15-20 Findings of FactCITY 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.
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 #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 18'h day of August, 2015.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Chairman