Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 16-17, 2011 Community Needs GrandView Small Area Plan Workshop#3—Braemar Clubhouse—November 16-17, 2011 Community Needs Work Group Meeting Attendees: Kevin Staunton, Kim Montgomery, Ellen Jones,Thomas Raeuchle, Linda Urban, Bright Dornbleizer,Jean Persha, Bruce Jacobson, Mike Lamb,Andrew Dresdner, Peter Sussman,Cary Teague Request for meeting notes: available in a timely manner, reviewable, capture salient points, correctable Vote 5 Yay, 1 Nay, 1 abstain Team will take notes and distribute shortly after meeting Process Concern with a "singular plan" Not sure whose plan it is Request for altetrnatives Suggested Alts: w/Park and Ride not in the middle of the site substantial CC on a substantial greenspace existing zoning code, MDC,with regulating setbacks and height limits alternatives for bicycle connections consolidation savings (moving Edinborough, Sr Center, etc,to Grandview) CAT recommendation of no net loss Request for drawings, written explanations, economic impact and traffic analysis of alternatives T R—have not taken us along the journey, have not seen the arguments and still feel on the outside. Library and Circulation +/-66 new spaces;greater visibility of Library and fewer roads. General support for Library ideas—however concern for loss of parking on Sherburn Walgreens and one way Pair 3 lane section non Vernon, rightsizing Vernon TR—must address community concerns and the County has said they are opposed to "traffic calming." BJ—"right sizing"shift in philosophy EJ—is increasing the intersections in conflict with making it safer for pedestrians and bicyclists since it creates more conflict points. AR—60%of crashes occur at intersections however removing intersections would make a less porous boundary, reduce accessibility and increase car speeds Must design intersections that are safe and legible ML—street connection to the neighborhoods allows capillary action ;distributes traffic efficiently. Walgreens forced the issue to propose one way pair. TR—with the drive through and all the curb cuts, it does not look pedestrian friendly— BJ—potential for through block connections on the CSM block. E1—need greater detail and dimensions to determine the nature and character of the plan BJ —clarification on dimensions—65' bldg to bldg ML—can control these dimensions how we like. Can create very narrow European road, or a wide one. EJ—we need to understand the scale of the proposed greenspace vis a vis GV Square. scale comparison KM—concerns with Walgreens re: circulation. ML: intersection is not perfect but it is an improvement BJ—Grandview Commons has three parts: a great street a green space and a civic building. TR—staircase to nowhere BJ—trying to create a stronger and better connection to the Great Lawn TR—false—they are sports fields owned by the school. If we are creating a grand staircase it should be wider and in the middle of the block. BJ—can we foster a better relationship with OLG ML—can't give up on Eden—it is an important street too. TR—agree that it is important to create a N/S connection however it should not be on the outside of the block. B1—we are trying to reinforce the public edge of the block PS—its in the exact right place'the west edge is ugly and if it is in the middle it will fragment the site EJ—we need to own the view to and from the public space and building.The pedestrian views across the hwy should align with the Center of the public space—not the street. The plan needs to be more flexible, more serpentine and more interesting. TR—the P and R in the middle of the PW site is incompatible with the other ideas for the area. It puts peak loads at peak times for other uses. It the P and R is on the cloverleaf site on the east side of the Hwy. you can put the bus garage in the base,add parking for City and make it more efficient on/off for busses. PS—Met Council can pressure MnDot to remove cloverleaf TR—P and R is not the priority for us, its it the priority for others. KM—recommend to consolidate Sr Center, Rec Center etc to GV site. There would still be room for residential on the PW site.The Location is correct but the scale is not. TR—you have a prelim program based on 30,000 sf(Hopkins) and 70,000 sf(Minnetonka) ML—the residential market responds to the views. TR—there is also a market for civic interaction : "own your view" EJ—what are the architectural features and scale and character that define our community. Buildings on the green should be no greater than 2 stories. Public building should command the green Public space should own the view Concern with residential coexisting with the public green—source of tension. TR—no interim P and R PS—can the building on the north edge be 2 stories with a step back to upper floors B1—we need more detailed full blown design guidelines KM—surprised to hear that the next step will be an RFP KS—that is one possible next step. Not necessarily the next step. TR—need to identify what the things are that need to be resolved before we hand this thing over to the City Bj—agree—more detail is needed. TR—how much of this is a plan and how much of this is an option KS—because it is a public site we will have leverage BD—to what degree are the drawings prescriptive? TR-the drawings are open to interpretation,we need descriptive words that create components of the Plan. 1. Meeting Minutes (Notes) More accurate reporting; documentation;available for review and "amendable"—moved,seconded,voted to approve. 2. Seem to have a singular plan...not sure how we got here...not sure whose plan this is. 3. Looking at options for location of Park'n Ride...situated elsewhere. 4. Substantial Community Center Substantial outdoor green space connected to Community Center 5. Zoning options...at least one that meets existing code (Height etc.) MDX, Height overlay, Min parking recq. 6. Bike and pedestrian connectivity 7. Financial planning...consolidation savings (source info from Buen) 8. Edinborough, arts center and senior center 9. CAT leveraging public land, no net loss 10. Details for each option; reasons for each option • Only ONE PLAN "critiques"...the overall framework pieces that fit in the frame. • Mike provides overview of presentation materials. • New street/new drive thru at Walgreens • Review/critique of Walgreens site plan • Grand stair—FALSE connection o stair internal to Public Works site makes it more o How does the Ped/bike connection/view to City Hall o Park 'n Ride "In the Center" o Space for Civic Building o Centrally located parking to allow multi-stop trips as pedestrians • Move Park'n Ride to Clover leaf with school bus garage as part of this site (mid or long term) • Community Commons • Community Center o 100,000 o Mixed use o Who owns the view?? o The view belongs to everyone... • I want to see a shade and shadow study for the green • Future of parking ramp • Community and retail center • Design guidelines...what level is needed?? • Next steps in the process!!