03-20-12 Planning Comm Study Session
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, 20 MARCH 2012 7:00 P.M.
A G E N D A
CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE
GENG (Jan) ______
HASEK (Open) ______
HUTCHINS (Apr) ______
CHARBONNET (Open) ______
GARELICK (Mar) ______
MUEHLBERG (Open) ______
DAVIS (Feb) ______
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
6 MARCH 2012
1. DISCUSSION – SMITHTOWN CROSSING
2. DETERMINE REMAINDER OF 2012 LIAISON SCHEDULE
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
4. OLD BUSINESS
5. NEW BUSINESS
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
7. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
SLUC
Other
8. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 2012 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Davis, Hasek, Hutchins and Muehlberg; Planning Director
Nielsen; and Council Liaison Siakel
Absent: Commissioners Charbonnet and Garelick
Chair Geng welcomed Larry Muehlberg who is a newly appointed Planning Commissioner.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Director Nielsen asked that Item 3 be removed from the agenda.
Davis moved, Geng seconded, approving the agenda for March 6, 2012, as amended. Motion passed
5/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 21, 2012
Chair Geng noted that Commissioner Charbonnet had informed him that he had no changes for the
minutes as prepared.
Davis moved, Hutchins seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
February 21, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
1. SITE PLAN REVIEW
Applicant: Dan Krieter
Location: 450 Lafayette Avenue
Chair Geng reviewed how this item will be handled this evening.
Director Nielsen explained Dan Krieter, with Mathias K Builders, has submitted plans to substantially
renovate the house on the property located at 450 Lafayette Avenue. He explained Lafayette Avenue
(which is basically a very narrow driveway) serves four lots on a peninsula of land extending into Lake
Minnetonka. All of the lots are thru lots; they go from shoreline to shoreline. The subject property is very
substandard. The property is zoned R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland and contains
approximately 6370 square feet of area. The applicant proposes to essentially take the upper level of the
house off, underpin the existing foundation, and then put a new upper level on the house.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
March 6, 2012
Page 2 of 12
Nielsen noted the City Zoning Code was changed in 2011 to make it consistent with State Statute with
regard to nonconforming structures. He explained State Statute, and now the City’s Ordinance, allows
that a person gets to put back what is there even if it is torn down. The City’s old rule was if it was
destroyed to 50 percent or more of its value it had to be put back in compliance with the setback
requirements. The Code allows an expansion of the nonconforming structure provided the expansion
meets all of the requirements of the zoning district in which it is located. That does require Planning
Commission review and recommendation and City Council approval.
Nielsen explained the house started out as a summer cottage and it has been added on to a number of
times. The existing house has a bad foundation that does not meet building code requirements. The
second floor has some sagging; it was never quite structurally correct.
Nielsen then explained the hardcover exceeds the maximum allowed for a shoreland lot. Hardcover is
38.11 percent and 25 percent is the maximum allowed. Even though the applicant will expand the house
somewhat he will reduce the hardcover to 34.4 percent; a substantial reduction. With regard to expansion
of nonconformities he noted the City Ordinance states the City is looking for better compliance with the
Code requirements.
Nielsen noted there are two subdivisions in the Code that deal with nonconformities. They are found in
Section 1201.03 General Provisions Subd. 1.d. and Subd. 1.i.
Nielsen explained two of the ways the applicant proposes to reduce hardcover is to remove some of the
concrete walkways that are not necessary to the structure and remove the existing gravel driveway. The
applicant proposes installing a “geo-grid” system in place of the gravel driveway. Approval of the permit
should include engineered drawings for the geo-grid system. He noted that technically the Ordinance
doesn’t recognize a geo-grid system but it does achieve the reduction in hardcover. He suggested the
Planning Commission consider adding a provision for this to the Ordinance in the future.
Nielsen reviewed how the applicants request complies with the Code Section 1201.03 Subd. 1.i. which
addresses the requirements for allowing the expansion of nonconforming structures.
1. The proposed plans do not increase the nonconformity and in many ways lessens the
nonconformity. The expansion areas comply with setback requirements.
The applicant has spoken with the two adjoining neighbors. One of them has provided comments
in writing noting they have no objection to the proposed project and have granted approval to the
contractor to use their property as necessary to do the renovation. The applicant has indicated the
other neighbor will also submit something in writing. The part of the current house that is very
close to the property line on the west has a pitched roof. The applicant proposes making that a flat
roof. Doing so will lessen the visual impact of that portion of the remodeled building on the
property to the west. The other side of the roof will be flat as well. Although the applicant is
going to increase the size of the second floor, the expansion will be in compliance with setback
requirements. The renovated building will maintain a traditional cape cod character and therefore
fit it in with the existing neighborhood.
Nielsen noted he has never worked with an applicant whose architect worked so hard to fit
something onto an oddly configured tiny lot.
2. The house and existing garage do not exceed 30 percent building to floor area ratio.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
March 6, 2012
Page 3 of 12
3. The proposed design should fit in with the existing neighborhood. The neighbors appear to agree
with the proposed project and as of this meeting one has expressed their support in writing.
4. The impact on the two adjoining residences is considered to be minimized.
5. Although the existing structure is too close to both side lot lines, there is no opportunity to make
up a deficiency on the other side.
Director Nielsen noted Staff recommends approval of the site plan subject to engineered plans for the
geo-grid parking space being submitted with the building permit.
Chair Geng asked Mr. Krieter, the builder, if he had anything to add. Mr. Krieter stated Bob Shaffer, the
architect, is credited with coming up with a design that would work.
Bob Shaffer, with the Foundation Architects, stated the goal was to make a renovation work, look good
and fit in. He thought the plan works nicely on the inside as well. He noted the existing house has a lot of
deficiencies. A lot of work is being done with the existing house to make it work. He stated it is more
sustainable to work within the confines of the existing house than it is to tear the house down and rebuild.
He explained that he had met with Director Nielsen numerous times, reviewed the Code and came up with
a plan that will work with the Code requirements. He stated the applicant is excited about the plan. He
reviewed a lot of details about the renovated house.
Commissioner Muehlberg stated that Subd. 1.i.(2) states “… the expansion shall not increase the floor
area of all structures to lot area ratio to greater than 30%.” He asked what that means. Mr. Shaffer
explained that only 30 percent of the area of the entire site can be building. Director Nielsen explained
that any floors above grade are counted in the calculation plus the garage. That square footage cannot
exceed 30 percent of the lot.
Mr. Shaffer stated it was a difficult lot to work with. He noted there is a driveway that runs through the
middle of the lot that goes to two neighboring properties. That increases the impervious surface quite a
bit. The two frontages on Lake Minnetonka also create difficulties. He noted the renovated house will
have great views of the Lake.
Commissioner Hasek asked Mr. Shaffer to provide the square-footage area for the two floors and the
garage. Mr. Shaffer said the garage is 306.5 square feet and the house footprint is 969 square feet. He did
not have the square footage for the second level with him. He noted that Director Nielsen had worked that
through. Nielsen noted he does not have the square footage information with him this evening. Hasek
asked to be provided the square footage area so he can understand how the building to floor area ratio was
arrived at.
Hasek then asked if the entire driveway was factored into the hardcover calculations. The response was it
is. Hasek explained that the Planning Commission has discussed how a driveway that serves more than
one lot should be factored into hardcover calculations for each of the lots served. He asked if maybe only
one-third of the driveway should count for the subject property because the driveway serves three lots. He
then asked if there is a granted easement for the driveway in the deed. Director Nielsen stated he assumes
there is an easement for the driveway but he doesn’t know that for sure. Nielsen then stated the shared
driveway can be factored into the decision, noting the City doesn’t have a policy on that. Nielsen went on
to state the driveway is effectively like the street for that property. In the past the City has at times stated
the shared driveway would not be counted as hardcover and the land underneath it would not be factored
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
March 6, 2012
Page 4 of 12
into the hardcover calculations. Hasek suggested the Planning Commission have more discussion related
to shared driveways and hardcover calculations.
Hasek stated the meeting packet contains a drawing for the site that shows everything. He thought it was
difficult to read. He questioned if it that could be split into two drawings. Part of his rationale is that he
wants to know what the existing hardcover currently is and what it is proposed to be. Mr. Shaffer stated a
larger copy of a site plan had been submitted to Director Nielsen.
Hasek asked Director Nielsen if he counted the land between the garage and the driveway as hardcover in
the hardcover calculation; a vehicle could be parked there. Nielsen stated he does not think the
calculations included that very small strip. Hasek stated he thought that should be included in the
calculations because a 3.7 percent reduction in hardcover is considered substantial and that small strip
could significantly change the reduction percent.
Hasek stated one of the improvements proposed for the nonconforming building mentioned the flat roof
on the new portion of the structure; it won’t be visible to the adjoining properties. From his vantage point
he doesn’t think the neighbors can see the roof that is on the current structure. Mr. Shaffer stated the real
difference will be that the overhangs will be eliminated and the new flat roof will come down a little bit
also. He explained the current framing for the roof is actually above the roof and it will come down with
the new roof. He noted that one of the overhangs is almost into the neighbor’s property. Hasek asked if
there is something in the Code that says factors in a reduction in the impact on the adjoining property.
Director Nielsen stated from his perspective visually it is. Hasek stated that substantial reduction needs to
be quantified from his perspective.
Mr. Shaffer showed Commissioner Hasek a larger drawing.
Commissioner Hasek stated from his perspective things need to be tightened down in order to
demonstrate to Council that all things have been considered.
Hasek stated Exhibit C, the proposed site plan, shows a high water line and he asked if that is the ordinary
high water line. Director Nielsen stated ordinary high water line is what is used, not the front property
line, and the ordinary high is 929.4 feet. Hasek asked Mr. Shaffer why the front yard property line and the
ordinary high water line are not parallel on the drawing. Mr. Shaffer explained his rationale for how
things are drawn. Hasek challenged Mr. Shaffer to make sure the site plan drawing is correct. Mr. Shaffer
noted the drawings and calculations were done in a way that was the least beneficial for his client. He
erred on the side of the City.
Chair Geng stated he thought the applicant and the architect did a commendable job of designing the
renovation of the home to conform to the zoning requirements.
Director Nielsen noted that he has met with at least three owners or prospective buyers of the property
and all of them wanted to do things that were well outside of what the City Ordinance requires. This is the
first applicant that has tried to work to make it fit.
Chair Geng asked Commissioner Hasek what he is looking for that he doesn’t have for this application.
Hasek responded a solid calculation of the floor area ratio; the square footage of the second floor is
needed. Geng stated it’s his understanding that Director Nielsen has that information. Nielsen noted he
has it in his office.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
March 6, 2012
Page 5 of 12
Commissioner Hasek asked if the applicant is going to be rebuilding a small portion of the now removed
second floor. The response was yes. Hasek stated that is the piece that violates the setback requirements
on the east side of the property. The response was that is correct. Chair Geng stated it will be a little
smaller because the overhang will be eliminated.
Chair Geng asked Commissioner Hasek if it is acceptable to him to have Director Nielsen provide
Council with the second floor square footage. Hasek stated he will not have a problem with that as long as
things are tightened down.
Commissioner Hasek asked Council Liaison Siakel if anything he has mentioned is out of line with what
Council is looking for. Siakel responded she is comfortable with what Director Nielsen has
recommended, and if Nielsen has the square footage calculation information all is well.
Director Nielsen asked Commissioner Hasek if he wants the hardcover calculation to be redone removing
the driveway and the land underneath it from the calculation. Hasek stated he did not think it would hurt
anything. Nielsen noted that would be for information only; it is not required by Code. Hasek reiterated
what he thought the current hardcover percent is and what it will be reduced by the. [He stated the current
hardcover is 52 percent, but the staff report says its 38.11 percent.] He also noted he does not think there
is a lot more that can be done.
Hasek moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of the expansion of a nonconforming
structure for the Campbell Residence located at 450 Lafayette Avenue subject to engineered plans
for the geo-grid parking space being submitted with the building permit, the building to floor area
ratio being verified and provided to Council, and an additional hardcover calculation be done
which excludes the shared driveway and the land underneath it. Motion passed 5/0.
Chair Geng asked Director Nielsen when Council will consider this item. Nielsen responded during
Council’s March 12, 2012, meeting.
2. SUSTAINABILITY – LOW MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING
Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission’s work plan for 2012 includes three items listed as Best
Practices in the Minnesota GreenStep Cities Program having to do with landscaping. They are: 1) adopt a
policy of no net loss for specified natural landscapes; 2) adopt landscaping/nuisance ordinances that
promote, rather than create barriers for, native vegetation; and, 3) low maintenance turf
management/native landscaping. GreenStep Cities provided resources and links to what some other cities
have done. There are some suggestions the Planning Commission may want to incorporate into
Shorewood’s City Code.
With regard to the item of “no net loss of natural landscapes”, Nielsen explained Staff found out that most
other cities have adopted wetland ordinances and/or tree preservation ordinances. Shorewood adopted
rules in the early 1970s setting wetlands aside. The City’s current rules also provide buffers and setbacks
from those wetlands. The City has also been enforcing tree preservation and reforestation for many years.
He suggested clarifying the wetland ordinance regarding what is and is not allowed in wetland buffer
areas. He explained that the current understanding is it is to be left in its natural state. If it is disturbed in
any way it is to be restored to its natural state. The City has told people they can remove Buckthorn from
the wetland buffer area because the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) wants it out.
With regard to the item “promote, rather than create barriers for, native vegetation”, Nielsen explained
that a lot of cities have nuisance ordinances containing provisions that state if grass is over a certain
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
March 6, 2012
Page 6 of 12
height it is considered a public nuisance. That creates a barrier for someone who wants to plant prairie
grasses. He noted the City Code does not contain such a provision. It has been discussed in the past but
the City has too many natural areas to consider such a requirement. He stated in the past the City has
addressed the issue of a lawn that is overgrown or unsightly by conducting a weed inspection. He asked
the Planning Commission if there is any interest in having a grass length ordinance. He stated if there is it
should include language to allow for alternative landscaping. He noted the City has not had a problem to
date with someone planting an out-of-place prairie treatment. Some cities with a grass length ordinance
require residents to get a permit for alternative landscaping.
With regard to the item “low maintenance turf management/native landscaping”, Nielsen stated he
thought this should fall under the Park Commission’s jurisdiction because it has to do with City park
property land management. He noted the City did a little of this with the City Hall property and it turned
out well. The maintenance of the plantings has been minimal.
Nielsen reviewed some policy items for the Planning Commission to address with regard to residential
properties. Does anything need to be done about unwanted vegetation (e.g., noxious weeds, grass length,
etc.)? Is it important to maintain choice (some people like turf grasses a lot)? The City does enforce state
regulations regarding noxious weeds. Should the City educate people about and encourage use of
native/natural landscaping rather than take a regulated governmental approach?
Nielsen then reviewed some policy items for the Planning Commission to address with regard to
nonresidential properties. Should there be a requirement for professional design? The City’s code already
calls for that. Should there be maintenance requirements? The City Code already requires a business to
have some means of maintaining any landscaping it puts in; specifically irrigation. Is it important to
maintain choice? Some business owners may prefer a formal landscape as opposed to natural landscape.
Should the City encourage the use of and provide incentives for native/natural landscaping? He stated
from his perspective if a business liked the look of a natural landscape the incentive of not having to put
in an irrigation system might be enough.
Director Nielsen asked Commissioner Hasek to briefly talk about the difference between “native” and
“natural” plants/landscaping.
Commissioner Hasek stated there is some confusion about what is native and what is natural. He
explained the Webster Dictionary defines native plant as “natural, grown, produced originating in a
particular place or vicinity living or growing naturally in a particular region; indigenous.”. The definition
of natural plant is “having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature, not
cultivated, growing without human care, closely resembling an original true to nature, having a form or
appearance found in nature”. He noted native is natural but natural need not be native. He explained
cultivars (a plant that has been introduced into the landscape because it has been cloned from other plants
or happened accidentally) are neither native nor natural.
Hasek then stated that one of the reasons so many native plants are not cultivated for sale is because they
are difficult to cultivate and grow in a nursery. Therefore, native landscapes are difficult to achieve. He
explained this area is in what is called a maple-basswood climax forest. It is the major grouping of plant
materials that run through the metropolitan area. There are no native pine and spruce trees in this part of
the country. Natural landscapes are created using cultivated plants that closely resemble native plants
emulating their natural form and appearance. He noted that many native tree species such as American
Elm, Cottonwood, Willow, American Linden, and Evergreen in a lot of cities are prohibited from being
planted because they are considered to be weak trees. He commented that to consider planting native
landscapes is basically impossible.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
March 6, 2012
Page 7 of 12
Director Nielsen stated he thought the maple-basswood trees in the Gideon Glen area are considered
natural and native.
Commissioner Hasek stated a lot of cities don’t allow anything to be planted in the wetland buffer area.
Director Nielsen noted the City requires it to be left in its natural state; the state before the property was
developed. Nielsen explained in some cases altered wetlands have been restored.
In response to a question from Commissioner Hasek, Director Nielsen explained for a lot of record where
there is no conservation easement over a wetland buffer area they are not required to meet the setback or
maintain the buffer. The property can be built up to the edge of the wetland.
Director Nielsen explained that more recently for any plats or subdivisions approved there is a
requirement for a conservation easement over the wetland buffer area which is 35 feet wide and then there
is a 15-foot-wide setback that the property owner has to maintain. There is a total of 50 feet between the
edge of the wetland and any structure. The buffer has to be left in its natural state. There have been a few
exceptions where in the development process the City has allowed retention ponds to be created in the
wetland buffer area. That was mainly because that is where the water flows to and the ponds protect the
wetlands. Buckthorn removal has also been allowed. The City has been tolerant of people removing dead
or dying trees from the buffer area.
Commissioner Hutchins asked Director Nielsen if residents have complained about the length of grass on
other properties. Nielsen stated that over the years the City has received some complaints, but not a lot of
them. Maybe it receives one a year. Nielsen explained if someone neglects a lawn to the point where the
grass is reaching 8 – 10 inches high the weed inspector will likely be able to find a noxious weed growing
in the lawn. Once a noxious weed is found either the person at the property cuts the grass or the City
personnel do. He stated he thinks the City has the authority to go on a lawn if there are noxious weeds
there. He commented the City hasn’t received complaints about foreclosed properties and that is a likely
place for it to happen. Hutchins questioned if there is a need to have an ordinance to address something
that has not been a problem.
Hutchins then asked Nielsen if there have been any commercial properties in the City that have planted
prairie grasses. Nielsen stated there are not. Nielsen stated to some degree prairie grasses have something
to do with size and scale. When prairie grasses are planted in very small areas they tend to look unkempt
or overgrown. He noted most commercial properties do not tend to have a lot of land/yard area. He
commented the commercial properties can have natural landscaping.
Chair Geng asked Director Nielsen how he wanted to approach this topic. Nielsen suggested addressing
each question.
Director Nielsen asked the Planning Commission if it thought the Code should be amended to address
unwanted vegetation (i.e., noxious weeds or grass length) or is the current Code satisfactory. He stated if
the current Code is satisfactory he stated he didn’t think much has to be done to accommodate natural
landscaping. The City could educate the public about the value of natural landscaping and use the City
Hall property as an example. It takes very little maintenance and watering to keep it looking good.
Nielsen stated in the GreenStep Cities model he found a provision that would not allow provisions that
require turf landscaping when considering development agreements. Often development agreements have
a protective covenant in the homeowners’ agreement that stipulates the yards have to have a certain
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
March 6, 2012
Page 8 of 12
percent of the yard covered in turf grass. A change could be made to prohibit that provision in a
declaration of covenants. The homeowners would not be required to have turf grass. If the homeowners
want grass it should be up to them. Chair Geng asked if there are any such protective covenants in the
City. Nielsen responded he thought there may be one or two. Geng asked what would happen to existing
protective covenants if the City decides that is no longer allowed. They would exist in perpetuity.
Commissioner Hasek stated if the City makes a decision not to allow such protective covenants and then a
development’s yards become unsightly he asked what the City could do about the unsightliness. Director
Nielsen explained that removed provision would be replaced with something else about landscaping.
Hasek asked how Buckthorn fits in. Nielsen responded it doesn’t. Hasek stated it makes no sense to
eradicate Buckthorn from public areas in the City while letting it grow on private property and in
wetlands. Nielsen agreed that Buckthorn is a complex problem. Nielsen noted the City applied for a grant
to help fund the removal of Buckthorn from some areas in Freeman Park.
Commissioner Davis stated she thought property owners would remove more Buckthorn if the City would
take it and get rid of it, noting it has to be burned. The City would have to pay to dispose of it. Owners of
properties near a wooded area cannot obtain burning permits. Yard waste drop-off sites don’t want it
either. She explained in her neighborhood it has taken 10 years to remove Buckthorn from one half of the
boulevard. She noted it has to be removed three years in a row to actually get rid of it, and it has to be dug
up. She stated she lives adjacent to 27 acres of wetland and it is full of Buckthorn. She then stated her
preferences are to protect the wetland buffer areas and to find a way to get rid of Buckthorn or at least a
lot of it.
Chair Geng stated that because the City is 95 percent developed he wasn’t sure protective covenants about
turf grass are a problem that needs to be addressed. Commissioner Hutchins agreed and stated there are
higher priority issues to deal with.
Commissioner Davis stated it may be a public service to encourage residents to use less water. It’s a
moral issue and a sustainability issue. Chair Geng agreed with her. Director Nielsen stated that could be
done as part of the education process on the benefits of natural landscaping.
Chair Geng suggested having something on the City’s website encouraging people to come and look at
the natural landscaping at City Hall and in other communities, and telling them about the benefits of
having natural landscaping. It could remain on the website permanently.
Director Nielsen stated with regard to landscaping requirements for commercial properties he asked the
Planning Commission if it thought it would be worthwhile to amend the Code to add language
encouraging, but not requiring, natural landscaping. Or as an alternative, amend the City’s
Comprehensive (Comp) Plan to encourage natural landscaping. Chair Geng stated the Comp Plan may be
the more appropriate place to address it. He noted the City doesn’t have that many commercial properties.
The Comp Plan could address the desire for sustainable landscaping in general.
Nielsen explained the Smithtown Crossing Study Report includes language about natural landscaping. He
asked the Planning Commission if that language should be more specific or if it should be elaborated on.
He stated that could be discussed as part of the Smithtown Crossing discussion scheduled for the March
20, 2012, Planning Commission work session. Commissioner Davis agreed with discussing it then. Davis
stated those specifics would be discussed when a developer decides to redevelop the area. Commissioner
Hutchins stated he thought the Report addressed that.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
March 6, 2012
Page 9 of 12
Commissioner Hasek stated he thought it important to address natural landscaping in the Comp Plan. He
then stated from his perspective the teeth of the Comp Plan are the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the
Zoning Ordinance should also address it. He went on to state after the Planning Commission decides
where to amend the Comp Plan about this topic he suggested Staff provide direction about where to
amend the Zoning Ordinance accordingly.
Director Nielsen noted the Ordinance tends to implement the Comp Plan. He stated under the irrigation
ordinance there could be a provision that stipulates a commercial property could get around the irrigation
requirement by having natural landscaping.
Director Nielsen stated he has enough to move forward with. He explained he will review the wetland
buffer part of the Code. Staff will do some research on Buckthorn eradication and disposal. The Comp
Plan will be reviewed to determine where natural landscaping and sustainability fit it. He will talk with
the Communications Coordinator about putting information on the City’s website about natural
landscaping.
Chair Geng asked Council Liaison Siakel how the Buckthorn removed from Freeman Park will be
disposed of. Siakel responded she does not know that answer. Geng stated he was the liaison to the
Council meeting when the matching grant for removing Buckthorn in Freeman Park was discussed but he
doesn’t recollect there being any discussion about disposal. Commissioner Davis stated it has to be
removed and burned. Siakel stated she will ask Engineer Landini because he has been coordinating the
grant application process.
Commissioner Davis suggested the Southshore Community Center operations manager schedule a session
about natural landscaping later this spring close to planting time.
Director Nielsen stated he will gather and prepare more information for further discussion.
3. ZONING CODE DISCUSSION – GENERAL PROVISIONS
This item was removed from the agenda at Director Nielsen’s request.
4. APPOINT CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2012
Chair Geng asked the Planning Commission if it wants to continue this item to a future meeting because
two Planning Commissioners are not in attendance. Commissioner Hasek stated he didn’t think there is a
need to do that because a quorum is present.
Hasek moved, Davis seconded, recommending the nomination of Thomas Geng to the position of
Planning Commission Chair and David Hutchins to the position of Planning Commission Vice-
Chair for 2012. Motion passed 5/0.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
6. OLD BUSINESS
Commissioner Hutchins asked Council Liaison Siakel and Director Nielsen about the status of the Trail
Budget. Nielsen stated the budget is under discussion. Hutchins stated he thought something was
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
March 6, 2012
Page 10 of 12
allocated for trails for 2012. Nielsen stated that is correct. Nielsen explained there have been questions
raised about trail expansion costs.
Council Liaison Siakel stated Council wants to have a lot more discussion about costs. Siakel then stated
Council has discussed the idea of having the Planning Commission take on a greater role with trails. She
explained that during its February 27, 2012, meeting Council discussed overlaying the Trail Plan into the
already overlaid 20-Year Pavement Improvement Plan and draft 20-Year Water Plan. She explained the
Ad Hoc Trail Committee prioritized potential trail projects and Staff made a guestimate of what it would
cost to implement the Trail Plan. There is a lot more work that needs to be done on the Trail Plan and cost
estimates before Council approves moving forward with any trail segment.
Chair Geng asked Council Liaison Siakel what Council thinks the Planning Commission can contribute.
Siakel explained the Commission could make recommendations on the type of non-vehicular access (e.g.,
a trail, a sidewalk, or a path), where the access should be located, and the physical aspects of them. One
of the trail segments identified in the Trail Plan would be along County Road 19 from the LRT Trail
down to approximately the bus garage property. When the Ad Hoc Trail Committee discussed that
segment it was told that segment would be easy and relatively inexpensive to construct. It will be more
costly and complicated to construct than originally thought. She stated the Council thinks more thought
should be given to that segment and some of the other top priority segments before committing to
anything. She stated that from her perspective it’s more appropriate for the Commission to assume
responsibility for implementing the Trail Plan, noting the Park Commission will have some say about
trails. She then stated trails should be built into the Planning Commission’s 2012 work program.
Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission has a great deal of experience with public hearings and
neighborhood issues. He noted that trails are as much about transportation as they are about recreation.
Chair Geng clarified he is not questioning Council’s thoughts about having the Planning Commission
being involved.
Council Liaison Siakel asked the Planning Commission if it would be open to taking on the responsibility
for implementing the Trail Plan and working with Council on it. There was support from the Commission
to do that.
Commissioner Hutchins stated that what he is hearing is there isn’t any question about the priorities of the
trail segments identified in the Trail Plan. There is question about the implementation of the Plan.
Commissioner Hasek stated the Trail Committee put that short segment of proposed trail along County
Road 19 at the top of the priority list because of the pending creation of an overpass at the LRT Trail and
County Road 19 crossing. He noted construction of that overpass has been pushed back one year. He
stated there was an accident on Smithtown Road the previous week and that reaffirms the need to build
connections between neighborhoods and schools.
Council Liaison Siakel noted that Staff has done a great job of researching grant opportunities for
matching funds. She explained that Council is concerned about the possibility of the City accepting a
grant that has to be used for a specific trail segment during a specific timeframe without knowing the
actual costs for the project upfront. She noted the high-level cost estimate for the short segment of trail
along County Road 19 is $72,000. Council was concerned the cost could be much higher yet the City
would have been committed to doing it because it accepted that particular grant. Council needs more
information before it decides what the best use of City funds for trails and connections is. She stated she
thought it would be very helpful to have the Planning Commission assist with trail projects.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
March 6, 2012
Page 11 of 12
Commissioner Hutchins asked if there has been any thought given to reviving the Ad Hoc Trail
Committee, noting the Committee members may be getting asked questions about the Trail Plan and the
implementation of it. Council Liaison Siakel stated that was discussed briefly during the Council and Park
Commission joint work session. Hutchins suggested the Committee be brought up to date. Director
Nielsen stated he thought it would be wise to let the Committee know that the Planning Commission is
going to become more actively involved with the Trail Plan. Hutchins stated it would be helpful to let the
Committee know about Council’s concerns about things such as construction costs.
Council Liaison Siakel stated there was Council discussion to refer to the connections as safe passage
ways rather than trails. Director Nielsen stated the Trail Committee did try to address that. The Trail Plan
Implementation Report states that the term trails encompasses sidewalks, paths and so forth. Each
segment will be analyzed to determine what the appropriate type of passage way is for that segment.
Nielsen noted the specifics for the short segment along County Road 19 will be dictated if it is
constructed in the County right of way (ROW).
In response to a question from Commissioner Hasek, Director Nielsen stated the short segment of trail
along County Road 19 is being specked out as an 8-foot-wide bituminous surface.
Director Nielsen noted the very first cost estimates put in the Trail Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
were way too low. That is why the Trail CIP was pulled from the Trail Plan Implementation Report.
Director Nielsen stated the City Engineer is working on the feasibility portion of that trail segment. He
explained it should be “relatively” inexpensive when it is compared to other segments with ROW issues
and wetland issues and bad soils. It is possible electrical poles won’t have to be moved to construct the
trail. He stated there should not be any neighborhood opposition to that segment of trail.
7. NEW BUSINESS
None.
8. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Chair Geng stated the March 20, 2012, Planning Commission meeting is dedicated to discussing the
Smithtown Crossing Study Report. Director Nielsen asked to possibly take five minutes of that meeting to
discuss the Zoning Code Study General Provisions item on the Commission’s 2012 work program and to
lay out the various topics for that Study. Nielsen noted that item was pulled from this evening’s agenda.
In response to a comment from Chair Geng, Director Nielsen noted he is meeting with a senior housing
developer on March 7. The developer is interested in two locations in the City with one of them being the
Smithtown Crossing study area.
Commissioner Davis noted the Garden Patch property is for sale and she stated that may be a better place
for senior housing because the area is more walkable. Director Nielsen noted the soils on that property are
very poor.
9. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
March 6, 2012
Page 12 of 12
Planning Commissioner Davis reported on matters considered and actions taken at the February 27, 2012,
Regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). She stated representatives from
the League of Women Voters Minnesota made a presentation about the League’s position on voter ID
during Council’s February 27, 2012, meeting and she found the presentation to be very interesting and
thought provoking. She encouraged the Planning Commissioners to go to the League of Women Voters
Minnesota’s website www.lmvmn.org and look at its information on voter ID.
• SLUC
Commissioner Hasek asked who is going to report on the Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC) going
forward. Director Nielsen stated he will take on that responsibility, noting it may just be about upcoming
sessions.
Commissioner Davis stated the upcoming SLUC session is on homeowners association liabilities.
Director Nielsen stated he may buy the DVD for that session. Davis asked if any of the Planning
Commissioners attended the SLUC session on stormwater management, noting she had a prior
commitment that day. She stated the DVD of that session may be worth seeing.
Director Nielsen noted that he and Council Liaison Siakel attended a session earlier in the day about
stormwater management. It was put on by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. He thought the two
case studies presented to the attendees, one successful and one unsuccessful, were very interesting. Siakel
and Nielsen elaborated on the unsuccessful stormwater management project the City of Minnetonka did.
Siakel stated there was discussion about the stormwater management effort associated with the West End
development in the City of St. Louis Park. She noted the City is doing many things right.
• Other
In response to a question from Commissioner Davis, Director Nielsen stated he is trying to get the
government training session scheduled for a Saturday in April.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Hutchins moved, Davis seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of March 6, 2012,
at 8:51 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
CITY OF
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD m SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 s (952) 960 -7900
FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us ° cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 14 March 2012
RE: Smithtown Crossing — Draft 3
FILE NO. Smithtown Crsg. Redev. Study
The Planning Commission directed staff to schedule a separate work session to discuss the
Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study. Specifically, the meeting is intended to go
through the comments received from area residents at the 4 October 2011 Open House
meeting (see Exhibit A, attached) and the 6 December 2011 Public Hearing (see Exhibit B).
In brief discussions held after the public hearing in December, there appears to be a
consensus on the Commission that certain improvements to the Study may be in order. Staff
has prepared some material based on Commission comments and identified areas that need
some further clarification.
Introduction. While the introduction describes the project relatively succinctly, there has
been some discussion of elaborating on the idea of unified vs. piece -meal development.
Going back to the very early discussions held by the Commission, we found a table that laid
out the advantages of unified development as opposed to piece -meal (see Exhibit Q. The
question is - should the table or something like it be incorporated into the Introduction
section of the study?
There has been some question relative the study area boundaries and the amount of land
that is actually available for development. It should be noted that the Study Area boundaries
are the same on all three figures of the report. The introduction to the report explains that the
westernmost boundary is left somewhat open and the boundary would depend upon a
particular development. With respect to actual acreages of parcels, the table in the Appendix
section of the report provides those. We recall some mention of possibly showing the
acreages on the map. Would the Commission find it useful to show the acreages for each
parcel on Figure I?
ss
f r ® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: Smithtown Crossing Draft 3
14 March 2012
Vision Statement. The Commission directed staff to revise the Vision Statement
section (Page 11) to "Guiding Principles ". Exhibit D shows changes to this section in
strikeouts (deletions) and in red lettering (additions). Do these changes reflect the
Commission's direction to staff?
Executive Summary. One of the criticisms of the report offered by residents was that the
recommendations are somewhat "buried" in the text of the report. Staff suggested that an
executive summary be incorporated into the Appendix of the report. A preliminary draft of
such a summary is provided for your consideration in Exhibit E, attached. For our study
session next Tuesday, it may be useful to compare the summary of recommendations to the
resident comments to see if there are additional areas that need clarification or revision. Does
the summary capture the recommendations contained within the Study?
As part of the discussion on Tuesday, we should talk about a date for a follow -up public
hearing and how (besides the normal mailing) the hearing should be publicized.
Cc: Mayor and City Council
Larry Brown
-2-
Smithtown Crossing Open House
October 2011 .
RESIDENT COMMENT'S
The Shorewood Planning Commission and City Council held an open house regarding the future
redevelopment of the Smithtown Crossing Study Area on 4 October 2011. Residents were invited to
submit their comments at the open house meeting, or return the comment sheet to City Hall at a later date.
Below please find a tabulation of the comments that were received.
Vision Statement
"Good statement... great to understand what the idea/strategy should be."
Piece -meal vs. Coordinated Redevelopment
"Holistic is better. I'd suggest a strong perspective on the "type" of housing which is considered... top
choice — single - family, 2 °d choice — senior housing, 3` — apartments."
"Coordinated preferably."
Planning Issues
"Can the American Legion be relocated? This would allow additional land without the need of removing
existing housing."
"Buffering and land use transitions were unclear at the meeting — some charts showed the housing in the
buffer zone and some did not. There is not enough property to add senior housing or any multi -level
housing."
Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation /Connection
"Good idea... the more pedestrian tie -in to the LRT the better!"
"Consider role of bike paths to the intersection of 19 /Smithtown and public transportation needs for
planned development on the corner."
"There is already too much traffic on Smithtown Rd. This redevelopment will make it even worse. It
will also increase "turnaround" traffic on Christopher Road which is already a problem. It would
necessitate a bike path on Smithtown which residents have opposed."
HousinE /Land Use (What is needed in Shorewood ?)
"I'm opposed to any plan that involves the removal of the single family home located at 24650
Smithtown Road as there needs to be a buffer between residential and commercial /multi - family use."
"Do not need senior housing. I do not support a multi -level complex, including a variance to exceed the
current height restrictions. I believe this portion of the redevelopment will decrease my property value."
Exhibit A
Other
"It's great that the City is taking a holistic view of who we should be and what we should "look" like."
"I'm also opposed to the thinning of the wooded area behind my home and that of my neighbors on
Christopher Road as this area helps reduce traffic noise from Hwy. 19 and obstructs views of commercial
signage."
"I support the redevelopment of the Legion properties (the gas station and the existing Legion building).
do not support a senior housing complex and new retail /business. We should support our existing
business! We have enough shops, dry cleaners, hair salons, insurance offices, banks, etc. nearby. We
moved to Shorewood for the "woods ". This redevelopment will require more destruction of green space.
I do not have confidence that our green space will be protected, similar to the Gideon Glen debacle where
too many trees were destroyed in order to preserve the trees."
Excerpt from 6 December 2011 t Commission
Re: Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC FEARING — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT —
SMITHTOWN 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 he 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;
Exhibit B
➢ 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;
➢ 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,
➢ 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. Tile 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.
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.
7. Access to and egress from and circulation within Smithtown Crossing must be
pedestrian /bicycle friendly.
8. 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.
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 tile
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 uoudennu land for any purpose in the past. Nielsen explained that recent
developments over the past few years have noodo it more difficult Votake properties through the process of
eminent domain.
Mr. Poison then asked what the probability is for high density housing urapartments and condominiums
being part of any redevelopment ufthe area. Chair Uengresponded hu wouldn't hazard ugueao. (}uog
atu1od it will be private development that will drive this redevelopment. If/when o developer uunoea
forward the City will look o1 what they are proposing, ifh will benefit the City and if there ixo market for
d. Mr. Poison asked if the Metropolitan Council will be involved in any redevelopment in some manner.
Gcug y1a1od before the Study bcnoonca part ufthe City's Comp 9luu it does have to be submitted iothe
Met Council for review and uonurncnt under state law. Mr. Poison asked if the Met Council is pressuring
to get something done with the Study area. Gcng stated this oumu about from the City.
Road, Mark Flanders, 5695 Christopher dated his property in located on the western side of any
redevelopment. & redevelopment could impinge upon site lines and the wooded area which has u|n:udy
been thinned out as part of the Gideon Glen project. He understands that because the area is
underdeveloped it doesn't create uvo[y significant tax base. He then stated there may be some benefit for
the City to explain to residents what the future tax revenue could he if the area were to be redeveloped.
He noted that as a horneowner he would be opposed to taking out single family properties. He asked what
the &oocdcun Legion's vo|o is in this. He stated if the intent is to have mixed use development
(uoonnncroia| and nuu|b'unh housing) in the nodbp/oat quadrant, be 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 p/horu there could be omay uoccaa to the SSCC. If so, be didn't see u need
for taking out any single family properties. He suggested adding infbnmo1iou about v/bo1 the Legion may
or may not want and add that 0othe Ciiy`mv/ebai{c.
Chair Oung explained that ro|u1ivo|y oudy in the pvoouaa the Planning Connnoiuuiou invited the affected
land uvvnem in the Study area to uyiudy 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 typo of collaboration. D expressed u 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 ofuredevelopment. ChuirGoog
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 no|ocuduA the Legion. He does not know vvhu1 the Legions reaction to that v/uo. Nielsen then
stated \bo Legion wants to a1oy in the City, work with the City and see that corner redeveloped. Nielsen
noted the Legion is ukey player in any redevelopment oftile Study area because it owns agood share of
the land io the northwest quadrant.
M,. Poison asked that some consideration be given to focus more on the redevelopment ofthe southeast
quadrant where it won't impact existing honneowners. Tha<would /educctbu uomd for more acreage on
the northwest quadrant.
Road Scott Zerby, 5680 Christopher noted he was speaking bnru the perspective of 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 ia the two remidoodu| properties along Smithtown
Road that could hcuonnc part oftile Study area. llo expressed hc disagreed with guiding principle # 5
which is "Any housing component should add /o and enhance the variety of housing cAo/oax 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
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 domes 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 |uod use toonadiooy will be critical in gaining support from the ncukenty in their
neighborhood. Cure should be taken with the property immediately inthe east of the S8CC as it abuts u
residential neighborhood.
When Gideon O|on was acquired it was done to preserve the natural v/uod|uuda. It was promptly clear cut
and serves as u drainage pond for the Smithtown Coumoiug Shopping Center located in 7onko Buy. He
does not see the purpose of including Gideon (]|on in the Study. That area has u|rcudv been designated as
u natural area hythe City unless there is ap}on to uUovv apodion 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 10 and from County Road l9 from the northwest quadrant should be pushed north ofthe
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
un:umofrudcvc|upnnent — l\ the area a1 the northwest corner of the intersection of County Road 19 and
Smithtown Road; 2) the area oothe south side of County Road lV and north of City Hall and Badger
Park; and, 3) the area north of County Road 19 and mouth of the City's Public Works facility. Area is
quite anou\| and can only he redeveloped in one phase. It won't he unnuUi phased development. Area 2
could be aphusod development. It is urc|a1ivc|y anauU site that would likely be redeveloped as u annu||
retail use or service use. Area l will likely be u phased development with part of it being for xunoo
connnne,cio| uaoo and potentially some housing. yronn his vantage point it would be better to build |ovvcr
density housing.
He thought it prudent for <hc City Council and the Planning Commission to consider the future
redevelopment of the Minnetonka Country Club property as pun of this Study if it's uudoipu1cd that it
will have uuhunSc of use over the next — 10 years. The 24250 Smithtown Road residential property is
all island in an area that is generally commercial. It noukoa sense to rezone iL It could po1cndu||y
uccononnodu10 u moderate to high density nouki[unoi|y redevelopment or on institutional type of user (e.g.,
a senior center, uVFA, Community Center, library, post office).
With regard to drainage, Gideon Glen already provides drainage for shopping center that is not |ouo1cd
in the City. He questioned why there is concern about requiring pooding oil the northwest quadrant. Any
ponding is going to involve Gideon Glen. It's not pouoih|o 0o hold that much water on that quadrant.
Director Nielsen c|udfiod that Gideon Glen is not sized to ucuonnnuodu1c the drainage for tile lots in that
quadrant. Tile drainage for it has to be uoconunuodu1cd on site. Mr. Megbun aiu1ed that will he difficult to
support economically.
The 4O-45 foot height restriction for any redevelopment ofthe northwest quadrant does not include the
roo[ In reality the height will be 50 — 65 D:ut TDP may be u popular tool, but he doesn't think it's x
prudent use of taxpayer dollars. He asked why taxpayers should partially fund a development from which
third parties will hencDL He then asked if tile City is prepared to od|izo 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 |oao in tax revenues horn parcels it uuqnirco if it ends up owning
them for u number ofyears.
The second draft of the Study appears to suggest the broader public/community iovo|vonuont. Tile City
didn't notify the residents that would be affected hyu redevelopment oftile Study ond| September 23,
2011. The only meeting with ihcno was held on October 4, 2011. Several City Counci|nncnnboo and
Planning Commissioners did not attend that open house. He interprets that tu nncuu they don't care about
the input 8rorn residents. The second draft references the County Road l9 Corridor Study which was
adopted in20O3. That document has not been provided to the residents.
Mr. Meghun concluded by saying he ho|invem that a comprehensive redevelopment of many of the
properties in the Study area could be o 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. |Te assured them the Commission will take their comments into consideration. He
noted this is u process and not o 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 du1cd the process has not gone as quickly as the
Commission would have liked, but that may ultimately hu u blessing based oil the feedback provided by
residents. On behalf of the Commission lie reiterated the Commissioners were thankful for the feedback
they received this evening.
Chair Gcug $u1cd 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.
CorunoiauionerGure|ick stated on his way \othis meeting he saw u for sale sign u1 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
Sheriff sale and it was sold as a foreclosure in that sale. Nio|aou stated Staff io researching who bought
it.
Chair Gong 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 hesuggested getting a revised document back to the Commission for its January 17, 2012,
meeting and holding upub|ic hearing in March 2012. Commissioner Hutchins a\utud based on some of the
oononnenim made this evening that could be morncv/hut 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 bu the quickest it could be done, but b doesn't need 0u be
done hythen. �
Commissioner /\,no1 aio1ud from her perspective revisions <othe Study area is u1opiu for uvvork scxymn
I\ should be the only itcno oil that agenda.
Commissioner Husck 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 ofthat
area. Rcok mtu1cd there were v/u|k ability questions and guucru| questions about services. Roxok 'then
stated u January timeline is ion aggressive. It should be included in the Planning Connnuixyion's 2012
work program.
Chair Gong stated there appears to be consensus among the Planning Cononnioeionco to 1uko 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 Gong closed the public hearing a1 8:43 P.M.
Unified /Coordinated Piece-meal Redevelopmenj
Smithtown c: g
Unified /Coordinated
Maximize exposure to County Rd 19
Maximize view of Gideon Glen
Efficient drainage
P.U.D. provides flexibility relative to
internal setbacks - more efficient use of
land
Opportunity for joint -use parking
Opportunity for 75% hardcover (site is
large enough for on -site treatment)
Consolidated access
Project identity - "Smithtown Crossing"
Possibility of City assistance (e.g. T.I.F.)
Pedestrian access /circulation
Efficiency of landscaping
Piece -meal
Only two properties front on County Rd 19
Two properties - no view
Each site provides its own rate control and
volume storage
Strict adherence to setback requirements
Each site provides its own parking
Maximum 66% hardcover (individual sites
too small for treatment solutions)
Potential congestion from multiple access
points
Each business on its own
Each owner on its own
Less attractive to pedestrians (crossing
driveways and parking lots
Each site on its own
Exhibit C
Draft 3/10
�.
While readers are encouraged to read the entire Study, following is a summary of the
recommendations included therein:
➢ Encourage unified /coordinated redevelopment versus a piece -meal /individual approach.
➢ Consider various incentives to achieve coordinated and higher quality development.
➢ Utilize Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and establish parameters for mixed use
(residential and commercial).
➢ Incentives and rewards will be tied to compliance with the City's redevelopment "guiding
principles ".
• Consider relaxation of height limitations (possibly increase from 40 to 45 feet)
• Consider higher densities of residential use where compatible with surrounding
uses.
➢ Require marketability and traffic studies for proposed activities.
➢ Provide for bicycle /pedestrian connections and circulation within the Study Area.
➢ Require substantial, natural, low maintenance landscaping in order to create buffers and
achieve incentives.
➢ Include public /common open space internal to the project.
➢ Encourage well articulated architecture with pitched rooflines, tiered levels, interesting
shadowing and natural materials.
➢ Consider use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to encourage land assembly, common
open area and high quality architecture and landscaping.
➢ Consider City acquisition of land as it becomes available to help facilitate land assembly.
C
C Exhibit E