Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables steep-lakeside retaining-wall variance after DNR recommends denial
Summary
The Deephaven City Council continued consideration of a variance for a proposed retaining wall at 17925 Lakeview Ave after staff cited DNR opposition and members expressed concerns about soil, fill and visual impacts; the applicant agreed to revise plans and return in October.
The Deephaven City Council on Sept. 2 continued a request to replace a lakeside retaining wall at 17925 Lakeview Avenue after hearing staff, the applicant and engineering consultants outline safety, survey and environmental questions.
Planning staff Pat summarized the application and the legal standard for a lake-yard variance, noting the current retaining wall sits 46.7 feet from Lake Minnetonka and is about 6.68 feet tall, while the proposed wall would sit 40.2 feet from the lake and measure roughly 11.25 feet tall. Pat said the state Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the plans and “sent an email out today saying that they would recommend denial of the variance request.” Staff recommended denial based on the project’s encroachment into the lake-yard setback and the effect on lake views, though it also noted rebuilding in place could be feasible in some circumstances.
John Daley, the applicant’s representative from Revision, told the council updated surveys and engineering work supported a design intended to keep the house and lakeside stable. Daley said the latest registered survey (08/29) reduced the measured lot area and changed how some existing hard-surface areas were calculated; the project team presented a net-zero hardcover approach in which impervious surfaces added for the new wall would be offset elsewhere on the property.
Council members pressed staff and the applicant on technical questions: the extent of proposed fill (how much the grade would change), which parts of the deck would be removed, whether a separate variance would be required for fill above three feet, and what additional geotechnical work would be necessary if hand borings proved inconclusive. Council members expressed reservations about permitting a new wall that moves several feet closer to the lake, citing precedent and the potential for cumulative encroachment along the shoreline.
After extended discussion about construction timing, environmental review and possible alternatives (rebuilding at the existing line or a smaller in‑front wall), council members agreed to continue the application so the applicant can revise plans and provide additional engineering and survey documentation. A motion to continue the application to the first October City Council meeting passed by voice vote.
Next steps: the applicant will work with staff and engineers to explore designs that reduce lake encroachment or provide additional soil/foundation data. The council expects revised materials when the matter returns in October.
