12-12-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View EDA September 12, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 representing a Mounds View resident and conducting a market analysis. Then she discovered 88 that Mounds View may be interested in developing the area so she approached Cheryl Stinski, 89 who is a developer, to see if she would be interested. Ms. Hart stated they talked to the residents 90 and presented the Council with a copy of those findings. She stated they felt the best way to 91 approach residents was with a letter and then a visit or telephone call. They were able to sit 92 down with a few residents and, for the most part, communication has been over the telephone. 93 So far they have talked to everyone at least once and a few several times. Five property owners 94 favor selling right now, two favor the development but are not interested in selling their home, 95 two answered a definite “no” to the development, and two were not committed. Ms. Hart 96 advised that the two who are in definite favor of selling are David Little and James Lund. Both 97 have indicated an interest in attending a Council meeting to express their support. She explained 98 that Mr. Lund is located south of Laport Meadows and is not part of the initial project but could 99 be if the Council wanted to consider that boundary of the development. Mr. Lund is very 100 interested in selling and will also attend a meeting to voice his support to include his property in 101 the Laport Meadows development. 102 103 Jeff Switzert, Shared Design, stated he has prepared two diagrams that include several schemes. 104 Scheme A has a senior facility in the compost location and beneath that 24 single family units on 105 individual properties. The concept for seniors has two buildings that favor the water areas, just 106 north of the buildings with a turnaround drop off area. The single family area would have an 107 alley to access garages at the back of the house with a pedestrian street going directly out to the 108 wetland area. This will make the wetland accessible to more than just the Laport Meadows 109 residents since it would be a non-vehicular roadway. There would also be several shelters with 110 docks into the wetland to allow people to sun, fish, or bird watch. The park would have a 111 meandering pathway along the buffer treed area on the south perimeter of Highway 10. That 112 would also provide noise abatement and bring pedestrians to a gathering point at the senior 113 housing and terminating in a picnic park at the north end. 114 115 Mr. Switzert presented Scheme B that contained 24 single family homes in a design that 116 incorporates three streets but no alleys. The sites would have a larger back yard and four larger 117 single family homes would be sited to the south of the wetland. The wetland would have a park 118 and meandering pathway. The senior housing would be contained in three buildings in the 119 compost area with an amphitheater and terminating in a picnic area at the far north area. This is 120 a more traditional concept. 121 122 Mr. Switzert then displayed an overlay that depicted existing conditions and how it is effective 123 with their concepts. He noted that the existing conditions work best with Scheme A, which is 124 their favored design. He also noted the location of existing structures and conditions that are not 125 part of the proposed development. 126 127 Commissioner Thomas stated the immediate question that comes to mind from the survey is the 128 owners on Long Lake Road who are not interested in selling and how that would figure in. She 129