Smithtown Crossing 2ndA majority of the Shorewood City Council may be present at this meeting
23 September 2011
Re: Planning Commission Open House to Discuss the Smithtown Crossing
Redevelopment Study
Tuesday, 4 October 2011,
On the Shorewood Planning Commission will host an
informal open house meeting to present the
Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment
.
Study
For nearly two years the Planning Commission has been working on a plan for the
future redevelopment of the area surrounding the intersection of Smithtown Road
and County Road 19 (see location map – reverse side of page). In spite of the
current state of the economy, the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan has identified
this area as being prime for redevelopment. The Study, in its final form, will
become the guide for how that redevelopment occurs in future years as the
economy recovers.
The informal open house meeting format has proven over the years to be one of
our most successful ways of communicating with Shorewood residents. The
format of this type of meeting allows people to come and go at their convenience.
It also provides Planning Commissioners, City Council members, and staff a
relaxed atmosphere to meet with residents in small groups and sometimes even
one-on-one.
5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
The meeting will be held from
of the Shorewood City Hall,
5755 Country Club Road.
A copy of the Study can be found on the Shorewood website or, you can view a
copy at the City Offices. Please mark your calendars and plan to join the Planning
th
Commission on the 4 of October. Your participation is critical to a successful
planning process.
2 TFARD DN
SMITHTOWN
CROSSING
REDEVELOPMENT
STUDY
SgnissorC n w o t h t i m
Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction
…………………………………………………………………….1
Planning Issues
…………………………………………………………………7
Vision Statement
………………………………………………………………11
Plan
........................................................................................................................13
Zoning Parameters
- Commercial: C-1
- Residential: R-3B
Update Regulations
- Mixed Use
- Building Height
- Senior Housing Density
Design Criteria
- Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation
- Landscaping
- Architecture/Materials
City Participation
……………………………………………………………..…………17
Tax Increment Financing
Land
EDA
Appendix
Planning Inventory
List of Meeting Dates
Traffic Volume Map
SgnissorC n w o t h t i m
Introduction
Geographically, the intersection of Smithtown Road and County Road 19 (Smithtown Crossing)
is relatively centered in the City of Shorewood. The City considers the area surrounding the
intersection to be somewhat of a northern gateway to the community. As such, considerable
time, energy and money have been invested to enhance the area. The City has developed a
“civic campus” including the Shorewood Public Works Facility, the South Lake Public Safety
Building, the South Shore Community Center, and a newly remodeled City Hall. Badger Park
and the Gideon Glen Conservation Open Space area provide active and passive recreational
opportunities for the area, and proximity to the Lake Minnetonka Regional LRT Trail provides
pedestrian and bicycle access for South Lake Minnetonka residents. Finally, the intersection
itself was redesigned and reconstructed in 2005.
To date, private investment adjacent to Smithtown Crossing has not kept up with public
investment. Commercial properties in the area are characterized as disjointed, with buildings
that are low-valued and underutilized and, in many cases do not comply with current Shorewood
zoning standards. In this regard, the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan has identified the area as
being prime for redevelopment.
In order to facilitate redevelopment that makes better use of land, better serves the residents of
the community, enhances tax base, reflects the quality and character of the community, and is
commensurate with the highly desirable, highly visible Smithtown Crossing area, the City has
begun exploring options and incentives to assist the area in realizing its true potential.
The Planning Commission began working on the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study in
early 2010. The study area boundary was established as shown on Figures 1 and 2 in the
following pages. The study area contains a total of 23.46 acres (not including the Gideon Glen
open space property) and consists of three locations: 1) the northwest quadrant of the
intersection; 2) the southeast quadrant of the intersection; and 3) the area north of County Road
19, just west of Shorewood Lane. The study focused primarily on the northwest quadrant of the
intersection, which contains anywhere from 4.52 to 6.56 acres, depending on how far west a
project might extend. The southwest quadrant of the intersection contains another 2.74 acres.
While the area to the north of County Road 19 has 14.16 acres, 12.56 acres of that is occupied by
the Shorewood Public Works Department and the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety facility
(police and fire).
A brief planning inventory, examining the various uses in the district, property ownership,
zoning and values was prepared and is contained in the Appendix of this report. With the
exception of the American Legion, a retail/office building and a small, nonconforming apartment
building, the area is predominantly occupied by auto-oriented uses (sales, auto repair, fuel
station, car wash, etc.). Three single-family homes are also included in the study area.
Page 1
SgnissorC n w o t h t i m
Planning Issues
One of the first steps taken by the Planning Commission in its study was to identify planning
issues associated with the study area. Following are a list of issues identified to date. These are
also illustrated on Figure 2 on the following page.
Study Area west boundary (it was decided that this edge of the study area could
remain somewhat flexible, in the event a developer chooses to acquire one or more of
the single-family residential lots that lie west of the commercial area)
Land uses (considerable interest has been expressed in exploring mixed use for the
Study Area
Buffering and land use transitions
Taking advantage of views into Gideon Glen while preserving natural views from
across and within Gideon Glen
Access (vehicular) – to and from County Road 19 and to and from Smithtown Road
Internal circulation – vehicular and pedestrian
Possibility of contaminated soils
Phasing
Redevelopment of lots on an individual basis
Future development of golf course property
Land use and zoning of s.f. residential property at 24250 Smithtown Road
Pedestrian connection from Badger Park to north side of Smithtown Road
Drainage*
*Note. This is a significant issue and supports the concept of a unified development
effort. The City Engineer advises us that properties within the study area not only
need to address rate control, but also the new volume of water that comes from
redevelopment. This supports the concept of a coordinated redevelopment scenario
versus piece-meal redevelopment of individual sites. Individually, the properties
would have to come up with their own ponding for each site.
Page 7
§®¿¼²«±Þ
¿»®ß §¼«¬Í ó
SgnissorC n w o t h t i m
Vision Statement
Having identified issues associated with the study area, it was determined that a clear picture of
what the City hopes to see for the subject area should be formulated – for lack of a better term,
we will use “vision statement”. This is the point where we step back and view the area as we
would like to see it, say in the next 10-15 years. The vision statement should be a positive
expression of what the City wants, rather than a list of what we don’t want to see.
The proposed vision statement starts with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan, which identified
an interest in the following:
Unified/coordinated development; assembly of land parcels
Planned unit development
Possible mixed use – commercial/residential
Opportunity for additional senior housing
Predominant retail and office uses versus service commercial*
*Since this was written, the Planning Commission held a meeting with real estate
development professionals, the consensus of whom indicated that there may not be a strong
market for retail. It was suggested that a stronger market may exist for personal service
commercial (i.e. banking, health and beauty services, etc.).
In addition to the above, the Planning Commission discussed other factors such as
pedestrian/bicycle circulation and connectivity, architectural treatment (e.g. residential character
and natural materials), natural landscaping, and compatibility with surrounding land use
activities as parameters for the redevelopment of the area. From this, the following was derived:
Vision Statement – Smithtown Crossing
“The redevelopment of the area described as “Smithtown Crossing” will create a high
quality, unified, planned mixture of residential and commercial uses that take advantage of
views afforded by existing natural areas and parks, as well as the exposure to high volumes
of vehicular traffic on the adjacent minor arterial street. The residential component should
add to and enhance the variety of housing choices in the community. Commercial activities
should serve not only residents of the project area, but the community as a whole. Access to,
egress from, and circulation within Smithtown Crossing must be pedestrian/bicycle-friendly,
to the point of encouraging little side trips from the LRT to the north or Badger Park to the
south. Attractive and articulated architecture with pitched rooflines and natural materials
will reflect the residential character and quality of the community. Landscaping will be
natural and substantial, diminishing parking lot massing and softening and framing buildings
on the site.”
It must be realized that this vision statement will likely evolve as it is subjected to public input.
Page 11
SgnissorC n w o t h t i m
Smithtown Crossing – Plan
From the very beginning of this study, it has been realized that properties within the study area
may develop or redevelop individually. It is not the City’s intent to stand in the way of property
owners wishing to improve their land. Individual site development will be expected to adhere to
the development regulations currently in place.
What is the intent of this study is to encourage a higher level of quality than might occur with
piecemeal development under the current rules. In this regard, there are a number of ways that
the City can reduce regulatory obstacles and even incite or reward development built to the
higher standards envisioned by this study. The greater a project complies with the City’s vision
for the area, the greater the incentive with respect to zoning flexibility and even City
participation in the project.
Zoning Parameters
With the exception of the public facilities located north of County Road 19 and the three
residential properties in the study area, all of the subject lots are zoned C-1, General
Commercial. Individual lots must adhere to the standard of that zoning district, including height
limitations. Any coordinated development of several or all of the subject properties should be
done by Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.), using the C-1 District and the R-3B, Multiple-
Family Residential District as the underlying standards for the project.
The single-family residential property on the north side of County Road 19 is surrounded by
commercial development in Tonka Bay and public facilities (public works, police and fire). The
City should be open to a rezoning of this site to R-C, Residential/Commercial.
Update Regulations
While the City’s current P.U.D. provisions could be used to process a mixed use type of project,
involving a mixture of commercial and residential development, it is recommended that the
Shorewood Zoning Code be amended to specifically address mixed use. This update of the Code
would include provisions tying flexibility and reward to the level of compliance with City’s
vision for the area. One such provision might include an allowance for additional building
height based on architectural design and extent and type of landscaping. For certain types of
housing in a mixed use project, higher densities than what current regulations allow might be
considered where it could be demonstrated that the density would be compatible with
surrounding uses and where resulting traffic volumes would not adversely affect existing streets.
In this regard, a mixed use project would be required to submit a traffic study as part of its
application submittals.
Design Criteria
Inherent to any mixed use development project is attention to pedestrian and bicycle circulation.
Site planning should include both internal circulation as well as connections to existing and
Page 13
future trails and sidewalk systems. Sidewalks built with the reconstruction of the intersection in
2005 will ultimately provide connection with the LRT Trail to the north and to the City
Hall/Badger Field complex south and east of the intersection. The County Road 19 Corridor
Study illustrates an entire network of pedestrian/bicycle segments to the east of the study area.
Smithtown Crossing should link to that system as well as extend west along Smithtown Road to
the westerly extent of the project.
Landscaping has long been
recognized as an effective
means of creating buffers,
diminishing the impact of
building massing, enhancing
architecture and screening
and cooling of parking lots.
The County Road 19
Corridor Study, adopted in
2003 sets forth concepts for
streetscaping along the
corridor as it passes through
Shorewood. These concepts
should be implemented on
both the County Road 19 and
Smithtown Road sides of the
project, converging at the
Example: Landscaping, screening/cooling parking lots
northwest corner of the
intersection. This public
right-of-way area should be redone and incorporated into the Smithtown Crossing design.
Current landscape practice focuses on natural designs that require low to no maintenance,
minimizing sprinkling and conserving water. Developers hoping to achieve additional density or
building height will want to
substantially exceed the
minimum landscaping
requirements currently found in
the City’s zoning regulations,
both in terms of size and
quantities of plant materials.
Site planning and landscaping
for Smithtown Crossing should
incorporate some sort of public
space or common area that
invites visitors to spend a little
more time in the area, relaxing
or connecting with others.
Example: Landscaping, public space
Page 14
SgnissorC n w o t h t i m
It is not the intent of this report to
dictate a certain type of architecture.
This does not, however, diminish the
importance of this critical design
element. Shorewood has in the past
placed great value on buildings that
are in keeping with the residential
character of the community. While
no formal definition of “residential
character” exists, certain
characteristics have been identified
that begin to describe what the City
is looking for. Well articulated
buildings with pitched rooflines,
tiered levels and interesting
shadowing go far in mitigating the
Example: Architecture—pitched roofs, natural materials, shadow,
articulation
visual impact of larger, taller
buildings. Similarly, features such
as awnings, natural building materials, balconies and lighting help to diminish building masses
and create a human scale for the project. And, as mentioned in the previous section, nothing
does more to soften and enhance building than landscaping.
One of the incentives that can be explored in Smithtown Crossing is allowing somewhat taller
building height than what is allowed by Shorewood’s current regulations. At present, the C-1
zoning district allows buildings to be three stories or 40 feet in height, whichever is least. It has
been suggested that the right project could be
built to a height of 45 feet, regardless of the
number of stories. The visual impact of such a
building can be mitigated by the means discussed
above as well as by building placement on the
property and use of the natural terrain. For
example, the topography found in the northwest
quadrant of the intersection may lend itself to
partially below-grade levels or underground
parking.
Example: Architecture—diminish visual impact of
building height with construction materials, landscaping
Page 15
SgnissorC n w o t h t i m
City Participation
While the plan for the redevelopment of Smithtown Crossing includes reducing regulatory
obstacles, that alone may not be enough to entice the type of development envisioned in this
study. Since the City’s vision for the area requires development to substantially exceed current
regulations (e.g. extra landscaping, architectural standards, acquisition and combination of land
parcels), it will likely take some investment on the City’s part. The greater the City’s
involvement, the greater say the City has in how the property develops. Following are possible
ways in which the City can be involved.
Tax Increment Financing
Early on in the conversations about redeveloping the Smithtown Crossing area, tax increment
financing (TIF) was mentioned as a possible tool for enticing developers to invest in a project.
TIF is a financing tool that uses future gains in tax revenues to finance the cost of current
improvements, including - in some cases- writing down the cost of land. Shorewood has used
TIF successfully in the past when building the intersection at Old Market Road and Highway 7.
In that case, the City opted for a “pay-as-you-go” method where any future risk is assumed by
the developer. This is what is recommended for Smithtown Crossing. While there are projects
done involving cities assuming some or all of the risk, this method is not recommended for the
Smithtown Crossing redevelopment project.
Acquisition of Land
One of the most difficult obstacles to overcome in a redevelopment project is assembling land
for a unified, cohesive development. It is strongly suggested that, as parcels within the
redevelopment area become available on the market, the City consider acquiring them. These
properties should be viewed as an investment in the redevelopment and could be sold to an
ultimate developer “at cost” as a demonstration of the City’s commitment to the project. This
would also provide leverage toward the City having more input on the type, quality and design of
the project.
Economic Development Authority
Shorewood already has an Economic Development Authority (EDA) which has been used
successfully in the redevelopment of the property currently occupied by the South Lake Public
Safety facility. The EDA can be useful with regard to tax increment financing as well as in the
acquisition of property. Assisting in the correction of problem soils is yet another function of an
EDA.
Page 17
SgnissorC n w o t h t i m
Appendix
Smithtown Crossing Planning Inventory
Prop. AddressOwnerUseZoningAreaLand Val.Struct. Val.Tot. Val.Notes
24620 Smithtown RdMessengerS.F. ResR-1C45731$115,000$60,000$175,000
24590 Smithtown RdHirschS.F. ResR-1C43303$115,000$186,000$301,000
24560 Smithtown RdAmerican LegionVacantC-142107$200,000n/a$200,000
24530 Smithtown RdFemriteM.F. ResC-114632$90,000$295,000$385,000Nonconforming use
24470 Smithtown RdTriple B Equities (Bury)Auto SalesC-141258$410,000$190,000$600,000Substandard building
24450 Smithtown RdAmerican LegionBar/Rest.C-151431$264,000$136,000$400,000
5680 County Rd 19American LegionFuel StationC-115804$195,000$105,000$300,000Soils?
5660 County Rd 19HopHerr Props (Heartbr)Ret./OfficeC-131694$355,000$45,000$400,000
Subtotals285960$1,744,000$1,017,000$2,761,000
24365 Smithtown RdT C Stores (Oasis)C Store/FuelC-162970$770,000$170,000$940,000
24285 Smithtown RdMooreAuto SalesC-118199$171,000$169,000$340,000
24275 Smithtown RdHoweAuto RepairC-117871$166,000$154,000$320,000
24245 Smithtown RdWash N RollCar WashC-120218$177,000$138,000$315,000
Subtotals119258$1,284,000$631,000$1,915,000
24250 Smithtown RdJustinakS.F.ResR-2A69154$216,000$243,000$459,000
24200 Smithtown RdCity of ShorewoodPub. WorksR-2A253429n/an/an/a
24100 Smithtown RdCity of Shorewood et alFire/PoliceR-2A294115n/an/an/a
Smithtown Crossing Meetings
The Shorewood Planning Commission has spent many months preparing the Smithtown
Crossing Redevelopment Study. Following is a list of Planning Commission meetings at which
the Study was discussed. Some of the “milestone” meetings have been highlighted and
summaries of selected meetings are provided below. It is worth noting that some of the early
discussions referred to Planning District 3 from the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan.
February 17, 2009
April 7, 2009
January 19, 2010
February 16, 2010
March 2, 2010
March 16, 2010
April 6, 2010 Tax Increment Financing (T.I.F.)
April 20, 2010 Vision Statement
May 4, 2010 Joint Meeting with City Council
May 18, 2010 Meeting with Landowners *
June 29, 2010 Meeting with Developers (Forum) **
July 20, 2010
August 17, 2010 Discussion of Mobile Tour ***
September 14, 2010 Mixed Use
February 15, 2011
March 1, 2011
*The Planning Commission met with a number of owners of land within the study area. The
purpose of the meeting was to get feedback from them on issues related to redevelopment and to
illustrate to them the advantages of a unified, cohesive redevelopment versus a piecemeal
approach. The consensus of those attending the meeting appeared to agree with the direction the
Commission was proposing.
**Early on it was determined that input from people who actually do projects was important to
the ultimate success of the project. A panel of development professionals was asked to comment
on the Vision Statement and the concept drawings that had been reviewed by the Commission.
The panel members all commented on the materials and then answered questions from the
Meetings (continued)
Commission. The general consensus of the panel was that Shorewood’s development
regulations are in need of revision in order to make a redevelopment project viable. Four key
points were made:
1)The site is not well suited for retail commercial. Rather, some sort of service
commercial development (e.g. banking, personal services, possibly office, etc.)
should be expected.
2)The City should consider allowing something higher than the three stories allowed
under the current regulations.
3)Whether the housing element was market or senior, Shorewood’s current density
limits are too low.
4)In this economy, redevelopment may not occur for some time.
***The Commission spent an evening visiting mixed use and senior housing projects. There
was consensus that two projects in Golden Valley, Town Square and the Commons, contained
elements that would be desirable for Smithtown Crossing. A mixed use redevelopment project
in Glen Lake (Minnetonka) illustrated how the impact of building height could be mitigated with
construction materials, siting, and landscaping. Some of the photographs used in this report
came from the mobile tour.
2009 Traffic Volumes
Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation
33134
4
43
Solber XCELSIOR
I , _
F'olnt
/ c\
x