Loading...
Correspondence - 4165 Shoreline Drive - 11/16/2021 - Various'JFBENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUITE 119 / EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344 / (612) 944-7590 / FAX (612) 944-9322 May 3, 1989 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Richard Putnam RDP Partners FROM: James A. Benshoo 8 Mark Thompson REFER TO FILE: 89-34-29 SUBJECT: Traffic Access for Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club, Spring Park, MN PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND On April 10, 1989, you requested our assistance to evaluate the access to the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club site in Spring Park, Minnesota. Our task was to evaluate traffic operations on County Road 15 with and without a median opening to the subject property. Preliminary findings have been developed and presented to the Hennepin County staff on May 1, 1989, at which time we received their preliminary concurrence. The remainder of this memorandum documents our findings and conclusions as presented to Hennepin County staff. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION The Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club is located on the south side of County Road 15 between County Roads 51 and 125 in Spring Park, Minnesota. The property located immediately east of the site is the Hennepin County Sheriffs Station and public boat launch area. This project is planned to consist of a total building area of 22,440 square feet. The tenant mix will be comprised of: • Yacht Club 2,500 S.F. • Real Estate Offices 6,000 S.F. • Investment Firm 8,000 S.F. • Consultant 1,200 S.F. • Uncommitted General Office and common space 4,740 S.F. Mr. Richard Putnam -2- May 3, 1989 TRIP GENERATION The site's trip generation was calculated using general office rates for all but the Yacht Club portion. The Yacht Club has unique generation characteristics. Its activity is primarily confined to the summer months with a series of special events. The daily activities of the club were obtained and translated into vehicular trips. The peak generation is shown in Table 1. TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION (TRIP -ENDS) PEAK HOUR INBOUND OUTBOUND A.M. 44 7 P.M. 31 54 YACHT CLUB 53 22 (5:30-6:30 p.m.) The A.M. and P.M. peak hours correspond to the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. It is important to note that the traffic generation represent the highest anticipated generation for the complex, which will occur on Wednesdays for a six week period in the summer. During the remainder of the year the yacht club activity is reduced, and the traffic generation would reflect that more commonly associated with a general office building. TRAFFIC FORECASTS The anticipated development trips have been assigned to the roadway system as shown in Figure 1 based on the with and without median opening scenarios. The traffic orientations were developed through an interview with the property owner based on knowledge of the tenant mix. ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATIONS The traffic forecasting process indicates that there will be U-turn activity on County Road 15 if a median opening is not provided. A review of the pavement cross-section reveals that not enough roadway width is provided for the motorist to complete the U-turn maneuver in one continuous movement. -3- WITHOUT MEDIAN OPENING WITH MEDIAN OPENING COUNTY ROAD 15 L0 COUNTY ROAD 15 AM PEAK 27 3 4--1 27 HOUR 17 44 4 r 4 SITE SITE COUNTY ROAD 15 COUNTY ROAD 15 PM PEAK 20 20 20 _ 20 HOUR II 31 1434 11 34 �► SITE SITE COUNTY ROAD 15 COUNTY ROAD 15 YACHT CLUB 34 8 _8 34 PEAK (5:30-ti:3O p.m.) 19 - 53 � � 22 -T 14 19 14 � � SITE SITE N RDP PARTNERS UPPER MINNETONKA FIGURE I YACHT CLUB TRAFFIC FORECASTS BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS Mr. Richard Putnam -4- May 3, 1989 As a result, motorists who attempted a U-turn maneuver either would have to drive over the curb or stop in the roadway and back up. In addition, the eastbound to westbound U-turning vehicle either would stack in the through lane, if made at the Hennepin County Sheriff's median opening, or add vehicles to an already short storage location at the County Road 51 intersection. Therefore, the no median opening option is not recommended for traffic flow and safety reasons. One option for providing a median opening to eliminate the U-turn activity is to provide the opening as shown in Figure 2. The resultant stacking distance would be approximately 35-40 feet, which is equal to two vehicles. A queuing analysis has been performed using a 95 percent confidence interval indicating a maximum queue length of two to three vehicles. This anticipated queue length would place vehicles in the westbound through lane. Field observations indicate that the roadway geometry for westbound traffic is in a transition section from four lanes at County Road 51 to two lanes. The combination of merging traffic with the queuing vehicles in the through lane would cause an unsafe situation. For these reasons, the alternative design shown in Figure 2 is not recommended. In order to improve the storage distance for left turning vehicles, reduce accident potential, remove the queuing vehicles from the through lane and avoid the U-turn activity, a continuous left turn lane concept has been developed. Figure 3 illustrates this design. The continuous left turn lane concept will provide 220 feet of storage which translates into approximately 11 vehicles. This alternative respects the intent of the existing taper function for the northbound to westbound turning vehicles from the Hennepin County property. Therefore, it is our recommendation that the design concept shown in Figure 3-be implemented to avoid U-turn activity which cannot adequately be accommodated and to accommodate site access without serious impacts to traffic flow on County Road 15. CONCLUSIONS The traffic access on County Road 15 for the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club site must be designed to provide safe and efficient flow for all users of the roadway system. The continuous left turn lane concept shown in Figure 3 specifically addresses the access and safety issues and is the recommended access alternative. CITY OF SPRING PARK REGULAR MEETING - April 17, 1989 Page 3 Mark Breneman - 4014 Sunset Drive said Fletcher's had promised to plant shrubs and put up fences but never did. The Mayor suggested the petitions state exactly point by point what the people expected the Council to do. Council will physically look at the property after asking Fletcher's to stake it out. The seating capacity will also be checked before the May 1st meeting, when it will be discussed again. The City Planner will also offer a opinion. b) Upper Tonka Little League - Schedule A letter from the Upper Tonka Little League requesting use of the Thor Thompson field was received and read by the Administrator. Motion by Dill second by Kraemer to approve the use if the bases are maintained. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. c) Interview Candidates for LMCD Council is seeking a representative for the LMCD for the City of Spring Park. dark Brememan 4014 Sunset Drive and Carol Cherry, 4642 ',Jest Arm Road were interested. Motion by Dill second by Kraemer to adjourn at 9:10 p.m. to the office to interview the candidates. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. At 9:35 p.m. the meeting was resumed. d) Yacht Club The RDP Partners have come back to address the issues of the Yacht Club that had not been determined. Council reviewed the parking plan for the Yacht Club and determined they were not aware the swimming classes were for only two weeks out of the year, and the sailing classes for six weeks only. Alan Brixius, the City Planner was present, he stated he also was not aware of this fact. Curb cuts and the median were discussed, this will be left to the County, possibly with help from Spring Park. The RDP Partners have consulted with Hennepin County as Council requested for a cross -over and curb cut. Mr. Robinson was requesting "No U-Turn" signs. Motion by Rockvam second by Widmer to approve the-Qeod4~t4,&"a-1,. .,use with the following conditions, as pointed out by the City Planner to be resolved: • - CITY OF SPRING PARK REGULAR MEETING - April'-17, 1989 Page 4 1. Trash receptacles be provided. This had been an over -site. 2. The green space and hard cover be addressed. 630 is hard cover and the DNR stated they did not want to get involved if grading was above 932. 3. Highway or curb cuts be satisfied. A traffic study is being done. 4. The parking plan be satisfactory. This was approved by the City Planner because two of the amenities were minor. 5. A detailed buffering and screening landscape plan be provided. It was determined the City would hold money in escrow for the plantings required, and will satisfy the owners of the Edgewater Apartments. The motion was amended to include "the trees are to stay". Kraemer inquired if Edgewater would then feel satisfied. Mr. Robinson stated yes. Upon roll call Rockvam, Kraemer, Widmer, Dill and Weeks all voted aye. Motion declared carried. Council requested these issues be resolved before the building permit is obtained. Council requested a resolution be drafted to the County and Tad Jude, to help the Yacht Club with a cross over cut. Kraemer suggested the Police Chief be contacted for a re- commendation on a cross over cut. A letter from Trident dared April 14, 1989 was noted. 5. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS - None 7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES a) Mayor 1. Administrative Committee - 4/6/89 - Noted 2. Police Commission - 4/11/89 The striping on CSAH 15 was discussed. Council suggested a recommendation from the Police Department. b) Council Kraemer Kraemer suggested some of the sign permits be checked and requested a letter to the Police Department seeking their 'help to control the signs. He also was concerned with the garbage on Del Otero Ave. Widmer - No Report Dill - No Report Weeks - No Report c) Engineer A letter from John Karwacki regarding storm water management cost estimates was noted. d) Utility Superintendent - The Utility Superintendent was excused. r CITY OF SPRING PARK BOARD OF REVIEW - April 10, 1989 Page 3 Jan Sterne - 3910 Sunset Drive - PID 17-117-23-32-0023. 1989 value - Building 35,000 - Land 85,000 1990 value - Building 51,500 - Land 91,100 Mr. Sterne has 77 feet of lakeshore, he stated the only improvement was siding on guest house, which is not rentable property. Tom & Laura Geib - 4550 West Arm Road - PID 18-117-23-34-0039. 1989 value - Building 96,000 - Land 69,000 1990 value - Building 129,000 - Land 64,800 Mr. Geib stated his valuation was raised 17,% or about 30,000, he also stated nothing had been done to increase the valuation. They have 59 feet of lakeshore. Laura Geib strongly objected to the increase stat- ing people are being driven out of their homes by the high taxes. Mr. & Mrs. Dick Moloney - 4710 West 1989 value - Building 24,600 - Land 1990 value - Building 25,700 - Land They have 65 feet of lakeshore that a real estate appraisal was $65,000, Arm Road - PID 18-117-23-33-0034. 75,000 70,400 is non -homestead. Mr. Moloney stated the assessor appraisal was 99,600. The Mayor noted most of the people present had been reviewed last year, and some the year before that. Widmer noted most of the problems seem to be on West Arm Road. Dill stated the Assessor told him property on West Arm Road was now worth more. The Mayor suggested the book compiled by the County with the homes sold should include the County's value, the selling price and the year sold. He suggested this be done for the next meeting. Carl Rosen 4540 West Arm Road and David Willette 2241 Hazedell Avenue had also contacted the Assessor. Motion by Dill second by Kraemer to adjourn the meeting at 9:04 until April 24th at 7:30 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. MISCELLANEOUS a) Yacht Club .4000W Jack Dennis and Les Renner from the Yacht Club were present and Mr. Robinson from the Edgewater Apartments was also present. A report from the City Planner, Alan Brixius was received, which stated: "The proposed Yacht Club is permitted only as a conditional use within the sites "C-4" Commercial Office zoning designation and is therefore subject to the con- itions as stated in Section 21, Subd. D.4 of the City Zoning Ordinance. The following items were discussed: Screening, the median, impervious surface, the loading area, trash receptacles, green space, curb cuts, and the parking spaces. The Mayor stated most of the items could be handled and worked out with the Edgewater and the Administrator. Park- ing spaces were the big concern, they are still 7 spaces short of the amount required. Mr. Dennis suggested dropping the swimming classes G-ITY OF SPRING PARK BOARD OF REVIEW - April 10, 1989 Page 4 and exchanging it for another amenity. Mr. Dennis suggested the common space is much more than the required 10% and they were asking that 26% be considered as a reduction in parking spaces. Motion by Widmer second by Dill to grant a variance to the off-street parking requirements and accept the Planner's alternative: 22,400 sq. ft. x .74 = 16,576 - 200 = 83 spaces required. Dill noted 12 spaces for amenities (swimming and sailing). Upon roll call Rockvam and Kraemer voted no. Widmer, Dill and Weeks voted aye. The motion was declared failed because a 4/5 vote was needed. The Mayor stated the project had received approval if it would meet the requirements because Mr. Dennis had requested another vote. This will be brought back to the next meeting on April 17th. A complaint had been received the water smelled like lake water or had a mildew smell. Mr. Goman is checking the problem. 6. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Weeks second by Widmer to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Secretary Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer northwest associated consultants, inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Background: Spring Park City Council Robert Kirmis/Alan Brixius 6 April 1989 Spring Park - Yacht Club - Site Plan Review 175.01 - 89.01 RDP Partners has submitted building plans for a proposed Yacht Club to be located on a 1.56 acre site south of County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive) and east of the Edgewater Apartments (see Exhibit A). The proposals calls for the construction of a 22,440 square foot office/yacht club building and a 32 boat slip marina to accommodate sailboats and power boats. In addition, a swimming beach and outdoor deck are proposed adjacent to the lower level of the building. The applicants are requesting City approval of the submitted building plans. The proposed yacht club is permitted only as a conditional use within the sites "C-4" Commercial Office zoning designation and is therefore subject to the,conditions as stated in Section 21, Subd. D.4. of the City Zoning Ordinance. CASE ANALYSIS Land Use. While the subject site is bounded by a variety of land uses, the proposed office commercial use is found to be acceptable provided the design exhibits a contextual sensitivity toward its adjacent uses. One noteworthy land use concern lies in the yacht club's compatibility with the Edgewater Apartments which lie to the east, where screening and buffering become an important design concern. 4601 excelsior blvd., ste. 410, minneapolis, mn 55416 (61 Z) 9Z5-94Z0 fax 9Z5-Z7Z 1 The following is a designations. Direction North South East listing of Land Use Industrial Lake surrounding land uses and zoning Public (water patrol facilities) Zoning "M" Manufacturing N.A. "P" Public West High density "R-3" High Density residential (Edgewater Residential Apartments) As a result of the recent rezoning of the subject property from "R-311, High Density Residential to "C-4", Commercial Office District, the proposed yacht club is permitted only as a conditional use within the said zoning district and is subject to the following selected conditions: 1. Banquet and food services associated with the Yacht Club shall be limited to special events and shall be available to Yacht Club members, and owners of site riparian or leasehold interests only. Commercial food and liquor sales available to the general public are prohibited. 2. Yacht Club conference and meeting rooms may be made available to the general public only for civic, educational and safety purposes. 3. Fuel sales and boat repair and servicing are prohibited on site. 4. Accessory retail activities shall not occupy more than ten (10) percent of the gross floor area of the Yacht Club facility. SCREENINGILANDSCAPING While existing shrubbery and scattered trees provide some visual screening between the yacht club and the apartments lying to the west, an intensification of this screen would seem justified and necessary (see Exhibit E). The existing visual barrier exists as low lying deciduous shrubs which lose their foliage in the winter season. With vehicular parking being proposed along the said property line, adjacent apartment residents are afforded full visual and audio exposure to parked vehicles and consequent direct headlight glare. A visual screen should be provided that diminishes the aforementioned negative impacts. An effective visual screen may be attainable through a variety of methods including a grade change, low lying fence, or a berming and planting mixture. The proposed yacht club site should be landscaped and screened with planting materials in compliance with Section 3.B.7 of the City Ordinance. In addition, a detailed landscaping plan must be submitted prior to final project approval designating planting type, size and location. Lot Area. The 1.56 acre site exceeds the "C-4" minimum required lot size of 12,000 square feet. Setbacks. All proposed building setbacks are shown to conform to minimum "C-4" setbacks as shown below: Setback Required Provided Setback from County Road 15 50 feet 110 feet East Side Yard 10 feet 13 feet Building 10 feet 13 feet Balcony* 7 feet 10 feet West Side Yard 20 feet 112 feet Setback from Lake Building 50 feet 52 feet Balcony* 44 feet 45 feet *Decks, uncovered porches, and stoops are not to be considered encroachments on required yard setbacks provided they do not extend more than six (6) feet into a front or rear yard and three (3) feet into a side yard. Green Space. The City has established no requirement governing the amount of allowable impervious surface in its shoreland overlay district. The current state regulations allow a maximum of 35 percent of a site to be covered by an impervious surface. It should be noted that approximately 63% of the site will be covered by building and parking area. This raises concerns with regard to site grading, erosion control, storm water drainage and land use intensity. The Department of Natural Resources has cited similar concerns, most notably the projects failure to meet the required 25 percent maximum impervious surface requirement cited in their new draft of shoreland regulations. While the Watershed District has approved the site plan, the City Engineer should also comment on its acceptability for the City. Access. The Yacht Club proposal as shown on Exhibit 2, shows site access occurring via County Road 15 to the north and will require a cross over in the said roadway's raised median. With the Edgewater Apartments access lying 120 feet to the west, there is some concern that stacked vehicles awaiting left turns into the apartment complex may impede vehicles wishing to access the subject site. According to a Hennepin County Highway representative, the County has no minimum required spacing of crossovers. However, in review of the proposed crossover, the County recommended denial of the request on the basis that by allowing the said access point, the purpose of limiting access via the raised median is being diminished. Without a median curb cut a right turn in/right turn out access scenario will be required. According to the said DOT 'representative, the City must make the final decision regarding the appropriateness of the proposed crossover. The access location of the proposed yacht club is a critical issue that must be worked out prior to final approval of the project as relocation of the said access point may alter the site design considerably. Curb Cut Width. The proposed curb cut width onto County Road 115 is 25 feet in width and conforms to the 25 foot minimum required by the City Ordinance. Parking. As shown on Exhibit 2, the proposed yacht club provides 117 parking spaces. According to a strict interpretation of the Ordinance standards and shown below, 124 spaces are required of the proposal. This results in a parking deficiency of seven spaces. Yacht Club/Office Building. The proposed building exhibits a gross floor area of 22,440 square feet. The City Ordinance suggests one space for each 200 square feet of floor area for office type uses. 22,440 x .9 = 20,196 - 200 = 101 spaces required Yacht Club/Boat Marina. The Yacht Club is proposing a 32 boat marina. According to City parking standards, one parking space per three slips is suggested. 32 slips - 3 = 11 spaces required Sailing School. The Yacht Club is intending to have a six boat sailing school. This use will generate its own parking demand if operating during office hours. At full capacity, six parking spaces may be needed. A one stall per boat ratio is suggested. 6 boats - 1 = 6 spaces required Swimming School. The Yacht Club will include swimming lessons. Parking demand is determined on the basis of class sizes. With the likelihood of some car pooling and drop off students, our office would recommend a parking standard of one space per instructor plus one space for each four students per peak hour. A representative of the West Tonka Community Center has indicated that a maximum of two instructors and 14 students could be expected as a maximum at one class session. 14 students - 4 = 4 + 2 = 6 spaces required Parking Requirement Alternative. According to a strict interpretation of the parking required for office uses, one space is required per 200 square feet of office less 10 percent for common space (mechanical rooms, hallways, etc.). With the yacht' club demonstrating a single loaded corridor design, its percentage of common space is much greater than the typical 10 percent used in office structures with the common double loaded corridor design. With this in mind, the City may wish to consider a lesser parking standard than the 101 office spaces required by Ordinance. As shown on Exhibit D, 26 percent of a typical yacht club floor is designated as "common space" that typically will not generate parking demand. Therefore the following parking requirement may be considered as an alternative. 22,400 sq. ft. x .74 = 16,576 - 200 = 83 spaces required By applying the aforementioned adjusted office parking standards, 106 spaces are required of the entire yacht club proposal resulting in an excess of 11 spaces. Parking Summary. According to a strict interpretation of City parking standards with no credit given to overlapping uses, a parking demand of 124 vehicles can be expected. By altering the standard applied to office uses as previously described, a parking demand of 106 vehicles may be expected. The City must determine which parking requirement alternative is most prudent and appropriate prior to final approval of the yacht club proposal. Spaces Required Spaces Required Per Per Office Ordinance Use Adiustment Yacht Club/Office Building 101 83 Yacht Club/Boat Marina 11 11 Sailing School 6 6 Swimming School 6 6 TOTAL 124 106 Parking Lot Layout. The site's parking configuration shows a one-way traffic scenario and poses no significant functional problems. However, both upright and pavement signs which identify the one-way routes are suggested to insure against vehicular traffic conflicts. Stall sizes and aisle widths are both found to be in conformance with City standards. Loading. The proposed parking configuration as shown on Exhibit B creates several concerns involving loading functions. The site does not allow sufficient maneuvering for 55 foot semi -trailer truck however, the loading functions of smaller single bed trucks and vans can be accommodated ,via the submitted proposal. An additional point of concern involves the said loading areas to the principal buildings access point. A sidewalk should be provided east of the designated loading area to ensure efficient loading activities. Trash Receptacles. The site plan shows no provision for trash handling equipment. The applicant should illustrate these facilities to ensure they are architecturally compatible with the building and accessible to garbage trucks. Building Height. According to Section 3, Subd. E.2 of the City Zoning Ordinance, cupolas which do not contain usable space are not to be applied in calculating building height. With this in mind, the yacht club proposes a three story, 38 foot tall building which conforms to the 40 foot maximum allowable height required within a "C-4" Zoning District. Lighting. The site plan as shown on Exhibit B, should designate outdoor lighting locations. According to Section 21, Subd. D A of the City Ordinance: All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences. Utilities and Grading. Specific utility and grading plans must be submitted and reviewed prior to final site plan approval. Signage. A detailed signage plan must be submitted indicating sizes and materials of all signs to be used on the property. This includes wall and canopy signs as well as freestanding signs. CONCLUSION While the revised site plan under review in the preceding section of this report resolves earlier concerns relating to setbacks and building height, a number of design deficiencies still exist which suggest the site may be over -utilized. In addition, strict interpretation of the City's parking requirements state that the proposal does not meet City standards. It is the City's responsibility to determine the method for resolving these items. cc: Ken Larson Pat Osmondson RDP Partners Schwartz/Weber Architects WARREN A TTIES LA. LAFAYETTE cr ROSE> HILL LA. L LA. West Arm NORT I. ROSEHILL Lcke Mlnnefonkc Spring Park Minnesota 19 This map is for planning purposes only and should not be used where precise measurement is required 51 LA. -!.j LLJ vQp X 400'200' 0' 800' CODD,T IIpAD=-- 8 1 T E P L A N DCAL9 1'12W-W SOAT OLN as Wad Q FLOOD AN" OF SM." a." - AF IA.... /ROVMD 117 CA.8 the Yacht Club A COMMERCIAL OF DEVELOPMENT OF R D P PARTNERS SHORELINE DRIVE SPRING PARK — MINNESOTA SITE PLAN mm*"&q EXHIBIT B W E S T E L E V A T I O N I f i �I I I I II .I I I 1 1 j I SO UTH ELEVATION , II i SCAu In• I I >IW ' I the Yacht _ Club ' A COMMERCIAL i OF DEVELOPMENT OF R D P PARTNERS SHORELINE. DRIVE - SPRING PARK - MINNESOTA- �'MM ELEVATIONS EXHIBIT C !-� Off TAM fiAl11 LOffYD--. ! I !MNAUT f►ACK'. 7 i j i 1 1 j iTYPICAL FLOOR PLAN fCAUvf•.I•w I� 1I the Yacht Club A COMMERCIAL OF DEVELOPMENT OF R D P PARTNERS SHORELINE DRIVE SPRING PARK - MINNESOTA FLOOR PLAN EXHIBIT D `IMIFF View looking north along office building/Edgewater Apartments property line (the hedge). EXHIBIT E Am CITY OF SPRING PARK REGULAR MEETING - April 3, 1989 Page 2 suggested Council grant Mr. Schritter the subdivision. Motion by Widmer second by Dill to consider the application tonight without going to the Planning Commission. In discussion Mr. Griffith inquired what the basis would be for sending it to the Planning Com- mission. The Mayor explained because it was so involved last time. Dill stated we have made the decision in other cases. Upon roll call Rockvam and Widmer voted no, Kraemer, Dill and Weeks voted aye. Motion declared carried. Motion by Dill second by Kraemer to subdivide the lot, but have the Attorney check the easements. Upon roll call Rockvam, Kraemer, Dill and Weeks all voted aye. Widmer voted no. Motion declared carried. b) Approve EAW - Yacht Club - New Plan In compliance with the EQB mandatory rules an EAW (Environmental Assessment Worksheet) was prepared and mailed to all 15 agencies on their distribution list. Also a press release was published on February 27, 1989. The Environmental Quality Board published notice on February 20th and the 30 day comment period expired on March 22, 1989. Of the 15 agencies to which copies were sent comments were received from only three agencies, The MDNR, MN Historical Society and the Metro Council. The following comments were noted: The DNR: "An Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for this project". The Metro Council: "An EIS is not necessary for regional purposes". Historical Society: Suggested an archaeological survey be done to determine existance of any unreported historic sites which could be damaged or destroyed by the proposed work. In response to the Society's concerns, RDP Partners responded that the site has been part of previous developments and has been altered and is not in an "undisturbed condition". The City Council must now evaluate the EAW and the comments received to determine the need for further review (EIS) or that no further review is necessary. The findings of fact include the 5 listed criteria. 1. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects identified by the EAW; The City Council found there were none. CITY OF SPRING PARK REGULAR MEETING - April 3, 1989 Page 3 2. Cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; Council determined there were none. 3. The extent that environmental effects are subject to mitigation by existing public regulatory authority; The Council determined the regulations of the DNR, MCWD, and the LMCD are sufficient to mitigate any problems. 4. The extent that environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled by other studies or EISs related to the project or area; The Council determined that there are sufficient studies related to the area to control environmental effects. 5. The extent that two or more projects are related and as a result compound the long term impacts of the projects. Council determined this is a isolated project not related to any other. Motion by Rockvam second by Widmer to approve the EAW, with no further review. Upon roll call Rockvam, Kraemer, Widmer, Dill and Weeks all voted aye. Motion declared carried. The new building plan was reviewed briefly. The RDP Partners stated they had dropped the height of the building and reduced the width, and the building now fits better on the site, they now have 117 parking spaces. The exterior appearance had been changed and parking is 50 feet from the lake and they have a loading zone. Council suggested the City Planner, Alan Brixius, review the new plan and check the off street parking and make sure the amenities offered have parking spaces. Council will review the plan on April loth after the Board of Review if time permits. Lois Velasco, representing Edgewater Apartments stated she would also like to see the new plans. c) Lake Minnetonka Management - Plan - Select Representative The Lake Minnetonka Planners for Lake Minnetonka are seeking represent- atives from communities to serve on subcommittees, they are: Lake Use, Lake Access, On -shore related facilities and Wetlands. Motion by Rockvam second by Kraemer to have the Administrator serve as a representative on the Lake Use Committee. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of Spring Park on March 6, 1989 voted on a proposal to rezone the following pro- perty in the City of Spring Park: 4165 Shoreline Drive Tract D - RLS 1106 PID 18-117-23 44 0022 The above described property has now been rezoned from a R-3 High Density Residential District to the C-4 Office Commercial District. CITY OF SPRING PARK By Patricia Osmonson Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer Publish one time in the March 20, 1989 Issue of THE LAKER. CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MEMO March 31, 1989 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: City Administrator SUBJECT: EAW - Yacht Club - 4165 Shoreline Drive Councilmembers: In December 1988, Judy Boudreau from the DNR, upon review of the Yacht Club proposal, called attention to the need for a EAW (Environmental Assessment Worksheet) on the project. In compliance with the EQB mandatory rules an EAW was prepared and mailed to all 15 agencies on their distribution list. Also a press release was published on February 27, 1989. The Environmental Quality Board published notice on February 20th and the 30 day comment period expired on March 22, 1989. Of the 15 agencies to which copies were sent comments were received from only three agencies, the MDNR, MN Historical Society and Metro Council. The following comments were noted: The DNR: "an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary for this project". The Metro Council: "An EIS is not necessary for regional purposes." Historical Society: Suggested an archaeological survey be done to determine existance of any unreported historic sites which could be damaged or destroyed by the proposed work. In response to the Society's concerns, RDP Partners responded that the site has been part of previous developments and has been altered and is not in an "undisturbed condition". The City Council must now evaluate the EAW and the Comments received to deter- mine the need for further review (EIS) or that no further review is necessary. The findings of fact must include the 5 listed criteria. (attached) f rn �n STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DNR INFORMATION 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA • 55155-40 (612) 296-6157 March 20, 1989 Ms. Pat Osmonson City of Spring Park P. 0. Box 452 Spring Park, MN 55384 RE: The Yacht Club Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Dear Ms. Osmonson: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the above -referenced document, and we offer the following comments for your consideration. Question 22 indicates that runoff from the building's roof and deck will be routed to the Lakeshore. We would prefer that this runoff be routed to the sanitary sewer and water system. While we are not opposed to the placement of riprap, we recommend that all other disturbance to the shoreline be strictly minimized. Dredging and other disturbance promotes the growth and distribution of Eurasian watermilfoil, a nuisance aquatic plant. Finally, we recommend that the setback and height of the building be consistent with those of the surrounding structures. From our perspective, an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this project. Thank you for the opportunity to review this EAW. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please call Don Buckhout at (612) 296-8212. Sincerely, Thomas W. Balcom, Supervisor NR Planning and Review Section #890135-1 c: Kathleen Wallace Ron Lawrenz Laurel Reeves Gregg Downing - EQB Robert Welford - USFWS Richard Putnam - RDP Partners & Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING 7;30 p.m. - City Hall March 6, 1989 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Rockvam at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Rockvam, Kraemer, Widmer and Weeks were present. Dill was excused. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Kraemer second by Widmer to adopt the agenda as presented. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVE MINUTES - February 6, 1989 Motion by Kraemer second by Weeks to approve the minutes of February 6, 1989. Upon roll call Rockvam, Kraemer, Widmer and Weeks all voted aye. Motion de- clared carried. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING The roll call will remain the same. a) Amendment to Zoning Ordinance - C-4 Office Commercial The following notices were published in the Laker Newspaper: All persons interested, and property owners of 350 feet were notified. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council will hold a public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, March 6, 1989 at the City Hall, 4349 Warren Avenue to discuss an amendment to the Spring Park Zoning Ordinance to add an additional classification district - OFFICE COMMERCIAL to be called C-4. A copy of the proposed draft is available for review at the City Office. All comments oral or written will be heard at the above time and place. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Spring Park will hold a public hearing on Monday, March 6, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall, 4349 Warren Avenue, on a rezoning proposal for the following described property: 4165 Shoreline Drive Tract D-RLS 1106 PID 18-117-23-44-0022 This hearing is pursuant to an application submitted by THE YACHT CLUB, RICHARD PUTNAM, to rezone the above lot from R-3 to C-4 to construct an office building including a club house, with appurtenant dockage CITY OF SPRING PARK REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING - March 6, 1989 Page 2 and parking. Plans for the above proposal are available for inspection at the City Office. All comments, written and oral will be heard at the above time and place. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Spring Park will hold a public hearing on Monday, March 6, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall, 4349 Warren Avenue to consider building height, set back variances for the building, deck and parking area for the proposed YACHT CLUB at 4165 Shoreline Drive. All comments, oral or written will be heard at the above time and place. Public Hearings had been held by the Planning Commission on January 11, 1989 for an additional zoning classification, to change the zoning from R-3 to C-4 at 4165 Shoreline Drive, and variances needed for the proposed Yacht Club at 4165 Shoreline Drive. The Attorney felt another public hearing should be conducted for a Finding of Fact. City Attorney, Nancy Beck was present, and The RDP Partners, Les Renner, Jack Dennis and Dick Putnam. Also present were Jeff Robinson, representing the Edgewater Apartments and residents from the Edgewater Apartments, list attached. Motion by Widmer second by Kraemer to open for discussion the proposed amendment to Ordinance 56, and to change item 4-e to read: "No boats shall be stored on site. No trailers shall be parked on site." Upon roll call Rockvam, Kraemer, Widmer and Weeks all voted aye. Motion declared carried. The agenda was then moved to 4 - c. c) Variance Considerations The RDP Partners had submitted a revised variances needed. Jack Dennis explained Variances still needed are: 1. Lake Set Back for Ground Deck 2. Balconies in the 50 Foot Setback Area 3. Height of the Building 4. Number of Required Parking Spaces. The Mayor also noted a 50 X 12 foot area needed to be incorporated in the parking plan to eliminate some of the the changes. for loading and unloading plan. Alan Brixius the City Planner was present and stated the variance needed for height could be submitted as a conditional use because then there would be no required hardship. The ground deck and the gazebo were discussed. Dorothy Shaffer and Jeff Robinson raised questions as to how close the deck would come to the property line, noise and activity. Mr. Dennis stated it would be under 3 feet high, 100 feet from the west property line, help erosion and the stairway would be made of railroad ties. •CITY OF SPRING PARK REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING - March 6, 1989 Page 3 Motion by Widmer second by Weeks to approve the ground level deck without the gazebo. Upon roll call Rockvam, Kraemer, Widmer and Weeks all voted aye. Motion declared carried. Motion by Weeks second by Kraemer to approve the gazebo. The Mayor inquired about the hardship. The RDP Partners stated it matched the building, made the deck more attractive and would be used as a rain shelter, but was more a matter of convenience. Upon roll call Rockvam and Kraemer voted no. Widmer and Weeks voted aye. The motion was declared failed. Communications and correspondence were noted: A site plan, application, staff report from Allen Brixius the City Planner, the City Engineer, Attorney, LMCD, Watershed, DNR, Planning Commission Minutes, Robert Ryan, Margaret Smith, Margaret Pearson and several letters and photos from Trident, Jeff Robinson representing Edgewater Apartments. The City Planner noted language varying interpretations of the Zoning Ordinance would require only a 2 foot variance for the extension of the balconies. Motion by Kraemer second by Widmer to allow the 2 foot variance for the balconies on the southeasterly deck. Rockvam and Widmer voted aye. Kraemer and Weeks voted no. The motion was declared failed. The building height and the elevator penthouse were discussed. As stated in the Zoning Ordinance elevators that were not usable space did not apply to height restrictions. Evelyn Bennett and Pat Heintzman from the Edgewater Apartments were concerned with encroachment and screening. Wayne Grimes from the Edgewater Apartments expressed concern about noise, cars & confusion. Jeff Robinson stated the project would lessen the desirability of the Edgewater Apartments and the property was being over developed. Motion by Rockvam second by Widmer to allow a 4 foot variance for the building height. Upon roll call Rockvam Widmer and Weeks voted aye. Kraemer voted no. The motion was declared failed. A letter from Hennepin County Department of Public Works, dated March 6, 1989 was noted. The County stated they had not committed to allow a median opening at 4165 Shoreline Drive. The proposed Yacht Club does not meet the City's parking requirements, they currently have 118 parking spaces, 146 are needed. An analysis done by the City Planner regarding C-4 District off-street parking was presented. to the Council. Putnam stated they would try to negotiate with Balboa to obtain additional parking. Council noted parking spaces for sailing school and swimming lessons would also be needed. Motion by Widmer second by Kraemer to approve the variance for the off-street parking. Upon roll call Rockvam, Kraemer, Widmer and Weeks all voted no. The motion was declared failed. 'CITY OF SPRING PARK REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARINGS - March 6, 1989 Page 4 Kraemer stated he would not vote for the project unless it would comply with the Ordinance. Motion by Rockvam second by Kraemer to rezone the property at 4165 Shoreline Drive from R-3 to C-4 as proposed. All votes were no. The motion was declared failed. Motion by Rockvam second by Kraemer to rezone the property at 4165 Shoreline Drive if the project meets all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the plan is approved by the Council. Upon roll call Rockvam, Kraemer, Widmer and Weeks all voted aye. Motion declared carried. The Attorney stated she felt the Fact of Finding had been established. Motion by Kraemer second by Widmer to adjourn the public hearing at 10:31 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. The Mayor called a recess at 10:32 p.m. The meeting was resumed at 10:44 p.m. Because of the intensive deliberation and discussion Council decided to call a special meeting to discuss items that remained on the agenda. Motion by Rockvam second by Widmer to hold a special meeting on March 13, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. The agenda moved to 5 - b - Eurasian Water Milfoil Contribution ($2773.00) Motion by Kraemer second by Widmer to approve the contribution of $2773.00 to the LMCD for the fight to control the Eurasian Water Milfoil Weed. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5 - d) Dance Permit'- Police Reserve - 3-18-1989 - Minnetonka Mist The Orono Police Department submitted an application for a dance and banquet to honor its reserve officers for their volunteer work on March 18, 1989. They requested the usual fee be waived. Motion by Weeks second by Kraemer to approve the dance application and waive the fee. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 8. The agenda was then moved to claims for payment. Motion by Kraemer second by Widmer to approve the claims for payment. Upon roll call Rockvam, Kraemer, Widmer and Weeks all voted aye. Motion declared carried. CITY OF SPRING PARK REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARINGS - March 6, 1989 Page 5 MISCELLANEOUS Council was concerned with the amount of snow that is being pushed on sidewalks making it extremely difficult to clean the sidewalks. Council suggested contact with the snow plowers and instruct them not to stack the snow on the sidewalks when they are plowing, if they deposit more snow on the sidewalk they will be assessed for the removal. Kraemer reported he would like Council to seek a replacement for a repre- sentative on the LMCD Board for the City of Spring Park, he stated there were too many meetings and he could not attend all of them. The Mayor suggested he attend the ones he could. Kraemer urged the Council to look for a replacement. Plan & Feasibility for West Arm Road Central - Resolution 89-10 Another easement for roadway has been obtained for West Arm Road. The Administrator was seeking authorization from Council to proceed with plans. Motion by Rockvam second by Widmer to adopt Resolution 89-10 to authorize the Engineer to draft a plan and feasibility study for West Arm Road Central. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. ADJOURN Motion by Weeks second by Kraemer to adjourn the meeting at 11:02 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. J �L Secretary A, _g4'4_ 4L) Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer northwest associated consultants, inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: BACKGROUND Spring Park City Council Michael Ridley/Alan Brixius 6 March 1989 Spring Park - C-4 District Off -Street Parking 175.01 - 89.01 In an effort to determine the appropriateness of off-street parking standards applied to the Yacht Club proposal and the C-4 Zoning District as a whole, our office has contacted a number of cities and researched parking standards as a means of comparison. ANALYSIS Parking Generation The following parking generation figures were compiled from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 1985 Report Titled "Summary of Parking Occupancy Data". Office: Parking generation rates for offices under 50,000 square feet are as follows: Range of generation: One space for each 1,333 square feet at the low end. One space for each 212 square feet at the high end. Current Spring Park Code minus 10 percent credit: One space for each 220 square feet. 4601 excelsior blvd., ste. 410, minneapolis, mn 55416 (61 Z) 925-9420 The City's established figure easily falls within the applicable range found by ITE. It is important to note that the City must establish parking requirements that reflect the high end or by assuming the most intense use. This is necessary because the figure applies to office buildings in general and does not discern between active offices that generate a lot of traffic or offices that produce very little traffic due to the nature of the office use. Marina: The ITE Parking Generation Report also studied the use of parking spaces required per boat slip or berth for weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays: Weekdays - .27 parking spaces per berth Saturdays - .70 parking spaces per berth Sundays - .49 parking spaces per berth The City's required one space for each three boat slips gives a calculation of .33 spaces per slip. This figure appears to be comparable, if not slightly liberal, compared to the ITE report. Clubs Serving Food and/or Drinks: ITE calls for .39 parking spaces per seat. Spring Park Ordinance calls for one space for every three seats or .33 spaces per seat. Consistencv with Other Communities The following communities and parking are listed below: White Bear Lake, MN their requirements for off-street Office = 1 space for every 200 square feet of gross floor area. Marina = By conditional use; case by case - generally one space per slip. Club = One per 40 square feet of dining and bar area plus one per 80 square feet -of kitchen area. Shorewood, MN Office = Three spaces plus one for each 200 square feet of gross floor area. Marina = One space per boat slip Club = Case by case Excelsior, MN Office = One space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. Marina = Conditional use; determined on a case by case basis. Club = One per 3 seats or one per 35 square feet of gross floor area. Tonka Bay, MN Office = Three spaces plus one for each 200 square feet of gross floor area. Marina = One space for every two boat slips. Club = One space per 40 square feet of dining and bar plus one for each 80 square feet of kitchen space. Minnetonka, MN Office = Four spaces for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Marina = No established standards. Club = If no liquor is served, one for each 60 square feet of gross floor area or one for every 2.5 seats whichever is greater. If liquor is served, one for each 60 square feet of gross floor area or one for every two seats whichever is greater. SUMMARY Based on the required off-street parking requirements listed earlier in this report, it appears that Spring Park's standards for calculating off-street parking requirements are consistent with what other communities and national standards, as such they should be maintained. cc: Pat Osmonson me 3 on March 6, 1989 the Spring Park City Council at its regulaaer y scheduled meeting to consider the petition and application for the creation of a C-4 district in the City of Spring Park; the rezoning of a certain 1.5 acre site from R-3, High Density Residential District, to a: C-4, Office Commercial District; development. and for variances city yCrnmer cil Zoning Ordinance for their p po conducted a public hearing on the proposal which was preceded by published ant was the Council and mailed notice. interestedcpersons present sh ng to speak and now makes heard the testimony from all following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned R-3. 2. The property is located at 4165 Shoreline Drive, Spring Park, Minnesota. 3. The property is located between the HennepinCounty ( aced er Control building (zoned P) and the Minnetonka Edgewater Apartments R-3). 4. The purpose of a C-4, Office Commercial District, as stated in the proposed ordinance, is to provide a district which may reasonably adjoin High Density Residential Districts and provide a transition in land use from such residential uses to more intensive uses by providing the limited development of certain types of administrative office buildings. 5. RDP Partners has submitted plans and drawings to the Council for its proposal to develop the property by constructing an office building which use would include a "yacht club" and a dock having approximately 30 boat slips. 6. RDP Partners' proposal as presented requires several variances from the Zoning Ordinance as follows: a. A variance from the set back requirement for a wooden deck located between the building and the lake, b. A variance from the set back requirement for two balconies, c. A variance from the height limitation on the building, and d. A variance from the off-street parking requirements. 7. In regard to the variance for the deck as proposed in the plans submitted by RDP Partners, the uses of the deck and the effect of such uses on neighboring residences, including noise and obstruction of views from the neighboring apartments, were discussed. RDP Partners -1- explained that the deck would be located well below the ground level of the from many of the apartment building which would shield it from view apartments and, in addition, the location of the trees on the property would shield the deck from view. Councilman Kramer asked RDP Partners to describe their hardship basis for requesting the variance. In response RDP Partners stated that grass would not be able to handle the traffic between the building and the dock and that to have an impervious surface such as concrete or black top between the building and the dock would create run-off problems. Mayor Rockvam brought up the possibility of using some sort of stone or loose rock instead of a deck. RDP Partners then stated that it is common practice to use plastic under such types of materials which would thus create an impervious surface. The city planner confirmed that there would be a problem if an impervious surface was used. Councilman weeks discussed the fact that wooden decks would prevent the possible erosion problems which would be inherent in loose rock surfaced walkway. Councilman Widmer added that there would be less maintenance problems with a wooden deck. RDP Partners' proposal also included a gazebo to be located on the deck. In the following discussion of the purpose, the size and location of the gazebo, RDP Partners was unable to articulate any hardship or special conditions which would support a variance for the creation of a gazebo. The developer stated that a hard roofed gazebo would match the design of the building and would provide a rain shelter and a place for sailors to store sail bags. The emayeloper am statedadmitted that such awnings could serve the same purpose awnings would be temporary and would be taken down in the off-season whereas the gazebo would be a permanent structure. Residents of the Minnesota Edgewater Apartments voiced a concern over the activity and noise t that a gazebo would encourage. The Council determined that the application for a variance for the deck and the gazebobefor°a ariance idered on the issue sueas Rof Partners was unable to meet the requirements a gazebo. A motion to grant a variance for a deck the height not to exceed three feet fom ssodund Avm�tionto bto incorpoated rate a hardoffice roofed gazebo aure s a the dock waspa part of the deck failed. 8. The next variance that was considered was a variance regarding two balconies which extended into the set back area; one balcony by eight feet and one by five feet. The reasons RDP Partners articulated for their need for variance were that they have moved the building to that particular narrow side of the lot to accommodate the desires of the Edgewater Apartment residents regarding the location of the building. In addition, RDP articulated an aesthetic concern with providing uniform balconies along this particular side of the building and because of the narrowness of the lot size on the east end of the building these two balconies would encroach eight feet and five feet into the set back area. Councilman nrameSes�ieedd that this sounded like an economic hardship more than anyth'lg is not sufficient in itself to grant a variance. The city planner then referred to zoning Ordinance Section 3, Subd. C(3)(a)(3) which states that a deck which extends either six feet into a yard or at the entry level of the building is not considered an encroachment. The cityattorney confirmed the city planner's opinion that this section would apply. The application of this section to the RDP proposal reduces the size of the requested variance from eight feet to two feet in one case, and eliminates the need for a variance in the other. A motion was made for the granting -2- of a two foot variance for one balcony to extend into the side set back area. This motion failed. 9. The City Council next considered RCP's request for a variance on the height limitations on their proposed building. The manner of measuring the building height was discussed in great detail. It was determined that the highest point of the roof was the elevator penthouse so it would not be used to measure the height as it is exempt from the height limitations under Section 3, Subd. E (2)(f) of the Zoning Ordinance. The developer did not have available the exact height of the building, but measurements of the scaled drawing showed a height of 44 feet from the mean of the basement to the mean of the main roof . The aesthetic value of a hipped roof as proposed by the developer was also discussed. Jeffrey Robinson, one of the owners of Minnetonka Edgewood Apartments, was concerned that the proposed building would "dwarf" the surrounding buildings such as his apartment building next door. Mayor Rockvam mentioned that the water patrol building on the other side of the proposed building site has a hipped roof. Mayor Rockvam then discussed in some detail the past development of Spring Park including the effect on Spring Park on the construction of apartment buildings in the city, their effect on city revenue, use of water and other services, and the increase of population. The city attorney brought up the fact that the ordinance creating a C-4 zone makes heights exceeding forty feet the subject of a conditional use permit rather than a variance. This would be an easier requirement for the developer to meet as no proof of hardship is required for a conditional use permit and a conditional use permit may be granted by simple majority vote rather than by four -fifths of the Council. Jeffrey Robinson stated his belief that the taller the "Yacht Club" building is, the less desirable the apartment units on the east side of his apartment building would be. In addition, he questioned the size of the building for the site and its compatibility with the adjacent residential district. Councilman Kramer again brought up the issue that the developer needed to prove a hardship in order to get a variance and that the developer could come back and request an conditional use permit in the event it was unable to prove a hardship. The mayor confirmed that if the variance failed the developer could come back and apply for a conditional use permit. The developer did not set forth any special conditions or circumstances which required the proposed building to be more than 40 feet high. The developer emphasized the aesthetic value of a hipped roof and that the size of the building was affected by economic considerations. The developer also stated that its plans could be modified. The City Council then considered a motion for granting a variance to extend the building height four feet over the height limitation of the zoning code, which motion failed. 10. The floor was then opened to the public to address any additional concerns they may have regarding the proposals. Several residents of the Minnetonka Edgewater Apartments stated the following concerns: -3- a. The potential access and parking problems, b. Possible encroachment onto their property by users of the new development, c. Lights shining into apartment windows, and d. Traffic, confusion and noise. RDP Partners stated that it has entered into an agreement with the owner of the Minnetonka Edgewater Apartments in which it has agreed to work with the apartment owners to shield the apartments from car lights. The current proposal includes construction of a chain link fence to enhance the existing hedge and the developer has agreed to plant additional shrubs as needed. One of the apartment residents commented that the fence sounded good and that the shrubs would help car headlight problems and might muffle noise also. 11. The City Council next considered the issue of granting a variance from the Zoning ordinance's off-street parking requirements for the project. The city planner discussed his letter dated March 6, 1989 to the Spring Park City Council in which he had analyzed the off-street requirements of this CA district as a whole and of the developer's yacht club proposal in particular. It was the conclusion of the city planner that the City's off street parking requirements were in line with both national and local standards. He recommended that one parking stall for every two dock bays be required and stated that this was consistent with the requirements of other localities. The city planner mentioned that the yacht club peak hours for parking purposes would be on the weekend and that the office building's peak parking hours would be during the week. He recommended a total of 146 parking stalls for the project, comprised of 130 spaces for the office building and 16 spaces for the yacht club. The mayor voiced his concern that no parking spaces were specifically required for the proposed sailing school and swimming lessons which were a part of the developers proposed use of the property. The city planner stated that the number of parking spaces required for the office building are on the high end of what is generally required for such use, he felt that some of the offices would not require as many parking spaces as were allotted to them, and these spaces may adequately cover the swimming lesson and sailing school parking needs. The developer then discussed when the lessons would occur and how many students were anticipated in such classes. The developer stated that for many of the sailing classes the students bring their own boats from across the lake and do not need parking spaces. Mayor Rockvam brought up the issue that the yacht club intends to have six sailboats available for use of yacht club members and students. The Mayor reiterated his feeling that a specific number of parking spaces were required for the swimming and sailing lessons, and, although he did not know how may parking spaces should be required, he felt that approximately 150 to 160 total parking spaces would be needed. The developer stated that some of the sailing lessons would occur during evening hours when the need for the office parking would be minimal. The discussion then moved to the possibility of having off -site parking for the project. The developer's present plans include 118 spaces on site. The developer is in the process of negotiating with Balboa for the purchase of property approximately 30C -4- feet from the site which would add up to 80 parking spaces for the ' property. The developer also suggested it would be possible to cut down the size of the building to meet the parking requirements or to possibly work out a deal for the use of the water patrol parking lot adjacent to the property. Use of the Balboa site for parking would require a variance from the off -site parking requirements of the zoning ordinance as the off -site parking would be more than 300 feet from the entrance to the property, even though it is located approximately 300 feet from the corner of the property. Jeffrey Robinson stated that it was his belief that the site was not large enough to accommodate the size of the development the developer proposed if it was unable to meet the parking requirements. He thought this was evidence that the developer's use was too intensive a use for the transition from the residential use of his neighboring property. The City Council then entertained a motion on the granting of a variance from the off-street parking requirements for the project, which motion failed. The developer asked the Council whether it should pursue the off -site parking. The Mayor stated that the developer would need a variance in order to get this particular off -site parking proposal approved and that the developer would need a four -fifth vote to get such a variance. of the four council members present at the meeting, one advised the developer that he would not support any off -site parking because it was his opinion that the use was too intensive for the lot and the parking problem was evidence of that. He also cited the problems the City has had with the Lord Fletcher restaurant because of off -site parking. The developer stated that it would document the parking requirements it believed it would need for the swimming and sailing lessons and would come back with a number which it would get the Mound community services organization to confirm. 12. The Council then considered the issue of rezoning this particular site to a CA zone. The developer advised the Council of its continuing discussions with Hennepin County regarding access to this site and the location of curb cuts, including the allowance of a left turn onto the property. Jeffrey Robinson stated that the entrance to the office building as presently proposed was the worst possible location as it affects his apartment building, eg. traffic and safety problems. Based on all prior discussions, the City Council entertained a motion to rezone the site from R-3 to CA for the project as currently proposed by the developer. This motion unanimously failed. The City Council then entertained a motion to rezone the site from R-3 to CA based on the condition that the developer submit new plans which meet all requirements of the zoning code and the CA zoning district. This motion was unanimously approved. The public meeting was then closed. NJB9/6 -5-