PC Staff Report 9-4-18PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, September 4, 2018
Subject 7644 South Shore Drive: Consider a Variance to Install Boulder Wall and Patio in Bluff Setback
Area
Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.2.
Prepared By MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner File No: PC 201816
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance for the construction of a boulder wall
and flagstone stepper path within the bluff setback and impact zone, and denies the variance for the construction of
a flagstone patio within the bluff setback and impact zone, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the
attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant is in the landscaping phase of an extensive remodel of a nonconforming singlefamily home and is
requesting a variance to install a small boulder wall, flagstone stepper path, and flagstone patio within the bluff setback
and impact zone. The rear of the house is located approximately 20 feet from the top of a bluff, which means that the
preexisting deck and patio are within both the 30foot bluff setback and 20foot bluff impact zone. A variance is
required to install new structures, defined as anything except stairs and landings, within these areas.
APPLICANT
Tyler Wortz with Magnolia Landscape & Design Co., on behalf of Matt and Amanda Arens.
SITE INFORMATION
PRESENT ZONING: PUDR
LAND USE:Residential Low Density
ACREAGE: 1 acre
DENSITY: NA
APPLICATION REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, General Provisions
Section 12, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, September 4, 2018Subject7644 South Shore Drive: Consider a Variance to Install Boulder Wall and Patio in Bluff SetbackAreaSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.2.Prepared By MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner File No: PC 201816PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance for the construction of a boulder walland flagstone stepper path within the bluff setback and impact zone, and denies the variance for the construction ofa flagstone patio within the bluff setback and impact zone, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts theattached Findings of Fact and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is in the landscaping phase of an extensive remodel of a nonconforming singlefamily home and isrequesting a variance to install a small boulder wall, flagstone stepper path, and flagstone patio within the bluff setbackand impact zone. The rear of the house is located approximately 20 feet from the top of a bluff, which means that thepreexisting deck and patio are within both the 30foot bluff setback and 20foot bluff impact zone. A variance isrequired to install new structures, defined as anything except stairs and landings, within these areas.APPLICANTTyler Wortz with Magnolia Landscape & Design Co., on behalf of Matt and Amanda Arens.SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING: PUDRLAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE: 1 acre DENSITY: NA APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 1, General Provisions
Section 12, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4, Nonconforming Uses
Chapter 20, Article Vii. Shoreland Management District
Chapter 20, Article XII. “RSF” Singlefamily residential district
Section 20615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
Chapter 20, Article XXVIII. – Bluff Protection
BACKGROUND
On November 28, 1989, the City approved a building permit to construct a singlefamily home at 7644 South Shore
Drive.
On July 2, 1990, the City approved a building permit to construct a deck at 7644 South Shore Drive.
On October 14, 1991, the City passed Ordinance Number 152 which created the City’s bluff protection ordinance.
On December 8, 1992, the City approved a permit for a threeseason porch addition.
On October 22, 2013, the City approved a building and grading permit to repair/replace the deck footings.
On July 1, 2014, the City approved a zoning permit to install a residential incline elevator and associated landings.
On September 14, 2017, the City approved a demolition permit to demolish the existing house down to its foundations.
On September 29, 2017, the City approved a building permit to construct and rebuild a singlefamily home on the
previous house’s foundation. This rebuild included a garage expansion and addition outside of the bluff setback.
In May of 2018, the applicant began working with city staff to identify what improvements could be made within, in and
around the property’s bluff, and what steps would be required for the various proposed improvements.
RECOMMENDATION
The applicant’s proposed landscaping attempts to minimize the impact to the bluff and limit the amount of water runoff
generated by the property’s impervious surface. Staff believes that the boulder wall and flagstone stepper walkway
represent thoughtful attempts to address practical difficulties created by the home’s nonconforming location while
meeting the intent of the bluff protection ordinance, and recommends that the Planning Commission approve these
portions of the variance.
Due to the fact that there are potential alternative locations for the proposed patio, similar accessory uses are already
present on the property, and patios are not needed to have reasonable use of a property, staff does not feel the patio
portion of the variance request meets the standards needed for the City to grant a variance.
(A full breakdown and analysis of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report.)
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, September 4, 2018Subject7644 South Shore Drive: Consider a Variance to Install Boulder Wall and Patio in Bluff SetbackAreaSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.2.Prepared By MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner File No: PC 201816PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance for the construction of a boulder walland flagstone stepper path within the bluff setback and impact zone, and denies the variance for the construction ofa flagstone patio within the bluff setback and impact zone, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts theattached Findings of Fact and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is in the landscaping phase of an extensive remodel of a nonconforming singlefamily home and isrequesting a variance to install a small boulder wall, flagstone stepper path, and flagstone patio within the bluff setbackand impact zone. The rear of the house is located approximately 20 feet from the top of a bluff, which means that thepreexisting deck and patio are within both the 30foot bluff setback and 20foot bluff impact zone. A variance isrequired to install new structures, defined as anything except stairs and landings, within these areas.APPLICANTTyler Wortz with Magnolia Landscape & Design Co., on behalf of Matt and Amanda Arens.SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING: PUDRLAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE: 1 acre DENSITY: NA APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 1, General ProvisionsSection 12, Rules of Construction and DefinitionsChapter 20, Article II, Division 3, VariancesChapter 20, Article II, Division 4, Nonconforming UsesChapter 20, Article Vii. Shoreland Management DistrictChapter 20, Article XII. “RSF” Singlefamily residential districtSection 20615. Lot requirements and setbacks.Chapter 20, Article XXVIII. – Bluff ProtectionBACKGROUNDOn November 28, 1989, the City approved a building permit to construct a singlefamily home at 7644 South ShoreDrive.On July 2, 1990, the City approved a building permit to construct a deck at 7644 South Shore Drive.On October 14, 1991, the City passed Ordinance Number 152 which created the City’s bluff protection ordinance.On December 8, 1992, the City approved a permit for a threeseason porch addition.On October 22, 2013, the City approved a building and grading permit to repair/replace the deck footings.On July 1, 2014, the City approved a zoning permit to install a residential incline elevator and associated landings.On September 14, 2017, the City approved a demolition permit to demolish the existing house down to its foundations.On September 29, 2017, the City approved a building permit to construct and rebuild a singlefamily home on theprevious house’s foundation. This rebuild included a garage expansion and addition outside of the bluff setback.In May of 2018, the applicant began working with city staff to identify what improvements could be made within, in andaround the property’s bluff, and what steps would be required for the various proposed improvements.RECOMMENDATIONThe applicant’s proposed landscaping attempts to minimize the impact to the bluff and limit the amount of water runoffgenerated by the property’s impervious surface. Staff believes that the boulder wall and flagstone stepper walkwayrepresent thoughtful attempts to address practical difficulties created by the home’s nonconforming location whilemeeting the intent of the bluff protection ordinance, and recommends that the Planning Commission approve theseportions of the variance.Due to the fact that there are potential alternative locations for the proposed patio, similar accessory uses are alreadypresent on the property, and patios are not needed to have reasonable use of a property, staff does not feel the patioportion of the variance request meets the standards needed for the City to grant a variance.
(A full breakdown and analysis of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report.)
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
Findings of Fact and Decision Approval
Findings of Fact and Decision Denial
Development Review Application and Narrative
Landscape Plan B
Plan Sheet Stormwater Notes
Photos
7644 South Shore Survey
Public Hearing Notice Mailing List
Variance Document
Exhibit A: Landscape Plan A
Engineering Comments
Water Resources Comments
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: September 4, 2018
CC DATE: September 24, 2018
REVIEW DEADLINE: October 2, 2018
CASE #: 2018-16
BY: MW
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is in the landscaping phase of an extensive
remodel of a nonconforming single-family home and is requesting a variance to install a small
boulder wall, flagstone stepper path, and flagstone patio within the bluff setback and impact
zone. The rear of the house is located approximately 20 feet from the top of a bluff, this means
that the pre-existing deck and patio are within both the 30-foot bluff setback and 20-foot bluff
impact zone. A variance is required to install new structures, defined as anything except stairs
and landings, within these areas.
LOCATION: 7644 South Shore Drive
(PID 258010230)
APPLICANT: Tyler Wortz
Magnolia Landscape & Design Co.
9310 County Road 140
Cologne, MN 55322
OWNER: Matt and Amanda Arens
7644 South Shore Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: PUDR
2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
ACREAGE: 1 acre DENSITY: NA
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The city’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed
project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The city has a relatively high
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance for the construction of
a boulder wall and flagstone stepper path within the bluff setback and impact zone and denies the
variance for the construction of a flagstone patio within the bluff setback and impact zone, subject
to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.”
(Note: A motion for denial and appropriate findings of fact are also included at the end of the
report.)
Planning Commission
7644 South Shore Drive – Planning Case 2018-16
September 4, 2018
Page 2 of 10
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 property’s original house
was constructed approximately
20 feet from the top of the bluff
in 1989 and a deck extending to
within five feet of the bluff was
added in 1990. Both of these
structures predate the city’s 1991
bluff protection ordinance and
the expansion of the ordinance
city wide in 1994.
The current owners bought the
property in 2005 and the bluff
was covered with buckthorn and
other small leafy trees that
prevented other plants from
growing and anchoring the soils.
They removed the scrub trees
and planted low-growth fescue to
help stabilize the slope. They
installed riprap to help stabilize the lake’s shoreline and planted tall grasses along the shoreline
to create a vegetative buffer. Throughout the course of these projects they worked with city staff
to identify how best to protect the property’s bluff and shoreline.
In 2017, the applicant demolished the original house and constructed a new house on the
previous home’s foundation, while adding on to the front portion of the home that is located
outside of the bluff setback. The applicant is now requesting a variance to install landscaping
features including a flagstone stepper path, boulder wall, and flagstone patio within the
property’s bluff setback and impact zones. The proposed flagstone stepper path would add
approximately 300 square feet of flagstone steppers separated by mulch or vegetation to provide
a means of walking from the front to rear yard, as well as facilitating landscape maintenance.
The proposed boulder wall would be approximately 12 to 18 inches tall and run along the top of
the bluff to help slow and disperse surface water before it reaches the bluff, as well as provide a
border between the fescue supported bluff and newly installed landscaping. The proposed patio
would be constructed of fieldstone placed over the top of a free draining base, and would provide
a seating area near the front walkway in an area that the applicant states was previously covered
Planning Commission
7644 South Shore Drive – Planning Case 2018-16
September 4, 2018
Page 3 of 10
by asphalt. As part of their proposed landscape plan, the applicant is including numerous swales
designed to collect and disperse stormwater.
The applicant has stated that the proposed flagstone stepper walkway is necessary to provide safe
transit through their rear yard as it is generally sloped and the area becomes very slippery when it
is wet. The applicant had initially proposed a rear patio, but revised their proposal after city staff
expressed concern about adding additional impervious surface near the bluff. The applicant
states that they have added a great deal of vegetation around the proposed front yard patio and all
other hard surfaces in order to ensure that they are not generating stormwater run off. The
applicant believes that the proposed landscaping plan will improve the property’s pre-existing
stormwater issues and will help protect both the bluff and the lake. Finally, they note that many
of the other properties in the area were built before the city’s bluff protection ordinance was
passed and are similarly located near the top of bluffs and steep slopes. The applicant feels that
these properties have been allowed to find reasonable ways to landscape their property, and the
applicant wishes to do the same.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, General Provisions
Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4, Nonconforming Uses
Chapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District
Chapter 20, Article XII. “RSF” Single-family residential district
Section 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
Chapter 20, Article XXVIII. – Bluff Protection
BACKGROUND
On November 28, 1989, the city approved a building permit to construct a single-family home at
7644 South Shore Drive.
On July 2, 1990, the city approved a building permit to construct a deck at 7644 South Shore
Drive.
On October 14, 1991, the passed Ordinance Number 152 which created the city’s bluff
protection ordinance.
On December 8, 1992, the city approved a permit for a three-season porch addition.
On August 22, 1994, the city expanded the bluff protection ordinance to cover the entire city.
Planning Commission
7644 South Shore Drive – Planning Case 2018-16
September 4, 2018
Page 4 of 10
On October 22, 2013, the city approved a building and grading permit to repair/replace the deck
footings.
On July 1, 2014, the city approved a zoning permit to install a residential incline elevator and
associated landings.
On September 14, 2017, the city approved a demolition permit to demolish the existing house
down to its foundations.
On September 29, 2017, the city approved a building permit to construct and rebuild a single-
family home on the previous house’s foundation. This rebuild included a garage expansion and
addition outside of the bluff setback.
In May of 2018, the applicant began working with city staff to identify what improvements could
be made within and around the property’s bluff, and what steps would be required for the various
proposed improvements.
SITE CONDITIONS
The property is zoned Planned Unit Development Residential and is located within the city’s
Shoreland Management District. This zoning classification requires lots to be a minimum of
11,700 square feet, have front and rear yard setbacks of 30 feet, setbacks of 75 feet from the
lake’s ordinary high water level, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and limits parcels to a maximum
of 25 percent lot cover within the Shoreland Management District and 30 percent lot cover for
parcels located outside of it. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height. There is a
bluff located on the property. The city’s bluff protection ordinance establishes a 30-foot setback
from the top, toe and side of the bluff for all new structures, and establishes a bluff impact zone,
which restricts the alteration to land or vegetation within 20 feet of the top of the bluff.
The lot is 43,604 square feet, and the 2017 building permit approved 6,789 square feet (15.57
percent) of lot cover. The deck, associated patio, and three-season porch are non-conforming
structures setback approximately five feet from the top of the bluff at their closest points. The
house has a non-conforming setback of approximately 20 feet from the top of the bluff. The
property has several non-conforming retaining walls to the east of the house located within the
bluff and its setback. The property has a non-conforming 9.8 foot west side yard setback, and
complies with the district’s other setbacks.
Planning Commission
7644 South Shore Drive – Planning Case 2018-16
September 4, 2018
Page 5 of 10
NEIGHBORHOOD
South Lotus Lake 2nd Addition
The plat for this subdivision was recorded in April
of 1987, predating the city’s bluff protection
ordinance. The development’s riparian lots all tend
to be large lots with steep slopes; however, the
grades lessen to the east and the slopes on most of
the eastern parcels do not qualify as bluffs. In the
adjacent Hiscox Addition to the west the grades and
lot sizes are similar and the riparian parcels all
contain bluffs. Many of the homes and accessory
structures in both subdivisions were built before the
bluff protection ordinance was applied city wide in
1994, and as such are non-conforming uses.
Variances within 500 feet:
1997-01: 7500 Erie Avenue: 13.2’ Bluff Setback Variance (Approved) - Single-family home and
deck.
1999-20: 40 Hill Street: 27’ Front Yard Setback Variance (Approved) - Rebuild and expand
detached garage.
2000-02: 7501 Erie Avenue: 5’ Bluff Setback Variance (Approved) - Garage Addition.
ANALYSIS
Boulder Wall
The applicant is proposing constructing a boulder wall
that will run along the top of the bluff. The wall would
be approximately 115 feet long and would be between
1 and 1.5-feet tall, though portions along the northeast
near the porch may need to be higher. The applicant
will be installing filter fabric to prevent soils erosion
through the boulder wall. The stated goal of the
boulder wall is to help slow and disperse surface
runoff before it reaches the bluff, prevent landscape
materials from being washed onto the bluff, and to
provide a border between the landscaped portion of the yard and the bluff.
Planning Commission
7644 South Shore Drive – Planning Case 2018-16
September 4, 2018
Page 6 of 10
The city’s Water Resources Coordinator
evaluated the proposed retaining wall and feels
that its impact on the property’s surface water
management is essentially neutral. She has stated
the proposed landscaping when taken as a whole
goes above and beyond what would typically be
expected of a residential property owner and will
reduce the impact of the property’s impervious
surfaces upon the bluff; however, the majority of
the benefit is derived from the applicant’s use of
vegetation and swales. After consultation with the
Water Resources Coordinator, the applicant did
redesign their initial proposal to relocate water retention areas away from the boulder wall.
Section 20-1403 of the city’s bluff protection ordinance does prohibit the removal or alteration of
vegetation within the bluff impact zone, defined as an area 20 feet from the top of a bluff, and
Section 20-1404 states that no topographic alterations within the bluff impact zone may increase the
rate of drainage or create concentrated flow conditions. The area where the applicant is proposing to
install the boulder wall has already been disturbed by the pre-existing house and landscaping, as
well as the construction activities associated with the rebuild. The applicant’s proposed landscaping
will not increase the rate of drainage and should actually improve the existing conditions.
The area at the top of the bluff where the applicant is proposing constructing the boulder wall has
already been disturbed and the further disturbance involved in installing a boulder wall is not
expected to negatively impact the bluff. Staff believes that the proposed boulder wall is a reasonable
mechanism for preventing the migration of landscaping material down the bluff and that it does not
violate the intent of the bluff protection ordinance.
For these reasons, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the boulder wall
portion of the variance.
Flagstone Stepper Path
The applicant is proposing installing a flagstone
stepper path comprised of 18 to 30-inch diameter
flagstones spaced to allow for drainage between the
stones. The flagstones would be set onto existing
soils and no significant excavation or compaction
would occur. Mulch and/or landscape would be
placed around the stones to help stabilize soils and
minimize erosion. The applicant had initially
proposed expanding the pre-existing patio located
under the deck out to the top of the bluff; however,
Planning Commission
7644 South Shore Drive – Planning Case 2018-16
September 4, 2018
Page 7 of 10
they revised their proposal after staff expressed concern about the creation of additional impervious
surface within the bluff impact zone.
Section 20-1401 of city’s bluff protection ordinance does allow for the construction of stairways
and landings within the bluff setback and Section 20-1402 states that that stairways, paths and lifts
may be permitted in suitable sites so long as the construction will not redirect water flow direction
or increase drainage velocity. While Section 20-1402 is intended to govern stairways, lifts, and
landings allowing pedestrian movement from the top to bottom of a bluff, its guidelines are
applicable to the construction of pathways within the bluff setback and impact zone. The applicant’s
proposed walkways meet all of these guidelines in that they: 1) appear to be under the stipulated
four feet in width; 2) do not contain canopies; 3) have been designed to ensure control of soil
erosion; and, 4) are located in a visually inconspicuous portion of the lot.
As was noted in the previous section, the bluff protection ordinance does prohibit the removal or
alteration of vegetation and topographic alterations within the bluff impact zone. In this case, no
topographic alterations are proposed, and, due to the disturbed nature of the site, the provisions
governing the removal or alteration of vegetation are not applicable. Similar to the boulder wall,
staff believes that the proposed landscaping around the flagstone stepper walkway will actually
improve the site’s existing conditions.
Staff feels that applicant’s stated purpose of providing safe transit and access through a sloped yard
is a reasonable one. Staff believes that the proposed design meets the intent of the city’s bluff
protection ordinance and that it will not negatively impact the bluff.
For these reasons, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the flagstone
stepper walkway portion of the variance.
Flagstone Patio
The applicant is proposing placing a 180 square foot flagstone patio along the property’s front
walkway in order to create a front yard seating area. Approximately half of this patio’s area would
be located within the 30-foot bluff setback, encroaching about nine feet into the setback at its
maximum extent. The applicant is proposing placing the flagstone’s over six inches of a free
draining base material to facilitate infiltration and has noted that the top of the bluff outside of this
area is supported by established trees. The applicant has stated that given these circumstances the
patio’s impact on the bluff will be negligible. Finally, the applicant has indicated that the proposed
patio area used to be covered by impervious surface, prior to the driveway being reconfigured, and
that they were unaware that removing this surface would result in them losing the ability to
resurface the area.
Planning Commission
7644 South Shore Drive – Planning Case 2018-16
September 4, 2018
Page 8 of 10
In order to grant a variance, the city must find that
there are practical difficulties in complying with the
zoning ordinance. The city has historically taken
the position that the inability to install or expand a
patio is not a practical difficulty, especially in
situations where improvements such as decks
and/or other patios are already present, as is the
case for the applicant’s property. In this case, there
also appears to be alternative locations, depicted
left, available for a front yard patio that comply
with the city’s Zoning Ordinance. The applicant
also has existing front yard seating space provided
by their entry stoop and could even expand that
area without a variance. When existing
improvements provide a broadly similar function or
where alternative locations for a feature exist that
comply with the city’s Zoning Code, the requested variance provides for a preferred location rather
than a remedy to a practical difficulty.
In order to determine if the area had previously been
covered by asphalt, staff used a 2012 survey of the
property that depicts the driveway’s previous
configuration, the location of the retaining wall, and
the end of the bluff. Staff traced off the approximate
location of the 30-foot bluff setback, shown to the
left, and does not believe that the driveway
significantly encroached into the 30-foot bluff
setback. The driveway turnaround does not appear
to have extended as far to the northeast as the
proposed patio, and thus stayed clear of the bluff
setback.
Section 20-72 of the City Code, which governs
nonconforming structures, states that if a nonconformity is discontinued for more than a year the
nonconforming status is lost. This provision reflects the city’s intent that nonconforming uses and
structures be reduced or eliminated whenever possible. Even if there had been a historic
nonconforming use within the area in question, it would not be in line with intent of the city’s
nonconforming structure ordinance to grant a variance for the resumption of that use.
For the above reasons, staff recommends that the Planning Commission not grant the patio portion
of the applicant’s variance request.
Planning Commission
7644 South Shore Drive – Planning Case 2018-16
September 4, 2018
Page 9 of 10
Impact on Neighborhood
The boulder wall and flagstone stepper paths will both be primarily located in the rear of the home
and should not be highly visible from the lake or neighboring properties. The proposed front yard
patio is also setback a significant distance from South Shore Drive due to the property’s flag lot
configuration. None of the proposed improvements are atypical within a single-family
neighborhood. The applicant has gone to great lengths to make sure that their proposed landscaping
will not direct rain runoff onto neighboring lots or create erosive conditions.
As the applicant has noted, many of the area’s riparian properties also have steep slopes leading
down to the lake, and many of these properties have landscaping near or in these slopes. Both of the
riparian properties to the west have received bluff setback variances for the construction of homes
and accessory uses. No variances are on record for the properties to the east; however, one of these
homes was built before the bluff protection ordinance was passed and the slopes to the east are less
steep, potentially not meeting the city’s definition of a bluff. Staff does not feel that anything the
applicant is proposing would be atypical or out of character for similar lots within the neighborhood.
SUMMARY
The applicant’s proposed landscaping attempts to minimize the impact to the bluff and limit the
amount of water runoff generated by the property’s impervious surface. Staff believes that the
boulder wall and flagstone stepper walkway represent thoughtful attempts to address practical
difficulties created by the home’s nonconforming location while meeting the intent of the bluff
protection ordinance, and recommends that the Planning Commission approve these portions of
the variance. Due to the fact that there are potential alternative locations for the proposed patio,
the fact that similar accessory uses are already present on the property, and patios are not needed
to have reasonable use a property, staff does not feel the patio portion of the variance request
meets the standards needed for the city to grant a variance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the variance for the construction of a
boulder wall and flagstone stepper path within the bluff setback and impact zone and deny the
variance for the construction of a flagstone patio within the bluff setback and impact zone,
subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision:
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.
Planning Commission
7644 South Shore Drive – Planning Case 2018-16
September 4, 2018
Page 10 of 10
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.
Should the Planning Commission deny the variance request, it is recommended that the Planning
Commission adopt the following motion and attached Finding of Fact and Decision:
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the variance for the construction of
a boulder wall, flagstone walking path, and flagstone patio within the bluff setback and impact
zone, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. Finding of Fact and Decision Approval
2. Finding of Fact and Decision Denial
3. Development Review Application and Narrative
4. Landscape Plans B
5. Plan Sheet - Stormwater Notes
6. Photos
7. 7644 South Shore Survey
8. Public Hearing Notice Mailing List
9. Variance Document
10. Exhibit A: Landscape Plans A
11. Engineering Comments
12. Water Resources Comments
G:\PLAN\2018 Planning Cases\18-16 7644 S Shore Drive Variance\Staff Report-7644 South Shore Drive_PC.doc
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(APPROVAL)
IN RE:
The application of Tyler Wortz on behalf of Matt and Amanda Arens for the construction of a
boulder wall, flagstone stepper path, and flagstone patio within the bluff setback and impact zone
on a property zoned PUDR - Planning Case 2018-16.
On September 4, 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 Planned Unit Development-Residential (PUDR).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
3. The legal description of the property is:
Lot 9, Block 2, South Lotus Lake 2nd 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 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 location of the
house at 7644 South Shore Drive predates the bluff protection ordinance and its initial
construction and subsequent rebuild have already disturb most of the vegetation and soils
near the top of the bluff. The applicant has proposed a landscaping plan that works to
manage the stormwater generated by property’s impervious surface and to minimize the
existing and proposed features’ impact on the bluff. Neither the proposed boulder wall
nor flagstone stepper path are expected to have any negative impact on the bluff.
Additionally, the bluff protection ordinance makes provisions for the creation of paths,
stairs, and landings to allow people to safely transverse up and down bluffs. For these
2
reasons the proposed flagstone stepper path and boulder wall are in harmony with the
intent of this Chapter.
The proposed flagstone patio would create new impervious surface in an area within the
bluff setback that does not currently contain impervious surface. Additionally, the
proposed seating area would involve the installation of frost footings and other soil
disturbing activities. It would not be in harmony with the intent of the bluff protection
ordinance to permit the creation of new impervious surface within the bluff setback.
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: In order to have any use of their rear yard, some improvements are required
within the bluff impact and setback areas. The installation of a boulder wall to help
prevent the migration of landscaping material down the bluff and the creation of a
flagstone stepper pathway to allow the homeowner to safely transverse their yard are
reasonable uses for the property, and have been designed to have a minimal impact on the
bluff. The applicant must locate these features within the bluff setback and impact zone
because the home’s original location predates the city’s bluff ordinance.
The requested variance for a flagstone patio is not the result of a practical difficulty. The
property has several other potential locations for a front yard patio that comply with the
zoning ordinance, and other existing features, such as the front stoop, also provide a front
yard seating area. Finally, the property currently has a rear yard patio and deck. A front
yard patio is not required for the applicant 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 property was developed before the city enacted the bluff protection
ordinance, and the change in ordinance rendered the house non-conforming and
necessitates a variance for most improvements near the rear of the house.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The other larger lots within the neighborhood are also located on steep slopes,
and many other of these properties have landscaping near or in these slopes. Two riparian
properties to the west have received bluff setback variances for the construction of homes
and accessory sues. The boulder wall and flagstone stepper path are located in the rear of
3
the house and will not be highly visible. None of the proposed improvements are atypical
for a single-family neighborhood. The variance would 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.
Finding: This does not apply to this request.
5. The planning report #2018-16, dated September 4, 2018, prepared by MacKenzie Walters, is
incorporated herein.
DECISION
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance for the
construction of a boulder wall and flagstone stepper path within the bluff setback and impact
zone and denies the variance for the construction of a flagstone patio within the bluff setback and
impact zone, subject to the following conditions:
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
four 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 covered either with vegetation or,
in areas where vegetation will not grow, a doubled shredded hardwood mulch.
7. Soil infiltration improvements, either adding compost or air spading, shall be conducted
within the project’s grading limits.
4
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.”
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 4th day of September, 2018.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Chairman
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(DENIAL)
IN RE:
The application of Tyler Wortz on behalf of Matt and Amanda Arens for the construction of a
boulder wall, flagstone stepper path, and flagstone patio within the bluff setback and impact zone
on a property zoned PUDR - Planning Case 2018-16.
On September 4, 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 Planned Unit Development-Residential (PUDR).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
3. The legal description of the property is:
Lot 9, Block 2, South Lotus Lake 2nd 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 intent of the bluff protection ordinance is to prevent any vegetative
removal or soil disturbance near the top of the city’s bluffs. The applicant’s proposal
involves the creation of new structures and impervious surfaces within the bluff’s setback
and impact zone. The installation of the boulder wall, patio, and other landscaping
features will involve disturbing the bluff’s soils. Granting a variance to allow the
installation of these features would not be in line with intent of this 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 parcel currently has a house, three-car garage, rear patio, rear deck, and hill
hiker system providing access up and down the bluff. There are additional areas near the
lakeshore and in front of the property that could be developed without a variance. The
2
properties existing amenities and potentials for future additions provide reasonable use of
the property within the zoning code.
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 property was developed before the city enacted the bluff protection
ordinance, and the change in ordinance rendered the house non-conforming and
necessitates a variance for most improvements near the rear of the house.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The other larger lots within the neighborhood are also located on steep slopes,
and many other of these properties have landscaping near or in these slopes. Two riparian
properties to the west have received bluff setback variances for the construction of homes
and accessory sues. The boulder wall and flagstone stepper path are located in the rear of
the house and will not be highly visible. None of the proposed improvements are atypical
for a single-family neighborhood. The variance would 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.
Finding: This does not apply to this request.
5. The planning report #2018-16, dated September 4, 2018, prepared by MacKenzie Walters, is
incorporated herein.
DECISION
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the variance for the
construction of a boulder wall, flagstone walking path, and flagstone patio within the bluff
setback and impact zone.”
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 4th day of September, 2018.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Chairman
c >ort.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPM ENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division -7700 Market Boulevard
Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: (952) 227 -1300 / Fax: (952) 227 -1 1 10
Submittal Date:
crTYoIcrrAttrrAssrtt
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
cc Dare: 7 -2'.{ ' t R 6sDay Rsview Dar€:la-2-tB
Refer to the appropiate Application Checklist for required submiftal information that must accompany this application)
tr
tr
a
n
n
tr
n
n
n
tr
Comprehensive Plan Amendment ..... $600EMinorMUSAlineforfailingon-site sewers..... $100
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Singte-Family Residence ................................ $325!
Ail others......... ........$425
lnterim Use Permit (lUP)
E ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325Elttothers......... ........$425
Rezoning (REZ)
Planned Unit Development (PUD).................. $750nMinorAmendmenttoexistingPUD................. $100nRltothers......... ........$5oo
Sign Plan Review........ ... $150
Site Plan Review (SPR)
I Administrative.......... .................... $100ECommercial/lndustrial Districts* .. $500
Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area:(
thousand square feet)
lnclude number of existlno employees:
lnclude number of new emPloyees:
n Residential Districts. .................... $500
Plus $5 per dwelling unit (- units)
Subdivision (SUB)
n Create 3lots or less ............. .......$300
n Create over 3 lots ..................,....$600 + $15 per lot(
lots)
n Metes & Bounds (2lots)........ ......$300
n Consolidate 1ots....... ...................$150
n tot Line Adjustment............... ......$150
n FinatP1at.............. ....$700
lncludes $450 escrow for attomey costs)"
Additional escrow may be required for other applications
through the development contract.
Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC) ........ $300
Additional recording fees may apply)
Variance (VAR)......... ... $200
Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
n Single-Family Residence............................... $1 50
n Allothers......... ......$275
Zoning Appeal........ ...... $100
Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) .........,....... $500
Q[!: When multiple applications are processed concurrently,
the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application,
n
tr
3 per address
Description of Proposal:
Property Address or Location:
parcet#: 258010230
TotalAcreage:
Aul 0 3 2oB
Property Owners' List within 500' (city to generate after pre-application meeting) ............r:r.....(
rlS addresses)
E Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply)..........
n ConditionalUse Permit n lnterim Use Permit
n Vacation E] Variance
tritetes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) fl Easements (- easements)
TOTAL
7644 South Shore Drive
LegalDescriptien' SOUTH LOTUS LAKE 2nd ADDITION TWp
1.M Wetlands Present? E Yes Z tto
n Site Plan Agreement
n Wetland AlterationPermitEDeeds
Wt;
50 per documeni
Requested Zoning: Single-Family Residential District (RSFfIl
Existing Use of Property:Residential
f]Cnecx box if separate nanative is attached.
g,- 9-lg
Section 1:all that
Section 2: Reouired lnformation
APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, 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. 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 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.
Contact:
Address:
City/State/Zip:
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 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 mysetf informed of
the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further 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 conect.
Matt and Amanda Arens Contact:
Phone:
Matt Arens
Address:7644 South Shore Drive
City/State/Zip:Chanhassen, MN 55317 (es2) 367-660s
Name:Contact:
Phone:Address:
Phone:
Cell:
Fax:
e52) 367-660e
Cell:
Fax:
City/State/Zip:
Email:
This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all inforrnation 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.
wriften notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable)
Who should receive copies of staff reports?
Property Owner Via:
Applicant Via:
Engineer Via:
Other* Via:
Other Contact lnformatlon:
Name:
Ztrtrtr
E Email El nllaiteo Paper Copy
fl Email E ltlaitea Paper Copy
I Email I frlaiteA Paper Copy
f] Email D ruaiteo Paper Copy
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Email:
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete allnecessaryform flelds, 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.
Section 3:Owrrer and Information
Cell:
Section4: Notification
Written Justification of Request Compliance
Submitted by: Matt and Amanda Arens
7644 South Shore Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317
When we purchased our home in 2005, we took on a property that was an absolute mess. lt was
overgrown with buckthorn and thistle and the mostly small leafy trees were creating a canopy that
didn't allow anything to grow to hold the sloped areas. The area close to the lake was sloped and mostly
bare. When we would get hard rains, you could stand by and watch soil being carried right into the lake.
We were newly married and didn't have kids yet, so we had a lot of time on our hands and spent most
weekends working on the property. We removed the scrubby trees that were mostly small boxelder,
basswood and buckthorn. We planted hostas, plants and bag after bag of low-growth fescue. We had
riprap put in to stabilize the shoreline along with a small beach. We tried several times, before finally
hiring professionals, to plant tall grasses along the shoreline to create a buffer for the lake. We planted
tall grasses in a lower lying area and directed overflow water to that spot rather than over the surface
into the lake. We are grateful for the partnership we enjoyed with the City as we completed these
projects, and we received great advice and support from people like Terry Jeffrey, the former water
resources specialist, and have modeled many of our plans after his suggestions.
We knew when we purchased our home that it had many problems, but the longer we lived there we
came to more fully understand that the deficiencies were much worse than we thought. We thought we
could remodel our house within its existing structure, but it became clear we would be better off tearing
down most of the structure and starting over rather than remodeling within the bad bones of the house.
We broke ground on that major project last year, rebuilding the house on the existing foundation. As
most of these things go, it has taken longer than anticipated and we have had plenty of surprises
throughout the process. Now that the house construction is mostly done, we would like to finish
landscaping the area around the house, so it is stable, looks nice and doesn't detract from all of the
efforts we have taken to make the property and house look attractive.
Unfortunately, the house was originally built very close to the bluff line, which is the reason for our
variance request, We have come up with a landscape plan we feel has as little impact as possible on the
bluff line given the placement of where the original house was built. We recognize we are going
through this process because some of the items in our plan are not routinely allowed by the City code.
However, we believe these items fall within the boundaries of using our property in a reasonable
manner, and we respectfully ask that you consider the following points as you review our request:
1. Most of the area around the sides and back of our house is generally sloped. lf we were to
simply put grass there, it would be difficult to maintain/mow, but more importantly, this area
gets very slippery when damp or wet, creating a significant safety concern, particularly
considering we have parents who spend a lot of time with us who are in their late 60s/early 70s.
The only way to access our lakeshore is through these sloped areas. We want to ensure it is
landscaped in such a way that there is a safe path for anyone who may be accessing it.
2. ln terms of the sitting area in our front yard, it would be located in an area that was a
blacktopped circular driveway when we purchased the property. When we removed this portion
of the driveway several years ago, we were unaware that we would later be required to obtain a
a: t
t-
variance to put a hard surface back in that area. We are not looking to extend the current
driveway back to that area. We simply want to create a comfortable area to sit while we are
outside watching our kids play in the driveway and on the swing set. ln our landscape plan, we
have incorporated a great deal ofvegetation around all hard surfaces to ensure it adequately
captures water and we're managing runoff in a responsible way. ln this particular area, we
simply want to be able to utilize our yard and property in a way that's consistent with the
character of our house and locality.
3. As alluded to in the above bullet point, we are going to great efforts to ensure that our
landscape plan will meaningfully improve the rainwater issues that have plagued this property
likely since it was built. These runoff issues have caused problems for the lake and some of our
neighbors. We believe our plan will make great strides in improvingfixing these issues.
4. Many of the properties near our home have had similar bluff line challenges, as the homes were
built before the most recent bluff line regulations were put into place. ln some cases within our
neighborhood, more than 50% of the home is actually over the bluff line. Challenges conforming
to the most recent bluff line regulations are not unique to our property, and many of our
neighbors have been able to find reasonable ways to landscape their properties so they are able
to fully utilize and enjoy their homes, We are simply looking to do the same.
It is our hope that when you consider our project as a whole and our many attempts, both current and
past, to go above and beyond for what is good for the land and the lake, that you will grant us a variance
for the landscape items in question, so we may finish our project. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Matt and Amanda Arens
1
Variance Request for 7644 South Shore Drive
Items requiring a variance per Staff review, falling within bluff impact zone and structure setback.
A) Boulder Border / Wall along top of bluff line - North Side of House
Fieldstone boulders ranging in size from approximately 12" diameter to 27" diameter. lnstalled
as a border and small retaining wall between existing fescue supported bluff and new landscape
around house. The majority of thiswall would be approximately 12-18" exposed height (1
course of boulders) as determined by the contour of the top of the bluff. Some areas near the
porchcorner(NE) mayrequire 2 courses to stabilize the slope. Filter fabric will be placed behind
boulders to prevent soil erosion through boulders. The intent of this wall is to provide an added
means of slowing and dispersing any surface runoff onto the bluff. The landscape above the
boulders will be graded and planted to do the same. Added benefits will be definition between
the landscaping and the bluff, prevention of landscape materials (mulch/rock) migrating onto
bluff and a more comfortably maintained landscape.
B) Flagstone Stepper Path from Back Patio to Front Yard
lrregular shaped, full range natural Bluestone Flagstone to be used as stepping stones to create
a comfortable means of walking from front yard to back yard, as well as access for landscape
maintenance. Stepping stones will range in size from approx. 18" diameter to 30" diameter,
with varying irregular shapes. Stones to be set onto existing graded soils, with no significant
excavation or compaction needed. Stones to be spaces approximately 4" to 10" apart to allow
for drainage between and around stones. Mulch or landscape rock to be used around stones,
depending on the location within the plan. Some areas may incorporate groundcover plantings
between stones to stabilize soils and minimize erosion. The stepper path is an alternative to an
orlginal design concept that featured an expanded patio. City Staff recommended that no
additional impervious patio be installed in this area. The stepper path will allow for some of the
same function but with less impact on runoff.
Cl Flagstone Seating Area/Patio with Stone Seat Wall
Patio/Seating area near front walkway to improve use of front yard and driveway area. Seating
area to be constructed of full range, irregular shaped natural Bluestone Flagstone set on 6" of
free draining base material (3/8" clear limestone). Geotextile underlayment fabric to be
installed between native soils and base material. Stones to be leveled and cut to fit with 1" or
less joint tolerance, connected to front entrance walkway (also stone). Seat wall to be built on
12" diameter frost footings tied into a poured concrete slab. Blended natural wall stone stacked
and mortared to create a free-standing seat wall, approximately 20" tall. The top of the bluff
outside of this patio area is supported by long-established trees, so we feel the bluff impact of
this feature is very minimal, especially considering the historical cover of this space (past
driveway turnaround).
3''".t
.t.:_
B*
ffi
,,:
k
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
August g,20l8,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 boulder wall and patio in the bluff
setback area, Planning Case File No. 2018-16, 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,and by other appropriate records.
Kim T.
Subscribed and
trrirga- day of ,2018.
orn to before me
L . a, .-,t,1,
JEAN M. STECKLING
t lobry PLbllc'fullnnesotre
Date & Time:Tuesday September 4,2018 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing mav not
start until later in the evening, depending on the order ol lhe tSgllg.
Location:Citv Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Proposal:Consider a variance application to install a boulder wall and
patio in the bluff setback area.
Tyler Wortz
Property
Location:
76445. Shore Drive
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
What Happens
at the Meeting:
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project'
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the proiect.
Questions &
Comments:
lf you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the city's projects web Page at:
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2018'16. lf you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact MacKenzie
Walters by email at mwalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by
phone a|952-227-1132.1f you choose to submit written
comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in
advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the
Commission. The staff report for this item will be
available online on the project web site listed above the
Thursdav orior to the Planning Commission meeting'
Sgn up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas,
packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to
www.ci.chanhasse@. Subdivisions, planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviere, Conditional and lnterim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings,
Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission City
ordinancesrequirealtpropertywithin5OOfeetofthesubjectsitetobenotitiedoftheapplicationinwriting. Anyinterestedpartyis
invited to attend the meeting.
. Staffpreparesareportonthesubjectapplicationthatincludesaltpertinentinformationandarecommendation. Thesereportsare
available by request. At the Plan;ing Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation.
The item will be opened for the publi; to speak about the proposal as a part of the healng prccess. The Commission will close the
publichearinganddiscusstheiiemandmakearecommendationtotheCityCouncil. TheCityCouncilmayreveBe,affirmor.
modifywhollforparflythePlanningCommission'srecommendation. Rezonings,landuseandcodeamendmentstakeasimple
malority vote of the City Councit exiept rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial.
. MinnesotaStateStatuteslg.ggrequiresallapplicationstobeprocessedwithin60daysunlesstheapplicantwaivesthisstandard.
Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the
process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
. i neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to
meet-with the neighborhood regaiding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s).
. Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence
regarding the applicaiion will be included in the report to the City Council. lf you wish to have something to be included in the report,
oleasecontaclthePanninqStaffpersonnamedonthenolification.
Notice of Public Hearing
Ghanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not
start until later in the order of the
Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Consider a variance application to install a boulder wall and
io in the bluff setback area.
Wortz
7644 S. Shore Drive
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the proi
lf you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the city's projects web page at:
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2018-16. lf you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact MacKenzie
Walters by email at mwalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by
phone at952-227-1132.1f you choose to submit written
comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in
advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the
Commission. The staff report for this item will be available
online on the project web site listed above the Thursday
to the Plan Commission
Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas,
packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to
www.ci.chanhassen.
. Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and lnterim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings,
Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City
ordinancesrequireallpropertywithin5OOfeetofthesubjectsitetobenotifiedoftheapplicationinwriting. Anyinterestedpartyis
invited to attend the meeting.
. Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are
available by request. At the Planning Commission meeling, staff will give a verbal overuiew of the report and a recommendation.
The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the
public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify
wholly or partiy the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority
vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial.
. MinnesotaStateStatute5lg.ggrequiresallapplicationstobepro@ssedwithin60daysunlesstheapplicantwaivesthisstandard.
Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the
process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to
meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s).
. Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence
regardingtheapplicationwillbeincludedinthereporttotheCityCouncil. lfyouwishtohavesomethingtobeincludedinthereport,
What Happens
at the Meeting:
Questions &
Comments:
named on the notification.
,oolicant:
TAX_NAME
SCOTT G FROST
JO A FELLMAN
WILLIAM & JEANETTE LAPPEN
PATRICK FLANNERY
ROBERT ANDERSON
MARK D & JULIE ANNE PERKINS
EDWARD G MCGITTIVRAY II
KEVIN P &JILLC MCSHANE
CAROLIN JEAN SKAAR-PAGE
FRONTIER TRAIL ASSN
WILLIAM & IVY KIRKVOTD
SUSAN C HOFF
ROBERT FLYNN
MIKE EWASIUK
CATHERINE S HISCOX
DENNIS FISHER TRUST
SCOTT & JULIE MAEYAERT
SCOTT MAEYAERT
ANTHONY T DOPPLER
MARTHA E MCALLISTER
KATHRYN L MCINTIRE
CURTIS E & TANYA K HAMILTON
PAUL HYPKI
RICHARD J CORWINE
JOEL T SCOTT
ROBERT C BLAD
JEFFREY M COOKTE
CHRISTOPHER W & JULIE JOHNSON
NATHAN T & NANCYANN CASTENS
TRUST AGREEMENT OF MARK E GREENE
GREGORY W & COLLEEN E FLETCHER TRUSTS
WILLIAM & DOROTHY LEBRUN
LINDA WILKES
TAX_ADD_11
120 SOUTH SHORE CT
131 SOUTH SHORE CT
140 SOUTH SHORE CT
141 SOUTH SHORE CT
151 SOUTH SHORE CT
160 SOUTH SHORE CT
16], SOUTH SHORE CT
180 SOUTH SHORE CT
2OO SHORE CT S
201 FRONTIER CT
201 FRONTIER CT
221 FRONTIER CT
40 HILL ST
7425 FRONTIER TRL
75OO ERIE AVE
7501 ERIE AVE
7506 ERIE AVE
7506 ERIE AVE
7508 ERIE AVE
7510 ERIE AVE
7531 ERIE AVE
7561 ERIE AVE
7591 ERIE AVE
7600 ERIE AVE
7601 ERIE AVE
7602 ERIE AVE
7603 ERIE AVE
7504 ERIE AVE
7605 ERIE AVE
7614 SOUTH SHORE DR
7616 SOUTH SHORE DR
7628 SOUTH SHORE DR
7632 SOUTH SHORE DR
TAX-ADD-t2
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
TAX_ADD_13
MN 55317-
MN 55317-9318
MN 55317-9318
MN 55317-9318
MN 553r.7-9318
MN 55317-9318
MN 55317-9318
MN 55317-9318
MN 55317-9318
MN 55317-9728
MN 55317-9728
MN 55317-9728
MN 55317-9586
MN 55317-9724
MN 55317-7903
MN 55317-9441
MN 55317-7903
MN 55317-7903
MN 55317-7903
MN 55317-7903
MN 55317-7903
MN 55317-7903
MN 55317-7903
MN 55317-9715
MN 55317-97r.5
MN 55317-9715
MN 55317-9715
MN 55317-9715
MN 55317-9715
MN 55317-
MN 553r.7-9400
MN 55317-9400
MN 55317-9400
ROBERT D GOGGINS
AMANDA LYNN ARENS REV TRUST
JAMES J DUBOULAY
KEITH R & KIMBERLY K NORBIE
ROBERT M CREES
SCOTT WALKER
DAVID G & KAY V YOOST
JOEY R RIEDER
ALAN R & CAROLYN D DIAMOND TRUSTS
DONALD J LUCKER
HALP&PENETOPEJHOLT
JASON W WHITE TRUST
THOMAS W & PAMELA C DEVINE
7636 SOUTH SHORE DR
7544 SOUTH SHORE DR
7648 SOUTH SHORE DR
7652 SOUTH SHORE DR
7656 SOUTH SHORE DR
7660 SOUTH SHORE DR
7664 SOUTH SHORE DR
7668 SOUTH SHORE DR
7564 ERIE AVE
220 S 6TH ST SUITE 3OO
5110 WEST ST
7528 ERIE AVE
PO BOX 714
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
MINNEAPOLIS
EXCELSIOR
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317-9400
MN ss317-9400
MN 55317-9441
MN 55317-9441
MN 5s317-9441
MN 55317-9441
MN 5531.7-9441
MN 55317-9441
MN 55317
MN 55402
MN 55331
MN 55317
MN 55317-0714
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 2018-16
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby
grants the following variance:
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the construction of a
boulder wall and flagstone stepper path within the bluff setback and impact zone.
2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County,
Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 9, Block 2, South Lotus Lake 2nd Addition.
3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
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.
2
6. All exposed soil within the grading limits must either covered either with vegetation
or, in areas where vegetation will not grow, a doubled 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.
4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not
been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse.
Dated: September 4, 2018 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
(SEAL) Denny Laufenburger, Mayor
AND:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2018 by Denny Laufenburger, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen,
a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted
by its City Council.
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
MEMORANDUM
To: MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner
FROM: George Bender, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: August 24, 2018
Engineering is generally in agreement with allowing Items A & B of the variance request. There appears
to be alternative areas for the seating area that is not within the setback. A reconfiguration should be
considered for this feature to keep it out of the bluff setback.
Engineering has the following conditions:
1. Reconfigure the portion of the proposed patio overlooking the driveway that is within the 30’
bluff setback.
2. Install the flagstones a minimum of 6” apart to allow for infiltration.
3. Address the area under the raised room on the NE corner of the structure. Recommend
installing double-shredded mulch underneath it because grass or plantings are not expected to
survive well.
4. Update the survey. The survey does not show the 15” storm pipe that is on the east side of the
property. The drainage and utility easement over the pipe also does not appear to be shown on
the survey. Review the as-built information from 1986 and consider maintenance of the pipe
and access through the easement.
5. Update the survey. The conservation easement shown on the 1986 as-built drawing does not
appear on the survey. The as-built indicates it was to generally follow the 930 contour.
6. The proposed retaining wall on the east side of the property is within a drainage and utility
easement. It should not be constructed over the pipe or infringe on the easement in order to
facilitate pipe maintenance.
7. The existing retaining wall on the east side of the property is also with a drainage and utility
easement. An encroachment agreement should be obtained and recorded for the wall.
The proposed vegetated swales significantly exceed stormwater runoff requirements for the site. These
swales will help dissipate runoff from the roof by slowing it down and spreading it out, reducing the
potential for erosion. Erosion is a primary concern for a properties located on bluffs and lakefront. The
applicant has gone above and beyond to improve stormwater management on the site.
Water resources has no comment regarding landscaping within the bluff. Any potential impacts to water
quality and erosion are offset by the proposed vegetated swales and redirected runoff.
Vanessa