Planning Commission Staff Report

Transcription

City Council Agenda Item #13D(1)
Meeting of October 27, 2014
Brief Description
Items concerning the redevelopment of Highland Bank at
1700 and 1730 Plymouth Road:
1) Rezoning;
2) Master development plan and final site and building plans;
3) Appeal of maximum p.m. peak hour trips;
4) Parking variance; and
5) Conditional use permits for coffee shop, restaurant,
outdoor dining patios, and drive-up windows
Recommendation
Adopt the ordinance and resolutions approving the proposal
Proposal
Paster Enterprises and Bader Development are proposing to redevelop the Highland
Bank property at 1700 and 1730 Plymouth Road. The redevelopment would consist of
demolishing the existing three story bank and office building, and constructing a new six
story, mixed use building. The proposed building would consist of 16,000 square feet of
retail on the first level, with five stories and 120 units of residential apartments above. The
proposed project would include surface parking and two levels of underground parking.
Planning Commission Meeting
The planning commission considered the request on October 9, 2014. The staff report
from that meeting is attached and various plans and documents describing the proposed
project may be found on pages A1-A82.
Ridgedale Drive/Cartway Lane Intersection
Additional information was presented at the planning commission meeting on concepts
for the Ridgedale Drive and Cartway Lane intersection. During the past two years, the
city and its consulting traffic engineer, SRF, have been engaged in a traffic study of the I394 corridor. Included in this study is the Ridgedale area and the roadways adjacent to
the Highland Bank site. This work is an update of the previous 1989 study.
Study results show that traffic at the Ridgedale Drive/Cartway Lane intersection and
Plymouth Road/Cartway Lane intersection operate within the range of acceptability at a
level of service (LOS) C, with or without the project. It is known however, that certain
Subject: Highland Bank Redevelopment, 1700 and 1730 Plymouth Rd.
Page 2
movements within the intersection operate worse than others, primarily, the southbound
Ridgedale Drive to eastbound Cartway Lane movement. Residents and businesses have
complained about long wait times trying to travel through these two intersections. This is
especially problematic at high peak traffic times, such as the holidays.
In response to these concerns, staff is evaluating a number of alternative concepts to
improve traffic flow, and increase pedestrian safety and accessibility. The possible
concepts that were presented at the planning commission meeting are on pages A58A60. Any concept would be a project the city could implement independent of the
Highland Bank site redevelopment through its capital improvement program.
Public Hearing
At the planning commission meeting, a public hearing was opened to take comment. A
spokesperson for the neighborhood provided a presentation to the planning commission
on comments and concerns regarding the project. In addition, four nearby residents
expressed concerns about the project. The residents expressed concerns regarding the
following items:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Size, height, and density of building
Development is out of character for Minnetonka and does not fit in with the area
Buffering from residential neighborhood
Traffic
Impervious surface
Parking
Pedestrian connections to neighborhood and Ridgedale mall
Tree removal
Apartments are not consistent with housing goals
PUD zoning
Planning Commission Discussion
Following the public hearing, the commission asked questions and discussed the
proposal and generally commented:
•
The planning commission supported the traffic study which indicates that no
improvements are necessary for the proposed project. The planning commission
also thought that the city should explore the preliminary concepts for the Ridgedale
Drive and Cartway Lane intersection to address the neighborhood’s concerns.
•
The planning commission discussed the rooftop terrace and the penthouse
structure that is needed to access the space. The planning commission supported
the outdoor terrace on the roof, but questioned whether the building height
Page 3
increase was appropriate. Ultimately, the planning commission recommended
approval of rooftop terrace.
•
The planning commission thought that the project was the first step in
implementing the Ridgedale area vision on the west side of Plymouth Road, and
they felt that the design and size of the building was appropriate for the site. They
also felt that it made sense to locate the more dense residential projects closer to
Plymouth Road, with less density projects closer to the single-family residential
neighborhood to the west.
Planning Commission Recommendation
On a 7-0 vote, the commission recommended that the city council approve the proposal,
as recommended by city staff. Meeting minutes may be found on pages A234-A246.
Since Planning Commission Hearing
There have been no changes to the proposal since the planning commission’s meeting
on this item. The city has received additional neighborhood comments, which are included
in the comments on pages A112-A233.
Neighborhood Engagement
The city has heard concerns about the lack of engagement with the neighborhood on the
west side of Target and Ridge Square North during the Ridgedale village center process.
Most residents have stated that they were not aware of the master plan and are
concerned about the development anticipated by the master plan. Although the village
center process is complete, there is still an opportunity to engage and discuss the
commercial properties closest to the neighborhood. This could include a moderated
discussion about the neighborhood’s desires, concerns, and proposed outcomes, and
where that either matches or deviates from the existing visioning document. The council
could then have that information available for future decision making. This could take
place over a series of meetings, and findings could be sent to the planning commission
and city council.
Staff Recommendation
Recommend the city council adopt the ordinance and resolutions on pages A84-A110
approving the request, as recommended by the planning commission.
Through:
Geralyn Barone, City Manager
Julie Wischnack, AICP, Community Development Director
Loren Gordon, AICP, City Planner
Originator:
Jeff Thomson, Associate Planner
MINNETONKA PLANNING COMMISSION
October 9, 2014
Brief Description
Items concerning the redevelopment of Highland Bank at 1700
and 1730 Plymouth Road:
1)
Rezoning;
2)
Master development plan and final site and building plans;
3)
Appeal of maximum p.m. peak hour trips;
4)
Parking variance; and
5)
Conditional use permits for coffee shop, restaurant,
outdoor dining patios, and drive-up windows
Recommendation
Recommend the city council approve the proposal
______________________________________________________________________
Paster Enterprises and Bader Development are proposing to redevelop the Highland
Bank property at 1700 and 1730 Plymouth Road. The redevelopment would consist of
demolishing the existing three story bank and office building, and constructing a new six
story, mixed use building. The proposed building would consist of 16,000 square feet of
retail on the first level, with five stories and 120 units of residential apartments above. The
proposed project would include surface parking and two levels of underground parking.
(See pages A2-A34)
Background Information
The city has been planning for redevelopment in the Ridgedale area since 2008. The
planning efforts have included the 2030 comprehensive plan and 2012 Ridgedale village
center study. The proposed project also went through concept plan review process and
several neighborhood meetings since the formal application was submitted.
Comprehensive Plan
The city adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan in 2008. The comprehensive
plan is a policy framework which generally guides development and redevelopment in
the community through 2030. A key component of the comprehensive plan is the
village center concept, which identifies existing centers of retail, commercial, and
higher density residential developments. The plan includes two regional centers; these
centers are areas in Minnetonka that draw people from all over the region for work,
shopping, services, and entertainment. The comprehensive plan anticipates that the
majority of future growth and new housing opportunities will occur within the regional
centers. The Ridgedale area is identified as one of the regional centers. The growth
Page 2
strategy for the Ridgedale regional center includes encouraging mixed use and higher
density residential developments. To begin implementing the growth strategies, a
significant part of the Ridgedale area was guided for future mixed use development.
The subject properties are part of a larger area that was re-guided from commercial
to mixed use to accommodate future redevelopment. The comprehensive plan also
outlines that the city would complete individual village center plans for each of the
village center areas. (See pages A36-A39)
Village Center Master Plan
The village center study for Ridgedale was completed in 2012. The purpose of the
study was to explore and use the policy framework of the comprehensive plan and
develop a master plan for the Ridgedale village center area. The village center master
plan outlines strategies for land use, design, and key investments to keep the area
vibrant and successful. The elements of the master plan include:
•
•
•
•
•
Transform retail center into a mixed use community
Rebuild Ridgedale Drive into a parkway
Enhance natural features
Improve mobility and circulation
Encourage green practices
The master plan provides a specific development program for the different sectors of
the Ridgedale village center area. The development program for the southwest sector
(south of Cartway Ln. and west of Plymouth Rd.) anticipates redevelopment from the
current retail uses into high density residential and office uses; specifically, 450
dwelling units and 90,000 square feet of office space. (See pages A41-A47)
Concept Plan Review
Earlier this year, the applicants went through the concept plan review process. The
concept plan review included a neighborhood meeting and discussion with the
planning commission and city council at a public meeting. During the concept review
process, the planning commission thought that the plans were consistent with the
city’s vision for the Ridgedale area, and generally expressed support for the use, size,
and density of the project. The planning commission had several questions for the
developer related to building design, parking, and residential amenities in the building.
The planning commission also provided feedback on connecting the site to the
surrounding properties to make it more walkable for the residents of the apartments.
During the concept plan review, the city council similarly thought that the project was
consistent with the village center plan for the Ridgedale area, and that it was important
that the project be done “right” so that it set an example for future development. The
council also stated that it was important that the project be incorporated into the long
term plan for the west side of Plymouth Road, including future development to the
south, and future pedestrian, bike, and roadway improvements. Additionally, the city
Page 3
council discussed allocating the park dedication requirements for the development
into improvements of the surrounding area. (See pages A49-A57)
Since the concept plan review, the applicants have reduced the proposed size of the
building from 18,000 to 16,000 square feet of retail, and from 139 apartment units to
120. The design of the building has also substantially changed. The applicants have
also developed and submitted detailed engineering and architectural plans for the
project, which is required with a formal application.
Neighborhood Meetings
After the concept plan review, the city was contacted by the Larkin Drive and Tudor
Road neighborhood to the west. This area was not included in the notification area for
the concept review because of the distance of the neighborhood from the development
site. The city expanded the notification area for the project, and three additional
neighborhood meetings have since been held. The first neighborhood meeting was
held on August 20th, and included discussion on the applicants’ formal application and
the Ridgedale village center master plan. A second neighborhood meeting was held
on September 10th. The meeting focused on the Ridgedale village center plan, with
an opportunity for small group conversations on specific topics. A third neighborhood
meeting was held on September 22nd, which focused specifically on the traffic study
for the proposed project. The neighborhood meetings have been well attended by area
residents. The residents have made numerous comments and expressed concerns
about the proposed project and the Ridgedale area master plan.
At the neighborhood meeting regarding the traffic study, neighbors expressed
significant concerns about the existing traffic conditions on Cartway Lane. The city is
currently reviewing potential solutions to the Cartway Lane and the intersections with
Ridgedale Drive and Plymouth Road. The concepts are being discussed with the city’s
traffic consultant; additional information will be provided at the planning commission
meeting. The concepts would address the concerns with the existing operations, and
are not a result of the traffic associated with the proposed project. The proposed
project would not require any improvements to the surrounding roadway system. (See
pages A62-A74)
Ridgedale Area Public Improvements
There are several public improvement projects that are under construction or included
in the city’s capital improvement plan for construction through 2018. These projects
are not based or dependent on the applicants’ proposal but were already planned and
funded through the city’s general processes.
The westbound I-394 on-ramp from Ridgedale Drive is currently under construction
and is scheduled to be completed this fall. This additional on-ramp to 394 is expected
to relieve traffic pressure on the Plymouth Road interchange by providing full access
to 394 from Ridgedale Drive.
Page 4
In 2016, the city will be burying the overhead utilities on the west side of Plymouth
Road and constructing a continuous trail from the north side of I-394 to Ridgedale
Drive. This would provide a connection from the north side of I-394 to the city’s loop
trail system in Meadow Park, as well as to the Metro Transit park and ride facility at
the I-394/Hopkins Crossroad intersection. The proposed trail that would be
constructed on the east side of the proposed development would be part of the 2016
project.
In 2018, the city will be reconstructing Ridgedale Drive. The construction plan is
consistent with the village center study recommendation that Ridgedale Drive be
converted into a parkway. The concept plans include a two lane street with center turn
lanes, landscaped median, and improved pedestrian facilities on both the north and
south sides of the road. (See pages A59-A60)
Proposal Summary
The following is intended to summarize the applicants’ proposal. Additional information
associated with the details of the proposed project can be found in the “Supporting
Information” section of this report.
Proposed Building
The proposed building would be six stories and 76 feet in height, with an additional
16-foot penthouse structure for the elevator overrun and staircase access on the south
side of the roof. The exterior building materials would include stone on the first floor
retail level, with brick and metal panels on the second through sixth floors. The metal
panels include a dark metal with corrugated finish and a light metal with a wood-grain
finish. The balance of the second through sixth floor building elevation would be brick.
The building would contain a sign band area over the first floor to provide wall signs
for individual retail tenants. The sign band would be comprised of the same building
materials as the upper floors.
The building would be 155,000 gross square feet in size. The first floor of the building
would be 21,300 square feet in size and would contain a lobby and management office
for the residential apartments and 16,000 square feet of multi-tenant retail uses. The
proposed retail uses include a 3,500 square foot tenant space for Highland Bank, a
1,800 square foot coffee shop, a 2,200 square foot restaurant, and 8,500 square feet
of general retail and service commercial uses. The proposal also includes a drive-up
window for the coffee shop and two drive-up windows for the bank.
The second through sixth floors of the building would contain 120 apartment units,
with a mix of studio, one, two and three bedroom units. The apartments would range
in size from a 490 square foot studio to a 1,600 square foot three bedroom penthouse
unit. The second through fifth floors would each be 27,600 square feet in size, which
is larger than the first floor. The larger footprint size is a result of the building extending
Page 5
over the coffee shop and bank drive-up windows on the west side of the building. The
building would also be cantilevered slightly over the other sides of the building to
provide a roof overhang for the retail tenants. The sixth floor would be stepped back
from the lower residential floors in order to provide outdoor terraces for the upper level
units. The upper level would contain larger one, two, and three bedroom units.
The amenities for the apartments would include a club room, fitness center, outdoor
pool and lounge, and roof-top terrace and garden. The outdoor pool and lounge would
be located on a structured deck on the second floor of the building. The deck would
cover the loading dock, garbage and service area, and entrance to the underground
parking garage. The roof-top terrace would be located on the south side of the roof
and would have elevator and stair access.
Site Plan
The proposed building would be centered within the site, and two-way vehicle
circulation would be provided around the entire building. The site would have two
access points from public streets. There would be right-in/right-out access from
Plymouth Road and full access from Ridgedale Drive. The access points would be in
the same general location of the existing access points for the bank. The site would
contain 80 surface parking stalls along the perimeter of the drive-aisle that would be
dedicated to retail customer parking. The service and delivery area, and the entrance
to the underground parking garage, would be located on the west side of the site within
the courtyard of the building. This area would be completely covered by a structure
containing the pool and outdoor terrace on the second floor of the building. There
would be three drive-up windows on the west side of the site – one drive-up window
for the coffee shop, and two drive-up lanes for the bank.
Sidewalk and Streetscape Improvements
The applicants would construct public sidewalks and streetscape improvements along
each of three streets: Plymouth Road, Cartway Lane, and Ridgedale Drive. The
sidewalks would be 10 feet in width along Plymouth Road and 8 feet in width along
Cartway Lane and Ridgedale Drive. The sidewalks would include a brick paver
separation between the edges of the street, and the streetscape improvements
include landscaping and pedestrian-scaled decorative street lighting. The applicants
are also proposing to construct gateway plazas at the Plymouth Road/Cartway Lane
and Ridgedale Drive/Cartway Lane intersections. The plazas would consist of
decorative paving, landscape planters, and a seat wall. The plazas would be site
entrance features, and would provide pedestrian connections from the public
sidewalks into the site. The pedestrian connections would include crosswalks across
the parking lot to the sidewalk along the retail tenant entrances. The improvements
are intended to provide a more pedestrian-supportive environment – allowing
pedestrian access into the site, and providing connections for apartment residents to
adjacent developments.
Page 6
Staff Analysis and Discussion
During review, city staff focused on the following four primary issues and questions
associated with the proposed development:
1) Is the proposed project consistent with the comprehensive plan and
Ridgedale village center plan?
Staff finds that the project is consistent with the policy framework outlined in the
comprehensive plan. The growth strategies for the Ridgedale village center
specifically state that the majority of future new housing opportunities will occur in the
regional centers, and higher redevelopment densities are planned in the Ridgedale
area to provide expanded housing and commercial opportunities. The comprehensive
plan states that, “redevelopment will continue in order to revitalize commercial center
areas and introduce additional vitality, and the city will encourage mixed uses and high
density residential uses in the regional centers.” The subject properties were guided
for mixed use in the 2030 comprehensive plan to specifically address these growth
strategies. The proposed project, consisting of mixed land uses and high density
residential apartments, would be consistent with this vision.
The proposed project is also consistent with the Ridgedale village center plan. The
elements of the master plan include transforming the primarily retail center into a
mixed use community, improving mobility and circulation, and encouraging green
practices. The proposed project introduces residential uses into Ridgedale area. The
project would also add a coffee shop and restaurant to the area, which were
specifically identified as market opportunities for the area. The village center plan
specifically states that mid-rise housing, restaurants, and additional retail are
appropriate elements for the Ridgedale area, which are elements of the proposed
project. The project would include the construction of two new sidewalk segments
along Plymouth Road and Ridgedale Drive with streetscape improvements. These
improvements would connect to a new trail on the west side of Plymouth Road which
is planned for construction in 2016. The enhanced pedestrian facilities would provide
a more walkable environment, and provide more opportunities for pedestrian, bike,
and transit trips to and from the site. Lastly, the site improvements would enhance the
natural environment. The site would provide stormwater treatment for all impervious
surface, which is a significant improvement from the existing site conditions, which
does not provide any stormwater management.
The comprehensive plan does state that residential uses are not considered
appropriate for the subject properties due to access and circulation concerns. The
discussion states that service commercial, office, and commercial uses should occur
along Ridgedale Drive to complement the commercial use of Ridgedale Mall. This
specific standard was included in the policy framework of the comprehensive plan to
recognize that site access and circulation are critical elements of redevelopment of
the subject properties. Further study and more detailed analysis completed during the
village center study, and more specifically during the traffic study for the proposed
Page 7
project, indicate that the site is appropriate for residential uses. The traffic associated
with the residential use can be accommodated on the existing roadway network, and
would not adversely impact site access and circulation. The proposed residential use
also capitalizes on the goal of both the comprehensive plan and village center study
to provide integrated mixed use development. Therefore, staff finds that the residential
use would not conflict with the goals outlined in the comprehensive plan.
2) Is the rezoning to PUD appropriate?
The purposed and intent of PUD zoning is to provide flexibility with subdivision and
zoning regulations in order to achieve a public benefit that would not otherwise be
achieved within a traditional zoning district. PUD zoning is oftentimes
mischaracterized as the city “giving up” its ability to regulate project details, and allow
an applicant to control what zoning standards should be applied. Though perhaps
counterintuitive, in granting flexibility from certain standards the city has the ability to
similarly “control” or set conditions that are based on the specific PUD development
under consideration. With a rezoning application, the city has the broadest discretion
in reviewing the appropriateness of a development proposal. The city is not obligated
to approve a PUD, and an applicant is not entitled to PUD zoning.
Under the city’s PUD ordinance, to be considered for PUD zoning a proposal must
result in a defined public benefit. The proposed project would provide three specific
public benefits:
•
The project would provide a mix of land use types. The proposed project would
consist of a mixed use building containing restaurant, retail, and service
commercial uses on the first floor, and multi-family residential apartments on the
upper floors.
•
The project would provide for a housing type that is desirable to the city. The city
has 4,400 multi-family units in the community. Of these units, 75 percent were
constructed prior to 1990. The Exchange in Glen Lake and the Ridge on I-394 are
the only apartment buildings that have been constructed in the community in the
past 10 years. The proposed market-rate, high-end apartments, would be a unique
housing type for Minnetonka. The proposed apartments would provide for a
broader range of housing options and choices for the community.
•
The project would provide other public benefits as recognized by the city. The
proposed PUD facilitates the implementation of the comprehensive plan and
village center plan. The city has spent a considerable effort on updating the
comprehensive plan and developing the village center master plan. Traditional
zoning is not conducive to the type of development anticipated and planned as part
of these planning efforts. The PUD ordinance provides the framework necessary
to implement these plans, which provides a public benefit to the Ridgedale area
and the overall community.
Page 8
3) Can the traffic from the proposed development be accommodated within
the existing roadway network?
The city has an established history of responsibly managing land use and traffic within
the I-394 corridor. When I-394 was constructed, the city implemented the innovative
traffic management regulations in the Planned I-394 district. The careful management
of development ensures that: (1) proposed development projects would not adversely
impact the roadway network; and (2) each development pays its fair-share for
constructing roadway and intersection improvements.
The city’s traffic consultant, SRF Consulting, completed a detailed traffic analysis of
the proposed redevelopment project to ensure that it would not have an adverse
impact on the existing roadway network and intersection operations. The traffic study
reviewed the existing conditions and intersection operations at key intersections in the
area, including Plymouth Road/I-394 south ramps, Plymouth Road/Cartway Lane,
Plymouth Road/Ridgedale Drive, and Ridgedale Drive/Cartway Lane. The traffic study
determined that each of the intersections is operating at an acceptable level, as
measured by “level of service.”
The traffic study then calculated the amount of traffic that would be generated by the
proposed development. This is estimated based on the proposed uses and size of the
building. The traffic study determined that the proposed project would generate more
vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour than the existing building generates today. A
traffic model was than conducted to determine impacts on the surrounding roadways
and intersections.
The key findings of the traffic study indicate there the traffic can be accommodated on
the existing roadways, there would be minimal increase in intersection delays as a
result of the increase traffic, there would be no change to the level of service of the
intersections, and all intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels. The
final conclusion of the traffic study is that no roadway network improvements are
needed as a result of the traffic associated with the proposed redevelopment.
The city held a neighborhood meeting to discuss the traffic study with area residents.
As a result of the feedback and comments at the meeting, SRF Consulting is studying
additional items. The results of this study are not completed yet, and will be presented
at the planning commission meeting. The additional items that SRF is reviewing are:
•
•
•
•
traffic counts at different times of year to account for seasonal factors
associated with the mall;
trip generation estimates based on the specific retail uses being proposed by
the applicants;
individual level of service by intersection approach for Cartway Lane/Ridgedale
Drive and Cartway Lane/Plymouth Road intersections;
trip generation estimates for bank use based on walk-up versus drive-up bank
facilities;
•
•
•
Page 9
impacts of a northbound no right-turn on red from Ridgedale Drive to Cartway
Lane;
additional wayfinding signage on Cartway Lane; and
area crash data.
During the past two years, the city and its consulting traffic engineer, SRF, have been
engaged in a traffic study of the I-394 corridor. Included in this study is the Ridgedale
area and the roadways adjacent to the Highland Bank site. This work is an update of
the previous 1989 study.
Study results show that traffic at the Ridgedale Drive/Cartway Lane intersection and
Plymouth Road/Cartway Lane intersection operate within the range of acceptability at
a level of service (LOS) C, with or without the project. It is known however, that legs
of the intersection operate worse than others, primarily, the southbound Ridgedale
Drive to eastbound Cartway Lane movement. Residents and businesses have
complained about long wait times trying to travel through these two intersections. This
is especially problematic at high peak traffic such as the holidays.
In response to these concerns, staff is evaluating a number of concepts to: 1) improve
traffic flow and 2) increase pedestrian safety and accessibility. Possible concepts will
be presented at the planning commission and city council meetings. Any concept
would be a project the city could implement independent of the Highland Bank site
redevelopment through its capital improvement program.
4) Is the parking variance justified?
Staff finds that the proposed parking would be adequate to meet the parking demands
of the development. For a mixed use project, the city’s parking ordinance calculates
minimum parking requirements based on the individual uses within the building. The
proposal requires a minimum of 122 parking stalls for the first floor retail uses and 240
stalls for the residential apartments. Therefore, the parking ordinance requires a total
of 362 parking stalls for the project.
The project would have a total of 293 parking stalls – 213 stalls within the underground
parking garage and 80 surface parking stalls. The surface parking stalls would be
available exclusively for customers of the retail tenants on the first floor. The
underground parking garage would be dedicated to apartment residents and visitors,
and retail tenant employees.
The parking variance is a result of the parking requirement for apartment units. The
city’s parking requirement for multi-family residential developments does not
distinguish between different types of multi-family developments. The same parking
standard of two stalls for each dwelling unit applies to both a twin home or townhome
development and a multi-story apartment building. However, the unit size for these
types of developments is substantially different, and unit size has a direct impact on
the number of residents and the number of cars associated with each unit. The
Page 10
proposed apartments would be 500 to 1,040 square feet in size for one bedroom
apartments, and 1,030 to 1,620 square feet for the two bedroom units. The smaller
unit size compared to other multi-family uses results in fewer residents and less
parking demand.
Staff finds several justifications for the parking variance.
•
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking demand manual
recommends a parking ratio of 1.4 stalls per unit for apartment buildings. This
would require that the development have 290 parking stalls, and the
development would have 293 stalls.
•
Staff finds that one parking stall per bedroom would be another means of
measuring parking demand for an apartment building. This would require that
the development have a minimum of 288 stalls, and the development would
also exceed this requirement. Both the ITE and one stall per bedroom standard
account for associated guest and visitor parking. Therefore, staff finds that the
development provides adequate parking to meet the parking demands of the
apartment building.
•
The different uses of a mixed use development experience peak parking
demands at different times. The proposed uses would not have peak parking
demand all at the same time. For example, the coffee shop would have its
highest parking demand in the morning, the restaurant would have peak
parking demand during the afternoon and evening, the bank would have peak
parking during the day, and the apartments would have peak parking demand
in the evening. The proposed parking plan allows for shared parking between
individual uses and tenants, and the proposed uses balance the parking
demand throughout the day. This ensures that there would be adequate
parking provided to meet the parking associated with the development.
•
Public transit options are available in the immediate area, including express
bus service to downtown Minneapolis, as well as local “Minnetonka Connect”
Metro Transit route.
Summary Comments
The proposed project is part of the evolution of the Ridgedale area that is anticipated by
the comprehensive plan and village center plan. The building does not replicate what
exists on adjacent properties, and the size and density of the project are greater than
what currently exists in the immediate area. This could be viewed as not being consistent
with the existing neighborhood character. However, the Ridgedale area is starting to see
the reinvestment and redevelopment that are envisioned in the comprehensive plan and
village center plan. The vision for the area represents a significant change to the
development pattern in the Ridgedale area. The elements of the master plan have started
to be implemented with construction of the westbound I-394 on-ramp at Ridgedale Drive,
Page 11
and improvements to the mall – Macy’s, Nordstrom, mall expansion, landscaping, and
stormwater improvements. The proposed project would continue the reinvestment and
redevelopment in the area, and would be consistent with the future vision.
During the concept plan review, several questions were raised on how the proposed
project would fit in with the future vision and the walkability of the Ridgedale area. The
project provides a different development type than what currently exists in the
neighborhood, but the project cannot independently change the entire transportation
system and create a walkable neighborhood. However, the project would be pedestrianoriented and would provide better pedestrian facilities and connections than currently
exist. The incremental changes would promote and encourage multi-modal transportation
including walking, bike, and transit. Additionally, the project would fit into improvements
that are planned in the next several years, and longer term improvements can be
coordinated with future redevelopment.
Staff Recommendation
1)
Recommend the city council adopt the ordinance on pages A76–A80, which
rezones the properties and adopts a master development plan at 1700 and 1730
Plymouth Road.
2)
Recommend the city council adopt the resolution on pages A81–A94, which
approves final site and building plans, with a parking variance, and an appeal of
maximum p.m. peak hour trips for a mixed use development at 1700 and 1730
Plymouth Road.
3)
Recommend the city council adopt the resolution on pages A95–A102, which
approves conditional use permits for a coffee shop, restaurant, outdoor dining
patios, and drive-up windows at 1700 and 1730 Plymouth Road.
Page 12
Supporting Information
Project No.
87055.14b
Property
1700 and 1730 Plymouth Road
Applicant
SPC PE Minnetonka, LLC and Bader Development, LLC
Owners
Charles & Melinda Moos and SPC PE Minnetonka, LLC
Surrounding
Land Uses
Northerly:
Easterly:
Southerly:
Westerly:
Cartway Lane
Plymouth Road
Ridgedale Plaza, zoned PID/Planned I-394 District
and guided for mixed used in the comprehensive
plan
Ridgedale Drive
Planning
Guide Plan designation: Mixed Use
Current zoning: PID/Planned I-394 District
City Actions
The proposal requires the following applications:
•
Rezoning: The subject properties are currently zoned
PID/Planned I-394 District. The applicants are requesting
that the properties be rezoned to PUD/Planned Unit
Development.
•
Master development plan approval: By city code, review
and approval of a master development plan is required in
conjunction with a rezoning to PUD.
•
Site and building plan review: By city code, site and
building plan review is required in conjunction with
construction in a PUD.
•
Parking variance: The zoning ordinance requires the
development have a minimum of 362 parking stalls. The
proposed development would have 293 parking stalls,
which requires a variance.
•
Appeal of maximum p.m. peak hour trips: The Planned
I-394 District establishes a maximum number of p.m. peak
hour trips for each parcel in the I-394 corridor. The subject
properties are allocated 68 trips, and the property project
would generate an estimated 203 trips during the p.m.
peak hour. This requires an appeal to the trip allocation.
•
Page 13
Conditional use permits: Coffee shops, restaurants,
outdoor dining patios, and drive-up windows are
conditional uses. Therefore, conditional use permits are
required.
Existing Features
The site is located on the southwest corner of the Plymouth Road
and Cartway Lane intersection. The site is comprised of two
separate parcels with a total size of 2.05 acres. The site is
currently improved with a three story building which is occupied
by Highland Bank on the first floor and office space on the upper
two levels. The existing building is 21,400 square feet in size.
Rezoning
The Planned I-394 District includes a provision that prohibits
rezoning of parcels within the district to another zoning
classification. There is a conflict between the land use
designation in the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance
for the proposed redevelopment. The land use designation in the
comprehensive plan for the subject properties is mixed use.
However, the PID zoning district does not allow for mixed use.
Per state statute, when the comprehensive plan and zoning
ordinance conflict with each other, the city must either amend the
zoning or the comprehensive plan. The mixed use designation in
the comprehensive plan was an intentional decision by the city,
and its appropriateness was confirmed by the Ridgedale village
center plan. Therefore, the only way to eliminate the conflict is to
change the zoning of the subject properties. The PUD zoning
district is the only district which allows for mixed use. Therefore,
the proposed rezoning is necessary for the proposed
redevelopment in order to eliminate the conflict. The city attorney
has reviewed this information and has agreed that the rezoning
is permitted.
Approving Body
The planning commission makes a recommendation to the city
council, which has final authority to approve or deny the request.
Utilities
City water is available in both Plymouth Road and Ridgedale
Drive. The proposed development would connect water service
to both Ridgedale Drive and Plymouth Road. The sanitary sewer
connection would occur to the existing sanitary sewer line in
Plymouth Road.
Stormwater
Stormwater from the building and parking lot would be captured
and directed to an underground stormwater treatment facility
beneath the north parking lot. The final stormwater design would
be reviewed with the building permit application. Minor changes
Page 14
would be required to the proposed stormwater design in order to
meet the city’s water quality and rate control requirements.
Temporary Bank
Development
Standards
The applicants are proposing to keep the Highland Bank tenant
open throughout the course of construction. The tenant would be
relocated from the building to a temporary building which would
be constructed on the east side of the property. A temporary drive
aisle and access to Plymouth Road would be constructed to
provide separate access for customers and construction vehicles.
Hennepin County has reviewed the proposed temporary access
and has given preliminary approval.
The PUD ordinance contains no specific development standards
relating to setbacks, lot coverage, etc. However, the following
chart outlines these items for the proposed project:
Building Setbacks
North property line
53 ft.
East property line
60 ft.
South property line
60 ft.
West property line
15 ft. / 31 ft.
Parking Lot Setbacks
North property line
10 ft.
East property line
15 ft.
South property line
5 ft.
West property line
7 ft.
Building Height
76 ft. to roof / 92 ft. to penthouse
Floor Area Ratio
1.7
Impervious Surface
Density
Park Dedication
85%
59 units/acre
By code, the city has discretion in requiring park dedication in the
form of a cash contribution or land. In the past, the city has also
credited publicly dedicated easements and improvements and
park dedication. While the specific park dedication details for the
proposed development have not be finalized, staff anticipated
Page 15
that the dedication would include a combination of some or all of
these items.
SBP Standards
The proposed building would comply with site and building
standards as outlined in city code.
1. Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's
development guides, including the comprehensive plan and
water resources management plan;
2. Consistency with the ordinance;
3. Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent
practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing
grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance
of neighboring developed or developing areas;
4. Creation of a harmonious relationship of buildings and open
spaces with natural site features and with existing and future
buildings having a visual relationship to the development;
5. Creation of a functional and harmonious design for structures
and site features, with special attention to the following:
a) an internal sense of order for the buildings and uses on the
site and provision of a desirable environment for
occupants, visitors and the general community;
b) the amount and location of open space and landscaping;
c) materials, textures, colors and details of construction as
an expression of the design concept and the compatibility
of the same with the adjacent and neighboring structures
and uses; and
d) vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways,
interior drives and parking in terms of location and number
of access points to the public streets, width of interior
drives and access points, general interior circulation,
separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and
arrangement and amount of parking.
6. promotion of energy conservation through design, location,
orientation and elevation of structures, the use and location of
glass in structures and the use of landscape materials and site
grading; and
Page 16
7. protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through
reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and
sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those
aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations
which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
Appeal Standard
The PID ordinance specifically permits the appeal of maximum
p.m. peak hour trips allocations. However, the ordinance does not
include any specific standards by which such appeals should be
considered. Generally, the city has considered whether existing
and proposed roadway capacity can accommodate a
development, whether infrastructure improvements are
necessary, and if so, if such improvements are included in the
development proposal.
Variance Standard
A variance may be granted from the requirements of the zoning
ordinance when: (1) it is in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of the ordinance; (2) it is consistent with the
comprehensive plan; and (3) when an applicant establishes that
there are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance.
Practical difficulties mean that the applicant proposes to use a
property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance,
the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the landowner, and, the variance if
granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality.
(City Code §300.07)
CUP Standards
The proposal would meet the general conditional use permit
standards as outlined in City Code §300.21 Subd.2:
1. The use is consistent with the intent of this ordinance;
2. The use is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives
of the comprehensive plan;
3. The use does not have an undue adverse impact on
governmental facilities, utilities, services or existing or
proposed improvements;
4. The use is consistent with the city's water resources
management plan;
5. The use is in compliance with the performance standards
specified in section 300.28 of this ordinance; and
Page 17
6. The use does not have an undue adverse impact on the public
health, safety or welfare.
Coffee Shop
The proposed coffee shop would meet the specific conditional
use permit standards for fast food restaurants with drive-up
facilities as outlined in City Code §300.21 Subd. 4(f):
1. Shall be located only on sites having direct access to minor
arterial streets or service roads;
2. Public address systems shall not be audible from any
residential parcel;
3. Stacking for a minimum of six cars per aisle shall be provided
within applicable parking lot setbacks;
4. Shall not be permitted when traffic studies indicate significant
impacts on the levels of service as defined by the institute of
traffic engineers of adjacent streets and intersections; and
5. Building shall be set back at least 100 feet and screened from
any adjacent property designated in the comprehensive plan
for residential use.
Restaurant
The proposed restaurant would meet the specific conditional use
permit standards for restaurants as outlined in City Code §300.21
Subd. 4(i):
1. Parking shall be in compliance with the requirements of
section 300.28 of this ordinance;
2. Shall only be permitted when it can be demonstrated that
operation will not significantly lower the existing level of
service as defined by the Institute of Traffic Engineers on
streets and intersections; and
3. Shall not be located within 100 feet of any low density
residential parcel or adjacent to medium or high density
residential parcels. The city may reduce separation
requirements if the following are provided:
a.
landscaping and berming to shield the restaurant use;
Page 18
b.
parking lots not located in proximity to residential uses;
and
c.
lighting plans which are unobtrusive to surrounding
uses.
Outdoor Patios
The proposed outdoor dining patios would meet the specific
conditional use permit standards for accessory sidewalk cafes
and outdoor eating areas as outlined in City Code §300.21 Subd.
4(p):
1. Shall be located in a controlled or cordoned area with at least
one opening to an acceptable pedestrian walk. When a liquor
license is involved, an enclosure is required and the enclosure
shall not be interrupted; access shall be only through the
principal building;
2. Shall not be permitted within 200 feet of any residential parcel
and shall be separated from residential parcels by the
principal structure or other method of screening acceptable to
the city;
3. Shall be located and designed so as not to interfere with
pedestrian and vehicular circulation;
4. Shall not be located to obstruct parking spaces. Parking
spaces may be removed for the use only if parking
requirements specified in section 300.28 are met;
5. Shall be located adjacent to an entrance to the principal use;
6. Shall be equipped with refuse containers and periodically
patrolled for litter pick-up;
7. Shall not have speakers or audio equipment which is audible
from adjacent parcels; and
8. Shall be located in compliance with building setback
requirements.
Drive-Up Windows
The proposed drive-up windows for the bank would meet the
specific conditional use permit standards for uses having a driveup window as outlined in City Code §300.21 Subd. 4(p):
Page 19
1. Drive-up windows and stacking areas shall not be located
adjacent to any residential parcel;
2. Stacking areas shall provide for a minimum of six cars per
aisle; and
3. Public address system shall not be audible from any
residential parcel.
Natural Resources
Best management practices must be followed during the course
of site preparation and construction activities. This would include
installation and maintenance of a temporary rock driveway,
erosion control, and tree protection fencing. As a condition of
approval the applicants must submit a construction management
plan detailing these management practices.
Motion Options
The planning commission has three options:
(1) Concur with staff’s recommendation. In this case a motion
should be made to approve the proposal based on the findings
outlined in the staff-drafted resolution.
(2) Disagree with staff’s recommendation. In this case a motion
should be made recommending denial of the proposal. The
motion should include findings for denial.
(3) Table the request. In this case, a motion should be made to
table the item. The motion should include a statement as to
why the request is being tabled with direction to staff, the
applicants or both.
Neighborhood
Comments
Deadline for
Decision
The city sent notices to 194 area property owners and received
the comments on pages A133-A177. The neighborhood
organization has also provided a powerpoint presentation for the
planning commission meeting, which is provided on pages A104A132.
November 21, 2014
Subject Property
Sources: Esri, DeLorme, HERE, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp.,
NRCAN, Esri
Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand),
LOCATION
MAP
TomTom
Project: Highland Bank Redevelopment
Applicant: Paster Enterprises & Bader Development
Address: 1730 Plymouth Rd.
(87055.14a)
A1
Highland Bank
1700 & 1730 Plymouth Rd
1730 PLYMOUTH ROAD
Development Application
Minnetonka, MN
Project Narrative
July 25, 2014
Property Owners:
SCP PE Minnetonka (Paster Enterprises)
Charles M and Melinda H Moos
Developer:
Paster Enterprises, LLC
2227 University Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55114
Mr. Ken Henk, 651.265.7860
Bader Development, LLC
5402 Parkdale Drive
Minnetonka, MN 55416
Mr. Robb Bader, 612.227.2999
Prepared by:
Elness Swenson Graham Architects (ESG)
Dennis Sutliff, AIA, AICP, 612.373.4624
Sunde Engineering, Civil Engineering
Damon Farber Associates, Landscape Architects
Sunde Land Surveying
A2
Highland Bank
A.
REQUESTED ACTIONS
The requested actions for 1730 Plymouth Road are as follows:
 Rezoning to PUD.
 Master Development Plan
 Site and Building Plan Review
 Variance for Parking
 Conditional Use Permit for restaurants and drive-throughs
The development applications for 1730 Plymouth Road project will adhere to the following proposed
approval schedule:
Introductory Meeting with City Staff
May 1, 2014
Completed
Neighborhood Meeting
May 15, 2014
Completed
Concept Plan Review – Planning Commission
May 15, 2014
Completed
Concept Plan Review – City Council
June 2, 2014
Completed
Kick-Off Meeting with City Staff
June 23, 2014
Completed
Additional Staff meeting
July 9, 2014
Completed
Additional Staff meeting
July 22, 2014
Completed
Development Application Submittal
July 28, 2014
City Council –Ordinance Introduction
August 8, 2014
Planning Commission – Public Hearing
September 11, 2014
City Council – Final Decision
September 29, 2014
Included in this submittal are the following:
 Development Applications;
5 Applications under separate cover
 Application Fees;
$12,000 ($2,400 x5) under separate cover
 Project Narrative;
One hard copy and an electronic copy)
 Development Application Plans;
Three (3) Full Sized Sets (30x42) and One Electronic Plan Set
 Stormwater Calculations
One hard copy
B.
PROJECT LOCATION
The project site lies just west of Ridgedale Center, at the southwest quadrant of Plymouth Road and
Cartway Lane. It is included in the study area of RIDGEDALE; A VISION FOR 2035 commissioned by
the City of Minnetonka and dated September 2012.
C.
PROPERTY
The project site is currently platted as two lots totaling 89,265 square feet or 2.049 acres in total net
area, not including right-of-ways and roadway easements taken for Ridgedale Drive and Plymouth
Road. Property information is as follows:
Parcel
PIN
Ownership
Parcel 1
03-117-22-44-0037
SCP PE (Paster Enterprises)
Parcel 2
03-117-22-44-0033
Charles M and Melinda H Moos
Legal Description of Parcel 1:
That part of Lot 1, Block 1, Ridgedale State Bank First Addition, lying Southerly of a line drawn
parallel with and 90.00 feet south of the North line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter of Section 3, Township 117 North, Range 22 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Legal Description of Parcel 2:
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 117 North,
Range 22 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
1730 Plymouth Road
Page
July Highland
25, 2014 Bank
A3 2
the Easterly line of Ridgedale Drive, as now laid out and utilized, according to the duly recorded plat
of Ridge Square Second Addition on file in the office of the Hennepin County Recorder, and a line
parallel with and 285 feet South from the North line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter; thence East along said parallel line to a point 704 feet East from the West line of said
Southeast Quarter; thence South at right angles a distance of 50 feet; thence West at right angles to
said Easterly right-of-way line of Ridgedale Drive.
D.
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed 1730 Plymouth Road redevelopment project includes new, multi-tenant retail space
on the ground floor and 120 rental apartment units on floors two through six. The majority of the
apartment units will be one, one-plus and two bedrooms. There will be a small number of
Studio/Alcove apartments. Seventeen larger, more spacious apartments will be located on the sixth
floor. The table below shows the distribution of these the apartment types.
Studio One
One + Two 2+
3 BR and
Floor/Type
Units BR
BR
BR
BR
Penthouse Totals
Area
First Floor
Retail
Approx 15,655 rsf plus service spaces 21,274 gsf
Residential Lobby
Approx 1,200 sf
Management Office
Approx 1,600 sf
Floor Two
Indoor Amenity
Approx 4,300 sf
Floor Two
1
11
2
8
0
0
22
27,214 gsf
Floor Three
2
11
4
10
0
0
27
27,587 gsf
Floor Four
2
11
4
10
0
0
27
27,584 gsf
Floor Five
2
11
4
10
0
0
27
27,584 gsf
Floor Six
0
3
4
1
4
5
17
23,244 gsf
Total Units/Area
7
47
18
38
4
5
120 154,493 gsf
Roof Terrace
891 sf
Parking Demand
7
47
18
76
8
10
166 cars
Garage Level One
92 cars
32,404 gsf
Garage Level Two
95 cars
32,404 gsf
Total Garage
187 cars
64,808 gsf
Two levels of underground parking will be reserved for the apartment residents. Surface parking
will serve the retail uses. The floor areas, unit mix and the parking counts may change during final
design, but the total numbers should not change by more than 5% as is allowed by the new PUD
Ordinance.
Two of the ground floor retail uses; Highland Bank and a coffee shop will require drive through
facilities. In addition, the project will include the placement of a temporary building and a
temporary drive-through facility so that Highland Bank can remain in operation, serving their
customers during the construction period.
E.
REZONING TO PUD and MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
In 2012, the City developed a Master Plan; RIDGEDALE; A VISION FOR 2035 to guide future
development in the Ridgedale Village Center Area. The adoption of that plan as part of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan has resulted in the area around this site being guided for a high density mix of
uses which can include mid-rise housing of up to 450 dwelling units, structured parking and high
FAR’s. The underlying zoning district is Planned I-394 District (PID). The Planned Unit Development
(PUD) District provides the necessary flexibility to meet the goals of the Vision for 2035.
Existing
Proposed
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
1730 Plymouth Road
Page
July Highland
25, 2014 Bank
A4 3
Building Use
F.
Office Building with
Surface Parking
Site Area;
Gross Building Area
Net FAR
Apartment Units
Residential Density
Building Footprint
Rentable Retail Area
0
NA
7,115 SF
0
Gross Garage Area
Number of Parking Stalls
0
87
Approx 21,400 SF
Mixed-use building with first
first floor retail uses and five
levels of rental apartments on
floors two through six. Surface
parking will support the retail
uses. Underground parking is
reserved for residents.
2.049 acres, 89,265 square feet.
151,500 SF above grade
1.70
120
58.6 Units per Acre
21,274 SF
15,873 SF
64,808 SF below grade parking
187 Underground Stalls
80 Surface Stalls
VISION AND PUBLIC PURPOSE
Paster Enterprises in collaboration with Bader Development is proposing to produce exactly the kind
of precedent setting, mixed-use, initial phase of redevelopment that the City of Minnetonka seeks in
its Comprehensive Plan for the Ridgedale Area. The vision for 1730 Plymouth Road is to begin the
transformation of the Ridgedale Village Area by bringing 24/7 life and vitality to what is currently a
limited purpose retail and office environment. I730 strives to upgrade the pedestrian environment
of its site surrounding public realm in a manner which can be emulated throughout the remainder of
the district in the future. It will provide new options for the emerging residential markets and 21 st
century lifestyles that are needed by Minnetonka to remain an attractive home for the community’s
next generation of citizens. It will create a one-of-a-kind, luxury residential community that is not
available in Minnetonka today. This is a unique opportunity that many municipalities actively seek
when soliciting redevelopment proposals.
This redevelopment will benefit the residents and visitors of Minnetonka, adjacent property owners
and tenants in the following ways:

Land Use. The City’s policy makers delivered a strong message. They believe this
redevelopment project should be a “precedent setter” in the Ridgedale area. It should point
the way to how this entire district can be redeveloped as a new, walkable neighborhood of
higher density uses, high quality architecture and attractive pedestrian features.

Mid-Rise Building. By adding high-density residential, we are able to create the mixed-use
environment called for in the Comprehensive Plan.

Traffic. The reduction in office uses and the addition of the residential use creates the
opportunity to increase density while at the same time reduce the overall automobile trip
generation and the peak hour trips that are characteristic of single-use neighborhoods.

Housing Supply. Currently no Class A, rental housing in this area of Minnetonka.

Parking. The proposed development locates a significant share of its parking in an
underground structure rather than on surface lots that dominate the District today.
Architectural Design:
The Development Team is proposing 120 apartment units, the majority one and two bedrooms,
some with additional alcove or “bonus” rooms. In addition, the top floor will house 17 larger
apartments with two, two-plus alcove, penthouse style units for folks who wish to live in more
spacious and luxurious quarters.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
1730 Plymouth Road
Page
July Highland
25, 2014 Bank
A5 4
Positioned within the emerging Ridgedale Village Center, 1730 will set a new precedent in how the
Ridgedale area can be redeveloped into a more walkable, pedestrian friendly and interconnected
neighborhood with greater levels of live-work amenities as our emerging, 21st century lifestyles
demand. As the first of what is hoped to be continued redevelopment activity in the area, residents
of 1730, retail customers and visitors to the Ridgedale area will ultimately enjoy a higher level of
connectivity throughout the Ridgedale Village Neighborhood.
As a new and “modern” rental community of six stories with two levels of parking below, the
residents of 1730 will enjoy amenities, conveniences and vistas currently not available in this
community. Unobstructed views in all directions, an elevated amenity plaza and a rooftop garden
are all features that currently do not exist with the community.
All residents will have large windows and generous balconies. Those on the sixth floor will have
even larger, walk-out terraces, some wrapping the corners of their apartments. Residential
amenities will include heated underground parking, an elevated outdoor pool deck furnished with
grills, lounge areas, and a fire pit. An indoor clubroom and a fitness center, both of which open onto
the pool terrace will be available for socializing with other residents, for parties with family and
friends or for quiet individual use. On-site professional management will be provided to all
residents and their guests.
Highland Bank will continue to do business on this site now and well into the future. As the anchor
tenant, the Highland Bank will occupy approximately 5,000 square feet or almost 1/3 of the 15,873
total amount of leasable space on the ground floor. They will operate out of temporary facility for a
little over a year while their new home is being readied for them. Other retail tenants on the first
floor are expected to include a coffee shop, a restaurant and one or two other tenants
Sustainable Planning and Design Features:

A mixed-use facility with site features that will promote and encourage future walkablity
throughout the Ridgedale area.

Energy efficient windows, roof, and walls.

Occupancy sensor lighting controls in select building locations.

Roof top and second floor, usable “green roof” spaces with captured rain water.

Incorporation of ESG’s sustainable technical specifications and practices.
G. L
G.
LANDSCAPING
The proposed landscape improvements for the mixed use development at 1730 Plymouth Road in
Minnetonka, Minnesota are intended to enhance the dynamic architectural character of this
retail/residential redevelopment within the context of the Ridgedale area and to promote an
attractive, safe and welcoming environment through the use of plantings, paving materials and site
amenities appropriate to the site. The landscape design reflects the following goals:

Provide Sustainable Design

Convey a Sense of Security and Welcome

Reinforce a Pedestrian friendly Environment

Consider On-going Maintenance
A. Sustainable Design –Appropriate plantings are chosen for their functional as well as aesthetic
qualities including the desire to address drought resistance reduce the need for irrigation, and
accommodate water flows during storm events. The placement and extent of vegetation will reduce
solar reflection and urban heat with additional canopy cover. Pedestrian and bicycle trails
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
1730 Plymouth Road
Page
July Highland
25, 2014 Bank
A6 5
connecting to surrounding neighborhoods will contribute to the use of alternative transportation
modes, and the creation and restoration of connecting open space will help establish a vocabulary
of site amenities that will set the bar for future regional improvements.
B. Welcome and Security – This development will be a significant component incorporating the
beginning of a revitalized streetscape and as such needs to be perceived as both safe and
welcoming. This is addressed on the site design through the inclusion of CPTED (Crime Prevention
through Environmental Design) practices. Using such recommendations as maintaining critical
sightlines from key locations, reducing vegetation height and providing appropriate light levels
contribute to a safe and secure environment. A compliment of plant materials, paving and
furnishings will also set the tone for this year round live, work, shop development.
C.
Reinforce a Pedestrian friendly Environment – A visually cohesive palette of materials can begin to
incorporate a vocabulary for pedestrian spaces. Paving materials, appropriate pedestrian scaled
lighting and site furnishings will augment the building architecture and will help to unify the
cohesiveness character of the project’s design. Plants that will provide pleasing combinations of year
round color and texture and will also reinforce an overall pleasing effect. Appropriately selected
landscaping will help establish a visual quality that sets the tone for future development such as the
introduction of a more organic landscape treatment incorporating groves of trees set in perennial
beds rather than only the traditional lines of regularly spaced trees along streets.
D. Definition of Exterior Gathering Spaces - Exterior gathering spaces within the public-private realm
warrant special attention in this landscape design. These spaces, which include pedestrian friendly
plazas at key intersections, entry drop-off, crosswalks will receive special landscape consideration
through the thoughtful use of paving materials, plantings, and site furnishings. Private spaces such
as the amenity deck and roof deck will incorporate green roof plantings where appropriate, which
can help with storm water management and enhance the outdoor experience.
E. Reduction of Maintenance– The planting palette will incorporate species that minimize high
maintenance requirements such as heavy trimming, watering and cutting. The materials palette will
include drought resistant and heat-tolerant plants. Large, expansive lawn areas will be minimized to
avoid the over-use of irrigation.
H.
PARK DEDICATION
The City’s Subdivision Ordinance requires that when land is subdivided, a reasonable portion of land
be used for use such as public parks, playgrounds, trails or open space. For multiple dwellings, the
fee schedule is $5,000 per unit. There are a number of other potential improvements that MAY be
considered in lieu of cash payment for Park Dedication:

Ornamental pedestrian lighting, bollards and street furniture that will set a precedent for
future pedestrian and bikeway improvements throughout the Ridgedale District.

Enhanced pedestrian improvements including brick paving and plazas at the northeast and
northwest corners.

Increasing the size of plant materials installed to create an immediate sense of place.
I.
PARKING
The proposed parking includes 187 underground, heated, and secure parking spaces
reserved for the residents. This equates to one parking space for each studio and onebedroom apartment, two spaces for each larger apartment, plus 19 extra stalls which may
be reserved for residents who wish to have addition parking available. Eighty surface
parking spaces will serve the retail uses at an average rate of approximately 5.06 cars per
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
1730 Plymouth Road
Page
July Highland
25, 2014 Bank
A7 6
1,000 rentable square feet. Four accessible parking spaces are conveniently located near
the residential entry and retail storefronts. A parallel parked drop-off area for two cars is
provided at the residential lobby entrance but not counted among the 80 surface spaces.
J.
TRAFFIC
The City of Minnetonka has solicited a proposal from SRF Consulting Group, Inc. to prepare a traffic
analysis update. This update will study the changed land use from office to residential and retail
uses. The development team is paying for this update and it should be complete before the public
hearings for this project take place.
K.
STORM WATER
The development is located within the jurisdiction of the City of Minnetonka. Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District is NOT the Agency in Authority. Stormwater runoff on site will be directed to a
series of catch basins and directed to the north end of the site where water quality treatment and
runoff rate control will be provided by a 12'x12'175' subsurface tank. The tank will discharge to
storm sewer in Cartway Lane. Due to the lack of infiltration capacity in the existing clay soils onsite
infiltration is not proposed. Water quality treatment for a 2.5" storm event and rate control will be
provided onsite in accordance with the City of Minnetonka regulations. And a hard copy is attached
hereto.
L.
LIGHTING
Exterior parking lot lighting will meet the lighting requirements of the Zoning Regulations of the City
Code of Ordinances. Fixtures and fixture locations will be coordinated with City staff as they
prepare to reconstruct Plymouth Road in 2015. Wall and soffit mounted, pedestrian scaled lighting
will be provided as part of the ground floor retail experience. Additional pedestrian scaled lighting is
contemplated for the sidewalks, both at the building and at the site perimeter.
M.
UTILITIES

Sanitary Sewer
A new 6" sanitary sewer line will be run from the east side of the proposed building to an existing
sanitary sewer manhole along the eastern properly line.

Water Main
A new water line will be installed along the south side of the property. The proposed line will
connect to existing water mains in both Plymouth Road and Ridgedale Drive to create a looped
system. The proposed building will be served by an 8" combined fire and domestic water service in
the southwest corner of the proposed building.

Private Utilities
The proposed 1730 Redevelopment will require private utility services including electricity, natural
gas, telephone communications/internet, and/or cable TV/internet. Sunde Engineering will be
contacting the private utility companies to coordinate service. The utility companies are responsible
for designing their own systems are:
Xcel Energy
Electricity
CenterPoint Energy
Natural Gas
CenturyLink Communications
Telephone/Internet
Comcast
Cable TV/Internet
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
1730 Plymouth Road
Page
July Highland
25, 2014 Bank
A8 7
1 7 3 0 P ly m o u th
Road
M in n e to n k a , M N 5 5 3 0 5
1730 Plymouth Road
1730 Plymouth Road
e ln e s s s w e n s o n g ra h a m a r c h it e c ts
500
w a s h in g to n
avenue
s o u th
m in n e a p o lis m in n e s o ta 5 5 4 1 5
p. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 5 0 8
f. 6 1 2 . 3 3 9 . 5 3 8 2
w w w . e s g a r c h . c o m
I h e re b y c e r tify th a t t h is d o c u m e n t w a s
p re p a re d b y m e o r u n d e r m y d ir e c t s u p e r v is io n
a n d th a t I a m a d u ly lic e n s e d a rc h it e c t
u n d e r th e la w s o f th e S ta t e o f M in n e s o ta
S ig n a t u re
SYMBOLS LEGEND
SHEET INDEX
T y p e d o r P rin t e d N a m e
X
AX.X X
DETAIL REF
T.O. XXX
EL = XX'-X"
XX
Owner/Developer:
XX
Landscape:
SECTION
KEYNOTE REF
X
WINDOW TYPE
(SEE SHEET A11.2)
X
REVISION NUMBER
SPOT ELEVATION REF
Vicinity
Sunde Engineering, PLLC
Mike Kettler
10830 Nesbitt Avenue South
Bloomington, MN 55437
Ph: 952-229-8672
Structural Engineer:
T.B.D.
FIRE EXTINGUISHER WALL MOUNTED
UNIT MIX & SQUARE FOOTAGES
SHEET
NUMBER
SHEET NAME
GENERAL INFORMATION
T1.1
TITLE SHEET
●
ARCHITECTURAL
A0.1
NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN / AERIAL VIEWS OF THE VICINITY
A0.2
SECTION FROM LARKIN
A0.3
ROOFTOP PHOTOGRAPHS FROM EXISTING BUILDING
A0.4
ARCHITECTURAL IMAGES
A0.5
A0.6
●
●
●
●
●
●
CIVIL
C1.1
C1.2
C1.3
C1.4
C1.5
GRADING DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN
SITE UTILITIES
NOTES AND DETAILS
STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
TEMPORARY DRIVE THRU - GRADING DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN
●
●
●
●
●
LANDSCAPE
L100
LANDSCAPE PLAN
●
ARCHITECTURAL
AA1.0
PARKING LEVEL MINUS ONE - PARKING LEVEL MINUS TWO
AA1.1
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
AA1.2
SECOND FLOOR PLAN - TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN LEVELS THREE FOUR AND FIVE
AA1.3
SIXTH FLOOR PLAN - ROOF TERRACE PLAN
AA3.1
ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS - NORTH AND EAST
AA3.2
ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS - SOUTH AND WEST
SURVEY
PAGE 1 OF 2
PAGE 2 OF 2
ALTA/ASCM LAND TITLE SURVEY
ALTA/ASCM LAND TITLE SURVEY
●
●
●
●
●
●
D EVELO PM EN T
A P P L IC A T IO N
●
●
0 9 /3 0/20 14
O R IG IN A L IS S U E :
Damon Farber Associates
Tom Whitlock
401 Second Avenue North, Suite 410
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Ph: 612-332-7522
Civil:
FIRE EXTINGUISHER
CABINET
FLOOR FINISH
TRANSITION REF
Elness Swenson Graham Architects Inc.
500 Washington Ave. South, Suite 1080
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Ph: 612-339-5508
Fx: 612-339-5382
T.B.D.
DOOR NUMBER
X
Paster Enterprises, LLC.
2227 University Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55114-1677
Ph: 651-646-7901
Fx: 651-646-1389
Contractor:
XXX
WALL TYPE
(SEE SHEET A10.1)
Bader Development
5402 Parkdale Drive, Suite 200
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Ph: 952-540-8600
Architect:
ROOM NAME
AND NUMBER
X
ELEVATION REF
XX'-X"
PROJECT TEAM
ROOM
XXX
EXTERIOR ELEVATION
KEYNOTE REF
X
X
X
PROJECT LOCATION
INTERIOR
ELEVATION REF
X
CO
NS
FO
TR
R
UC
TI
O
N
X
SECTION AND
ELEVATION REF
NO
T
X
X
D a te
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 9/30/2014
L ic e n s e #
7/28/14
R E V IS IO N S
No.
D e s c r ip t io n
D a te
214503
P R O JE C T N U M B E R
Mechanical,
Electrical,
Plumbing Engineers:
ESG
T.B.D.
D RA W N BY
ESG
C H EC KED BY
K EY PLA N
9/30/2014 2:13:27 PM
1 7 3 0 P ly m o u th R o a d
Site Location
T IT L E S H E E T
T1.1
A9
Highland Bank
1 7 3 0 Plymouth
Road
iv>»
I r-x-'J'W"!
• I ar.
111 IT. t. a
IW - H«.M
tN. m M 2 ^
MS,
CARTVm Y
tlnni iwcoton goluin vcTnikii
LANE
IW. H JBWI Is I (FK.A
/y^90'00\pa
'R'-2Q.OO
C-»ALtt « l - f
M tt*
RV IT. t.
KrvMOTrs,
I
M
S
u - x j z v i r e TWK
KFIMOTO ue KNCTTES K (
IBMI. SUMC. QM t r m n a raM. onexw CDtrnm sit mtp w
^
CMOWSM. KHCNC SIT M« K-UK SUSW M RCOUMD.
(2)- Msnu. RNeoi mmhs at cnoauMs. see dcwl s e n ciJ.
a*
SlIRlrkH
PASTER ENTERPRISES „
-<
J NSO'^.
BD • BaderDevelopment
$ ; i 4 S
OAUONrAfieERASSOClAI t &
i ? ^ M - w ' T K « l K ^ « a , > <\ ' • i m
« " \
I
iKj
cP
FDCC r r
DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION
7/28/14
i
^'y
**"
'•' ' • J(''>'''^^''^'
•-' ' ' « ' . ' v
-• •' "Vsj^
ORiciNAL issue
DcKripiHHi
<-= _»^4ywlj "
WS9'5J4D"H
'f.
oa ^5^
¥
1730 Plymouth Road
u2v"«siSf2*
GRADING DRAINAGE.
AND EROSION
CONTROL PLAN
C l . l
DaIc
1 7 3 0 Plymouth
Road
Ssffl
' A
s a x r . , . : , - ; :
JUL-fU"
CARTWA Y
LANE
rtwM lomion gr)h«n jtOinKn
\
it 1/4
V/
'^^•90V0!(J0'
"SJ'40"£•
^ 5
li^K 1)1 tu
f<ll NO bl (f K *
60
. 6 I 2 . 3 3 >. S 3 t2
AN
• •.îy|j';; • ••
f
*
lg.ll.l75 TW
*
:
0 -
KETWIEB MK KWTO) •R
M5TH1. SUSW. OR MVNMD COUM. EKBON COHTML SLT TW
PASTER ENTEKPIIISES^
i - ! ^ ' i ^ : i ' - y - ::.^1
'Vv
r. '••;.• i -:
B£> • BaderDevelopment
k?!:'
Uj 3
•--J
rARaERAs;-'.
. ,;« _
•T
„ •
M
-
7
?
Q
O^
N<^
cP^
iPROPOSEPv
DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION
7/28/14
REVISIONS
No.
DcMnpiion
9 ( T U M I N • U V=' V
r ' : : r p s ^
jj/
A
\ lA \
\
Y
%
'-AV
^^0/^49
'•
\
\ V-\
1730 PlymouJh Road
SITE UTILITIES
CI.2
ino<im>PIiinouti RS
1 7 3 0 Plymouth
Road
ItlB «
CARTmVi
/ ,/|3 1
A^--90°00^0
20.00
[.-• J' 4'<!
irr
8J'
\
LANE
larrTi!
•^;^589 "BJ '10 T
dnnt tmnten grihini vOiiictli
w l'ne or CO
no NO. 61 (^K
CO RU NO V21
u M • N
6C
Mflpr-
V
•
•
T
\7
—OSAlliiCE
ItrYWOTtt;
KtVNOra AK DOOTD m;
U OWWtl eOKtlW. SIT TW MSEC
3).. Nimj. sanw.
CATMMSK ROKW SLT AND RC-USC SUWC AS fKOUND.
• Mnu. n a n mww at wtdmms. ta oeiu. iwrr cij.
-958
l»i\i.A-3^^'^t>iutNî:E' AND/
PASTER ENTERPMSES.,
X
B O ; BaderDeveiopment
'E-icvv* r
ferrm
In
aAWONFARaER ASSOCIATES
< P
cP^
•- "' ""'SSc Bt"®
COB'- ,,,H(
DEVELOPMENT
,J0 ' Y
S5«^''
/V
APPLICATION
7/28/14
ORIGINAL rSSUE
Dficnptlon
Oote
f-"••DK/MIViCt ANO
-âiliMTT, [ Af.fMFNT—:^-;:
/ri,-.
I 7V
_»>• ll.MI'pfi'At" DKIVtlVif |.A'5l.UI.NT>«
W
,SH;'
\\'^\ \
I ^
"-flT""
~ T'^
N89"5.>
^^^.491
N O U S '—
\ u
\"
cFttirTjc.-e.'csuTB
1730 Plymoulh Road
TtMPORARV DRIVE THRU GRADING, DRAINAGE. AND
EROSION CONTROL PLAN
CI.5
CARTWA y
LANE
1 7 3 0 Plymouth
Road
tM»HU
1 } . 3 ] 9.S 3 I
NOTE;
CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN TREES IN API UM8
POSITION THROUGHOUT THE WAmwTY PERIOD,
WRAP TREE TRUNKS ONLY UPON APPROVAl BY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. SEE SPECIFICATION milSOO
PROVlOe i INSTALL RODENT PROTECTION.f HARDWIRE
aOTH UESH CYLINDER, r DIA. OR GREATER X U' HOT.
STAKE IN PLACE. PER SPEC 3»100
WSTAU TREE WTTM ROOT FLARE VISBLE AT TOP OF T«
ROOT BALL REMOVE SOU. M LEVEL MANNER FROM TOP PAYMI ENTERPRISESOF ROOT BAa TO EXPOSE 1ST ^ OR LAAGER MAM ORDER
ROOT IF NEEDED. SET ROOT BAU. MTK KAW ORDER
ROOT 1* ABOVE ADJACENT GRADL DO NOT COVER TOP BD BaderDevelopmenl
OF ROOT BALL WITH SOL.
PLACE NO MULCH M CONTACT WTTH TREE TRUNK
REMOVE BURLAP. TWWE. ROPE AM} MR£ FROM TOf
HOLFOFROOTBAU
BUILD 4-HKH EARTH SAUCER BEYOM> EDGE OF
ROOT BALL
ECCECONOinONVAftES
30" RADIUS MULCH RING
E
S
DAMCriFARBERASSOCIATlS
S
DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION
7/28/14
TREE PLANTING DETAIL
ORiaNAL ISSUE;
MULCH. 00 NOT PLACE N
^
LANDSCAPE PLAN
L100 / S«LE!-"W^
PLANTING NOTES
EDGE CONOmON VARIES
EOOER. REFER TO PLAN WO SPECIFICATION
ROOTS OF CONTAINER GROWN PLANTS
EXCAVATE PLANT BED MIN. '* DEEPER THAN ROOT BAU. HGT.
SCARIFY SO£S AND BOTTOM OF PLANTMO BED WITH SPADE
UNDISTLIRBED SUBORADE
IRRIGATION NOTES
CONIKMrTMIH*UKKtSPONSaiCrOKPHOV(IINaiW>U«(M710NlArOi;TPlMW«SI>eCn«nC)IASfARTOrTH((COnOrwOKK. SUtMniArOUrnANMA
3
tuBsmmoNs tacR eoows m t u tmuMD tviMCSom Mcxiccr m ak mbjccttocumimctAaJusiuCNTs.
WMIIitMItNlSCAIKNWmOPOttDnANIIMIUWLtlM'ttMLtWanhtlC.LWOSaift/IMMItC
rcKTiin Puvn iMimi iKWNXT*UAncM MtH MCDKMC iCM. oncH «ppRovtDrE*iUH wiCDn MiK ncftMTiBa
RCVISIONS
APPLY PfiE-EMERGENT HERBIClOE
\ SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL
L100 / SCALEW'T^COKIMCIOHSKrOWaUDV'
WSTAU V LAYER OF SHREOOEO HARDWOOD MULCH OR r
LAYER OP Fwav SHREOOEO HAAOWOOO MULCH 00 NOT
PLACE M CONTACT WITM PLANT
. im.TKaf-UCMCNTiCRMCeC^llEDlWIimoVaiEQUtDM'WMl'L W*M.*IOSH*Ui MDiraiOWStVBOaaSIMmOOOIMCHRtmiTO
SPfcvEATUNs fa> ACCdOM »ro«wnoNi)£CMMia use er NCfwaxs.
UCONnaoUXKCEVOUS ntECSMhlNOIMOIMDRecTCCHTACrMninCf tnjML
LOOSEN ROOTS Of COKTAMR GROWN PLANTS
1730 Plvmouih Road
^ MiMMtrrlCWnANTwrEIMTXIOUCMCMMOAWinAXnWHnCDATIC
LANDSCAPE PLAN
I r«aDeaMMrLM<TIMISACC(rTUUFR0UHICU9tl
PERENNIAL PLANTING DETAIL
LI 00
1 730
Plymouth
Road
PASTER ENTERPRISES
BD BaderDevelopment
-PEDESTRIAN/BIKE CONNECTION
TE V^LCOME GATEWAY
W/ SAFE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
ACROSS PLYMOUTH RQ<«) &
RIDGEDAL£ DRIVE
C a a r anûAno
DEVELOPMENT
O»3P2
APPLICATION
NCE PEDESTRIAN/BIKING
EXPERIENCE ALONG PLYMO(.n><
09/30/2014
J
/
STRENGTHEN \^â.Y^ND!NG &
COMMUNITY iDENTITY
ENHANCE SIDBAftLK
WEST SIDE OF PtyMOUTH^
FREEVW OVERWSS
CONNECT TO OPEN SPACE
TRAILS
'
U
era O B
PEDESTRIAN/BIKE CONNECTION , 2 C;
LPROMOTE PUBLIC REALM
& VISUAL IDENTITY
r r ) p Q 0 p |
P l g f l
Ridgcdale Virage Center Srudy
l o n n c h >riKj
NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AERIAL VIEWS OF THE VICINITY
AO.l
1 7 3 0 Ply m o u t h
Road
esc
PASTER ENTCRPRISES.
BD i BaderDevelopmenl
OAMONFARBERASSOClATtS
DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION
09/30/20M
12977
I 730 PIvmouth Road
AO.2
1 730
Plymouth
Road
PASTER ENTERPRISES..
BD: BaderDeveloprtiBnt
OAMONFAHBER ASSOCIATE.?
VIEW LOOKING EAST FROM ROOF
2 \ VIEW LOOKING NORTHWEST FROM ROOF
cP^
DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION
09/30/2014
VIEW LOOKING WEST FROM ROOF
VIEW LOOKING WEST FROM ROOF
AO.3
17 3 0 Plym ou th
Road
S i
PASTER ENTERPRISES „
BD; BaderDevelopmeni
OAMONFARBERASSOCIATCS
NW CORNER
DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION
0 9 / 3 0 / 2 0 14
m
m
I 710 PIvmoiith R
ARCHITtCTURAL IMACCS
AO.4
wtriUM br*
ITOa*mOPI)najn N<
esc
PASTER ENTERPRISES,
BD • B a d e r D e v e l o p m e n t
DAWONFAHSERMSOClATtS
COURTYARD
DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION
09/30/20]4
1 730 Plymouth
Road
rrrf: rrrn rs'i
3 ^ BANK ENTRY
PASTIR ENTERPRISES..
B D : BaderDeveiopmenl
m
w
DAM0NFAR8ERAS5OCIATES
HIIBB
\
DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION
\ RESIDENT ENTRY
09/30/2014
SOUTH FACADE
i
0
EE » < ^ B B > I B B ^ p
H ^ I ^ B B I I B S Q i
b S N b b i i b b i i
EAST FACADE
j|Q3 Q
QlilSD
AO.6
1 730
Plymouth
Road
22
PASTER ENTEKPRISES..
6D BaderDevelopment
DAMON FARBBR ASSOCtAftS
<.0^
•<>
DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION
09/30/2014
o 21
AiUhoi
ChfOft
©
PARKING LEVELMIWUSTWO
^^^PARK^^
PARKING LEVEL MINUS ONE
I 7 } 0 Plymouth Ro*d
A A l .0
1 7 30 Plymouth
Road
PARKING SCHEDULE • SURFACE
Tw
I ComH
CARTWAY LANE
PASTER ENTERPRISES^
BO: BaderDevelopmenl
LU
>
oc
Q
LU
DAMONFARSERASSOClATeS
_J
<
Q
LU
O
Q
RETAIL
•<.
r V
DC
DEVELOPMENT
APPLtCATtON
09/30/2014
©
RRST FLOOfl PLAN
FIRST FLOOR P
A A l .1
1 7 3 0 Plym ou th
Road
PASTER ENTERPRISES^
Qt) 00 M
B D . BaderDevelopmeni
OAMONFAHBERASSOCtATtS
/•
DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION
09/30/2014
Author
TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN • LEVELS THREE FOUR AND RVE
N SECOND FLOOR PLAN
ChccLti
©
0 PIvmoulh *o»<)
SICOND FLOOR PLAN TYPICAL FLOOR PIAN tfVClS
THRCC FOUR AMO FIVE
A A l .2
MIsriMM B4rH
17CO*ir30F1)nio>iti ltd
1 730
Ply m o u t h
Road
PASTEH ENTERPRISESBO: BaderDevelopment
DAWONFAHSERASSOCIATCS
DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION
09/30/2014
SIXTH FLOOR PLAN
©
SIXTH flOOR PIAN - ROOF
ItRRACE PLAN
A A l .3
1 7 3 0 Ply m o u t h
Road
m
S B
k
I
I
M
B i
O
PASTER ENTERPRISES.
BD BaderDeveiopmem
DAUONFAR8ERAfiSOClAr(.$
NOfrm ELEVATION
«0^
cP^
DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION
09/30/2014
m
i
?»! i S I
• I S33
UIBRBI
K eva
EAST ELEVATION
m
E l l
sr^
I
AA3.1
(p
(p
1730 Plymouth
(p
Road
i
m
B
i
^ C
7
A
i
un;
L
i
PASTER ENTERPRISES
0 0=
BLj BaderDeveiopment
fl
SOUTH ELEVATIOM
(p
©
DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION
0 9 / 3 0 / 2 0 14
"W'yr- s
HP >1.001^ Q
m
2 ^ WEST ELEVATION
AA3.2
DFSCRIPTION OF PROPERTY S U R V r r F D
(Per Stawort Till* Cuvonty Company Tltl* Insuronc* Commitment Fll* No. 3747S Fkit Supplwnantol, Commitment Dote October 23.
2013. Issued by Commerelol Portnera Title, LLC)
Parcel I:
Thot port of Lot I. Block I. Rldgadoli Stole Bonk Dnt Addition, lying Southerly of a lln
of the North line of the Soulheott Quarter of the Southeoel Quarter of Section 3. Tewr
County. Minnesota.
PLAT RFCORDING INFORMATION
[ ] Beorlnga ond/or dim
Parcel 2:
That port of the Southeost Ouorter of the Southeoat Ouorter of Section 3. Township 117 North. Ronge 22 West. Hennepin County.
Mkineseta. described oa fol1o«ra: Beginning at the Interaectlon of the Eosterly line of ftldgedole Drive, os noa laid out ond utlllz^
occording to the duly recorded plot of Ridge Squore Second Addition on file n the office ol the Hennepin County Recorder, ond o
line porollel alth ond 2W feet South from the North line of aald Southeoat Quarter of the Southeoat Ouorter: thence Eost olong
mW porollel line to a point 704 feat Eoat trom the Waat line of sold Southeast Ouorter. thence South at right ongles o diatonee
of 50 feet; thence Weat ot right angles to sold Eostsrly right-of—*ay line of Rldgedole Drive.
PROPOSFD PFSTRIPTION OF PARCFL 7
Thot port of the Southeoat Quarter of the Southeost Quarter e> Section 3, Toanship 117 North, ftonge 22 West, Hennepin County.
Minnesoto, lyfng eoaterly of the eosterly right-of—vay line of Ridgedole Dr>M, oa no« loid out ond utilized, occording to the duly
recorded plot of Ridge Square Second Addition, Hennepin County, Ulnneeoto. described o« beginning ot the Intersection ol sold
eosterlyright—of—«eyline of Ridgedole Drive ond O line porollel with ond 289 feet south from the north line ot soid Southeast
Ouorter of the Southeoat Quarter, thence eost olong aold porollel line to a point 704 feet east (rem the vest line of sold
Southeoat Quwter of the SMtheost Quortsr; thsnce south at o right angle, o diatonee of SO feet thence west at a right ongls.
B3.S2 feet to sold eosterly right—of-woy line of Ridgedole Drive.
CARTWAY
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeoat Quorter of Section 3,
Township 117. North Ronge 22. West Of the ^(th Principol Maridion, described as
follows; Beginning at the Intersection of the West line ol County Rood No. 72 and
the North iLne ol the Southeast Quorter of the Southeost Quorter ol Section 3,
Township 117. North Ronge 22, West of the Sth Principal Uaridlon; thence West on
the North line a distance ot ISO (eat: thance South ot right ongles U feet;
thence Eost ond porollel to the North lint ISS feat to the West line ol County
Rood No. 72; thence North on West line B7.S feel to the point of beginning.
EXCEPT that port thereof lying Westerly ol ths following described line: Beginning
at a polnl on the North line of the SMtheost Ouorter of the Southeast Quarter
of Section 3, Township 117, Ronge 22. a distance of IBO feet West of the West
line of County Rood No. l i , also known oa Plymouth Rood; thence olong o line
running Southeoaterly et en angle of 7B degrwee and 2 minutee from aaid North
line 0 distance ol S6.B9 feeL
VICINITY
i on May 18. 1978. i
(Pef Stawort Title Cuoronty Compony Title Inauronee Commitment File No. 37498
First Supplemental, Commitment Dote October 23, 2013, iasued by Commercial
Portners Title. LLC)
MAP
d documents.
Hated within breekata c
TITLE COMMITMENTS
(Slewort Title Cuoronty Company Title Inauronee Commitments Fie Nos. 37475 First Supplementol ond 37490
First Supplementol. Commitment Dotes October 23. 2013, iasued by Commercial Portnera Title LLC, were relied
upon OS to motters of record)
Schedule B Exceptions; Commitment No. 3747s nrst supplemental (Designated hereon os *A* for
survey reference only)
^ exceptions are indicated on survey with circled numbers where opplieeble.
1—9. (Cenerol eneeptions or net survey reloted]
s shown on the recorded plot of Ridgedole State Bonk FVat Addition.
Terms ond conditions of Driveway Eosement contoined in Worronly Deed doted May B. 1976. Tiled May 10.
I97B. OS Document No. 437S54S. [Shown on survey]
LANE
NtY HOST NC
[NBS'SS'U'W]
or se 1/4 or
235.60
14, Terms ond condltlona of Decloretlon of Eoaaments dote I November 17. 1989. filed November 29. 1989. oi
Document No. S60073I. [Described eoaaments are show I on surtvy, An oddltlonol eosement for Ingress
e relocated by declaront]
and Egress to declared but Is not spscineolly described
Reservation of on eosement for public right of way purposes In favor of the City of itlnnetonko. contained
In Quit Oolm Deeds doted July 23. 1993. fUed July 23. 1993 oa Document No. 6I2IB03. ond dated August
16. 1993, filed September 14. 1993. os Document No. 6130094. [Shown on survey]
' Denotes found Iron monument
0 Conditional Use Permit filed October 18, 2000. oa
r
MOATH LfC
Of LOI I I
NOTE
Terms and conditiona of unrecorded Wireless Telecommunications Sits Agrsement. os evidenced by
Memorondum of Wireless Telecommunlcotions Site Agreement doted June 26. 2000, filed October S. 200I,
OS Document No. 7554006. by ond between Charles M, Moos and Mellndo H. Moos, husband and wife, ond
Sprint Spectrum LP., o Datawore portnershlp. [Not survey reloted]
n Final Certificate filed May 24. 1990. as Document No.
ARFAS
Net
(excludes street rlght-oF-i
i Plymouth Rood over the most
89.265 sq. It or 2,049 o
4.633 sq, ft. or 0.107 a<
Plymouth Rood
3,472 sq. f t or 0.080 o
Ridgedole Drive
97.390 sq. f t or 2.236 o
21. First Refuaol Agreement doted November 17. 1989, filed November 29, 1989, os Document No. 9600733,
by ond between Ridgedole Stote Bank, a Minnesoto banking corporotlon. ond Chorles M, Moos. (Regarding
land to the North of commitment parcel) [Not survey related]
Schedule B Exceptions: Commitment No. 37498 (Designated herec
'B' for survey reference only)
9 Exceptions ore Indicated on survey with circled numbers where oppllcoble.
1-9. [general exceptions or not survey related]
10. Orolnoge ond ul
shown on the recorded plot of Ridgedole Stole Bonk First Addition.
t appear o the finol policy, however, the text remain in
n Worronly Deed doted May 8. 1976, fUed May 10.
SURVEYOR'S CFRTinCATION
To: Paster Enterprises, LLC, SCP PE Minnetonka LLC, Signature
Bonk. Stewart Title Cuoronty Compony ond Commerelol Partners
Title. LLC;
Thie la to certify that thto mop or plot and the aun>«y on which
It Is based were mode In accordance with the 2011 Minimum
Standard Detol Requirements (or ALTA/ACSM Lond Title Surveys,
>>lntly eetobllshed ond adopted by ALTA and NSPS. ond Includes
Items I. 2. 3, 4. 5. 7(a). 7(b)(1). 8. 9. 11(b) ond 13 of Toble
A thereof The field wo^ was completed on October 9. 2013.
Doted ttila 16th day of
deleted and wfll not oppaor on the final policy, however, the text remain in
(Terms ond conditions of Driveway Maintenance Agreement doled May 8. 1976. fled May ID, 1978, os
Document No. 4376549.) [References eosement described in Ooc. No. 4376346 - shown on survey]
IU.9T}
2013.
SUNDE LAND SURVEYINC. a &
Q
krleeTperi^CnT P.US.
Minn. Lie. No. •
Terms ond condlllons of Easement for roodwoy ond drolnoge ond utilty purposes In favor of the City of
Uinnetonka doted November 17. 1989, fUed November 29. 1989. oa Document No. 5600730. (Shown on
survsy]
Terms ond conditions of Declorotlon of Eosements doted November 17. 1989, filed November 29. I9B9. as
Document No. 9600731. [Described eoeementa are shown on survey. An oddltlonol easement for Ingrees
end Egress Is declared but ia not apeciflcolly deacrlbed and moy be rdocoted by decloront]
a Condltlonol Use Permit filed October 16. 2000. os
309.49
NB9'53'40'W
[NeS*M'S2*W]
OmtR: mCKXDMS PIMA
(UNPLATTED)
n nnol Certificote filed Moy 24, 1990, os Document No.
ALTA/ACSM LAND 777l£ SURVEY FOR:
PASTER ENTERPRISES
the Tmol policy, however, the text remain In
Subject to Ridgedole Drive over the most Weslerfy portii 1 of the lend ond Plymouth Rood over the m
Easterly portion of the land. [Shown on survey]
li SUNDE'
M M lANDSUWVETiNQ
19, Terms ond conditions of First Refusal Agreement dated November 17, 1969, filed November 29, 1989, (
Document No. 5600733, by ond between Ridgedole Stote Bonk, a Minnesoto bonking corporation, ond
Charles M, Mooa. (Not survey reloted]
1700&1730 Plymeuth Rd
i
HI
f
i i ' l H
J
B
I I I
i !
I
y
If ii ill
iiai i
II i I l i i illlillllJiillillll lllil
O
.
s ;
SEBISI
g i s s i s t i
I
„ 3 s i g l s i i i i i 5 i s i i £ i 2
l i i l
n
S K S S J I
!,
g | , S
G
O
7.50
33.00
3.00
" ^.u0•
25.50
•-0.00
@ Y
\A/B-40
feet
Tractor Width
Trailer Width
Tractor Track
Trailer Track
;
:
:
:
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
Lock to Lock Time
Steering Angle
Articulating Angle
: 5.0
: 20,3
: 70.0
Highland Bank
1 ^
M-2
CARTWAY LANE
roadway
easement
m
urban
character
landscaped
edge
M
M
m
v.falk brick
tilg^'
Plymouth RoarJ
.M-l.
Scale:
1/16"
-
I '-0"
09.24.2014
D A M O N F A R B E R ASSOCIATES
4012nc} Avenue North, Ste. 410 Minneapolis. MN 55401
p612.332 7522 1612 332.0936 vnvwdamonlarbefcom
1 7 3 0 P l y m o u t h Road
M I n n e t o n k a . M N 55 30S
Plymouth
Road Looking, N o r t h
Hignland
Bank
H
ign
1 7 0 0 & 1730 Plymouth Rd
<
1
M-2
N
CARTWAY LANE
I
building
urban
charactur
landscaped walk brick
odg*'
edge-
v M - 2 y
S c a l e :
1 / 1 6 "
I
' -
0 "
L o o k i n g
W e s t
09.24.201 4
DAMONFARBERASSOCIATES
4 0 1 2 n d Avenue North. Sie 410 Minneapolis. MN 55401
p612.332.7522 1612,332.0936 www.damonlafber com
1 730 P l y m o u t h Road
M t n n e t o n k a . M N S5 3 0 5
C a r t w a y
L a n e
Highland Bank
1 7 0 0 & 1730 Plymouth Rd
<
M-2
V
CARTWAY LANE
:l
i
A r
n
\
roadway
landscaped
edge
:>idewalk
turn fane &
reaction
thirulant-
turnlarte&
reaction
blvd
turn lane
thru lane
Rldgodak' Parkv/ay
IVl-3/
Scale:
1 / 1 6 '
I '-0"
09.24.201 4
DAMONFARBER ASSOCIATES
4 0 1 2 n d A v e n u e North. Ste. 4 1 0 M i n n e a p o l i s . M N 5 5 4 0 1
p612.332.7522
1612.332.0936 www.damonlafbercom
1 730 P l y m o u t h Road
M i n n e t o n k a , MN SS305
Ridgedale Drive L o o k i n g South
^
HigK
hland Bank
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
A32
Highland Bank
2030 Comprehensive Plan
ARTHUR ST W
C i t y of
n i i i m e t x ) n K a
Where quaUiy /s our nature
WINDYHILL RD
FAJRFIELD RD W
NORTHRIDGE RD
-rr w ;
^
2030 Land Use Plan
Land Use Catagory
-.iz:
SOUTHRIDGE RD
iJk:,.;,
i>kr. ...
Low Density Residential
AAedium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Service Commercial
WAYZATABLVD
Office
Mixed Use
Industrial
Institutional
JEFFRY WAY
Crane Lake
Open Space
Parks
^ Wetlands
TUDOR RD
Lakes
Minnetonka Boundary
1.400
Figure IV-13
1-394 Corridor
TIMBERUNE RD
Source: City of Minneto|T^jqhland BaPk
3^
Chapter IV. 2030 Land Use Plan
•
Sustainable and cohesive design elements will be encouraged to define and enhance
the individual character of certain villages.
4. Support for Regional Centers and Corridors
Minnetonka's major regional business centers include Ridgedale, Opus, and the 1-394 and
Crosstov/n regional business corridors. Higher redevelopment densities are planned to provide
expanded housing and commercial opportunities, and to support transit and LRT (Opus)
service. It is expected that the majority of future new housing opportunities in Minnetonka
will occur in these regional centers.
The following land use principles guide decisions for regional centers and corridors:
•
The city will support existing businesses, business retention and recruitment, and
reasonable expansion to remain competitive in the region.
•
Redevelopment will continue in order to build affordable housing, revitalize
commercial center areas and introduce additional vitality to regional centers and
areas such as the 1-394 corridor and the Opus area.
•
The city will encourage mixed uses and higher density residential uses in the regional
centers and corridors.
•
The city will continue to support (and update) plans and programs that encourage
cohesive design standards, infrastructure management techniques (such as the 1-394
Corridor Plan) and sustainable design techniques.
5. Connectivity to Improve Mobility
Throughout the 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan chapters, various policies and strategies are
established to increase connectivity throughout the city, particularly in the village areas and
regional centers and corridors. Such connections may be transportation and recreational
facilities, such as trails, roads and greenways, as well as linkages involving open space,
environmental features and landscaping design elements.
The following land use principle will guide decisions for connectivity:
•
Road, trail and sidewalk connections between neighborhoods, village areas, regional
centers and major destinations such as parks, schools, government facilities and other
activity areas will increase transportation choices and support the potential for more
active living among residents.
6. Resource Protection and Sustainable Practices
A continuation of balanced preservation efforts is planned to protect Minnetonka's highly
valued water and woodland resources. Sustainability requirements are also incorporated,
particularly those associated with improvements in stormwater quality.
The following land use principles guide decisions for resource protection and sustainability:
•
cîty ry
Application of sustainable principles in land planning (such as "transit oriented
design", "low impact development" and "active living" design standards) are expected
to reflect priorities for redevelopment and development.
minnetonka
2030 Comprehensive
A. Development of a master plan for the area that accommodates uses that serve the
surrounding residential neighborhoods and demonstrate connectivity to the surrounding
area.
B. Adherence to the 1-394 Corridor Study and ordinance
C. Provisions for sidewalks/trails along the north service road to allow pedestrian access to
Ridgedale Mall, the Plymouth Road transit station and CR 73 park and ride facilities
D. Incorporation of sustainable design practices appropriate for proximity to the western
wetland area.
E. Buffering and screening to existing residential neighborhoods.
Ridgedale Mall and Peripheral Areas
Since the opening of Ridgedale Mall in 1973, the regional commercial center has served a
market area that extends beyond Minnetonka due to the scale of development, services
offered, employment opportunities and regional highway access. Today, development
surrounding the mall includes the Ridgehaven Shopping Center; the Ridge Square
development; and the Sheraton hotel, YMCA and Hennepin County Service Center on the
south side of Ridgedale Drive.
The Ridgedale Mall and surrounding commercial uses are important economic areas within the
city; however, their overall configuration presents circulation and access problems. Although
there are a variety of services available in this area, it is difficult to take advantage of these
services without multiple automobile trips. In addition, the interior and connecting roadway
networks are configured in a way that creates congestion and access challenges at peak travel
periods and in peak shopping seasons.
Due to its age, it is anticipated that the Ridgedale Mall will undergo redevelopment within
the timeframe of this comprehensive plan. Likewise, some of the commercial areas
surrounding the Mall are aging and may be redeveloped between now and 2030.
The following development strategies and criteria are established to guide redevelopment
activities in the Ridgedale Mall and peripheral areas to revitalize the Ridgedale area as a
mixed-use area that provides opportunities for shopping, services, housing and entertainment
for Minnetonka residents as well as the region:
A. Incorporation of the surrounding natural features into overall plans.
B. Inclusion of transitions to surrounding residential uses to provide buffers (as maintained in
the past) between the more intense uses to the north (i.e., Ridgedale Mall) and the lowdensity residential uses to the south.
C. Development of a master plan for the area that accommodates mixed uses that serve the
city, the sub-region, and the surrounding residential neighborhoods; and demonstrate
connectivity to the surrounding area,
D. Adherence to the 1-394 Corridor Study and ordinance.
E. Provisions for sidewalks/trails to enhance pedestrian access to Ridgedale Mall and
surrounding areas and to create a more pedestrian-friendly and cohesive area
atmosphere.
F. Incorporation of transit facilities or access to transit.
G. Incorporation of sustainable design practices appropriate for proximity to the western
c>jty
minnetonka
IV-31A35
2030 Comprehensive
Meadow Park and eastern Crane Lake wetland areas.
The following provides specific land use guidance and strategies for the components that
comprise the Ridgedale Mall and associated peripheral areas:
1. Ridgedale Mall and Bonaventure Shopping Center properties
Mixed uses, including entertainment, are allowed with the intent of providing a more
pedestrian-scaled transition between the public (government service center and library) and
residential areas south of the Mall, and the Mall itself. Residential uses may be considered
within the mall area, for example as an upper story to the mall, to provide additional housing
opportunities and enhance vitality within the area.
2. Three parcels east of the Hennepin County Government Center and associated pond
(currently the YMCA, Sheraton, and Ridgegate Apartments)
These properties are guided for mixed use. This land use does not alter the character of the
existing developments (which could each be components of a Mixed Use development);
rather, the intent is to allow for greater design flexibility and for additional uses, when
deemed appropriate, on these parcels. Residential uses will be considered within this mixed
use area to provide additional housing opportunities and enhance vitality within the area.
3. Parcels east of Ridgedale Drive, south of Cartway Lane and located on the east and
west of Plymouth Road
These properties are guided for mixed use, however, residential uses are not considered
appropriate, due to access and circulation concerns. The intent is to edge the Ridgedale Mall
with development that creates a smoother transition between existing residential, open
space, public and commercial uses, and that allows for greater site design influence and
overall increased vitality within the area.
Service commercial, office and other commercial uses should occur along Ridgedale Drive, to
complement the commercial profile of Ridgedale Mall, and introduce a pedestrian-friendly
transition starting at the edges of the Mall
4. Ridge Square North and South Parcels
Residential uses may be permitted in the Ridge Square area, and may take better advantage
of the natural features of that area.
5. Ridgehaven Shopping Center (Target/Byerlys) and western commercial area to 1-394
No land use changes are planned for these areas given the age of development and proximity
to existing residential neighborhoods. It is recognized that traffic conditions between
Plymouth Road and Essex Road to the east are not optimal and often result in congestion
especially during the holiday season. At some point, the area warrants a review of traffic
patterns and roadway conditions to determine if additional design or land use changes can
better be accommodated within this area of the Ridgedale regional center.
C^tty ry
minnetonka
IV-32A36
2030 Comprehensive
VILLAGE CENTER MASTER PLAN
A37
Highland Bank
Key Issues
• Lack of intensity and proximity
• Absence of controls
• Segregated islands of land use
• Irregular access
• Not a convenient or safe walking environment
• Lack of district identity
• Need for "critical mass" of change
^ 1
R
mWietonka
i
d
g
e
d
impiemertîon
^
a
l
e
Village Center Study
o
Slide 2 6
Elements of Concept Plan
1. Transform Retail Center into Mixed
Use Community
2. Rebuild Ridgedale Drive into a
Parkway
3. Enhance Natural Features
4. Improve Mobility and Circulation
5. Encourage Green Practices
1^ /1^
minnetonka
Ridgedale Village Center Study
slides?
Ridgedale Area Vision
©
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
®
0
RDGEDALE TOWJ GREEtJ
GREBJPueACOI-tfJECTIOtJS
BJTRY FEATURE
B.TERTAINI^rriOtC
CINEr^
RIDGEDîE fWKWAY
ROUNDABCXnS
OUTLOTS
RJTURE PEDESTRAJi BRIDGE
VERTICAL GATBVAYUnRKER
PARK BOARDWALK
SEASOJlALOVEBFLaV
i PtHKIMS /
FUTURE DR-BjOPMBfr ST
I ES
©
[
M
rrcncr-wtrr
^ c r ~ ]
Highland Bank
2035 Concept Plan: Potential New Development
sirô
1
• •
RIDGEDALE LIBRARY
I Office
I
I Residential
I
mihnetonka
Hotel
I
• •
I ,/
City I
I Retail
Community
I Parking Structure
NORTH
A42
Highlan(J)g§0^, 2012
Slide 6 8
PEDESTRIAN/BIKE
CONNECTION
P(ûblic Realm Concept
FREEWAY GATEWAY
MARKERS
TRA L CONNECT ON
l o . Q g j vjne-fflft
GREEN WALL
INTERSTATE 394
TRAIL CONNECTION
ENTRY FEATURE
PEDESTRIAN LINK
I
CONNECTION TO OPEN
SPACE/TRAILS . y
FRONT DOOR
DINING PLAZA
COMMONS
— ROUNDABOUT
PARK SPACE
NEAR LIBRARY
GATEWAY MARKER
PEDESTRIAN/BIKE
NECTION
NORTH
minnetonka
A43
Highlan^ggp^, 2012
Slide 6 9
Possible Redevelopment at Ridgedale
Southwest Sector:
Housing, Mid-Rise:
450 dwelling units
Office, IVIid-Rise:
90,000 square feet
Structured I Surface Parking:
800 spaces
Density at 30/gross acre
FAR of 1.1
Total Capital:
$157,105,000
•
O
CB
'LC=>
a t
cJhj^
City i
minnetonka
A44
Highlan^g§0^, 2012
Slide 8 0
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW
A45
Highland Bank
Paster Enterprises,,,
iHorîNfi cuiTin DivciofMfMt t manicimint
bd
Baderoeveiopment
esc
1730 Plymouth Road Minnc:lonka, MN Ofi.O/.l'l
View from the Northwest
|ijgj|
.irchitects
^h0
otn
d*y«
and
k
1700&1H
73
P
ilh
iti BR
Cartway Lane
Match Srade
3eX5i>
,566 SF
36X96
1.966
f>r
36X96
1,»66 if
TOTAL
10.754 S F -
2
6X»6
1.141 sr
l\
104 Surface
Parking Stalls
N
Scale:
50'-0"
FEBRUARY 1 7 , 2 0 1 4
P l y m o u t h RoadA& C a r t w a y L a n e M i x e d U s e
M in netonka, M N
l e v e l
1hL,^3A^3';^,g
Planning Commission Minutes
May 15, 2014
9.
Page 11
Other Business
A.
A concept plan for redevelopment of the Highland Bank property at
1730 Plymouth Road.
Chair Lehman introduced the proposal and called for the staff report.
Thomson reported. He requested commissioners provide comments regarding
the concept plan.
Kent Hank, with Pastor Enterprises, co-applicant, provided the history of the
company. He stated that:




The proposed site currently has a three-story office building built in
1979. Highland Bank is a primary resident. Highland Bank would
occupy space in the proposed development. During construction, it
would operate out of a temporary modular structure.
The proposal would include mixed uses.
It is a great opportunity to add density to the area. It would follow
the overall vision for the area southwest of the shopping center.
Pastor Enterprises would partner with Bader Development which is
well known in the area.
Rob Bader, with Bader Development, co-applicant, provided the history of the
company. He is glad to be back working in Minnetonka.
Dennis Sutliff, architect for the applicant, stated that:





The design process is just beginning. He would love to hear the
commission’s input before moving forward with the application.
He hopes approval will happen this summer and to break ground at
the end of this year.
All of the details would be worked out. They would be working with
traffic engineers and the county to create a good interim use.
He is happy to say that the use would fit the vision for the area
recently adopted by the city. It would have great mixed uses,
contribute to the improvement of the roadways, and enhance the
walkability of the neighborhood.
Highland Bank would be a tenant. Possible others would include
coffee facilities and restaurants. The amount of surface parking
would limit the number of retail uses. Retail would cover
A48
Highland Bank
May 15, 2014




Page 12
approximately 17,500 square feet. There would be approximately
135 to 140 dwelling units.
There would be 2 levels of underground parking which would
provide 1 vehicle per bedroom. The intent would be to provide 60
percent 1-bedroom units and 40 percent 2-bedroom units. The
precise number would be determined by the time the application
would be submitted. The intent would be to house all residential
parking underground and preserve surface parking for retail uses.
He described the plans included in the agenda packet.
There would be a lobby with a drop-off area.
He described the floor plans.
Chair Lehman asked how the proposal would improve the walkability and traffic
flow of the site. Mr. Sutliff said that a residential use would reduce the number of
peak-hour trips more than an office use. A traffic study has not been done yet.
The proposal would do its part to meet long-range traffic plans. There are few, if
any, sidewalks. The vision of 2035 includes sidewalks. That is something that the
applicant would remedy by incorporating pedestrian spaces and bike lanes.
Knight likes the look of the proposal. He asked if the roof would be flat. Mr. Sutliff
answered affirmatively. In lieu of one large terrace, the top floor would be setback
from the floors below to create smaller terraces. It would have a step-back effect
in more than one area of the building.
Knight asked if using the rooftop as community space had been looked at. There
is another development that will happen on Minnetonka Boulevard and Interstate
169 that plans on using the rooftop for garden and community space. Knight
would love to be able to go on the roof and see over the top of buildings. He
supports using the roof for community space. Mr. Sutliff liked the idea. He will
see what his clients think of it. The structure is at maximum height and anything
that would go up there would have to be small enough to not be regarded by the
building code as another floor. Knight asked if an umbrella or sunscreen would
qualify as another floor. Mr. Sutliff stated that those items and people can be on a
rooftop, but public bathrooms or a kitchen would constitute another floor by the
building code. He will look into it. Knight likes the concept.
Odland asked what green or eco-friendly plans would be included. Mr. Sutliff
answered that the specifications call for green, renewable, recyclable materials
as a matter of practice. Storm water would be treated and stored with rain
gardens and infiltration areas. The storage would be located underground. He
will be working with engineering staff. The second-floor terrace would have
green-roof materials and roof-top features.
A49
Highland Bank
May 15, 2014
Page 13
Chair Lehman asked if the proposal would meet standards to be LEED certified.
Mr. Sutliff answered in the negative, because the cost to do the paperwork to
receive LEED certification is prohibitive. It would be better to spend the $60,000
on green items. The project would specify measures that would be consistent
with the requirements of LEED that would qualify the proposal for certification.
Kirk felt the location would be appropriate for something this large. It is nice to
see something being developed on the site. The current building is dated. The
proposal would add a lovely flavor. He could see Plymouth Road lined with high,
five-story buildings. The idea of being able to plant the boulevards in a way that
would shield some of the parking would be beneficial. Enough parking is
important to rent the units. The mass of the building is great. The architecture
articulates the mass instead of being one big chunk. Improvements need to be
made in the area to assist pedestrians with crossing the street to Ridgedale
Center. The proposal has great street scape. He likes the design. He appreciates
the attention to detail.
Rettew asked if the proposed architecture was meant to match future or current
buildings. Mr. Sutliff stated that it would be hard to guess what might be there in
the future. The proposal would be the first within the area to add density to the
Ridgedale Center area. He could not guess what might come in density or
materials. Suitable useable clues may be used. In this case, there is no context
on which to base the architecture. The architecture was determined by what
would be attractive to its market of potential renters and affordable within the
price context. It would, hopefully, be the first of other developments that may take
their cues from the proposal.
Rettew asked if the proposed amount of surface parking was based off of
average or peak commercial traffic times. Mr. Sutliff explained that it is a
balancing act. In this case, the number of stalls would equal 5.9 stalls per 1,000
square feet on average. He anticipates that some uses would have a lower use
and some higher so it would even out. Parking availability would have to be
considered when leasing tenants. Not having enough parking deters customers.
Rettew reviewed the elements of a concept plan. The benefit of a mixed-use
community is walkability. That would be important to him. He asked staff if there
is a certain type of architectural style or consistency that would be seen or
inherent in the area. The master plan talks about office space. He asked if the
amount of office space would be thrown off in that area and where it could be
made up if necessary. He wanted to know about future and current congestion
levels and availability of mass transit to the area. He fully supports mixed uses
and wants to take full advantage of it.
A50
Highland Bank
May 15, 2014
Page 14
In response to O’Connell’s question, Mr. Bader stated that rent would equal
$1.90 per square foot on average. Studios would be a little higher and 2bedrooms would be a little lower in price per square foot. A 2-bedroom, 1,000
square-foot unit would be approximately $1,900 per month. There is a market for
high-end market-rate rentals in the area. There is nothing like it in the immediate
area. Bader Development manages 8,000 apartments. A marketing team tracks
each market.
O’Connell noted that there is only so much one development would be able to do
to provide walkability to the area. Rettew agrees that the city itself would have to
provide assets to make the area walkable. Boulder Colorado uses underpasses
to provide pedestrian walkways to shopping areas. Sidewalks, vegetation, and
other traffic-control devices could be used to make the area safer and inviting to
walk.
Odland mentioned providing a shuttle from the apartments to Ridgedale Center,
Whole Foods, and other businesses.
Gordon stated that the current pedestrian connections in the Ridgedale area
need improvement. Things will happen incrementally with redevelopment
projects like the proposal and with the city connecting the trails that are in place
today along Plymouth Road and Ridgedale Drive. Those are important
backbones to travel through the area.
Gordon noted that the Ridgedale-area architecture has been fairly utilitarian and
simple. The Ridge housing project on the north side and the Hampton Inn will
bring a little more life to the architecture. The city is not afraid of the proposed
architecture. The concept plan calls for more activity and life in the area than just
shopping.
Mr. Sutliff loved the fact that commissioners are committed to improving the
region.
A51
Highland Bank
City Council iVIinutes
Page 14
Meeting of June 2, 2014
issues. The city could look at the area and if a small improvement could
be made, it may improve the area to the west.
Schneider said his assumption was that the underground storage was
collecting the capacity that it was supposed to be capturing and not
exasperating the offsite impact. He asked where the water from the tanks
went. Gustafson said the new system was designed to handle the
proposed improvements as well as future improvements. The city did not
want to make piece meal improvements anymore. He said the outlet was
into the chamber itself to the north and eventually flowed to the west.
Schneider said this complicated the issue because water from rain garden
went to a lower area and more water was being funneled through. This
might be worth a second look, not a study, to see if some of the excess
water could be diverted straight to the west rather than through the rain
garden. He didn't think it was the city's responsibility to make sure the
lower area was always dry and there could be a number of things that
happened overtime to cause the standing water. He suggested also
looking at the public drainage to see if there were any minor grading
improvements that could allow more free flow. Gustafson said it was well
within the city's purview to make certain that with future management
practices what the city requires are still working as they should. Schneider
said there may be some surface things the school district could do as part
of the construction that could address the issue as well. Gustafson said
the city would take a look at the public drainage swale that goes down the
property line.
Allendorf moved. Wiersum seconded a motion to adopt Resolution No.
2014-057 upholding the planning commission's recommendation. All
voted "yes." Motion carried.
D.
Concept plan for redevelopment of Highland Bank property at 1730
Plymouth Rd.
Gordon gave the staff report.
Howard Paster, Paster Enterprises, 2227 University Avenue, St. Paul,
introduced his partners, Robb and Scott Bader from Bader Development,
and the architect Dennis Sutliff from ESG Architects. Paster said the
existing building was built in 1979. The Highland Bank would remain in the
new mixed use building and the plan was to temporarily relocate them into
a temporary facility during the construction period.
Robb Bader, 5402 Parkdale Drive, St. Louis Park, noted his company was
a multi-generational, multi-family company that has been developing and
managing apartments all over the Twin Cities for over 50 years. The
A52
Highland Bank
Council Minutes
Page 15
IVIeeting of June 2, 2014
management company currently is managing over 8,000 apartment units
throughout the Twin Cities.
Sutliff said the mixed use proposal would fit in nicely with the vision for
Ridgedale. Retail would be located on the ground floor with residences
above that. The density on the site would be increased dramatically. He
said the group would like to work with the city to accommodate the kinds
of improvements the city would like to incorporate as part of the vision for
2035. He said the a ratio of one bedroom apartments to two bedrooms
apartments would be 60 percent one bedroom and 40 percent two
bedrooms. The residents would have underground parking. A roof terrace
was being looked at after a suggestion from the planning commission.
Wagner said the proposal aligns closely with what the council had
discussed for this side of Plymouth Road. As the plan is further discussed
making things more walkable should be included in the discussions. He
asked if the idea was to have a right in/right out on the Plymouth Road
side. Sutliff said there was a median on Plymouth Road that expands the
entry. He understood the redesign of Plymouth Road was scheduled for
2016. Because it is a county road the group would have to work with the
county to see if there could be an opening in the median. Wagner said
right in/right out was the only solution he thought could work for the site
circulation.
Acomb said given the Ridgedale village center study that found the area
wasn't very Minnetonka-like, she encouraged making as much of the
space green as possible. Since this would likely be the first of many
redevelopments in the area she encouraged making things as open and
accessible for biking and walking as possible so the other redevelopments
would do something similar. Including things like bike racks would
encourage this. Sutliff said he agreed with Acomb's comments and the
area needed some walkability improvements and the group wanted to be
part of the overall plans.
Wiersum asked who the target audience was for the apartments. Robb
Bader said the target audience was two groups. The first was the empty
nesters that were looking to downsize. The other group was young
professionals in the 30 to 40 year old range. Wiersum said he liked the
project and the way it looked. He thought the ratio of apartments seemed
a little heavy on the one bedroom side. The second bedroom was a
necessity for the empty nesters whose kids might come back to visit. He
agreed with Acomb about the importance for leadership on the walkability
area. He said it was an exciting project in a great location that would be
very successful.
A53
Highland Bank
City Council Minutes
Page 16
IVIeeting of June 2, 2014
Wagner said the group of buildings to the south eventually would be a
natural transition. He said as the group thinks about the parcel they
consider how the two pieces of property and potentially similar buildings
interact. Once this building is redeveloped the neighboring building would
look out of place and be ripe for redevelopment.
Allendorf said the proposal looked good but recognized there were
limitations in terms of being a small piece of property in a larger area. He
would love to see lots of trees, walkways, bikeways but one had to be
realistic. Maybe this developer could not do everything the city would like
to see done on this piece of property but maybe it could be indicated how
this piece of property would work with other pieces of property once they
are developed. Sutliff noted he was working with the landscape firm that
participated in the 2035 study so they had the history and background of
the vision for the area. One of the responsibilities was as the area
develops this property could accommodate the changes as well.
Schneider said this was a great project. The vision and boldness to do
something of this scale on a relatively challenging site would set a good
example for the redevelopment of the Ridgedale area. All of the modestly
useable, economically viable properties worked but were not great. This
redevelopment could inspire other property owners to try to be great. The
integration of the site into an overall plan was critical to make sure this
was not just an isolated pocket. One question was how innovation could
be shown in terms of how things come together for a planning and overall
circulation standpoint. He noted a fair amount of park dedication fees
would be generated from the redevelopments and he would like to be
innovative in how what was being captured could be put back into the area
to help with the improvements and planning. He was excited about the
design of the project and to have Bader Development back working in the
community. He thought the city had to do as much as possible to make
sure this was done right and set a good tone for the area.
Wagner said he supported Schneider's idea about the park dedication
fees.
E.
2015-19 Capital Improvements Program
Barone gave the presentation.
Wiersum moved. Waqner seconded a motion to adopt Resolution No.
2014-058 approving the 2015-19 Capital Improvements Program. All
voted "yes." Motion carried.
A54
Highland Bank
RIDGEDALE AREA PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS
A55
Highland Bank
2014
2016
2018
A56
Highland Bank
Planned Roadway Improvements 2016
Potential Roadway Improvements
A57
Highland Bank
A58
Highland Bank
A59
Highland Bank
A60
Highland Bank
TRAFFIC STUDY
A61
Highland Bank
Memorandum
SRF No. 0148574
To:
City of Minnetonka
From:
Matt Pacyna, PE, Senior Associate
Tom Sachi, Engineer
Date:
September 10, 2014
Subject:
Highland Bank Redevelopment Traffic Study
Introduction
As requested, SRF has completed a traffic study for the proposed Highland Bank redevelopment at
1730 Plymouth Road in Minnetonka, Minnesota (see Figure 1: Project Location). The main objectives
of this study are to identify the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development, determine
what roadway improvements, if any, are necessary to provide safe and efficient traffic operations
within the area, and review the site plan with respect to access and circulation. The following
information provides the assumptions, analysis, and study recommendations offered for
consideration.
Existing Conditions
The existing conditions were reviewed to establish a baseline to compare and determine any future
impacts associated with the proposed development. The evaluation of existing conditions includes
peak hour intersection turning movement counts, field observations, and an intersection capacity
analysis. It should be noted that Highland Bank currently occupies the existing site.
Data Collection
Weekday p.m. peak period turning movement counts were collected in February 2012 at the following
study intersections. Note that traffic counts completed within two years are considered valid.
x
Plymouth Road and I-394 South Ramps
x
Plymouth Road and Cartway Lane
x
Plymouth Road and Ridgedale Drive
x
Ridgedale Drive and Cartway Lane
ONE CARLSON PARKWAY, SUITE 150 | MINNEAPOLIS,A62
MN 55447 | 763.475.0010 | WWW.SRFCONSULTING.COM
Highland Bank
-.
/+01&($
)*+
%$
&+,
! "#$
%$
$&'(
2
A63
Highland Bank
Jeff Thomson
City of Minnetonka
September 10, 2014
Page 3
Additionally, turning movements in and out of the existing Highland Bank driveways were collected
the week of July 28, 2014 at the following study intersections:
x
Plymouth Road and Highland Bank Access
x
Ridgedale Drive and Highland Bank Access
Note that only the p.m. peak hour was reviewed, which represents the busiest period in this area.
Historical average daily traffic values within the study area were provided by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT).
Observations
Field observations were completed to identify roadway characteristics within the study area (i.e.
roadway geometry, posted speed limits, and traffic controls). Within the study area, Plymouth Road is
primarily a four-lane divided roadway with turn lanes and a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour
(mph). Ridgedale Drive is primarily a three-lane roadway with a continuous two-way left-turn lane east
of Plymouth Road, while Cartway Lane is a four-lane divided roadway with turn lanes. The posted
speed limit along Ridgedale Drive and Cartway Lane is 30 mph.
The Plymouth Road intersections with I-394 South Ramps, Cartway Lane, and Ridgedale Drive are
controlled by a traffic signal. The site access locations are side-street stop controlled. Existing
geometrics, traffic controls, and volumes within the study area are shown in Figure 2.
Intersection Capacity Analysis
An operations analysis was conducted to determine how traffic will operate at the study intersections
under existing conditions. All intersections were analyzed using Synchro/SimTraffic software and the
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Intersection operations analysis results identify a Level of Service
(LOS) which indicates how well an intersection is operating. Intersections are ranked from LOS A
through LOS F. The LOS results are based on average delay per vehicle, which correspond to the
delay threshold values shown in Table 1. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation and LOS F
indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity. Overall intersection LOS A through D is
considered to be acceptable traffic flow conditions based on MnDOT guidelines.
Table 1.
Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections
LOS Designation
Signalized Intersection
Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds)
Unsignalized Intersection
Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds)
A
10

B
> 10 - 20
> 10 - 15
C
> 20 - 35
> 15 - 25
D
> 35 - 55
> 25 - 35
E
> 55 - 80
> 35 - 50
F
> 80
> 50
A64
Highland Bank
-)
'
,'
-'
,
+
&-.-*/-%
0
1
!!
"
#$
%&'%(
)*
$
%&'+
,
-
#,-(
"
A65
..
! "#$ %
&%' %('
)*
Highland Bank
Jeff Thomson
City of Minnetonka
September 10, 2014
Page 5
For side-street stop controlled intersections, special emphasis is given to providing an estimate for the
level of service of the minor approaches. Traffic operations at an unsignalized intersection with sidestreet stop control can be described in two ways. First, consideration is given to the overall intersection
level of service. This takes into account the total number of vehicles entering the intersection and the
capability of the intersection to support these volumes.
Second, it is important to consider the delay on the minor approach. Since the mainline does not have
to stop, the majority of delay is attributed to the minor approaches. It is typical of intersections with
higher mainline traffic volumes to experience high levels of delay (i.e. poor levels of service) on the
side-street approaches, but an acceptable overall intersection level of service during peak hour
conditions. It should be noted that only the p.m. peak hour was reviewed, as it represents a worstcase scenario.
Results of the existing operations analysis shown in Table 2 indicate that all study intersections and
proposed access locations currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the p.m.
peak hour with the existing geometric layout and traffic control. No significant queuing or delays
issues were observed. However, it should be noted that the close intersection spacing along Cartway
Lane between Ridgedale Drive and Plymouth Road limits the efficiency of operations in the area.
While it does not operate similar to what drivers may be accustomed to, the quantifiable intersection
operations are considered acceptable. Further discussion regarding the proposed redevelopment
impacts is documented later in this study.
Table 2.
Existing Peak Hour Operations Analysis
Intersection
Level of Service (Delay)
P.M. Peak Hour
Plymouth Road/I-394 South Ramps
B (18 sec.)
Plymouth Road/Cartway Lane
C (27 sec.)
Plymouth Road/Highland Bank Access(1)
A/A (9 sec.)
Ridgedale Drive/Cartway Lane
C (34 sec.)
Ridgedale Drive/Highland Bank Access(1)
Plymouth Road/Ridgedale Drive
A/B (10 sec.)
C (22 sec.)
(1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control where the overall LOS is
shown followed by the worst approach LOS.
Proposed Redevelopment
As currently proposed, the Highland Bank Redevelopment consists of a six-story, 120-dwelling unit
apartment complex with 16,000 square feet of retail space at ground level. The existing Highland Bank
is expected to occupy a portion (i.e. approximately 5,000 square feet) of the proposed retail space.
This results in approximately 11,000 square feet of new retail space. Potential future uses include a
fast-food type restaurant or coffee shop.
A66
Highland Bank
Jeff Thomson
City of Minnetonka
September 10, 2014
Page 6
Access to the proposed redevelopment is planned at two locations (see Figure 3: Site Plan). These
driveways will be reconstructed in generally the same locations along Plymouth Road and Ridgedale
Drive. The proposed redevelopment includes an underground parking garage for approximately
187 vehicles with access on the west side of the complex. This underground parking is expected to be
for apartment residents only. An additional 81 surface parking spaces are planned for the ground-level
retail. Further discussion regarding site access is presented later in this study.
Traffic Forecasts
The proposed redevelopment is expected to be constructed in the year 2015. Therefore, traffic
forecasts were developed for year 2016 build conditions (i.e. one year after expected construction). To
account for general background growth in the area, an annual growth rate of one-half percent was
applied to the existing peak hour traffic volumes to develop year 2016 background traffic forecasts.
This growth rate is consistent with historical growth rates in the area.
Trips to/from the existing bank/office building were collected in order to identify the change in trip
generation due to the proposed redevelopment. However, it should be noted that the existing
Highland Bank building is currently underutilized, which includes several vacancies. For comparison
purposes, a trip generation estimate was completed to identify the potential site generation if the
existing uses were fully utilized. This trip generation comparison utilized the ITE Trip Generation
Manual, 9th Edition. Results of the existing trip generation comparison indicate the Highland Bank
building would likely generate approximately 122 p.m. peak hour trips if the building were fully
occupied. This would represent an increase of approximately 90 p.m. peak hour trips from the actual
driveway counts collected.
To account for traffic impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment, a trip generation estimate
for the weekday p.m. peak hour and a daily basis was also developed using the ITE Trip Generation
Manual, 9th Edition. Results of the trip generation estimate shown in Table 3 indicate the proposed
redevelopment is expected to generate 203 new p.m. peak hour and 2,105 daily trips. This includes a
15 percent multi-use and five (5) percent modal reduction, which account for motorists using more
than one use on site or residents/patrons arriving via walking/biking or transit.
Furthermore, a portion of the redevelopment trips are expected to be from vehicles already traveling
along Plymouth Road that will now divert their trip to the proposed redevelopment before continuing
on to their destination (i.e. pass-by trips). To account for these types of trips, pass-by percentages for
each land use from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition were utilized. Taking into account
the pass-by trip reduction, the resultant net new traffic volume impact to the adjacent roadway system
is 93 p.m. peak hour and 1,104 daily trips.
A67
Highland Bank
!"#$%
A68
Highland Bank
Jeff Thomson
City of Minnetonka
Table 3.
September 10, 2014
Page 8
Trip Generation Estimate
P.M Trips
In
Out
Total
Daily
Trips
53
69
122
574
6
24
30
250*
120 D.U.
48
26
74
798
9,200 S.F.
16
18
34
393
2 Drive-in Lanes
33
34
67
279
1,800 S.F
39
39
78
1,473
Site Generated Trips
136
117
253
2,943
Multi-Use Reduction (15%)
(20)
(17)
(37)
(441)
Multi-Modal Reduction (5%)
(7)
(6)
(13)
(147)
Total Site Trips
109
94
203
2,105
Change from Existing
+103
+70
+173
1,855
Pass-By Trip Reduction
(40)
(40)
(80)
(1,001)
Net New System Trips
63
30
93
854
Land Use Type (ITE Code)
Size
Existing Facility (ITE - Full Occupancy))
Existing Site Trips (ITE – Full Occupancy))
Existing Facility (Actual Counts)
Existing Site Trips (A ctual Counts)
Proposed Land Use
Apartment (220)
Shopping Center (820)
Drive-in Bank (912)
Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive Through (937)
*Estimated based on engineering judgment.
Trips generated by the proposed redevelopment were distributed throughout the study area based on
the directional distribution shown in Figure 4. The directional distribution was developed using a
combination of existing travel patterns within the area and engineering judgment. The resultant year
2016 traffic volumes, which account for general background traffic growth and new trips generated
by the proposed redevelopment are shown in Figure 5.
Year 2016 Build Condition
Intersection Operations Analysis
To determine if the existing roadway network can accommodate the year 2016 traffic forecasts, a
detailed intersection capacity analysis was completed. Once again, the study intersections and
proposed access locations were analyzed using Synchro/Simtraffic software and the HCM.
A69
Highland Bank
#
!"
0
$%&'(&&)*&+
,+
-(./(
A70
Highland Bank
#&
)
+)
#)
+
'
,#-#*.#/
0
1
!!
"
#$
%
&'()
*
+
,*+-
"
A71
..
! "#$$ %&'()
&*
!
Highland Bank
Jeff Thomson
City of Minnetonka
September 10, 2014
Page 11
Results of the year 2016 build operations analysis shown in Table 4 indicate that all study intersections
and proposed access locations are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during
the p.m. peak hour with the existing geometric layout and traffic control. Therefore, given the minimal
overall impact of the proposed redevelopment, no roadway network improvements are anticipated to
be needed. Furthermore, it should be noted that the additional redevelopment trips are not expected
to significantly contribute to intersection delays within the area, particularly along Cartway Lane.
Table 4.
2016 Build Peak Hour Operations Analysis
Intersection
P.M. Peak Hour
B (18 sec.)
C (27 sec.)
Plymouth Road/Highland Bank
Access(1)
C (35 sec.)
Ridgedale Drive/Highland Bank
A/A (9 sec.)
Access(1)
A/B (11 sec.)
C (22 sec.)
(1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control where the overall LOS is
shown followed by the worst approach LOS.
Site Review
A review of the proposed site plan was completed to identify any issues and recommend potential
improvements with regard to intersection sight distance, traffic control, and circulation. Based on field
observations, there is adequate sight distance at the proposed access location along Plymouth Road
to clearly identify approaching vehicles. However, the sight distance along Ridgedale Drive was
obstructed when looking to the south by existing landscaping (i.e. tress/bushes). Efforts should be
made to improve the sight distance at this driveway by removing these obstructions where possible.
It is understood that Minnesota state law requires that vehicles yield on private driveway approaches
and thereby not requiring traffic controls to be installed. However, stop control is recommended at
all proposed driveway approaches to Plymouth Road and Ridgedale Drive for reasons of consistency
and to avoid confusion amongst various site users.
Truck turning movements and parking/loading areas should be reviewed to ensure delivery vehicles
have adequate accommodations to prevent impacts to internal site circulation. Additionally, queues
from the coffee shop/fast-food drive through lane should be monitored to ensure they do not block
access to the parking garage. If issues arise, additional signing/striping may be necessary.
A72
Highland Bank
Jeff Thomson
City of Minnetonka
September 10, 2014
Page 12
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the analysis, the following conclusions and recommendations are offered for your
consideration:
Conclusions
x
Results of the existing capacity analysis indicate that the study intersections currently operate at an
acceptable overall LOS C or better during the p.m. peak hour.
x
The close intersection spacing along Cartway Lane between Ridgedale Drive and Plymouth Road
limits the efficiency of the operations in the area.
x
The proposed redevelopment consists of a 120-dwelling unit apartment complex and
16,000 square feet of retail space. Approximately 5,000 square feet of the retail space is expected
to be occupied by Highland Bank.
x
Access to the proposed redevelopment is planned at two locations, which are planned to be
reconstructed in generally the same locations along Plymouth Road and Ridgedale Drive as they
exist today.
x
The existing bank/office building which is underutilized generates approximately 30 p.m. peak
hour trips (based on actual counts).
o The Highland Bank building would likely generate approximately 122 p.m. peak hour trips if
the building were fully occupied. This would represent an increase of approximately 90 p.m.
peak hour trips from the actual driveway counts collected.
x
The proposed redevelopment is expected to generate 203 new p.m. peak hour and 2,105 daily
trips.
o Taking into account the pass-by trip reduction, the resultant net new traffic volume impact to
the adjacent roadway system is 93 p.m. peak hour and 1,104 daily trips.
x
Results of the year 2016 build operations analysis indicate that all study intersections and proposed
access locations are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the a.m.
and p.m. peak hours with the existing geometric layout and traffic control.
o At the Ridgedale Drive and Cartway Lane intersection, the change in overall intersection delay
is only one (1) second.
x
Given the minimal overall impact of the proposed redevelopment, no roadway network
improvements are anticipated as a result of the newly generated traffic. The additional
redevelopment trips are not expected to significantly contribute to the intersection delays within
the area, particularly along Cartway Lane.
x
The sight distance along Ridgedale Drive at the site access was obstructed when looking to the
south by existing landscaping (i.e. tress/bushes).
A73
Highland Bank
Jeff Thomson
City of Minnetonka
September 10, 2014
Page 13
Recommendations
x
Improvements should be made at the Ridgedale Drive driveway to improve sight distance to the
south. This is primarily focused on ensuring landscaping does not obstruct the vision for exiting
motorists.
x
Stop control is recommended at the proposed driveway approaches to Plymouth Road and
Ridgedale Drive.
x
Truck turning movements and parking/loading areas should be reviewed to ensure delivery
vehicles have adequate accommodations to prevent impacts to internal site circulation.
x
Queues from the coffee shop/fast-food drive through lane should be monitored to ensure they
do not block access to the parking garage. If issues arise, additional signing/striping may be
necessary.
H:\Projects\8574\TS\Report\8574_FINAL_MtkaHighlandBankTrafficStudy_140910.docx
A74
Highland Bank
Memorandum
SRF No. 0148574
To:
City of Minnetonka
From:
Matt Pacyna, PE, Senior Associate
Tom Sachi, Engineer
Date:
October 3, 2014
Subject:
Addendum to the Highland Bank Redevelopment Traffic Study
Introduction
As requested, SRF has completed an addendum to the Highland Bank Redevelopment Traffic Study dated
September 10, 2014. The purpose of this addendum is to address comments received since the
study was submitted and in particular, comments from a September 22, 2014 meeting with City staff
and area residents. The following information provides an overview of the pertinent comments
received as well as responses to address the concerns expressed.
General Neighborhood Comments
Comment 1 - Concerns were raised with the time in which the base traffic counts were collected. This comment focused
on both the time of year as well as weekday versus weekend periods, when the perception is that traffic volumes and
operations vary significantly.
Response: While it is understood that traffic volumes in the area increase during the holiday peak
periods (i.e. Thanksgiving through the New Year), the reality is that developing a roadway network is
not typically designed to accommodate the peak holiday period. However, since concerns were also
raised with respect to the February 2012 counts that were used as a baseline, new traffic counts were
collected the week of September 22, 2014. A comparison of the traffic volumes is shown in Figure 1
which indicates that the weekday 2014 counts are approximately 5 to 15 percent less than the
February 2012 counts. It should be noted that new counts were only collected at the Ridgedale
Drive/Cartway Lane and Plymouth Road/Cartway Lane intersections as they were the focus of the
neighborhood concerns.
Updated weekend counts were also collected in September 2014 at the two primary study
intersections. The weekend counts indicated that traffic volumes at the Ridgedale Drive/Cartway
Lane intersection are relatively similar or slightly elevated when compared to the weekday peak hour.
However, traffic volumes along Plymouth Road were lower than the weekday peak hour, which
offset the increases in other movements from a capacity perspective. Therefore, based on the
updated 2014 counts, the previous existing analysis completed for the Highland Bank Redevelopment
Traffic Study remains valid.
ONE CARLSON PARKWAY, SUITE 150 | MINNEAPOLIS,A75
MN 55447 | 763.475.0010 |
WWW.SRFCONSULTING.COM
Highland Bank
Jeff Thomson
City of Minnetonka
October 3, 2014
Page 2
For comparison purposes, the existing operations using the weekday February 2012 counts and both
the weekday/weekend September 2014 counts is shown in Table 1. Results of the operations
analysis comparison indicate that the intersections have operated similarly since 2012 during a typical
weekday/weekend condition. The study intersections have continued to operate at an acceptable
overall LOS D or better during these peak periods, with relatively minimal difference in delays and
queues. It should be noted that an overall intersection LOS D or better is considered acceptable
and does not warrant mitigation.
Table 1.
Existing Peak Hour Operations Analysis Comparison
Peak Hour Level of Service (Delay)
Intersection
Weekday P.M.
February 2012
Weekday P.M.
September 2014
Saturday Midday
September 2014
C (27 sec.)
C (23 sec.)
C (28 sec.)
C (34 sec.)
C (29 sec.)
D (36 sec.)
Note: The weekday p.m. represents 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., while the Saturday midday represents 2 p.m. to 3 p.m.
Finally, given SRF’s experience/familiarity with traffic volumes within the area, the traffic counts
were not modified to reflect other conditions. The traffic counts collected between 2012 and 2014
represent a good sample data set that accurately reflects typical conditions throughout the majority
of the year. However, at the request of the residents, seasonal factors for Annual Average Daily Traffic
Volumes for Short Duration Weekday Traffic Volume Counts is provided at the end of this document.
This data was produced by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Additional data specific to
“shopping center” trip generation is also provided as a reference, which is included at the end of this
document as well.
Comment 2 – There appears to be a lot of crashes in the area, particularly at the Plymouth Road/Cartway Lane
intersection.
Response: Crash data was provided by Hennepin County for the Plymouth Road/Cartway Drive
intersection from January 2011 to August 2014, which represents approximately three and a half
years of data. There were a total of 11 crashes reported within that time period (2011 – 1 crash;
2012 – 3 crashes; 2013 – 4 crashes; 2014 – 3 crashes). The crash types included sideswipe (2), rightangle (3), rear-end (4), left-turn (1), and one crash that was not classified. From a crash rate
perspective, the intersection has experienced a lower than average rate of crashes compared to other
similar types of intersections on the County Road System.
A76
Highland Bank
Jeff Thomson
City of Minnetonka
October 3, 2014
Page 3
Comment 3 – Since completion of the original traffic study in early September, more specific land uses have been
identified for the proposed development. Concerns were raised with respect to impacts of the trip generation and the
potential of underestimating the site trip generation. There was also a question whether there are different trip
generation rates for a walk-in bank versus a drive-in bank.
Response: The trip generation estimate for the proposed development was revised based on the
more specific land uses identified by the developer. In particular, a restaurant component has been
incorporated into the development in place of some of the general retail space. A summary of the
revised trip generation is shown in Table 2.
Table 2.
Trip Generation Estimate
Land Use Type (ITE Code)
Size
P.M Trips
Daily
Trips
In
Out
Total
120 D.U.
48
26
74
798
8,400 S.F.
15
16
31
359
2 Drive-in Lanes
33
34
67
279
Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive Through (937)
1,800 S.F
39
39
78
1,473
Fast-Food Restaurant w/o Drive Through (933)
2,200 S.F.
29
28
57
1,575
Site Generated Trips
164
143
307
4,484
Multi-Use Reduction (15%)
(25)
(21)
(46)
(673)
Multi-Modal Reduction (5%)
(8)
(7)
(15)
(224)
Total Site Trips
131
115
246
3,587
Change from Existing
+125
+91
+216
3,337
Pass-By Trip Reduction
(55)
(55)
(110)
(1,777)
Net New System Trips
70
36
106
1,560
Proposed Land Use
Apartment (220)
Shopping Center (820)
Drive-in Bank (912)
Results of the trip generation estimate indicate that the change in land use is expected to increase the
overall site generated when compared to the previous estimate. Based on the revised land use, the
proposed development is expected to generate approximately 246 p.m. peak hour trips and 3,587
daily trips. When accounting for motorists that are already traveling within the area that will utilize
the site before continuing onto their destination (i.e. pass-by trips), the proposed development is
expected to generate approximately 106 p.m. peak hour and 1,560 daily net new system trips.
It should be noted that ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) does provide separate trip
generation rates for “walk-in” versus “drive-in” type banks. However, the data for “walk-in” banks
is limited and based on the trip generation rates, “drive-in” banks typically generate two times as
much traffic as “walk-in” banks. Therefore, given the proposed bank is planned to have “drivethru” lanes, the “drive-in” rate was used.
A77
Highland Bank
Jeff Thomson
City of Minnetonka
October 3, 2014
Page 4
Comment 4 – Provide results of the operations analysis by approach.
Response: To quantify the traffic impacts of the revised trip generation estimate based on the
detailed land use, an additional traffic operations analysis was completed. Since the weekday 2014
traffic counts represent the most recent data available, these counts were used as the basis for the
future build operations analysis. It should be noted that although the Saturday midday peak hour
has higher delays than the weekday p.m. peak hour, it was not analyzed further since the proposed
development is expected to generate less trips than during the weekday p.m. peak hour. The results
of both the weekday existing year 2014 and year 2016 build p.m. peak hour conditions are shown in
Table 3.
Table 3.
Peak Hour Operations Analysis Comparison
Intersection
Plymouth Road/Highland Bank Access
Ridgedale Drive/Highland Bank Access
Weekday P.M.
September 2014
Overall
Approach
B (16 sec.)
EB – N/A
WB – C (33 sec.)
NB – B (13 sec.)
SB – B (13 sec.)
C (23 sec.)
EB – B (18 sec.)
WB – C (27 sec.)
NB – C (22 sec.)
SB – C (28 sec.)
A (3 sec.)
EB – A (9 sec.)
WB – N/A
NB – A (3 sec.)
SB – A (2 sec.)
C (29 sec.)
EB – B (12 sec.)
WB – A (8 sec.)
NB – C (31 sec.)
SB – D (45 sec.)
A (2 sec.)
EB – N/A
WB – B (11 sec.)
NB – A (3 sec.)
SB – A (1 sec.)
C (20 sec.)
EB – C (29 sec.)
WB – C (22 sec.)
NB – B (19 sec.)
SB – B (11 sec.)
A78
Weekday P.M.
2016 Build Condition
Overall
Approach
B (18 sec.)
EB – N/A
WB – D (36 sec.)
NB – B (14 sec.)
SB – B (14 sec.)
C (27 sec.)
EB – C (23 sec.)
WB – C (29 sec.)
NB – C (23 sec.)
SB – C (32 sec.)
A (3 sec.)
EB – A (9 sec.)
WB – N/A
NB – A (3 sec.)
SB – A (2 sec.)
C (32 sec.)
EB – B (12 sec.)
WB – B (10 sec.)
NB – C (26 sec.)
SB – D (54 sec.)
A (3 sec.)
EB – N/A
WB – B (11 sec.)
NB – A (3 sec.)
SB – A (1 sec.)
C (20 sec.)
EB – C (28 sec.)
WB – C (22 sec.)
NB – C (20 sec.)
SB – B (13 sec.)
Highland Bank
Jeff Thomson
City of Minnetonka
October 3, 2014
Page 5
Results of the operations analysis indicate that under year 2016 build conditions, all study
intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better. Although some
approaches operate at LOS D, this is a common situation and does not warrant any mitigation.
Queues are not expected to impact adjacent intersections, with the exception of Cartway Lane
between Plymouth Road and Ridgedale Drive, which is the result of the limited storage due to the
close intersection spacing. The proposed development is not expected to significantly impact this
queuing condition. The City/County should consider reviewing the current signal timing plans
within the area to see if any adjustments could be made, particularly once the actual development is
constructed. Coordination between the City and Hennepin County would need to occur as the
County is the operating agency of the traffic signal.
Comment 5 – Could a “No Right-Turn On Red” sign be added for northbound motorists at the Ridgedale
Drive/Cartway Lane intersection?
Response: SRF evaluated the implementation of a “No Right-Turn On Red” sign in this location.
From a traffic operations perspective, implementation of this sign would not change the overall
LOS during the peak periods. However, the sign does have an impact on the approach delays. If
the sign were implemented, the southbound approach would be expected to experience an average
reduction in delay of approximately five to 10 seconds, while the northbound approach would
experience an increase in delay of approximately five to 10 seconds during the peak periods. This
change also has a similar effect with respect to queues (i.e. a slight reduction in queuing along the
southbound approach, but an increase in queuing along the northbound approach). A potential
solution would be to implement a time-of-day “No Right-Turn On Red” condition for the
northbound approach at the Ridgedale Drive/Cartway Lane intersection, such as “no turns from 11
a.m. to 6 p.m.” Further evaluation would need to be completed to determine specific times if
implementation was considered.
Comment 6 – Could wayfinding signage be added to help align motorists in the appropriate turn lanes?
Response: Wayfinding signage can be a useful tool in helping guide motorists to their destination,
particularly those who are unfamiliar with the area. However, given the close intersection spacing,
there are some challenges with respect to sign locations and the ability for motorists to quickly
comprehend the messages.
H:\Projects\8574\TS\Report\8574_Addendum_MtkaHighlandBankTrafficStudy_141003.docx
A79
Highland Bank
North
379
82
25
45
547
58
574
69
18
R
uth
mo
Plymouth Road
Cartway Lane
Ply
Ridgedale Drive
5
160
115
Weekday P.M.
February 2012
97
107
113
Cartway Lane
113
318
249
0
110
388
NORTH
71
88
81
97
327
230
Ridg
eda
430
100
56
Cartway Lane
535
106
14
46
402
32
Saturday Midday
September 2014
60
690
59
Plymouth Road
457
66
8
101
105
83
H:\Projects\8574\TS\Figures|Fig01_Traffic Volume Comparison.cdr
Ridgedale Drive
Cartway Lane
5
125
79
Cartway Lane
Cartway Lane
106
88
64
257
67
36
Plymouth Road
3
102
447
Ridgedale Drive
3
95
77
89
101
70
Cartway Lane
Weekday P.M.
September 2014
112
246
252
10
91
366
oad
66
82
76
le D
rive
LEGEND
XX
- Peak Hour Volume
- Traffic Signal Control
Traffic Volume Comparison
Highland Bank Redevelopment Traffic Study
00148574
August 2014
City of Minnetonka, MN
A80
Figure 1
Highland Bank
AADT Adjustment Factors for Short Duration Weekday Traffic Volume Counts
Statewide Table
Based Upon 2013 and Historic Continuous Traffic Volume Data
Produced by the Office of Transportation System Management
Minnesota Department of Transportation
May 20, 2014
Traffic Characteristics at Count Location
Month
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
Middle
Day of the
48 Hour
Period
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
High
Weekends
and /or
Moderately
High Summer
(3)**
1.13
1.13
1.06
1.06
1.04
0.98
0.99
0.97
0.90
0.95
0.93
0.87
0.97
0.95
0.88
1.03
1.01
0.96
1.06
1.03
0.96
1.09
1.04
1.00
High
Weekends
and/or
High
Summer
(4)
1.24
1.23
1.16
1.10
1.09
1.01
0.91
0.89
0.82
0.83
0.81
0.75
0.85
0.83
0.75
0.99
0.98
0.92
1.09
1.07
1.00
1.17
1.18
1.10
Higher
Weekdays
(9)
Similar
Weekdays
and
Weekends
(11)
Moderately High
Weekends and/or
Moderately High
Summer
(17)
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.89
0.89
0.87
0.87
0.86
0.85
0.88
0.86
0.85
0.88
0.86
0.86
0.89
0.88
0.86
0.90
0.89
0.88
0.95
0.94
0.97
0.97
0.95
0.93
0.94
0.93
0.90
0.92
0.90
0.88
0.92
0.90
0.89
0.93
0.91
0.89
0.94
0.92
0.91
0.95
0.93
0.91
0.97
0.96
0.96
1.13
1.13
1.06
1.06
1.04
0.98
0.99
0.97
0.90
0.95
0.93
0.87
0.97
0.95
0.88
1.03
1.01
0.96
1.06
1.03
0.96
1.09
1.04
1.00
NOTE: Some short count locations that are relatively near continuous counting locations (ATRs) use
specific ATR factors for adjustment.
Weekend is defined as Friday Noon through Monday Noon.
Location specific, axle correction factors are also required to adjust counts on Interstate, U.S. and State
highways. All factors are applied to the 24 hour average for the count period.
**Starting in 2011 ATRs in Cluster Group 3 were “absorbed” into Cluster Group 17. For convenience the
factors from Cluster Group 17 have been listed under the Cluster Group 3 heading.
A81
Highland Bank
A82
Highland Bank
ORDINANCE/RESOLUTIONS
A83
Highland Bank
Ordinance No. 2014An ordinance rezoning the properties and adopting a master development plan
for the properties at 1700 and 1730 Plymouth Road
The City of Minnetonka Ordains:
Section 1.
1.01
This ordinance hereby rezones the properties at 1700 and 1730 Plymouth
Road, and legally described on Exhibit A, from PID/Planned I-394 District
to PUD/Planned Unit Development.
1.02
This ordinance also adopts a master development plan for construction of
a mixed use retail and multi-family residential development on the subject
properties.
Section 2.
2.01
This action is based on the following findings:
1.
The rezoning to PUD would provide the following public benefits:
a)
It would result in a project with a mix of land use types. The
project would consist of a mixed use building containing
restaurant, retail, and service commercial uses on the first
floor, and multi-family residential apartments on the upper
floors.
b)
It would result in a development of a housing type that is
desirable to the city. The city has 4,400 multi-family units in
the community. Of these units, 75 percent were constructed
prior to 1990. The Exchange in Glen Lake and the Ridge on I394 are the only apartment buildings that have been
A84
Highland Bank
Ordinance No. 2014-
Page 2
constructed in the community in the past 10 years. The
proposed market-rate, high-end apartments, would be a
unique housing type for Minnetonka. The proposed
apartments would provide for a broader range of housing
options and choices for the community.
3)
The rezoning would facilitate the implementation of the
comprehensive plan and village center plan. The city has
spent a considerable effort on updating the comprehensive
plan and developing the village center master plan. Traditional
zoning is not conducive to the type of development anticipated
and planned as part of these planning efforts. The PUD
ordinance provides the flexibility necessary to implement
these plans, which provides a public benefit to the Ridgedale
area and the overall community.
2.
The rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive guide plan,
Ridgedale village center plan, and intent of the zoning ordinance.
3.
The rezoning is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare.
Section 3.
3.01
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1.
The property must be developed and maintained in substantial
conformance with the following plans:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Existing conditions survey dated November 18, 2013
Grading, drainage, and erosion control plan dated July 28, 2014
Utility plan dated July 28, 2014
Stormwater pollution prevention plan dated July 28, 2014
Temporary bank site plan dated July 28, 2014
Landscape plan dated July 28, 2014
Underground parking garage plans dated September 30, 2014
Site plan dated July 28, 2014
Floor plans dated September 30, 2014
Building elevations dated September 30, 2014
The plans outlined above constitute the master development plan for
the subject properties.
A85
Highland Bank
Ordinance No. 2014-
2.
Page 3
Development must further comply with all conditions outlined in City
Council Resolution No. 2014-XXX, approving the final site and
building plans, adopted by the Minnetonka City Council on October
27, 2014.
Section 4.
A violation of this ordinance is subject to the penalties and provisions of
Chapter XIII of the city code.
Section 5.
This ordinance is effective immediately.
Adopted by the city council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, on October 27, 2014.
Terry Schneider, Mayor
Attest:
David E. Maeda, City Clerk
Action on this Ordinance:
Date of introduction:
Date of adoption:
Motion for adoption:
Seconded by:
Voted in favor of:
Voted against:
Abstained:
Absent:
Ordinance adopted.
Date of publication:
A86
Highland Bank
Ordinance No. 2014-
Page 4
Certified Copy:
I certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an ordinance adopted by the city
council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, at a meeting held on October 27, 2014.
A87
Highland Bank
Ordinance No. 2014-
Page 5
EXHIBIT A
A88
Highland Bank
Resolution No. 2014Resolution approving final site and building plans, with parking variance, and an
appeal of maximum p.m. peak hour trips for a mixed use development
at 1700 and 1730 Plymouth Road
_____________________________________________________________________
Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, as follows:
Section 1.
Background.
1.01
SPC PE Minnetonka, LLC, Charles & Melinda Moos, and Bader
Development, LLC have proposed construction of a mixed use retail and
multi-family residential development at 1700 and 1730 Plymouth Road. The
site is legally described on Exhibit A.
1.02
The applicants have requested approval of final site and building plans for
construction of the development. The final site and building plans include a
parking variance from 362 to 293 stalls.
1.03
The applicants have also appealed the maximum p.m. peak hour trips
outlined for the properties.
1.04
On October 9, 2014, the Planning Commission held a hearing on the
proposal. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information
to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission considered all of
the comments received and the staff report, which are incorporated by
reference into this resolution.
Section 2.
Standards.
2.01
City Code §300.27, Subd. 5, states that in evaluating a site and building
plan, the city will consider its compliance with the following:
1.
Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's
development guides, including the comprehensive plan and water
resources management plan;
A89
Highland Bank
Resolution No. 2014-
Page 2
2.
Consistency with the ordinance;
3.
Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable
by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to
be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed
or developing areas;
4.
Creation of a harmonious relationship of buildings and open spaces
with natural site features and with existing and future buildings
having a visual relationship to the development;
5.
Creation of a functional and harmonious design for structures and
site features, with special attention to the following:
a)
an internal sense of order for the buildings and uses on the
site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants,
visitors and the general community;
b)
the amount and location of open space and landscaping;
c)
materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an
expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the
same with the adjacent and neighboring structures and uses;
and
d)
vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways,
interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of
access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and
access points, general interior circulation, separation of
pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount
of parking.
6.
Promotion of energy conservation through design, location,
orientation and elevation of structures, the use and location of glass
in structures and the use of landscape materials and site grading;
and
7.
Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through
reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight
buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of
design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have
substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
A90
Highland Bank
Page 3
2.02
The PID ordinance allows for property owners to appeal the maximum p.m.
peak hour trip allocation.
2.03
By City Code §300.07 Subd. 1, a variance may be granted from the
requirements of the zoning ordinance when: (1) the variance is in harmony
with the general purposes and intent of this ordinance; (2) when the
variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan; and (3) when the
applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with
the ordinance. Practical difficulties means: (1) The proposed use is
reasonable; (2) the need for a variance is caused by circumstances unique
to the property, not created by the property owner, and not solely based on
economic considerations; and (3) the proposed use would not alter the
essential character of the surrounding area.
Section 3.
Findings.
3.01
The proposal would meet site and building plan standards outlined in the
City Code §300.27, Subd. 5:
1.
The proposed redevelopment project is consistent with the growth
strategies outlined in the comprehensive plan for the Ridgedale
village center.
2.
The proposal is consistent with all ordinance standards and
requirements, except for the parking variance. A parking variance is
requested and would meet the city’s variance standard.
3.
The existing site is not in a natural state. The site is currently
improved as a commercial property with associated parking lot and
manicured landscaping. Given the generally flat topography, minimal
grading is required for the proposed project. The proposed project
would comply with all of the city’s natural resource ordinances,
including floodplain, wetland, tree preservation, and stormwater
management.
4.
The proposal would result in the harmonious relationships of
buildings and open space. The proposal includes pedestrian
improvements along the public streets, with streetscape and
landscaping improvements to enhance pedestrian experience and
site aesthetics. Connections are provided from the public sidewalks
into the site and building entrances.
5.
The proposed site plan provides for a functional layout. It provides
A91
Highland Bank
Page 4
practical vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access and circulation,
and has a landscaping design that enhances the public realm and
off-site views of the development.
6.
As new construction, the building would also be constructed to meet
the current building and energy codes. The building elevations
provides ample glass and window openings to the retail tenants and
apartment units to provide natural daylight into the building.
7.
The proposal would visually alter the site and Plymouth Road
corridor. However, the redevelopment is consistent with the vision
and long term redevelopment that is anticipated in the
comprehensive plan and village center study for the Ridgedale area.
3.02
The appeal of the p.m. peak hour trip allocation is reasonable. The traffic
study conducted for the project indicates that the existing roadway capacity
can accommodate the proposed development, and the development would
not necessitate any roadway infrastructure improvements.
3.03
The proposal meets the variance standard outlined in City Code §300.07
Subd. 1(a):
1.
The proposal meets the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance
to ensure development sites provide adequate parking to meet the
parking demands associated with the development. The proposed
development would provide parking to meet the Institute for
Transportation Engineers standard for apartments, and to meet the
practice of providing one stall for each bedroom within the
development. This ensures that the development would have
enough parking to meet the projected parking demand.
2.
The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan that
encourages mixed use developments, which experience peak
parking demands at different times for the different uses in the
development.
3.
There are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance:
a)
It is reasonable to provide a flexible parking requirements
based on the actual characteristics of the proposed
development.
A92
Highland Bank
Page 5
b)
The proposed apartment use is unique compared to other
multi-family residential buildings because the units would be
substantially smaller than other types of multi-family products.
c)
The parking variance would not adversely affect the character
of the locality. The site would meet anticipated parking
demand to ensure that no overflow parking occurs on
adjacent properties.
Section 4.
Council Action.
4.01
The city council approves the above-reference site and building plans with
appeal of maximum p.m. peak trip allocation and parking variance, subject
to the following conditions:
1.
Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and
maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans,
except as modified by the conditions below:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2.
Existing conditions survey dated November 18, 2013
Grading, drainage, and erosion control plan dated July 28, 2014
Utility plan dated July 28, 2014
Stormwater pollution prevention plan dated July 28, 2014
Temporary bank site plan dated July 28, 2014
Landscape plan dated July 28, 2014
Underground parking garage plans dated September 30, 2014
Site plan dated July 28, 2014
Floor plans dated September 30, 2014
Building elevations dated September 30, 2014
The following must be submitted with the building permit application
for staff review and approval:
a)
Final site, grading, drainage, utility, landscape, and tree
mitigation plans, and a stormwater pollution prevention plan
(SWPPP) for staff approval.
1)
Final site and building plans:
•
The canopies over the drive-up lanes must have a
minimum height of 13’ 6” for fire apparatus.
•
Temporary bank building and plan must meet the
A93
Highland Bank
Page 6
requirements of the fire marshal and building
official. The temporary building must be removed
prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for
the permanent building.
2)
Final grading, drainage, and stormwater management
plan:
•
The stormwater sequencing rules out using filtration
as a BMP due to shallow existing storm sewer in
the area and not having enough depth to tie into that
existing storm sewer system to the north. There is
a storm sewer manhole in Ridgedale Dr on the west
side of the site that is 14 feet deeper. The applicant
must provide sufficient justification for why this
storm sewer connection cannot be utilized and a
filtration system employed onsite.
•
The three inlets to the vault should be submerged
with the top of the inlet pipe at least 1-foot below the
NWL and at least 3-feet above the bottom of the
vault to provide energy dissipation and to minimize
the resuspension of sediment.
•
The outlet pipe must be back-sloped or have a teesection, the lower arm of which must extend at least
1-foot below the NWL to trap floatables and oil in
the vault.
•
Adequate vents in the vault or other provisions must
be included to ensure the water in the vault does
not become “stagnant” resulting in anoxic
conditions. Explain the provisions provided to
increase air contact with the wet pool.
•
The inlet from CB6 or the vault outlet should be
adjusted to provide greater separation between the
two to prevent short circuiting of the vault.
•
The three CBs at the inlet pipes for the vault should
provide pre-treatment. Sump catch basins with
SAFL baffles or hydrodynamic separators must be
used to prolong the life of the vault.
A94
Highland Bank
Page 7
3)
•
A detailed maintenance plan must be developed
and submitted. Included in that plan must be an
explanation of how the vault will be drawn down
since a gravity drain for maintenance is not feasible.
•
Sediment that accumulated in the vault during
construction will need to be removed at the
completion of the project.
Final utility plan:
•
Call out the type of connection to the water main for
both Ridgedale Drive and Plymouth Road (wet tap
or cut in).
•
Add a gate valve on each side of the tee for the
water main service connection to the building
(resulting in 3 total valves).
•
In regards to the existing water service that is to be
removed back to the 24-inch main on Plymouth
Road, the contractor shall be prepared with a blind
flange, special repair band, and/or any other
approved device (due to the unknown type of
connection that currently exists) to cap/repair the
water main when disconnecting the service to the
temporary building.
•
Applicant must provide a sequencing plan for city
review that notates the series of construction
events to occur involving the sanitary sewer and
water main connections and disconnections. The
number of events in which disturbances to the
streets and utilities occur should be minimized.
Furthermore, and in particular, the number of water
main shutdowns need to be minimized. For
example, multiple crews may be required to
disconnect water services simultaneously.
•
The 24-inch trunk water main on Plymouth Road is
subject to blackout dates and times. The shutdowns
must occur after hours and may not occur between
A95
Highland Bank
Page 8
May 15 and September 15 without special
permissions.
4)
•
Show the public sanitary sewer including the
sanitary sewer manhole north of the sewer service
to the 1730 property (located approximately south
of the storm junction MH). Also, show the full
sanitary sewer service between the private
manhole and the main. Public Works will work on
exposing the missing structure. This may aid in
determining if the private manhole service connects
to the mainline sanitary sewer or to the missing
sanitary manhole itself.
•
Show the sewer and water services to the 1700
property. These services are to be removed back to
the main; wyes cut out from the main and sleeved
or the manhole connection plugged, and the water
service being plugged/capped at the main.
•
Review storm sewer at the southeast side of the
building. The storm sewer as it crosses the sanitary
sewer service has only a couple inches of vertical
separation.
•
Grease traps must be provided between the
building and the private sanitary manhole for all
restaurant uses.
Final landscaping and tree mitigation plans must meet
minimum landscaping and mitigation requirements as
outlined in ordinance. However, at the sole discretion
of natural resources staff, mitigation and landscaping
may be decreased based on any of the following: the
health of trees removed; the ability to appropriately
install trees and other shrubbery given existing
vegetation, topography, or site constraints. The plan
should incorporate the following changes and
comments:
•
All deciduous trees must be planted no closer than
15 feet, and evergreen trees must be no closer than
20 feet behind the curb of the public streets.
A96
Highland Bank
Page 9
•
The root space for the specified trees is quite
narrow. The goal of the landscape plan is to allow
the plant material to mature. The applicant should
demonstrate how the plants will survive the
confined root space as they mature. One approach
is to design a tree trench with engineered soils and
a drain to allow the trees to receive water and
oxygen. This is a different concept than a coffin or
area with a grate which will not promote tree health
and longevity.
•
The trees planted in the areas defined as “stainless
steel grates with tree up lights” appear to be more
temporary or rotational (meaning as the trees die
they will remove and replant them in order to
provide the desired effect) by nature. These areas
should also have engineered soils with a drain as
outlined above.
•
Review substituting a few of the Black Hills Spruce
with another evergreen species to prevent the
Black Hills monoculture
•
Review areas to include foundation plantings
versus seasonal design elements
•
All irrigation systems should have rain sensors
installed to prevent watering while it is raining.
b)
A letter of credit or cash escrow for 125% of a bid cost or 150%
of an estimated cost of all required landscaping.
c)
Individual letters of credit or cash escrow for 125% of a bid
cost or 150% of an estimated cost of grading, drainage,
stormwater, utility, and site restoration. One itemized letter of
credit is permissible, if approved by staff. The city will not fully
release the letters of credit or cash escrow until: (1) as-built
drawings have been submitted; (2) a letter certifying that the
utilities have been completed according to the plans approved
by the city has been submitted; (3) vegetated ground cover
has been established; and (4) required landscaping or
vegetation has survived one full growing season.
A97
Highland Bank
Page 10
d)
A construction management plan. The plan must be in a city
approved format and must outlined minimum site
management practices and penalties for non-compliance.
e)
Snow removal agreement: The agreement must address
snow removal operations for the parking lot and sidewalks.
The property owner is responsible for snow removal and
maintenance of the public sidewalks adjacent to the
development. The agreement must outline the plowing
schedule and timelines to avoid conflicts with plowing of the
public street, and avoid redundancy of sidewalk plowing. The
agreement should also outline de-icing needs and provide
chloride guidelines that winter snow and ice removal
contractor will adhere to. The de-icing practices should
minimize salt and chloride use to protect the landscape
investments.
f)
Stormwater maintenance agreement: The agreement must
outline maintenance responsibilities for the underground
vault, sump CBs, etc., and must provide detailed maintenance
plan for all specific facilities. The agreement must filed against
the property at Hennepin County.
g)
Drainage, utility, and trail easements for the public sidewalk
and streetscape improvements, as determined by the city
engineer.
h)
A copy of the approved MPCA NPDES permit.
i)
Evidence of closure/capping of any existing wells, septic
systems, and removal of any existing fuel oil tanks.
j)
Cash escrow in an amount to be determined by city staff. This
escrow must be accompanied by a document prepared by the
city attorney and signed by the builder and property owner.
Through this document the builder and property owner will
acknowledge:
•
The property will be brought into compliance
within 48 hours of notification of a violation of the
construction
management
plan,
other
A98
Highland Bank
Page 11
conditions of approval, or city code standards;
and
•
3.
4.
If compliance is not achieved, the city will use
any or all of the escrow dollars to correct any
erosion and/or grading problems.
k)
An illumination plan which complies with the city’s exterior
lighting requirements.
l)
A development agreement for all public improvements. This
agreement must guarantee that the developer will complete
all public improvements and meet all city requirements for
construction of the improvements.
Prior to issuance of a building permit:
a)
The ordinance rezoning the property and adopting the master
development plan, and the resolution approving site and
building review must be recorded with Hennepin County.
b)
The parcels must be combined into one lot of record, and
interior public easements must vacated.
c)
Submit all required hook-up fees.
d)
Pay park dedication requirements.
e)
Install a temporary rock driveway, erosion control, tree and
wetland protection fencing and any other measures identified
on the SWPPP for staff inspection. These items must be
maintained throughout the course of construction.
The property owner is responsible for the initial grading and site
preparation for the sidewalk, streetscape, and utility improvements
along Plymouth Road. The city will complete the design and
construction for the Plymouth Road improvements. The property
owner is responsible for all construction costs of the Plymouth Road
improvements adjacent to their property. The final design of the
Ridgedale Drive and Cartway Lane sidewalk and streetscape
improvements must be coordinated with the city.
A99
Highland Bank
Page 12
5.
If future redevelopment in the surrounding area includes
establishment of a special service district, the property owners must
agree to participate in the district.
6.
Permits may be required from other outside agencies including,
Hennepin County, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District,
Minnesota Department of Health, and the MPCA. It is the applicant’s
and property owner’s responsibility to obtain any necessary permits.
7.
The property owner is responsible for replacing any required
landscaping that dies.
8.
All rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment, and exterior
trash and recycling storage areas, must be enclosed with materials
compatible with the principal structure, subject to staff approval. Low
profile, self-contained mechanical units that blend in with the building
architecture are exempt from the screening requirement.
9.
Construction must begin by December 31, 2015, unless the city
council grants a time extension.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, on October 27, 2014.
_______________________________________
Attest:
_________________________________
Action on this resolution:
Seconded by:
Voted in favor of
Voted against:
A100
Highland Bank
Page 13
Abstained:
Absent:
Resolution adopted.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by
the City Council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, at a meeting held on October 27,
2014.
__________________________________
A101
Highland Bank
Page 14
EXHIBIT A
A102
Highland Bank
Resolution No. 2014Resolution approving conditional use permits for a coffee shop, restaurant,
outdoor dining patios, and drive-up windows at 1700 and 1730 Plymouth Road
_____________________________________________________________________
Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, as follows:
Section 1.
Background.
1.01
SPC PE Minnetonka, LLC, Charles & Melinda Moos, and Bader
Development, LLC have requested conditional use permits for a coffee
shop, restaurant, outdoor dining patios, and drive-up windows.
1.02
The properties are located at 1700 and 1730 Plymouth Road. The site is
legally described on Exhibit A.
1.03
On October 9, 2014, the Planning Commission held a hearing on the
proposal. The applicant was provided the opportunity to present information
to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission considered all of
the comments received and the staff report, which are incorporated by
reference into this resolution.
Section 2.
General Standards.
2.01
City Code §300.21 Subd. 2 lists the following general standards that must
be met for granting a conditional use permit:
1.
The use is consistent with the intent of the ordinance;
2.
The use is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the
comprehensive plan;
3.
The use does not have an undue adverse impact on governmental
facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements;
4.
The use is consistent with the city's water resources management
A103
Highland Bank
Page 2
plan;
5.
The use is in compliance with the performance standards specified
in §300.28 of the ordinance; and
6.
The use does not have an undue adverse impact on the public
health, safety or welfare.
Section 3.
Specific Standards.
3.01
City Code §300.21 Subd. 4(f) lists the following specific standards that must
be met for granting a conditional use permit for fast food restaurants with
drive-up facilities:
3.02
1.
Shall be located only on sites having direct access to minor arterial
streets or service roads;
2.
Public address systems shall not be audible from any residential
parcel;
3.
Stacking for a minimum of six cars per aisle shall be provided within
applicable parking lot setbacks;
4.
Shall not be permitted when traffic studies indicate significant
impacts on the levels of service as defined by the institute of traffic
engineers of adjacent streets and intersections; and
5.
Building shall be set back at least 100 feet and screened from any
adjacent property designated in the comprehensive plan for
residential use.
City Code §300.21 Subd. 4(i) lists the following specific standards that must
be met for granting a conditional use permit for restaurants:
1.
Parking shall be in compliance with the requirements of section
300.28 of this ordinance;
2.
Shall only be permitted when it can be demonstrated that operation
will not significantly lower the existing level of service as defined by
the Institute of Traffic Engineers on streets and intersections; and
3.
Shall not be located within 100 feet of any low density residential
parcel or adjacent to medium or high density residential parcels. The
A104
Highland Bank
Page 3
city may reduce separation requirements if the following are
provided:
3.03
3.04
a)
landscaping and berming to shield the restaurant use;
b)
parking lots not located in proximity to residential uses; and
c)
lighting plans which are unobtrusive to surrounding uses.
City Code §300.21 Subd. 4(p) lists the following specific standards that must
be met for granting a conditional use permit for accessory sidewalk cafes
and outdoor eating areas:
1.
Shall be located in a controlled or cordoned area with at least one
opening to an acceptable pedestrian walk. When a liquor license is
involved, an enclosure is required and the enclosure shall not be
interrupted; access shall be only through the principal building;
2.
Shall not be permitted within 200 feet of any residential parcel and
shall be separated from residential parcels by the principal structure
or other method of screening acceptable to the city;
3.
Shall be located and designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian
and vehicular circulation;
4.
Shall not be located to obstruct parking spaces. Parking spaces may
be removed for the use only if parking requirements specified in
section 300.28 are met;
5.
Shall be located adjacent to an entrance to the principal use;
6.
Shall be equipped with refuse containers and periodically patrolled
for litter pick-up;
7.
Shall not have speakers or audio equipment which is audible from
adjacent parcels; and
8.
Shall be located in compliance with building setback requirements.
City Code §300.21 Subd. 4(d) lists the following specific standards that must
be met for granting a conditional use permit for uses having a drive-up
window:
A105
Highland Bank
Page 4
1.
Drive-up windows and stacking areas shall not be located adjacent
to any residential parcel;
2.
Stacking areas shall provide for a minimum of six cars per aisle; and
3.
Public address system shall not be audible from any residential
parcel.
Section 4.
Findings.
4.01
The proposed uses meet the general conditional use permit standards.
4.02
The proposal meets the specific conditional use permit standards for fast
food restaurants with drive-up facilities:
4.03
1.
The site has direct access to Plymouth Road, which is a minor
arterial street.
2.
The nearest residential property is over 700 feet away, and the
property is separated from the residential properties by a public
street and a 10 acre commercial development.
3.
There is adequate space for the stacking of 6 cars without
obstructing parking stalls or drive-aisles.
4.
The city’s traffic consultant conducted a traffic study which
incorporated the proposed coffee shop, and determined that the fast
food restaurant use would not adversely impact levels of service on
the surrounding roadway system.
5.
The proposal meets the specific conditional use permit standards for
restaurants:
1.
The proposed site contains adequate parking to meet the parking
demand for the restaurant and to meet the minimum parking
requirements of the zoning ordinance.
2.
The city’s traffic consultant conducted a traffic study which
incorporated the proposed restaurant, and determined that the
A106
Highland Bank
Page 5
restaurant use would not adversely impact levels of service on the
surrounding roadway system.
3.
4.04
4.05
The proposal meets the specific conditional use permit standards for
accessory sidewalk cafes and outdoor eating areas:
1.
The outdoor patios would be located adjacent to the associated
tenant spaces of the coffee shop and restaurant. The proposed
restaurant has not been identified at this point. As a condition of
approval, an enclosure would be required if the restaurant tenant
received a liquor license from the city.
2.
3.
The outdoor patios would be located on the plazas adjacent to the
restaurant tenant spaces and would not obstruct vehicular or
pedestrian circulation.
4.
The outdoor patios would not obstruct any parking spaces.
5.
The outdoor patios would be adjacent to the restaurant tenant
spaces. This is included as a condition of approval.
7.
The site is currently surrounded by commercial land uses. This is
included as a condition of approval.
8.
The outdoor patios would be more than 50 feet from all property
lines, and would meet building setback requirements.
The proposal meets the specific conditional use permit standards for uses
having a drive-up window:
1.
The drive-up window and stacking areas are not adjacent to any
residential properties.
2.
There is adequate space for the stacking of 6 cars without
obstructing parking stalls or drive-aisles.
A107
Highland Bank
3.
Page 6
Section 5.
Council Action.
5.01
The above-described conditional use permits are approved, subject to the
following conditions:
1.
Subject to staff approval, the property must be developed and
maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan dated July
28, 2014 and floor plan dated September 30, 2014.
2.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, this resolution must be
recorded with Hennepin County.
3.
The outdoor dining patios must be located in a controlled or cordoned
area with at least one opening to an acceptable pedestrian walk. If
the city approves a liquor license, an enclosure is required and the
enclosure shall not be interrupted with access only through the
principal building;
4.
The outdoor dining patios must be located and designed so as not to
interfere with pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and must not
obstruct any parking spaces.
5.
The outdoor dining patios must be located adjacent to an entrance
to the principal use;
6.
The outdoor dining patios must be equipped with refuse containers
and patrolled daily for litter pick-up;
7.
Any outdoor speakers or audio equipment must not be audible from
adjacent parcels;
8.
The city council may reasonably add or revise conditions to address
any future unforeseen problems.
9.
Any change to the approved use that results in a significant increase
in traffic or a significant change in character would require a revised
conditional use permit.
A108
Highland Bank
Page 7
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, on October 27, 2014.
_______________________________________
Attest:
_________________________________
Action on this resolution:
Seconded by:
Voted in favor of
Voted against:
Abstained:
Absent:
Resolution adopted.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by
the City Council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, at a meeting held on October 27,
2014.
__________________________________
A109
Highland Bank
Page 8
EXHIBIT A
A110
Highland Bank
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS
A111
Highland Bank
Essex Hills Neighborhood Assn.
Response to Highland Bank Proposal
October 9, 2014 Presentation to Planning Commission Meeting
A112
Highland Bank
Preserve existing neighborhood
& connection to nature
Meet need for higher
density housing
FINDING THE RIGHT BALANCE
A113
Highland Bank
Some good things about this proposal
Transforms underutilized site to mixed use
Respected buy and hold landlords
100% market-rate with amenities, security
Shields residents’ cars, garbage & deliveries
from view
• Year-round landscaping with organic quality
• Adds two sidewalks
•
•
•
•
A114
Highland Bank
A more involved solution might be better
*”The area warrants a review of traffic and roadway conditions to determine if additional design or land
use changes can be accommodated”; Minnetonka 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan, IV-32
A115
Highland Bank
The proposed development is too big
•
•
•
•
Too big for its surroundings – six stories in an
area of one and two stories
Too massive for its site – too much impervious
surface, not green, not pedestrian-friendly
enough
Generates trips in a snarled area, negatively
impacting safety and neighborhood mobility
Lacks meaningful buffer to nearby neighbors
A116
Highland Bank
Would look out of place and lack buffer
A117
Highland Bank
Would tie for 12th tallest building in city
Only five
areas have
buildings
over five
stories tall
Highland is
surrounded
by one and
two story
buildings
A118
Highland Bank
Would rank #1 in residential density
Highland
proposal is
59 units/acre
A119
Highland Bank
Would rank #2 in floor area ratio
At 1.7 FAR,
would be
exceeded
only by
St. Therese
with its
tiny senior
care units
A120
Highland Bank
Tall and dense, yet lacks usual green buffer
A121
Highland Bank
Concrete to curb sets bad precedent
• Impervious surface vs. land ratio
(85% impervious surface) doesn’t fit
character/nature of Minnetonka – and
is contrary to Village concept
• Lack of grass between sidewalk and curb
creates pedestrian safety concerns,
especially in winter
A122
Highland Bank
Concrete to curb, yet inadequate parking
• Proposal is 53 spaces short for residents*
• With zero on-street parking, residents/guests
must park in area commercial lots, interfering
with their success and adding monitoring costs
• Parking in hidden areas behind Byerlys, Ridge
Square, Bruegger’s will create safety issues for
our families, the residents and area workers
*Source: Per city ordinance, required resident parking is 240 spots
(proposal allots 187 spots) and there are no spots for visitors, building
maintenance, etc.; surface lot has retail uses covered but not
restaurants
A123
Highland Bank
Proposal overall is 147 spaces short*
Residents 120 units x 2 = 240
Visitors 120 x 0.25 = 40
Restaurants (5100 sq ft/60) = 85
Bank (4900 sq ft/250) = 19
Retail (6000 sq ft/200) = 30
TOTAL SPACES NEEDED = 414
TOTAL SPACES PROPOSED = 267
TOTAL SPACES SHORT = 147
In conversations with neighboring businesses, without exception, they said
“there are rules about parking, the city will make them provide enough parking.”
*City ordinance 300.31 on I394 development district parking
A124
Highland Bank
Will add significant trips in snarled area
It’s not just our perception that this area has
traffic problems. According to the
Minnetonka 2030 Comprehensive Guide
Plan, for this location, “residential uses are
not considered appropriate due to access
and circulation concerns.”*
*Source: page IV-32
A125
Highland Bank
Added trips compound existing safety issue
• Combined, the three stoplights surrounding this
parcel exceed the city’s worst accident area*
• Convergence of turns from parking lots plus
obstructed sight due to curve and berm, leads to
accidents & near misses on Ridgedale Drive
*Source: Minnetonka 2030 Plan,
section 8 Transportation;
versus Minnetonka Blvd at Hwy 101
A126
Highland Bank
Drive-throughs will add to safety concerns
Coffee and bank drive-throughs will add
1,752 trips/day,* creating safety challenges
for pedestrians, bikers, drivers (including
building residents)
• Numbers would rise for fast-food
*Sept 2014 SRF Highland Bank Development Traffic Study
(279 bank + 1,473 coffee/donut shop drive-throughs = 1,752)
A127
Highland Bank
Added trips will disrupt our daily access
Our neighborhoods are in the Wayzata School District
so we need access to go north on Plymouth Road, right
through the area where this proposal would add
thousands of trips daily
“Traffic conditions between Plymouth
Road and Essex Road to the east
are not optimal and often result
in congestion.”*
*Minnetonka 2030 Comprehensive
Guide Plan, IV-32
A128
Highland Bank
Proposal does not provide meaningful buffer
• Less than a block from Essex Hills homes and
Meadow Park watershed
• Lacks adequate buffers for light, noise & privacy
impacts on Essex Hills
“ The integrity of existing single-family neighborhoods will be preserved
through careful management of land use transitions and impacts between
potential conflicting uses”*
“Establishment of spacing/buffering requirements between land uses of
different density”
* Source: Minnetonka 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan, Land Use IV-7, IV 26
A129
Highland Bank
density housing
A130
Highland Bank
Solution: Revise the proposal
Scale back the size/density of this building to
what’s appropriate for this location
A131
Highland Bank
“Must Haves”
•
•
•
•
Floor Area Ratio of 1.1* (vs. proposed 1.7)
Density of 30 units/ acre (vs. proposed 59)
Four, maybe five stories
Buffer of grass between sidewalks and
curbs for safer, sustainable construction
*Source: Ridgedale Village Center Study, slide 80; 1.1 FAR recommended for
southwest quadrant
A132
Highland Bank
“Must Haves”
City agrees to ordinance limiting future
buildings between Highland Bank
Redevelopment and Essex Hills to two stories
•Place tallest buildings closest to Ridgedale
Mall and shortest buildings closest to homes,
not vice versa (appropriate transition*)
*Source: Minnetonka 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan, IV-31; “Inclusion of
transitions to surrounding residential uses to provide buffers”
A133
Highland Bank
“Must Haves”
• Replace fence and increase plantings
behind Ridge Square North to improve
Essex Hills buffer
• And ensure developers’ proposal provides
adequate light, sound and privacy
buffering
A134
Highland Bank
“Must Haves”
100% of the park funds* go off-site to:
•Secure access and develop trail along east side of
Meadow Park watershed (with neighbor input)
•Plan for future playground and possible community
garden on city property between Ridge Square North
and Ridge Square South
•Plan for adding pedestrian walkway on Essex Rd
*$5,000 per unit, per City’s Subdivision Ordinance
A135
Highland Bank
“Must Haves”
In conjunction with businesses and
neighbors, city develops traffic plan now
• In case traffic counts exceed projections
• To protect existing retail establishments
• To anticipate future developments
A136
Highland Bank
Consider…
• Graceful, stepped building design for less
mass, better fit with surroundings
• Eliminating food drive-through for better
pedestrian/biker/driver safety
• Ordinance levels of parking for residents
and guests for area success, safety
A137
Highland Bank
Consider…
• Relocating evergreens from site to buffer
• Rooftop trees (like Hennepin County
Courthouse)
• Requiring all construction vehicles to be
100% contained in the site
A138
Highland Bank
Consider…
• Adding sidewalk between Highland and
Ridgedale Mall (TCF Bank)
• Closing Cartway Lane to vehicles
• Making Ridgehaven Lane two-way
• Choreographing stoplights for enhanced
traffic flow (with neighborhood input)
• Taking traffic counts during upcoming
holiday season
A139
Highland Bank
Consider…
Setting standards prior to future development for:
•“Cohesive design and architectural quality” and
“spacing/buffering requirements”*
•Core values and building/site design (FAR,
height, parking, etc.) to “encourage high quality
development”**
*Minnetonka 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan; **Ridgedale Village Center Study Slides 56, 108-115
A140
Highland Bank
density housing
A141
Highland Bank
From: Randy Arnold
Date: September 19, 2014 at 11:17:56 AM CDT
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: highland bank redevelopment
I live at 12605 Hilloway Rd. W. in Minnetonka and, as a resident of the area, I am not in favor of ‘high rise’
development moving into this location. I am not able to attend the planning commission meeting on Mon.
and so wish to express my opinion on this matter via email. My wife and I both frequent the Caribou and
Breadsmith stores along with many of the shops in the stripmalls on the west side of Ridgedale Drive
near Byerly’s and Target. By opening the door and allowing a building of this height into the
neighborhood, it would be only a matter of time before more such buildings began cropping up and
changing the character of the area.
A142
Highland Bank
Kathy Leervig
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Susan
Wednesday, September 24, 2014 8:51 PM
Jeffrey Thomson
Highland Bank Development
Jeff, I am writing to express my concerns with and 100% opposition to the Highland Bank development project. It is not a good site for a building with such high occupancy and retail traffic, given the cluster of traffic at that intersection already. We routine wait several lights before being able to pass through the intersection. Besides the traffic, it is not at all clear how the impact on the rest of the infrastructure will be addressed ‐ Sunset Hill just expanded to handle current student capacity and it's 100% full. Where will these kids go to school? What about pollution, water supply and all the other pressures on the environment? I don't think the city has fairly exhausted other locations or even has a sense of how negatively this will impact an already quite challenging experience to navigate the neighborhood. The city will approve this, and then the next one and the next and suddenly we'll have all the charm of West End or St Louis Park at Grand and Excelsior ‐ ugly blocky building constructed for maximum functionality at a deficit of aesthetic and human values. Urban renewal and renovation do NOT have to look like this, and people should NOT have to live in this terrible commercial high traffic location. Please withdraw your team's support. Susan Kaufman 13931 Hill Ridge Drive Minnetonka. 1
A143
Highland Bank
Kathy Leervig
Palaskas, Peg
Saturday, September 27, 2014 3:19 PM
Jeffrey Thomson
Comments to be Included in the Proposed Highland Bankl Redevelopment Project
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Jeff, Please include my comments for the proposed Highland Bank Redevelopment project. Thank you. Sincerely, Peg Palaskas 2389 Cherrywood Road Having limited land available for new development and redevelopment, it’s critical that any proposed projects be done right. They must be in line with the present and future needs of our community, as well as fitting with our unique “Minnetonka‐like” character. Our infrastructure must be adequate and in place to support new projects before they are completed in order for them to be successful. The proposed Highland Bank Redevelopment has generated great discussions among a wide dispersion of neighborhoods in our Minnetonka community, not just those immediately adjacent to the Ridgedale area. We take pride in where we live and have grown stronger in sharing our common vision for Minnetonka. Our major concerns are: ‐ adding additional traffic to an area that is already over‐challenged without any potential infrastructure remedies until 2018 ‐ a higher‐density design that does not fit with the character of Minnetonka ‐ a higher‐density design that does not ensure preserving existing residential neighborhoods ‐ the process of how the City of Minnetonka handles proposed projects Traffic “We will work to meet the transportation needs of our residents and businesses by: providing and preserving a quality local street system, based on a financially sustainable plan for reconstruction and ongoing maintenance.” ‐ (Strategic Transportation Goal of the City of Minnetonka Missions and Goals, revised by City Council May 2011) “Purpose: This ordinance is enacted to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the city of Minnetonka through the following (from Minnetonka Code of Ordinances – Chapter 3 Zoning Regulations, SECTION 300.01. TITLE, PURPOSE, SCOPE AND INTERPRETATION): o
o
o
o
o
encouraging the planned and orderly development of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public uses of land; providing adequate light, air and convenience of access to property; limiting congestion in the public right‐of‐way; preventing overcrowding of land and undue concentration of population and structures; encouraging development in accordance with the city's comprehensive plan; 1
A144
Highland Bank
1. We need to correct major traffic issues before adding more congestion to the Plymouth Road / Cartway Lane / Ridgedale Drive area. 2. This is a wide‐spread Minnetonka issue due to the heavy traffic usage from all areas of Minnetonka, as well as visitors shopping from other communities. 3. Proposed improvements to this area are not slated to begin until 2016 with a 2018 completion. All Minnetonka residents need to understand what those improvements are and what differences they will make. 4. The traffic study methodology for the proposed Highland Bank project needs to include correct parameters for the projection models to get meaningful output: 1. Using appropriate higher traffic times (not using February, Tuesday through Thursday as the timing, the lowest traffic times) and 2. Using correct inputs for what is proposed for the redevelopment (not coffee/donut restaurants but the fast‐food category proposed by the Highland developer). 5. Additional traffic to this area would be generated by the proposed Carlson Island Apartments. 6. We do want more options for restaurants, shopping, housing, and services in the Ridgedale area, but we need to be able to get to them year‐round, weekdays and weekends. Height / Higher‐Density and the Character of Minnetonka and Existing Residential Neighborhoods “Our purpose is to provide the core public services our community residents and businesses rely upon in their daily lives, while striving to preserve and enhance the distinctive character that makes Minnetonka a special place to live.” ‐ (Mission of the City of Minnetonka Missions and Goals, revised by City Council May 2011) “Policy No. 1: Maintain, preserve, and support the character of established neighborhoods” and “Policy No. 5: Encourage land uses within the city that will accommodate changing demographics yet preserve existing residential neighborhoods.” ‐ (Minnetonka 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan, October 28, 2009, Chapter I. Strategic Framework, C. 2030 Strategic Vision and Goals, page I‐3) “Purpose: This ordinance is enacted to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the city of Minnetonka through the following (from Minnetonka Code of Ordinances – Chapter 3 Zoning Regulations, SECTION 300.01. TITLE, PURPOSE, SCOPE AND INTERPRETATION): encouraging the planned and orderly development of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public uses of land; o preventing overcrowding of land and undue concentration of population and structures; o encouraging development in accordance with the city's comprehensive plan; o conserving the natural beauty and environmental assets of the city including areas of steep slopes, mature trees, and wetlands; o maintaining to a reasonable extent property values and the tax base of the city; and 1. Minnetonka residents chose to live here because of the beautiful, quiet neighborhoods niched into trees yet accessible to amenities (grocery stores, restaurants, etc.). Surrounding established neighborhoods must be looked at carefully and assured that they are not encroached upon or adversely affected. 2. Well‐though‐out redevelopment can be done where it is a WIN‐WIN for current residents, developers, visitors, as well as meeting the future needs of our community. 3. Minnetonka must have defined design standards articulated to evaluate a proposed projects quality, character, and compatibility with our agreed vision for Minnetonka. The design standards would ensure that the City’s review process for evaluating proposed projects is transparent and compatible with resident’s visions. o
Process of How the City of Minnetonka Handles Proposed Projects 2
A145
Highland Bank
“We will foster open and inclusive communication to encourage community involvement, and to maintain the trust and respect of those we serve.” ‐ (Guiding Principal of the City of Minnetonka Missions and Goals, revised by City Council May 2011) “Transparency is key to maintain public trust.” ‐ (Ridgedale: A Vision for 2035 – City of Minnetonka, slide 95) “The city should approach residents for inputs on the land to be redeveloped before any developer approaches the city.” ‐ (City of Minnetonka: An External Review of Post‐Development Phase of Glen Lake Redevelopment, April 2013, Minnesota Evaluation Studies Institute, page 7) “City officials need to change their orientation of redevelopment projects ‐ from serving commercial interests to serving the interest of residents.” ‐ (City of Minnetonka: An External Review of Post‐Development Phase of Glen Lake Redevelopment, April 2013, Minnesota Evaluation Studies Institute, page 7) 1. We need to elicit open discussions (Minnetonka city officials with residents) about significant changes to the current character of a neighborhood before it moves into a phase of proposal with a developer. 2. A “neighborhood meeting” was held May 15, 2014 where no “neighbors” showed up ‐‐‐ the notice only went out to commercial property owners 400’ from the proposed project. Adjacent residents were not informed about the proposed Highland project when it began or proceeded along until August 2014. 3. The City of Minnetonka continues to treat the proposed project as an isolated, adjacent neighborhood issue. It is a city‐wide issue and needs to be communicated with all residents accordingly. Doing anything less lacks “transparency”. The proposed Highland Bank Redevelopment project should not continue in the City’s approval process. Significant traffic issues need to be corrected first in the Plymouth Road / Cartway Lane / Ridgedale Drive area. City of Minnetonka representatives need to spend time communicating with all Minnetonka residents to clearly understand what our community vision is for today and for the future. ---Privacy Notice:
The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and
may contain confidential and/or privileged material, including "protected health information". If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, or
copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please destroy
and delete this message from any computer and contact us immediately by return e-mail.
3
A146
Highland Bank
September28,2014
TotheCityofMinnetonka’sDecision‐Makers:
I’mallfornewdevelopmentthatbreathesfreshlifeintoourcommunityandpropels
usforward–aslongasthosedevelopmentsfitthecharacter/natureofMinnetonka
andpreserveourexistingneighborhoods.
WhenweaskedtheHighlandBankRedevelopmentteamtodescribehowtheir
proposalfitsthecharacter/natureofMinnetonka,theycouldn’tgiveusananswer.
Whenweaskedthemtopointoutasingledesigndecisiontheymadeoutof
considerationfortheirEssexHillsneighbors,wegotsilence.
ThisisanUptown‐like,non‐greendevelopmentwithzerobreathingroom,plopped
ontoaMinnetonkasitethat’ssurroundedbyone‐floorbuildingsandamerehalf‐
blockfromhomesandtreasuredwetlands/parks/trails.Ifirmlybelievethatifthe
cityhadworkedwithitscitizenstodevelopbuildingandsitedesignstandards
forthedistrict,ascalledforonslides108‐115oftheOctober2012Ridgedale
VillageCenterStudy,thisparticularproposalwouldn’tevenbeonthetable.
Minnetonkaisarareplaceofnaturalbeautywheremajestictreestowerovermost
buildings.That’snotperception.That’sreality.Only11buildingsinMinnetonkaare
overfivestoriestall–andthosebuildingsrepresentjustahandfulofareas.
Atsixstoriestallandpacking120apartmentsandtwodrive‐throughsintoasmall
sitewithnogreenbuffer,theproposeddevelopmentwouldsetanunfortunate,
unattractiveprecedent.At59units/acre,itwouldbethehighestresidential
densityinMinnetonka,placedonaspecificlandparcelwhere“residential
usesarenotconsideredappropriateduetoaccessandcirculationconcerns,”
accordingtoIV‐32oftheMinnetonka2030ComprehensiveGuidePlan.
Those“circulationconcerns”alreadynegativelyimpactareabusinesses,andthey
interferewithourneighborhoods’abilitytoaccessPlymouthRoadfromEssexRoad
andtravelnorthtotheschoolsinourdistrict.IntheexactspotwheretheGuidePlan
recognizesthattrafficpatternsare“notoptimalandoftenresultincongestion,”
we’regoingtoaddhundredsofresidentsandgeneratethousandsoftripsaday?
Iurgeyoutoinsistthatthisdevelopmentbescaleddown.Scaleitdown,andit
mightattainabetterbalancebetweenimpervioussurfaceandnaturalland.Scaleit
down,anditmightincludegrassbetweensidewalksandcurbsforpedestriansafety.
Scaleitdown,andtheadditionaltraffic,noiseandlightsmightnoterodequalityof
lifeforourneighborhood.Scaleitdown,anditmightactuallyfitMinnetonka.
AnnetteBertelsen
13513LarkinDrive
Minnetonka,MN55305
A147
Highland Bank
Kathy Leervig
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Katherine Wilson
Sunday, September 28, 2014 10:43 AM
Jeffrey Thomson
Proposed Highland Bank project
Dear Mr. Thomson, Hello. I recently learned of the proposed 6 story, mulit‐use building to be built at the Highland Bank site on Plymouth Road. I have lived in Minnetonka for 54 years and have never felt compelled to "complain to City Hall" until now. I drive in the Ridgedale/Ridgehaven area on a daily basis and it is exceptionally difficult for me to understand why the Mayor and the City Council would approve such a plan. The traffic is already so heavy and congested at different times of the week/year. Beginning in early November through December every year, I will drive to Southdale in Edina, Target in Plymouth and Lunds in Wayzata to shop to avoid the nightmare traffic around Ridgedale. A neighbor told me that the City wants a multi‐use project like Saint Louis Park has‐I do not want Minnetonka to look and feel like Saint Louis Park. I would live in Saint Louis Park if that is what I wanted. One only has to drive through downtown Wayzata to see how the new, huge Presbyterian Home project is taking away a lot of the charm of Wayzata. My husband and I strongly vote no on this project and will certainly not vote to re‐elect the Mayor or any of the City Council members if the project moves ahead. Thank you. Katherine Wilson 16414 Ringer Road Wayzata, MN 1
A148
Highland Bank
Kathy Leervig
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Pam Kaufman
Sunday, September 28, 2014 9:00 PM
Jeffrey Thomson
[email protected]
Highland Bank Proposed Redevelopment
My concern with the Highland Bank proposed redevelopment centers around its impact on traffic in this area and surrounding neighborhoods. The traffic control study sent to me by Jeff Thomson, at my request, was conducted on a weekday in February, 2012. Due to my work schedule, I was unable to attend the update at 5 PM on September 22nd. I have two major concerns: 1. I strongly believe that the testing period in February, 2012 was not representative of the traffic flows experienced during morning and evening rush hours, on weekends, and particularly during the holiday season, when my family has to consistently detour to Cedar Lake Road to avoid the excessive congestion in the areas of Plymouth Road, Cartway Lane, and Ridgedale Drive. 2. The report looks at Level of Service, LOS, and I would venture to predict that a more recent study, assessed on weekends or during the holiday season would reflect a significant lower LOS. Though MDot considers an LOS of A through D "acceptable," any rating lower than "C" is frustrating and unacceptable. I have lived in the area for 37 years, and have experienced increasing traffic and wait times with each development. Adding 120 apartments with commercial properties on the lower level would certainly add more cars, congestion, and wait time to an already heavily trafficked area. Ron Kaufman 2505 Cherrywood Road Minnetonka, MN 55305 1
A149
Highland Bank
To: Minnetonka Planning Commissioners
From: Kamel & Patricia Aossey - Residents of the City of Minnetonka
Reference: Highland Bank Redevelopment
We request that the proposal for redevelopment of the Highland Bank building not be approved
as it currently stands. We agree this area is ripe for redevelopment, but we do not believe this
proposal is sxiitable for the property. Our request is for the following reasons:
TIMESfG - The timing of this development is premature. The 2035 Vision for Minnetonka states
that a set of standards are to be followed in making any changes connected to this vision. When
the City Coimcil was questioned on August 25*'^ on where these standards might be foimd, Loren
Gordon stated that they are out there, but are just in many different locations. Citizens should not
be required to search all over to understand what standards apply, or whether or not something is
a standard. They should be well established, easy to locate, and it should be clear to all residents
that these are the standards to be applied to any redevelopment related to the 2035 Vision. If they
are not, then we must assume there are no standards yet established. It seems reasonable that any
infrastructure supporting new development in this area should be in place first.
CHARACTER OF THE CITY - A large six-story multi-purpose building on this piece of land
will be totally out of place ui our community and especially on this small island. There are no
other buildings in the vicinity of that height, nor should there be. Four-stories on this piece of
land would even be too much, but would at least be less obtrusive. The developer has only given
one option for their proposed building, but we are sure there would be other options that would
allow them to be profitable. The height of this building will also have a negative impact on the
surroimding residential neighborhoods. It will be visible from many of our homes, even over
existing barriers. People want to live in Minnetonka because it has a character all its own.
Minnetonka is not Edina, or St. Louis Park or Eden Prairie or Maple Grove. We have a feel of
country and space that attracts the type of people who reside in Minnetonka. There is a
simplicity in Minnetonka that is valued and should remain. Any development, or redevelopment
should take the character of our wonderful city into consideration.
TRAFFIC ISSUES - The 2030 Plan for the city, which was approved by the City Council, states
that this particular property, while guided for mixed use, is not considered appropriate for
residential uses due to access and circulation concerns. We were provided with a copy of the
traffic study for this project and we have the following serious concerns about its validity. First,
during a neighborhood meeting, which we had to request, when Jeff Thompson was asked what
months the traffic study would be covering, he replied that it would cover an entire year. The
traffic study presented was done 2 1/2 years ago during the month of February 2012, a month that
is not indicative of the rest of the year, and early in a year in which the economy was still
struggling to recover from one of the worst recessions in our history. The study looked only at
this one piece of property and the roads directly connected to it (i.e., Ridgedale Drive, Plymouth
Road, and Cartway Lane). It did not take into consideration that this is a major shopping area
and failed to consider that Nordstroms, a welcome addition, will be opening at Ridgedale in
A150
Highland Bank
2015, and that there are two other large residential developments west of this area that are
currently in or near development (Legacy Oaks on Parkers Lake Road, and the Carlson Island
development). These developments will certainly play a part in the traffic surrounding this area.
The fact that the study did not even consider the traffic from November through January in a
major shopping area is absolutely ludicrous. The traffic study also neglected to look at the
impact of traffic on the surrounding feeder roads (i.e., Plymouth Road south of the property,
Essex Road, Oakland Road, the rest of Ridgedale Drive). As residents, we know that during
certain times of the day, and months of the year, we all must take these roads and go way out of
our way to avoid the traffic delays around the property. We live with the traffic in this area yearround and we are unable to take this study seriously.
IMPACT ON WAYZATA SCHOOL DISTRICT - For many of us, the fact that our homes are in
the Wayzata School District has been considered an advantage. We wonder what consideration
has been given to the impact this development, the development at Parkers Lake Road and the
development at the Carlson Center Island will have on the Wayzata Schools. These are all in the
Wayzata School District. This will, no doubt, add stress to the district and the desirability of this
as an area in which to live. This issue has not been addressed in any communications we have
had with the city,
LACK OF TRANSPARENCY - We would like to think that the city would be more inclusive
when it comes to development that will impact many citizens. We learned that in developing the
2035 Vision, there were no citizens involved in the project, other than the business owners within
the Ridgedale area and the Planning Commission members. Surrounding neighborhoods were
not represented. When the first "neighborhood meeting" was held in May with regard to this
project, the only invitees were the surrounding businesses. We understand nobody showed up.
When we learned of the project in late July and requested a neighborhood meeting, only about 30
households received the invitation. As concerned citizens, we have requested from the mayor
and the city council that they expand their notification area, given the impact of this project on
traffic in the surrounding areas. Reluctantly, the areas covered were increased slightly, but still
not sufficient to communicate to many areas impacted. As a neighborhood, we have taken it
upon oxwselves to try to notify areas that the city has chosen not to, and we are learning that these
neighborhoods are indeed interested and concerned about the project. In July, we signed up on
eminnetonka to be notified on any news regarding this project. To date, we have not received
one communication on this project through this process, although there have been meetings
rescheduled and the zoning variances have been approved. These are things one would expect to
be communicated.
CONCLUSION - We are not against development of the Ridgedale area. We welcome well
planned development that preserves and respects the existing neighborhoods and natural settings
and that does not negatively impact the character of the city that we are proud to call our home.
We would like to request that the developers come forward with optional proposals for this
property that will not raise the serious concerns of the one currently submitted.
A151
Highland Bank
Robert Bertelsen
13513 Larkin Drive
Minnetonka
I have lived and/or worked in Minnetonka since 1980.1 currently live and work full
time in Minnetonka and walk to and from work in the Ridgedale Village most days.
Any new building design in the "Village" should strive to be visually appealing, like
buildings that are nearby, such as Redstone and Bacio restaurants and the Hennepin
County Library/Government Center. These buildings demonstrate distinctive,
graceful architecture with an organic quality that fits the character of Minnetonka.
The proposed building for the Highland site is a basic design seen in any new
"urbanesque" construction around the Twin Cities, particularly West End and other
developments in St Louis Park. For a building of this scale, and one that is setting the
tone for future development in the Ridgedale Village, we should strive for
exceptional aesthetics.
The proposed building is also too tall for its surroundings. It would be more than
twice as tall as the existing building, five stories taller than the adjacent building and
those across Ridgedale Drive, and at least twice as tall as the buildings across
Plymouth Road.
I received conflicting information from the city planning department about this
project. They use "Ridgedale: A Vision for 2035" (which is a slide show of
possibilities) as justification in addressing specific features of this project that
normally would require a variance. They also ignore valid recommendations and
traffic concerns from the Minnetonka 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan that would
put into question important aspects of this proposal, including even having
residential uses on this piece of property at all.
"Ridgedale: A Vision for 2035" is simply a 120-page slideshow of possibilities for the
village. The city planning department uses this concept document as a definitive
document when it suits their needs, then disregards it when it doesn't. The city has
not established the standards for design and size as outlined in slides 108-115. Yet
the city seems convinced that high density housing projects have to go in the
southwest quadrant of the village - adjacent to existing single family neighborhoods
and potentially disruptive to the existing businesses -instead of putting more of the
high density housing in other areas of the Village such as the Sheraton site, or the
vastly underutilized Sports Authority area, or even within the mall or mall grounds.
I challenge this assumption and ask that you evaluate the Highland Bank
Redevelopment proposal in the context of the 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan.
As someone who already interacts with the Village as a pedestrian on a daily basis, I
believe traffic generated by the Highland Bank proposal would negatively impact
the vibrancy of the area and the success of my employer.
A152
Highland Bank
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Jeffrey Thomson
Kathy Leervig
FW: Highland Bank redevelopment
Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:55:38 AM
image001.jpg
Jay Silverberg.vcf
From: Jay Silverberg
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 8:44 PM
To: Jeffrey Thomson
Subject: Highland Bank redevelopment
Hello Jeff. Thanks for making yourself available for input from the local neighborhood. We live just
west of the proposed development on Wood Lane.
While it appears that this ship has already sailed, I do have to say that the process the city went
about to re-zone this property and the scant opportunity for community involvement earlier in the
project smells pretty bad to an otherwise happy Minnetonka resident. We’re hearing this has to be
6 stories in order to be economically feasible but I haven’t see any numbers that support this, vs. 5
or 4 stories.
We think the project could be a good one and point toward a future for Minnetonka. The 6 stories
itself is not bothersome, as the sea of concrete that presently surrounds the Ridgedale area is hardly
scenic. I really do hope everyone fully understands the traffic impact that this will have. That
intersection is already a disaster and I think everyone involved at the city should try getting through
there on any weekend day, or especially during the holidays. I usually escape to the 394 entrance to
the west at Carlson during busy times; I expect that once this building is up that will end up being
my normal route to get on the freeway. Yes, the city commissioned a traffic engineering study, but I
think it’s a wishful conclusion that this traffic will somehow not significantly add to the mess.
Please consider and share the opinions from the local neighborhood, even if we are a small number
in comparison to the total Minnetonka population.
Thanks.
A153
Highland Bank
SUSAN F. K. BIENIEK
TELEPHONE (952) 237-6016 / FAX: (952) 544-3678
12830 WOODBRIDGE TRAIL
MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55305
October 1, 2014
City of Minnetonka
Planning Division
14600 Minnetonka Blvd
Re: Highland Bank Project Proposal
Dear Sir or Madam:
I have recently become aware of the project proposal for the Highland Bank Property at
Plymouth Road and Cartway Lane. I have attended the public meetings providing
information regarding the proposal and the traffic study that was prepared. I have been
a resident of Minnetonka since 1980. I do my shopping and other commerce almost
exclusively at the Ridgehaven and Ridgedale shopping centers. My home is south of
the Ridgedale area and I drive through the area every time I need to get to the highway
system and travel east.
I am against the current Highland Bank Redevelopment Project at the proposed height
and urge the Planning Commission and the City Council to carefully consider the unique
character of the Ridgedale area in acting on any development proposals, including
considering the impact on the surrounding residential areas, traffic congestion, and
maintaining our City’s unique philosophy of being cohesive with the natural
environment. In reviewing the information regarding the Highland Bank Project I have
the following concerns.

I drive through the area almost daily and it is readily apparent that there is
a significant traffic congestion problem at Cartway Lane and Ridgedale
drive. This is obviously extreme during the holiday shopping season but is
a continuing problem throughout the year. Because Cartway Lane is too
short, traffic frequently backs up into the intersection. When drivers have
already sat through 2-3 light cycles they become impatient pulling into the
intersection trying to make the next light and completely block the entire
intersection so no lanes of traffic are able to move. I experience
significant traffic delays at this intersection. The frequency of such delays
has been increasing and I avoid the intersection during the holiday season
by utilizing Sheffield Curve and other residential streets to get to
Ridgehaven Mall. There is no other roadway in the Ridgedale area where
A154
Highland Bank
October 1, 2014
City of Minnetonka, Planning Division
14600 Minnetonka Blvd
Re: Highland Bank Project Proposal
Page 2
I have experienced such delays. The traffic report appears to me to be
solely based on traffic averages and fails to consider in any way when
these complete traffic stoppages will become unacceptable or the affect
this has on residential streets such as Sheffield Curve. Clearly traffic will
increase with the proposed Highland Bank Project from the increased
commercial activity alone. The addition of residential units adding even
more traffic next to the most problematic intersection in the area without
developing a remedy for this traffic issue makes no sense.

I am deeply concerned that the proposed 6 story building will be obtrusive
and significantly out of character for the area. When my Husband and I
brought our home in 1980 we did so specifically because of the City’s
planning philosophy of maintaining nature and co-existing with the natural
environment. Over the years, it has been apparent to me that those
serving the city in approving developments have maintained this
philosophy. For example, the height of commercial signs has been limited
and it is apparent that the lighting of buildings and parking lots has been
strategically planned. The result has been a very pleasant shopping and
living environment in the Ridgedale area. I am very concerned that the
proposed 6 story building which would be significantly higher than any
landscaping and trees that may be preserved would be obtrusive to the
overall character of the Ridgedale area. A 3 or 4 story building will be
more consistent with the character of the area.
The Ridgedale area is unique in the Twin Cities. It is much more cohesive and
intertwined with the natural environment than any other major commerce area of which I
am aware. The result is a very pleasant easy to use shopping area that does not have
the congestion, noise, and obtrusive character of other major shopping areas. I know
several people from outside the immediate area that will travel to the Ridgedale area
rather than using other areas that may be more conveniently located for them because
it is easier and a more pleasant experience to shop here. I urge the members of the
Planning Commission and City Council to consider these issues and vote against the
Highland Bank Project as currently proposed.
Thank you for your consideration regarding this matter.
Very truly yours,
Susan F.K. Bieniek
A155
Highland Bank
To:
Jeff Thomson
From:
James Olson – 13420 Larkin Drive
Date:
September 29, 2014
Subject:
Highland Bank Redevelopment Proposal
Chapter IV page 32 of the 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan (item 3) states that for
parcels east of Ridgedale Drive, south of Cartway Lane and located on the east and
west of Plymouth Road:
These properties are guided for mixed use, however residential uses are not
considered appropriate, due to access and circulation concerns.
No significant road changes have been made to these three roads since the 2030 Guide
Plan was adopted, yet the proposed Highland Bank PUD calls for 120 residential units.
The city should stand by its guided plan and not use the newly revised PUD ordinance
to approve a proposal, just because that proposal has surfaced. The city should not
pick and choose which parts of the 2030 Guide Plan it wants to adhere to. Rather, it
should allow residential neighbors to the west and south of Ridgedale to participate in
the development of reasonable mixed use standards and guidelines for future
development in the area and amend the Guide Plan, if necessary.
A156
Highland Bank
To:
Jeff Thomson
From:
Sandra Olson – 13420 Larkin Drive
Date:
September 29, 2014
Subject:
Highland Bank Redevelopment Proposal
While I understand that the Highland Bank Redevelopment Traffic Study concludes on
page 12 that “the additional redevelopment trips are not expected to significantly
contribute to the intersection delays within the area, particularly Cartway Lane,” I remain
concerned that the gradual approval of additional residential units in the area will create
an eventual problem for the city.
The recent completion of The Ridge could add 416 daily trips (64 units at 6.5 daily trips
per unit) to the area. The Carlson Island traffic study estimates another 1,157 daily
trips. The Highland Bank proposal is expected to generate 2,105 daily trips. These
three projects together could add an additional 3,678 daily trips into the area. Some
number of the trips from these three additional parcels will find their way onto Plymouth
Road, Ridgedale Drive, Cartway Lane, and Ridgehaven Lane as residents of these
properties shop at Target, Whole Foods, Nordstrom’s, etc. as well as commute to work
and move about the area in general. Logic tells me the traffic congestion will increase
significantly as additional redevelopment in the area takes place. And as traffic density
increases, willingness to frequent the area decreases.
I recommendation that the city take a pro-active role in working with area businesses,
neighborhood residents, and traffic experts to explore and identify potential solutions to
traffic issues before additional development proposals are approved.
A157
Highland Bank
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Jeffrey Thomson
Kathy Leervig
FW: Traffic study for Plymouth Road project
Tuesday, September 30, 2014 1:25:40 PM
Another one
From: Brett Palesch
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 9:42 AM
To: Jeffrey Thomson
Cc: Tony Wagner
Subject: Traffic study for Plymouth Road project
Jeff,
I am a job Superintendent for Stonebridge Construction that happens to live on 1600 Essex road
about 3 homes south of the FedEx building near Best Buy. I have lived here over 22 years so I feel I
am VERY qualified to make some judgments about the traffic study that I know it is not an accurate
example of the day to day activities of the area. Below are a couple of examples of why I feel this
way. The study was done in 2012, February. Two things to note about that, February is extremely quite
shopping time around Ridgedale due to the post-holiday hang over. That is probably the slowest
time around this area. I think a survey of businesses around the area would back that up? Second
point to note, the 2012 economic conditions are NOT the same as today. I would say things were
down a bit in 2012, some can argue today is as well in terms of shopping, either way, things are
different in the economy and that effects shopping/retail. Again, the fact that the study was done in
February is the single biggest reason this study is flawed. It is NOT valid for the traffic that tries to
flow through these areas the other 11 months. The sheets with the vehicle counts really don't add up unless I am not reading them correctly? When exiting the Target/ Best Buy area, one must travel along Ridgedale Drive E/W on the south
side of 394 or right turn at the 3 way light at Target and turn south on Ridgedale Drive and then
make a left turn on Cartway and another left to go north on Plymouth road to get to 394 E/W. Those are the numbers in question, counts show 388 and 110 in the turn lanes from Ridgedale drive
to Cartway and 574/69 from turn lanes on Cartway to Plymouth road north bound. Adding 120
residences, plus general growth is what is NOT adding up in that scenario for the next count adding
in proposed increases for 2016 finish, if I am reading this correctly? With that, allow me to ask the
following question, new apartment residents and retail/bank customers that want to go to 394 E/W,
what is proposed to allow them to get to the turn lanes that allows them to do so? Do they exit
from the west side of the property onto Ridgedale drive, head north for right turn and immediately
cut across a lane or two of traffic to get in the turn lane to go north on Plymouth road and thus E/W
394? The second issue with the study is the recent traffic light changes to many, if not all, the
traffic lights in the area. The light used to be timed for that turning process described above that
one could make all the lights at one time, in recent months, that is not the case. MNDOT or
Hennepin County has changed that, It’s a bit more frustrating to make those turns as you hit red
A158
Highland Bank
lights at every intersection about 80% of the time. It can take 5 minutes to exit Best Buy or Essex
Road before you can make Plymouth road north bound. I am currently working on a project in Eden Prairie with ESG Architects and Bader Development and
have nothing but positive things to say about both groups. I know from firsthand experience that
they care about their product, customers and the community around their buildings. I am
personally excited to have this development proceed as I KNOW its design and ownership group will
make it an asset to the community around it. My concerns are the added traffic to the intersections
on Cartway/Plymouth road and Cartway/Ridgedale drive are going to tax the intersections heavily
and create a burden to everyone in the area and casual users for shopping. In closing, I’ll add a suggestion that might help with turning from Ridgedale Drive southbound to
Cartway, label the turn lanes for E/W 394 so people can stage in the correct lanes for cutting over to
east bound 394 (outer turn lane and inner turn lane for WB 394. There is so much drag as people in
the inner lane cut to the outer lane as they realize they are in wrong lane. In short, it is a bad design
and pourly marked. I urge you to review this closely as the traffic in this area is heavy and
frustrating for those that live in the area. Push MN DOT and/or Hennepin County to do something
here. Thank you.
Brett Palesch
Superintendent
Stonebridge Construction
(952) 923-8285-cell / Trailer (952) 934-3769
MartinBlu Project, Eden Prairie
A159
Highland Bank
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Jeffrey Thomson
Kathy Leervig
FW: Proposed Redevelopment of Highland Bank Building Site
-----Original Message----From: Pamela Gibbs
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:01 AM
To: Tony Wagner
Cc: Gibbs Pam & Kevin; Jeffrey Thomson
Subject: Proposed Redevelopment of Highland Bank Building Site
Dear Mr. Wagner,
My husband and I are writing to you to express our concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment of the Highland
Bank building site. After reviewing the redevelopment proposal at some length, we have come to the conclusion
that a six story building as envisioned in the plans would not be in the best interest of our community. The excess
capacity would adversely impact the traffic patterns along Ridgedale Drive considerably causing unacceptable
congestion, particularly at Cartway Lane and Plymouth Rd. These are often bad during the day, especially at rush
hour, holidays, and special mall events.
We moved to Minnetonka seven years ago from out of state. My husband who is legally blind already finds it
challenging to safely walk to the stores from our home on Hill Ridge Drive, mostly due to erratic drivers and lack
of safe walking paths. I hesitate to think how much this will further limit his mobility with the increase in
congestion. The addition of 120 apartments will significantly increase the number of cars on the road in the area.
In addition to the traffic and parking considerations, the introduction of multi-story development in this area will not
create an eyesore for the community but it will create a precedent for stores like Target, who in the past, have
wanted to add an additional story to their building and were denied.
It is our view that the customary restrictions on building height should remain unaltered in order to preserve the
suburban character of our community. A high density residential dwelling surrounded by so much commercial
development does not seem consistent or appropriate to the surroundings.
We hope that you will give our views every consideration. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Pamela and Kevin Gibbs
13941 Hill Ridge Drive
Sent from my iPad
A160
Highland Bank
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Jeffrey Thomson
Kathy Leervig
FW: Highland Bank Redevelopment!
From: Youssef Sawers
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 2:50 PM
To: Jeffrey Thomson
Subject: Highland Bank Redevelopment!
Good afternoon Jeff. I'm sorry this may be a day late for providing feedback about the
project, but I wanted to give some feedback on the Highland Bank Redevelopment
project and I want to make sure they are heard. My young family and I have moved
into the neighborhood behind Best Buy last fall and viewed this as the perfect
home/neighborhood and somewhere we want to be for the next 25-30 years. With
this move toward mid-rise apartments being built in MY new neighborhood, I think
the project planning committee and local legislation needs to hear from the
community that will be impacted the most by this move. I strongly oppose proceeding
with this project for reasons that are outlined below, which are pasted from the
eMinnetonka website for providing feedback regarding the project. Thank you for
your time and I look forward to hearing back from you regarding this matter.
Youssef Sawers
13526 Westernesse
Minnetonka, MN
Project feedback
General comments: As a member of the community most impacted by the Highland
Bank Redevelopment project, I sternly oppose the proposition of a 6 story building with
the potential of 120 apartments at this location. I currently drive by that location every day
on my way to 394 East and the thought of driving by that makes me think the project
planning committee and local legislators are not listening to the community this is going
to impact. This building will look completely out of place with no other buildings half it's
height in the area. This is NOT the community I moved into when I purchased my house 1
year ago and I would urge the project committee and local legislators to listen to the
community this building will impact before moving further forward with this project.
Specific issues or concerns: Increasing traffic, funding for the project, aesthetics of a midrise building in the middle of MY neighborhood, parking for visitors of the building and the
impact that will have on local businesses. A161
Highland Bank
Outlined below is my feedback regarding the proposed Highland Bank redevelopment project.
Before I provide my specific comments, I think it’s important to note a few background and
historical items from one neighbor’s (my) perspective:
• My husband and I have lived in Minnetonka since 1986 (2 years at the Cliffs) and then
purchased a home in 1988 on Larkin Drive near Essex Road (the east side of Larkin
Drive will be affected by sight lines with the proposed building scope but not us).
• We made a commitment to stay in this area because we loved it so much and have made
significant investments in our property over the years.
• Although the proposed development is “not in my back yard” we feel as though we are
stewards of our community – the redevelopment is where some of us work, all of us shop,
visit the dentist, talk to our State Farm Agent, etc. and we travel through that area to
access downtown and the rest of the city on a daily basis.
• I fully support my east-side neighbors in their specific concerns regarding this project and
I am sure they will be providing you specific feedback regarding those concerns.
• You have probably heard this over and over again, but just in case you haven’t, we were
not notified of the Highland Project until very late in the process. We heard about it
because one of our neighbors went into the bank to access their safety deposit box and
saw the plans.
• So, there was a reason that no neighbors were at the May 15th “neighborhood meeting” –
it took us raising our notification boundary concerns and the real neighborhood meeting
happened on August 20th, 2014.
• We have also disagreed with the city’s notification areas for an additional meeting on
September 10th for this project. Our neighborhood group has organized flyer drops to get
the word out about what’s going on at Ridgedale. At another time, we will be coming
forward to suggest a broader notification area on Ridgedale projects.
• Also, during the course of this redevelopment project we found out that a Ridgedale
Village Visioning process occurred two years ago, and again, we don’t believe we were
ever notified or communicated to about that process and therefore never had an
opportunity to provide feedback. There have been discussions lately with city council
members and staff to possibly remedy this situation, which is a positive first step.
• Only after ALL stakeholders (including neighbors) are able to provide input into visions
as well as individual projects, what happens in Minnetonka with new development and
re-development can be a win for everyone.
A162
Highland Bank
I have some specific issues/questions/suggestions regarding the proposed Highland Bank
redevelopment project and they are listed below. A summary exists on the last page, but what
follows are some of my more detailed thoughts.
Traffic / Safety
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The city's 2030 plan said the area was unsuitable for residential development due to
traffic concerns. What has changed since that was written to materially improve traffic in
that area?
The scope of the traffic study didn’t seem to go far enough – measuring traffic in and out
of the two Highland entrances was the scope. Not addressing 1) safety/accidents in the
area (hairpin curve in that area), 2) analysis of the Ridgedale Drive entrance/exits within
the context of having 5 left/right turns* in close proximity of each other with potentially
increased traffic, 3) holiday factors, 4) the addition of Nordstrom and the merging of
Macy’s and other improvements in the mall that should increase traffic were not
addressed. (*Note the 5 left/right turns I mention are on Ridgedale Drive: Highland
entrance/exit, Wanderers Garden, Noodles, Panera, and Breadsmith).
The traffic study concluded that we are one second away from a D grade at Ridgedale
Drive/Cartway Lane – we understand that is acceptable to MnDOT – is that acceptable to
Minnetonka?
If the traffic study is run with holiday numbers, I would imagine it’s an F. Why is that
acceptable?
The drive-thru numbers for the coffee/donut shop are alarming. Can we consider
eliminating that, especially if that changes to a fast-food restaurant that will increase
evening numbers? At the traffic report review meeting, there was discussion that should
that change to a fast-food drive-thru like McDonald’s or similar, the numbers would need
to be recalculated. This would certainly increase traffic on Ridgedale Drive.
To confirm, will there be 2 ways each to come and go on Ridgedale Drive from Highland?
Is that going to be reconsidered into only right in and right out? Left ins and left outs
might create problems with all the other lefts in that area and the increased traffic due to
this new proposed building.
It has been mentioned that the new westbound ramp onto 394W is going to solve some of
the traffic problems, but we have not been presented with traffic counts/projected
numbers to back that up.
Cartway Lane Specifics
•
On page 5 of the Traffic Study, middle of the 3rd paragraph it states: “However, it should
be noted that the close intersection spacing along Cartway Lane between Ridgedale Drive
A163
Highland Bank
•
•
•
•
and Plymouth Road limits the efficiency of operations”. Are solutions being developed to
address this?
Will redevelopment of this site now hamper/prohibit certain traffic solutions in that area
due to the proposal to use every square foot of that site?
Data (wait times) for Cartway Lane needs to be broken down by direction because you
may find out the numbers are significantly worse in one direction but not as bad in the
other direction. Looking at that data might be helpful in developing a solution. This was
raised as an action item at the traffic study review meeting.
Please consider no right on red at the Highland corner of Ridgedale Drive/Cartway
(heading north on Ridgedale Drive waiting to turn right/east onto Cartway) – this was
brought up at the traffic study review meeting.
Please consider adding signage on Ridgedale Drive (heading south) as to which left turn
lane is best onto Cartway when you want to go onto 394 (E or W) – noted at the traffic
study review meeting.
Height / Density / Footprint
•
•
•
•
•
The 21,274 square footage number is misleading for the building footprint. Even though
it is technically the footprint, floors 2-5 will approximately be in the 27K range. That will
almost quadruple the footprint (7K existing bank building to 27K for the new proposed
building).
Gross Building Area is approximately 21,400 SF (current) vs. 151,500 SF (proposed)
above grade on Page 4 of the Narrative. I assume that means that the new building will
have about 7-8 times more area than the current building. Also, why doesn't that 151K
number tie to the Page 3 numbers of 154,493 plus the roof top terrace? The 151K number
is about 7 times, a 155K number makes it about 7.25 times.
The building does not fit with the area or Minnetonka in a startling way.
o The 59 units/acre is in record breaking territory
o The proposal almost doubles the height of the building
o The footprint is almost quadrupling
o They are adding over 7 times the gross building area.
I do agree that something will and should be done with that site eventually and the
owners of the property have every right to do so but this is too much.
Lack of drawings at the time the public had to provide input is frustrating. Specifically,
on August 25th, the city council asked for drawings as to how the proposed building will
look in context with the surrounding buildings and we have yet to see those. The project
was submitted May 1, and I don’t understand why that wouldn’t have been a mandatory
drawing. It is disappointing because I have at least one neighbor who isn’t commenting
on this project because he can’t visualize it and that’s frustrating.
A164
Highland Bank
Character of Minnetonka / Neighborhood
•
•
•
I would agree with the following goals coming out of the Glen Lake workshops and ask
you to consider these as you make your decision:
o Goal 1 - Maintain the small town/community appeal of the neighborhood
o Goal 2 - Capitalize on the natural setting and environment
o Goal 3 - Produce high quality development that enhances the livability of the area
I have heard several times at meetings that the vision for the Ridgedale Village is to go
from 9-5 to 24/7. That is not my vision for the character, or why I live here. And, please
don’t make this Southdale – the traffic and growth over there is such that I never go over
there anymore. It’s imposing, not intuitive and too overbuilt.
The architecture of the proposed Highland building feels like it doesn’t fit with the
surrounding buildings. I feel it should be less massive and imposing and not block-like. If
it could be re-thought with softer and more graceful architecture and have some sort of
visual transition to other shorter buildings, I think that would be a better fit for the area. It
looks like it belongs in Uptown, not Minnetonka.
Parking
•
•
•
•
•
•
They are planning for one car/bedroom in the underground parking area, which means
168 spaces with an extra 19 spaces (just over 10% of the total number of bedrooms) that
will be available for situations where two people are occupying one bedroom and require
two cars for job commutes, etc. This feels too low in light of this being an area that is not
well-served by public transportation.
It’s my understanding that staff is doing a parking analysis that is not yet out so I cannot
comment on it. Reading city parking codes, and looking at retail, bank and management
office square footage, the number of parking places seems low for the planned 80 space
surface lot. Is that a variance they need?
Two drive-thrus in the middle of the garage exit/entrance/truck access? Is there precedent
for that? I know this is the property owner’s choice and likely doesn’t affect me, but it
seems like that could be a problem area.
I am very happy to see that deliveries and trash pick-up will be underground. Is the
parking lot designed to get those trucks in and out of the garage?
Is the parking lot circulation one way or two ways?
We already have two parking lots in that area that I try to desperately avoid
(Breadsmith/Brueggers) and (Panera/Pilgrim Cleaners/Big Top). Let’s not design another
horrible one in terms of access, congestion, and maneuverability.
A165
Highland Bank
•
Most of the above is not a residential neighbor issue, but I would think businesses
surrounding this project should be concerned that overflow parking might occur on their
properties.
Pool / Noise
•
I think a question was asked regarding pool and 6th floor terrace noise at a neighborhood
meeting and the answer was “it will be up to code”. I think some more thought and
analysis should go into that as you place a brand new use of a) pool and b) rooftop
gathering space right next to a neighborhood. Will there be a noise buffer into the
neighborhood or has a study of that been done and the distance is such that engineering
people are comfortable that there won’t be a noise problem?
Lighting / Utilities
•
•
•
I am assuming that sewer, water main, and other utility infrastructure will need to be fed
to the new building. Will this involve periodically shutting down some lanes on Cartway,
Ridgedale Drive and/or Plymouth Road? If so, what are the city’s and the developer’s
plans to minimize disruption? This same question applies to general construction as well.
Balcony lighting on individual units. Will those lights automatically come on? Will it be
up to the unit dweller to turn the light on? In either case, has there been analysis to see
what those 5 stories of apartment balcony lighting will look like from the east-side
neighborhood perspective?
It says in the proposal that Xcel is “responsible for designing their own systems”. Can
someone from the city ensure that it’s designed properly because the Essex Hills
neighborhood loses electricity on a frequent basis. I would hate to see them design
something that makes it worse for us.
Walking / Biking / Safety
•
•
•
A lot needs to be done to ever make that area safe for bikes. I would suggest that we start
thinking how that may or may not work now as new buildings are being considered for
that area.
Right now it is not safe to walk over there, as we all know. The area is lacking many
sidewalks, pedestrian-friendly crosswalks, etc. My preference would be to start
addressing that now and have a good plan in place to implement sooner rather than later
for the whole area. Just putting some sidewalks around this new project doesn’t fix
walkability much.
Enjoying connectivity and walkability and access to trails from that new building to the
Ridgedale Village is a long way off unless there are plans that we haven’t seen. I think
A166
Highland Bank
•
there is a misconception that this project will address that and it’s my understanding that
it will not.
I am assuming that snow will have to be physically removed from that parking lot in
order for the sidewalks to be operational during the winter months.
Precedence / “Setting the Tone”
•
•
•
If this redevelopment is approved, our fear is that many more are to come and with
greater heights and densities – can we set a limit?
Can we agree to a vision that building heights decrease as they get closer to
neighborhoods?
I don’t pretend to understand rezoning to PUD, variances, ordinances, CUPs, etc. but my
comment would be to not do something with this redevelopment that gives carte blanche
to every new proposal that comes through.
Crime
•
I would request that there be an analysis on what happens to crime rates when mediumto-high density housing enters an area and use that analysis to come up with a proactive
plan to address that prior to the building reaching capacity.
Park Dedication
•
I would suggest those funds go to whatever helps the east side neighbors with buffer
issues or whatever they prefer – I will defer to their judgment, hopefully working in
tandem with the city and the developers.
A167
Highland Bank
In summary, I would ask you to consider the following when making your decision:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
If the project scope stays as of the information I have while writing this on 9/29/2014
then I would urge a “no” vote. If the developers/applicants are open to reconsidering and
re-evaluating density and size, eliminating the food drive-thru and the city is willing to
re-examine traffic problems and fix the walkability then let’s have discussions of what
can be done to make the project better for all.
Remember: they are proposing to: 1) almost quadruple the building footprint, 2) create an
all-time high density of 59 units/acre, 3) almost double the building height and 4) create
7.25 times more gross building area. In fact, the existing square footage of all 3 stories of
the current building will be equal to just the first level of the new, proposed building.
Analyze traffic infrastructure improvements that can be implemented before or during the
new building construction – especially Cartway Lane. Also, review all the dual turns that
occur within a short distance of each other on Ridgedale Dr. and have a better
understanding of how the residents/users of the new Highland building will access
freeways.
Adding significantly to density, whether residential, retail or commercial or some
combination of the three should only come with additional roadway improvements above
those smaller ones already planned.
The building is too big and the footprint/height is out of character for Minnetonka in
general and for that area.
Moving forward with a Ridgedale Village vision, building heights must decrease as we
head towards neighborhoods and buffers must be maintained. Please consider the impact
on existing neighborhood character and single-family homes in the immediate vicinity.
Analyze sidewalk installations that can be made now to make the area more walkable and
safe.
A168
Highland Bank
October 8, 2014 City of Minnetonka Planning Division 14600 Minnetonka Blvd Minnetonka, MN 55345 Attn: Jeff Thomson Highland Bank Redevelopment Dear Planning Commission and City Council Members, As a homeowner in the Larkin/Tudor Road neighborhood (about 800 feet from where the project will take place), our family is very excited about the Highland Bank Redevelopment. We are in favor and approve this redevelopment! After seeing the latest two projects (The Ellipse on Excelsior and e2) done by the Bader Development team in Saint Louis Park, we should be so lucky to have them redevelop an older space in our beautiful city of Minnetonka. This new redevelopment will fully enhance our neighborhood and attract more visitors, which will ultimately bring in more business, which then creates job opportunities and brings in more money to the city. It’s a win‐win for all in our eyes! So the Highland Bank Redevelopment has our approval to move forward; we cannot wait to see the final look and what retail spaces will be put in. Thanks for your time and your commitment to making the City of Minnetonka a better place to live. Respectively, Larkin/Tudor Road Neighborhood Homeowner A169
Highland Bank
Jeffrey Thomson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lucienne Taylor
Thursday, October 16, 2014 4:25 PM
Jeffrey Thomson
RE: Highland Bank Redevelopment
Jeff – thanks for forwarding the information on Highland Bank redevelopment to me; it was interesting to read. The initial idea seems interesting, but six story buildings (or higher) for our suburban area are not my ideal for Minnetonka. I still would like to mention that Minnetonka has to be careful about the amount of traffic in the Ridgedale Dr., Cartway Lane, Plymouth Rd. Sometimes it gets VERY busy. In mid‐September trying to get through all the lights in the area to get to Goodwill on the North Frontage Rd took 2+ turns at each light. During the holidays for six weeks, we find other ways past the gridlock that appears in that area. So, to add to that congestion without some kind of relief may not be the optimal choice. Especially if in the long run other parts of that area (such as Ridge Square) get re‐developed in Minnetonka’s new ideas for the Ridgedale area. It would not be a good idea to have to pay for new roads/configurations more than once. In addition, it would have been nice to have been included in some of the earlier discussions about the area. The only notice we received was when someone put something in our mailbox. While it is not directly affecting our street (Indian Rd), it is directly affecting travel to and from our home and through that bottleneck area. I appreciated your talking with me yesterday and will plan on coming to the Council meeting. Lucie Taylor 2117 Indian Rd W Minnetonka, MN 55305 From: Jeffrey Thomson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 4:40 PM
To:
Subject: Highland Bank Redevelopment
Lucy, Attached is the addendum to the traffic study that was completed based on the feedback and comments from the neighborhood traffic meeting. I’ve also attached the three concept layouts for the Ridgedale Drive and Cartway Lane intersection. As I mentioned, these are very preliminary concept ideas for potential improvements to address the specific concerns we have heard. Jeff 1
A170
Highland Bank
A171
Highland Bank
A172
Highland Bank
A173
Highland Bank
A174
Highland Bank
A175
Highland Bank
A176
Highland Bank
A177
Highland Bank
A178
Highland Bank
A179
Highland Bank
A180
Highland Bank
Revisions and commentary noted received from Derek Diesen
A181
Highland Bank
A182
Highland Bank
A183
Highland Bank
A184
Highland Bank
A185
Highland Bank
A186
Highland Bank
A187
Highland Bank
A188
Highland Bank
A189
Highland Bank
A190
Highland Bank
A191
Highland Bank
A192
Highland Bank
A193
Highland Bank
A194
Highland Bank
A195
Highland Bank
A196
Highland Bank
A197
Highland Bank
A198
Highland Bank
A199
Highland Bank
A200
Highland Bank
A201
Highland Bank
A202
Highland Bank
A203
Highland Bank
A204
Highland Bank
A205
Highland Bank
A206
Highland Bank
A207
Highland Bank
A208
Highland Bank
A209
Highland Bank
A210
Highland Bank
A211
Highland Bank
A212
Highland Bank
A213
Highland Bank
A214
Highland Bank
A215
Highland Bank
A216
Highland Bank
Project feedback: Highland Bank Redevelopment
Response sent
Monday, September 08, 2014
(no address given)
General comments
Plymouth has an unprecedented amount of home building right now. Clearly
single family homes is the hallmark of growth in the western suburbs, not
apartments. The Ridge is a poorly located and designed development sharing
parking space with an animal hospital. The playground is small and located
without protection next to a parking lot. There are auto shops, a liquor store,
car dealer and animal hospital next door. Why do we even bother with a
planning commission and zoning if this is the result? Nothing says wonderful
living like having a muffler shop next door and concrete everywhere.
Specific issues or concerns
1. The long term plan is terrible. It should be discarded. 2. The 1730 site is a
commercial site...it should not be rezoned. 3. Traffic is already not good at
these intersections. This is a major outlet for the homes coming off Essex. 4.
The 1730 site is too small for residential with too much traffic all around it. 5.
The planners have failed to include all amenities...there could be a heliport,
small clinic and city hall on top of this proposed building with three more floors
of underground parking to maximize use of this parcel. The point: Your are
trying to do too much with too little space.
Response sent
(no address given)
General comments
Highland Bank Redevelopment - Concerned about it changing the look and feel
of the Minnetonka culture.
My concern with the redevelopment as laid out currently is the look and feel of
this city. I do not want to start seeing hi-rise buildings/apartments all over the
entire city of Minnetonka. Large lots and green space is part of the
Minnetonka feel and what we as residents like about our city. The downtown
city view has already been compromised by the large apartments being built
along side the frontage road on the north side of 394. That was heart dropping
for me. That view of downtown was gorgeous. Also, adding a large number of
residents in that already congested area would become a safety concern. A
safety concerns for individuals walking, children playing and/or the cars
driving.
A217
Highland Bank
Response sent
Tuesday, September 09, 2014
4080 Terrace Lane
General comments
I am opposed to the 6-story commercial &; residential building currently under
consideration named the Highland Bank project. As a resident of Minnetonka I
prefer to shop in Minnetonka, however I usually try to avoid the general area
around Ridge Square &; Ridgehaven because the traffic is already so heavy.
This building will not only add commercial traffic but 24/7 residential traffic.
My other reason for opposition is that this has the potential of being the initial
building in a larger redevelopment that will include even larger buildings
created that much more traffic problems. There needs to be LESS density in
this area, not more. Thank you for your consideration.
Traffic.
Response sent
Thursday, September 11, 2014
13423 Larkin Drive
General comments
As a long time resident of Minnetonka, I do NOT agree with the current vision
for development of the Ridgedale area, specifically the Highland Bank proposal
and other multi-level building projects in the southwest corner of this area. I
do not believe the current mayor, council members and planners of the city
are listening or care about our future in continuing to live here. Trying to force
the development of multi-level buildings into already overly-congested traffic
areas seems to be their ";VISION";! They seem to have no regard for long-time
residents and only talk about ";future residents"; of the city. Their vision will
ruin the wonderful, open neighborhoods that most of us wanted when we
decided to move to Minnetonka. I urge all Minnetonka residents to contact
these city officials and let them know this is not your vision before our city is
turned into a congested, multi-level building nightmare that we have to move
away from.
A218
Highland Bank
Response sent
Sunday, September 14, 2014
13419 Larkin Drive
13419 Larkin Drive
General comments
I welcome reasonable redevelopment in Minnetonka; however, I do not feel
this project is reasonable. I have read the master plan, attended neighborhood
&; city council meetings but the bottom line is that this huge building will be
squeezed onto just barely 2 acres. Furthermore, the 6 stories of mixed use will
add &; attract a number of additional vehicles to this already congested area in
a manner the infrastructure is unable to handle. The city has zero future plans
to deal with the current traffic headache in a way which will result in a solution
to the problem. Lastly, if Minnetonka prides itself on green space &; identifies
itself as a city where neighborhoods can expect to enjoy living in peace &;
serenity amongst mature trees, it should rethink such large buildings.
Minnetonkans do now want huge, tall buildings! You would know that if you
bothered to ask!
This project will exacerbate an already congested traffic area. This project
eliminates a substantial amount of green space by sugar coating nature as
";high maintenance";. The project requests a number of variances which
should not be granted since the problems encountered by the
developer/owner are not unique to the real estate but essentially created by
the property owner. Even if variances are permitted, there is not enough
parking. This deficiency will cause excess vehicles to spill into other areas,
creating more traffic and pedestrian concerns. I would LOVE to hear someone
explain snow removal for this area. It is painfully obvious, even to those of us
without an engineering degree that is project is simply untenable for this
particular parcel of property.
A219
Highland Bank
Response sent
13868 Oakland Place
General comments
Support development - only AFTER current traffic issues around that
intersection are resolved. Accidents and community time lost sitting in traffic
hurt all those in the community and the property value.
Traffic flow at the surrounding intersections is already a major issue today.
Anecdotally, there are multi-light waits beyond rush hour times already. Check
the police reports - I have seen police pull over cars that are stuck and blocking
the intersection due to traffic. Not only is this Target/mall traffic, but a large
community (myself included0 uses this frontage road as the most direct way to
get towards the city. The presentation addresses traffic only by saying a
consultant is going to look at it. The traffic solution needs to be understood,
solution found, solution approved prior to this project go ahead. Should not go
back and stop project if later on no traffic solution is found or approved. This
needs to be on the project critical path. If it delays the project - that was a
project time planning error that should not be at the expense of hurting the
community. Easy access to major freeways is a significant factor in property
value. Should traffic and time to access freeway get significantly worse - this
impacts homeowner values as well as city tax revenues. Please make sure
the current and future traffic issue is solved prior to project approval.
Response sent
13404 Tudor Rd
General comments
Ensure infrastructure can support development prior to developing
Response sent
13408 Tudor Rd
General comments
Traffic congestion concerns: Unwanted people/increase crime Land not big
enough Against high density population
A220
Highland Bank
Response sent
NA NA
General comments
I have a general concern about security issues at the Ridgedale Mall. It has
sadly come to my attention that there has been a rash over the years of car
break ins. When talking to the mall owner and managers General Growth there
is not security cameras covering its parking lots. Further, the camera coverage
in the interior is not comprehensive. I am a father of 4 daughters who have
complained about getting harassed and followed at the mall. One of them had
her car broken into earlier this year and I myself have had it happen 3 times in
10 years. The police chief in prior years has agreed that better camera
coverage would deter thefts but also give them a valuable tool to catch the
perpetrators. I respectfully encourage you to address this with mall
management and developers to add this to their plans.
Response sent
Friday, September 19, 2014
13509 Larkin Drive
Minnetonka, MN 55305-
General comments
While I generally applaud your efforts to keep the Ridgedale area vibrant, I am
concerned about the proposed residential density of the Highland Bank project
and its impact on future developments in the area.
As outlined in your ";Ridgedale: A Vision for 2035"; presentation (Slide 800,
you envision a residential density of 30 and an FAR of 1.1 for the 15 acre
southwest sector, however, the proposed development requests a 58.6 density
and an FAR of 1.7, almost twice the suggested density! How will that affect
future developments? Do you intend to set a new standard residential density
of almost 60 (on 2 acres0 for the rest of the area (~13 acres0, increasing
dwelling units from envisioned 450 units to 900 units? Or will you restrict
residential density of future developments (on remaining ~13 acres0 to less
than 30 to achieve an overall average residential density of 30 (and 450 units0?
I believe you should hold the developers to the envisioned residential density
of 30 and stand by the vision you approved in October 2012.
A221
Highland Bank
Response sent
12605 Hilloway Rd W
General comments
I live at 12605 Hilloway Rd. W. in Minnetonka and, as a resident of the area, I
am not in favor of ‘high rise’ development moving into this location. I am not
able to attend the planning commission meeting on Mon. and so wish to
express my opinion on this matter via email. My wife and I both frequent the
Caribou and Breadsmith stores along with many of the shops in the stripmalls
on the west side of Ridgedale Drive near Byerly’s and Target. By opening the
door and allowing a building of this height into the neighborhood, it would be
only a matter of time before more such buildings began cropping up and
changing the character of the area.
A222
Highland Bank
Response sent
(no address given)
General comments
We request that the proposal for redevelopment of the Highland Bank building
not be approved as it currently stands. We agree this area is ripe for
redevelopment, but we do not believe this proposal is suitable for the
property. Our request is for the following reasons:
A223
Highland Bank
TIMING - The timing of this development is premature. The 2035 Vision for
Minnetonka states that a set of standards are to be followed in making any
changes connected to this vision. When the City Council was questioned on
August 25th on where these standards might be found, Loren Gordon stated
that they are out there, but are just in many different locations. Citizens
should not be required to search all over to understand what standards apply,
or whether or not something is a standard. They should be well established,
easy to locate, and it should be clear to all residents that these are the
standards to be applied to any redevelopment related to the 2035 Vision. If
they are not, then we must assume there are no standards yet established. It
seems reasonable that any infrastructure supporting new development in this
area should be in place first. CHARACTER OF THE CITY - A large six-story multipurpose building on this piece of land will be totally out of place in our
community and especially on this small island. There are no other buildings in
the vicinity of that height, nor should there be. Four-stories on this piece of
land would even be too much, but would at least be less obtrusive. The
developer has only given one option for their proposed building, but we are
sure there would be other options that would allow them to be profitable. The
height of this building will also have a negative impact on the surrounding
residential neighborhoods. It will be visible from many of our homes, even
over existing barriers. People want to live in Minnetonka because it has a
character all its own. Minnetonka is not Edina, or St. Louis Park or Eden Prairie
or Maple Grove. We have a feel of country and space that attracts the type of
people who reside in Minnetonka. There is a simplicity in Minnetonka that is
valued and should remain. Any development, or redevelopment should take
the character of our wonderful city into consideration. TRAFFIC ISSUES - The
2030 Plan for the city, which was approved by the City Council, states that this
particular property, while guided for mixed use, is not considered appropriate
for residential uses due to access and circulation concerns. We were provided
with a copy of the traffic study for this project and we have the following
serious concerns about its validity. First, during a neighborhood meeting,
which we had to request, when Jeff Thompson was asked what months the
traffic study would be covering, he replied that it would cover an entire year.
The traffic study presented was done 2 1/2 years ago during the month of
February 2012, a month that is not indicative of the rest of the year, and early
in a year in which the economy was still struggling to recover from one of the
worst recessions in our history. The study looked only at this one piece of
property and the roads directly connected to it (i.e., Ridgedale Drive, Plymouth
Road, and Cartway Lane0. It did not take into consideration that this is a major
shopping area and failed to consider that Nordstroms, a welcome addition, will
be opening at Ridgedale in 2015, and that there are two other large residential
developments west of this area that are currently in or near development
(Legacy Oaks on Parkers Lake Road, and the Carlson Island development0.
These developments will certainly play a part in the traffic surrounding this
area. The fact that the study did not even consider the traffic from November
through January in a major shopping area is absolutely ludicrous. The traffic
study also neglected to look at the impact of traffic on the surrounding feeder
roads (i.e., Plymouth Road south of the property, Essex Road, Oakland Road,
the rest of Ridgedale Drive0. As residents, we know that during certain times
of the day, and months of the year, we all must take these roads and go way
out of our way to avoid the traffic delays around the property. We live with
the traffic in this area year-round and we are unable to take this study
seriously. IMPACT ON WAYZATA SCHOOL DISTRICT - For many of us, the fact
that our homes are in the Wayzata School District has been considered an
advantage. We wonder what consideration has been given to the impact this
development, the development at Parkers Lake Road and the development at
the Carlson Center Island will have on the Wayzata Schools. These are all in
the Wayzata School District. This will, no doubt, add stress to the district and
the desirability of this as an area in which to live. This issue has not been
addressed in any communications we have had with the city. LACK OF
TRANSPARENCY - We would like to think that the city would be more inclusive
when it comes to development that will impact many citizens. We learned
that in developing the 2035 Vision, there were no citizens involved in the
project, other than the business owners within the Ridgedale area and the
Planning Commission members. Surrounding neighborhoods were not
represented. When the first “neighborhood meeting” was held in May with
regard to this project, the only invitees were the surrounding businesses. We
understand nobody showed up. When we learned of the project in late July
and requested a neighborhood meeting, only about 30 households received
the invitation. As concerned citizens, we have requested from the mayor and
A224
Highland Bank
the city council that they expand their notification area, given the impact of
this project on traffic in the surrounding areas. Reluctantly, the areas covered
were increased slightly, but still not sufficient to communicate to many areas
impacted. As a neighborhood, we have taken it upon ourselves to try to notify
areas that the city has chosen not to, and we are learning that these
neighborhoods are indeed interested and concerned about the project. In July,
we signed up on eminnetonka to be notified on any news regarding this
project. To date, we have not received one communication on this project
through this process, although there have been meetings rescheduled and the
zoning variances have been approved. These are things one would expect to
be communicated. CONCLUSION - We are not against development of the
Ridgedale area. We welcome well planned development that preserves and
respects the existing neighborhoods and natural settings and that does not
negatively impact the character of the city that we are proud to call our home.
We would like to request that the developers come forward with optional
proposals for this property that will not raise the serious concerns of the one
currently submitted.
A225
Highland Bank
Response sent
Saturday, September 27, 2014
2389 Cherrywood Road
Minnetonka, MN 55305-
General comments
Having limited land available for new development and redevelopment, it’s
critical that any proposed projects be done right. They must be in line with the
present and future needs of our community, as well as fitting with our unique
“Minnetonka-like” character. Our infrastructure must be adequate and in place
to support new projects before they are completed in order for them to be
successful. The proposed Highland Bank Redevelopment has generated great
discussions among a wide dispersion of neighborhoods in our Minnetonka
community, not just those immediately adjacent to the Ridgedale area. We
take pride in where we live and have grown stronger in sharing our common
vision for Minnetonka. Our major concerns are: - adding additional traffic to
an area that is already over-challenged without any potential infrastructure
remedies until 2018 - a higher-density design that does not fit with the
character of Minnetonka - a higher-density design that does not ensure
preserving existing residential neighborhoods - the process of how the City of
Minnetonka handles proposed projects
A226
Highland Bank
I. TRAFFIC “We will work to meet the transportation needs of our residents
and businesses by: providing and preserving a quality local street system,
based on a financially sustainable plan for reconstruction and ongoing
maintenance.” (from Strategic Transportation Goal of the City of Minnetonka
Missions and Goals, revised by City Council May 20110 “Purpose: This
ordinance is enacted to promote the public health, safety and general welfare
of the city of Minnetonka through the following (from Minnetonka Code of
Ordinances – Chapter 3 Zoning Regulations, SECTION 300.01. TITLE, PURPOSE,
SCOPE AND INTERPRETATION0: o encouraging the planned and orderly
development of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public
uses of land; o providing adequate light, air and convenience of access to
property; o limiting congestion in the public right-of-way; o preventing
overcrowding of land and undue concentration of population and structures; o
encouraging development in accordance with the city's comprehensive plan 1.
We need to correct major traffic issues before adding more congestion to the
Plymouth Road / Cartway Lane / Ridgedale Drive area. 2. This is a wide-spread
Minnetonka issue due to the heavy traffic usage from all areas of Minnetonka,
as well as visitors shopping from other communities. 3. Proposed
improvements to this area are not slated to begin until 2016 with a 2018
completion. All Minnetonka residents need to understand what those
improvements are and what differences they will make. 4. The traffic study
methodology for the proposed Highland Bank project needs to include correct
parameters for the projection models to get meaningful output: 1. Using
appropriate higher traffic times (not using February, Tuesday through Thursday
as the timing, the lowest traffic times0 and 2. Using correct inputs for what is
proposed for the redevelopment (not coffee/donut restaurants but the fastfood category proposed by the Highland developer0. 5. Additional traffic to
this area would be generated by the proposed Carlson Island Apartments. 6.
We do want more options for restaurants, shopping, housing, and services in
the Ridgedale area, but we need to be able to get to them year-round,
weekdays and weekends. II. HEIGHT / HIGHER DENSITY, THE CHARACTER OF
MINNETONKA, and EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS “Our purpose is
to provide the core public services our community residents and businesses
rely upon in their daily lives, while striving to preserve and enhance the
distinctive character that makes Minnetonka a special place to live.” (from
Mission of the City of Minnetonka Missions and Goals, revised by City Council
May 20110 “Policy No. 1: Maintain, preserve, and support the character of
established neighborhoods” and “Policy No. 5: Encourage land uses within the
city that will accommodate changing demographics yet preserve existing
residential neighborhoods.” (from Minnetonka 2030 Comprehensive Guide
Plan, October 28, 2009, Chapter I. Strategic Framework, C. 2030 Strategic
Vision and Goals, page I-30 “Purpose: This ordinance is enacted to promote
the public health, safety and general welfare of the city of Minnetonka through
the following (from Minnetonka Code of Ordinances – Chapter 3 Zoning
Regulations, SECTION 300.01. TITLE, PURPOSE, SCOPE AND
INTERPRETATION0: o encouraging the planned and orderly development of
residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public uses of land; o
preventing overcrowding of land and undue concentration of population and
structures; o encouraging development in accordance with the city's
comprehensive plan; o conserving the natural beauty and environmental
assets of the city including areas of steep slopes, mature trees, and wetlands; o
maintaining to a reasonable extent property values and the tax base of the
city; and 1. Minnetonka residents chose to live here because of the beautiful,
quiet neighborhoods niched into trees yet accessible to amenities (grocery
stores, restaurants, etc.0. Surrounding established neighborhoods must be
looked at carefully and assured that they are not encroached upon or
adversely affected. 2. Well-though-out redevelopment can be done where it is
a WIN-WIN for current residents, developers, visitors, as well as meeting the
future needs of our community. 3. Minnetonka must have defined design
standards articulated to evaluate a proposed projects quality, character, and
compatibility with our agreed vision for Minnetonka. The design standards
would ensure that the City’s review process for evaluating proposed projects is
transparent and compatible with resident’s visions. III. PROCESS OF HOW THE
CITY OF MINNETONKA HANDLES PROPOSED PROJECTS “We will foster open
and inclusive communication to encourage community involvement, and to
maintain the trust and respect of those we serve.” (from Guiding Principal of
the City of Minnetonka Missions and Goals, revised by City Council May 20110
“Transparency is key to maintain public trust.” (from Ridgedale: A Vision for
2035 – City of Minnetonka, slide 950 “The city should approach residents for
inputs on the land to be redeveloped before any developer approaches the
A227
Highland Bank
city.” (from City of Minnetonka: An External Review of Post-Development
Phase of Glen Lake Redevelopment, April 2013, Minnesota Evaluation Studies
Institute, page 70 “City officials need to change their orientation of
redevelopment projects - from serving commercial interests to serving the
interest of residents.” (from City of Minnetonka: An External Review of PostDevelopment Phase of Glen Lake Redevelopment, April 2013, Minnesota
Evaluation Studies Institute, page 70 1. We need to elicit open discussions
(Minnetonka city officials with residents0 about significant changes to the
current character of a neighborhood BEFORE it moves into a phase of proposal
with a developer. 2. A “neighborhood meeting” was held May 15, 2014 where
no “neighbors” showed up --- the notice only went out to commercial property
owners 400’ from the proposed project. Adjacent residents were not informed
about the proposed Highland project when it began or proceeded along until
August 2014. 3. The City of Minnetonka continues to treat the proposed
project as an isolated, adjacent neighborhood issue. It is a city-wide issue and
needs to be communicated with all residents accordingly. Doing anything less
lacks “transparency”. CONCLUSION The proposed Highland Bank
Redevelopment project should not continue in the City’s approval process.
Significant traffic issues need to be corrected first in the Plymouth Road /
Cartway Lane / Ridgedale Drive area. City of Minnetonka representatives need
to spend time communicating with all Minnetonka residents to clearly
understand what our community vision is for today and for the future.
Response sent
2505 Cherrywood Road
General comments
My concern with the Highland Bank proposed redevelopment centers around
its impact on traffic in this area and surrounding neighborhoods. The traffic
control study sent to me by Jeff Thomson, at my request, was conducted on a
weekday in February, 2012. Due to my work schedule, I was unable to attend
the update at 5 PM on September 22nd. I have two major concerns: 1. I
strongly believe that the testing period in February, 2012 was not
representative of the traffic flows experienced during morning and evening
rush hours, on weekends, and particularly during the holiday season, when my
family has to consistently detour to Cedar Lake Road to avoid the excessive
congestion in the areas of Plymouth Road, Cartway Lane, and Ridgedale Drive.
2. The report looks at Level of Service, LOS, and I would venture to predict that
a more recent study, assessed on weekends or during the holiday season
would reflect a significant lower LOS. Though MDot considers an LOS of A
through D ";acceptable,"; any rating lower than ";C"; is frustrating and
unacceptable. I have lived in the area for 37 years, and have experienced
increasing traffic and wait times with each development. Adding 120
apartments with commercial properties on the lower level would certainly add
more cars, congestion, and wait time to an already heavily trafficked area.
Ron Kaufman
A228
Highland Bank
Response sent
13427 Larkin Drive
General comments
The location is an island, and the plan is too big for the site and location. The
thought of adding the 12th highest bulding in the area on a location that has
existing traffic gridlock is obsurd. The City is allowing ordiance changes to
accomodate growth. What other open ended ordinance building will happen
next with this precedence. We can't add a garage 10 feet in front of our
house, but this can be allowed?
The building is too big for the site and location. This intersection is currently
gridlocked and has been docmented as a problem area and not suited for
residential use by the city in previous plans. The traffic study that has deemed
the traffic acceptable is over two years old, completed during the recession
when less people were out shopping.
Response sent
13404 Tudor Rd.
General comments
Highland Bank comments: First I want to thank the city of Minnetonka for
grooming me to be a citizen that cares about our natural environment. Prior to
buying my house back in 2001 I was not someone that thought of myself as
being interested in gardening, landscaping, or taking care of my immediate
natural surroundings, as I had never been given the opportunity to care for my
own. Prior to me buying my house it was used as a rental property, and my
neighbors were very grateful to have someone purchase the house and take
good care of it as well as the yard as it was not done so when it was being used
as a rental property. I believe the first step for the the City of Minnetonka
keeps it’s beautiful natural resources is to ensure that the city is making the
right decisions to groom it’s citizens to care for the natural resources. By
creating apartment buildings, like the proposed one for Highland bank project,
the City of Minnetonka is taking steps in the wrong direction by not allowing its
citizens to have the opportunity to learn to care for Minnetonka’s natural
resources. At the very least the City of Minnetonka should provide green space
that the citizens of Minnetonka can use for community gardening, if the city
decides to move forward with the apartment building. This would help align
the city of Minnetonka’s renters with the motto of the city, “Nature is our
Quality”, and give them the same opportunity that the city has given me. But
remember reducing Minnetonka’s natural resources, reduces the cities quality.
A229
Highland Bank
Response sent
13505 Larkin Drive
General comments
High density housing is the antithesis of everything I value about Minnetonka.
Like every other Minnetonka resident I have ever spoken with, I moved here
for the natural setting, the large wooded lots, the abundance of parks and
trails, and the great schools. This combination of attributes, together with its
close proximity to Minneapolis, is what makes Minnetonka unique and such a
desirable place to live. Why then have some of our city leaders made a
unilateral decision to bring high density rental apartments to the Ridgedale
area, as outlined in the 2035 plan? And what has changed from the previously
commissioned 2030 plan, which explicitly described this area as inappropriate
for residential use? As a resident of Minnetonka, a homeowner in the
surrounding area, and frequent and loyal patron of the Ridegedale area
businesses, I am unequivocally against this proposed development and any
future plans to bring mid to high rise rental apartment development to this
area. Every single homeowner in the surrounding area I have spoken with
shares this sentiment. I feel strongly enough about this issue that I will do
everything in my power to vote out our current Mayor and Ward member
should they defy the will of their constituents and vote to rezone this area and
allow this development.
I have a number of concerns regarding this project: 10 This site is totally
inappropriate for a residential property. The property sits on an island
surrounded by major commuting and shopping arteries. There will be an
adverse traffic impact for the current users of these arteries (regardless of
";findings"; of the recent, flawed traffic study, commissioned by the proposed
property developers0. 20 The proposed design is out of character with the
surrounding area. I am all for sensible redevelopment of the Ridgedale area. A
building that is twice as high as any of those surrounding it is not sensible. 30
There appears to have been a concerted effort by the developers to push this
development through in as quick and opaque a manner as possible. At times it
has appeared that representatives of the city government have facilitated this
lack of transparency, despite their duty to represent this city's residents.
A230
Highland Bank
Response sent
13526 Westernesse
General comments
As a member of the community most impacted by the Highland Bank
Redevelopment project, I sternly oppose the proposition of a 6 story building
with the potential of 120 apartments at this location. I currently drive by that
location every day on my way to 394 East and the thought of driving by that
makes me think the project planning committee and local legislators are not
listening to the community this is going to impact. This building will look
completely out of place with no other buildings half it's height in the area. This
is NOT the community I moved into when I purchased my house 1 year ago
and I would urge the project committee and local legislators to listen to the
community this building will impact before moving further forward with this
project.
Increasing traffic, funding for the project, aesthetics of a mid-rise building in
the middle of MY neighborhood, parking for visitors of the building and the
impact that will have on local businesses.
Response sent
13417 tudor road
General comments
The character of the Minnetonka community, its green space philosophy and
desirability to frequent the Ridgedale area will be lost with the City’s proposed
plan for redevelopment. The multi-use, height and footprint of the proposed
building to be constructed on the Highland Bank land are not in keeping with
the Minnetonka community at large. The traffic problems that will be created
by drive-thru restaurants, retail and 120 rental units will definitely lead to
increased difficulty and total gridlock for Cartway Lane and the adjacent streets
and roadways. The traffic reported used to determine concerns was outdated
and not applicable to the current situation. I have a great concern with the no
ordinances and no design standards process used for the Planned Use
Developments. It is not a transparent and forthcoming way of doing business
with the residents of Minnetonka. There is currently no limit on the height of
any building in the Ridgedale area. That is wrong. If the vision for the Ridgedale
area is to develop vertically and not to connect the architecture of the
buildings to the natural contours of the land, I oppose the vision and believe a
crucial mistake will be made by the City’s elected officials if they continue with
the vision.
A231
Highland Bank
Response sent
13537 Larkin Drive
General comments
I have heard good things about both developers and am glad they are involved.
Having said that, I am not enthralled with a building that looks like a big cube
thunked down in an area that is one-two stories with relatively deep green
space in front of it -- it feels like it marches to the edges of the parking lot. For
those of us S on Plymouth and Essex, Ridge Haven/Squares are a buffer
between our neighborhoods and the regional mall (except Thanksgiving - New
years, when they are barriers0. As a local resident, I selfishly like the empty
parking lot that is the current Highland building but realize that is economically
untenable. I would like and expect the redevelopment to fit in with the
existing architecture and feel (take Ridgedale Dr from the hotel to Oakland....0
If the tenant plan changes, I am worried about a fast food drive-through's
impact on both lunch time and dinner time traffic patterns -- Wendy's moving
from the other side of 394, for example, would be a real traffic mess. I am
not as concerned about this proposal's residential traffic patterns, but don't
think it will make solving the area's traffic issues any easier
Response sent
13514 Larkin Drive
General comments
After reading memorandum SRF NO 0148574 - Highland Bank Redevelopment
Traffic Study. My concern with the development is the impact on traffic flow
at the intersections of Ridgedale Drive &; Cartway Lane and Cartway Lane &;
Plymouth Road. These 2 intersections have a tendency to back up due to large
volume of vehicles and the timing of the lights. To understand the impact the
development will have on the traffic flow relevant traffic counts need to be
used. Under the Data Collection tab of memorandum SRF NO 0148. Weekday
p.m. peak period turning movement counts were collected in February 2012 at
the following study intersections. Note that traffic counts completed WITHIN
TWO YEARS ARE CONSIDERED VALID. It is now 2-1/2 years since that time.
Because of the time lapse, when will the new traffic study be conducted. To
get an accurate portrayal of the traffic conditions the traffic study should be
conducted over a full year rather then a small amount of time in February. .
A232
Highland Bank
Response sent
12700 Sherwood Place
#305
General comments
To allow Highland Bank or any other developer to build a 6-story multi-purpose
building with 120 apartments will have a DEVASTATING NEGATIVE AFFECT on
the Ridgedale area. Now Ridgedale has a close community feel and allowing
this 6-story building will increase traffic 100 fold and will make holiday TRAFFIC
UNBEATABLE. Then we will need new roads, etc.
Response sent
**
General comments
Although I support development in concept, I am opposed to the proposal to
build a 6-story apartment building on the site of Highland Bank. A building on a
smaller scale would be in addition in keeping with this neighborhood. Density
and traffic issues are important but changing the characteristic of this area is
unnecessary and in my opinion detrimental.
Response sent
Wednesday, October 01, 2014
12700 Sherwood Pl
#302
General comments
My wife and I have lived in the neighborhood (Woodbine0 for 25 years. we
welcome the new Bader-Paster Development. It should add a bit more pizazz
to our area.
A233
Highland Bank
Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 2014
B.
Page 4
Items concerning the redevelopment of Highland Bank at 1700 and
1730 Plymouth Road.
Chair Lehman introduced the proposal and called for the staff report.
Kirk joined the meeting.
Thomson reported. He recommended approval of the application based on the
findings and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
Pacyna reported on the results of the traffic study. In response to Chair Lehman’s
question, Pacyna stated that his results account for turbulent traffic patterns.
Rettew asked if the traffic model took into account that traffic may be delayed by
pedestrians crossing the street. Pacyna answered affirmatively. Pedestrian
counts were done and input into the model. Increases in pedestrian traffic were
also included.
O’Connell asked how accurate SRF’s computer models have proved to be.
Pacyna answered that the model depicted exactly what happened when the
Syngenta building was completed. He is confident in the accuracy of the report.
Odland asked if the traffic flow for right-turn-in and turn-out areas is normal and
not specific to Minnetonka. Pacyna explained that an average rate for specific
uses is used to project traffic operations.
Gustafson reported on the history and future improvements planned for the area.
Rob Bader, of Bader Development, applicant with the Pastor Group, stated that:






His group and the Pastor Group believe in having a positive
influence on the communities they develop.
The housing would be professionally managed by Steven Scott
Management which has been in business for over 50 years.
The retail would be managed by Pastor Enterprises which has also
been in business over 50 years.
There is a strong demand for this type of mixed-use project in this
area.
Most of the rental housing in the area is over 20 years old.
There are renters by choice who want a more pedestrian-friendly
lifestyle.
A234
Highland Bank
October 9, 2014




Page 5
He met with the neighbors west of the site and received helpful
feedback. The main concern of neighbors is traffic. SRF and city
staff have done an excellent job of addressing traffic, so he would
not go into that.
The applicants decided to spend another $500,000 on parking and
landscaping to provide an additional 28 underground parking
spaces to contain the vehicles on the site. More buffering and
pedestrian connections would be added.
The height of the building would fit in with the long-term goals of the
area. The goal is to build a project that matches the vision of the
long-term goals of the city.
There is a need for high-end rental in the area that would be
financially viable and the city and residents would be proud of for
generations to come.
Dennis Sutliff, architect and representative of the development team, stated that:







There has been refinement of the proposal since the concept plan.
The building has been downsized slightly from 136 units to 120
units. The underground parking has been increased to
accommodate employees of the first-floor tenant spaces. The
remaining parking stalls would be available for customers.
Street-level pedestrian improvements, sustainability, and a green,
roof-top terrace had been addressed.
The pool deck would help hide the service and entry underneath it.
He brought material samples and described the glass and stone
that would be used to create a transparent and pedestrian friendly
first floor.
The proposal would be positively impacted by the improvements
Gustafson mentioned.
The building would be six stories tall. The area has buildings with a
variety of heights. He provided views of the proposed building.
Joan Macleod, vice president of Damon Farber, was part of the consultant team
who created the 2030 village-center plan for the city. She stated that:


The city’s goals include bringing a sense of the natural
environment; a sense of sustainability; a mixed-use environment to
provide opportunities for the residents; and connectivity to
recreational opportunities to the Ridgedale area.
She is excited to be a part of this project which would be a step in
the transformation beyond the transportation issues and
A235
Highland Bank
October 9, 2014






Page 6
development pieces that are going forward right now and would
begin to transform the area.
The main goal is to develop the connectivity and allow a highquality public environment that encourages people to walk.
The landscape would include diversity, interesting materials, site
amenities, and detailing to make it interesting throughout the year.
Safety is also being looked at.
The corner amenities would invite people to sit at the restaurants
and visit the retail uses.
She works closely with civil engineers who integrate storm-water
management into the project.
The green roof would provide sustainability to the project.
Rettew asked how much the landscape budget was increased and for what it
would be used. Ms. Macleod answered that the number of perennial layers would
be increased to allow for more diversity and detail; the kinds of amenities around
the building would be increased; a brick band would be added to the public realm
amenity; and a plaza area would be developed to a higher level. The amount was
increased close to $200,000.
The public hearing was opened.
Derek Diesen, 13525 Larkin Drive, representing the Ridgedale neighborhood,
showed pictures of his neighborhood and stated that:







He and the association members understand the need for highdensity housing.
They like transforming underutilized space to mixed use. The
landlords are respected. The Bader Group and Pastor Group are
great.
They like that the use would be 100-percent market-rate units.
A big concern is traffic. The solution is much bigger. The conditions
today need to be looked at for site and traffic limitations.
They like the parks and walkability included in the 2030
Comprehensive Guide Plan.
There are no buffer zones for sidewalks between the road and the
sidewalk. Snow would be plowed there unless it would be hauled
away in a truck which is a huge concern for him.
Evaluating the proposal in context of what exists today, it would be
too big for its surroundings, have too much impervious surface, and
not be pedestrian friendly enough.
A236
Highland Bank
October 9, 2014


















Page 7
The traffic study used a 15 percent multi-use reduction and 5
percent reduction for improved sidewalks and connections to the
neighborhood which have not been done yet. The original traffic
study did not include a restaurant. He had concerns with the
completeness and context of the traffic study.
The proposal lacks meaningful buffers to the neighbor. They are
concerned that when Ridge Square is redeveloped, it would be an
even taller building. Even though it is a huge site, they favored a
two-story maximum on the Ridge Square property.
The setbacks would cause safety and traffic concerns.
The building would be the 12th tallest in the city in an area that does
not have tall buildings.
St. Therese is the only use with more density and floor area. The
smaller an apartment is, the more likely the resident would go
outside and enjoy the area. That would cause more traffic. St.
Therese is in a residential area.
There would be no room for a green buffer.
The impervious surface coverage would be 85 percent which
causes concerns.
A resident takes his wheelchair down the middle of Cartway Lane in
the winter because the sidewalk is not shoveled.
The proposal would add trips to a snarled area. The city should fix
the road before the development goes further. That is what is
required by the ordinance. That is their expectation. It is a huge
concern.
The number of trips would compound safety issues. Three of the
dots were included in the top 25 accident areas in the city.
The drive-throughs are an added safety concern because of the
multiple trips per day.
The residents in the area who belong in the Wayzata School
District travel to Wayzata.
More trees to buffer the houses would be beneficial.
The solution is to scale back the size and scale of the building.
The site is guided for mixed use, but not residential mixed use. It is
zoned PID.
The 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan states that an appropriate
floor area ratio would be 1.1, the proposal would be 1.74. They
would like the height of the building lowered to fit the area.
The improvements to roads and sidewalks would be incremental.
The building should be incremental as well.
Putting in a restriction for future buildings between the proposed
site and Ridge Square should be implemented. Taller buildings
A237
Highland Bank
October 9, 2014















Page 8
should be located closer to Ridgedale Shopping Center and the
skyline look like a mountain from residential at the bottom to the
mall at the mountain’s summit.
There should be proper buffering for lights to prevent them from
shining in windows.
They would like 100 percent of the park funds go off site instead of
being used on the corners for pedestrians. Putting the infrastructure
in is part of a development.
They would like a sidewalk or trail system on the east side to
connect to Ridgedale Shopping Center.
They would like a playground installed on the south side between
Ridge Square North and Ridge Square South and a pedestrian
walkway on Essex Road.
The development should pay the cost to fix the traffic problems.
They would like to protect Target and Byerly’s.
They like the graceful-step building design to reduce the massing
done at Applewood Point.
They figured the site would need 147 more parking stalls and 28
stalls were added. Area businesses told the residents that the city
has rules and would not allow the developer to “skimp” on parking.
They suggest that evergreens be relocated on the site and plant
roof-top trees.
They want the sidewalk across the street finished to meet where a
pedestrian would cross to reach TCF Bank.
They suggest closing Cartway Lane.
Traffic is a huge concern for the next 5 years. The traffic load in
September is only 94 percent of the average. They would like to
see the calculation done at 100 percent of the average. It is
standard for the shopping center to be at 140 percent in December.
One person suggested making Ridgehaven Lane a two-way street,
but he thought that would cause the same queuing issues that
occur on Cartway Lane now.
They do not want the development to affect southbound motorists
over the priorities of north bound traffic. Each motorist leaving the
site to get to Interstate 394 would make a right turn onto Ridgedale
Drive going north, make a right turn onto Cartway Lane, and get in
the middle of the queuing area which is 9 vehicles long. The southbound turn lane is a priority.
They like the 2030 vision because specifics are listed for zoning
districts. The city has not been doing its job for setting limits for
mixed-use areas. There cannot just be guidelines, there must be
rules for development.
A238
Highland Bank
October 9, 2014


Page 9
They encourage development and new businesses, but want to be
able to get out of the neighborhood in a vehicle.
Mixed use is allowed in the PID District that this is zoned. There is
no land-use issue here. The bases for rezoning from a PID District
to a PUD District is to allow standards for guidance. He compared
zoning districts and setback requirements. To give just the building
dimensions without context is a problem now and would be in the
future. The purpose of a PUD is to provide for flexibility. The term
“flexibility” needs to be defined in regard to the height of the
building and parking lot setbacks.
Hans Cederblad, 11820 Live Oak Drive, stated that:







Most of what Minnetonka has done is good for the community.
He does not live in the neighborhood.
He went to a meeting regarding Ridgedale and the proposals
seemed to be very good. He sees the need for rejuvenation there
as well.
Growth may be good, but it is not necessary everywhere. The
proposal would be too large and too dense. It would not fit in. It
would set a precedent for continued development.
The building is very nice and would fit in at Excelsior and Grand,
but not in Minnetonka.
As a citizen, he is surprised that he did not know about it.
If the input is not correct in a traffic model, then the output would
not be correct.
Audra Johnson, 13415 Larkin Drive, stated that:



She would see the middle of the building up to the top. She can
currently see the three-story building from her window.
When she read through the 2030 plan and 2035 study, the city
housing goals have to do with affordable housing and senior living.
The Highland Bank project does not include affordable housing or
senior living. She did not see how the proposal fits with the city’s
housing goals. When she asked “the city” what the housing goals
are, “they” could not articulate them. She found that unsettling.
Be careful what one wishes for. She sees cookie-cutter
developments in all of the surrounding suburbs and she does not
think Minnetonka should follow in suit. Minnetonka’s priority is to be
connected with nature. Creating such a high-density urban
population would widdle away the aesthetic.
A239
Highland Bank
October 9, 2014




Page 10
She questioned when the market would become saturated with
high-density buildings.
A lot of people are renting due to bankruptcy and student-loan debt.
Most people would want to build equity. There might be a sliver of
the population that would want to live in a housing complex, but that
is not universally true.
Ten years from now, when people’s credit has rebounded, the
renters will be moving out and creating concrete blight. She will be
seeing the building for a very long time.
She was happy to hear Gustafson’s report. He is awesome. This is
an innovative, fresh vision that they all have been waiting for. She
encouraged the city to follow through on Gustafson’s ideas.
Rick Larson, 13426 Larkin Circle, stated that:


The proposed building would be too tall.
The neighborhoods could see the building and people on the sixth
floor roof top could see the neighborhoods.
Bob Bertelsen, 13513 Larkin Drive, stated that:


Many big trees would have to be removed.
Half of the site is green space that would be used.
No additional testimony was submitted and the hearing was closed.
Chair Lehman reviewed the issues brought up by residents. In response,
Thomson explained that:

A traffic analysis was done of the entire Interstate 394 corridor. The
study looked at what would happen if every property developed up
to its maximum according to the 2030 Comprehensive Guide Plan
and what improvements would be necessary. The second scenario
dealt with the Ridgedale area and the village center study. All of the
development programs are outlined in the traffic study and were
plugged into the larger traffic model for the corridor to create the
2014 improvements. These improvements would be able to
accommodate the anticipated growth created by the Ridgedale
village center plan. City staff anticipates and plans for future
growth. The proposal fits into the city’s vision and fits into the
market that the developer has identified.
A240
Highland Bank
October 9, 2014



Page 11
Engineering, planning, and the landscape architect agreed to locate
the 10-foot trail next to the road to provide a more enhanced
landscape feature rather than the small strip of green space that
would exist between the sidewalk and road. Hennepin County has
planting guidelines for what can be planted close to a road, so it
would decrease the amount and kind of vegetation that could be
planted. There is a condition of approval that would cover snow
removal. The property owner would be responsible for plowing
sidewalks. The snow from the parking lot would have to be hauled
off site and would be required as a condition of approval.
Buffering relates to the proposed site’s adjacent properties. The
proposed site is adjacent to a public road and retail establishments
so there is no buffering requirement in this instance. The applicant
cannot be required to complete buffering on property not owned by
the applicant.
City residents do not have a right to view something on or across
someone else’s property.
Gordon added that the applicant provided examples of the materials that would
be used. Staff reviewed a color palette and materials with the sensitivity of
making sure things would be more subdued. All of these things have been
considered.
Thomson agreed that the building would be at the top as far as density and
intensity of use for the city. The Ridgedale village center is one of the two village
centers in the city identified to accommodate this level of density and growth. The
commitment outlined in the vision documents anticipates this very proposal.
Chair Lehman asked how the type of housing fits in the city’s goals. Wischnack
explained that the city’s affordable housing goal is to add 250 to 380 units from
2011 to 2020. The St. Therese project has 30 affordable units and The Ridge has
50 affordable units. The city has had not had luxury apartments built for
approximately 30 years. St. Therese and Applewood Pointe are new seniorhousing projects. Chair Lehman noted how the proposal would fit within the
parameters of the city’s housing mix.
Chair Lehman asked staff to address the amount of impervious surface.
Thomson stated that the project includes two properties, the bank property and a
currently vacant property. A considerable amount of time has been spent on the
landscape plan. It is not a typical landscape plan. It is well thought out with
strategic green space to soften the edges of the development site.
A241
Highland Bank
October 9, 2014
Page 12
Kirk noted that the proposal would not have an unusual amount of impervious
surface for a commercial property. He has seen other sites where the entire
parcel is paved. Thomson added that the proposal would be on the high-end of
the amount of impervious surface with 85 percent impervious surface coverage.
There are other sites with that level. The site currently has no stormwater
management. Water flows directly to the wetland to the south. The
redevelopment would be required to provide stormwater management including
treatment and rate control for 100 percent of the runoff.
Odland asked if the comprehensive guide plan is designed to help staff and
residents grow and evolve into the future. Wischnack stated that a
comprehensive guide plan is a futuristic look at housing, transportation, and land
use. Sometimes not enough specifics are provided. It is meant to be aspirational
and provide guidance. The village center process was set up before the
comprehensive guide plan was adopted. Every year, multiple areas would be
looked at and studied more carefully.
Odland noted that the change would make the community vibrant instead of
stagnant. Wischnack agreed. A comprehensive guide plan looks at specific
issues and challenges. It is important to look 10 and 20 years ahead when
planning for infrastructure and transportation.
Kirk asked when the improvements to Cartway Lane would be completed.
Gustafson explained the improvement plan that would maximum pedestrian and
landscape space that would leave pockets for new street lighting. Maintenance
would also be a design priority. The plan is more of a reality than a pipe dream
because a lot of right of way would not have to be purchased. The city council
has to review, approve, and allocate funding in the capital improvement plan for
the improvements, but it looks like something that could happen in two to three
years. The city council has heard from residents and staff regarding the Cartway
Lane situation. The property owners and applicant would be part of the
implementation process.
Kirk learned at the neighborhood meeting that the entire Essex neighborhood
commutes through the shopping center area. A sidewalk on Essex would be a
good idea because it does get heavy traffic. The neighborhood refers to the
commercial area as part of its neighborhood. Routing traffic north on Plymouth
Road and onto the highway as quickly as possible would help the Essex
residents.
In response to Kirk’s question, Thomson confirmed that the development
program for the southwest sector of the Ridgedale vision includes an overall
assumption of 1.1 FAR.
A242
Highland Bank
October 9, 2014
Page 13
Kirk noted that a PUD allows control over a development including a building’s
height. Any other zoning classification gives the developer the right to make the
building as large as the zoning allows. Thomson agreed. The goal of the PUD
ordinance is to give the city the flexibility to approve the projects that meet the
city’s goals.
Kirk noted that the park dedication fees would be $5,000 per unit. He asked if the
city council decides on what the park dedication fees would be used. Thomson
answered affirmatively. A significant portion of the park dedication fee would be
used on the public improvements including sidewalks and landscaping for the
project.
Kirk noted the importance of having enough surface parking to support the retail
businesses. Vehicles backing up onto Ridgedale Drive would cause problems.
Thomson answered that the parking requirements account for all of the parking
needs for every use. Staff is confident that there would be enough parking
because the residential and retail mix as well as the good mix of types and
intensities of retail businesses would offset peak parking demands. A variety of
uses would prevent the businesses from having the same peak times. A coffee
shop, bank, and restaurant would have different peak traffic times.
Kirk stated that the proposed use would have less intensity than if it would have
office and retail uses. He asked how the trip generation of an office building
would compare with the current proposal. Thomson agreed that residential is one
of the best uses in terms of reducing vehicle traffic on a square-foot basis.
Removing one story of the building would not make a substantial difference in the
trip generations. An office building of the same size would create substantially
more trips.
Rettew liked the idea of connecting the Larkin neighborhood with a path to
Noodles. He asked when it would be applicable to talk about adding a path.
Thomson explained that the property owner would have to agree, so during
redevelopment would be one opportunity.
In response to Rettew’s question, Gustafson explained that the survival rate of
landscaping along a county road is not good. Landscaping along a curb edge
takes a lot of additional maintenance and the impact would not be as effective
due to the limitations on what vegetation would be allowed to be planted on a
county road. Fitting a buffer between a sidewalk and street can decrease the
width of a 10-foot sidewalk to 6 feet. A sidewalk adjacent to a street provides a
clean appearance and allows better placement of lighting for the sidewalk and
A243
Highland Bank
October 9, 2014
Page 14
roadway. The proposed improvement plan makes certain that the buffer looks as
good as it can.
Rettew asked how the Ridgedale Parkway project that has trees along the street
would be successful. Gustafson explained that the city has more control over a
city street in regards to plowing, what type of salt is used, and irrigating and
maintaining the trees. The plows travel at a decreased speed on a city street
compared to a county road. There is more right of way on Ridgedale Drive that
allowed the trails to be pushed well into the property and away from the road.
Rettew asked if more property could be purchased from landowners. Gustafson
explained that the developer would grant easements to do the proposed
improvements. Right now, the city does not have the right of way to complete a
sidewalk. The current sidewalk is 4’1” and is adjacent to the right-of-way
boundary. There is currently 4’2” of right of way from the back of the curb to the
back edge of the sidewalk. The applicant is working with the city and granting the
right of way necessary to do the proposed improvements.
Odland felt the Bader and Pastor Groups have done a great job of coming back
with a very positive looking use of the odd space. It is an opportunity for the city
to create a downtown area. It is a good fit and a good use. It is looking forward
and is a good step to take Minnetonka into the future. She supports the proposal.
Kirk learned that a broader group of residents need to be kept informed of
proposed redevelopment for the area from Target to the YMCA. Gordon agreed.
The community has experience traveling through the area. He believes that the
proposal makes sense. The designers have broken up the mass of the building in
a lot of different ways which makes it seem less than what it really is. The
proposal now includes a green roof and 14 more feet to the building. He was not
“that married” to the green roof.
Odland noted that commissioners were in favor of adding green features to the
project. The green roof would add green space for the residents of the building
and help it feel like a neighborhood. She supports it remaining in the project.
Knight would look for a green roof if he was looking to live in an apartment
building, but if the view of the elevator sticking out is an issue that may be
considered. He understands the neighbors’ commute problems. He supports the
project. Architecturally, it looks good in the proposed environment. It would be
too much anywhere else. It is at the maximum height for the area. He likes
adding another housing type. This is a great example of needed housing stock
with no other similar, new apartments in the area. The developers have a great
A244
Highland Bank
October 9, 2014
Page 15
reputation and know the market for the next 20 to 30 years. He supports staff’s
recommendation.
Magney supports the project. The development team is excellent. They know
what they are doing. They would not be making the investment if they did not
think it would be viable. It would be very nice. He likes it. The SRF traffic studies
were well done. He was confident Gustafson and the city would follow through
with the improvement projects.
Knight agreed that the location is the best place for the proposal. He would not
want to see it a block or two further south. It is a good fit. Having driven on
Cartway Lane and Ridgedale Drive, he is in favor of the road improvements. That
would be a great benefit.
Chair Lehman said that roofs with patios and landscaping look so much better
from the view of a taller building than ones with asphalt and air-conditioning units.
It would be a fantastic amenity for the tenants. He was in favor of the concept of
making green space on top of roofs available. The Ridgedale area is one of the
only places in Minnetonka a building of this height could be built. It would be
better suited closer to the center, but it would be o.k. at the proposed site. It
would be located on Plymouth Road which is a good road for it to be on. He
understood the traffic problems. He tries to stay away from the area during hightraffic times. He whole-heartedly supports traffic improvements, but those are
separate from the project. If the site would be developed for what could currently
be done, then the increase in the amount of traffic would be much higher. He
supports staff’s recommendation. The developer has been responsive to the
concerns of neighbors and staff.
Kirk commended the neighbors for thoughtfully presenting their views. The
commission agrees that there should be less density toward the residential
neighborhood. He agreed that this is the spot it should be built on. He
commended the development team. He thought this would be the first step to
completing the vision. This is one of the few areas that is growing in the Midwest.
It is a very vibrant community. The ability to provide a variety of housing options
for a growing community is important. He supports staff’s recommendation.
Rettew stated that the building may be one or two stories too high. Traffic is a
concern. Any new building would alter the existing views. In an ideal world, the
roads and transit connections would be done first. In reality, buildings have to be
a certain height to be financially viable. This is one of the only places to do a
mixed-use development. It is pretty well connected to bus lines and the park and
ride. There are trails on the southwest side.
A245
Highland Bank
October 9, 2014
Page 16
Odland moved, second by Kirk, to recommend that the city council approve
the following items for Highland Bank with the modification to the
resolution as included in the change memo dated October 9, 2014:
1)
Recommend the city council adopt the ordinance on pages A76–A80 of
the staff report which rezones the properties and adopts a master
development plan at 1700 and 1730 Plymouth Road.
2)
Recommend the city council adopt the resolution on pages A81–A94 of
the staff report which approves final site and building plans, with a parking
variance, and an appeal of maximum p.m. peak hour trips for a mixed use
development at 1700 and 1730 Plymouth Road.
3)
Recommend the city council adopt the resolution on pages A95–A102 of
the staff report which approves conditional use permits for a coffee shop,
restaurant, outdoor dining patios, and drive-up windows at 1700 and 1730
Plymouth Road.
Odland, Rettew, Kirk, Knight, Magney, O’Connell, and Lehman voted yes.
Motion carried.
This item is tentatively scheduled to be reviewed by the city council on October
27, 2014.
A246
Highland Bank