Loading...
PC Minutes 2018 01 02 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 2, 2018 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, John Tietz, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; MacKenzie Walters, Planner; and Vanessa Strong, Water Resource Coordinator PUBLIC PRESENT: Nathan & Daryl Kirt 50 Hill Street Howard Anderson 3613 Red Cedar Point Road Brianna & Wyatt Kirt 50 Hill Street Dave & Mike Tompt 16994 Tremdar Lane, Eden Prairie Linda Scott & Sue Morgan 4031 Kings Road Debbie Lockhart 3618 Red Cedar Point Road, Excelsior Steve Gunther 3628 Hickory Road, Excelsior PUBLIC HEARING: 3617 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD – VARIANCE FOR HARD COVER, LAKE SETBACK AND FRONT SETBACK TO BUILD A HOUSE. Walters: Thank you, yep this is Planning Case 2018-01. The 3617 Red Cedar Point Road variance. The applicant is Todd and Kristin Jackson. They are requesting an 11.5 foot front yard setback, 22.1 foot shoreland setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance to construct a detached single family home. So the property is located at 3617 Red Cedar Point. There’s currently an existing structure on a lot which is zoned for residential single family. Because the lot borders the lake the minimum square footage for a lot would be 20,000 square feet. It’d be restricted to 25 percent lot cover, 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, 75 foot shoreland setback, and then our code does allow up to a 250 square foot water oriented accessory structure. So as I mentioned there’s an existing building on the lot and the lot is substandard so it’s current size is 9,222 square feet. Currently the lot has 3,353 square feet of impervious surface largely due to a large pad of Class V gravel in the front lot. It does currently meet the 30 foot front yard setback. It meets the eastern 10 foot side yard setback. There was a shed located about 4 feet from the western side setback and it’s currently set back 52.9 feet from the lake. There is a water oriented structure and a fireplace and little flagstone patio complex that’s about Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 24 feet from the lake. And it should be noted that in the front of the property a portion of Red Cedar Point Road is actually within the lot lines and so that 543 square feet that’s covered by the road is not included in the lot coverage or lot area totals. So the applicant is proposing to remove the existing house, the gravel, the shed, the water oriented structure here and the walkway and they are proposing to construct a house with a 3 car garage. A water oriented structure here, which is going to be a rear patio. Driveway. The main justification for the variance is again the lot is significantly smaller than the zoning code would allow. As you saw with the, if the zoning code is applied the building area is extremely limited so they’re requesting relief from the setbacks. The plan is to maintain the existing rear setback from the lake. Bring the side setbacks into compliance and make a slight reduction of 34 square feet of impervious surface. The request is roughly consistent with other variances that have been granted throughout the neighborhood. It’s one of the older neighborhoods in the city. My memory serves we’ve given 16 variances for 25 properties within 500 feet. Many things are non-conforming. They will also be removing the gravel area and replacing it with sod to get some green space in front but they are again requesting a reduction to the front yard setback to accommodate the building envelope. We have received several comments from individuals in the neighborhood. Four individuals have spoken with me. One after going through it had no objections and 3 have expressed concerns. I gave you a handout of several emails we’ve received. That folks sent me after our conversations. Two of the residents with concerns to specifically address parking. Two discussed the large amount of impervious surface being proposed and then general concerns about the height. General aesthetics of the house and it’s fit within the neighborhood. I’ll go into the impervious surface a little bit more in the staff assessment but I did want to address parking in a little more depth than my report did. So I went through and I did my best using Google Streets and the aerials to estimate about how many other parking spaces are present in different properties around the area. The main concerns residents had was just the street is very narrow. It’s really not possible to do off street parking within the neighborhood and this is compounded by the fact that the street is not located within it’s right-of-way so you have situations, you know like this one where a portion of the street is within the lot lines and others where the right-of-way is you know right up against a house. So again I did my best to estimate the number of parking spaces available for the different properties. The 17 properties I looked at, the average works out to about 4 ½ parking spaces per property. That’s including garage and then also a driveway so total accommodation. Our code requires a two car garage and generally a 30 foot driveway which depending on the length of the right-of-way and the length of cars it would be 4 to 6 spaces. The proposal is 4 off street spaces but 3 of those would be the garage. You could get one car on the driveway. If you had a compact car you could probably get 2 but that’s about what the parking is there. So staff looked at it, staff also shared the concern about the impervious surface and Vanessa looked it over. I’m sorry the Water Resource Coordinator looked it over and recommended that staff install conditions requiring a 20 foot buffer to mitigate the increased runoff that would be generated towards the lake. The utilization of permeable pavers for the driveway and rear patio which would, well keep the lot coverage would then stay at 36 percent but it moves the impervious surface down to 29 percent, just over and then also that the applicant work with the Minnehaha Watershed to investigate doing a shoreland restoration process. We felt that if these steps were taken it would significantly improve the 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 current storm water management for the parcel and allow staff to support the impervious surface as proposed. Again staff did look at the other variances in the area. The proposed variances are roughly in line with what’s been granted historically in the region and there’s a detailed breakdown of that in the staff report. Staff does agree that parking is an issue in Red Cedar Point but the applicant’s proposed parking is similar to what many of the other properties have and for this reason staff is recommending approval with the conditions outlined in the report. I’d be happy to take any questions at this time. Aller: Anybody want to take the first crack. Tietz: Yeah. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Yes. MacKenzie, you know that is a very restricted, constricted area as you know. Over the last year and a half I think we’ve had 2 or 3 proposals for variances in that neighborhood. You know a big concern that I would have is access during construction and where construction parking goes. I can imagine cement trucks, delivery trucks with trusses and bottling up the street at some length of time and that’s, and the turn around space is very difficult. I guess I’m really curious how that’s going to be handled and how we as a community can protect the neighbors and always maintaining access, whether it’s emergency access or just daily traffic access. The parking I know in our neighborhood there was some recent construction and with everyone trying to get things done before cold weather set in. I guess it set in but there must have been 30 subcontractor cars parked along streets and I think that’s going to be, in this neighborhood in particular it’s a very critical issue. It’s parking long term is a concern and I understand how you assessed it but I think the construction duration parking and access and delivery is really needs to be monitored very, very closely. Walters: I would agree and I know that’s been an issue in several other of the variances in this neighborhood that came before. I would defer that question to the applicant. Ultimately it will be up to them and their builder to work with the City to try to keep access as clear as possible. Tietz: But I can imagine we’re going to, you’re going to receive calls when the contractor doesn’t adhere to the requirements that have been requested by the property owner and I think that’s, you know that’s something that we’re just going to have to be faced with. My other concern is the permeable pavers. Now we’ve talked about this in a couple previous planning commission meetings and I want to be certain that we have a detail for construction that’s appropriate for the purpose that it’s intended. You know there’s a lot of, definitions floating around but what permeable pavers are and how much sub-base and how they’re constructed and then how they’re monitored. I think that we as a city and the city engineer and who all is involved, we need to monitor this installation. All these installations where permeable pavers are used very closely. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Walters: Absolutely. The applicant would need to get any design they proposed signed off for them by the engineering department and the Water Resource Coordinator would have to determine that they met the intent and definition. We would likely use the Permeable Interlocking Concrete Paver Institute that we talked about earlier and their engineering standards as a baseline. Tietz: Okay, thanks. Aller: I guess one of my questions would be, has public safety come in and, for instance fire, police or anyone else or have we been receiving reports as it stands now because it seems like from the information in the report and the public comments that have been provided thus far which will be made part of the record in these emails, we’re concerned with the off street parking and the actual on street parking which would block traffic in that area. Walters: Public safety did not provide any comments and I could not speak to whether or not we’ve had any reports. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: How many extra feet on the driveway would be, would give you space for 2 cars? Two reasonable cars. Walters: That’s a great question. So I researched, if you check my search history there’s a lot of stuff on the average size of an American car right now. Average car is about 16 feet. Figure at least 2 feet you know cushion. At it’s widest the driveway is right around 16 feet. Realistically I’d say you’d probably need to push it back 4 feet to be sure you’d be able to accommodate 2 midsized or you know full sized cars. That’d be my best guess. Weick: Thank you. Aller: And the average parking spots available for off street parking were 4.5? Walters: So not including garages, I would say a lot of the properties did have driveway space for 2 cars. In this case yeah there’d be driveway space for one car if you take the garage space out and just are talking about guest parking. Aller: And the majority of properties now 2 or 3 car garage? Walters: The majority of new constructions are 3 car. And our ordinance’s minimum though is 2 car which is relevant when we talk about standards. Oh sorry, were you asking about the neighborhood or? Oh my apologies. Most of the neighborhood is 2 car garage. Aller: Has 2. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Walters: Yes. Aller: So this would. Walters: There are some with no garages, yeah and some with larger 4 car. Aller: And based on their lot they have additional parking which would be off street regardless of 2 or 3 car garage? Walters: Yep. No I misunderstood that, thank you. Aller: Additional questions at this time for staff based on the report? Seeing none we’ll have the applicant come forward and if they’d like to make a presentation that would be great. Todd Jackson: Well just two comments. Aller: If you could just state your name and address for the record sir, that’d be fantastic. Todd Jackson: Todd Jackson. Two comments. One, we currently have a home right down the block within easy walking distance on Hickory so we don’t live there. It’s a cabin so we would be able to provide plenty of parking for construction. Obviously when they’re dropping off large items for the property they’re going to need to be there so I can’t control that but at least daily crews at the house will be able to have off street parking with about, well it’s 3732 Hickory so it’s, you know if they could move the map it’s, you can walk. It’s on the point so it’s very easy so we would provide that for them. And then secondly on the impervious pavers, our current home on Broken Arrow in Chan, we’ve been there, we built the house 10 years ago. The watershed district came by looking for volunteers to improve the impervious surfaces and do all that stuff. We volunteered. I spent money. I did that so my willingness obviously staff requires it we’ll do it but my willingness to do it regardless I think is proven because of what I’ve done in my current home where it was not required. We just went ahead and did it anyway so those are my two comments. Aller: So before you leave if you could just fill in some of the blanks. We’ve got the report and you’ve had an opportunity to read the report right? Todd Jackson: Yes. Aller: So just tell us about your project. How did you come up with the actual property configuration? What’s your intended use of the property? Are you planning on using the 3 car garage for 3 cars? 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Todd Jackson: I am. So a 3 car garage is a requirement for my wife and me and our children to build a new home so that was something for us that’s a requirement so that’s why we ended up with the design. It’s going to be our primary residence. If you guys pass it we’ll move forward. We’ll build this house. Sell our current house on Broken Arrow and sell the cabin on Hickory and have that be our primary residence and live there and make my life a little less complicated with 2 places down to 1. Aller: Okay. Any additional questions? Commissioner Weick. Weick: Do you have any issues with the length of the driveway? As you’ve planned it and looked at it. Todd Jackson: No. You know it’s funny because I went out and when I got the plans back I looked at the measurements. My daughter drives a Jeep that would be parked out front. That would fit in the 16 foot and the 16 foot spot. It would fit there so you know from my view I could fit 2 vehicles there. Her Jeep on the smaller spot and then a larger vehicle in the second stall plus the 3 car garage. Actually we probably could really get 3 in that driveway, just like we did in the garage so I think we could probably get 6 vehicles there if we had to. Weick: Okay. Todd Jackson: Now they’re not going to, I’m not going to be able to put a Yukon XL out there in the driveway but on the one side I would but not the opposite side so I think we could fit 6 vehicles there. Weick: Okay. Aller: Any additional questions of the applicant? Hearing none thank you very much sir. Todd Jackson: You bet. Aller: At this point in time I’ll open up the matter for public hearing. That’s again an opportunity got individuals to come forward to speak either for or against the item. You can do so by coming forward. Stating your name and address for the record and then just give us your opinion. Anyone wishing to come forward? Have somebody working their way forward. Welcome. If you could state your name and address that’d be great. Debbie Lockhart: Debbie Lockhart. I live at 3618 Red Cedar Point Road, Excelsior and I have a major concern about, because we didn’t hear it in the report, about what the snowplow is going to do because right now, because the Souba house has always been a summer house, the plow always plows right, well it just disappeared. Sorry. Can you put it back again? See where the green is right there. Go up higher. That green. That area right there is where the snowplow goes up and pushes the snow up and then backs down and comes up the road because we are on a 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 very skinny road as you all know and there’s really no other place right now for him to go. And that was a concern, I voiced that concern when I talked to MacKenzie earlier but I didn’t see anything. I couldn’t read the report. It wouldn’t come up online for me. What they’re going to do with the snowplow because it is a major concern because I would hate for us to lose the service. Okay, thank you. Aller: That’s a great question, thank you very much. Before we go forward if we go ahead, we won’t stop the public hearing portion of this item yet so let’s go ahead and just mark that down for consideration. Come on forward, yep. We’ll try to get the questions answered at once at the end. Welcome. Steve Gunther: Good evening. My name’s Steve Gunther. I live at 3628 Hickory Road so I’m kind just up the hill from where the Souba’s lot is. A couple things. Living in this area it is difficult because the lots are small and with current building standards etcetera it is, it does require some number of variances to allow a property owner to build something that’s kind of within you know expectations of what people are looking for right now. You know I am okay with the setback from the lake. It seems to be reasonable and consistent with what other neighbors have gotten. I’m glad they’re bringing the side setbacks to the 10 foot expectation which is the standard. I am nervous about the front setback just because I know people will try to park cars there and it sounds like the thought is well I’m just going to leave my daughter’s Jeep out in the front while I’ve got 3 cars already and I’ve got a fourth car it sounds like being suggested to be put in that area but what I’m most concerned about frankly is how the hard cover variance will affect the lake quality. So I’m also the President of the Lake Minnewashta Preservation Association and the most valuable piece of real estate collectively the neighbors have is that lake which sits at the back of the lot. We’ve worked very hard over the years to maintain the lake quality. We’ve actually seen it degrade over time as more of the large homes are built and you know take up residence on the lake and I’m concerned that going from a standard of a 25 percent hard cover for this particular property to a suggested or a requested 36 percent hard cover. I understand there’s a gravel lot or gravel pad that’s already in front of the house. More than likely that was put in without any city approval. That was just put there so I don’t look at that as being the old standard that we’re going to reduce it by .36 percent because it was going from 36.36 percent down to 36 percent. I still view this as a request to go from 25 percent to 36 percent which is you know is how I would judge this request here so I am concerned about the increase in hard cover and I know everyone wants a 3 car garage. I know I’ve had to adjust my structure when we built our’s to get a 2 car front loaded garage. I’m concerned that that extra third car is taking 20 times 24, 500 roughly square feet of extra hard cover which if you eliminated that would be a long way to getting us back closer to the 25 percent so I’d just ask that we take a hard look at the hard cover variance request because more hard cover means more runoff into the water. More runoff into the water leads to degraded lake quality. I am glad the staff has suggested the 20 foot buffer strip because that will certainly help. I don’t understand the pervious versus impervious. I understand you know block versus asphalt but to me it’s all impervious if it’s a stone if you will. So I am concerned about the hard cover 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 variance request so I’d just ask you take a careful look at that as you’re making a decision so, thank you. Aller: Thank you. Any other individuals wishing to come forward at this time? Okay, seeing no one come forward I’ll go ahead and close the public hearing and I’ll ask for some comments from our public works and Water Resource Coordinator who are available. Thank you very much for being here. Maybe start with Mr. Oehme about the snowplowing and where we’re going to put that snow. Oehme: Sure. Good evening Chairman Aller and commissioner members. So I did have a conversation with our street crew and specifically the plow driver in this area recently so as Deb had eluded to our snowplow driver drives down Red Cedar Point here. Kind of cleans this area up and then backs up to this area and then turns around so obviously if this property is developed that cannot take place anymore. The City, this area was platted in the early 1900’s and luckily there is a little bit additional right-of-way in this area here so the thought is, is that the snow plow driver in the future would be able to do a three point turn. Basically come down. Stay within this cul-de-sac area here. Come back out and then around. I think there’s going to be, need to be some tree or I think there’s an old cottonwood that might have to go and some brush that have to be cleaned up in that area and then we would also have to talk to this property owner here. I think that property owner parks a car or two right there so we would have to work with them and try to at least in the wintertime you know having an access area so we’re not going to be backing that snowplow into that vehicle there. With this three point turn that we’re talking about it’s actually a safer movement than currently being taken right now. The snowplow driver wouldn’t have to back up you know half a block or whatever onto a public street here to make that turn around. You’d basically be backing up to the north and where there’s no vehicles, would be no vehicles at that point in time so staff is proposing that we would look at cleaning this area up so we can make that turn around at this point instead of down at this property here. Weick: Can I, I’m confused. Oehme: I’m sorry. Weick: The plow can turn around there now because it’s a gravel lot, correct? Oehme: Well there’s, it’s a little restrained right now. There’s I think in most of the time there’s a car or two that’s parked right here and then there’s some brush in the back that doesn’t allow them to back up far enough to make that turn around possible at this time. Weick: I guess what I mean on the subject property. What’s changing on the subject property to change the way the street gets plowed? That’s what I’m. Oehme: Well the road’s not going to get plowed any differently than it is today. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Weick: Okay. Oehme: In front of the subject property. It’s just where he turns around has to change. Right now he backs up onto this property. Weick: Right. Oehme: With his vehicle. With the plow truck and then turns around so we’re not, in the future we’re suggesting we’re not turn around at that point. We’re looking at turning around up where my pointer is. Weick: But it’s the development of the property that’s changing the snowplow, not the setback? Aanenson: Right. I would also say it’s probably not best practices to turn around on private property. Weick: Exactly yeah, but I’m just trying to understand what’s going on there. Oehme: It’s just easier for them to turn around here today versus right at this location just because of the brush and debris and some of the vehicles that are sitting there. Weick: Okay. Okay, thank you. Aller: And in that location where we have the right-of-way it would be our responsibility to keep that maintained at some point anyway. Oehme: That’s correct. It’s in our right-of-way. We just would need to take better housekeeping of that area especially in the winter months. Aller: Okay, and then would the parking be off, the on street parking or off street parking in the right-of-way that’s being utilized by the private homeowner that normally would not be accessible. It’s somewhere it’s basically been gratis because we haven’t used it. Oehme: Correct. So we just would have to work with that property owner to make sure they have the ability to park their vehicles there like they have in the past so. Aller: Okay. And then if we could move onto the storm water drainage and lake clarity that would be great. Strong: Okay, great. So cars come and go literally but I tend to look at a property like this from the perspective of the water so I’m looking at it from the back side. For me how far the impervious is from the actual lake is what I’m trying to protect because that’s something we can’t change and the lake is there forever and that lake is there for everyone. My main concern 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 is while we do have a non-conforming use that we need to take into consideration and we need to balance that with the needs of the property owner, we also have to look at what’s best for the lake. And to do that we have to kind of try to balance what’s continuing with maybe ways to implement newer management strategies while balancing non-conforming use but not just continuing to allow them to be the way they are but somehow finding balance to make them a little bit better each step of the way. That’s where the 20 foot buffer comes in. That’s for exchanging it for pervious pavers for all non-necessary impervious surfaces comes in. I understand that pervious pavers are newer to Chanhassen. I have a bit of a history with them and I’m very confident that because of how they’ve been used throughout the Twin Cities metro they are very successful. We have a lot of constrained sites and we’ve had to come up with new ways to treat storm water. Installed correctly is a very important factor. Using the Pervious Paver Institute, which is also supported by MnDOT is usually the best place to start and I’m pretty confident, especially if the homeowner’s already had this installed previously, they’re a very good candidate for installing something that will be maintainable. Another benefit to pervious pavers is that they reduce salt usage and being that close to the water salt use has a significant impact on water quality so they do reduce volume. Most importantly they reduce rate and flow. Combining that with a buffer and then right at the shoreline edge just working on some different strategies to see where we can replace rip rap with more vegetation to create habitat at that high habitat area zone, I think that helps improve the property overall so, but when it comes to pervious pavers you know it’s something that we’re learning here but they have been tried, tested and true within the Twin Cities metro and they do work if installed correctly so. Aller: So I guess one of the things that I would like to know, if it’s possible to get an answer for this, if you take the property as it sits today and you theoretically build a new property in it’s place and you look at both water systems, is it going to be more beneficial to have the new system in place for the lake or to leave it as it is? Does that make sense? Strong: It does. That’s a tricky question to answer. At the end of the day impervious cover is impervious cover. Storm water runoff goes straight to the lake when it hits an impervious surface so I think we’re getting as close as we possible can to an equal trade. Aller: Okay. Strong: It may be slightly worst but I think following through the property owner looks like they’re going to do everything possible to make it an equal trade as much as possible. Understanding again this is a non-conforming use. Aller: Right. Strong: And a unique site. Aller: Okay. Based on my questions and the answer, any other additional questions of staff? Commissioner Randall. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Randall: One of the questions Ms. Lockhart brought up was where that snow gets piled up in that corner. Is that going to be an issue? Or she talked about how it got piled up on the, kind of where that green bush would be. Right in that area I believe. Debbie Lockhart: It comes straight in next to it. Randall: Next to it. Debbie Lockhart: So it’s going straight to, you’re going right next to the yellow house. Between the bush and the yellow house. It goes straight up there. Randall: Okay. Any issues with that as far as watershed or plowing? Oehme: So that’s, this area is really tight to begin with so we’ll do our best to find places within our right-of-way to place that snow. Randall: Okay. Oehme: So like I said we’re going to try to clean up this area a little bit better than it is today and maybe try to pile as much snow over here as we can and not on private property. Strong: It’s proximity to the lakeshore itself and the lake itself, and melting it’s very close in either location. It’s so close it’s very difficult to make a decision as to whether or not it would have an adverse impact on the water. Aller: Any additional questions? Strong: It’s good questions. Aller: Then I’ll open it up for commissioner comment at this point. How are people feeling about the request and would you like to take any action? Commissioner Weick. Weick: Yes, thank you. I think my largest concern is the, you know the lot coverage really isn’t changing. May or may not get better with pervious pavers. I’m not sure. You know how I feel about that so it’s, you know that’s a bit of a disappointment. I don’t think, after hearing everything I don’t think there’s an issue with the front yard setback or the driveway to me. I’m having looked at other cases in this area as well I’m really pleased with the side yard setbacks. We’ve approved some things that are like you know reach out and you know hand your neighbor a razor or something so I think that’s pretty good. But the only, you know the biggest thing is just not changing that lot coverage at all. That’s disappointing to me. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Madsen: I do have a concern about the length of the drive. Although it sounds like it might work for the purpose intended for this homeowner, maybe a future homeowner would have larger vehicles and with the limited space on the road I just think it’s important that you know that there is places in the driveway for guests and people to park their cars. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Yeah I concur with Nancy with her comments about the parking. I think that is going to be a long term problem. The comment was made about a lot of the homeowners in the neighborhood have 2 car garages. With the current as proposed design eliminating one car would not solve the problem. Even if you had a 2 car garage because you’re not going to get, it’s a depth issue. Not a width issue because as Steve noted we’ve got you know better side lot than we’ve had in some other situations here so it’s a, it’s purely a depth issue and you can’t go closer to the lake so I think it’s a difficult site and a difficult neighborhood to build in and unfortunately most new construction is maximizing everything and that’s, goes with I guess today’s construction and design so I think it’s a problem and I don’t know how it could be resolved without redesigning the house and shrinking the depth of the house to get the setbacks because he’s really maximized every inch that’s available which is unfortunate in this case. But I still regarding construction I think it needs to be properly, and I don’t know if the City signs it or if the contractors has to sign it during construction. Is that a City signage for parking? Or do they have to request. Aanenson: It can be. It’s also managed through building inspections and the fire chief which we’ve done up there. Had the fire truck come up and. Tietz: And so it would be the full length in this neighborhood, both out to the point and beyond. Aanenson: We’ll have to look at that to see how that works. I mean also making sure, to say that we can guarantee they’re going to park on his property off site but they’re going to have to find somewhere that it’s passable during construction. Tietz: Controlling subcontractors, you know construction and trucks is really an issue. Aanenson: Yes. Tietz: I don’t know if any of you, if any of you have followed the construction of Marty Davis’ home on Lake Minnetonka. He actually had to buy a lot down by Howards Point Marina and shuttled people back and forth because they had such a congested issue with parking down in that neighborhood. Obviously that’s not something we can do here but it’s only because this neighborhood is so constricted and we just have to be very cognizant of, and respecting all the neighbors. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Aller: Well I’ll entertain a motion at this time if someone would like to make one. Either as is or modified as you see fit. Weick: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11 ½ foot front yard setback, a 22.1 foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Randall: I second. Aller: Thank you Commissioner Randall. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? I will say that this area is so unique. The plots are so unique that it’s not surprising that we’re here doing this. The property is non-conforming and as much as I don’t hear that it is the best, it seems like it is a fair trade off which would allow for the homeowner to maximize the use and benefit of their property as situated and I think based on the, again the side lots and the setbacks that we do have, the buffer that is there and the concern that’s been placed in the report already for purposes of the lake, and I am very concerned about the lake and that’s why I was following up with those questions but I think that’s about as good as we’re going to get with the, with new construction unless we would deny it so I, because I think that it’s a fair and proper use of the property I’ll be voting for it. Any other discussion or comment? Weick moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5 foot front yard setback, a 22.1 foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the following conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 3. A new 1”=20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. 4. At least one tree must be planted in the front yard, if one is not present after construction. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 5. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities beyond those indicated in the tree removal plan shall be replaced. 6. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 7. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from Emerald Ash Borer. 8. The 162 square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water oriented structure. 9. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,319 square feet. 10. The proposed rear patio and driveway areas must be constructed using pervious paver systems. 11. A permanent 20 foot native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using species native to the ecotype with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resource Coordinator. 12. The property owner must work with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to identify and implement any shoreline restoration projects that would improve ecosystem health and function. Replace riprap with bioengineering solutions is one example. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: 7052 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY – VARIANCES INCLUDING FRONT YARD SETBACK, WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK AND WETLAND BUFFER WIDTH. Aller: Again we’ll be sitting as a Board of Appeals and Adjustments concerning variances. Generous: Good evening Chairman Aller, commissioners. Aller: Can everybody hear? Let’s wait 30 seconds while it clears out. Thank you. Generous: Yes tonight we have a public hearing for Planning Case 2017-19 for 7052 Minnewashta Parkway. It’s a variance request. This property is located on the southwest corner of Minnewashta Parkway and Kings Road. The applicant is Nathan Kirt and the property owner 14