Loading...
Plans - 4165 Shoreline Drive - 1/22/1991FN A C Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. U R B A N PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET R E S E A R C H PLANNING REPORT TO: Spring Park City Council FROM: Elizabeth Stockman/Alan Brixius DATE: 22 January 1991 RE: Spring Park - Yacht Club - Site Plan Review FILE NO: 175.01 - 91.01 BACKGROUND RDP Partners has resubmitted building plans for a proposed Yacht Club and office complex to be located on a 1.5 acre site south of County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive) and east of the Edgewater Apartments on Lake Minnetonka. The proposals call for the construction of a 24,425 square foot 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 proposed Yacht Club is permitted within the "C-1", General. Commercial zoning designation and is therefore subject to the conditions as stated in Section 12 of the .Spring Park Zoning Ordinance. To date, the proposed plans have been approved by the Department of Natural Resources and the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. ISSUE ANALYSIS Land Use. While the subject site is bounded by a variety of land uses, the proposed general 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 west, where screening and buffering become an important design concern. 4601 Excelsior Blvd. - Suite 410 - Minneapolis, MN 55416.(612) 925-9420 - Fax 925-2721 Screening/Landscaping. 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. 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 screening 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. Setbacks Office/Yacht Club Building: A discrepancy exists between the required and proposed setback distances from the lakeshore to the proposed office/Yacht Club complex and to the proposed deck adjacent to the said complex. According to the Department of Natural Resources, statewide standards for "Management of Shoreland Areas", the ordinary setback distance for the general development class (within which the office/Yacht Club complex is designated) is 50 feet for sewered areas. However, an exception exists to this setback standard in instances where structures on adjoining lots on both sides of the proposed building site have setbacks less than the ordinary 50 feet distance. In such a case, as is the proposed office/Yacht Club complex, the structure setbacks may be altered without a variance to conform to the adjoining setbacks provided the proposed building site is not located in a shore impact zone or in a bluff impact zone, of which the proposed complex is not. The site plan shows both the ordinary 50 foot setback mark and a setback line connecting the near corners of the adjacent buildings on either side of the building site. The proposed building, as located on the plan, encroaches outside the ordinary 50 foot setback line, but is well within the line allowed by exception where the setback distance does not exceed 20 feet from any point along the shoreline. E Deck: According to the Department of Natural Resources, statewide standards for "Management of Shoreland Areas", all accessory structures and facilities, except those that are water - oriented, must meet or exceed the above structure setback standards. The proposed deck area encroaches beyond the 50 foot ordinary setback, as does the Yacht Club/office building. In addition, the deck's stairs and gazebo encroach beyond the line connecting the near corners of the adjacent buildings that mark the exception to the 50 foot standard. The stairs and gazebo encroachment may be allowed, however, according to the definition of a water -oriented accessory structure or facility; stated as follows: "Water -oriented accessory structure or facility" means a small, above ground building or other improvement, except stairways fences, docks, and retaining walls, which, because of the relationship of its use to a surface water feature, reasonably needs to be located closer to public waters than the normal structure setback. Examples of such structures and facilities include boat houses, gazebos, screen houses, fish houses, pump houses, and detached decks. The proposed deck shall be, by definition, "a horizontal, unenclosed platform with or without attached railings, seats, trellises or other features, attached or functionally related as a principal use or site and at any point extending more than three feet above ground. The deck configuration may be allowed under the setback exception rules previously stated for the building. While the setback distance for both the building and deck is acceptable under DNR shoreland rules, the City of Spring Park must decide what is most appropriate, with the least adverse impacts, by local government controls through the variance process. Parking. The proposed Yacht Club plan provides 119 parking spaces. According to a strict interpretation of the Ordinance standards and shown below, 133 spaces are required of the proposal. This results in a parking deficiency of fourteen (14) spaces. 3 Yacht Club/Office Building: The proposed building exhibits a gross floor area of 24,425 square feet. The City Ordinance suggests one space for each 200 square feet of floor area for office type uses. 24,425 sq.ft. x .10 = 21,983 sq.ft. @ 1 space/200 sq.ft. _ 110 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 @ 1 space/3 boat slips = 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 stall/boat = 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 @ 1 space/4 students = 4 spaces required 2 instructors @ 1 space/instructor = 2 spaces required Total of 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 110 office spaces required by Ordinance. Thirty six percent of a typical yacht club floor is designated as "common space" that typically will 4 not generate parking demand. The remaining 64% represents the gross leasable floor area. Therefore, the following parking requirement may be considered as an alternative. 24,425 total gross sq.ft. x .64 = 15,632 sq.ft. @ 1 space/ 200 sq.ft. = 78 spaces required. By applying the aforementioned adjusted office parking standards, 101 spaces are required of the entire Yacht Club proposal resulting in an excess of 18 spaces. Parking Summary. According to a strict interpretation of City parking standards with no credit given to overlapping uses, a parking demand of 133 vehicles can be expected. By altering the standard applied to office uses as previously described, a parking demand of 101 vehicles may be expected. Under this scenario, the 119 parking stalls provided would be sufficient. 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 Adjustment Yacht Club/Office Building 110 78 Yacht Club/Boat Marina 11 11 Sailing School 6 6 Swimming School 6 6 TOTAL 133 101 CONCLUSION The proposed site plan contains several design deficiencies relating to the shoreline setback distance and number of parking spaces required on site. Each of these issues are local matters which need to be addressed by the City prior to final approval of the site design. riDEPSTATE of ARTMENT IEz0ITA OR NATURAL RESOURCES DNR INFOnMATION 500 LAEAYETTE ROAD • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA • 55155.40__.._____ (612)29e•e157 March 20, 1989 Ms. Hat 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. MINNESOTA 2990 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. __ffom"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 HA SNFD MIPJPJEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 BOARD OF MANAGERS: James R. Spensleg Pros. • Albert L. Lehman • John E. Thomas Richard R. Miller • Robert D. Erickson • C. Woodrow Love • Clarkson Lindley LAKE PgEllnit Application N,Q. 20-120 October22, 1990 Applicant: RDP Pa mers c/o R. Putnam 2765 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Location: City of Spring Park, Sec, 18DD, Spring Park Bay, Lake Minnetonka Purpose: Stormwater management plan for a 1.5 acre commercial development in Spring Park. Dear Mr. Putnam: At the regularly sclleduledOctober 18, 1990 meeting of the Board of Managers, the subject permit application was reviewed. Action was taken :allowing the District staff to issue your permit only after receipt and staff approval of the following: 1. Review and approval by the DNR, 2. Correctly completed MCWD perrnit application. Please be advised that the project is not authorized until the above has been submitted to me and you have been notified of perni t issuance from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 473-4224, Sincerely, JAMES M. MONTGOMERY, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Engineers for the District cc: Board file City of Spring Park Schoell & Madson Ronald S. Quanbeck, P.E. bt Permit A111111catiou No. 90-,120 October 12, 1990 Applicant: RDP Partners c/o R. Putnam 2765 Casco Point Road. Wayzata, MN 55391 Location: City of Spring Park, Sec. 18DD, Spring Park Bay, Lake Minnetonka Purpose: Stormwater management plan for a 1.5 acre conrunercial development in Spring Park. Rule B - Stormwater Management Plan for Individual Projects 1. MCWD Permit File 88-151. 2. Letter from the applicant to the District received September 24, 1990. Staff Review Summur The project involves development of a 1.5 acre site into a 2-story office building and parking lot. Along with this construction there will be 350 lineal feet of rip rap shoreline erosion protection placed along the shoreline of Spring Park Bay. Due to the proximity of the project site to Lake Minnetonka, staff recommends that rate control not be required for this site. A beach area is designated above the proposed rip rap. Staff notes that if a beach sand blanket is to be placed, additional review and approval by the Board of Managers will be required in the form of an amendment to this permit or a separate permit from the District. Water quality treatment for stormwater runoff on the site will be accomplished through the use of two sump catch basins with internal wooden baffles. These sump catch basins will then discharge directly into Spring Park Bay. This project was reviewed by the Board of Managers in November 1988 with the permit to be issued upon staff receipt and approval of review and approval by the City of Spring Park. The permit has not been issued. The applicant requests that the permit now be issued. He notes that the delay is due to land acquisition, but anticipates that they will be able to proceed in the next 2-3 months. In addition, he notes that the project has not changed from that originally approved. A letter from DNR to the applicant dated December 15, 1988 notes that DNR will require a permit for the docking, the storm sewer outfalls and possibly the beach sand blanket. Refi,QMmendation: Approval pending receipt of: I . Review and approval by the DNR. 2. Correctly completed MCWD permit application. City of Spring Park has approved this project. DNR has not been contacted concerning this project. 1of17 Hq I 4 Q FINED O�S� MINNEHAMA CREED LAKE WATERSHED D]STRICT P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 BOARD OF MANAGERS: James R. Spensley, Pres. • John E. Thomas • Richard R. Miller Robert 0. Erickson • C. Woodrow Love • Clarkson Lindley • Thomas Maple, Jr. Permit A -placation No. 90-120 November 22, 1990 Applicant: RDP Partners c% R. Putnam 2765 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Location: City of Spring Park, Sec. 18DD, Spring Park Bay, Lake Minnetonka Purpose: Stormwater management plan for a 1.5 acre commercial development in Spring Park. Dear Mr. Putnam: At the regularly scheduled November 21, 1991 meeting of the Board of Managers, the subject permit application was reviewed along with the following exhibits: 1. MCWD Permit File 88-151. 2. Letter from the applicant to the District received September 24, 1990. 3. Letter from the District to the applicant dated October 22, 1990 informing him of the Board action on October 18, 1990. 4. Letter from the District to the applicant dated March 7, 1991. 5. Permit Application No. 90-120 received May 6, 1991. 6. Letter from the applicant's representative to the District dated May 6, 1991. 7. Revised grading, drainage, and utility plan dated May 6, 1991. 8. DNR Permit No. 91-6209 dated October 4, 1991. 9. Letter from the District to the applicant dated October 23, 1991. 10. Letter from the applicant to the District dated October 29, 1991. The Board approved the permit application with the following condition: 1. The owner has the responsibility to operate and maintain the approved stormwater management facilities which were designed in accordance with Rule B of the Rules. This document is your permit from the MCWD. It is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval noted above. If construction is not complete by November 21, 1992, an extension must be requested. The applicant is responsible for compliance with all District rules and for the actions of your representatives, contractors and employees. Please contact the District at 473-4224 when the project is about to commence so an inspector may view the work in progress. JAMES M. MONTGOMERY, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Engineers for the District Ronald S. Quanbeck P.E. //- zz-g/ Date of Issue cc: Board file coif of Spring Park