CAS-07_BURROUGHS VARIANCE - 10036 TRAILS END ROADSOUTHVIEW
v DESIGNr
1..d.mpe .onto. tn.
Josh Koller
lends. p. D.ngnn
1875 East 50th Street
Inver Grove Height.
Minnesota 55077
651.203.3028
651-455.1734
651.248.3961
jknnerv,.thvlaw6e.ign.eom
• Outdoor Living
• Commercial &
Residential
• Professional
Planning
• Greenscapes
• Waterscapes
• Irrigation
• Hardscapes
• Concrete Pavers
• Custom Services
awm.south vie wdesign. co m
The contents of this file
have been scanned.
Do not add anything to
it unless it has been
scanned.
C]
CITY OF
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax: 952.227-1110
Building Inspections
Phone:952.227.1180
Fax: 952.227.1190
Engineering
Phone: 952.227.1160
Fax: 952.227.1170
Finance
Phone:952.227-1140
Fax: 952.227.1110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952.227.1120
Fax: 952.227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952,227.1400
Fax:952.227.1404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone:952.227.1130
Fax: 952.227.1110
Public Works
7901 Park Place
Phone:952.227.1300
Fax:952.2271310
Senior Center
Phone:952.227.1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
Web Site
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
September 14, 2011
Josh Koller
Southview Design
1875 East 50`h Street
Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077
Re: Variance Request —10036 Trails End Rd
Planning Case #2011-07
Dear Mr. Koller:
This letter is to formally notify you that on September 12, 2011, the Chanhassen City
Council denied Planning Case #2011-07 for a 4.3% variance (681 square feet) from
the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation for the construction of a sport
court on Lot 15, Block 4, Settlers West.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-227-1132 or by email at
akairiesAci.chanhassen.mn.us.
Sincerely,
Angie Kairies
Planner I
c: Philip and Stacey Burroughs
ec: Jerry Mohn, Building Official
Building Permit File —10036 Trails End Rd
GAPLAM201I Plmining Ca XI1-07 Burmughs Variance-10036 Trails End RoadlLetter ofDenial.doc
Chanhassen is a Community for Lite - Providing for Todayand Planning for Tomorrow
SCANNED
r
•
• Il-07
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
IN RE:
Application of Josh Koller of Southview Design on behalf of Philip and Stacey Burroughs for a
4.3% variance (681 square feet) from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation for the
construction of a sport court on property zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF) — Planning Case
#2011-07.
On July 19, 2011, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and
mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
3. The legal description of the property is Lot 15, Block 4, Settlers West.
4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the
granting of a variance:
a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
Finding: The request to exceed the hard surface coverage in the RSF district on a lot that
exceeds the minimum lot requirements for the construction of a sport court is not in
harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter. Significant efforts were
made during the development of Settlers West to protect the bluff areas by controlling the
rate and volume of runoff and maintaining existing drainage conditions. Sensitive areas
were put into protective outlots and discharge points from the storm sewer conveyance
system were designed and constructed with extraordinary stabilization and energy
dissipation methods. As this area ultimately drains to the bluffs along the Hennepin
County Regional Rails to Trails System, any potential increase in runoff rate or volume
could potentially result in erosion along the bluff.
SCANNED
b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical
difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the
property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this
Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct
sunlight for solar energy systems.
Finding: Currently, the property owners have reasonable use of a property within the
RSF district as a single-family home with a three -car garage, as well as an outdoor
patio/seating area already constructed on the property. While the purpose of the proposed
sport court is for residential use, it is not a practical difficulty to exceed the 25%
maximum hard surface coverage limitation.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The purpose of the variance is not based on economic considerations. The
applicant is requesting a variance to exceed the 25% hard surface coverage limitation in
the RSF district for the construction of an outdoor sport court for personal use.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The request is not based on a unique circumstance; the subject site exceeds the
minimum lot requirements within the RSF district. The building permit for the proposed
home, garage, driveway, front sidewalk, and a 180 square -foot patio on the property was
approved on June 6, 2006. The building permit reflected a hard surface coverage of
24.7% or 3,922 square feet. The maximum impervious surface in the RSF district is 25%
or 3,964 square feet. The applicant has reasonable use of the property.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: While the addition of a sport court will not alter the essential character of the
locality; exceeding the hard surface coverage and any increase in runoff rate or volume
could potentially result in erosion along the bluff.
f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota
Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter.
Finding: This does not apply to this request.
5. The planning report #2011-07, dated July 19, 2011, prepared by Angie Kairies, et al, is
incorporated herein.
PA
0
The Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies Planning Case 2011-07 for a 4.3% variance
from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation for the construction of a sport court on
property zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF).
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments this 19a' day of July,
2011.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Chairman
g:\plan\forms\findings of fact and decision - variance.doc
Chanhassen City Council — S• tuber 12, 2011 •
BURROUGHS VARIANCE: REOUEST FOR VARIANCE TO BUR D A SPORT COURT; 10036
TRAILS END ROAD. STACEY & PHIL BURROUGHS. APPLICANT: JOSH KOLLER,
SOUTHVIIW DESIGN.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. As you indicated the subject property
is at 10036 Trails End Road. This property is located in the southeast portion of the city and the request
is for the hard cover. The applicant's requesting a 4.3% variance from the hard cover, which is a 25%
maximum. This item was heard at the Planning Commission back in July 19th and the Planning
Commission recommended to deny the variance request 6-0. 1 think there was a little bit of confusion
during the Planning Commission hearing on the applicant's part in the fact that they were trying to
convey that their material for the Sport Court did not meet the hard surface requirements. It was staffs
opinion that we made the interpretation that that did not qualify for the hard surface and the applicant
didn't appeal that so really what we're here tonight to talk about is whether or not the, because he's
appealed it, whether or not you concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation for the hard
surface coverage, which I'll go through here. So the Settler's West subdivision, the bluffs are shown in
the red on the perimeter of the property. It has a seasonally high water table. There's tree preservations
in the area. Clay soils. The reverse swales in the rear of the yard. If you remember this is kind of on that
point of the bluff so it drops off. It's very steep. Highly erodible so there's swales along the perimeter
there and there's stormwater piping in their rear yards and stormwater runoff in this area actually is,
there's a tributary to the Minnesota River which is an impaired water. So the site itself, here you can see
the table regarding the hard surface coverage so it's maxed out on the zoning permit right at the 25% as it
sits today. So the applicant would like to put the Sport Court in on the rear of the property and that's
where it goes over the hard surface coverage. So then we were looking at it because it's an application
for a variance for the hard surface coverage, does it meet the practical difficulties and that sort of thing so
it was our determination, the staffs determination and the Planning Commission's concurrence on that,
that because the applicant had reasonable use of the property, that they felt that there wasn't a practical
difficulty or hardship involved so that's what they recommended. So with that the City Council, would
recommend that you also deny the hard surface coverage to support the Sport Court so with that I'd be
happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff.
Councilman McDonald: Yeah I've got a question. 1 just need some clarification. If you go back to that
chart before, okay the 25%, is that the current hard surface coverage and then it would go up to 29?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. This is at 25% and then this would go, correct. It would take it up, yep.
Councilman McDonald: Okay. Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff?
Councilman Laufenburger: A couple questions.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Laufenburger.
Councilman Laufenburger: The building permit square footage allowed 3922 square feet and the final
building was 3964 so first of all why the change there, do you know?
Kate Aanenson: 1 believe that they moved some of the, or added the proposed stones or some stepping
stones going down to the.
14
SCANNED
Chanhassen City Council —September 12, 2011 •
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. But as far as we're concerned they still, what they have in place right
now still complies with the 25%.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Councilman Laufenburger. Okay. Alright, so they're not asking for a variance to live with what they
have right now?
Kate Aanenson: No, that's correct.
Councilman Laufenburger. Okay. Alright. What was the basis of the difference of opinion? I
understand the Planning Commission said the Sport Court is not a pervious surface, or it is hard cover.
Kate Aanenson: It is hard cover, right.
Councilman Laufenburger: And the applicant and the designer said it's not.
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Councilman Laufenburger: Where's the difference?
Kate Aanenson: Well I guess this is where, the application was for relief from the practical difficulties of
the ordinance. It wasn't to interpret whether or not the surface that they were applying was hard cover
because if we're going to make that interpretation, you're appealing an administrative decision and then
an ordinance and that would be broad interpretation city wide on what would be considered hard cover. I
think we've had a lot of discussion on where we want to move with that. We didn't think it was
appropriate in this one application to take a look at that and make a broad brush application. So the
applicant filled out a form to ask for relief for hard cover for the practical difficulty.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. So this is not a decision about whether or not it's impervious or
pervious, it's about practical difficulty?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Councilman Laufenburger. Okay
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: No, that was my question.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And Ms. Aanenson, the term practical difficulty. This might be one of the first
variances, maybe the second that's come forward since the law has changed, or maybe Mr. Knutson.
What is a practical difficulty? What would constitute a practical difficulty? Mr. Knutson.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, practical difficulty means the applicant proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner and that it's consistent with the spirit and intent of your ordinance and it's consistent
with your comprehensive plan. That's basically it. He proposes to use it in a reasonable manner that
won't be injurious. You have to determine whether his proposal is to use the property in a reasonable
manner. 1 think the Planning Commission and staff has concluded it was not because you have real need
for that limitation on impervious coverage because otherwise you'll have drainage issues and that will
cause problems for not only this property but potentially other properties.
15
Chanhassen City Council — S• mber 12, 2011 •
Mayor Furlong: And did you say that the proposed use is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance and
the land use...
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And if it is not, then we would determine that there are not practical difficulties.
Roger Knutson: Right. That's one of the sub -categories. In determining whether the practical
difficulties, those are all things you look at to determine whether there's a variance. The most key one,
the easiest one to think about is, kind of sums it up is, does the applicant propose to use the property in a
reasonable manner. Do you think it's reasonable? Now you start out by saying your ordinance has a
standard in it and so why should he be, the applicant be allowed to deviate from the standard because the
standard in your ordinance determines at first blush what is reasonable use. But all property is not the
same and there has to be something unique about this property, among other things. What are the unique
circumstances about this property that justify this variance? If it's like all the other properties, there's
nothing unique about it in topography or other ways then they don't qualify.
Kate Aanenson: If I may, and it's kind of summed up on page 2 of the staff report. So the staff cited that
the site is currently, it's currently being used in a reasonable manner and that it contains a single family
home and a 3 car garage and that the request to add the 25% coverage of a construction port did not
constitute kind of that practical difficulty. They've got a reasonable use of the property and the Planning
Commission too discussed whether or not you could put a basketball hoop on the driveway so that's kind
of where the discussion.
Roger Knutson: Just to be perfectly clear, the key difference between, if we can be on this subject, the
key difference between the old standard. Let me back up. That standard lasted a year so the
Krummenacher standard, the Supreme Court, the way the Supreme Court interpreted Krummenacher, the
only way you were entitled to a variance is if without the variance you had no reasonable use of your
property. The new legislative standard takes that out. It's just fine that you already have reasonable use
of your property. They don't look at what you already have. They look at what you want and is what you
want a reasonable use of the property and then you have the other factors, you know unique
circumstances, it's consistent with the spirit and intent of the ordinance and it's consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman.
Councilman Laufenburger. In fact the issue of practical difficulty would not be before us if the applicant
presented a design for something that did not add hard surface.
Kate Aanenson: Well but then I guess the staffs position on that is that you're asking us to make an
interpretation then when we haven't got a consistent rule on what would be impervious surface. So now
we're taking it at an ad hoc basis on every application to look at those differently where we have a
requirement that says 25%. So if we're going to move away from that percentage, then I think that needs
to be a different discussion on making that interpretation on a case by case basis.
Mayor Furlong: Okay and I guess, I'm sorry go ahead.
Councilman McDonald: Well let me ask a question because I'm a little confused by all this. I probably
shouldn't be but I am. Okay the old standard was reasonable use of the property which means if I can put
V
Chanhassen City Council — September 12, 2011 •
a house on there, that's reasonable use. Anything else is you know just added on. Now you're saying
what would be, is it normal use? Acceptable normal use so?
Roger Knutson: No.
Councilman McDonald: Okay.
Roger Knutson: Reasonable use.
Councilman McDonald: Reasonable use.
Roger Knutson: For example, we wouldn't have any issue with this if they had a smaller home for
example or no driveway or whatever and they wanted to put in a sports court in their back yard, go for it
you know. It's a reasonable thing to do but you have to look in the context here is, under the
circumstances of this application is what they're proposing reasonable. Is this a reasonable use of the
property? And in considering that you have to start with the fact that you have an ordinance requirement
that sets the standard and so why are, why do they want to deviate, what justification is there for deviating
from your standard?
Councilman McDonald: Okay.
Roger Knutson: Is there something unique? You know often times you get into strangely shaped lots for
example or topography issues or things like that, or bad soils that create some need and that wasn't
anticipated in your zoning ordinance and you can't anticipate everything.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, so the 25% hard cover variance is what we're really kind of bumping up
against and that's what we need to judge against if that's worth issuing a variance because they wouldn't
have reasonable use of the property?
Roger Knutson: What they propose is, you have to determine whether or what they're proposing is a
reasonable use.
Councilman McDonald: Okay so, let's say we agree yeah. A basketball court in a residential property
would probably be a reasonable use. Now, to do that though they've got to go up against the 25%
number and they're going to exceed that. Now I have to judge it against the hard cover variance, is that
reasonable for the hard cover variance? That's where I'm getting confused because the first part.
Roger Knutson: You have to, is the proposal reasonable under the circumstances of this application. For
example if, I'll make something up. I'm pretty good at making things up. You know let's say this soil
was incredibly permeable. This is unique soil that you don't see many places and when the water drops
on this soil it goes, (swoosh) into the ground. That would say well, you know they don't, the 25% rule
really isn't needed here because they have so much permeability because of their soil types. That would
be an example, or the reason they need it is because of an odd shaped lot or the reason they need it is,
whatever is unique to it and there's some setting off, we don't think it will cause any drainage problems
because you can't, you wouldn't issue a variance if you knew someone was going to be or someone else's
property was going to be inundated with water as a result so you have to look at that and say what are,
what are the real negative consequences of this that it's going to be injurious to other property, then you
wouldn't want to say yes.
Councilman McDonald: Okay. Okay then I've got a question for Kate then because I think what I heard
you say was that we didn't look at this upon this as an individual basis. What we're applying is the 25%
17
Chanhassen City Council — S•ember 12, 2011 •
hard cover ordinance. We're not looking to see if the soils would mitigate that or if there's something
else. That's not part of.
Kate Aanenson: Yes it was part of it.
Councilman McDonald: It was, okay.
Kate Aanenson: What I said is what we didn't look at was, does the material that they're using for this
specific court, is that material designed to be pervious. We're not going to make that interpretation at a
Planning Commission meeting. That takes a lot of science and some information. While they tried to
present it to the Planning Commission, we didn't have enough data to support that. The application
request was for a hard cover variance. So you go back and say, and I'll go back to what we said in here,
we believe the home is a reasonable home for that lot at 25% with a 3 car garage, a patio out the back. It
has a reasonable use. But the other mitigating factors that we put into place was that it's on a sensitive
area for development. Has clay soils. Could cause additional runoff. The sensitivity, we've talked about
the swales in the back so we looked, got the soil types and all that sort of thing so we said adding
additional would bump up against that and we believe that those are the reasons in the Findings of Fact
that we would say we would not support additional hard cover.
Councilman McDonald: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: The property has reasonable use of the property.
Councilwoman Ernst: So have they actually proposed using permeable surfaces or not?
Kate Aanenson: Right, that's what they say that they have. But I'm saying we're not qualified at a
Planning Commission meeting to make that interpretation. Because once you've approved that, then it's
going to go city wide and I think it takes a much greater study on that then just making that interpretation.
Councilwoman Ernst: Well this is something that comes up quite frequently and now that we have a
different law, maybe it's something we need to go back and revisit again because it does change what
we've talked about in the past.
Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure that that does. I think there's two separate.
Todd Gerhardt: Only if it's granted.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Councilwoman Ernst: It's what?
Todd Gerhardt: Only if you grant it on the basis that it is permeable.
Councilwoman Ernst: Right.
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Councilwoman Ernst: But we talk about reasonable, using it in a reasonable manner today, and I forget
what the term was before. Not difficulty but.
Todd Gerhardt: Hardship.
18
Chanhassen City Council — September 12, 2011
Councilwoman Ernst: Hardship. So they are two different things
Roger Knutson: As it stands before you tonight they have, the applicant has asked for a variance from the
hard surface coverage. So that is what's before you. That assumes that it's impermeable because he's
applied from a variance from that. He could have also, or in lieu of could have appealed the decision and
the interpretation of the planning staff through the process as well but that was not done.
Councilwoman Ernst: Does he have any proof that it's permeable.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yeah, he's submitted lots of documentation but I'm saying we're not, we've not,
we weren't qualified or the application didn't include that to say we're going to make that, nor did the
Planning Commission want to address that because that wasn't the application to say there's a hard
surface issue. Otherwise he'd have to make an appeal on the interpretation of what constitutes a pervious
material. Then we're going to have a much deeper discussion on what constitutes that city wide.
Councilman McDonald: Right, it gets into a policy issue and.
Kate Aanenson: Exactly.
Councilman McDonald: Really what should have happened is stand alone. Is this something that we
could use to mitigate hard surface and then we would look into it and make that determination. What's
the percentage that we maybe could knock off but tonight we can't, we don't have the scientific I guess
evidence as part of this. All we can look at is the hard cover because we didn't look at anything else.
Kate Aanenson: Let me back up. They tried to present that at the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission didn't feel like it met, it was outside of their realm. Didn't have enough supporting. The
report is in your packet.
Councilman McDonald: Right.
Kate Aanenson: That didn't.
Councilman McDonald: Well that's fine. You can submit it but I mean we can't evaluate it because the
thing that we would look at is, okay what does this mean? We would turn it back to you and say you
know get us some answers here. What's the percentage? You know if we say 25% and you use this and
you go up to 30%, is that the same as 25 or is it the same as 26? You know we would want those kind of
answers and it's not in the packet so.
Mayor Furlong: Ms. Aanenson, quick question. With regard to our current ordinances with regard to the
25% limit, standard for impervious surface coverage, does our ordinance provide any relief based upon
permeable materials being used?
Kate Aanenson: No it does not.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: And I just want to point out too for the record, the Water Resources Coordinator was at
that meeting and.
Mayor Furlong: Was at which meeting?
19
Chanhassen City Council —September 12, 2011 •
Kate Aanenson: The Planning Commission meeting.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry.
Mayor Furlong: That's fine.
Kate Aanenson: And didn't agree with the science at that time so, the material that was presented in the
study so.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? If not, what I'd like to do
is invite the applicant to come forward and address the council.
Josh Koller: Thank you Mr. Mayor, City Council members. That was probably as good of discussion
over permeable surface as I've had in the industry over the last 15 years so you guys are ahead of the
curve on that. I've been working with Angela and Terry quite a bit on this project, back and forth and a
couple things that you guys brought up on this versus you know what we're trying to do. There wasn't
really from the beginning, and Angela's the one that's really helped me out who's been fantastic by the
way to work with. There wasn't a lot of options for us. We initially said we wanted to present this as a
permeable application and she said that was kind of the only way of us going about it to present it because
they can't make a decision, the city members make a decision to say this is permeable or this is not
considered permeable so we really didn't have a whole lot of options there. When discussing with,
discussing everything with Angela and Terry, I met with them in the office, again had some really good
conversations. Terry had said if you know try and present some information to us that it's going to make
this specific site more permeable than versus just doing it you know everywhere or whatever and so we
talked about a few things and we submitted some more information. There's basically two arguments
here. We can argue, which of course I would like to til I'm blue in the face, that this is a permeable
option. I know that's not what we're here to do. We're here to discuss that we're trying to get this
approved even though we've going over the hard cover. Terry's exact. I mean if you, I don't know look
at the tapes or have the conversation with him that him and I have had, he believes that this is permeable.
What he doesn't believe is that it will help go into the soils better. I mean it's just a plastic grid that goes
on sand so it'll definitely go through that but you know it was as far as showing that it's going to go
through the soils better. That was the thing that we discussed and like I said, he's been great to work
with. I haven't, he's presented a lot of great points and we've kind of gone from there. If we're just
going to move towards the argument, which it sounds like I don't have a choice. We tried to present
some, we wanted to go again and just show that this is permeable but the engineering that was needed and
the cost that was needed to bring an engineer just to that one site to show this one material for that
specific site was very expensive and the homeowners wasn't going to do that as an individual. I am going
to be having meetings with Terry over the winter and I know a couple of other landscape firms because
Chanhassen's very difficult as far as going over the hard cover, and we understand why but you know
trying to get permeable pavers and different sorts of things, they don't see those type of things as
permeable, or the City of Chanhassen doesn't see that. We understand it. But this was the route we were
directed to go and told to go based on everything that I presented to you guys right now. With this
specific site I guess you know to exceed the hard cover based on putting in the Sport Court, there's a few
things to look at if you're out on sites. If you see, and it's really small on that plan. I don't know if you
can zoom in at all but the existing elevations to the proposed elevations, if you go out on this site, it goes
down the hill. There's an easement for, you know for drainage that goes through the property. It's very
soggy. The grade isn't very good. What we're trying to do is with the Sport Court adjust grade
accordingly. Make it a little flatter. Put some sea walls in. You can see on the other side underneath the
20
Chanhassen City Council — September 12, 2011
deck there's a little patio space with some permeable pavers and things like that that are even exceeding,
that are going to hit the hard cover. We're right on. The Sport Court's the only thing that's going over.
Right now this yard's not very usable for the two children that they have. The driveway's very steep in
the front so putting a basketball court on there doesn't make any sense for them because the basketballs
are going into the street. In the back right now the grade drops putting good so it's a little soggy. We're
just trying to create a play area for the children. They've got 2 kids. Like to play sports along with their
parents. That's why we're looking at the basketball court in this to exceed the hard cover. Again we're
claiming that it's not but at the same time this was our options that we had so that's what we're trying to
do with this. With this project. You know I guess that's kind of where we're at with it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Koller?
Councilwoman Tjomhom: I have one actually for Kate, and you know you can listen too. Yeah, don't
leave. Has this been a common problem in this development?
Kate Aanenson: Well there's been a few up there that, they're pretty large houses for, if you look at the
square footage, the lot size on there is slightly over 15,000 which is a standard lot and I would say they're
pretty large homes on that so the home maximizes quite a bit. Then you add on some amenities for their
Sport Court or some other patio areas they can be up there.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And when I look at this it's really hard for me to see the driveway being
extremely steep or anything else going on.
Kate Aanenson: We didn't think it was that steep but, that's the staff's opinion that it wasn't that steep
but.
Josh Koller: ...he says he doesn't want his kids running, I mean it's steep enough that if you're playing
basketball a ball's going to go in the street quite a bit and he just doesn't want his kids running out in the
street.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Todd Gerhardt: We'll have maybe 2 or 3 of these a year.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: In this development?
Todd Gerhardt: Not just this development. Throughout town.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: Throughout town, right.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: But sometimes there are those developments where there is just some quirky
planning, not quirky planning. Some planning going on where a larger home has been built on the
property and so now we do bump into these hard surface coverage issues.
Kate Aanenson: I would think in this neighborhood they're executive homes with 3 car garages and.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: Okay.
21
Chanhassen City Council A tember 12, 201 I •
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah and this lot Mayor, council is just barely above our minimum lot size too and with
about 15.8 so, lot size plays a factor and how large a home and patio you add to it and driveway.
Josh Koller: Yeah, my homeowners bought this house. It was a spec home, or a model house that they
bought and you know with the intention of doing things in the back yard. I mean they didn't even know
they had an easement you know which is their, should have looked into that I guess a little bit but you
know with the intention of doing a patio and things like that in the back yard and you know now they're
running up against it and you know the, the problem is eventually, personally in my opinion and
obviously being in the industry that I'm in, I mean you're going to get to a point where there isn't a whole
lot of lots I mean in whether it's Chanhassen or Eagan or Minnetonka or Edina, whatever you move to
and you know if you want to live in that specific town, I mean one you have to go and buy a ginormous
lot but you don't have the funds to do it or you buy you know what you can find and then want to do
some things. I understand definitely the runoff, that's an issue in Minnesota and Minnesota's starting to
take a harder stance on it and I get that. I think we need to. On this particular lot with the grading that we
would be doing and with the fact that the Sport Court does allow water to penetrate, the problem is the
holes, and like Terry mentioned at the last meeting, this whole lot is completely clay. I mean that's the
soils are, they don't penetrate the soil. The water doesn't penetrate the soil at all so it's very difficult to
do that. In fact flattening the lot a little bit more like we're doing is going to actually, in my opinion
would help that. I mean if you have a steep lot obviously with the harder soil for water to go down, it's
going to run off faster. If you have it flat and it's able to sit there a little bit longer, water will generally
percolate into the water table. I mean that's a goal which is actually in a sense what we're doing. Then
like I said Terry, the engineer for the water piece, he did agree that the water will go through the Sport
Court material. His concern was once it goes through there and into the sand bed, how's it going to
penetrate the clay and so regardless if it's grass or if it's you know this material, how's it going to
penetrate the clay if we don't, there's not a lot of options there. I mean it's not going to unless you do a
lot of soil you know amendments but with this like I said, we're just, my homeowner's really adamant.
He wants to make sure his kids have a place to play and wants to have all the neighborhood kids at his
house instead of you know his kids going somewhere else.
Mayor Furlong: What is the topography across this lot? Is it really steep or?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Josh Koller: The elevation.
Todd Gerhardt: It slopes down to the trail.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Todd Gerhardt: The LRT trail's in the back yard.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I'm just looking at the GIS site at the County and it looks like it's, and I hate to
throw numbers out, that's why I'm asking. What do you know in terms of the topography from the front
to the back of the lot?
Kate Aanenson: It does slope. It has a slope to it but it's not you know, yeah.
Josh Koller: They have a swale, if 1 can answer that. There's a swale in the middle of the yard where the
drainage is supposed to go. Obviously for the neighbor to the left's supposed to go through and there's
just a.
22
11
Chanhassen City Council —September 12, 2011
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And there's a pond to the north.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: So it runs through this lot to the north up to the pond.
Kate Aanenson: Yep.
Josh Koller: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: But everything up there's on the bluff and it, the greatest slope is on the edge.
Mayor Furlong: And then to the west is where it falls off down to the regional trail.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilwoman Ernst: I have a question Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: Did you say that you were using pervious pavers in addition to this pervious grid?
Josh Koller: I should have backed up a little bit on that. We're using a standard paver patio underneath
the deck area. The City of Chanhassen obviously a deck they don't count as permeable so underneath we
were doing a small paver area. Actually we cut out some of their existing pavers because they didn't go
to plan and they did exceed the 25% actually once we found out. When I had measured it. But then on
the side of it we were doing some, we made the patio a little smaller and then we were doing some large
stepping stone pieces in a rock bed with fabric underneath it which was not considered hardscape and that
will allow water to penetrate through it and just have a few steppers so that you just basically the same
thing as if you put it in grass. If you put some stepping stones in grass, you know you have to count the
square footage of the stepping stone itself but not the, you know the pieces inbetween it and so in a sense
again this is the same type of thing. We're just putting a plastic grid on top of sand which you know,
again I could argue that point all day.
Councilwoman Ernst: But they're not really what you would called certified pervious pavers?
Josh Koller: No. I would have loved to have done that on this project but again Chanhassen doesn't
agree with permeable pavers because their thought, or the thought process, and I went over this with
Terry quite a bit, is that over time if you don't maintain them, they clog up. Again ICPI certification
shows that that's not the case. A lot of towns do approve permeable pavers but Chanhassen does not.
Councilwoman Ernst: 1 like the idea where you're talking about you and some of the other developers
coming in and talking to staff and I think council could learn some things as well from permeable surfaces
because we've had many discussions about you know we're running out of land and what are we going to
do is property owners want to improve their property you know or even new residents coming into town,
how do we manage that so I like that idea.
23
Chanhassen City Council—•tember 12, 2011 •
Josh Koller: And like Terry's been great. I mean he has a lot of, he's hesitant. I think his concern is you
know without him being here is just that if you approve one thing then you know it's going to, you know
everyone's going to want to do it and I can definitely understand that.
Kate Aanenson: Well I think the issue there is we didn't have the science or the technology to back up
that application so we stayed back to what the application was, was for a variance and whether or not
there was reasonable you know, I'm not going to use any word. Whether or not there was a reasonable
manner of the property and that was the interpretation the Planning Commission felt like there was a
porch off the back. A patio off the back and a 3 car garage.
Mayor Furlong: I guess what I'm hearing Mr. Koller mention and I think it calls up on my question,
currently if they came forward with an application that said these are pervious material our current
ordinance doesn't provide an exception for pervious materials.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: With regard to the 25% hard surface coverage.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Josh Koller: This is what we were told to do. We presented this and they said well, we don't know
enough about it. I was told that this specific material, this new application which was just installed in a
town right, you know in Eden Prairie actually, I was told we didn't know enough about it so we're going
to consider it hard cover. We don't have a choice and then I was told to present it the way that we did and
so that's kind of what happened there. We presented all the engineered documents that show that it
penetrates through the grid material. We eliminated the base, which was going to be a Class V base
underneath there and just had it sand and then to the soil so it's just a grid on sand. We eliminated that to
show that you know the engineered drawing showed that it penetrates better than just what the existing
soil would do but again that's, it was a different meeting you know and we don't have, I couldn't sit down
and Terry said I'd love to just say yeah, if this is it we'll approve it but we just, I can't do that so this is
the approach we took.
Mayor Furlong: But I think there was also information in the staff report that if you have, you have
different layers obviously. You have the surface and then you have the sand underneath and such, that
were was concern expressed in the staff report that the underneath the surface was the compaction
required.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Josh Koller: Which is what we eliminated though. That's what we had said we were doing any of that.
We were just going to do the sand. We were going to eliminate all the sub -base so that water could
penetrate that.
Councilwoman Ernst: And that was the Class V that you were referring to.
Josh Koller: That's the same, we weren't doing any of the Class V or anything and that's the same issue
with permeable pavers. I mean you have to have, when you're doing a basketball court application,
you're talking the weight of people running around on it. You know movement of that isn't going to be
such a big deal. Personally 1 don't know that if I would put just a grid on sand in my own property. 1
would be a little concerned that it's going to be dull you know but it does tend to, you know it does work
on an application for like permeable pavers for a driveway for instance, you have a lot of surcharge with
24
Chanhassen City Council — September 12, 2011
cars and everything else so I mean you have to have a base under there and that's water penetrates the
permeable part of the paver but it doesn't penetrate the basing as much. That's what we were eliminating
on this and trying to get across that this will penetrate faster than sod will but.
Todd Gerhardt: How much sand base were you thinking?
Josh Koller: We were going to go with 8 inches of sand. All we were going to do is, same thing. We do
a lot of French drain systems in people's yards. We do a lot of grading projects let's say in Minneapolis
where it's a flat lot so the same application applies. You put in you know your perforated drain tile with a
sock wrapped in either rock or sand so that water as it goes through that will slowly be able to penetrate
into the existing soil, and then at the end of that you dig like a sump base filled with rock so that when
you get that 100 year flood, you know water can fill that sump base up and you know then go over but
then the water that fills that base can slowly, you know sit there a little bit and percolate down into the
water table. Same thing with a Sport Court. I mean we're just going to dig a square hole, fill it up with
sand. Put a grid on top of it. It will fill up with water as you know we get a heavy rain and slowly
penetrate down but it's not going to increase the, I mean it's not going to increase the, you know the
overall goal is to stop water from you know leaving the site. This isn't going to increase that. You know
we're not, again we're not putting in concrete but you know it's just, it depends on what this argument is.
If we're arguing whether or not this is permeable or if we're arguing that we're trying to exceed the 25%.
Kate Aanenson: Mayor, if I may. I think herein lies the problem. We're trying to engineer something
where we don't have the engineering and I think the Planning Commission felt reluctant because really
you need the engineering to back it up and there wasn't enough and as the applicant has stated, that they
didn't want to spend that much money just for the one case. Understood so it's kind of give a step back.
Go back and study it over the winter, if that's what the direction is, but I think everybody felt
uncomfortable saying well this is going to be the case and then what do you do when the next case comes
in when we really don't have, maybe it's not 100% impervious or there's some percentage and what that
range is and how that would apply in this specific case so we said we didn't have enough information.
The technology, the engineering behind it to make that decision so we had to go by what our ordinance
says. This is a non pervious so whether or not you feel like there was a practical or reasonable use of the
property is what we went before us.
Councilwoman Ernst: Just so 1 understand if Kate you're talking about doing more study on this over the
winter?
Kate Aanenson: No I'm not saying that. I'm saying I think it would have to be done outside of this
meeting but you don't have enough information and that's what the Planning Commission said too.
Engineering in front of us but they didn't want to spend that money for this specific application. The
recommendation from the Water Resources Coordinator said that he didn't have enough information,
enough engineering to make a favorable recommendation that this didn't court towards and was reluctant
to do that in this specific case.
Councilwoman Ernst: But we could in fact table this to see if there is enough information out there. Is
that something that they're willing to wait on?
Josh Koller: Yeah, I mean yes. I mean the homeowner definitely wants to do this basketball court in
their back yard. 1 mean we presented plenty of information as far as this material will allow water to
percolate into the water table. Again the concern was, once it gets to the existing soil is it, how's it going
to go through that existing soil. That's the concern that they've had. 1 mean the, you should have in your
packet all the engineering that we've sent in as far as this specific grid material allowing water to
percolate through it. That you should have in your packet. It's, the problem is, in my opinion it's just a
25
Chanhassen City Council — September 12, 2011
tricky situation. I mean how you go about it, you're going to have individuals continuously come up and
try and present we want to build this but we're at the hard cover and 25% is very tight compared to a lot
of the other cities. Again that's just the way it is here, which is great. I understand it but to spend
thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars for one individual to do that, it's going to be difficult.
How do you go about that? I mean and again common sense on this project shows that we're, if anything
if you really read the plan, we're stopping the water from just completely flowing off of it because of
grade. You know we're fixing the grade which is going to help it out but it's, I don't know. I just don't
know how to go about it. This is again how we were told to do it and how we were told to present our
information.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: So Mayor, council members. So when Terry explained the situation, the engineering
report was one where we couldn't interpret the information. Was that?
Kate Aanenson: No, there wasn't enough soils engineering in there.
Josh Koller: It was the soils for the specific site.
Kate Aanenson: It's the soils, there wasn't enough soil information for this site so.
Todd Gerhardt: Okay. So it was the, and the homeowner wasn't willing to do additional soil borings and
have an engineering report to give you.
Josh Koller: For that site, yeah.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Josh Koller: Yeah I mean, yes. I mean we can, we'll entertain that a little bit more and again that's
where Terry and I, and I've explained to my homeowner that Terry and I have talked about us sitting
down and looking at permeable options because he said somehow we have to come up with something for
pieces, you know because like you said, we're running out of lots. We're running out of size lots, I mean
how do we do it but.
Todd Gerhardt: So to the, for the mayor and council I think you're going to have to deny the application
based on the application but direct staff to continue to work with the homeowner, the applicant to research
this and look at potentially an ordinance modification as an alternative if the soil engineering report
comes back that says that it can percolate down with a 100 year rain event.
Josh Koller: Can I ask a question? Actually we, Southview Design, the company that I work for, we
presented a hard cover issue with the City of Chanhassen on a couple projects a few years back now for
retaining walls. I don't know if anyone was around for that but we applied, we showed that retaining
walls, yes they aren't, you can't have water penetrate the top of them but sometimes they're needed to fix
the grade you know so to allow water to sit on the lots, you know slow it down so water can percolate.
That was eventually approved and overturned so now the City of Chanhassen doesn't count retaining
walls. When I talked to the designer that did that, it was the same type of process that I'm going through
now so I guess I'm asking how, you know what more needs to be done? I mean do 1 need to spend a lot
of hours you know, I don't know.
Kate Aanenson: Can ]just talk about retaining walls for a second. We felt it was punitive when we
required a retaining wall to go in to make a lot as opposed to is a Sport Court necessary for a back yard.
26
Chanhassen City Council — September 12, 2011
Mayor Furlong: Well and it's my understanding that when, under our current ordinance when staff is
calculating impervious surface coverages, that they do not count the area, the area of the retaining wall
itself.
Kate Aanenson:
Right.
Mayor Furlong:
Is that correct?
Kate Aanenson:
And specifically because often retaining walls need to go in for those lots so it was
punitive.
Mayor Furlong:
And the effect is one, which she's describing here, retaining wall effectively terraces the
lot and therefore
slows the runoff rate from what it was originally.
Kate Aanenson:
Right.
Mayor Furlong:
Which is another factor to consider that.
Kate Aanenson:
Right. Right, right.
Josh Koller: And you could take that with every lot. I mean if you just have a standard 25% for every lot
but you have a house that sits up high and the lot drops off really fast, the runoff is going to be 3 times as
much as if you have
a house on a flat lot so the 25% thing is difficult.
Mayor Furlong:
But what I think I'm hearing here is that, is that that's a question of whether the
ordinance then is reasonable for the community at large.
Kate Aanenson:
Thank you, yes. Exactly.
Mayor Furlong:
As opposed to.
Kate Aanenson:
So you have to take that as an important factor too.
Mayor Furlong: Right. And I know, I don't know if this council has this year but previous councils that
I've been involved with has discussed this issue at length at various times with regard to how do we, you
know whether or not our current ordinance is reasonable and whether or not any relief from the
requirements because of permeable materials being incorporated, should be used or not and today with the
discussions I've been in, we have not made that change now. You know the discussion can always
continue but, and Ms. Aanenson is that?
Kate Aanenson: Right, and that's what the Planning Commission said. Yep, exactly. That that
discussion needs to be held at a policy level, and I think that's what Councilman McDonald said too. It
can come back and then decide if that's the new policy.
Mayor Furlong: Right. Okay.
Councilwoman Ernst: Excuse me, 1 agree with that but I think we need to do it because we've said that
several times and we don't have that discussion and we did have it as a part of our strategic plan. We did
talk about it. We didn't spend a lot of time on it but because this keeps coming up I think we need to
really put some focus on it.
27
Chanhassen City Council — September 12, 2011 •
Mayor Furlong: Well I think we've had multiple discussions over the years at work sessions and.
Councilwoman Ernst: Well in the 5 years I've been in we probably discussed it twice. We've had
variances come in. Well during my time I can remember that we've done it twice so.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: And I think it doesn't ever, I mean we do, we do make a list of our strategic
initiatives for the year and whatever gets ranked the highest is what we focus on and so you know if we
want to put it on again this year and if this council, the members would decide to rank them high enough
so where it would be a priority, then I think that it's doable to look at.
Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
Councilman Laufenburger: I think it's reasonable to expect that over time surfaces like Sport Court or
Volleybase or whatever, technology will be such that people will figure out how to make those so that
they are fully certifiable as pervious as grass. 1 fully expect that that will take place but at the present
time the council is asked to make a decision, are we prepared to allow this homeowner to put 4.3% more
hard surface coverage on their lot, which would be a variance from the ordinance. The discussion about
whether it's pervious or permeable or not, that's kind of, that doesn't matter to us right now.
Councilwoman Ernst: Well except it sometimes has to deal with the water runoff. I mean that's what
permeable's all about. Is minimizing water runoff.
Councilman Laufenburger: Well are you saying that we could solve this problem if Southview Design
would be willing to re -grade the property and make it fully level? That would reduce the runoff.
Mayor Furlong: I mean that would also be.
Councilman Laufenburger: That would what?
Josh Koller: You have to have some runoff. You don't want to.
Councilman Laufenburger: Well it will come down the driveway.
Todd Gerhardt: You know with the tight clay soils, you know it's a little different than a sand base in
your percolation you know because Carver County clay is, it gets hard. You know it's tough to penetrate,
especially if you get a little bit of min that soaks it up. What is interesting about this application is he's
proposing to dig down 6 to 8 inches and put a sand bed down and then just place this Sport Court on top
of it so that sand base would act like a septic drainage field and hold the water in hope that it would
percolate down into that wet clay soil. I would be careful, the homeowner, you know how long will it
take for that really to percolate down and that's the question for the engineer. Is how long will it take for
that soil to percolate, and you don't know unless you do soil borings on that site and do a perc test like
they do when they put septic systems in.
Councilman Laufenburger: You're essentially building a clay pool, is that correct?
Mayor Furlong: A holding pool.
Councilman Laufenburger. A holding pool.
28
• •
Chanhassen City Council — September 12, 2011
Josh Koller: Just like their., yeah. lust like their swale does now in their back yard. Yeah, I guess the
thing that I would ask on this side, just as you know, would be that we would like to exceed the hard
cover based on, because you're considering this hard cover, we'd like to do it because right now they've
got a swale in their back yard. It's kind of a soggy area. They'd like to put something in where it's dry.
Kids can play basketball and not put it on their driveway so the basketball goes into the street all the time.
Mayor Furlong: Is that swale and designed as part of the stormwater management across the lots and over
to the pond?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, there's catch basins in the back.
Mayor Furlong: So if that is, if that were leveled out and would that affect the overall storm, is that part
of the easement?
Josh Koller: It still does, yep. The basketball court would be level. It would have a slight pitch to it to
allow water to drain off the back end, and then you'll see that that goes right to the easement, and then the
easement is just getting feathered a little bit better than it is right now. So we're actually not, if anything
we're fixing the swale a little bit better just so that the water still runs from one neighbor to the next. You
can see that on the grading plan. Yep, and so we're not, we're not going into the easement at all. We're
stopping at the edge of the Sport Court right at the easement there and then, in the red you'll see the
proposed elevations where water still continues to go down into the pond.
Mayor Furlong: Did you say the water would be running off the court and that's why you're going to
slant it?
Josh Koller: Well I've got to slant it so the base of it. You still don't want all the water to sit there and
slowly, slowly drain because it is clay soils. I mean so you are going to have water slowly percolate but I
do want it to pitch just a little bit at the base so that water can eventually go forward if you have that 100
year flood, that's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Josh Koller: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: Any follow-up questions for staff? Otherwise discussion. No discussion.
Councilman McDonald: Well no questions for staff.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Discussion, comments on the application or the appeal of the, is this right the
appeal of the Planning Commission's.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Denial of the application.
Councilman McDonald: I mean I guess from what all I've heard I'm in favor of looking at this because
I've been in favor of looking at this for a number of years because even when I was on the Planning
Commission this thing comes up but the problem has been that it's unique to each kind of individual
house and stuff. If the homeowner's willing to you know take some time here and maybe allow us to go
in and look at the size of this and figure something out, I'm all for that but to vote on it tonight based
29
Chanhassen City Council — September 12, 2011 0
upon you know what I've heard, I couldn't support it because I don't know the science. That's what I
would depend upon, as you said. You need to do a percolation test. You need to look at is 6 inches going
to be deep enough because you're building a retaining pond and what you're saying is that it's going, it's
got a storage capacity of so much water. Is 6 inches enough water or is the soil going to say no, you need
to go deeper? I don't have the answers to that and I really don't know enough to even suggest what it
should be but that's what's always held us up before was because what good does it do the City to go out
and look at this because we don't have an application to put it on and we can't just say across the board
it's going to be this or this. I think the best we can is put together a procedure and a policy to come up
with an answer and say yeah, we'll allow this much of a hard surface variance on this particular piece of
property because these procedures were followed and we now know that we could do it. We don't have
those answers and you know that's what's always been missing on this and I guess yeah, if the
homeowner's willing to you know do some of this stuff and as you said the soil drillings and those things
so we can begin to look at what the percolation is on this site, I'd be willing to reconsider it at some point
but tonight all I can go on is we have 25% hard cover variance and to me this is hard cover and based
upon that I couldn't support the variance so. I mean I'm willing to work with you but it's going to take
some time and it's just I don't have enough tonight to grant you a variance.
Mayor Furlong: Other thoughts, comments.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: I agree with Jerry that we don't have, you know if we're looking strictly at
what's in front of us, which is granting a variance for surface coverage that's exceeding what as our
ordinance has adopted, I'd have to deny it. If this council decides that at some point we should re -visit
our ordinance and re -write our policy about hard surface coverage, impermeable surfaces, you know then
that's the time to have that discussion but for right now, with what's in front of me I would have to go
upon the Planning Commission's recommendation in denying.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments. Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: Just a question. So if we deny this tonight and we learn more about permeable
surfaces in this particular area that we're talking about tonight, it can come back for a variance again,
right?
Kate Aanenson: Of course. Of course.
Councilwoman Ernst: Just because it's denied tonight doesn't mean that it can't come back.
Josh Koller: How do we do that? That would be my question. I mean where do I go and what do I do?
Kate Aanenson: We can talk to him about that.
Councilwoman Ernst: So with that in mind, I agree. I think we could use some more education on this.
Learn more about what it can do and what it can't do so. And we'll depend on you to help us out with
that.
John Koller: Alright, sounds good.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Laufenburger, comments?
Councilman Laufenburger: Councilmember Ernst just asked the question that was in my mind so that's
clear.
30
Chanhassen City Council —September 12, 2011
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I also, based on everything I've heard here tonight could not see supporting the
variance request based upon the information in the staff report and other things tonight so. While this is
an issue, I think the dealing with the permeable materials is something that has come up. We've spent
over the years at a number of meetings and discussions, work sessions looking at this and it's a, there are
a lot of questions out there still and if there's some other alternatives. I know last time we looked at it we
looked at other cities and it was across the board but there were a lot of cities that, like us that just have
challenges getting by there because of all the other parts of it and it's a tough situation but appreciate the
time and the effort here and I guess at this point I would ask for a motion from someone from the council
relating to this request of this appeal.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor, I'll make the motion
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I make the motion the City Council denies Planning Case 11-07 for hard
surface coverage variance to construct a Sport Court and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman McDonald: I'll second.
Mayor Furlong: Motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Councilwoman Ernst: Just a quick comment.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: So you're going to be working with Kate?
Kate Aanenson: Terry.
Councilwoman Ernst: Terry. On how to bring that back.
Josh Koller: Okay. Great.
Kate Aanenson: Oh, in how to bring it back, sure. Yeah. And maybe if you come up with a different
policy they don't need the variance.
Mayor Furlong: Right.
Kate Aanenson: So we'll just have to see how that shakes out.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council. What we would do is not look at the variance procedure but an
ordinance modification if you can follow these specifics then you can be granted a Sport Court as long as
it has the appropriate percolation for the amount of rain that be generated.
Mayor Furlong: Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote.
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council denies
Planning Case 11-07 for hard surface coverage variance to construct a Sport Court and adopts the
31
Chanhassen City Council —September 12, 2011
Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote
of 5 to 0.
Josh Koller: Thanks for your time.
Mayor Furlong: Yep, thank you. Move now to the next item on our agenda which is the Lake Drive
Business Center, a request for a site plan review of 155 stall parking lot expansion at 950 Lake Drive.
Staff report.
LAKE DRIVE BUSINESS CENTER: REOUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 155-STALL
PARKING LOT EXPANSION. 950 LAKE DRIVE. APPLICANT: CSM CORPORATION.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor. As you stated this request is for a parking stall expansion for the
Lake Drive Business Center. It's located just at the Highway 5 and the current zoning on that is industrial
office park. To the east you've got Robert's Automotive. You've got the Lake Susan Business Park. To
the west it's vacant industrial land. We did receive one comment from, off of the Powers Boulevard
property just immediately to the west. They had some concerns about the visibility of grading. Although
that property isn't developed, the grades on that are such that I'm not sure they would see a lot of it so, we
did send them back our comment that it did meet ordinance. There's no variances requested with this. It
does meet ordinance so the parking lot expansion's really to accommodate some additional parking on the
southwest, 48 additional stalls. On the southeast, 41 additional spaces and then on the east 66. So this
could be done in phases. The real goal here is to accommodate the ability for the property owner to sell
this property and make sure that the user needs additional parking, the plan's been approved so they can
say that there's already entitlement to the property and they could go ahead and proceed with the parking
lot so it provides them the flexibility to a potential buyer. So the grading plan itself does have some
retaining walls with it. On the southwest side it's about 2 1/2 feet. On the southeast side it's about,
almost 7 feet. And the east side's the tallest. The 8 feet and there's a tall one on the north side which
would be about 17 feet so there is one issue on the drainage and utility easement on this side. There's the
drainage, excuse me the retaining wall goes into the drainage utility easement. That needs to be moved.
That may reduce some of the parking stalls there but I think we can accommodate that. Or the applicant
can so when they come in for a final plans then they would have to accommodate that. And then there's
also an existing stairwell that they need to accommodate through that retaining wall. They've also
submitted a landscape plan and there's a few deficiencies in that but again we believe that can all be
accommodated. Again this plan may not go forward immediately. It just depends on the currently they
want to maximize the lease space in there so it does provide them the flexibility. The Planning
Commission at their meeting did recommend approval of this plan when they had their meeting on
August 16"' they voted 6 for, none against recommending the parking lot expansion and with that the
motion we have for you would then also to approve the site plan for the parking lot expansion. With the
condition in the staff report and with that I'd answer any questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Any concerns from the property to the east?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah we did talk, we did talk to them.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: They live out of state. We did let them know that all the requests did meet code. There
is additional landscaping that would be put in there and I think that was some of the concern that they
would look and see a lot of landscaping. I mean it was a lot of parking but actually the landscape would
buffer that so I think we've accomplished that and we.
32
0 0 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
CITY OF
CIMNSENTerry
FROM: Angie Kairies, Planner I
Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator
7700Market POBox 147evard
DATE: September 12, 2011
k
Chanhassen, MN 55317
SUBJ: Burrough's Hard Surface Coverage Variance
Planning Case #11-07
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax: 952.227,1110
Building Inspections
Phone: 952.227.11 BO
Fax: 952.227.1190
Engineering
Phone: 952.227,1160
Fax: 952.227.1170
Finance
Phone: 952.227,1140
Fax: 952.227,1110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952.227.1120
Fax: 952,227.1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax: 952,227.1404
Planning 8
Natural Resources
Phone: 952.227.1130
Feu: 952.227.1110
Public Works
1591 Park Road
Phone: 952.227.1300
Fax: 952.227.1310
Senior Center
Phone: 952.227.1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
Web She
www d.chanhassen.mn.us
PROPOSED MOTION:
"The Chanhassen City Council denies Planning Case # 11-07 for a hard
surface coverage variance to construct a sport court and adopts the
Findings of Fact and Decision."
Approval requires a majority of City Council present.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a 4.3% variance (681 square feet) from the 25%
maximum hard surface coverage limitation for the construction of a sport court on
property zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF).
Planning Commission Update
A public hearing was held at the July 19, 2011, Planning Commission meeting for
this item. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to deny the variance request. The
applicant is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council.
The City Council's decision requires a majority of members present.
Staff recognizes that currently there are no approved pervious surfaces, but a
properly engineered low impact development (LID) best management practice
(BMP) could be considered as a mitigating factor as part of a variance request
from hardcover limitations. Mitigating factors alone, shall not be reason to grant
a variance, rather approval or denial of a variance shall be based on reasonable
use and Practical Difficulties.
SCANNED
Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow
Todd Gerhardt
Burrough's Variance
September 12, 2011
Page 2
Staff met with the applicant on July 25, 2011 and discussed what supporting documentation he
would need to provide, if he wanted to make the argument that the proposed improvement would
mitigate for any increased impervious surfaces on the property. The information would include
site specific hydrologic and hydraulic calculations. The applicant waived the 60 day review
period in order to ensure adequate time to prepare and submit such supporting documentation.
To date, supporting documentation has not been provided.
Without site specific information, approval of this variance may be seen as an interpretation that
this material is an acceptable pervious alternative. This interpretation will likely have future
implications.
The Planning Commission did not find any objection to staffs recommendation for the variance
request.
The Planning Commission minutes for this variance request are included in item 1 a of the City
Council Packet.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the following motion:
"The Chanhassen City Council denies Planning Case #11-07 for a hard surface coverage
variance to construct a sport court and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision."
ATTACHMENTS
1. 60-day Development Review Deadline extension letter dated July 25, 2011.
2. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated July 19, 2011.
GAPLAN\2011 Planning Cases\l1-07 Burroughs Variance-10036 Trails End Road\9-12-11 Executive Summary.doe
Kairies, Angie
From: Josh Koller Okoller@southviewdesign.com]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 11:33 AM
To: Kairies, Angie; Jeffery, Terry
Cc: Burroughs, Philip; kevin zwart; Craig Jones
Hello Angie this is Josh Koller with Southview Design and after meeting with you and Terry the following is what we would
like to do.
1) We would like to appeal the decision of the planning commission that we meet with on July 191h. We are waiving
the 60 day review as well as the 120 day review so that we can bring the engineering material needed to Terry so
that we can set our appeal up for the meeting on September 12" . If you could let me know what time that will be
and where that would be great. I will also need to know when you need the engineering material since we are
setting up to meet in the 12th.
2) Terry like we talked about in the meeting today I would also like to be involved in looking for and coming up with
permeable applications throughout this winter so that we can find solutions for the upcoming spring if that is a
possibility.
3) Also Terry, I did take notes from the meeting today however if you could give me anymore guidance if there is
anything also you need that is not on the sheet you gave me that would be great.
Thanks,
Josh Koller
Josh Koller I Southview Design I Landscape Designer
Office 651.203.3028 1 Mobile 651.248.39611 Fax 651.455.1734
Website I B1og I Facebook
SCANNED
PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Planning Commissien, as the Beard of Appeals
and A(ijustments City Council, denies Planning Case #2011-07 for a hard surface coverage
variance to construct a sport court and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision."
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 4.3% variance (681 square feet)
from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation for the construction of a sport court on
property zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF).
LOCATION: 10036 Trails End Road
Lot 15, Block 4, Settlers West
APPLICANT: Josh Koller Philip and Stacey Burroughs
Southview Design 10036 Trails End Road
1875 East 50`h Street Chanhassen, MN 55317
Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077
PRESENT ZONING: Single -Family Residential (RSF)
2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Low Density (1.2/4 units per acre)
ACREAGE: 0.36 (15,847 square feet) DENSITY: NA
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING:
The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the
proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a
relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation
from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 29.3% hard surface coverage, or 4,646 square feet,
for the construction of a 681 square -foot sport court in the rear yard of property zoned Single -
Family Residential (RSF). The RSF zoning district permits a maximum of 25% hard surface
coverage. The subject site is permitted 3,964 square feet site coverage.
The as -built survey for the subject site reflects 24.7% hard surface coverage and includes the single-
family home, attached three -stall garage, driveway, patio, stoop and front sidewalk.
L
Burroughs Variance Request
Planning Case 11-07
dy '� 2011 September 12, 2011
Page 2 of 7
The southern portion of the Settlers West Addition is bordered by a bluff. In addition to the bluff,
the Hennepin County Regional Trail Corridor is located northwest of the site. To the east of the site
are single-family homes and the border between the City of Chanhassen and the City of Eden
Prairie.
Water and sewer services are available to the site. Access to the site is gained off of Trails End
Road, which connects to Pioneer Trail in Eden Prairie.
The site is currently being used in a reasonable manner and contains a single-family home and
three -car garage. The request to exceed the 25% hard surface coverage limitation for the
construction of a sport court does not constitute a practical difficulty. There are other alternatives,
such as installing a basketball hoop in the front yard abutting the driveway. Causing additional
impact to the bluff by way of increased runoff is not in harmony with the intent and sensitivity of
the development.
Staff is recommending denial of the applicant's request based on the fact that the applicant has
reasonable use of the property and has not demonstrated that a practical difficulty exists.
Burroughs Variance Request
Planning Case 11-07
T"'-� a.� 19te1 September 12, 2011
Page 3 of 7
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 20, Division 3. Variances
Section 20-615 (4), RSF District Requirements, Hard Surface Coverage
Sec 20-905 (6) Single-family dwellings
BACKGROUND
The property is located on Lot 15, Block 4, Settlers West, which is zoned Single -Family
Residential (RSF). The subject property is 15,847 square feet in area. It has a lot frontage of 80
feet (90 feet at the building setback line) and approximately 150 feet in depth. The minimum lot
dimensions in the RSF district are 15,000 square -foot lot, 90-foot lot frontage and 125-foot lot
depth. This lot exceeds the minimum requirements for the RSF district.
The building permit for the proposed home, garage, driveway, front sidewalk, and a 180 square -
foot patio on the property was approved on June 6, 2006. The building permit reflected a hard
surface coverage of 24.7% or 3,922 square feet. The maximum impervious surface in the RSF
district is 25% or 3,964 square feet.
In an attempt to minimize hard cover issues and ensure residential properties have a minimum
100 square -foot future patio expansion area, on July 6, 2006, the City amended Sec. 20-905:
Single-family dwellings (6) "Where access doors are proposed from a dwelling to the outdoors,
which does not connect directly to a sidewalk or stoop, a minimum ten -feet by ten -feet hard
surface area shall be assumed. Such surface area must be shown to comply with property lines,
lake and wetland setbacks; may not encroach into conservation or drainage and utility easements;
and shall not bring the site's hard surface coverage above that permitted by ordinance."
While the building permit for the subject site was approved prior to the above ordinance
amendment, the building permit included a 180 square -foot patio in the hard surface coverage
calculations.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a 4.3% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard
surface coverage. The lot area is 15,847 square feet. The original building permit occupied
3,922 square feet of hard cover, this included outdoor improvements.
Burroughs Variance Request
Planning Case 11-07
�' '�__ °� 011 September 12, 2011
Page 4 of 7
Burroughs Variance Request
Planning Case 11-07
' 'vy'�m� 9, 2011 September 12, 2011
Page 5 of 7
Prior to the public hearing, the applicant applied for a Residential Zoning Permit to remove the
existing patio and install a 168 square -foot patio and 54 square feet of stone steppers. These
improvements bring the site to 25% hard surface coverage, maximizing the site coverage.
In addition to the previous improvements, the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a
681 square -foot sport court, which brings the site to 29.3% hard surface coverage.
The applicant contends that the proposed sport court would be pervious and would allow for
more infiltration than would occur if the area was left as traditional lawn. To support this
position, the applicant has provided a study prepared, at the request of Sport Court, Inc., by the
Utah Water Research Laboratory at Utah State University. In summary the study finds that the
Hydraulic Conductivity, or the rate at which water passes through the SportTile is greater than
gravel, sand and other soil types. This indicates that the sport tile would not be the limiting
factor for the infiltration rates in the area but rather that the underlying materials would limit
infiltration. The authors draw the same conclusion on page 7 of the report.
The soils in this area are Kilkenny -Lester Loams. These soils are in the Hydrologic Group C
which has a high potential for runoff and can have an infiltration rate as low as 0.05 inches per
hour. The seasonally high water table is within three (3) feet of the surface and the soil has
approximately 40% clay by volume. These soils compact readily to the point where they are
virtually impervious. The Installation Instructions SportBaseTM prepared by Sport Court, and
provided by the applicant, instructs on page 2 of 6 that after excavation, the subgrade shall be
compacted. It then goes on to state in the next section that the base material should be
compacted as well. This will effectively render the sport court area impervious; negating any
benefit derived from the hydraulic conductivity of the SportBaseTM.
When storm sewer systems are
designed, it is inherent that certain
assumptions are made in order to
model anticipated runoff volumes
and rates. One assumption is that
no lot will have greater than 25%
hardcover. If several individual
lots exceed this 25%, then the
storm sewer infrastructure
becomes inadequate for the new
conditions and localized flooding,
infrastructure damage, erosion,
stream degradation and other
deleterious effects may result.
Currently, Chanhassen City Code
does not recognize any alternative
Surface
Building Permit
Square Footage
Proposed Square
Footage
Lot area
15,847
15,847
House/Garage/
Stoop
2,825
2,825
Driveway
765
765
Sidewalk
152
152
Patio
180
168
Steppers
-
54
Total
3,922
3,964
HSC %
24.7%
25.0%
Sport Court
681
Total HSC
4,645
HSC %
29.3%
Burroughs Variance Request
Planning Case 11-07
tly 'ten=� °��r September 12, 2011
Page 6 of 7
hard surface materials. If the City were to allow alternate pervious surfaces, a number of issues
including site design, engineering of soils and materials, construction observation, long-term
maintenance and long-term preservation would have to be addressed. Even with the resolution
of these issues, it is important to note why the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and
numerous other agencies are considering alternative hard surface materials with a high hydraulic
conductivity.
The agency shall develop performance standards, design standards, or other tools
to enable and promote the implementation of low -impact development and other
storm water management techniques. For the purposes ofthis section, "low -
impact development" means an approach to storm water management that
mimic's a site's natural hydrology as the landscape is developed. Using low -
impact development approach, storm water is managed on -site and the rate and
volume ofpredevelopment storm water reaching receiving waters is unchanged.
The calculation ofpredevelopment hydrology is based on native soil and
vegetation. - Minnesota Statutes 2009, section 115.03, subdivision 5c
The intent is to reduce runoff by mimicking the hydrology and hydraulics of the natural
environment, not to allow for the maximization of allowed hardcover on a lot of record and then
further increase hardscaping. Not only are there implications to surface water management, but
there are also aesthetic implications that accompany the loss of green space.
Settlers West Subdivision
Significant efforts were made during the development of Settler's West to protect the bluff areas
by controlling the rate and volume of runoff and maintaining existing drainage conditions.
Sensitive areas were put into protective outlots and discharge points from the storm sewer
conveyance system were designed and constructed with extraordinary stabilization and energy
dissipation methods. As this area ultimately drains to the bluffs along the Hennepin County
Regional Rails to Trails System, any potential increase in runoff rate or volume could potentially
result in erosion along the bluff.
While it is evident that the actual SportBaseTM tiles are pervious, the construction method and the
existing site conditions would not result in a truly pervious system but rather in a highly
compacted clay subgrade with less hydraulic conductivity than currently exists. Even in the
event that proper engineering and construction could provide for adequate infiltration, the
Chanhassen City Code does not make allowances for alternate pervious hard cover. If in the
future the City considers allowing certain pervious surfaces, it will be important to consider the
reason behind limiting hard cover and the implications and limitations of any such system. Until
such a time as these issues are resolved and City Code allows for some use of alternate pervious
systems in certain redevelopment or hardship circumstances, staff cannot recommend approval
of the request to exceed the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation.
Burroughs Variance Request
Planning Case 11-07
r"t"'m� 19, 201= September 12, 2011
Page 7 of 7
Currently, the property owners have reasonable use of a property within the RSF district as a
single-family home with a three -car garage, as well as an outdoor patio/seating area already
constructed on the property. While the purpose of the proposed sport court is for residential use,
it is not a practical difficulty to exceed the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff reeetamends that and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the
following motion and the adoption -of the attached Findings of Fact and Decision:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission as the BeaFd efAppeals and AdjusUneiAs City Council
denies Planning Case #2011-07 for a 4.3% variance from the 25% maximum hard surface
coverage limitation for the construction of a sport court on property zoned Single -Family
Residential (RSF), based on adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Decision.
2. Development Review Application.
3. Reduced copy of lot survey.
4. Utah Water Research Laboratory at Utah State University Study.
5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing.
GAPLAWOI I Planning Cascs\I I-07 Burroughs Varimm-10036 Trails End Road\CC StaffRwrt.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
IN RE:
Application of Josh Koller of Southview Design on behalf of Philip and Stacey Burroughs for a
4.3% variance (681 square feet) from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation for the
construction of a sport court on property zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF) — Planning Case
#2011-07.
On July 19, 2011, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and
mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
3. The legal description of the property is Lot 15, Block 4, Settlers West.
4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the
granting of a variance:
a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
Finding: The request to exceed the hard surface coverage in the RSF district on a lot that
exceeds the minimum lot requirements for the construction of a sport court is not in
harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter. Significant efforts were
made during the development of Settlers West to protect the bluff areas by controlling the
rate and volume of runoff and maintaining existing drainage conditions. Sensitive areas
were put into protective outlots and discharge points from the storm sewer conveyance
system were designed and constructed with extraordinary stabilization and energy
dissipation methods. As this area ultimately drains to the bluffs along the Hennepin
County Regional Rails to Trails System, any potential increase in runoff rate or volume
could potentially result in erosion along the bluff.
0
b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical
difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the
property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this
Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct
sunlight for solar energy systems.
Finding: Currently, the property owners have reasonable use of a property within the
RSF district as a single-family home with a three -car garage, as well as an outdoor
patio/seating area already constructed on the property. While the purpose of the proposed
sport court is for residential use, it is not a practical difficulty to exceed the 25%
maximum hard surface coverage limitation.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The purpose of the variance is not based on economic considerations. The
applicant is requesting a variance to exceed the 25% hard surface coverage limitation in
the RSF district for the construction of an outdoor sport court for personal use.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The request is not based on a unique circumstance; the subject site exceeds the
minimum lot requirements within the RSF district. The building permit for the proposed
home, garage, driveway, front sidewalk, and a 180 square -foot patio on the property was
approved on June 6, 2006. The building permit reflected a hard surface coverage of
24.7% or 3,922 square feet. The maximum impervious surface in the RSF district is 25%
or 3,964 square feet. The applicant has reasonable use of the property.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: While the addition of a sport court will not alter the essential character of the
locality; exceeding the hard surface coverage and any increase in runoff rate or volume
could potentially result in erosion along the bluff.
f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota
Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter.
Finding: This does not apply to this request.
5. The planning report #2011-07, dated July 19, 2011, prepared by Angie Kairies, et al, is
incorporated herein.
DECISION
The Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies Planning Case 2011-07 for a 4.3% variance
from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation for the construction of a sport court on
property zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF).
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments this 19th day of July,
2011.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
IIM
gAplan\forms\findings of fact and decision - vwimm.doc
Chairman
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
Name and
�rti
ee✓
Phone:6SI-141f- 3Y(p1 Fax:651-455- 1739
Email: lkuller IL)'thV e,)cles1 c-M
Planning Case NOxf4ht1- 6—]
Tv OF RECEIVED
SSEN
JUN 1 7 2011
CHANHASSEN PLANNING 06PT
Property Owner Name and Address:
Stacey � �h{� l j�vr!'ouul,s
CL,unt,��52�
Contact: P ti' l
Phone: 45Z-tfz4-2;154 Fax:
Email: n,,cd,vlson—Sracex cn LvtMu,l, co.�
NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development
plans
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Interim Use Permit (IUP)
Non -conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Rezoning
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Site Plan Review (SPR)*
Subdivision*
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC)
(Additional recording fees may apply)
Variance (VAR)
Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
X Notification Sign $200
(City to install and remove)
X Ergww for Filing Fees/At rney Cost**
5 UP/SPR/VAC A AP/Metes & Bounds
- $450 Minor SUB
TOTAL FEE $ T pd �k ;)_7 S 5
An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant
prior to the public hearing.
*Five (5) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced
copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format.
**Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for
each application.
SCANNED
06/17/11 FRI 09:44 FAX
11
MCI
u
®001
PROJECT N
LOCATION:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: 104: (S tloat Se+lArrS WCS-F
),s7s6c-;-is0 /
TOTAL ACREAGE: a 3 6
WETLANDS PRESENTp DD YES po �_ NO
PRESENT ZONING —�55 . _t-.Ce�✓IG2i I I Cl1
REQUESTED ZONING:
r`
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: PSi Jp✓n 4- 1
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REASON FOR REQUEST:
FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees:
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all irdornabon
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
This is to certify that i am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. i have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
Date
/17/ 1
Date
g'\plaMfvmn dmelopmcnt revs wappkatton.dm
SCANNED
#5
I am requesting a variance for a sport court that appears to exceed the
hardcover limitations.
#6
A)
This is a recreational family sport court designer for residential use.
B)
Our goal is to install a sport court. The sport court system we have
chosen is a completely permeable system designed to allow all water to pass
through. We will install the system on a sand base that is also completely
permeable, allowing all water to be able to infiltrate into the ground.
Therefore this system should not be considered hardcover, so the landscape
being installed will not exceed the hardcover requirements.
C)
This sport court is used for the homeowners use with there family not
to charge a fee or to make money in any way.
D)
We are asking to do a sport court in the back because the front drive is
steep and the street is busy with cars. The homeowners with like the use of
there backyard.
E)
This is sport court is designed for residential applications. This will
not in any way affect the character of the locality.
SCANNED
Stacey Burtoughs .. """^"�'DESIGNISALES REPJYA KOLLER rt¢vwvrvo =
10036 Tmil5 Road DESIGN ASST:56W NIU MA5
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Sport Court Infiltration Findings
Prepared for
Sport Court, Inc.
June 1, 2010
UTAH WATER RESEARCH LABORATORY
Utah State University Hydraulic Report No. 2210
Logan, Utah
E
Sport Court Infiltration Initial findings
Prepared for
Sport Court Inc.
Gary Day
Dave Campbell
Prepared by
Blake P. Tullis, Ph.D.
Zac Sharp
Utah State University
Utah Water Research Laboratory
Logan, Utah 84322-8200
June 1, 2010
Utah State University Hydraulic Report No. 2210
Logan, Utah
Sport Court Infiltration Findings
Prepared for
Sport Court, Inc.
June 1, 2010
UTAH WATER RESEARCH LABORATORY
Utah State University Hydraulic Report No. 2210
Logan, Utah
C-I
Introduction
A water infiltration test of SportBase tiles was performed to determine the rate at which
water passes through the drain holes and tile joints. The infiltration test bench was
constructed, which featured a sealed and painted 6-ft x 6-ft x 2-11 deep wooden box with
16 SportBase tiles as the floor. The floor had 9 whole tiles in the center, 6 tiles were cut
in half for the edges, and the remaining tile was cut in fourths to place in the corners.
Each tile was supported by two 2-inch by 4-inch wooden studs and the box was leveled to
create a uniform pool depth over the entire floor. Water was introduced at different rates
as a point source in the center of the floor. The water was introduced into a diffusing
structure that would produce even water distribution in all directions. The test set up can
be seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1. The model setup.
The objective of the test was to determine a representative infiltration rate for the tiles,
which was done by calculating a representative hydraulic conductivity (k) value for each
flow condition. Hydraulic conductivity is calculated per Equation (1). Permeability is
related to hydraulic conductivity per Equation (2).
K=-L (l)
L
k = KP (2)
P8
In Equations (1) and (2), Q is the volumetric flow rate (cfs) per tile, L is the length of the
porous media (tile height), A is the flow area (total area of the test box floor divided by
the number of tiles), hL is the energy gradient (depth of water in the box),µ is the water
dynamic viscosity (lb-s/ftz), p is the water density (slugs/ft3), and g is the gravitational
constant (ft/sZ). The test results report Q in terms of gallons per minute (gpm); a
conversion factor is applied for calculating k.
11
Test Results
Different flow rates were supplied to determine the infiltration rate of the tiles. As shown
in Figure 1, the discharge into the box was concentrated at the center of the box; a baffle
structure was used to uniformly distribute the flow radially.
Drain Holes Open
At 12.5 gpm/tile and the drain holes open, the tiles passed water efficiently enough that
tiles in the comer of the box remained dry. At flow rates of 62.5 gpm/tile and less, the
flow exiting the baffle in the center of the box was supercritical (shallow flow depth, high
velocity), with a hydraulic jump transitioning the flow to subcritical (deeper flow depth,
slower velocity) some distance from the center, resulting in a non -uniform reservoir
conditions. At 75 gpm/tile, a uniform flow depth was present in the box (no supercritical
flow was present) with a flow depth of 4 inches. Figures 2 through 6 show images of
different flow rates being introduced into the box.
The test results for the open drain hole tests are shown in Table 1. As previously
discussed, a uniform flow depth did not exist in the box for the majority of the test
conditions due in part to the high drainage capacity of the tiles and the point -source
method of supplying water to the test facility. The flow depth around the perimeter of the
box (subcrtical flow) was used as the representative flow depth (hL). Consequently, the
reported k values should be considered conservative (actual k values would be higher if a
uniform flow depth existed for all flow rates). k decreased as hL increased; the average
value of k was 0.076 ft/sec.
Drain Holes Closed
The same tests were repeated with the tile drain holes plugged (corks were used to plug
the drain holes). The test results are also reported in Table 1. The drain holes appear to
provide little contribution to drainage, relative to the test conducted (k values essentially
unchanged from the drain hole open testing). If the supercritical flow condition did not
exist and a uniform flow depth were present in the box for all flow conditions, the holes
would likely have made a more significant contribution to the total drainage capacity of
the tiles. The average k value for the closed drain hole condition was 0.070.
L
Test Results
Different flow rates were supplied to determine the infiltration rate of the tiles. As shown
in Figure 1, the discharge into the box was concentrated at the center of the box; a baffle
structure was used to uniformly distribute the flow radially.
Drain Holes Open
At 12.5 gpm/tile and the drain holes open, the tiles passed water efficiently enough that
tiles in the comer of the box remained dry. At flow rates of 62.5 gpm/tile and less, the
flow exiting the baffle in the center of the box was supercritical (shallow flow depth, high
velocity), with a hydraulic jump transitioning the flow to subcritical (deeper flow depth,
slower velocity) some distance from the center, resulting in a non -uniform reservoir
conditions. At 75 gpm/tile, a uniform flow depth was present in the box (no supercritical
flow was present) with a flow depth of 4 inches. Figures 2 through 6 show images of
different flow rates being introduced into the box.
The test results for the open drain hole tests are shown in Table 1. As previously
discussed, a uniform flow depth did not exist in the box for the majority of the test
conditions due in part to the high drainage capacity of the tiles and the point -source
method of supplying water to the test facility. The flow depth around the perimeter of the
box (subcrtical flow) was used as the representative flow depth (hL). Consequently, the
reported k values should be considered conservative (actual k values would be higher if a
uniform flow depth existed for all flow rates). k decreased as hL increased; the average
value of k was 0.076 ft/sec.
Drain Holes Closed
The same tests were repeated with the tile drain holes plugged (corks were used to plug
the drain holes). The test results are also reported in Table 1. The drain holes appear to
provide little contribution to drainage, relative to the test conducted (k values essentially
unchanged from the drain hole open testing). If the supercritical flow condition did not
exist and a uniform flow depth were present in the box for all flow conditions, the holes
would likely have made a more significant contribution to the total drainage capacity of
the tiles. The average k value for the closed drain hole condition was 0.070.
Table 1. Summary of infiltration test data
Tile height (ft)
0.167
7771
Tiles
18
Total Areas
36
Flow Rate
Drain Holes O n
Drain Holes Closed
Area/rile s
2.25
O
Oftile
V/tile
Pond Depth
K
k
Pond Depth
K k
m
m/tile
f s
inches
ft/s
(m )
inches
ft/s
W)
Water Temp de F
45
200
12.5
0.012
0.025
viscosity, N (lb -a )
0.00002982
6.2
0.5
0.124
0.099
5.921E-08
0.2
0.63
_ 0.124
0.079
5.921E-08
3.759E-OB
fT/s)
32.2
400
25.0
4.738E-08
dens (slu
1.94
600
37.5
0.037
1.125
0.066
3.158E-081
1.125
0.066
3.158E-08
800
60.0
0.050
1.5
0,066
3.158E-08
1000
62.5
0.062
2.25
0.065
2.631E-08
2.5
0.050
2.368E-08
1200
75.0
0.074
4
0.037
1.776E-08
4.5
0.033
1.578E-08
1400
87.5
0.087
-
7.25
0.024
1.143E-08
Average
. 7
0.
3.012E-08
Utah State University Hydraulic Report No. 2210
Logan,Utah
•
•
n
u
r�
u
s"
Figure 2. Drain holes o
en, 2.5 m/tile Figure 3. Drain holes open, 25 m/tile
4
L
Figure 4. Drain holes open, 37.5 Rpm/tile Figure 5. Drain holes open, 62.5 m/tile
Y
�9
Figure 6. Drain holes open
75 m/tile
Conclusions
Typical K values for gravel, sand, silt, and clay are shown in Table 2. A comparison of
the data presented in Tables 1 and 2 indicates that the SportBase tiles have a hydraulic
conductivity that falls within the gravel category (>0.003 fps), exceeding the conductivity
Utah State University Hydraulic Report No. 2210
Logan, Utah
Figure 2. Drain holes o n, 2.5
m/tile
Figure 3. Drain holes open, 25 m/tile
e
Y
Figure 4. Drain holes open, 37.5
m/tile
Figure 5. Drain holes open, 62.5 m/tile
Figure 6. Drain holes o n, 75
m/dle
Conclusions
Typical K values for gravel, sand, silt, and clay are shown in Table 2. A comparison of
the data presented in Tables I and 2 indicates that the SportBase tiles have a hydraulic
conductivity that falls within the gravel category (>0.003 fps), exceeding the conductivity
Utah State University Hydraulic Report No. 2210
Logan,Utah
E
of sand, silt, and clay. The substrate materials above which the tiles would be installed
will likely control the infiltration capacity of the SportBase tiles. One factor that may
influence the composite conductivity of a tile/substrate assembly is that fact that the
water draining though the tiles is confined to the area between the tiles (and the drain
holes if included), meaning that the water will not be uniformly supplied at the
tile/substrate interface and the composite conductivity will likely be reduced.
Table 2.
Material
Typical Hy draulic Conductive values
s
(mm/sec
Gravelt
>0.03
>10
Sandt
0.03 - 3E-7
10 —1 E-4
Satt
3E-7 - 3E-9
lE4 — lE-6
Clayt
<3E-9
< lE-6
Pervious Concrete
3E-5 — 3E-6
0.01— 0.02
S rtBase Tiles with holes
0.076
23
SportBase Tiles without holes
0.07
21
tbased on Dunn et al. (1980).
t based on Sumanasooriya et al. (2009) (water temperature of 20°C assumed).
Sumanasooriya et al. (2009) conducted tests to determine the permeability of pervious
concrete. They reported pervious concrete permeability values of— lE-9 to 2E-9 m2,
which produce K values of 0.01 to 0.02 mm/s for water at 20°C, as shown in Table 2.
For the conditions under which it was tested (no substrate material), the permeability of
the SportBase tiles, shown in Table 1, is an order of magnitude higher (— 3E-8 m2) than
the pervious concrete values. Figure 7 summarizes the hydraulic conductivity values of
the SportBase tile (with and without drain holes), the substrate materials listed in Table 2,
and the pervious concrete. Consistent with the conductivity discussion, the composite
permeability of the SportBase tiles and an underlying substrate material will likely
decrease, relative to the value reported in Table 1 due to the fact that the water draining
through the SportBase tiles is limited to a small cross -sectional area (gaps between the
tiles) at the point where it transitions to the substrate.
7
3500
3000
2500
a
U 2000
U
1500
W
j 1000
S
500
Drainage Rates (Hydraulic Conductivity) of Base Materials
3283
SportBase sporsise Gravel Sand Sift clay Pervious
(with holes) (no holes) Concrete
Figure 7. Hydraulic conductivity chart for SportTile, common substrate materials, and
pervious concrete* (*based on Sumanasooriya et al., 2009)
References
Dunn, Anderson, and Kiefer (1980). Fundamentals of Geotechnical Analysis, John Wiley
& Sons, New York, pp.60.
Sumanasooriya, M.S.; Bentz, D.P., and Neithalath, N. (2009). "Predicting the
Permeability of Pervious Concrete from Planar Images." www.nist.gov/manuseript-
publicaiton-search.cfm?pub_id=902014&division=861.
8
Drainage Rates (Hydraulic Conductivity) of Base Materials
a000-
c 3500 3-- - --
c
— 3024
2500 -
U2000- >1300
U
1500 -- —
N
a 1000-
500
0.13-130 Mon. -o13 <0.001 66-173
Sportl3ase Sportaase Gravel Sand Silt day Pervious
(with holes) (no holes) Concrete
Figure 7. Hydraulic conductivity chart for SportTile, common substrate materials, and
pervious concrete* (*based on Sumanasooriya et al., 2009)
References
Dunn, Anderson, and Kiefer (1980). Fundamentals of Geotechnical Analysis, John Wiley
& Sons, New York, pp.60.
Sumanasooriya, M.S.; Bentz, D.P., and Neithalath, N. (2009). "Predicting the
Permeability of Pervious Concrete from Planar Images." www.nist.gov/manuscript-
publicaiton-search.cfm?pub_id--902014&division--861.
8
S P O R T
C O U R T
Installation Instructions
SportBaseTM*
Sport Court Playing Surface
SportBase Panels
Geotextile Fabric
Compacted Sub -Base
_ o0 0000 � o00
Flat Prepared Subsurface
- a o
0 0
0 0 0
oa
0
B
O
CO VRT
� 0
SportBase Panel Corner Lock Edge Lock
Patent Pending
SI-0018-A Page 1 of 6 05/03/2011
Site Prep
SportBase may be installed above or below grade depending on the scope of the project and intended
application.
Below Grade
1. Excavation
Remove existing pavement, turf, or existing soil to the proper depth. The proper depth will be the
finished surface, less the modular flooring thickness, SportBase thickness, and compacted base
material. The amount of base material is often determined by a local soil engineer and will depend on
the ground's water retention, saturation, and expansion properties. Typical base thickness will range
from 4 inches to 8 inches.
2. Compact Subgrade
After excavation is down to the proper level, compact the subgrade. Depending on the type of soil,
compaction may be done with a roller, rammer, or a vibraplate compactor.
3. Install Forms
Select forms tall enough to accommodate the depth of the compacted base. Secure the forms around
the perimeter of the court area using stakes to hold the forms upright. Make sure frames are square at
each corner.
4. Install Base Material
Select a base material that is granular and compacts easily. Suggested bases include sand, 5/8" minus
gravel, crusher fines, etc. Spread and compact the base in 4-inch lifts using a compactor. Screed the
compacted base to level off the surface. For best results, use a powered roller -screed. Compact the
surface a final time making sure the base material is level by filling in low spots and removing high
spots.
5. Install Geotextile Fabric
Roll out geotextile fabric across entire subsurface, overlapping each roll to ensure no gaps exist. Make
sure geotextile fabric is smooth and contains no wrinkles. If fabric stakes are used, be sure to press
them flush with the compacted base surface.
Above Grade
1. Excavation
Remove existing pavement, turf, or existing soil. The amount of base material is often determined by a
local soil engineer and will depend on the ground's water retention, saturation, and expansion
properties. Typical base thickness will range from 4 inches to 8 inches.
2. Install Forms
Select forms tall enough to accommodate the depth of the compacted base. Secure the forms above
the ground around the perimeter of the court area using stakes to stabilize the forms. The forms must
be sturdy enough to contain several inches of fill material and avoid blowout during compaction. Make
sure forms are square at each corner.
3. Install Base Material
Select a base material that is granular and compacts easily. Suggested bases include sand, 5/8" minus
gravel, crusher fines, etc. Spread and compact the base in 4-inch lifts using a compactor. Screed the
compacted base to level off the surface. For best results, use a roller -screed. Compact the surface a
final time making sure the base material is level by filling in low spots and removing high spots.
4. Install Geotextile Fabric
Roll out geotextile fabric across entire subsurface, overlapping each roll to ensure no gaps exist. Make
sure geotextile fabric is smooth and contains no wrinkles.
SI-0018-A Page 2 of 6 05/03/2011
Site Prep
SportBase may be installed above or below grade depending on the scope of the project and intended
application.
Below Grade
1. Excavation
Remove existing pavement, turf, or existing soil to the proper depth. The proper depth will be the
finished surface, less the modular flooring thickness, SportBase thickness, and compacted base
material. The amount of base material is often determined by a local soil engineer and will depend on
the ground's water retention, saturation, and expansion properties. Typical base thickness will range
from 4 inches to 8 inches.
2. Compact Subgrade
After excavation is down to the proper level, compact the subgrade. Depending on the type of soil,
compaction may be done with a roller, rammer, or a vibraplate compactor.
3. Install Forms
Select forms tall enough to accommodate the depth of the compacted base. Secure the forms around
the perimeter of the court area using stakes to hold the forms upright. Make sure frames are square at
each corner.
4. Install Base Material
Select a base material that is granular and compacts easily. Suggested bases include sand, 5/8" minus
gravel, crusher fines, etc. Spread and compact the base in 4-inch lifts using a compactor. Screed the
compacted base to level off the surface. For best results, use a powered roller -screed. Compact the
surface a final time making sure the base material is level by filling in low spots and removing high
Spots.
5. Install Geotextile Fabric
Roll out geotextile fabric across entire subsurface, overlapping each roll to ensure no gaps exist. Make
sure geotextile fabric is smooth and contains no wrinkles. If fabric stakes are used, be sure to press
them flush with the compacted base surface.
Above Grade
1. Excavation
Remove existing pavement, turf, or existing soil. The amount of base material is often determined by a
local soil engineer and will depend on the ground's water retention, saturation, and expansion
properties. Typical base thickness will range from 4 inches to 8 inches.
2. Install Forms
Select forms tall enough to accommodate the depth of the compacted base. Secure the forms above
the ground around the perimeter of the court area using stakes to stabilize the forms. The forms must
be sturdy enough to contain several inches of fill material and avoid blowout during compaction. Make
sure forms are square at each corner.
3. Install Base Material
Select a base material that is granular and compacts easily. Suggested bases include sand, 5/8" minus
gravel, crusher fines, etc. Spread and compact the base in 4-inch lifts using a compactor. Screed the
compacted base to level off the surface. For best results, use a roller -screed. Compact the surface a
final time making sure the base material is level by filling in low spots and removing high spots.
4. Install Geotextile Fabric
Roll out geotextile fabric across entire subsurface, overlapping each roll to ensure no gaps exist. Make
sure geotextile fabric is smooth and contains no wrinkles.
SI-0018-A Page 2 of 6 05/03/2011
0
Installing SportBase
1. Begin installing SportBase panels at any corner of the court. Align the SportBase corner with the
corner of the subsurface.
2. Install one row of SportBase panels along the width of the court, aligning the edge of the panels with
the subsurface edge. Install panels by inter -locking the puzzle piece connections with the previous
panel (see Figure 2). Pull each panel so that the gap between each is roughly 1/8". Install edge locks
between each panel to help maintain the proper panel spacing (see Figure 1). SportBase panels may
overhang the edge of subsurface opposite from the starting location.
3. Install one column of SportBase panels along the length of the court, aligning the edge of the panels
with the subsurface edge (see Figure 2). Pull each panel so that the gap between each is roughly 1/8".
Install edge locks between each panel to help maintain the proper panel spacing (see Figure 1). Leave
a gap of 3/8" — 1/2" between the panel edges and the inside edge of the compacted base form.
SportBase panels may overhang the edge of the subsurface opposite from the starting location.
1
00
0
00
Figure 1
e e
e o
®:e
e e
o e
e o
0 0
e o
o e
e e
0 0
0 0
e o
o e o e e o 0 0 o e
e o e o e e e e e o
e e e ••••• e e ••••• e e [•••• o e ••••• o
e e o e e o 0 o e e
Figure 2
SI-0018-A Page 3 of 6 05/03/2011
4. Once a row and column of panels has been installed, the rest of the SportBase grid can be filled in.
Install the next row of SportBase panels along the width of the court by inter -locking the puzzle piece
features and setting the panel straight down. Pull the panels so that there is an even gap measuring
roughly 1/8" between each of the panels.
5. As you proceed, install the corner locks at each intersection where four SportBase panels come
together (see Figure 3). It is critical to install the corner locks as each SportBase is laid down in
order to allow for the correct spacing between each panel.
Figure 3
6. Continue installing the SportBase panels and corner locks until the entire subsurface is covered.
7. Any panels overhanging the compacted subsurface must be trimmed 3/8"-1/2" from the edge of the
compacted base forms. Snap a chalk -line along the length and width of the court to indicate where to
trim.
8. Use a circular saw, or other suitable cutting device, to trim the SportBase panels.
9. (Optional) The male end puzzle piece may be trimmed off the SportBase panel and inserted into the
female puzzle piece to fill in the holes along the edge of the SportBase surface (see Figure 4).
/Cut Puzzle Piece
f
Rotatc Faille Piro
Insert Puzzle Picce
Figure 4
SI-0018-A
Page 4 of 6
05,03i2011
4. Unce a row and column of panels has been Installed, the rest of the SportBase grid can be tilled in.
Install the next row of SportBase panels along the width of the court by inter -locking the puzzle piece
features and setting the panel straight down. Pull the panels so that there is an even gap measuring
roughly 1/8" between each of the panels.
5. As you proceed, install the corner locks at each intersection where four SportBase panels come
together (see Figure 3). It is critical to install the corner locks as each SportBase is laid down in
order to allow for the correct spacing between each panel.
e e
a
a
a
a a I a
W
a
a a
as a a a
0
a
0
a
a
0
I�
a a
Figure 3
6. Continue installing the SportBase panels and corner locks until the entire subsurface is covered.
7. Any panels overhanging the compacted subsurface must be trimmed 3/8"-1/2" from the edge of the
compacted base forms. Snap a chalk -line along the length and width of the court to indicate where to
trim.
8. Use a circular saw, or other suitable cutting device, to trim the SportBase panels.
9. (Optional) The male end puzzle piece may be trimmed off the SportBase panel and inserted into the
female puzzle piece to fill in the holes along the edge of the SportBase surface (see Figure 4).
Cut Puiilc Piccc
-- (R Rotate Puzzle Pius
Insert Puzzle Piece
Figure 4
SI-0018-A
Page 4 of 6
05/03/2011
0
•
10. Once trimming is complete, install any remaining edge locks to secure the perimeter SportBase panels
(see Figure 1). Note: panels trimmed beyond the locking feature will not be compatible with the edge
lock pieces.
11. Once SportBase panels are installed over the compacted subsurface, use a vibrating plate compactor
to seat the SportBase panels. Any high or low spots will require removal of SportBase panel followed
by leveling the surface.
12. Install Sport Court modular flooring products following pre -designed layout and color scheme.
Disassembly
If any repairs need to be made to the compacted subsurface or if a SportBase panel is damaged and requires
replacement, individual panels can be removed without disturbing the adjacent panels installed. It may be
necessary to remove Sport Court modular products in the area that needs replacement or repair.
1. Using the corner lock removal tool, align the forks with the slots in the SportBase panels.
2. Firmly press the lock removal tool straight down to disconnect the corner lock piece from the SportBase
panels.
3. Lift lock removal tool and corner connector piece from the floor.
1 1
law _
,ib>
Figure 5
4. Remove the corner lock piece from the lock removal tool.
5. Repeat the previous steps on the corresponding corners to the SportBase panel that needs to be
removed.
6. Remove any SportBase panels in areas that need repair or replacement.
7. Make any repairs to the compacted subsurface.
B. Install SportBase panel and corner lock pieces.
9. Install Sport Court modular products over SportBase panels.
SI-0018-A
Page 5 of 6
05/03/2011
Setting Anchors for Components
If the court requires installation of components (hoops, lights, etc.) be aware that the concrete footings need to
accommodate the additional 2" height of the SportBase product. Install forms around the hole for the anchor to
raise the height of the concrete footing to be flush with the top of the SportBase surface. This will ensure that the
net hole locations on hoop and light systems will be located at their appropriate heights (see Figure 6).
SportBase
System
4 I
0 o a
O p a
/ASP
00 oeo
do a000 - -oe o°000
po ooOo Oo.c�% 0°0 � �o od0o
o pb'o o� ago o p-
O 1
Concrete Footing
Forms (Flush with SportBase surface)
Figure 6
Compacted Base Maintenance
The compacted base materials may need to be repaired and re -compacted over the life of the court in order to
maintain the best performance and stability. Repair the sub -base when the surface has become soft, washed
away, or the flatness has been compromised. Follow the "Disassembly" steps from above to remove SportBase
panels for maintenance.
SI-0018-A Page 6 of 6 05/03/2011
Setting Anchors for Components
If the court requires installation of components (hoops, lights, etc.) be aware that the concrete footings need to
accommodate the additional 2" height of the SportBase product. Install forms around the hole for the anchor to
raise the height of the concrete footing to be flush with the top of the SportBase surface. This will ensure that the
net hole locations on hoop and light systems will be located at their appropriate heights (see Figure 6).
SportBase
System
® ego
p Ooa
0
f �G O
®
c nv
o eo 0O a o G a
Concrete Footing
Forms (Flush with SportBase surface)
Figure 6
Compacted Base Maintenance
The compacted base materials may need to be repaired and re -compacted over the life of the court in order to
maintain the best performance and stability. Repair the sub -base when the surface has become soft, washed
away, or the flatness has been compromised. Follow the "Disassembly" steps from above to remove SportBase
panels for maintenance.
SI-0018-A Page 6 of 6 05/03/2011
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on July
7, 2011, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that
on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for the
Burroughs Variance — Planning Case 2011-07 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A",
by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the
envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid
thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the
records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this _2�h day of I , 2011.
1
Notary Publi
KIM T. MEUWISSEN
Notary Public -Minnesota
r; �, My E%Wrea.Hn 31, 2015
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until
later in the evening,depending on the order of the agenda.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Proposal:
Request for Variance to build a sport court on property zoned
Single Family Residential RSF
Applicant:
Josh Koller-Southview Design
Property
10036 Trails End Road
Location:
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
What Happens
public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
at the Meeting:
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the City's projects web page at:
j
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/11-07.html . If you wish
to talk to someone about this project, please contact Angie
Questions &
Kairies by email at akairies(Muchanhassen.ri or by
Comments:
phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written
comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in
advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the
Commission. The staff report for this item will be available
online on the project web site listed above the Thursday
prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, conditional and Interm Uses, Wetland Alterations,
Rezonings. Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerclal/industrial.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete, Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not, Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
Date & Time:
Tuesday, July 19, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until
later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for Variance to build a sport court on property zoned
Proposal:
Sin le Family Residential RSF
Applicant:
Josh Koller-Southview Design
Property
10036 Trails End Road
Location:
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
W
What Happens
public hearing through the following steps:
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the City's projects web page at:
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/l 1-07.html . If you wish
to talk to someone about this project, please contact Angie
Questions &
Kairies by email at akajriesAci.chanhassen.mn.us or by
Comments:
phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written
comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in
advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the
Commission. The staff report for this item will be available
online on the project web site listed above the Thursday
prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alteratio
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of
application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent Information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council, The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majorty vote of the
city Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial.
• Minnesota state Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokespersonlrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Stall person named on the notification.
E
JEREMY & LYNN EATON WALTER E MANEY
10017 TRAILS END RD 10024 TRAILS END RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4594 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4594
JOE MORRISON WILLIAM & ELIZABETH PETA
10053 TRAILS END RD 10065 TRAILS END RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4594 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4594
CUSHMAN ENTERPRISES INC STEVE LEIVERMANN
12300 SINGLETREE LN STE 200 14248 BEDFORD DR
EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344-7964 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346-3030
CENTRAL BANK NORTH AMERICAN BANKING
2104 HASTINGS AVE COMPANY
NEWPORT MN 55055-1501 2230 ALBERT ST
ROSEVILLE MN 55113-4206
KURT & HEIDI SCHEPPMANN ROBERT A PARKER
40 SETTLERS CT 50 SETTLERS CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4595 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4594
MICHAEL J KANE CATHERINE L MEYERS
8574 SARATOGA LN 9841 DEERBROOK DR
EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347-1611 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8550
JOHN M & LINDA J REVIER RYAN & COURTNEY DUNLAY
9881 DEERBROOK DR 9901 DEERBROOK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8550 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8552
NICHOLAS JOHNSON TRAVIS & JENNIFER PALMQUIST
9941 DEERBROOK DR 9948 TRAILS END RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8552 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4592
XIANGDONG LIN STEVEN D & MARY E DODGE
9960 TRAILS END RD 9965 TRAILS END RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4592 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4592
STEVEN R PASCHKE RANDALL S & MELODEE D BROOKS
9977 TRAILS END RD 9984 TRAILS END RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4592 CHANHASSEN MN 553174592
PHILIP R & STACEY M BURROUGHS
10036 TRAILS END RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4594
CHRISTOPHER & ERIN WETMORE
10072 TRAILS END RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4594
DANIEL W ABERCROMBIE
1572 CLEMSON DR #B
EAGAN MN 55122-4806
HENNEPIN CO REG RR AUTHORITY
300 6TH ST S SW STREET LEVEL
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55487-0999
RICK & HEATHER EHRMAN
60 SETTLERS WEST CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4595
JOHN E LONSTEIN
9861 DEERBROOK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8550
MICHAEL J & PATRICIA A CONROY
9921 DEERBROOK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8552
ROBERT G DAUB
9953 TRAILS END RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4592
JAMES DOBCHUK
9972 TRAILS END RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4592
ROBERT G & SUSAN D BUSCH
9989 TRAILS END RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4592
0 0
SOUTHVIEW DESIGN
ATTN JOSH KOLLER
1875 EAST 50TH STREET
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS MN 55077
rqj
City of Chanhassen
P O BOX 147
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
07/20/2011 10:51 AM
Receipt No. 0162428
CLERK: bethany
PAYEE: Southview Design, Inc.
1875 50th St E
Inver Grove Heights MN 55077
Planning Case # 2011-07
-------------------------------------------------------
Property Owners List 87.00
Total
Cash
Check 27697
Change
87.00
0.00
87.00
0.00
SCANNED
SOUTHVIEW D &IGN, INC. •
CIT33 ,City of Chanh en
7-19-11 07.19.11 Permit 87.00 .00
"�4wozO
27697
87.00
7-19-11 27697 87.00 .00 87.00
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
mioF (952) 227-1100
SIX
To: Josh Koller
Southview Design
1875 East 5'" Street
Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077
Invoice
SALESPERSON DATE TERMS
KTM 7/7/11 upon receipt
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
AMOUNT
29
Property Owners List within 500' of 10036 Trails End Road (29 labels)
$3.00
$87.00
TOTAL DUE
$87.00
NOTE: This invoice is in accordance with the Development Review Application submitted to the City by the
Addressee shown above (copy attached) and must be paid prior to the public hearing scheduled for July 19,
2011.
Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen
Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #2011-07.
If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS!
SCANNED
Kairies, Angie
From:
Kaines, Angie
Sent:
Wednesday, July 20, 2011 2:54 PM
To:
'Josh Koller'
Cc:
Jeffery, Terry
Subject:
10036 Trails End Road
Josh,
The application that was submitted was for relief from the hard surface coverage. As it appeared last night
you were trying to appeal a determination of staff. Therefore, we have two separate and possibly concurrent
issues.
1. The request for relief from the 25% hard surface maximum.
2. An apparent request for an interpretation or amendment of the City Code to permit SportBase .M as a
city wide pervious application. (this was not noticed as a part of your application)
What is moving forward to the City Council and what was voted on last night by the Board of Adjustments is
item number 1. To appeal last night's decision, you will need to submit a Letter of Appeal in writing to me by
Friday of this week.
If it is your intent to have this material interpreted as an approved pervious material, a separate application
and Public Hearing will be necessary. No fee will be associated with a second application. This shall include
additional engineering information. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to provide adequate data
specific to the material, construction, and the site to show that the resulting hydrologic and hydraulic
conditions:
• Will decrease runoff;
• Will not create downstream or localized flooding or erosive conditions; and
• Will function per design into the future.
If you would like to move forward with a code amendment and the hard surface coverage variance
concurrently, we can postpone the scheduled City Council meeting to accommodate both. To do that the
Letter of Appeal you submit by this Friday must also state that you are waiving the 60 day review period.
As Terry stated last night, he does not contend the argument that the SportBase .m material has a hydraulic
conductivity superior to that of most common native soil materials. However, the system in its entirety does
not have a hydraulic conductivity superior to that of native soil materials with vegetation. At this time, staff
will not make a favorable recommendation for the use of this material as a City wide pervious application;
therefore, please consider how much of an investment you are willing to incur.
Feel free to contact me or Terry with any additional questions.
Sincerely,
Angie and Terry
SCANNED
4b
Angie Kairies
Planner I
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd
Chanhassen. MN 55317
Direct dial: 952-227-1132
Fax: 952-227-1110
email: akairiesaC)ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Website: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
From: Josh Koller rmailto:jkoller(a)southviewdesion.coml
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 8:35 AM
To: Kairies, Angie
Cc: Burroughs, Philip; Craig ]ones; kevin zwart
Subject:
Hello Angie, can you send me the info I need to process the appeal, or let me know what I all need to do. Also can you
have Terry send me and the team at sport court all of the things that he either disputes or has questions on so we can
answer them and be better prepared for the next meeting? I know you and I had had conversations on how we were not
doing the sub -base that was on the diagram but he seemed to not know about that and at the end of the meeting
yesterday his final argument was that he doesn't know enough about the sport court to give his approval. So what I would
like to do is have him send us all of the questions that he has and his reasons for not understanding or accepting it so that
the engineers at sport court can answer any of his questions. We would just like to be as prepared as we can for the next
meeting, and given that there is a limited time to get this done I would like to get this as soon as we can. Thanks Angie
you have been a big help in getting back to us right away on all of this.
Thanks,
Josh
Josh Koller I Southview Design I Landscape Designer
Office 651.203.3028 1 Mobile 651.248.39611 Fax 651.455.1734
Website I Blog I Facebook
Chanhassen Planning Commission -July 19, 2011 •
4. The applicant must obtain a stable permit.
5. The accessory structure may not be used as a separate dwelling unit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
BURROUGHS VARIANCE: REOUEST FOR VARIANCE TO BUILD A SPORT
COURT ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) LOCATED
AT 10036 TRAILS END ROAD. APPLICANT: JOSH KOLLER. SOUTHVIEW
DESIGN. OWNER: STACEY & PHIL BURROUGHS, PLANNING CASE 2011-07.
Public Present:
Name Address
Kevin Zwart
1301 E. Cliff Road, Burnsville
Craig Jones
1301 E. Cliff Road, Burnsville
Josh Koller
1027 Northview Park Road, Eagan
Phil Burroughs
10036 Trails End Road
Kairies: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The application before you
tonight is for 10036 Trails End Road, Lot 15, Block 1, Settlers West. Property zoned Single
Family Residential. The applicant is requesting, back one more time. Excuse me. It's located
south of Pioneer Trail. To the west of the property is the Hennepin County Regional Railroad.
To the south of the property, south end of the entire development is basically bluff area and then
to the east is also Eden Prairie towards the north part of the subdivision. The applicant is
requesting a 4.3% or 681 square foot variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage
limitation within the residential single family district for the construction of a sport court in the
rear yard. The Settlers West subdivision was platted in 2005 and as part of platting the
subdivision there was several environmental considerations that took place. For instance there
are bluffs which are all outlined in red so the majority of the southern half of Settlers West.
There's a seasonally high water table within the development. There are several tree
preservation areas and outlots to protect the natural features. The development is made up
primarily of clay soils. As also part of the development to control some of the storm water
runoff, there were reverse swales that were put in on the southern part of the development to
ensure that water does not go down the bluff and cause erosion problems. And then again on the
west side there were storm water pipes that were put into the rear yards in drainage and utility
easements to control where runoff is being distributed so that it's not causing erosion in the bluff
and then on the regional railway. And all of the runoff does go into the Minnesota River which
is an impaired water. The subject site came in for a building permit in 2006 and at that time the
hard surface coverage was at 24.7% and again 25% is the maximum. The property included the
house, garage, driveway, sidewalk from the front door to the driveway and also 180 square foot
patio. Prior to tonight's meeting the applicant did come in and request a zoning permit to install
patios and stepping stones which brought the property to 25% exactly, and then today they're
requesting to install a 681 square foot sport court which would bring them to 29.3%. The
0
SCANNED
Chanhassen Planning Commission -July 19, 2011
applicant did submit sport court designs to show that it was a pervious system and after Terry
reviewed the design, the sport court base which is the top layer is pervious. However as part of
the installation that was shown to us, the sub -base and the surface, sub -surface were compacted
and therefore are impervious. Again there's a seasonally high water table which makes it
difficult in this area to create more storm water runoff. And furthermore city code does not
recognize this material as an approved impervious surface. Excuse me as an approved pervious
surface. Therefore administratively we cannot recommend approval of such a material. Staff is
recommending, the applicant does have reasonable use of the property in that they have a single
family home and a 2 car garage on the lot currently and with that staff is recommending denial of
the application and I'll take any questions at this time.
Aller: Is it a 3 car garage or a 2 car garage?
Kairies: Three car garage. Two cars the minimum but they have a 3 car.
Aller: Any questions? Commissioner Ellsworth?
Ellsworth: No.
Aller: Commissioner Doll?
Doll: No, I don't.
Aller: Kathleen.
Thomas: I don't think so.
Aller: Commissioner Hokkanen.
Hokkanen: Not yet.
Allen. Commissioners.
Undestad: No questions.
Aller: Great report.
Kairies: Thank you.
Aller: Do we have anyone, an applicant that wants to come forward and make a presentation?
Phil Burroughs: Yeah.
Aller: Great. If you can please state your name and address for the record.
Phil Burroughs: Yep. I'm Phil Burroughs. I'm the property owner.
Chanhassen Planning Commission - July 19, 2011
Aller: Mr. Burroughs, thank you.
Phil Burroughs: Thank you. So I just, I prepared a few comments and then, which I will read
and hand it over to my contractor who had a few things he wanted to demonstrate.
Aller: Great, thank you.
Phil Burroughs: So members of the commission, my name's Phil Burroughs and I and my wife
Stacey are the owners of the property at 10036 Trails End which is the subject obviously of the
variance request you're asked to consider today. I have Josh Koller with me of Southview
Designs who's my contractor, and a couple gentlemen from the Sport Court organization to you
know represent the surface that's kind of in dispute here. So you know I think, a couple things
I'll emphasize in the abstract before I get to the actual points that I want to make here. You
know we absolutely wanted to create a yard that would enhance the visual appeal of the
neighborhood, provide outdoor space for playing activities, you know all while preserving the
environment and the natural beauty of the community. You know we clearly sought to comply
with all codes and regulations provided by the City that every aspect of our proposed
development approved by the City. I'm sure you're well aware that there's, you walked through
and I think demonstrated well kind of the reasons behind the code and you know we understood
that in order to accomplish compliance that we needed to come up with a solution that was, that
would provide for the right level of drainage and at the level of perviousness necessary, if that's
even a word. Perviousness. You know to be in compliance so we chose the sport court solution
that we're asking you to review today as we believe that we've demonstrated that it's unique
design renders the surface permeable. Thereby excluding it from hardscape regulations so I'll let
the guys provide some of the technical expertise but I wanted to make it clear that I strongly
contend to follow you. One of the basis for the argument by the staff members against our
request is that the solution is not water permeable. Their support for this position the staff
references the installation instructions for the sport base solution, emphasizing the guidance in
those instructions that the installer compact the soil. The solution we've advanced does not call
for compacting the underlying soil. In fact we plan to use a pervious sand sub -base which is
water permeable at a much faster rate than the native clay soil or any other landscaping or non-
hardscaping solution. This solution description you know was provided as part of our proposal
and the only thing that frankly puzzled me as I read through the packet was that that did not
appear to have been considered in the recommendations that were advanced. I believe we're
dealing with a circular argument. We have a water pervious surface. Placed on a pervious sub-
base. A sub -base that would meet code for landscaping or lawn design but we're told that
despite providing evidence to the contrary we're proposing a solution that will behave like
hardscape and against the spirit of the regulation. And just one other thing to comment on from
the written materials. This, you know the package submits that the solution we propose is again
counter to the spirit of the statute as it has aesthetic implications that accompany the loss of
green space. You know I guess I would submit that that last argument is specious particularly
when you consider the care we've taken to design you know a beautiful solution that will provide
a beauty to the neighborhood for years to come. And finally I wanted to say I appreciate the
service you guys all provide in coming here on a nice, lovely July night and I thank you in
advance for considering our cause for a variance.
Chanhassen Planning Commission - July 19, 2011
Aller: Thank you Mr. Burroughs.
Josh Koller: Hi. Josh Koller. I'm with Southview Design. I'm the landscape designer on this
so, and I've had a lot of talks with Angela over here about what we're doing. She's been very
helpful in kind of telling us how we need to go about this. What we're trying to do is, honestly
the landscape industry we know the 25% and we're trying to keep underneath that. That's not
what we're trying to do but Angela explained to me that we needed to apply for a variance first
so that we can present what we're trying to install and get it considered you know a permeable
surface. Now I don't know, can you go back to that slide that shows all the layers of the, I don't
know if it'd be possible to do that or not. There you go. So in this slide here it shows the sub-
base and everything that we're trying to do that and that's what we're kind of claiming that it's
not, you know water will not be able to penetrate that. However as a solution to that with the
sport court piece we're eliminating that. What we're doing is we're putting a sand base
underneath that and compacting this material into the sand so realistically this is going to go,
water's going to penetrate this a lot better than the clay soil plug that I pulled out of their yard.
And I brought these gentlemen from Sport Court to kind of explain that if you guys don't mind
taking a look at it and seeing how it works and going from there.
Aller: Thank you.
Kevin Zwart: Kevin Zwart with Sport Court Minneapolis. I think when people hear the word
sport court they automatically think concrete, asphalt, those things and we're kind of known for
this. Nice colorful surface that everyone sees us out there for. I mean Craig Jones here has been
in the Twin Cities area for 25 years you know with the company Sport Court building these
projects and what we found across the country, or the nation, the Chicago's and some of those
areas, is these impervious structure ordinances are coming down very, very tight. We haven't
seen it a whole lot until the last 4 or 5 years locally so what Sport Court corporate office did is
come out with a product called Sport Base and that would be the base underneath the green tile
here that is basically once again an interlocking puzzle with holes in it. I don't know if you guys
have all the paperwork. I know Angie does with all the filtration studies that are out there that
just like Josh said, you know if that lot that you say is primarily clay or 40% clay soils, and you
get a heavy, heavy rain, we know a lot of that water ends up in the road. You know runoff. Now
what we're proposing to do, we just finished one in Burnsville and said we were too close to
Crystal Lake down there so we couldn't do any hard cover. So we went in, excavated out that
clay. Those hard soils and then we put down a bed of 8 inches of sand. Then the sport base
product and then of course the sport court tile over the top of it. So in turn what we've done is
we've kind of not funneled but any of that rain water that's going to fall within that 649 square
feet, we're slowing that down. Now it's going to have the time to naturally you know filtrate
into the soils versus everything else around it we know runs right off of clay. So we're actually
slowing down runoff in that area and I think where some confusion is taking place is in our sales
brochure and some of those things where it does say compacted base, and a lot of people think of
that right away as Class V, which over time gets as hard as concrete and doesn't drain either you
know so we are going in with an 8 inch base of sand. And that's what I kind of have to just
combat what's kind of been shown here.
0
Chanhassen Planning Co •ssion - July 19, 2011 •
Alley: Is the sand sitting on top of clay? Or is there.
Craig Jones: On top of the natural soil.
Kevin Zwart: Natural soils. We would dig out 8 inches. Bring in 8 inches of sand.
Aller: And there's nothing underneath funneling or channeling the water away? It's just natural
soils.
Craig Jones: None whatsoever. It came with a panel around the outside.
Kevin Zwart: We use paver edging.
Aller: But you're not taking the water away with any kind of pump system or drainage system?
Craig Jones: No, nothing whatsoever.
Kevin Zwart: No.
Craig Jones: It's going to be better for drainage. It's not going to be as good for the house. I
mean you're letting water percolate into the water table but as far as overflow into you know just
natural runoff, we're trying to slow that down so. The biggest piece, and I think Angie can
answer this one from the conversations we've had is just the base material. So when we talked
Class V and packing it and those type of things then she's right. I mean that is going to stop it. I
mean permeable pavers, you guys don't accept that here in Chanhassen because of the base
materials and eventually it gets clogged up and those types of things. This is totally different.
We're just putting a sand base in to allow for that water. I mean it's, obviously it's going to
drain a lot better than what the clay will, you know than just what the natural clay would do.
Kevin Zwart: And you guys don't count decks in Chanhassen, correct? A wood deck or a
synthetic board deck.
Kairies: Standard deck we exclude from hard cover.
Kevin Zwart: Standard deck, okay. So this I like to, you know it's really a sport deck. I mean is
it any different than someone who had a deck off their house and below it they had a sand box
for their kids to play in you know? That's really what we have.
Aller: So the request is that we exclude this from calculation.
Kevin Zwart: Yeah, I think the hard cover you'd be adding to this would really be a 2 foot by 2
foot footing that the basketball hoop would set in, which would be a concrete footing.
Craig Jones: And that's what we were told to do. We were told to present this and we're
actually trying to get it to not count against the hard cover as the point of the presentation.
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission - July 19, 2011
Aller: Has there been any indication of what the impact this slowing actually would be. I mean
we're butting up against, it'd be one thing just saying in general that it's going to be better than
concrete or better than asphalt clearly, but what happens that water, we're still sitting in the
center of this property and it still has a long way to go and it's going to end up in the bluff. So is,
what's the impact on the actual drainage?
Craig Jones: What we're actually trying to do is just like if we do a French drainage system in
somebody's house where we dig up like almost like a sump well and then we fill that with rock.
What we're trying to do is when water fills that up, if we get the 100 year flood, which it seems
like we've had 4 or 5 of those this year, what we're trying to do is we're trying to get all the
water to go to that so that it's able to fill that area up and then slowly percolate down into the
water table and that's what we're trying to do with that. We're not trying to get it to run off the
surface. Same thing with this. I mean this will allow for water to gather into the sport court and
slowly percolate where it's not, instead of just having a runoff like a clay. I mean essentially
what we're trying to do with the hard cover is we're trying to stop runoff from going into you
know whatever the water areas, the caver, into the bluffs or into the street. If anything without
the sub -base, without doing the Class V basing and those types of things, this is going to help
that system. It's not going to hurt it. So we're trying to let it percolate into the water table
better, especially with a sand base is what we're trying to do.
Thomas: Am I correct that you're around the blocks that are the jigsaw puzzles, for lack of a
better term. Are you building like a, not a dam but are you kind of boxing it in?
Craig Jones: It's put on like around paver patios.
Thomas: Okay.
Craig Jones: There's an edging that's actually staked into the ground to hold these from shifting
back and forth of course and that actually is at the same height as this.
Thomas: As that.
Craig Jones: And so that has that ability to stop that water that's.
Thomas: That was my other question is how would that, all I could see is like I would imagine it
would just nm right off. You know how it would percolate but, so it's got edging around it.
Craig Jones: Right.
Thomas: Okay.
Hokkanen: Is there, based on the picture, are there only 8 holes in each?
Kevin Zwart: Yeah it goes through actually all of the sub -bases. They did a study on this where
they actually drilled holes in every piece.
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission - July 19, 2011
Hokkanen: Okay.
Craig Jones: Instead of having just the holes on the sides and then when it connects together,
because these don't connect solidly. They just loosely fit.
Hokkanen: Okay, I can see that now.
Craig Jones: And the study actually showed that water percolated just as much in the filtration
system I've got here than if you drill a hole in each one, which certainly, I mean if a guy needed
to do that, you know we could punch holes in every square of this if you wanted to. But it's not
needed.
Kevin Zwart: Yeah you can see by the infiltration gridding of the, if you can read those studies
which I have difficult times with. In essence what it's saying is that it's allowing you know
more than 100 year flood to penetrate through this pretty easily and rapidly. Much faster than it
would with clay so we're creating that ability for it to absorb that and slowly release it into the
clay.
Aanenson: Chairman if I may, before we cut out. I just kind of want to reframe why we're at
this point. This is the first variance tonight in that you've seen in over a year because of the
State Supreme Court and now we've passed new variance criteria. They've asked for hard
surface coverage variance. We historically have not approved hard surface variances. They're
asking for an interpretation of our previous recommendation so I want to make sure that you
understand that's kind of what, why they're bringing this and demonstrating this for you is that
they're disagreeing with our interpretation, which is a right as part of the appeal process, that
they're aggrieved of a decision of an administrative officer so our interpretation is that it doesn't
meet that criteria so that's, I just want to make sure that we kind of frame the discussion there on
that point.
Doll: That's Terry's opinion, Terry and the public works and the engineering department?
Aanenson: Yeah, I'll let Terry speak to that.
Jeffery: Chair Aller, Commissioner Doll, yeah. That is in fact correct. While I do not dispute
the hydraulic conductivity of the sport base itself. In fact the University of Utah State University
study does show that it has K value much higher than your different soil materials. However that
same study then goes on to ... underlying sub -grade material which is the ... and while there will
be a sand base in there which will have the hydraulic conductivity of sand, below that will still
be, and that's I guess where I'm still contending it is, the sub -grade will still need to be
compacted. You will still need a level surface. You can't just lay it there. But even beyond that,
we don't have engineering to say that there would even be adequate storage within that sport
court area to accommodate what's there. My contention is that yes, this, in the past we have not
allowed for these type of materials and I don't feel that this is the time to do so.
Kevin Zwart: If I may just add on that real quick. I do have to, I think a little bit of that though
again is based on the base material. All we're going to do is dig down and grade a level spot.
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission - July 19, 2011
We are not going to run a compactor on the base. However, if a person has a family or kids and
they're running around in their yard with a clay yard, that's going to get compacted more than
what this is going to be. I'm not running a compactor over this. We're running 8 inches of sand,
and I think that's where you're talking about, if I'm correct that you're saying you're doing to
sub cut down and then you're going to put some type of base or compact it or whatever, which is
actually what we're not, we're not doing that. We're just grading. We're cutting it down.
We're bringing in our sand and then we're putting this directly over the top of it. The only time
I'm going to compact anything is I'm just going to compact this material into the sand itself. Not
into the clay base or anything like that, so those pictures that we showed as far as how it gets
compacted, we're not doing that based on the City's recommendation that, and that's what we
were told is to come in here and talk about that. That's what we're not doing so that we can
allow for that penetration. I was told that this was the first time that this product has ever come
up to the City of Chanhassen so about the knowledge of what it is, is that correct Angie? I think
that's what you had said.
Aanenson: I don't believe that's, I don't think that's a, I think we've pretty much seen every
iteration of hard surface coverage from permeable pavers to pervious asphalt.
Kevin Zwart: Yes. Yeah, I'm talking about this. I'm sorry.
Aanenson: Yeah, no. Yeah, right. And we have denied other sport courts in the past, and I'm
not you know, so again you have the right to make your appeal and so.
Aller: And I just have some other quick questions that are on a little bit different vein here and
that would be, the first permit that was taken out here with the Burroughs, the owners, builders or
did they purchase the property after built or?
Phil Burroughs: I'm sorry.
Aller: Did you build the property? The home?
Phil Burroughs: ...built the property. They pulled the permit. Built it as a spec home.
Aller: It was a spec home for you? And then there was a second time that a variance was
requested for additional work?
Kairies: No. They requested a zoning permit to install patios and some stone steppers and at
that time we also calculate the hard surface coverage. The purpose of the zoning permit is for
the hard cover essentially.
Aller: Right.
Kairies: To make sure that we're not exceeding the 25%.
Aller: So that zoning, and that zoning permit brought it to 25%.
13
Chanhassen Planning Co•ssion - July 19, 2011 •
Phil Burroughs: I mean it was two steps that, so we submitted for the kind of the landscaping
and the patio and then submitted.
Aanenson: If you don't mind, they're trying to record it so if you can just step up to the
microphone, so they can get you on tape.
Aller: Thank you Mr. Burroughs.
Phil Burroughs: I'll let the...
Josh Koller: Yeah we, the landscaping permit we pulled was yeah, just basically for the existing
concrete patio actually exceeded a little bit so we actually were tearing the existing patio out.
Redoing it so that it would fit the 25% and then we're applying to put the sport court in, and
again basically put a sand box in with a tile over top of it.
Undestad: Can you just, you were saying you're going to compact something into the sand. Is it
just the green surface or the black, the tiles?
Kevin Zwart: What we actually do is once we lay that sand down, level that out and put
a ... board across it, then we lay this on top of it and then we run our compactor over the top of
this just to seed it into that sand.
Undestad: So you compact that and that compacts down into the sand and
Kevin Zwart: Right. You've got to remember sand will compact but always returns to it's
original state. All we're trying to do is get this level.
Undestad: Until it gets wet and then it all just goes down...
Kevin Zwart: Well sand has that unusual ability of absorbing a great deal more moisture and
will compact but always returns to it's original state. Clay doesn't do that.
Josh Koller: And this is a lot different than permeable pavers. I mean I install permeable pavers
all the time and I know the City of Chanhassen doesn't accept them because they you know, for
the base, basically because of the basing and like again, we're just eliminating that. We're just
basically putting a deck on sand is what we're trying to do.
Ellsworth: Mr. Chair?
Aller: Commissioner.
Ellsworth: Which is more pervious, a lawn with some black dirt and the roots of the grass or clay
that's just scraped clear down a foot and just left?
Jeffery: Chair Aller, Commissioner Ellsworth. Biofiltration features work specifically because
the soil has been augmented and their plants roots within it. That's what allows for the porosity
14
Chanhassen Planning Commission - July 19, 2011
down below so all else being equal that material which has plant growth within it is going to be
more pervious.
Ellsworth: Okay. And then for this sport court, that soil would be removed and it would just be
clay exposed with sand on top of it.
Jeffery: That is my understanding.
Ellsworth: Okay. So I don't live very far from there and I know the clay soils in that area and it
is like concrete. Not this year but on other years when it's drier. It's muck right now. That's the
only question. Thank you Terry.
Aller: And I just want to make the record clear, you indicated that it would not be clay?
Josh Koller: No, I mean there's clay. I pulled the plug on this property to find what the soils
are. I mean we'd have to go down a long ways to not get to clay.
Aller: Okay.
Josh Koller: But to go back to the question about sod, a sod system, sod has a vertical root
system so even sod where it has 3 inches of soil on top of it, and especially on this site and 90%
of homes that are just builder done where they don't bring in a lot of black dirt, the sod's laid on
this property directly on clay. So the filtration from the sod and the little bit of black dirt,
absolutely. That will allow for more filtration going to it. On the clay base of it, it's no different
than what we're going to have here because that root system of that sod can't penetrate on heavy
clay like that anyway. So it's spreading, that's why when you have, and we run into this in the
landscape industry a lot so we try on a new home to bring in at least 6 to 8 inches of black dirt
because then your grass, the root system can go deeper. You don't have to water as much. The
problem is with a lot of clay, when they put sod right on top of clay, that's why you see
homeowners watering every other day where actually on a good yard you should only have to
water your yard once every 5 days.
Aller: But I think that gets to Commissioner Ellsworth's question and the point he was making
was that the grass in that sod helps draw that water out. It's being utilized, it's growing. Grass is
growing and so the filtration is actually there whereas a sport court or any other impervious
surface, once it hits the clay it's.
Josh Koller: If you don't mind let me go back to that. Would you say, Terry? I think it's Terry.
Would you say that that, for sod because this house has maybe 3 inches of black dirt and then it's
clay directly underneath it. Would you say that that soil is going to penetrate that 3 inches of the
sod with the black dirt and then go into the clay faster than it's going to penetrate 8 inches of
sand and then go into the clay because you're only talking, you're talking 3 inches of black dirt
with sod and then it's still hard clay and you're talking 8 inches of sand and then it's hard clay so
just ask you the question. I mean realistically it's not going to.
15
Chanhassen Planning Commission - July 19, 2011
Jeffery: Chairman Aller. If you're asking, the hydraulic conductivity of the clay will remain the
same.
Josh Koller: Yep.
Jeffery: Irrespective of what is above it.
Josh Koller: Yep.
Jeffery: Utilization by the vegetation that's there will be greater. Therefore the total volume of
runoff will be less.
Undestad: And don't we really have more than just 8 inches of sand? It's got to get through that
stuff too?
Josh Koller: Yeah but this is what any stuff the case study showed. This does go through faster
than your, than ... then even with sod on top of that.
Doll: Does the surrounding, there should be a site plan, is the surrounding vegetation aid in this?
Jeffery: Chairman Aller, Commissioner Doll. One of the things that we're running into, let's
throw everything else aside. Let's say we got to some presupposition where this would be a
beneficial circumstance. Throwing all of that aside we still would require with anything like
this, any solution we're going to have that's going to affect our hydraulics and our hydrology
within the city and our storm water conveyance system, we're going to require engineering on it.
Beyond that we're going to require some type of long term maintenance. How are we going to
ensure that these practices exist and still function as designed into the future? I, well actually I
cannot answer how it will react with what is around it. For starters I don't know what the total
storage even would be within that. I don't know then what the hydraulic pad would be within
that. I don't know what the conductivity of the clay below it's going to be. All I know is we
have a design where we're going to make some type of sub -cut. 4 to 8 inches to this but
apparently this is not what I should be using. And then below that will be the inserted materials
which will not be compacted intentionally. However over time obviously if we're going to have
like surcharging a road. I mean if we're putting materials over it we are by it's definition.
Ultimately what it boils down to is we don't have a vehicle by which we can say that this
material would provide the benefit we are looking for. It is a constant discussion at staff level
and it is something that we would like to have a great solution that we could come before you
and not give you these hard decisions to make but at this time there are too many questions that
remain unanswered.
Aller: Any other questions? Thank you. Anyone else from the public who would like to speak
on the matter? Okay, we'll close the public hearing. Comments from commissioners.
Undestad: You know what, I mean just the questions that are there it's, you know and we kind
of go to Terry. I mean he's our water resources guy and he's got questions. I don't understand
this stuff myself either but if he doesn't understand it and you know we need more information
fri
Chanhassen Planning Commission - July 19, 2011
as to will this really work. All I see is somebody creates a clay hole you know 8 inches deep
with sand and the sport court and it fills with water and maybe they can't even use it while it's
full of water for a while until it goes in but I guess just the fact that there's still just too many
unknowns on the technical side of things, which is really what we need to know before it all goes
downstream with everything else.
Aller: Okay, anyone else? Comments.
Ellsworth: Ali Mr. Chair, a few comments. And one of them's a question I guess maybe for
staff. It says in the report that it's not an allowable pervious surface through the city code. How
does one petition or change the city code or have it at least considered this type of material being
allowed? And so if indeed tonight we deny this, how would the applicant perhaps go through it
that way and then get the proper analysis, the proper maintenance that Terry's talking about and
have that addressed and so then it's in the code and then it would come to us and we'd say well
it's in the code and we would approve it.
Aanenson: Sure. I can take that. Members of the Planning Commission. Anybody can request
a code amendment but to do the code amendment, as a staff we would actually do the research
and design. Kind of come back with you, to you with what we believe is the correct engineering
to support what systems and that's been an ongoing process. The State's undergoing that right
now looking at some different mid's. Some for those issues and that's something that we'll be
talking about this fall too. You know it's kind of that struggle because once you make a code
amendment it's not just for this site, and certainly we want, you know property owners to enjoy
their beautiful property but it affects every other property owner that would want to do the same
sort of thing and that's kind of the issue with this. It's, where else would it be applied and so
looking at the measure, we want to make sure that we studied it. Look to the engineering on that
so, but someone could apply for a variance but really you're kind of getting back to the same
issue again. Kind of a disagreement with our interpretation of what's impervious. Why they're
demonstrating to you what they believe how that product works and then I guess the question is,
is do we have the right engineering to make that decision? Do you feel comfortable with that?
That there's enough engineering done on how it's going to work. That's really what it comes
down to. Whether it's a code amendment or this variance application.
Aller: Thank you.
Ellsworth: Well then additionally the, I guess my intuition says I agree with Terry and what
Mark said that, and having experience with that soil at my own home and yeah as soon as you
dig a hole, when we first did our percolation test for the septic system and dug a hole and put a
tube in it and it filled up with water so obviously we had to do something different. And then we
take water pretty seriously around here and clearly as stated in the report it's not in the code. It
was never approved as a pervious surface and then I think it does, I agree it does not meet the
practical difficulty test for the variance that's needed and that would be my recommendation.
Thank you Mr. Chair.
Aller: Anybody else? Commissioner Doll.
17
0
Chanhassen Planning Commission - July 19, 2011
Doll: Appreciate all the work that Mr. Burroughs has done on this. I mean it's really gone far
above, just looks like unless the code is changed it just doesn't meet it. I'm for this thing. I
mean in theory. I think sport court brings a family together. It brings kids in the neighborhood.
It's a good thing. Just the way the thing's written, I don't know. I wish we could figure out, I
mean is there a way for the, to have an engineering study done.
Aanenson: Yeah certainly and that's something that we're kind of talking about. We're kind of
writing notes here. You know obviously if this gets appealed up to the City Council between
now and then, if some additional engineering can be provided. Some additional things that we
could look at, that might be something on this project that we could consider.
Alter: The reason I ask the questions, were to the practical hardships and whether or not there
was one here when you have a homeowner that builds the property and it's kind of like you
selected a property with a 3 car garage instead of a 2 car garage. You could have used the same
space to have a sport court originally and so you know those types of issues with the way
variances are supposed to be applied I think practical difficulties are going to be the major issue
here, not just the exemption. Soon that basis I think the better solution here would be to go
ahead and deny it and if the applicant chooses to appeal it, then take it up and have the
appropriate engineering studies done. They still have to face I think the practical difficulty
situation.
Phil Burroughs: May I ask a question on that Mr. Chairman?
Alter: Sure.
Phil Burroughs: I don't know what that means so maybe you can help interpret that for me. The
practical difficulty.
Alter: Well practical difficulty usually when you're looking, the way I'm looking at it is, it's
whether or not this problem is of your own making. Is it something that's so unique to the
property that it's a difficulty that is there that we have to deal with. Here we have a property that
was built and it's a great home and it's using the maximum hard space available to it and the fact
that it doesn't have a sport court isn't necessarily a difficulty to it being used in a reasonable
fashion. That being a very nice home.
Phil Burroughs: You haven't met my children
Alter: And Chanhassen takes that kind of thing into consideration when the zoning requires that
we have parks within a half mile of all these projects and we try to make sure that there are
places for the kids to go and my neighbors hoops that are in their driveways where they just
throw the, they use the driveway as their court so when we look at that for practical difficulties
as opposed to.
Phil Burroughs: Yeah, we have a slope problem on the driveway.
Alter: It's the difference between me driving a Mercedes and what I drive.
18
Chanhassen Planning Commission - July 19, 2011
Phil Burroughs: Yeah, I understand and I guess I would just be before you and take your vote
and close out on it. I mean I really respect the research that was done by everybody. I think
your comments on the engineering are, I understand them. I think it's good to hear you articulate
them. I would also be looking for more empirical evidence before I felt comfortable with the
proposed solution so I think we'll huddle up and figure out kind of what's next and obviously we
want to do it right.
Aller: And we appreciate the fact that you've come in and you make application rather than
having it go the other way around where some enforcement, someone knocks on your door so we
really appreciate that.
Phil Burroughs: Absolutely.
Alley: And raising the issue is going to raise it for everyone.
Thomas: Yeah, you'll be a hero.
Undestad: Get all the questions answered, we'd love to find something that would solve a lot of
these.
Aller: But I think the best way to position that for you is to go ahead and deny it and allow it to
escalate, if you will, to a position where someone else can make that decision.
Phil Burroughs: Understood.
Kevin Zwart: Can I ask a quick question?
Aller: Sure.
Kevin Zwart: Just on the engineering side factor of it. If we could get some sort of guideline...
Aller: Okay, go ahead and step up to the podium.
Kevin Zwart: If there's some way that we can get some sort of guideline of what exactly you
want to see and what tests so we can implement that, that would be most beneficial for us so that
we answer your questions and get the data that you're looking for.
Aller: Well I don't know whether or not that's something we're here today to discuss.
Kevin Zwart: No, I'm directing it to him to say you know if I could have that opportunity to
have a discussion with him.
Aller: We're going to need to vote on that and I'm sure the City's more than happy to work with
you any day of the week. I think they have been and will continue to so we appreciate your time.
Thank you. Do we have a motion?
M
Chanhassen Planning Commission - July 19, 2011 •
Thomas: Alright I'll propose a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission as the Board of
Appeals and Adjustments denies Planning Case #2011-07 for hard surface coverage variance to
construct a sport court and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision.
Tennyson: Move to second it.
Aller: Having a motion and a second.
Thomas moved, Tennyson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission as the
Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies Planning Case 42011-07 for hard surface
coverage variance to construct a sport court and adoption of the Findings of Fact and
Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Aller: The variance is denied. Thank you to all present. Moving on to item 3.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CITY CODE AMENDMENT: CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20, ZONING
CONCERNING PAINTBALL COURSES AND SHOOTING RANGES.
Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. As you said this is a proposed city code
amendment to both Chapters 11 and 20, code amendments to address gun ranges and paintball
courses within the community. Previously this item was discussed under open discussion in
April and June of this year to try to lay out the issues and the problems that we foresee. What the
code amendment will try to do is create an exception to the firearm prohibition in Chapter 11 to
permit paintball courses and a gun ranges. Additionally we looked at creating standards for these
type of facilities within the code so that we would be able to evaluate each one as they came in.
And thirdly to create the district or allow them in the specific districts that we believe was
appropriate. The first one I'm looking at is the indoor gun ranges. We're looking at indoor only.
At one time there was an outdoor gun range in the community. That went away and the City
doesn't want to permit it again because we are an urbanizing community and so we don't think
agriculture will stay here as long as it had in the past. We are looking at only two districts, well
there's three districts that we're looking at. The A2 district for the outdoor paintball courses and
then the IOP and CC districts for the indoor facilities. And it was fun getting these pictures of
the different facilities that they have out there. I tried not to get anyone shooting because it made
people upset. This map represents areas in the community that we are potentially looking at
permitting or allowing this type of use. All the green areas are industrial sites within the
community. This would be both for the indoor gun range and also for indoor paintball courses.
The proposed amendment dealing with the gun range would add conditional use permit standards
for the gun ranges in the business districts. The issues, and those show up on pages 6 and 7 of
the staff report. What we tried to deal with were the safety issues. The design of the facility.
The operation of the facility. How people use their guns. Secondly we were looking at nuisance
issues in creating these standards and finally we wanted to make sure that any operator had the
sufficient liability insurance. We didn't want to get too specific in all the requirements but a
general guideline for them to use and these businesses will know better than the City what they
need to do to make themselves safe and profitable so. We are, as I state, we're recommending
20
, \UA
The applicant is requesting a 4.3% variance (681 square
feet) from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage
limitation for the construction of a sport court.
Settlers West
Subdivision O )
• Bluffs (shown in RED) -� • t,
• Seasonally High Water -..:
Table��'
• Tree Preservation ( 1
• Clay Soils `•+`
• Reverse Swates in rear f J/
yards
• Storanwater Piping in
rear yards
• Tributary to Minnesota
River Impaired Water
6
ari%two
7/19/2011
SC9tlNED
is
Subject Site: Existing Conditions 20o6
fr 00
laA A
7
•--6a
4
s,
e�
Subject Site:
Proposed Conditions -
Miami -
®0
Sport Court Submitted Design
• Sport Base =pervious
• Compacted subbase
and subsurface =
impervious
• Seasonally Nigh Water
Table
• Material not
recognized as pervious
according to City Code
/i9/zou
2
Recommendation
• The Chanhassen Planning Commission, as the Board
of Appeals and Adjustments, denies Planning Case
Y2011-07 for a hard surface coverage variance to
construct a sport court and adoption of the Findings
of Fact and Decision."
7/19/2011
3
Alk
PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission, as the Board of Appeals
and Adjustments, denies Planning Case #2011-07 for a hard surface coverage variance to
construct a sport court and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision."
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 4.3% variance (681 square feet)
from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation for the construction of a sport court on
property zoned Single -Family Residential (RSF).
LOCATION: 10036 Trails End Road
Lot 15, Block 4, Settlers West
APPLICANT: Josh Koller Philip and Stacey Burroughs
Southview Design 10036 Trails End Road
1875 East 500' Street Chanhassen, MN 55317
Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077
PRESENT ZONING: Single -Family Residential (RSF)
2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Low Density (1.2/4 units per acre)
ACREAGE: 0.36 (15,847 square feet) DENSITY: NA
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING:
The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the
proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a
relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation
from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 29.3% hard surface coverage, or 4,646 square feet,
for the construction of a 681 square -foot sport court in the rear yard of property zoned Single -
Family Residential (RSF). The RSF zoning district permits a maximum of 25% hard surface
coverage. The subject site is permitted 3,964 square feet site coverage.
The as -built survey for the subject site reflects 24.79/6 hard surface coverage and includes the single-
family home, attached three -stall garage, driveway, patio, stoop and front sidewalk.
SCANNED
40
Burroughs Variance Request
Planning Case 11-07
July 19, 2011
Page 2 of 7
The southern portion of the Settlers West Addition is bordered by a bluff. In addition to the bluff,
the Hennepin County Regional Trail Corridor is located northwest of the site. To the east of the site
are single-family homes and the border between the City of Chanhassen and the City of Eden
Prairie.
Water and sewer services are available to the site. Access to the site is gained off of Trails End
Road, which connects to Pioneer Trail in Eden Prairie.
The site is currently being used in a reasonable manner and contains a single-family home and
three -car garage. The request to exceed the 25% hard surface coverage limitation for the
construction of a sport court does not constitute a practical difficulty. There are other alternatives,
such as installing a basketball hoop in the front yard abutting the driveway. Causing additional
impact to the bluff by way of increased runoff is not in harmony with the intent and sensitivity of
the development.
Staff is recommending denial of the applicant's request based on the fact that the applicant has
reasonable use of the property and has not demonstrated that a practical difficulty exists.
Burroughs Variance Request
Planning Case 11-07
July 19, 2011
Page 3 of 7
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 20, Division 3. Variances
Section 20-615 (4), RSF District Requirements, Hard Surface Coverage
See 20-905 (6) Single-family dwellings
BACKGROUND
The property is located on Lot 15, Block 4, Settlers West, which is zoned Single -Family
Residential (RSF). The subject property is 15,847 square feet in area. It has a lot frontage of 80
feet (90 feet at the building setback line) and approximately 150 feet in depth. The minimum lot
dimensions in the RSF district are 15,000 square -foot lot, 90-foot lot frontage and 125-foot lot
depth. This lot exceeds the minimum requirements for the RSF district.
The building permit for the proposed home, garage, driveway, front sidewalk, and a 180 square -
foot patio on the property was approved on June 6, 2006. The building permit reflected a hard
surface coverage of 24.7% or 3,922 square feet. The maximum impervious surface in the RSF
district is 25% or 3,964 square feet.
In an attempt to minimize hard cover issues and ensure residential properties have a minimum
100 square -foot future patio expansion area, on July 6, 2006, the City amended Sec. 20-905:
Single-family dwellings (6) "Where access doors are proposed from a dwelling to the outdoors,
which does not connect directly to a sidewalk or stoop, a minimum ten -feet by ten -feet hard
surface area shall be assumed. Such surface area must be shown to comply with property lines,
lake and wetland setbacks; may not encroach into conservation or drainage and utility easements;
and shall not bring the site's hard surface coverage above that permitted by ordinance."
While the building permit for the subject site was approved prior to the above ordinance
amendment, the building permit included a 180 square -foot patio in the hard surface coverage
calculations.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a 4.3% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard
surface coverage. The lot area is 15,847 square feet. The original building permit occupied
3,922 square feet of hard cover, this included outdoor improvements.
0
Burroughs Variance Request
Planning Case 11-07
July 19, 2011
Page 4 of 7
0
Burroughs Variance Request
Planning Case 11-07
July 19, 2011
Page 5 of 7
Prior to the public hearing, the applicant applied for a Residential Zoning Permit to remove the
existing patio and install a 168 square -foot patio and 54 square feet of stone steppers. These
improvements bring the site to 25% hard surface coverage, maximizing the site coverage.
In addition to the previous improvements, the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a
681 square -foot sport court, which brings the site to 29.3% hard surface coverage.
The applicant contends that the proposed sport court would be pervious and would allow for
more infiltration than would occur if the area was left as traditional lawn. To support this
position, the applicant has provided a study prepared, at the request of Sport Court, Inc., by the
Utah Water Research Laboratory at Utah State University. In summary the study fords that the
Hydraulic Conductivity, or the rate at which water passes through the SportTile is greater than
gravel, sand and other soil types. This indicates that the sport tile would not be the limiting
factor for the infiltration rates in the area but rather that the underlying materials would limit
infiltration. The authors draw the same conclusion on page 7 of the report.
The soils in this area are Kilkenny -Lester Loams. These soils are in the Hydrologic Group C
which has a high potential for runoff and can have an infiltration rate as low as 0.05 inches per
hour. The seasonally high water table is within three (3) feet of the surface and the soil has
approximately 40% clay by volume. These soils compact readily to the point where they are
virtually impervious. The Installation Instructions SportBaseTm prepared by Sport Court, and
provided by the applicant, instructs on page 2 of 6 that after excavation, the subgrade shall be
compacted. It then goes on to state in the next section that the base material should be
compacted as well. This will effectively render the sport court area impervious; negating any
benefit derived from the hydraulic conductivity of the SportBaseTm.
When storm sewer systems are
designed, it is inherent that certain
assumptions are made in order to
model anticipated runoff volumes
and rates. One assumption is that
no lot will have greater than 25%
hardcover. If several individual
lots exceed this 25%, then the
storm sewer infrastructure
becomes inadequate for the new
conditions and localized flooding,
infrastructure damage, erosion,
stream degradation and other
deleterious effects may result.
Currently, Chanhassen City Code
does not recognize any alternative
Surface
Building Permit
Square Footage
Proposed Square
Footage
Lot area
15,847
15,847
House/Garage/
Stop
2,825
2,825
Driveway
765
765
Sidewalk
152
152
Patio
180
168
Steppers
-
54
Total
3,922
3,964
HSC %
24.7%
25.0%
Sport Court
681
Total HSC
4,645
HSC %
29.3%
Burroughs Variance Request
Planning Case 11-07
July 19, 2011
Page 6 of 7
hard surface materials. If the City were to allow alternate pervious surfaces, a number of issues
including site design, engineering of soils and materials, construction observation, long-term
maintenance and long-term preservation would have to be addressed. Even with the resolution
of these issues, it is important to note why the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and
numerous other agencies are considering alternative hard surface materials with a high hydraulic
conductivity.
The agency shall develop performance standards, design standards, or other tools
to enable and promote the implementation of low -impact development and other
storm water management techniques. For the purposes of this section, "low -
impact development" means an approach to storm water management that
mimic's a site's natural hydrology as the landscape is developed Using low -
impact development approach, storm water is managed on -site and the rate and
volume of predevelopment storm water reaching receiving waters is unchanged
The calculation ofpredevelopment hydrology is based on native soil and
vegetation. - Minnesota Statutes 2009, section 115.03, subdivision 5c
The intent is to reduce runoff by mimicking the hydrology and hydraulics of the natural
environment, not to allow for the maximization of allowed hardcover on a lot of record and then
further increase hardscaping. Not only are there implications to surface water management, but
there are also aesthetic implications that accompany the loss of green space.
Settlers West Subdivision
Significant efforts were made during the development of Settler's West to protect the bluff areas
by controlling the rate and volume of runoff and maintaining existing drainage conditions.
Sensitive areas were put into protective outlots and discharge points from the storm sewer
conveyance system were designed and constructed with extraordinary stabilization and energy
dissipation methods. As this area ultimately drains to the bluffs along the Hennepin County
Regional Rails to Trails System, any potential increase in runoff rate or volume could potentially
result in erosion along the bluff.
While it is evident that the actual SportBase m tiles are pervious, the construction method and the
existing site conditions would not result in a truly pervious system but rather in a highly
compacted clay subgrade with less hydraulic conductivity than currently exists. Even in the
event that proper engineering and construction could provide for adequate infiltration, the
Chanhassen City Code does not make allowances for alternate pervious hard cover. If in the
future the City considers allowing certain pervious surfaces, it will be important to consider the
reason behind limiting hard cover and the implications and limitations of any such system. Until
such a time as these issues are resolved and City Code allows for some use of alternate pervious
systems in certain redevelopment or hardship circumstances, staff cannot recommend approval
of the request to exceed the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation.
Burroughs Variance Request
Planning Case 11-07
July 19, 2011
Page 7 of 7
Currently, the property owners have reasonable use of a property within the RSF district as a
single-family home with a three -car garage, as well as an outdoor patio/seating area already
constructed on the property. While the purpose of the proposed sport court is for residential use,
it is not a practical difficulty to exceed the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion and the adoption of
the attached Findings of Fact and Decision:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies
Planning Case #2011-07 for a 4.3% variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage
limitation for the construction of a sport court on property zoned Single -Family Residential
(RSF), based on adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Decision.
2. Development Review Application.
3. Reduced copy of lot survey.
4. Utah Water Research Laboratory at Utah State University Study.
5. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing.
gAplan\2008 planning cues\08-13 mm varianceWarianee mport.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER & HENNEPIN
COUNTIES
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING CASE NO. 2011-07
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
that the Chanhassen Planning Com-
mission will hold a public hearing
on Tuesday, July 19, 2011, at 7:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers in
Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market
Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is
to consider a request for a Variance
to build a sport court on property
zoned Single Family Residential
(RSF) located at 10036 Trails End
Road. Applicant: Josh Keller,
Southview Design.
A plan showing the location of
the proposal is available for public
review on the City's web site at
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/
plan/11-07.html or at City Hall
during regular business hours. All
interested persons are invited to at-
tend this public hearing and express
their opinions with respect to this
proposal.
Angie Kairies, Planner I
Email: akairies@
ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Phone: 952-227-1132
(Published in the Chanhassen
Villager on Thursday, July 7, 2011;
No. 4525)
Affidavit of Publication
Southwest Newspapers
State of Minnesota)
)SS.
County of Carver )
Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized
agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil-
lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows:
(A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal
newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as
amended (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. `U
lS�f
was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said
Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of
the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both
inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition
and publication of the Notice:
abcdefghijkhnnopgrstu
By: Gf, . �i1ilti
Laurie A. Hartmann
Subscribed and sworn before me on
thisAl
=day of 2011
Not blic
JYMME J. BARK
10 NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNEBOTA
My Commisslun Expires 01/31/2013
RATE INFORMATION
Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $31.20 per column inch
Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................. $31.20 per column inch
Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $12.59 per column inch
SCANNED
e• ;ti ��.
, w
1�~
Carver County, MN
Property Information
Parcel ID:257560150 AS400 Acres:
Taxpayer Name: PHILIP R & STACEY M
BURROUGHS Homestead: Y
Taxpayer Address: 10036 TRAILS END RD
School District: 0112
Taxpayer City St. Zip: CHANHASSEN, MN
55317-4594
Property Address: 10036 TRAILS END RD
Property City: CHANHASSEN
GIS Acres: 0.36
Watershed District: WS 060 LOWER MN
RIVER
Tax Exempt: N
Platname: SETTLERS WEST
Die Wa .. i iemap wesaeefeeueiNCarre C( Vs Wraphk Map Scale N
information Systems (GIS), h a a campO of Iareana "Eats hmn
various r]1y,County, Sd , are Feaeiai ofRoas. Thu map i m a 1 Inch = 390 feet
surveyed a Ie Ky rem map and is iniaalee m ee used as a W E
reference. carve. Ceunty respoasiae Wairy Famaa Map Date nee nere.n.
7/6/2011 S
Angie Kairies, Planner I
DATE: June 30, 2011
SUBJ: Review of variance request to increase hard -surface coverage at
10036 Trails End Road, Chanhassen, Minnesota.
Planning Case: 2011-07
I have reviewed the above request for a variance and have no comment.
G:\Pl.AN12011 Planning Cases\I 1-07 Burroughs Variance-10036 Trails End Road`envspecialislcomments.doc
SCANNED
Memorandum
TO: Angie Kairies, Planner
FROM: Terrance Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator
DATE: June 28, 2011
RE: Southview Design request for variance from §20-615
10036 Trails End Road
The lot in question currently has 25% hard cover which is the most hardcover allowed by
code for single family residential lots. The applicant desires to add a sport court totaling
681 square feet in area which would bring the total hard cover on the lot to 29.3%
which exceeds the allowable hardcover area.
Pervious Surface
The applicant contends that the proposed sport court would be pervious and would
allow for more infiltration than would occur if the area was left as traditional lawn. To
support this position, the applicant has provided a study prepared, at the request of
Sport Court, Inc. by the Utah Water Research Laboratory at Utah State University. This
report has been attached to this memorandum. In summary the study finds that the
Hydraulic Conductivity, or the rate at which water passes through the SportTile is
greater than gravel, sand and other soil types. This indicates that the sport tile would
not be the limiting factor for the infiltration rates in the area but rather that the
underlying materials would limit infiltration. The authors draw the same conclusion on
page 7.
The soils in this area are Kilkenny -Lester Loams. These soils are in the Hydrologic Group
C which has a high potential for runoff and can have an infiltration rate as low as 0.05
inches per hour. The seasonally high water table is within three (3) feet of the surface
and the soil has approximately 40% clay by volume. These soils compact readily to the
point where they are virtually impervious. The Installation Instructions SportBase'"
prepared by Sport Court, and provided by the applicant, instructs on page 2 of 6 that
after excavation, the subgrade shall be compacted. It then goes on to state in the next
section that the base material should be compacted as well. This will effectively render
the sport court area impervious; negating any benefit derived from the hydraulic
conductivity of the SportBase TM.
Purpose
When stormsewer systems are designed, it is inherent that certain assumptions are
made in order to model anticipated runoff volumes and rates. One assumption is that
SCA1414ED
.1-
•
no lot will have greater than 25% hardcover. If several individual lots exceed this 25% the stormsewer
infrastructure becomes inadequate for the new conditions and localized flooding, infrastructure
damage, erosion, stream degradation and other deleterious effects may result. Currently Chanhassen
City Code does not recognize any alternative hard surface materials. If we were to allow alternate
pervious surfaces a number of issues including site design, engineering of soils and materials,
construction observation, long term maintenance and long term preservation. Even with the resolution
of these issues it is important to note why the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and numerous other
agencies are considering alternative hard surface materials with a high hydraulic conductivity.
The agency shall develop performance standards, design standards, or other tools to
enable and promote the implementation of low -impact development and other storm
water management techniques. For the purposes of this section, "low -impact
development" means an approach to storm water management that mimic's a site's
natural hydrology as the landscape is developed. Using low -impact development
approach, storm water is managed on -site and the rote and volume of predevelopment
storm water reaching receiving waters is unchanged. The calculation of predevelopment
hydrology is based on native soil and vegetation. - Minnesota Statutes 2009, section
115.03, subdivision 5c
The intent is to reduce runoff by mimicking the hydrology and hydraulics of the natural environment,
not to allow for the maximization of allowed hardcover on a lot of record and then further increase
hardscaping. Not only are there implications to surface water management, there are also aesthetic and
financial implications that accompany the loss of green space.
Other Considerations
Significant efforts were made during the development of Settler's West to protect the bluff areas by
controlling the rate and volume of runoff and maintaining existing drainage conditions. Sensitive areas
were put into protective outlots and discharge points from the stormsewer conveyance system were
designed and constructed with extraordinary stabilization and energy dissipation methods. As this area
ultimately drains to the bluffs along the Hennepin County Regional Rails to Trails System, any potential
increase in runoff rate or volume could potentially result in erosion along the bluff.
Conclusion and Recommendation
While it is evident that the actual SportBasel tiles are pervious, the construction method and the
existing site conditions would not result in a truly pervious system but rather in a highly compacted clay
subgrade with less hydraulic conductivity than currently exists. Even in the event that proper
engineering and construction could provide for adequate infiltration, the Chanhassen City Code does not
make allowances for alternate pervious hard cover. If as we move forward, the City considers allowing
certain pervious surfaces, it will be important to consider the reason behind limiting hard cover and the
implications and limitations of any such system. Until such a time as these issues are resolved and City
Code allows for some use of alternate pervious systems in certain redevelopment or hardship
circumstances, I must recommend the request for variance be denied.
\\cfsS\dsS\Shared_Data\ENG\Terry\Planning\2011\Trails End Rd 10036\Memorandum.docx
0
Is
MEMORANDUM
TO: Angie Kairies, Planner I
FROM: Jerrie Mohn, Building Official
DATE: June 20, 2011
SUBJ: Review of variance request to increase hard -surface coverage at
10036 Trails End Road, Chanhassen, Minnesota.
Planning Case: 2011-07
I have reviewed the above request for a variance and have no comment.
G IPLAM?01 I Planning Cases\I 1-07 Bmmughs Variancr10036 Trails End Road\buildingofficialcommenus.doc
SCANNED
0
CITIOF
C9IAAISSFN
Date: June 20, 2011
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
To: Development Plan Referral Agencies
From: Planning Department
Review Response Deadline: July 1, 2011
By: Angie Kairies, Planner I
952-227-1132 akairies@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Subject: Request for Variance from the hard surface requirement of Section 20-615 of the Chanhassen City
Code to build a sport court on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) located at 10036 Trails
End Road. Applicant: Josh Keller, Southview Design. Owner: Stacey & Phil Burroughs.
Planning Case: 2011-07 PED: 25-7560150
The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning
Department on June 17, 2011. The 60-day review period ends August 16, 2011.
In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would
appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and
proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites,
street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written
report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on July 19, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than July 1.2011.
You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly
appreciated.
1. City Departments:
a. City Engineer
b. City Attorney
c. City Park Director
d. Fire Marshal
e. Building Official
E Water Resources Coordinator
g. Forester
2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District
3. MN Dept. of Transportation
4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources
5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Carver County
a. Engineer
b. Environmental Services
8. Watershed District Engineer
a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek
b. Lower Minnesota River
c. Minnehaha Creek
9. Telephone Company (Qwest or Sprint/United)
10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley)
11. Mediacom
12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
SCANNED
Carver County, MN
� 1a
r
10012
. ' 10024
� r
f0005
1
1001I
+'r .
10022
i
-
loon �
�
i
1ooe4 .
t
laoge
Property Information
Parcel ID: 257560150
AS400 Acres:
Taxpayer Name: PHILIP R & STACEY M
BURROUGHS
Homestead: Y
Taxpayer Address: 10036 TRAILS END RD
School District: 0112
Taxpayer City St. Zip: CHANHASSEN, MN
55317-4594
Watershed District: WS 060 LOWER MN
RIVER
Property Address: 10036 TRAILS END RD
Tax Exempt: N
Property City: CHANHASSEN
Platname: SETTLERS
WEST
GIS Acres: 0.36
Ds immer Th. map waa «setae wing carver Canty'. ceograi Map Scale
InfombEorl systems (Gs). dis a mnpaaeon of mfonmabmiw d iata borneybo11r1Ch=213 feet
venous cry.Cwnn, State aM Federal ofbmshis . Tmap is nal a
sarved a legalty recorded map arM is iMer oed to be used as a
reference. Carver County is not responaiNe for any inamsetles Map Date
oaeained herein.
6/20/2011
City of Chanhassen
P O BOX 147
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
06/20/2011 2:16 PM
Receipt No. 0160017
CLERK: bethany
PAYEE: Southview Design Inc
1875 50th St E
Inver Grove Heights MN 55077
Burroughts Variance -Planning Case 2011-07
-------------------------------------------------------
Use & Variance 200.00
Recording Fees 50.00
Sign Permit 200.00
Total
Cash
Check 27556
Change
450.00
0.00
450.00
0.00
SCANNED
n
u
BURROUGHS VARIANCE - PLANNING CASE 2011-07
$200.00 Variance
$200.00 Notification Sign
$50.00 Recording Escrow
$450.00 TOTAL
$450.00 Less Check #27556 from Southview Design
$0.00 BALANCE
SCANNED
SOUTHVIEW DE GN, INC.
CIT33 City of Chant n Is
' 6-17-11 6.17.11 Permit 450.00
SCAHNED
27556
450.00
6-17-11 27556 450.00 .00 450.00
Carver County, MN
Disdelmer. This map was aeeteEusingCarverC tyaCe niphio Map Scale N
Infarmanon Systems (GIS), a is a uampilam of IMomiedm and eats fmm 1 inch = 151 feet various id ar I ally Sete, era Federal offices. This map is n s a W E
surveyed. legally re my is map and is Intended lu m used as s
reference. Carver County is not responsible fw any Inaxurades
wnlained herein. Map Date
6/17/2011 S
SCANNED
n
u
11
Property Card
Taxpayer Information
Taxpayer Name
PHILIP R & STACEY M BURROUGHS
Mailing Address
10036 TRAILS END RD
CHANHASSEN, MN 553174594
Property Address
Address
10036 TRAILS END RD
City
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
Parcel ID Number 257560150
Parcel Information
Uses Res 1 unit GIS Acres 0.36
Tax Acres
Plat SETTLERS WEST
Lot 015
Block 004
Tax Description
Building Information
Building Style 2 STORY Foundation Sq Ft 2273 Bedrooms 5
Year Built 2006 Finished Sq Ft 3932 Bathrooms 4.25
Other Garage Y
Miscellaneous Information
School District Watershed District Homestead Green Acres Ag Preserve
0112 WS 060 LOWER MN RIVER Y N N
Assessor Information
Estimated Market Value 2010 Values 2011 Values Last Sale
(Payable 2011) (Payable 2012)
Land $196,800.00 $193,400.00 Date of Sale 11/29/2007
Building $608,000.00 $585,700.00 Sale Value $1,010.000.0
0
Total $804,800.00 $779,100.00 Qualified/ Q
Unqualified
Disclaimer. This information is to be used for reference purposes only. Carver County does not guarantee accuracy of the material
contained herein and is not responsible for misuse or misinterpretation. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes 4X.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this service acknowledges that the County shall not be liable for any damages, and
expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County from any and all claims brought by User,
CARVER its employees or agents, or third pames which arise out of the users access or use of data provided.
COUNTY
Friday, June 17, 2011
Carver County, MN
Page 1 of 1
SCANNED
04/13/2011 12:25 95222711#&
CHAN PUBLIC SAFI&Y
PAGE 01
Grading ---A s--Bui Z t
SURVEY FOR J.Rohs Homes Inc.
DESCRIBED AS :Lot 15. Block 4, SETTLERS WEST, City of Chanhassen , Hennepin County, Minnesota
and reserving easements of record. POND 2
NIYL=883.0
10036 Trails End Rood 87IL=886.0
Permit Number 200601364
CITY OF :- t>3
'_�97�+Lf11jl
�NGiNEEE+If: � ElE?"'.
House 1,790 eq. ft.
Garage = 900 sgTt.
Patio - 180 3a- ft.
Sidewalk — 152. s q.
Driveway = 765ti q- eq.ft
Front Stoop — 135sq. ft.
a`P0 —sod_ �� Qo`
890.8� F/� a�
h �
NU6'o \ 901.4 a�L'
a \
,49
a2.
`�1. Qt+
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
JUN 1 7 2011
CHANHASSEN PLAOINING DEP-
a0 Tr°n3
\
p / 'o
GatOq° oa0 `� /Sffv9 �o
/ 898.4
q'y .0n
aaa 994
Bb�T'-898.8 ^ 17y1
LOT SQ. FOOTAGE = 15,847
HOUSE SQ. FOOTAGE = 2,690
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE = 24.7%
SCANNED
EXISTING ELEVATIONS
BENCHMARK.
•
#5
I am requesting a variance for a sport court that appears to exceed the
hardcover limitations.
#6
Our goal is to install a sport court. The sport court system we have chosen is
a completely permeable system designed to allow all water to pass through.
We will install the system on a sand base that is also completely permeable,
allowing all water to be able to infiltrate into the ground. Therefore this
system should not be considered hardcover, so the landscape being installed
will not exceed the hardcover requirements.
SCANNED
Surveyor s Certificate
SURVEY FOR : J.Rohs Homes Inc. r
DESCRIBED AS : Lot 15. Block 4, SETTLERS WEST, City of Chanhassen , Hennepin County, Minnesota
and reserving easemen}s of record. POND 2
NWL=883.0
RWL=886.0
�884.7 \L
ski mar 13o
5.8 0�
Ck
-,."/
��1 O n
CG 1V!
01
o\ �
ie oca / ro �`T 93.4
890.E oo'c o 93.
`� a� 8 .5 / o
u
893.6Oo h� OO
695.9
893.0 / op o't \0
892
/
117Y ���ES5EN
JUN 2 6 2006
ENGINEERING DEPT.
o \ 893.7
B98.2
'i \
00 00
0
\
CONTACT DEVELOPER FOR
SANITARY SEWER AND WATER
SERVICE LOCATION
r0eitt p C !X
m < A n Gy -
n 4Zm1��
�1
Cz-1.3 at
Oioaat
AA>C0tz�zz
.
A O'121j 2
�=dzJD�"rQ
5.Z C r Z
irrn'A=jCIz~
b y CI a
Ci
y I, n
3 898.4
sG .9 h
\\
\ Trans
\ ` 898.7
i, 590.7
10
898.
rtiCb i A
899.4 ` /
���i 1y� 060 /3`Jf
899.8
House = 1,790 sq. ft. LOT SQ. FOOTAGE = 15,847
Garage = 900 eq.ft. HOUSE SQ. FOOTAGE = 2 690
Patio l 180 sq. ft.
Sidewalk = 152 � s .ft,
Driveway-7 135sIMPERVIOUS COVERAGE = 24.7%
Front Stoop = 135eq.ft. ft.
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
Top of Foundation
=_902.5
Garage Floor
= 902.1
Basement Floor
= 893.5
Aprox. Sewer Service
= Verify
Proposed Elev.
Existing Elev.
Drainage Directions =—
Denotes Offset Stake =
SCALE: 1 Inch - 30 feet
APPROVED
BYf ��i�A
DEPT: p N 9
DATE: _0(0
BY•
DEPT Ce—
DATE:
BY:
DEPT:
DATE: z(0
t
BENCHMARK,
TNH= 16&15/4
EL= 902.45
MIN. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
Front —3D House Side — 1D
Rear —30 Garage Side-10
JOB NO:
HEDL iVND I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION 06R-245
OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AS SURVEYED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND DOES NOT PURPORT TO BOOK: PAGE:
/'LANNlNG ENGINEERING SORVE77NG SHOW IMPROVEMENTS
f �PROVVEMENTTS'ORE CROACHMENiS, EXCEPT AS SHOWN.
2005
Eagan, MN OakDrive
DATE —J 31 0O D,
CAD FILE:
Phone: (651) 405-6600 R Y D. LINDGREN, LAP SURVEYOR Misc-06
Fax: (651) 405-6606 MI SOTA LICENSE NUM ER 1437E
SCANNED
Grading -As -Hilt
SURVEY FOR : J.Rohs Homes Inc.
DESCRIBED AS :Lot 15, Block 4, SETTLERS WEST. City of Chanhassen , Hennepin County, Minnesota
and reserving easements of record. POND 2
NWL=883.0
10036 Trails End Road HWL=886.0
Permit Number 200601364
s-ITY OF e, 6 r6;,8SEN
n��rtl r ielp.
t_R 116 1007
ENGINEERING ❑EP'E
House - 1,790 sq. ft.
Garage = 900 sq.ft.
Patio = 180 sq. ft.
Sidewalk - 152 a .ft.
Driveway - 765+/- sq.rt.
Front Stoop - 135aq. ft.
EXISTING ELEVATIONS
1b`1
KA
ig Cb
6c? —sod—
O/os a7t7 7 •!'
e9o.e �ry� �\•s � �a�
?dry/
/ o0
/ T.8897.
/ 8-893.
E-893.5 T=got 0,
\ B=B97. O
b \ \ E-898.5 O
O
NSG 89��2 901.4 ti
41 9ob.3 .� 'Oo
y/ /SJ
G o O 'b \ \
5�i+\ titi9� \\
y9 S$ \
\ bans
899.0
/ 10
o� � /fir=s o
898.4
b
994
Pe /
902.45" v
B�899.8
LOT SQ. FOOTAGE = 15,847
HOUSE SQ. FOOTAGE = 2,690
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE = 24.7%
Top of Foundation = 902.7
Garage Floor = 902.3
Basement Floor = 893.7
Existing Elev. _
Drainage Directions =
d
E"F:FaE(1
SCALE: 1 Inch - 30 feet
BENCHMARK,
TNH= 16&15/4
EL= 902.45
MIN. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
Front —3o House Side — 10
Rear —30 Garage Side-10
JOB NO:
HEDLUMD I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION 06R-245
OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AS SURVEYED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND DOES NOT PURPORT TO BOOK: PACE:
PLANNING ENGINEERING SURf1EYINC SHOW IMPROVEMENTS OR ENCROACHMENTS, EXCEPT AS SHOWN.
2005 Pin Oak Drive �/20 �1 -7
Eagan, MN 55122 DATE /Q �
CAD FILE:
Phone: (651) 405-6600 R Y D. LINDGREN, ND SURVEYOR Misc-06
Fax: (651) 405-6606 IHI ESOTA LICENSE NUMBER 14376
SCANNED