PC Minutes 01-19-21Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021
8
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REPLACE/REBUILD RETAINING
WALLS, ADD WALKOUT TERRACE, ADD STAIRWAY TO LAKE, AND
RECONFIGURE LAKESIDE DECK/PATIO LOCATED AT 6609 HORSESHOE CURVE
Young-Walters: This is Planning….
von Oven: Actually Commissioner Weick, sorry before you jump in there, I just need to let
everyone know that I need to recuse myself from this one. It’s just a few houses away from me
and I know these fine, upstanding citizen.
Weick: Fair enough. Thank you for letting us know. So for the record, we have six
Commissioners which is still a quorum.
Young-Walters: So this is Planning Case 2021-07. The applicant is…Again, I’ll just reiterate
that if passed by a ¾ majority vote of denied by a ¾ majority vote, the decision is final. If not, it
will advance to the City Council on February 8. In addition, any resident aggrieved of the
decision has four business days to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission at which
point it would go to the Council as well. That being said, this is a variance request to place an at-
grade deck and retaining walls within the bluff setback and bluff impact zone. So the location of
the property is 6609 Horseshow Curve. This property is zoned Residential Single-Family. It is a
riparian lot and there is a bluff present. This zoning district requires a minimum 20,000 square
foot lot area. Has 30-foot front and rear setbacks, 10-foot side yard setbacks, a 30-foot bluff
setback, a 20-foot bluff impact zone setback, a 75-foot shoreland setback, and a 25 percent lot
cover limit. The property is also allowed one water-oriented accessory structure (WOAS) within
10 feet, I’m sorry, that 75-foot shoreland setback although it needs to be 10 feet from the
Ordinary High Water (OHW) level and is limited to 250 square feet in size. So this house has
quite a few existing nonconformities. The lot is 27,878 square feet with around 23 percent lot
cover. The house has a nonconforming 5-foot bluff setback. The porch actually encroaches over
into the bluff. The southern retaining wall has a nonconforming encroachment into the bluff as
well. This red line here is the top of the bluff and the west retaining wall is a 0-foot bluff setback,
essentially running right along the top of the bluff. The WOAS has a nonconforming 3-foot bluff
setback, 5-foot side yard setback, 7-foot shoreland setback, and a nonconforming 304-square
foot size and it also located over a city sanitary sewer easement. One thing I will mention, is this
property is a little unique as nonconformings go. In that, when the house was built in 1999, there
was not a bluff present on the property. The construction of this retaining wall here, flattened out
the grade and pushed the grade change down enough that it actually flipped the property over the
edge of the bluff ordinance and created the bluff that then created all of the nonconformities that
are the result of the, that are not resulting in a variance being needed. So, while we did consult
with the city attorney and a bluff is a bluff whether it was preexisting or created, it is something
that staff kept in mind as we evaluated this variance request. So, the applicant is proposing to
install an at-grade deck and drainage system within the bluff impact zone so that’s the first 20
feet from the bluff. They are proposing to place he south retaining wall with a living wall system
located within the bluff, and the west retaining wall with a concrete wall within the bluff impact
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021
9
zone. They are proposing to reconfigure the existing nonconforming WOAS. Because they are
reconfiguring it in a way that reduces its size and the existing of the nonconforming setbacks, it
does not actually require a variance but we are including it in request just to formalize the
nonconforming dimensions. And then they are also proposing to install stairs down to the lake.
This is permitted by Code and does not need a variance. It’s just mentioned here for the sake of
completeness. So the justification is, in 2018, they conducted an extensive remodel on the
property and they actually removed several pretty significant encroachments from the bluff. An
impervious patio, an 8-foot bump out, and an above-grade deck that was located across the top of
the bluff. The result of removing those elements has left the area behind the house as weed and
dirt and the feel a wood deck is a reasonable amenity to having to give some cleaner access to
that area. The retaining walls are failing. They noted that during a rain event last year, property
damage occurred as boulders came loose and rolled down the property as well as some erosion
associated with that failure. They believe that the living walls is an environmentally sensitive
way to stabilize the slope. As a note, they could replace the existing retaining walls in their
existing configuration placement without a variance and what they’re proposing appears to be
less environmentally impactful than what they could do without a variance. Again, the WOAS is
being redesigned to work with the stairway and is resulting in a smaller structure and removal of
impervious surface near the lake. And again, this could have been replaced with the existing size
and composition without a variance. As staff looked this over, one thing we wanted to mention is
just, this applicant worked extensively with staff. They’ve met with us about a half dozen times
over the last half year and have been very receptive to our feedback and concerns so I do just
want to mention that. They are utilizing a pretty robust drainage system, living wall technology,
pervious decking and fescues to try to manage stormwater and minimize any impacts to the bluff
and the lake. I did mention the unique situation in how this bluff came to be. With that, staff does
recommend approval. Looking at the balance of the project, it leave the property in a better
situation than what they could do if they just replaced stuff without requesting a variance. I’d be
happy to take any questions at this time.
Weick: Thanks, MacKenzie. I will open up with a couple questions to get things started as I find
my notes. Does the, does the, does the new deck add anything to the hardcover?
Young-Walters: Nope. So because decks are not considered to be lot cover and they’re doing a
wood deck with gaps and then if you look at their plans, they’re actually running I believe
aggregate and draintile base to manage the stormwater as well which is, to be honest, more
engineering than they would need to do to meet the pervious definition for decking. So they went
above and beyond in that respect.
Weick: Cool. Thanks for the clarification. And then, looking at the shape of the deck that they’re
adding, I’m assuming that the city didn’t have any, you know, the corners right up to the edge of
the bluff line. I’m assuming you didn’t have any issues with that.
Young-Walters: Ya, you know, what we looked at a lot was the depth of the deck. It’s a 12-foot
deep deck. The placement and configuration make design sense in terms of providing access
from the patio door to the connected step system. Especially when we look at the fact that it’s not
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021
10
lot cover that they’re replacing that failing retaining wall, that they have the drainage system,
that they pulled out 350 square feet of impervious surface. Again, on the balance, we didn’t feel
this was a threat to the bluff.
Weick: OK. I appreciate that. Those were my two questions for MacKenzie. Any other, any
questions from Commission members? And by the way, I can see you all now, this time. Just for
the, I see you Commissioner von Oven. Well hearing and seeing no imminent questions here, I
will go ahead and invite the applicant to make a presentation or respond to any of the questions
they’ve heard already this evening. Welcome.
Elise Bruner: Thank you. Hi, this is Elise Bruner. I’m here with my husband, Brian, our
daughter, Seagland (sp???), and thank you for taking the time to review our variance request.
We’ve been working with Travis Van Liere and his landscape architects to try to present an
environmentally-friendly as well as aesthetically pleasing design for our property to provide
more access for our family and to try to just utilize the full enjoyment of the property that, that
we live on. I think that MacKenzie’s done a great job in terms of summarizing the main points of
concern, and this has been kind of an on-going dialogue and we appreciate all the excess
and….activity that we’ve received from the Planning division in terms of making this property as
livable and enjoyable as possible. It is a unique property in that it’s located on a slope and so
there are two basic areas where we can convene and be outside, either down by the lake or right
outside the front of our house off of the slider downstairs. And so, we’re just trying to make sure
that we have the opportunity to create those spaces for our family. I’m willing to answer any
other questions. Just by way of background, I grew up at 6611 Horseshoe Curve and then my
parents built the original house in 1999 and the in 2016, my husband and I purchased the
property from them and remodeled it. So I actually grew up in this neighborhood so it’s pretty
exciting to be able to see this through to its completion. So we thank you for your consideration.
Weick: Thanks, that’s fantastic to hear about the history behind that, and also a pretty cool
project and thank you for including all of the pictures. It’s really helpful especially, this time of
year, even if we were able to get out and look at property, which this would be a difficult one to
look at. Um,
Elise Bruner: Well, you’d have to, you’d have to bring your sled.
Weick: That’s right. It’d be difficult to get around. So, thank you for the thoroughness of the
report, that was really, it was helpful. It was nice to see how this will all fit together and it looks
like a good project for you. Any questions for our applicant from Commission members?
McGonagill: Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. McGonagill.
Weick: Yes.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021
11
McGonagill: Could you? I’m fascinated with the living wall, I think that’s pretty cool. I’ve done
a lot of geotechnical work in a previous life and so I’m curious how you came with this and how
this will work on the slope and, you know, I’m just, more curiosity than…..just interested in it.
Elise Bruner: Thank you. You know, I don’t like to consider myself an expert in anything but
when I started looking at options and I consulted with Travis and Danielle, our landscape
architects, about this option of kind of getting rid of the tradition boulder, and my husband
wanted concrete and that wasn’t going to happen and so I was like looking for something that
had a low impact but that kind of, just kind of blended into the environment and didn’t, I don’t
know, stick out as much and reviewed some of the really unique engineering where by, you
basically put in kind of a webbing that goes into the property and then you kind of, you do the
plantings and basically it all kind of gels together with the fescue and so we’re hoping that that
kind of just creates a more natural looking environment and, I guess Travis and Danielle could
speak to that engineering component if, I think they’re on the phone as well.
McGonagill: I’m just curious about…on the slope, the degree of slope that this things going on.
I’m trying to imaging the slope it’s on. Maybe MacKenzie can answer it but where it’s supposed
to go, what kind of slope is on that.
Weick: If the applicant’s architect is on, I would defer to them for a design discussion on it.
Travis Van Liere: Ya, I’m on. Travis Van Liere. Can you guys here me OK?
Others: Yes.
Travis Van Liere: So to answer your question, it’s a product that we’ve used previously and it
comes from kind of a company that we work with that’s out of Colorado. They use if for kind of
mountain homes or hillside homes. The product that we are referencing, it’s called Slopeteam
(sp??), actually, and it’s a geosynthetic that kind of gets laid over the surface and so it allows you
to do engineered slopes up to, almost up to a 60% slope. We’re going to do that here but you can
do a 1:1 slope pretty easily which is a 45 degree angle and that’s kind of what we’re proposing to
do here in lieu of the retaining wall system, which was already kind of, it was battered but the
wall was installed 20 plus years ago when the original house was built and some of the boulders
that were installed weren’t properly sized accordingly so as you know construction happened
over the remodel process and everything else and just time, they’ve just slowly degraded and
kind of washed out and fallen down the hillside. So this is a product that we’ve used steep slopes.
We’ve used it on various, different conditions, but ya, it’s a nice product. It’s fairly new and not
too many people use it for retainage per se, but for managing kind of steep slopes and this is kind
of the perfect application with what we’re using it for. Our main purpose we to, as Elise said,
minimize the impact from the lake so that you didn’t see this large retaining wall system kind of
up again the house and make it a more natural aesthetic.
McGonagill: Are you going to have to do much regrading, a grade plan, in order to install this?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021
12
Travis Van Liere: Yep, so there was a grading plan was included in our packet and you’ll notice
there’s kind of a hatched area that indicates the extents and it kind of looks like a trapezoid. So,
where the old retaining was, you’ll see kind of a 1:1 slope and it goes around primarily around
the corner where the old retaining wall would be on the southeast corner of that new deck that
we’re proposing.
McGonagill: So, ya, you will have some re… but that’s part of the application that you’re
working with staff on.
Travis Van Liere: Yep, yep.
McGonagill: OK, well thank you very much. It’s helpful. I’ve used this stuff in applications in
mountains so I’m familiar with something similar and it, once it, I’ve never done it in cold
climates like this but once it gets in, it will hold. So,
Travis Van Liere: Yep, yep it’s really nice.
McGonagill: That’s all I have Mr. Chairman.
Weick: Great. Thank you. Any other questions? Well I thank the applicant and architect for
sharing information about your project. It’s very helpful for us to get your perspective and
answers as well. With that, I will open the public hearing portion of this item. I believe we
received an email.
Young-Walters: We did not an email on this one.
Weick: We did not.
Young-Walters: I had one call from a neighbor just kind of wanted to know what was going.
Didn’t express any concern with the project.
Weick: OK. I was mistaken, I apologize. The number is on the screen, 952-227-1630. There is
no one in Chamber for in-person public comment and give it a moment if anyone is dialing.
Nothing coming in? I’m going to go ahead and close the public hearing portion of this item and
open for Planning Commission member comments and/or a motion. I think when I first read this
one, I thought, oh my goodness, there’s so much, there’s so much going on here, but when you
really peel back the onion a little bit, everything makes sense, to me anyway, on the property and
certain doesn’t seem to, it’s used to help the property across the board as opposed to anything
that would limit, or be an imposition on the property.
Noyes: Chairman, it’s Commission Noyes. I would propose a motion.
Weick: Wonderful.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021
13
Noyes: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 19-foot bluff impact
zone and 29-foot bluff setback variance for the construction of a deck, a bluff impact zone and
bluff setback variance for the construction of retaining walls within the bluff, and a 25-foot bluff,
5-foot side yard, and 3-foot shoreland setback variance for a water-oriented accessory structure
(WOAS), subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and
Decision.
Weick: Thank you. We have a valid motion from Commissioner Noyes. Do we have a second?
McGonagill: I’ll second it. Commissioner McGonagill.
Weick: A second from Commissioner McGonagill. Before we vote, any final comments on the
project? Hearing none, we will commence with a roll call vote. Commissioner Randall?
Randall: Aye.
Weick: In favor. Commissioner Reeder?
Reeder: Aye.
Weick: Thank you. Commissioner McGonagill?
McGonagill: Aye.
Weick: Thank you. Commissioner Skistad?
Skistad: Aye.
Weick: Thank you. In favor. Commissioner Noyes?
Noyes: Aye.
Weick: In favor, and I also vote in favor. The item passes 6 in favor, 0 against which is also over
the ¾ requirement so the item passes unanimously. Thank you to MacKenzie. Wonderful report.
Thank you, I’m sure, for the very long hours from the applicant trying to put this together. It’s
much appreciated and it looks like a beautiful project and certainly good luck in implementing it
and, enjoy, when the summer comes around, for sure.
Elise Bruner: Thank you, guys, all very much.
Other: Thank you.
Noyes moved, McGonagill seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and
Adjustment approves a Variance to replace/rebuild retaining walls, add walkout terrace,
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021
14
add stairway to lake, and reconfigure lakeside deck/patio located at 6609 Horseshoe Curve.
The motion passes unanimously with a vote of 6-0 with Commissioner von Oven recusing
himself.
Weick: With that, that is the final item on tonight’s agenda. Would someone please note our
minutes from our last meeting which was dated January 5, 2021.
Skistad: So noted.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Skistad so noted the Verbatim Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated January 5, 2021.
Weick: Oh, thank you, Commissioner Skistad.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Weick: With that, I will turn it over to Kate a City Council update.
Aanenson: So on January 11, 2021,
McGonagill: Can’t hear, Kate. Can’t hear, Kate.
Aanenson: Yep, I just realized that. On the January 11th City Council meeting, they reviewed the
Deer Haven subdivision which you saw. That one had some variances for the private street and
also the variance for the width of the public portion of that street. So there was good discussion
of that at the City Council and that was approved. That was the only action we had. At the next
Council meeting, next Monday night, we do, we’ll be following up on the apartment project, the
wetland, and then we have the Golf Zone on Consent. The other two were variances that there
was no appeal on.
Young-Walters: I believe Golf Zone got pulled off Consent, right?
Aanenson: Ya but it’s on the agenda.
Young-Walters: Oh, ya, sorry.
Aanenson: So that’s it. You do have meeting in two weeks. We have a variance and
MacKenzie’s got that one and then, we’re anticipating having our annual report done. So as of
right now, we do not have applications that came for the second meeting in February so right
now, pencil that as a potential free night. I’ll keep you informed on that and it something comes
up but right now we don’t anticipate anything on for that meeting. That’s all I had, Chair.
Weick: All right. I’ll certainly miss everybody the 3rd Tuesday in February. Wonderful. Any
questions for Kate?