Loading...
02-21-12 CC Planning CC Joint Mtg AgendaCITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2012 AGENDA 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. Attachments 1. CONVENE WORK SESSION MEETING A. Roll Call City_ Council Mayor Liz& Hotvet Siakel Woodruff Zerby B. Review Agenda 2. 3. 4. 5. Resident Survey Planning Commission Geng, Chair Arnst Charbonnet Davis Garelick Hasek Hutchins Planning Commission Work Program 2012 Smithtown Crossing Adjourn — 7:00 p.m. Administrator's memo Work Program 2012 Planning Director's memo cr[c OF SIIORF,WOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD - SHOREWOOD, [MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 - (952) 960 -7900 FAX (952) 474 -6128 - www.ci.shorewood.mmus - cityha11@ci.shorewood.mn.us I A IW11 ►1 1111U l TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 2 February 2012 RE: Smithtown Crossing — Review of Public Testimony FILE NO. 405 (Smithtown Crossing) At its 6 December 2011 meeting, the Plamiing Commission held a public hearing regarding the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study. At the conclusion of the hearing, the consensus of the Commission was that a study session should be scheduled to go over, in detail, the testimony from area residents relative to the study. Attached for your review is the excerpt from the 6 December meeting minutes pertaining to Smithtown Crossing. This item is scheduled for discussion at the 8 February meeting. Cc: Brian Heck Laura Hotvet ®% % PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1. 7°00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT — SMITIITGWN CROSSING REDEVELOPMENT STUDY (continued from November 15, 2011) Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:23 P.M. He explained this Public Hearing was continued from the Planning Commission's November 15, 2011, meeting to ensure residents owning property relatively close to the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study) area had adequate opportunity to comment on the Study. Director Nielsen stated the initial notification for the November 15"' Public Hearing was a general notification. Individual notices were not sent out to residents in or near the redevelopment area because it is an overall Comprehensive Plan amendment. Because there were no residents present on November 15`' he had suggested the Hearing be continued and residents who live in a 1000 -foot radius buffer area be notified individually. Nielsen displayed a graphic of the Study area. He explained it encompasses the land adjacent to the intersection of Smithtown Road and County Road 19. The boundaries of the Study area are as follows. The commercial area located on the south side of County Road 19. A portion of the land north of County Road 19 and east of the intersection where the City's Public Works facility and the public safety facility as well as a residential property are located. A lot of the Study focuses on the northwest quadrant of the intersection, primarily the commercial area. The commercial properties in the area are characterized as disjointed. The buildings are low value and under utilized, and many of them do not comply with the City's current zoning standards. The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan (the Comp Plan) has identified the area as being prime for redevelopment. The City considers the area to be somewhat of a northern gateway into the City of Shorewood. A great deal of time and money has been invested over the years to enhance the area. The City developed somewhat of a "civic campus" including the newly renovated City Hall, the Southshore Community Center (SSCC), the Public Works facility, the South Lake public safety facility (police and fire) and Badger Park. The intersection was redesigned and reconstructed in 2005. As part of that effort the City acquired, in conjunction with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Gideon Glen conservation open space property. Nielsen noted the Planning Commission has been working on the Study for the last two years. He explained one of the first things the Planning Commission did was identify planning issues associated with the Study area, noting that lie will focus on the northwest quadrant. He reviewed the issues that have been identified to date. They are: ➢ 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 especially on the west of the Study area; ➢ taking advantage of views into Gideon Glen while preserving natural views from across and within Gideon Glen; ➢ vehicular access to and from County Road 19 and to and from Smithtown Road; ➢ internal circulation — vehicular and pedestrian; ➢ possibility of contaminated soils; ➢ phasing the redevelopment; ➢ redevelopment of lots on an individual basis; ➢ future development of the golf course property even though it is not located in the study area; - - l land use and zoning of the residential property located at 24250 Smithtown Road; pedestrian connection from Badger Park to the north side of Smithtown Road; and, A drainage. The next thing the Commission did was write a vision statement that creates a clear picture of what the City hopes to see for the area in the next 10 — 15 years. The vision statement is a positive expression of what the City wants rather than a list of what the City does not want to see. He displayed a graphic of the desired concept for the area which shows a unified, coordinated development of both quadrants of the intersection with limited access points off of County Road 19 and Smithtown Road. The worst case scenario would be to let the parcels be developed individually with each having its own parking lot and pond. A unified, coordinated development would have a more efficient drainage system and joint parking that could be landscaped. After that, the Planning Commission met with the City Council in May of 2010. Later that month the vision statement and concepts were presented to the property owners. About one half of the property owners turned out for that meeting. There was consensus among them that a unified, coordinated development approach was better than developing the lots on an individual basis. During the summer of 2010 the Commission held a developer forum. It invited in a panel of developers that were experienced in redevelopment to weigh in on the potential for redeveloping. The developers were upbeat about the redevelopment of the area. They indicated it would happen over a period of time. They offered suggestions for making it a more viable redevelopment project from a developer's standpoint. After the Planning Commission held the developer forum it went on a mobile tour of development projects in the metropolitan area. The Commission liked some of the projects and not others. The Commission placed a lot of emphasis on architecture and landscaping. Photographs of some of the various projects were displayed with explanations of what the Commission did and did not like. A plan was then developed. The main points in the plan are as follows. It would be a mixed use development; both residential and commercial. Higher density for the residential component should be considered. The buildings could potentially be higher than what is currently allowed in the C -1 zoning district. All of this is tied to consistency with the City's vision statement for the area. The more a developer was in sync with the vision statement the more the developer might get density and height incentives. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation, both within the project area and connection to outside of the area, is considered to be extremely important. There is a high emphasis on natural and substantial landscaping requiring low maintenance. The Study does not dictate any certain type of architecture. It does include photographic examples of desired architecture such as pitched rooflines and articulation where there is some depth and relief that can diminish the appearance of height of buildings. Awnings, natural building materials, balconies and lighting help to diminish building masses. Parking lot landscaping to both cool them and buffer them is desired. Some sort of common area is also desired. Photographs were shown of examples of what is desired. The last part of the Study includes an implementation section. There are two main components to that. One is the use of tax increment financing (TIF) to encourage the assembly of the parcels. The second component is the City acquiring land within the redevelopment area when it becomes available on the market. The City recently purchased a residential parcel on the west end of the area. The Planning Commission held an open house style neighborhood meeting which was well attended to give the residents an opportunity to comment on the Study. The concept plan displayed during the open house was again displayed and highlighted. The Commission intentionally chose not to include a concept plan in the Study. Comment cards were made available at the open house for attendees to take and submit at a later time. W Nielsen stated that during the November 15` Public Hearing the Planning Commission asked Staff to clarify a few things. He explained there was some confusion about the boundaries of the Study area. The maps for the Study area are all consistent. There continues to be some confusion about what parts of the Study area are still developable. The report indicates there the study area contains over a total of 23.46 acres. That is a little misleading. The areas that really have redevelopment potential don't include Gideon Glen conservation open space property because there will not be any development there. With regard to the commercial portions of the area, there are two portions that are currently zoned commercial. He highlighted the properties that are zoned for commercial development on the northwest quadrant. They are: what used to be the gas station; the American Legion; the pole barn and storage (which used to be a car sales lot); the small apartment building; and, a vacant lot. He then highlighted the properties that are zoned for commercial development on the southeast quadrant. They are: the Oasis Market and Gas Station; an approved building pad that had been proposed for a Dairy Queen some time ago; and, some other commercial businesses as well. The area in the Study goes beyond that and shows the SSCC, the police and fire public safety facility, and the Shorewood Public Works facility. The acreage for the Public Works and public safety facilities are included in total in the Study; that needs to be clarified because they don't represent any redevelopment opportunities. The reason they are included in the report has to do with access and the relationship to Badger Park. The northwest quadrant of the intersection contains 4.52 acres which is all zoned commercial. The southeast quadrant is approximately 2.74 acres. There are two residential areas in the Study area for different reasons. There is a residential property located close to the public safety facility that is surrounded by higher intensity uses. The City needs to consider how that might be redeveloped in the future. That is slightly more than 1.5 acres in size. There are a westerly couple of lots in the northwest quadrant that may or may not end up as part of the Study area. The area is about 2.4 acres in size almost divided equally between the two lots. The acreage that can potentially be redeveloped needs to be clarified in the Study. Nielsen stated earlier in the day he received some good advice encouraging him to view this Study as a resident might when viewing it for the first time. He then stated if he were a resident trying to find information in the report for the first time it would be challenging. He thought there needs to be additional work done on the report. The background information could be elaborated on explaining what the various sites are currently used for, what their acreages are, and what their characteristics are. That would provide a clearer depiction of what is in the Study area today. There should be more information on the existing uses and zoning of the various land areas. The areas that are developable should be clearly identified. He suggested that the sketches be incorporated into the report in some fashion. Also, there should be some consideration given to incorporating the concept plan into the report. Earlier in the day someone told him that even more detail could be useful. Nielsen distributed a list of what will become the guiding principles stated in the vision statement and displayed it on the screen. They are as follows. 1. The project in this area will result in a unified/ coordinated pattern of development. 2. The use or mixture of uses of the property in the study area should be based on market needs. 3. Site design should take advantage of views afforded by existing natural areas and parks. 4. Uses within the Study area shall be arranged to create a transition between higher intensity commercial development and surrounding lower density housing. 5. Any housing component should add to and enhance the variety of housing choices in the community. 6. Commercial activities should serve not only the residents of the project area, but the community as a whole. - -3 7. Access to and egress from and circulation within Smithtown Crossing must be pedestrian /bicycle friendly. S. Usable, inviting outdoor spaces shall be incorporated into the development. 9. Landscaping will be natural and substantial, diminishing parking lot massing and softening and framing buildings on the site. 10. Attractive and articulated architecture with pitched rooflines and natural materials will reflect the residential character and quality of the community. 11. Reduction of building mass may be achieved by using a combination of the following techniques: a) variations in roof line and form; b) use of ground level arcades and covered areas; c) use of protected and recessed entries; d) inclusion of windows on elevations facing streets and pedestrian areas; and, e) retaining a clear distinction between roof, body and base of building. Nielsen noted number 11 was not included in the vision statement. He stated because the Planning Commission had not seen the list of guiding principles until this evening he did not expect the Commissioners to comment on them this evening. Nielsen stated with respect to the Study he thought there needs to be a summary of the recommendations. One of the things he discovered as he has been talking with people about the report is he has to pick through the report to look for the recommendations. They need to be consolidated into one spot. A revised report should be publicized better and for a longer period of time. There is a link to it on the City's website but he did not find it easy to get to the report. He suggested having a longer period of time for comment. He then suggested people be provided the ability to comment on the report via the City's website. The responses should also be accessible on the website. Nielsen recommended that before a revised Study is sent back to the Council for consideration it should be reviewed and discussed by the Planning Commission during its January 17, 2012, meeting. He stated another public hearing could potentially be scheduled for March 6, 2012, to allow for a 30 -day period of time for comment and publication. He recognized to the Commission that this is new information and a turn in direction. Chair Geng stated he thought Director Nielsen made this abundantly clear, but he would like to emphasize it. The Planning Commission undertook the Study because it recognized that at some point the area that has been identified as the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study area is going to be redeveloped. The Study was not undertaken in response to any specific proposal from any developer. It was in anticipation that at some point the area would be redeveloped and the Commission thought it prudent for the City to have voice in it to help guide it and direct it in a way that would benefit the entire community. He reiterated there is no plan. This effort was just a study. It's a work in progress. From the very beginning all of the Commissioners have been concerned about ensuring this was a very transparent process. Throughout the last two years the Commission has sought public input. Geng then stated he was speaking for all of the Commissioners when he expressed his appreciation for having so many residents in attendance to provide public input. Public input is very important to the Commission. The Commission wants to do the best job it can for the City. It's hard to do that in a vacuum. Geng asked those in attendance who want to comment to come to the podium, give their name and address, and keep their comments as brief as possible to provide everyone who wants to be heard with that opportunity. He noted there is a sign in sheet, and for those that have not signed in he asked them to do so before they leave this evening. W Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:55 P.M. He noted there were about 14 residents present. Steve Dietz, 24680 Smithtown Road stated his property is just on the west end of the area under discussion. He commented that based on his professional career he understands the value of getting community involvement. He apologized for coming late to the game. He also apologized in advance for any misunderstandings and any mistakes he may make with regard to what he understands is being proposed. He commented he is only part way through the Comp Plan 2008 Update. Mr. Dietz then stated when people are asked if they prefer unified or hodge podge redevelopment they are going to respond unified. If they are asked if they would like to have the ugly eyesore commercial development upgraded or developed in a unified manner the exact same number of people will respond with a yes. But, if you ask them if they would like you to encroach on the existing, single family home residential area and build a forty -five -foot high block -wide multi -unit housing next to them the response would be very different. From his vantage point, the rezoning of the single family homes is required in order to make the commercial redevelopment possible. He noted he didn't think the report indicates that. Mr. Dietz noted that he thought it was useful to see the conceptual design. He stated the open space is primarily for people whom now live in the redevelopment area. People that don't live in that development are not going to bike to the space and have a picnic there. The City's character is primarily single family residential. The Comp Plan land use section states the City will strive to maintain this character. He noted the report doesn't make any case for converting single family property to multi -use housing independent of the commercial development. He recommended separating the residential lot in the northeast quadrant out. He questioned how the residential property located adjacent to the commercial property (which the City now owns) gets rezoned. That property abuts his property. He suggested a separate case be made for those two residential properties. Mr. Dietz stated he could not find the link to the Study on the City's website. He then stated by the City buying the residential property that it did before the zoning changes went into effect the City now has a vested interest in converting a single - family residential property into a multi -use property. That could potentially result in a conflict of interest situation for the City. He suggested making the City -owned property a park. Mr. Dietz explained that his well went dry a few years ago. In the past year his well has been identified as having dangerous levels of arsenic. He asked what this additional water use will do to the water table. He then asked if the City has researched if the water table can sustain that additional draw on water. He stated he applauded the desire for the City to figure out what to do in advance. But, if there is no pressing plan then from his vantage point there isn't a rush. He asked the City to separate out the commercial development from the single family home development. Chris Poison, who lives on the west side of Echo Road (which is the east side of the development area) asked if eminent domain will be applied to any of the commercial or residential sites in the Study area in this process. Chair Geng stated there has been no discussion of eminent domain by the Planning Commission over the last two years. Mr. Poison asked if it is possible that could happen. Geng responded anything is possible, but he doesn't see that happening. Geng clarified that the City isn't trying to drive this redevelopment. It is attempting to influence any future redevelopment of the Study area. The City has no interest in condemning properties in this area. Market forces will drive the redevelopment, and it's likely that it will not happen for years because of the state of the economy. Director Nielsen noted that the City has been loath to condemn land for any purpose in the past. Nielsen explained that recent - -5 developments over the past few years have made it more difficult to take properties through the process of eminent domain. Mr. Poison then asked what the probability is for high density housing or apartments and condominiums being part of any redevelopment of the area. Chair Geng responded he wouldn't hazard a guess. Geng stated it will be private development that will drive this redevelopment. If /when a developer comes forward the City will look at what they are proposing, if it will benefit the City and if there is a market for it. Mr. Poison asked if the Metropolitan Council will be involved in any redevelopment in some manner. Geng stated before the Study becomes part of the City's Comp Plan it does have to be submitted to the Met Council for review and comment Linder state law. Mr. Poison asked if the Met Council is pressuring to get something done with the Study area. Geng stated this came about from the City. Mark Flanders, 5695 Christopher Road stated his property is located on the western side of any redevelopment. A redevelopment could impinge upon site lines and the wooded area which has already been thinned out as part of the Gideon Glen project. He understands that because the area is underdeveloped it doesn't create a very significant tax base. He then stated there may be some benefit for the City to explain to residents what the future tax revenue could be if the area were to be redeveloped. He noted that as a homeowner he would be opposed to taking out single family properties. He asked what the American Legion's role is in this. He stated if the intent is to have mixed use development (commercial and multi -unit housing) in the northwest quadrant, he asked if the Legion would be interested in moving to the southeast quadrant or some other part. He also asked if senior housing could be built in the southeast corner where there could be easy access to the SSCC. If so, he didn't see a need for taking out any single family properties. He suggested adding information about what the Legion may or may not want and add that to the City's website. Chair Geng explained that relatively early in the process the Planning Commission invited the affected land owners in the Study area to a study session. The American Legion was represented at that meeting. The Legion is interested in redeveloping its facility. It indicated during that meeting that it would be open to some type of collaboration. It expressed a strong desire to stay in Shorewood and be part of any redevelopment that occurs. Mr. Poison asked if the American Legion is opposed to relocating as part of a redevelopment. Chair Geng responded he did not know the answer to that. Director Nielsen stated he has had conversations with developers over the years even before the Study was started and one of the developers did explore the idea of relocating the Legion. He does not know what the Legions reaction to that was. Nielsen then stated the Legion wants to stay in the City, work with the City and see that corner redeveloped. Nielsen noted the Legion is a key player in any redevelopment of the Study area because it owns a good share of the land in the northwest quadrant. Mr. Poison asked that some consideration be given to focus more on the redevelopment of the southeast quadrant where it won't impact existing home owners. That would reduce the need for more acreage on the northwest quadrant. Scott Zerby, 5680 Christopher Road noted he was speaking from the perspective of a resident and property owner this evening. He thanked the Planning Commission and Director Nielsen for the work they have done on this Study to date. He stated his issue is the two residential properties along Smithtown Road that could become part of the Study area. He expressed he disagreed with guiding principle # 5 which is "Any housing component should add to and enhance the variety of housing choices in the community." He stated it comes down to having a buffer between the residential area and the commercial area. He explained that basically all the residential properties to the west of the area are one -acre homestead lots. He noted that buried in the Study it states that in exchange for a developers concessions a - -6 new building could potentially be as tall as 45 feet; 45 feet is measured to the midline of the roof. In theory the top of the roof could be 55 — 65 feet above ground. That's a stark contrast when compared to the house next to the area which he guessed could be about 20 feet tall. He expressed he had a concern about the process. The Planning Commission has solicited the concerns of residents, but it doesn't appear it has responded to them. He stated he reviewed the minutes of the first Planning Commission meeting held after the open house and he was disturbed to find very little discussion about the comments made by residents during the open house. He noted that Nielsen told him that no changes were made to the Study based on the feedback received. A word wasn't changed or added. He stated if the City is going to ask for resident feedback it should be recognized and acted on. Brian Meghan, 5670 Christopher Road commented that his background is in real estate development. He stated that earlier this evening Director Nielsen suggested the Study be revised. Nielsen stated that is correct but the Planning Commission hasn't taken any action yet. Mr. Meghan noted that he knows Nielsen professionally and personally. Mr. Meghan stated he assumed the meeting with the landowners only included those who own land in the Study area. He noted that up until the open house input was not solicited from property owners who could potentially be impacted by a redevelopment of the area. Mr. Meghan highlighted comments made in the letter he and his wife wrote to the City and Planning Commission regarding the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study dated October 23, 2011. The highlights are as follows. The vision statement seems well thought out albeit a bit idealistic. It's unlikely that any mixed use redevelopment will be pedestrian or bicycle friendly or neighborhood friendly. The shoulders on Smithtown Road are too narrow to safely use, and although the traffic flow at the intersection of County Road 19 and Smithtown Road is controlled it is still a bad intersection for non - vehicular traffic. There is no good route of travel to get safely to the LRT to the north, to the east on County Road 19 or to the west on Smithtown Road. Keeping any proposed redevelopment more in line with the residential characteristics of Shorewood would be critical to its acceptance in the community. The City doesn't need a big box retailer, a developer who will come in to take what they want in the way of municipal subsidies, make lots of promises, follow through on only a few, and then sell it to an investor or group looking to clip a coupon with no interest in what is happening in the community. It's all about economics for most developers. With regard to landscaping, unless the City requires planting of very large trees (which is outside of the scope of most developers' budgets) it is unlikely anything will be done to the site lines. Coordinated redevelopment makes a lot more sense than a piece meal approach. If done properly it would result in a nicer mix of assets. The Study area intrudes further into a residential area than any other areas in the City with the potential exception of the area around CUB Foods. That commercial development stops before it really intrudes into a residential area. The homes along Lake Linden Drive across from that development were basically built after the development was done. When the CUB site was redeveloped a few residential properties were taken in the back. The Study area intrudes heavily to the west. The benefit of having taller buildings for commercial development is it's cheaper to have more space under a smaller roof in terms of cost to build and long term maintenance. Land use should focus on low to moderate density housing in the western most portion of the Study area with considerable open and heavily landscaped space buffering the properties immediately to the west. Buffering and land use transitions will be critical in gaining support from the residents in their neighborhood. Care should be taken with the property immediately to the east of the SSCC as it abuts a residential neighborhood. - -7 When Gideon Glen was acquired it was done to preserve the natural woodlands. It was promptly clear cut and serves as a drainage pond for the Smithtown Crossing Shopping Center located in Tonka Bay. He does not see the purpose of including Gideon Glen in the Study. That area has already been designated as a natural area by the City unless there is a plan to allow a portion of this property to be rezoned. Any competent developer or investor will know to take advantage of the site lines Gideon Glen offers in spite of the fact that it has been decimated. Vehicular access to and from County Road 19 from the northwest quadrant should be pushed north of the existing intersection with Smithtown Road to provide for better ingress and egress from that development area. The City's Planning Department is better suited to address those issues than he is. With regard to phasing the redevelopment, in reality the Study area actually includes only three potential areas of redevelopment — 1) the area at the northwest corner of the intersection of County Road 19 and Smithtown Road; 2) the area on the south side of County Road 19 and north of City Hall and Badger Park; and, 3) the area north of County Road 19 and south of the City's Public Works facility. Area 3 is quite small and can only be redeveloped in one phase. It won't be a multi phased development. Area 2 could be a phased development. It is a relatively small site that would likely be redeveloped as a small retail use or service use. Area 1 will likely be a phased development with part of it being for some commercial uses and potentially some housing. From his vantage point it would be better to build lower density housing. He thought it prudent for the City Council and the Planning Commission to consider the future redevelopment of the Minnetonka Country Club property as part of this Study if it's anticipated that it will have a change of use over the next 3 — 10 years. The 24250 Smithtown Road residential property is an island in an area that is generally commercial. It makes sense to rezone it. It could potentially accommodate a moderate to high density multifamily redevelopment or an institutional type of user (e.g., a senior center, a VFA, Community Center, library, post office). With regard to drainage, Gideon Glen already provides drainage for a shopping center that is not located in the City. He questioned why there is concern about requiring pending on the northwest quadrant. Any ponding is going to involve Gideon Glen. It's not possible to hold that much water on that quadrant. Director Nielsen clarified that Gideon Glen is not sized to accommodate the drainage for the lots in that quadrant. The drainage for it has to be accommodated on site. Mr. Meghan stated that will be difficult to support economically. The 40 — 45 foot height restriction for any redevelopment of the northwest quadrant does not include the roof. hl reality the height will be 50 — 65 feet. TIF may be a popular tool, but he doesn't think it's a prudent use of taxpayer dollars. He asked why taxpayers should partially fund a development from which third parties will benefit. He then asked if the City is prepared to utilize its power of eminent domain if necessary to acquire all of the properties needed to maximize the redevelopment potential of the site. He also asked how the City will offset the loss in tax revenues from parcels it acquires if it ends up owning them for a number of years. The second draft of the Study appears to suggest the broader public /community involvement. The City didn't notify the residents that would be affected by a redevelopment of the Study until September 23, 2011. The only meeting with them was held on October 4, 2011. Several City COunc111nembers and Planning Commissioners did not attend that open house. He interprets that to mean they don't care about the input from residents. The second draft references the County Road 19 Corridor Study which was adopted in 2003. That document has not been provided to the residents. Mr. Meghan concluded by saying he believes that a comprehensive redevelopment of many of the properties in the Study area could be a very positive thing for the community. The City Council and City Staff should take into consideration the residents who have been paying taxes to the City for a long period of time more than they have. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:33 P.M. Chair Geng thanked all of the residents for coming this evening. He also thanked those who addressed the Planning Commission. He assured them the Commission will take their comments into consideration. He noted this is a process and not a fait accompli. He stated that he felt bad that some residents felt they were excluded until recently. The Commission has attempted to be open and inclusive. He noted this has been an ongoing process undertaken by volunteers. He stated the process has not gone as quickly as the Commission would have liked, but that may ultimately be a blessing based on the feedback provided by residents. On behalf of the Commission he reiterated the Commissioners were thankful for the feedback they received this evening. Chair Geng stated the Planning Commission needs to consider the input the residents provided this evening. It also needs to consider the suggestions made by Director Nielsen earlier in the meeting about the Study. Commissioner Garelick stated on his way to this meeting he saw a for sale sign at the former gas station. He asked how that would impact the Study. Director Nielsen stated the Council has asked Staff to research that. Nielsen noted that it is in the Study area. Administrator Heck noted that property did go to Sheriffs sale and it was sold as a foreclosure in that sale. Nielsen stated Staff is researching who bought it. Chair Geng stated based on the public input received this evening he asked if it's realistic to be in a position to hold another public hearing in January 2012. He thought that could be ambitious. Director Nielsen stated lie suggested getting a revised document back to the Commission for its January 17, 2012, meeting and holding a public hearing in March 2012. Commissioner Hutchins stated based on some of the comments made this evening that could be somewhat of an aggressive timetable. Hutchins then stated input from the entire community needs to be taken into account; not just those living in the area close to the Study area. Nielsen clarified that would be the quickest it could be done, but it doesn't need to be done by then. Commissioner Arnst stated from her perspective revisions to the Study area is a topic for a work session. It should be the only item on that agenda. Commissioner Hasek asked if the redevelopment of the Smithtown Crossing area was specifically addressed in the resident survey that was recently conducted. Administrator Heck responded the survey didn't contain any questions that specifically addressed Smithtown Crossing or the redevelopment of that area. Heck stated there were walk ability questions and general questions about services. Hasek then stated a January timeline is too aggressive. It should be included in the Planning Commission's 2012 work program. Chair Geng stated there appears to be consensus among the Planning Commissioners to take the time needed on this. There is no sense of urgency. He stated he endorses Commissioner Arnst's suggestion that a work session be devoted to discussing the comments received from the public to date. Chair Geng closed the public hearing at 8:43 P.M. ILG