The URL can be used to link to this page

PC Staff Report 08-18-2015PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance request to replace and expand retaining walls that encroach into the shoreland setback and bluff setback, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision." 6 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The property owner is requesting a variance to allow replacement of retaining walls that encroach into the shoreland and bluff setbacks. One retaining wall will maintain its same height and location and will not require a variance. The other retaining wall will be built taller and will be moved closer to the shoreland than the existing retaining wall. LOCATION: APPLICANT: 3892 Lone Cedar Lane (PID 25-8600020) Ryan M. Johnson 3892 Lone Cedar Lane Chaska, MN 55318 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF). 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (Net density 1.2 — 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 0.32 acres (13,939.2 square feet) DENSITY: N/A LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION- MAKING: The city's discretion in approving or z 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. Planning Commission 3892 Lone Cedar Lane — Planning Case 2015-20 August 18, 2015 Page 2 of 12 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The property owner is requesting a variance to demolish two existing retaining walls that encroach into the shoreland and bluff setbacks and replace them with new retaining walls. The proposed project requires a variance from the city; however, the applicant's request to replace and relocate their retaining wall is a reasonable use of the property. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 1, General Provisions Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and definitions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article IV, Division 4, Nonconforming Use Section 20-72, Nonconforming uses and structures Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland management district Section 20-481, Placement, design, and height of structure. Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 5, Fences and Walls Section 20-1025, Retaining Walls Chapter 20, Article XXVIII Section 20-1401, Structure Setbacks BACKGROUND In 1977, Chanhassen's shoreland chapter was first adopted as authorized by Minnesota Statute. The Shoreland Management District section of City Code requires structures on recreational development public waters to be set back 75 feet from the ordinary high water level. The existing retaining walls on the subject site encroach into the required 75 -foot setback from the ordinary high water level. In 1982, the subject property was granted an 11.23 -foot front yard setback variance and a 7,500 square -foot lot area variance to construct a home within the shoreland district. The existing structure on the subject property was constructed in 1983. It is assumed that the existing retaining walls were built concurrently with the home; however, there is no record of their construction within the city's building files. During that time period, the City did not require a permit for the construction of retaining walls that did not exceed four feet in height. The subject site currently has two retaining walls within the shoreland setback. The existing retaining walls are approximately 33 feet and 55 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level (shoreland). These existing retaining walls are both four feet tall. The walkway, which has retaining walls on both sides, reaches a height of slightly over five feet at its tallest point. Planning Commission 3892 Lone Cedar Lane — Planning Case 2015-20 August 18, 2015 Page 3 of 12 The applicant intends to replace the lower retaining wall (closest to the lake and furthest east) with a retaining wall that is four feet tall, the same height and in the same location as the existing retaining wall. The upper retaining wall (closest to the home and furthest west) will be removed and the property owner intends to install a 12 -foot tall retaining wall that is located approximately 10 feet closer to the lake, about 45 feet from the ordinary high water level. In addition, the proposed upper wall will be located further from the bluff on the site, yet the wall will still be located within the required bluff setback. This wall will be taller than the existing retaining wall. Replacement of existing, legal nonconforming structures is allowed by City Code; however, the nonconforming uses and structures section of City Code, Section 20-72 (d), states that a dwelling "that is a nonconforming use or structure may be altered, or expanded provided, however, that the nonconformity may not be increased," The relocation and increase in the height of the upper retaining wall is considered an expansion of the nonconformity on the property. These changes from the existing retaining wall are what require this project to apply for a variance from the shoreland and bluff setbacks. The upper retaining wall will also require an encroachment agreement from the City due to it being located within the 10 -foot drainage and utility easement. On May 12, 2014, the City of Chanhassen amended City Code by adding a definition for expansion, Section 1-2, which states: "expansion means an increase in the floor area or volume of an existing building (including deck additions), increase in the building occupancy, capacity or parking demand, or increase in the degree or intensity of the nonconforming condition of the building, land area, site or use. (20)" The applicant is also proposing a 20 -foot by 12 -foot water -oriented structure within the shoreland setback. This structure is allowed by City Code and does not require a variance. However, the water -oriented structure will require an encroachment agreement from the city due to it being located within a drainage and utility easement. ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to remove two retaining walls, which are both within the 75 -foot shoreline setback, and construct two new retaining walls. One retaining wall, which is closest to the shoreland (see Image 1 on the next page), will be replaced with a retaining wall that is the same height and in the same location as the existing wall. This portion of the project does not require a variance. Another retaining wall, the one nearest the home and furthest west, will be constructed closer to the shoreland by up to twelve feet, and will be eight feet taller than the existing retaining wall (existing = four feet tall, proposed = 12 feet tall). This retaining wall will be positioned further from the bluff on the south side of the property (see the orange area in Image 1), but will also be taller than the existing retaining wall. The applicant wishes to replace the existing retaining wall for safety reasons and to create more usable space on land near his home. Planning Commission 3892 Lone Cedar Lane — Planning Case 2015-20 August 18, 2015 Page 4 of 12 Image 1: Existing and Proposed Retaining Walls 10 PLASTI �di1014%,GRID,N Existing Retaining t ' REraix 79'42'p5 Walls(Blue) s`N.t P ' ' > t --------- _-9s.TOBE. -DOUR � t Y � -- .t Proposed Retaining i Walls (Green) t + e Bluff Area E 75 -Foot Shoreland Setback Line Planning Commission 3892 Lone Cedar Lane — Planning Case 2015-20 August 18, 2015 Page 5 of 12 Yard Space The current rear yard landscape does not allow for very much yard space. As seen in Image 2 below, the existing rear yard (from the house to the retaining wall) is only 15 feet in length at the nearest point and is 24 feet at its widest point. The applicant's proposal will increase the rear yard space to 26 feet in length at its nearest point and 34 feet at its longest point. Increasing the usable rear yard space is a reasonable request from a property owner. Image 2: Existing and Proposed Rear Yard Space '00,,t PL15TU vG; GRID, n 7 9-42'05"," ' ;'P ;� �4 \ -*- RF.TA,N JA r yc I r T Y , IWO' y 24 34 M Existing PX y s� Proposed \ V610 , 1\ tll A G1 Ifee Ii15e W 11 I� 1 g ?cFk , t + v 10i t II �' 3, 1 , IT l ! I+ "_ w'1 PC> y0 Planning Commission 3892 Lone Cedar Lane — Planning Case 2015-20 August 18, 2015 Page 6 of 12 Safety The existing retaining wall is made of lumber and has deteriorated significantly since its creation. There are portions of the wall that are starting to give and are leaning due to the pressure from the soil it is holding (see Image 3). There are also portions of the wall and steps that are rotting (see Image 4). The applicant has proposed to replace the existing retaining wall with granite blocks. The granite blocks will be much sturdier and should have a longer life span than the existing lumber material. Image 3: Leaning Retaining Wall Images 4 and 5: Rotting Retaining Wall s. 3� Planning Commission 3892 Lone Cedar Lane — Planning Case 2015-20 August 18, 2015 Page 7of12 Character of the Neighborhood The construction of this retaining wall will not alter the essential character of the subject neighborhood. The adjacent properties to the north and south both have retaining walls that encroach into the 75 -foot shoreland setback. Furthermore, aerial images show that there are other properties in the area that have retaining walls within the shoreland setback. Tree Preservation The applicant has no trees along the north property line, but the neighbor has several trees adjacent to the property line, one of which is a significant white oak. The base of the tree is located within inches of the property line. On the subject property, grading and excavation is proposed up to the line. This activity will directly affect the root area of the white oak. To accomplish the plan as proposed, it will be necessary for equipment to work right up to the base of the tree and grade changes to take place in 25 - 50% of its root area. The construction has the potential to detrimentally affect the neighboring tree's health. It is unknown how much of the root area is on the property at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane, but roots are opportunistic and will take advantage of available space. For this reason, it is assumed that there are enough roots Image 6: White Oak Tree on the applicant's property to merit caution and protection of the neighbor's oak. According to research by the University of Minnesota, white oaks are sensitive to both excavation and fill within their root zones. According to the proposed plan, the top of the slope will be shifted resulting in a cut of one to two feet along the north property line directly at the base of the tree. Ideally, the grade in this area would not change thereby protecting any feeder and large, structural roots closest to the base of the tree. It would also eliminate the work required to restore a 2:1 slope. If the grade did not change in this area, the retaining wall would likely require additional height, most likely a layer of block. A second consideration would be to shift the location of the proposed wall slightly to the south, away from the tree. The wall could use the same alignment as the existing wall for about the first 15 feet and then turn towards the lake and the proposed alignment. There are additional measures which could be taken to protect the tree's health and the soil from compaction. First, construction mats laid over the area between the wall and the property line Planning Commission 3892 Lone Cedar Lane — Planning Case 2015-20 August 18, 2015 Page 8 of 12 would reduce the compaction within the primary root zone. If equipment access will be along the north property line, mats should be used within the whole corridor to reduce compaction. Second, if the grade changes could be minimized to the greatest extent possible or eliminated while still maintaining proper drainage it would greatly reduce the amount of root damage within the primary root zone. Third, it would be preferable to cover the area with wood chips and not install sod, landscape fabric or rock in the area when fmishing the site. This would help to facilitate root re -growth in the area. Lastly, providing good care of the tree during the construction process would be prudent such as regular watering of the root area if rainfall is insufficient. Image 7: White Oak Tree Location ..PR, eP1000�0,"�5V / _PPAp eob '50 __GRASS ' PLARTI + TG �BObt" ELLING RbA White Oak Tree Location -79.4V) F N1 \ \ I ' GAG DW WB v •`p ` m� p ^'• iP , j �- — � t� � �O�J \ 1N+�,��-1•y-1 Bim. lit� y kq' - �� _�• ro y �op' N iii i� ir, ��''�i +\�'•t. �V BB R,-- _-t -----, --- -_ t - Proposed Retaining Walls m _yBa__..___-- Ultimately, the responsibility and liability of insuring that the oak tree is not irreparably damaged during construction is up to the subject property owner and the contractor. If a variance is granted, the following conditions should be included in the approval. Measures will be taken to insure the greatest protection possible of the root area of trees during construction. Planning Commission 3892 Lone Cedar Lane — Planning Case 2015-20 August 18, 2015 Page 9of12 Shoreland Management Shoreland rules preclude the placement of any structure within the setback from the ordinary high water elevation (OHW) of any lake. There are exceptions to this requirement: stairways for access to the lake on steep slopes and the placement of one (1) water -oriented structure. The history of the shoreland regulations are best explained in the opening paragraph of the Statement of Need and Reasonableness for MN Rules Chapter 6120: "The Commissioner of Natural Resources is required by statute (Minn. Stat., Sect. 105.485) to promulgate standards for the subdivision, use, and development of shorelands in both unincorporated areas of counties and within cities. Standards for counties were adopted in 1970 and, because the statute was amended to include cities in 1973, standards for cities were adopted in 1976." These rules are important for a variety of reasons. By preventing the proliferation of structures fully encompassing and being placed immediately adjacent to the water resource, these rules protect and preserve the aesthetic of the viewscape from the public resource, be it a lake or river. This also protects property values. In addition, there are ecological and environmental reasons for the shoreland rules. The protection of vegetation provides habitat and protects water quality. There four primary ways in which the preservation of vegetation is important, particularly on steep slopes and bluffs: 1. It directly removes water from the soil layers that could result in sloughing; 2. The root system holds the soil in place; 3. Vegetation reduces the force of raindrops which could dislodge soil particles and lead to erosion; and 4. Vegetation slows runoff and filters out suspended sediments that would otherwise be introduced into the water resource. Under existing conditions, the middle tier between the two walls, is two to three-inch clear rock over fabric. This condition does not provide the benefits that would be provided by vegetation mentioned earlier. If this area was to be landscaped with deep-rooted, native vegetation it would better provide the benefits discussed earlier including screening a twelve -foot (12') tall wall. The applicant has indicated a willingness to plant such vegetation. There is an obvious need to improve the existing condition from both a safety and an ecological perspective. This could be accomplished by replacing the walls in their current location with their current dimensions and establishing vegetation where appropriate. However, if a variance is granted, the following conditions should be included in the approval. 1. The middle tier shall be planted with native, deep-rooted vegetation that will provide the water quality and ecological benefits and act to screen the wall as viewed from the lake within 14 days of completion of construction. As this wall will be up to twelve (12) feet in height at least some woody vegetation/ornamental trees will be required and total areal cover at maturity shall be no less than 85%. Planning Commission 3892 Lone Cedar Lane — Planning Case 2015-20 August 18, 2015 Page 10 of 12 2. Surety funds shall be required equal to 110% the cost of landscaping the middle tier prior to any earth -disturbing activities. 3. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect the oak located north of the upper wall. Drainage and Elevation The applicant has proposed to direct drainage off the home towards the center of the property, between the retaining walls, and into the lake (see Image 8). As a part of their drainage plan, the applicant has indicated a willingness to plant vegetation between the two retaining walls to support slope stabilization and water infiltration. Image 8: Drainage Plan The highest elevation on the property (985 feet) is at the southwest corner of the lot. Elevation continues to fall as you travel north and east within the property. The elevation is at 970 feet near the rear of the house and drops about a foot at the existing retaining wall. Traveling east, the elevation then drops to about 955 feet at the retaining wall nearest the lake (20 to 30 feet from the upper retaining wall) and falls to 944.5 feet at the ordinary high water level. There is approximately 33 feet between the most eastern retaining wall and the ordinary high water level. �-pRO�;M.6T y2V ._CNAbS ARPI EXISTING OWFJIINGN 06•',. 8'. :\$ �^,E 885, t .11 fi�00t_ �g •� Wtl 4 IM, � � Gym t1 ��'b• J,! ��>. .. P '• � t , � sc�' y • g 60 L0. t t nv !4' It •i �i�i •�'i{'?":@�'� t\ 33�.p p' g-cm,'•.�••CI.,.� �N, ...p�� f X962'_. _aBS • ` •• ,°e3 __-ssl--- _.166.66;. .- '� Y 6-- _ -' -- N\NP� The highest elevation on the property (985 feet) is at the southwest corner of the lot. Elevation continues to fall as you travel north and east within the property. The elevation is at 970 feet near the rear of the house and drops about a foot at the existing retaining wall. Traveling east, the elevation then drops to about 955 feet at the retaining wall nearest the lake (20 to 30 feet from the upper retaining wall) and falls to 944.5 feet at the ordinary high water level. There is approximately 33 feet between the most eastern retaining wall and the ordinary high water level. Planning Commission 3892 Lone Cedar Lane — Planning Case 2015-20 August 18, 2015 Page 11 of 12 Variances Granted within 500 Feet of the Property Upon review, staff found five variance requests, including the subject property, that were made within 500 feet of the subject property (see attachment 8). One of the five variance requests was for a shoreland setback, which was denied. The other variance requests were from the bluff setback, front yard setback, and for access off of a private street, all of which were approved. However, as discussed previously, there are numerous retaining walls that have been constructed within the shoreland setback in this area. The construction of many of these retaining walls predates the shoreland ordinance and City's zoning permit requirement for retaining walls under four feet in height. SUMMARY The property owner is requesting to demolish existing retaining walls that encroach into the 75 - foot shoreline setback and 30 -foot bluff setback. The applicant intends to replace the existing walls with new retaining walls. One of these retaining walls will not require a variance due to it being in the same location and being the same height as the existing wall. Another retaining wall will require a variance because it will be an increase in the nonconformity. This proposed retaining wall will be twelve feet tall, eight feet taller than the existing retaining wall, and will be located up to thirteen feet closer to the ordinary high water level. Additionally, the retaining wall will be moved back further from the bluff on the south side of the property, but will be considered an expansion because it will be taller than the existing retaining wall. The existing retaining wall has significantly deteriorated since its original construction and needs to be replaced for safety purposes. Also, locating the proposed retaining walls within the shoreland setback will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as several neighbors, including the northern and southern adjacent neighbors, have retaining walls that encroach into the shoreland setback. There is a significant white oak tree located on the adjacent neighbor's property. Compaction of soils in the area, cutting and other disturbances could prove to be detrimental to the health of the tree. If a variance is approved, staff recommends that measures be taken to ensure the greatest protection possible of the root area of this tree during construction. The middle area between the retaining walls is currently two to three-inch clear rock over fabric. This type of material is not conducive allowing water to percolate into soils. The applicant has indicated a willingness to work with staff to increase vegetation in this area as a part of their approval of this variance. Furthermore, increased vegetation of this area will also serve as a visual buffer of the 12 -foot high retaining wall from the public waters. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the variance request to replace and expand retaining walls that encroach into the shoreland setback and bluff setback, as shown in plans provided by Hawkins Tree & Landscaping dated July 16, 2015, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission 3892 Lone Cedar Lane — Planning Case 2015-20 August 18, 2015 Page 12 of 12 1. The applicant shall work with staff to ensure reasonable effort shall be made to protect the oak, located north of the upper wall, and possible root area during construction. 2. The middle tier shall be planted with native, deep-rooted vegetation that will provide the water quality and ecological benefits and act to screen the wall as viewed from the lake within 14 days of completion of construction. As this wall will be up to twelve (12) feet in height, at least some woody vegetation/ornamental trees will be required and total aerial cover at maturity shall be no less than 85%. A landscape plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval. 3. The vegetation between tiered walls shall be low or no maintenance. 4. Surety funds shall be required equal to 110% the cost of landscaping the middle tier prior to any earth -disturbing activities. 5. The applicant shall apply for and receive a building permit prior to construction. 6. The following materials are prohibited for retaining wall construction: smooth face, poured -in-place concrete (stamped or patterned concrete is allowed), masonry, railroad ties or timber. 7. Walls taller than six feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Variance Request from Ryan and Tina Johnson, dated July 17, 2015. 4. Applicant's Rational for Variance Request. 5. Letters of Support from Neighbors. 6. Registered Land Survey. 7. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice. 8. Variances within 500 feet. 9. Letter from Ryan Johnson, dated August 10, 2015. gAplan\2015 planning case5\2015-20 3892 lone cedar lane variance\staff report 3892 Ione cedar lane.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Application of Ryan M. Johnson for a variance to construct retaining walls that encroach into the shoreland setback and bluff setback on property zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF) located at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane — Planning Case 2015-20. On August 18, 2015, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 2, Block 1, Trolls -Glen First Addition 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 subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential District. The purpose of the request is to expand the usable space in the subject property's rear yard. The current rear yard is constrained due to significant elevation changes on the property. Currently, the rear yard is only 24 feet long at its longest point and 15 feet at its shortest point. The applicant has proposed to increase the lengths of these areas to 34 feet at its longest point, and 26 feet at its shortest point. This is a reasonable request and keeps with the general intent of the Chapter. 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: The applicant's request to expand the rear yard through moving a retaining wall is reasonable. The applicant has no other alternatives for increasing the rear yard space due to extremely steep slopes in the subject property's rear yard and the proximate location of the shoreland. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. The stated intent is to increase the usable yard space in the rear yard. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The existing structure was built in 1983. It is assumed that the existing retaining walls were built during construction of the home. The property has steep slopes that limit the usable space of the rear yard. Additionally, the proximity of the home to the shoreland allows for very little space out the rear of the home. The applicant purchased the property after the construction of the existing retaining walls and thus did not create the nonconformity on the property. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Multiple properties in the area have retaining walls that encroach into the 75 -foot shoreland setback. Many of the lots in the neighborhood have retaining walls within the shoreland setback because the original homes were constructed in the 1970s, several years before the city required permits for retaining walls that were less than four feet tall. 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 #2015-20, dated August 18, 2015, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance request to replace and expand retaining walls that encroach into the shoreland setback and bluff setback, as shown in plans provided by Hawkins Tree & Landscaping dated July 16, 2015, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall work with staff to ensure reasonable effort shall be made to protect the oak, located north of the upper wall, and possible root area during construction. 2. The middle tier shall be planted with native, deep-rooted vegetation that will provide the water quality and ecological benefits and act to screen the wall as viewed from the lake within 14 days of completion of construction. As this wall will be up to twelve (12) feet in height, at least some woody vegetation/ornamental trees will be required and total aerial cover at maturity shall be no less than 85%. A landscape plan shall be prepared and submitted to the city for review and approval. 3. The vegetation between tiered walls shall be low or no maintenance. 4. Surety funds shall be required equal to 110% the cost of landscaping the middle tier prior to any earth -disturbing activities. 5. The applicant shall apply for and receive a building permit prior to construction. 6. The following materials are prohibited for retaining wall construction: smooth face, poured -in-place concrete (stamped or patterned concrete is allowed), masonry, railroad ties or timber. 7. Walls taller than six feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 18th day of August, 2015. CITY OF CHANHASSEN MM Chairman COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division —7700 Market Boulevard CITY OF CHWASSEN Mailing Address — P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1300 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A Submittal Date: PC Dale: $L i — CC Date: 4. LI 60 -Day Review Date: Section•. • .- apply) (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ......................... $600 ❑ Subdivision (SUB) ❑ Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers ..... $100 ❑ Create 3 lots or less ........................................$300 ❑ Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ❑ Create over 3 lots.......................$600 + $15 per lot ❑ Single -Family Residence ................................ $325 ( lots) ❑ Metes & Bounds (2 lots).................................. $300 ❑ All Others .........................................................$425 ❑ Consolidate Lots .................................... .......... $150 ❑ Interim Use Permit (IUP) ❑ Lot Line Adjustment.........................................$150 ❑ Final Plat ❑ In conjunction with Single -Family Residence.. ❑ All Others $325 ..........................................................$700 (Includes $450 escrow for attorney costs)* ......................................................... $425 *Additional escrow may be required for other applications ❑ Rezoning (REZ) through the development contract. ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) .................. $750 ❑ Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC)........ $300 ❑ Minor Amendment to existing PUD ................. $100 (Additional recording fees may apply) ❑ All Others......................................................... $500 Variance (VAR) .................................................... $200 ❑ Sign Plan Review ................................................... $150 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) ❑ Site Plan Review (SPR) ❑ Single -Family Residence ............................... $150 ❑ Administrative ..................................................$100 ❑ All Others ....................................................... $275 ❑ Commercial/Industrial Districts*......................$500 ❑ Zoning Appeal Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area: ...................................................... $100 ( thousand square feet) *Include number of existin employees: ❑ Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)................. $500 *Include number of new employees: ❑ Residential Districts ......................................... $500 NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, Plus $5 per dwelling unit (_ units) the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. otification Sign (City to install and remove)...................................................................................................................... $200 Property Owners' List within 500' (City to generate after pre -application meeting) .........................................$3 per address '19( Sdaddresses) NYU Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply) ............................................ .......... $50 per document [:1Conditional Use Permit El Interim Use Permit ❑ Site Plan Agreement ❑ Vacation 0 Variance El Wetland Alteration Permit EI Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) ❑ Easements (_ easements) c.6 TOTAL FEE: Section 2: Required Information Description of Proposal: V aY lkaylCe. 4-o Q -(6W e-XPDXVsbin ofce� 1i Wt�h, land �1 �e9 rtin� �tG*�ool-. sly 2fgle f al r�csr.eorY++�w�� / . t, Property Address or Location: 30 I� rori9- CQaC� Zyle- CIA�I�q . /►)A% S$s) Parcel #: �7S- W0076 Legal Description:. Total Acreage: • 32 Wetlands Present? Present Zonina: Select One 9 5 F Present Land Use Designation: Select One Existing Use of Property: 5 1 3c, 44 JZ' Check box is separate narrative is attached. EI Yes 7" No _ Requested Zoning: Select One �Z, f)Requested Land Use Designation: Select One SCANNED Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant Information APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property 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. If 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: Address: Phone: City/State/Zip: Cell: Email: Fax: Signature: Date: PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, 1, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions 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. 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. 1 � � Name: �40,n 6Aa IIA -1 SC) n5a-n C�ntact: RLtGn Sohn$ Address:_ 305?. tone— Q � �n-.0CA43kg/Ma�3Phone: 612,749.97o/, City/State/Zip: Cell: 6 12 . 799 . 926'( Email: Signature: Com Fax: r A Date: _711 ( -2 7,01 S 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: Address: City/State/Zip: Email: Contact: Phone: Cell: Fax: Section 4: Notification Information Who should receive copies sof staff reports? Property Owner Via:Ld Email Mailed Paper Copy El Applicant Via: '❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy ❑ Engineer Via: [:]Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy ❑ Other* Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy *Other Contact Information: Name: Address: _ City/State/Zip: Email: INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital copy to the city for processing (required). SAVE FORM PRINT FORM SUBMIT FORM SCANNED 7/17/2015 Variance Request for 3892 Lone Cedar Lane, Chaska, MN 55318 The current timber retaining walls at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane, Chaska, MN 55318 need to be replaced as they are materially deteriorated and pose a safety risk to the property owners family and their guests. The proposed plan will replace the timber retaining walls with granite block retaining walls. Based on a meeting at the property location with the City Manager and Water Resources Coordinator to review the unique property attributes, a variance is being requested to move the upper retaining wall approximately 10 feet to the east of its current location which will increase the height of the upper retaining wall to 12 feet due to the slope of the land. The length of the upper retaining wall (running north to south) will not extend beyond its current length. The lower timber retaining wall will remain in its current location and will be replaced with granite block. Through extensive conversations with the City of Chanhassen Water Resources Coordinator, the following has been incorporated into the proposed plan: 1. Plantings such as fescues, nannyberries, dwarf -bush honeysuckle, big bluestem, little bluestem, prairie cordgrass, dogwoods, black eyed susans, prairie coneflower, cardinal flower, sunflower, blazingstar, ]illy, bee balm, sun sedge or Karl Foerster reed grass will be used on the majority of the land between the proposed upper retaining and the lower retaining wall to maintain an area that is natural in appearance, provides screening from the lake, offers erosion prevention and sediment control and provides surface water benefits. 2. The four gutter drainage lines on the lake side of the property currently funneling water to the north and south sides of the property will be placed underground and tie into the drainage line that will run under the center of the retaining walls to address erosion issues in its current state. Finally, please see the attached letters from several neighboring lake property owners showing support for plans we have proposed to the City of Chanhassen. Sincerely, Ryan and Tina Johnson SCANNED 3892 Lone Cedar Lane, Chaska, MN 55318 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. The current retaining walls are a legal non conforming structures that we are replacing. We are relocating the upper retaining wall to gain increased functionality and due to the unique attributes of the lot. 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. Slope is the largest practical difficulty for usability. The variance request not only addresses the slope issues but also helps with water drainage and erosion on the property. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. The variance is not based on economic considerations alone. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The retaining walls are preexisting structures from when the house was built and was not created by the landowner. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. 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. Not applicable to this project. July 15, 2015 Dear City of Chanhassen Representative, This letter is to express my support for the retaining wall project that Ryan and Tina Johnson located at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane, Chaska, MN 55318 have proposed. We have reviewed the proposed plans and have no objections to the work they are looking to complete. Sincerely, Gregg and Gay Jandro 3896 Lone Cedar Lane Chaska, MN 55318 July 15, 2015 Dear City of Chanhassen Representative, This letter is to express my support for the retaining wall project that Ryan and Tina Johnson located at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane, Chaska, MN 55318 have proposed. We have reviewed the proposed plans and have no objections to the work they are looking to complete. ,:rely, Terry and Pam Johnson 3898 Lone Cedar Lane Chaska, MN 55318 SCANNED July 15, 2015 Dear City of Chanhassen Representative, This letter is to express my support for the retaining wall project that Ryan and Tina Johnson located at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane, Chaska, MN 55318 have proposed. We have reviewed the proposed plans and have no objections to the work they are looking to complete. Sincerely, Scott and Laurie Murph 3880 Lone Cedar Lane Chaska, MN 55318 SCANNED July 15, 2015 Dear City of Chanhassen Representative, This letter is to express my support for the retaining wall project that Ryan and Tina Johnson located at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane, Chaska, MN 55318 have proposed. We have reviewed the proposed plans and have no objections to the work they are looking to complete. Sincerely, Charles Webber 3850 Lone Cedar Lane Chaska, MN 55318 July 15, 2015 Dear City of Chanhassen Representative, This letter is to express my support for the retaining wall project that Ryan and Tina Johnson located at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane, Chaska, MN 55318 have proposed. We have reviewed the proposed plans and have no objections to the work they are looking to complete. Sincerely, I -"'J Todd M 3860 Lc rafna and ie Cedar Lane MN 55318 SCANNED July 15, 2015 Dear City of Chanhassen Representative, This letter is to express my support for the retaining wall project that Ryan and Tina Johnson located at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane, Chaska, MN 55318 have proposed. We have reviewed the proposed plans and have no objections to the work they are looking to complete. Sincerely, William Humphries 3890 Lone Cedar Lane Chaska, MN 55318 July 15, 2015 Dear City of Chanhassen Representative, This letter is to express my support for the retaining wall project that Ryan and Tina Johnson located at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane, Chaska, MN 55318 have proposed. We have reviewed the proposed plans and have no objections to the work they are looking to complete. Sincerely, / Gary and Terry Johnson 3894 Lone Cedar Lane Chaska, MN 55318 SCANNED § / § \ \ \ \ \ \} �� r� \\ § / § CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on August 6, 2015, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for 3892 Lone Cedar Lane Variance Request –Planning Case 2015-20 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me this L -t day of A 2015. �AM 1 �..,inLL�1a Notary 'e— #.K1MT.=PMEUW1SSEN Notary ycomml 2 .m- � �O (D 0w ... .. w _EE O O L-. d .� mt Ew-O°EE c O m j N w > Y N O f., r r C c2•a yo Eco' 'NUZ m E O VJ OL N U .a L_ U 0 m> c 0 d 0 cu 0)O U C C r O d 2.=—. _£ mo$ �" mE0 E tiro ° E Y V 01 m .3 N =0 O d �O C L i m u)> d a rc N m F g .y @ .y v E a& >. ca .� p d O 7 N L U c 0 'd O. d a L n Ew d 0 w ,E C C W O mndE E c w E E W_ Q E N O L 0 0) W@ 3 O .2 - E a L m > N .L. U N N C 0 O` C E O T d ��o, ¢�- cO�E�a-Oww L m w.0 m� v 0 E d O E d O 'd-' U O w_ d •O EN c `3 E@ EU m Hw -O d OCOL.. d' c O.L.. fA a= d E d p C U 7 w c' m W E m m E w °Y (6 O C' w O -O O a0 E w C 3 d d m c d� Ld -va` m`m3E v5 �Gc�wo 3m`o Em 'o 01d a ONS 0)— CL U 7 w O ...EY_7 d p O E r O t 3 3 w'SQ vEO�tUmmw co- Qct n`O 2 OC tis. c d OCL= O)d wed yL, NUCEOp>F j w CO vaE a3nUaE mo h`ounEc O Y 0 p o N 0 --Op 0 Q p) C d c wL. C L c c d'3r- m E� a) yN N d v) O o a) N w -O w E a m '0 n t- t - N m r-- E -p E 03Od pOp-Oc (D U _ E250�c�au'Gm 83 Or O 03 �H cu -a)— Com O aOSN nt 0— w C d U• d+_ Ud vd0 om�ciaa c-�3oa'o c `o ` 0) Il m L O.L.. d d'O 'O w d O p)7 U 0) w 3.0 d' ynac�c>. _.o 03 '-- Lf) pN-0 a) F C CIL c m °� w d d yO C O d 00-00 U OT.�E m E COC ;nmN E3E gac o'w�+oy w=T' NmE E RU rN^>��GL.N0 d'S"�O-p' o `� ° d o aLEE'V UO -O :!•0C X'0 a@o moNE Et,P"-ge a 0f d d b C C d L0 a` O = d 0) .3 d a O � d 0 d o Z d w o UQm CO - L U C p c0 N t w N❑ > c w (0 w 3 d w 0 U n to O N C O ted•, O " i m n w c E_Ea^-'=U,. c y'�. C) U N w' m w e J 0.. c m O N N O) d U IE d C (0 C w d—_ L w d w w �L,,, O T c— L w 3+' d `p 0 Q c c a = �, d a n _ -c E°_a a9 �5c 7> U O C L 0)H -0 .0 J d > O d _ w U d O _ E -O n d ad.- a E E y o O) m C O C d' O - y d r 0 0' � O)'0).S2 — 0) U w d L 7 0) d `'k O w E > c O E v cam _` -.-E .... @ o r i 7 0 '° O U Y m N N `p- C— O- N O O O` O )= a m.` 2 E 21 Y O C) 0 ONof U d p E d L O O-0 M (6 nt 0) t d03 O c 0 m c E- a<- o" TSU 0 C -2a m O -C wO dEUCl r E CO0Vd-0�0 ro n -.T. EwC O ww° yaav aa'nwSE "•'<< ca d (0 d p- Od O O J d L O N O.0 O O d •_ C O) c 3 V N N d NC d d N - nE nw ww .v wE"'w aU5'd wa wciPc'w'w'Ec -0 y m=7a) a) C NNU aU�U fn H U CL N—NDCi d:OC n� j EE d d E co O) Q O d a 0 B L na O T d E O N n 0 q 001 E > aEada� 8svrn'�cO-,`x F• U d' w �' M.J... QH O 0) CL NM�7' r- y O c0 d N 60. w a) 0) E U !E3 riv — N O d EvmvucrU�m_`c�.Eam gEn -5 `oymN O w N oc aEE3c C aY d C L'<�Eoaayq.c 0' iL a•a'.CL d °) fG O C v`a �Oc=Uct a�'cc nw a �- c j0 c AC N d C C 0IELQs Ed`vwrE=�=wa O`s m� O w c0 t' O 2 O d UO oto W Wa §'``8m nwt5v d a+ O V — d-vCOdn d N E �.°Es dt o5 -o O0 1O) a O R o O R d E 3Y man sn=�ro�vm��„ O _j a CL O CJ L O W p ¢aE sgwmaom Enema u �,3$=v�wr'n f. �i0 D ¢ iia Ci0 zo-E E.v- �. .m- � �O d 0� T w o ca w v yE0 O OL �� d ca vL wN9m owE°E c 7 0 (6 N > y w d w O~ r w C m�,n E° V. 0r m OU LL � U U C C w > C N V a0r d 0) NUm �E'N�a cE ua�a -C- E N 0)O O c L E C O O O -E m w._ 80 �c U C O C 3 O -� 0 p- L O -E > N L O m0 o.ET ~`.E im c�E'a 0a O T 0) n d C w_ 3 U a _ Q. O ._ EQ Doo Lx 9E u maa t N -00 W 9 3Q�CC EcT NU dUm wt m w.0 d 0 U d a w 0 E w U' O O O d O w... E d ¢E.a cot-van°ovmx E' Em�ca�mEUaS d= ~odCa OCOL.. d pd�l)E _d•O d wN0 Cy Ec. ov„�cv wyUm� E 10 0 c c w E o� ° dU�E? E 3 d m O L d affiv�W L d aa` .E -S o dw E-2 `O c6 N d O m 0) w O. c n° C O U d G E' 'L-' -C p E •O 3 3 w'S EUmE d cc .Q wyyg E -o -” a' nc `= n 2 O C 0 -° w a.. O) d d C C N C L O° m~ N N O w CO -0a g 8 c O a a r O .L. p w O Q UC) N c aL+ "•' .L.+ c 3 O N y d w t 0) w -0 N w E a m '0 t:,: c t- t - N m. `•D r-- E -p E 03Od pOp-Oc o .. p a ,. cpNaL0 U _ E250�c�au'Gm 83 Oc c•`rO Ld Oa—dY Cd V - C d•,r°--� mum ~`-o ovo lO v `„0) C LLmLL�5 O N d -0 -0 dN w p) 7 03 w O d 3 d c ° CL. _ ._ - 10 =-_§E-' a) c m °� v 0 0)(V w d d m c NL m E° o cv va@ cm -21-2. &8;o oma N E ° mLL !n `-0 (� o `� ° d o anE'o °r °T� aEiv c U c X awn y;°�s>8� m v 01 d dCi C d C m 0 c O L p a p U n 9 Q O O O d O d d c N. N vi 0do 3 --mc otwooi3v d w`o n OJ -L V p N t m w O c' >i 0) N•tl! w O CO U= � c = a y w�°�W mgwa-- E `- c U c (6 (0 @ w c J D .. cL-. _O 0 01 ?+ w N w c d __ w d.w. wL. O T C L O O O=G v'- �wnc `4 ^'o N'am v" w v U 'C p C L O F O d U= d o c0 C 0 d p d w �—` O 3 �' d E p- d m `a a __ t °' .W E„> m m� -• c Ea 0) v c i c d d= ,r O D- O O) U N w d L O (0 N d@ O w E c O E v d m E E `m E o q 'o r- 7 m 0 O m U Y m O) .w.. d N C c d U a'C-adL� OQ LO M> .r O N dy_ 5 °$Ea ux `v dog n0 aE- °m`E `m @ Q.L. OwwC U d p E w 0 w w 0) 3 ca O C�O(i trd C nL N L O dU'ca 07 p v3E m<5 01 M mp >.zEQ n v a @amww Tom—y(O CL'F'Of0c O -C d 0)EU cowVd�^O O.3 E0� `7)ai uE-u Ev.�ai=w .O .m.O dX—OdJ �0(0_L�dEdd=ir•V p(ON �d�VC dd-7 =cog ao coom c w_= d- d' 0, E C (Vma= N u ° O U f7 H 0 CL L w,OU w' d o 2szd(ON a) -0 Epoc 00 .2 nd d:o 010 -OE aEada� 8svrn'�cO-,`x 1=�UKw Iii aF 0)0)n�c�i Y OEvcV)m wdWLEw60.dcC U !E3 riv — m d mE aEL-2.0s. „m�E+Bgy -•-Esntsg E- w N �E `OnE cS�m'ca?.my m$ o§ cv`a CO m=m°�omc8y c$°'n 0ns sm'�a F c 16 w c TC O•d (0 d w C C c' 0)E Ua m' moa oa wR �'�vE mEg p1=U mt ��w' � vwi�aEr d V 6 C 00 d N E �.°Es nO�na °-E'.�OS Ka cE EO �” O0 R L 0 L w 7 0 LLI O E ,moommbbvp 0 E d cgo�in min'>�lq n¢Emm J 4. ¢ O. d iY(i Z dE2'N U ALLAN R & CHRISTINE A AHO AUGUST B & AMY J SIEFKER CHARLES W MCGONIGAL 3890 FOREST RIDGE CIR 3895 LONE CEDAR CIR 7065 DEL REY AVE CHASKA, MN 55318-9657 CHASKA, MN 55318-9653 LAS VEGAS, NV 89117-1607 CHARLY R W EBBER 3850 LONE CEDAR CIR CHASKA, MN 55318-9652 DAVID PETERJOHN 3921 HAWTHORNE CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7504 GARY D JOHNSON 3894 LONE CEDAR LN CHASKA, MN 55318-9609 JOSEPH A EPPING 7508 77TH ST W CHASKA, MN 55318-9600 LORI A BARTMAN 3886 FOREST RDG CHASKA, MN 55318-9657 ROSS SPANIER 222 HENNEPIN AVE S APT 202 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401-2474 SCOTT ALLEN BROIN 3840 LONE CEDAR CIR CHASKA, MN 55318-9652 TERRANCE M & PAMELA JOHNSON 3898 LONE CEDAR LN CHASKA, MN 55318-9609 CRAIG & VICKY ANDERSON 7507 77TH ST W CHASKA, MN 55318-9600 DONALD R ROPER JR 7509 77TH ST W CHASKA, MN 55318-9600 GREGG R & GAY MARIE JANDRO 3896 LONE CEDAR LN CHASKA, MN 55318-9609 KIRK S & RENEE C BORAAS 7502 77TH ST W CHASKA, MN 55318-9611 MARY ANN TESTER 3897 LONE CEDAR LN CHASKA, MN 55318-9609 RYAN J & PATRICIA M MOSKALIK 7504 77TH ST W CHASKA, MN 55318-9611 SCOTT P & LAURIE A GAUER 3820 LONE CEDAR CIR CHASKA, MN 55318-9652 THOMAS G HUDY 3882 FOREST RIDGE CIR CHASKA, MN 55318-9657 DAVID B & DIANE V ZAMJAHN 7506 77TH ST W CHASKA, MN 55318-7611 FREDERICK ALLAN DATNE JR 7501 77TH ST W CHASKA, MN 55318-9611 JAMES R & SHERYL A BJORK 3900 LONE CEDAR CIR CHASKA, MN 55318-9654 LOC HOANG 3881 LONE CEDAR LN CHASKA, MN 55318-9609 ROBERT E FROLUND 3888 FOREST RIDGE CIR CHASKA, MN 55318-9657 RYAN M JOHNSON 3892 LONE CEDAR LN CHASKA, MN 55318-9609 SCOTT T MURPHY 3880 LONE CEDAR LN CHASKA, MN 55318-9609 THOMAS L & CARMEN HUESMAN 3861 LONE CEDAR LN CHASKA, MN 55318-9609 TODD C & REN A MONING TROLLS -GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSN WILLIAM D & DEBRA J HUMPHRIES 3860 LONE CEDAR CIR 3895 LONE CEDAR LN 3890 LONE CEDAR CIR CHASKA, MN 55318-9652 CHASKA, MN 55318-9609 CHASKA, MN 55318-9652 WILLIAM J PLANT 3884 FOREST RIDGE CIR CHASKA, MN 55318-9657 Variances within 500 Feet of 3892 Lone Cedar Lane Variance Number Address Description A 13 -foot bluff setback variance from the CAS 14-20 3880 Lone Cedar Lane toe of the bluff to construct a water -oriented structure (approved) CAS 07-07 3820 Lone Cedar Lane A Subdivision Variance for access off a private street. (approved) A variance request to encroach on the 75 - foot shoreland setback (denied) and a VAR 02-13 3840 Lone Cedar Lane 10 -foot bluff setback variance to construct one (1) retaining wall. (approved) A variance request to encroach 11.23 feet into the front yard setback and a 7,500 VAR 82-11 3892 Lone Cedar Lane square foot lot area variance to construct a home within 1,000 feet of the shoreland (approved) An 18.5 -foot front yard setback VAR 78-10 3895 Lone Cedar Lane variance for the construction of a single- family home (no record of decision) gAplan\2015 planning cases\2015-20 3892 lone cedar lane varlanceWarlances within 500 feet.doc August 10, 2015 City of Chanhassen Planning Commission 7700 Market Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Variance Application - 3892 Lone Cedar Lane Dear City of Chanhassen Planning Commission Representative, I am writing in regards to the variance application submitted on July 17, 2015 for replacement of the timber retaining walls at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane, Chaska, MN 55318. Unfortunately, I am not able to personally attend the planning commission meeting on August 181h, 2015 as I will be on a family vacation that had been planned earlier in the year. We have spent a considerable amount of time formulating the plans that are before you for review and approval. These plans have gone through numerous revisions based on feedback we received from the city throughout the process coupled with an onsite meeting we hosted at the property with Todd Gerhardt, Terry Jeffery, Drew Ingvalson and Councilwoman Elise Ryan so they could get a firsthand look at the unique attributes of the property and this project. Hawkins Tree and Landscape Service will be the contractor for this project and I have asked Mike Hawkins to attend the planning commission meeting to answer any questions you may have. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration and I look forward to getting the variance application approved so we can begin replacement of the deteriorated retaining walls on the property. Sincerely, Ryan M. Johnson