Council approves reduced lake setback and taller retaining wall at 425 Lake Avenue with conditions

The Birchwood Village City Council approved variances on Tuesday to let a homeowner build a boulder retaining wall closer to White Bear Lake and higher than code ordinarily allows, after neighbors raised erosion and visual-impact concerns.

Carson Shipsky, the property owner and applicant, told the council the project is meant to stabilize an eroding hillside at 425 Lake Avenue and includes a new landing and planting areas. “The wall will be 3 to 5 ft off the property line,” Shipsky said during the public hearing, later confirming the front of the wall will be five feet from the neighboring lot. He described drain tile and rain gardens intended to capture roof runoff and reduce water flowing toward adjacent yards.

Neighbors said they support halting erosion but worried the wall’s height and proximity to the shoreline would change the lakefront character and could shift runoff onto adjacent properties. Kathy Mador, whose lot is immediately west of the site, asked whether the wall would “come out my east side” and asked that construction stay on the applicant’s property. Resident Rachel Drew, who spoke earlier in the meeting on a separate drainage matter, urged careful attention to permit documentation and billing practices for engineers and noted concern about future water on nearby lots.

Planning staff and the city attorney walked the council through the land-use code sections implicated by the plan, including structure location relative to the ordinary high-water level, retaining-wall height limits, land disturbance standards and buffer-strip requirements. Staff identified additional code sections that may require variances and advised the applicant to provide amended or supplemental materials if necessary.

The council voted first to approve a reduction in setback for portions of the wall, allowing a section as close as 10 feet from the ordinary high-water line where the design steps forward to accommodate existing stairs. Later it approved a variance for wall height, permitting up to about 7 feet above grade (the plan shows approximately 8 feet total with part below grade), subject to conditions. Those conditions, adopted from the Planning Commission recommendation and clarified on the record, require that the applicant: obtain all jurisdictional permits; secure applicable construction permits for the wall and stairway; have design calculations and plans approved by the city engineer, planner and building official; ensure stairway and landing reconstruction meets code; and ensure there is no increase in runoff to adjacent properties. The council also made lot merger of two parcel IDs a condition of the approval; staff explained the state guidance requires contiguous nonconforming lots under common ownership be combined to conform as much as possible.

Council members emphasized they wanted verified, engineered solutions for the rain gardens and drainage features. Councilor Ryan (last name not in record) said staff should confirm exactly which additional variances are still required before permits are issued; city attorney Allan advised any outstanding variances be identified and pursued through the standard application process.

The council’s action permits the applicant to move forward but leaves enforcement and technical review to staff and the city engineer. Next steps: the applicant must merge the affected parcels at the recorder’s office and submit final engineering plans and permit applications for staff and the city engineer’s signoff before construction may begin.