feet so take a half foot off his deck, he's added a 68 foot.
He's got a 9 1/2 foot deck. So he has not exceeded the previous deck footprint
of the previous variance that was on there. I think it's workable. It's not
that big of a deal.
' Councilman Boyt: That would certainly be acceptable from my standpoint because
we're not exceeding any variances...
' Councilman Johnson: In the existing condition.
Councilman Boyt: In the existing condition.
II Mary Ellen Jessup: How does that affect then what we discussed during the [7_1
Board of Adjustments? One of the addendums or whatever where you mentioned that
we had to use that exact footprint as the exhibit for approval? For this permit
26
City Council Meeting _ _eh 13, 1989 '
4r - to construct? How does that affect it?
Councilman Johnson: We're modifying it.
Mayor Chmiel: It's being g modified right ht 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.
Mary Ellen Jessup: What I needed to know is, are we going to have to come back
for an appeal?
Mayor Chmiel: No. It could be resolved right now and see it proceed.
Councilman Johnson: While it seers like we're really measuring the straws to an
inch degree when we talk about a half foot there, but it does seem to crawl on
you. A half foot this time. A foot, just to give them 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: Fine.
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 1
foot setback from the lake. The 16 foot setback from the Lake Riley Blvd.. 10
feet from the property to the east. And is it 7 feet?
Councilman Johnson: It's 5 unless he gets the property next door. Then it goes
to 7.
Councilman Boyt: Are you going to work out the property next door? f
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
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.
t __ Councilman Boyt: No, I don't think that was how that was going to work Don. 1
Councilman Johnson: I was doing that , .too Bill. That was in my suggestion too
is make the garage narrower and then they could move further away from the 5 1
27 1
City Council Meetinc Ma— 13, 1989
' foot setback. The existing condition is that he's 2 1/2 feet into your
property. This would be an improvement over 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.
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.
' 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 Boyt: Well I hate to get into a situation where we've got a
negotiations that's open ended.
11 Councilman Johnson: So what do you want the west side property setback in Yo ur
motion? That's what we're down to.
Mayor Chmiel: That presently is 5 feet right?
II Councilman Boyt: Presently it says it's 5 feet. We all agree 5 feet?
•
Mayor Chmi.el: Yes, 5 feet. •
II Councilman Boyt: 5 1/2? I would make my motion that it's 10 feet on the west
side and 5.5 feet on the east side. 68 feet from the lake and 16 feet from Lake
Riley Blvd.. If you can work out something better between you, marvelous but I
' think from the City's standpoint we've got to require that.
Mayor Chmi.el: Is there a second?
II Councilman Johnson: I'll second that.
James Jessup: I'd rather you keep it 10 feet from the east side.
II Councilman Johnson: We dial.
' James Jessup: You said west.
Councilman Boyt: Which side do you want what on Willard?
II Willard Johnson: 10 foot from the east side.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, and what do we do on the west side?
28
1
City Council MeeL..ng - M,:rch 13, 1989 1
1r - Willard Johnson: 5.5. The reasons I come up...
gi
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. 1
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 1
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.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone wishing to address this public hearing? 1
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 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
29
1 22
II City Cou�, Meeting - Fd„ uary 27, 1989
11 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
II final plat of Eight Acre Woods Second Addition. .
Grant Johnson: My name is Grant Johnson, 6270 Murray Hill Road. I believe the
1 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
II so I'm just willing to answer any questions that anyone may have.
Mayor Chmi.el: I guess I myself don't have any questions on this. To me it
1 looks like its self explanatory. I don't know if anyone else on the Council
has any questions.
II Councilman Workman: Steve, can you explain to me meets and bounds?
Steve Hanson: It's a legal description. In other words, it's described as far
as the bearings and distances rather than being an actual plat where you refer
I to it as Lot 1, Block 1. So it's surveyed in as opposed to the normal formal
plat that you would see.
I Councilman Workman: Why wouldn't this need a formal plat?
Steve Hanson: There's a provision in the Statute as well as in the City Code
that allows you to do it this way for a simple subdivision rather than going
through the expense of doing a full detailed plat. It's really cost savings for
them.
1 Councilman Workman: I guess then give me one reason why they have to have a
plat versus meets and bounds. What makes the difference?
`' Steve Hanson: This is basically a lot under special circumstances when you're
splitting just one lot into two. If you're making it more than that, you'd go
through the full blown subdivision process.
11 Councilman Workman: So basically you're saying if one line is involved to split
it, then you can do it this way? Okay.
II Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
I 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.
II
CA /, VARIANCE TO THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
_, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS, 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, JAMES JESSUP.
S
LI
teve 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
II 4
City Council Meeting r oruary 27, 1989 r
1
I input so I would suggest that you just continue this item and that you need to
1
1
) take no action.
VARIANCE TO THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DAYCARE
II
FACILITY LOCATED ON THE LAKE DRIVE EAST, IMMEDIATELY WEST OF TOTAL MART
' t ) nJ CONVENIENCE STORE, G.P. BAJR INC..
Steve Hanson: I might explain this one also. This item was also up before the 1
Board of Adjustments earlier tonight. This particular request was denied by the
Board of Adjustments by unanimous vote. The applicants have requested that it
not be considered by Council at this meeting and pending their decision whether
II
they'd like to bring it to Council or not. They have a 10 day period to make
that decision.
•
1
SET 1989/90 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES.
Don Ashworth: The 1989 budget anticipated an increase in liquor license fees of
II
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
asterisked those that are again set.by the State. Staff is recommending that
II
the license fees be increased generally by 5 %. We rounded in same cases as
shown in your report dated February 8th.
Mayor Chmi.el: Is there anyone who would like to address this that is in the 11
audience? Just for general public, for your information. Some of the fees that
we're adjusting is just two specific items. It's the off sale non - intoxicating
a. license which is existing $30.00. We're raising that to $50.00. The on sale
non - intoxicating which the existing was $205.00 and that's being proposed at
$250.00. I feel they are fairly reasonable and to be in compliance with the
requirements as stated by Mr. Ashworth. I would like to ask for a motion. 1
•
r
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 II restaurant and non - restaurant type of uses. The schedule again is shown as
about 5% higher than in 1988.
Councilman Boyt: Were you able to get those figures Don? 1
Don Ashworth: No. They may be in here. Councilman Boyt had asked for a
comparison of fees with some of our other cauauni.ti.es. I was looking for that
information late this afternoon and I was not able to have that available. II
Resolution #89 -29: Councilman Boyt :roved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve the Liquor License Fee Schedule as presented by staff. All voted in
II
favor and the motion carried.
•
II ^ / 1` 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
j' 212 AND THE EAST SIDE OF TH 101, PATRICK BLOOD AND NANCY LEE.
Steve Hanson: This is a request to extend an existi. conditional use permit. II
qu existing pe
The conditional use permit had a one year limitation to put in the improvements
II
5 1
� S.B. Cummings
1 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
RE: JESSUP PROPERTY LOCATED AT
9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD
1 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
:1 Dear Ms. Olson:
On behalf of Mr. James Jessup I am writing this letter to present my concern about the variance
1 status being considered for the property located at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard in Chanhassen,
Minnesota.
In October, 1989 strong gasoline odors were encountered in the footing excavation at the above
address. Two underground gasoline tanks on a neighboring property were determined to be the
source of the gasoline. Over 600 cubic yards of gasoline impacted soil was excavated from
around the tanks and Jessups property. Due to site constraints not all of the impacted soil was
excavated. To date, the full impact of the gasoline release has not been determined.
Mr. Jessups immediate concern is the potential for gasoline vapors to migrate back onto his
property and enter his proposed residence.
1 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
1
•
1 RECEIVED
1 an equal opportunity employer FEB f, 7 1991
ern ut iMMtvHPSSEN
Suite 400 Hazeltine Gates 1107 Hazeltine Boulevard Chaska, MN 55318
1 612/448-9393 FAX 448 -9572
1
Ms. Jo Anne Olson ; —2— February 5, 1991
I
City of Chanhassen
Nova feels until these issues are resolved it would be premature to expect Mr. Jessup to begin
construction.
Sincerely, 1
NOVA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
1
6D-1J7.e _,.,
David J. Koubsky 1
Hydrogeologist
Group Manager 1
DJK:ab • 1
pc: Ms. Janet Berryhill, MPCA
1 Mr. James Jessup
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
QUICK MEMORANDUM FO RM
II MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
520 Lafayette Road
St.Paul, Minnesota 55155 RECEIVED
II Telephone (612) 296 -6300
Date: February 4, 1991 FEB 0 6 1991
TO: ONarmin 11 -Jaff
City of Chanhassen CI I Y yr �nr;NNASSEf
II 690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
FROM: Janet Berryhill
I Tanks and Spills ection
Division of Hazardous Waste
(612) 643 -3427
== c =s = = = = =o= ____ ... _____ _ === = =x= =s = = =s=zxs = =m=.. =a¢ ==s
II RE: Summary of Our February 28, 1991 Phone Conversation
Site: Remus Residence
Site 'in: LEAY.00001700
I ' 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.
II As we discussed, Mr. Remus' underground gasoline tanks were removed in April
1990. A large amount of petroleum contaminated soil was removed, however some
II 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.
I 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
II barrier.
The gas vapor barrier was not designed for many months because Mr. Remus'
I consultant would not design it until they had been paid for previous work. Mr.
Remus could not pay his consultant until he was reimbursed by the MPCA tanks
program. Mr. Remus received his reimbursement check from the State of
II 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
I 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:
II A vapor barrier will not be installed'on Mr. Jessup's house.
Mr. Remus' consultant will be installing a well to determine whether ground
I 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.
II
II
II
Sharmin Al -Jaff
Page 2
February 4, 1990
1
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.
If you have any questions about this memo, please call me at 612/643 -3427. '
======___________===== z== = = =________ = = = = =s == t= == == ______
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
1
1
1
1
1
FEB- 04 -'92 TUE 15:56 ID:WATERFIELD W ST PAUL TEL N0:612- 451 -3739 #913 P02
f„-
o
BRUCE A. LIESCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
N' HYDROGEOLOGI$T5 • ENGINEERS • ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
13400 9 5Th Avenue No. • Plymouth, MN 5544 • FAX NO: 559.2202
R 3C311114
November 25, 1991 • DEC 0 2 1991
MPCA, HAZARDOUS
Mr. John Moeger • WASTE DIVISION
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
'
Tanks and Spills Section
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155 -3898
RE: Remus Property Leak +00001700
Dear Mr, Moeger:
As per our telephone conversation of November 5, 1991, Bruce A. Liesch Associates, Inc.
1 ( Liesch) believes that installation of a vapor barrier to a depth of 12 feet would not be
a feasible method of remediation due to several factors, An installation depth of 12 feet
would require removal of the reinstalled concrete pad adjacent to the Remus garage and
the Remus garage would have to be protected by shoring or similar method to prevent -
undermining of the foundation. Excavations in excess of six feet require a trench box or
other means of support to be implemented to protect workers within the excavation. The
I 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 monitor, D Mr'on -site. The OVM will have a photoionization detector equipped with
1 a 10'e!ectron volt lamp.
A 7 144, ,1erev
1 •
1
FEB- 04 -'92 TUE 15:57 ID: IJATERFIELD 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. If 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.
Sinettmly,
1
47 et fj.../ ,lA t
Mark S. Miller ,•
Project Manager
•
MSM /maw
cc: Rudy and Lucille Remus
1
Mr, Earl Snell
maw :1tr11 - 20/65039.00
1
• 1
1
1
. •
1
e •taam...
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency P Kke
1 520 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 -3898 3/
44501# Telephone (612) 296 -6300
1
1
1 SEptert 9, 1931
•
1 Mr. Rudolph Remus
9245 Lake Riley Boulevard RECEIVED
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
' Dear Mr. Remus: SEP 10 1991
CITY Uf CrIANHASSEN
Re: Remus Property
Site ID #: Leak0001700
I would like to introduce myself to you and others as the project manager vho
' has taken over this project from Janet Berryhill, who recently left the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). This letter also provides MPCA
staff comments on the most recent Bruce A. Liesch and Associates, Inc. (BAL),
' letter dated August 6, 1991, which presents the results of the
investigative /cleanup activities taken in May and June of 1991. Rather than
re -hash past events, I would much rather focus on what further vork 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 following conclusions:
1 - 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
not expected to cause a vapor problem at the Remus or Jessup properties;
.- A recent ground water sample taken by indicates that ground water is not
impacted above the Recommended Allowable Levels, therefore a significant
contaminant migration problem impacting the lake does not exist;
1 - Site constraints (access, space limitations, and significantly altered
subsurface materials) make further ground water monitoring problematic;_
permanent monitor wells are not possible due to a seasonally high water
1 table and extreme water level fluctuations.
•
• - Although measured soil and ground water contaminant concentrations to date
' have been lov, MPCA staff consider a residential setting to be particular
sensitive and in need of some level of protection.
•
I Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshall • Rochester - -
1
Mr. Rudolph Remus
Page 2
Septet 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
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 west of caps #2 (avgas) at sample location 11;
2. Approximately 35 feet south of above sample location at approximate
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,
John R. Moeger 1
Project Leader
Tanks and Spills Section
Hazardous Waste Division
JRM:np
cc: Steve Kirchman and and JoAnn Olson, Chanhassen '
James Jessup, Chanhassen
Mark Miller, Bruce A. Liesch And Associates, Plymouth
Dave Koubsky, Chaska
1
' Agency � 'le <
Minnesota Pollution Contro IA g cy i�
1 520 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 -3898 Qj �
45,51 Telephone (612) 296 -6300 G,
1 •
1 RECEIVED
November 4, 1991
NV i t r 1991
I o i r ........riASSEN
I Mr Rudolph Remus
9245 Lake Riley Boulevard
Chanhassen; Minnesota 55317
II Dear Mr. Remus:
II RE: Corrective Action Approval
Remus Property
Site ID #: 0001700 .
I The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has reviewed the report
entitled, "Corrective Action Plan, Remus Property on Lake Riley, Chanhassen,
Minnesota ", dated September 1991 as prepared by Bruce A. Liesch and Associates,
I Inc. (BAL).
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.
II - Clean sand shall be used as backfill in order to prevent tears and punctures
to the membrane during placement.
II Installation of the vapor barrier should proceed immediately to take advantage
of the weather. Please notify the City of Chanhassen and the MPCA at least 5
days in advance of installation. •
This qualifies you for partial reimbursement of your costs for the development
of this corrective action plan and for the costs you will incur after
II construction is completed.
We expect, based on the available information, that completion of the approved
corrective action will support a determination by the MPCA Commissioner that
I the release has been adequately addressed pursuant to Minn..115C.09, .
subd.2(b)(1) (1990). Ve therefore do not expect any additional cleanup
enforcement action by the MPCA will be necessary. However, if subsequently
1 obtained information indicates that the approved corrective actions are
inappropriate or inadequate, the MPCA may require additional work or
modifications in the approved work.
II
I Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshall • Rochester
C.....1 P\ww..rh...ih. cn0.1"wor • Printoel nn Ra velai Planar •
1
Mr. Randolph Remus 1
-
Page 2
November 4, 1991 gi
•
In approving the plan, the MPCA does not assume any liability for the design or
implementation of this remedy. You remain solely responsible for ensuring that
this plan results in a successful cleanup and that its implementation does not
result in any harm to public health or the environment. Moreover, the MPCA
does not guarantee reimbursement of your costs from the Petro Board.
Application for reimbursement must be made to the Petro Board (612/297- 4017).
However, that decision is based on factors such as the adequacy 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,
7:7
John R. Moeger
Project Leader
Tanks and Spills Section
Hazardous Waste Division
JRM:np 1
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
1
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 9
520 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 -3898 J
4:5‹:0
' Telephone (612) 296 -6300 {
January 3, 1992
1
Mr. Mark Miller
Bruce A. Liesch and Associates, Inc.
13400 15th Avenue North
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
Dear Mr. Miller:
Re: Rudolph Remus Property
' Site ID#: LEAK0001700
Having received and 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.
II 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.
II The P roposed action level of 10 parts per million (ppm) is acceptable to MPCA
staff. Levels above 10 ppm may require further corrective action at the
' discretion of MPCA staff.
Please respond to this letter with the information requested above, prior to
' beginning any work at the site.
Sincerely,
I /ef.
John R. Moeger
' Project Leader
Tanks and Spills Section
Hazardous Waste Division -
JRM:mk •
•
cc: Rudolph Remus, Chanhassen
' James Jessup, Chanhassen
Steve Kirchman, City of Chanhassen
• RECEIVED
'
JAN 0 ci1992
Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshall • Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on Recycled Paper CITY OF CHANHASSEN
II I QUICK MEMORANDUM FORM
II 1
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
520 Lafayette Road
St.Pau1, Minnesota 55155
II Telephone (612) 296 Date; p2�6/9
TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff
II City Of Chanhassen
FROM: John R. Moeger
Lr oft
Tanks and Spills Section
1 Division of Hazardous Waste -
(612) 297 -8613
ww . � a . • a == a.c= awm= e�s�cnswcccsn== 3sc== auc= ac= ar= = =-
SUBJECT: Rudolph Remus Petroleum Release Site
I Site ID #0001700
II As we ave • scusse•, t e MPCA sta 's pos tion regarding the cleanup at the
above - captioned site is this:
Petroleum contaminated soils have been removed from the Jessup property to
I background levels with the exception of a small area near the east - central
property line that does not warrant action at this time.
1 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 ( >10ppm). A vapor analysis of these soils as well as the small area
I 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
II action.
Cooperation is needed from both parties in order to carry out the corrective
action effectively and on a timely basis.
11 action
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.
I swwaa. .....s sac == =www..,.s =a °= = =. :ate.=== as ..ac= = =eaws mma .... = :o----- ...s.:
This informal way of responding to you saves us the time and expense of pre-
paring a formal letter. Thank you for your interest, and please contact us if
II 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
1
2'd 31St1M ' Zt1H - tiOd ' NW Wt3ET : T T 26, 90 H3d