06-11-12 CC Planning Joint WS AgendaCITY OF SHOREWOOD
WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
& PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, JUNE 11, 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
Planning Commission
Geng, Chair
Charbonnet
Davis
Garelick
Hasek
Hutchins
Muehlberg
B. Review Agenda
2. Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study
3. Discussion on Zoning Permits
Planning Director's
memo
Planning Director's
memo
4. Adjourn — 7:00 p.m.
t
I
IiTOWN
SIN
Public Works
— I }
So. Lake Mtka.
Gideon Gl en Police & Fire
-T AA il
� — ~w +� Road
grcrltht:
IrdDR.-A
June 2M2
Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction................................................. ..............................1
PlanningIssues ............................................. ..............................7
Redevelopment Guiding Principles ................ .............................11
Plan............................................................. .............................13
• Zoning Parameters
- Commercial: C -1
- Residential: R -313
• Update Regulations
- Mixed Use
- Building Height
- Senior Housing Density
• Design Criteria
- Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation
- Landscaping
- Architecture/Materials
ConceptSketch ..................................................... .............................19
CityParticipation ...................................................... .............................23
• Tax Increment Financing
• Land
• EDA
Appendix
• Planning Inventory
• List of Meeting Dates
• Traffic Volume Map
C
Ir
O
10
0
E 0
Executive Summary
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 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.
➢ 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.
C
O
0
E 0
0
ii
� y 7
•'.N{: - - ' `� .'.� '+ " f ,; a r 1 * �
J le
4
V
'bmk JAA 1 � t p , , r • y� � ` } ,,�
�,A
Y. A
a
Bad
'bmk JAA 1 � t p , , r • y� � ` } ,,�
�,A
Introduction
Geographically, the intersection of Smithtown Road and County Road 19 (Smithtown Crossing)
is relatively centered in the City of Shorewood. The City considers the area surrounding the
intersection to be somewhat of a northern gateway to the community. As such, considerable
time, energy and money have been invested to enhance the area. The City has developed a
"civic campus" including the Shorewood Public Works Facility, the South Lake Public Safety
Building, the South Shore Community Center, and a newly remodeled City Hall. Badger Park
and the Gideon Glen Conservation Open Space area provide active and passive recreational
opportunities for the area, and proximity to the Lake Minnetonka Regional LRT Trail provides
pedestrian and bicycle access for South Lake Minnetonka residents. Finally, the intersection
itself was redesigned and reconstructed in 2005.
To date, private investment adjacent to Smithtown Crossing has not kept up with public
investment. Commercial properties in the area are characterized as disjointed, with buildings
that are low- valued and underutilized and, in many cases do not comply with current Shorewood
zoning standards. In this regard, the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan has identified the area as
being prime for redevelopment.
In order to facilitate redevelopment that makes better use of land, better serves the residents of
the community, enhances tax base, reflects the quality and character of the community, and is
commensurate with the highly desirable, highly visible Smithtown Crossing area, the City has
begun exploring options and incentives to assist the area in realizing its true potential.
The Planning Commission began working on the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study in
early 2010. The study area boundary was established as shown on Figure 1, preceding, and
Figures 2 and 3 in the following pages. The study area contains a total of 10.9 acres and consists
of three locations: 1) the northwest quadrant of the intersection; 2) the southeast quadrant of the
intersection; and 3) the area north of County Road 19, just west of Shorewood Lane. The study
focused primarily on the northwest quadrant of the intersection, which contains anywhere from
4.52 to 6.56 acres, depending on how far west a project might extend. The southwest quadrant
of the intersection contains another 2.74 acres. The area to the north of County Road 19 has 1.5S
acres.
A brief planning inventory, examining the various uses in the district, property ownership,
zoning and values was prepared and is contained in the Appendix of this report. With the
exception of the American Legion, a retail /office building and a small, nonconforming apartment
building, the area is predominantly occupied by auto - oriented uses (sales, auto repair, fuel
station, car wash, etc.). Two single - family homes are also included in the study area. Ir
(D
10
0
Page 1
E 0
0
_:
J
w
'umi MI- I
4
OV i
P K
A -Jill Flamnam- -
L
,
dr
MA
t , -
I lk
s i
s
+�
IT,
a
rte. Rd.
I
C
,365
J °
-
R' ' � a
_ 1 Badger Park ,
o ..
1 a
Js -
r
P K
A -Jill Flamnam- -
L
,
dr
MA
t , -
I lk
s i
s
+�
IT,
a
rte. Rd.
I
C
,365
J °
-
R' ' � a
_ 1 Badger Park ,
o ..
1 a
Js -
Planning Issues
One of the first steps taken by the Planning Commission in its study was to identify planning
issues associated with the study area. Following are a list of issues identified to date. These are
also illustrated on Figure 2 on the following page.
• Study Area west boundary (it was decided that this edge of the study area could
remain somewhat flexible, in the event a developer chooses to acquire one or more of
the single - family residential lots that lie west of the commercial area)
• Land uses (considerable interest has been expressed in exploring mixed use for the
Study Area
• Buffering and land use transitions
• Taking advantage of views into Gideon Glen while preserving natural views from
across and within Gideon Glen
• Access (vehicular) — to and from County Road 19 and to and from Smithtown Road
• Internal circulation — vehicular and pedestrian
• Phasing
• Redevelopment of lots on an individual basis versus unified /coordinated
development*
• Future development of golf course property
• Land use and zoning of single - familly residential property at 24250 Smithtown Road
• Pedestrian connection from Badger Park to north side of Smithtown Road
• Drainage **
*The table on the following page sets forth the advantages of unified /coordinated
redevelopment versus a piece -meal approach.
* *Note. This is a significant issue and supports the concept of a unified development
effort. The City Engineer advises us that properties within the study area not only
need to address rate control, but also the new volume of water that comes from
redevelopment. This supports the concept of a coordinated redevelopment scenario
versus piece -meal redevelopment of individual sites. Individually, the properties
would have to come up with their own ponding for each site.
C
O
0
Page 7
E 0
Unified /Coordinated versus Piece -meal Redevelopment
Smithtown Crossing
Unified /Coordinated
Maximize exposure to County Rd 19
Maximize view of Gideon Glen
Efficient drainage
Pl P[`P -m Pn 1
Only two properties front on County Rd 19
Two properties - no view
Each site provides its own seperate pond
for rate control and volume storage; more
land consumed by ponding
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
Strict adherence to setback requirements
Each site provides its own parking,
resulting in less efficient land use and
circulation
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
Efficiency of landscaping Each site on its own
Page 8
f�_!f�.ia
;� _
�'•
Flo
a� iUTW Y
� � `wl
I I
V
•
0
-1'4 1T_� M F,a-1 Ti T_-
L-3 w.J.6.wv Ur
k
A .
:4,
D-
rn
VIi
L;
C-
r
[ v
it
0 1, j , -
Redevelopment Guiding Principles
Having identified issues associated with the study area, it was determined that a clear picture of
what the City hopes to see for the subject area should be formulated — for lack of a better term,
we will use "redevelopment guiding principles ". This is the point where we step back and view
the area as we would like to see it, say in the next 10 -15 years. The redevelopment guiding
principles should be a positive expression of what the City wants, rather than a list of what we
don't want to see.
The proposed redevelopment guiding principles starts with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan,
which identified an interest in the following:
• Unified /coordinated development; assembly of land parcels
• Planned unit development
• Possible mixed use — commercial /residential
• Opportunity for additional senior housing
• Predominant retail and office uses versus service commercial*
*Since this was written, the Planning Commission held a meeting with real estate
development professionals, the consensus of whom indicated that there may not be a strong
market for retail. It was suggested that a stronger market may exist for personal service
commercial (i.e. banking, health and beauty services, etc.).
In addition to the above, the Planning Commission discussed other factors such as
pedestrian/bicycle circulation and connectivity, architectural treatment (e.g. residential character
and natural materials), natural landscaping, and compatibility with surrounding land use
activities as parameters for the redevelopment of the area. From this, the following was derived:
Redevelopment Guiding Principles — Smithtown Crossing
The project will result in a unified /coordinated pattern of development.
2. The use or mixture of uses of property in the study area shall be based on market needs
and analysis of detailed traffic study.
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. Any use of
land not currently zoned for commercial development shall be limited in building height 00
to 35 feet or two and a half stories. The westerly edge of the project area shall be densely
landscaped to enhance the transition.
0
Page 11 00
E 0
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. Useable, inviting outdoor spaces shall be integrated 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 roofline 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.
e. Retaining a clear distinction between roof, body and base of building.
C
O
0
Page 12 M R (D) W IM
E 0
Smithtown Crossing — Plan
From the very beginning of this study, it has been realized that properties within the study area
may develop or redevelop individually. It is not the City's intent to stand in the way of property
owners wishing to improve their land. Individual site development will be expected to adhere to
the development regulations currently in place.
What is the intent of this study is to encourage a higher level of quality than might occur with
piecemeal development under the current rules. In this regard, there are a number of ways that
the City can reduce regulatory obstacles and even incite or reward development built to the
higher standards envisioned by this study. The greater a project complies with the City's vision
for the area, the greater the incentive with respect to zoning flexibility and even City
participation in the project.
Zoning Parameters
With the exception of the public facilities located north of County Road 19 and the three
residential properties in the study area, all of the subject lots are zoned C -1, General Commercial
(see Figure 4). Individual lots must adhere to the standard of that zoning district, including
height limitations. Any coordinated development of several or all of the subject properties
should be done by Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.), using the C -1 District and the R -313,
Multiple - Family Residential District as the underlying standards for the project. Any use of
currently zoned residential lots shall be residential with building heights not exceeding 35 feet
and two and a half stories.
The single - family residential property on the north side of County Road 19 is surrounded by
commercial development in Tonka Bay and public facilities (public works, police and fire). The
City should be open to a rezoning of this site to R -C, Residential /Commercial.
Update Regulations
While the City's current P.U.D. provisions could be used to process a mixed use type of project,
involving a mixture of commercial and residential development, it is recommended that the
Shorewood Zoning Code be amended to specifically address mixed use. This update of the Code
would include provisions tying flexibility and reward to the level of compliance with City's
vision for the area. One such provision might include an allowance for additional building
height based on architectural design and extent and type of landscaping. For certain types of
housing in a mixed use project, higher densities than what current regulations allow might be C
considered where it could be demonstrated that the density would be compatible with
surrounding uses and where resulting traffic volumes would not adversely affect existing streets.
In this regard, a mixed use project would be required to submit a traffic study as part of its
application submittals. 00
Design Criteria
10
Inherent to any mixed use development project is attention to pedestrian and bicycle circulation. 1
0
Site planning should include both internal circulation as well as connections to existing and R
Page 13 2 M O� h� (D) W Im
E 0
- 10
C -1
x
*ftw L��
U��
C -1
M
it
0
� — 11 co
Smithtown Crossing
Study Area
k0
J
.Q
U
I
N
A
0 200 400 800
Feet
■ Shorewood Planning Department
06/12
R�2
int
MW
V
lim
Smithtown Crossing
Redevelopment
Zoning Districts
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
R- 1 A
Single- Family (40,000 sq. ft.)
R -1 B
Single- Family (30,000 sq. ft.)
R -1 C
Single - Family (20,000 sq. ft.)
R -1 D
Single- Family (10,000 sq. ft.)
R -2A
Single /Two - Family (20,000/30,000 sq. ft.)
R -2 B
Single /Two - Family (15, 000/20, 000 sq. ft.)
R -2C
Single /Two - Family (10,000/15,000 sq. ft.)
R -3A
Two - Family /Multiple (20, 000/30, 000 sq. ft.)
R -3B
Two - Family /Multiple (15,000120,000 sq. ft.)
Figure 5
COMMERCIAL
DISTRICTS
'
C -1
General Commercial
. C -2
Service Commercial
SPECIAL DISTRICTS
L -R
Lakeshore - Recreational
PUD
Planned Unit Development
S Shoreland
GD
General Development
RD
Recreational Development
NE
Natural Environment
\
FL
Fire Lane
Figure 5
future trails and sidewalk systems. Sidewalks built with the reconstruction of the intersection in
2005 will ultimately provide connection with the LRT Trail to the north and to the City
Hall/Badger Field complex south and east of the intersection. The County Road 19 Corridor
Study illustrates an entire network of pedestrian/bicycle segments to the east of the study area.
Smithtown Crossing should link to that system as well as extend west along Smithtown Road to
the westerly extent of the project.
Landscaping has long been
recognized as an effective
means of creating buffers,
diminishing the impact of
building massing, enhancing
architecture and screening
and cooling of parking lots.
The County Road 19
Corridor Study, adopted in
2003 sets forth concepts for
streetscaping along the
corridor as it passes through
Shorewood. These concepts
should be implemented on
both the County Road 19 and
Smithtown Road sides of the
project, converging at the n t
northwest corner of the Example: Landscaping, screening/coolingparkinglots
intersection. This public
right -of -way area should be redone and incorporated into the Smithtown Crossing design.
Current landscape practice focuses on natural designs that require low to no maintenance,
minimizing sprinkling and conserving water. Developers hoping to achieve additional density or
building height will want to
substantially exceed the
minimum landscaping
requirements currently found in
the City's zoning regulations,
both in terms of size and
quantities of plant materials.
Site planning and landscaping
C
for Smithtown Crossing should
incorporate some sort of public
space or common area that
invites visitors to spend a little
more time in the area, relaxing
or connecting with others.
Page 17
0
E 0
Example: Landscaping, pnblic space
It is not the intent of this report to
dictate a certain type of architecture.
This does not, however, diminish the
importance of this critical design
element. Shorewood has in the past
placed great value on buildings that
are in keeping with the residential
character of the community. While
no formal definition of "residential
character" exists, certain
characteristics have been identified
that begin to describe what the City
is looking for. Well articulated
buildings with pitched rooflines,
tiered levels and interesting
shadowing go far in mitigating the
visual impact of larger, taller articulation
buildings. Similarly, features such
as awnings, natural building materials, balconies and lighting help to diminish building masses
and create a human scale for the project. And, as mentioned in the previous section, nothing
does more to soften and enhance building than landscaping.
One of the incentives that can be explored in Smithtown Crossing is allowing somewhat taller
building height than what is allowed by Shorewood's current regulations. At present, the C -I
zoning district allows buildings to be three stories or 40 feet in height, whichever is least. It has
been suggested that the right project could be
built to a height of 45 feet, regardless of the
number of stories. The visual impact of such a
building can be mitigated by the means discussed
above as well as by building placement on the
property and use of the natural terrain. For
example, the topography found in the northwest
quadrant of the intersection may lend itself to
partially below -grade levels or underground
parking.
Q
0
Page 1 � (D ) W (M
E 0
Example: Architecture — diminish visual impact of
building height with construction materials, landscaping
Example: Architecture pitched roofs, natural materials, shadow,
Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Concept
(Insert New Text)
C
O
0
Page 19
E 0
240
6d
redt- -
X
+/
G '0
ide Glen
�Io t
C 0
n r i 5600
11, (1 -
................
A X
E X
Smithtown Crossing
�-_� Redevelopment
Concept Sketch
Ljj
fib
d sloult
,7ftblrc Orks Pub
.'B'adger Park
Figure 6
s, �� f
��
x
N®R
11, (1 -
................
A X
E X
Smithtown Crossing
�-_� Redevelopment
Concept Sketch
Ljj
fib
d sloult
,7ftblrc Orks Pub
.'B'adger Park
Figure 6
City Participation
While the plan for the redevelopment of Smithtown Crossing includes reducing regulatory
obstacles, that alone may not be enough to entice the type of development envisioned in this
study. Since the City's vision for the area requires development to substantially exceed current
regulations (e.g. extra landscaping, architectural standards, acquisition and combination of land
parcels), it will likely take some investment on the City's part. The greater the City's
involvement, the greater say the City has in how the property develops. Following are possible
ways in which the City can be involved.
Tax Increment Financing
Early on in the conversations about redeveloping the Smithtown Crossing area, tax increment
financing (TIF) was mentioned as a possible tool for enticing developers to invest in a project.
TIF is a financing tool that uses future gains in tax revenues to finance the cost of current
improvements, including - in some cases- writing down the cost of land. Shorewood has used
TIF successfully in the past when building the intersection at Old Market Road and Highway 7.
In that case, the City opted for a "pay -as- you -go" method where any future risk is assumed by
the developer. This is what is recommended for Smithtown Crossing. While there are projects
done involving cities assuming some or all of the risk, this method is not recommended for the
Smithtown Crossing redevelopment project.
Acquisition of Land
One of the most difficult obstacles to overcome in a redevelopment project is assembling land
for a unified, cohesive development. It is strongly suggested that, as parcels within the
redevelopment area become available on the market, the City consider acquiring them. These
properties should be viewed as an investment in the redevelopment and could be sold to an
ultimate developer "at cost" as a demonstration of the City's commitment to the project. This
would also provide leverage toward the City having more input on the type, quality and design of
the project.
Economic Development Authority
Shorewood already has an Economic Development Authority (EDA) which has been used
successfully in the redevelopment of the property currently occupied by the South Lake Public
Safety facility. The EDA can be useful with regard to tax increment financing as well as in the C
acquisition of property. Assisting in the correction of problem soils is yet another function of an
EDA. I'
O
10
0
Page 23
E 0
Appendix
c
O
E 0
Prop. Address
24620 Smithtown Rd
24590 Smithtown Rd
24560 Smithtown Rd
24530 Smithtown Rd
24470 Smithtown Rd
24450 Smithtown Rd
5680 County Rd 19
5660 County Rd 19
24365 Smithtown Rd
24285 Smithtown Rd
24275 Smithtown Rd
24245 Smithtown Rd
24250 Smithtown Rd J usti na k S. F. Res
24200 Smithtown Rd
R -2A 69154
1.59 $216,000 $243,000 $459,000
Smithtown Crossing Planning Inventory.xls
Owner
Use
Zonin
Area (Sq.Ft.)
Area Ac.
Land Val.
Struct. Val.
Tot. Val. Notes
City of Shorewood
Vacant
R -1C
45731
1.05
$150,000
$150,000
Hirsch
S.F. Res
R -1C
43303
0.99
$115,000
$186,000
$301,000
American Legion
Vacant
C -1
42107
0.97
$200,000
n/a
$200,000
Femrite
M.F. Res
C -1
14632
0.33
$90,000
$295,000
$385,000 Nonconforming use
Triple B Equities (Bury)
Auto Sales
C -1
41258
0.95
$410,000
$190,000
$600,000 Substandard building
American Legion
Bar /Rest.
C -1
51431
1.18
$264,000
$136,000
$400,000
American Legion
Fuel Station
C -1
15804
0.36
$195,000
$105,000
$300,000
HopHerr Props (Heartbr)
Ret. /Office
C -1
31694
0.73
$355,000
$45,000
$400,000
Subtotals
285960
6.56
$1,744,000
$1,017,000
$2,761,000
T C Stores (Oasis)
C Store /Fuel
C -1
62970
1.45
$770,000
$170,000
$940,000
Moore
Auto Sales
C -1
18199
0.42
$171,000
$169,000
$340,000
Howe
Auto Repair
C -1
17871
0.41
$166,000
$154,000
$320,000
Wash N Roll
Car Wash
C -1
20218
0.46
$177,000
$138,000
$315,000
Subtotals
119258
2.74
$1,284,000
$631,000
$1,915,000
24250 Smithtown Rd J usti na k S. F. Res
24200 Smithtown Rd
R -2A 69154
1.59 $216,000 $243,000 $459,000
Smithtown Crossing Meetings
The Shorewood Planning Commission has spent many months preparing the Smithtown
Crossing Redevelopment Study. Following is a list of Planning Commission meetings at which
the Study was discussed. Some of the "milestone" meetings have been highlighted and
summaries of selected meetings are provided below. It is worth noting that some of the early
discussions referred to Planning District 3 from the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan.
February 17, 2009
April 7, 2009
January 19, 2010
February 16, 2010
March 2, 2010
March 16, 2010
April 6, 2010 Tax Increment Financing (T.I.F.)
April 20, 2010 Vision Statement
May 4, 2010 Joint Meeting with City Council
May 18, 2010 Meeting with Landowners *
June 29, 2010 Meeting with Developers (Forum)
July 20, 2010
August 17, 2010 Discussion of Mobile Tour * **
September 14, 2010 Mixed Use
February 15, 2011
March 1, 2011
*The Planning Commission met with a number of owners of land within the study area. The
purpose of the meeting was to get feedback from them on issues related to redevelopment and to
illustrate to them the advantages of a unified, cohesive redevelopment versus a piecemeal
approach. The consensus of those attending the meeting appeared to agree with the direction the
Commission was proposing.
* *Early on it was determined that input from people who actually do projects was important to
the ultimate success of the project. A panel of development professionals was asked to comment
on the Vision Statement and the concept drawings that had been reviewed by the Commission.
The panel members all commented on the materials and then answered questions from the
Meetings (continued)
Commission. The general consensus of the panel was that Shorewood's development
regulations are in need of revision in order to make a redevelopment project viable. Four key
points were made:
1) The site is not well suited for retail commercial. Rather, some sort of service
commercial development (e.g. banking, personal services, possibly office, etc.)
should be expected.
2) The City should consider allowing something higher than the three stories allowed
under the current regulations.
3) Whether the housing element was market or senior, Shorewood's current density
limits are too low.
4) In this economy, redevelopment may not occur for some time.
'The Commission spent an evening visiting mixed use and senior housing projects. There
was consensus that two projects in Golden Valley, Town Square and the Commons, contained
elements that would be desirable for Smithtown Crossing. A mixed use redevelopment project
in Glen Lake (Minnetonka) illustrated how the impact of building height could be mitigated with
construction materials, siting, and landscaping. Some of the photographs used in this report
came from the mobile tour.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD - SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 ® (952) 960 -7900
FAX (952) 474 -0128 - www.ci.shorewood.w.us ® cityha1I@ci.shorewood.mn.us
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 24 April 2012
RE: Reconsideration — Zoning Permits
FILE NO. 405(Zoning)
Early in 2010, the Planning Commission considered an amendment to the Zoning Code that would
establish a system of "zoning permits" (see attached staff report, dated 25 February 2010 —
Attaclunent I). The proposal was recommended to the City Council on a 4 -2 split vote (see
Planning Commission minutes, dated 2 March 2010 and 6 April 2010 — Attachment 11 and III,
respectively). The draft ordinance considered at the public hearing is attached as Attachment IV.
The matter was considered by the Council at its 26 April 2010 meeting (see minutes — Attachment
V). As you can see the amendment died for lack of a motion.
In preparing this year's work program, members of the Planning Commission asked that this matter
be brought up for reconsideration. It is scheduled for the 1 May 2012 meeting. For what it is
worth, staff continues to believe that this would be a valuable tool for enforcing the City's Zoning
Code.
Cc: Larry Brown
Tim Keane
®91
% J S PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF
�HOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ® SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 e (952) 474 -3236
FAX (952) 474 -0128 ° www.ci.shorewood.mmus - cityhaI1 @ci.shorewood.mn.us
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 25 February 2010
RE: Zoning Code — Zoning Permits
FILE NO. 405(Zoning)
One of the items on the 2010 Work Program is consideration of an amendment to the
Shorewood Zoning Code, which would establish a system of zoning permits for
activities that are not addressed by the State Building Code. For example, the City
has requirements relative to decks and patios that, if less than 30 inches in height, are
not covered by the Building Code. The City's main concern has to do with location
and hardcover vs. the standard of construction. When a property owner inquires
about permit requirements we simply advise them that no pen is required, but the
feature in question must meet zoning requirements. Without a permit process there is
no way to monitor the activity for compliance. Further, when some owners find out
that no permit required, they also assume no rules apply.
Many cities have adopted systems of zoning permits to address such activities.
Nowhere is it better explained than in a brochure published by the City of Chanhassen
(see Exhibit A, attached). Not only does this explain the City's reason for requiring
the permit, but they explain the advantage to the homeowner of having a record of the
approved activity on file with the City.
Building Inspection and Planning staff have assembled a list of projects that would
require a zoning permit in Shorewood:
• Accessory buildings less than 120 square feet in floor area*
• Fences
• Driveways
• Temporary signs
• Sport and tennis courts
ATTACHMENT I
®g
iap* PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: Zoning Permits
25 February 2010
Patios and sidewalks
Retaining walls higher than three feet (no separate permit required when a
building pen is required for grading)
Above - ground fireplaces and cooking facilities, but not including portable
appliances
*Staff also proposes that the City's requirement for small sheds be made
consistent with the State Building Code. Currently, if a shed is less than 100
square feet in area, it does not require a building permit. The Building Code
allows sheds less than 120 square feet without a permit. Our suggestion is that a
zoning permit would be required for sheds less than 120 square feet in area.
Use of a zoning permit process also helps to minimize confusion. When a building
permit process is used for zoning matters, there is some assumption that there is a
provision in the Building Code relative to the activity. The zoning permit would
point people in the right direction — the Zoning Code.
It is recommended that Section 1201.07 of the Shorewood City Code be amended to
read: "ADMINISTRATION: CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY; ZONING
PERMITS " , with the items listed above as being subject to the permit process.
With respect to fees, staff suggests that the charge for zoning pen be kept
minimal. Currently, we charge $20 for fence and sign permits, and that is what is
suggested for a zoning permit. This basically covers some minimal paperwork and
one inspection.
This item will be discussed at the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, 2
March 2010. If the Planning Commission is in agreement with staff a public hearing
will be scheduled for 6 April 2010.
Cc: Mayor and City Council
Brian Heck
Mary Tietjen
Joe Pazandak
Patti Helgesen
-2-
7"t
FA
Zoning
P�&aIrml
1119'ar-1411
952-227-1160
tt
ON
What is a Zoning Permit?
A Zoning Permit is required for
the construction of structures that
do not require building permits.
The purpose of such a review is
to ensure the improvement meets
standard zoning requirements such
as setbacks, hard surface coverage,
structure height, etc.
Any zoning permit application that
fails to meet zoning ordinance
requirements will be denied.
What types of strUrctures
require a Zoning PEN
• Sport & tennis courts
• Patios & sidewalks
• One-story detached accessory
structures used as tool or storage
sheds, playhouses, and similar
uses, not to exceed 120 sauare
feet in building area
• Retaining walls less than four (4)
feet in height
• Docks
• Agricultural buildings
NOTE.- An inspection may be
required to verify zoning compliance.
A minimal fee will be required for
inspections, if necessary.
By completing a Zoning
Permit, you are protecting
your interests as a
I-Iow do I apply for a
Zoriing Perrynit?
CITY OF • WOOD
!D.
I
C.
I`
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Arnst, Hasek, Hutchins, Ruoff, Vilett, and Davis; Planning
Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Turgeon
Absent: None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 16, 2010
Hutchins moved, Arnst seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
February 16, 2010 as presented. Motion passed 6/0/1 (Vilett abstained).
1. ZONING PERMITS
Director Nielsen explained that there are a number of activities, such as driveways, patios, temporary
signs, etc. that are not covered by the Building Code, or are inappropriately handled by Building Permit.
These activities are however regulated by the Zoning Code. hn an effort to ensure these regulations are
followed, it is being recommended that a system of Zoning Permits be established.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Hutchins regarding fences and docks, Nielsen said that only
fences that are six feet or higher are covered by the Building Code, whereas zoning regulations apply to
all fences. The issue of docks was studied just a few years ago when it was decided not to require permits
for them as they are also regulated by the LMCD.
Director Nielsen said currently sheds under 100 square feet or less do not require a permit. Therefore,
they would become subject to a Zoning Permit. Furthermore, the code should be amended so that it refers
to sheds 120 square feet or less, making it consistent with the Building Code. Commissioner Arnst asked
if the plastic or canvas "garages" are regulated. Nielsen said they are subject to the same rules as sheds or
other buildings, and any violation of the rules is subject to enforcement on a complaint- basis. Chair Geng
suggested having something on the City website iinfori - niing people about the requirements for these
canvas structures.
Commissioner Hasek said he thought the $20 fee is too low and suggested it be at least $30. Nielsen said
he hadn't suggested raising the fee because he didn't want it to become a deterrent. Arnst said she
thought it should be based on actual cost to some degree. Nielsen said he would find out what the loaded
labor rate is for the Building Inspector and report that information at the next meeting on March l6`"
along with a draft ordinance for review. ATTACHMENT II
2. BYLAWS
Director Nielsen stated that, as suggested at January's training seminar, the rules, or by -laws, of the
Planning Commission should be reviewed annually to ensure they are up to date. He provided a model
ordinance published by the League of Minnesota Cities for review. He said the main item that stands out
to him is that Shorewood's rules, as contained in Chapter 201 of the City Code, does not have a residency
requirement for Planning Commission membership.
Chair Geng suggested that the Code state that the Commission's Liaisons interact with the other
Commissions on an as- needed basis, which would reflect what they actually do.
The Commissioners discussed the merits of the model ordinance, deciding to incorporate some of its
subsections into the current Chapter 201 of the City Code. A draft amendment of the Chapter will be
reviewed at the next meeting on March 16"'.
3. DISCUSSION — SMITHTOWN CROSSING REDEVELOPMENT
r
Director Nielsen shared his thoughts regarding the advantages of a unified approach rather than a piece-
meal form of development of the Smithtown Crossing area parcels. He said it may be helpful to have the
benefits laid out when presenting the concept for the area to landowners. The unified approach would
maximize exposure to County Road 19; maximize the view of Gideon Glen; allow drainage to be more
efficient and less expensive; be developed as a P.U.D. which would allow flexibility with setbacks;
parking could be shared; hardcover would be less restricted; access could be consolidated; more
pedestrian - friendly; businesses would be better identified; City assistance could be available via T.I.F.
and other incentives. These benefits would generally not be available with a piecemeal approach.
Nielsen presented a slide show of photographs of commercial business buildings which contain certain
elements that create residential character to various degrees.
Commissioner Ruoff inquired about the plan for the southeast quadrant and landscaping requirements.
Nielsen responded that it has its own set of issues, so the focus has been on the northwest quadrant for the
time being. As for landscaping, he said from the LRT Trail crossing to the north, and all the way to
Excelsior, commercial properties shall be landscaped consistent with the Co. Rd. 19 Corridor Study.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Commissioner Arnst distributed a handout containing examples of sustainability. Commissioner Hasek
requested that the Work Program schedule be adjusted to allow discussion of sustainability throughout the
year and to be a common thread in all topics of discussion.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
The March 16, 2010 Agenda will include review of draft Ordinance amendments regarding Zoning
Permits and By -laws; appointment of a Chair and Vice -Chair for 2010; determine Liaisons to Council for
remainder of the year; continued discussion of Smithtown Crossing.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
6 April 2010
Page 2 of 4
the carne criteria and is subject to other restrictions as outlined in the staff report dated March 31, 2010.
The applicant's lot does meet the criteria required by the Code, and the proposed house will conform with
the R -lA District setbacks.
Tom Velmer, the applicant's contractor, said that they would like to keep the existing garage for storage
as it is currently being used and, if necessary, tear it down after the house is constructed. He said the
applicant would also like to keep the deck and shed by the lake if there is any way to do so.
Mary Edwards, property owner, reiterated that she would like to keep the garage and shed. She said there
is a motorized ramp for getting down to the Lakeshore which ends at the deck and shed area and her
elderly mother couldn't get down to the lake any other way.
Commissioner Vilett asked if the nonconforming structures would have to be removed if this were a
remodel rather than a rebuild. Director Nielsen responded that if just a portion of the house were being
replaced through remodeling, and the replacement represented 50 percent or more of its value, the same
conditions would apply. The same rule applies if an addition to a house equals 50 percent or more of
increase in gross floor area. Nielsen pointed out that the ramp and stairs are permitted to remain,
including a landing area near the lake up to 4 by 8 feet in size. The only option for keeping the
nonconforming structures is to apply for a variance and demonstrate a hardship.
Commissioner Arnst asked if the garage could remain during construction. Nielsen said the practice has
been to allow that and require an escrow deposit to ensure its removal after construction is complete.
Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:26 P.M.
Commissioner Hasek asked if it was clear where the bluff is located on the lot because it appears that the
house could be moved closer toward the lake which would allow for a deeper garage to compensate for
storage space lost with the garage removal. Nielsen said the bluff line is very distinct at the site, but it's
possible that there is room to shift the house location.
Hasek moved, Hutchins seconded, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit subject to
the recommendations outlined in the staff report dated March 31, 2010, and to recommend that the
existing garage be allowed to remain on the site during construction and removed no later than two
weeks after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Motion passed 6/0.
2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — CODE AMENDMENT FOR ZONING PERMITS
Director Nielsen said, as has been discussed at previous meetings, a system of Zoning Permits is proposed
to require a permit for activities that are not adequately covered by the State Building Code, but are
regulated by the Zoning Code. He said he plans to prepare a brochure for Zoning Permits as a means of
information and education about the requirements.
Hutchins moved Vilett seconded, to recommend approval of the Code Amendment for the
establishment of a system of Zoning Permits.
Commissioner Davis commented that, as a homeowner, she thought this amendment was a form of
micromanagement. Commissioner Arnst agreed. The Commissioners discussed the pros and cons
of the proposed code.
Motion passed 4/2 (Davis and Arnst opposed). ATTACHMENT III
CITY OF
SHOREWOO
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 4 SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 ® (952) 474 -3236
FAX (952) 474 -0128 a www.ci.shorewood.mmus ® cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 11 March 2010
RE: Zoning Permits — Preliminary Draft
FILE NO. 405(Zoning)
Attached is a preliminary draft of the language establishing zoning permits for
activities that do not require building permits, but for which the City desires to
monitor. As always, deletions to the existing text are shown with stfikeouts and
additions are shown in red.
Relative to the Planning Commission's concern about what fee to charge, we found
that the Building Official's loaded labor rate is approximately $45 per hour. Based on
roughly one half hour of administrative /inspection time, we are suggesting a minimal
fee of $25 ($20 had previously been suggested).
The amendment will be scheduled for a public hearing on 6 April.
Cc: Mayor and City Council
Brian Heck
Mary Tietjen
Patti Helgesen
Joe Pazandak
ATTACHMENT IV
0%
®�® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Subd. 1. Certificate of occupancy.
a. No building or structure hereafter erected or moved, or that portion of an
existing structure or building erected or moved, shall be occupied or used
in whole or in part for any purpose whatsoever until a certificate of
occupancy shall have been issued by the Building Official stating that the
building or structure complies with all of the provisions within this
chapter.
Sttbd. 2. h. The certificate shall be applied for coincidentally with the application for a
building permit, conditional use permit and /or variance and shall be issued
within ten days after the Building Official shall have found the building or
structure satisfactory and given final inspection. The application shall be
accompanied by a fee as established by City Council resolution.
Subd. 2. Zoning Permits.
a. A zoning permit shall be required for activities that do not require building
permits but for which it is necessary to determine compliance with zoning
requirements such as setbacks, impervious surface coverage, structure
height, etc.:
(1) Accessory buildings less than 120 square feet in area.
(2) Fences.
(3) Driveways.
(4) Temporary signs.
(5) Sport and tennis courts.
(6) Patios and sidewalks.
(7) Retaining walls higher than three feet (no separate permit required
when a building permit is required for grading).
(8) Above - ground fireplaces and cooking facilities, but not including
portable appliances.
(1987 Code, 1201.07)
CI'T'Y OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
April 26, 2010
Page 7 of 14
Councilmember Bailey stated he would be opposed to changing the language to include a "for cause"
provision. Just cause provisions are needed for termination of people employed by the City whose
livelihood is dependant on Council's rationale actions. He did not think that was needed for volunteer
commissioners. He agreed that Council should be able to remove a commissioner from their position
without just cause. He noted he would not take such a decision lightly, and he couldn't imagine a
situation in which he would make such a decision. Nevertheless, he did think councils should have the
right to do that.
Bailey then stated he did not think that the reference to the Planning Commission Chair excusing
absences needed to be added back to Councils revised Section 201.05 Attendance. He reiterated a
statement he made during Council's April 12 meeting that he thought the bar was set low when requiring
50 percent attendance at the Commission's meetings. Councilmember Turgeon stated with regard to the
statement "In addition, failure to attend four - consecutive regular meetings without the excuse of the Chair
of the Planning Commission shall be considered as formal notice of resignation" the Planning
Commission thought Council should consider removing "without the excuse of the Chair of the Planning
Commission ". Bailey stated he did not think there was inconsistency. He could envision a commissioner
missing four consecutive meetings, for example due to an illness, and the chair excusing that absence.
Mayor Liz6e and Councilmembers Bailey and Zerby thought that decision should be left up to the Chair.
Liz6e thought it would be common courtesy for a commissioner to let the chair know of an extended
absence. Turgeon thought it should be up to the entire Commission to decide to excuse an extended
absence.
Woodruff moved, Bailey seconded, Approving ORDINANCE NO. 466 "An Ordinance Amending
the Shorewood City Code to Replace Existing Chapter 201 in its Entirety with a Revised Chapter
201 (Planning Commission)" as included in the meeting packet for this meeting, and Adopting
RESOLUTION NO. 10- 020 "A Resolution Approving Publication of Ordinance No. 466 by Title
and Summary."
Councilmember Turgeon stated if Council accepts the by -laws for the Planning Commission then she
recommended the by -laws for the Park Commission be consistent with the Planning Commission by-
laws.
Motion passed 4/1 with Turgeon dissenting.
Bailey moved, Woodruff seconded, directing Staff to review the by -laws for the Park Commission
and to draft language to conform with the language in the by -laws for the Planning Commission,
and to route the draft amendment to the Park Commission for comment. Motion passed 510.
C. City Code Amendment — Establishing Zoning Permits
Director Nielsen stated Staff has recommended an amendment to the Shorewood Zoning Code
establishing a system of zoning permits where the use of building permits is not appropriate. Staff
proposes that the following types of projects require a zoning pert in the City: accessory buildings less
than 120 square feet in floor area; fences (if a fence is not over 6 feet the Building Code doesn't address
it); driveways; temporary signs; sport and tennis courts; patios and sidewalks; retaining walls higher than
three feet; and, above - ground fireplaces and cooking facilities, but not including portable appliances.
Without a permit process, there is no way to monitor these activities for compliance. Nielsen noted the
Planning Commission voted on a 4/2 vote to recommend the Zoning Code amendment for zoning
permits.
ATTACHMENT V
CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
April 26, 2010
Page 8 of 14
Councilmember Bailey asked if the zoning permit for driveways is only for new driveways. Director
Nielsen responded it would include replacement driveways as well. He explained if the driveway was too
close to a lot line it may have to be moved.
Councilmember Woodruff stated it's his understanding that the two Planning Commissioners who
dissented on recommending the amendment expressed concern about "creeping big government ". He
indicated he could appreciate their perspective. He questioned how effective the City could be in getting
residents to comply with the zoning permit process. With regard to a zoning permit for temporary signs,
he asked if a resident would have to get a permit to put up a garage sale sign. Director Nielsen stated
garage sale signs are exempt provided a resident doesn't have more than four sales in a year. Woodruff
stated he would be more comfortable if temporary signs were not included in the list for zoning permits
because everything else on the list is permanent structure. Nielsen stated currently a building permit
application is required for temporary signs, but Staff believes that is the wrong application to make.
Councilmember Zerby stated lie agreed with Councilmember Woodruff s comment regarding the size of
government and the burden it places on the City. He questioned how this could be enforced. He stated the
$20 permit fee would not cover Staff's time. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission
recommended the fee be raised to $25. Zerby stated he is not in favor of this zoning permit process.
Councilmember Turgeon stated the two Planning Commissioners who dissented thought this would be
micromanaging residents. Part of the dissention was about the items listed was not all inclusive. Things
such big play areas are not covered. She expressed that she personally doesn't have an issue with
including driveways. She stated the current Building Code states sheds less than 100 square feet do not
require a zoning permit, yet the State's requirement is for sheds under 120 square feet. Director Nielsen
stated the entire proposed list is more restrictive than the State's.
Councilmember Turgeon stated she doesn't agree with a lot that is on the list. She then stated it appears
this system for zoning permits will ensure people don't encroach on another person's property. This
process lets residents know there are rules that must be adhered to. Councilmember Zerby stated there are
rules in place today. Director Nielsen stated the rules that pertain to the list of items are already in
existence; what's missing is a permit requirement.
This item died for lack of a motion.
9. ENGINEERING /PUBLIC WORKS
A. Accepting Plans, Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for
Bituminous Seal Coating of Street in 2010
Engineer Landini read the list of 38 roadways scheduled for bituminous seal coating in 2010. He noted
there is $214,400 budgeted for this effort. The bid opening is scheduled for Wednesday May 19, 2010, at
10:00 A.M.
Landini explained the resolution included in the meeting packet states the advertisement for bids will be
inserted in the Construction Bulletin. Unfortunately, the City received notice on April 22, 2010, that the
Construction Bulletin is no longer advertising. If approved, the resolution will be rectified to specify
where the advertisement for bids will be published.
Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 10 -019 "A Resolution Approving
Specifications and Estimate and Authorizing Advertisements for Bide for Bituminous Seal Coat