Loading...
1993 11 22CHANH~SEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 22~ 199;} Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order. MEMBERS PRF.~ENT: W'dlard John.son, Carol Watson and Mark Senn STAFF PRESEt: Sluumin Al-Jaff, Planner I; Steve Kirchman, Building Inspector;, Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Roger Knutson, City Attorney JEFF PAPKE, ~ WETLAND SETBACK VARIANCE FOR ~ PLACEMENT OF A MOUND SYSTEM 75 FEET FROM A WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED RR~ AND LOCATED ADJACENT TO TI-W. SOUTIW~RN PORTION OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA JUST NORTH OF I-HGHWAY $. Sharmin Al-$aff presented the staff report on this item. Johnson: Would the applicant wish to speak first? Jeff Papke: If there are questions, you can first. Do I have a chance to speak later? .l'ohnson: ...you wish to go later on than now? left Papke: That would be fine. Johnson: Okay. Any neighbors here wish to speak? Anybody from the audience, st.-ye, you had recomnm~tions here7 Kirchrnan: Well, yes I did. I don't really like seeing an on site sewage treatment go on this location. But if he can show me he meets all the critm'ia for installing an on-site sewage umunent, well then we'll let him put in on-site sewage treamient. One of the criteria is a 150 foot setback. We are the only people, or the 1~0 foot setback is a Chanhass~ criteda. It's not a statewide criteria. There is really no statewide criteria in areas that have to adopt DNR regulations, the setback is 75 feet. So DNR feels 75 is okay. You know whether it is or not is anybody's guess. Now Ron Olson who's a system designer and I and Carl Barke who's also a septic inspector for the city went out to the site in August of this year and did a boring on the site and based on the boring that we did, the site's, or there is mom on the site for a septic system. It just squeaks by. The criteria is mottling has to be no less than 12 inches to thc surface of the soil. Mottles are these gray and red globules that form in the presence of water and they indicate seasonal saturation. So the criteda is if you've got mottles at less than a foot, you cannot build a septic system. I observed mottles at 11 to 12 inches. It's an objective measurement Somebody could possibly say 11. Another person could say 13. It kind of depends on the person looking at it. So where we did the one boring, which would be right about, based on the information that the meas~ts that I took when I was on the site, that one boring was right about there. A little bit farther north than that but anyway, based on that, the boring I took there, that boring, the soils there were suitable to put up a septic site in. Now I can't predict what will happen here or here or here or here. Typically as the grade goes down, the mottling comes up. The closer you get to water, the closer the mottling is to the surface. But I didn't do borings the~. We did borings where we thought the most practical sit~ for an on-site sewage lreammnt system was and based on what we saw, you could put one there. So based on that, I would have to say he's got place on that site he can put. Whether he can put them where he's got them shown, I don't know at the present time. If he is successful in getting the variance, before we would issue a building permit he would have to show to us that he has got two sites, each 50 x 100 on which two legal, on-site sewage treatments systems could be placed. He would have to do two borings on each site and on his primary siR the one he's going to use immedim~y, he'd have to do perc tests and if his pe~ tests fall within a certain range and his borings fall within the range I mentioned, he would be able to put an on-site sewage treatment. I can't say at this time whether those two sites he's got picked out are because I haven't seen any designs or any borings from that. Based on experience, it's going to be real close, He was at 11 to 12 on the site I showed you. He's going a little farther north, a little farther south so it may stay right at the same. It may start dropping. I don't know. It's going to be real close. It's close everywhere on the ~ but it is doable where I did the boring. $ohnson: What's your setback from the bnildings, for the building pad itselt'7 Kirchman: 20 feet from the bnilding. In a mound, a mound has got a 10 foot wide, usually a 10 foot wide by 37 to 50 foot long bed and then it's got dikes that go down on each side of the bed. And the u~.aur~nt area includes the dikes so the toes of the ~ have to be 20 feet away from the building and 20 feet away from your setbacks. But typically on fairly fiat ground a system will be, depending on the size of thc house because it varies on the size of the house, 37 to 42 feet wide on fiat ground. The slower the perc raRe, the wider it is and the more bedrooms you have, the wider it is because the bigger it is. So 20 feet from the building for the toe of the dike. Johnson: You require two sewer systems? Two mounds. Is two mounds requil~? Kirchman: Well, we don't say two mounds are required. They have to lay out two sit~s. If the other site was acceptable for a trench system, which in this case it wouldn't be, they could put a trench system on but all we require is that they lay out two sites. Those sites have to be big enough to cover just about any situation and a 50 x 100 foot site is big enough to cover any situation be it a mound, be it a trench syste~ whatever. Johnson: What about the well setback from the house or the septic system? Board of Adjustments and Appeals - Novemb~ 22, 1993 Kirchman: That's got to be 50 feet. 50 fe~ away from his alternate or his primary and it only has to be 3 feet away from the house, the well Watson: Where is that planned to go? Are those two things we see on either end down there, are those where the potential septic areas are? Kirchrnan: This is a potential sysu~n and this is a potential system. I would assume that he has got, since he's got this tanks shown here, here and here, that he's planning on using this as his primary system. He would come out and go into that system like that. He's shown his well right here in thc south side of the house. Right here. I don't believe this drawing's to scale but the scales on the full size drawing is 100, I inch equals 100 feet and he's got that distance. Jeff Papke: Well from either. Kirchman: From either system and from his house, yes. Watson: Where is the sanitary sewer from here? Al-$aff: They would be able to...Here is sewer and here is water. Kirchman: Here's the peninsula right there. And one problem with that is the invert of the sewer is at 948 and I don't think he'd be able to get...on the sewer. The property's at 947 so to get his I/8 inch of fall into that, he'd. Watson: He'd need a pump. Kirchman: He'd need a pump, right. Watson: But the sewer is available to that Hempel: Not via gravity it's not. It would have to be an ejec~ pump. For that long a distance Steve, I don't know if that's practical in the first place or even possible I guess. Watson: How long? How far are we talking about? Hempel: This drawing here is 1 inch equals 200 scale drawing. Sewer actually goes along here. Excuse me. Actually goes along the lake I believe but anyway, the parcel, the house location is out in this area here and the sewer's back here approximately I'd say about 400 feet. So it's quite a distance from where the existing sanitary sewer is. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - November 22, 1993 Watson: But it is in fact available to the propa~? I mean do you consider that available or? Hempel: No, I would not consider that available. Watson: Because he has to put in a pmnp? Senn: Would you consider it to be ever available7 Hempcl: In that location? From a cost standpoint. Senn: No, I'm just saying if you're basing your premise on whether a pump was needed ar not, will sewer ever be put in along there which would feed this house by gravity? Hempel: Probably not because of the area affected. Right now we have Crim~n Bay. That's proposed to be served through the intewcptor. The Bluff Creek Intm'cep~ fln~er to the cast. This area, Lone Cedar, Arboretum is served through thc interceptor line that runs along the lake and crosses through here. The cost to run the sanitary sewer from here to here and here would be born by that pwpa~ owner and that cost of that would be pretty substantial. Steve, I don't know if it's even practical, can you do an ejector pun~ for that distance? Kirchnum: I don't know. I assume that you're going to have more than an ejector pump. It would be like a lift station. It would be a lift station more than an ejector pump. Watson: Have we ever required anyone to bring the sewer 400 feet W sewer their property? Has it been done? Hempel: A sanitary sewer syslmn that would serve other pwperlies, yes. That would serve future properties beyond this, yes we would. This ciwummance though. Watson: An individual Have we ever required an individual to bring the sewer 400 feet to their property? Hempel: I'm not aware of any at this, in the 5 years I've been with the city. W~ at some point... Watson: Well we don't, I mean we can't be concerned about the financial aspects of it or whether you know it's complicated. That's really not an issue for us. What is an issue here would be thc best system for the overall ecology of the lake and everything else. And so I'm not concerned about whether it would cost a lot of money to take it out there. I'm co~ Board of Adjustments and Appeals - November 22, 1993 about whether it could in fact, or should in fact be served by the sanitary sewer system as opposed to on site septic. Hempel: Well, for the right cost anything is I guess possible. The maintenance though aspect of a mini-lift station and so forth for the properW owner, those are all things to think about as well. Senn: Let me ask you this. If the other sewer goes, will you ever be at a point that you're less than 400 feet7 Hempel: Most likely not. The next connection point would be down here at Crimson Bay where the Arboretum comes out which is over _this location here which is even fimher away. At that point we may have a little mare depth on the sewer to be able to serve that are~ Senn: So you may be able to do gravity? Hempel: For a portion, a closer portion, right. We may be able to get it fimhcr at a greater depth to serve that. But at this point, without going back and looking at our comprehensive plan, I couldn't answer that. Watson: When will that sewer come to Crimson Bay? Hernpel: That sewer will not be available to Cr/mson Bay until the area actually petitions for it through further subdivision and so forth. The area north of Crimson Bay, Tanadoons, Camp Tanadoona and so forth, there's been some speculation of sewer and wau:r out in that area in thc ncxt 2 to 5 years. The Crimson Bay area, we don't foresee it far quite some time. Kirchman: Yeah, they all are new houses in there with new sysmm and who wants to... Watson: Well and they're big houses on big lots. They made that decision so they'll probably not want to, not until they want to split up their property for taxes... Johnson: A gentleman in the white sh~ you had a question. Cai Haskin: I'm Cai Haskin, Chestnut Realty. I'm the realtor involved in the property. The sewer service and the water service is not contiguous to this pr~. There is one additional lot that I guess is between the subject property and lhe end of the existing sewer line. Watson: ...come up here... Board of Adj~ts and Appeals - November 22, 1993 Cai Haskin: Oh I'm sorry. Watson: Yeah, tell us who you are again. Cai Haskin: Cai Haskin, Chestnut Realty. The Cedarcrest Addition off to the west of the subject property contains apparently 4 lots. The sewer and water service ends at the intersection of Lots 1 and 2. So in other words the subject property does not own Lot 1 or have any access over Lot 1 to secure sewer and water service to the area. The subject property is within the MUSA service line but they'd have to have some kind of condemnation action done to grant access across Lot 1 over to the ouflot, or what's on the~ as'Government Lot #1. So this 3 1/2 acres does not include but is on that map as Lot #1. Watson: Well I understand thac I'm just. Cai Haskin: Yeah I understand but the logistics would involve having to somehow secure access over somebody else's lot and that's an existing, I believe there's a home there. There's a driveway. AI-Jaff: On? Hempel: Lot 2. AI-Jaff: Lot 2, yes. Ca/Haskin: Is there one on Lot 1 as well? A1-Jaff: I don't believe so, no. No, there isn't. Watson: I think Lot 1 is a swimming pool. Hempel: Right. State Trunk Highway 5 does have sufficient fight-of-way though I would think that you could extend utilities into the state right-of-way wo. Johnson: On Lot 5, Shannin on your picture. The wad runs, does it nm right where the dotted line is? Al-Jail: Yes. Johnson: So the lot is to the west of the...? Board of Adjustments and Appeals - November 22, 1993 AI-Jaff: Yes it is. Johnson: So what I'm saying, when I was out there I was walking in the water... Al-$aff: The other that, if I may add, it's truly wet out there. I don't know what type of soils do you need in order to run a sewer and water line? I mean does that make any difference? Hcmpel: Soil correction can also always be en~loyed. Again the cost factor is driven up. The impact to the wetlands in installing that sewer and water line out there is another thing to consider. However at some point when Highway 5 will be upgraded and widened through that area, at that time there will be impacts to thc wetlands in the area as well, to be taken into consideration so maybe at that time would be the appropriate time to extend the watermaln right through there and possibly sanitary sewer is available to run by the parcel Watson: But if you're concerned about the effect that sanitary sewer, extending sewer might have because it's so wet, that doesn't give me an awful lot of confidenc~ about on-site septic either. You know about how that is going to function. I ~ it's real hard to sit here and decide that what you're going to do is construction something which could in fact be very destructive. Kirchman: Let me address this just a little bit. Do we have a blank one of these? The theory behind mounds is that the soils on the site aren't really good enough to treat the effluent. So if you've got grade here and you've got a seasonally saturated water table say down here 12 inches down, by the time these effluents percolate through the soil, they don't have enough, there's not enough, the bacteria, once they get below this seaso~y saturated level, they can't live and they can't treat the bacteria in the effluent So in 12 inches there's not enough room here to treat that effluent. So the theory behind_ the mound is build a trea~t system above the ground. Put your effluent inW here and give it more room to percolate down before it hits the water so by the time it does hit those seasonally saturated tables, it has been treated. So basically what you're doing is you're building your sewage treaunent system on top of the ground. If you have mottling at one foot, you've got to put in 2 feet of sand. If you have mottiing at 2 feet, you'd have to put in 1 foot of sand. So based on how far down your water is, that is based on the height of your septic system above grade. So the theory is that if you've got water at a foot, it's going to be trcat~ as weil as if you had water at 5 feet. Watson: So the mound, the height of the mound is determined by how far down that water is so that you know that the mound is high enough to in fact treat the water before it gets down into the seasonal water table? Board of Adjustments and Appeals - November 22, 1993 Kirchman: Before it gets into the water table, right. Right. So by the time it gets down there, you could drink it. Watson: You could effectively have Mt. Everest on the side of house? Kirchman: What? Watson: You could effectively have Mt. Everest on the s/de of your house too. Kirchman: Except, except that you only need 3 feet of separation and the minimum. Watson: Okay, so that only needs to be 2 feet Kirchman: That's the maximum it will ever be to the bottom of the rock but then you've got a foot of rock and you've got a foot above that. So you're going to have a maximum height of the mound that would ever be would be 4 feet high. At it's highest point. I'm conca'ned about the uea~t too and I don't think this in here but if it meets the criteria. John~n: Boy I went to all ~ meetings way back in 1970 when we were putting the city sewer in as a city and there was so much sa-eawing about us polluting the lakes. I even seen it in my own nei~borhood where duplexes were running ri~t on the surface something terrible. Watson: Well look at Lotus Lake. We aged it. Kirchman: And even now, we've got systems all over town that are just emptying into ravines and. Watson: ...when the Fed~ government helped us put mound systems all over the city? Remember we did. Kirchman: Yeah, we've got a couple of those. 3 or 4 of them. One right to the north of here but mound systems have been in use for quite some time. The soils aren't to say they work. Johnson: ...I can't vote on is we're going to make a bad syslrrn worst Not the sewer system. I mean the pollution system. We hear so much about pollution. People are constantly...as I understand it's getting worse up north. I don't have any property up north but those that I have associated with have property and they said their sewer systems are getting, well. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - November 22, 1993 Kirchman: WeB it is, and we might be getting a little off on the side here. We're not required m adopt and enforce this. Thc counties up north, the smaller counties, the big counties, they haven't adopted these requirements so you can build any kind of septic system you want. You've 8ot...because this is not a statewide code. We've adopted it. It works real well as long as it's cnforced correctly and we do enforce it correctly so. I guess all I can say at this point, if he does get the permit, the 150 foot I think is great because it gives us more to protect those lakcs a little bit more but it is a local ordinance and if you give them a variance, what he puts in will meet the Stal~ governments. John~n: On the average, what's the average height of this land above walm, level? How much of the land is above lake level7 Kirchrnan: How many acres or? Watson: What's the overall elevation? Al-laff: The highest is at 47 so 2 feet. 3 feet higher. Watson: h's fascinating to be out there. Johnson: Yeah, I walked the whole Fwpa'ty. Senn: Yeah, the other thing is the lakes are higher than they've been in years too. Watson: But we can't, we have to figure as high as thcy might gcc Senn: I understand that but thc lakes this year exceeded the ordinary water mark. I mean that's something you have to keep in mind. Johnson: What's to say it won't keep on this way for a number of years. Kirchman: These mottles will form after about a year. If you get in there and it sits in there for about a year, you'll start getting mottles and they'll stay in there forever once the water recedes. So if it had never been any higher, anytime from here until the...supposedly you wouldn't be able to tell. So has it ever been to the height, that's one of the arguments contractors have is they say well, this pond is built over here and they say well the level of the water is no longcr a valid measurement. Well, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. We don't know that. We see the mottling there. You build 3 feet above that period because that's what thc code says so. Theoretically if the water has ever been higher, we should be able to tell that. Based on the boring I did, it wasn't. 9 Board of Adjustments and Appeals - November 22, 1993 Watson: When we have one of those 100 year storms like we did that July where we got 13 inches or whatever it was, how does a sudden influx of a tren~ndous amount of water affect the mound? Kirchman: Well, it shouldn't affect it if it's built properly. The mound has a sandy loam cap on it and you do have to divert surface drainage away from it. So when you have a rainfall like the one you're talking about, most of that is going to run off and it will go around that. What does fall directly on the mound, the top of the mound has a sandy...cap which doesn't absorb as well as a lone cap and slushes it off to the side where it gets into the treatment area and then on out. So it shouldn't affect it if the mound is built correctly. Johnson: ...5 to 10 years before they get that...or maybe less. Hempel: It all depends on development pressure and as Steve had mentioned, those are very large homes. Newer homes so it could be longer. There's not vacant land. For them to subdivide those are...where the Tanadoona-Dogwood me, a, there's some 40-80 acre tracts of land that could develop here in the near future. Johnson: So it's coming _this way? Hempel: Right. Johnson: Any other discussion? Do you wish to say something now? Jeff Papke: Sure. Johnson: Go ahead. Jeff Papke: I don't know if there are neighbors or anyone here. The reason we're asking for this is that we currently have a purchase agreement. I'm the...tentative buyer of the pwpa~. One of the requirements is that the property is buildable so that's the reason we've gone through the sample borings and testing the property and surv~g of the property was to fully asccrtain...the liquids form the septic system here that you're look'lng at and talking about, the solids as I understand are all pumped out...and these are very prevalent systerm throughout the Twin Cities. They've changed quite a bit over the years and are much cleaner nowadays... The site under most criteria, when we looked at the DNR criteria, we would not really have had an issue because they categorize _this as a recreational develo~t lake and given that criteria, thc setback would be 75 feet. The City of Chanhasscn, however has tak~ this small section of the lake and classified it as wetland. So that throws it into an entirely different category. Whether or not that is bonafide or not, I guess you're not hcrc to contest 10 II I I Board of Adjustments and Appeals - November 22, 1993 or discuss. But this is thc only area of thc lake that I undmland is categorizod as wetland and as such has more restrictive requirements than any other case. Thc elevation of the land is comparable to Red Cedar Point and some of the properties on the north shore of the lake. So in terms of elevation from the wal~, you're going to face much more than one property owner...if the lake ever goes 2 feet or 3 feet above the 100 year...Our intentions are not to immediately break ground and start b_uilrling...We're looking to purchases this and the sellers are anxious to sell My wife and I view lifts as an opportunity to buy. We're not going to be breaking ground and building for a period of a few years but before we come to tm'ms and agree to buy the hind, I want to make sure it doesn't have to remain as...it can be a buildable property at some point in the future before we commit our resources to this property. So I don't know if you have any questions of me? lohnson: Do you have any questions Carol? Watson: Well, Shamfin. Usually our variances don't last that long and in that inlm4m period of time, if s~nitary sewer were to become a viable possibility, I would like to see the mound system scrapped and have it attached to sanitary sewer. I ~ if we're talking about say they're not going to build for $ years or something like that. 1ohn.~on: The variance isn't any good then. Watson: Well yeah so, I mean the problem is how can we give it for. Senn: h a variance one year? Al-Jaff: Yes. Senn: Well you can still give the variance. It's just good for a year. If they choose not to exercise it, then they have to come through again. AI-Jaff: Anytime they request an exl~nsion you will review it. And Roger c~ me if I'm wrong. At the t/me of an extension can the Board add new conditions to a variance? Roger Knutson: No, they can just deny it. Deny the extension and thereby get it back in front of them and then add conditions or if they're no longer appropriate, deny the variance. Watson: $o that would be our means. If we felt that ~nitary sewer should be, go through would be to deny it and then have them come back and request that it. 11 Board of Adjustments and Appeals - November 22, 1993 Roger Knutson: Well fight now for example you could irr~o, se a condition that says, if sanitary sewer's available, at thc time they want to put in the septic system, they can't put it in. They've got to hook up. You could put that in as a condition fight now. So I don't know thc details of when it could go out there but let's say in the spring for, everyone was shocked but it got out there. And a month later the owner wanted to put in their septic system, by putting that condition in you could say no. You've got to hook up. Al-laff: Do you want to reduce the distance of how far? I mean currently we said it's approximately 300 to 400 feet? Hempel: Approximately. Watson: But yeah, see then you get to the point, what's considered available. Serf Papke: The driveway itself is 300 feet long. $o distance wise, unless you're angling all the way across the property in the wetland, the closest between two points, I don't think you could find a way of it being 400 feet. We were probably at least twice as long as that over the rest of it. AI-Jaff: And that's where staff is saying we don't think it would be feasible to hook up. Johnson: I hate to throw off...if it's available to sewer and water. Say it ain't feasible. Kirchman: That's not our determination. Johnson: Yeah. Because we're granting a variance on our ordinance. We're just throwing the whole 150 feet out, period. Let's knock it down. Watson: But we came up with that ordinance for reasons. AI-Jaff: Correct I've questioned the ordinance lately. I mean it requires a 75 foot setback from the edge of the lake but 150 foot setback from a wetland. Watson: But if the ardinance needs to be revised, we revise the ordinance. We don't find a way to take a trip around it. A1-Jaff: No, absolutely. Absolutely. But like I said, the DNR is comfortable with it and they said it's a satisfactory setback. It's what they use throughout the 12 Board of Adjustments and Appeah - November 22, 1993 Johnson: I go along with Carol. If we feel the 150 foot is wrong, theo we should change the ordinance before it circumvents... Senn: Well just because our's is diff~ent than the State isn't necessarily reason to say it's wrong. I mean there are counties and cities throughout the state that have more restrictive... Watson: Like us. Senn: I mean we're not the only ones. I can tgl you that. Watson: No. No, we don't necess~y want to change it but I mean we certainly don't want to make policy of just finding a way around it either. Senn: Let me try something. This I think has the wonderful appearance of one that con~ld go on forever. Given it is a lot and given that it is buildable, you know which seems to be fairly well defined. I mean those aren't questionable at this point. Serf Papke: To the city inspectors. Senn: Yeah, that's right. I mean that's something that's really determined outside of us. Outsidc of our process. After listening to everything, I still want to say no and just say no until sewer service comes in. You know. And that to me seems to be the easiest thing to say and at that point the owner or the applicant has every right in the world to put a house there because there's a sewer system and there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to. And I wouldn't be opposed to that at the point that it did have sewer. The only potential compromise I could see, I guess that I could live with and test the waters and see what you two think of it, is that the, that we would agree to the variance if the applicant won_id agree to install an enclosed system and agrees to hook to Ck/mson Bay sewer as soon as it's available or put in sewer at the time that Highway 5 is expanded, whichever occurs first. Watson: Now closest was one that's p~ Senn: Correct. Watson: At all times. Senn: Correct. Watson: It has no outlet. 13 Board o£ Adjustments and Appeals - November 22, 1993 Senn: Yeah, and then as pan of the approval we'd require some son of annual fund by the applicant of a contract to pump that system to assure that it is pumped each year. Or as needed. I mean to me that eliminates any and all environmental concerns. It allows them to go ahead but it also sets a clear de~__dllna of one of the two things t~ happen, which would auWrnatically trigger it and again, cost is not our issue but one of those two things trigger in effect the applicant moving ahead. Now if at that time the applicant chooses to go over and hook into the existing line, it's 300-400 feet away, I mean that's up to them but that's something they have to weigh in relationship to their decision or whatever w go forward. But they would be required to hook up to sewer eventually. Otherwise, I mean if the long term, to me if the long term answer is this property can't be served by sewer, then my long term answer is. Watson: It's not buildable. Senn: h's not buildable and k shouldn't be granted a variancc in this case. But it appears to me from what I'm hearing is there are some potential options there so it seems to me that the whole system would be the answer, or at least I'd be comfortable with the caveat that one of those two occur. Kirchman: I'd throw a monkey wrench in that. The code we've adopted, 7080, lists standard syslma~ of which a trench and a mound are sumdard systems and it lists allmmate syslz~ms. And it states that we should only allow allm'nate systems to go in when other systems won't work. That's not the exact wording obviously but you know here we have a situation that, or we may have a situation because undersland I haven't looked at the designs of where they're putting their systems but if a mound system will work where they're proposing them to work, we're actually putting in a less desirable system by putting in a holding tank or a reduced area system or a, they also have some filter type systems. In the opinion of the code, we're putting in a lesser system if we put that in in lieu of a mound that is on a site that meets all the criteda. Senn: Why is it a lesser system? Kirchman: The reason for that, that they don't like holding tanks at all and that's one of the lesser of the lesser systems actually. Because of the...problem You can pump your effluent out into a mound and when it doesn't wozk, what's going to happen is it's going to back up into your house. You pump it into a holding tank and you've got a problem with it, then you put a pipe in your holding tank and drop that over the hill and away she goes and nobody ever knows about it. We do have one system I think in town that's on a holding tank and we have continuous problems with them maintaining their pumping contract. Us getting the receipts. Getting a record keeping on it. It's been a real problem for us and. 14 Board of Adjusmw~ts and Appeals - November 22, 1993 Senn: Well the State, and maybe they've changed it but the Slate used W, at least in the outlying counties allow that as the altema~ to a mound system and that son of thing when you couldn't meet the requirements. You know the setback. Kirchman: A mound used to be called an alternate sysmn. Senn: I understand that. Kirchman: It was an alternate system so it was in the same class as a holding tank at one time. Senn: But what the State regs used to say was if all else failed, a dosed system or incinerator system, which was the other one at the time. Kirchman: Right, if all else fails. Senn: Fails, those two were the best route to go. Kirchman: That's correct but see here we don't have a situation where all else fails because if they meet the criteria of the mottling down deep enough and they've got enough area to do it and they're got the right pew tests, by theory that, whatever's corning out of that mound's going to be Ireated when we're done. Watson: But Steve it fails simply because it does not meet the ordinsnce. Kirchman: It fails because of the setbacks. Watson: That's ~ Kirchman: But, so the question is, are we going to let them put in what's really a lesser system because it doem't meet that setback and that's a question you've guys are going to have to answer. In our experience holding tanks have not been a good answer. Senn: So even though on the suffac~ they're more envimnmenl~lly sound, in pmctic~h'Br they're not. You're saying it's simply because of maln~. Kirchman: That's correct Simply because of maintenance. We don't have problems with tanks breaking out or anything like that. Watson: Technically sanitary sewer is available to this property7 15 Board of Adjustments and Appeals - November 22, 1993 Kirchman: Technically it is... Watson: That's right Jeff Papke: Technically sanitary sewer is available in northern Minnesota from this system if you wanted to mn it 300 miles. Watson: Yeah but we're talking, it's down the street I mea~ Jeff Papke: It's below grade. It's I think about 700 to 800 feet away across a wetland. Underneath Highway 5 where there isn't any fight-of-way. I just don't think it's a viable option. The city in some of the conv~ondence to me, or actually to the sellers, has indicated that the water quality would be poor because it's a dead end line. The contractor who laid out the septic systems advised against a sewer sysmn because of the grades. Because of the land that it would have to be laid in. Essentially you have to put in a sewer system below the light bulb and run it down underneath the surface of the grade at the bottom of the lake in order to get it laid. It's really hnpracticaL .. so when you look at the ordinance and say well it's 150 feet. This is 75. There probably aren't a lot of pieces of property that rne~ this exception of the criteria. This has been a lot of record and taxed as such I might add for the current owners. Since 1962. For all intensive purposes tream/as if it was a viable, buildable lot. Really it's only the difference in how Chanhassen categ~ this, having that segn2mt of property as wetland rather limn lakeshore that causes this to be, ff it was zoned or classified as shoreline ~ everything else around the lake is and the way the DNR categorizes it, we wouldn't have to have this meeting. Watson: Right, but we are in Chanha/~ And it is wetland. Serf Papke: Well, based on the criteria that the DNR has, where the watrr is corning from the same source as the lake surrounding it, all the criteda the DNR had. I mean they don't categorize it that way. Is the criteria for Chanhassen that different'/ Watson: It's 7/i feet different. Johnson: Does anybody else wish to spcak of this? Any other discussion? I'll ask to close the public hearing. Senn moved, Watson seconded to dose the public hearing. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. 16 I Board of Adjustments and Appeals - November 22, 1993 Senn: To me I'm just really uncomfortable with the mound sysmn because I understand all the theories involved but there's no hard data in front of us in terms of showing us the... Cooper R. Gustafson: May I say something? Johnson: We closed the public hearing but I'll let you speak. Cooper R. Gustafson: I am the owner of the...land and when we ~rchased that land, we purchased it with the under _s~__nding that it was a buildable, we did pursue getting information from the city. They told us it a. Johnson: Give us your name and address sir. Cooper R. Gustafson: I'm Cooper R. Gustafson and f~ly of 804 Buckingham Court. As of a week ago I'm now a resident of Eagan. When we sold our house out on Lake Town Road out at Chaska and we wok this land as a partial down payment. A fairly substantial amount of the down payment. And we did it with the understanding and that Mr. H~kins ~ from the city that we did have a very buildable, viable property. Otherwise it would not have been anywhere near worth the amount of money that was allotted to it. And we pursued everything based on that basis so we came to the city. Asked the questions, Received the answers and then...accordingly. I have been paying taxes. I pay taxes of 700 and some dollars on that piece of land. Prior to my buying it the taxes were $6~/)0.00 but it's based as an agricultural piece of property and is not, no mention whatsoever any place in the county of it being a wetland. It's just simply mentioned as...I hope that we're not being held to criteria that's more stringent than any other piece of wetland. We meet the responsibility as far as treating the water so we don't pollute it. Nobody wants to, certainly wants to pollute anything. And that the protnmy be held to the same criteria that would be held to any other properties along the lakeshore in the future once sewer comes by. Then I don't think we should have a problem. We should be allowed, as in Jeff's case to...property but certainly in our case to sell this property. I guess it's vitally impartant to us. It represents...personally what it means to be able to sell this property. It's a...question, I understsnd but the point is _this. That everything was done in good faith from the very be~nning. We never, the city wld us that it was, the people that were in the office at that time said it was a buildable site. All we had to do was meet the criteria as far as the drainage was concerned and the building of a sewer system and we've proven that that's all a viable thing. The mound system, you could have a normal hill there. I ~ it wouldn't be a problem...crentte a hill. So I think that should be in there too. I'm just simply ask that this variance be granted... Johnson: Thank you sir...a motion here. I'll mahe a motion for denial 17 Board of Adjustments and Appeals - November 22, 1993 Watson: Until sanitary sewer? Johnson: Until sanitary sewer is available to the property. Watson: I'll second that. Johnaon: Any more discussion? Senn: Urn. Watson: Can we get more data on those dosed systems and mdf? Senn: Yeah see that's thc part that bothers me. Watson: I don't know why that doesn't work. Senn: I'd really rather, for whatever it's worth, see us get thc information- It's easy to sit here and say we want to deny it. Then thc question is, why are we denying it. Well if the answer is, is that we're denying it because it doesn't have sewer service and it doesn't meet the ordinance requirements, that's fine. Ordinance requirements are guidelines in my eyes and we do get variances from them but again; it seems to me we're being asked to consider something and make a detmrnination and we don't have adequate information. Before we're being asked to determine whether we think we should bury, I think we should know whether the mound system is in fact a solid environmental answer and I think we should also, well like I say. Watson: The merits... Senn: Right The merits of one versus the other and it seems to me we're just kind of throwing all that together here at the last mintllE and ~g wall, thaI'8 all going to be decided later. I'm not comfortable with that. I'd rather get the information first before I'd go forward on that. Johnson: Do you withdraw your secoM? Watson: I'll withdraw. Johnson: I'll withdraw. 18 Board of Adjustments and Appeals - November 22, 1993 Watson: I'll make a motion to table this until we have information on mound systrms and on dosed systems and on what it would take to put the saniu~5' sewer there. I mean what are we actually talking about? What drop don't we have, How far away from gravity. What kind of a tlmmlcing system would be necessary for it to fimction on a sanitary sewer system. Senn: And could we include in that a specific analysis of a mound system on this sile. Watson: Yeah, this site. Not just mound sysi~ms because we know they work in other places but here. Did you second? Senn: Yep, second. Johnson: Any more discussion? Watson moved, Senn seconded to table action on the variance request for placement of a mound system 75 feet from a wetland until further information is gathered re~arding the different options availatde to this siU~ An voted in favor and the motion carrJetL Watson moved, Senn seconded to approve the Minutes of the Board of A~ts and Appeals dated October 11, 1993 as presented. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. Watson moved, Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The rnee~g was adjourned at 7:30 p.m Submitt~ by Sharmin Plan~r I Prepared by Nann Opheirn 19