Agenda and PacketAGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2018, 7:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
A.CALL TO ORDER
B.NEW BUSINESS
C.PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.821 Creekwood Drive: Consider a Variance Application to Install a Septic System
within the Required Subsurface Sewer Treatment Systems Setbacks, Front Yard
Setback, and Bluff Setback and Impact Zone
D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Approval of Planning Commission minutes dated September 4, 2018
E.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
F.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
1.Future Planning Commission Items
G.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION
H.ADJOURNMENT
I.OPEN DISCUSSION
NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official bylaws.
We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not
appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled
from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
Subject 821 Creekwood Drive: Consider a Variance Application to Install a Septic System within the
Required Subsurface Sewer Treatment Systems Setbacks, Front Yard Setback, and Bluff
Setback and Impact Zone
Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.
Prepared By MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner File No: PC 201817
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approves the following: placement of
the pump line within the 50foot bluff setback area and 20foot bluff impact zone; a 30foot bluff setback variance
for the tanks; and a 20foot bluff setback variance and 9foot property line setback variance for the mounds and
dispersal area, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and
Recommendation.”
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant has an existing septic system that does not meet current standards and will need to be replaced within the
next two years. The applicant is requesting a variance to place a mound septic system eight feet from the property lines
and 15 feet from the top of the bluff, with new tanks replacing the existing tanks 20 feet from the top of the bluff and a
pump line within the bluff setback and impact zone. The proposed septic system is being sized to accommodate the
possible addition of a sixth bedroom to the existing fivebedroom house. A variance is required because Chapter 19
requires that septic systems be setback 10 feet from property lines and 50 feet from the top of the bluff, and Chapter
20 prohibits the removal or alteration of vegetation and grading within 20 feet from the top of a bluff.
APPLICANT
Gene and Lois Sipprell
SITE INFORMATION
PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate "A2"
LAND USE:Residential Low Density
ACREAGE: 1 Acre
DENSITY: NA
APPLICATION REGULATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, September 18, 2018Subject821 Creekwood Drive: Consider a Variance Application to Install a Septic System within theRequired Subsurface Sewer Treatment Systems Setbacks, Front Yard Setback, and BluffSetback and Impact ZoneSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner File No: PC 201817PROPOSED MOTION:“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approves the following: placement ofthe pump line within the 50foot bluff setback area and 20foot bluff impact zone; a 30foot bluff setback variancefor the tanks; and a 20foot bluff setback variance and 9foot property line setback variance for the mounds anddispersal area, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact andRecommendation.”SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant has an existing septic system that does not meet current standards and will need to be replaced within thenext two years. The applicant is requesting a variance to place a mound septic system eight feet from the property linesand 15 feet from the top of the bluff, with new tanks replacing the existing tanks 20 feet from the top of the bluff and apump line within the bluff setback and impact zone. The proposed septic system is being sized to accommodate thepossible addition of a sixth bedroom to the existing fivebedroom house. A variance is required because Chapter 19requires that septic systems be setback 10 feet from property lines and 50 feet from the top of the bluff, and Chapter20 prohibits the removal or alteration of vegetation and grading within 20 feet from the top of a bluff.APPLICANTGene and Lois SipprellSITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate "A2"LAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE: 1 Acre
DENSITY: NA
APPLICATION REGULATIONS
Chapter 1 General Provisions, Section 12, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 19 Water, Sewers and Sewage Disposal, Article IV, Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems, Sec. 1967,
Amendments
Chapter 20 Zoning, Article II, Division 3, Variances
Chapter 20 Zoning, Article II, Division 4, Nonconforming Uses
Chapter 20 Zoning, Article X, “A2” Agricultural Estate District
Chapter 20 Zoning, Article XXIII, Division , Sec. 20906, Alternative Lot Size Requirements in A2 and RR Residential
Zoning Districts
Chapter 20 Zoning, Article XXVIII, Bluff Protection, Sec. 201403, Removal or Alteration of Vegetation
Chapter 20 Zoning, Article XXVIII, Bluff Protection, Sec. 201404, Topographic Alterations/Grading and Filling
Chapter 20 Zoning, Article XXXI, Bluff Creek Overlay District, Sec. 201564, Structure Setbacks
BACKGROUND
County records indicate that the home was built in 1975.
On September 21, 1984, the city issued a permit for a 634 squarefoot addition.
On October 14, 1991, the city passed ordinance number 152, which created the city’s bluff protection ordinance.
On August 22, 1994, the city expanded the bluff protection ordinance to cover the entire city.
On December 14, 1998, the city passed ordinance number 286, which created the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
On February 8, 1999, the city passed ordinance number 289, which governed the installation and maintenance of
septic systems and established a 20foot bluff setback.
On May 23, 2011, the city passed ordinance number 523, adopting Carver County Ordinance 672010 by reference
and establishing the current 50foot bluff setback for septic systems.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff believes that a variance is necessary to accommodate a new septic system; however, the bluff is already beginning to
head cut and the removal of vegetation, disruption of soil, and other elements involved with septic systems could
exacerbate the existing erosive issues. Staff believes that the septic system’s design and location can be adjusted to provide
for an increased distance between portions of the septic system and the bluff. Staff recommends that a modified version of
the proposed variance, which allows the septic system to be located closer to the property lines but requires a larger bluff
setback than the applicant is requesting, be approved.
(A full breakdown and analysis of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report.)
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, September 18, 2018Subject821 Creekwood Drive: Consider a Variance Application to Install a Septic System within theRequired Subsurface Sewer Treatment Systems Setbacks, Front Yard Setback, and BluffSetback and Impact ZoneSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner File No: PC 201817PROPOSED MOTION:“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approves the following: placement ofthe pump line within the 50foot bluff setback area and 20foot bluff impact zone; a 30foot bluff setback variancefor the tanks; and a 20foot bluff setback variance and 9foot property line setback variance for the mounds anddispersal area, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact andRecommendation.”SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant has an existing septic system that does not meet current standards and will need to be replaced within thenext two years. The applicant is requesting a variance to place a mound septic system eight feet from the property linesand 15 feet from the top of the bluff, with new tanks replacing the existing tanks 20 feet from the top of the bluff and apump line within the bluff setback and impact zone. The proposed septic system is being sized to accommodate thepossible addition of a sixth bedroom to the existing fivebedroom house. A variance is required because Chapter 19requires that septic systems be setback 10 feet from property lines and 50 feet from the top of the bluff, and Chapter20 prohibits the removal or alteration of vegetation and grading within 20 feet from the top of a bluff.APPLICANTGene and Lois SipprellSITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate "A2"LAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE: 1 Acre DENSITY: NA APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 1 General Provisions, Section 12, Rules of Construction and DefinitionsChapter 19 Water, Sewers and Sewage Disposal, Article IV, Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems, Sec. 1967,AmendmentsChapter 20 Zoning, Article II, Division 3, VariancesChapter 20 Zoning, Article II, Division 4, Nonconforming UsesChapter 20 Zoning, Article X, “A2” Agricultural Estate DistrictChapter 20 Zoning, Article XXIII, Division , Sec. 20906, Alternative Lot Size Requirements in A2 and RR ResidentialZoning DistrictsChapter 20 Zoning, Article XXVIII, Bluff Protection, Sec. 201403, Removal or Alteration of VegetationChapter 20 Zoning, Article XXVIII, Bluff Protection, Sec. 201404, Topographic Alterations/Grading and FillingChapter 20 Zoning, Article XXXI, Bluff Creek Overlay District, Sec. 201564, Structure SetbacksBACKGROUNDCounty records indicate that the home was built in 1975.On September 21, 1984, the city issued a permit for a 634 squarefoot addition.On October 14, 1991, the city passed ordinance number 152, which created the city’s bluff protection ordinance.On August 22, 1994, the city expanded the bluff protection ordinance to cover the entire city.On December 14, 1998, the city passed ordinance number 286, which created the Bluff Creek Overlay District.On February 8, 1999, the city passed ordinance number 289, which governed the installation and maintenance ofseptic systems and established a 20foot bluff setback.On May 23, 2011, the city passed ordinance number 523, adopting Carver County Ordinance 672010 by referenceand establishing the current 50foot bluff setback for septic systems.RECOMMENDATIONStaff believes that a variance is necessary to accommodate a new septic system; however, the bluff is already beginning tohead cut and the removal of vegetation, disruption of soil, and other elements involved with septic systems couldexacerbate the existing erosive issues. Staff believes that the septic system’s design and location can be adjusted to providefor an increased distance between portions of the septic system and the bluff. Staff recommends that a modified version ofthe proposed variance, which allows the septic system to be located closer to the property lines but requires a larger bluffsetback than the applicant is requesting, be approved.
(A full breakdown and analysis of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report.)
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
Findings of Fact and Recommendation Approval
Findings of Fact and Recommendation Denial
Development Review Application
Narrative
Certificate of Survey
Miscellaneous Septic Documents
MPCA Documents
HomeStead Septic Systems Response to Supplement Variance
WRC Memo
Building Memo
Environmental Resources Memo
Affidavit of Public Hearing Mailing
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: September 18, 2018
CC DATE: October 8, 2018
REVIEW DEADLINE: October 30, 2018
CASE #: 2018-17
BY: MW
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant has an existing septic system that does not meet current standards and will need to
be replaced within the next two years. The applicant is requesting a variance to place a mound
septic system eight feet from the property lines and 15 feet from the top of the bluff, with new
tanks replacing the existing tanks 20 feet from the top of the bluff and a pump line within the
bluff setback and impact zone. The proposed septic system is being sized to accommodate the
possible addition of a sixth bedroom to the existing five-bedroom house. A variance is required
because Chapter 19 requires that septic
systems be setback 10 feet from property lines
and 50 feet from the top of the bluff, and
Chapter 20 prohibits the removal or alteration
of vegetation and grading within 20 feet from
the top of a bluff.
LOCATION: 821 Creekwood Drive
(PID 250260900)
APPLICANT: Gene and Lois Sipprell
821 Creekwood Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55318
PRESENT ZONING: A-2
2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
ACREAGE: 1 DENSITY: NA
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the
placement of the pump line within the 50-foot bluff setback area and 20-foot bluff impact zone,
a 30-foot bluff setback variance for the tanks and a 20-foot bluff and 9-foot property line
setback variance for the mounds and dispersal area, subject to the conditions of approval and
adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation.”
(Note: A motion for denial and appropriate findings of fact are also included at the end of the
report.)
821 Creekwood Drive
Planning Case #2018-17
Page 2
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.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicants recently purchased this
property. During the purchasing process,
they were informed that the septic
system was inadequate and would need
to be replaced within the next two years.
They also wish to size the system to
accommodate a future sixth bedroom.
Their septic system installer informed
them that a double-mound system would
be required and that due to the location
of the house, well, and disturbed nature
of the soils near the house, the septic
system would need to be located within
the 50-foot bluff setback.
The proposed septic system would be
approximately eight feet from the
property lines and 15 feet from the top of
the bluff, with tanks located 20 feet from
the top of the bluff. The pump line would
be within five feet of the top of the bluff
at its closest point.
The septic installer has stated that the
proposed tank and septic locations are required due to the location of the home’s sewer line and
existing tanks. Similarly, the location of the pump line is dictated by the location of the tanks and
mound system. The installer is proposing locating the double-mound system in the northeast
corner of the lot to maximize its distance from the bluff, and because it is the only area of the
property that he believes has suitable contours and soils for the mounds. The installer has stated
that there is not sufficient space on the property to accommodate the septic system outside of the
50-foot bluff setback.
821 Creekwood Drive
Planning Case #2018-17
Page 3
The applicant has stated that the requested variance is necessary to address the deficiencies of
their existing septic system, and to allow for the addition of an additional bedroom on the
property.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 1 - General Provisions, Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 19 - Water, Sewers and Sewage Disposal, Article IV, Subsurface Sewage Treatment
Systems, Sec. 19-67, Amendments
Chapter 20 - Zoning, Article II, Division 3, Variances
Chapter 20 - Zoning, Article II, Division 4, Nonconforming Uses
Chapter 20 - Zoning, Article X, “A-2” Agricultural Estate District
Chapter 20 - Zoning, Article XXIII, Division, Sec. 20-906, Alternative Lot Size Requirements in A-
2 and RR Residential Zoning Districts
Chapter 20 - Zoning, Article XXVIII, Bluff Protection, Sec. 20-1403, Removal or Alteration of
Vegetation
Chapter 20 - Zoning, Article XXVIII, Bluff Protection, Sec. 20-1404, Topographic
Alterations/Grading and Filling
Chapter 20 - Zoning, Article XXXI, Bluff Creek Overlay District, Sec. 20-1564, Structure Setbacks
Note: Most of the applicable setback standards are located in Chapter 19; however, Chapter 19
does not have a specific variance procedure so the variance is being granted from the general
zoning code using the procedure outlined in Chapter 20.
BACKGROUND
County records indicate that the home was built in 1975.
On September 21, 1984, the city issued a permit for a 634 square foot addition.
On October 14, 1991, the city passed ordinance number 152, which created the city’s bluff
protection ordinance.
On August 22, 1994, the city expanded the bluff protection ordinance to cover the entire city.
On December 14, 1998, the city passed ordinance number 286, which created the Bluff Creek
Overlay District.
On February 8, 1999, the city passed ordinance number 289, which governed the installation and
maintenance of septic systems and established a 20-foot bluff setback.
On May 23, 2011, the city passed ordinance number 523, adopting Carver County Ordinance 67-
2010 by reference and establishing the current 50-foot bluff setback for septic systems.
821 Creekwood Drive
Planning Case #2018-17
Page 4
SITE CONDITIONS
The property is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A-2) and contains a bluff. Portions of the site
are also located near the Bluff Creek Overlay District. This zoning district requires lots to be a
minimum of 2.5 acres, have front yard and rear setbacks of 50 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet,
and limits parcels to a maximum of 20 percent (20%) lot coverage. Structures are required to be
30 feet or the existing distance from the top of the bluff, with no topographic or vegetative
alterations permitted within 20 feet from the top of the bluff. Structures must also be setback 40
feet or the existing distance from the Bluff Creek primary zone and no site disturbances are
permitted within the first 20 feet or first 50 percent (50%) of existing setback from the primary
zone. Chapter 19 requires septic systems to be setback 50 feet from bluffs.
The lot is a non-conforming, 43,600 square feet lot. The existing structure meets the front, rear,
and side setbacks, with a deck encroaching approximately 10 feet into the 30-foot bluff setback.
The house appears to meet the 40-foot setback from the Bluff Creek primary zone. The existing
septic tanks are located approximately 20 feet from the top of the bluff.
NEIGHBORHOOD
Vogel Addition
The property is an unplated lot
near the Bluff Creek Golf Course
and Vogel Addition. The
property is accessed by
Creekwood Drive, a private road
serving the golf course and six
residential properties. All of the
residential properties are on
septic and well. Municipal
services are not expected to
become available in the near
future.
Variances within 500 feet:
1985-03 - 815 Creekwood Drive: Denied - Minimum lot size for subdivision to create a 3.56-
acre lot and a 1-acre lot; was subsequently litigated with settlement to create two lots with 2.28
acres each.
2010-05 - 845 Creekwood Drive: Approved - Retaining wall within bluff impact zone.
821 Creekwood Drive
Planning Case #2018-17
Page 5
ANALYSIS
Septic and Pump Tanks
The applicant is proposing placing the
septic and pump tanks behind the house,
20 feet from the top of the bluff. The
applicant has stated that this location is
necessitated by the placement of the
home’s existing sewer line and the
elevation of the sewer pipe. The existing
tanks are also located in this area.
The proposed location is an already
disturbed area of the site that would need to be further disturbed to fill the existing tanks. It is also
outside of the 20-foot Bluff Creek primary zone do not disturb area and 20-foot bluff impact zone.
Staff believes that the proposed location for this portion of the system is reasonable and should not
significantly impact the bluff.
For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the 30-foot bluff setback variance for the septic
and pump tanks.
Pump Line
The applicant’s proposed location for the pump line is determined
by the locations of the pump tank and the mound. The applicant has
stated that physical features of the property prevent any alternative
placement of the pump line.
As the applicant has noted, the ultimate location of the pump line
will be determined by the location of the tanks and the mound
system. Since the location of the tanks is predetermined by the
home’s sewer line and the pump line’s exit from the pump tank is
dictated by the location of the house and deck, the location of this
feature cannot be significantly altered. Since the pipe is entirely
below ground, staff’s largest concern would be the removal of
vegetation, especially mature trees that would accompany its installation. The proposed location
mostly avoids the woods, and staff encourages the applicant to take all possible steps to minimize
tree loss associated with its installation. Staff believes that the proposed location of this portion of
the system is necessary, and cannot be significantly improved upon.
For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the variance from the 50-foot bluff setback and 20-
foot bluff impact zone for the pump line.
821 Creekwood Drive
Planning Case #2018-17
Page 6
Mound System
The applicant has stated that the proposed location for the mound
system, shown in green, is necessary due to the contours of the
property. They have stated that state code requires a mound septic to be
set on a contour for the length of its rock bed and that this consideration
requires the double-mound system as well as the proposed placements
of both mounds and their drain fields. The applicant’s installer has
indicated a strong preference for placing a mound system on an area
with at least a 1-2% slope.
Staff asked the applicant to address the possibility of installing a Type
III septic system. The applicant’s installer has indicated that the
presence of disturbed soils in the middle of the yard makes it difficult
to be certain that an installed system would perform adequately in that
area. They have stated that disturbed soils, such as appear to be present
in that area, have a higher chance of failing to accept effluent long
term, of undertreating effluent, and of discharging untreated effluent.
They note that the best soils with sufficient slope and contours are
always the best choice for locating a septic system.
In reviewing the proposed location for the double-mound system, staff was very concerned to notice
that it is adjacent to a swale that handles a large amount of stormwater runoff from Bluff Creek Golf
Course and directly discharges into Bluff Creek, a state classified impaired water. Staff also
observed that a large head cut is present in this area and that it is actively eroding the bluff directly
downstream from the proposed location. For these reasons, Water Resources is recommending
denial of the variance request unless it can be demonstrated that no other location or system is
feasible.
Staff consulted with Carver County’s Soil and
Water Conservation District’s Conservation
Technician, Chip Hentges, regarding the
proposed location of the double-mound
portion of the system. He indicated that the
largest concern from the County’s perspective
was that the proposed mound system stay clear
of the drainage swale located near the 928
contour. It is Conservation Technician
Hentges’ opinion that by grating 1-foot lot line
setbacks it should be possible to shift the
system to the southeast so that the toe of the
southern mound’s sand is clear of the 30-foot
bluff setback indicated on the survey.
821 Creekwood Drive
Planning Case #2018-17
Page 7
He also notes that the rock bed locations should be able to work in their proposed areas.
Building Inspector Tessman also reviewed the proposed septic system’s location and design. He
recommends that the mounds be pushed forward to within 1 foot of the property line and that the
mound ratio be changed from 3:1 to 4:1. Both of these modifications would increase the distance
from the toe of the proposed mound system to the top of the bluff.
Based on these reviews and the importance of protecting Bluff Creek, staff is recommending that a
20-foot bluff and 9-foot property line setback variance be given for the mound portion of the
system, rather than the 35-foot bluff and 2-foot property line setback variance the applicant is
requesting.
Impact on Neighborhood
The largest impact on the neighborhood will be the loss of the
wooded area in the northeast of the property. Most of the
surrounding properties have heavily wooded yards; however,
several other properties do have mostly open front yards.
Many components of the septic system would be located
below grade and would not be expected to have any visual
impact on the neighborhood. The applicant intends to install
landscaping to minimize the visual impact of the above-grade
portions of the system.
SUMMARY
Staff believes that a variance is necessary to accommodate a new septic system; however, the bluff
is already beginning to head cut and the removal of vegetation, disruption of soil, and other
elements involved with septic systems could exacerbate the existing erosive issues. Staff believes
that the septic system’s design and location can be adjusted to provide for an increased distance
between portions of the septic system and the bluff. Staff recommends that a modified version of the
proposed variance, which allows the septic system to be located closer to the property lines but
requires a larger bluff setback than the applicant is requesting, be approved.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
approve the placement of the pump line within the 50-foot bluff setback area and 20-foot bluff
impact zone, a 30-foot bluff setback variance for the tanks and a 20-foot bluff and 9-foot
property line setback variance for the mounds and dispersal area, subject to the conditions of
approval and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation:
1. The applicant must apply for and receive all necessary permits from the relevant
agencies.
821 Creekwood Drive
Planning Case #2018-17
Page 8
2. The applicant shall work with city, county, and watershed staff to maximize the
system’s distance from the bluff, minimize its impact on the bluff, and avoid
impacting the existing drainage swale.
3. The applicant shall minimize tree loss, and shall, to the greatest extent possible, avoid
removing mature trees within 20 feet of the top of the bluff.
4. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey showing the final location of the septic and pump tanks,
pump line, mound, and drain field shall be provided as part of the permitting process.
5. The area around the septic system mounds shall be landscaped so as to minimize its
visual impact.
Should the Planning Commission recommend denying the variance request, it is recommended
that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion and attached Findings of Fact and
Decision:
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments recommends that the City Council deny the
variance request to place a pump line within the bluff setback and impact zone, the 30-foot bluff
setback variance for the tanks, and the 35-foot bluff setback variance and the 2-foot property line
setback variance for the mound system, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation Approval
2. Findings of Fact and Recommendation Denial
3. Development Review Application
4. Narrative
5. Certificate of Survey
6. Miscellaneous Septic Documents
7. MPCA Documents
8. HomeStead Septic Systems Response to Supplement Variance
9. WRC Memo on 821 Creekwood
10. Building Memo on 821 Creekwood
11. Environmental Resources Specialist Memo on 821 Creekwood
12. Public Hearing Notice Mailing List
G:\PLAN\2018 Planning Cases\18-17 821 Creekwood Drive Variance\Staff Report-821 Creekwood Drive_PC.doc
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
(APPROVAL)
IN RE:
The application of Gene and Lois Sipprell for the installation of a septic system within the
required bluff setback and impact zone on a property zoned A-2 - Planning Case 2018-17.
On September 18, 2018, 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 Agricultural Estate District A-2.
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
3. The legal description of the property is:
The west 152.3 feet of the east 355.85 feet of the north 286.0 feet of the south 572 feet of the
Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼ of SE ¼) of Section 26, Township 116,
Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota.
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 intent of the city’s bluff protection ordinance is to ensure that vegetation
and soils located near and on bluffs are not distributed in a manner that has the potential
to create erosive conditions or otherwise negatively impact the bluff. The city also
requires septic systems to be setback from property lines and road right of ways in order
to minimize the potential for these systems to negatively impact adjacent property owners
or interfere with the installation of utilities or other features commonly found in right of
ways. In this case, there are no adjacent residential properties and the street is a private
one, so the there is less concern for waiving the required property line setbacks. By
granting a variance to the property line setbacks, the required bluff setback variance is
minimized and the septic system can be placed further away from the more sensitive
portions of the bluff.
2
Granting a variance to allow a single-family home with no ability to hook up to
municipal utilities to install a septic system is consistent with the comprehensive plan,
and the proposed variance is in harmony with the intent of the zoning code.
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: Due to the existence of bluffs on the property, the dimensions of the property,
the placement of the house, nature of the contours, and characteristics of the soil, the
septic system must be placed in the northeast corner of the property. This placement
requires variances from the bluff setbacks, impact zone, and property line setbacks. City
sewer and water will not be available for the property in the near future and a functioning
septic system is required to have reasonable use of the property.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The lot is a non-conforming lot of record that was created before the existing
district standards, bluff protection, and septic system ordinances were created.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: Many components of the septic system would be located below grade and would
not be expected to have any visual impact on the neighborhood. The applicant intends to
install landscaping to minimize the visual impact of the above-grade portions of the system.
The surrounding residential properties are also located on large lots and are served by septic
systems.
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 #2018-17, dated September 18, 2018, prepared by MacKenzie Walters,
is incorporated herein.
3
RECOMMENDATION
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments recommends that the City Council
approves the placement of the pump line within the 50-foot bluff setback area and the 20-foot
bluff impact zone, a 30-foot bluff setback variance for the tanks and a 20-foot bluff and 9-foot
property line setback variance for the mounds and dispersal area, subject to the conditions of
approval:
1. The applicant must apply for and receive all necessary permits from the relevant
agencies.
2. The applicant shall work with city, county, and watershed staff to maximize the
system’s distance from the bluff, minimize its impact on the bluff, and avoid
impacting the existing drainage swale.
3. The applicant shall minimize tree loss, and shall, to the greatest extent possible, avoid
removing mature trees within 20 feet of the top of the bluff.
4. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey showing the final location of the septic and pump tanks,
pump line, mound, and drain field shall be provided as part of the permitting process.
5. The area around the septic system mounds shall be landscaped so as to minimize its
visual impact.”
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 18th day of September, 2018.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Chairman
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
(DENIAL)
IN RE:
The application of Gene and Lois Sipprell for the installation of a septic system within the
required bluff setback and impact zone on a property zoned A-2 - Planning Case 2018-17.
On September 18, 2018, 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 Agricultural Estate District A-2.
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
3. The legal description of the property is:
The west 152.3 feet of the east 355.85 feet of the north 286.0 feet of the south 572 feet of the
Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SE ¼ of SE ¼) of Section 26, Township 116,
Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota.
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 intent of the city’s bluff protection ordinance is to ensure that vegetation
and soils located near and on bluffs are not distributed in a manner that has the potential
to create erosive conditions or otherwise negatively impact the bluff. The bluff near the
proposed location for the septic system is already subject to a large amount of runoff that
has created a head cut which is actively eroding the bluff downstream from the proposed
location. Furthermore, runoff from this area directly discharges into Bluff Creek, a state
classified impaired water. It would not be in line with the intent of this Chapter to allow
the removal of vegetation and disruption of soils that could exacerbate these issues.
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
2
Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct
sunlight for solar energy systems.
Finding: A type III septic system could be installed in the flat portion of the yard away
from the top of the bluff. Since there is an alternative location for a septic system that
meets city code, the applicant does not have a practical difficulty.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The lot is a non-conforming lot of record that was created before the existing
district standards, bluff protection, and septic system ordinances were created.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The area where the applicant is proposing to install the septic system is heavily
wooded and many mature trees would need to be removed. Most of the residential homes
in the vicinity are setback within existing woods; removing these trees would noticeably
alter the character of the neighborhood.
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 #2018-17, dated September 18, 2018, prepared by MacKenzie Walters,
is incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments recommends that the City Council
deny the variance request to place a pump line within the bluff setback and impact zone, the 30-
foot bluff setback variance for the tanks, and the 35-foot bluff setback variance and 2-foot
property line setback variance for the mound system.”
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 18th day of September, 2018.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Chairman
COMUUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTIIIENT
Planning Division -77@ Market Boulevard
Mailing Address- P.O. Bnlx147, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: (952) 227 -1300 / Fax: (952) 227 -1 1 10
Submittal Date:
*crTYorurAl,rHAssltr
APPLICANON FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
9/v,/aarc pc Date:allli' ,/ i!- cc Dare Afillg- 6o-Day Review o"," te I t t- [ r f
(Refer to the appropiate Applicatbn Checklist for required submiftal informatiln that must a@mpany this application)
n
tr
n
I Comprehensive Plan Amendment......................... $600 n SuUaivision (SUB)
I Minor MUSA ]ine for failing on-site sewers..... $100
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
I Single-Family Residence.......... ...$325
E ltt Others........ ...........$425
lnterim Use Permit (lUP)
f] tn conlunction with Single-Family Residence..$325
E all others........ ........... $425
Rezoning (REZ)
! ehnned Unit Development (PUD) .................. $750I Minor Amendment to existing PUD................. $100n nttOthers........ ...........$5oo
Sign Plan Review...^... ......$150
Site Plan Review (SPR)
E lOministrative........... .$100
f] Commercial/lndustrialDistricts* ...$500
Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area:(- thousand square feet)
"lnclude nunber ol 94$[49 employees:*lnclude number of ne1gemdoyees:E Residential Districts ... $500
Plus $5 per dwelling unit (_ units)
n Create 3 lots or less ............ .........$300
n Create over 3 |ots..................,....$600 + $15 per lot(_ lots)
! Metes & Bounds (2lots) ...............$300
E Consolidate Lots...... ..$150
D t-ot Line Adjustment......................................... $1 50
n FinalPlat............. .......$700
(lncludes $450 escrow for attorney costs)*
'Addltional escrow may be required for other applications
through the dereloprnent contract.
n Vacation of Easements/Flight-of-way (VAC)........ $300
(Additional recordirg fees may apply)
n WettanO Alteration Permit (WAP)
n Single-Family Residence........... . $150E rulOthers........ ......... $275
fl Zoning Appeat....... ......... $100
n Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)................. $500
S!: When muttlple appllcatbns are proossed @ncurrenily,
the appropriate fee shall bc charged lor each appllcatlon.
n
n
/n
F
Property Owners' List within 5O0' lcityto generate after pre.apflication meetirg) $3 per address(- addresses)
Escrow for Recording Documents (check allthat apply)$50 per document
tr.
E
E ConOitional Use Permit
E Vacation
fl Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.)
lnterim Use Permit
Variance
Easements (_ easements;
E Site Plan Agreement
E Wetland Alteration PermitE oeeos
TOTAL FEE:
Description of Proposal:
Property Address or Location: PJ / C rc e ,(w ra)5 /rzzt Z /at rn4/. ff 3tF
Parcel#:LegalDescription: Jee Ene /a SzJ Se *fktnt,t f S f</zzzZ.rl=
Total Acreag., / , DD I ttcrtiWetlands Present? tr
Present Zoning:Select One Select One
Present Land Use Designation' Select One Requested Land Use Designation:Select One
Existing Useof Property: Rzl, J -enf;a /
lves E tto
Requested Zoning:
nCfreck box if separate narrative is attached.
Section 1:allthat
Section 2:lnformation
APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as applicant, represent to have obtained
authorization from the propefi owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to
the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. lf this application has not been signed by
the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. 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 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. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct.
Name:Contact:
Phone:Address:
City/StateZip:
Email:
Signature:Date:
PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do,
authorize the filing of this application. I understand that cnnditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those
conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of
the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. lfurther understand that additionalfees may
be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the
study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct.
Name: lre*e " /a;! 9fP!!4 \ Contact- -fum2,
Address: F dt Cre e ,Qtua/ 5 h1/1-p
Cell'1 ll as.(o 'mzr/ {r3 7
Emair: SipZQOl/U/Yl/V" Z/z
Signature:8,/zO /eazrP
This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by
applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist
and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural
requirements and fees.
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.
PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable)
Name: & ba la bu,v lamZs/z.ra! 5t 4-?G.entaet 0tt/,vZ.d
Address: /ru ( 4a d*'t rzJ Z<vz Phone:
City/StateZip: 5./t,(a?ez 4fr't/ 'frl Z?b ta - JzO - 7€{,
Email: 4*
Cell:
Fax:
Cell:
Fax:
Who should receive copies of stafl reports?"Other Gontact lnfornration :
Name:El'Property Owner
Applicant
Engineer
Other"
n
ETtI
Via: p'Email
Via: fl Email
Via: NlEmail
Via: f]Email
$uaiteo Paper Copy
f]_tvtaiteo Paper Copy
fiuaiteo Paper Copy
E tvtaileo Paper Copy
Address:
City/StateZip:
Email:
I]{STRUCTIOIIIS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your
device. PRINT FORM and deliver to cfty along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital
copy to the city for processing.
SAVE FORM PRINT FORM SUBMIT FORM
Section 3:Owner and lnformation
Section 4: Notification lnformation
The Narative for the 821 Creekwood Drive, Chaska, MN 55318
(Mailing Address)
Submitted by homeowners: Gene and Lowie Sipprell
August 20, 2018
0n May 29,2018, we purchased 821 Creekwood Drive as our primary residence. As
part ofthe process we requested that the lot be surveyed, septic and water systems
be tested. The results indicated the septic system was found to be inadequate to
current standards and would need to be replaced within two years. As we inquired
into this process we learned if we ever wanted to add another bedroom we would
need to have a double mound system. We consulted septic system installer Dale
Denn of Homestead Septic before the purchase ofthe home. He drew up two or
three different double-mound systems providing a way for water movement across
the property.
In fune, 2018, we met with the city representatives at the proposed new site for the
septic system. They advised that the only location for a double mound system
would be in the far north eastern corner ofour lot and a variance would be needed
to address the requirement setback to be 50 feet from the bluff.
July, 2018, Sathr-Berquist, Inc of Wayzata completed two surveys: surface lot and
bluff elevation. [See previously submitted documents)
August, 2018, we met with the neighbors including Michael Cohrs, General
Manager/Course Superintendent of Bluff Creek Golf course that adjoins our
property. They are supportive of installing the new septic system. Our realtor, Rick
Brama has advised us on a landscaper who could provide us with a beautiful design.
Consequently, we are confident that we can install the required septic system and a
beautiful landscaping area that will enhance our neighborhood.
We look forward to answering any questions the city may have and moving forward
so we can complete the septic system installation and landscaping this Fall.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Rev. Dr. Gene Sipprell
(es2-797-2027)erW
HomeStead Septic System Services
1108 Goldenrod Lane
Shakopee, MN 55379
MPCA Licensed #583
Dale Denn - Owner
Cell Phone: 612-310-7887
I lomcsteadsepti c(g)outlook. com
Septic System Variance:
Property: 821 Creekwood Drive
Chaska, MN 55318
A variance is needed that is within the 50 foot bluff setback ordinance.
In general, there are three situations whereby components of the new Mound Septic System will
be within 50 feet of the Bluff:
1. Septic and Pump Tanks
2. Pump line from pump tank to the Mound
3. The Mound
The reasons for the variances is as follows:
l. Septic and Pump tanks have to be where they are as that is where the old tanks are thus
the sewer line from the home comes out in that vicinity and the elevation of the sewer
pipe dictates where tanks need to go.
2. The pump line from the pump tank thus has to start at the pump tank location and
continue to the Mound. Physical features disallow any options to where the pump line
can be run.
3. The Mound has been located where it is due to the fact that the soils in this area are un-
disturbed, verses somewhat disturbed soils in the lawn area from initial construction. I
know that large trees indicate the most natural soils. Secondly, the contours are ever so
slightly undulating outside of where I set the Mound that is it difficult to set a Mound on
a definite contour to meet the Septic Ordinance. Lastly, if all of the Mound has to be
outside of the 50 foot bluff setback, there literally is not enough room to place any part of
the septic system.
By Dale Denn
Owner
aaaoaaaaaataa,laaaaaaa.}ota+oa+oaataattttoaataat
a.}oaoi Mound Septic Design I
t-o+;
? DArE: s,rTl2otr sa+9+ CLIENT: f+;o**s6o* SITE: 821 Creekwood Drive t&
; Chaska, MN 55318 +
&o+**t DESTGNER: Dale J Denn soi Homestead Septic &'
+ 1108 Goldenrod Lane It
9 Shakopee, MN 55379 fl
: MpCA License #583 "e
; ceil: 612-31&7887 .$,
4!+ Email: Hom esteadseptic@outlook.com n--os+,
f For new corstruction lots, all septic sites shall be protected in the field with fencing/identification up to I.+ the time of installation. Existing home lots, do not disturb septic site and keep all heavy equipment and a
3 vehicles off of the site. Any trees that need removal must be done without rubber tired equipment, ie, a
; track machines to avoid soil compaction and undue disturbance. cut tree trucks as close to surface as ?S possible and leave stumps intact, do not excavate. Grinding is ok with a portable grinder. 3+
*.}-t.; contoct Dole Denn with ony questions, comments, or concerns about this septic site. t.tk' $
+# This Cover Poge with Deigner Signoture, electronic or o terwiy-, hereby ceffies thot t hove +
- completed this septic design in occordance with olt applicoble Stote Septic Rules. Loal rules mav ?+ vory from Stote Rules. tnstotler to verfu all ospecis of opplicobte Locol Rules ond setback thot moy ;t be more rcstrictive thon stote Rules. Locol tlnits ol Govemments ore required to pubtish any rule or t
: portion thereol thot difurs from stote Rules. consult with Locol llnit of Governmenl- soy.
+
a
?; ur,rflrr\Ll( SIGNATIIRf, MpCACf,RT# DATti Y{+,-&
**+*
6 €'+ + + 4 € e + 6 g'+ 4 + + 's * + + { + 6 &.* + e e * {, + s + e + t$ 6 + €r * & + s..., $, *. ;1
s + + t c o + o a $ + + $ + + + + + + a c + o (} + +, $ + i) t c + t o + + t t t o t f + + *$+
* 821 Creekwood Drive O,el
I Design Notes: O*+
3 System is for a 6 bedroom Home. Soils only accommodate a Pressurized Mound Septic. Mound is g
6 spfft into two equal units on account of slope, short contours, drainage swale, and bluffline. fr*&
t Each Mound hatve will have the sandbed and laterals at the same elevation based on sandbed *#-
$ elevation of Unit 1. End feed from pump each unit, essentially center feeding Mound ". riJffl rnit. g
*\F+ Finish Mound as one unit and build saddle to divert all rain and snow melt. f
Pump station is designed for a dual pump arrangement with an alternating dose panel. Each
Mound half will have its olvn pump and be controlled by the dosing panel. Use either a dual
pump line, one for each mound half, or a single pump line with Check Valves properly installed
off of each pump. Calculate flow for each pump based on one half of total flow plus drainback.o.' See design and pump pages.
i, Install pump line deep as possible and reverse pitch pump line so that all portions of pump line, drain back into pump tank.
Pump and fill old septic tanks.
Tree and brush removal necessary rvith some large trees to be removed. Cut stumps close to .i
ground as possible and leave stumps intact. Only track machine shall be used in tree removal .,1
process to protect soils from undue disturbance and compaction.
Tight access for septic tank truck. Tree trimming requircd on residence trees and neighbors trees.
Variances to bluff for septic and pump tank, and for unit I of Mound ma1. be neccssary from Cit1,.
Bluff line approximated and not set officialll' b1.' elevation or sun,e\'or. Sun,eving and plotting of
all septic tanks, pump tanks, selyer lines, antl both rock and sandbed absorption units suggestcd to
ascertain all setbacks to properfy- lines and bluff.
44vt',trl
I
.L
I
t,
I
l_.
I
J
t_.
. u_].
l
!,
j
:l
funp, Ue4rs *&
d+ {ttt{- )-'1ultV
I
jrli.t,il
I
r lv'u'El4 /A,
*fr7$
??.6
?L, 3
eff,e ??,,
r'i .;'
Ll
I,
llll
I
I
I
I
:
I
I
r:'r-- -.- --- il
.; \,t !/
7'lt..t-'tl.:-r"4'. ;';;7,a,)1€
d
y,iyytr
ti* ?f'
tiuq
*:
tifi E"
sar u€{fttd** lE
odfr*,n*e
?
''d
;
t|-\. -tt4
*-f,Ppy I
M^T*I,tF- -I
/
/ )*,
l.---/""l,/
11 (-
;1
I
{#
I
I
wffil
nound 6PttT
rttrP Tdo ,'iaiet ailttS'
s*ila +u#r€14-
gfu4E ELEI/, \
(a-ruvBg'P,8:
+4t
/
L
ry!
/io*t
E'
* fil
\
-l r*& i
T,,
I r5'f t ,',.1
-l
C
Preliminary
Evatuation Worksheet
1. Contact lnformation v 04.17.7018
Property Owner/ Ctient:Date:
Project lD:
Phone:
5t73t2018
Site Address 821 Creekwood Drive, Chaska
Emai[:
Maiting Address:
LegaI Description:
Parcel lD:Latitude:Longitude:
2. Flow and General System lnformation
A. Client-Provided lnformation
Project Type:Ne',v Construction Replacement Expansion
Project Use: Residentiai
Residential use: # Bedrooms
Other Establishment:
# Adutts
ln-home business (Y/N):
Water-using devices:
(check all thot apply)
Dwetting Sq.ft.
# Chitdren
lf yes, describe
Unfinished Sq. Ft.:
# Teenagers:
Garbage Disposal/Grinder
Sewage pufirp in basement
Large Bathtub >40 gallons
Clothes Washing Machine
Dishwasher
' Water Softener*
Iron Filter*
High Eff. Furnace*
Ctear water source
Hot Tubt
Sunrp Pump*
Self-Cleaning Humidifierl
should not go into system
Additional current or future uses:
Anticipated non-domestic waste:
The above is complete & accurate:
None
None
B. Designer-determined flow lnformation
Client signoture & dqte
Attach additional informotion os necessory.
Design Ftow:GPD
mg/L TSS:
Anticipated Waste Type:Residentiat
BOD:mg/L Oi[ & Grease:
3. Preliminary Site lnformation
A. Well information Describe a[[ wetls within 100'of proposed SSTS: attach additional information if required.
Additionat Weil tnformation:
mg/L
Preliminary
Evaluation Worksheet ffim :.,.iiqNig E ? C,35TN
Site within 200'of noncommunity transient wett {Y/N)
Site within a drinking water suppty management area (Y/N)
Site in a inner wetthead management zone {Y/N)
Buried water suppty pipes 50 ft of proposed system (Y/N;
Site located in a shoreland district/area?
Ctassification Tank Setback:
Site located in a ftoodplain?
Etevation of ordinary high water levet:
Ftoodptain designation/elevation (1 OYR):
Ftoodptain designation/elevation {100YRi:
County GIS
Easements
Property Lines
Yes, source:
Yes, source:
Yes. source:
Yes, name:
ft. STA Setbk.:
Yes, Type(s):
ft Source:
ft Source:
ft Source:
Plat Map Other:
Wdl(s)
OHWL '. Other:Btuff
D
E
Property Line ld / Source:
lD distance of relevant setbacks
Owner
on map:
Sunrey
Water
Building(s)
4. Preliminary Soil Profile lnformation From Web Soi[ Survey {attach map & description)
Slope RangeMap Units:
List tandforms:
Landform position(s):
Parent materiats:
uptand ptain
Back/ Side Stope
Titt
Depth to WatertabteDepth to Bedrock/ Restrictive Feature
I SeRtic Tank Absorption Fietd- At-grade
Mao Unit I
-_.,__^ | Septic Tank Absorption Fietd- MoundKailngs I
I
L_Eptl. Tank Absorption Fietd- Trench
5. Local Government Unit lnformation
Name of LGU
LGU Contact
LGU-specific setbacks
LGU-specific design requirements
LGU-specific instaltation requirements
Notes
Carver County
952-361-1870
More restrictive - varify
More restrictive - large septic tank sizing
Same as 7080
it Il7 r,..!"I-f,f- i, ,-t i ru :.-:-
45IS{
I
4E'JA:
I
Soil Map-Calver Ccunty, l\4innesota
4q/ll,X
Web Soil Sirrvey
Nailonal Cooperative Soil Survey
,14,' .19 15 ill I
,i1"i1[L '1rtC'I(i
I
+l' .1(i I I.J
14 4! lt tJ
4ry!S20
i-,
f,l
i1
Map Scalet 1 : 1,700 if l)intccl on A larxlsclgl (1 1" x 8,5'') sheet,
N0-
I
-
-
l\osotm2m3mU\ N4ap prole(tron: Wclt l4crrator C.onrercoodrrritej: \4/Glq4 Fdxe trcs: tJI}.4 Zone 15N \rycA84
rir! NaturalResourcesI :,' Conservation $ervice
5t23t2018
Page 1 of 3
,J_
v
ll
't'"'
45.?:80
:-
F,1
,' {t lr
fiB
"#S,".
S,r ffi
l*i1, lfl
m
,t'r,ffii'
Map unit Description, Lester-Kilkenny loams. 2 to 6 percent slopes. eroded--carver county.
Minnesota
Carver County, Minnesota
KB2-Lester-Kilkenny loams,2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: f9j2
Elevation. 700 to 1.600 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 23 to 35 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 43 to 50 degrees F
Frost-free period. 155 to 200 days
Farmland classification. All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Lester eroded, and similar sol/s 60 percent
Kilkenny. eroded. and similar solls. 40 percent
Estmaies are based on observations. descnpfions. and transecls of
the mapunit.
Description of Lester, Eroded
Setting
Lattdform. Moraines
Landform position (tuvo-dimensional). Backslope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-s/ope shape Linear
Parent material: Till
Typical profile
Ap-}to8inches. loam
Bt - I to 35 rirches clay loam
Bk - 35 to 58 inches. loam
C - 58 b 8A inches: loam
Properties and qualities
S/ope:2to5percent
Depth to restrictive feature. More than 80 inches
Natural drainage c/ass: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat).
Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 43 inches
F requency of floodrirg. None
Frequency of pondrng. None
Calcium carbonate. maximum in profile. 25 percent
Gypsum. maximum in profile 1 percent
Available water storage in profite High (about 10.5 rnches)
lnterpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated) None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group. B
Ecological sife. Loamy Upland Savannas (Rt03xy020t/N)
Forage suitability group: Sloping Uptand. Acid (G103XS006MN)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
5123t2018
Page 1 of 2
Map Unit Descriptron: Lester-Kilkenny loams. 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded--Carver County.
Minnesota
Hydric so/ rafing No
Description of Kilkenny, Eroded
Setting
Landform. Moraines
La n d fo rm p ositi o n (tv,ro-d i m e n s i o n a I ) : Backslope
Down-slope shape. Linear
Across-s/ope shape Linear
Parent ntaterial. Till
Typical profile
Ap - 0 ta 11 inches. loam
Bt- 11 to 35 inches: clay loam
2Bk.2C - 35 to 60 rriches: Ioam
Properties and qualities
Slope:2to6percent
Depth to restrictive feature More than 80 inches
Natural drainage c/ass. Moderately well drained
Capacity of the most timiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):
Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr)
Depth to water fable. About 20 inches
Frequency of floodrirg. None
Frequency of pondrng. None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 20 percent
Gypsum. maximunt in profi[e. 1 percent
Available water storage in profile. High (about 10.5 inches)
lnterpretive groups
Land capability classification (trrigated) None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated) 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group. CID
Ecological srb: Clayey Upland Forests (F103XY026MN)
Forage suitability group: Sloping Upland. Acid (G103XS006MN)
Hydric so/ rafrng: No
Data Source lnformation
Soil Survey Area. Carver County Minnesota
Survey Area Daia: Version 14 Oct 4 2017
: -.j Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
Naiional Cooperative Soii Survey
5t2U2A18
Page 2 ai 2
Fietd
EvaIuation Worksheet
1. Project lnformation v 04.17.7018
Property Owner/Ctient:Project lD:
2. Utility and Structure lnformation
Utitity Locations ldentified Gopher State One Call
Existing BuildingsLocate and Verify (see Site Evoluotion mop )
3jit" l^f."*tim
Improvements Easements Setbacks
Vegetation type(s)
Percent stope
Stope shape
Describe the ftooding or run-on potentiat of site
Describe the need for Type lll or Type lV system
Woods and lawn
)J Stope direction
Landscape position
E--+LA>L
Linear, Linear Shoulder
BuiLd saddte upstope of Mound to divert rain and snow mett.
Note
Elevations and Benchmarks identified on map? (Y/N)
Proposed soiI treatment area protected? (Y/N)
yes
Yes lf yes, describe
4. General Soils lnformation
Originat soils (Y/N):
disturbed areas (Y/N):
Yes lf no. describe:
lf yes, describe:Fitted, compacted,
5oiI observations
A soiI observation
were conducted in the proposed system location
in the most timiting area of the proposed system
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
(Y/N)
Yes
Yes
Number of soiI observations:SoiI observation [ogs attached Yes
Percotation tests performed & attached Yes
No
4
5. Phase l. Reporting lnformation
Depth Elevation
Periodicatly saturated soit:
Standing water:
Bedrock:
Required separation:
Max depth of system:
ln
in
in
in
in
95.2 fr
fr
ft
Soil Texture:
Percolation Rate:
Soit Hyd. Loading Rate:
Contour Loading Rate:
Ftoodptain Etev. ( 1 0 yrl:
Ftoodptain Etev. i1 00 yr):
Differences between soil survey and field evatuation:
Site evatuation issues / comments:
Anticipated construction issues:.-t r _-1 /-i7\ ri t ,
LO
36
ctay [oam
28.00 min/inch
gpdlftz
gpd/ft
feet
feet
0.45
17
NA
NA
Percotation Test Data fyt .,'i,i i, ii,...,n'i.i.i., , - .
Project lD:
P1Test hote: #1 Location:Depth.':
EtevationSoiI texture description
Depth (inl I SoitTexture
0-12 Loam
12 in. for mounds &. at-
grades, depth of
absorption area for
trenches and beds
Reading Start Time End Time Start Reading
(in)
End Reading
(in)
Perc rate
(mpi)
96 Difference
Last 3 Rates
Pass
1
Z
3
4
11:00 AM
1'l:23 AM
11:50 AM
11:20 AM
11:44 AM
12:10 PM
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.2
7.2
7.1
25.0
24.7
23. 3
NA
NA
7.4
NA
NA
Yes
Chosen Percotation Rate for Test Hote #1
Test hote: #2 Location:
SoiI texture description:
Depth**:
Etevation:
Depth (in t I Soit Texture 12 in. for mounds &. at-
grodes, depth of
obsorption area for
trenches ond beds
o-12 Ioam
pZ
Reading Start Time End Tirne Start Readirrg
{in)
End Reading
(in)
Perc rate
(mpi)
96 Difference
Last 3 Rates
Pass
1
2
3
4
11:05 AM
11:30 AM
1 1:55 AM
11:25 AM
11:50 AM
12:15 PM
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.3
7.3
7.7
28.7
77.0
2.6.3
NA
NA
6.6
NA
NA
Yes
28.0Chosen Percotation Rate for Test Hote mpl
95.75
25.0
97.5
Percotation Test Data .1, i li $ :;tiT A iror i-U-; i *f -*r:i:'{:Aai- ira:}';CY
1. Contact lnformation Project lD.v 04.17.201
Property Owner/Client:
2. General Percolation lnformation
Diameter Date prepal'ed and/or soaked:
Method of scratching sidewatt:Nai[ in board
ls pre-soak required-?
Soak* start time:
lf No, low long for 12" to soak away
Soak* end
time:
Method to maintain 12 in of water during soak
" Not required in fast perc soils
large bins and siphon hose
3. Summary of Percolation Test Data
Percolation Rate (maximum of atl tests attached) =
4:40 of soak
28.00
Additional Perc. Test Data a ar
Project lD:
Test hote: #3 Location:
SoiI texture description:
Depth"*:
Etevation
inches
feet
Depth (in) | SoilTexture
12 in. for mounds &
grades, depth of
obsorption area for
trenches and beds
at-
0-12'Ioam
p3
Reading Start Tirne End Time Start Reading
(in)
End Reading
(in)
Perc rate
(mpi)
,".6 Difference
Last 3 Rates Pass
1
2
3
4
11:10 AM
1 '1 :35 AM
12:03 PM
11:30 AM
11:55 AM
12:23 PM
8.0
8.0
8.0
6.8
6.9
5.8
16.7
18.2
16.7
NA
NA
8.3
NA
NA
Yes
Chosen Percolation Rate for Test Hote #3
Test hote: #4 Location:
SoiI texture description:
Depth"*:
Etevation:
inches
feet
Depth (in) | SoitTexture
'. 72 in. for mounds & ot-
grodes, depth of
obsorption area for
trenches ond beds
Reading Start Time End Time Start Reading
(in)
End Reading
(in1
Perc rate
(mpi)
% Difference
Last 3 Rates Pass
1
7
?
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chosen Percotation Rate for Test Hote #4 mpi
93.75
18.0
Soit Observation Log
Project ID:v 04.17.20'18
Client:Location / Address:
ioil. parent material(s): (Check att that appty) Outwash Lacustrine Loess Till Alluvium Bedrock Organic Matter
-andscape Position: (check one) Surnnrit shoulder Back/Side Slope Foot Slope .Toe Slope Stope shape Linear, Linear
IVegetation: l trees and gta
Weather Conditions/Time of Day:
SoiI survey map Llnits:lester kittkerrny Stope ltJ 3.0 Etevalion:l 95.75
am ctear to partly cotudy Date 05/73t18
Observation #/Location :B1 Observation Type:Probe
Depth (in)Texture Rock
Frag. Yo
Matrix Cotor(s)Mottte Col.or(s)Redox Kind(s)Indicator(s)
l-"------ Structure-----------l
Shape Grade I Consistence
1oYR 2/1 FriabteGranutar Moderate0-8 Loam .35%
1oYR 3i2 FriabteGranutar Moderate8-14 Loam .35%
1Oyr 33 Firm
Moderate14-27 Ctay Loam .35%Btocky
Av 4t4 Firnr
Moderate72-36 Clay Loam <35'/,Btocky
Comments Redox at 28"
hereby certify that I have completed this work in accordance with all applicable ordinances, rules and laws
Dale Denn
i6effirer-,rnspector)
583
-fi-rcente #l
5t2312018-1fi6-(Signature)
I
I
Soil Observation Log
v 04,17 .2018Project lD:
Client:Location / Address:
ioit parent materiat[s): (Check att that appty) Outwash ]Lacustrinc Locss Till Alluviunr Bedrock organic Matter
Landscape Positiot.r: (check one) Sunillrit ShoLrlder Back/Sicle Slope Foot Slope 'Toe Siope Stope shape Linear. Linear
IVegetation:l ag tand
Weather Conditions/Time of Day:
Soil survey map units Iester Stope %3.0 ELevation (ft): | 93.75
am partty ctor"rdy Date:05t73t18
Observation #/Location :B3 Observation Type:Probe
Depth (in)Texture Rock
Frag. 26
Matrix Cotor(s)Mottte Colorls)Redox Kind(s)I nd ica tor( s )
l-------- Structure-----------l
Slrape Grade I Cortsisterrce
1oYR 2/1 Friabte
Granutar Moderate0-8 Loam <35'l'
'1oYR l/2 Friabte
Granular Moderate8-14 Loam ,35%
10yr 3/2 10yr 3/ 4 Firm
Moderate14-22 Clay Loam .35%Blocky
lQtt 1l-1 Firm
Moderate22"36 C[ay Loam <35%Btocky
comments ReDox <o 2g
I
Additional Soil Observation Logs
Project lD:
Ctient Localion / Address:
Soi[ parent material(s): (Check att that appLy) O0hvash Lacustrirre Loess Tili Alluviunr Bedrock Organic lvlatter
Landscape Positiorr: (check one) Srimnlit 'Shoulclcr Back/Siclc Slopc Foot Slope Toc Slope Slope shape Linear, Linear
I
Vegetation: I [rees arrd grassr
Weather Conditions/Time of Day:
ls I Soit sLrrvey map units Lester Stope %3.0 Etevatjorr: | 97.5
am partty ctoudy Date:a5/?3/18
Observation #/Location :87 Observation Type;Probe
Depth (in)Texlure Rock
Fras. 7o
Matrix CoLor(s)Mottte Cotor(s)Redox Kind(s;lndicator(s)l-------- Structure--I
Shape Grade I Consislence
1OYR 2/1 FriableGranular Moderate0-8 Loam "35%
1oYR 3/2 Friab(eGranutar Moderate8'14 Loam .35%
1Oyr 3/3 Firm
Moderale14-77.Clay Loam .35%Btocky
1"9vt!"/!Firm
Moderate22-36 Ctay Loam ,35'/o Btocky
Comments ReDox riu 30
Design Summary Page
1. PROJECT INFORMATION v 04.17.2018
Property Owner/Ctient
Site Address
EmaiI Address
Project lD:
Date:
Phone:
821 Creekwood Drive, Chaska 5/27/7018
2. DESIGN FLOW & WASTE STRENGTH Attach dato ! estimate basis for Other Estoblishments
Design Ftow
BOD
LeveI
GPD
mg/L
5e{ect
Anticipated Waste Type Residentiat
TSS:mgll Oi[ & Grease mg/L
Treatment Treatment Level C for residentiol septic tonk effluent
3.HOLDING TANK SIZING
Minimum Capacity: Residentiat -400 gat/bedroom, Other Establishment Design Ftow x 5.0. Minimum size 1000 gattons
Code lvlinimum Hotding Tank Capacity:
Recommended Hotding Tank Capacity:
Ga[[ons
Gattons
in
in
Tanks or Compartments
Tanks or Compartments
(Set @ 7576 tank capacity)Type of High Level Alarm:
Comments:
4.SEPTIC TANK SIZING
A. Residential dwellings:
Number of Bedrooms (Residentiat)
Code tAinimunr Septic Tank Capacity
Recommended Septic Tank Capacity
Gatlons
Gatlons
in Tanks or Compartments
Tanks or CompartmentsIN
Efftuent Screen & Atarm (Y/N)Model /Tvne: INo
Other Establishments:
Waste received by
Septic Tank Capacity
Septic Tank Capacity
r & Atarm (Y/N):l--
GPD l--louvt Hyd. Retention Time
Code Minimum
Recommended
Efftuent Screen
Gattons
Gattons
ln
ln
Tanks or Compartments
Tanks or Compartments
[--l Modet/rype'
5.PUMP TANK SIZING
Pump Tank 1 Capacity (Minimum): l- r SOO-lCut
Pump Tank 1 Capacity (Recommenaua),1-- O lCuf
purnp 1i--zq.tlcplul totut rt"ua[-zi+ lrt
Pump Tank 2 Capacity (Minimum):[----_lc"t
Pump Tank z capacity (Recommena"oy,[-----lcut
er*p zl---lcem rotut n"uo[--_-lrt
suppty Pipe uia. Flu'lin uose Vot:J- na,o lg"r Suppty Pipe t-ria.l--l oor" vot,l--_lcur
B.
SYSTEM AND DISTRIBUTION TYPE
Design Summary Page
Project lD:
Bed:
Dispersal ar"u [----l rt'Sidewatl. o"ptr, l---lin Maximum s"o o"ptnT-ltn
a"a wiotr,[-__lrt e"a l"ns*'[----_lrt Designed a"O o.ptn[---__lin
Mound:
DispersaI a.uul- zso.o_lrtt a"o l"ngtnFEI--lrt seo wiothl--6-o-lrt
Absorption wiou', [ho -l rt Ctearr Sand r-irtl--l.o -lrt Berm width to rzt[---lrt
Upstope Berm widthl--e.t-.lrt Downstope e"r*l-- 13.6 lrt EndsLope Berm widthl- r tZ_lrt
Total System l.ng*,[-ta8]a lrt system wi.rt [--lq3-lrt Contour Loading Rut"lJI-1,1", r,,
Soi[ Treatment Type:l Mound
top of block, garage @ 100
MPCA System rvp",l--- ryp"Tl DistribLrtion Media:
100
i ,,rtinl*u. Req'd Separutlon'[--:O-linches I :nlf,
Code Max System Depth: f A4orrnd linches
Soit Texture,l-auy fou* I Layers with ,35?,i Rock Fragments? (yeslno)l Nol
Percolation nut.' l- zs.oo li pt lf yes, describe below: un rock and layer thickness,
amount of soit credit and any additional information for
addressing the rock fragments in this design.
Contour Loading nrt"'l--lz -l
SOIL TREATMENT AREA DESIGN SUMMARY
Seasonal water tabte at 28"
Dispersatar"u[---___lrt' sidewattoup*,[----lin rrench wiotr,l-lrt
Totat Lineat r""t[---lrt No. of lrun.n"r[---_l Code Max. Trench n"pt,l---lin
Contour Loading nut"l--_lrt Min. Lengthl--lft Desisrred rrerrch o*p*,[----_lin
CCt ID:
9.Additionat lnfo for At-Risk, HSW or Type lV Design
Level &Equal Pressure Distribution
No. of lut"rutrl--l__l Perforation Spu.ingl : -ltt Perforation oiameterl-Ja -lin
Lateral Diu*"t"rl--L5o-lin Min Dose votrr.l- +g lgur Max Dose vorrr"[- zzs lgut
Etevation
(ft)
Pipe Size
1in)
Pipe
Votume
(gat/ft)
Pipe
Length (ft)
Perf Size
(in;
Spacing
(ft )
Spacing
(in)
Non-Level and Unequal Pressure Distribution
Lateral 1
Lateral 2
Lateral 3
Lateral 4
Lateral 5
Lateral 6
Minimum Dose
Votume
[-lru,
Maximum Dose
Votume
[---I*u,
s"a wiatr,[--__lrt a.a rung*,[-]rt Finished Huisht l--****lrt
contour Loading nut"l--lgat/ft upstope s"rr[----lrt Downstope e"r*[---lrt
Endstope g.r,nl---ltt
A. Starting BOD Concentration = Design FtowX Starting BOD (mg/L) X 8.35 + 1,000,000
B. Target BOD Concentration = Design FtowXTarget BOD (mg/L) X 8.35: 1,000,000
Lbs. BoD To Be Remor"a,l--l
PreTreatment Techrrology:
Disinfection Technology:
*Must Meet or Exceed Target
*Required for Levels A & B
C. Organic Loading to Soit Treatment Area:
10. Comments/Special Design Considerations:
Design Summary Page
rr. i Il
:ON
have completed this work in accordance with att appticabte ordinances, rutes and laws.
581
(License #)
5 / 8 /?018
(Date)
I hereby certify that I
Dale Denn
{Designer)(Signature)
system l"ret l--lrt
Project lD:v 44.17.7A18
A. Rock Volume:
{[-6*l
{Rock Betow Pipe + Rock to cover pipe lpipeoutsidertio. -2incillXBed Length X Bed Widtlt = Volume
in+):17 ftx tt3
ydr
ydr
Divide ft3 by 27 ft3/ydr to catculate cubic yards:
Add 30r"d for constructabitity:
ftr + 27
ydt x 1.3
B. Catcutate Clean Sond Vatume:
Volume Under Rack bed: Averoge Sand Depth x iledio Width x lAedis Length = cubic feet
ftx rr x l--rzio -lr
Divide ftr by 2z ftr/yd3 to calcutate cubic yards:
Add 30?i for constructabii.ity:
ftr + 77
yd3 x 1.3
ydl
ydj
For a Mound on a siope fram Q-1%
Volume from Length = ({Upstope Mound Height -1) X Absorption Width Beyond Bed X Media Bed Length)ft 1) x ft
Volume from Width = {{Upslope Mound Height -1) X Absorption Width Beyond Bed X Media Bed Width)
fr -1) x
Totat Cleofi Sand Volume: Volume f rom Length +Vo{ume f rom Width * Volume lJnder Medio
ftr =
For a Mound on a slope greater than 1%
Upslope Volume : ((Upslope tvlound Height - 7 ) x 3 x Bed Length] = Z= cubic feet
ft-1) x 3.0fr x ft3
ftl
ftl
DawnslopeVolume: l{Downslope Height - 1) x DownslopeAbsorption Width xMedio Lengthl *Z= cubic feetfr-1) x ftx
Endslope volume: (Downslope lvlound Height - 1) x 3 x lledia width = cubic feet
fr-1) x 3.0ft x
Total Cleon Sond Volume: Upslope Volume * Downslope Vo{ume + Endslope Yolume + Volume tJnder l,tediof--E8f---l rt, * [--Jrss,o-l rt, * [-- :+z -l 11, * l-- 030.0-111,= f 2 .,ftr
C. Catculate Sondy Berm Volume:
TatolBSrm:lolurryllpprox): ((Avg.MoundHeight-0.5fttopsoit)xMoundWidrhxMoundLength) +2
0.5 )ft x -1ft'
Total lilaund volume - clean Sand volume -Rock volume = cubic f eet
ftr ftr
Divide ftl by 77 ftr/yd3 to catculate cubic yards
Add 30:/" for constructabititv:
ftl 27 ydl
ydl 1.2
D. Calculate Topsoit lAoterial Valume: Totol Maund Width X Totol nound tengtn f S yt
ftx fr x 0.5 fr ftl
ydr
yd'
Divide ft) by U ftr/ydr to catculate cubic yards:
Add 30,o/" for constructabitity:
ftl
yd3
77
1.3
175.4 6.0 562.5
20.8
77.1
6.0 630.0
79.7
103.6
125_0 378.1+/
6.0 )t 1
1't58.0
7395.7
88.7
115.3
ftr =
29.4 148.4 7183.4
1 05.1
80.9
Basic Pump Setection Design Worksheet
1. PUMP CAPACITY Project lD:v t)4.17.2018
PumpinE to Gravity or Pressure Distribution:Pressure
i. lf pumping to gravity enter the gallon per minute of the pump:
2- lf pumping to a pressurized distribuiron system:
3. Enter pump description:
t 10 - 45 gpm)
29.0
Demand Dosrng
7.
A.
p
L.
HEAD RTQUIREMENTS
ftevation Difference IL
ft
ft tdm to spc.cial equipmfit. et.. )
betsreen pump and point of discharge:
Distribution Head Loss:
Additionat Head Loss:
rdJ,t ,.a irLirur. LurJ arl TrdiLrL r'pe Pg: I'Jr.(
r : i !-, n ii*
-r.:,
.i.5
1- Suppty Pipe Diameter:
2. Supply Pipe Lenglh:
in
rr rrt.j.i
f . i
:.:
a.t:.
Friction Loss in Plastic Pipe per 1Ooft frcm Tabte l:
filction Loss =ft pcr 'l00ft of pipe
Determine Equivatent Pipe Length from pump discharge to sotl dispersal area discharge
point. Estimatc by addiog 251', to suppl_v pipe tength for fitting toss. Supply Pipe
Length (D.2) X 1.25 = €quivalent Pipe Length
fr x i.25 ii. :
G. CalcutateSupptyFrictionLossbymuitiplyingFrictionLossPer TOOrtiljflctlbytheEquivalentPipeLength {LineF) anddividebyl00.
Suppty Friction Loss =
ft per 100ft X 100
I DistribrJtion Head Loss
,i:l-:l..llYl.lllt'it"'tt.," t-lJf t
-
f !'r,-r:,sr:r,-. lJistr il.'rJtl(-)rI l:;r:,i..r! ()rl i\iltril)rrilll /:\1-/*r;alli-] t-lea{lI[..,;ri,r'.. i)r] i'r rr.-1,Lrr, . Di5l-r il]rrtiurl 1.'jor k:l rerr-.t:
ftifu l: r rrrIr ril Av{}r-a1g€} H€}i}d Distribtltiorr Heacl Loss
Jr1
./1 l-frt !-
"l i)l I
U Tatal Hedd requirement is the sum of the Elevdrion Difference
the Suppty Friction Loss iline G )
(Line Ai, the Distfibution Hcad Loss iLine B). Additional Head Loss (Line C), and
ft ft it
3. PU/TP SELECTION
A pump must be selected to dellver at ieast 29 .O GPM iline 1 or Line 2) v/ith at teast 27 .4 feet of total head.
Comments:
=T o'4 lft
()fr#tr t,
Stvracr
TqF ltrls rr r
Peocunra
Pressure Distribution
Design Worksheet Ifi"t.MINHESOTA POLLUTIOH
COHTROL GTNCY
t([ 1o__l-4i:3] +r= [-3-l
3. Designer Setected Number of Loterats
Cannot be less than line 2 (accept in at-srodes]4. Select Perforotion Spacing:
5. Select Perforatlon Diometer Size:
Project lD:v 04.17.2018
taterats Does not apply to at-grades
taterats
*-,*,;-,-*,
1. Media Bed Width:
Z. Minimum Number of Laterals in system /zone = Rounded up number of [(Media Bed Width - 4] + 3l + 't .
l-10-hr
6. Lengfh of Loterals = Media Bed Length - 2 Feet. | '" -'- ":;;1*;#t";t"*x;;;ffii--"---"-rlI - zft = [--To lrt Perforotion con not be closer then t foot from edge.138 I
7. Determjne the Number of Perforaticn Spoces . Divide the Length of Laterols by the perforotion Spocing and
round down to the nearest whote number.
Number of perforation spaces [ * ]n * l- : lrt = l-l__lspaces
Number of Perforotions per Loterol is equat to 1.0 ptus the Number of perforotion Spaces. check tabte8. betow to verify the number of perforations per tateral guarantees less than a 10% discharge variation. The
vatue is doubte with a center manifotd.
Perforotions Per Lateror =f lz--lspaces + 1 = l=3 lperfs- per Laterar
9' Totol Number of Perforations equats the Number of Perforations per Laterat muttiptied by the Number ofPerforoted Laterals.
I " lPerf' Per Lat. x I 3-lNumber of perr. Lat. = f 3, -lTotat Number of perf.
10. Setect Type of tAonifotd Connection (End or Center):
11. Select Laterol Diometer (See Toble) :
f- E,rd
_l
llsoI tn
I ro lrt
l-*Trq-*li,
|i{i'nrT xuq$erof Perfrrtiom Per Laterrlto Guarantee <"l0$ Dix}urge vlriatim
'/.. lrrh Pduifimr TIll lnrh Perfontionr
Perforutioo Spacinf lFeet)
Pipe 0ianreter {lncher}Perfotrtion Sp*irg
(Fee0
Pipe tlirmetrr tlnriler)
I t1{t!t I 1 11{r11 I t
2 t0 l3 t8 30 60 2 il t6 1l 34.68
211 0 t2 r6 79 5{2!t 10 t{20 ]t 6-l
3 I 1',).{6 15 52 3 9 l.t 19 l0 60
li l6 lnch Perforaticnr 1/8 lrrh Perfsrsfionr
Perforathn Sprcing (Feetl Pipe 0iraetx {lrrlx:}Perfontion Spacirq
(Feet)
Pipe D,iarneter {tncires}
I ,11*1'.r 2 3 t ll{lri i 3
7 12 1E 26 {{87 2 2t 33 .{4 71 r4?
1li lz 17 24 .{0 80 2lt 20 30 .t1 69 r35
3 tz l6 2l i7 75 3 20 t9 1!{4 128
14.
15.
17.
U.
Pressure Distribution
Design Worksheet
ff* :,ri\rlt\#
Calculate the Square Feet per Perforation. Recomnended value is4-11 ftz per perforotion.
Daes not appty to At-Grades
Bed Area = Bed Width {ft} X Bed Lengrh (fr}
[-rolr.x l--:a-l rr
b. Squore Foot per Perforotion = Bed Areo divided by the Totat Number of Perforations.
l-Jao-]r,,. f- , lperforations = f n, -lfr?/perforations
13. Setect tulinimum Average Heod:[-r7-lr,
Seiect Perforation Dischorge {GPM) based on Table:f tr.-lGpm per perforation
Determine required Flow Rate by muttiplying the Tota! Number of Perfs. by the Perforatian Discharge.
16.
17
I iq le"rr' x l-Tz,--lGpM per perforation = [ ,t_l
Valume of Liquid Per Foot of Distribution piping iTobte il):
Volume of Distribution Piping =
= fNumber of Perforoted Loterals X length of Laterals X (Votume of
Liquid Per Foot of Distribution Pipingl
t--3 I x [- :o-lr, x[-T11olgar/rt
18. Minimum Delivered voiume = votume of Distribution piping X 4
f--rrs_lgub x 4 F;_lGarrons
r'i'.r'i,:ij f, I fj,,
4r5
GPM
GaItons/ft
Table ll
Volume of Liquid in
Pipe
Liquicl
Per Foot
(G.:llons)
Comnrents/SpeciaI Desigrr Considerations:
*-^. 1''i: r!\
125
0. I10
o.-t70
0.3ao?
Pump Tank Design Worksheet (Demand Dose)gm J..!:,T;;'i .;;i.'-;;, "''
DETERAAINE TANK CAPACITY AND DIMENSIONS Project lD:v 04.17.2018
1. A.
B.
Design flout tDesign Sum. t Al :
Min. required pump tank caPacity:
GPD
Gal C.Recommended pump tank capacity:
C.
D.
E.
Tank Manufacturer:Brown Wilbert B. Tank Model:
Capacity f rom manufacturer:
Gatlons per inch from manufacturer:
Liquict depth oi tank from manufaclurer:
Note: Design @lculations ore bosed on this specific tonk.
Substitutifig a differcnt tonk rnodel witl change the pump
float or timer settings. (ontact designer if chonges ore
ne(essary.
1 500
DETERA,TINE DOSING VOLUME
Catculate volume to Cover Pump {The intei of the pump must be at least 4-inches from rhe botiom oi the pump tank a z inches of water covering the pump is
recommended )
iPump and btock height * 2 inchesl X 6ollons Per lnch tTC ot lEl
in + 2inchesi X Gattons Per lnch
Minimum De{ivered Volume . 4 X Votum€ of Distribution piptng:
- Line 17 ol the Pressure Distribution or Line 11 oJ Non-levet
Calcutate Maximum Pumpout Volume t25\. of Design Ftowt
(minimum dosel
Design Flolv:GPD 0.25 Galions (maximum dose)
450
48
6
7
Selecl o pumpout wlume thot meets both tAinimum artd lAoximum:frr^i.
[alcutatc Doses Pet Day = Design F{ovi * Delivered Votume
Calcutate Drarnback:
A. Diometd o[ Supply Pipe=
B.Length of Suppiy Pipe -
Volume oJ Liquid Per Lineat Foot o{ Pipe =
lfeer.
Gailons/ftC.
D.Drdinback = Length of Supply Pipe X Volume of Liquid per t ineal F@t of pipe
frx gaL/ft 19.1
9.Total Dosing volume - Delivered Volume glus Droinbock
$at +gat -Gaitons
10- Minimum Aiarm Votume = Depth of aiarrn t2 or 3 inchesl X gail.ons per inch of tank
inX 9at/in =Gillons
774
900 4.42
! Volume of Liquid in
, Pipe
Pipe
Diameter
(inches)
Liquid
Per Foot
(Gallons)
o.o45
1.25 o.078
1.5 o.1 10
?4.170
?o.380
I 4.661
DEMAND DOSE FLOAT SETTINGS
i'l - Calcutate Float Separation Distonce using Dosing volume .
Iotol Doring volwne tcallons per lnch
gat/irt =
12. il,'easuring from bottom of t.tnk:
A. Distonce toset Pump Olf Fbot ='Pump - btock height = ? inches
lnches ior Dose: 8.8 in
in
in
in
in +in=Aiarm Depth
Pump On
Pump Of f
77.8
24.8
,*
9D.0;al
Z6l G;l
jBLi 6dl
Distance to set Pump On Float=Distonce to Set pump.Off Float , Float Seporotion Distance
in lfi =
- Dstance Lo set Pump-On Flool,n, t--t -l . Alarnt Depllt i2-3 iriche5l{. Dislancp to sel A,lorm Float
I
'2/ e/1.
,2.m
4 f u/ao,e
Property:
HomeStead Septic System Services
I 108 Goldenrod Lane
Shakopee, MN 55379
MPCA Licensed #583
Dale Denn - Owner
Cell Phone: 612-310-7887
Homesteadseotic@outlook.com
821 Creekwood Drive
Chaska, MN 553 18
Response to supplement Variance request:
I . There are not two different septic locations. Please see the desigrr or the drawing page
that is attached to this letter. The Mound has to be split into two equal parts due to the
nature ofthe contours on the property. A Mound Septic has to be set on a contour for the
full length of its rockbed according to Minnesota 7080 Code. The contours in this case
are not continuous enough to site the full length ofthe rockbed. Thus there are two parts,
not two sites.
2. Furthermore, based on contours alone and the nature of the contours indicated above, it is
not feasible to simply begin to move, shift or slide the system anywhere from where it is
now sited. I spend time with the laser level establishing contours initially and they just
where not very conducive to set a full length Motmd practically anywhere on the site.
The contours, and the slope, 2nsthgl imFortant and code aspect ofdesigning a septic,
both work best where the Mound is now designed. Out in the lawn area towards the
home, the contours are short, and become nonlinear, and the slope drops to nearly zero.
In other words, slightly undulating in different directions making it difficult to set a
Mound with the highest level ofconfidence in longevity. Zero slope meets the code, but
it is riskier to place as Mound on zero percent slope that is slightly undulating because the
effluent is more difficult to evaluate where it will go and pond and soak up. A definitive
slope defines clearly the direction of effluent flow. I always try to avoid siting a Mound
on slope less t}tan 1-27o.
3. Thirdly, it is much more risky for a Designer. and the Homeowner to have a Type III
septic system verses a standard type I. Going out into the lawn towards the home has
soils that have some indication of disturbance, most likely from the home building
process. This disnubance can include mixing of soils, addifion fill soil spread over
natural soil, soil compactiorq slow percolatiorl all ofwhich become much less suitable
for the performance of a septic system of almost any sort. A few soil samples cannot tell
the whole story with soils that have been altered or impacted by construction activity.
The may not accept effluent over a long time, the emuent may not be treated as
effectively as a soil with its natural properties oftexture and structure, and the effluent
may hit compacted layers and move laterally and potentially discharge at some point
being untreated septic eftIuent. Disturbed soils are much higher risk of failing to take
effluent and failing to treat eflluent. The best soils with suffrcient slope and contours are
always the best choice in protecting the environment and protecting public health and
safety.
By Dale Denn
Owner
l,l
nall,<o SPtrl
'#,^7i''u
shr,/a J't*lEla'
<-cL
gfi^L EtE)/,
(a- rrv aa' P,B,
t49!
,#$',*'1
$0E','
(iELL
/ r""tz7a44
RoaTE
r^#
.68t
fiar czetkdffi iX
',yt
*'-, ,2
2.,
o,2A*,?-J
a,x\
w._li,&
I
Ip
I
I
9rs
n,-{
Z/
^.-,/N_.,/
,//
// @-x,-:',
f_4tir6'J\,.:V4- -e 'ir', J,Y' /'*-'@
L-
P,tl \11.-E*,
"rrntL s;prtc ttr./k
MacKenzie,
Per Krista, Water Resource comments are as follows:
I would recommend denial, as there are some significant stormwater concerns that would very likely be
made worse by the proposed location of the system. It’s my understanding after talking with Eric and
Chip, and meeting on site, that there is an alternative location and system that is feasible. I would like
the applicant at the very least to provide an argument as to why an alternative location and system
could not be used.
Concerns are as follows:
• The current proposed location is directly adjacent to a swale that is taking a large amount of
stormwater runoff from the Golf Course and directly discharging into Bluff Creek, which is classified as
an impaired water by the state, and currently under a TMDL.
• There is a large head cut, which is already actively eroding the bluff directly downstream from
the proposed location.
Mackenzie, do you mind sending an electronic copy of the proposed plan to Terry and Chip if you have it
(cc’d). I would like their comments included as well.
Vanessa
Vanessa Strong
Water Resources Coordinator
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PH. 952.227.1168
FX. 952.227.1170
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
MacKenzie,
My recommendation would be to push the mound placement towards the front yard setback (toe of
mound slope to within 1 foot of the front yard setback) which would increase the distance of the mound
from the bluff setback. I would also recommend the mound ratio be changed from 3:1 to 4:1, which
would also increase the distance between the toe of the mound to the bluff setback.
Thank you,
Eric Tessman
Building Inspector
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PH. 952.227.1194
FX. 952.227.1190
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner
FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist
DATE: September 18, 2018
SUBJ: 821 Creekwood Rd, Variances to construct a septic system
The lot has a number of existing mature trees covering the bluff, setback area and up into the
yard. All of the proposed septic locations are sited within the wooded areas of the lot and close
to or within the bluff setback. Removing mature trees at the top of the bluff exposes the area to
potential erosion issues. Staff recommends that sites outside of the bluff setback that remove as
few trees as possible are the preferred locations for a septic system.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COLTNTY OF CARVER )
I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
September 6,2018,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 to Consider a Variance Application to Install a Septic System within the Required
Subsurface Sewer Treatment Systems Setbacks, Front Yard Setback, and Fluff Setback
and ImpactZone at82l Creekwood Drive, Planning Case File No. 2018-17, 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 swom to before me
h JtAii rir-. SirL(Lirve
3J *, pubtic-Mirf,resota
z g^*l11tF^!'ql!^{q,
-3J 1 2ol e
thisrdldav oTSFPX--,rWl , 2018.
Disclaimer
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used
as one. This map is a iompilation of records, informaton and data located in various
city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area sfown: ?P
is'io be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the
Geographic lnformation System (GiS) Data used to prepare this map a;e error free, and
the dity does not represe;t that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or
any olier purpose requiring exacting measurement of dislance or direction or precision
in ihe depicii6n of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant
to Minnesota Staiutei 5466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map
acknowledges that the city shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all
claims, ani agrees to deiend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and.all
claims'broughi by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the
user's access or use of data provided.
Disclaimer
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used
as one. This map is a iompilation of records, information and data located in various
city, county, stati and federal offices and other souroes regarding the area shown, and
is'io be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the
Geographic lnformation system (Gls) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and
the dity does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigatonal, tracking or
any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direciion or precision
in ihe depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant
to Minnesota Staiutes 5466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map
acknowledges that the Cit, shall not b€ liable for any damages, and expressly waives all
claims, ani agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all
claims broughi by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the
user's access or use of data provided.
(TAX-NAME)
(TAX-ADD-L1)
(TAX-ADD-L2>r, <<TAX-ADD-L3)
( Next Record ><TA)(-NAM E)
(TAX-ADD-LI)
(TAX-ADD-L2), (TAX-ADD-L3)
SUBJECT
PROPERry
.9
-t
9r>o
Eo6v .6
EEH
5E>t F<Ed;A P.E!.F'E5E:oL:3ob
ooo
?Ets
Est! hhEt!
EE66 ecE.85EeoBg
e'E a
.Y= O
B bb_-tE-^
EE!o< o:=oo
sqEo 96Eec
8:a Ee65E5t'896
.:i e
iEeE; EE.g:";g
; EEE!.EE Ei€FEL: -!idd bi.
.12
q)\q
E"g
e5B
6E=.
E EiEo;< 9.E
EE:oL:3cb
ooo
?EF
5PeEEr
Et!
EEE6 dc8.85Eeoeg
@- g'6
t o6.Y= O
a bEtE-o
c;o8efo< a
5fl8
:26 oE:3E6C
o g--
1 5'=AE}
'EgB,lE!iio{-*
: EFTo oE.=
FT.;g
EHHE
EEPgl'd6 b
Oo
o.c
o
fo
G)
.t)o
0)
E-
CNc
oo
E
o)E
U)co
CL
o
!
o
0)o
o
co
l=tflol>r
dl
-9 I
otcl
.el-cl
ol
ot!,
ct
oo
o
o
os
co
9,
o,(!
E
co
(!oola
o
Lopoo
3.v.o
o)Lo
No
o'6
J
06
<iz(n
ooFF
a;L
0)
-o
Eo.Co
fr,=EfrgEE
oo '6o: .a.t * o'=..O o:= E
$ g: e.Eb sO arveP pEP.!I E s-
= oE-6 P
= ==+ 6
T H BEE
=Y:oo-c 6i!? o9cE E.A
E IE H e
BSEeF.c=EbEk 3 *E o
iEgsF
=)O-rN(v)$
Enr
,P 85#-c-
,L=
8,8 E-o-c-(!.9=
rO>
>o QE=/'\
€Eore oc
-9=oro o_.=
le,:ElL L -
IEg Elc o=
l.e9P
l€ p'E
t= L )ls(E0
l.Q. .-l
15 t, ti
l*o 3.9lo I Y
lQ-v. ilfc-cI= G€lo_(,=
lo o-ol-c o--olFoo
I
.v
E
o
Eo'=
fo
ts
NI
oUl
-lol
$?IoEl
-o -:l
sHt
sElo=t'6'kt
HEI
;.31
>, ol'6
'lol 3E}
ootrtrooo!+a o.=
aa 9.o= Eo-orgE I
T E€EtrT
P bE'- <-oo o-
=CN
Z,bEo
Eqf
IH€ fi
IHTE
IE BE
leEsl'6.E A
15Es
o)E
os
oc
o
E
o)
.E
o
o)
.9,.cF
Eo
o
@'ro6t
6
o)
-o
E
o)
o-
o)
U)
l>rl(s
oc
oo
=tro.9co'=orE'=OE-Eoo
=o=s,o-.=*EotroSoo-
zgo(Estr
(E
.9,o
otr
oo
=tr
9.9.=o
EEEE
.e6Eo,EDo-.E
EE
ol!C'-
ogz8
or!
-trtr
IEso I iit
o,=
=oI=gOr! .tr
BE
:i
IEooco
o-
'c
o
Goo
a,
E
F€
o
Go
oU ..o9cc,oo
o=OE
=ooo
I ii)
o,=
=o
*-ggOGEE€
=t
.go
ieEgg;=E
=E;IEE
B:fie.HElIeeEe
= E -ElE 3'E o'6
HE Elfr st.E€
EE]}H3EEEE
HEIgEIUEgEEY Olo--- OO sr F
fiEIEfiNBH#E
SEIEi?EEeE
=..2
ooooE
oc
o
o)
E
lol-c
l!toILlothto.l-ol.lcl(5
lo_lol5lol0)lalo
J-lcl(E1='t=,tot>\
eEg e.e -- uEE E 3o-olP =_o-c- x Io .9)E 6 .t!2
= O > 't-j eO C-L tr A c> qr g o-.o .9E€6 EX ,3
E E;$ ggeE
l3efi PE EEe
IEE EE:CSE
lEise EgEfr
lfEoEIEss
l: B5-Pag€ E
ItE=EEeEEl-c o--o =ll- o o o-6i d+
,ilol
otclol
EI
elotolEI
ololot
ol>tol
9e
Oc_o
5.sOo3!raEo-
9.Eof(,FO
co<
ootrtr(EEEPaD o.=
aa 9.9=E
a1 (Dlt
BE8
s $€Etr3p bE.=
=Eo o-:a zbqo
IE EitoE !/
l-Fg file9p
IE P E
IE BE
lH e;lp-ol'6 -tr a
]5Efi
otr
(u
E
o)E
C,
o).c
.9.cF;E
ci
@
Lo
-o
E
o)
o.
o)
C,)
(EIEIJtlol=lr-
3grXo8ao
a;
=aD
-oo)
3o
'6
oE
o
poEoo
CLa
oL(E
ooop
06 ..o9trtroo
o=OEfooo
iHHTHaEgI
;EeE Eg : ACTE;
tElc:E€:EiEi
EHEEffiia
iffi#ffi
nal:=,o)o)o:=
=-O)>r
i'6o9
)^:
0: I)9t
= o.:'() ')o
= o'itr- o.
c o'
Pgoq)-E6'tEpolcoo;Eo=oc
Li-oE
3€e-Y
OHad
z
@d
tr1 d.E GtEda1 dd ooooc{aoooooood? F888888889E k===3==>=9d uJ v v v :z >a !z !z :z r!l: d u.r trJ uJ uJ trJ trJ uJ lrlir(.ruuuJlrJrrJlrJuJrlJd.,: :d G.e, d. G.t d, d. l)E :<o(Ju()uL)(JU!,)< 6 r.. oornt.rt Fl Ln Lr1 N'r - i\ - F F. .r ...l <l' N OA =i\F.F. l'- oo oo oo q).1
ooNoroFr.n rnLno66F.NNN$ $s\q;.i
^.;
in.!(o(D(D l.o(oom iri iri c.r - or or or o or Ftr,;
"5 - o\ A d ob d, oi, & F
^'- i .tl .n .l Fl ."1 .'{ Fl Fl t"{
=;;;+mlftan(naornanq L/i Ln tn r.n Ln Ln ttt Ln !n Lo l/)<, rai Lri Ln L.i Ln Ln Ln !n Ln ln Ln
YzZZZZZZZZZZ
^r==-- tr tll
:;==*==r==r==
Lr' a< Ld.cEN.{ :lO L^ooaSS Eoooooo
-'-4:zOOOOOOa<:>oooooo^jB=i<===3=3E
lr r r! -:z >a !z:z:z Y (Jn ; ; = trJ uJ r! trJ LlJ t! !'l
=YY._YuJtrJl....., rJuJu).E:=r=5555569
x lri Lal Ln o o u) lr1 F{Lnu)^g3333FF3SSSX
zoFzou<EojO+<fr8
r - V aloS> qq-9Y,4 E=o
319=6e;?==gEoiii=335Y>a1,??91 teIEEsI
===E===EE=?3R88R38R8388
PHHEFEFHRsH
=ilfiHfiilHhH}HHtc.i--6iNNN.{N.\r.!
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
Subject Approval of Planning Commission minutes dated September 4, 2018
Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No: D.1.
Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the minutes dated September 4, 2018.
ATTACHMENTS:
Planning Commission Summary Minutes
Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 4, 2018
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Nancy Madsen, John Tietz, Mark
Randall, and Michael McGonagill
MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Weick
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Michael Clauson 8381 West Lake Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN RETAIL CENTER PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE ON THE TARGET
BUILDING.
MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Madsen asked for
clarification of the sign ordinance in the Central Business District. Chairman Aller asked Leyla
Bungee with Kimley-Horn and Associates and Jay Richardson with RSP Architects to explain
how they came up with the design before opening the public hearing. Michael Clausen, 8381
West Lake Drive and business owner in Chanhassen explained how they were told they could
only have 2 signs for their business. Chairman Aller closed the public hearing. After discussion
by commission members the following motion was made.
Undestad moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council approve the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit
Development Amendment 2018-15, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and
Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6
to 0.
7644 SOUTH SHORE DRIVE: CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO INSTALL BOULDER
WALL AND PATIO IN BLUFF SETBACK AREA.
MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Madsen asked about
the stepper pavers. Commissioner Undestad asked about the drainage swales. Chairman Aller
asked about the patio area that was previously disturbed. Commissioner Tietz asked about the
Planning Commission Summary – September 4, 2018
2
direction of a downspout. The applicant, Matt Arens thanked city staff for their willingness to
work with them, clarified their proposal for the patio and the design of the house addition. Tyler
Wortz with Magnolia Landscaping and Design Company addressed the issues of using
permeable flagstone pavers for the patio, retaining walls, and installation of the flagstone
steppers. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. Curt Robinson, 202 West 77th Street stated
that Mr. Arens has always kept his property neat and his belief that he will continue to do so.
Chairman Aller closed the public hearing. After discussion and comments the following motion
was made.
Madsen moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments
approves a variance for the construction of a boulder wall and flagstone stepper path
within the bluff setback and impact zone, and the construction of a flagstone patio within
the bluff setback and impact zone with pervious pavers subject to the conditions of
approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decisions:
1. The applicant must apply for and receive a zoning permit.
2. The survey should be updated and provided as part of the zoning permit application
showing: a) the top of the bluff; b) 20-foot bluff impact zone; c) 30-foot bluff
setback; d) proposed lot coverage; e) 15” storm pipe and the drainage and utility
easement located over the pipe; f) scenic preservation/conservation easement; and, g)
all proposed improvements.
3. Stairways and flagstone stepper walkways within the bluff setback zone may not
exceed 4 feet in width.
4. There shall be a minimum of six inches of separation between the flagstones that
comprise the flagstone paths and walkways.
5. The location and dimensions of the boulder wall and flagstone pathways shall
substantially conform to those depicted in Exhibit A.
6. All exposed soil within the grading limits must either be covered with vegetation or,
in areas where vegetation will not grow, a double-shredded hardwood mulch.
7. Soil infiltration improvements, either adding compost or air spading, shall be
conducted within the project’s grading limits.
8. The proposed retaining wall on the east side of the property is within the drainage and
utility easement. It should not be constructed over the pipe or infringe on the
easement.
9. The existing retaining wall on the east side of the property is located within a
drainage and utility easement and an encroachment agreement should be obtained and
recorded for the wall.
10. Zoning permits are required for all proposed retaining walls under four feet in height
and building permits are required for any proposed retaining wall over four feet in
height.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Madsen noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 7, 2018 as presented.
Planning Commission Summary – September 4, 2018
3
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Bob Generous presented an update on the Control
Concepts site plan which has been tabled to the October 22, 2018 City Council meeting and
discussed upcoming Planning Commission agenda items.
Undestad moved, Randall seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 4, 2018
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Nancy Madsen, John Tietz, Mark
Randall, and Michael McGonagill
MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Weick
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Michael Clauson 8381 West Lake Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN RETAIL CENTER PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE ON THE TARGET
BUILDING.
Walters: Item 1 is Planning Case 2018-15. It is a requested amendment to the Chanhassen
Retail Center Planned Unit Development. So Target Corporation has requested that the
Chanhassen Retail Center PUD be amended to allow signage along 3 elevations. So just so
people know what we’re talking about when we say the Chanhassen Retail Center. It is an 18.69
acre planned unit development in red here in downtown Chanhassen. The anchor tenant is the
Target and the planned unit development has unique sign standards which differ from the general
city’s code and they limit businesses within that development to signage along 2 street frontages
with a maximum of 15 percent wall area. So if we look at just the existing Target building they
currently have signage along the western elevation. This is a visual of the elevation as it stands
after their recent remodel. They also have signage along the southern elevation and what they
would like to do is place a sign along the northern elevation to help raise awareness and advertise
the new liquor store that’s been added to the building. So in evaluating this request staff did a
little bit of research. First thing we did was we looked at the Chanhassen Retail Center and it’s
wall signage. We went through the different businesses. We found that the building that hosts
the Noodles and Company and the Jersey Mike’s Sub has signage along 3 elevations. This is
consistent with the district because it’s inhabited by two different businesses so each business
only has signage on 2 facades. We also found that the Perkins has signage along 3 elevations,
north, east and west. Staff believes this was the result of a permitting error. So we then also
looked at the different elevations and as the development currently stands there is already
signage along every cardinal direction, north, south, east and west. We looked at how different
sign plans and planned unit developments had handled sign elevations and street frontages. We
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
2
found the most common were either limiting it to 2 frontages. We had 11 of 29 that did that or
allowing one per street frontage which is the base standard of the city code. 15 did that. So the
request to have signage on additional frontage would not be out of line with how other
developments and multi-tenant buildings have been treated in the city. Staff also then, well you
can see we also then compared everything to the city code and what it would be if it was just
handled by the city ordinance versus the PUD. In general the Chanhassen Retail Center is more
restrictive on the number of frontages. More liberal on the amount of building area that can be
covered by signage. Due to the fact that there are existing buildings within the Chanhassen
Retail Center that has signage along 3 frontages and that this is a pretty typical situation a lot of
different developments within the city, staff recommends that the provision limiting Chanhassen
Retail Center to 2 street frontages be removed. This would allow the development to be
governed by the city ordinance in terms of determining which street elevations are allow to have
signage. With that I’d be happy to take any questions.
Aller: When you say that the, by shifting that, pulling it out of the PUD that one term to make it
2 frontages as opposed to 1 that it will automatically go by city code. Would it be better if we
just change the PUD to state that it will go by city code or is that going to impact anyone else?
Walters: We could.
Aller: I mean is that our desired impact?
Walters: Our desire is not to remove all unique provisions governing signage within the planned
unit development. The goal was just to, from our perspective to remove the more restrictive
street frontage and then to allow the rest of the provisions to stand. The PUD also has you know
this is a, outside of wall signage but it specifies one monument sign per property which is
different than city code standards and limits the development to one pylon sign. Again under
general city code each property would be allow it’s own pylon sign so our goal was to make the
smallest possible change that would, well and remove the non-conformity within the Perkins
restaurant. Clear up any potential ambiguity about the multi-tenant building that has signage on
3 frontages and accommodate Target’s request. Which we felt was reasonable when we looked
at the changes to the building. Advertising needs and how similar developments had been
treated throughout the city.
Aller: So this modification isn’t going to cause one of the other businesses if they want to
change their signage to increase it?
Walters: It would allow every building within the PUD to have one sign per street façade so the
Perkins for instance would be allowed to have 3. I believe several of the other buildings also
have street frontages along 3 elevations and would, if they wanted to be entitled to add a sign
along that as well. We do have one PUD in the city where we have unique provisions for the
anchor tenant which allow them to have signage on 3 elevations but restrict other businesses
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
3
within that development to have signage on only 2 so it wouldn’t be unprecedented if the
Planning Commission preferred to limit this to Target only.
Aller: Thank you. Any further questions or questions based on that? Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: I would just like to clarify how many signs a business could have in the central
business district. If that Chapter 20 that’s quoted in our cover sheet, so it’s one sign per street
frontage, is that correct? So currently a business that might not be located in the PUD could
have a sign on 3 sides?
Walters: That is correct. And an example, well I’m trying to think of, oh. No Lunds only has 2
frontages so they’re limited to 2. Off the top of my head I’m not thinking of one that I know for
sure is zoned CBD rather than PUD within the central business district but yes, that is the base
standard of the code.
Madsen: But so a business, if it was on 3 frontages in the central business district could also
have as many signs as this PUD area.
Walters: They could have signage on each elevation yeah could be treated the same.
Madsen: Each elevation, yep.
Walters: Yep.
Madsen: Just so that it’s fair throughout that area. Okay thank you.
Aller: Based on that any additional questions? Hearing none we’ll have the applicant make their
presentation if they’d like to do so. If you could come up and state your name and your
representational capacity.
Leyla Bungee: Good evening, my name is Leyla Bungee with Kimley-Horn and Associates. We
submitted this application on behalf of Target to add the additional Wine and Spirits sign on the
north elevation as part of the recent remodel as MacKenzie had stated.
Jay Richardson: Yes, hi I’m Jay Richardson. I’m with RSP Architects and we’ve done the
design of the exterior of the building. And coordinated the signs with the sigh company.
Aller: Welcome. So could you explain how it’s a coordinated effort on those signs, what the
impact would be on the frontage and why you’ve come up with this particular sign scheme.
Leyla Bungee: Yeah I can start it.
Jay Richardson: Okay go ahead.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
4
Leyla Bungee: So we have been doing a lot of back and forth with planning staff just to make
sure that we’re meeting all the requirements currently of the PUD. The wine and spirits addition
in the store that was something that came a little bit later after our initial meetings to discuss the
signage plan and so once the design had gotten to a point where we wanted to keep the main
Target sign the size that it is on the building today, that didn’t leave that much room on the front
for the wine and spirit sign to go on the front which I believe is the west elevation so part of that
reason was to move it to the north elevation to accommodate the current allowances for sign
area. So right now there is a window decal on that new entrance for the wine and spirit sign but
Target realized that they haven’t been seeing as many customers as they were hoping with that
new liquor store service so adding the new wine and spirit sign on the, yeah I guess the left hand
of the building facing the main street that helps advertise that service to people that might not
know it’s there today.
Aller: Any questions? Additional questions? Thank you very much.
Leyla Bungee: Thank you.
Aller: At this time I’ll open up the public hearing portion of the item. Any individual present
may come forward and speak either for or against the item before us. Welcome sir. If you could
state your name and address for the record that would be great.
Michael Clausen: Hello. Michael Clausen, 8381 West Lake Drive in Chanhassen here. Local
business owner. We opened our business 5 years ago and we have, I have 3 sides to my building
so when I wanted signage on all 3 sides went to you know, I did not put in a formal request or
whatever. I just talked to my friend Sharmeen. Said you know what’s the deal here and she said
well you’re only allowed 2 signage on 2 sides of your business. It had nothing to do with the
building as I understand it’s each business is allowed 2 sides because I could have, I could have
put signage on the south side of my business and the east side of my business. The other
businesses, tenants in the shop could have still had their signage so we could add signs on all 4 of
them but any individual business can only have signage on 2 sides. That’s how it was stated to
me and I’m pretty sure that’s how the city code goes. That’s how, that’s why most of these
places only have signage on 2 sides so, and now to come along and you know after the fact and
you know probably the reason they’re not doing well is we’ve over developed retail liquor in this
city so now we’re trying to figure out ways to accommodate it so we want to change the rules to
allow people to you know do something different when the rest of us have all been playing by
the rules that were set out for years so. You know I guess I just think in the sense of fairness and
what’s right you know they should act under the, they should be subject to the same rules as
everyone else in town and to do it after the fact is unfair to the other businesses. You know to
say that now I can well you go ahead and put it on 3 sides. Well that ship has already sailed and
that’s not in our budget to add a $10,000 sign to the side of the building so that’s my thoughts on,
if you have any questions or anything.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
5
Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward to speak either for or against the item?
Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing on this matter and open it up for
questions. Additional questions of staff or comments or action. Yes Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: I’m wondering if staff could address that if that business does have the 3 frontages if
they could have had the 3 signs or are they in a different business district or what the difference
was?
Walters: So without knowing a little bit more it’s hard for me to comment. You know if we go
back to our sheet if the business’s zoning is planned unit development it, you know we do have
11 different planned unit developments and sign plans in the city that do restrict businesses to 2
elevations. If the gentleman’s business is located in one of those he would have been you know
informed that that was the limit. Under base code it is one per street frontage. It is, again
without knowing the location it is possible the gentleman’s business only has frontage along 2
elevations. There are other instances where because there’s a residential development nearby we
restrict elevations in the PUD and things like that. So that would be my response to that. Mr.
Generous?
Generous: And the one other thing I would add is that part of a site plan review there could be a
limitation imposed on the development to limit the number of signs they have irregardless of
what the city ordinance is so.
Aller: Okay. Did that answer your question? Do you have a follow up question?
Madsen: Well I guess we don’t know the exact circumstances. I just would be concerned about
the fairness of, you know if people are told how many signs they can have that after the fact
adding more, you know just want it to be fair for all the businesses in the city.
Aller: Any additional comments or I’ll entertain a motion.
Undestad: I will make a motion.
Aller: Commissioner Undestad.
Undestad: That the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the
Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development amendment 2018-15 and adopts the
attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Randall: Second.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
6
Aller: I have a motion and a valid second. Any further discussion? I think to Commissioner
Madsen’s point we want to be consistent and fair as much as possible throughout the city with all
of our zoning and ordinances. In this particular situation we are dealing with a PUD which is a
separate zoning in and of itself that’s created for this particular area of property and there were
exchanges made in order to achieve that with regard to signage and square footage and that
whole process so I kind of look at, and that was the impact of my questioning was I wanted to
see whether anyone else within the PUD was going to be impacted so I’m, I’m more concerned
with maybe tailoring it to allow for Target to be the only one that gets it at this point in time to
determine on a case by case basis whether or not it should be expanded. I don’t know what you
opinions would be on that.
McGonagill: I was kind of similar thinking Mr. Chairman. Just limit it to Target and take it
from there.
Aller: Would that be, is that fair to the others that?
Undestad: That’d be my feeling is we’re talking about the PUD and the other tenants, the other
buildings involved in that were part of that same PUD and, you know I understand the other
businesses, you know each case is handled that way but I think if we’re dealing with the whole
PUD we ought to look at the whole PUD that way.
McGonagill: So it’d be as the PUD is written here.
Aller: Yeah that would be my concern is, I want to overall be consistent but at the same time I
don’t want to have an impact which is going to create hostility either amongst the tenants or
amongst the citizens who all of a sudden have too much signage.
Madsen: Yeah.
Aller: Any additional thoughts?
Randall: Well there are a few in there that already have the, that have more than they’re
supposed to based on that PUD correct?
Aller: That are non-conforming.
Randall: Non-conforming so by us altering the PUD it would bring everyone up to the right
level. That would be in conforming.
Madsen: My understanding was it was just the Perkins that is on the 3 different frontages and it
was in error and the other building, those businesses only have it on 2 frontages each which
happens to them because of the 2 tenants happens to be.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
7
Randall: Yep they can only do the 2 yeah.
Madsen: The 4 so really no one else is really approved for it.
Randall: Okay.
Aller: Okay. Any additional discussion?
Madsen: I guess I’m just concerned that you know I don’t know if they have to have the sign. I
think everyone knows Target’s there. They’ve seen the development and it, you know the other
businesses are following that rule so I’m just not really sure what the need is to have an
additional sign.
Aller: Well I can certainly understand their desire for the additional signage because the usage
of that Target was always with a certain expectation of the items that were sold in there.
Whether it be coffee or appliances or food or, but this was a separate escalated purpose that has
been separated out and they’ve created that and the City has allowed for that liquor license to be
placed in there so I think it’s almost like a different use that’s unexpected so I can understand
where they would want and their desire certainly would be there for it. I just don’t want it to
impact the community standards that we’re placing out there for purposes of signage in general.
Tietz: Chairman Aller? Wasn’t too many months ago that we had a variance I think to allow a
pylon sign in the parking lot and what does that constitute? Is that another sign because it’s, it
was a variance that was requested at that time. That’s what, back in February or March. It was
for parking for.
Aller: I think it was a height variance wasn’t it?
Tietz: Well it was a height but it was, it’s a sign.
Walters: If I’m recollecting it was for the pick up area within the parking lot.
Tietz: Right.
Walters: Those, it was a code change to the city code and that was adding another category of
directional signage that could be allowed businesses without a permit so under the pre-existing
city code we had allowed any business to have up to 4 directional signs. Maximum 5 feet in
height. 4 feet in, 4 square feet display area and we added another category allowing certain types
of uses. Grocery stores. Big box retailers to have a pick up sign designating an area for remote,
basically just you know stopping by and having goods put in the car in the parking lot.
Tietz: Right.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
8
Walters: And that had unique standards.
Tietz: I think that one was 10 or 12 feet. It’s not a 5 or 6 foot sign. It’s a.
Walters: My recollection is 12 or 13 feet.
Tietz: It was significant I remember because we had some discussion about it’s height and
location.
Aller: Right.
Undestad: Well and that I think that signage for the pick up area part of that shows how retail is
changing. Businesses are changing. They need to change with it and this is part of it I think
when they have to put a new, the liquor store in there. We never had one, we never had drive up,
pick up your groceries you know and so I think, and again to keep it in the full PUD package out
there I think that’s the way it should be put in there.
Aller: And just to follow up on that a little bit. We also discussed the fact that there will not be
drive up pick up of alcohol.
Undestad: Right.
Aller: Any additional comments? Questions? Concerns? Otherwise I have a motion and a
second.
Undestad moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council approve the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit
Development Amendment 2018-15, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and
Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6
to 0.
Aller: Motion carries and we move onto item number 2. Thank you very much.
7644 SOUTH SHORE DRIVE: CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO INSTALL BOULDER
WALL AND PATIO IN BLUFF SETBACK AREA.
Walters: Alright item number 2 is Planning Case 2018-16. A variance for 7644 South Shore
Drive. This item will go before, if appealed will go before the City Council on September 24th.
It is a variance to place a boulder wall, a flagstone stepper path and a patio within the bluff
setback and impact zone for 7644 South Shore Drive. So the property is, let me get my little
laser pointer here. Is zoned planned unit development residential. In this PUD lots are required
to have 11,700 square feet. They have a 30 foot front yard setback. 10 foot side yard setback.
Are limited to 25 percent lot coverage within the shoreland overlay district and then for
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
9
properties located on a bluff such as the property in question there’s a 30 foot bluff setback or 5
feet for structures that exist pre-1991 and then there’s also a 20 foot bluff impact zone which
prevents vegetative clearing and removal. Topographical disturbances within 20 feet of the top
of the bluff. So the existing condition for the property, it is a 43,604 square foot lot. As of the
survey that was approved with the September 29, 2017 building permit for the remodel and
addition of the house it had 15.57 percent lot cover. There is a non-conforming 9.8 foot west
side yard setback and their house is a non-conforming 20 feet from the top of the bluff and then
there is a deck which has a patio underneath and a 3 season porch that are approximately 5 feet
from the top of the bluff. Again all these were constructed before the bluff district was extended
into this area so they are all legal non-conforming’s. The property also has numerous non-
conforming retaining walls east of the house within the bluff but it meets other standards for it’s
district. The applicant is proposing adding a boulder wall here. It would be between, primarily
between 1 and 1 ½ feet in height. Potentially a little taller in this section by the 3 season porch
as determined by the grades. They’re also proposing adding a stepper pathway. I believe it’s 18,
approximately 18 inch in diameter steppers to 30 inch in diameter steppers and then they’re
proposing to space them to allow for some infiltration between them. The purpose of this would
be to allow safe transit of the back yard. The area in gray here is the area that would require the
variance for that. They’re also proposing putting in a flagstone patio and seating area that is
within the bluff setback area. The boulder retaining wall, their goal with it is to help prevent the
migration of landscaping materials down the bluff during rain and also to provide some support
for the top of the bluff up here. The flagstone as I mentioned would be safe transit through the
rear yard. The patio, the applicant has stated that this area was previously covered by impervious
surface from a pre-existing driveway and that the area has already been disturbed. In sum when
you look over the landscaping plan it has been very thoughtfully designed to try to minimize the
amount of impervious surface generated and try to protect the bluff. And the location of the
home as we mentioned does pre-date the bluff protection ordinance and there is similar
landscaping near the tops of the bluffs in the properties surrounding this one. When staff looked
at it staff agrees that the flagstone stepper patio is needed to provide safe transit through the rear
yard. Staff has walked the site. There is a, it drops off fairly quick and it you know due to the
shade, etcetera it’s very hard to get vegetation to grow there. The applicant’s concern about it
being slippery when wet certainly seems like it’d be substantial. The bluff protection ordinance
does make allowances for paths to be located near and through bluffs to provide safe transit and
we believe this is in line with the intent of that part of the ordinance. Staff’s review of the
boulder assessment wall is that it will not negatively impact the bluff. The area has been
previously disturbed. It will likely help prevent the migration of materials down slope although
it’s a fairly minimal wall so it’s not expected to serve a major retaining function or anything like
that. Regarding the front yard patio, staff feels that there are potential alternative locations
where it could be placed. Staff also notes that the property has an existing rear yard deck and
patio. A front stoop that could be extended to provide additional seating and ultimately does not
feel the patio’s location meets the practical difficulties standards required for issuing a variance.
Staff believes reasonable use can be gotten for the property without creating additional
impervious surface within the bluff setback for that patio. Staff has worked pretty closely with
the applicant at every phase of this project. They have routinely taken staff’s suggestions and
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
10
you know removed features that we felt were problematic and so we’d just like to point out that
they have worked very, very hard to try to protect the bluff. Beyond that I would be happy to
take any questions you may have.
Aller: Any questions at this time? Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: When they add the stepper pavers will they need to bring in additional fill to smooth
that out so that they’re flat to be able to use them or will they be able to do that without bringing
in additional fill?
Walters: My understanding from reading what the landscaper submitted was that their plan is
just to basically set them in grade and not alter the grade. However I believe I see the landscaper
in the audience so I’ll allow him to clarify that during their presentation.
Madsen: Okay thank you.
Aller: Commissioner Undestad.
Undestad: The, all the drainage swales around the house on there, are those all required?
Walters: No. That’s one of the things I was mentioning is they have gone above and beyond
what we would typically expect of a residential homeowner in terms of trying to manage the
water generated by it. They worked quite a bit with the Water Resources Coordinator to come
up with this plan. I think this is the third or maybe even fourth iteration I’ve seen of it in terms
of getting to the drainage swales designed and vegetated in a way that would be effective for the
property.
Undestad: Okay thank you.
Aller: I’ll just add another question on the patio. Where it was disturbed before. Was it verified
their property had been disturbed? There was hard cover on that location?
Walters: So I took a couple avenues to look at that. I looked at, as near as I can tell the
driveway was reconfigured a little bit after 2012. I looked at a pre 2012 survey and measured
back based on the location of the existing retaining wall. I believe that with the possible
exception of a very small edge of the driveway that patio area was not previously covered by
surface. It doesn’t mean it wasn’t disturbed by landscaping and other things. I also looked at the
2016 aerial with the, what we call the plan of matrix overlaid which show pre-existing asphalt
from I think it was 2006 and then kind of back counted that based on the number of trees I could
observe and if you look at my laser pointer what I saw was that the edge of the driveway kind of
did this but never came quite as far northeast as the proposed patio. From those two sources it’s
my belief that the section of the patio in purple here was not previously covered by asphalt.
Again this isn’t to say it wasn’t disturbed by other landscaping.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
11
Aller: And this square footage of hard cover, how does that compare with the square footage
that is typically allotted?
Walters: The applicant would be, even if the Planning Commission granted all variances they’d
be adding approximately another 900 square feet. I believe it puts them at about 17.6 percent out
of 25. They would still be well under the theoretical maximum for their district.
Aller: Thank you. Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: MacKenzie it looks like on the photos it looks like there’s a downspout that’s being
directed directly to the slope. Is that going to be picked up in one of the future holding areas up
on top or is that going to, or is that part of the ultimate plan?
Walters: I don’t believe that’s the final position. I’ll allow the landscaper to speak to that. My
understanding from discussions with Vanessa and them was that the intent was that there not be
channelizing, certainly nothing pointing you know towards the bluff. But I’ll allow them to
clarify.
Tietz: Okay, thanks.
Aller: Any additional questions of staff? Hearing none if the applicant would like to come
forward that would be great. Those who are appearing in a representational capacity please state
that capacity when they are going to speak and we’d love your names and addresses for the
record.
Matt Arens: Hi, Matt Arens at the address 7644 South Shore Drive. My wife Amanda Arens
and then Tyler Wortz who can answer any of the technical questions because I’m sure I won’t
know the answer to them. So I won’t spend a lot of time going over the two proposals that the,
parts of the proposal that the staff had recommended. I would echo that we are incredibly
grateful for the staff’s willingness to work with us. They made some suggestions that I think we
were happy to take and I think actually improved the plan quite a bit so we’re grateful for their
efforts on that. I think the one thing, I think the point of contention here with the patio, I went
back and read our, I was surprised when the staff suggested that it not be approved. I went back
and I read our proposal and after I read it quite frankly I thought I don’t think I’d approve it
either. The way that we wrote it. We did not make a very good case for it and I will tell you the
reason for that is I was so focused on the other two aspects of the plan and if you go back and
read it that’s where I really, that’s where I really focused so maybe just a couple things that I
would add to why we’re hoping that you would consider this. I think just a factual correction on
my part. I don’t disagree with the assessment that the old driveway probably didn’t go into that
30 foot setback. I think it overlapped with part of where the patio is proposed but as I went and
looked and it’s really hard to tell, if I could say definitively it was in that area I would tell you.
I’m just not sure so that very well could be correct and it may not have applicability there so I
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
12
wanted to correct that because I think we stated specifically that it did go into that, into that area
so that’s one point that I would certainly agree with. I could have done this a lot differently.
What happened, a little bit of the history here that would have made this easier is we really enjoy
this partnership with the staff because we bought this property and as you can tell, I mean this
house is kind of dropped right on the edge there. We didn’t build it. We would have done a lot
of things differently and we knew we were kind of taking on a headache when we bought it. My
wife and I were, didn’t have kids at the time. We did a lot of the landscaping ourselves and we
did a lot of things that we think really improved the property. Made a lot more friendly towards
the lake. I put a lot of that in the report. I won’t repeat all of it. But one of the things that we
did was we had a great partnership with the water resource expert for the city and Ms. Strong
now but prior to that Mr. Jeffery and he came out and when we were doing things we would ask
him if he’s come out and he was always very helpful in doing that. We had some work that we
were doing and we told him we’re contemplating a remodel and an addition to the existing house
and the initial plan, and you can see it from the pictures. I’m looking at page 8 on the report and
I don’t know if it’s easier to see up here but on page 8 it’s got the overlay of the old, the circle
driveway and then it’s got the new proposal where it shows the area in the bluff zone. So this is
something that I really wish I would have emphasized in making our case because I think it’s
critical and hopefully it will make a difference. Our initial plan for the house, if you look back
just inside that 20 foot bluff impact zone across the back of the property, more in the area where
the smaller retaining wall is being proposed, our initial plan extended the house along that same
line so the code is, allows on parcels of land where a building has already been constructed. The
setback from the top of the bluff is 5 feet or the existing setback whichever is more for additions
onto existing buildings so we could have extended the existing line all the way to the 10 foot
setback and that was our initial plan. That was where we were going to add onto the house. Mr.
Jeffery said I know you can do that but I would rather you didn’t. If you could change your plan
to try to extend the house forward more towards the cul-de-sac that would have less of an impact
and we’d really like for you to consider that and so we did. We actually had, we had the house
drawn up. It was already to go on that initial plan that would have extended it along that area
and we drew up new plans and really tried to find something that had less of an impact and what
I wish I would have done, again I feel like you learn this stuff as you go through the process so
by the time you figure it out you’re done with it and you’ve done things the way that you did but
I wish at the time that we made that design change that I would have come to the staff at that
point and said listen do you think this would have much less of an impact if we put this area in
the front and change the design and I’ll get to why that’s more important than it might look on a
piece of paper in a moment but, so that change was made and we took basically the addition and
we pushed it out in front of the house. So if you drive by the property, and we’ve got one of my
neighbors here who walks by frequently, what you’ll see is that new area where you can see the
difference between the old house and the new house. It’s all garage so when you come into the
house you just see this big garage and it’s quite frankly it’s not aesthetically great. So one of the
things that we talked to with the landscaper was can you shift some of the attention away from
this so it’s aesthetically, it’s got more curb appeal because it’s kind of a design flaw and the other
thing that we talked about, and respectfully I don’t disagree with the staff. You know you can
see there’s a little front stoop where you could sit but if you sit on that stoop you have to imagine
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
13
the wall of the new garage runs this way so if you look at here, you can see. You can’t even
really, you can’t see the driveway from where you’re sitting there so it’s, we’ve got a 5 year old
and a 7 year old child. You know they play in the driveway a lot and as you can see from the
back yard from the pictures that property falls right off. I mean there’s no area for them to play
and I don’t want to insult you folks by saying it’s going to be the end of the world if we don’t
have a little area to sit there in the front but essentially the alternative is it’s pulling lawn chairs
out and sitting in the driveway which is doable but you know there’s, this sitting area is more
important I guess than it would look like on paper so one, it’s to try to as you come up to the
house to try to turn the viewer’s eye and create a sitting area and a little bit of an interest but
more importantly it gives you an area where you can sit and you can see from the viewpoint you
can see the driveway and the kids riding their bikes and different things like that which someday
we won’t need but for the next several years I think is really an important feature. I think one
thing that I would point out that’s not part of the plan, and again I think this is because I was so
focused on the other two items, we can make this material permeable. That’s correct isn’t it?
Tyler Wortz: Yes.
Matt Arens: So if that’s helpful we’re more than happy to do that. And I will tell you the other
thing is the alternative is if we don’t do it in this area I think our only option would probably be
to take out a couple of the mature trees that we planted 10 years ago and I would really rather not
do that. I mean it’s doable but it’s certainly not optimal in my mind so I think there’s some
tweaks that we can make to it that would make that a little more important. Again I apologize.
There’s a different way we could have went about this which I think would have made our case
stronger than we’ve made it but that’s, those are kind of some thoughts that I wanted to put
forward on that aspect and I’m happy to answer any questions on that or the other parts of the
plan as well.
Aller: Any questions at this point of the applicant? I just have some questions for the
landscaper. Otherwise thank you sir. So let’s talk about the permeability.
Tyler Wortz: Yes.
Aller: What’s that option? Your vision to be…
Tyler Wortz: With the flagstone patio we could make it a permeable flagstone where the joints
are free draining into our free draining base which then can infiltrate into the ground water. The
more traditional way is to fill those joints with a poly metric sand that hardens and so then we’re
sheeting water off of it but we could definitely turn it into a permeable system that allows it into
the ground water without the sheeting.
Aller: And the retaining walls. Could you talk about the retaining walls and what that would do
to protect the lake?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
14
Tyler Wortz: So the row of boulders in the back or the small retaining wall is, you know
fieldstone boulders ranging in size from you know on the small end 12 to 18 inch diameter
boulders. Probably on the upper end 25 to 28 inch boulders. Installed with not much
disturbance to what’s already there. As you see in the pictures there’s a pretty clear defined drop
off between the currently disturbed soils and then the fescue on the bluff. So what we’re looking
for is just a defined separation between those two areas and to help us keep mulch and landscape
materials from ending up on that beautiful fescue and slowing down water. One thing that we
talked with Vanessa Strong quite a bit about is you know dispersing and slowing the rain water
and so the intent isn’t to hold the rain water. That’s actually one of the original drafts of the plan
was having rain gardens on top of the boulder wall and you know maybe a learning point on my
end was working with Vanessa on how that’s not necessarily what we want at the top of a bluff
and so, so we moved those swales into other portions of the property where we want water to
soak in and that back boulder wall is just slowing the water.
Matt Arens: If I could just one point to add to that.
Aller: Yes.
Matt Arens: Just a little history. So when we moved into this property there was a lot of just
scrubby volunteers on that back area and so it was dirt transitioning to more dirt and one of the
things I wish I would have done differently is I wish I would have videotaped when we’d get a
hard rain because mud would wash right down the hill and into the lake and I think I mentioned
that in the report. We have tried, so we planted, we planted, we got a recommendation and the
City has been really complimentary of how this low growth fescue has gone in. It’s, you know
it’s got a deep root system. It holds that hill incredibly well. The problem is you get the flatter
area and then you get it to transition so we’ve tried putting mulch in there. It washes down the
hill. We’ve tried putting all sorts of things and it’s just, we haven’t been able to find anything.
And then the other thing is, there are certain areas where, I mean the old house and I think
somebody had a question about where the rain water from the spouts went. There was a spout
that came down and drained and it had some velocity and it dropped quite a bit and that area
would wash out 3-4 feet and so we’d go and we’d try to smooth it over and we’d try to keep that
bluff line kind of intact and so part of this is to, it’s not to build something up. It’s not to do
anything. It’s just to anchor that so then we can have, and again this was, I give all the credit to
the staff on this. We were going to put you know a yard surface in there and they said if you can
do stepper stones that would give you what you’re looking for and to have that and to transition
to that really effective fescue we think, we think makes a lot of sense.
McGonagill: So then, if I can ask a question. That drain pipe will stop before the boulder wall
and just distribute above the boulder wall? The one that was in the photo.
Tyler Wortz: Yeah the drain pipes that you see in the photo are all temporary. We wouldn’t
allow any of them to be running that closely to the bluff. That’s where all the vegetative swales
on the plan throughout the property come into play. We’d be routing them more towards the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
15
front where they can slow and disperse but we would not want any point sources of water aimed
directly at the bluff like that.
Aller: And then if you could just comment quickly on the flagstone.
Tyler Wortz: The flagstone steppers. Yes to your question on, no we wouldn’t be bringing in
any fill to install those. We’d be working on the native grade and just you know minor hand
working to level them and set them into place but we’re not going to do any major disturbance to
the existing grade and soil.
Madsen: Thank you.
Tyler Wortz: Yes.
Aller: Additional questions at this time? Okay thank you very much.
Tyler Wortz: Thank you.
Aller: At this point in time I’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item. Any individuals
wishing to speak for or against the item can do so at this time. Welcome sir. If you could state
your name and address for the record that would be great.
Curt Robinson: My name is Curt Robinson. I live at 202 West 77th Street. I really haven’t seen
the property. I don’t really know all the technical issues you’re talking about. I take my
grandson down fishing next door and I can tell you that Mr. Arens always keeps the property
neat and I’m sure he will continue to do so. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you sir. Any other individuals wishing to come forward at this time can do so.
Seeing no one come forward I will close the public hearing portion of this item and open it up for
discussion. Any bones, primarily my concern was going to be the patio and not necessarily
because I don’t find it to be a reasonable use but because of the potential water issues and the
hard cover issues but I think they’re resolved by the amount of the hard cover not exceeding
about 17.5 percent. The fact that there’s been an offer to potentially do that with pervious pavers
as well which is something that I would be in favor of doing and so I would be in favor of any
motion which allows for this, these variances to be made with that modification based on the fact
that clearly this applicant has made and gone well beyond, above and beyond in protecting the
bluff and my concern is with the bluff and the water issues and for the fact that they’ve put in the
swales. That they’re going to reduce the rate of the water flowing into the lake. That they’re
protecting the slope which protects again the lake from having other sediments and particulates
go into the lake. And the fact that I think everything has been the safety factor as well as the
impact of having those pavers put in for the walkway and economically as well as
environmentally. I just think that it’s a good thing for us to approve at this point in time.
Commissioner Tietz.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
16
Tietz: Chairman Aller. It’s an excellent example of citizens working with the staff and staff
being very cooperative and offering suggestions and obviously the land owner has taken those
suggestions to heart and worked with their landscape architect to come up with a reasonable
plan. It’s a difficult site. This is looking at the photos and looking at the survey and the terrain
it’s, I’m sure it’s been a challenge for all these years to work on it but it looks like you’ve come
to a good solution and a good process.
Aller: Additional comments, questions or concerns? I’ll entertain a motion.
Madsen: So this would include the patio?
Aller: We would need to make a modification.
McGonagill: Yeah that’s what I was thinking. We’d have to modify this.
Walters: All you would need to do if I may is just omit the denies and just so approve the
variance for the construction of boulder wall, flagstone patio and flagstone stepper path and then
add the condition that the flagstone patio be pervious pavers. And then I would alter the variance
document in Findings accordingly.
Madsen: Let me give it a stab. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a
variance for the construction of a boulder wall and flagstone stepper path, and the construction of
a flagstone patio with pervious pavers subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the
attached Findings of Fact and Decisions. Is that right?
Tietz: Very nice.
Aller: Sounds right.
McGonagill: Well done.
Randall: I’ll second that.
Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion?
Tietz: Just a clarification.
Aller: Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: It’s references pervious pavers and I think if you’re using flagstone you’ve got the
drainage between the flagstone parcels but are they technically considered pervious pavers?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
17
Walters: The landscaper will need to work with our Water Resources Coordinator to make sure
that the design of the flagstone patio abstracts the first half inch of rain water and meets our
specifications but I believe it should be doable and that they can come up with a solution
between them.
Tietz: I just don’t want somebody to be restricted by the terminology and now have to change
the design to accommodate a brick type paver. Is that was, because I immediately jumped to a
brick type paver in my mind after all of the discussions we’ve had about pervious pavers so. Just
so it’d be clear.
Aller: Thank you for that clarification. Well taken. Any further discussion or comment?
Hearing none.
Madsen moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments
approves a variance for the construction of a boulder wall and flagstone stepper path
within the bluff setback and impact zone, and the construction of a flagstone patio within
the bluff setback and impact zone with pervious pavers subject to the conditions of
approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decisions:
1. The applicant must apply for and receive a zoning permit.
2. The survey should be updated and provided as part of the zoning permit application
showing: a) the top of the bluff; b) 20-foot bluff impact zone; c) 30-foot bluff
setback; d) proposed lot coverage; e) 15” storm pipe and the drainage and utility
easement located over the pipe; f) scenic preservation/conservation easement; and, g)
all proposed improvements.
3. Stairways and flagstone stepper walkways within the bluff setback zone may not
exceed 4 feet in width.
4. There shall be a minimum of six inches of separation between the flagstones that
comprise the flagstone paths and walkways.
5. The location and dimensions of the boulder wall and flagstone pathways shall
substantially conform to those depicted in Exhibit A.
6. All exposed soil within the grading limits must either be covered with vegetation or,
in areas where vegetation will not grow, a double-shredded hardwood mulch.
7. Soil infiltration improvements, either adding compost or air spading, shall be
conducted within the project’s grading limits.
8. The proposed retaining wall on the east side of the property is within the drainage and
utility easement. It should not be constructed over the pipe or infringe on the
easement.
9. The existing retaining wall on the east side of the property is located within a
drainage and utility easement and an encroachment agreement should be obtained and
recorded for the wall.
10. Zoning permits are required for all proposed retaining walls under four feet in height
and building permits are required for any proposed retaining wall over four feet in
height.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
18
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Aller: Motion carries. Good luck.
Matt Arens: Thank you.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Madsen noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 7, 2018 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Aller: Update on City Council.
Generous: Yes, the Control Concepts site plan with variance has been put on hold right now.
They’re having cost issues with that and so they’re looking at alternatives and so they’ve actually
been, waived our 60 day review and they’re looking at an October 22nd council date. I’ll keep
you informed. Our comp plan is on hold also. We’re waiting for the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District to complete their review of the surface water management portion of it and
we missed their deadline for last time so they’re not going to meet til the end of September now
so. However we will be, have another work session with council to review the direction that
they provided us. There’s some minor changes that they wanted with some of our policies and
goals. And the Galpin Property they took comments on that so we’ll see when and if that comes
back.
Aller: Future dates.
Generous: You have one item for your September 18th meeting. That’s 821 Creekwood. It’s a
variance for the location of a septic system on a property within the bluff zone so.
Aller: Any additional presentations from commissioners? Hearing none I’ll entertain a motion
to adjourn.
Undestad moved, Randall seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
Subject Future Planning Commission Items
Section ADMINISTRATIVE
PRESENTATIONS
Item No: F.1.
Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support
Specialist
File No:
PROPOSED MOTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Future Planning Commission Agenda Items
Future Planning Commission Agenda Items Schedule
DATE ITEMS
Work Session Items
Possible Future
Items (Date
Unknown)
• Moon Valley – IUP amendment
• Santa Vera Apartments – Site Plan Review – PUD
• Holasek – United Properties
• 6480 Oriole Ave. - Subdivision
• City Code updates
• 330 Pleasant View Road – subdivision
• Frontier – subdivision
• Avienda PUD Amendment
• United Properties/Rezoning to PUD (Marathon)
• 3800 Red Cedar Point Road – Subdivision with variance
• Applebees Redevelopment CUP
• American Legion Expansion
January 2
January 22 CC
(Mark U. absent)
• 7052 Minnewashta Pkwy. – setback variances to build a home
• 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Variance (2 car garage and setback)
• 531 West 79th Street – Panera site plan review
January 16
February 12 CC
• 1651 Motorplex Ct. – LaMettry RLS (subdivision)
• 7700 Quattro Dr. – CUP
• 7721 Erie Ave. – variance
• 7555 Walnut Curve – variance for pool
February 6
February 26 CC
(Andrew absent)
• Cancelled
February 20
March 12 CC
(Mark R. and Mark U. absent)
• Arbor Glen – PUD Amendment
• Annual Report
• Interview New Commissioners (immediately following meeting)
March 6
March 26
(John & Nancy absent)
• Cancelled
March 20
April 9 CC
(Mark U. absent)
• Cancelled
April 3
6:00 PM start time
WORK SESSION
• Review Comp Plan – jurisdictional comments
• Local Water Management Plan – update
• Oath of Office for new commissioners
• Adopt Bylaws
• Election of Chair
April 17
May 14 CC • MEETING CANCELLED (NO ITEMS SUBMITTED)
April 23 CC
(Andrew absent) • Joint Meeting with City Council
May 1
May 29 (Tuesday) CC • MEETING CANCELLED (NO ITEMS SUBMITTED)
Future Planning Commission Agenda Items Schedule
DATE ITEMS
May 15
June 11 CC
• Public Hearing - Code Amendment – pervious pavers & Brewery
Ordinance, adult daycare OI district amendment, beekeeping, Retail Pickup
Signage
June 5
June 25 CC
• 1110 Lake Susan Drive – lot cover variance for shed
• 340 Sinnen Circle - front setback & lot cover variance for garage expansion
• Transmission Line – Audubon & Lyman – CUP
June 19
July 9 CC
(Michael absent)
• 3861 Red Cedar Point Road – subdivision with variance
July 3 • No Meeting
July 17
August 13 CC
(Michael absent)
• Control Concepts – site plan review
• 2040 Comprehensive Plan
• Galpin Property – PUD concept review
August 7
August 27 CC
• Glendale Drive – subdivision
• Control Concepts - variance
August 8 • Joint Commissions Tour
August 21
September 10 CC • Cancelled
September 4
September 24 CC
• Target PUD Amendment-sign variance
• 7644 South Shore Variance for Bluff Setback
• Glendale Drive – subdivision
September 18
October 8 CC
(John absent)
• 821 Creekwood Variance for Installation of a Septic System
October 2
October 22 CC • Glendale Drive – subdivision
October 16
November 13 CC
• Eidsness – subdivision with variance
• Beehive 3rd Addition – Site Plan Review
•
November 6 • No Meeting - Election
November 20
December 10 CC •
December 4
January 14 CC •
\\cfs5\cfs5\shared_data\agendas\pc\2018\future planning commission agenda items 2018.docx