Laserfiche WebLink
AGENDA ITEM <br /> <br />Prepared By: LLO Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />1. Purpose. The applicant is requesting to reconstruct the retaining walls in the 75’ lakeyard with <br />expansion due to the change in building materials. <br /> <br />2. Background. The applicant is proposing to replace the concrete block retaining wall within the 75’ <br />lakeyard setback. The applicant has stated the current wall is failing. They propose a wall which follows <br />the footprint of the existing retaining wall, and will match the abutting neighbors to the north, which is a <br />large boulder type wall. These walls will tie in together. The property abuts Lake Minnetonka with a large <br />slope along the shoreline. The property is currently vacant. A variance is required because of the size of <br />the building materials is larger than the existing materials <br /> <br />The Council reviewed the application on the March 14, 2022 meeting and gave the applicant direction to <br />follow the same footprint as the existing retaining walls and to work to bring the project closer to an in- <br />kind replacement of the existing improvement. The applicant submitted an amended plan on April 5. While <br />the existing walls is constructed of concrete block, the new walls are proposed to be constructed from <br />boulders. By their nature, the boulders create a larger footprint then the existing concrete block creating a <br />new expansion in the 75’ lakeyard. Per the Engineering submitted, in order to construct the walls at the <br />appropriate height the boulders at the base of the wall would be a maximum of 42” in depth and taper off <br />up to 12” in depth at the top of the wall. <br /> <br />3. Additional Research: There were several comments during the council’s review that suggested only <br />in-kind replacement in the lake yard has been permitted in recent years. Retaining walls are often <br />considered differently from buildings. A cursory review of the last three years’ land use applications shows <br />the Council has been slightly more open to variances for retaining walls. Notable examples include 2710 <br />Pence (new boulder wall associated with new stairs); 2605 North Shore Drive (A new house with <br />reconstruction of existing retaining walls), 1905 Concordia (Subterranean walls were approved to be <br />installed after a slope failure), 3315 Crystal Bay Road (new retaining walls associated with a new house), <br />2927 Casco Point Rd (new retaining walls associated with new stairs) The Council has allowed these <br />improvements to stabilize sensitive slopes. <br /> <br />4. 15.99 Deadline. The applicant made a complete application on January 18, 2022. The original review <br />period have been extended to May 18, 2022. <br /> <br />5. Public Comment One written comment was received in support of the project. The same neighbor, <br />Melissa Santrach at 1700 Bohns Point Rd, attended the meeting and spoke in support of the project. <br /> <br />6. Staff Recommendation. Planning Staff recommends approval of the variance as revised. The <br />retaining wall follows the path of the existing wall, and the variance is necessary only due to the change <br />in size of the wall materials. Staff believes the replacement of a concrete block wall with a boulder wall <br />more completely meet the goals of the ordinance, which in part, intended to preserve a natural shoreline. <br /> <br />COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED <br />Provide a motion to direct staff to draft a resolution <br /> <br />Item No.: 14 Date: April 11, 2022 <br />Item Description: LA21-000076, Yardscapes, Inc. - Lincoln Danforth, 1720 Bohns Point <br />Road, Variances <br />Presenter: Laura Oakden <br />Planner <br />Agenda <br />Section: <br />Planning Department <br />Report