Smithtown Crossing Study (3rd) Final11T
June
)VI N
INS.. ,,00d
Public Works
Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction................................................. ..............................1
Planning Issues ............................................. ..............................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
00
0
0
R
M Il 00 W HR
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
Jr
G
10
15
0
K
�MR (aW�M
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 1.59
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.
0
Page 1 R
E
111' u►i►I��+'r.. 2 Ns, I
' ' �� _ �� . � ���,1� ���� �� � � I III' •
_7I
I
IIIIII� ' °` •I
tv
LIZ
hS
Pk
AWL 4Z-
WNW*
$�•
bb
Ali
OF
Nit
r 'jai
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.
W
3
0
Page 7 R
WW1 Wo W
M
Unified /Coordinated versus Piece -meal Redevelopment
Smithtown Crossing
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 j oint -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
Piece -meal
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
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
I
,n;
P
'` __e - ..�=
IMM
. -�r■*� -ter ���
�.� i` _
,+I� ,,,
��=1,_�� -�
�-
�.
�
�',
*
All
�
�•�����i
�
H
� �t II
�
�'
� ill
�
1 o
1 �
'�r„ == -
�' fie►
�
� �r��
'
-
�%��
.
Fill
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
1. 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. C
4. Uses within the study area shall be arranged to create a transition between higher Jr
intensity commercial development and surrounding lower density housing. Any use of
land not currently zoned for commercial development shall be limited in building height 0
to 35 feet or two and a half stories. The westerly edge of the project area shall be densely
landscaped to enhance the transition.
13
0
�1 R
Page 11 M R ( W M
6
b
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
pedestrianibicycle 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
Er
0
15
0
Page 12 M OR (D) TV
6
b
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
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. Ir
In this regard, a mixed use project would be required to submit a traffic study as part of its
application submittals. 0
Design Criteria
0
Inherent to any mixed use development project is attention to pedestrian and bicycle circulation. 1
o
Site planning should include both internal circulation as well as connections to existing and R
Page 13 2MRghq G WIM
0
bA
�
®P"
4--1
O
O
i
`7
V
N
j
N O G
N Cl)
y
N
y�j
p N Sz
O
o
E
O
y
p
ro� o
~
J
• n•I
U
p o W
m
�
o
N
a tr
a a a y
o 0
0 0 0 0 0
1 . 0 0 Id M �
o d o a o 0 0 0 0
vi ti
V O O O O N O
o .
J
z co iq v� izl vi iq v� ti ti
W
D
Q CD U D Q [0 U Q CO
N N N M M
OC
,U
0
o�
U�
o
gnlo
M
bq
W.
y--i
c
a
r
o
R
a
v
O
c
z� o
R
a
O C
° o
N 3
N N
05
o N �
1! till
O
i
`7
V
N
j
N O G
N Cl)
y
N
y�j
p N Sz
O
o
E
02
:t--
p
ro� o
~
J
U
U
p o W
m
IT zc
W
c
Z
Q
y
m
4
a c v
Z Z
iT
CD
C)
N
W
K
Q
2- 0OW
J
O
cv
cv
d
a
U) (D af z
a
I
XAI
o�
U�
o
gnlo
M
bq
W.
y--i
c
a
r
o
R
a
v
O
c
z� o
R
a
O C
° o
N 3
N N
05
o N �
1! till
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
northwest corner of the
Example. Landscaping, screening /cooling parking lots
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,
r 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
O
more time in the area, relaxing
or connecting with others.
Example: Landscaping, public space
0
Il
Page 17
M R 0
g0
It is not the intent of this report to
dictate a certain type of architecture.
This does not, however, diminish the
importance of this critical design
element. Shorewood has in the past
placed great value on buildings that
are in keeping with the residential
character of the community. While
no formal definition of "residential
character" exists, certain
characteristics have been identified
that begin to describe what the City
is looking for. Well articulated
buildings with pitched rooflines,
tiered levels and interesting
shadowing go far in mitigating the Example: Architecture pitched roofs, natural materials, shadow,
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 a building than landscaping.
At present, the C -1 zoning district allows buildings to be three stories or 40 feet in height,
whichever is least. 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
Example: Architecture — diminish visual impact of
building height with constriction materials, landscaping
partially below -grade levels or underground
parking.
Page 18
C
0
0
R
5MRtN%Oo win
R
From the beginning of this study the City has deliberately avoided trying to dictate the design of
the site or the buildings to be located within the project area. Rather, this plan is intended to
convey the character of development the City wishes to see in the Study Area. During various
public meetings at which the study was presented, it became clear that those interested in the
project wanted more visual depictions of what was being described. Preceding pages include
photographic examples of the types of buildings and landscaping the City desires. While no
attempt has been made to produce an illustrative site plan for the Study Area, the Concept Sketch
on the following page attempts to show the potential functional relationships of the various
elements of future development.
C
0
5
0
R
Page 19 M on 0 W IM
tb
� V
�V:wz--
MP
T
I
h r
hyp °
Y5
r
�1
�.S
L.
L
0
O°
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. Ir
O
0
Is
0
Page 23 Il
M
Appendix
C
0
M
v
c
c
c
c
c
c
ti
ti
c
c
c
c
c c
3
3
3
3
3
3
a
d
3
3
3
3
a
a
0
L
L
L
L
L
t
?
?
L
L
L
L
L L
z
E
E
E
a
„
E
E
E
E
E E
O. N
N
to
VI
N
N
O
c
c
N
N
N
to Vl
O
N
O
m
O
tD
O
M
O
n
O
u1
U
O
U
O
ID
00
o
�
O O
tt1 O
lD
a
Vt
v
i11
u1
v
C
a
Ct
v
00
D
CD
lD
m
v
N
a
N
v
N
v
N N
v a
0
N
N
N
N
N
V1
tt1
N
N
N
N
N N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
j
0
o
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
o
0 0
O o
O
.-1
0
N
O
O
o
O
.-I
- O
o
O
ut
of 0
L/1
O
O
W
O
O
C
ci
M
N
M
�D
M
ct
1�
41
m
m
m
m v
'
O
O
O
C
O
O
O
o
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
o
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O o
J
O
O
O
O
c
O
O
O
c
O
O
c O
'
tD
ttt
O
CO
V1'
t!1'
I�
o
c)
C
of
e-i rri
wJ
N
V
•N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O O
O
O
O
c
c
O
O
O
c
O
O
O'
O
c
O
O
O
O O
i--I
O
it1
0
0
o
tD'
I�
o
M
L/1
M
h
M
L(1
W
lD
m
lD
t!1
N
c-i
lD
C' Q1
^1
u
o
cy
O
O
Ol
O
O
O
I
O
O
a
a
ti
M
O
O
m
tD
N
W
to
lD
111
m
N
�
c-I
H
111
H
lfl
N
CO
I�
O
Ql Ql
f0
N
N
d
a
U
U
`y
U
U
U
U
V
U
U
V
U
U
Y N
C
O
O
O
N
�
N
C
u
N
i
N
K
m
Vl
U
N
V1
C
j
N
LL
O
�
O
O
O
'
K
i
L
T
O
�
O
C
O
O
Q
O
O
�
3
m
v
o
o
v
g
v
-
0
z
m
v
v
v
a
0
3
ti
a
f0
�
c
c
c
c
c
c
ti
ti
c
c
c
c
c c
3
3
3
3
3
3
a
a
3
3
3
3
3 3
a
0
L
L
L
L
L
t
?
?
L
L
L
L
L L
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E E
O. N
N
to
VI
N
N
O
O
V]
N
N
N
to Vl
O
N
O
m
O
tD
O
M
O
n
O
u1
U
O
U
O
ID
00
V
O O
tt1 O
lD
a
Vt
v
i11
u1
v
C
a
Ct
v
00
D
CD
lD
m
v
N
a
N
v
N
v
N N
v a
N
N
N
N
N
N
V1
tt1
N
N
N
N
N N
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.
J
� y
G
in
NIONV)
72iI9�NIbVVVIIN
~ 3 I M C
5
G�
�i
O
C�
p
Y-�
4-i
p
ti
1�1
0 H
C�
V p
1�1
U
� p
N �