1c1. Country Oaks Addition, Final Plat I / /
C I TY 0 IF _______
4 CHANHASSEN
...
,,,,,,,.,,
1 . „.. .
`' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.0 BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I (612) 937-1900 Action by City ,9d--.);m1frOor
MEMORANDUM Arlo; ^,. V_P;4,4
ITO: Don Ashworth, City Manager 'e;4;,to:,,W__
IFROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner ,Date EUbm -zei ;, r,:r_, ,,,,,,,
DATE: April 4 , 1989 r Este SIP-71 nr,i
ISUBJ: Country Oaks Final Plat -1< `7
On September 26, 1988, the City Council approved the preliminary
Iplat for Country Oaks with the following conditions:
1 . The "bubble option" as shown on the preliminary plat dated
II "Received September 21, 1988" shall be followed and all lots
must be 15, 000 square feet.
2 . Park dedication fees shall be paid for each lot at time of
Ibuilding permit application.
3 . The applicant shall provide a soil borings report for each
I lot and along the location of the street prior to final plat
approval.
4 . The applicant shall provide an amended plan showing fire
IIhydrants located not further than 300 feet apart.
5 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract and
II provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to
guarantee the proper installation of these improvements .
I 6 . The applicant shall service this area by gravity sanitary
sewer unless their engineers can demonstrate that this entire
parcel cannot be service by gravity sanitary sewer.
I 7 . The applicant will provide the City with the necessary
utility easements across this parcel to service this parcel
by gravity sanitary sewer unless otherwise demonstrated that
1 a lift station is necessary.
8 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District permit.
I
, - --
Mr. Don Ashworth
April 4 , 1989
Page 2
9. The applicant' s engineer shall provide the City with the '
necessary documentation to verify that the 100-year storm
event and emergency overflow conditions for the proposed
ponding site will not affect the adjacent properties.
10 . The ponding site contours shall not be altered in any way by
the homeowners and the developer will inform the homeowners
of this condition.
11. The applicant shall work with the City Engineer to come up
with an acceptable turn around on the street to alleviate
maintenance problems such as snow plowing.
12. Use of the Pleasant Acres beachlot by the proposed single
family lots shall not be approved until the City Attorney
has done further research on it.
The applicant has submitted a final plat dated "Received March 7 ,
1989" which is consistent with what was approved for the prelimi-
nary plat. The final plat shows the bubble option which was
approved as per condition #1. Condition #3 required the appli-
cant to provide a soil boring report for each lot and along the
location of the street prior to final plat approval. The appli-
cant
has submitted the required report which has been reviewed by
both the Building Department (Attachment #2) . City staff has
concerns about the poor condition of the soils as shown in the
soils report. The Building Department is recommending that the
I/
development contract incorporate conditions which would require
the applicant to locate each house pad, indicate type of house,
and proposed corrections to each pad. Each site will need to be
inspected and approved for construction by an engineering firm.
Copies of each approved lot shall be submitted with each building
application.
Condition #5 is being reviewed by the City Council at the April
10th City Council meeting. Conditions #6 , 7 , and 9 have been met
by the applicant. Condition #10 will be provided as a condition
of the development contract and Condition #11 will be
accomplished through a 60 foot radius temporary turnaround being
provided between Lot 7, Block 3 and Lot 12, Block 2 . The appli-
cant
is aware of this request and will provide the necessary
easements to provide the turnaround.
The applicant must still obtain the Watershed District permit as
required in Condition #8 . Condition #12 required that the plat
not be approved until the city attorney researched whether the
single family lots could use Pleasant Acres beachlot. Attachment
#4 is a letter from Roger Knutson stating that the owners of the
single family lots do have the right to use Pleasant Acres beach-
lot.
I
1 ,
' Mr. Don Ashworth
April 4 , 1989
Page 3
' Manager ' s Comments: I concur with Jo Ann ' s recommendation for
tabling. Approval of the plat with the requirement that such
shall not be released for filing prior to meeting building
' department concerns is also an option. Approval without guaran-
teeing soil corrections should not be considered. Filing of the
plat and sale of the lots will assuredly place the City into the
' middle of a number of "unsuspecting buyer" law suits. A letter
of credit guaranteeing soil corrections as a third option - if
anyone can figure out what the amount of such should reasonably
be. Wordage should also be included in the development contract
' outlining what lots are anticipated to have what types of soil
correction. As the development contract is filed as a part of
the deed for each lot, such will also provide additional
' knowledge to buyers that work was either completed or anticipated
on their lot.
' STAFF UPDATE _
Staff initially recommended tabling the final plat approval until
corrections to the poor soils could be made. The applicant does
not wish to make corrections to the soils prior to knowing what
type of house is desired by the lot owner. The Engineering
Department has agreed that the development contract can be worded
' in such a way to guarantee that the soil corrections will be made
prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff is therefore
recommending that the final plat can be approved by including the
following conditions in the development contract:
' a. The applicant shall provide engineering plans showing the
house pad and type of house on each lot and type of correc-
tions to each pad necessary to alleviate the poor soil con-
ditions prior to issuance of building permits.
' b. Each lot will be required to be inspected and approved for
construction by an engineering firm and copies of each
approved lot will be submitted with each building permit
application.
c . The applicant shall provide a letter of credit in the amount
determined by the Engineering Department to guarantee soil
' corrections.
d. A listing of lots with poor soil conditions.
' RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following
' motion:
"The City Council approves final plat #88-21 for Country Oaks as
shown on the final plat stamped "Received March 7 , 1989" with the
I
Mr. Don Ashworth
April 4 , 1989
Page 4
following conditions :
1 . Park dedication fees shall be paid at the time of each
building permit application.
2 . The plans and specifications shall show fire hydrants located
not further than 300 feet apart.
3 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract and
provide the city the necessary financial sureties . 1
4 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all the conditions
of the Watershed District permit.
5 . The bonding site contour shall not be altered in any way by
the homeowners and the developer will inform the homeowners
of this condition. '
6 . The applicant shall provide a 60 foot radius temporary turn-
around at the end of the proposed street between Lot 7 , Block
3 and Lot 12, Block 2 .
7 . The development contract shall contain conditions requiring
engineering plans showing the house pad and type of house on
each lot and type of corrections to each pad necessary to
alleviate the poor soil conditions prior to issuance of
building permits and a listing of all lots with poor soil
conditions .
8 . Each lot will be required to be inspected and approved for
construction by an engineering firm and copies of each
approved lot will be submitted with each building permit
application. "
ATTACHMENTS
1 . City Council minutes dated September 26 , 1988 .
2 . Memo from Steve Kirchman dated April 5 , 1989.
3 . Letter from Roger Knutson dated October 5 , 1988.
4 . Soils report.
5 . Final plat dated March 7 , 1989 .
' City Council Meeting - 1 pte.nber 25, 1983
IIconstruction. The developer shall be responsible for periodic checks of the
1 erosion controls and shall make all repairs promptly. All erosion controls
IIIshall remain intact until an established vegetative cover has been produced.
12. A revised plan which shows bituminous parking and curbing shall be submitted
IIas part of the final review process.
13. Staff shall continue to work towards resolving the private road alignment
and easement problem.
IIAll voted in favor and the motion carried.
I (f" ) PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 10.75 ACRES INTO 27 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY
ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6720 GLENDALE DRIVE,
APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, COUNTRY OAKS, DAVE JOHNSON.
IBarbara Dacy: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed
subdivision. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant attempted to
II address the first condition regarding the lot frontage issues in Block 3. This
represents the drawing that was submitted to the Planning Commission. Your blue
line drawings have been redrawn to show a bubble. After we met with the
I developer, he also submitted this option which creates a T intersection and a
cul-de-sac which meets all the lot frontage requirements and resolves some of
the concerns that the engineering department had about the bubble option on the
I full size blue line drawings. Therefore, we're recommending, staff is
II 3 recommending that the plat be redrawn to reflect Alternate #2, this option. The
second thing, another thing that the Planning Commission gave is that the Park
and Recreation Commission review the subdivision and recommended that park
I dedication fees be paid instead of reserving land for parkland as originally
recommended. So the conditions on number 1 and 2 have been amended for Council
action. The remaining conditions have remained the same from Planning
Commission action.
IIMayor Hamilton: Barb, could you respond to the question that I had. This
afternoon I asked Don about the builder. You were trying to research Shorewood.
IBarbara Dacy: Yes. I had called Brad Nielsen in Shorewood when the applicant•
first applied and Jo Ann spoke to the Manager in Shorewood today. There have
IIbeen no problems with that developer in that community.
Mayor Hamilton: That's not what I had heard. That's why I had asked that we
have a look. I understand the builder has caused some problems there.
ICouncilman Boyt: I think we have an issue here that we've dealt with a few
times before, never very well unfortunately, and that is, this develop borders
I lots of 21,000 and 22,000 square feet. Those people are not going to be able to
resubdivide their lots. So clearly 21,000 and 22,000 square feet lots are now
going to abut lots that are I believe, at least as I looked at the earlier blue
line, considerably smaller. I think the developer should take that into
IIe account. I think the lots should be closer to a matching size when there's an
i existing lot of record. I'm not happy when lots make 25% change in size in a
I new development. I don't know what I can do about that but I'm not happy with
IIit. The other thing, this builder made a very good point I thought during the
II 45
II
I.
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
Planning Commission _Minutes when _he said_.he _was used to paying this park and rec
fees and trail fees up front when he developed a property rather than piece by
piece. I think that makes a lot of sense and I think the City should look at
that possibility. Now, one of the critical points in this development is the
recreational beachlot. It's my opinion that this represents an expanded use for
that recreational beachiot and that should not be grandfathered in. Although it
doesn't represent a larger property use possibly than the grandfathered, it
certainly represents an increase in use by putting 27 more single family homes II
in there. rote talked about adding 75 people to a fairly small beachlot. I don't
think that's in keeping with our ordinance and I don't think it was in keeping
with the spirit of the grandfathering. I don't think we should grant it.
That's all I've got. I
Councilman Horn: I have a problem with the beachlot issue also. It appears to
me that if we use this technique, in effect what we're doing is offering a blank
check to any area for subdivision that's not developed yet. We have no idea how
many lots are going to be in there and I don't think that's appropriate. I
think everybody's pretty clear that I don't really care for beachlots in the
first place and I think this really gives an opportunity to have it abused. I
was really distressed to see that they can go ahead and develop and use the
existing beachiot. I guess I'd like further clarification as to why we can't
call that a greater intensification of use. I know it isn't in the land area ,
but obviously the number of users increasing has to be an intensification of
use.
Barbara Dacy: I'll ask Roger to help me out on that one too but the way we
looked at it was, they couldn't increase the number of boats and docks and
1!
structures that were on the property at the time we did the ordinance. We
looked at the original document creating the right for the Pleasant Acres
Homeowners to use the recreational beachlot and that was a recorded right along
with title of the ordinance.
Councilman Horn: I would say that this condition has changed since the land did '
not develop before we made major adjustments to our beachiot ordinance. I think
it should fall now under the pervue of our latest updated beachiot ordinance.
I'm not happy with that. I think the other area that I have a concern has been
addressed by eliminating the 1 acre lot. To me that was totally unrealistic for
parkland. I have no other problems with this.
Councilman Geving: I'm glad that you both have hit on that sane issue because I
think the only control we have on recreational beachlots is the fact that they
are generally a conditional use and to grandfather them in and forever have them
available for expansion once they're fully developed, takes us completely out of
the baligame. We lose our control. I would like to have Roger be directed to
pursue this and really research the item. I just can't see us losing this
control. Regarding the 10th condition which was to me a language problem. I
think this is a very general, wishy-washy condition. Subject to City approval
of language, the applicant shall provide restrictions on the Block 3 lots in
order to maintain the ponding site. What does that mean?
Barbara Dacy: The Planning Commission added that condition to insure that the
homeowners buying the lots containing the stormwater pond would not alter than
in any way.
46 1
City Council MMeeting - _' Member 25, L988
1 Councilman Geving: Can you tighten that up? I like what you just said. If
that was the intent, then that's what we should put into that condition.
1 i Barbara Dacy: There will be a drainage and utility easement placed over the
pond.
1 Councilman Boyt: That pretty much takes care of it, if it's enforced.
Councilman Geving: I just felt that this condition 10 was far too general. It
IIdidn't mean anything to me. .
Roger Knutson: They give us ownership by easement or a deed on the pond site.
No one messes with it. That's all there is to it.
1 Barbara Dacy: The Council can choose to eliminate that one.
1 Councilman Geving: I don't know if I want to eliminate it but I would like the
intent that you stated, the reason for putting 10 in there.
Councilman Boyt: Why don't we just say that they'll maintain the ponding site
1 contours?
Councilman Geving: That'd be fine. Is that acceptable to you Barb? Can you
1 work that in? Let's reword that.
Barbara Dacy: Restate it and say that the contours shall not be altered by
owners of lots.
Councilman Geving: You were at the Planning Commission meeting, I suspect, the
night this was voted on. Can you tell me why Dave Headla voted against it.
1 Barbara Dacy: Dave had a number of issues with the subdivision. He felt
strongly that the developer wasn't addressing some of the homeowners' concerns.
1 The Minutes speak for themselves.
Councilman Geving: It just left a blank here for me anyway. I really didn't
get the feel. I know he lives in the area. I'm finished Mr. Mayor.
IICouncilman Johnson: I would Like to avoid the intensification
of that beachlot.
This may have been planned as a further extension, outlots on Pleasant Acres and
1 that they would be extended and they would have use of this beachlot but that
was a long time ago. I can't see how they're going to add this many more
families to that beachlot without intensifying the use of that beachlot. Do we
II know how many boats are allowed for that beachlot? How many docks are allowed
for that beachlot at this time? Are there any docks allowed? Just one?
Jo Ann Olsen: There's one dock there.
1 Councilman Johnson: How many slips on the dock?
IIBarbara Dacy: We have it upstairs in the file.
' Councilman Johnson: It doesn' t have slips as I've seen it and that's what we'd
want to keep there. I do think they do understand that if there are only three
1
47
i
City Council Meeting - Sept.. .aer 26, 1988
slips there now, they can't now put four slips in or five slips in. There's
P P
only going to-be--«hat they've got. I hope the language that you were talking
about on that 10th condition would be that the homeowners are informed. A lot
of homeowners don't look real closely at those easements and everything that go
on there. They've got this little swale back there and they say, gee that's
kind of nice and they get out their tractor and they redo the swale to make it
look like what their backyard wants to look like. Not realizing what they're
doing. I'd like to see that condition 10 says that the developer inform those
homeowners that they can not alter that swale to their desires. Most times yes,
you've got a 30,000 square foot lot here. Well, you can do a lot with a 30,000
square foot lot, as the real estate agent will tell you but they fail to mention
that half that lot is going to be a stormwater pond. I'd like to see that in
there that the homeowners are not only they can't do it but they're informed
that they can't do it. It's one thing to say you can't do something and it's
another thing for somebody to actually tell you. Beyond that they've done a
good job of matching most of our concerns. I like the cul-de-sac better than
the bubble or just the curve. I think it adds to the subdivision to have that
little cul-de-sac in there. I think those lots become more of a premium type
lot than they were previously. I like the cul-de-sac option. Those are my
concerns. '
Mayor Hamilton: Where is that exit? Yes, where does it go to?
Barbara Dacy: The intersection here and then cul-de-sacing up in here now.
Mayor Hamilton: Those other streets are just stopping. Is that because there's
not a turn around or a cul-de-sac? Is that because we suspect that someday
there might be an additional development there?
Barbara Dacy: Yes, that's correct. This could be extended to the Hallgren
property to the southwest.
Mayor Hamilton: Shouldn't there be a temporary cul-de-sac there?
Barbara Dacy: That's an option that the Council may wish to do.
Mayor Hamilton: How are we going to plow that if we don't have someway to turn I
our trucks around?
Barbara Dacy: As a matter of fact, I think Larry was dying to speak about that. I
Jo Ann Olsen: Public Safety said they didn't need one. We addressed that with
public safety and they said they didn't need a temporary cul-de-sac.
Larry Brown: Certainly snow storage in the wintertime could be a problem with
this alternative but if the Hallgren, Mrs. Hallgren is very sensitive to their
problem at this point wants to see no further development go through her
property at this time... I'd like to point out one other thing to the Council,
as stated in our report, one of the things that you will be forced to address at
a later date through the plans and specification and review process is, this
area will be required, at least from the information that the applicant has
provided me thus far, will be required to have a lift station to afford the
sanitary sewer service. I want to make sure that the Council is aware of that.
48 ,
City Council Meeting -',,eptember 25, 1983
Mayor Hamilton: How large is the beachlot? Do you know square footage
approximately what it i.s?
Barbara Dacy: It's got to be about 39,300.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay, and the adjoining one that we denied just to the south
was what, about 45,000 or something? 40,000 square
feet. That had a lot of
length. This is a smaller rectangular. The one that we denied had, if
I remember right, about 500 feet of lakeshore and this one has what? I
certainly have the same concerns that we're talking about allowing I don't know,
how many more? How many people are on that one already and we're talking about
allowing 27 more yet the adjoining property, a larger beachlot, we're telling
them they can't use it at all. It doesn't make much sense to me. One of the
things that I would like to make the builder aware of and anybody who purchases
a lot in there should be aware that the Hallgren's have for years raised horses
and I believe she still does show horses and has horses on her farm. You can
just bet your last dollar that when someone builds a house there, they're going
' to come in here and bitch because they got the smell of horses next to their
house, next to the barn that's been there for the last 50 years. So you better
make anybody who's buying a lot aware that there are horses there and we're not
going to tell the Hallgren's that they can't have horses there. They've been
there for a long time and they can stay. They run a nice operation. I guess I
still am a little concerned about the turn arounds. We should have room. I see
a snowplow going down that street and just dumping the snow onto the Hallgren
II property which I don't think is right. That's a low area and that's where her
horses graze. I don't see why she should have to accomodate another developer's
snow removal. So some type of a turn around or cul-de-sac would be a better
proposal to somehow take care of the snow on their own property. Those are my
only comments.
Councilman Boyt: Tom, I'd like to react to the turn around. If we put a turn
around in there, which I'm certainly not opposed to that if we'll sign it that
it's a thru street. If we'll put something on there that indicates that this is
going to go thru someday but I think we're sending a signal that will come back
' to create problems for us if we make it look like that's a cul-de-sac.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't have a problem with that. Call it a temporary
cul-de-sac. Put a T turn around which doesn' t have the appearance of being
' something more permanent. The truck still has someplace to push the snow and to
turn around.
' Councilman Horn: You said Public Safety said that there's no problem with not
having a cul-de-sac there?
Jo Ann Olsen: When I asked them, they said they did not want a turn around at
that location.
Councilman Horn: Were they addressing it only from a safety standpoint in the
summer or were they looking at it from a maintenance view also?
Jo Ann Olsen: I think they were just looking at it from a fire standpoint.
Councilman Horn: So from a maintenance view, it's still an issue.
' 49
City Council Meeting - Sefy"nber 26, 1988
I
Mayor Hamilton: I would recommend adding a condition then that there be at
least a T turn around and that the applicant work with the engineer to come up
with a design that's acceptable for the engineer for use of maintenance
vehicles.
Councilman Horn: Or should we say, not even specify a T intersection but say '
some method of alleviating a maintenance problem?
Mayor Hamilton: Right, specifically snow removal. I
Councilman Horn: If we're going to do that, I think that it's a given that the
lot size is not going to drop below 15,000 square feet.
Councilman Geving: We're already averaging I think 17,000 so
pretty good assumption. You can't go below 15,000. I think that's a
Councilman Boyt: I'm interested in minimums.
Councilman Horn: The ones that are affected are 15,031 and 15,910. 1
Councilman Boyt: They were. It's hard to say now with the change.
Barbara Dacy: We could arrange for a temporary easement. ,
Councilman Boyt: Or permanent.
Barbara Dacy: The signage of the easement could be worded as such that it has
to be reconstructed and the lot returned to it's original state. It's —
temporary.
Councilman Horn: Let's include that in the condition.'
Mayor Hamilton: What are the sizes of the lots directly to the south of that '
new development?
Barbara Dacy: The lots on the north side are under an acre but the lot on the I
south side is the Hallgren property.
Mayor Hamilton: I realize the Hallgren property but it also borders on the new
development there. Stratford Ridge.
Jo Ann Olsen: Those are almost all 15,000.
Mayor Hamilton: Anybody else have anything they wish to add? Mr. Johnson, do
you have any comments you wish to make?
Dave Johnson: Yes. I'm not sure where to start. One of the things that
concerned me was, but I don't think this is the place to address it, I am the
builder and the developer in Shorewood and all the comments that I have had from
city staff or Council and Planning Commission have been quite favorable. You
took me by surprise when you said that there had been some concerns about the
builder over there. That bothered me and I'd like to dig into that a little
further later. I don't think this is the proper forum. As it relates to the
50 1
ICity Council Meeting - _Member 23, 1983
IIalternate plan 2 that we're discussing with the cul-de-sac in, I guess I don' t
agree that that's the best choice. I think the bubble or the half a cul-de-sac
I is a better choice. The one lot, if you were to turn the light back on there,
the one lot right there, that happens to have street on three sides of it which
is not real desirable. Now I know the reason that Larry explained it to us that
he did not like just having a bubble on the curve as your blueline copy shows,
is from a traffic engineering and safety standpoint. ..totally delineated for
someone coming around the curve but I did, one of the projects that I had
developed in Burnsville had a similiar arrangement and it was never even
' discussed. This is a new plat in Burnsville. They put on right in on a curve
and there haven't been any concerns about the traffic issue. I'm willing to go,
I don't have a problem with doing either one. I still want to state my case
that I feel the blueline copy you have is the better, both aesthetically and
equally as good from a traffic standpoint. You've got curves rather than square
corner, 90 degree corners. I guess I think a case can be presented for that
' particular one. We don't have a problem with putting a temporary T turn around
or whatever you're referring to that as down there. That's not a problem. The
public beach issue, which at the time I bought the land I wasn' t expecting that
to cause that much controversy. I did have my attorney check into it prior to
purchasing it and he indicated that the fact that it had not been developed yet
did not change the fact that those rights were given to about 100 acres I think.
The fact that the people had gotten there first and effectively filled it up
I doesn't necessarily mean that the people who coming there last have any less
right. Once again, I don't know how that issue could be handled at this level.
I think your recommendation to your Attorney to check it out is a good one and I
don't have a problem with it either. Although I did when I purchased the
' property, I was of course aware of the rights that I was getting and I had
intended to market it accordingly. Other than that, I don't know that there's a
whole lot more for me to say.
' Councilman Johnson: You did mention that you're looking at the property to the
east to purchase. . ..outlot A to stay as your outlot and that you were going to
be purchasing that. Are those parcels are not part of Pleasant Acres at this
time?
Dave Johnson: Not to my knowledge they're not, no.
Councilman Johnson: So those would not be eligible whatsoever to utilize that
beachlot.
' Dave Johnson: That is my understanding. If I were to purchase them, I have
made several attempts but the owner is not real interested in selling but when
he does, that strip that you refer to as an outlot, is of no practical use to
' anyone other than the person who owns the land next door so if I can't bu✓ it
his piece, perhaps when that's ready to be developed, they'll want to buy this
little outlot.
Mayor Hamilton: I think the blueline plan that we have Bill, doesn' t that
address the lot size a little bit better. WO haven't seen the lot sizes on that
thing up there but the 17,000 square feet and 16, 19 abutting the larger Lots to
the north. What size are those lots that you have up there? Do you have any
idea what size those lots would come out to be?
Barbara Dacy: On the north side? Those are approxJmately 15,000.
11 51
City Council Meeting - Se .,..ember 26, 1988
II
I
Mayor Hamilton: No, I mean the ones in that development right now.
Ray Brandt: These lots are fairly close, maybe a little bit smaller than what
we had. These lots are closer to 17,000 square feet and these are 15,000. This
one is over 15,000 and that's a little bit, very close to 15,000, a little bit
over. These three lots are not a lot smaller than what they are on the
blueline.
Councilman Horn: The same number of lots?
Ray Brandt: Yes. I
Councilman Horn: This area would require more hard surface so I would sense
that you're going to have bigger lots in the first alternative.
Councilman Geving: Is this alternate 2 the developer's alternate or is it
staff's alternate?
Barbara Dacy: It's staff's recommended alternative.
Mayor Hamilton: What's wrong with that half circle? I guess when I looked at
this plan I thought it looked nice and I've seen those half circles around
Minnetonka and they seen to work well. I don't know what the problem with it
is.
Larry Brown: It boils down to two things. One, when you approve that half
circle, essentially you're approving 40 or 50 foot wide driveway in a roadway,
if I can use that same analogy. Number 2, as stated in my report, as the driver
comes around that curve, they look for the delineation of the curving and the
surrounding attributes as to how the lots are set up. Without that, I feel with
that degree of curvature, it's a poor situation at best.
Councilman Horn: Have we done this before?
Larry Brown: Right now we have one half circle that I'm aware of up on
Lake Lucy Road occurring at Curry Farms. However, things get complicated when
you take that and put it on a straight piece such as Lake Lucy Road and add it
to the point of curvature in the middle of that turn.
Mayor Hamilton: It's not going
y goi to be a high traffic area, probably ever.
Councilman Geving: We always have the difficulty her of the lot line being ,
reduced but they do meet the 90 foot setback where you build your house. We've
always used that as the guide as far as I'm concerned in describing that
cul-de-sac. We've got a lot of cul-de-sacs that don' t meet 90 feet but they do
meet it at the build line.
Barbara Dacy: Are you talking about the blue line?
[!!Councilman Geving: Yes, I'm talking about the blue line.
Barbara Dacy: With the bubble?
CI'
52 ,
' City Council Meeting - )tember 26, 1933
r- Councilman Geving: With the bubble. I have no problem with the bubble.ubble. To
me it looks like the traffic flows very well. From a maintenance standpoint, if
II 1 we were to send our maintenance vehicles into this area, I'd far prefer than to
come through here and do their plowing with that bubble than to have to drive up
that cul-de-sac and plow that out. It seems to me that this flows a lot better
' and you get away from that three sided lot that you created there. That's my
personal opinion because I do believe, the purpose for this entire effort was to
eliminate the variances. Is that correct Barbara?
Barbara Dacy: Yes.
Councilman Geving: And we have done that with this blue line plan. And the
only difference is the bubble here and I do believe that the setbacks are
sufficient. Maybe not at the road. Maybe not when you drive in and see the,
you're talking about 40-45 feet but there's only one lot that would be short and
that's the middle one. Lot 3, Block 3 and I like the idea that these lots all
abut larger lots back up on Glendale with the bubble. Maybe they're the same
size there. I don't know.
11 Barbara Dacy: If the Council ends up choosing the bubble option, on the plans
there is a proposed cul-de-sac option. I don't know if that's the way the
Council ends up going, whether or not you would, whether engineering would
recommend the island within the bubble or not.
Councilman Horn: Can we clear up a question first? Was alternative 2 suggested
i
to eliminate the variances of the bubble concept?
I
Barbara Dacy: It was suggested to eliminate the variances on the originally
proposed plan that went to the Planning Commission.
ICouncilman Horn: So there's no variance differences between alternate 2 and the
bubble?
Barbara Dacy: That's correct.
Councilman Boyt: Do you have a transparency of the bubble?
Barbara Dacy: No. The blue line copy is. ..
Councilman Boyt: I'm going to propose a change to it. It would have been
easier with a transparency. If you will take the bubble and smooth out the bump
side of it, and then take the existing roadway and pull it into that new angle
so we've got a parallel road that sweeps the backside of that bubble.
Councilman Geving: Use your pencil and draw that.
Councilman Boyt: I've got it right here.
Councilman Horn: It makes a sharper corner.
11 Councilman Boyt: Well, that's not all bad from a speed standpoint. It comes in
and swings around like this. Now we've created a bigger lot so we're using
green space here instead of asphalt. We've got everything within 30 foot of
here big enough. These lots are big enough so they can afford to lose a little
11 53
City Council Meeting - September 26, 1988
and still be 15,000 ,square feet._you've_got it covered. r
Councilman Geving: I don't have a problem with that. 11
Councilman Johnson: They're back to their variance though.
Councilman Boyt: No... -
Barbara Dacy: .. .on the radius of the curve and so on. 1
Councilman Boyt: If there's no variances here, there sure as heck can't be any
variances required.
Ray Brandt: Because it's not a cul-de-sac and your ,
cul-de-sac. Y ordinance specifically says
Councilman Boyt: That's not a cul-de-sac either.
Ray Brandt: Well, it's a cul-de-sac. I
Councilman Boyt: That's not what we had in mind.
Mayor Hamilton: We're not calling it a cul-de-sac.
Councilman Geving: Don't you think we could get a 90 foot frontage there on
each of those lots?
Ray Brandt: At the setback, absolutely.
Mayor Hamilton: That's not going to change this any.
Councilman Johnson: They're calling this a cul-de-sac. That's a bubble
cul-de-sac so you're allowed to take frontage at. ..
Councilman Geving: At 90 feet.
Councilman Horn: But on a corner you couldn't.
Mayor Hamilton: This side stays the same. All Bill's doing is changing this
side to swing the road over. It's a change from where they were at but...
Councilman Geving: Maybe it's an improvement. Sometimes if it's an improvement,
we can handle a variance. We could pass that with the passage of the whole
plat.
Dave Johnson: I think it would be an improvement myself but I didn' t want
to. ..after the reception we got at the Planning Commission.
Councilman Geving: I understand and that's why we have to be a little bit more
reasonable.
Councilman Boyt: I think what we're saying here Dale is, if this parallel road
tilidea passes, that we're proposing that we change the setback ordinance.
54 ,
City Council ;2eeti.ng - - ptember 25, 1)83
II - Ray Brandt: I think they talked about that at the Planning Commission too.
Councilman Boyt: I think our ordinance has to be flexible but I think if we've
got a good point here, then it's up to us to write the ordinance so it takes
into account and we don't have to grant variances everytime.
' Councilman Geving: I like what you've done here. I think that will make that a
very nice transition into this neighborhood.
' Barbara Dacy: Mr. Mayor. What concerns me about your option is the curvature
of the road heading back south. If the Council just wants to add a condition
that would address I guess what I would call the Boyt option, that the
' applicants would prepare a drawing to show what you suggested but if that does
not meet what the ordinance says or other engineering standards, that the
Council indicate second preference.
' Don Ashworth: Of the two alternatives, I can understand what Larry is saying,
but these are right-of-ways and the actual street sits within that area. If you
start thinking about the street as being something inside of there, those curves
' become pretty dramatic. Of the two alternatives, I've got to believe that staff
would prefer simply approving the blue line over the proposal that Bill has
presented. I can understand the rationale of it but by the time you put the
street itself inside of there, which again is one half of the area shown, boy
that really becomes a twisted section.
II Councilman Boyt: I disagree with him because you can run the street right down
` the middle of those parallel lines and how does that change the angle of
anything?
' Don Ashworth: 3ut then why do we have all of that extra right-of-way?
Councilman Boyt: We have that anyway.
' Don Ashworth: You're just going to run it right down and just turn it around,
why do you have that?
' Councilman Boyt: Well, that's a reasonable point. One of the reasons you would
swing it up is by creating a greater curve you get more frontage.
Don Ashworth: The whole thing is avoid the ordinance requirement of the 90 feet
at the setback and if I can repeat what Mayor Hamilton said, a bubble like that
isn't that bad. It gives additional play area frontage in front of homes.
' Mayor Hamilton: Every neighborhood. It always happens. You can build all the
parks you want, kids will play in the street.
' Councilman Geving: I kind of like the blue line with the bubble in it. We
don't have any variances. It's clean.
Larry Brown: Be advised that staff is trying to work with the applicant in
setting up this plat to conform to the study which was done, the overall
comprehensive study for this area. Although this street is not a through street
at this time, it's staff's intention if the southern plat does come in, that
parcel does come in, we'd be looking at making this a thru connection.
55
City Counc: 1 Meeting - SCL. _Luber 26, 1)88 111
I
Councilman--SVytr there are- some advantages to putting an island out there. We
have one other subdivision here that has an island. Larry's shaking his head.
He's nixing that idea.
Mayor Hamilton: It makes it tough to plow. Is there a motion to deal with this
item?
Councilman Horn: I would move approval of preliminary plat for Pleasant Acres
for the alternative that was suggested on the blue line with the conditions that
are outlined by staff and also I'd like to keep the condition that the outlot
not be improved until the Attorney has had a chance to study that item further.
To go ahead with the plat approval. I
Councilman Johnson: The beachlot, not outlot?
Councilman Horn: The beachlot, right. And the recommendations by staff and
item 10 language changed to what Dale had recommended.
Mayor Hamilton: 11 be the turn around? I
Councilman Horn: 11 being the staff having a method to deal with snow removal.
Mayor Hamilton: Then 12 would be the Attorney investigate the beachlot? I'll
second your motion.
Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Subdivision Request
#88-21 as shown on the plat stamped "Received September 21, 1988" subject to the
following conditions: '
1. The preliminary plat dated "Received September 21, 1988" shall be revised to
incorporate Alternate #2 also dated "Received September 21, 1988". All lots
must be 15,000 square feet.
2. Park dedication fees shall be paid for each lot at time of building permit
application.
3. The applicant shall provide a soil borings report for each lot and along the
location of the street prior to final plat approval. I
4. The applicant shall provide an amended plan showing fire hydrants located
not further than 300 feet apart.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the City
with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation
of these improvements. I
6. The applicant shall service this area by gravity sanitary sewer unless their
engineers can demonstrate that this entire parcel cannot be serviced by
gravity sanitary sewer.
7. The applicant will provide the City with the necessary utility easements
across this parcel to service this parcel by gravity sanitary sewer ulness
56 1
IICity Council Meeting - ,,optember 26, 1983
otherwise demonstrated that a lift station is necessary.
III 8. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed
District permit.
9. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with the necessary
documentation to verify that the 100 year storm event and emergency overflow
conditions for the proposed ponding site will not affect the adjacent
properties.
10. The ponding site contours shall not be altered in any way by the homeowners
' and the developer will inform the homeowners of this condition.
11. The applicant shall work with the City Engineer to come up with an
acceptable turn around on the street to alleviate maintenance problems such
as snow plowing.
12. The beachlot shall not be approved until the City Attorney has done further
research on it.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
11 t�
c '/4{-;pZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-814 TO PERMIT DAY CARE CENTERS IN
( ,,L
CA" A FREE STANDING BUILDING AS A CONDITIONAL USE ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL
1 I '' OFFICE PARK DISTRICT.
Mayor Hamilton: Does the Council need any additional information on this?
Councilman Johnson: No, it seems absolutely the correct thing to do.
Councilman Horn: Is that a motion?
Councilman Johnson: I move we approve.
Councilman Geving: I second it.
Roger Knutson: So then we have the first reading.
' Councilman Boyt: I think we should add, or instruct staff to research a couple
of areas between now and the next reading. Either add them now or instruct the
staff. I think we need to have, in spite of the day care center in St. Louis
Park passing the carbon monoxide and lead standards, I'd like to have something
that indicates that the area which in these are located has to be within
whatever reasonable standards we can find. Then, I think we need to be careful
' about noise and I think we should also be concerned about the percentage of
green space. That there should be some sort of non-paved play area. I think
the idea is excellent.
Mayor Hamilton: If I can just build on your last item there because I'd like to
see a non-paved play area that's adjacent to the building so they don't have to
cross any streets to get to it. Or even a parking lot for that matter. It
should be adjacent to the building.
57
•
11
CIiYOF i
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM:
TO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner ,
FROM: Steve Kirchman, Building Inspector ,
iDATE: April 5, 1989
SUBJ: Planning Case 88-21 SUB & 88-13 WAP ( Shorewood Oak
Development)
This department requested in a memo dated Aug. 3 , 1988, that a
soils engineer investigate each lot in the proposed subdivision to
determine suitability as a building site. I received a copy of
the soil investigation done by Allied Test Drilling Co. on March
23, 1989 . This was accompanied by a preliminary report done by ,
GME Consultants dated May 5 , 1987.
Both of these reports confirmed our suspicion of high water
tables and unsuitable soils . Over 30% of the sites are estimated
to have water 48" or less below the basement floor. These sites
would be ineligible for Federally Funded Funded mortgages . Over II 25% of the sites are estimated to require extensive excavation
and filling to make them buildable. Another 30% will require
less extensive excavating and filling. Because of high ground
water, many of the soils corrections will have to be done in con-
junction with dewatering. Much of the fill needed to correct the
sites will have to be imported.
Because 55% - 65% of the sites will need correction and the ,
corrections will be expensive, it is strongly recommended that
the following conditions be incorporated into the development contract.
Each pad should be located, type of house should be indicated,
and proposed corrections to each pad should be shown. Each site
will need to be inspected and approved for construction by an
engineering firm. Copies of each approved lot should be sub-
mitted with each building permit application.
cc: Al Larson, Engineering Dept.
11
r . t
Country Oaks Subdivision
September 7 , 1988
Page 3
' required 90 feet of street frontage rather than approving 6 lot
frontage variances. The applicant has suggested creating a
bubble cul-de-sac, but the Engineering Department is not in favor
of this.
' Soil
' Staff visited the subject site with wetland experts from the Fish
and Wildlife Service and Corps of Engineers to determine whether
or not a wetland did exist in the south central portion of the
site. After three visits to the site, it was determined that a
wetland does not exist on the site (Attachment #6 ) . There is
some wetland vegetation but it is minor in comparison to the
dominant upland vegetation .
There are wet soils located on the site as shown from the soils
survey and past proposals on the site. As stated in Attachment
11 #2 , the Building Department has pointed out the fact that there
are wet soils located on the site and that soil borings should be
performed for each lot and that at time of building permit appli-
cation, a report on the soils and proposed corrections must be
submitted. The applicant will be performing soil borings for
each lot for FHA approval. Staff is recommending that the appli-
cant provide a copy of a soil report to the city for each lot and
the street prior to final plat approval which can be kept on file
for reference by to the Building Department and any prospective
lot owners . The soil report will provide staff with information
necessary to determine if soil corrections are necessary. If
extensive soil corrections are necessary then the city can
require information on how it will be done to ensure soil
stability.
' Park and Recreation Commission
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposed prelimi-
nary plat on August 9 , 1988 (Attachment # 9 ) . The Park and
Recreation Commission felt that the area was park deficient and
that park land should be reserved as part of the subdivision.
' Typically , it has been Park and Recreation policy to request not
less than 5 acres for park land. Since 5 acres would be almost
half of the buildable area of the proposed subdivision , the Park
' and Recreation Commission recommended instead that one acre be
acquired along the south boundary of the property which could in
the future be expanded when properties to the south are sub-
, divided. The Park and Recreation Commission directed staff to
work with the applicant to locate the one acre parcel. Once a
decision has been made on dedication of parkland, the Park and
Recreation Commission will determine wither park and trail fees
' are waived.
I
. ......,
V
., „
...._
........ ...,
. ,
, _, , , ,,, ._. 2 r— —12212-
60.17</ ^. '''P 8 r••••F4 ' so':', ;
-':.t..>•.''''. '"` * ■ S 86-55'32"E ..1 I ;1 .7 g; :,,c op.TS
cp 4:,
_. ..
'.21 ocZ 3 e 13).24 .11..• 83 27 7.3)1d.,2):: . ,s, ' 0,,....'
'--
/,-- -- ..,_ __ __ ,_ ,- L -_ .... 0
''7 I Z West b r-A I .parAnal with the South tile of Gceit Lot 5
,d„; .., , ,..,, \ \ ,c,..13 .A...o .7..1 (25 86•55'.5-j-i\0 '..,1 ...7.;
/ ..°'; '3667 140.00 '1, ■■S'
Il1 n G^...3A 4,„., (LI ......, ''' N r ?: c; . ; ,,,,-, •, East
• ,,; :j,<, t'43. ,?.,,,,... .`9.1 jr, 1 S';',Z '. -.,., ; r--
k I . 11s.I .
424.00 .....),. -.
\ p\ #,' IC' ..t:\ .2, e
W -,-Nef41,1-
..6.,...„,, z',K., •,ss,,,,o,„0,-,_„___ # = <I c, .-• /.., , /4 - ,_ _9Q,S0_ ...1 r r_90.00_ 7 _sk_ss_ 0 / 170 20
--zz, 1 6.*.-- -- / ----•,,C7'-' S I i '.'c. :, ,,,, .zoz-' ' • >°.;.
0 104 91 R °25.00,25 0(9 e
I I I I 1- 1 25i 25 'is,
,.,.■ .,.; ,P.,4 - ":..°0 1
L iv..1 ,,, ,,, •■.- 0/ '1..2,.50. 8 3,..,,,, ,I I
1
`)..7°.3' \ `e,?;,.. N,
3 I ''''41:.?°%'i--------''.•■ __if , „, 4,,,,,i. .`...1=•24 1.___ _ -2.91; . .. ,,,,../ 0.- i
I I I I I I I ,
;1%.•••-. : .1:‘60 0,,>,...c'' 4.bb e .'
4 -'1 a, ''.7,q.-,...' ::‘,. ,,tt.o- ..„3- 0 99 44 -.' 1 l.. '7"51/)/ .....:,
c 01-, ,.., c
1 ..'-; P,,:: - 03
4= 15194.38-:.. •r.. --- ..."'" .1-.-4.7°9 ' ' ......"';' . '.... 1' 4 IL" 3 I I. 2 I I,
0 0- .-
_.72 .2., „ ..; ----,,,A0.-.45 1,32.34 32.89-c: lo co 2
I c3,t?. 'A ■-l",l l' ',7+ 1.2 ,'Ill kr. .1 lb
1 '5.19 J!...1 ,., ',c, A9--r---- — 1 ---i-?5---., ------./
i-. n: i■
3.Lf.“- i 0 g°I 4=- 0 • \' A'''''9/1, ';‘)'. cli i V
'6'4* (c.a di 1.0 I iz 0 ,..„
o_ • o co r 4
11,,, I 12 -I
y, L.
...,,,,, . /t , 01
/ •., L 35- r\ ‘ ss ',', % ,'0.'”, b Sil Ila i'n 743 ''' " I 1 I I I
. n —„,-s--i8-To§--T8- — —1,/ ° i' , 1. . 241:Pp.,. - ''' 70.9.3.,:: ',. \,•00 /0 \ •90•94 .-,.. a,..
-8-•14 ''. 1 • , ' Ecs.
, ,5•S'11,"4. I 1 Ci"- -7 • 4'4 \''''' br,. -1 1,,, 1. ..4 I I I I I
r.1 .2,..1 C.''' '2'9.66 I • — .1 "?;
I- '------ ...1 L __J L_ ...._ __J L_96_60_J I__ __9_0__
oL) —I
. s, 8. —915710— —sno siclo
2088 Ir" ' *L 150.02 _.) 7 .r., .5, 1
31 I COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE
r
,...- •`,..,.., .;_-_ -::.,....___11.1.5§...1 _ — _J'D'-' —lz, 8969.i.si-Tv — 7 1( . .,9i, 28l*,----i:5-t,,-,F,r---r----- S 89'55'16- W
r— .... 205.2._i 1 -,' 1-8E.7 —1 -6 61 • I I 9 4 „,s'6'• .4' --• 91,,Q0 •
__.3 .0_-1 r_ 9,,,_ 5Q,Q0 '... _, 1 %
,• •
1 '0, I .t.,'--' 1 ,.., ,:il
I z 0, 11 5 I ,, r_91.00 i r 91,90_
q°/ '0 'V 1 r 7 r
is L e 4 .
ol `lilc:,1 1
.,,,,,,, 1 ///"
I 9 ° I I CD n'c"Ig L . 150.02 i .2:-■ I (1..
...
,:f L,, 1 I.
o 74.'
— —1
S ens'113- s 1 Ig"E' I I'' ',',1 l';, I 7 21 I7, 6 --., I j agI 13, 4 '',,I I; -,
r.,.
cc
.
u.:, P 'i .' El 'P
i-- s 89.09•18- E ,
z 1 1 , .
1 ., “.:, 8 ..., -,;,-
,>.1 I. ''I.21 I‘g:' - Is :21 lg gi ii, -) 2 -, '3 1
,,,I 7 l'A E '4.1 12 ., 1
gi -, ....,''
El 1;ig I o
I° 1 0
I I.
I 2 H. .
I 1,, I l'„, ! ,.
•
gi I,,t(..) 0,.
°I °I I I I-, I I I I , I I I I I I
.1 L L_J
166 29 r?.. On.° 2500, „c3 —f5-0 0-3- —— '-- —90760— — W6.6.JJ ---- .7' 41,. 4,45 9750 —91-7-60— —9176o— 91.00—
0 '
594 20 '.
614.20 '',,
West '•••--South line of Coot Lot 5. Sec. 5
N 890918 th
" W '--Souwast comer Gov't Lot 5
7.116. R.23,
V
. ...
N
I o I
'--C.I.M. at SW Cornet, Sec. 5,
Township 116,Range 23 '1,- rl f:! ' I. (,,I:CI'Y
, !. 1(.! Lil 1:fif 1, 1d3,
CITY CI (,,Il.:IlrSSEN
.. ,
_aisIirinlivvrillilli....4111111■11111111 . --"'"'''''."111/1111111 — 111111111 11111/ In 111111 till 111111 MI 1111111 11111 111111 111111
4)1'1 I,-. 1_ 64,
LAW OFFICES
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON
DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER.
DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612) 455-2359
403 NOR WEST BANK BUILDING ELLIOTT B KNETSCH
VANCE B GRANNIS
MICHAEL J MAYER
VANCE B GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE TIMOTHY J. BERG
PATRICK A. FARRELL
DAVID L. GRANNIS, III SOUTH ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075
ROGER N KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612) 455-1661
DAVID L. HARMEYER
' October 5, 1988
Ms. Jo Ann Olsen
Chanhassen City Hall
' 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Pleasant Acres Beachlot - CC7l.It�t�}O� �j � t�f t�j/GL1
Dear Jo Ann:
Enclosed is a memorandum concerning Pleasant Acres beachlot.
Our conclusion is that the use of the beachlot by additional
residents would not be an expansion of a non-conforming use.
' Very truly yours,
GRA IS, G`ANNIS, FARRELL
, NUTSPI , P.A.
I 'oger N. Knutson
RNK:srn
Enclosure
OCT ? 'i 1988
CITY OF CHANI-1ASStiv
I
■
1
M E M O R A N D U M U
I
TO: Roger N. Knutson
FROM: Doug Pedersen ,
DATE: October 5, 1988
RE: Chanhassen - Pleasant Acres Beachiot
INTRODUCTION 1
The City of Chanhassen has been considering the application
of David Johnson to subdivide 10.75 acres, consisting of part of
Lot 5 and Outlot A of Pleasant Acres, into 27 single family
residential lots. One of the City's concerns has been the
adequacy of park and recreational land accessible to the
residents in this area of the City.
As part of the original subdivision of Pleasant Acres, the
land for this proposed subdivision was given a right of access to
a recreational beachlot on Lake Minnewashta. This beachlot was
created prior to the time when a City Ordinance went into effect
making beachlots in residential districts a conditional use
requiring a permit. Since the Pleasant Acres beachlot was already
established, it was not required to comply with the new ordinance
but, instead, became a non-conforming use. I
The Pleasant Acres beachlot is 31, 080 square feet in size
with 150 feet of shoreline. There is also limited access for the
parking of 10 to 12 cars. There are presently 60 families with
access to the beachlot. The new subdivision is expected to add an
additional 26 families. The City is concerned that the increase
in usage of this beachlot due to the new subdivision would
constitute an expansion or enlargement of the non-conforming use
in violation of the Chanhassen City Code. The Code provides that
non-conforming uses cannot be enlarged or expanded unless
explicitly authorized elsewhere in the Code.
ISSUE
Does an increase in the number of people using the beachlot
constitute an extension or enlargement of the non-conforming use?
DISCUSSION ,
Zoning ordinances generally may prohibit the creation of new
non-conforming uses, but existing non-conforming uses must either
be allowed to continue or be eliminated through the use of
eminent domain. County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 295 Minn. 96, 99 ,
203 N.W. 2d 323 , 325 (1972) . Zoning ordinances do not, however, I
11
I .
need to allow non-conforming uses to expand or enlarge. Id.
Accordingly, the Chanhassen City Code, Section 20-71, provides:
' the lawful use of a building or land existing on February
15, 1987, may be continued, although such use does not
conform with the provisions of this Chapter. Except as
' otherwise provided, non-conforming uses shall not be
extended or enlarged. [emphasis added]
' The question thus becomes whether the increase in use of the
Pleasant Acres beachlot, due to the new subdivision, constitutes
an "extension or enlargement" of the non-conforming use.
' There is no Minnesota case law directly on point. However,
courts from other jurisdictions have dealt with this issue. The
Wisconsin Court of Appeals stated:
If an increase in volume, intensity, or frequency of use is
coupled with some element of identifiable change or
extension, the enlargement will invalidate a legal non-
conforming use. However, a mere increase in the volume,
intensity, or frequency of a non-conforming use is not
sufficient to invalidate it.
Waukesha County v. Seitz, 409 N.W. 2d 403 , 406 (Wis.Ct.App. 1987) .
The court went on to hold that the marina which defendant was
' operating as a non-conforming use had not been illegally extended
or enlarged even though he had extended the pier from 80 feet to
192 feet and had expanded the dry-docking capacity from 5 boats
to 54 boats. The court stated that the increased intensity and
volume of the marina use was due to increased recreational use of
the lake. The structural enlargements were held not to be an
illegal expansion of the non-conforming use because plaintiff
' failed to show that the changes violated any statute or
ordinance. Id. at 408 .
Other courts have also held a mere increase in volume or
intensity of a non-conforming use does not constitute an illegal
expansion or enlargement of that use. See, Hunziker v. Grande,
' 456 N.E. 2d 516, 518 (Ohio App. 1982) [An increase in the volume of
business alone does not constitute an unlawful expansion of a
non-conforming use where the nature of the land is virtually
unchanged] ; Carroll v. Hurst, 103 Ill.App. 3d 984, 431 N.E. 2d
1344 , 1348 (1982) [A mere increase in business does not constitute
an illegal extension; a change in the nature or purpose of the
undertaking must be shown] ; 4 Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and
Planning, 51-86 (1988) [increase in intensity is permissible as
long as the nature and character of the use remains unchanged] ;
101A C.J.S. Zoning and Land Planning § 169, p. 519 [a non-
conforming use may generally be increased in volume, scope, and
' intensity] .
The proposed subdivision in Chanhassen would only increase
the number of families with access to the beachlot and would not,
1 -2-
l
apparently, make any structural changes or modifications to the
beachlot itself. Therefore, if the Minnesota courts were to
follow the line of cases holding an increase in intensity alone
does not constitute an illegal expansion, there is nothing the
City can do. If, however, the City can show that the increased
volume and intensity has significantly changed the "nature and
character" of the use, a court might find the requisite extension
or enlargement. The City would have to wait, however, until an
actual increase has occurred in order to show a change caused by
the increased use. ,
The Minnesota courts might adopt the line of cases
restricting the size and scope of non-conforming uses to their
size and scope at the time the use became non-conforming. This
analysis does not help Chanhassen because at the time the
Pleasant Acres beachlot became a non-conforming use the property
involved in the new subdivision already had the deeded right of
access to use the beachlot. Therefore, it will be argued that the
scope and size of the beachlot at the time it became non-
conforming included the potential increase from further
subdivision of the Pleasant Acres property.
CONCLUSION
Most courts which have dealt with the issue have held that a
mere increase in the intensity or volume of a non-conforming use
will not constitute an illegal extension of that use. Since the
Minnesota courts have not dealt with the issue, they will likely
adopt this approach. Even if, however, the court were to
restrictively interpret Chanhassen's ordinance to require the
beachlot to remain at the size and scope it had attained when the
ordinance was passed, that size and scope would have included the
proposed increase since the access rights were deeded prior to
the passage of the ordinance. '
r
I
-3-
ma
` Geotechnical Services ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY 1
AD
Commercial, Residential 4000 Beau DRue Dnve,Eagan,MN 55122 (612)452.6913
Municipal, DHUD
f-1L'UtNUUH I u
_7 u u b U ti I-iC t J U I L i I`I\:L_'J ; 1 U I-i I i U N
FOR
PROPOSED COUNTRY OAKS SUBDIVISION
' Chanhassen . Minnesota
9 February ly69
Project 58155
1 .
INTRODUCTION
finis report summarizes the findings of a turtner suo-
' surface soli inves il 1Qatiofl comeieted mi_ �`, Ail i led Test Dril i -
_i _n a _unt `: ua, s i :do Lv.isicn In Ln-an^as-
sen . Minnesota . General location ot tne anticipated suoai-
vision is south of i`Ilnnesota iH 7 , near Gienoale Avenue.
it is essentially to consist ot one east-west street , plus
connectors , with tots either sloe tnereot . Ine or was
tpertormeo for Davit:] Johnson , nereatter reterreo to as the
"Owner ' .
ihree additional soli oorings were performed witnin
tne project area to establish soil profiles , water table
elevations, inpiac8 soil compaction or firmness , and otner
information . in add a_tion , borings trom an earlier investi-
gIIation was consulted . From this data , additional recommen-
Cations were developed tor site correction and foundation
and slab design for the single family residences antici-
pated to be located on the proposed lots .
MAR 2 2 1989
era OF CHANHAtil
I
88158
-2-
l-REVIOUS INVEST16Af ION AND RERLiRT
Ine west portion of the or000sed Suodivision was in-
vestiQ3ted in 1587 by GME Consultants , Inc . Tne resulting
report indicated normal to thicK topsoil aeptns , generally
clayev basal -oils , sometimes soft up to 8 of depth , and
rather nign groundwater . Various conclusions and recommen- '
aations were made including removal of surface organic
soli and any additional loose or sort soil from building ,
Pau areas , using normal spread *oot. ings for residential
1 1 t r' i a,::?many re,:! Lr enrc . tr:on! tOrlr g or
col is as tney are exposed , etc . ? ='ut-ny- =0t tabula =ion
of suitaole soils in relation to proposed structure ele-
vations was not generated at that time. ,
the narrative and recommendations as contained in
the original report of GME Consultants , dated 11 May 1987 ,
' GME Project 1 263 ) should continue In force for tnio pro-
posed subdivision , except as modl + Led nerein . lois aaden-
dum should be appended to that report .
SITE OBSERVATIONS, PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION I
Site terrain is largely similar to that descriced in
tne original report except that , in toe additional area to
tne east, land is nigher and more wooded . According to a
recent reading ta.'en in an ooservation well installed by
GME , groundwater is now two to three reet lower than the
level found in 1°87 . This is probably the result of the
drought experienced in 1988. At this time, it should not 1
oe considered a permanent drop In maximum groundwater .
a
88158
-3-
the addition under consideration herein now will con-
sist of 27 residential lots in 3 blocks .
I
BuRINO LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS , FIELD INVESTIGATION
ne additional boring locations and their depths were
chosen by Allied lest Drilling Company and were placed in
a widely scattered pattern tnrougnout the additional por-
tion of tne site , caking into account terrain , pattern and
results of previous borings , etc , in an attempt to best
assess soli conditions representative of t--,e site .
rlerer to tnCe attached , lagar3m , tale trap for :which is
' a reduction of a map furnished by tne Lwner , for a sketch
' o+ boring locations . The GME borings also are plotted , in-
sofar as their location could be interpreted .
Ground sur+ace elevation at each additional boring
location was determined and referenced to the same tempo-
rary bench mark established oy ONE , the front door step at
the first floor of the nearby Hoiy Cross Lutheran Church
' arbitrary elevation = 100. 00) . This in turn was refer-
, enced to Minnesota Department of Transportation Bench Mark
luO4E , located southeast of TH ' 7 , 223 southwest of Lessee
ILurve. This bench mark has a sea level reference elevation
at 966 .22. Sea level datum reference elevations of GME s
' borings are tabulated and attached to the back of this
■ report .
[he borings performed under tnis additional investi-
gation were accomplished using the Cone Penetrometer meth-
__- od o+ investigation . Refer to the report attachment ( col -
68158
-4-
or--coded ivory ) tor a description of this procedure. Also
contained tnerein is a description of methods of soil
classification and groundwater measurement. I
SOIL BORING RESULTS I
Httacned are logs For each of the borings performed
during this portion ot the investigation together with a
Key explaining terms and entries . ine depth of individual
iaera of soil and descriptions may vary somewhat from
'nose Lnoicatad on the 1005 hue ro the Lne -act nature of
:auger =:amoi Lnq and , most import an . , 07_currence of
transition oetween soil layers . Note that borings have ,
been numbered consistently with the GME borings .
rho investigation generally reveals , at Boring b , a
continuation of the pattern of normal to somewhat thick
topsoil and softer subsoils . Truly suitable soil is not
achieved until 8 ot depth. Groundwater is high, 5. 75 be- '
low existing surface.
Borings 7 and 8, however , snow an improved condition .
Topsoil is 5 ' deep at Boring 7 and 1 ' at Boring 8. Suit- '
able soil levels are at the bottom of this topsoil .
Groundwater is at 12.5 ' in Boring 7 only . Most soils are ,
mottled , but this is a typical occurrence in clayey soils .
That is, it occurs as a result of surface water percolat-
ing downward , slowing in tighter soils, and creating a
temporary " zone of saturation" .
Note further that two of the borings were performed ,
twice. On earlier set was inadvertently performed witnout
Mk
1
-j-
Dot.ainand penetration Data .
it snou:d Pe pointed out again that groundwater iev-
' eis can * ictuate , lnfluencea by 'weatner ana climate ,
grading amp drainage of the site , etc , tenaing to reauce
or increase maximum anticipatea groundwater . Hccordingly ,
' it 1s again emphasized , as expiained in the previous re-
port of GME , that indications are for the time of testing
only . vrounawater may vary depending on many factors un-
oeterminapie within the time frame and scope of the inves-
t _a =,ticn aut oriZea . Dui oars snou .a oe ac , isea to plan
for tne remote poaslciity of nigner groundwater levels .
Cone penetrometer readings are adequate for the types
of soils encountered at the levels indicated above, as a
+unction of depth below present ground surface.
Refer to each boring log for a more detailed descrip-
' tion of soils encountered .
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
' the conclusions and recommendations as given in the
' origninal report continue to be valid , except as modified
herein .
1 . Foun•datinns :
hasea upon interpreted results of the borings , it
appears that the site nas rougnly the same limitations
regarding suitability for construction tnormal topsoil
deposits in upper areas, more significant deposits of
EN
organic soli and high groundwater in lowland areas , and
the need to perform grade construction to adapt terrain
8158
•
to tne proposed use ) . These llmitalons are still Lor-
rec*_able.
organic ana upper loose material should be removed ,
tram eacn proposed building pad area in accordance with
tne various provisions of the original report . Based
upon soil boring results, Depths of excavation to • com-
oetent soils are as follows:
boring No Depth to Competent
Ho Soils , tt
i
On the oasis of the results of this subsurface soil
investigation , existing ground surface elevations at
each proposed house location , and proposed house ele-
vations , a lot-by-lot tabulation of proposed slab and
tooting grades , elevations of suitable soils and
groundwater , and applicability of DHUD 79-S require- '
ments t "cut-and-fill " sheets ) for this proposed devel-
opment have been compiled by the Soils Engineer and at-
tached to this report .
Fill , as required , should be placed , compacted and
tested as per the "Fill Placement" section of tne prig- 1
inal report.
Using these methods , normal spread footings may con-
tinue to be used for proposed residences .
2 . Slabs:
Based upon the results of this and previous investi-
gations, the existing mineral soil , or this soil with
MI
1
88158
-7-
fill thereon , is capable of adequate slab support pro-
'_
video that any organic soils are removed from beneath
the building pad area as outlined .
' Meeting the DHUD-required separation of 4 ' between
slabs and maximum groundwater does appear to present a
problem at this time, however. The magnitude of the
problem is indicated on the lot-by-lot tabulation . The
conflict is prim=riiy on the west ( lower ) portion of
the sate.
' it is possible, however , that site drainage and
land-Form alterations will act to permanently lower
groundwater levels on the site . The Owner s consultant
Isnould more fully address this possibility.
3 . Site Preparation , Fill Placement:
' Proceed as Der original report . he only addition is
tnat + 311 snould not OP a1loticr7 to 1rEe2r prior io con--
paction , and till should not oe placed upon frozen sur-
' +aces.
4 . Inspections :
' The Owner should retain a qualified geotechnical en-
gineering firm to inspect excavations prior to place-
ment of any construction material and to conduct in-
place density tests . This firm should bear +uil respon-
sibility +or proper knowledge and interpretation of toe
' contents of this report .
' 5. Utility Trenches :
See discussion in the original GME report . However ,
I
1
88158
_8-
it tne present period of pry weatner continues , the
situation may improve somewhat . Also note that the up-
land soils to tne east will have better conditions for
utility installation in any event .
o . Favement .Suogrsd_e:
ine recommendations contained in the i3ME report ap-
pears
generally sufficient. However , the R-value of 10
seems some'',nat low. On R-value of o would be more rea-
sonaoie of /en the nature of mineral soil encountered .
. 1
t__MI c. TION5 OF IVVE_,' IG f 1 'ii
As per original report .
ENGINEER' S CERTIFIC`, `E '
i hereby certify that this plan , specification or re-
port was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and
that I am a duly registered Professional Engineer under
tne Laws of the State of Minnesota .
ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
._ strick• J Hines , PE Date
?gistration No 1086
1
1
IIALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY Attachment to Soils Report
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
I
CONE PENETRATION TEST OF SOIL
f
IThe Cone Penetrometer Test , dr "Dutch Cone Test" , of
- inplace soil compaction supplies data on the engineering
Iproperties of soil which can be used as a guide in design-
ing earthworks and foundations .
'
To perform this test, power flight auger borings are
Iaccomplished to establish soil profiles in the vicinity of
proposed construction . The augers are advanced into the
Iground by mechanical/hydraulic means and withdrawn every
five feet . This portion of the test is performed in accord-,
Iance with ASTM 0 1452, "Soil Investigation and Sampling by
IAuger Borings" . Nature of subsurface soil is determined by
observing and sampling disturbed material found on the flight
auger . Representative samples are retained, sealed and stored
for future testing or reference , if necessary .
IPrior to drilling each five-foot increment , inplace soil
Icompaction is tested by the cone penetrometer in accordance
with ASTM 0 3441 , "Deep Quasi-Static Cone . . . Penetration
IITests of Soil" . The basic testing device is a cone , 35 . 6 mm
in diameter with a 60o apex angle. It is driven into the soil
Iby means of a rod rigidly attached to the cone . Resistance to
I penetration is measured as hydraulic pressure at one-foot in-
tervals . Allowable foundation pressure is determined from
Ithis penetration resistance together with soil classification
and other data .
ITesting by this method is usually performed to fifteen
feet of depth unless conditions such as footing depth , un-
Isuitable soils at proposed termination , etc, require addition-
testing .
•I,••• �- (over , please)
1
Soil Classification
Soils were classified by field personnel and verified by I
the Soils Engineer according to the Unified Soil Classification -
Method in accordance with ASTM D 2488, "Description of Soils ,
(Visual-Manual Procedure)" . A summary of soil class types is
attached to this report.
Groundwater
To establish possible occurance of groundwater in the
region of testing, one or more boring holes were allowed to
stand for a period of time , that period depending upon the I
free-draining nature of soils encountered, and then checked
for standing water or cave-in prior to backfilling . In ad= '
dition, soil samples were checked for mottling (discolloration
in streaks due to fluctuation of water level ) and saturation.
However , because of the nature of soil and various meteo- '
rological and geological influences which occur over a large
area and time span and which can affect the site , an accurate
measurement of highest annual groundwater could not be deter-
mined in the time frame allowed for the investigation. Indi- I'
.. toot%
cated levels , if any , are for the time of testing only.
I
. -1
1
INN 111111 MN 111111 NM MN En MI MEI MN MI EN MIII Mil NM NMI IMI1 NMI 11M1
\ ,
, -
• .. \----, ..';'•••■,..),_ „:. li -"--•••••......7
.
• ---_
......". ""1
. \ '...,:.•... . , e, ___,...... , ,1-• ---....,-.,-
/'''••--..---.....-...... -.....
I \I)7-----..,.._ ,
k.f.r
. .---. --:N. ...... CN; ..., ,' —7 1, I ;,-----____,--------,_
1 5 , 5
_. ,-1 I
-',„„,,r•...r•■igagt....-,„..,,,--1 r---, , - S c . --c- - ,•.,a 4
s. 't '', 1 • , L___----.2 \ , /,::, • ■ j
i'1, .--.'-''''---Z-'4-'•-.:,■...-.',4-'"r " - p. -7-Alai ,. •
- '
1 !''' Lf7k,1 . \‘ \ i 1,''4,-;:-". 1. 1:■-• r
..... .-- .-. 7-' .----- 1
k1 '. ',,: / " 1,
..---
L-.-.1 ' ■ ".. '• I 7,- I
/ ------r-7------- --__
...
. , 0., . `\ ,. ' t .. \s...,
.---% 4.44'. G•IE Bor:.ng No 2 1Th ---
i. 1 •••x, 1 ■.,_____-
I la
'
3A—s r . Fitr_72.11.91,..t...-.-•,•-•,-..,..„ ..,,..a c....„,i...7----. ...........2„......;:i4...... ___-" ___I 1 11.21*-.,..-:. .
-2,--r '-',- .7-7-,_,-.-.4=.4- 7:'--.....z'::,::-'7" k:: -•--••,.
Pri ' ' c. Nci. ---‘ Aiii. c.i-- --4%-'. ,.1. „
. •
-, : • .
t), .i! ir, GME Boring No \ __Lasi___, 3, ,3■___ kfril , •
s'. oring No 6 '-'-'-'-'.- ..n....,.....2 r-:-...,-••••-,...
•, • a .
Elev a. 964.0 •,..9- L11:1-- ('''..); (--.) e \
i;I i• Elev ---, 970.4 \ ‘., •
's'
. ■ .".i„ • / COI ) i--
4.1„..--1. -' 1 , I ■,,,I_,.s
[ a Ii1 i 14•• I' . ' 0 ...--s-,..;;;,'-:4,'"01411111i
J •
I . j i ' \ 4, -- ''...."' .77-— r' . - •
•-,...._ „9:___ /. . _ 04
1 c.',„,.[-z,---; I•,'..!: .'- '.
1 i .. .--.-... __________i ''', 1 /I
'-' Boring No 7
....." !,,i1 Ill
c • ' . 1 , \:'-;.' C3 (- -..:.4,..' Elev = 973.9.'" • --". '1 „ . • 7...) ! 1----"I: '‘ikr,',•"i,
‘, ( . '14.44,...GMEEi.Bov ri.r916No.6 3 s.., 4).- 1/,./''. .S%,,it ,,,,,f7a5O6,i 77 „ .t i [--. .m . ,• e....:,..t.
, , , ,,:„, ,. .
.._
L,,s._j . --i-._9-, 1 1 ,,,,...,,--_-,1
5„1 ,
1 .1 ,-- \s<• ...., , ,
7 , / 7.1,..
L , i , 1 , F-6, • --.- --..-',^,—.— ss' ,. 1 ,
l - ! ' i - - a..— -.111111M11■.-
N..j i....... 5 ,...„11 •/ / '..
- ' 1
-...,,1 fl. . 6-
■6.. _ ., . __• _..._ . . ; C .
_
iBLOCK--3-) , i :g, ' , ' . 'C'' '( '') '. , ---‘)• .--- •-,--'' _..._
1 .•.1%'')Isi, ' 6..II! , iv ,,s. • 1. .' '., , - -;-', 1 , 'in•
i;. :1 ' 1 ' 9 ' "'''' ■••■ ' f'''' -, -`,' ....""---r:••_...... -Borr'ng No 8 ' ‘,
1.I.... • - ' ". L_i, i ' ,,,,, s, ' .,
/i.= . , • " - .' .;--=-T.."---e-;--Elev = 97.7 3 , I .- ' •
' ' . `-'0,-4-4 1," ; qict••. .-, •'"r: "-*c-''-- Z: '' , 1 ' ' *i 1 •\\,-. '
r 4o. ME_ Borincj No 4 c'.••• 1, % . set .; ' : •'.••, ,,,ca.1 .,/c . tr 1 't ....1-/1 1 3 1 -\ 2 .' i
IEf e v = 968,0 , ___ 1: —..,2•.. . ,.....,:, . '7,_...:EEL?.Bo v I ..ri 9 ng 65.No.775 '-.2r-.)'.."-.--°,1 .;—r, '': --- ..1- --
••••••,,,... .. ;;_i_TA • „fiz . .
. i
- ' I.. '''' •-''''''
; .• . /•t, -',.■ _I- , ...• .' i----• af.,.... ,
-•••• , . •: • . : -
.• , 1: •-•-•/ ' ,•'-.r (...._,... I ..' c'....) t---- , : ... :_•.., ,
. /
-../' ..•',. ..._•" ••: .... ....., ...... - ‘; , .•
• .
a 4; ■
. . .
N . .
•• ... ,. .... . .
.. •
• N.• ..... \
SCALE IN FEET - F/
s 1
) 50 i00 150 ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
I
4000 Beau DRue Dive,Eagan,MN 55122 (612)452.6913
SCALE: 1" = 100• r SCHEMATIC OF I DRAWN BY P H*
BORING LOCATIONS FOR
Prop3sed Plat of Country Oaks
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Project 88158
i... *Note: Base map is a reduced ori9inal from Owner
, ■■
ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
PROJECT: 88158 - Proposed Plat of Country Oaks , Chanhassen , Minnesota
LOG OF BORING NO: 6
.
DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 964 . 0 SAMPLE LAB & OTHER TESTS
IN GEOLOGY N WB L L Co Pen
FEET / DESCRIPTIONANDCLASSIFICATION # TYPE R W DEN P:L: (psne i
Black Organic Silty Clay Loam FA
1- (OL) 300
w/vegetation
2- moist 500
. Gray S1 Plastic Sandy Loam (SN ) 500
3- w/tr fine gravel
v silty
4- v moist 500
5- 500
S1 Plastic 5 . 75'
6- w/a little gravel 500
:elev 958-±
7- saturated 500
8— 500
Blue Gray Clay (CH)
9- w/tr fine gravel 600
sl gritty
10- v moist 650
v stiff , resistive
11-
12- F00
13- .700
14- 500 '
15- LEO
End of Boring - No Refusal
16-
17. Bore hole backfilled
w/cuttings 10- 14-88 I
18-
19-
20-, I
21-
I
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS DRILLING DATA
DATE TIME SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER
DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH ,MUD LEVEL LEVEL Crew Chien MB
,0-13 15 ' 5'8" V 7' Method: 4" Power Flicht Auaer
10-14 1 :30 15 ' 6 ' 5'9" & Cone Penetrometer I
Boring Completed: 10-13-88 1
1 ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
IPROJECT: 88158 - Proposed Plat of Country Oaks , Chanhassen , Minnesota
LOG OF BORING NO: 7
II DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 973 . 9 SAMPLE LAB & OTHER TESTS
IN GEOLOGY N WB L L Cone Pen
FEET /' DESCRIPTIONANDCLASSIFICATION # TYPE R W DEN P.L. (psi II -
Gray-Ok Brown Organic Loam (OL) FA
1- w/vegetation 700
moist 800
II 3
2-
850
•
II Tan-Brown Clay Loam (CL) 850
4'1 damp to moist , mottled
850
I 5-
900
6
Gray-Brown Clay (CH)
I 7_ w/ tr fine gravel 1000
moist , mottled
8- stiff 1000
I9- 1100
10- 1400
I 11-
_ 600
I 12- Gray-Brown S1Plastic Fine Sandy
Loam (SM) , v moist V121/ ' 6
13- Gray-Brown Silt Loam (MH) elv 9611± 00
I saturated I 800
14-
1200
15 •
I plasticity increasing X00
16-1
500
I 17
Blue-Gray Clay (CH) 500
18-I w/tr fine gravel
1 moist 1000
19- v stiff , resistive
1000
20 '
I 21-
End of Boring - No Refusal
Bore hole backfilled with
cuttings on 20 October 1988
IWATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS DRILLING DATA
DATE TIME SAMPLED CASING CAVE•IN DRILLING WATER MS
DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH MUD LEVEL LEVEL Crew Chief.
II - 10-14 10 : 15 20' Method: 4" Power Fliaht Auaer
10-14 1 : 30
13 ' 13 ' & Cone Penetrometer
10-17 2 : 00 20' ='. 17'2" 16 '
i 10-14-88
10-20 3 : 45 13% ' 121144' Boring Completed
■
ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY •
•
PROJECT: 88158 - Proposed Plat of Country Oaks . Chant-teaser' . Minnesgta
LOG OF BORING NO: 8
DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: 977 . 3 SAMPLE LAB & OTHER TESTS
IN GEOLOGY N WB P-1-. Cone Pen
FEET / DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION #tf TYPE R W DEN ( es i )
Black Organic Loam (OL) FA
1- w/vegetation ,moist 500
Lt Brown Clay Loam (CL)
21 damp 1000
3- Brown Clay (CH) 1000
w/tr gravel
4- moist , mottled 1000
5-
1350
600
7-
6-
700
8-
1000
9-
1S00
10- 1700
11-
1200
12-
1200
13-
1300
14-
1500
Blue Gray Clay (CH)
15- w/tr fine gravel 1950
moist •
16- stiff , resistive 500
5
17-
00
600
1$
1000
19-
C
20 57 ,± V 1000
End of Boring - No Refusal
21
Bore hole backfilled with
cuttings on 20 October 1988 _ -
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS DRILLING DATA
It DATE TIME SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER
DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH MUD LEVEL LEVEL Crew Chief: MB
- 10-14 12:00 20 ' 14 ' none Method: 4" Power Pliant Auaer
10-14 1 ;30 13 ' none
& Cone Penetrometer
10-17 2 :30 20' 19 '7"
10-20 3 :37 19 '7" none
Boring Completed: 10-14-88
ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
i I
PROJECT: Boring Log Key
LOG OF BORING NO:
DEPTH SURFACE ELEVATION: SAMPLE LAB & OTHER TESTS
IN GEOLOGY N WB
FEET / DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION At TYPE R W DEN p:f:
1-
'1 2-
3- I t ,
Visual Classification of Soil --t- n /Liquid Limit
I 4' According to Unified Soil Origin &
Classification Symbol Shown of Soil Plastic Limit
I5- in Parentheses
6- Dry Density of
Number o f Soil in Pounds
Il- Hammer Blows Per Cubic Foot
to Drive
8- Split Spoon I
I 9- One Foot
(dual values indicate
each 6" increment)
10- Moisture Content
Indicates By of Soil as a
11- Y = Yes Percent of Dry
N = No Soil Weight
I12- if Soil is
13-I Water Bearing
' Water Level Length of Soil
1 14- tin Inches )
Recovered in Split
I 15- Spoon Sample
16-
17- Indicates Type of Sample:
18- SS = Split Spoon
FA = Flight Auger
II19- N = None
20-
21-
' WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS DRILLING DATA
DATE TIME SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER
DEPTH DEPTH _ DEPTH 'MUD LEVEL LEVEL Crew Chief:
>AAethod:
Boring Completed:._ _
1
Al
GME Consultants, Inc. II
GME Project No. 1263
ITABLE NO. 1 I
GROUNDWATER DATA
Groundwater in Groundwater in II
Borehole on 5-6-87 Piezometer on 5-8-87
Ground
Surface II
li Boring Elevation Depth Elevation Depth Elevation
i Number Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet
I
1 97.4 970.4 NE NE ® 9551/2± - -
II 2 90.9 963.9 7.5 83.4 956.4 3.2 87.7 960.7 ,
3 92.6 965.6 4.2 88.4 961.4
4 95.0 968.0 5.0 90.0 963.0 3 .0 92.0 965.0
1 5 92.7 965.7 8.0 84.7 957.7 - -
NOTES: Elevations referenced to the front door step at the II
first floor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, assumed
datum, elevation 100.0 feet.
"NE" indicates groundwater not encountered.
I Temporary open-well piezometers installed in borings
II
2 and 4 only.
•
3 Elevations converted to sea level datum by Allied Test
Drilling Company on 9 February 1989 . II
Bench Mark is Mn/DOT 1004E , Elevation 966 . 22
sil 1
II
I
i
. . ill
11
II
I
II
. II
A
. 1
II .
II
r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
•
LOT-BY-LOT TABULATION FOR
"LAND DEVELOPMENT WITH CONTROLLED EARTHWORK"
Allied tProjec+ X381 S8
Subdivision Name: C ouv4-r., CO 0.ks Subdivision Number:
Location: Glev)date Dri nectr TH 71 C'Inahinci.ssen Monrt Date: 2-2- —£39 ReJ 9 Vct, ' VI
79G Applicable 79G Not
Block Elevation (feet) 4-900 Fill Required Appli-
& Lot Proposed Estimated Slabs Footings Slabs Footings cable
No. Existing Surface Base of Ground Base- Base- Base- Base- No Fill
Topography at Hanlie. Excavation water ment Garage ment Garage ment Garage ment Garage
yI x
2. 77 77 7 S 73 77 72 73 Yz X
3 75- V. 76. 73 72 7e 71 72- 'iz, x
4 a 7S 7S 72 )4.- 71 7S 70 71 '%L )c
s 73 74 70 l,1'I2. 7o 74 (o`( 70I/z x " x Bor■„5 7
■
10 109/7I 70 (o S/(0 7 /ft_ • (0 6 70 &S (n(0 % k X
7 6 4 'i z_ (07 SS G.3 61 (0 2 (03 "z X x X Y-
8 (0 3 1/z 10(0 SS //Z. -StrA (0 2 (.06 (Di (0 Z 'iL X x • x x Bor-;v1.5 to
s
S1-,ee•1 l oe 3 . , /
LOT-BY-LOT TABULATION I')
"LANE.) DEVELOPMENT WITH CONTROLLED EARTHWORK"
Allied Pro e.c- 88158
Subdivision Name: eoUn-1rY O(DLLs Subcli.v:si.or, Number: r_
Location: 6 - 01._ - 1r . -_•_r . . r Minr Date:__ 2-1-89 Re„, q (edo ' cel
)
79G Applicable 79G Nct
Block Elevation (feet) 'isqoo Fill Required Appli-
& Lot Proposed Estimated Slabs FootirL7- Slabs Footings cable
No. Existing Surface Base of Ground Base- Base- Base- Base- No Fill
`Ib•. ra h . water. wont Garage ment G` 1-,iq` ment Garage ment Garage
N .)
2l1 77 '/z, 77 7s Vz. S7t 73 77 7Z 73 V. Q( C�o r�v►� it
Z 781z. 79 76 Yz 75 79 74 7S Vz a
3 80 80 78 76 8o 7s 7G,YL O(
4 7s'/z. 78 73 Vz. 74 79 73 74 Yz Dc V
S 73 74 70 Vz 70 71- log 701/4 V
(p -704- 7 I (0 8 b7 7 I (o(o 67%z QI
7 6)8- -70 m S tolp 7o (OS 1010'4. p. K a.
8 (Dsitz. (o8 (011/z S7,/ (04 (fla iO3 (o4/z. ()( K. Dc iN 3a.-, �, 5
9 to s+. (07 tot + CO 3 (o-7 (o z. (o 3 'vz P PC OC DC
10 (off (ob 61 61.4 (02 64° (o I 62 Yz p, c . V, Zo r• 3
11 67 68 (p3 6)4. 68 (P3 (04Y p( DC. DC
12. (o71/2- 70 lv 3 'h- (94 70 cos (0(0'/zl PC g D∎ A l
— I MN MI MI — MI • NM M 1 • 111111Sill 31111I 3 MN — I OM
MIN ali r OM MI - - MN r - - OM - - - - - -
LOT-BY-LOT TABULATION FOR
"LAND DEVELOPMENT WITH CONTROLLED EARTHWORK"
)111�ed Pro;ec.+ 8 81513
Subdivision Name: Coup -r■., 00.1(4 Subdivision Number:
Location: 61 ehJak, 1)r. 1 near f H 7 1 CA►avillasse.r, 1 M i v�v, Date: 2. - Z. -8y R e, 9 Ve_10 ' 8g
' 79G Applicable 79G Not
Block Elevation (feet) -t 900 Fill Required Appli-
& Lot Proposed Estimated cable
No. Existing po Ground Slabs Footings Slabs Footings
'Ib rah Surface Base of Base- Base Base- - Base- No Fill
E p y �+ Hniisp Exca a ;on water meet Garage meet Garage meet Garage ment Garage
I (0 S to b 57 co 1 (p z (0(0 (o I p
1 Co( Z /2 k k h Bor. Z
T
2 (a 3 /z (n ,/(p z S S (o Z'/z (0(o'Ya- (o 17i (0 3 tic x x
3 (Qs tots Yz (D2-. %z 4:5-11/2,t (0 2 Vz b la ' (a l %2 & 3 x x
e Qpr;,,,5 I
4 (0 9 6,7 (a(o Yz 6 3 (07 (02. 6,3 Yz x
S (08 '/Z l07 Iola (03 (07 (o z. l03YZ Y
(0 t 8 (0 8 loo T
l04 �S l03 64'/L. x k
7 CD 9 70 (o I'Yz (,S.o (to 70 (c s- (.4,'/z, x x k
h 8��;� 4
S1,ee-1 3 0-f 3
j 1
1 1
1
' 1
I
T.r -.. -
PRELIMINARY SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
ION
FOR
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SUULIVISIGN
GLENDALE DRIVE NEAR TRUNK HIGHWAY 7
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
SHOREWOOD INVESTMENTS . IN:.
GME PROJECT NO. 1..63
)1(
1
1
1
Copyright 1987 , GME Consultants, Inc.
111P, ni-
GIVIE CONSULTANTS, INC.
2083 East Center C rc�e / M�nneapo:s. MN 55441 i 612/559-1859 —o
May 11, 1987
Shorewood Investments, Inc.
14633 Beacon Circle
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55391
Attention: Mr. Gary Lindgren GME Project No. 1263
ill RE: Preliminary subsurface exploration for proposed
residential subdivision on Glendale Drive near
Trunk Highway 7 in Chanhassen, Minnesota
illGentlemen:
In accordance with our proposal dated May 1, 1987, we have completed
the subsurface exploration for this project. Enclosed please find
IPthe results of our field exploration and the soil report we have
0 prepared. Two copies of this report have been sent to the above
address and one copy has been sent to Mr. David Hansing, P.E.
ifINTRODUCTION
IP
The development is to consist of 13 lots for single family
illdwellings. No specific information as to the design of the
ill structures is available as of the date of this report. However, it
is likely that the single family dwellings would be similar to those
illin the area, which include a mix of split levels, full basements,
and walk-outs. The type of construction would most likely be
IFmasonry walls to first floor level or adjacent outside grade, and
wood frame construction above. Such structures typically impart
GEOTECHNICAL • MATERIALS • ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS
WILLIAM C. KWASNY, P E. THOMAS P VENEMA,P E. WILLIAM E.BLOEMENDAL E.I.T
ml
-Iii ,
11
::
Mr. Gary Lindgren 2 May 11, 1987
11
light to moderately heavy loads to the foundations. Some cutting
and filling would be necessary.
I
FHA/HUD Data Sheet 79G Requirements
I
The residential buildings in this subdivision may be designed to be
eligible for FHA/HUD financing. Therefore, the requirements of HUD
Data Sheet 79G would be applicable. Briefly described, the !
following steps are necessary in the engineering and design process
1
with respect to earthwork.
li 1. Soil borings and preparation of soil report by a
Registered Professional Engineer.
2. Preparation of preliminary Lot and Block Tabulation
ill
for land development with controlled earthwork, to
estimate which buildings will be supported on
compacted fill and which will be supported on
naturally-occurring soil, as well as to define the
Il
separation distance between the estimated high
groundwater elevation and floor slab (FHA
regulations require a minimum 4 feet separation) .
3. Observation and testing of all soils below
I buildings, including naturally-occurring soils and
all structural fill; to be carried out by a Soil
Engineer, with the observation and testing being.
done before any fill material or concrete is placed
and during the filling operation.
il
4. Performance of field density tests in the compacted
fill during placement, at a minimum recommended
frequency of 1 test for every 2,500 square feet of
area covered, for every 2 feet of fill.
5. Submittal of test results and report.
1
GME CONSULTANTS.INC.
In
I
Mr. Gary Lindgren 3 May 11, 1987
I
This report is intended to satisfy Item 1 above. Its purpose is to
IPdescribe the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in our
subsurface exploration; to review and evaluate these conditions with
i respect to the proposed project; and to present recommendations for
Ifeasible methods of foundation and earthwork design and
construction. When the project development plan is completed, the
1 Soil Engineer should prepare a preliminary Lot and Block Tabulation
as described in Item 2. The services discussed in Items 3, 4, and 5
should be provided during the earthwork phase.
THIS IS A PRELIMINARY REPORT ONLY, BASED ON LIMITED EXPLORATION TO
ANSWER GENERAL QUESTIONS POSED BY SHOREWOOD INVESTMENTS, INC. THIS
REPORT HAS NOT BEEN PREPARED TO MEET THE SPECIFIC NEED OF DESIGN
PROFESSIONALS, CONTRACTORS, OR ANY OTHER PARTIES, AND ANY USE OF
THIS REPORT BY THEM OR WITHOUT THE GUIDANCE OF THE SOIL ENGINEER WHO
PREPARED IT CONSTITUTES IMPROPER USAGE WHICH COULD LEAD TO ERRONEOUS II
ASSUMPTIONS, FAULTY CONCLUSIONS, AND OTHER PROBLEMS.
FIELD EXPLORATION/LABORATORY TESTING
IPFive borings were drilled for this project as shown on the enclosed
Soil Boring Location Diagram. Mr. Hansing had requested that four
borings be drilled. However, during the drilling operation, it was
agreed that a fifth boring would be added. The borings were drilled
with a truck mounted Mobile B-24 rig. Solid and hollow stem augers
GME CONSULTANTS,INC.
1
11
Mr. Gary Lindgren 4 May 11, 1987
11
were used to advance the borings to full depth. The soil samples
_ were obtained by the split barrel method in accordance with ASTM: D
1586. During the sampling, the Standard Penetration values (N- I
values, blows per foot) were recorded. The N-values provide an 1/
indication of the density or consistency of the soils and are shown
on the respective logs. The recovered soil samples were
preliminarily classified in the field, sealed in jars to prevent
moisture loss, and returned to our laboratory for examination and
classification by a Soil Engineer.
Groundwater levels were noted in the boreholes during the drilling
II operations. To supplement the water levels recorded during our
. 11
3 relatively brief period of observation, temporary open well i
piezometers were installed in two of the boreholes. The piezometers 11
1 can be used to monitor the groundwater over an extended period of
time. The recorded water levels are shown in the lower left corner
MIof the respective logs.
The laboratory testing program consisted of a Soil Engineer
1 g P g _
examining each sample to determine the major and minor soil
components, while also noting the color, degree of saturation, and
1 any lenses or seams found in the samples. The soils were
visually/manually classified on the basis of texture and plasticity
in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS) . The letter symbol in parentheses following the written
GME CONSULTANTS.INC.
::
MI
Mr. Gary Lindgren 5
Y May 11, 1987
II
description on the boring logs is the estimated group symbol based
11 on the USCS. A chart describing the properties of the groups under
1 this system is included in the Appendix of the report.
1
I
i I
III The Engineer grouped the soils by type into the strata shown on the
logs. The stratification lines shown on the logs are approximate;
I insitu, the transition between soils types may be gradual or abrupt
II in both the horizontal and vertical directions.
I
I Laboratory moisture content tests were performed on selected soil
1
samples. The moisture content tests were performed in accordance
ilwith ASTM: D 2216, and the results are shown on the respective
logs. I
il 1 1
I
We will retain the soil samples remaining after testing for 30 days
i
after the date of this report. If you wish to have the samples
retained beyond this time, we ask that you
please advise us;
otherwise, the samples will be discarded.
ilSITE CONDITIONS
ilTopography/Surface Features
AI
The topography of the site is relatively flat to '
. y gently rolling. A �
topographic plan of the site was not available. However, ground
■
e.
ONE CONSULTANTS,INC.
II
NM
3O
Mr. Gary Lindgren 6
Y g May 11, 1987
1
surface elevations among the borings vary by less than 7 feet. The
site is bordered by Holy Cross Lutheran Church on the west, an
1:
4 existing residential development and small ditch on the north, and
wooded areas to the south and west. Vegetation within the site
s
consists of low grasses on the west, and grasses and small trees on
the east. A fenced horse pasture is located in the eastern part of
114 the site.
ill
F
Soil Conditions
The soil conditions found in the borings are shown on the respective
logs. .
1
The surface of the site is generally covered with a layer of topsoil
approximately 2 feet to 4 feet in thickness. At some locations, the
II
underlying soils also trace g 1 o contained tr a fine roots and wood. The
topsoil consisted of black and gray-brown organic silty and clayey
soils. The organic soils are not suitable for support of the
proposed structures, pavements, utilities, or for reuse as select
IIfill under buildings. The topsoil is suitable for use in landscaped
areas.
11
The underlying naturally-occurring non-organic soils are stratified, I
including fine to medium sand, clayey sand, silty clay, sandy clay,
and clayey silt. At some locations (borings 2 and 5) the soils
::
'• GME CONSULTANTS.INC.
il
NI
11.
Mr. Gary Lindgren 7
May 11, 1987
f
contained traces of roots and wood. The N-values in the naturally-
" , occurring soils varied irregularly from 1 to 18 blows per foot,
11 generally indicative of a soft to stiff consistency in the fine
jgrained soils and a loose condition in the sands. The laboratory
1/
� I
moisture content test results vary from approximately 23% to 46%,
which we estimate to be substantially above the optimum moisture
1 content for these soils.
11 Groundwater Conditions
Free groundwater was observed in 4 of the 5 borings during our
relatively brief period of observation on May 6, 1987. In borings 2
and 4, temporary open well piezometers were installed to monitor the
1
groundwater over an extended period of time. The groundwater was
observed in the piezometers on May 8, 1987. The approximate depths
to groundwater recorded during the drilling operations and the depth
to groundwater in the piezometers and the corresponding elevations
are presented in Table No. 1.
The temporary piezometers were installed in accordance with our
understanding of the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH)
regulations for piezometer construction. These piezometers consist
• of 2 inch diameter PVC i e rated to 200
p p psi capacity. The
' piezometers were installed to a depth of approximately 13 feet below
the existing ground surface, with an additional stick up of
GME CONSULTANTS,INC.
■
Mr. Gary Lindgren 8 May 11, 1987
11
approximately 2 feet above the ground surface. The lowest 5 feet of
pipe was slotted and wrapped in geofabric. No couplings or joints
were used in the piezometers. The boreholes were backfilled with
relatively clean sand to approximately 2 feet above the screen.
Above the sand and extending to the ground surface, cement/bentonite
grout was placed. To meet the requirements of the MDH, the
temporary piezometers must be removed or properly abandoned within 6
months of May 6, 1987. As a part of the removal operations, the
boreholes must be backfilled with cement/bentonite grout.
Based on the USGS Excelsior and Mound quadrangle maps, this site is
ill surrounded by several lakes and lowlying swampy areas. The surface
water elevations of these various bodies of water vary
substantially. The groundwater at this site is probably related to II
the water levels in Lake Minnewashta to the east and Lake Virginia
II
to the west, which are both related to the water level in Lake
Minnetonka. At the time of our subsurface exploration, only an
il
assumed datum was available to reference our boring and groundwater
elevations. Thus, at this time, the groundwater levels cannot be
il
1
related to NVGD datum. However, it can be seen that the groundwater
il
in the shallower depths between the
III e borings rose to substantially shall p
time they were first observed in the borings, and the subsequent il
piezometer readings.
---------1
11
FHA/HUD Data Sheet 79G requires that the lowest basement slab
illGME CONSULTANTS,INC.
Mb
I/ .
Mr. Gary Lindgren ren 9 May 11, 1987
Y ,
I
elevation for a dwelling be a minimum of 4 feet above the highest -
IIknown groundwater level, without differentiating between perched and
IP hydrostatic water conditions. We recommend that the piezometers be
monitored over an extended eriod of time to continue defining the
P g
11 groundwater conditions at this site. The shallow groundwater must
be considered when establishing lowest basement slab elevations. It
11 is possible that full and even split entry basements would not be
11 possible for the proposed dwellings without rising planned grades
for the development.
ii
REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
il
11 Discussion
il^ This report presents preliminary assesment of the soil and
groundwater conditions relative to the proposed developments. A
development plan indicating proposed and existing elevations, and
proposed dwelling types and locations is not yet available. Also, a
benchmark was not available at the time of our subsurface
exploration such that groundwater depths could be related to NVGD
datum for use in evaluating the FHA requirement that the lowest
ilbasement slab be separated by a minimum vertical distance of 4 feet
above the highest known groundwater level. Thus, the
i recommendations in this report are preliminary. However, there are
several factors which are important in the design of typical single
11
11 GME CONSULTANTS,INC.
II
ME
4 .
Mr. Gary Lindgren 10 May
family dwellings that can be reviewed based on the available
information.
.
The soils surface (topsoil) and near-surface encountered in our 5
11 1 borings would not be suitable for support of single family
i
dwellings. The topsoil thickness is greater than that which is
typically encountered, extending to depths of 2 to 4 feet. The
Standard Penetration N-values (used as a measure of load bearing
licapacity) are low in the upper 4 to 8 feet of borings 2, 4, and 5.
31 Based on laboratory test results, the moisture content of the near-
surface soils ranges from approximately 23% to 46%. We estimate
lithat these moisture contents are substantially in excess of the
optimum moisture content. Obtaining adequate compaction of such wet
1 soils is often difficult and not possible. Also, placing fill at a
moisture substantially in excess of the optimum moisture increases
the likelihood of long term settlements.
I
ill
The buildings should not be founded on, over, or within the existing
surface topsoil, or the underlying soft to firm naturally-occurring
soils. We recommend subcuting and removing the soft to very loose
soils ( soils with N-values less than 6) . It is likely that this
excavation would extend below the groundwater level, thus
complicating the earthwork operation.
ill
1
GME CONSULTANTS,INC.
EN
11
11 Mr. Gary Lindgren 11 May 11, 1987
11
The cost of soil correction for this site could be high. In order
11 to reduce the quantity of soil to be corrected and the cost of
earthwork, it may be feasible to construct "Cluster Buildings"
ffi
(townhouses or quadraminiums) . Such buildings would have a smaller
1 I overall footprint and correspondingly less soil correction would be
necessary.
i
II Preliminary details on these recommendations, and our preliminary
recommendations for pavements, utilities, and earthwork construction
11 considerations, are presented below.
IIEarthwork
IThe near-surface topsoil, as well as the near-surface soft or very
loose non-organic soils, should be subcut and removed, and replaced
with compacted backfill. The estimated depth of subcut at each of
IIthe borings is tabulated below. When the development plan is
completed, indicting proposed grades, the estimated depth of subcut
.r should be reviewed in light of this information.
11
ESTIMATED DEPTH
BORING BORING OF SUBCUT OBSERVED DEPTH
II NUMBER ELEVATION FEET OF GROUNDWATER
1 97 .4 2. 5 N.E. *
2 98 .9 8 3 . 2 '
3 92.6 2. 5 4. 2 '
4 95 . 0 8.5 3 '
5 92.7 4 8'
il * Groundwater not encountered
= GME CONSULTANTS,INC.
MI
MN
11 N
Mr. Gary Lindgren 12 May 11, 19.
11
The depth of subcut is estimated to extend as deep as 8.5 feet or il
more. It is likely that this subcut would extend below the
i
groundwater level, thus complicating the earthwork operation. The
excavation of unsuitable soil should be extended laterally beyond
the outside edge of planned footing locations, at least 1 foot for
every 1 foot of critical cut required below the bottom of footing,
or 5 feet whichever is greater. We strongly recommend that the
construction staking be carried out by a Registered Land Surveyor so
that proper oversizing is provided and the building pads are
accurately located. Failure to properly locate the building pads
_ during the earthwork could result in excessive settlement of the
houses because they were built too close to or beyond the limits of
0
the graded pads . Such mislocations do occur and require extra soil
Ad correction during individual house construction.
M
11
il
Excavations for soil correction would likely encounter groundwater
across much or all of the site. The quantity of such groundwater il
i
infiltration would likely be large. Any water which enters
excavations should be completely removed from the excavations prior
ill
to placement of fill or concrete. The base should be free of
standing water or slurry and visible for testing. The earthwork
IIcontractor should provide a dewatering plan prior to the start of
ill
grading. Sump pumps alone may not adequately dewater the
GME CONSULTANTS,INC.
r
Mr. Gary Lindgren 13 May 11, 1987
I
excavations.
1 Much of the subcut soils would be organic soil, or excessively wet
clay, not suitable for reuse as structural fill. The organic soils
which are subcut and removed should be disposed of off-site or in
1 landscape areas. As a practical matter, reuse of the wet clay
would be difficult. It would be necessary to dry the soils to a
11 � suitable condition prior to reuse. Such drying is possible but
4
frequently difficult. It would be necessary to stockpile the soils
1 in a thin lift (approximately 1 to 2 feet) , disk the soils, and
allow them to air dry for extended periods of time. During cold or
rainy weather, this is sometimes not possible.
I
Any fill needed to reach design grades should consist of non-organic
soils free of any foreign material or debris. We recommend that
fill be placed at a moisture content within approximately 4% of the
optimum moisture content. If it is proposed to reuse the naturally-
occurring soils for structural fill, it would be necessary to dry
them prior to placement.
Fill should be placed in lifts no thicker than approximately 8 to 10
inches. After proper moisture conditioning, granular fill should be
compacted to at least 95% of the maximum Modified Proctor dry
density, ASTM: D 1557 ; cohesive fill should be compacted to at
1 least 95% of the maximum Standard Proctor dry density, ASTM: D 698.
d
a
GME CONSULTANTS.INC.
-,
I
1L
Mr. Gary Lindgren 14 May 11, 1987
I
Depending on final design grade at individual lots, it is possible
11 that some of the footings would be founded on naturally-occurring
i
non-organic soils. All soils exposed at footing elevations should
libe thoroughly compacted prior to concrete placement. This includes
both new structural fill and naturally-occurring non-organic soils.
Compaction of the naturally-occurring non-organic soils would make
the deposit more uniform and help locate zones not suitable for
structural support. It is likely that the majority of the earthwork
at this site would be carried out by the mass grading contractor.
It is possible that for cut lots, the necessary compaction may not
be done during the mass grading phase. It is important that the
recommendation that the base of all excavations be compacted and the
1
0
need for subcutting some of the naturally-occurring soils, be
:I conveyed to individual building contractors.
II
11 Foundation Design
M.I For preliminary planning, we recommend that spread footings be used
to support the proposed dwellings. The elevations at which footings
may bear would vary from structure to structure. The bearing soils
would either be compacted structural fill or naturally-occurring
non-organic soils. For preliminary planning, footings founded on
1 compacted soils beneath which all unsuitable soils have been
removed, may be proportioned for a net allowable soil bearing
illGME CONSULTANTS,INC.
r
rn
Mr. Gary Lindgren 15 May 11, 1987
pressure not to exceed 1,500 pounds per square foot. The net
fiallowable soil bearing pressure refers to the pressure which may be
transferred to the bearing stratum in excess of the pressure due to
the surrounding depth of overburden.
1FI' I
Exterior spread footings and footings in unheated portions of the
buildings, such as garages should be supported at least 4 feet below
final grade to provide protection from frost penetration. In heated
portions of the buildings, interior footings may be supported 12 to
18 inches below finished floor grade. All continuous footings
should have a minimum width of 20 inches to avoid excessively narrow
footings which could result in localized shear failure of the
bearing stratum.
IPIFloor Slab Subarade
Non-organic soils used to support the footings would be suitable for
support of floor slabs. The final 4 inches of compacted soil
beneath floor slabs should be a clean medium to coarse sand having
less than 3% passing a No. 200, sieve to serve as a leveling course
as well as a capillary break. This would reduce migration of
moisture upward towards the base of the slab. The granular layer
would also serve as capillary break. However, moisture may
accumulate in the base course zone. Therefore, a plastic vapor
barrier of at least 6 mil thickness should be provided over the
GME CONSULTANTS,INC.
I
Mr. Gary Lindgren 16 May 11, 1987
11
subgrade layer where covering, carpets, or tile would be placed on
the floor, or where moisture protection is desired.
In order to provide for uniform curing of concrete slabs, we
recommend that the subgrade be thoroughly wetted immediately prior
to concrete placement. The surface of the slab should then be cured
by a positive means, such as a sprayed-on membrane or moisture
absorbent material with plastic sheet covering. We recommend that
the slabs be designed in accordance with the recommendations of the
Portland Cement Association and the American Concrete Institute
Standards.
1
Basements
Where subsurface living space is proposed for the dwellings, we
recommend that perimeter drain systems be installed around the
outside edge of the basement walls, and that the exterior walls be
dampproofed. The perimeter drain system should be installed even if
groundwater is not observed during the earthwork operation. The
drain system should consist of slotted or perforated PVC pipe placed
at foundation level below the floor slab. The zone above and
around the pipe should be backfilled with free draining granular '
soil. The drainage system should be connected to an interior sump
pump or drained by gravity to a suitable discharge location.
FHA/HUD Data Sheet 79G requires that the lowest basement slab
GME CONSULTANTS,INC. '
1
Mr. Gary Lindgren 17
May 11, iyai
I
elevation be a minimum of 4 feet above the highest known groundwater
level. The perimeter drain system is not a satisfactory substitute
for the separation.
We recommend that the site be graded to provide positive drainage of
runoff away from the buildings in all directions. As a part of that
grading, the free draining granular backfill adjacent to the
basement wall should be compacted to approximately, but not
11 substantially in excess of, 88% of the maximum Modified Proctor.
11 Greater compaction against the basement walls could create
excessively high lateral earth pressures against the walls. The
upper most 18 inches of fill adjacent to the basement wall should
consist of relatively impermeable compacted clay to promote runoff
away from the building and reduce infiltration of surface water.
The basement walls should be designed to resist lateral earth
pressures. Several important factors must be considered in the
design of the basement walls, including construction sequence,
backfill soil type, backfill compaction, adjacent surcharge loads,
and whether the walls are allowed to yield. We recommend using and
equivalent fluid pressure of 50 to 55 pounds per cubic foot in the
wall design.
-■
Utility Trenches
11
' GME CONSULTANTS,INC. -
11
1 ,Ni I
Mr. Gary Lindgren 18 May 11, 1!
As discussed for dwellings, the relatively soft or very loose soil
conditions and high groundwater table would complicate utility I
i
ill
j construction. Utilities should not be supported on, over, or within
I
the soft to very loose naturally-occurring soils. They should be
installed in trenches in which unsuitable soils have been subcut and
removed. Utility trench backfill should be placed in loose lifts on
the order of 8 to 10 inches and should be compacted to at least 95%
of the maximum Modified Proctor for granular soils, or 95% of the
maximum Standard Proctor for fine grained soils. Thicker lifts of
trench backfill should not be permitted. The backfill should be
properly moisture conditioned, that is, it should be placed at a
il
moisture content within approximately 4% of the optimum moisture
content. Inadequate compaction, or wet, saturated backfill material
:31 IIcould cause distress to overlying pavement sections or structural
if • elements .
I
Al �
The utility trench excavations would likely encounter groundwater in
il
so__ areas of the site. All trenches should be dewatered before
placement of bedding, utilities, or structural backfill. Wet site il
AI
conditions could also create hazardous working conditions with
il
respect to side slope stability.
Pavement Subgrade
Ji
3iTopsoil, vegetation, and any other unsuitable materials should be
liGME CONSULTANTS,INC.
IIM
Mr. Gary Lindgren 19 May 11, 1987
M Y g Y
stripped from the proposed roadway pavement subgrade. If the
pavement design were sufficiently thick, with the use of geofabric
to separate the base course and the subgrade, it would be possible
to leave the soft or very loose naturally-occurring non-organic
soils below driveways. In either event, all unsuitable soils should
be removed from beneath the proposed public roadway.
Prior to the placement of fill or base course, we recommend that the
subgrade be test rolled with large heavy equipment, such as a fully
loaded dump truck or fully loaded water truck, to help locate zones
not suitable for support of the pavement. The project Soil Engineer
should observe the test rolling operations. Where excessive pumping
or rutting is observed during the test rolling, those areas should
be corrected or improved. Fill necessary to reach design subgrade
g
should be placed in accordance with the recommendations in the
Earthwork section of this report. We recommend that the base course
consist of 100% crushed rock meeting Mn/DOT Class 5 specifications.
The pavement base course should be compacted to 95% of the maximum
Modified Proctor.
With respect to design parameters for pavements, the naturally-
"' occurring soils at this site vary substantially. Based on Mn/DOT
references, the estimated R-values would range from approximately 6
to 60. We recommend using an R-value of 10 for design of the
pavement section where naturally-occurring soils occur at subgrade
GME CONSULTANTS,INC.
II
Mr. Gary Lindgren 20 May 11, 1987
II II
II
elevation. If imported fill is necessary, the R-value could be
different. It should be anticipated that stabilizing the naturally- II
.11 occurring non-organic soils at this site, which are wet to II i
saturated, would be difficult and it may be necessary to subcut and
remove these soils and replace them with clean granular soils to
II
achieve a stable base suitable for paving. We would be pleased to
provide additional subgrade design recommendations based on site 1
specific data. II i
11 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS II
If winter construction is proposed for any portion of the project,
'
special precautions would be needed to prevent the soils from II
freezing both before and after placement of concrete. The
naturally-occurring soils and all intermediate layers of fill must II
not be allowed to freeze. The contractor should not place concrete
Ilor fill over any soil which has been allowed to freeze, nor should '
he permit the soils under Footings or floor slabs to become frozen
after placement of concrete. This can result in post-construction
settlement as the soils thaw. The bituminous paving should not be
done over a frozen subgrade. If any earthwork is planned after
illfrost penetrates the soil, ripping would probably be required. This
I
usually entails extra cost. Only unfrozen backfill should be used,
11 ilI
and there may be extra charges for this.
III
GME CONSULTANTS.INC.
II
MN
IPi
1
Mr. Gary Lindgren 21 May 11, 1987
IN
We anticipate that the groundwater table would be encountered during
IPsoil correction earthwork at this site. Water entering excavations
IP from any source, including surface runoff or precipitation, should
be pumped out of the excavations immediately. It should not be
IPI allowed to stand ponded on the soils, since this would soften and
disturb them. Such wet or soft soils are not suitable for support
of foundations, floor slabs, or
pavements. Any soils which are
disturbed by standing water or disturbed for other reasons should be
removed prior to placement of fill or concrete. Fill or concrete
Ji should not be placed over such disturbed soils in an attempt to
"squeeze out" the soft soils. This can result in post-construction
settlement of the structures due to the entrapped soft soils, even
if the soft soils are only a few inches thick.
The soils at this site are susceptible to disturbance when wet and
unconfined and subjected to the traffic of construction equipment
iland workmen. It is the responsibility of the contractor to protect
the soils from being disturbed.
11
J i
The sidewalls of all excavations for this project, including utility
trenches, must be adequately sloped or sheeted and braced in
ilaccordance with pertinent OSHA regulations. We recommend that
contractors working on this project review OSHA Document No. 2207 to
determine the safe slopes that may be cut into the soils of the
11 types found at this site. Slopes cut vertically or at near-vertical
_111
11 GME CONSULTANTS,INC. -
IIIS
.1
Mr. Gary Lindgren 22 May 11, 1987
ill
1
angles may appear to be stable upon first being excavated. However,
asuch slopes can fail suddenly for a variety of reasons, including
drying, saturation, or near-by construction activities, such as
stockpiled fill or construction traffic. This sudden failure can
result in unsafe conditions for personnel working in the trenches.
The responsibility to provide safe working conditions on this site
is solely that of the contractor. This responsibility is not borne
All in any manner by GME Consultants, Inc.
GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS
”ii IM 0
This preliminary report has been prepared based on the soil and
groundwater conditions encountered in our subsurface exploration and
the data related to us by Mr. Gary Lindgren of Shorewood Investments !I
3 and Mr. David Hansing, P.E. This report is intended solely for this
project at the specific location discussed. The recommendations are
preliminary. We would be pleased to provide more specific
IIIrecommendations when appropriate during the design process.
AlThe soil and groundwater conditions were determined at 5 locations.
These conditions are pertinent only at the boring locations and
under the environment existing at the time of our subsurface
Alexploration. The soil and groundwater conditions varied
significantly among the borings. Additional variations in soil and
ill
i groundwater conditions probably exist, including deeper xones of
GME CONSULTANTS.INC.
E.
,
lk
Mr. Gary Lindgren 23 May 11
Y g y , 1987
1
unsuitable soil. Such variations would not become apparent until
after construction starts, and could not be determined from our
borings or site reconnaissance. No warranty, either expressed or
implied, is presented in this report with respect to the soil and
groundwater conditions at this site. It is not warranted to
extrapolate soil and groundwater conditions between the borings from
the boring logs themselves.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you for this
project. If you have any questions regarding this report or if we
can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to
1 contact us.
Sincerely,
GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
IP /./ ,
cA„ .
William D. Plate, P.E.
my Pro/1Oct Engineer
//, c%�..._ I hereby certify that this plan,specification,
or TO• rt was prepared by me or under my
William C. Kwasny, P dire• supervision a• that I arr.; el •tiu:r
Principal Engineer R .: i - . • •f al Engineer
la ' ate Minn* ota.
APPENDIX:
Table No. 1 Date .5'/1' " Req. No. r�
1 Soil Boring Location Diagram
7 General Notes
Soil Boring Logs
11 Groundwater Data - Table No. 1
• Unified Soil Classification Chart
Special Notes on Placement of Compacted Fill Soils
WDP:WCK:bjs
•
A
GME CONSULTANTS.INC.
•
I • I
1 I
I ..
1 . 7ve
v
SIIISV ‘,
11 II
Holy Cross e +e •l
Lutheran 97.4•
I
r./ Church Site e
B-3 i
92.6' i
e
I
I e i
I
e 92.7'
I
1 . 1
1 I
I I
I .
I
NOTE: Benchmark front door step
11 at first floor of Holy Cross Lutheran
II
Church; assumed datum, 100.0 feet
11 APPROXIMATE
SCALE II
1 . 1
11 0' 100 200' II
I SOIL BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION :- i 2083 EAST CENTER CIRCLE
I
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA j MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55441
111 , SHOREWOOD INVESTMENTS, INC. '.1 -=_ ? WDP WCK 5-11-87 12E3
s II
U
IGENERAL NOTES
DRILLING &SAMPLING SYMBOLS.
SL SS with Liner
SS apl,t Spoon — 1 3/8"I.D.,2"O.D.,unless OS . Osterberg Sampler—3"Shelby Tube
otherwise noted HS - Hollow Stem Auger
I ST Shelby Tube—2"0.0.,unless otherwise noted WS Wash Sample
PA • Power Auger FT Fish Trail
pB Diamond Bit —NX 8X AX RB • Rock Bit
AS • Auger Sample BS . Bulk Sample
JS Jar Sample PM Pressuremeter test-in situ
I VS . Vane Shear
Standard "N"Penetration Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch OD split spoon,except
where noted
WATE R LEVE L MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS
WL Water Level
WCI Wet Cave In
OCI Dry Cave In
i WS While Sampling
WD While Drilling
BCR Before Casing Removal
ACR Atter Casing Removal
AB . After Boring
i Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the boring at the times indicated In pervious soils,the
indicated elevations are considered reliable ground water levels. In impervious soils,the accurate determination of ground
water elevations is not possible in even several days observation, and additional evidence of ground water elevations must
be sought
iGRADATION DESCRIPTION &TERMINOI OGY.
Coarse Grained or Granular Soils have more than 50%of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve,they are described as
bouluers, cobbles, gravel or sand Fine Grained Soils have less than 50%of their dry weight retained on a 8200 sieve they
I are described as. clays or clayey silts if they are cohesive, and silts if they are non-cohesive In addition to gradation,
granular soils are defined on the basis of their relative in-place density and fine grained soils on the basis of their strength or
consistency,and their plasticity
Major Descriptive Terms)
Component (Of Components Also Percent of
Of Sample Size Range Present in Sample) Dry We,nht
Boulders Over 8 in 1'-%',)mm} Trace 1 _g
Cobbles 8 in to 3 it■ Little 10_ 19
(200mm to lbrnm)
Gravel 3 in to 4 sieve Some 20—34
(75mm to 2mm)
Sand #4 to 11200 sieve And 35—50
(2mm to 074mm)
Silt Passing 4t 200 sieve
(0.074mm to 0 005mm)
Clay Smaller than C 005mm
i CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS. RELATIVE DENSITY OF GRA".,_LAR SOILS.
I Unconfined Comp
Strength,Qu, tsf CnnS'■rncy N — Blows(ft Prlative Density
<0.25 Very Soft 0—3 Very Loose
IF 1 0.25 —0 49 Soft 4 —9 Loose
0,50 —0.99 Medium (Firm) 10—29 Medium Dense
1 00— 1 99 Stiff 30 —40 Dense
2 00 — 3,99 Very Stiff 50— 80 Very Dense
f
4.00—8.00
>8.00 Hard
Very Hard 80+ Extremely Dense
IPI .OW CONSULTANTS,INC.
MI
LOG OF BORING 1 1
PROJECT SITE
_ Residential Subdivision Chanhassen, Minnesota _
CLIENT ARCHITECT-ENGINEER II
Mr. Gary Lindgren Mr. David Hansing, P.E.
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS/FT 2
LL I
M 0 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL 3 1 2 WATER 4 5
1 1 1 f
rii > = w m CONTENT% I
LL zw J 0 1—� w
_ a I- Q Q V Q STANDARD PENETRATION(BLOWS/FOOT)Lu H
w Q Z tzi a 1- SURFACE ELEVATION 97.4 feet a w , -e-
a cn a 3 w _- rn¢ Z 10 20 30 40 50 I
Gray-brown and black slightly or-
1SS ganic silty fine to medium sand and 8
sandy clay, little roots - loose -
--2 oppsttoljoist - (SM & OL) - I 2SS 41 Brown mottled silty clay - stiff - 15 ® •31.3%
\moist - (CL) p
5' Light gray mottled clayey silt,
3SS 6, trace fine sand - loose - moist- (ML) 10 0 � 5d
I
4SS 14 0 •
Brown clayey silt to silty clay, - I
trace fine sand, gravel - stiff -
5SS moist - (CL-ML) 15 ID
12' I
Dark gray fine to coarse sandy clay,
trace gravel - very stiff - moist - i
6SS (CL) 18
ifEnd of Boring at 15 feet I
Solid Stem Auger used full depth
Borehole backfilled with cuttings
I
1
II
li
ill
1
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS l BORING STARTED 5-6-87
w L Groundwater not encountered ' GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMPLETED 5-6-87
el al • Envorrnenuf
W L 2083 East Carter Circle RIG B-24 DRILLER TMH 1
W.L. IM°- • 16)2f)558-18559,55441 41 DRAWN WDP APPROVED WCK ,
i Joe* 1263 SHEET 1 of 5
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries
between soil types:insitu the transition may be gradual. 1
a
ILOG OF BORING 2
PROJECT SITE
I CLIENT Residential Subdivision Chanhassen, Minnesota
ARCHITECT-ENGINEER
Mr. Gary Lindgren Mr. David Hansing, P.E.
F- UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS/FT2
1
Ill LLI
LL —O
1 2 3 4 5
w 0 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL 3 1 WATER ,
1— O
I yy.- w = w -'m CONTENT%
LL Za J U �� W -o-
w F a 1-- w Q --I Q STANDARD PENETRATION(BLOWS/FOOT)
o <z 3 SURFACE ELEVATION_. 90.9 feet ¢ >
1 10 20 30 40 50
1SS Black organic sand, clayey silt, 4
little roots - soft - moist - (OL) -
I
(topsoil)
2SS 4' 3
S' f
1
3SS Gray mottled silty clay to clayey ti 9.2%
silt, trace wood, fine roots -
4SS 8' soft - wet - (CL-ML) 2 ® • 45.8%
t
10' SSS 6 OD
ill Dark gray fine to coarse sand,
trace silt, clay - loose - wet -
(SC-SM)
14
T-,' 6SS Dark gray silty clay - stiff - 1(JJ ®
\moist - (CL) / '
I
End of Boring at 15 feet
I/ Solid Stern Auger used full depth
Temporary open-well piezometer
installed to 12.5 feet depth
I
II
ill
I
I
P
IWATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 5-6-87
W L 2 8 feet while drilling GME CO.NSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMPLETED 5-6-87
till mercy Mete as•En�m a sd
WL. 7.5 feet after drilling ilt 2083 Est CrterDm* RIG B-24 DRILLER TMH
WL �F 3.2 feet May 8, 1987 try I6'2}5�+es 5 1 DRAWN WDP APPROVED WCK)
Joe* 1263 SHEET 2 of 5
it The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries
between soil types:insitu the transition may be gradual
MR
4 -- LOG OF BORING 3
SITE
'"C T Subdivision Chanhassen
?esidential Subd L-;rota
II
_ _ _____ ARCHITECT-ENGINEER
A�
Gary Lindgren Mr. David H,a, n siP.E.
W Uhf�1NFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS/FT 2
I. 4 –O
1 L DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL 3 i 3 4 �--
Z W OJ WATER
Um CONTENT%
J~ W
,., U D C �� aNDARD PENETRATION(BLOWS/FOOT)
i s 3 i SURFACE ELEVATION 92.6 feet n¢ Z II
0 20 -30 40 50
--- Black organic sandy silt, little
---:SS roots - firm - damp - (OL) - 7 0
11
+ 2.5' (topsoil)
'SS 6 ® •
y 7 i ' 25.5%
Gray with black stratified fine to II?SS medium sand and clayey sand, trace 7 e
silt - loose - wet - (SP & SC) '
,SS I
f �
q, l
....-S:-., 6 o"- •
'� 27.8%
II
; Dark gray stratified fine to coarse
\li\
_.� sandy clay and clayey sand, trace
_4 gravel - loose to medium dense - I
�� moist to wet - (SC-CL) 12 OD
-?
___, •j ! End of Boring at 15 feet II
Solid Stem Auger used to 4 feet ,
AI i
i
depth, Hollow Stem Auger used
1 below
i----, I Borehole backfilled with cuttings
II I
i
e
II
�
-1
II. 1
—i
II ____4
IL era =a . OBSERVATIONS I
Tr BUhl1•4r STA.ATED 5-6-87
--�-� ; -eE� while drillin GME CONSULTANTS, INC. B3I1I
N,c(
-24 5-6-87
�`f •E RIG B-24 DRILLER TI41
I
feet 2 hours after 2083 Esc Canter Cwae
.'t o r I i i l nu ►/. a yds.ra.rmu ssaai
(6,2j 5591859 DRA yy,,d 'yt'DP APPROVED WCK
JOEsx 263 SHEET 3 of 5
The stratification lines represent approximate I,,,,indar„e
I
between soil types:insitu the transition may t 'aduai
nt
a
ILOG OF BORING 4
PROJECT SITE
Residential Subdivision Chanhassen, Minnesota
11 CLIENT ARCHITECT-ENGINEER
Mr. Gary Lindgren Mr. David Hansing, P.E.
t- UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS/FT 2
II m .
LL L —O
ui 1 2 3 4 5
w w 0 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL 3 $ I WATER + $
F- O
w < Cl) m CONTENT%
Iw} CC a a Cl) -e-
F a F- w Q U= Q STANDARD PENETRATION(BLOWS/FOOT)
o <z 3 SURFACE ELEVATION_, 95.0 feet N Z 10 20 -0 40 50
Black organic sandy, silty clay,
1SS little roots - soft to firm - moist- 5
IP 2.5 (0L) - (topsoil)
2SS Dark gray with black fine to medium ' 3 ® . 24.9%
4' sandy clay with clayey sand - soft -
r '�--'"1,moist - (CL; trace SC) / I
IP ....
3SS Gray mottled silty clay to clayey 3 ® •.9%
4SS £i.5 silt, trace fine to medium sand - 3
IP soft - wet - (CL-ML) JD 5SS 9 ® •
P ,10`. Dark gray fine to coarse sandy clay, 34.9W
trace gravel - stiff - moist - (CL)
2 13'
Dark gray clayey fine to medium sand
6SS trace gravel; seams fine sandy silt- 8
; h1 loose - wet - (SC; seams ML)
End of Boring at 15 feet
Solid Stem Auger used full depth
Temporary open-well piezometer
illinstalled to 13.5 feet depth
III
ill
II
ill
ill
■ WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 5-6-87
wt_ Q 12.5 feet while drilling GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COMPLETED 5-6-87
Al WL i 5 208 Career Cede•Egg RIG R-24 DRILLER TNT-i
meet aver drilling_ M..a55441
■ W L 11 3.0 feet May 8, 1987 {6121559-1859 DRAWN WDP APPROVED WCK
JOB* 1263 _SHEET 4 of 5
AM The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries
between soil types: insitu the transition may be gradual
•
A II
3 GME Consultants, Inc. II
GME Project No. 1263
TABLE NO. 1 I
GROUNDWATER DATA
llGroundwater in Groundwater in 1
Borehole on 5-6-87 Piezometer on 5-8-87
Ground I
Surface
Boring Elevation Depth Elevation Depth Elevation
Number Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet I
1 97.4 NE NE - -
2
3 90 . 9 7. 5 83 . 4 3 .2 87.7
92 .6 4. 2 88. 4 - - II
4 95.0 5. 0 90. 0 3. 0 92. 0
11 5 92.7 8 . 0 84.7 - -
II
NOTES: Elevations referenced to the front door step at the
first floor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, assumed
11 datum, elevation 100 .0 feet. 1
"NE" indicates groundwater not encountered.
11 Temporary open-well piezometers installed in borings I
2 and 4 only.
:1 1
1
11 1
11 II
1
II
II
A
II
r
I UNIFIED SOIL C(LASS2FICATION SYSTEM
D 4871 i
ii Group Typical manes Laboratory dartfkation attack
[ _MSOI divisions aGrou M
7 ' ION,
Well-graded grovels,gravel-send NO greater than 4;Cc` batwaan t and 3
GW mixtures,little or no fins + Din
Dt 0X050
� s g
" • Poorly graded gravels, g►�►- Not meeting all gradation requirements far GW
IN _i GP pod mixtures,little d no tines N t5
t of
- Z c d Silty gravels, gra e-send-sift H Attleboro limits below"A"
ik , c t lints or P.I.less than 4
r c GM mixtures g ti„ Above "A" line with P.I.
2 £ u a d t7 i t E beam 4 and 7 are
•
. 2 3 o bor-
derline cases requiring use
- Y GC caayey ravels,gravel-asnd-day g"g Atterberg limits above"A•• of dual symbols
IR Z _ t line with P.I.greater than 7
mixtures / 1 f0&2
.10 i• s Well�reded sands,orwaily = . : . Cu—greater then 8;C� between 1 and 3
si fi .5 sands,HttM or no fines i . . ; Dto Dto�ao• � 32
f 1 i -a I c a '
In ,
i .
! f • SP Poorly Ord , family " • • : Not mooting all gradation requirement-for SW
' • i sands,finis d no fines b
d Atterbaro limits below"AIt
t 2 ' SM Silty r+nds, sand silt mixtures a _E e_v line or P.I.lee than 4 Limits plotting In hatched
1 l S ' _ `- u k c• c g zone with P.I. between 4
y' c _• g . and 7 are borderline uses
�t F'Z
S ; i i = requiring use of dual Wm
-
tuns: z ? € ffi Atterberp limits above••A•, bola.
v Y o tUrir sands. sand clay mix- ti x J lute with P.I.greater than 7
ir i ,� s SC tuna r .'
OO $
• -° f norpan,c silts and vary fine
I sends rock flour,silty or clay-
-;-, ML
;., ter floe sands or clayey silts (10
Y w+ t*alight plasticity -
F _ ,
i - For deasifiation of ttr»9rained e
Inorganic days of low to me `—soils and fine fraction of comae-
t 1
e CL me-
dium plasticity,gravelly days. 50_grained soils.
sandy clays, silty clays, Isere --Atterberg Limits plotting in---- —r_
days —hatched area are borderline closet-
__ a:e=
in I ,
1 � e t } Nmbols. requiring use of dual //
i o� { Organic sitter and organic silty >< _Equation of A line:- e
drys of low plasticity PI-0.73 ILL 20) All'
--_
IF ! 4 ..—__*___J
Iq J Inorganic silts, rnicac•ous M MIN - - AMINE
• r ? y Ws 1 dutorvcswn fine sandy a 1 OH a .
go AP
I ! �!rr soils *ionic aim d -
y 20
Z l It - �
+ ; 1 ngrgar+eC does of high plea --
j t,<;tY,to days 10 �■
IF 1 ,
it . ir.....■-•
` OM ' O',1srn,c aloes or medium to i---'-'_�
$ 1 trge veaat.ah.organic sins % 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
iiii 1 :--- t Liquid Limit
I,
s het and Oth r highly organic /teatieky Chart
L
z a aoas
wrmne■ol
f
h __ ________________________________
I
0 °sa`- iIfll $spa= s H !H ii
.... 'i _ �_r
Ih '' ' "f i 2; 4127`:=S 1-0=r i'''" "'t1::::. 22.t.+6t alqi:.
• • C °Lo
4 .. .. _ is-o w . .._«L .e._ ,..,„, ., ..,..„, ..„„:„,
I
tl1 ':1 '- . ''' l'I- Iiii ' '':;... fl 12:"7":-:=. :.-2 :!iil.' cii,.gtt
Et !IEi 9 •••
II
— 5 coi E
I
YCY YO< Y.Yyu!. ..Li • ::i•_= = _.T _ •o °,° _. .: cur: 1
i` 14;i;• ! •c c
3
I
3 1
1, 1
•
1
Ill , . . .
+ 4; - a :i. "Y::. :�I��a� "�Ya
I
ic -- f':. el-I 3: — ib`iSS '✓ ° iu : ii 7,16,: .- -. ., -. i Iii:SI
2� Sq°
a .:1 :1 : i c `.02` •2 ;I if..: co3•S _-sC
•
1.':1:17.• , . c_e$'° `oi�1'oi is :o: « E •:°to` ,=.7: .;
? ; 11.7.2,-.4-;."
« ✓«L
.. S ::::1:::: - .. Iesa z e IH:HE ;l a ":Yg:8° ;:aotz<>s
gi , I
I
MK