09-18-12 Planning Comm Mtg Agenda
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, 18 SEPTEMBER 2012 7:00 P.M.
A G E N D A
CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE
DAVIS (Aug) ______
GENG (Sep) ______
HASEK (Jun/Nov) ______
HUTCHINS (Dec) ______
CHARBONNET (May) ______
GARELICK (Oct) ______
MUEHLBERG (Jul) ______
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
7 August 2012
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO
INCORPORATE THE SMITHTOWN CROSSING REDEVELOPMENT STUDY
2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT -
OVERSIGHT OF GIDEON GLEN
3. SUBDIVISION/COMBINATION (LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT)
Applicant: Kenneth Carlson
Location: 5725/5775 Ridge Road
4. DISCUSS TRAILS
5. REVIEW WORK PROGRAM
6. ZONING CODE DISCUSSION
General Provisions
7. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
18 September 2012
Page 2
8. OLD BUSINESS
9. NEW BUSINESS
10. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
11. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
SLUC
P.C. Training
12. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 2012 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Charbonnet, Garelick, Hutchins and Muehlberg; Council
Liaison Zerby; and Planning Director Nielsen
Absent: Commissioners Davis and Hasek
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Hutchins moved, Garelick seconded, approving the agenda for August 7, 2012, as presented.
Motion passed 5/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 3, 2012
Geng moved, Muehlberg seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 3,
2012, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – PRELIMINARY PLAT – ASHLAND WOODS
Applicants: Ashland Woods, LLC
Location: 6045 Strawberry lane
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing.
He explained that if this item is acted upon this evening it will be placed on an August 27, 2012, Regular
City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. He noted Ashland Woods, LLC has
submitted a preliminary plat for the property located at 6045 Strawberry Lane.
Director Nielsen explained that Ashland Woods LLC has submitted a preliminary plat for a seven-lot
subdivision to be called Ashland Woods. The plat was approved in 2009 under the name of Wildwood.
The property is zoned R1-C, Single-Family Residential. The LRT Trail and Freeman Park border the
property on the north, and it sits on the east side of Strawberry Lane. The plat submitted by Ashland
Woods is virtually identical to the one submitted by Wildwood, with the exception of the proposed
grading plan which Staff thinks is for the better. Because of that Staff used the same staff reports and the
same recommendations as it did for Wildwood.
With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen stated all of the proposed lots meet or exceed the City
Code minimum size requirements for the R-1C zoning district which are 20,000 square feet in area, 100
feet in width and 120 feet deep.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 7, 2012
Page 2 of 13
With regard to grading, Nielsen explained the whole area this is located in has a very subtle drainage
pattern. Because of that Staff spent a great deal of time with the previous developer working on a
drainage solution that would not adversely affect the surrounding properties, particularly the properties in
the Shorewood Oaks neighborhood on the south and east side of the proposed plat.
The original grading plan for Wildwood was to drain to a ponding area in the northeast corner of the site.
The southerly lots all drain south and southeast into a drainage way then into the pond. The fronts of the
lots all drain to the street. The street drainage is conducted through a pipe into the drainage way and then
into the pond. The overflow of the pond will go into the drainage pattern in Freeman Park. Because the
drainage is so subtle it cannot tolerate any change in elevation. Therefore, the City Engineer
recommended the rear yards of Lots 5 – 7 be designed as a system of rain gardens with a drainage way
that would conduct the drainage to the ponding area in the northeast corner. The Engineer also
recommended the drainage swale be designed as a dry creek bed to conduct the subtle drainage to the
ponding area. The rip rap wall as part of the cry creek bed will demark where the property owners will
leave in a natural state.
The original staff report also recommended a homeowner’s association (HOA) be established to maintain
the drainage pattern and system. The development agreement for the final plat will require the HOA to
annually monitor the elevations of the drainage way to ensure the drainage way is not being filled in by
sediment or people dumping things into it. If the elevation in the drainage way reaches a height higher
than it is supposed to be the HOA would be responsible for cleaning it out. If the HOA fails to clean it out
the agreement would give the City the authority to clean it out and assess the cost back to the
development. It would be a self-contained drainage system.
The same recommendations apply to the Ashland Woods grading plan which is quite similar to the
Wildwood Plan. For the Ashland Woods plan the City Engineer has recommended that some grading
work occur in Freeman Park to ensure the overflow from the pond flows where it is supposed to.
The Ashland Woods grading plan proposes to bring in a total of 16,000 yards of fill; 10,000 for the initial
plat grading and 6000 for the individual site grading. The Wildwood plan proposed 23,000 cubic yards of
fill. The Ashland Woods developer proposed to do what is called “custom grading” for the lots for
specific types of buildings. The developer submitted a Secondary Grading Plan for the individual lots
based on various building types. If a different building type is proposed it will require a revised grading
plan that adheres to the low floor proposals in the preliminary plat and maintains the approved drainage
pattern. Staff’s perspective is that the Ashland Woods grading plan is an improvement over the Wildwood
plan.
The City Engineer submitted the following list of recommendations.
The cross grade on the proposed street should not be less than 2.5 percent.
The comment on the Secondary Grading Plan regarding “custom grading” must be revised to
reflect the understanding that if a different building type is proposed than what was submitted in
this Plan a revised Plan must be submitted and approved.
There shall be no retaining walls in the street right-of-way (ROW). The retaining wall on Lot 7
goes into the ROW a little.
The concrete curb and gutter should extend around the street radius to Strawberry Lane.
In the final plat, consider allowing some minor grading within Freeman Park to enhance the flow
of drainage through the Park.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 7, 2012
Page 3 of 13
Nielsen noted that based on the analysis and the recommendations included in the original Wildwood
memoranda, Staff recommends the approval of the preliminary plat for Ashland Woods.
Commissioner Charbonnet stated that on the news not long ago there was discussion about HOAs and the
desire to get out of their contracts because of cost. He asked what protection there would for the proposed
HOA. Director Nielsen explained the protection would be the part of the development agreement that
states if the HOA does not keep the elevation in the drainage way at or below what is required the City
has the authority to clean it out and assess the cost back to the development. The Declaration of
Covenants will create the HOA. Anyone buying a lot will know they are subject to that obligation.
Cory Lepper, with Vine Hill Partners (VHP) located in Deephaven, stated VHP’s primary focus is home
building. Its goal on the front end is to minimize the impact on the site, and to somewhat let the home
design dictate how the site will look in the end. Although VHP custom grading is not desired it does help
minimize the impact on the front end.
Commissioner Garelick stated he understands that VHP tried this in 2009 and he asked Mr. Lepper why
he thinks this project will be successful in this economy. Mr. Lepper clarified that VHP had nothing to do
with this site in 2009 – 2011. VHP came into this about 60 days ago. The VHP team collectively thinks
this is a perfect time for this project. Garelick then asked what the price of the average house and the
average lot value would be. Mr. Lepper clarified VHP does not sell lots and therefore doesn’t look at the
lot value very much. Mr. Lepper stated VHP’s bread and butter is in the $600,000 – $800,000 price range
with a large focus on the details inside. Garelick ask if the house on the proposed Lot 1 will be taken
down or removed. Mr. Lepper stated that it had been removed when the Wildwood development was
active.
Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:24.
John Hoeting, 26340 Shorewood Oaks Drive, stated he had been aware that there had been potential for
the subject property to be developed. He noted he has lived in Shorewood for 12 years. He stated he did
not think he would be facing an artificial mesa. He assumes the maximum size houses from the backside
will be three stories high with a roof on top of that. The houses will be shoved into the artificial mesa and
from the front it will be a two story house. During the time of the Wildwood development he had a
resident from Shorewood come out who told him that the then developer was trying to shove 500 pounds
of substance into a 200 pound bag. The artificial plateau is being created in order to build the largest
houses possible with Ashland Woods.
Mr. Hoeting then stated as a result of the development the owners in Shorewood Oaks are going to have
to deal with what he terms a “storm drain”. The underground draining system is going to take everyone’s
salt, sand, antifreeze, oil and so forth and drain it underground into the pond right up against his property.
He went on to state that what is being called the Ashland Forest is in the backyard of Shorewood Oaks.
He expressed concern about the health of the trees. There is one Burl Oak tree that is over five stories
high. There is a huge cottonwood tree. The development will destroy the root system of some of the trees.
He asked how the proposed drainage system is going to affect the ground water level in the area of the
back yards.
Mr. Hoeting went on to state that in perpetuity the drainage system has to work. But, it is likely it will fail
because there is already a backup system in place. It’s known that the ponding area is probably not going
to be able to hold the stormwater and therefore it will be routed onto Freeman Park. He noted that he
doesn’t want to wake up 30 years from now to find his back yard filled with stormwater and not be able to
call anyone and ask to have the water pumped out within a certain timeframe. He asked for assurance that
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 7, 2012
Page 4 of 13
if any machinery has to be brought onto the developed site to clean out the drainage way it would be
brought onto the area through the new development.
Dave Eisenmann, 26320 Shorewood Oaks Drive, asked if the installation of rain gardens at the back of
Lots 5 - 7 means the elimination of all of the trees near them while noting he assumes it does. Director
Nielsen stated when the Wildwood preliminary plat was discussed in 2009 protecting the trees, especially
the large ones, was noted as a requirement of the Tree Preservation and Reforestation Plan. It is
understood there will be some impact on trees. The developer is required to plant 35 trees and Staff’s
recommendation was to plant the majority of them along the south and east borders of the site where most
of the trees will be removed.
Cara Otto, with Otto Associates and the project engineer, stated she was also the project engineer for
Wildwood. She noted all of the City codes are being met, just as they were for the Wildwood preliminary
plat approval. There is not much difference other than there is someone interested in the entire area rather
than just individual lots. She indicated two areas where trees will be saved. Mr. Eisenmann asked if that
means the cottonwood tree will be destroyed. Ms. Otto stated in 2009 they could not promise that it
would be saved. A concerted effort would be made to minimize the impact on the tree but there are no
guarantees. Ms. Otto noted there will be some grading done in the area of that tree.
Ms. Otto then stated the overflow from the pond flowing into Freeman Park is currently occurring. That is
why there is the wet pond on that side of the property. She explained the houses are being built up to meet
the elevation requirements in the City Code related to stormwater management.
Mr. Eisenmann stated he thought he heard it stated that it would be foolish to believe the large trees will
survive because of their extensive root systems. He noted that both he and Mr. Hoeting have large trees
on their property that back up to the subject property. One of his trees is right at the property line. He
questioned if there is any guarantee that his tree located close to the property line will survive. He asked
who would have to have to pay to have his large oak tree removed if it dies.
Ms. Otto stated the two trees Mr. Eisenmann is referring to are located father away from the area that will
be graded than the cottonwood tree is. The cottonwood tree is located within the grading limits. At one
time the plan was to show the cottonwood taken down, but the intent now is to try and save it. The oak
tree on the common lot line between the Eisenmann and Hoeting property is at the blend point and there
will be minimal grading in that area. She noted there is a legal right to excavate for a basement on a
property even if a tree on the adjacent property is located close to the excavation area. She stated it does
not benefit the residents in the future development to take trees down because the trees will be their buffer
from their neighbors.
Mr. Lepper stated if VHP had the opportunity not to touch anything outside of the ROW that is what it
would do. It prefers not to take any trees down. If there is anything that can be done not to take a tree
down it will be done. He encouraged people to go and look at other sites VHP has developed.
Mr. Eisenmann asked if the rain gardens have to be installed. He then asked if the swath has to be that
wide. He stated the plan shows a buffer being left between the north/south parts of the development that
keeps quite a number of the existing trees. It appears to him that proposed Lots 4 and 5 will have quite a
few trees, while Lots 6 and 7 will have quite a loss of trees up to the existing borders with Shorewood
Oaks. He asked if rain gardens are the only option, and if so how many trees have to be taken down. He
then asked if this is just going to be rubber stamped because it was approved in 2009.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 7, 2012
Page 5 of 13
Ms. Otto reiterated Otto Associates was involved with the Wildwood preliminary plat and it would like
for that rain garden not to be there. It makes Lots 5 – 7 less marketable. But it is necessary to satisfy
stormwater management needs. Originally the rain garden was pushed into the southeast corner even
further. After working with City Staff some of the back yards on Lots 6 and 7 were given up in order to
save some of the trees in that corner. There is not a lot of leeway on that flat site.
Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 7:42 P.M.
Commissioner Hutchins asked Director Nielsen what the setback from the property line is for the
drainage system on the south and east side. Nielsen responded there is no required setback. The rip rap
wall that defines the drainage area effectively becomes the setback. If it were not for the drainage system
it would be a 40-foot rear yard setback for the Lots and that would be substantially less than where the
wall is.
Chair Geng asked if the rip rap wall will only exist on the newly developed Lots. Director Nielsen
responded that is correct and reiterated the primary purpose is to demark where the lawns are no longer to
be mowed. Geng stated one of Mr. Hoeting’s concerns is about what happens 20 – 30 years into the future
after the drainage system has been gradually filled in. It is his understanding there will be an ironclad
agreement that the homeowners are responsible for maintaining the system, and if they don’t the City will
clean it out and then assess the entire HOA for the cost of doing that. Nielsen again responded that is
correct.
Director Nielsen explained that ordinarily final plats just go back to the City Council. When this was
discussed in 2009 the then Planning Commission wanted the opportunity to see the final documents. This
Planning Commission may want to see the final documents as well.
Chair Geng stated a concern raised this evening was about if there is a need to maintain the drainage
system where the egress to bring the equipment in would be. Director Nielsen stated it would have to be
on the new development; not on the Shorewood Oaks development.
Commissioner Charbonnet asked if the rain garden option is the only workable solution for the site. Or,
are there other options that may be cost prohibitive. Ms. Otto explained one of the ways to get the
drainage to flow toward the north all the way from Lot 7 is to elongate the ponding area so that as the
water rises up it overflows that way. Otherwise, it could overflow incorrectly into Shorewood Oaks. By
connecting the system of backyards it allows it to function as one stormwater system. Charbonnet stated
Mr. Eisenmann noted the rain garden system eliminates so many trees. He asked if it could be made into a
smaller footprint in order to reduce the number of trees that have to be taken out. Ms. Otto explained one
of the struggles is the elevations can only go to a maximum before stormwater causes problems with other
houses or properties. And, they can only go so low before there is no way for the stormwater to flow out.
There are constraints by where Freeman Park is and by the maximum allowable elevations. The area goes
out farther but it doesn’t go up very far. She noted the City Engineer asked them to go above the Code
standard and have a little extra volume because of the area being so low.
Director Nielsen stated in terms of drainage one of the alternatives for any development is to put in a
storm sewer system. But, because the site is so flat and the drainage system so subtle that is not an option.
He noted it is preferable to have a natural drainage system as opposed to a pipe. He explained there is a
pipe that picks up stormwater from the two catch basins and brings it down to the rain garden area.
Commissioner Hutchins stated the Tree Preservation Plan submitted as part of the Wildwood plat process
shows that the large majority of the trees that would be removed are on Lots 4 – 7. He asked if there is
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 7, 2012
Page 6 of 13
any commitment to replace the removed trees on Lots 4 – 7 in order to create some buffer. Director
Nielsen stated earlier in the discussion he explained that Staff recommended that the majority of the 35
required replacement trees be concentrated along the southerly and easterly boundaries.
Director Nielsen explained that since the Wildwood development was discussed there have been projects
where to enhance the likelihood of survival of large trees the City can require saw cutting of the tree
roots. That is allowable as part of the Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy. He recommends
including that as a recommendation for approval of the preliminary plat.
Commissioner Hutchins asked if concerns about the maintenance of the drainage system would be
monitored and enforced on a complaint basis or based on a schedule. Director Nielsen stated based on a
schedule. Nielsen explained in the development agreement in the Declaration of Covenants the HOA will
be obligated to submit to the City elevation shots once a year of the drainage way to demonstrate that it
has not filled in.
Council Liaison Zerby stated the old railroad tracks on the north side of the site typically have a drainage
system on both sides because the tracks are elevated. He asked why the drainage can’t be guided to the
drainage ditch on the south side of the tracks. Director Nielsen stated that was considered but it is not
possible to make the water flow uphill. Zerby asked if the property that is to the south of the subject
property next to Strawberry Lane could eventually connect to the new lane to reduce traffic turning onto
Strawberry Lane. Director Nielsen stated it could access that street but it would have to contend with the
grade that is there. Zerby asked if the houses on Lots 1 – 3 would be constructed far enough back from the
old railroad tracks in the event that the area of the tracks would be used for some type of mass transit
system. Nielsen stated they would be as far back as they can be.
Chair Geng stated he wanted to address the comment made by Mr. Eisenmann about the Planning
Commission just rubber stamping this preliminary plat because it had been approved once before. He did
not think that is a fair comment. He noted he was a member of the Planning Commission back in 2009
when the Wildwood preliminary plat was considered. The Commission made recommendations at that
time that went above the recommendations made by Staff for that application. He stated that Director
Nielsen noted that this application is significantly better than the previous application because of
requiring significantly less fill than what was proposed in 2009. He then stated the system of rain gardens
is a compromise. The developer has made it clear that the preference is not to have rain gardens there.
There is no choice if Code requirements are going to be satisfied. It is his understanding that all feasible
alternatives have been considered and the system of rain gardens is the practical solution. The City
Engineer would not approve the system of rain gardens if he did not think it was going to work. He noted
he trusts the Engineer’s judgment.
Hutchins moved, Muehlberg seconded, recommending approval of the preliminary plat for
Ashland Woods based on the analysis and recommendations presented by Staff and the City
Engineer as stated in the Staff memorandum dated July 31, 2012; the Staff recommendations set
forth for the Wildwood preliminary plat in the Staff memorandum dated January 1, 2009; the
recommendations set forth in the City Engineer’s memorandum dated December 31, 2008; saw
cutting the roots of trees to try and preserve as many trees as possible; and, providing the Planning
Commission the opportunity to review the documents, including the maintenance agreements, for
the final plat. Motion passed 5/0.
Chair Geng thanked the applicants for coming this evening and the residents for sharing their concerns.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 8:00 P.M.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 7, 2012
Page 7 of 13
2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT –ACCESSORY
APARTMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 P.M. It is about a Zoning code text amendment related to
accessory apartments in residential districts. He explained that if this item is acted upon this evening it
will be placed on an August 27, 2012, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and
consideration.
Director Nielsen explained that earlier in the year the Planning Commission discussed accessory
apartments as part of the larger topic of life-cycle housing. This housing option is viewed as addressing
both ends of the housing spectrum. The Commission thought amending the City Ordinance to allow for
accessory apartments would be a good thing to do for a number of reasons.
Nielsen reviewed two standards in the draft ordinance related to size. The first states “The accessory
apartment shall be clearly a subordinate part of the single-family dwelling. In no case shall the
accessory apartment be more than forty (40) percent of the building's total floor area nor have more than
two (2) bedrooms.” The second states “The principal unit shall have at least 850 square feet of living
space remaining after creation of the accessory apartment, exclusive of garage area. Accessory
apartments shall have at least 500 square feet of living space. Living space square footage for the
accessory apartment shall be exclusive of utility rooms, common hallways, entryways or garages. At
minimum, living space for the accessory apartment shall include a kitchen or cooking facilities, a
bathroom and a living room.” He explained that when the Planning Commission discussed the draft
ordinance during its February 21, 2012, meeting there was concern expressed that smaller homes may not
be able to satisfy the size requirements specified in the second standard. Changing the ordinance to
require at least 700 square feet of living space remaining and at least 480 feet for the accessory apartment
would make it possible for people with smaller homes to take advantage of the ordinance. He noted he
thought the 850 and 500 square feet minimums mean the house is already pretty small (1,350 square feet).
st
Nielsen stated during its February 21 meeting the Commission expressed a desire to allow for the
accessory apartment to be occupied by a live-in care-provider. He explained the occupancy standard
discussed during that meeting stated “Occupancy of the accessory apartment shall be limited to persons
related by blood or marriage to the owner of the residence. In cases where the accessory apartment is
occupied by the owner, occupancy of the dwelling unit itself shall be limited to persons related to the
owner by blood or marriage.” The current draft of the ordinance includes the addition of the following
language: “Exception: the occupancy limitations stated herein shall not apply to one adult live-in care-
provider serving the needs of the primary occupants provided that if the care-provider resides on the
premises for more than 30 days, notice must be given to the Zoning Administrator.” He noted that added
language is already in the elderly housing provision in the City Code.
Nielsen then stated the Commission wanted to ensure that there would be adequate off-street parking for
the occupants of the accessory apartment. He explained the occupancy standard discussed during the
st
February 21 meeting stated “A minimum of three off-street parking spaces must be provided, two of
which must be enclosed.” The current draft of the ordinance includes the addition of the following
language: “Any parking provided pursuant to this section shall be located in a garage or an approved
driveway.”
Nielsen went on to state that allowing accessory apartments is a significant step for the City. He noted the
draft ordinance is intended to be restrictive.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 7, 2012
Page 8 of 13
Commissioner Garelick stated he thought allowing accessory apartments is a wonderful idea and he
thought it may be a way to rejuvenate the City. It will allow for something some communities don’t
allow. He then stated his peers that he has spoken to want this type of thing.
Commissioner Hutchins questioned the accuracy of the alternate size minimums of 700 and 480 square
feet. Director Nielsen stated it should be 475 instead of 480 square feet. Hutchins then stated he thought
the proposed ordinance amendment is great.
Council Liaison Zerby stated the ordinance states “…the accessory apartment shall not be rented out in
the future to anyone not related by blood or marriage to the owner.” He asked if marriage is a proper
restriction to use in this day and age. He noted that in 2011 the City established a Domestic Partnership
Registry. Director Nielsen stated he thought marriage is the right word to use until the definition of family
is changed in the City Code. Nielsen noted the State Building Code uses the same definition as the City.
Zerby stated there are lots of blended families.
Director Nielsen expressed his concern that if the ordinance is too flexible it could result in people
wanting to rent the accessory apartment out. Nielsen stated the intent is not to make the City like the
Kenwood neighborhood in the City of Minneapolis. The main objective with the ordinance is to try and
keep the elderly in their homes as long as possible and to bring in younger families.
Commissioner Hutchins asked how the ordinance will be enforced. Will it be by complaint? Director
Nielsen explained the owner of the single-family residence must enter into a Residential Use Agreement
with the City prior to occupancy which stipulates that the accessory apartment is for the use of the family
only. Commissioner Garelick asked what the penalty is for violating the Zoning Code. Nielsen responded
it is a misdemeanor penalty. Chair Geng stated he assumes that process is already in place. Nielsen stated
it is.
Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public
Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:12 P.M.
Garelick moved, Hutchins seconded, recommending approval of the Zoning Code amendment
relating to accessory apartments. Motion passed 5/0.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 8:13 P.M.
3. REVIEW COMMENTS REGARDING THE SMITHTOWN CROSSING STUDY
Director Nielsen stated the third draft of the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study) had
been available on the City’s website and at City Hall for resident comment during the month of July. He
noted the Planning Commission has been provided with a copy of the comments received. He asked the
Planning Commission what it wants to do with the comments. He stated he thought notifying people that
the Study would be placed on the website to comment on worked quite well. He has received
compliments on having done that. He noted some residents came to City Hall to read the paper copy of
the Study as well.
Nielsen then stated the Commission had already heard or seen similar comments to some of those
received during the comment period. Some of the comments were new. One comment asked the City to
consider additional financing options when the time comes. To date the discussion has been about tax
increment financing (TIF). There was a request for cost estimates. To date nothing has been done with
costs because no one has proposed developing the Study Area.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 7, 2012
Page 9 of 13
Nielsen noted that the more a developer does what the City is proposing the more the City will propose to
do.
Chair Geng stated a comment was made that it was unclear if the City is going to exercise eminent
domain. He thought that had been addressed in a public forum. To date the topic of eminent domain has
never come up in the Planning Commission’s discussions about the Study. To his knowledge Council has
never discussed it either.
Director Nielsen stated it has never been suggested that the City would use the tool of eminent domain for
the redevelopment of that area. He then stated the City has been extremely conservative with regard to
condemnation. If it has been used for other projects it has all been friendly condemnations. He noted the
hands of a future Council cannot be tied. He stated there is nothing in the Study Report that suggests the
City will use eminent domain.
Chair Geng stated one person asked what the precise involvement of the Metropolitan (Met) Council has
been. To date it has not been involved in this Study. The Study was conceived of by the City in
recognition that the area under study is prime for redevelopment sometime in the future when economics
justify it. It has been the Commission’s intent and he believes the City Council’s intent to be proactive in
putting forth a vision. The Met Council’s only involvement would be once there is a final Study it would
be submitted to the Met Council for approval as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Director Nielsen
noted that is correct.
Commissioner Hutchins stated from his perspective all of the comments, whether or not they were
supportive, were in alignment with the guiding principles outlined for this project. He then stated a
development project will have to be an effective development for the City and it has to meet the needs of
the people in the community. He clarified that the project is a concept and there are no specifics to it at
this time. The Study can only talk about what the City would like to see happen if the Study Area is
redeveloped. He stated he was pleased with the comments received. Some of them were insightful and
constructive. Some reaffirmed what the Commission has discussed over time when trying to create the
concept plan for the Study Area. He noted there were a number of comments expressing support for
pedestrian access and trails.
Director Nielsen stated there were a couple of comments received during and after the first public hearing
expressing they did not want trails. He then stated there has been more of a ground swell about wanting to
have additional trails constructed in the City.
Chair Geng asked Director Nielsen if the intent is to keep the public comment feature open on the City’s
website for a while. Nielsen stated that is what will likely happen although it has not been spoken about
specifically. Geng recommended keeping that feature open up until the time of the next public hearing.
Director Nielsen stated the next step in the process is to hold another public hearing.
Chair Geng stated rather than incorporating the comments into the Study Report at this time he suggested
first making copies of the comments available for the public hearing. He recommended considering all of
the comments after the public hearing has been held. He expressed that he wants to keep the comment
process as open and accessible as possible until the public hearing.
Director Nielsen stated he assumes that the Planning Commission is comfortable with using the third draft
of the Study for the public hearing. He asked the Commissioners when the hearing should be scheduled.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 7, 2012
Page 10 of 13
th
He noted there is one Commission meeting scheduled for September and it is on September 18. He
thought the hearing could be held during that meeting due to the lack of zoning items that need to be
considered. Chair Geng recommended publishing the date for the public hearing in the City’s newsletter.
There was Commission consensus to schedule the public hearing for the third draft of the Smithtown
Crossing Redevelopment Study for the September 18, 2012, Planning Commission meeting.
4. ZONING CODE DISCUSSION
General Provisions – Noise Ordinances
Director Nielsen stated there has not been any direction given to consider a noise ordinance. The Planning
Commission expressed a desire to see what other cities are doing in that regard. He commented that the
City does receive occasional noise complaints; a couple of them were received the past week. He stated
that occasionally Staff thinks it would be of value to have something more specific than what is currently
in the City Code which relies on nuisance. He then stated that without there being something more
specific the police are reluctant to enforce it.
Nielsen noted the meeting packet contains a copy of excerpts of the City’s Zoning Code General
Provisions Chapter 501 Nuisances. It also contains excerpts from the Cities of Chanhassen, Deephaven,
Eden Prairie, Excelsior and Tonka Bay city codes.
Nielsen explained that in terms of construction the current policy works well for the most part. The
building permit states construction is limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Monday through
Friday, and 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Saturday. Construction is not allowed on Sunday. Contractors are
informed that if the City has to respond to complaints about working outside of those hours it tends to
result in the City’s inspection schedule being slowed down. This does not deal with the individual
homeowner who, for example, is working on his deck on a Sunday. Hopefully, the neighbors can work
something out. He then stated the only other noise complaint the City receives is with regard to using
lawnmowers and chain saws outside of those hours. Most of the codes included in the meeting packet
address those types of things.
Commissioner Garelick stated he receives calls at Shorewood Ponds about kids revving car engines,
spinning cars near the baseball field in the park and going as fast as they can on the dirt roads. He asked if
that would be addressed under a noise ordinance or is it just a nuisance. Director Nielsen stated that is a
topic for the Park Commission to discuss because the cars spinning around tears up the gravel. Nielsen
then stated that it is part of a larger issue of vandalism. He explained some city codes have provisions that
deal with revving engines when they are being repaired.
Director Nielsen noted that the City’s dog ordinance stipulates a dog can’t bark for more than a
continuous five minutes. Council Liaison Zerby stated as soon as the police show up to a place where a
dog is barking that long the dog tends to quiet down.
Chair Geng stated he understands Director Nielsen to be saying noise from for profit contractors are
regulated sufficiently with the City’s current policy. And, that it is the incidental noise from electric
equipment that appears to be a problem. Nielsen clarified it is power equipment. Nielsen noted that
Excelsior’s Code defines domestic power equipment quite well and what the allowable hours of operation
are.
Director Nielsen stated a lot of the City’s ordinances are written for a small group of people. People who
are inconsiderate or just don’t think about such things.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 7, 2012
Page 11 of 13
Chair Geng stated based on comments Director Nielsen made during the Planning Commission’s July 5,
2012, meeting he understood Nielsen to say there was not enough in the current Zoning Code for staff to
respond on. And, that there aren’t standards for the police to enforce.
Director Nielsen stated the City has equipment available to monitor ongoing noise levels, but not
intermittent noise levels.
Chair Geng asked Director Nielsen if it is sufficient to rely on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
standards for stationary equipment. Nielson responded it is. Geng stated it is domestic power equipment
that is the problem. Nielsen added vehicle noise can also be problematic.
Director Nielsen explained the City has received a complaint that he does not think any of the sample
codes would address. The complaint is about a property owner who has a four-wheeler and a SUV and it
is his understanding that the owner and his sons drive around on his approximate two acre lot all day
long. It appears that the property owner believes his right to use his property overrides his concern for his
neighbors.
Chair Geng stated the law teaches people that property rights are a bundle of sticks. One of the sticks
property owners have is the right to quiet enjoyment of their properties. That is where he thinks the rub is.
He then stated he does not want to recommend regulations for the sake of regulations. But, if the police
don’t have sufficient standards to enforce and if staff believes there is not enough for them to respond on
then there is a need for regulations.
Commissioner Garelick asked if there were any problems on the Fourth of July holiday above and beyond
firecrackers. Director Nielsen responded not that he is aware of, noting that he does not see all of the
police reports.
Chair Geng asked the Commissioners what they thought about some of the code provisions that address
large gatherings.
Commissioner Garelick stated the complaints he received about noise from people in the park was for
noise after 10:00 P.M. Director Nielsen stated that is a different violation because people are not supposed
to be in the park after 10:00 P.M. Police could enforce that. Garelick stated excessive noise can impact
the quality of life. Therefore, he thought there needed to be some noise regulations.
Council Liaison Zerby stated he thought it would be prudent to solicit input from law enforcement before
defining noise regulations for standards the police will have to enforce. He noted the police department
for the City does not have a decibel meter. He stated a noise complaint may be a lower priority than other
issues law enforcement may be responding to. Director Nielsen agreed with that.
Director Nielsen explained most of the noise related things the sample ordinances try to get after are
difficult to measure. Therefore, cities try to regulate the hours of activity.
Council Liaison Zerby stated with regard to noise from motor vehicles such as ATVs there are laws that
regulate their noise levels. Director Nielsen stated people modify the ATVs after they purchase them.
Nielsen then stated police have told him that it is difficult to enforce vehicle noise regulations on the
highway.
Chair Geng suggested asking the police for information about volume and type of noise complaints before
going any further with this. He stated he thought any regulations should be as focused as possible.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 7, 2012
Page 12 of 13
Director Nielsen stated he assumes the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) would like
any regulations the City agrees upon to be consistent with what the other SLMPD member cities have.
Commissioner Muehlberg stated an ordinance would lay out the criteria for what violations are, but it will
likely come down to repetitive violations of the ordinance.
Chair Geng stated if the City receives a noise complaint he asked if that is referred to the SLMPD.
Director Nielsen stated the City advises the complainant to call the SLMPD. Nielsen noted that most of
noise violations occur outside of the City’s normal business hours. Nielsen stated the only complaint he
remembers the City receiving about lawnmowers was for using them too early at the Minnetonka Country
Club’s gulf course.
Council Liaison Zerby stated there is the issue of garbage trucks traveling roadways at 6:00 P.M. Director
Nielsen stated there are regulations to address that. Zerby stated he thought the earliest that should be
occurring is 7:00 A.M.
Chair Geng asked Director Nielsen to check with the SLMPD and get back to the Planning Commission.
Nielsen stated he will do that and that he will compile a list of pertinent provisions from the sample codes
for potential consideration.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
6. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business for discussion.
7. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business for discussion.
8. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there will be a public hearing on the third draft of the Smithtown Crossing
Redevelopment Study on the September 18, 2012, Planning Commission meeting agenda. There will be
an update on a potential County Road 19 trail segment. There will be continued discussion about the
general provisions in the Zoning Code.
Director Nielsen stated Xcel Energy has not been very responsive about getting together with the City to
discuss a potential easement for the County Road 19 trail segment. Chair Geng asked if Hennepin County
can get involved and exert any influence to help that along. Nielsen stated that is an option. Nielsen then
stated he was hoping that Mayor Lizée would write a letter to Xcel asking for it to have representatives
meet with the City. Geng suggested carbon copying the City’s representative on the Hennepin County
Board of Commissioners on the letter if one is sent.
Director Nielsen stated there is a desire to at least get bids for the trail segment to help Staff in estimating
what it will cost to construct other trail segments.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 7, 2012
Page 13 of 13
Director Nielsen noted that the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) member City
Administrators/Manager are assessing the draft Uniform Animal Control Ordinance prepared by the
SLMPD. He stated he thought there needs to be consistency between the four member cities when it
comes to enforcement of things such as dangerous dogs. There could be individual regulations for things
such as the number of dogs allowed. He noted for the time being the Planning Commission does not need
to deal with the draft Ordinance.
Commissioner Hutchins stated the calendar of meetings sent out by the City’s Deputy Clerk shows there
is a second Planning Commission meeting scheduled for August. Director Nielsen stated the Planning
Commission agreed to have only one meeting each month unless there is something particular that had to
be addressed.
Hutchins recommended adding a review of the Planning Commission’s work program to the September
th
18 meeting agenda.
9. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
No report was given.
• SLUC
None.
• Planning Commission Training
Director Nielsen stated he has not heard what the proposed date for the Planning Commission training is.
He noted that the program the City has coordinated in the past is going to be coordinated by the City of
Deephaven this year.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Hutchins moved, Garelick seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of August 7,
2012, at 8:52 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
I MU [G MIRM - 11105
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 26 October 2011
RE: Smithtown Crossing — Resident Responses
FILE NO. 405 (Sm. Crsg. Redev.)
As you know, a public hearing has been scheduled for 15 November to consider a
Comprehensive Plan amendment that would incorporate the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment
Study into the Appendix Chapter of the Comp Plan. As of the last Planning Commission
meeting we had only received one comment sheet from a resident who attended the open house
meeting. Since then, a few more have trickled in. They are attached hereto for your review.
One of the items on the agenda for Tuesday night (1 November) will be a discussion of the
comments received and what, if any, revisions to the redevelopment study should be made prior
to the hearing on the 15th.
Any comment sheets that are received after this memo is sent will be forwarded to you by e -mail,
with hard copies available at the meeting.
Cc: Brian Heck
Dick Woodruff
f2v
f.0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Smithtown Crossing Open House
October 2011
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."
"In general, and within limits, I favor the idea of a comprehensive redevelopment of Smithtown Crossing."
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 d — apartments."
"Coordinated preferably."
"Coordinated but smaller scale and confined to the intersection. Please try to retain neighborhood feel for
those of us who live next to this proposed development."
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."
"No variance for taller buildings should be given."
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."
"I favor this idea."
"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."
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."
"As a resident whose property is adjacent to the proposed redevelopment zone I am very concerned about
quality of life and property value impacts of a large development on my family and our neighbors."
From: chris lizee [chrislizee @gmail.com]
Seat: Sunday, September 25, 2011 7:22 PM
To: Brian Fleck
Cc: Tim Keane; Brad Nielsen
Subject: Fwd: Redevelopment of Smithtown Crossing
FYI............ Chris
---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - --
From: Henry Miles < henry.miles a, waypointltd.com
Date: Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9 :50 AM
Subject: Redevelopment of Smithtown Crossing
To: clizee a ci.shorewood.mn.Lis
Dear Mayor Lizee,
,,A
My wife and I received the City of Shorewood's notice about the Open House to discuss the Smithtown
Crossing Redevelopment Study. Unfortunately, the notice came too late for us to rearrange our schedules to
make room for this event. We would like to be there.
Based on past actions by Shorewood, we are very concerned that such decisions while surrounded by the
appearance of openness are in fact predetermined without due consideration to important factors.
In particular, the decision to approve the Cub at Lake Linden Drive has increased the traffic on Country Club
resulting in property damage and creating an unsafe environment for those near the street. Moreover, the street
is not adequately patrolled for people speeding and running stop signs.
Also, the Cub may have resulted in the degradation of runoff into Lake Linden, Mary Lake, and other ponds
downstream to Lake Minnetonka. Our neighbors have engaged the State of Minnesota to consult with us on
this matter.
While we are not opposed per se to redevelopment at Smithtown Crossing, we expect to see more rigor around
this development than has been Shorewood's practice in the past. Specifically, we expect the plans to include a
comprehensive environmental impact assessment. Also, we and our neighbors will continue to press for the
closure of Country Club to through traffic.
Finally, we believe that all those on the Shorewood's payroll, planning Committee, and City Council who may
have potential conflicts of interests concerning this project recuse themselves immediately from any discussions
or votes concerning the matter. Thank you.
Henry
Henry H. Miles, CEO
Waypoint Associates
(612) 790 -1552
Smithtown • • Redevelopment Study.
Vision Statement:
The Vision Statement seems relatively well thought out, although a bit "idealistic." It is unlikely that any
major mixed use development will be pedestrian/bicycle and neighborhood friendly. A commercial
development will increase traffic volume in an area that already is NOT pedestrian /bicycle friendly. The
shoulders along Smithtown are too narrow to safely use and although the traffic flow at the intersection of
19 and Smithtown is better controlled, it is still a bad intersection for non - vehicular traffic. Additionally,
there is no good route of travel to safely get to the LRT to the north on 19, to the east on 19 or to the west
on Smithtown.
Keeping any proposed development more in line with the residential characteristics of Shorewood would
be critical to its acceptance in the community. We don't need a big box retailer, developed by a national
developer who will come in to take what they can in the way of municipal subsidies, make lots of
promises, follow through on a few, and then sell it to an investor or group looking for a coupon to clip
with no interest in how it contributes to or fits in with the community. It's all about the economics, and
nothing more for those groups.
In regards to landscaping, unless the City requires the planting of trees with 6" or larger trunks, which
won't happen, it is unlikely that the landscaping will soften the impact of a larger development on the
neighboring residential properties. As an example, of the twigs that were planted in Gideon Glen, some
have not made it and those that have certainly have not grown in a manner that will provide adequate
screening in most of our lifetimes, if similar landscaping were to be utilized for the proposed Smithtown
Crossing Development it would be an injustice to those of us that call this area our home.
Piece Meal vs. Coordinated Redevelopment:
Overall, a coordinated development makes a lot more sense and, if properly executed, should result in a
significantly nicer mix of assets for our community.
Study Area west boundary, under omcircumstances, should extend any further than 24620 Smithtown
Road, i[that far. The extension ofu mixed use commercial development into u predominantly residential
neighborhood has the potential to not only adversely affect the values of our homes, but also the
characteristics of what has been our neighborhood for the past 23years.
Is there a reason that the site that the City acquired immediately south of City Hall on Country Club Road
was not included in the Study area? It would seem $mnoethat since the City is including virtually all of
the other municipally owned property inthe Study Area, that i1 would bc prudent to include that site at
this time as well.
Land uses should focus on low tomoderate 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.
Any commercial development should occur in and hc limited to those areas that are immediately
contiguous toCounty Road 19.
Buffering and land use transitions will be critical to support from our neighborhood. Perhaps the bulk of
the property located at 24620 Smithtown Road could be used to "buffer" our residential neighborhood
from the impact of a larger mixed use development. Significant landscaping throughout the project vvonld
soften the impact of this development on our community. Perhaps there would be a way to route u
bike/walking path through this property through Gideon Glen to get a safer route of travel to the LRT
access point that ie just Co the North on County Road }9. Similar care should bu taken with the property
immediately east ofthe Senior Center uu d abuts aresidential neighborhood.
Gideon Glen, when it was acquired was done so to preserve the natural woodlands. It was promptly clear
cut and serves aao drainage pond for the Smithtown Crossing Shopping Center located inTunkoBay. In
short, what was once beautiful woodland is now decimated. It would be nice to preserve whatever natural
views of Gideon Glen are left. Quite frankly, [ don't see the purpose of including Gideon Glen iuthe
Redevelopment Study unless there is u plan to also allow u portion ofthis property tuberezoned and
developed. Any competent developer will understand that any development should take advantage of the
views of what woods are left and that they should plan to drain their property into the holding pond now
located there.
Vehicular access to and from County Road |g should ho pushed north ofthe existing intersection with
Smithtown {oprovide for better ingress and egress from the proposed development. Access from the
development onto Smithtown should be kept towards the center of the development so as to limit the
traffic impact nn the neighborhoods immediately to the west.
] believe that internal circulation can best bu addressed hv the City's planning staff once there are real
development proposals to consider. As previously stated h would benice to have a path
that would provide better and safer access to the LRIto the north ooCounty Road 19.
Contaminated Soils should be and are the responsibility of the Landowner and their tenants. The City
should proceed with caution when considering the acquisition of any property with contaminated soils.
Redevelopment of lots on an individual basis makes little sense.
Future Development of the Minnetonka Country Club — If this is something that is anticipated to occur in
the relatively near future, say in the next 3 -10 years, then any redevelopment study should incorporate this
property as well, and all residents in Shorewood should be notified, as redevelopment of the Country
Club would significantly impact the broader community of Shorewood.
Land Use and Zoning of 24250 Smithtown Road — This property appears to be a beautiful residential
property that has, over time, become surrounded by commercial, retail and municipal uses. It is an island
in an otherwise generally commercial district. Rezoning probably makes sense. Long term, a municipal
related use probably makes some sense, although it could probably accommodate a moderate to high
density multifamily (rental) development or perhaps an institutional type of user, i.e.... Senior Center,
VFW, Library, Community Center, Post Office, etc...
Pedestrian Connection from Badger Park to the north side of Smithtown Road — Unless there is a
connection to the LRT, what is the purpose of such a connection?
Drainage — It is assumed that the bulk of the drainage from the northwest portion of the Study Area will
flow into the holding pond in Gideon Glen, and then to the north until it turns back to the east and flows
into Lake Minnetonka. I am not as familiar with the drainage flows for the other portions for the Study
Area.
I' a 11111 r
Local ownership /Local Developers would be a big plus. Someone who will take some pride in what they
develop because they live here (in the Twin Cities) would be a huge plus. There are plenty of qualified
and capable local developers and investors to make something of this scale happen when the economics
support it.
Other:
Potential Height of Potential Developments. Personally, I don't see a big difference between 40' and
45'in height. The most important consideration should be how the project fits into our community and
that it is generally architecturally pleasing.
Tax Increment Financing: While TIF is a popular tool employed by many municipalities and developers,
personally, I believe that unless a developer can put together a development that stands on its own
economically, that it shouldn't be built. Why does everything need to be subsidized by us the tax payer?
Acquisition of Land by the City. Is the City prepared to utilize its power of eminent domain, if necessary
to make this redevelopment happen? Is the acquisition of these properties the best use of the City's
limited financial resources? How will the City offset the lost tax revenue from parcels it acquires if it
ends up holding them for 3, 5, 10 or 15 years? As previously stated contaminated soils are the
responsibility of the current (and former) Landowner's. The City should not get involved in assuming
any liability associated with mitigation of contaminated soils.
Although the 2 nd Draft of the Redevelopment Study appears to suggest that the broader public /community
has been involved in the process of developing this study, it was not until September 23` that the City
notified area residents of the proposed redevelopment. There have been no meetings with affected
neighborhoods, public or otherwise, with the exception of the informal open house meeting that was held
on Tuesday, October 4, 2011. It should be noted that several of the City Council Members or Planning
Commission Members did not attend this meeting.
The 2 nd Draft of the Redevelopment Study references "The County Road 19 Corridor Study, adopted in
2003," but attendees at the open house were not, to the best of my knowledge, provided with this
document.
In general, I believe that a comprehensive redevelopment of many of the properties situated in the
Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study could be a very positive thing for our community, although I
have some concerns about the distance down Smithtown Road that the City is considering extending this
district.
Respectfully,
Brian L. Maghan Rhonda L. Maghan
5670 Christopher Road 5670 Christopher Road
Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331
bmaghan@4ri Rhonda.maghan@usbank.com
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
l �
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 2 February 2012
RE: Smithtown Crossing — Review of Public Testimony
FILE NO. 405 (Smithtown Crossing)
At its 6 December 2011 meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the
Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study. At the conclusion of the hearing, the consensus of the
Commission was that a study session should be scheduled to go over, in detail, the testimony from
area residents relative to the study. Attached for your review is the excerpt from the 6 December
meeting minutes pertaining to Smithtown Crossing.
This item is scheduled for discussion at the 8 February meeting.
Cc: Brian Heck
Laura Hotvet
e s
f., PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
7:00 . i; ., PUBLIC e A I f COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ti N k. '. D '
SMITHTOWN CROSSING REDEVELOPMENT STUDY (continued from November 15,
0'
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;
➢ 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,
Y drainage.
The next thing the Commission did was write a vision statement that creates a clear picture of what the
City hopes to see for the area in the next 10 — 15 years. The vision statement is a positive expression of
what the City wants rather than a list of what the City does not want to see. He displayed a graphic of the
desired concept for the area which shows a unified, coordinated development of both quadrants of the
intersection with limited access points off of County Road 19 and Smithtown Road. The worst case
scenario would be to let the parcels be developed individually with each having its own parking lot and
pond. A unified, coordinated development would have a more efficient drainage system and joint parking
that could be landscaped.
After that, the Planning Commission met with the City Council in May of 2010. Later that month the
vision statement and concepts were presented to the property owners. About one half of the property
owners turned out for that meeting. There was consensus among them that a unified, coordinated
development approach was better than developing the lots on an individual basis. During the summer of
2010 the Commission held a developer forum. It invited in a panel of developers that were experienced in
redevelopment to weigh in on the potential for redeveloping. The developers were upbeat about the
redevelopment of the area. They indicated it would happen over a period of time. They offered
suggestions for making it a more viable redevelopment project from a developer's standpoint.
After the Planning Commission held the developer forum it went on a mobile tour of development
projects in the metropolitan area. The Commission liked some of the projects and not others. The
Commission placed a lot of emphasis on architecture and landscaping. Photographs of some of the
various projects were displayed with explanations of what the Commission did and did not like.
A plan was then developed. The main points in the plan are as follows. It would be a mixed use
development; both residential and commercial. Higher density for the residential component should be
considered. The buildings could potentially be higher than what is currently allowed in the C -1 zoning
district. All of this is tied to consistency with the City's vision statement for the area. The more a
developer was in sync with the vision statement the more the developer might get density and height
incentives. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation, both within the project area and connection to outside of
the area, is considered to be extremely important. There is a high emphasis on natural and substantial
landscaping requiring low maintenance. The Study does not dictate any certain type of architecture. It
does include photographic examples of desired architecture such as pitched rooflines and articulation
where there is some depth and relief that can diminish the appearance of height of buildings. Awnings,
natural building materials, balconies and lighting help to diminish building masses. Parking lot
landscaping to both cool them and buffer them is desired. Some sort of common area is also desired.
Photographs were shown of examples of what is desired.
The last part of the Study includes an implementation section. There are two main components to that.
One is the use of tax increment financing (TIF) to encourage the assembly of the parcels. The second
component is the City acquiring land within the redevelopment area when it becomes available on the
market. The City recently purchased a residential parcel on the west end of the area.
The Planning Commission held an open house style neighborhood meeting which was well attended to
give the residents an opportunity to comment on the Study. The concept plan displayed during the open
house was again displayed and highlighted. The Commission intentionally chose not to include a concept
plan in the Study. Comment cards were made available at the open house for attendees to take and submit
at a later time.
- -2
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 so►ne
consideration given to incorporating the concept plan into the report. Earlier in the day someone told him
that even more detail could be useful.
Nielsen distributed a list of what will become the guiding principles stated in the vision statement and
displayed it on the screen. They are as follows.
1. The project in this area will result in a unified/ coordinated pattern of development.
2. The use or mixture of uses of the property in the study area should be based on market needs.
3. Site design should take advantage of views afforded by existing natural areas and parks.
4. Uses within the Study area shall be arranged to create a transition between higher intensity
commercial development and surrounding lower density housing.
5. Any housing component should add to and enhance the variety of housing choices in the
community.
6. Commercial activities should serve not only the residents of the project area, but the
community as a whole.
- -3
7. Access to and egress from and circulation within Smithtown Crossing must be
pedestrian /bicycle friendly.
S. Usable, inviting outdoor spaces shall be incorporated into the development.
9. Landscaping will be natural and substantial, diminishing parking lot massing and softening and
framing buildings on the site.
10. Attractive and articulated architecture with pitched rooflines and natural materials will reflect
the residential character and quality of the community.
11. Reduction of building mass may be achieved by using a combination of the following
techniques: a) variations in roof line and form; b) use of ground level arcades and covered
areas; c) use of protected and recessed entries; d) inclusion of windows on elevations facing
streets and pedestrian areas; and, e) retaining a clear distinction between roof, body and base of
building.
Nielsen noted number 11 was not included in the vision statement. He stated because the Planning
Commission had not seen the list of guiding principles until this evening he did not expect the
Commissioners to comment on them this evening.
Nielsen stated with respect to the Study he thought there needs to be a summary of the recommendations.
One of the things he discovered as he has been talking with people about the report is he has to pick
through the report to look for the recommendations. They need to be consolidated into one spot. A revised
report should be publicized better and for a longer period of time. There is a link to it on the City's
website but he did not find it easy to get to the report. He suggested having a longer period of time for
comment. He then suggested people be provided the ability to comment on the report via the City's
website. The responses should also be accessible on the website.
Nielsen recommended that before a revised Study is sent back to the Council for consideration it should
be reviewed and discussed by the Planning Commission during its January 17, 2012, meeting. He stated
another public hearing could potentially be scheduled for March 6, 2012, to allow for a 30 -day period of
time for comment and publication. He recognized to the Commission that this is new information and a
turn in direction.
Chair Geng stated he thought Director Nielsen made this abundantly clear, but he would like to
emphasize it. The Planning Commission undertook the Study because it recognized that at some point the
area that has been identified as the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study area is going to be
redeveloped. The Study was not undertaken in response to any specific proposal from any developer. It
was in anticipation that at some point the area would be redeveloped and the Commission thought it
prudent for the City to have voice in it to help guide it and direct it in a way that would benefit the entire
community. He reiterated there is no plan. This effort was just a study. It's a work in progress. From the
very beginning all of the Commissioners have been concerned about ensuring this was a very transparent
process. Throughout the last two years the Commission has sought public input.
Geng then stated he was speaking for all of the Commissioners when he expressed his appreciation for
having so many residents in attendance to provide public input. Public input is very important to the
Commission. The Commission wants to do the best job it can for the City. It's hard to do that in a
vacuum.
Geng asked those in attendance who want to comment to come to the podium, give their name and
address, and keep their comments as brief as possible to provide everyone who wants to be heard with
that opportunity. He noted there is a sign in sheet, and for those that have not signed in he asked them to
do so before they leave this evening.
- -4
Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:55 P.M. He noted there were
about 14 residents present.
Steve Dietz 24680 Smithtown Road stated his property is just on the west end of the area under
discussion. He commented that based on his professional career he understands the value of getting
community involvement. He apologized for coming late to the game. He also apologized in advance for
any misunderstandings and any mistakes he may make with regard to what he understands is being
proposed. He commented he is only part way through the Comp Plan 2008 Update.
Mr. Dietz then stated when people are asked if they prefer unified or hodge podge redevelopment they are
going to respond unified. If they are asked if they would like to have the ugly eyesore commercial
development upgraded or developed in a unified manner the exact same number of people will respond
with a yes. But, if you ask them if they would like you to encroach on the existing, single family home
residential area and build a forty-five -foot high block -wide multi -unit housing next to them the response
would be very different. From his vantage point, the rezoning of the single family homes is required in
order to make the commercial redevelopment possible. He noted he didn't think the report indicates that.
Mr. Dietz noted that he thought it was useful to see the conceptual design. He stated the open space is
primarily for people whom now live in the redevelopment area. People that don't live in that development
are not going to bike to the space and have a picnic there. The City's character is primarily single family
residential. The Comp Plan land use section states the City will strive to maintain this character. He noted
the report doesn't make any case for converting single family property to multi -use housing independent
of the commercial development. He recommended separating the residential lot in the northeast quadrant
out. He questioned how the residential property located adjacent to the commercial property (which the
City now owns) gets rezoned. That property abuts his property. He suggested a separate case be made for
those two residential properties.
Mr. Dietz stated he could not find the link to the Study on the City's website. He then stated by the City
buying the residential property that it did before the zoning changes went into effect the City now has a
vested interest in converting a single - family residential property into a multi -use property. That could
potentially result in a conflict of interest situation for the City. He suggested making the City -owned
property a park.
Mr. Dietz explained that his well went dry a few years ago. In the past year his well has been identified as
having dangerous levels of arsenic. He asked what this additional water use will do to the water table. He
then asked if the City has researched if the water table can sustain that additional draw on water. He stated
he applauded the desire for the City to figure out what to do in advance. But, if there is no pressing plan
then from his vantage point there isn't a rush. He asked the City to separate out the commercial
development from the single family home development.
Chris Poison who lives on the west side of Echo Road (which is the east side of the development area)
asked if eminent domain will be applied to any of the commercial or residential sites in the Study area in
this process. Chair Geng stated there has been no discussion of eminent domain by the Planning
Commission over the last two years. Mr. Poison asked if it is possible that could happen. Geng responded
anything is possible, but he doesn't see that happening. Geng clarified that the City isn't trying to drive
this redevelopment. It is attempting to influence any future redevelopment of the Study area. The City has
no interest in condemning properties in this area. Market forces will drive the redevelopment, and it's
likely that it will not happen for years because of the state of the economy. Director Nielsen noted that the
City has been loath to condemn land for any purpose in the past. Nielsen explained that recent
W
developments over the past few years have made it more difficult to take properties through the process of
eminent domain.
Mr. Poison then asked what the probability is for high density housing or apartments and condominiums
being part of any redevelopment of the area. Chair Geng responded he wouldn't hazard a guess. Geng
stated it will be private development that will drive this redevelopment. If /when a developer comes
forward the City will look at what they are proposing, if it will benefit the City and if there is a market for
it. Mr. Poison asked if the Metropolitan Council will be involved in any redevelopment in some manner.
Geng stated before the Study becomes part of the City's Comp Plan it does have to be submitted to the
Met Council for review and comment under state law. Mr. Poison asked if the Met Council is pressuring
to get something done with the Study area. Geng stated this came about from the City.
Mark Flanders, 5695 Christopher Road stated his property is located on the western side of any
redevelopment. A redevelopment could impinge upon site lines and the wooded area which has already
been thinned out as part of the Gideon Glen project. He understands that because the area is
underdeveloped it doesn't create a very significant tax base. He then stated there may be some benefit for
the City to explain to residents what the future tax revenue could be if the area were to be redeveloped.
He noted that as a homeowner he would be opposed to taking out single family properties. He asked what
the American Legion's role is in this. He stated if the intent is to have mixed use development
(commercial and multi -unit housing) in the northwest quadrant, he asked if the Legion would be
interested in moving to the southeast quadrant or some other part. He also asked if senior housing could
be built in the southeast corner where there could be easy access to the SSCC. If so, he didn't see a need
for taking out any single family properties. He suggested adding information about what the Legion may
or may not want and add that to the City's website.
Chair Geng explained that relatively early in the process the Planning Commission invited the affected
land owners in the Study area to a study session. The American Legion was represented at that meeting.
The Legion is interested in redeveloping its facility. It indicated during that meeting that it would be open
to some type of collaboration. It expressed a strong desire to stay in Shorewood and be part of any
redevelopment that occurs.
Mr. Poison asked if the American Legion is opposed to relocating as part of a redevelopment. Chair Geng
responded he did not know the answer to that. Director Nielsen stated he has had conversations with
developers over the years even before the Study was started and one of the developers did explore the
idea of relocating the Legion. He does not know what the Legions reaction to that was. Nielsen then
stated the Legion wants to stay in the City, work with the City and see that corner redeveloped. Nielsen
noted the Legion is a key player in any redevelopment of the Study area because it owns a good share of
the land in the northwest quadrant.
Mr. Poison asked that some consideration be given to focus more on the redevelopment of the southeast
quadrant where it won't impact existing home owners. That would reduce the need for more acreage on
the northwest quadrant.
Scott Zerby, 5680 Christopher Road noted he was speaking from the perspective of a resident and
property owner this evening. He thanked the Planning Commission and Director Nielsen for the work
they have done on this Study to date. He stated his issue is the two residential properties along Smithtown
Road that could become part of the Study area. He expressed he disagreed with guiding principle # 5
which is "Any housing component should add to and enhance the variety of housing choices in the
community." He stated it comes down to having a buffer between the residential area and the commercial
area. He explained that basically all the residential properties to the west of the area are one -acre
homestead lots. He noted that buried in the Study it states that in exchange for a developers concessions a
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. Tile homes along Lake Linden Drive across from that development were basically
built after the development was done. When the CUB site was redeveloped a few residential properties
were taken in the back. The Study area intrudes heavily to the west. The benefit of having taller buildings
for commercial development is it's cheaper to have more space under a smaller roof in terms of cost to
build and long term maintenance.
Land use should focus on low to moderate density housing in the western most portion of the Study area
with considerable open and heavily landscaped space buffering the properties immediately to the west.
Buffering and land use transitions will be critical in gaining support from the residents in their
neighborhood. Care should be taken with the property immediately to the east of the SSCC as it abuts a
residential neighborhood.
- -7
When Gideon Glen was acquired it was done to preserve the natural woodlands. It was promptly clear cut
and serves as a drainage pond for the Smithtown Crossing Shopping Center located in Tonka Bay. He
does not see the purpose of including Gideon Glen in the Study. That area has already been designated as
a natural area by the City unless there is a plan to allow a portion of this property to be rezoned. Any
competent developer or investor will know to take advantage of the site lines Gideon Glen offers in spite
of the fact that it has been decimated.
Vehicular access to and from County Road 19 from the northwest quadrant should be pushed north of the
existing intersection with Smithtown Road to provide for better ingress and egress from that development
area. The City's Planning Department is better suited to address those issues than he is.
With regard to phasing the redevelopment, in reality the Study area actually includes only three potential
areas of redevelopment — 1) the area at the northwest corner of the intersection of County Road 19 and
Smithtown Road; 2) the area on the south side of County Road 19 and north of City Hall and Badger
Park; and, 3) the area north of County Road 19 and south of the City's Public Works facility. Area 3 is
quite small and can only be redeveloped in one phase. It won't be a multi phased development. Area 2
could be a phased development. It is a relatively small site that would likely be redeveloped as a small
retail use or service use. Area 1 will likely be a phased development with part of it being for some
commercial uses and potentially some housing. From his vantage point it would be better to build lower
density housing.
He thought it prudent for the City Council and the Planning Commission to consider the future
redevelopment of the Minnetonka Country Club property as part of this Study if it's anticipated that it
will have a change of use over the next 3 — 10 years. The 24250 Smithtown Road residential property is
an island in an area that is generally commercial. It makes sense to rezone it. It could potentially
accommodate a moderate to high density multifamily redevelopment or an institutional type of user (e.g.,
a senior center, a VFA, Community Center, library, post office).
With regard to drainage, Gideon Glen already provides drainage for a shopping center that is not located
in the City. He questioned why there is concern about requiring ponding on the northwest quadrant. Any
ponding is going to involve Gideon Glen. It's not possible to hold that much water on that quadrant.
Director Nielsen clarified that Gideon Glen is not sized to accommodate the drainage for the lots in that
quadrant. The drainage for it has to be accommodated on site. Mr. Meghan stated that will be difficult to
support economically.
The 40 — 45 foot height restriction for any redevelopment of the northwest quadrant does not include the
roof. In reality the height will be 50 — 65 feet. TIF may be a popular tool, but he doesn't think it's a
prudent use of taxpayer dollars. He asked why taxpayers should partially find a development from which
third parties will benefit. He then asked if the City is prepared to utilize its power of eminent domain if
necessary to acquire all of the properties needed to maximize the redevelopment potential of the site. He
also asked how the City will offset the loss in tax revenues from parcels it acquires if it ends up owning
them for a number of years.
The second draft of the Study appears to suggest the broader public /community involvement The City
didn't notify the residents that would be affected by a redevelopment of the Study until September 23,
2011. The only meeting with them was held on October 4, 2011. Several City Councilmembers and
Planning Commissioners did not attend that open house. He interprets that to mean they don't care about
the input from residents. The second draft references the County Road 19 Corridor Study which was
adopted in 2003. That document has not been provided to the residents.
W
Mr. Meghan concluded by saying he believes that a comprehensive redevelopment of many of the
properties in the Study area could be a very positive thing for the community. The City Council and City
Staff should take into consideration the residents who have been paying taxes to the City for a Long period
of time more than they have.
Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:33 P.M.
Chair Geng thanked all of the residents for coming this evening. He also thanked those who addressed the
Planning Commission. He assured them the Commission will take their comments into consideration. He
noted this is a process and not a fait accompli. He stated that he felt bad that some residents felt they were
excluded until recently. The Commission has attempted to be open and inclusive. He noted this has been
an ongoing process undertaken by volunteers. He stated the process has not gone as quickly as the
Commission would have liked, but that may ultimately be a blessing based on the feedback provided by
residents. On behalf of the Commission he reiterated the Commissioners were thankful for the feedback
they received this evening.
Chair Geng stated the Planning Commission needs to consider the input the residents provided this
evening. It also needs to consider the suggestions made by Director Nielsen earlier in the meeting about
the Study.
Commissioner Garelick stated on his way to this meeting he saw a for sale sign at the former gas station.
He asked how that would impact the Study. Director Nielsen stated the Council has asked Staff to
research that. Nielsen noted that it is in the Study area. Administrator Heck noted that property did go to
Sheriff's sale and it was sold as a foreclosure in that sale. Nielsen stated Staff is researching who bought
it.
Chair Geng stated based on the public input received this evening he asked if it's realistic to be in a
position to hold another public hearing in January 2012. He thought that could be ambitious. Director
Nielsen stated he suggested getting a revised document back to the Commission for its January 17, 2012,
meeting and holding a public hearing in March 2012. Commissioner Hutchins stated based on some of the
comments made this evening that could be somewhat of an aggressive timetable. Hutchins then stated
input from the entire community needs to be taken into account; not just those living in the area close to
the Study area. Nielsen clarified that would be the quickest it could be done, but it doesn't need to be
done by then.
Commissioner Arnst stated from her perspective revisions to the Study area is a topic for a work session.
It should be the only item on that agenda.
Commissioner Hasek asked if the redevelopment of the Smithtown Crossing area was specifically
addressed in the resident survey that was recently conducted. Administrator Heck responded the survey
didn't contain any questions that specifically addressed Smithtown Crossing or the redevelopment of that
area. Heck stated there were walk ability questions and general questions about services. Hasek then
stated a January timeline is too aggressive. It should be included in the Planning Commission's 2012
work program.
Chair Geng stated there appears to be consensus among the Planning Commissioners to take the time
needed on this. There is no sense of urgency. He stated he endorses Commissioner Arnst's suggestion that
a work session be devoted to discussing the comments received from the public to date.
Chair Geng closed the public hearing at 8 :43 P.M.
ER
r
VtVIZAA
Minnesota Department of
,..
► 55164-09
Paul Aasen, Commissioner
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road N
St. Paul, MN 55155 -4194
Ramona Dohman, Commissioner
Minnesota Department of Public Safety
445 Minnesota Street
/ Saint Paul MN 55101 -5155
/Jerry Rosendahl, State Fire Marshal
445 Minnesota St., Suite 145
St. Paul MN 55101 -5145
Re: Smithtown Crossing, Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear Commissioners and State Fire Marshal,
My name is Henry Miles and my family and I are lifelong residents of the State of Minnesota and the Lake
Minnetonka area. The city of Shorewood is considering the redevelopment of an area known as the
"Smithtown Crossing" including parcels to the north and west of the intersections of Manitou Road, Smithtown
Road, and Country Club Road.
We are concerned that the city may proceed in granting permits for this redevelopment without having done
complete due diligence on environmental matters. Also, a property at that intersection known as the
"Shorewood Market" is a derelict gas station. We are concerned that the underground fuel tank(s) and /or
well(s) on that site may not have been abandoned according to State Laws and may pose contamination,
pollution, fire, and other hazards to area residents and businesses including restaurants, and downstream into
the Minnehaha Creek Watershed.
Therefore, we ask that you investigate the area and the site of the Shorewood Market and, as you deem
necessary, require environmental analysis, remediation, and follow -up testing. We also ask that you require an
environmental impact study with respect to the proposed redevelopment. If possible, we would appreciate
receiving your acknowledgment of this letter and copy of your findings and directives. Thank you.
Henry Miles ll
24035 Mary Lake Trail
Shorewood, MN 55331
lw
M
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 1 August 2012
RE: Smithtown Crossing Third Draft — Resident Comments
FILE NO. Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study
The Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study — Third Draft has been available on the City's
website and at City Hall for resident comment during the month of July. The results are attached as
Exhibit A. These comments, and the feedback we received previously, will be discussed at our
meeting next Tuesday. The Commission should decide what, if any, changes should be made to the
document and schedule a public hearing to adopt an amendment to the Shorewood Comprehensive
Plan.
Cc: Bill Joynes
®2,
f ".* PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Overall I think the study is a good start. Everyone who has commented so far has some valid
points, although the way a couple were worded makes you totally ignore any validity
their statements might have. I do think the city needs to act like a business in this venture
to make sure the project offers an economic advantage to the city. I do like the idea of
planning the area- -the Tonka Bay section of the city looks so nice and you look at
Shorewood and it is really bad. As far as the study itself goes, I hope you will seriously
encourage businesses that will take advantage of pedestrian (bike) traffic. We have an
incredible resource right down the road with the LRT, plus many bike clubs use
Smithtown Road as a main thoroughfare. The bus stops across the street, and, although
not heavily used now, the demand of certain businesses to increase the use over the years.
Eventually mass transit will improve in the suburbs- -just not in my lifetime. I hope this
project will utilize the construction to add a bike trail comlection to the LRT. It was a
waste of money that it was not done as part of the intersection project and I hope we do
not overlook it. I am glad the building height has been scaled down. We really don't need
buildings towering over our tree height in Shorewood. It defeats why we move to outer -
ring suburbs. I will be interested to see the final draft and how financially you see it
impacting the city.
Thanks to you and City for your proactive efforts to get public review and cominent on the
Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study. I appreciate you alerting us in the City
Newsletter and providing adequate time for online review and comment. As you know,
most of us don't follow City Council meetings. By using the newsletter you alerted all of
us. Tying that to a one month online review and comment period provides just the sort of
proactive outreach needed on a project of this significance.
Overall, I'm glad to see the City is doing some advance, holistic thinking about this site
which in many ways is a gateway to the City. I agree that a coordinated approach
provides opportunities that piece -meal does not. I have a few specific comments for your
consideration:
While a coordinated, unified approach has many benefits it raises questions about what
will happen if not all landowners agree to participate. Although it appears the City is not
planning on using eminent domain, that is not clear. Breaking the project into three
chunks based on the existing road layout may reduce the risk that any given landowner
that is not interested holds up other aspects of the project. It may also reduce the
temptation for future City Councils to consider using eminent domain for the project.
2. I understand the rationale behind using Tax Increment Financing but am concerned about
the potential fiscal impact on the City. While the City would forego increased tax
revenues during the increment period, it would be paying out for additional service needs
required by the development during the same period. Toward that end, I would encourage
the City to require a Fiscal Impact Analysis as part of the project planning. Should the
City decide to proceed with Tax Increment Financing, I would urge the City to consider
basing any financing on the net fiscal impact of the project, not just gross increases in tax
Public Comments from July 2012 - Smithtown Crossing 3 d draft (City Website) Page 1 of 4 Exhibit A
revenues. Further, I'd encourage the City to use a short window of time for the financing
to limit medium -term impacts on the city.
As an alternative to investing future tax revenue in the project, I'd ask the City to
consider working with the developer and local banks to explore Community Investment
Financing. This would allow local citizens that were interested to invest into the project
via the bank who would provide financing at attractive rates. This approach could reduce
bank risks, lower developer financing costs, reduce or eliminate the need for City Tax
Increment Financing, and provide interesting local investment options for area residents
that were so inclined. Another alternative to this approach would be to use the City's
bonding authority to provide attractive financing via loans to the project as opposed to
foregoing fixture tax revenue to help fund the project.
4. A project like this provides great opportunities to think about future goals and community
needs. Towards that end, I'd encourage the City to consider requiring or incentivizing the
development to provide most or all of its energy needs through a project sponsored
energy cooperative or other model that takes advantage of the scale of the project to make
solar energy a reality for the site. Partnerships between the City, the project sponsors,
Excel Energy, and others could create a great opportunity here to showcase innovative
approaches to locally sourced energy that is fiscally real.
5. On page 12, bullet 5, the plan references housing should "add to and enhance the variety
of housing choices in the community." Perhaps explicit reference should be provided to
replacing the existing apartment stock that would be vacated by the proposed
development.
6. Page 17 references "connections to existing and future sidewalk systems." I strongly
encourage the City to consider including access enhancements as part of the project to
facilitate better pedestrian access. This should include better crossings across County
Road 19 and extensions of sidewalks into the community such as down Smithtown Road.
And yes, my property does front and Smithtown and we'd welcome a sidewalk.
7. Also on page 17 there is a reference to site planning and landscaping that would
encourage "visitors to spend a little more time in the area ...." I suggest explicitly
referencing the need to have design that encourages external access within the proposed
development.
8. Page 18 references strategies for mitigating visual impact. I encourage the City to
explicitly include strategies to reduce light pollution as part of the design requirements.
9. Page 23 references possible City land acquisition. I understand the rationale for that and
the flexibility it provides. St. Louis Park's award winning Excelsior and Grand project
was made possible because the City proactively acquired the land and then sought
developers that could implement the City's vision for the site. Of course that's a different
scale project, but the process is worth noting. That said, the reference to selling to a
developer "at cost" should be modified in the report to include carrying costs. Although,
the City should probably sell "at market value." Further, the City should thoroughly plan
out interim uses and associated holding costs and risks before embarking on any land
Public Comments from July 2012 - Smithtown Crossing 3 ` draft (City Website) Page 2 of 4
acquisition. Finally, I would urge the Cit not to buy any of the sites that have problem
soils until they are corrected and cases are closed by the MN PCA. If the City comes into
the chain of title prior to completing radiation, the City's risk profile increases
dramatically.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important project. I look forwarding
to seeing the final redevelopment study.
Obviously you have become busy - bodies again and you are just looking for something to do.
Why is it that these changes are never driven by the people but from the top down? Why
impose this type of development on a community that doesn't want it? Stop letting staff
drive change that your residents do not want. You are just going to start another political
war in Shorewood. This is not democracy; this is expertism.
I strongly oppose the use of tax payers' money for speculative development projects. The
rationale that the private investment in the area hasn't kept up with the public investment
is highly suspect. You may also want to ask whether residents are interested in having a
civic campus. Stop spending!
How much will this cost the residents of Shorewood? How can residents give valuable
feedback without knowing the cost to the city? As a resident of Shorewood, I feel the
explanation should include the "all in" expenses associated with the project.
Since you appear to be underwriting a business venture, I think you should provide residents
an objective report showing the costs of the project and the expected benefits. An
assessment and an itemization of the financial risks should be part of the disclosure. The
only financial information in the report is the inventory in the appendix. Does the city
plan to take the properties? Are there plans to buy out the businesses?
I am happy to see bicycle /pedestrian connections included in the plan document, as well as
emphasis on landscaping and other elements that would help new construction blend in
with the residential character of most of our community. I am a bit concerned about
references to allowing a taller building. I rather like the existing limit of about 2 - 1/2
stories. With regard to hardscape, I wonder if permeable paving could be included instead
of solid pavement. It would be nice if development could be as green as possible - an
example to be proud of. I like the mention of community gathering spaces - making the
result people- friendly instead of just car friendly. And I am glad to see that a traffic study
is included, since extra traffic at that intersection - which is an important route for folks
trying to get from the neighborhoods to Highway 7 - could create problems for
Shorewood residents. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Public Comments from July 2012 - Smithtown Crossing 3 ` draft (City Website) Page 3 of 4
People no longer trust government, generally speaking. The reason is easy to understand.
Govermuent often positions itself "in the front of the line "; while their constituents "sit in
the back." In the case of the Smithtown Road redevelopment proposal, it would therefore
be quite natural to be suspicious of one or more of the following: 1) A City Council
which is blinded by the prospect of more tax revenues; 2) A developer with a "hit -and-
run" mentality — all too often, from out of state; and 3) The Met Council. On this latter
factor, I have a question: What is the precise involvement of the Met Council? Whenever
I hear "multi -unit housing ", or "senior housing ", I suspect the presence of this powerful,
unelected body. Their outreach and control is an abomination to those of us who cherish
the concepts of individuality, private property rights and community autonomy and
character.
People live here for a reason. The character and beauty of the Shorewood /Excelsior
community features a wonderful combination of quaintness, individuality and local color,
serenity and seclusion. By contrast, most folks around here would consider Wayzata to be
sometimes useful, but as a place to live? You would hear, "sterile, overdeveloped, and
ridiculously upscale ". - -How about the crowded circus that has become the new
Chanhassen? Not a chance! Let's be careful with this.
After watching my former community of the Parker's Lake area in Plymouth be wrecked by
multi -unit housing and overdevelopment, I am not interested in: 1) several years of the
all -day noise, dirt, and traffic detours of major construction; 2) potential lowering of
property values because of the presence of multi -unit housing; 3) groups of buildings
reaching 4 stories in height, large parking lots, herding people into phony little
courtyards, and all of the other artificialities that the developers come up with.
I have a suggestion. Let us take an approach which will attract the many entrepreneurs
among us. Yes, the gas station and former Bayt Shop properties need action. These are
good locations for many different types of quality retail oriented businesses. Scrap this
outlandish proposal — one which will create great noise, congestion and upheaval — while
damaging the intrinsic nature of Shorewood. In its place, create the right environment —
and let the free market work.
My husband used to rent an apartment from those "small not to code apartments" referred to
in the report. For over 30 years we have owned a home on Smithtown Rd. and have
utilized services at this very convenient business location. I do like the idea of making
biking /pedestrian access to a public commons area as illustrated in the proposal. It would
be very useful to have a safer means of crossing this intersection when not in a car.
Businesses which have left this area and we sorely miss are: the hardware store, a gas
station/convenience store, a blue collar priced descent food restaurant - perhaps with
views of the Glen? (Oh, we miss you Pizza Platter). I saw notes in the proposal for more
health/beauty stores - really? Do we really need more of these in the area? I also would
lament the loss of those apartments. In the past the rent was cheep, just the ticket for
single people struggling to make ends meet especially in this economy. We should have
options for this population.
Public Comments from July 2012 - Smithtown Crossing 3 d draft (City Website) Page 4 of 4
Brad Nielsen
Planning Director
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Overall, I'm glad to see the City is doing some advance, holistic thinking about this site which in
many ways is a gateway to the City. I agree that a coordinated approach provides opportunities
that piece-meal does not. I have a few specific comments for your consideration.
L While a coordinated, unified approach has many benefits it raises questions about what
will happen if not all landowners agree to participate. Although it appears the City is not
planning on using eminent domain, that is not clear. Breaking the project into three
chunks based on the existing road layout may reduce the risk that any given landowner
that is not interested holds up other aspects of the project. It may also reduce the
temptation for future City Councils to consider using eminent domain for the project.
2, 1 understand the rationale behind using Tax Increment Financing but am concerned
about the potential fiscal impact on the City. While the City would forego increased tax
revenues during the increment period, it would be paying out for additional service
needs required by the development during the same period. Toward that end, I would
encourage the City to require a Fiscal Impact Analysis as part of the project planning.
Should the City decide to proceed with Tax Increment Financing, I would urge the City to
consider basing any financing • the net fiscal impact of the project, not just gross
increases in tax revenues. Further, I'd encourage the City to use a short window of time
for the financing to limit medium-term impacts on the City,
7. Also on page 17 there is a reference to site planning and landscaping that would
encourage "visitors to spend a little more time in the area ...... I suggest explicitly
referencing the need to have design that encourages external access and not just
internal access within the proposed development.
. was afff I M
MT M-1 M,
9. Page 23 references possible City land acquisition. I understand the rationale for that
and the flexibility it provides. St. Louis Park's award winning Excelsior and Grand project
was made possible because the City proactively acquired the land and then sought
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important project. I look forward to
seeing the final redevelopment study.
Sincerely,
Michael Pressman
-�
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD - SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 - (952) 960 -7900
FAX (952) 474 -0128 . www.d.shorewood.mn.us - dtyha1I @ci.shorewood.mn.us
ITUVWK_0 � M NO]
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO.:
BACKGROUND
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
Brad Nielsen
13 September 2012
Carlson, Ken — Minor Subdivision /Combination
405 (12.10)
Mr. Ken Carlson owns the two properties at 5725 and 5775 Ridge Road (see Site
Location maps — Exhibits A, attached). He proposes to rearrange the lot line between the
two sites, as shown on Exhibit B.
Both of the subject parcels are zoned R -lA /S, Single- Family Residential /Shoreland. The
northerly parcel (Existing Parcel B on Exhibit B) is occupied by the applicant's single -
family home. The southerly parcel (Existing Parcel A on Exhibit B) is undeveloped. The
existing lot with the home on it contains 40,522 square feet of area and will be enlarged
to 88,364 square feet upon completion of the division/combination. The vacant lot
currently has 191,585 square feet of area and will be reduced to 143,743 square feet.
The applicant's request is explained in his request letter — Exhibit C.
ANALYSIS /RECOMMENDATION
This request is considered very simple. It increases the buildability of the northeasterly
parcel and provides it with access to Silver Lake. The southwesterly parcel remains a
buildable lot, and in fact is oversized for the R -lA /S zoning district. To enhance the
buildability of the vacant parcel, Mr. Carlson proposes to grant a driveway easement over
the homestead parcel in favor of the vacant one. This will allow better access to the
®*
®�� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: Carlson — Minor Subdivision /Combination
13 September 2012
vacant parcel, which has a relatively steep slope off of Ridge Road. The proposed
easement, shown on Exhibit D, will allow a flatter driveway to the vacant lot.
There is currently a wetland conservation easement on the vacant lot that provides for a
four -foot wide "access corridor" to get to Silver Lake. As part of his request, Mr. Carlson
has requested an amendment to the original easement, allowing for a second, similar
access for the new lot. The amendment language is contained in Exhibit D, attached. Mr.
Carlson has identified the existing trails (not much more than deer trails) with survey tape
for anyone that wishes to visit the site. Bear in mind it is a bit of a trek!
The proposed division /combination involves vacating some existing drainage and utility
easements along the current common boundary and creating new ones on the new lot line.
In this process, staff has suggested that an additional easement be provided along the
easterly line of existing Parcel B. The easements are all shown on Exhibit B. Vacation of
the existing easements requires a public hearing, to be held by the City Council. A
hearing has been scheduled for the 24 September Council meeting.
It is recommended that the proposed division and combination be approved, along with
the vacation of the existing easements, the creation of the new easements and the
amendment to the wetland easement. It should be noted that the applicant has already
submitted the legal descriptions necessary for the resolution that will be recorded with
Hennepin County. The division /combination and easement documents should be
recorded within 30 days following Council approval of the request.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Tim Keane
Ken Carlson
-2-
� u UGt o
N
✓ldti 229.29 N
ol
9 1
V 37:21
5 D
(20) a
51.82
33.37
C •:
5 0.48
121.86
q2 ' Sti �s D P ul
1 S88° 57'30'W (21) N a S U cn
148 Q
115
8s \tio 1� cllek
y N 6
3
397.73 N88 7'30 F
434.45
(5) -
` 2
� (33) j - mot
r ( t
3 c�J N 45 g 9S B
7.12 4
RS 5696.
435.52 135 n' 94.25 198.14
(6) EAST N b =18° ' 431 .97
o 95 ; R_3p
NO °9622•e N89 °23' ^c8`E / '. \ 4 &s (34) = o � y 7L6S 07.03
S89° 57'39 °E 265.26 s 331.33
'1 254.54 30.06 .�5j::....7.91 ff y
61 110 m 34.6 . 40_ a0_ w 3 p
s2� 3 (17) (18) (A9) e (20
rte (7) , OUTLOT A°J4�' ,y "� (35).:x._.. � �
i9 Z 46 d (11) a i s jO j �� S ?96
i62-17 0.9 .� ° 128.15 110 149.47 1<
2 176 l4 p6 s 93.85 o 63.5 � Q OUTLOT E . 8 OS 854.14 N.
ti •�3 STr 88.86 .. 6 s
(7)
2 t/U
\ ° (8)
fm �B N 9j 93'9 P' 9 S
s C; L B 2 �
x(13) (9) n/� 9 o
3 10)
3 � ll,�/--yy
0 0 3Sg s 8 �1
2 442.89 N89 ° 57'39 "W 3 (8) l f €c 6 %},
0.
0
9 C, \ 6g2
0- 4 2
�pgy� m i�. OUTLOT 0 Q �� �
e � ��l i °• 3 B9g� y (14) ��,' � ;, + ' = ti p '
3E° 337.8 26 °13
01.7 Bi (.
•
45
18 5 7 1
_ ..5.... 416.
i
'IF 4 i 1 , __ _ _ -----
(24) o
�
_ Ix. /9 °54'29°
W
Exhibit A
GOVT [ T T 4 SITE LOCATION
We would like to change the location of the "lot line" currently dividing
Existing Parcel A and Existing Parcel B (see attached survey map), so that
the property at 5725 Ridge Road will include some of the adjacent woods,
and have access to Silver Lake. We believe that this will enhance the
value of the property at 5725 Ridge Road, without significantly reducing
the value of the adjacent wooded lot (Parcel 2 on the attached survey
map).
This will allow us to sell the remainder of the wooded lot (Parcel 2 on the
attached survey map) to one of our neighbors on Ridge Road who is
interested in acquiring this property.
As a part of this project, we will grant a driveway easement in favor of
Parcel 2 across the most western point of Parcel 1, approximately
following the 990 foot contour line, which we believe will enhance the value
of Parcel 2 by providing better access for any future improvement to this
Parcel from Ridge Road.
We also request that the Wetland Buffer Easement granted in favor of the
City of Shorewood for Existing Parcel A be amended such that Parcel 1
and Parcel 2 are each allowed to establish a four foot wide "Access
Corridor" to Silver Lake. Only one "Access Corridor" is currently permitted
across the Wetland Buffer Easement for Existing Parcel A.
Exhibit C
APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER
AMENDMENT TO WETLAND BUFFER EASEMENT
This Amendment to Wetland Buffer Easement ( "Amendment ") is made as of September
2012 by and between Kenneth G. Carlson and Stephanie Venn Petersen, husband and
wife ( "Owners ") and the City of Shorewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation ( "City ").
A. By Wetland Buffer Easement dated January 28, 2008, as recorded with the
Hennepin County Recorder on February 5, 2008 as Document Nos. 9093973 and 9093976
(collectively the "WBE "), Michael W. and Kay H. McCarthy, husband and wife ( "McCarthys "),
granted to the City a non - exclusive easement for wetland buffer purposes ( "Wetland Easement ")
over a 35 -foot strip of land over, under and across a portion of the property legally described on
attached Exhibit A ( "Owners' Property ").
B. By deed dated January 28, 2008, as recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder
on February 5, 2008 as Document No. 9093979 Owners acquired the Owners' Property. Owners
also own Lot 4, Block 1, SILVER RIDGE, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin
County, Minnesota ( "Lot 4, Block I").
C. Owners requested that City approve a minor subdivision of Owners' Property
whereby Owners' Property will be divided in a manner so that the southwesterly portion of
Owners' Property will become one parcel and the northeasterly portion of Owners' Property
together with Lot 4, Block 1, will become a second parcel, each parcel meeting the zoning
requirements under the zoning code of City for a single family home.
D. The legal description for the northeasterly portion of Owners' Property, together
with Lot 4, Block 1, is legally described on attached Exhibit B ( "Parcel A "). The legal
description for the southwesterly portion of Owners' Property is legally described on attached
Exhibit C ( "Parcel B ").
E. Owners and City have agreed to amend Paragraph 3 of the WBE to permit Parcel
1 to have one Access Corridor (as defined in the WBE) through the Wetland Easement to the
Exhibit D
WETLAND EASEMENT
AMENDMENT
shore of Silver Lake and to permit Parcel 2 to have one Access Corridor through the Easement
Area to the shore of Silver Lake.
NOW, THEREFORE Owners and City covenant and agree as follows:
The above recitals are incorporated into and made a part of this Amendment.
2. The WBE is amended by deleting Paragraph 3 contained in the WBE and
substituting the following new paragraph 3:
3. Access Corridor Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2 above, one
access corridor (referred to as a "Access Corridor ") may be maintained
through the easement area on Parcel A roughly perpendicular to the shore
of Silver Lake to permit access to Silver Lake. Further, a second Access
Corridor may be maintained through the easement area on Parcel B
roughly perpendicular to the shore of Silver Lake to permit access to
Silver Lake. Each Access Corridor shall not exceed 4 feet in width.
Vegetation located within each Access Corridor may be thinned to permit
access to Silver Lake.
3. In all other respects Owners and City ratify and confirm the WBE as recorded.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owners and City have caused this Amendment to be
executed as of the date first above written.
OWNERS:
Kenneth G. Carlson
Stephanie Venn Petersen
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of September,
2012, by Kenneth G. Carlson and Stephanie Venn Petersen, husband and wife.
Signature of Notary Public or Other Official
2
CITY OF SHOREWOOD:
By:
Its: Mayor
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of September,
2012, by and , the Mayor and Clerk
Administrator, respectively, of the City of Shorewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on
behalf of the municipal corporation.
Signature of Notary Public or Other Official
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
MOSS & BARNETT (CAP)
A Professional Association
4800 Wells Fargo Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402 -4129
Telephone: (612) 877 -5000
3
1. 4,
• rAVT•I*I*M ivi till Irg.-IgIv
September 7, 2012
Mayor, City COMICII, and Planning Commission
City ofShorewood
5755 COUntry Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Honorable 'Mayor Lizee. COLUICil NlClubers Flotvet, Siakel, WOOCII and Zerby, and Planning
Commission Members,
I am writing In support of Mr. Carlson's proposal to re-arrange the lot line between the two
properties he and his wile own at 5725 and 5775 Ridge Road.
As their immediate neighbor to the w"t, I aiii familiar with the properties involved, as well as
with the proposal Mr. Carlson has Submitted. illy wife and I both fully support his proposal.
Please feel free to contact me if NIOU Nvould like any additional information.
Sincerely,
Thomas Pohlad
September 7, 2012
,Ty
Fit
Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commission
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, TN4N 55331.
Honorable Mayor Lizee, Council Members Hotvet, Slakel, Wood and Zerby, and Planning
Commission Members,
We are very well acquainted with the properties involved, as our house is located at 5770 Ridge
Road, and is directly across from these properties. We have personally walked the proposed new
lot line with Mr. Carlson, and are very famar with his plans. We both fully support his
proposIl.
0, UNZARM
5770 Ridge Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Chris Cell Phone: 952-250-4476
Sarah Cell Phone: 952-250-4475
Home: 952-474-6016
Email: meyer1020@hotmail.com
Sincerely,
is and Sarah Me r
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331
Phone: (952) 960-7900 • FAX: (952) 474-0128 • Email: planning@ci.shorewood.mn.us
PLANNING AND PROTECTIVE INSPECTIONS
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
DATE:
13 September 2012
RE:
Zoning Discussion – General Provisions – Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.- Subd.9.
FILE NO.
Zoning Code – 1201.03
Staff continues to work on the issue of noise and summarizing various local noise ordinances.
Meanwhile, Tuesday night we will continue our study of the General Provisions section of the
Zoning Code. We will be studying Section 1201.03 Subd. 3. through Subd. 9. We have copied this
portion of the Code for your review (attached). One of the significant portions of this part of the
Code is parking. Parking requirements were reviewed a couple of years ago and are relatively up to
date. Nevertheless, review of those provisions is useful.
Cc: William Joynes
Scott Zerby
Shorewood - Zoning and Subdivision Regulations
1201.03 1201.03
include such appurtenances as sediment basins (debris basins,
desilting basins, or silt traps), installation of debris guards and
microsilt basins on storm water inlets, oil skimming devices, and
the like;
(d) The maximum ratio of impervious surface to lot area ratio shall
not exceed 75%.
(4) Commercial districts (R-C through C-1) and Lakeshore Recreational
A@
(L-R): located in the S, Shoreland District: 25%. A conditional use
permit may be granted to exceed 25%, provided that:
(a) The proposed development complies with the requirements set
forth in (3)(a-d), above;
(b) The treatment measures referenced in (3)(c), above, shall be
consistent with the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
guidelines, including, but not limited to, the removal of 90% of
total suspended solids and the removal of 60% total phosphorous.
(5) Planned Unit Development (PUD) districts shall be regulated based upon
the various uses within the PUD. Residential portions of the PUD shall
be subject to the provisions of (1) above. Commercial portions of the
PUD shall be subject to the provisions above.
Subd. 3. Yard requirements.
a. This section identifies general yard requirements to be provided for in all zoning
districts and exceptions thereto.
b. No lot, yard or other open space shall be reduced in area or dimension so as to
make the lot, yard or open space less than the minimum required by this chapter,
and if the existing yard or other open space as existing is less than the minimum
required, it shall not be further reduced. No required open space provided about
any building or structure shall be included as part of any open space required for
another structure.
c. The following shall not be considered as encroachments on required yard
setbacks for all lots:
(1) Chimneys, flues, belt courses, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features,
cornices, eaves, gutters and the like, provided they do not project more
than two feet into a required yard;
1201-42
2007 S-2
Zoning Regulations
1201.03 1201.03
(2) A one story enclosed entrance for a detached single-family, two-family
or townhouse dwelling, existing prior to adoption of this chapter, may
extend into the front yard setback not more than four feet. The entrance
shall not exceed six feet in width.
(3) Terraces, steps, stoops or similar features, but not including porches or
=
balconies in front or rear yards, provided they dont extend above the
entrance floor level of the building or more than four and one-half feet
into the required yard.
(4) Laundry drying and recreational equipment, arbors, trellises, air
conditioning or heating equipment in rear yards to a point no closer than
five feet from any lot line.
(5) One detached accessory building not exceeding eight feet in height, nor
100 square feet in area in the rear yard to a point no closer than five feet
from any lot line.
(6) The minimum rear yard setback for swimming pools shall be 60% of that
which is required for the zoning district in which the pool is located. No
part of any pool, including guardrails, shall exceed six feet above grade
in height. Decking, patios and pool aprons shall not encroach into the
required rear yard setback area. Rear yard setbacks for lakeshore lots
'
shall be as provided in 1201.26 of this chapter.
(7) For residential districts, one recreational vehicle or piece of equipment
may be stored in required front yards; provided, that it is located within
an approved driveway, it does not take up required parking space as
provided in subdivision 5h of this section, it is currently licensed and
operable and it is located no closer than 15 feet from the paved surface of
the street. This provision shall only apply when there is no practical way
to store the vehicle or equipment within the buildable area of the lot.
(8) For cemeteries, grave sites may be located within front yards and side
yards abutting streets, no closer than 15 feet from the public right-of-
way. Monuments for grave sites within front yards or side yards abutting
streets shall be limited to headstones flush with the ground.
(9) Storage of trash receptacles for single-family and two-family dwellings
may extend into a required front yard setback or required side yard
1201-43
2011 S-6
Shorewood - Zoning and Subdivision Regulations
1201.03 1201.03
setback abutting a street no more than five feet. Trash receptacles may be
placed adjacent to the street, 12 hours prior to the designated refuse
collection day, and must be removed no later than 12 hours after the
designated refuse collection day.
d. Where adjacent residential structures within the same block have front yard
setbacks different from those required, the front yard minimum setback shall be
the average of the adjacent structures. If there is only one adjacent structure, the
front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the required setback and the
setback of the adjacent structure. In no case shall the required front yard setback
exceed that required minimum established within the districts of this chapter.
Subd. 4. General area and building size regulations.
a. Purpose. This section identifies general area and building size requirements and
exceptions to general height requirements in each zoning district.
b. Useable open space. Each multiple-family dwelling site shall contain at least
'
500 square feet of useable open space as defined in 1201.02 of this chapter for
each dwelling unit contained thereon.
c. Height.
(1) The building height limits established herein for districts shall not apply
to the following:
(a) Belfries;
(b) Chimneys or flues;
(c) Church spires;
(d) Cooling towers, mechanical and air conditioning equipment when
screened from view;
(e) Cupolas and domes which do not contain useable space;
(f) Elevator penthouses;
(g) Flagpoles;
1201-44
2011 S-6
Zoning Regulations
1201.03 1201.03
(h) Monuments;
(i) Parapet walls extending not more than three feet above the
limiting height of the building;
(j) Water towers;
(k) Poles, towers and other structures for essential services subject to
subdivision 10 of this section;
(l) Television and radio antennas not exceeding 20 feet above the
roof. Exception: ham radio antennas over 20 feet may be allowed
'
by conditional use permit as provided for in 1201.04 of this
chapter, provided that:
1201-44A
2011 S-6
Zoning Regulations
1201.03 1201.03
(i) The ham radio must be licensed by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC);
(ii) Construction of the antenna requires a building permit;
(iii) The antenna must be located within the buildable area of
the lot;
(iv) The antenna must be fenced or so designed as to be
difficult to climb;
(2) The requirements of Minn. Rules 8800.1200 (Criteria for Determining
Air Navigation Obstructions), as may be amended, are hereby adopted by
reference.
d. Roof equipment. No excluded roof equipment or structural element extending
beyond the limited height of a building may occupy more than 25% of the area
of the roof nor shall the equipment exceed ten feet in height unless otherwise
noted.
e. Efficiency apartments. Except for elderly housing, the number of efficiency
apartments in a multiple dwelling shall not exceed 5% of the total number of
apartments.
f. Minimum floor area - commercial structures. Commercial buildings (principal
structure) having less than 1,000 square feet of floor area may only be allowed
'
upon approval of a conditional use permit as provided for in 1201.04 of this
chapter, provided that:
(1) The structure is built on a lot with a minimum lot area of no less than
10,000 square feet;
(2) Adequate on-site parking is provided;
(3) The architectural character of the building is similar in character to
buildings in the surrounding area.
Subd. 5. Off-street parking requirements.
a. Purpose. The purpose of the off-street parking regulations is to alleviate or
prevent congestion of the public right-of-way and to promote the safety and
general welfare of the public by establishing minimum requirements for off-
street parking of motor vehicles in accordance with the utilization of various
parcels of land or structures.
1201-45
2006 S-1
Shorewood - Zoning and Subdivision Regulations
1201.03 1201.03
b. Application of off-street parking regulations. The regulations and requirements
set forth herein shall apply to all off-street parking facilities in all of the zoning
districts of the city.
c. Site plan drawing necessary. All applications for a building or an occupancy
permit in all zoning districts shall be accompanied by a site plan drawn to scale
and dimensioned indicating the location of off-street parking and loading spaces
in compliance with the requirements set forth in this subdivision and subdivision
2d of this section. No permit shall be issued for the construction of more than
one private detached garage structure for each detached single-family dwelling,
except on the approval of a conditional use permit according to the provisions of
'
1201.04 of this chapter. Every detached single-family dwelling unit erected
after
the effective date of this chapter shall be so located on the lot so that at least a
two car garage, either attached or detached in conformance with this chapter, can
be located on the lot.
d. General provisions.
FLOOR
(1) Floor area. Except as hereinafter may be provided, the term
AREA
, for the purpose of calculating the number of off-street parking
spaces required, shall be determined on the basis of the exterior floor area
dimensions of the building, structure or use times the number of floors,
minus 10%.
(2) Reduction of existing off-street parking space or lot area. Off-street
parking spaces or area upon the effective date of this chapter shall not be
reduced in number or size unless the number or size exceeds the
requirements set forth herein for a similar new use.
(3) Nonconforming structures. Should a nonconforming structure or use be
damaged or destroyed by fire, it may be reestablished if elsewhere
permitted in these zoning regulations, except that in doing so, any off-
street parking or loading space which existed before shall be retained.
Where possible, parking and loading shall be brought into conformance
with this chapter.
(4) Change of use or occupancy of land. No change of use or occupancy of
land already dedicated to a parking area, or parking spaces, shall be
made, nor shall any sale of land, division or subdivision of land be made
which reduces area necessary for parking, parking stalls or parking
requirements below the minimum prescribed by this chapter.
(5) Change of use or occupancy of buildings. Any change of use or
occupancy of any building or buildings, including additions thereto
requiring more
1201-46
2006 S-1
Zoning Regulations
1201.03 1201.03
parking area, shall not be permitted until there is furnished the additional
parking spaces as required by this chapter.
(6) Off-street parking facilities to incidental residential use. Off-street
parking facilities incidental to residential use shall be utilized solely for
the parking of currently licensed and operable passenger automobiles, no
more than one truck not to exceed gross capacity of 12,000 pounds and
recreational vehicles and equipment. Under no circumstances shall
required parking facilities accessory to residential structures be used for
the storage of commercial vehicles or equipment or for the parking of
automobiles belonging to the employees, owners, tenants or customers of
business or manufacturing establishments.
(7) Calculating space.
(a) When determining the number of off-street parking spaces results
in a fraction, each fraction of one-half or more shall constitute
another space.
(b) In places of public assembly in which patrons or spectators
occupy benches, pews or other similar seating facilities, each 22
inches of the seating facilities shall be counted as one seat for the
purpose of determining requirements.
(c) Except as hereinafter may be provided, should a structure contain
two or more types of use, each use shall be calculated separately
for determining the total off-street parking spaces required.
(8) Stall, aisle and driveway design.
(a) Parking space size. Each parking space shall not be less than nine
feet wide and 20 feet in length, exclusive of access aisles. Each
space shall be adequately served by access aisles.
(b) Except in the case of single-family, two-family, townhouse and
quadraminium dwellings, parking areas and their aisles shall be
developed in compliance with the standards in the Parking Lot
Dimensions Table.
1201-47
2006 S-1
Shorewood - Zoning and Subdivision Regulations
1201.03 1201.03
PARKING LOT DIMENSIONS TABLE*
Angle of Stall Curb Stall Aisle Angle of Stall Curb Stall Aisle
Parking Width Length Per Depth Width Parking Width Length Per Depth Width
Car Car
9'0" 23'0" 9'0" 12'0" 9'0" 11'9" 20'5" 12'0"
050
9'6" 23'0" 9'6" 12'0" 9'6" 12'5" 20'9" 12'0"
10'0" 23'0" 10'0" 12'0" 10'0" 13'2" 21'0" 12'0"
9'0" 26'4" 15'0" 11'0" 9'0" 10'5" 21'0" 18'0"
2060
9'6" 27'10" 15'6" 11'0" 9'6" 11'0" 21'3" 18'0"
10'0" 29'3" 15'11" 11'0" 10'0" 11'6" 21'6" 18'0"
9'0" 18'0" 17'4" 11'0" 9'0" 9'8" 21'0" 19'0"
3070
9'6" 19'0" 17'10" 11'0" 9'6" 10'2" 21'3" 18'6"
10'0" 20'0" 18'3" 11'0" 10'0" 10'8" 21'3" 18'0"
9'0" 14'0" 19'2" 12'0" 9'0" 9'2" 20'4" 24'0"
4080
9'6" 14'10" 19'6" 12'0" 9'6" 9'8" 20'5" 24'0"
10'0" 15'8" 19'11" 12'0" 10'0" 10'3" 20'6" 24'0"
9'0" 14'0" 19'2" 12'0" 9'0" 9'0" 20'0" 22'0"
4590
9'6" 14'10" 19'6" 12'0" 9'6" 9'6" 20'0" 22'0"
10'0" 15'8" 19'11" 12'0" 10'0" 10'0" 20'0" 22'0"
* This table pertains to a wall to wall situation. In calculating dimensions, two feet may be
subtracted from each stall depth for each overhand and overlap. No subtraction for overlap is
allowed for angles greater than 60 degrees.
1201-48
Zoning Regulations
1201.03 1201.03
(c) Within structures, the off-street parking requirements may be
furnished by providing space so designed within the principal
building or one accessory structure; however, unless provisions
are made, no building permit shall be issued to convert the
parking structure into a dwelling unit or living area or other
activity until other adequate provisions are made to comply with
the required off-street parking provisions of this chapter.
(d) Except in the case of single-family, two-family, townhouse and
quadraminium dwellings, parking areas shall be designed so that
circulation between parking bays or aisles occurs within the
designated parking lot and does not depend upon a public street or
alley. Except in the case of single, two-family, townhouse and
quadraminium dwellings, parking area design which requires
backing into the public street is prohibited.
(e) No curb cut or driveway access shall be located less than 40 feet
from the intersection of two or more street rights-of-way.
Minimum distance for commercial uses shall be 60 feet. This
distance shall be measured from the intersection of lot lines.
(f) No curb cut or driveway access shall exceed 25 feet in width,
except on the approval of the City Engineer.
(g) Curb cut or driveway openings shall be at minimum five feet, not
including curb radius, from side or rear property lines.
(h) Driveway access or curb openings on a public street except for
single, two-family, townhouse and quadraminium dwellings shall
not be located less than 40 feet from one another.
(i) The grade elevation of any parking area shall not exceed 5%.
(j) Each property shall be allowed one curb cut or driveway access
for each 120 feet of street frontage. All property shall be entitled
to at least one curb cut or driveway. Exception: two-family
dwellings may have two driveways.
(k) Except in the case of single-family dwellings, all areas intended
to be utilized for parking space and driveways shall be paved.
Plans for surfacing and drainage of driveways and stalls for five
or more vehicles shall be submitted to the City Engineer for his or
her review and the final drainage plan shall be subject to his or
her written approval.
1201-49
Shorewood - Zoning and Subdivision Regulations
1201.03 1201.03
(l) Curbing and landscaping:
(i) Except for single-family, two-family, townhouse and
quadraminium dwellings, all open off-street parking shall
have a perimeter curb barrier of continuous poured
concrete around the entire parking lot. The barrier shall
not be closer than five feet to any lot line. Grass, plantings
or surfacing material shall be provided in all areas
bordering the parking area;
(ii) All commercial parking areas shall be brought into
conformance with this provision within three years of the
date of enactment of this chapter.
(m) Where metal buildings exist on commercial property, a perimeter
curb barrier shall be provided around the building no closer than
five feet to the building wall.
(n) Except for single-family, two-family, townhouse and
quadraminium dwellings, all parking stalls shall be marked with
white or yellow paint lines not less than four inches wide.
(o) Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area shall be
so arranged as to reflect the light away from adjoining property,
abutting residential uses and public rights-of-way and be in
compliance with subdivision 2i of this section.
(p) Surfacing, curbing and striping required by paragraphs (k), (l) and
(n) above may be waived or delayed for parking lots in city parks,
provided that drainage, traffic, dust control, parking demand,
vehicular control and proximity to residential development are
taken into consideration and provided that the improvements are
=
incorporated into the citys Capital Improvements Program and
reviewed by the City Council annually.
e. Maintenance. It shall be the joint and several responsibility of the lessee and
owner of the principal use, uses or building to maintain in a neat and adequate
manner, the parking space and any required curbing, accessways, striping,
landscaping and required screening.
f. Setback area. Off-street parking areas shall conform with the following setback
provisions:
1201-50
Zoning Regulations
1201.03 1201.03
(1) In residential districts, required off-street parking shall not be provided in
required front yards (or in required side yards abutting a street in the case
of a corner lot) nor within five feet of any side or rear lot line;
(2) In the case of single-family, two-family, townhouse and quadraminium
dwellings, parking shall be prohibited in any portion of the required front
yard, except designated driveways leading directly into a garage or one
open, surfaced space located on the side of a driveway, away from the
principal use. The extra space shall be surfaced with concrete,
bituminous or crushed rock material;
(3) There shall be no off-street parking within 15 feet of any street surface;
(4) In any of the commercial districts (including the R-C District) no parking
space shall be located within 15 feet of any front property line or in any
required side or rear yard that abuts any of the classes of residential
districts. In no instance shall parking space be located within five feet of
a side or rear property line except in the case of joint use parking areas.
g. Use of required area. Required off-street parking spaces in any district shall not
be utilized for open storage, sale or rental of goods, storage of inoperable
vehicles as regulated by subdivision 2n of this section and/or storage of snow.
h. Number of spaces required. The following minimum number of off-street
parking spaces shall be provided and maintained by ownership, easement and/or
lease for and during the life of the respective uses hereinafter set forth:
(1) Single-family, two-family, townhouse and quadraminium units: two
spaces per unit;
(2) Boarding house: at least one parking space for each person for whom
accommodations are provided for sleeping;
(3) Multiple-family dwellings: at least two feet free spaces per unit;
(4) Public parks, playgrounds and playfields:
(a) Playgrounds - two spaces per acre;
(b) Playfield - ten spaces for each acre over one acre;
(c) Community parks - five spaces for each acre over one acre;
1201-51
Shorewood - Zoning and Subdivision Regulations
1201.03 1201.03
(d) When a public recreation site has more than one use designation,
the areas must be divided for determining the required number of
parking spaces.
(5) Baseball fields: at least one parking space for each eight seats of design
capacity;
(6) Community Center, physical culture studio, personal fitness
establishments, libraries, private clubs, lodges, museums, art galleries:
ten parking spaces plus one space for each 150 square feet in excess of
2,000 square feet of floor area in the principal structure.
(7) Convalescent home, rest home, nursing home or day nurseries: four
spaces plus one for each three beds for which accommodations are
offered;
(8) Elderly housing: two parking spaces per unit;
(9) Office buildings, medical and dental clinics, animal hospitals and
professional offices: three spaces plus at least one space for each 200
square feet of floor area;
(10) Bowling alleys: at least five parking spaces for each alley, plus additional
spaces as may be required herein for related uses contained within the
principal structure;
(11) Retail store, bakery, and service establishment, including but not limited
to:
(a) Catering establishment;
(b) Copy service or print shop;
(c) Dry cleaner;
(d) Employment agency;
(e) Laundromat;
(f) Massage therapy;
(g) Photography studio;
(h) Tanning salon;
1201-52
2010 S-5
Zoning Regulations
1201.03 1201.03
(i) Veterinary clinic; and
(j) Electronic media rental and sales:
one parking space for each 200 square feet of floor area;
(12) Retail sales and service business with 50% or more of gross floor area
devoted to storage and/or warehouses: at least eight spaces or one space
for each 200 square feet devoted to public sales or service plus one space
for each 500 square feet of storage area;
(13) Restaurants, cafes and private clubs serving food and/or drinks, bars,
taverns, nightclubs: at least one parking space for each 40 square feet of
gross floor area of dining and bar area and one space for each 80 square
feet of kitchen area. Restaurants, cafes and private clubs not serving
drinks: a minimum of five parking spaces, plus one space for each two
seats of seating capacity;
(14) Undertaking establishments: at least 20 parking spaces for each chapel
or parlor, plus one parking space for each funeral vehicle maintained on
the premises. Aisle space shall also be provided off-street for making up
a funeral procession;
(15) Shopping centers: five parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross
leasable floor area, exclusive of restaurants and fitness centers, which
must be calculated separately, and exclusive of common areas;
(16) Swimming club or public swimming pool: 20 spaces plus one space for
each 500 square feet of floor area in the principal structure;
(17) Motels, motor hotels, hotels: one space per each rental unit plus one
space for each ten units and one space for each employee on any shift;
(18) School (public, private, day or church) - elementary and junior high:
three parking spaces for each classroom, or one space for each three seats
of seating capacity in the assembly area, whichever is greater;
(19) School (public, private, day or church) - high school through college:
two parking spaces for each classroom, plus one space for each five
students, based on design capacity, or one space for each three seats of
seating capacity in the assembly area, whichever is greater;
(20) Drive-in establishment, convenience food, delicatessen and coffee shop:
at least one parking space for each 15 square feet of gross floor area, but
not less than 15 spaces;
2010 S-5 1021-53
Shorewood - Zoning and Subdivision Regulations
1201.03 1201.03
(21) Motor fuel station: at least four off-street parking spaces plus two off-
street parking spaces for each service stall. Those facilities designed for
sale of other items than strictly automotive products, parts or service
shall be required to provide additional parking in compliance with other
applicable sections of this chapter. Parking for convenience stores with
accessory gas pumps shall be based upon the principal use;
(22) Auto repair, taxi terminal, boats and marine sales and repair, shop for a
trade employing six or less people, garden supply store, building material
sales in structure: eight off-street parking spaces, plus one additional
space for each 800 square feet of floor area over 1,000 square feet;
(23) Golf driving range, miniature golf, archery range: ten off-street parking
spaces, plus one for each tee, hole or lane respectively;
(24) Manufacturing, fabricating or processing of a product or material: one
space for each 350 square feet of floor area, plus one space for each
company-owned truck (if not stored inside principal building);
(25) Warehousing, storage or handling of bulk goods: that space which is
solely used as office shall comply with the office use requirements and
one space per each 1,000 square feet of floor area, plus one space for
each employee on maximum shift and one space for each company-
owned truck (if not stored inside principal building);
(26) Car wash: (In addition to required stacking space)
(a) Automatic drive through, serviced: a minimum of ten spaces, or
one space for each employee on the maximum shift, whichever is
greater;
(b) Self-service: one plus one space per stall;
(c) Motor fuel station car wash: zero in addition to that required for
the station;
(27) Commercial racquetball, handball and tennis facilities and clubs: not less
than six spaces per each court;
(28) Church, theatre, auditorium and amusement place: at least one parking
space for each three seats based on the design capacity of the main
assembly hall. Facilities as may be provided in conjunction with the
buildings or uses shall be subject to additional requirements which are
imposed by this section;
1201-54
2010 S-5
Zoning Regulations
1201.03 1201.03
(29) Marina: one space per boat slip;
(30) Other uses: other uses not specifically mentioned herein shall be
determined on an individual basis by the City Council. Factors to be
considered in the determinations shall include (without limitation) size of
building, type of use, number of employees, expected volume and
turnover of customer traffic and expected frequency and number of
delivery or service vehicles;
(31) Lake and lakeshore dredging and excavation facilities: one space for
each employee on the maximum shift, plus one space for each company-
owned vehicle.
(32) Barber or beauty shop: two and one-half parking spaces for each chair;
(33) Commercial tutoring and learning centers: two parking spaces for each
employee on the maximum shift;
(34) Day spa: one parking space for each 200 square feet of floor area or two
spaces for each employee on the maximum shift, whichever is greater;
(35) Day care facility: one parking space for each four persons of licensed
capacity;
i. Joint facilities. The City Council may approve a conditional use permit for one
or more businesses to provide the required off-street parking facilities by joint
use of one or more sites where the total number of spaces provided are less than
the sum of the total required for each business should they provide them
separately. When considering a request for a permit, the Council shall not
approve a permit except when the following conditions are found to exist:
(1) Up to 50% of the parking facilities required for a theatre, bowling alley,
dance hall, bar or restaurant may be supplied by the off-street parking
facilities provided by types of uses specified as primarily daytime uses in
paragraph (4) below;
1201-54A
2010 S-5
Zoning Regulations
1201.03 1201.03
(2) Up to 50% of the off-street parking facilities required for any use
specified under (4) below as primarily daytime uses may be supplied by
the parking facilities provided by the following nighttime or Sunday
uses; churches, bowling alleys, dance halls, theatres, bars or restaurants;
(3) Up to 80% of the parking facilities required by this chapter for a church
may be supplied by the off-street parking facilities provided by uses
specified under (4) below as primarily daytime uses;
(4) For the purpose of this section, the following uses are considered as
primarily daytime uses: banks, business offices, personal service shops
and similar uses;
(5) Conditions required for joint use:
(a) The building or use for which application is being made to utilize
the off-street parking facilities provided by another building or
use shall be located within 300 feet of the parking facilities;
(b) The applicant shall show that there is no substantial conflict in the
principal operating hours of the two buildings or uses for which
joint use of off-street parking facilities is provided;
(c) A properly drawn legal instrument, executed by the parties
concerned for joint use of off-street parking facilities, duly
approved as to form and manner of execution by the City
Attorney, shall be filed with the City Administrator/Clerk and
=
recorded with the Hennepin County Recorders Office.
j. Off-site parking.
(1) Any off-site parking which is used to meet the requirements of this
'
chapter shall be a conditional use as regulated by 1201.04 of this
chapter and shall be subject to the conditions listed below.
(2) Off-site parking shall be developed and maintained in compliance with
all requirements and standards of this chapter.
(3) Reasonable public access from off-site parking facilities to the use being
served shall be provided.
(4) The site used for meeting the off-site parking requirements of this chapter
shall be under the same ownership as the principal use being served or
under public ownership.
1201-55
Shorewood - Zoning and Subdivision Regulations
1201.03 1201.03
(5) Off-site parking for multiple-family dwellings shall not be located more
than 100 feet from any normally used entrance of the principal use
served.
(6) Off-site parking for nonresidential uses shall not be located more than
300 feet from the main entrance of the principal use being served. No
more than one main entrance shall be recognized for each principal
building.
(7) Any use which depends upon off-site parking to meet the requirements of
this chapter shall maintain ownership and parking utilization of the off-
site location until the time as on-site parking is provided or a site in
closer proximity to the principal use is acquired and developed for
parking.
(8) Off-site parking shall not be located where pedestrians would have to
cross a street classified higher than local street.
Subd. 6. Off-street loading requirements.
a. Purpose. The regulation of loading spaces in these zoning regulations is to
alleviate or prevent congestion of the public right-of-way and so to promote the
safety and general welfare of the public by establishing minimum requirements
for off-street loading and unloading from motor vehicles in accordance with the
utilization of various parcels of land or structures.
b. Location.
(1) All required loading berths shall be off-street and located on the same lot
as the building or use to be served.
(2) All loading berth curb cuts shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from
the intersection of two or more street rights-of-way. This distance shall
be measured from the property line.
(3) Except for loading berths required for multiple-family, no loading berth
shall be located closer than 50 feet from a residential district unless
within a structure.
(4) Loading berths located at the front, or at the side of buildings on a corner
lot, shall require a conditional use permit.
(a) Loading berths shall not conflict with pedestrian movement.
(b) Loading berths shall not obstruct the view of the public
right-of-way from off-street parking access.
1201-56
Zoning Regulations
1201.03 1201.03
(c) Loading berths shall comply with all other requirements of this
section.
(5) Each loading berth shall be located with appropriate means of vehicular
access to a street or public alley in a manner which will cause the least
interference with traffic.
c. Surfacing. All loading berths and accessways shall be improved to control the
dust and drainage according to a plan submitted to and subject to the approval of
the City Engineer.
d. Accessory use, parking and storage. Any space allocated as a required loading
berth or access drive so as to comply with the terms of these zoning regulations
shall not be used for the storage of goods, inoperable vehicles or snow and shall
not be included as part of the space requirements to meet the off-street parking
area.
e. Screening. Except in the case of multiple dwellings, all loading areas shall be
screened and landscaped from abutting and surrounding residential uses in
compliance with subdivision 2g of this section.
f. Size. Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, the first loading berth shall be
not less than 70 feet in length and additional berths required shall be not less
than 30 feet in length, and all loading berths shall be not less than 12 feet in
width and 14 feet in height, exclusive of aisle and maneuvering space.
g. Number of loading berths required. The number of required off-street loading
berths shall be as follows:
(1) Nonresidential buildings and uses. For each building, one loading berth
and one additional berth for each additional 10,000 square feet.
(2) Multiple-family dwellings. Where the building has ten or more dwelling
units, space shall be provided for unloading so as not to take up required
off-street parking.
(3) Fractions. When determining the number of off-street loading spaces
2
results in a fraction, each fraction of or more shall constitute another
space.
h. Off-street loading required. Any structure erected or substantially altered for a
use which requires the receipt or distribution of materials or merchandise by
trucks or similar vehicles shall provide off-street loading space as required for a
new structure.
1201-57
Shorewood - Zoning and Subdivision Regulations
1201.03 1201.03
Subd. 7. Building construction requirements.
a. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to insure that buildings in all zoning
districts maintain a high standard of architectural and aesthetic compatibility
with surrounding properties. To ensure that all new construction will not
adversely impact the property values of the abutting properties or adversely
=
impact the communitys public health, safety and general welfare, all buildings
must be in compliance with this chapter and the State Building Code.
b. Residential Districts.
(1) All detached accessory buildings in excess of 150 square feet in floor
area that are accessory to residential dwelling units shall be constructed
with materials and a design compatible with the general character of the
principal structure on the lot. No building in excess of 120 square feet in
floor area shall be constructed of sheet or corrugated steel, aluminum,
asbestos or fiberglass within a residential district. Except for approved
wood foundations, no building shall be constructed where wood poles are
the primary support for the roof system and form the foundation
structure.
(2) Single-family dwellings shall:
(a) Be constructed upon a continuous perimeter foundation that
meets the requirements of the State Building Code;
(b) Not be less than 30 feet in length and not less than 22 feet in
width over that entire minimum length. Width measurements
shall not take account of overhang and other projections beyond
the principal walls;
(c) Have an earth covered, composition, shingled, tiled roof or built-
up roof as defined by the State Building Code; and
(d) Require a building permit. The application for a building permit
in addition to other information required shall indicate the height,
size, design and the appearance of all elevations of the proposed
building and a description of the construction materials proposed
to be used.
c. Commercial Districts. All buildings constructed in a commercial zoning district
shall be finished on all exterior walls with the following permanent finish
materials:
(1) Brick;
1201-58
Zoning Regulations
1201.03 1201.03
(2) Natural stone;
(3) Decorative concrete block (e.g. split face, ribbed, textured);
(4) Cast in place concrete or precast concrete panels;
(5) Wood, provided surfaces are finished for exterior use and only
woods of proven exterior durability are used, such as cedar,
redwood and cypress;
(6) Curtain wall panels of steel, fiberglass and aluminum
(nonstructural nonload-bearing), provided the panels are factory
fabricated and finished with a permanent durable nonfade surface
and their fasteners are of a corrosion resistant design and provided
further that no more than one-third of the wall surface abutting a
public street or adjacent to a residential or public area consists of
the panels;
(7) Glass curtain wall panels. No building shall be constructed of sheet
or corrugated steel, aluminum, asbestos or fiberglass within a
commercial zoning district. Except for wood foundations, no
building shall be constructed where wood poles are the primary
support for the roof system and form the foundation structure.
Subd. 8. Land reclamation.
a. Land reclamation shall be permitted by conditional use permit in all
'
districts as regulated by 1201.04 of this chapter. Depositing of 100 cubic
yards or more of fill on any lot or parcel shall be considered land
reclamation. Land reclamation shall not be interpreted as the depositing of
fill from a building excavation on the same property.
b. The permit shall include, as a condition thereof, a finished grade plan
which has determined that the reclamation will not adversely affect the
adjacent land and as conditions thereof shall regulate the type of fill
permitted, program for rodent control, plan for fire control and general
maintenance of the site, controls of vehicular ingress and egress and for
control of material disbursed from wind or hauling of material to or from
the site.
Subd. 9. Mining. The extraction of sand, gravel or other material from the land in the
amount of 400 cubic yards or more and removal thereof from the site shall be
defined as mining. In all districts the conduct of mining shall be permitted only
upon issuance of a conditional use permit. The permit shall include, as a condition
thereof, a plan for a finished grade and land reclamation which will not adversely
affect the surrounding land or the development of the site on which the mining is
being conducted and the route of trucks moving to and from the site.
1201-59