Minutes and Public InputCITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhall®ci.shorewood.mmus
11 May 2010
Lowell (Boone) Day, Commander
Clarence Clofer Post #259
American Legion
24450 Smithtown Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Public Meeting Invitation
Dear Commander Day:
The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan identifies the area surrounding the Smithtown Road/County
Road 19 intersection as being prime for redevelopment. The Shorewood Planning Commission
has been working for the past several months to develop a vision of what this area could become
over the next 5-10 years and to identify measures the City could take to facilitate this vision. The
first step in this process has been to draft a "vision statement", describing in broad terms what the
City would like to see for the area in question (see Exhibit A, attached).
Before proceeding any further, the Planning Commission would like to obtain input from the
landowners within the "Smithtown Crossing" Study Area (see Exhibit B, attached). Yours are
three of 13 properties within the study area boundary. As such, the Planning Commission
cordially invites you to a roundtable discussion, scheduled for Tuesday, 18 May 2010. The
meeting will be held in the Council Chambers of the Shorewood City Hall at 7:30 P.M. The
meeting is intended to be very informal with the Planning Commission sharing its ideas with the
landowners and hoping that you will share your long-term plans with the City.
Please note that no decisions have been made to -date and no decisions will be made at Tuesday
night's meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to gain feedback on the ideas that have been
posed thus far. We hope that you will join us for this important discussion. If you are unable to
attend, Shorewood's Planning Director, Brad Nielsen, is willing to meet with you on an
individual basis to discuss the study and to answer questions you may have.
We look forward to seeing you there!
Sincerely,
THE SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Cc: Mayor and City Council
n
t •PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.cLshorewood.mn.us • 6tyhaII@cl.shorewood.mn.us
I 1 May 2010
Roger and Faye Femrite
548 W. Beach Boulevard #134
Long Beach, MS 39560
Re: Public Meeting Invitation
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Femrite:
The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan identifies the area surrounding the Smithtown Road/County
Road 19 intersection as being prime for redevelopment. The Shorewood Planning Commission
has been working for the past several months to develop a vision of what this area could become
over the next 5-10 years and to identify measures the City could take to facilitate this vision. The
first step in this process has been to draft a "vision statement", describing in broad terms what the
City would like to see for the area in question (see Exhibit A, attached).
Before proceeding any further, the Planning Commission would like to obtain input from the
landowners within the "Smithtown Crossing" Study Area (see Exhibit B, attached). Yours is one
of 13 properties within the study area boundary. As such, the Planning Commission cordially
invites you to a roundtable discussion, scheduled for Tuesday, 18 May 2010. The meeting will
be held in the Council Chambers of the Shorewood City Hall at 7:30 P.M. The meeting is
intended to be very informal with the Planning Commission sharing its ideas with the landowners
and hoping that you will share your long-term plans with the City.
Please note that no decisions have been made to -date and no decisions will be made at Tuesday
night's meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to gain feedback on the ideas that have been
posed thus far. We hope that you will join us for this important discussion. If you are unable to
attend, Shorewood's Planning Director, Brad Nielsen, is willing to meet with you on an
individual basis to discuss the study and to answer questions you may have.
We look forward to seeing you there!
Sincerely,
THE SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Cc: Mayor and City Council
..
L • PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474.0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityha1I@ci.shorewood.mn.us
11 May 2010
Phil Hotherr/Jennifer Osborne
Heartbreaker
5637 Manitou Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Public Meeting Invitation
Dear Mr. Hotherr/Ms. Osborne:
The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan identifies the area surrounding the Smithtown Road/County
Road 19 intersection as being prime for redevelopment. The Shorewood Planning Commission
has been working for the past several months to develop a vision of what this area could become
over the next 5-10 years and to identify measures the City could take to facilitate this vision. The
first step in this process has been to draft a "vision statement", describing in broad terms what the
City would like to see for the area in question (see Exhibit A, attached).
Before proceeding any further, the Planning Commission would like to obtain input from the
landowners within the "Smithtown Crossing" Study Area (see Exhibit B, attached). Yours is one
of 13 properties within the study area boundary. As such, the Planning Commission cordially
invites you to a roundtable discussion, scheduled for Tuesday, 18 May 2010. The meeting will
be held in the Council Chambers of the Shorewood City Hall at 7:30 P.M. The meeting is
intended to be very informal with the Planning Commission sharing its ideas with the landowners
and hoping that you will share your long-term plans with the City.
Please note that no decisions have been made to -date and no decisions will be made at Tuesday
night's meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to gain feedback on the ideas that have been
posed thus far. We hope that you will join us for this important discussion. If you are unable to
attend, Shorewood's Planning Director, Brad Nielsen, is willing to meet with you on an
individual basis to discuss the study and to answer questions you may have.
We look forward to seeing you there!
Sincerely,
THE SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Cc: Mayor and City Council
i• PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.d.shorewood.mmus • cityhall PoLshorewood.mmus
11 May 2010
Mark and Carrie Justinak
24250 Smithtown Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Public Meeting Invitation
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Justinak:
The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan identifies the area surrounding the Smithtown Road/County
Road 19 intersection as being prime for redevelopment. The Shorewood Planning Commission
has been working for the past several months to develop a vision of what this area could become
over the next 5-10 years and to identify measures the City could take to facilitate this vision. The
first step in this process has been to draft a "vision statement", describing in broad terms what the
City would like to see for the area in question (see Exhibit A, attached).
Before proceeding any further, the Planning Commission would like to obtain input from the
landowners within the "Smithtown Crossing" Study Area (see Exhibit B, attached). Yours is one
of 13 properties within the study area boundary. As such, the Planning Commission cordially
invites you to a roundtable discussion, scheduled for Tuesday, 18 May 2010. The meeting will
be held in the Council Chambers of the Shorewood City Hall at 7:30 P.M. The meeting is
intended to be very informal with the Planning Commission sharing its ideas with the landowners
and hoping that you will share your long-term plans with the City.
Please note that no decisions have been made to -date and no decisions will be made at Tuesday
night's meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to gain feedback on the ideas that have been
posed thus far. We hope that you will join us for this important discussion. If you are unable to
attend, Shorewood's Planning Director, Brad Nielsen, is willing to meet with you on an
individual basis to discuss the study and to answer questions you may have.
We look forward to seeing you there!
Sincerely,
THE SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Cc: Mayor and City Council
� • PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 • wwwxl.shorewood.mn.us • cityhalligci.shorewood.mmus
11 May 2010
Colleen Moore
Fish & Son Properties LLC
70 Florence Drive
Tonka Bay, MN 55331
Re: Public Meeting Invitation
Dear Mrs. Moore:
The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan identifies the area surrounding the Smithtown Road/County
Road 19 intersection as being prime for redevelopment. The Shorewood Planning Commission
has been working for the past several months to develop a vision of what this area could become
over the next 5-10 years and to identify measures the City could take to facilitate this vision. The
first step in this process has been to draft a "vision statement", describing in broad terms what the
City would like to see for the area in question (see Exhibit A, attached).
Before proceeding any further, the Planning Commission would like to obtain input from the
landowners within the "Smithtown Crossing" Study Area (see Exhibit B, attached). Yours is one
of 13 properties within the study area boundary. As such, the Planning Commission cordially
invites you to a roundtable discussion, scheduled for Tuesday, 18 May 2010. The meeting will
be held in the Council Chambers of the Shorewood City Hall at 7:30 P.M. The meeting is
intended to be very informal with the Planning Commission sharing its ideas with the landowners
and hoping that you will share your long-term plans with the City.
Please note that no decisions have been made to -date and no decisions will be made at Tuesday
night's meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to gain feedback on the ideas that have been
posed thus far. We hope that you will join us for this important discussion. If you are unable to
attend, Shorewood's Planning Director, Brad Nielsen, is willing to meet with you on an
individual basis to discuss the study and to answer questions you may have.
We look forward to seeing you there!
Sincerely,
THE SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Cc: Mayor and City Council
n
�.♦� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 • wwwxi.shorewood.mn.us • ciryha1I@ci.shorewood.mn.us
11 May 2010
Twin Cities Stores, Inc.
1800 Cliff Road E. #2
Burnsville, MN 55337
Re: Public Meeting Invitation
To Whom It May Concern:
The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan identifies the area surrounding the Smithtown Road/County
Road 19 intersection as being prime for redevelopment. The Shorewood Planning Commission
has been working for the past several months to develop a vision of what this area could become
over the next 5-10 years and to identify measures the City could take to facilitate this vision. The
first step in this process has been to draft a "vision statement", describing in broad terms what the
City would like to see for the area in question (see Exhibit A, attached).
Before proceeding any further, the Planning Commission would like to obtain input from the
landowners within the "Smithtown Crossing" Study Area (see Exhibit B, attached). Yours is one
of 13 properties within the study area boundary. As such, the Planning Commission cordially
invites you to a roundtable discussion, scheduled for Tuesday, 18 May 2010. The meeting will
be held in the Council Chambers of the Shorewood City Hall at 7:30 P.M. The meeting is
intended to be very informal with the Planning Commission sharing its ideas with the landowners
and hoping that you will share your long-term plans with the City.
Please note that no decisions have been made to -date and no decisions will be made at Tuesday
night's meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to gain feedback on the ideas that have been
posed thus far. We hope that you will join us for this important discussion. If you are unable tc
attend, Shorewood's Planning Director, Brad Nielsen, is willing to meet with you on an
individual basis to discuss the study and to answer questions you may have.
We look forward to seeing you there!
Sincerely,
THE SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Cc: Mayor and City Council
0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
11 May 2010
Blair Bury
Triple B Equities LLC
28160 Boulder Bridge Dr.
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Public Meeting Invitation
Dear Mr. Bury:
The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan identifies the area surrounding the Smithtown Road/County
Road 19 intersection as being prime for redevelopment. The Shorewood Planning Commission
has been working for the past several months to develop a vision of what this area could become
over the next 5-10 years and to identify measures the City could take to facilitate this vision. The
first step in this process has been to draft a "vision statement", describing in broad terms what the
City would like to see for the area in question (see Exhibit A, attached).
Before proceeding any further, the Planning Commission would like to obtain input from the
landowners within the "Smithtown Crossing" Study Area (see Exhibit B, attached). Yours is one
of 13 properties within the study area boundary. As such, the Planning Commission cordially
invites you to a roundtable discussion, scheduled for Tuesday, 18 May 2010. The meeting will
be held in the Council Chambers of the Shorewood City Hall at 7:30 P.M. The meeting is
intended to be very informal with the Planning Commission sharing its ideas with the landowners
and hoping that you will share your long -tern plans with the City.
Please note that no decisions have been made to -date and no decisions will be made at Tuesday
night's meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to gain feedback on the ideas that have been
posed thus far. We hope that you will join us for this important discussion. If you are unable to
attend, Shorewood's Planning Director, Brad Nielsen, is willing to meet with you on an
individual basis to discuss the study and to answer questions you may have.
We look forward to seeing you there!
Sincerely,
THE SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Cc: Mayor and City Council
to
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331.8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhaI1@ci.shorewood.mn.us
11 May 2010
Paul and Dana Hirsch
24590 Smithtown Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Public Meeting Invitation
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hirsch:
The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan identifies the area surrounding the Smithtown Road/County
Road 19 intersection as being prime for redevelopment. The Shorewood Planning Commission
has been working for the past several months to develop a vision of what this area could become
over the next 5-10 years and to identify measures the City could take to facilitate this vision. The
first step in this process has been to draft a "vision statement", describing in broad terms what the
City would like to see for the area in question (see Exhibit A, attached).
Before proceeding any further, the Planning Commission would like to obtain input from the
landowners within the "Smithtown Crossing" Study Area (see Exhibit B, attached). Yours is one
of 13 properties within the study area boundary. As such, the Planning Commission cordially
invites you to a roundtable discussion, scheduled for Tuesday, 18 May 2010. The meeting will
be held in the Council Chambers of the Shorewood City Hall at 7:30 P.M. The meeting is
intended to be very informal with the Planning Commission sharing its ideas with the landowners
and hoping that you will share your long-term plans with the City.
Please note that no decisions have been made to -date and no decisions will be made at Tuesday
night's meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to gain feedback on the ideas that have been
posed thus far. We hope that you will join us for this important discussion. If you are unable to
attend, Shorewood's Planning Director, Brad Nielsen, is willing to meet with you on an
individual basis to discuss the study and to answer questions you may have.
We look forward to seeing you there!
Sincerely,
THE SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Cc: Mayor and City Council
i• PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhallOci.shorewood.mn.us
11 May 2010
Timothy Charles Howe
221 George Street
Excelsior, MN 55331
Re: Public Meeting Invitation
Dear Mr. Howe:
The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan identifies the area surrounding the Smithtown Road/County
Road 19 intersection as being prime for redevelopment. The Shorewood Planning Commission
has been working for the past several months to develop a vision of what this area could become
over the next 5-10 years and to identify measures the City could take to facilitate this vision. The
first step in this process has been to draft a "vision statement", describing in broad terms what the
City would like to see for the area in question (see Exhibit A, attached).
Before proceeding any further, the Planning Commission would like to obtain input from the
landowners within the "Smithtown Crossing" Study Area (see Exhibit B, attached). Yours is one
of 13 properties within the study area boundary. As such, the Planning Commission cordially
invites you to a roundtable discussion, scheduled for Tuesday, 18 May 2010. The meeting will
be held in the Council Chambers of the Shorewood City Hall at 7:30 P.M. The meeting is
intended to be very informal with the Planning Commission sharing its ideas with the landowners
and hoping that you will share your long-term plans with the City.
Please note that no decisions have been made to -date and no decisions will be made at Tuesday
night's meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to gain feedback on the ideas that have been
posed thus far. We hope that you will join us for this important discussion. If you are unable to
attend, Shorewood's Planning Director, Brad Nielsen, is willing to meet with you on an
individual basis to discuss the study and to answer questions you may have.
We look forward to seeing you there!
Sincerely,
THE SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Cc: Mayor and City Council
L4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
0
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331.8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhaII@ci.shorewood.mn.us
11 May 2010
Mr. Don Messenger
24620 Smithtown Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Public Meeting Invitation
Dear Mr. Messenger:
The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan identifies the area surrounding the Smithtown Road/County
Road 19 intersection as being prime for redevelopment. The Shorewood Planning Commission
has been working for the past several months to develop a vision of what this area could become
over the next 5-10 years and to identify measures the City could take to facilitate this vision. The
first step in this process has been to draft a "vision statement", describing in broad terms what the
City would like to see for the area in question (see Exhibit A, attached).
Before proceeding any further, the Planning Commission would like to obtain input from the
landowners within the "Smithtown Crossing" Study Area (see Exhibit B, attached). Yours is one
of 13 properties within the study area boundary. As such, the Planning Commission cordially
invites you to a roundtable discussion, scheduled for Tuesday, 18 May 2010. The meeting will
be held in the Council Chambers of the Shorewood City Hall at 7:30 P.M. The meeting is
intended to be very informal with the Planning Commission sharing its ideas with the landowners
and hoping that you will share your long-term plans with the City.
Please note that no decisions have been made to -date and no decisions will be made at Tuesday
night's meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to gain feedback on the ideas that have been
posed thus far. We hope that you will join us for this important discussion. If you are unable to
attend, Shorewood's Planning Director, Brad Nielsen, is willing to meet with you on an
individual basis to discuss the study and to answer questions you may have.
We look forward to seeing you there!
Sincerely,
THE SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Cc: Mayor and City Council
% PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
10WO AV 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 - www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhall®ci.shorewood.mmus
I I May 2010
Manager — Oasis Market
24365 Smithtown Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Public Meeting Invitation
Dear Sir/Madame:
The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan identifies the area surrounding the Smithtown Road/County
Road 19 intersection as being prime for redevelopment. The Shorewood Planning Commission
has been working for the past several months to develop a vision of what this area could become
over the next 5-10 years and to identify measures the City could take to facilitate this vision. The
first step in this process has been to draft a "vision statement", describing in broad terms what the
City would like to see for the area in question (see Exhibit A, attached).
Before proceeding any further, the Planning Commission would like to obtain input from the
landowners within the "Smithtown Crossing" Study Area (see Exhibit B, attached). Yours is one
of 13 properties within the study area boundary. As such, the Planning Commission cordially
invites you to a roundtable discussion, scheduled for Tuesday, 18 May 2010. The meeting will
be held in the Council Chambers of the Shorewood City Hall at 7:30 P.M. The meeting is
intended to be very informal with the Planning Commission sharing its ideas with the landowners
and hoping that you will share your long-term plans with the City.
Please note that no decisions have been made to -date and no decisions will be made at Tuesday
night's meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to gain feedback on the ideas that have been
posed thus far. We hope that you will join us for this important discussion. If you are unable to
attend, Shorewood's Planning Director, Brad Nielsen, is willing to meet with you on an
individual basis to discuss the study and to answer questions you may have.
We look forward to seeing you there!
Sincerely,
THE SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Cc: Mayor and City Council
to
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
11 May 2010
Wash N Roll, Inc.
8794 Horizon Ridge
Victoria, MN 55386
Re: Public Meeting Invitation
To Whom It May Concern:
The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan identifies the area surrounding the Smithtown Road/County
Road 19 intersection as being prime for redevelopment. The Shorewood Planning Commission
has been working for the past several months to develop a vision of what this area could become
over the next 5-10 years and to identify measures the City could take to facilitate this vision. The
first step in this process has been to draft a "vision statement", describing in broad terms what the
City would like to see for the area in question (see Exhibit A, attached).
Before proceeding any further, the Planning Commission would like to obtain input from the
landowners within the "Smithtown Crossing" Study Area (see Exhibit B, attached). Yours is one
of 13 properties within the study area boundary. As such, the Planning Commission cordially
invites you to a roundtable discussion, scheduled for Tuesday, 18 May 2010. The meeting will
be held in the Council Chambers of the Shorewood City Hall at 7:30 P.M. The meeting is
intended to be very informal with the Planning Commission sharing its ideas with the landowners
and hoping that you will share your long-term plans with the City.
Please note that no decisions have been made to -date and no decisions will be made at Tuesday
night's meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to gain feedback on the ideas that have been
posed thus far. We hope that you will join us for this important discussion. If you are unable to
attend, Shorewood's Planning Director, Brad Nielsen, is willing to meet with you on an
individual basis to discuss the study and to answer questions you may have.
We look forward to seeing you there!
Sincerely,
THE SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Cc: Mayor and City Council
It
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Rd.
Shorewood, MN 55331
(952)474-3236
www.ci. shorewood. m n. us
Dennis Johnson
Cooperative Housing Resources, LLC
639 Jackson Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
COOP639w 551012019 1109 10 06/29/10
FORWARD TIME ERP RTN TO SEND
;COOPERATIVE ROUSING RESOURCES
909 SELBY AVE
SAINT PAUL MN 55104-7253
111.16hlhLll�RETURN IIIIi IIITOSENDER
RIILIdI
•
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960-7900
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • ciryha1IGci.shorewood.mn.us
23 June 2010
Re: Shorewood Developer Panel Discussion — Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area
To: Dennis Johnson
The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shorewood has identified an area (Smithtown Crossing)
adjacent to the intersection of Smithtown Road and County Road 19 as being prime for redevelopment.
After initial study by the Planning Commission, it was determined that our vision for the area should be
subjected to scrutiny by affected landowners and critique by a panel of real estate developers.
A meeting with landowners went quite well, with a consensus of those attending the meeting agreeing
with the Commission's approach. Now it is time to hear from the people that actually make projects
happen. This is where you come in! The Shorewood Planning Commission proposes to conduct a very
informal panel discussion relative to our redevelopment area. You have been recommended to us by Sue
Davis, one of our Planning Commissioners. Sue advises us that you have expressed a willingness to
participate in our discussion.
Our panel discussion is scheduled for Tuesday, 29 June at 7:00 P.M. in the Shorewood City Hall, 5755
Country Club Road. In preparation, we are forwarding material we have considered to date:
• Staff Report — Planning Inventory/Issues, 11 February 2010
• Staff Report — Vision Statement, 15 April 2010
• Revised Vision Statement, 29 April 2010
• Concept Sketches — Unified vs. Piecemeal Concepts
We look forward to hearing your comments and those of other panelists. Thank you in advance for your
attendance at our meeting.
Sincerely,
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Bradley J. Nielsen
Planning Director
Cc: Sue Davis
Ca PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
e ajinbai of AID ay; aSeinoaua p!nom 1 'pua 1ey1 piemol •poijad awes ayl 3uunp luawdolanap
841 Aq paimbai spaau aaiAias leuol;!ppe lo;;no SuiAed aq pinom;! 'pouad luawaaui ayl
Suilnp sanuanaa xel paseaaui o8ao; pinom A1!:) ay; aMM •A1q ay; uo;aedwi leas!; legualod
ayl lnoge pauaaauoa we 1nq Supueuij luawajaul xel8uisn puiyaq aleuoilej ay; puelsiapun 1'Z
•laalold ayllo; uiewop luauiwa 2uisn jap!suoa
of s!puno:) A1!a am;nj ao; uoileldwal ayl aanpa osle Aew 11 'laafoid 94110 slaadse aaylo do
spl04 palsaJalul 1ou s! ley; laumopuel uanig Aue leyl Isla ayl aanpa Aew;noAel pea Suilsixa
ayl uo paseq qunya aaayl o;ul laafojd 941 Suileag •aeaia 1ou sl 1ey1'uiewop luauiwa Suisn
uo Su!uueld lou si A;!:) ayl sveadde 1! ySnoyliV alediailied of aaa8e saaumopue! lie 1ou;! uaddey
ll!m leym;noge suoilsanb sasiej 11 slgauaq Auew sey yaeadde pag!un 'pa;eupooa a al!gm,l
:uo!pelap!suoa inoA jo; sluawwoa agpads ma; a aney I -IOU saop leaw-aaaid leyl
sail!unpoddo sap!Aoad yaeadde paleupooa a 1ey1 aajge 1 -Al!:) ayl of Aemaleg a si sAem Auew
ul yalym al!s slyl inoge Suijwyl ailslloy 'aauenpe awos Swop si Al!:) ayl aas of pelg w,1 'lleJaAO
•aaueay!uSis siy;;o laafoad a uo
papaau yaea;no angaead;o lros ay;;snf saplAcud pouad luawwoa pue mama aulluo 41UOw
auo a of ley; SuiAl •sn;o lie pavale noA lapalsmau ay; Suisn Ag -sguilaaw 1launo:) A1!:) mono}
pop sn;o lsow 'mowl noA sy •luawwoa pue malnaa auiluo ao; atup alenbape Suip!Aad pue
Jalla!smaN AID ayl ul sn 2ui11ale noA ale!aaidde I •Apn;S;uawdolanapaa Suissw:) umolyl!wS
a41 uo luawwoa pue mama ailgnd;a8 01 sNo)ja anllaeoad anoA jo; A31J pue noA of slueyl
•A1!3 ayl Su!laedwi;! aas noA Allelaueug moy pue 4eip leug ay; aas of pa;saialul aq
Ilim 1 •sgmgns Su!llalno of avow am Aym slea;ap 11 •pooma045 ul 1y8104 aall ino lano 2u!lamol
sSuippnq paeu 1,uop Alleaj am •umop paleas uaaq sey lygiay 2u1P1!nq ay; pelt we 1 •1! 100IJano
;ou op am adoy 1 pue laafad uo!laasJa;ui 941}o ued se auop;ou sem 11;ey1 Aauow;o alsem
e sem 11 '1211 ay101 uoilaauuoa ilea; allq a ppe of uollanalsuoa ay1 azil!1n 11!m laafad s141 adoy
1 'awiladll Aw u1;ou lsnf--sgangns ayl ul anadwi 11!m 1!suell ssew Allenlu9A3 •saeaA ayl lano asn
ayl aseajaui of sassauisnq uievaa;o puewap ay1 `mou pasn A1!neay ;ou 48noylle `pue ';awls
ay3 ssone sdols snq ayl •a1ejg2nojno4l uiew a se peoy umolyl!wS asn sgnla aj!q Auew sn!d
'12!l ay; y1!m pea ay; umop jgBp aamosa alq!pajaui ue aney am •ag}ejl (al!q) ueulsapad;o
aSeluenpe ajel ll!m;ey1 sassauisnq aSejnoaua Alsnouas li!m noA adoy 1 saoS jjas1! Apn;s ay; se
le} sy •peq Alleal si 1! pue poomaloyS le lool noA pue aaiu os slool Alp ay;;o uoppas Aeg ejuol
ayl--eaae 944 Sumueld;o eaP1 ay1 aj!j op 1 •A1!a ayl of aJeluenpe alwouoaa ue slajjo laafoid
ay1 ains ajew of ain;uaA s!41 u! ssauisnq a ajli 1ae of spaau Alp ay; juiyl op I •aney 1421w
sluawalels jiayl Al!p!IeA Aue alougi Allelol noA sajew papaom aam aldnoa a Aem ay; 4Snoylle
'sluiod p!!eA awos sey je; os paluawwoa sey oym auo/uaA3 *eels pool a si Apn1s 041 lu!yl 1 l!eaano
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 revenues. Further, 1'd encourage the City to
use a short window of time for the financing to limit medium -term impacts on the city.
3.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 future 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 referents "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 highway 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 sideway.
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 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 asks 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.
. people no longer trust government, generally speaking. The reason is easy to understand.
Government 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 building 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. 1 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."
Brad Nielsen
From: Michael Pressman [mpressman@q.comj
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:40 PM
To: Brad Nielsen
Cc: Debbie Siakel; Christine Lizee; Dick Woodruff; Scott Zerby; Laura Hotvet
Subject: Smithtown Crossing
Attachments: smithtown crossing comments pressman.pdf
Dear Brad — thank you so much for the coordinated approach to seeking comments on the Smithtown Crossing
Redevelopment Study. Attached are written comments I will be dropping off at City Hall on Friday. I appreciate the
notice in the City Newsletter and the coordinated approach to engaging the residents. And thanks for your proactive,
well-informed planning approach. Hats off to y'all on process. Some comments and suggestions are attached.
The City's website did not have email address for the Planning Commission. I hope you'll share my comments with the
Commission and make them easily available to residents interested in the project. The 1,000 character online limit was
hard to provide substantive and detailed comments within.
Regards,
Michael Pressman
5670 Wedgewood Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
952-470-0414
mpressman(&q.com
Michael Pressman
5670 Wedgewood Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
952-470-0414
mpressman@q.com
July 26, 2012
Brad Nielsen
Planning Director
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Smithtown Crossing
Dear Mr. Nielsen:
Thanks to you and the City for your proactive efforts to get public review and comment 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.
1. 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 on 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.
3. As an alternative to investing future City tax revenue into the project, I'd ask the City to
consider working 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 future 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.
S. 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 referents "connections to existing and future sidewalk systems." I strongly
encourage the City to consider including neighborhood access enhancements as part of
the project to facilitate better pedestrian access. This should include better crossings
across highway 19 and extensions of sidewalks into the community such as down
Smithtown Road. And yes, my property does front on Smithtown and we'd welcome a
sidewalk.
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.
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 acquisition. Finally, I would urge the City 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 remediation, the City's
risk profile increases dramatically.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important project. I look forward to
seeing the final redevelopment study.
Sincerely, /1
Michael Pressman
The following are dates of Planning Commission meetings where Smithtown Crossing was
discussed. Please note that the area was initially referred to as (part of) Planning District 3.
Discussion topics were general in nature unless otherwise noted.
2009
February 17, 2009
April 7,2009
2010
January 19, 2010
February 16, 2010
March 2, 2010
March 16, 2010
April 6, 2010
Tax Increment Financing (T.I.F.)
April 20, 2010
Vision Statement
May 4, 2010
Joint Meeting with City Council
May 18, 2010
Meeting with Landowners
June 29, 2010
Meeting with Developers (Forum)
July 20, 2010
August 17, 2010
Discussion of Mobile Tour
September 14, 2010
Mixed Use
2011
February 15, 2011
March 1, 2011
May 3, 2011 Joint Meeting with City Council
July 19, 2011
August 1, 2011 Joint Meeting with City Council
September 20, 2011
October 4, 2011
October 18, 2011
November 1, 2011
November 15, 2011 Public Hearing
December 6, 2011 Public Hearing (continued from Nov. 15, 2011)
2012
March 20, 2012
April 3, 2012
June 5, 2012
August 7, 2012
September 18, 2012 Public Hearing to Amend Comp Plan Adopting Study
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLINING COMMISSION MEETING •
17 February 2009
Page 2 of 5
changed to state "Minor collector..." because of changes in the Metropolitan Council's classification
system.
In response to a comment from Commissioner Ruoff, Director Nielsen explained there is an
approximately 20 acre parcel of undeveloped land in District 11 and approximately 11 acres of it is
wetland. The property is zoned Rl-C and the land use designation is 1 — 2 units per acre. The property
owner of that land does not agree a large part of it is wetland; he thinks its wet because of drainage from
other properties. The property has been the subject of law suits since 1991. The owner has submitted
various development proposals but has never followed through with them. There were a number of issues
with the sketch plan he submitted in 2008. The main issues with the more buildable parts of this property
are access and lot configuration.
Nielsen explained Planning District 12 is bounded by Greenwood on the west, Deephaven on the north
and east, and State Highway 7 on the south. The reference to the auto salvage yard in the area plan will be
eliminated; that property is now the Barrington planned unit development. The property formerly called
the Kuemple Chime Clock property located on Minnetonka Boulevard, is zoned Residential/Commercial.
He recommends the property be rezoned to residential at some time; this would make the property a
nonconforming use. In the mean time the property owners have to adhere to the Residential/Commercial
District regulations. He commented that many years ago the building on the property was occupied by a
clock shop; the property owners now rent the building out. He stated there is a fair amount of
redevelopment potential in the area often referred to as the "Manor area". He explained City water has
been installed in Manor Road up to Amesbury, and a fair number of properties have connected to City
water along that stretch.
There was discussion about the issue of people buying multiple lots, reconfiguring them and then
redeveloping them. Because of that the City's Ordinance had been amended such that in the RI-D zoning
district, where there are many 10,000 square -foot lots, there is a provision where the reconfigured lots
cannot exceed a certain percent increase in lot size. The intent is to try and maintain some of the character
of the neighborhood as well as affordable housing.
Commissioner Gagne stated he would prefer the Kuemple property be rezoned to residential.
In response to a question from Chair Schmitt, Director Nielsen explained the Kuemple property is
currently a conforming use but the building is nonconforming from a setback perspective. Schmitt stated
because the structure is nonconforming the property owner could not expand or change the structure, and
because the structure is nonconforming he did not have issue with it continuing with its current use.
Nielsen stated he will provide the Planning Commission with information on the structure's
nonconformance. He then stated any other business that would occupy the space should require a
conditional use permit.
Council Liaison Zerby stated when the Barrington development was considered in 2003 there was a note
in the Planning Commission minutes that the Comp Plan would be modified "... to include a language
tying the increased density to the provision of City services".
Director Nielsen stated he wanted to start preliminary discussions about Planning District 3 this evening,
noting he had additional work he had to do on its area plan. He explained this district is bounded by the
Shorewood/Tonka Bay municipal border on the north, County Road 19 and the Shorewood/Tonka Bay
municipal border on the east, Smithtown Road on the south, and Shorewood's largest wetland system on
the west. The main opportunity is the redevelopment of the southeast corner of the District which is zoned
commercial. There are a number of vacant buildings in that area. The City would like to have the area
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING •
17 February 2009
Page 3 of 5
developed as a unified project if at all possible, noting it will be difficult to get all current property owners
to sell their properties at the same time. The Land Use Chapter of the Comp Plan indicates the City may
be willing to assist with the redevelopment effort in some way such as with tax increment financing (TIF).
In the past Council indicated it would like the area to be developed as retail or office space, and not
service commercial where there could be contractor trade shops. He has reviewed submitted
redevelopment sketches which showed a mixed -use; retail/office on one level with multi -dwelling units
on top. Commissioner Gagne stated he could support TIF if there would be some reasonable housing on
top of the retail/office space. Nielsen stated one of the options he reviewed included senior housing on the
residential end of this commercial space.
Director Nielsen suggested the Planning Commission clearly specify in the area plan how it wanted to
have this area developed and reiterate that TIF is a possibility, noting Council had previously indicated it
would be willing to consider TIF (but no commitment was made). He explained District 3 is a fairly large
and well developed Planning District. The area plan references the property on the west side of Eureka
Road near the school that could be split; it has already been developed and that should be corrected in the
area plan. There are some long deep lots along Smithtown Road near that area where people want to do
back -lot development. The Comp Plan specifically states this type of back -lot development is not
allowed. Those property owners would have to agree to a unified development approach. The City will
likely see requests for lot splits in the future because of the large size of lots.
Nielsen stated the Minnewashta Elementary School has a new addition and additional parking; issues
with that area are resolved. Commissioner Ruoff commented the parking situation there has improved
immensely. Nielsen complemented Minnetonka School District representatives, in particular Mike
Condon, for helping make that happen and ensuring it was done correctly.
Nielsen explained there are paper streets in Planning District 3; Clara Avenue and First Street are just two
examples. He stated the Planning Commission will review all the City's paper streets in 2009 and make a
recommendation on what should happen with them; should they be vacated or should they be held on to
because they could eventually be further developed.
Nielsen stated that although there is no sense of urgency, he suggested the Planning Commission discuss
how it would like to have the Xcel Energy property redeveloped should Xcel every move from that site.
Commissioner Gagne stated he would like to see that property redeveloped for multi -dwelling units.
Chair Schmitt commented that Xcel was trying to combine different offices at this time, and when he was
speaking with Xcel representatives they indicated they had no plans to move from the Shorewood site.
Schmitt stated Xcel has in the past installed its infrastructure in a development up front and recouped its
costs when properties hooked up to its utilities. That has hurt them financially because of the large
number of unsold or undeveloped lots. Developers recently received a letter from Xcel stating developers
will have to pay a $5,000 per lot fee and a $50,000 flat fee up front, and the developers will recoup their
costs when properties hook up to Xcel's utilities. He's heard rumor that Minnegasco may start to do the
same thing.
Chair Schmitt stated with regard to the northwest corner of the Smithtown Road and County Road 19
intersection that he, as a developer, he was caught off guard with the requirement for additional
landscaping next to the Gideon Glen area. He suggested Council's openness to discuss some type of
assistance for developing this area be included in the Comp Plan. He also suggested the Comp Plan
convey the City may be open to allowing some relief from the density and 35-foot height requirements if
the properties are going to be developed as a unified development, in particular as mixed use. The Comp
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING •
17 February 2009
Page 4 of 5
Plan should also encourage cross parking and mixed use (both horizontal and vertical) development of
that area.
Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission has some work to do on mixed use in terms of
ordinance provisions, and he said the Comp Plan could state mixed use is a distinct possibility. He then
stated the density issue is much larger than just District 3. Chair Schmitt stated he thought the City's
density requirements need to have some flexibility. Nielsen stated the Planning Commission has
expressed desire to discuss congregate senior housing and there are density issues associated with this
type of housing. Schmitt stated during his recent interview with the Council for continuing his tenure on
the Commission he sensed there was receptivity from Council to discuss congregate senior housing.
Nielsen stated the City Code already allows for higher density for independent senior housing, but it
doesn't address other congregate care facilities. He then stated the density issue for market rate housing
(multi family dwellings) will be difficult to resolve; he did not think taller structures or higher density will
be allowed.
Director Nielsen stated he will update the area plans discussed to date and give them to the Planning
Commission for review.
Director Nielsen stated Council has requested the Planning Commission make a concerted effort to
publicize the Comp Plan, One Councilmember wants to have a video presentation of it, noting this
presentation approach was used before. Council Liaison Zerby stated he had suggested the Commission
hold neighborhood meetings. Nielsen stated the Commission could hold four neighborhood meetings and
discuss three Planning Districts during each meeting. Chair Schmitt stated a video is one-way
communication, and the neighborhood meetings allow for a two-way exchange.
2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
3. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there is a public hearing slated for the 3 March 2009 Planning Commission
meeting. South Tonka Little League has requested amendments to the City's Zoning Code that would
allow advertising signs on the ball field in Freeman Park. There may be also study session and that
portion of the meeting will be devoted to a continued review of the Comprehensive Plan Planning District
Area Plans.
3. REPORTS
Director Nielsen reported on matters considered and actions taken at the February 9, 2009 City Council
regular meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
SLUC
No report was given.
None of the Planning Commissioners expressed interest in attending the Sensible Land Use Coalition
Development Financing Outlook program scheduled for February 25, 2009.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING •
7 April 2009
Page 5 of 6
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
• Discuss Planning District 3
Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission had preliminary discussions about the Planning District
3 Area Plan during its 17 February meeting. He distributed an updated copy of the Area Plan based on the
Commissions discussion. He commented four of the Commissioners reside in that district, and that
District 3 is relatively stable.
Nielsen reviewed the more significant changes to the Area Plan.
Nielsen stated a reference to there being "paper streets" in District 3 was added; "paper streets" are
platted rights -of -way that have never been improved as City streets. Also added was a statement that all
"paper streets" will be addressed in an overall study of undeveloped rights -of -way throughout the City.
He explained the Planning Commission will review all the City's paper streets in 2009 and make a
recommendation on what should happen with them; should they be vacated or should they be held on to
because they could eventually be further developed.
Nielsen stated the Plan was updated to indicate the Gideon Glen project is complete, although there is
some cleanup work that will likely be done this spring. The discussion in the Area Plan about
redevelopment of the northwest quadrant of the Smithtown Crossing (i.e., the intersection of County Road
19 and Smithtown Road) was revised significantly. A statement was added saying this quadrant,
including all of the land currently zoned for commercial use, is prime for redevelopment. Outdated
language about the redevelopment of the quadrant was deleted. The City expressed interests regarding the
potential redevelopment of that quadrant were added: 1) it would like it to be a unified and coordinated
development; 2) it could be redeveloped as a planned unit development (PUD) which is more flexible; 3)
it could possibly be redeveloped as mixed use (i.e., a mix of commercial and residential uses) as part of
the PUD process with the mixed use being either horizontal or vertical; 4) it could possibly be
redeveloped with an opportunity for senior housing: 5) it prefers it be predominately retail and office uses
rather than service commercial; and 6) there is a possibility the City would be willing to consider some
type of public financial assistance for the redevelopment such as tax increment financing (this needs to be
added to the Plan).
Chair Schmitt stated caution should be exercised about any reference to tax increment financing; he
suggested any type of assistance be made more general.
Director Nielsen stated reference to the County Road 19/Smithtown Road/Country Club Road
intersection redevelopment in the Plan was updated to reflect the project was completed. A statement was
added about the Corridor Study completed in 2004. It explains the study addressed commercial
development, vehicular traffic, pedestrian circulation and the preservation and reforestation of the Gideon
Glen site. It also states the study also sets forth a concept plan that provides the guidelines for commercial
landscaping along the corridor.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY,19 JANUARY 2010
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Vilett, Gagne, Amst, and Hasek; Planning Director Nielsen;
and Council Liaison Turgeon
Absent: Commissioners Ruoff and Hutchins
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 5, 2010
Gagne moved, Hasek seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January
5, 2010 as presented. Motion passed 5/0/1 (Arnst abstained).
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING CO. RD. 19/SMITHTOWN RD. AREA REDEVELOPMENT
(A.K.A. "SMITHTOWN CROSSING")
Director Nielsen presented an "issues map" which provided information regarding conditions or issues
particular to each parcel within the area known as Smithtown Crossing. He reviewed the occupancy, or
ownership, of each property as well.
Nielsen noted that the boundary of the study area needs to be better defined along with determining a
method for transition between commercial and residential uses. He said current trends have developers
building vertical mixed -use projects, with commercial on the ground -level and residential above it. The
Glen Lake development is an example of vertical mixed -use. The vacant lot owned by the Legion on
Smithtown Road, and the Gideon Glen property provide opportunity for creating buffer and transition at
each end of the area.
Nielsen said one of the key issues is access, from County Road 19, as well as Smithtown Road. Due to
the intersection design, the access point from Smithtown Road will need to be at least 120 feet west of the
Country Club golf course driveway. The other issue is vehicular and pedestrian circulation, both inside
and out of the project area. Nielsen mentioned that Commissioner Hutchins had pointed out that potential
future use of the golf course property needs to be kept in mind when reviewing access design.
Commissioner Gagne stated there should be an indication somewhere of the yet to be built trail that was
planned to go in along the east side of the South Lake Police Department property intended to provide a
link to the LRT trail.
PLANNING COMMISSIONOTES
19 January 2010
Page 2 of 3
ble these parcels into basically one project. If a developer
Nielsen said the main concern is how to assemmakes a proposal that
involves parcels,
be
develop en of the adjacentproperty, and the overa 1 project canbe donei n phaesuired to accommodate
Commissioner Artist suggested that there could be a set of features, or criteria, that a developer must
adhere to for any development proposals within Smithtown Crossing, as a way to maintain the basic
concept for the area.
being
ired
n for the area
Chair cGengaul cautioned property
that, ers to hold out for even more.rices yNiel en agreed that some of hats could happen,
could id to property
but said there is also a financial risk in allowing development to occur all around you and not be part o
the plan when development costs can be shared.
Council Liaison Turgeon said we o need to took at how these
could be
independently, since the City can't control all of them. Wproperties developed
What features do the eparcels need to o
they will all tie in together?
Commissioner Arnst asked what the next steps are. Nielsen said we need to finish the inventory by
getting the land values and land sizes, formalize the issues map, identify pedestrian access links,
determine expectations of developers such as for landscaping and architectural treatment, vehicular access
points, and determine the westerly boundary.
be to hold an informational meeting with he landowners,
Chair Geng said one consideration could
showing them how the area would look if developed as a whole, compared to piece by piece.
Commissioner Hasek suggested the Smithtown Road boundary be almost as far west as Christopher
Road, perhaps containing single -level senior housing.
2. DISCUSS DEER MANAGEMENT
The issue that had been raised by the Planning Commission regarding deer management was about people
feeding deer. The Commission discussed the many reasons why it is not a good idea to feed them and
encourage their population, while at the same time the City is making an effort to remove them. The
Commission agreed that the best approach is to continue with an educational effort during 2010 by
providing informational articles by the DNR and other sources via the City newsletter and website. And
re-evaluate the deer -count survey next year to see if it had any effect.
3. WORK PROGRAM 2010
Director Nielsen provided a graph illustrating the Work Program schedule. He reported that things are
right on schedule, if not a little ahead of it.
He noted the Mixed -Use Regulations discussion will appropriately occur in the middle of the Smithtown
Crossing study.
will be done by staff, and any issues will be brought to the
Nielsen stated much of the work necessary
Planning Commission. ould be part of the Housing Plan discussion. At the
The idea of Mother -In -Law apartmentcIn-Place" should replace " suggestion
Mother -In -Law Apartment'
of Commissioner Arnst, the term "Aging-
PLANNING COMMISSION OUTES •
16 February 2010
Page 2 of 3
Commissioner Hasek said he thought the discussion about moratorium abuse was interesting. Nielsen
agreed, saying it isn't always a fair practice. He further stated that petition for an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is another item subject to abuse. Either of these can stop a development
in its tracks.
2. FINALIZE WORK PROGRAM
Nielsen stated he added discussion of Bylaws to the March study time -line. He noted that the Work
Program chart has been basically finalized and should keep the Commission busy for the rest of the year.
The chart is listed in order of priority, which was recommended by the Planning Commission and
approved by the City Council.
Amst suggested that Smithtown Crossing discussion may need more time allotted to it, and inquired if it
actually will involve a public hearing. Nielsen said he anticipates a Comp Plan amendment, which would
require a hearing. He said an informal public meeting would precede a hearing though, so he agreed more
time is warranted. The Commission agreed to determine how much additional time should be committed,
after Agenda Item No. 3 (Smithtown Crossing discussion).
Amst said she would also like to revisit the Deer Management issue in December of this year, just to stay
on top of it. Nielsen said he will add that to the Work Program chart.
3. DISCUSSION — SMITHTOWN CROSSING REDEVELOPMENT
Director Nielsen provided finalized maps of the area along with information regarding lot sizes, values
and zoning. He pointed out that the boundary has been extended, and noted that there is a lot of frontage
along Smithtown Road which could provide for multiple access points.
Nielsen said what needs to be determined is how much commercial use versus housing (senior or
otherwise) the area should have. Artist said she wouldn't want to see the whole area become senior
housing. Geng said he thought areas along Highway 7 would be more appropriate for commercial
development. Hutchins noted the type of housing will have an impact on the volume of traffic, as will the
future use of the golf course site.
The Commission discussed the means of pedestrian access and circulation in and around the project area.
Commissioner Hasek provided conceptual sketches illustrating how the area might layout if the properties
were developed individually versus in a consolidated manner. Nielsen said these could be an effective
tool for demonstrating to the land owners why the area should be redeveloped as a unified approach.
After some discussion the Commission decided to invite one or two developers to attend a meeting and
share their thoughts about the area. Nielsen said he would contact Scott Schmitt and Todd Frostad.
Nielsen said that drainage is one of the issues of redevelopment, and would be much more efficient if the
area is redeveloped unified. Otherwise, each parcel will have to accommodate its own runoff volume
individually. If a unified approach is used, an underground storm sewer could be built. The pond in
Gideon Glen was not designed to take on increased volume.
Nielsen said the City needs to be ready to offer incentives so that developers are willing to include the
desired features in a project. He said Tax Increment Financing (TIF), mixed -use development, C.U.P. to
reduce hardcover restrictions, joint -use parking, etc. are some incentives available. And, the City needs to
PLANNING COMMISSION OUTES •
16 February 2010
Page 3 of 3
be able to state what those features should be. He said architectural features should be parameters, rather
than details, and it would be worth checking to see what other cities have done. Terms such as
"residential character" need to be defined.
Arnst suggested that landscaping requirements should include native plants. Hasek said that "natural'
landscaping is known to survive better in urban settings, than "native" landscaping does.
Turgeon reminded everyone that the focus needs to eventually include the southeast quadrant of the study
area.
After a brief discussion, it was decided to revise the Work Program dates to include public information
meeting(s) beginning the first part of June and hold the Public Hearing in August.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Hutchins noted that the LMCD is conducting a study about dock shade. He also said he thought the
Public Works crew was doing an outstanding job of snowplowing.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
The March 2nd meeting will focus on Zoning Permits, Bylaws, and continued discussion regarding
Smithtown Crossing.
6. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
There was no City Council meeting to report on, the next Council meeting is February 22.
• SLUC
No report was given.
• Other
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Arnst moved, Hasek seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of February 16, 2010
at 9:16 P.M. Motion passed 4l0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Patti Helgesen, Recorder
PLANNING COMMISSION INUTES
•
2 March 2010
Page 2 of 3
Hasek moved, Hutchins seconded, Approving staffs recommendation to schedule a Public Hearing
for April 6, 2010 for consideration of a Code Amendment to establish a system of Zoning Permits.
Motion passed 7/0.
2. BYLAWS
Director Nielsen stated that, as suggested at January's training seminar, the rules, or by-laws, of the
Planning Commission should be reviewed annually to ensure they are up to date. He provided a model
ordinance published by the League of Minnesota Cities for review. He said the main item that stands out
to him is that Shorewood's rules, as contained in Chapter 201 of the City Code, does not have a residency
requirement for Planning Commission membership.
Chair Geng suggested that the Code state that the Commission's Liaisons interact with the other
Commissions on an as -needed basis, which would reflect what they actually do.
The Commissioners discussed the merits of the model ordinance, deciding to incorporate some of its
subsections into the current Chapter 201 of the City Code. A draft amendment of the Chapter will be
reviewed at the next meeting on March 16`s.
3. DISCUSSION — SMITHTOWN CROSSING REDEVELOPMENT
Director Nielsen shared his thoughts regarding the advantages of a unified approach rather than a piece-
meal form of development of the Smithtown Crossing area parcels. He said it may be helpful to have the
benefits laid out when presenting the concept for the area to landowners. The unified approach would
maximize exposure to County Road 19; maximize the view of Gideon Glen; allow drainage to be more
efficient and less expensive; be developed as a P.U.D. which would allow flexibility with setbacks;
parking could be shared; hardcover would be less restricted; access could be consolidated; more
pedestrian -friendly; businesses would be better identified; City assistance could be available via T.I.F.
and other incentives. These benefits would generally not be available with a piecemeal approach.
Nielsen presented a slide show of photographs of commercial business buildings which contain certain
elements that create residential character to various degrees.
Commissioner Ruoff inquired about the plan for the southeast quadrant and landscaping requirements.
Nielsen responded that it has its own set of issues, so the focus has been on the northwest quadrant for the
time being. As for landscaping, he said from the LRT Trail crossing to the north, and all the way to
Excelsior, commercial properties shall be landscaped consistent with the Co. Rd. 19 Corridor Study.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Commissioner Amst distributed a handout containing examples of sustainability. Commissioner Hasek
requested that the Work Program schedule be adjusted to allow discussion of sustainability throughout the
year and to be a common thread in all topics of discussion.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
The March 16, 2010 Agenda will include review of draft Ordinance amendments regarding Zoning
Permits and By-laws; appointment of a Chair and Vice -Chair for 2010; determine Liaisons to Council for
remainder of the year; continued discussion of Smithtown Crossing.
PLANNING COMMISSION NfI MTES •
16 March 2010
Page 2 of 3
3. REVIEW DRAFT AMENDMENT — CHAPTER 201 (PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS)
Director Nielsen provided a draft of Chapter 201 of the City Code which illustrated the changes that were
discussed at the last meeting. He said he had talked to the City Attorney about the proposed amendment who
advised a few minor edits, making it more consistent with the League of MN Cities' language as well as the
City's personnel policy.
The Commission discussed various elements of the text including relevance of a date referenced in Subd. 1,
and the frequency of review of the CIP. Nielsen said he will provide a re -draft at the next meeting of April 6
for final review.
4. DISCUSSION — SMITHTOWN CROSSING REDEVELOPMENT
Director Nielsen said that he and Administrator Heck met with Stacey Kvilvang, a representative of
Ehlers and Associates, and that he has also spoken with Scott Schmitt. He stated that Schmitt indicated
he is willing to meet with the Planning Commission, and Kvilvang offered to provide a representative
from Ehlers and Associates.
Nielsen noted that from his discussions he learned that vertical mixed -use is not doing well on the market
at this time.
Commissioner Arnst expressed concern about the limited number of developers being invited to discuss
the project. The Commission concurred that additional developers should be sought, ideally creating a
panel of participants. Also decided was that it be made clear that the purpose of meeting with them is for
discussion and feedback only.
Commissioner Amst noted that since the Commission is discussing private property, it needs to be
sensitive to that. She said there needs to be a framework in place that can guide the redevelopment to be
something that is an asset. She further stated that the Commission needs to be able to state why it wants a
unified, coordinated plan for the area. Commissioner Ruoff said the Commission needs to clearly define
its goal; a unified, consolidated approach being the objective.
After further discussion it was determined that the landowners should be contacted first and invited to
meet with the Planning Commission at the May 4, 2010 meeting. And the developer's forum could be the
following meeting of May 18'".
Commissioner Arnst said she would like to have a better understanding of Tax Increment Financing and
asked Director Nielsen to provide information about it. The Commissioners agreed to discuss this at their
next meeting on April 6`s.
5. SELECT LIAISONS TO CITY COUNCIL
Planning Commission Liaisons to City Council were determined for the remainder of the year as follows:
October Geng
November Hasek
December Hutchins
Davis
June
Arnst
July
Hutchins
August
September
Ruoff
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •
6 April 2010
Page 3 of 4
3. REVIEW FINAL DRAFT AMENDMENT — CHAPTER 201 (BY-LAWS)
Director Nielsen distributed a draft of Chapter 201 of the City Code which contained all revisions made by
the Planning Commission, the City Attorney, and staff.
Arnst moved, Hutchins seconded, to recommend approval of the amendment to Chapter 201 of the City
Code. Motion passed 6/0.
Director Nielsen said this item will go to the City Council at their next meeting of April 12, 2010.
4. DISCUSSION — TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (T.I.F.)
Director Nielsen said this discussion will cover both Agenda Items Nos. 4. (T.I.F.) and 5. (Smithtown
Crossing Discussion) since Tax Increment Financing could be one of the incentives possibly available to
developers.
Nielsen said T.I.F. has multiple potential uses, such as write -down of the cost of land, clean up of
contaminated soils, demolition of dilapidated buildings, etc.
Nielsen explained the basics of how T.I.F. works. He said when a project is financed under T.I.F., the new
increased amount of taxes (the increment) generated by an improvement is used to pay for the improvement
itself. Existing taxes continue to be distributed to the taxing agencies (i.e. the City, School District, etc.)
without interruption until the project is complete, after which time they start receiving a higher amount of tax
based on the increased value.
Nielsen said there are certain criteria a project must have to qualify for T.I.F. He said the Smithtown
Crossing parcels contain three qualifications: a contaminated site, blighted buildings, and the need for
assembly of the land. Nielsen said he will consult a financial expert for other incentive options that may be
available in addition to T.I.F.
Commissioner Hasek questioned if the Commission should be prepared to be able to discuss T.I.F. when
talking with the interested parties involved in the Smithtown Crossing project. Nielsen said, along with the
list of desired features for the project he didn't doubt that, at a minimum, T.I.F. is what it will take to get it
done.
5. DISCUSSION — SMITHTOWN CROSSING
See Agenda Item No. 4 above.
6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
None.
7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
The April 20te meeting will focus on Smithtown Crossing to determine the best approach for introducing
the vision to other interested parties.
Commissioner Amst said she would still like to see "New Business" added as a regular Agenda item. She
also said she thought "Matters from the Floor" should be moved up near the beginning of the Agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSIONOUTES •
20 April 2010
Page 2 of 4
Commissioner Vilett said since the Planning Commission is just an advisory body, this seems like a moot
point.
Commissioner Hasek said it seems to him that if somebody is willing to give their time, they should be
given the opportunity to serve that time, barring a justified reason for removal. Director Nielsen said the
Personnel Policy that was referenced in the Code lists specific cause for dismissal, such as theft, offensive
conduct, etc.
Commissioner Ruoff stated that he thought the deletion of "just cause..." from Subd. 3, Removals, was
somewhat harsh. He said he thinks it serves a purpose to clarify, for future Planning Commission
applicants, that a member could be removed, but it would be for a reason and there is a process in place.
There was general agreement among the Commissioners that the word "cause" should be added back into
Subd. 3, Removals. Chair Geng said the statement appeared arbitrary without it.
Commissioner Hutchins said he didn't think there should be reference to the Personnel Policy as that
confers certain rights that don't really exist. He stated he personally didn't have a problem with the
revisions.
Hasek moved, Davis seconded, to recommend that City Code Chapter 201.03, Subd. 3., Removals.,
read: "The City Council shall have the power to remove any member of the Planning Commission
for cause."
Director Nielsen asked if the definition of "cause", as stated in the Shorewood Personnel Policy, should
be included in this revision.
Hasek agreed it should and amended the motion to also recommend that the language in the
Shorewood Personnel Policy that defines "cause" be included in Chapter 201.03, Subd. 3,
Removals. Davis seconded the amended motion. Motion passed 6/1 (Hutchins opposed).
2. SMITHTOWN CROSSING — VISION STATEMENT
Director Nielsen read a draft "Vision Statement" that he crafted to serve as a starting point for discussion. He
said the intent of the statement is to focus on what the area should be, rather than how it's arrived at.
Commissioner Vilett said she thought it is a very good first draft and it articulates everything that the
Planning Commission has been discussing.
Commissioner Arnst said she has been doing research and offered some things that could be added to the
statement to address why the City is interested in this redevelopment. She said she found that other
redevelopment projects have endeavored to remove blight, have the best tax revenue situation possible, create
employment opportunities, attract businesses, and create housing to meet the mixed needs of residents.
Chair Geng suggested that a preparatory statement could be developed to address the existing conditions
within Smithtown Crossing. He said one could describe the area as underdeveloped, underutilized, it's split
into multiple parcels that inhibit the best use of the land, and is ripe for redevelopment. It is one of the
gateways to Shorewood, and the City needs something vibrant there. The quality of development should be
commensurate with the surrounding area.
PLANNING COMMISSIONCTES •
20 April2010
Page 3 of 4
Commissioner Vilett said the statement should promote redevelopment that would enhance community and
quality of life in Shorewood.
The Commission decided to review the next draft of the Vision Statement at the meeting of May e, meet
with landowners on May 18`s, and the developers on June I".
Commissioner Ruoff commented that it seems as if senior housing is the choice for any residential portion of
the Smithtown Crossing project. Director Nielsen said there are other options, however, the Comp Plan
targets senior housing. It would carry the highest value for the space available, have the lowest traffic impact,
and would probably be the most acceptable to the neighborhood. And the Met Council has identified this site
as well as the Xcel Energy property for higher density residential.
3. NUXED-USE REGULATIONS
Director Nielsen stated that where the Smithtown Crossing Vision Statement addresses the "what" of
development, Mixed -Use Regulations address the "how".
Nielsen said mixed -use is handled by Planned Unit Development (PUD) in one of two ways. It can become
the zoning district itself, or can be applied by conditional use permit. Either way, it provides for a variety of
elements not found in any one zoning district. The basic permitted uses remain intact, with the flexibility
provided by PUD allowing for different standards via a negotiated contract called a Development Agreement.
The Development Agreement essentially becomes the zoning.
Nielsen said he researched regulations prescribed by other cities, some of which included: a mixture of uses
proportionately dictated by the market; ratio of commercial versus residential; zoning standards; hours of
operation; landscape standards; signage; lighting; pedestrian/bicycle circulation; bike racks; public space; etc.
He said there should also be some reference to architectural details and environmentally -compatible features
included. He pointed out that whatever criteria that is eventually determined to be desirable, it doesn't
necessarily have to be mandatory, but rather strongly encouraged.
Chair Geng said there should be some focus on aesthetics over a specific list of uses.
Commissioner Hasek encouraged everyone to read the PUD section of the zoning code. He also suggested
driving around to see different settings, taking note of the architectural features of commercial buildings that
appear to have a residential character.
4. DISCUSS THE "60-DAY RULE"
Director Nielsen said that State law requires cities and other agencies to process most land -use applications in
a timely manner. Specifically, they must take action no later than the end of 60 days. If there is a reasonable
cause for delay, the applicant must be notified of the delay and that the application may take up to 120 days.
The applicant has the right to waive the time requirement. Without the waiver, failure by the city to meet the
deadlines results in automatic approval of the request as proposed.
5. DISCUSS NONCONFORNIITIES
Director Nielsen stated there are two different types of nonconformities: nonconforming uses, and
nonconforming structures. He said an example nonconforming use is a commercial activity in a residential
zoning district, a use not intended for the land. A nonconforming structure example is a building that is
permitted by code but does not meet setbacks.
PLANNING COMMISSION OWES •
4 May 2010
Page 2 of 3
2. SMITHTOWN CROSSING — VISION STATEMENT
Commissioner Davis said she thought the Statement as drafted by Director Nielsen was great. The rest of the
Commission agreed.
Commissioner Vilett said she thinks it is important to be clear that the City is not trying to dictate anything to
the landowners; it is just trying to work with them. Commissioner Hasek said it is also important to provide
clarity to be sure everything is understood by all parties.
The Commission discussed the format for the meeting, deciding that keeping things as informal as possible
while still maintaining order would work best.
Commissioner Ruoff suggested including a slideshow of photos of commercial business examples.
3. MIXED -USE REGULATIONS
This item was postponed to a later date.
4. DISCUSS LIFE -CYCLE HOUSING
Director Nielsen stated that there are three phases of elderly housing: Independent Living, Care Facilities,
and Assisted Living. He said that the Code does not currently allow senior housing in commercial zoning
districts, but perhaps the Code should allow it in mixed -use development. He said density may not be a factor
for care facilities or assisted living, but for independent senior housing, should the density be allowed higher
than the current 10 units per acre?
Commissioner Davis provided information from the Senior Co-op Housing Federation. She said Minnesota is
the leader in co-op housing and there is still a long waiting list.
Commissioner Hutchins said co-ops are owner -occupied apartments with a Homeowner's Association and
Board of Directors, in-house services such as dining, salons, community rooms, etc. Typically the residents
are still driving their cars, and also need storage room since they are usually down -sizing.
Commissioner Hasek said it sounds like traffic will still be an issue with independent senior housing.
Commissioner Vilett said it would be useful to know what segment of the Shorewood population would stay
in Shorewood if the proper facilities were available.
Director Nielsen said he will try to find traffic studies for the different types of senior housing facilities, as
well as other demographics, in order to consider density allowance.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
None.
6. NEW BUSINESS
None.
0
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
SHOREWOOD CITY HALL
JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND 6:00 PM
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 4, 2010
MINUTES
1. CONVENE JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Mayor Liz& convened the Joint Meeting at 6:00 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Present:
Absent:
Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Turgeon, Woodruff and Zerby; Administrator Heck; and
Planning Director Nielsen
Planning Commission Chair Geng; Planning Commissioners Davis, Hasek (arrived at
6:01 P.M.), Hutchins, Ruoff, and Vilett (arrived at 6:02 P.M.)
Councilmember Bailey; Planning Commissioner Arnst
R. Review Agenda
Turgeon moved, Hutchins seconded, approving the agenda for the Joint City Council and Planning
Commission meeting as presented. Motion passed 8/0.
2. REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM
Mayor Lizee welcomed the Planning Commissioners. She turned control of the meeting over to Director
Nielsen and Planning Commission Chair Geng.
Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission is well into its 2010 work program and as of now is
right on schedule. The most significant and time consuming task is the Smithtown Crossing
redevelopment plan. The Commission will discuss the topic again during its meeting immediately
following this meeting. The owners of the properties in this area are going to be invited to the next
Commission meeting scheduled for May 18th. The Commission will tell the property owners of the
discussions it has had to date about this item and it hopes to find out what the property owners' long-term
plans are for their properties. The Commission hopes to invite developers to its meeting scheduled for
June I,' to review current development rules and regulations and what the broad vision is in the
Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) for the area. The Commission also wants to solicit feedback from the
developers on what significant problems they could foresee with the rules and regulations, and the vision.
The Commission thought it important for the rules and regulations to be realistic.
Nielsen explained the area the Commission is considering at this time. Gideon Glen is the north boundary
of the commercial area in the northwest quadrant of the Smithtown Crossing area. On the comer is the
old gas station property (which is owned by the American Legion), and next to it on the west is the
American Legion facility. West of that is the Burry property. Then there is the old apartment building.
There is a vacant lot next to that which is owned by the American Legion. The western boundary has
intentionally been left vague. A developer may want to acquire a couple of the single family residential
•
JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 4, 2010
Page 2 of 7
properties to the west. North of the gas station property is the old carpet store, which is now owned and
occupied by Heartbreaker.
Nielsen then reviewed the southeast quadrant of the Smithtown Crossing area_ It includes the gas station
on the corner, the car lot, the transmission shop, and the car wash. Each of those properties has a
different owner. On the easterly end of the northeast quadrant of Smithtown Crossing there is a single
family home, next to the chocolate factory, which is surrounded by either commercial or public
a R-C property.
e
The probability of that property being reused someday is high. He anticipates that owners have not discussed
may be appropriate for redevelopment of that property. property
selling the property with the City. He stated the County Road 19 Corridor Study states a goal of trying to
put some type of pedestrian crossing below grade; therefore, it would be nice to connect Badger Park
with the LRT Trail north of the public safety facility.
Nielsen stated there are a number of issues with the properties in the study area. There are low -value, and
in some cases almost dilapidated, buildings and substandard buildings. There are nonconforming land
uses. There are a number of planning issues for the area. The Commission discussed the pros and cons of
what the Comp Plan calls for which is a unified development for the northwest comer and tired for the
also the
southeast comer, or possibly all of the area. The Commission thought it prudent to be prep
situation where someone wants to redevelop an individual property and that proposed redevelopment
satisfies the City's ordinances. The redevelopment plan he and the Commission are working on will
address that also.
Nielsen then stated that during its last meeting the Commission started working on a vision statement for
what the City hopes to see in that redeveloped area. The vision will elaborate on what's stated in the
Comp Plan. The Commission will continue that discussion during its meeting following this one. The
vision statement talks about pedestrian access and connecting to the existing pedestrian/bicycle f a on the
There is some potential to extend a pedestrian area along the southerly boundary study ef
west. The purpose of the vision statement is intended to market the area.
Commissioner Vilett stated the vision is to redevelop the study area such that it has a community feeling.
Director Nielsen stated the Commission has discussed a redevelopment project being a mixed use
project. The Commission is looking at what can be updated in the City Ordinances to further that. The
Comp Plan suggests a mixed use of senior housing and commercial. He commented that Administrator
Heck and he are planning to meet next week with a representative from Ehlers. The representative has
development contacts that are willing to review what the potential could be for redeveloping the area.
The City Ordinance has a planned unit development (P.U.D.) section and it has a section that indicates
commercial and residential can be mixed. The Commission will be looking at elaborating on the mixed
use requirements. To date the discussion has been about a mixed use development on the northwest
quadrant of the area.
Nielsen explained mixed use can be achieved in a number of ways. One is vertical mixed use with
commercial on the bottom and residential on the top. He stated he has heard from developers that vertical
mixed use developments are not going over as well as they would like. Developers have suggested a
horizontal mixed use development may be a better approach. Part of the northwest quadrant would be
devoted to commercial development and part of it residential. For the commercial part there maybe
commercial on the bottom of the building and office space above it, noting that isn't quite considered
ing district.
mixed use and that can be done in the City's commercial zon
JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 4, 2010
Page 3 of 7
Nielsen reviewed some sketches Commissioner Hasek did for the Commission, noting he found them
quite useful.
Nielsen explained it would be extremely inefficient to redevelop each of the properties individually. The
Commission intends to convey that to the property owners. Each property would have to contend with its
own drainage issues and its own parking requirements. If, for example, the northwest quadrant was
developed in a unified manner there could be one stormwater ponding area. The scale of the project
could be such that there could be some type of underground storage for stormwater, noting this is true for
both the northwest and southeast quadrants.
Commissioner Vilett stated she thought from an economic perspective the property owners may be able
to sell their property for a higher price if it's sold with the other properties.
Councilmember Zerby stated it's his understanding that there is a business looking into the possibility of
purchasing the old gas station property in the northwest quadrant. Director Nielsen stated he has heard
the same thing.
Director Nielsen stated he would be concerned if someone purchases a property in the subject area and
then wants to rebuild the site. If they just use the property as is that is not as concerning to him.
Nielsen explained the American Legion has done some ground testing of its properties. He stated the
American Legion is a keplayer in the redevelopment of the northwest quadrant. It owns the property the
American Legion is on, the old gas station property and the vacant property. He related that when a
y
into redeveloping the area for a firm the Legion had
previous planning commissioner was looking
expressed it would be willing to swap land for a new American Legion facility, noting the Legion wants
to have a separate facility with visibility from County Road 19.
Councilmember Turgeon commented that from her perspective the American Legion organization is kind
of the holdup of the redevelopment of the northwest quadrant.
Director Nielsen stated he thought the best way to have the American Legion get on board with anything
is for someone to come to them and present a package that satisfies the wants it has.
Mayor Lizee stated the important thing is for the Commission to continue to create a broad vision for the
area. She thought it's great that the Commission is going to meet with the property owners as a group to
hear from them what transitions they envision. She also thought it's great that the Commission is going to
meet with land developers to get their views on potential developments as well as constraints. She
thought the Commission, the property owners and the developers could all be contributors to a high level
vision for the area. She thought the City should help them make this a great community spot.
Councilmember Turgeon stated she thought ifs important to explain to the property owners what the
requirements would be to redevelop their properties individually.
In response to a comment by Councilmember Woodruff, Director Nielsen explained he thought the total
combined study area on the northwest quadrant was approximately 6.5 acres and the area on the
southeast quadrant was approximately 4 acres.
Commissioner Davis stated she agreed with Mayor Lizee. She thought if the Commission got the people
together and formed somewhat of a team she thought the American Legion would be receptive to things.
JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 4, 2010
Page 4 of 7
Councilmember Turgeon stated she thought there were two camps of people that will impact things with
the American Legion. There is an old commodore who is not interested in change. There is a new
commodore who is interested in making changes to improve things. She indicated she thought the Legion
would be the hiccup for the northwest quadrant. She also thought Heartbreaker could be an issue because
they just purchased the property and it paid more than it was worth. Director Nielsen stated he thought it
was a good thing that Heartbreaker didn't build a new building. Mayor Lizee stated she thought
Heartbreaker understood the issues as it was involved in the development across County Road 19 in
Tonka Bay.
Commissioner Vilett stated she thought it would be prudent to present information in the most positive
way possible. She also thought it would be important to convey to property owners in a gentle way that
their properties will go down in value if surrounding properties are redeveloped and theirs aren't.
Director Nielsen stated in all reality the two quadrants will likely be redeveloped somewhere between
piecemeal and ideal.
Administrator Heck stated he thought it would be important to have different options available to discuss
with the property owners. He commented that land exchanges can occur as part of a deal.
Planning Commission Chair Geng stated he thought a key element of the discussion with the property
owners would be to discuss the difficulties there will be with piecemeal development under current
zoning requirements.
Councilmember Zerby stated he wasn't sure that from a business perspective the return -on -investment is
there for redeveloping the northwest quadrant. The traffic flow is extremely heavy. It's located in the
middle of a "bedroom community". There are properties along Highway 7 that are for sale. The office
building along County Road 19 in Shorewood still has vacancies. There has been discussion going on for
some time about expanding the Tonka Village Shopping Center and that hasn't occurred.
Commissioner Vilett stated the Commission has been discussing what could the City do (such as tax
increment financing) to make the area attractive to developers.
Councilmember Turgeon stated she wanted to back away from the use of the words "senior housing"
when speaking about mixed use. Director Nielsen noted the Comp Plan says states senior housing.
Turgeon stated mixed use could be retail on the bottom and apartments/condos on the top. Nielsen
explained that senior housing can be higher density. Nielsen questioned if the City offered enough higher
density for senior housing. Nielsen stated he thought it would a lot easier to convince the residential area
to the west that senior housing would be an easier transition than multiple family housing. Turgeon stated
she did not think it would make any difference to the residents if a three-story building contained senior
housing or multiple family housing.
Mayor Liz6e stated the City has to decide if it wants to allow life cycle housing. It appears that residents
want to remain in the community. For example, the Shorewood Ponds development filled up; there has
been good retention of the senior housing property owners. She thought life cycle housing may help the
real estate market. The schools in the area are filled. If a higher density housing development could be
developed in the study area that would be great. She commented a 6.4 acre site isn't all that large. She
expressed her support for life cycle housing in the City.
JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 4, 2010
Page 5 of 7
Councilmember Turgeon stated there were not a lot of starter homes in the City. There isn't much to
offer 20 — 30 year olds. Mayor Liz6e stated that's in part because a lot of the senior residents are
remaining in their homes. Turgeon stated there are a few pockets of them but they are very expensive
because of acreage requirements. Turgeon then stated that from her perspective life cycle housing starts
when a child gets out of college until they no longer want to remain in their home.
Commissioner Vilett stated it is her understanding that it was difficult for a former planning
commissioner to identify a way to make the development of the northwest quadrant financially feasible
because of density limitations. Director Nielsen explained that individual couldn't even make it
financially feasible even if some type of tax increment financing was available because of the current
density limitations.
Director Nielsen commented that he has been speaking with a developer who may have some interest in
the northwest quadrant, but he has higher density requirements than currently allowed Nielsen stated the
Planning Commission wants some type of mixed use development in that area but it did not specify any
specific percent.
Commissioner Hasek stated he actually wanted to include the residential properties between the subject
area and up to Christopher Road.
Councilmember Zerby stated he lives on Christopher Road. He built his home 16 years ago along with
other property owners. He noted that only two properties have been tamed over in 20 years. He
commented the community is a very tight community. After the area between Christopher Road and the
subject area was cleared residents can see the neon lights; not something they relish. He stated if the
residential area is also cleared out the Christopher Road neighborhood is going to rally against that. He
apologized for taking a personal viewpoint on this. He expressed he is stating a resident's position. He
stated there are four houses in the area Commissioner Hasek is speaking about. One of the property
owners has raised chicken and goats; they think they live in a rural area.
Councilmember Turgeon recommended against extending the study area any further to the west.
Commissioner Hasek stated that when the Planning Commission discussed the study area it noted the
parking requirements for parking are approximately three times as great as those for senior housing. The
Commission thought that having a higher density use with lower traffic needs would be better for the
area. The Commission thought traffic will be an issue there.
Councilmember Zerby asked if the Comp Plan doesn't say something about reducing traffic on County
Club Road. Director Nielsen explained that the traffic counts actually came down some from what they
were prior to CUB Foods being developed near Lake Linden Drive. Commissioner Vilett said the
Commission discussed getting more traffic into the mixed use area.
Commissioner Ruoff stated if the study area is developed on a piecemeal basis who knows what will
happen to traffic counts. By encouraging a unified development of the area there will at least be some
control. He related that during the last Planning Commission meeting Director Nielsen had stated one
vision for the northwest quadrant could include a common area for the businesses. It would improve the
aesthetics of the area.
JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 4, 2010
Page 6 of 7
Councilmember Zerby stated he is all for making the area look better. There are definite issues with the
how the northwest quadrant looks. He expressed what gets him concerned is three-story high -density
buildings, tearing down houses, and encroaching toward Christopher Road.
Administrator Heck stated if the City wants to reduce the gap between vacancy and non -vacancy in that
area the higher density has to be allowed.
Mayor Liz6e stated the City has to be open to different options.
Planning Commission Chair Geng stated the Planning Commission didn't foresee the area being
redeveloped any time soon. But, the Commission concurred with Director Nielsen that the City has to
have some vision for how it would like the study area to be redeveloped prior the economy taking a turn
upward.
Mayor Liz6e agreed the City should be proactive rather than reactive.
Commissioner Vilett clarified that the Planning Commission's intent is to get a dialogue going with
Property owners and developers. It has no intent to force this on any one. The pros and cons of different
approaches should be discussed.
Commissioner Ruoff stated it's critical that the Commission emphasize the purpose is to get a discussion
going and clarify the City does not have a set direction at this time.
Commissioner Hasek asked if Council had any reaction to the vision statement.
Mayor Liz6e suggested that when the Commission meets with the property owners and developers it will
be important to let them know the Commission has some ideas and also that there are issues with some of
the properties. She thought the others would be more open to sharing their ideas knowing that. She
expressed her appreciation for the Commission moving forward on this.
Commissioner Hutchins stated it's critical that the property owners understand the City doesn't anticipate
the areas being redeveloped anytime soon. He commented that there are 110 condo developments in
various stages of completion at this time in the metropolitan area. He thought financing any type of
development at this time is going to be difficult to get.
Mayor Liz6e stated if Councilmembers have comments about the remainder of the Planning
Commission's work program she asked them to provide their comments to Director Nielsen.
Mayor Liz6e stated the work program indicates the Planning Commission will discuss sustainability in
December 2010 and again in 2011. She indicated she did not think sustainability had been defined well
as of yet. She then stated there were three great editorials in the May 2, 2010, Star Tribune Opinion
Exchange section. Her favorite was the editorial about energy innovation written by Bill Gates and Chad
Holliday. The authors talked how innovation in not political. She then stated there are a lot of great ideas
about sustainability. She complemented the Commission for wanting to look at the big picture. She
thought it was up to the Council, with the help of the Planning Commission, to provide leadership on
how to go about affecting change locally. She indicated she thought everyone on the Council and the
Planning Commission had a lot of good ideas and she thought that collectively they could pull them
together.
PLANNING COMMISSION*UTES •
18 May 2010
Page 2 of 3
Commissioner Davis asked if Larry Brown, Public Works Director, has approved of the project. Nielsen said
he was given a copy of the staff report and has made no comment. Pete Davis said he reviewed the plans with
Larry Brown, and Kristi Anderson of Community Recreational Resources and they are in agreement with the
plan.
Commissioner Artist asked what the schedule for completion is, and if the cages become City property. Mr.
Leum said the goal is to have it finished by Memorial Day, or the first week of June, assuming the City
Council approves the C.U.P. He further stated that STLL has a maintenance agreement with the City and he
will take care of the paperwork necessary for donation to the City.
Commissioner Hasek asked if the netting stays on the framework over the winter. Mr. Leum said STLL is
looking at a way to raise and fasten the netting for over -wintering so as to avoid having to remove it.
Commissioner Arnst said when she was on the Park Commission in the past she recalls that the reason the
netting was to be removed was for aesthetic purposes.
Davis moved, Vilett seconded, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for renovation
and expansion of the batting cages in Freeman Park. Motion passed 7/0.
2. SMITHTOWN CROSSING
Chair Geng welcomed the landowners and representatives of properties within the Smithtown Crossing area.
He stated that the format of the meeting is meant to be informal, although it is being recorded. He explained
that the area known as Smithtown Crossing is identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as an area of
potential redevelopment and it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to review it for that purpose.
Director Nielsen presented a map of the area and pointed out the boundaries, zoning, and other characteristics
of the properties within the study area. He described the existing and potential issues that the Planning
Commission has been discussing.
Nielsen went over the list of pros and cons for a unified versus piece -meal approach to redevelopment, and
concept plans, created by Commissioner Hasek, illustrated the potential differences resulting from a unified
versus piece -meal development.
Ken Dallman, representing the American Legion, said they have entertained three different developers'
proposals. The Legion would like to retain ownership of their property and one proposal would have resulted
in them being a tenant. Another plan included senior housing and they would own a piece of the property.
He said they even had signed a letter of intent, but for financial reasons it didn't work out. The last proposal
wouldn't have contained enough parking for the Legion's needs. He stated that the Legion wants to do
something, but it needs to be something that is fiscally reasonable and responsible.
Pete Davis, American Legion Elected Finance Officer, said the Legion is open to a unified plan.
Lowell Day, American Legion, said the Legion has done its due diligence and have had a couple of different
concept plans done which were rather expensive.
Blair Bury, 24470 Smithtown Rd., said he is also in favor of a unified approach. He said the Legion could
drive this redevelopment to happen, but the economy needs to recover.
Jennifer Osborne, 5660 Co. Rd. 19 (Heartbreakers), stated that the site they are on is too small for their
business needs when they are ready to expand, and they would not stand in the way when the time comes for
a unified development.
PLANNING COMMISSIONOUTES •
18 May 2010
Page 3 of 3
Lynn Fisher, 24285 Smithtown Rd, said she had a plan to expand their business at one point but the City
would not approve it. She said she is in favor of the City's vision for a unified development.
Ken Dallman said they are currently trying to lease out the old gas station site (5680 Co. Rd. 19), and if they
find a good tenant who is willing to tolerate whatever repairs the building needs they would probably want to
sign at least a three year commitment.
Director Nielsen announced that the next step is to meet with commercial developers for feedback and
discussion, and to also talk with senior housing developers.
Chair Geng thanked those in attendance for sharing their time and thoughts.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
None.
4. NEW BUSINESS
Commissioner Amst asked if the City has a plan or program for abandoned, foreclosed properties. Director
Nielsen said properties that fall into disrepair are handled like any other nuisance, on a complaint -basis.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
The Agenda for the June I" meeting will include the panel discussion with developers regarding Smithtown
Crossing; discuss mixed -use regulations; review the C.I.P.; and discuss life -cycle housing.
6. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
Councilmember Turgeon reported on matters considered and actions taken at the City Council meeting of
May 10, 2010.
None.
SLUC
Other
Commissioner Amst reported on a conference she attended: "Two Cities, One River", and she shared a copy
of "Urban Land" magazine.
Commissioner Vilett departed the meeting prior to adjournment due to illness.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Arnst moved, Davis seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of May 18, 2010 at 8:38
P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Patti Helgesen, Recorder
n
u
40
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 29 JUNE 2010
CALL TO ORDER
Vice -Chair Arnst called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M.
ROLL CALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
Present: Vice -Chair Amst; Commissioners Davis, Hasek, Hutchins, Ruoff, and Vilett; Planning Director
Nielsen; Administrator Heck; Council Liaison Turgeon; and Councilmember Woodruff
Absent: Chair Geng
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Davis moved, Vilett seconded, to revise the Agenda by deferring Item No. 2. Discuss Capital
Improvements Program to a later date so that it can be given full attention. Motion passed 6/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 18, 2010
Hasek moved, Vilett seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2010
as presented. Motion passed 6/0.
1. SMITHTOWN CROSSING — DEVELOPER PANEL DISCUSSION
Vice -Chair Arnst welcomed the panel of land -development professionals in attendance at the invitation of the
Planning Commission. They were asked to introduce themselves and provide some background information.
Colleen Carey, President, The Cornerstone Group, said her company does real estate development and started
out doing affordable housing. It moved onto broader development projects mainly residential, including
multi -family apartments, condos, and some retail and mixed -use.
Terry McKinley, President, Cooperative Housing Resources and Senior Cooperative Foundation, said he
works with Dennis Johnson, who will provide an overview of their company, and he will answer any
questions that may arise.
Dennis Johnson, said they are actually lenders, rather than a developer. The company is a HUD approved
lender and their business is strictly financing senior housing cooperatives or consulting with developers about
senior co-ops. He said there are thousands of senior housing developments in the country, but only 95
cooperatives. The smallest senior co-op is 10 units, and the largest is over 300 units. The occupant pays 35 -
50% of the total unit value to move in and pays a monthly fee for the maintenance costs.
Tom Wartman, Landform, Inc., said he is a long-time local resident who has developed both commercial and
residential projects over the years. Most recently, has done a mixed -use development in Glen Lake, and is
currently working on a senior housing project He said he believes the three-story height restriction in
Shorewood will cause limitations for the site.
PLANNING COMMISSIONINUTES
29 June 2010
Page 2 of 5
Frank Dunbar, Dunbar Development, said he has many projects around the Twin Cities area, and owns and
manages apartment complexes. He said they have done public, government buildings, and are currently
finishing a large student -housing development.
Stacey Kvilvang, Ehlers and Associates, said she spends much of her time working on redevelopment for
cities and assisting them in negotiations with developers.
Vice -Chair Artist asked the panel what type of project would they see working on the Smithtown Crossing
site?
Tom Wartman said he looked at the site about 18 months ago, and said he thinks it needs to be a coordinated
mix of multifamily, independent and assisted senior housing, with service -oriented retail. He said the area
provides an opportunity to fill that gap, but needs city assistance such as TIF at minimum. He said the City of
Minnetonka actually made financial contribution to some redevelopment projects.
Frank Dunbar said the first thing to look at is the market and know who you are appealing to. He said we
know there are 35 million people over 65 years of age and over 80 million between 45 to 65 years. Those are
the seniors that will need housing. He said he defines seniors into three groups: the "go-go", "slow -go", and
"no-go" seniors. The go-go is an average 74 years old single female, and is the typical person that needs
senior housing. The slow -go is about 85 years old and needs assisted housing. A no-go is in a nursing home.
He said he doesn't see a large younger population in the suburbs; they want to be closer to downtown. And
the renters have a lot of toys, which is not conducive to apartment living. Therefore, open multi -family units
probably doesn't have a market in Shorewood. There is more of a senior housing market, for the baby
boomers.
Colleen Carey said she agrees with Wartman and Dunbar, but there is an opportunity that hasn't been met yet
in the senior market. She said most people she has talked to in that age group have said the product they want
hasn't been developed yet. She said it needs a location that has some action and amenities. The opportunity
that exists for cities is to focus on the infrastructure like parks, trails, connection to activities; the things that
create a sense of place, and let the developer deal with the bricks and mortar. She said she has also been
looking at the multi -family rental market, and is finding that land prices preclude affordable rental housing.
Commissioner Hasek said he recently read an article stating that seniors want to stay in their homes longer,
and asked the panel for their thoughts about that.
Carey said she believes it is because the development professionals haven't created the product that seniors
really want, and they are waiting for that to happen. There isn't anything on the market that would make
them want to leave their homes.
Terry McKinley said senior co-ops serve a segment of the senior population in a way that traditional senior
housing does not. The seniors are still owners, they are involved in the management, and there are
community activities. He said co-ops provide housing where people are able to age in place, and live longer
vital lives because they are active and involved. He said he asked one of their clients to evaluate the site, and
thought it could support around 30 or more units, with underground parking and 3 stories.
Dunbar said he doesn't think market -rate apartments would succeed. He said even though the product needs
to be changed, the customer is the senior.
Vice Chair Arnst asked for examples of place -making.
Colleen Carey said what people want is to be able to be part of the action and watch other people doing
things. A mixture of uses, some of which extend into the evening, can provide some of that.
PLANNING COMMISSIONCTES •
29 June 2010
Page 3 of 5
Frank Dunbar cited a rental complex overlooking Turtle's Bar and Grill in Shakopee as an action -watching
place that keeps leases full.
Dennis Johnson said they did a survey of their 6,000 co-op unit residents and received 2600 responses which
showed that 60% of that group were couples, and about two-thirds of them came from within a 4-mile radius
of where they were living.
Commissioner Davis commented that, even though there may not be the product out there that people really
want, there are still many seniors that must sell their home due to the economy and downsize for financial
reasons.
Dunbar responded that the problem is that they can't sell their homes because of the market, also because they
mentally can't sell it. They have put an emotional price on their homes that just won't sell.
Vice Chair Arnst said she has heard reference to four tools that could be used to encourage developers:
P.U.D., T.I.F., change the height restrictions, and city cash contribution. She asked if there were any other
suggestions.
Dunbar said most of the senior housing they do is government owned. A true non-profit ownership. They
don't pay real estate taxes at the same rate as a private development. This drops the rental rate by about $250
per month for the customer. The city puts their full faith and credit behind the senior project just to bring the
costs down.
Commissioner Vilett asked how parking issues are handled. Dunbar said senior housing doesn't need much
parking. They have one car which is parked underground.
Commissioner Davis asked, in regard to mixed uses, are there any particular types of commercial businesses
that are doing well right now?
Tom Wartman said there are businesses that are starting to see some turn around, although the banks are still
being tight with lending. Commercial development proposals must be realistic, but developers can't afford to
wait months for the approval process. Flexibility is important, and the 40-foot height restriction will be very
limiting to a good architectural design. He said the City could be more proactive by picking up some of the
properties as they become available so a developer can afford to something good.
Stacy Kvilvang stated that it is important to plan ahead and be prepared to be patient and wait for the right
time for things to happen. She said it is best to work with a small pool of developers, but does not advocate
RFPs. Holding these informal discussions is a good way to get to know what's best.
Arnst asked if there is anything that's being missed.
Carey suggested getting RFQs, setting the bar high, and don't settle for a pretty picture.
Dunbar said you want someone with experience and a long track record. They will bring in a good finance
team.
Administrator Heck asked for the panel's opinion about the site being good for mixed use. Wartman said WE
a tough market for retail right now, and you couldn't put just anything there, but it definitely needs a gateway.
Hasek asked how many acres are needed for cooperative housing.
McKinley said they have built 56 units in three stories on two acres, with parking underground. Dunbar said
he has done 52 units on less than one acre in five stories. He said ponding can be an issue though.
PLANNING COMMISSION. TES •
29 June 2010
Page 4 of 5
Kvilvang suggested it would be more beneficial to make site visits by taking a field trip.
Commissioner Hutchins asked how you balance a 4-5 story building with the surrounding area being open
and low.
Dunbar said the developer's perspective is concerned about the occupant's experience living inside the
building, and the City is concerned about people looking at the outside of the building.
Carey said the actual number of stories don't matter as much as how it actually looks.
Hasek asked if an RFQ would include a market analysis.
Kvilvang said an analysis would probably not be part of an RFQ since the project is probably 5 years out.
McKinley said if it were for a cooperative, an analysis would be part of an RFQ.
Director Nielsen asked what the holdup is for creating the "product" that seniors really want. Carey said it's
the add-ons that people aren't really expecting from typical housing. Administrator Heck said it's also the
non -brick and mortar amenities, the maintenance free building, trails and parks, etc.
McKinley said the co-ops are the answer for many of the seniors who do not otherwise want to leave their
home. He suggested that the Commission be sure to include them on their field trip visits.
Vice Chair Arnst thanked the panel for their time and generous contribution of their knowledge and expertise.
After departure of the panelists, the Commission continued discussion of Smithtown Crossing.
Vilett clarified that commercial services are different than retail commercial. Nielsen said those terms need to
be defined.
Vilett referenced many places she is familiar with that are comprised of "boutique" -style shops that are very
successful and busy.
The Commission discussed the idea of acquiring available parcels within the study area. Administrator Heck
said in a dilapidated area with multiple properties, when a parcel goes up for sale and the city has money
available it should buy it. If someone else buys one of the parcels and puts something on it, it kills any kind
of cohesive development. If the city owns all or most of the parcels, that makes it more feasible for a
developer to do something with it, and the city controls the land. He said the down side of the City owning
property is it's taken off the tax rolls, and the City becomes a landlord which is not a good thing.
Arnst said a major drawback for senior housing is the inability to walk anywhere within Shorewood due to the
lack of pedestrian safety.
2. DISCUSS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (C.I.P.)
This item was deferred to a later date under Approval of Agenda.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
None.
PLANNING COMMISSION•UTES •
20 July 2010
Page 4 of 4
3. SMITHTOWN CROSSING — DISCUSS UPCOMING AUGUST FIELD TRIP
Director Nielsen said that after the meeting with the developer panel, there was consensus that a tour of
housing developments would be of value. He said he is in the process of creating a list of sites to visit and is
open to suggestions. He stated that a date for the tour needs to be determined as well.
Commissioner Arnst said the purpose of the tour includes looking at certain features that would relate to the
Smithtown Crossing area such height limitations; unique topography — especially as it relates to the number of
stories in the building; and features that create an inviting atmosphere.
Commissioner Ruoff referred to a couple of residential complexes in Victoria and Chanhassen that
demonstrate the impact of height. He said one of them contains mixed use.
Amst suggested that the sites not be restricted to senior housing only.
After further discussion, the date of August 3`d was determined to be best for the tour.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
None.
5. NEW BUSINESS
None.
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
The meeting of August 3`d will be a mobile tour of redevelopment projects.
7. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
None.
• SLUC
None.
• Other
None.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Arnst moved, Ruoff seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of July 20, 2010 at 9:00
P.M. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Patti Helgesen, Recorder
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY,17 AUGUST 2010
ulhly
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M.
ROLL CALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Hasek, Hutchins, Ruoff, Vilett and Arnst; Planning Director
Nielsen; Council Liaison Woodruff
Absent: Commissioner Davis
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Arnst moved, Hasek seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Agenda of August 17,
2010 as presented. Motion passed 6/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 29, 2010
Arnst moved, Hutchins seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 29,
2010 as amended. Motion passed 5/0/1 (Geng abstained).
July 20, 2010
Hasek moved, Arnst seconded, deferring approval of the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
July 20, 2010 pending additional commentary by Commissioner Hasek regarding aerial photos in the
Edwards C.U.P. application. In addition, Chair Geng recommended rephrasing the last sentence of
paragraph 11 on page 2. Motion passed 6/0.
1. DISCUSS MOBILE TOUR OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
At its last meeting of August 3 s, the Planning Commission toured a number of sites containing residential
complexes, commercial establishments, or a mixture of each. Director Nielsen said the purpose of discussing
the tour was to determine the positives and negatives of the various projects as to how that could relate to the
Smithtown Crossing vision. He said there is a need to focus on building mass and especially height. He said
ultimately he hopes to end up with an Area Plan of the Smithtown Crossing area for adoption into the
Comprehensive Plan as an appendix. This Area Plan could also serve as a reference point for ordinances that
will be developed regarding mixed use, life -cycle housing, etc. It would be useful for developers as well,
especially when paired with photographic examples.
Nielsen said the first stop on the tour was the Glen Lake development which included vertical mixed use of
retail and residential. He said there are four stories on the front and four stories plus underground parking at
the rear of the building.
PLANNING COMMISSION MI TES •
17 August 2010
Page 2 of 4
The Commission discussed the design features that stood out to them which included siding material, roof
lines, landscaping and water features, outdoor seating, colors, etc. These items help to serve the purpose of
breaking up the mass of buildings and parking lots.
Commissioner Amst commented that the outdoor seating area at the Glen Lake site was gorgeous.
Commissioner Ruoff noted that the City should convey to developers that it wants to avoid trendy
architectural designs that tend to look dated after a while. Director Nielsen said he will try to determine a way
to word that into the Plan. Commissioner Hasek cautioned that many adjectives (e.g. "timeless") are too
subjective to have any meaning.
Councilmember Woodruff commented that one of the projects had the rear of its building right next to the
street and it looked pretty nice, but acknowledged that it is on a quiet street and that is not the case in the
Smithtown Crossing area. Director Nielsen agreed and said that P.U.D. regulations are designed to be
flexible which could allow for different setbacks. He went on to say that preserving some space for parking
in view of passing traffic can be beneficial as a display of activity.
Golden Valley Commons, a retail development, had many subtle details like simple flower boxes and pavers
or stamps in the concrete sidewalks that define different areas within a large retail complex. Vilett noted that
the signage with awnings in coordinated colors for the different tenants was a good idea. Arnst agreed and
said it also helps to break up and soften the fagade of the building. She said it was hardly noticeable how
close to Hwy. 55 it was.
Commissioner Hutchins pointed out that this establishment was developed with foot traffic in mind. He said
it is surrounded by a lot of multi -family housing and contains many alleyways and sidewalks for pedestrian
access and circulation. Councilmember Woodruff noted there were bicycle racks as well.
Commissioner Ruoff questioned how the two sites along Co. Rd. 19 (the northwest quadrant and the south
east quadrant) can be tied together so they appear visually coordinated. Director Nielsen said as far as the
actual architecture goes that can only be encouraged, perhaps with incentives such as with building height.
He said that the Area Plan can specify what the City is looking for from developers. He also said the City
could contribute to a coordinated effect through streetscaping.
The Town Square, a mixed use development of commercial and residential across from Golden Valley
Commons was visited next. Director Nielsen said if the City could just take a project and plop it onto the
Smithtown Crossing comer, this would be the one if it was up to him. He stated a lot of things about it are
positive such as the HVAC equipment is well hidden; the parking is set down into the site and broken up; the
architecture is broken up also; and the landscaping is well established and mature.
The Sunrise Senior Housing is a three story assisted -living complex also in Golden Valley. Director Nielsen
said it's a large building but retains an attractive residential character. Commissioner Amst said what makes
the difference are the lines, the landscaping and the color and texture. Commissioner Hasek said one of the
other buildings actually had a fourth story, but it was built into the roof and not really apparent.
Summerwood in Chanhassen is a four-story vertical mixed use building with commercial on the ground level
and senior housing above it. There was consensus that it has an unattractive design lacking in detail.
Chair Geng commented that water features such as ponds and fountains were always a nice amenity.
Commissioner Ruoff agreed adding that they also offer a soothing sound buffer.
PLANNING COMMISSION •UTES •
17 August 2010
Page 3 of 4
2. DISCUSS MIXED -USE
Director Nielsen said he has been looking at other city ordinances with regard to their mixed -use regulations,
some very simple and others many pages long. He said Shorewood's P.U.D. ordinance could technically
allow the City to handle a mixed -use application, however, he didn't think it would get what is really wanted.
He said developing a separate ordinance regulating mixed use and tying it to the Comp Plan is what is needed.
Director Nielsen stated the main issue needing to be addressed is building height. The Commission re -viewed
the photos from the tour and discussed the types of features that help break up the appearance of height, such
as rooflines, tiers, awnings, siding material, colors, balconies, lighting, landscaping, etc.
Director Nielsen said four stories is where buildings start getting above tree -top level. The current regulation
for the C-1 Zoning District allows for three stories, or 40-feet, whichever is least. Commissioner Hasek asked
if four stories would be allowed if it were built no higher than 40-feet. Nielsen said it may if some of the
building's stories were either partially below grade, or incorporated into the roof as half -stories.
Commissioner Amst asked if the C-1 District would need to be amended if the City were to change the height
limitation. Nielsen said the zoning district text would not need to be amended because the height regulations
could become part of the mixed -use ordinance and exclusive to the mixed —use district. It would not apply
city-wide. Arnst said that since the appearance of height can depend so much on where and how a building is
positioned and designed, she would like to have the latitude to allow increased height, depending on the
proposal.
Councilmember Woodruff said if a rendering of a four story building on the specific site could be produced
that would be very useful to see. Nielsen said he would see if that could be done by staff.
Director Nielsen said a developer should have to earn an increase in building height and not get an automatic
approval just because a proposal is consistent with what the ordinance allows. Rather, increased building
height could be an incentive to a developer to adhere to the Plan, and the code would require consistency with
the Plan.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
None.
4. NEW BUSINESS
Commissioner Arnst requested that a report be provided to the Commission in regard to a legal case involving
variances in Minnetonka. Director Nielsen said he and the City Attorney are planning to prepare that.
5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated upcoming items needing study include: review of the no -right -turn sign at the Cub
Food store's westerly parking lot exit onto Lake Linden Drive; draft of a mixed -use ordinance; discussion of
life cycle housing; study of undeveloped rights -of -way (paper streets); and discuss Deephaven's desire to
upgrade the intersection of Highway 7 and Vine Hill Road. The Commission chose to split the items over
two meetings: September 14th and 21'.
6. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
Commissioner Hutchins reported on items considered and actions taken by the City Council at their meeting
of August 9, 2010.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY,14 SEPTEMBER 2010
„ll.tlyr�y
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
LARGE CONFERENCE ROOM
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Hutchins, Ruoff, Vilett; Davis, Amst, Planning Director
Nielsen; and Council Liaison Woodruff
Absent: Hasek
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
20 July 2010
17 August 2010
Ruoff moved, Hutchins seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 20 July
2010 as presented. Motion passed 6/0.
Artist moved, Vilett seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 17 August
2010 as presented. Motion passed 610.
DISCUSS MIXED USE REGULATIONS
Planning Director Nielsen advised the Commission that one of the tasks associated with the Smithtown
Crossing Redevelopment Area Study was to draft regulations for mixed use, allowing a potential mixture
of residential and commercial land uses within a single project. He started out saying that, if need be, the
City could process a mixed use development under the current P.U.D. provisions found in the Zoning
Code. The current Code, however, does not contain standards specific to mixed use. Nielsen also
mentioned that we had previously discussed tying mixed use regulations to the Comprehensive Plan, not
only the language found in the current Plan, but also to any future language relative to the Smithtown
Crossing Redevelopment Area. Nielsen explained that one of the outcomes of the Study would be an area
plan for the study area. The area plan would be similar to what we have for each of the various planning
districts in the Comprehensive Plan. The area plan would contain our vision statement for the study area,
goals and objectives for redevelopment, and defining what it is the City is looking for in the study area.
Nielsen then reviewed a two -page handout containing a draft of language relative to mixed use
development and a list of criteria that could be incorporated into the Smithtown Crossing Area Plan.
The mixture of uses allowed in a mixed use project would be taken from the multiple -family districts, the
R-C and CA zoning districts. Shorewood has already stated that the commercial uses in Smithtown
Crossing should be a retail type mix. The developers that met with its have suggested the term "service
commercial", such as banking, personal services, etc. Nielsen explained that our current code refers to
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PL•ING COMMISSION MEETING •
14 September 2010
Page 2 of 3
service commercial when talking about trade contractor shops and similar activities. This will require
some clarification to distinguish between the two uses of the term.
He cited six criteria set forth in the handout text. Additional language referring to architectural character,
and landscaping would be written into the Area Plan. The mixed use provisions would only apply to
areas specifically referenced in the Comprehensive Plan, Smithtown Crossing being one of those areas.
As referenced in the current P.U.D. provisions, a mixed use project would require a minimum site size of
four acres gross land area. Building height for a well designed project could be increased from forty feet
to 45 feet, with no reference to the number of stories.
Vilett questioned whether the 45 feet would be the new standard for height. Nielsen replied that the
increased height would have to be "earned" through design. He also explained that, due to the way height
is measured, a 45-foot tall building could actually be higher than that in the case of a pitched roof.
Woodruff suggested that it is important to clarify how the additional building height is earned.
A provision setting forth a ratio of residential to commercial use was discussed. The consensus of the
Commission was to not include such a requirement in the ordinance.
Nielsen pointed out that a maximum density of six units per acre was included in the text, consistent with
current R-3A, Multiple -Family Residential provisions. The density relative to elderly housing was left
blank for further discussion. He mentioned that a consensus of the developer panel had indicated that our
current limitation of 10 units per acre for elderly housing simply would not work for a project such as
Smithtown Crossing. A question was raised as to the density of the Sunrise project in Golden Valley.
Nielsen offered to find that out and report back. He stated that the density of the Wartman project in
Minnetonka had a residential density of somewhere between 40 and 50 units per acre, a product of a large
building on a relatively small parcel of land. Nielsen suggested that a density of 15-20 senior housing
units per acre might be appropriate for Smithtown Crossing. He also suggested that assisted living
projects should not be addressed by density but rather should be treated more like a commercial activity.
Councilmember Woodruff questioned limiting the higher density to elderly housing. Nielsen responded
that there is a significant difference in impact between senior housing and say, market rate rental housing,
in terms of parking, traffic, etc. Nielsen suggested that a sixty unit apartment building, for example,
might be viewed differently by local area residents than a sixty unit senior housing project.
Commissioner Amst questioned elderly housing for the project, thinking that it lacked a certain vibrancy.
Nielsen explained how the Federal Fair Housing Act allows discrimination in housing, only relative to the
elderly, which is used synonymously with senior housing. For qualifying projects, senior housing allows
residents 55 years and older. Other projects are limited to 62 years and older. He mentioned the
Shorewood Pond senior housing project on Eureka and Highway 7 and that the seniors there appear to be
quite active. Arnst does not agree with specifying elderly housing for the Smithtown Crossing project.
V ilett agreed. Davis mentioned a project in Watertown that included a mix of senior housing units. After
further discussion, it was suggested that the language in the Code should be clarified to describe housing
for residents 55 years and older and not excluding assisted living as an element of the project.
The last of the criteria discussed was a provision referencing internal pedestrian and bicycle circulation.
2. DISCUSS ZONING LAW UPDATE
There was brief discussion regarding the State Supreme Court ruling in the case of Krummenacher v. City
of Minnetonka. Nielsen reported that the City Attorney agreed that the case has little impact on
Shorewood because of how the City has considered variances in the past.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
15 February 2011
Page 2 of 3
Arnst moved, Hasek seconded, to recommend approval of the Code Amendment regarding Fire Lane
setbacks. Motion passed 7/0.
Chair Geng noted that this item will be on the City Council Agenda of February 28, 2011
2. DISCUSSION - SMITHTOWN CROSSING REDEVELOPMENT
Director Nielsen stated that he is in need of direction from the Planning Commission regarding the type of
housing that would be most suitable for the residential component of Smithtown Crossing. He asked if
apartments what people are thinking of for the site?
Commissioner Ruoff asked if apartments are considered under the same category as senior housing in the City
Code. Nielsen said senior housing is regulated by separate, specific code. The Federal Fair Housing Act,
more recently the Housing for Older Persons Act, allows for discrimination in housing. It allows a developer,
or city, to specify that this housing is only for persons 55 (or 62) years of age or older. Current City Code
provides for higher density for senior housing than it does for multi -family housing.
Commissioner Vilett stated she is not comfortable in having the Smithtown Crossing residential element
limited to senior housing. She said she would prefer to see an ability to have a mixture of housing types.
Commissioner Amst said she thought mixed use indicates a variety of housing types, and a developer would
he inspired to include senior housing due to its higher density allowance.
Commissioner Hasek said his concern is for traffic capacity, and that factor should influence the density of
housing that is allowed. Nielsen said the City can always require a traffic study be incorporated into a
development review process.
Director Nielsen recapped his perception of what the Commission wants included in the plan: a range of
housing types — multiple family at R-313 zoning. Provide an opportunity for senior housing without stating
which kind - let the market dictate that. Exclude discussion about encouraging senior housing in this plan —
that should be separate. Hasek suggested keeping in mind what the traffic impact on local streets will be, and
promoting the pedestrian component.
Commissioner Hutchins said due to changing economics, there needs to be flexibility built into the plan to be
prepared for future opportunities.
Director Nielsen presented slides showing the Town Square Shopping Center building superimposed on the
corner of the site. The actual Town Square in Golden Valley includes a parking ramp that is not a probability
for Smithtown Crossing.
The Commission discussed the acquisition of a property currently for sale within the site. Nielsen said
developers have noted that city participation will be a critical factor in seeing the site developed.
Administrator Heck commented that the City having ownership in the land is the only real way of having any
control over how the land is developed. He said the Commission should send a strong recommendation to the
Council if they feel acquiring the property is important. He stated that current legislation is favorable right
now for cities to own property by extending the timelines that require development action. There was
consensus among the Commission that a firm recommendation be forwarded to the City Council favoring
purchase of the property. Councihnember Siakel noted that the upcoming Visioning Conference would be a
good opportunity to discuss this matter.
40
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 1 MARCH 2O11
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
Chair Geng welcomed two new members of the Planning Commission, Steve Charbonnet and Michael
Garelick.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Charbonnet, Garelick, Davis, Arnst, Hasek, and Hutchins; Planning
Director Nielsen; Council Liaison Siakel.
Absent: None.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Arnst moved, Hasek seconded, approving the Planning Commission Agenda of March 1, 2011 as
presented. Motion passed 7/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• February 15, 2011
Hutchins moved, Arnst seconded, approving the Planning Commission Minutes of February 15, 2011 as
presented. Motion passed 7/0.
1. SMITHTOWN CROSSING DISCUSSION
For the benefit of all, and especially the new members of the Planning Commission, Director Nielsen
recapped the basics of the Smithtown Crossing concept and what the activities and discussions have included
to -date. Nielsen stated that the Comp Plan identified the area as prime for redevelopment. In January 2010
the study area and planning issues were identified. The Commission began to formulate a "vision statement"
(what would be desired for the area in the future) in April. In May the Commission met with the landowners
within the study area, and in June conducted a developer panel discussion. Throughout the year discussions
have covered mixed -use development; tax increment financing; and design criteria. In August the
Commission went on a mobile tour of developments in the Metro area.
Director Nielsen presented the first draft of his report "Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study" which is a
culmination of the discussions over the past year. The report includes the issues, the plan, the Vision
Statement, and methods of potential City participation.
At the suggestion of Commissioner Hasek and Chair Geng, Nielsen said he will highlight at least three areas
within the project boundaries that have developable acreage.
Commissioner Arnst suggested the report also contain, as an appendix, summaries of the mobile tour; the
landowner's meeting; and the developer's forum including the key issues of building height, density, and
0
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
1 March 2011
Page 2 of 3
parking. She also suggested putting captions on the photographs; identify the dates of meetings where
discussion took place regarding the project; and information on traffic volume.
Commissioner Garelick said he thought the area needs to have a focal point and be a destination that people
want to go to. He also said he didn't think the residential portion should be limited to senior housing only.
Director Nielsen said he will incorporate the Planning Commission's recommended revisions into the report
and submit it to the City Council at their March l0 work session.
2. DISCUSS DEER FEEDING
Director Nielsen stated that the City has a Deer Management Program that is in its fourth year. He said,
however, that there are people feeding the deer which defeats the City's efforts to reduce their population.
Nielsen explained that deer feeding disrupts their natural circulation pattern which leads to herding, and that
increases vehicular conflicts as well as disease. The City has been considering enacting a ban on deer feeding
to better control the situation. So far efforts to discourage deer feeding have been an educational approach via
the City Newsletter and website. In spite of this, the latest deer count survey, from February 2011, show the
numbers have actually increased.
Nielsen said even though adopting an ordinance for a deer feeding ban would not require a public hearing, he
has suggested there at least be a public forum or open house style meeting to discuss the topic with residents.
The meeting would be publicized in the newsletter and website.
Commissioner Hasek said he would like to find a way to hear from people who are on both sides of the issue,
not only the people who are against a ban. Nielsen noted that Councilmember Siakel has suggested that a
short question to the public is often effective when included on the utility bills. The Commission agreed to
that as a good plan.
Commissioner Garelick asked what an acceptable number of deer would be. Nielsen said approximately 15
per square mile is considered tolerable for Shorewood.
In discussing a timeline for the next steps, Nielsen said a draft ordinance could be reviewed in April, an article
about the proposed ban could go in the May newsletter, and the 2nd or 3`d quarter utility bills could post a
survey question to residents. A more defined timeframe will be discussed at the April meeting.
3. DISCUSS SUSTAINABILITY
Director Nielsen said he has been to a couple of conferences so far on the topic of sustainability and noted
that it is a huge issue and is somewhat overwhelming as there is a ton of information available. He said he
has found a program through the Pollution Control Agency called "GreenStep", which appears to provide a
simple approach to the matter.
He stated that using the GreenStep program would start with the City adopting a resolution declaring interest
in participation and becoming a GreenStep city. This could be discussed in a joint work session with the
Planning and Park Commissions and City Council, tentatively some time in April.
Commissioner Charbonnet asked if a reference to sustainability should be added to the Smithtown Crossing
project. Nielsen said it is currently very expensive to build under "green" standards, especially LEED
(Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) certified, but there probably should be some reference.
Work Session of the Shorewood City Council •
Park Commission and Planning Commission
May 3, 2011
Page 4 of 8
In response to a question from Councilmember Hotvet, Nielsen indicated that there should be
grant money available for some of the items.
Liz6e stated she appreciates the work the Planning Commission has done and their initiative to
prepare a resolution. She would like to break down the parts of the 28 best practices. Nielsen
stated that out of the 28 items, the city has already completed 5-6 items.
Zerby asked Nielsen if he is the GreenStep Coordinator.
Nielsen stated it seems to be a planning department effort, and he is willing to do it. He said it
could also be done by a group, but it's probably better to have an individual be the coordinator. It
was noted that it would be good to have a GreenStep Coordinator job description.
Robb asked if there were any other benefits to the GreenStep Cities program, other than
recognition.
Nielsen indicated there are financial benefits. The projects need to make financial sense. He also
indicated it's the right thing to do.
Commissioner Hotvet asked if residents in community could participate.
Nielsen indicated with the initial effort, the city would lead by example and identify programs
that residents could participate in.
Commissioner Davis noted that one item the city and residents are cooperating in is local food
growth, noting we have our community gardens.
4. Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study
Nielsen noted that the Planning Commission been working on a redevelopment study for County
Road 19 and Smithtown Road. This has been identified as a prime area for redevelopment.
Nielsen outlined the boundary of the area, which includes the north edge of Gideon Glen, which
is a conservation open space. Gideon Glen would not be developed, as the Watershed District is
working on restoring this area, which includes a pond, wetland, and a reforestation area. The
focus of the study is the northwest quadrant of intersection. Internal circulation is a
consideration. Access is an issue as there is limited access off of County Road 19; access would
primarily be from Smithtown Road. Nielsen reviewed a couple of concept plans for the
northwest quadrant drafted by Commissioner Hasek. On the phased plan, the project would
occur in phases. This would require each area to address an independent parking and ponding
area; on the cohesive plan, parking and ponding is shared for the entire area, and there would be
a consistent building design. A similar plan could be developed for the south and east areas of the
study.
Nielsen indicated that last year, on May 4, the Planning Commission met with the City Council
to discuss the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment project. The report contains a vision
Work Session of the Shorewood City Council •
Park Commission and Planning Commission
May 3, 2011
Page 5 of 8
statement for the property, which is a description of what we have in mind for the property,
recognizing that it may take many years to achieve, especially in the current economy. The
Commission then met with landowners of the area to talk about the Smithtown Crossing
Redevelopment Study, and about half of the people came to meeting. There was agreement that
a unified, cohesive approach benefitted them best. Nielsen stated that a panel of developers met
with the Commission and the developers made recommendations on what it would take to get the
kind of development the city is looking for. They didn't think retail was the appropriate market
for this area, but that service -commercial would be better. There was some skepticism about
multiple -family housing; it was thought that perhaps senior housing would be more optimistic.
The Planning Commission toured properties around the metro area to get a sense of various
developments. One of the sites was Glen Lake in Minnetonka; this property included a five -story
facility. This example gives a sense of how a taller building would fit into the area. The city's
current ordinance has a building height restriction of three stories. Summerwood of Chanhassen
was not as well liked as it had little landscaping or building character. Both of these sites
contained commercial on the lower level with residential above. One site on the tour which was
well -liked by the Commission was the Town Square site in Golden Valley; it had nice public
spaces with outdoor table and chair seating, good bicycle -connections and pedestrian walkways,
and landscaping. The Commons project in Golden Valley was also visited; this site also had nice
public space and landscaping.
Nielsen discussed a concept plan for the County Road 19 corridor project, which was adopted in
2003. This plan addresses streetscaping, pedestrian circulation and access. The Trail Committee
met last night and talked about this area and access to the east to Excelsior and to the north on
County Road 19 and linking to the LRT trail. With the Smithtown Crossing project, the hope is to
extend pedestrian and bicycle circulation westward.
Nielsen noted that one of the recommendations the Planning Commission has made is making
sure the city's development regulations don't stand in the way of good development. The
Commission has started working on a mixed use ordinance, discussing building height and
possible higher density for the residential housing part of the project. A developer asked if the
city would consider Tax Increment Financing as means of redevelopment. The Commission
strongly recommends the city give serious thought to acquiring properties as they become
available. They noted there is one property in the area that is for sale at this time.
The next step for the Planning Commission is to bring this effort to the City Council for
acceptance, and to then go to surrounding neighborhoods to see what they think. The plan will be
adjusted with feedback from residents.
Hotvet expressed we have a golden opportunity and we are strategically located. She indicated
this is an exciting project and it would be nice to tie it in with our parks and natural resource.
With the changing demographics, it will be important to listen to what the people in Shorewood
want.
Siakel stated we may want to ask residents for input through the survey. She also noted that the
city has funds from the sale of the city owned liquor stores and perhaps those funds could be
Work Session of the Shorewo*ty Council is
Park Commission and Planning Commission
May 3, 2011
Page 6 of 8
used for property acquisition, or we could determine if those funds could be used on a project
like this to support the community.
Zerby indicated he agrees with obtaining input from the residents. He would like to see more
alternatives which would include expansion of the green space. He acknowledged the American
Legion wants to improve and expand its building to offer more services. Zerby feels this would
be aimed toward an older demographic. He feels that creating more park/open space in this area
is a better option than a big shopping center.
In response to a question from Robb, Nielsen stated that Gideon Glen is a conservation open
space. An interpretive trail exists in Gideon Glen; however, accessibility is an issue as there is no
parking available for it. Nielsen noted that an outdoor seating area or housing could be situation
to overlook Gideon Glen, taking advantage of the views of this open space.
Lizde noted there is agreement that a cohesive approach to this project would be better than a
phased plan. She asked if drawings of other options could be provided. She also noted that the
City Council needs to consider purchasing properties as they become available.
Edmondson stated he would like to see a comer marquee which would create a gathering space;
he likes the concept of viewing both Gideon Glen and the Minnetonka Country Club to maintain
the large open spaces.
Hotvet indicated she would like to see more of a low tech approach; she doesn't favor a plan that
includes commercial -service use. She envisions a plan that supports the needs of the residents
who live in the area, the Legion, a trail system to bring people into the area, and perhaps senior
or mixed housing use.
Zerby stated he could see the space used as a temporary event space for community events such
as art fair and a farmers market. He would like to see more green space, less parking lot. He
would like to see some pencil sketches of other development options.
Hasek indicated there are a lot of visions for the property, noting the tricky part will be to
coordinate the wants of the residents in the community with what can be marketed at that
location. He noted a survey will tell us what community wants, and the developer will identify
the needs. He noted a beautiful plan can be put together, but it may be difficult to fmd a
developer to building it because it's wrong for the area.
Nielsen stated that the next step would be to take this to the neighbors and the public by way of
an informal open house in order to get feedback from the public.
Lizde expressed that the Council should seriously look at the ownership of the property and
discuss purchasing the property that is for sale. The Legion is a big landowner, and they are
interested in being serious players in the plan. She favors getting concept plans, talking with
neighbors, and discussing with the Park and Planning Commissions.
Work Session of the Shorewooty Council •
Park Commission and Planning Commission
May 3, 2011
Page 7 of 8
In response to a comment from Zerby, Davis indicated that the American Legion, which owns
the gas station, has a demolition permit to tear down the gas station, and this work will likely be
done soon.
Siakel agreed with Lizee that the city needs to be serious about purchasing property for the
project as it become available. She favors some commercial use in the plan, but does not want to
see a five -story building.
Nielsen asked if the City Council would like to see additional concept plans prior to a public
open house. He noted that a problem with a conceptual design is that people get attached to it,
but it may not be realistic. The Commission's thought was to get feedback from the residents on
the design elements, without drawing a concept plan.
Lizee agreed it would make sense to get feedback from the residents before creating more
concept sketches. She thought the Smithtown Crossing document would be good to share with
residents and landowners in the redevelopment area.
Hasek referenced a document on redevelopment in the twin cities that was published in 2011,
which reflects what is happening in development community. It includes many points about
mixed use development and how important it is, and flexibility in city ordinances.
Lizee requested that document be shared with everyone.
Commissioner Kohlhaug asked what constraints might exist on the money that the city has and
how much was available.
Lizee stated there is approximately $1.8 million, of which $800K was from the sale from liquor
stores. She indicated that some money has been taken from that fund each year to help balance
the budget. She noted that Council has talked about getting feedback from residents on how this
money should be spent or invested.
Woodruff stated the $1 million was taken from the sewer enterprise fund which had been
overfunded. It was put into a fund, created for needed projects that the Council identified. He
noted that each year, $40K of the liquor store funds had been used to fund the parks capital fund;
and the interest from the $800K supported this; however, the interest in recent times has not fully
funded the park projects, so some of the principal has been used to support the parks capital
fund.
Siakel asked if there were any plans for the rest of County Road 19, noting the Garden Patch site
is for sale.
Nielsen stated that about three years ago, there was a study completed on suggestions for that
end of the corridor, but it was not well received by adjoining landowners. Many of the Timber
Lane residents were concerned about the redevelopment plan. That plan was not adopted and it
was agreed it would be revisited at a later time; this could be done this year.
Work Session of the Shorewood City Council •
Park Commission and Planning Commission
May 3, 2011
Page 8 of 8
In response to a question from Edmondson, Nielsen indicated the current owner of the Tonka
Bay shopping center has made external improvements, and those improvements have revitalized
that shopping center. It is currently full, so he is not aware of any other redevelopment plans at
this time.
Lizde thanked everyone for coming to the meeting this evening.
Hotvet moved, Zerby seconded, adjourning the Work Session of the City Council, Park
Commission and Planning Commission at 7:40 p.m. Motion passed 16/0.
Respectfully submitted,
Jean Panchyshyn, Recorder
(3- L':'-7�
ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor
Brian Heck, City Administrator/Clerk
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
19 July 2011
Page 2 of 5
Commissioner Hutchins asked how the proposed improvements will impact Outlot C (a wetland area).
Director Nielsen said it will clean that up as well. He added that Outlot C is already owned by the City.
Haack moved, Hutchins seconded, recommending approval of the minor subdivision of 5750
Covington Road. Motion passed 7/0.
2. DISCUSS SMITHTOWN CROSSING
Director Nielsen stated that at the last discussion it was determined that another joint meeting with the
City Council was needed in order to affirm the vision for Smithtown Crossing. He said either August 2"d
or the 16'h are the most opportune dates. There was no indication that any of the Commission members
had a conflict with either date.
Nielsen said he was recently approached by a representative of Dimension Architecture to discuss ideas
about senior housing development for a portion of the project area. Nielsen said this developer has not
submitted an application for consideration, as he is strictly speculating at this point. The developer was
willing to share his concept sketch with the Commission. The sketch depicted senior housing containing
four stories and underground parking, with commercial use and parking filling in the remainder of the
land area.
Commissioner Garelick said that Smithtown Crossing should be the glue for bringing together all types of
Shorewood residents, including the island residents and that it be a destination point. Nielsen said from
all the previous discussions and the tour, it has been determined that a desirable feature would be a
commons area where people can sit together and relax with a cup of coffee.
Commissioner Hasek stated that community identity is something that Smithtown Crossing might be the
last chance to provide.
Nielsen said the joint meeting should include discussion based on a concept drawing with detail showing
a housing component, commercial component, a common open area oriented to Gideon Glen, and an
entry feature situated at the corner of Co. Rd. 19 and Smithtown Rd. He said there has been differing
opinions about where the open area should be.
Commissioner Arnst asked if the neighborhood meeting is going to be on October 4 h. Nielsen said he did
not know for sure, but that has been his suggestion.
3. DISCUSS SUSTAINABILITY
Director Nielsen said the next step should be for the Commission to review the 28 Best Practices from the
GreenSteps program to determine which of them should be incorporated into the Work Program. He
indicated that some of the Practices may be appropriate to assign to other groups, such as the Park
Commission or other task committees.
4. ZONING CODE DISCUSSION — "DYNAMIC SIGNS"
Director Nielsen said the City is currently looking at an electronic sign for the SouthShore Community
Center and the Holiday Gas station would also like to incorporate one into their freestanding sign at
Waterford Center. He said if the City is going to allow electronic signs, what needs to be considered are
timing, size, and brightness at the minimum. Different cities have various timing allowances anywhere
from 4 seconds up to hours.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
& PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 P.M.
MONDAY, AUGUST 1, 2011
MINUTES
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION
Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 6:03 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present: Mayor Lizee; Councihnembers Hotvet, Siakel, Woodruff and Zerby; Attorney Keane;
City Administrator Heck; and, Planning Director Nielsen
Planning Commission Chair Geng; Commissioners Davis, Garelick and Hutchins
Absent: Planning Commissioner Amst, Charbonnet, and Hasek
B. Review Agenda
Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 9/0.
2. Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment
Director Nielsen stated the reason for this meeting is the Planning Commission thought there could be
some benefit from meeting with Council one more time to discuss the redevelopment vision for the
County Road 19 and Smithtown Road area (i.e., the Smithtown Crossing area) prior to scheduling a
neighborhood meeting about the redevelopment. The study focuses on the northwest quadrant of the
intersection. The Commission wants to make sure that Council and it had a similar vision for the future of
that quadrant.
Nielsen then stated at the start of this meeting he distributed a concept sketch which depicts the
redevelopment vision for the northwest quadrant as identified in the redevelopment study report. He noted
the sketch has intentionally been left out of the report. He explained the study report recommends that the
parcels in that quadrant, however far to the east the area ends up going, be combined and that it be a
unified redevelopment rather than redeveloping each property individually. The current property owners
agree it would be better to take a unified development approach. The hope is that the quadrant will be
redeveloped as mixed use.
Nielsen explained the report includes the Commission's architectural, landscaping, and bicycle and
pedestrian circulation suggestions. He clarified the report is not dictating that those suggestions must be
followed. The report notes that if the suggestions are followed the City may consider tax increment
financing (TIF) for the redevelopment project or other ways to contribute to the project. The thought is
that TV could be an incentive for following the suggestions. The concept sketch includes a pond and a
common/open space area that overlooks Gideon Glen. That area would be the common element between
the residential and commercial portions of the redeveloped area. The sketch shows that in the southeast
comer of the quadrant there is some type of landscaped parcel that serves as an entry to the area. The area
could connect to the current trails.
Work Session of the Shorewood City Council and Planning Commission
August 1, 2011
Page 2 of 5
Nielsen noted the Smithtown Crossing redevelopment study ties into the County Road 19 Corridor Study
that was done a number of years ago.
Nielsen stated the sizes of the parcels on the concept sketch are probably going to be significantly
different than what will actually be done. The commercial area will likely be smaller and the residential
portion will most likely be larger. Each element will likely have its own parking area and there will likely
be an opportunity between the two uses for some common parking. The project area will tie into the
pedestrian bike trail on the west, toward Excelsior on the east, to the LRT trail on the north, and to City
Hall on the south.
Nielsen explained the Commission didn't assign sizes to the commercial and residential components of
the redevelopment because it thought that should be up to the redeveloper. There has been some
discussion about there being a desire to have a larger open space area than is currently depicted on the
concept sketch. Unfortunately, that isn't something that can be required because of the size of the
redevelopment area.
Planning Commissioner Garelick asked why the same amount of effort wasn't put in to a study for the
CUB Foods development. Director Nielsen responded that the CUB area was redeveloped without any
need for variances. Planning Commissioner Davis noted that prior to CUB being built where it is there
was already a shopping center in existence. Garelick stated he thought the vision for the Smithtown
Crossing area is good; it's a destination point.
In response to a comment by Councilmember Hotvet, Director Nielsen explained for the commercial part
of the redevelopment the American Legion is a major landowner in that area and it will be a key player.
Nielsen noted the Legion wants the area to be redeveloped. It's anxious to do something and is looking
for some help. The Legion is firm about wanting to have exposure to County Road 19 and it doesn't want
to be part of a shopping center. In response to another question from Hotvet, Nielsen explained the
Planning Commission originally wanted there to be senior housing as part of the redevelopment but it has
backed off to just wanting housing. Nielsen stated housing is probably going to drive the development of
the area and the current market is for senior housing.
In response to a question from Mayor Lizee, Director Nielsen explained that Legion currently owns about
one-fourth to one-third of the redevelopment area.
Councilmember Siakel asked how Director Nielsen knows that the market is for senior housing while
noting the age restriction for Shorewood Ponds was recently lowered to 55 years of age because property
owners were finding it difficult to sell their properties with the previous higher age restriction. Nielsen
explained that the developer panel that came before the Planning Commission included a senior housing
developer. That developer'thought senior housing could be appropriate for the area. The panel indicated
the commercial portion won't be developed for quite some time because there is a glut of commercial
property available. A developer indicated he thought he could construct a three-story building on the site.
A developer that has shown some interest in the site believes senior housing would be the way to go.
Siakel then asked if there is a difference to a developer if the site has to be developed mixed use versus
just commercial. Director Nielsen stated if it is going to be redeveloped as all commercial the area will sit
for quite some time. Nielsen noted the Planning Commission doesn't want the area to be redeveloped
entirely for commercial use.
Siakel stated the area should be redeveloped if it is the right thing to do and if it is what the community
needs. She suggested that residents be asked what they think is needed during the neighborhood
meeting/open house. Director Nielsen stated that will be part of the open house discussion and he
Work Session of the Shorewood City Council and Planning Commission •
August 1, 2011
Page 3 of 5
suggested the same thing be asked as part of the community survey
Director Nielsen stated that during the neighborhood open house the slide show about the study will be
displayed as will the resulting recommendations. The Commission hopes to impress upon residents that a
piece meal development approach is not the best approach to take.
Councilmember Hotvet asked if Director Nielsen or the Planning Commission has spoken with the
Excelsior — South Lake Chamber of Commerce or the Tonka Bay business community to solicit their
input. Director Nielsen stated that has not occurred.
Councilmember Woodruff commented that Tom Wartman was on the developer panel and he developed
one of the developments the Planning Commission went to look at for ideas. Mr. Wartman lives in the
City.
Councilmember Hotvet stated she likes the fact that there will be a bike path to the area. Director Nielsen
stated a key element of the redevelopment is to be able to get to the area other than by motor vehicles.
Planning Commission Chair Geng stated the Commission wants the study to be somewhat flexible and it
anticipates the study will evolve over time.
Planning Commissioner Hutchins explained there is a lot of condo and apartment development going on
at this time. The commercial market is more difficult at this time. A lot of retail and banking services are
being conducted online. Therefore, there is not as much of a need for physical facilities for financial
institutions over the next five to ten years. A lot of mortgage services are provided electronically. If small
retail facilities are built the rents are usually quite high. He indicated he thought having the option for
some kind of housing in the study area is important. He stated it's critical to consider the types of service
industries that will draw people and which ones will be an amenity to what is already available in
neighboring communities. He recommended the City remain flexible when considering redevelopment
options.
Director Nielsen noted the development panel suggested both retail and service commercial be considered
viable options for the commercial component. The Planning Commission has no desire to have trade
contractor shops on the site.
Councilmember Zerby stated the American Legion is an important component of the redevelopment and
having housing as part of the area would be very complimentary. If it were senior housing it would be
complimentary to the Legion because people could walk there for dining and socializing. It would also be
easy to get to the Southshore Community Center.
Attorney Keane stated the American Legion is the key stakeholder and he asked if Staff and/or the
Planning Commission has explored with the Legion its ownership structure and decision making
structure. He then asked if the Legion has a governing board or are things decided by plebiscite. Planning
Commissioner Davis responded the Legion has a board and decisions are made by that board.
Councilmember Woodruff commented he had a discussion with one of the members of the Legion's board
about nine months ago when he was campaigning and he related that person had told him the Legion
would throw its whole deal into the pot if it can get back a building and some land. He surmised the
Legion is willing to put a little bit of money into the redevelopment. He stated he didn't think the Legion
will be a problem. Planning Commissioner Davis noted the Legion has some money to put toward that
effort, and it has spent a fair amount of money on professional services for land surveys and studies.
Work Session of the Shorewoo• Council and Planning Commission •
August 1, 2011
Page 4 of 5
Mayor Lizee suggested the study report identify that there is a desire to collaborate with the American
Legion.
Councilmember Hotvet suggested representatives from the American Legion, the Excelsior — Southlake
Chamber of Commerce and Tonka Bay business owners get invited to the October 4, 2011, neighborhood
meeting to provide their input.
Mayor Lizee asked if the site will be redeveloped as a planned unit development (P.U.D.). Director
Nielsen responded that's the desire. Nielsen stated the site maybe developed in two pieces. For example,
housing could be developed first and then the commercial component later. But, it needs to be designed so
that the two components can work together.
Mayor Lizee stated the commercial she sees is the American Legion. She recommended emphasizing the
desire to have a unified development concept and that it be redeveloped as a P.U.D. She suggested the
City also consider other partnerships such as with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
Director Nielsen noted access to Gideon Glen is pretty poor. The concept sketch would help with that.
Councilmember Hotvet stated the overpass for the LRT trail crossing over County Road 19 will be helpful
to the area.
Director Nielsen stated the current plan is to hold an open house style neighborhood meeting on October
4t° from 7:00 P.M. — 9:00 P.M. People can then come and go as they want. There will be board displays
around the room. He then stated from his vantage point people are more open to offering their opinions in
an informal setting. Mayor Lizee suggested attendees be encouraged to share their comments in written
form also. Maybe there could be Post It Notes available for them to write on.
Mayor Lizee stated that sometimes when plans are presented visually people tend to lock into them and
they either like them or not. She asked what visuals will be made available. Director Nielsen stated the
slide show about the study findings will be available. Nielsen reiterated the reason a copy of the concept
sketch is not included in the study report is Staff and the Planning Commission didn't want people to lock
into that as the only redevelopment option. Nielsen stated during the open house the desired parameters
(such as for architecture, landscaping and bicycle and pedestrian circulation) will be talked about.
Planning Commission Chair Geng noted the desire for a coordinated development will also be discussed.
Geng stated if the concept sketch were to be on display it may be beneficial to prepare a few different
sketches. Nielsen stated another sketch with a smaller commercial area could be created.
Planning Commissioner Davis suggested keeping topography off the sketches. She also suggested
keeping houses and house numbers of the sketches and only display the lot lines. The sketches should
show curb and gutter so there is structure. The separate pieces could be displayed on separate boards. The
green space could be on one board, trails on another, flexible housing could be on a number of boards,
and there could be a couple of commercial pieces.
Planning Commission Chair Geng stated it's important to make it clear to people that the City is waiting
for developers to approach the City. The purpose of the study exercise was to make sure the City is
prepared when that happens.
Councilmember Siakel stated that she thinks there is a lot of value in having a unified development
approach and a common vision. She then stated some of the questions she would want answered is how
large the redeveloped site will be and what impact the redevelopment will have on safety at the County
Road 19 and Smithtown Road intersection. Director Nielsen stated senior housing generates less traffic
0
Work Session of the Shorewood City Council and Planning Commission
August 1, 2011
Page 5 of 5
per unit than other types of multi unit housing. Siakel stated keeping housing general is a good thing.
Planning Commissioner Hutchins asked what impact a redevelopment will have on community services
such as police and fire. He stated he thought the plan to tie the redevelopment into future trail
development is a positive.
Director Nielsen stated there already is municipal water to the site and that is a good selling point.
Councilmember Siakel asked Planning Commissioner Davis if she could prepare the displays she
envisions being presented during the open house and she stated she would like to see them before the
October 4t' open house. She clarified she just wants to make sure Council and the Planning Commission
are presenting a coordinated message. Planning Commission Chair Geng expressed his agreement with
that.
Mayor Lizee stated she agreed with Councilmember Hotvet's suggestion to include Tonka Bay parties in
the redevelopment discussions.
In response to a comment by Attorney Keane, Director Nielsen responded the intent is to incorporate the
study findings and recommendations into the Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Lizee thanked everyone for coming to the meeting this evening.
3:' ADJOURN
Woodruff moved, Geng seconded, Adjourning the City Council and Planning Commission Work
Session of August 1, 2011, at 6:47 P.M. Motion passed 9/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
ATTEST:
cvqv�cL'e-1-1kL
Christine Lizee, Mayor
0
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
20 September 2011
Page 7 of 8
COMMUNITY SURVEY DISCUSSION
Director Nielsen stated that a five -page survey will be mailed to 1200 randomly chosen households
containing questions about City operations. Select questions from the survey relating to planning topics
were provided for review by the Planning Commission.
Commissioners voiced concern over not having the entire survey for review, finding it difficult to have an
objective opinion by looking at selective questions which is out of context with the whole picture.
Administrator Heck explained the general purpose of the survey, stating that it was designed by a
professional consultant. He said the reason only the pertinent questions were distributed was for focus.
However, he said he will email the survey in its entirety to the Planning Commission and they can reply
with any feedback prior to next Monday's City Council meeting when it will be discussed.
8. SMITHTOWN CROSSING — DISCUSS 4 OCTOBER OPEN HOUSE
Director Nielsen said the open house format will include a series of stations with display boards where
people will be walked through the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study report. A meeting notice
will be mailed to residents within 1000 feet of the Smithtown Crossing boundaries.
9. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
None.
10. OLD BUSINESS
Commissioner Hasek announced that the no -right turn restriction at Cub Food/Lake Linden Drive has
now been removed and the curb reconstructed. Director Nielsen said that the LRT trail signs are in place.
Three Rivers Park LRT Signage
Deer Hunting Program Expansion
11. NEW BUSINESS
None.
12. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
The October 4, 2011 Planning Commission meeting will be preceded by the Smithtown Crossing Open
House. The regular meeting agenda is scheduled to include a minor subdivision application; Dynamic
Signs final draft code; continuation of the Public Hearing regarding the code amendment relative to
variances; and continuation of the Shady Hills traffic analysis.
13. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
Councilmember Woodruff reported on items considered and actions taken by the City Council at their
PLANNING COMMISSION IINUTES
October 4, 2011
Page 4 of 6
Commissioner Amst asked why dogs are being regulated separately. Nielsen responded that because
dogs are a commonly accepted animal to have, unlike something like chickens. Amst said she doesn't
understand why dogs aren't part of this ordinance as one could have a 30 lb. miniature goat or a 100 to
200 lb. dog. She said she also didn't see a definition for nuisance animal in the draft code and thought
there should be because there is reference to it. Nielsen agreed that there needs to be provisions for
nuisance.
Arnst said she would like to see more regulation about the placement of structures for animals, because
when someone puts up a kennel or chicken coop it is often near the property line and becomes a problem
for the neighbors. Hasek and Charbonnet voiced their agreement with this. Nielsen said the Horse
Regulations section has provisions about shelter location that can be incorporated into this code.
Amst added that the proposed ordinance has quite a lot of detail about animal health standards such as
protection from air temperature, nutritional requirements, sanitation, etc. and wondered if the City is
prepared to deal with these standards. Nielsen said some of that may not be realistic, unless it becomes a
necessary enforcement issue.
There was consensus that the proposed code contains a lot of detail and the discussion should be
continued. The Commission decided to take more time to read through the rough draft and send their
comments to Director Nielsen individually for summarization.
5. ZONING CODE DISCUSSION - DYNAMIC SIGNS
Director Nielsen stated that based on the last meeting's discussion regarding dynamic signs the beginning
of the code will have a Purpose section rather than a Findings. He said he looked into the spacing
requirements of other city ordinances and did not find many that have this type of requirement or that
would apply to Shorewood's lot sizes. Nielsen suggested that the code include a setback requirement of
20 feet from the side lot lines instead.
In regard to the difference between an electronic alpha -numeric display versus a dynamic (graphical)
display, Nielsen suggested that any sign or portion of it with a strictly alpha -numeric message would not
be counted as dynamic as long as it remained static for a minimum of four hours. Requirements for
alpha -numeric signs in the residential districts (public and institutional) will be separated from
commercial dynamic sign requirements. This will also allow public and institutional message boards to
be larger than 25 percent of the total freestanding sign area. These types of signs are also subject to
conditional use permit.
Nielsen said the interval for time and temperature messages has been increased to 60 seconds. And he
added a provision specifying that the dynamic display portion of the sign shall be at the bottom of the sign
area.
Nielsen said that if the Commission is satisfied with these changes, the next step is to hold a public
hearing for the code amendment.
6. SMITHTOWN CROSSING —DISCUSS OPEN HOUSE
Commissioner Hasek said that he estimated about 40 people attended the Open House and felt that was a
good turnout and made it a worthwhile activity.
PLANNING COMMISSIOANUTES •
October 4, 2011
Page 5 of 6
Director Nielsen said he focused on trying to convey to people that the goal is to avoid piecemeal
development and he thought most understood and agreed.
Commissioner Arnst suggested that there are certain landowners within the study area that should
probably be recontacted just to be sure they are aware of the project as she hadn't seen them at any of the
previous meetings and that was uncharacteristic of them.
Commissioner Hasek commented that the study area boundaries need clarification and explanation. He
said he has seen different maps that are not all identical. Nielsen said there is an official boundary as
shown on the initial maps. Hasek said it would be useful to have a map depicting the actual developable
areas showing the square feet as well. Councilmember Woodruff said it would also be useful to provide
some detail about the Gideon Glen site indicating what the restrictions are.
Nielsen said he is hoping the attendees will return the comment sheets that were made available at the
Open House.
MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
None.
8. OLD BUSINESS
None.
Three Rivers Park LRT Signage
Deer Hunting Program Expansion
9. NEW BUSINESS
Commissioner Hasek said there are some lilac trees at the northeast comer of Mann Lane and Eureka
Road that obstruct the sightlines and need to be trimmed down. He said there are probably other
intersections with the same problem.
10. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen said the October 18th meeting will include speakers talking about chicken farming, a
discussion of the Massage Therapy License code, and Farm Animal ordinance comments.
11. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
Commissioner Charbonnet reported on items considered and actions taken by the City Council at their
meeting of September 26, 2011. Councilmember Woodruff commented on additional items, including an
update regarding the Christmas Lake public access site activities and efforts to prevent infestation of the
Zebra Mussel, and this generated ensuing discussion.
SLUC
None.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETEING
18 October 2011
Page 9 of 10
Commissioner Garelick asked what the reasons are for denying a license after a background check has
been done. Director Nielsen explained if they don't have the required number of hours, the insurance, and
one more primary reason. The City does not do a criminal background check on them. If the business
were to be licensed the City would have a background check conducted to ensure they haven't had any
related crimes.
Council Liaison Woodruff stated for a liquor license a criminal background check is requested.
Commissioner Hasek stated he thought that would be a good idea. Operating a business is a privilege not
a right in the City.
Chair Geng asked if the City wants to provide for spot checks. Administrator Heck stated the Ordinance
would have to have a provision that requires the business to keep certain records and that they are subject
to inspections, and then authorized City personnel can spot check to determine if things are being done
correctly.
Director Nielsen stated he will draft an amendment to the City's Message Licensing Ordinance.
4. SMITHTOWN CROSSING
Director Nielsen stated he was pleased with the showing at the Smithtown Crossing redevelopment study
informal neighborhood meeting. All comment sheets were taken by the attendees. Unfortunately, only one
was returned and it's almost illegible. The next step in the process is to hold a public hearing on the
proposed amendment to the Comprehensive (Comp) Plan regarding the redevelopment of Smithtown
Crossing.
Chair Geng suggested when the public hearing is publicized the City should encourage the residents look
at the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study report either on line or at City Hall prior to coming to
the public hearing.
Commissioner Arnst asked if any plans have been made to contact those property owners in the
surrounding area that have not been contacted. Director Nielsen responded that is on his radar.
There was consensus to schedule the public hearing on the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study
Comp Plan amendment for November 15, 2011.
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
6. OLD BUSINESS
Commissioner Amst asked Administrator Heck if he has spoken with the City Engineer about the striping
on Smithtown Road. Heck responded he has not. Heck noted the Road was striped before he had a chance
to talk to the Engineer about it. Heck stated he will make sure it goes back to being striped the way it was
when it was originally striped before striping is done in 2012. It allowed room fora bike shoulder then.
He noted the City does stripe the Road every year because the paint wears off quickly.
Administrator Heck explained the City is applying for a grant from the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources Local Trail Connections Program Grant to construct 9500 linear feet of paved trail along
Smithtown Road from the city borders of Shorewood and Victoria to the LRT Trail.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 1, 2011
Page 13 of 15
5. SMITHTOWN CROSSING
Director Nielsen noted during its November 15, 2011, meeting the Planning Commission is scheduled to
hold a public hearing to consider a Comprehensive (Comp) Plan amendment that would incorporate the
Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study) into the Appendix Chapter of the Plan. He stated
as of the Commission's October 18`h meeting the City had only received one comment sheet from a
resident who attended the open house on the Study. Since that date the City has received a few more. The
meeting packet contains copies of the returned comment sheets for the Commissions review. He asked if
the Planning Commission wants to hold the hearing on the amendment as the Study stands today or does
it want to discuss whether or not the Study should be revised to incorporate any of the comments
received.
Chair Geng suggested hold the hearing based on the current version of the Study. He recommended
reinforcing the fact that there is no redevelopment plan for that area. He stated the people that attended
the open house didn't seem to understand that there is no redevelopment plan or proposal, and that the
City is not driving anything.
Commissioner Hasek stated the Study primarily conveys the City prefers the area be redeveloped with a
common vision; not piecemeal. He indicated it's time to bring the Study project to conclusion.
Commissioner Hutchins stated one of the individuals that sent in comments suggested creating some form
of special buffering between the redevelopment area and the residential area to the west, and possibly a
noise barrier as well. The intent would be to make sure the redevelopment doesn't negatively impact the
residential property values. He expressed he thought it is a fair thing to consider. When the area is
redevelopment there needs to be consideration given to how it impacts the surrounding area. Chair Geng
stated that's consistent with what the Planning Commissioners heard at the open house. Commissioner
Hasek stated it's also consistent with what the Commission has talked about over the last two years.
Commissioner Hasek stated all too frequently people try to put dimensions and specific design on concept
plans. That's not what concept plans are intended to be. He commented that twin homes could be a way to
transition from commercial to residential.
Director Nielsen stated the Study has tried to emphasize the transition space, noting there is a difference
between transition and buffer. If it would be the right land use the buffer part can be kept to a minimum.
Depending on the redevelopment there may be a desire for a deeper, more extensive buffer.
Administrator Heck asked if the Study report could be summarized into a statement of guiding principles
or something of that nature. It would be a list of ten or so bullet points that the Council and the Planning
Commission would prefer to come about when the area is redeveloped. For example, landscaping,
building materials and things of that nature.
Commissioner Hasek stated he thought that is what the Commission has done.
Chair Geng stated people appear to be thinking the City is pushing some type of concrete development.
Commissioner Arnst stated after living in the City for over 30 years that's the way some residents tend to
think. Atnst encouraged Geng not to be overly concerned about that.
Director Nielsen stated the vision could be reformatted into bullets and renamed to guiding principles.
Commissioner Arnst expressed her support for doing that. Chair Geng stated then it wouldn't look like a
plan that the City is trying to sell. Geng then stated he has heard residents ask why they are just hearing
about the Study now.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 1, 2011
Page 14 of 15
Director Nielsen stated people have a tendency to focus on what they don't want to see as part of a
redevelopment effort such as density and height.
Commissioner Arnst stated the information Administrator Heck sent to the Planning Commission
regarding a development opportunity in the City of Plymouth where there was an attempt to educate
residents about what may occur was great.
Commissioner Hasek stated he thought a great deal of residents' discussions during the open house was
very positive. He then stated four of the roughly forty people that came to the open house submitted
written comments and some of the comments are not as supportive. The four did agree they don't want
the area to be developed piecemeal.
Director Nielsen asked if the Planning Commission wants him to take the information from the vision
statement and create bulleted list of guiding principles and present that at the public hearing.
Chair Geng asked if it would be sufficient to just provide an explanation of why the Planning
Commission did the Study. Director Nielsen stated he thought the introduction in the Study report does
that.
6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
8. NEW BUSINESS
Chair Geng stated he received a request from the person who is resuming the job of transcribing the
Planning Commission meeting minutes to note who makes motions. He noted that at least for the
foreseeable future she will transcribe the minutes from a recording. He recommended the Commissioners
try to limit side conversations when another person is talking. He asked them to speak into their
microphones when making a point and then turn it off if they want to make a side comment.
9. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen stated there are two public hearings slated for the November 15, 2011, Planning
Commission meeting. One is the continuation of the front yard setback variance for Don and Kiki Gloude.
The other is to consider a Comprehensive (Comp) Plan amendment that would incorporate the Smithtown
Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study) into the Appendix Chapter of the Plan. Best practices for the
sustainability program will be reviewed. The text amendment to the Therapeutic Message Licensing
Ordinance will be reviewed. There will be a discussion about the capacity on water towers for cellular
antennas.
Commissioner Hasek asked Director Nielsen to send the Commissioners what the width of the right-of-
way for Fatima Place is.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2011
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Arnst, Davis, Garelick, Hasek, and Hutchins; Administrator
Heck; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Woodruff
Absent: Councilmember Charbonnet
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Hutchins moved, Hasek seconded, approving the agenda for November 15, 2011 as presented.
Motion passed 6/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
November 1, 2011
Hasek moved, Arnst seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November
1, 2011, as presented. Motion passed 6/0.
1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — COMPRHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT —
SMITHTOWN CROSSING REDEVELOPMENT STUDY
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing.
He explained items acted upon this evening would be placed on a December 12, 2011, Regular City
Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration.
Director Nielsen explained for the last two years the Planning Commission has been working on the
project known as the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study). The study area encompasses
the land adjacent to the intersection of Smithtown Road and County Road 19. The City considers the area
to be somewhat of a northern gateway into the City of Shorewood. A great deal of time and money were
invested to enhance the area. The City developed somewhat of a "civic campus" including the newly
renovated City Hall, the Southshore Community Center, 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 whole thing the City acquired in conjunction with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District the Gideon Glen conservation open space property.
Nielsen displayed a graphic of the area. He explained what the boundaries of the area are. 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 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
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 15, 2011
Page 2 of 9
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 has identified the area as being
prime for redevelopment.
Nielsen explained the study area contains a total of 23.46 acres not including the Gideon Glen
conservation open space property. The northwest quadrant of the intersection contains anywhere from
4.52 to 6.56 acres depending on how far west a project might extend. The southwest quadrant of the
intersection contains about 3 to 4 acres that could be redeveloped. The residential parcel located on the
north side of County Road 19 could potentially be subject to redevelopment.
Nielsen then 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;
➢ 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,
➢ 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 concept 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.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 15, 2011
Page 3 of 9
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 would 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 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 American
Legion owns approximately one half of the land in the northwest quadrant study area. The remaining
parcels are individually owned. 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. That property, and other parcels when purchased, could be sold to a
developer at cost to demonstrate the City's commitment to the project. It could also provide leverage for
the City to have more input on the type, quality and design of the project.
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. Unfortunately, the City received few
comment sheets about the Study back. The comments received were consistent with what was voiced
during the open house. There was concern expressed about density and building height. People did like
the idea of a unified, coordinated development. The Commission intentionally chose not to include a
concept plan in the Study report. It was displayed at the open house. The concept plan was highlighted.
Nielsen noted this public hearing was noticed in the newspaper. Individual notices were not sent out to
residents in or near the redevelopment area because it is an overall Comprehensive Plan amendment. He
stated he now thinks there may be some value in doing that. The public hearing could be continued to the
Planning Commission's December 6, 2011, meeting and those residents could be notified. When residents
were notified of the open house a 1,000 foot buffer of the area was used. That could be used again for this
public hearing.
Commissioner Garelick stated Director Nielsen referenced the potential redevelopment of the golf course
property. He asked what the vision is for that area. Nielsen explained this Study report doesn't address
that other than that it is a planning issue. Nielsen then explained a few years ago the City asked the
property owner what his plans were for that property. The property owner didn't have much to say about
his future plans. There has not been any formal discussion about the property.
Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public
Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M.
Director Nielsen noted that during the Planning Commission's November 1, 2011, meeting the
Commission recommended the vision statement be made into a list of guiding principles explaining how
the City would prefer the area to be redeveloped. Chair Geng commented it is a matter of formatting.
Commissioner Davis stated she thought it would be easier to read. Commissioner Arnst concurred with
that.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 15, 2011
Page 4 of 9
Commissioner Hasek stated he has mixed thoughts about continuing the public hearing.
Commissioner Amst stated from her vantage point it would indicate transparency to continue the public
hearing to the next Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Davis stated residents will likely be busier in December because of the upcoming holiday
season.
Director Nielsen noted the December 6, 2011, meeting agenda will have a number of items that need to be
wrapped up.
Commissioner Hasek asked if the Commission wants to consider having a second meeting in December.
Commissioner Hutchins stated if the public hearing is continued to December 6`h he asked when it will be
placed on a City Council meeting agenda. Director Nielsen responded that will depend on the outcome of
the Commission meeting.
Commissioner Hutchins then stated if continuing the public hearing doesn't create a lot of delay and it
creates additional transparency and opportunity for residents to provide feedback he supports continuing
it.
Chair Geng stated he supports giving the residents another opportunity to comment on the Study report.
He then stated he thought it important for the residents to know there is no development plan. He went on
to state he thought it would be worthwhile to notify the neighboring property owners and the owners of
the properties in the study area of the public hearing.
Commissioner Amst recommended the public hearing notices to the residents clarify that there is no
specific site plan. Commissioner Hasek expressed concern that if residents know there isn't a specific site
plan they may not come to the public hearing. He preferred they would come. Director Nielsen stated the
residents that would be noticed already know there is no specific site plan, and that would be clarified on
the notice.
Chair Geng stated the Planning Commission had previously indicated it wanted a set of guiding principles
developed and used at the public hearing.
Hutchins moved, Arnst seconded, continuing the public bearing on the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study to the December 6, 2011, Planning
Commission meeting. Motion passed 6/0.
Chair Geng closed the public hearing at 7:35 P.M.
2. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE
Applicant: Don and Kiki Gloude
Location: 4675 Fatima Place
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:35 P.M. (which was continued from November 1, 2011). This
is to consider a front yard setback variance for Don and Kiki Gloude, 4675 Fatima Place.
Director Nielsen stated he doesn't have any thing to add from what he discussed during the November 1,
2011, public hearing. He explained the Planning Commission chose to continue the hearing in order to
give the Commissioners an opportunity to go and look at this property and other properties in the
neighborhood.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 6, 2011
Page 3 of 21
Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public
Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:18 P.M.
Commissioner Davis stated she thought the grading was nicely done. The drainage continues to flow to
the north.
Commissioner Hasek stated if the C.U.P. had been applied for before the fill was put in and the grading
plan had shown fill was going to be placed in the right-of-way, he asked if that would have been allowed.
Director Nielsen responded if Staff was not comfortable with the berm being in the right-of-way Staff
would have recommended it be removed.
Hasek moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of an after -the -fact conditional use permit
for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards for Robert and Joan Bauman, 26640 Smithtown Road, subject to
the City Engineers recommendations.
Commissioner Hutchins stated irrespective of the results of the grading he asked what accountability the
City of Chanhassen will have to take if there is damage to the trees being it conducted the work and the
fill was in excess of the amount of fill authorized in the permit. He also asked if there has been any
follow-up conversation with representatives for the City of Chanhassen. Director Nielsen responded Staff
has not spoken with anyone. Nielsen stated Staff has taken the applicants at their word that there was
miscommunication. He then stated it may be worthwhile to notify the surrounding communities about this
issue and let them know that if in the future any of them dispose of fill in Shorewood they should contact
City Staff first.
Motion passed 7/0.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:23 P.M.
2. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT —
SMITHTOWN CROSSING REDEVELOPMENT STUDY (continued from November 15,
2011)
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:23 P.M. He explained this Public Hearing was continued from
the Planning Commission's November 15, 2011, meeting to ensure residents owning property relatively
close to the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study) area had adequate opportunity to
comment on the Study.
Director Nielsen stated the initial notification for the November 15`h 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`h
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.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 6, 2011
Page 4 of 21
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,
➢ 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.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 6, 2011
Page 5 of 21
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-I zoning
district. All of this is tied to consistency with the City's vision statement for the area. The more a
developer was in sync with the vision statement the more the developer might get density and height
incentives. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation, both within the project area and connection to outside of
the area, is considered to be extremely important. There is a high emphasis on natural and substantial
landscaping requiring low maintenance. The Study does not dictate any certain type of architecture. It
does include photographic examples of desired architecture such as pitched rooflines and articulation
where there is some depth and relief that can diminish the appearance of height of buildings. Awnings,
natural building materials, balconies and lighting help to diminish building masses. Parking lot
landscaping to both cool them and buffer them is desired. Some sort of common area is also desired.
Photographs were shown of examples of what is desired.
The last part of the Study includes an implementation section. There are two main components to that.
One is the use of tax increment financing (TIF) to encourage the assembly of the parcels. The second
component is the City acquiring land within the redevelopment area when it becomes available on the
market. The City recently purchased a residential parcel on the west end of the area.
The Planning Commission held an open house style neighborhood meeting which was well attended to
give the residents an opportunity to comment on the Study. The concept plan displayed during the open
house was again displayed and highlighted. The Commission intentionally chose not to include a concept
plan in the Study. Comment cards were made available at the open house for attendees to take and submit
at a later time.
Nielsen stated that during the November 15ffi 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.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 6, 2011
Page 6 of 21
Nielsen stated earlier in the day he received some good advice encouraging him to view this Study as a
resident might when viewing it for the first time. He then stated if he were a resident trying to find
information in the report for the first time it would be challenging. He thought there needs to be additional
work done on the report. The background information could be elaborated on explaining what the various
sites are currently used for, what their acreages are, and what their characteristics are. That would provide
a clearer depiction of what is in the Study area today. There should be more information on the existing
uses and zoning of the various land areas. The areas that are developable should be clearly identified. He
suggested that the sketches be incorporated into the report in some fashion. Also, there should be some
consideration given to incorporating the concept plan into the report. Earlier in the day someone told him
that even more detail could be useful.
Nielsen distributed a list of what will become the guiding principles stated in the vision statement and
displayed it on the screen. They are as follows.
1. The project in this area will result in a unified/ coordinated pattern of development.
2. The use or mixture of uses of the property in the study area should be based on market needs.
3. Site design should take advantage of views afforded by existing natural areas and parks.
4. Uses within the Study area shall be arranged to create a transition between higher intensity
commercial development and surrounding lower density housing.
5. Any housing component should add to and enhance the variety of housing choices in the
community.
6. Commercial activities should serve not only the residents of the project area, but the
community as a whole.
7. Access to and egress from and circulation within Smithtown Crossing must be
pedestrian/bicycle friendly.
8. Usable, inviting outdoor spaces shall be incorporated into the development.
9. Landscaping will be natural and substantial, diminishing parking lot massing and softening and
framing buildings on the site.
10. Attractive and articulated architecture with pitched rooflines and natural materials will reflect
the residential character and quality of the community.
11. Reduction of building mass may be achieved by using a combination of the following
techniques: a) variations in roof line and form; b) use of ground level arcades and covered
areas; c) use of protected and recessed entries; d) inclusion of windows on elevations facing
streets and pedestrian areas; and, e) retaining a clear distinction between roof, body and base of
building.
Nielsen noted number 11 was not included in the vision statement. He stated because the Planning
Commission had not seen the list of guiding principles until this evening he did not expect the
Commissioners to comment on them this evening.
Nielsen stated with respect to the Study he thought there needs to be a summary of the recommendations.
One of the things he discovered as he has been talking with people about the report is he has to pick
through the report to look for the recommendations. They need to be consolidated into one spot. A revised
report should be publicized better and for a longer period of time. There is a link to it on the City's
website but he did not find it easy to get to the report. He suggested having a longer period of time for
comment. He then suggested people be provided the ability to comment on the report via the City's
website. The responses should also be accessible on the website.
Nielsen recommended that before a revised Study is sent back to the Council for consideration it should
be reviewed and discussed by the Planning Commission during its January 17, 2012, meeting. He stated
another public hearing could potentially be scheduled for March 6, 2012, to allow for a 30-day period of
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 6, 2011
Page 7 of 21
time for comment and publication. He recognized to the Commission that this is new information and a
turn in direction.
Chair Geng stated he thought Director Nielsen made this abundantly clear, but he would like to
emphasize it. The Planning Commission undertook the Study because it recognized that at some point the
area that has been identified as the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study area is going to be
redeveloped. The Study was not undertaken in response to any specific proposal from any developer. It
was in anticipation that at some point the area would be redeveloped and the Commission thought it
prudent for the City to have voice in it to help guide it and direct it in a way that would benefit the entire
community. He reiterated there is no plan. This effort was just a study. It's a work in progress. From the
very beginning all of the Commissioners have been concerned about ensuring this was a very transparent
process. Throughout the last two years the Commission has sought public input.
Geng then stated he was speaking for all of the Commissioners when he expressed his appreciation for
having so many residents in attendance to provide public input. Public input is very important to the
Commission. The Commission wants to do the best job it can for the City. It's hard to do that in a
vacuum.
Geng asked those in attendance who want to comment to come to the podium, give their name and
address, and keep their comments as brief as possible to provide everyone who wants to be heard with
that opportunity. He noted there is a sign in sheet, and for those that have not signed in he asked them to
do so before they leave this evening.
Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:55 P.M. He noted there were
about 14 residents present.
Steve Dietz, 24680 Smithtown Road, stated his property is just on the west end of the area under
discussion. He commented that based on his professional career he understands the value of getting
community involvement. He apologized for coming late to the game. He also apologized in advance for
any misunderstandings and any mistakes he may make with regard to what he understands is being
proposed. He commented he is only part way through the Comp Plan 2008 Update.
Mr. Dietz then stated when people are asked if they prefer unified or bodge 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
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 6, 2011
Page 8 of 21
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. Gong 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
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. Polson 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.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 6, 2011
Page 9 of 21
Mr. Polson 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. Polson 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 "Arty 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 Meehan, 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
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 6, 2011
Page 10 of 21
clip a coupon with no interest in what is happening in the community. It's all about economics for most
developers. With regard to landscaping, unless the City requires planting of very large trees (which is
outside of the scope of most developers' budgets) it is unlikely anything will be done to the site lines.
Coordinated redevelopment makes a lot more sense than a piece meal approach. If done properly it would
result in a nicer mix of assets.
The Study area intrudes further into a residential area than any other areas in the City with the potential
exception of the area around CUB Foods. That commercial development stops before it really intrudes
into a residential area. The homes along Lake Linden Drive across from that development were basically
built after the development was done. When the CUB site was redeveloped a few residential properties
were taken in the back. The Study area intrudes heavily to the west. The benefit of having taller buildings
for commercial development is it's cheaper to have more space under a smaller roof in terns 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.
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
0
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 6, 2011
Page 11 of21
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 fund a development from which
third parties will benefit. He then asked if the City is prepared to utilize its power of eminent domain if
necessary to acquire all of the properties needed to maximize the redevelopment potential of the site. He
also asked how the City will offset the loss in tax revenues from parcels it acquires if it ends up owning
them for a number of years.
The second draft of the Study appears to suggest the broader public/community involvement. The City
didn't notify the residents that would be affected by a redevelopment of the Study until September 23,
2011. The only meeting with them was held on October 4, 2011. Several City 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.
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.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 6, 2011
Page 12 of 21
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 Amst'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.
3. GREENSTEP CITIES PROGRAM BEST PRACTICES DISCUSSION
Director Nielsen stated the GreenStep Cities Program Best Practices (BPs) also relate to Item 8 on this
agenda which is the Planning Commission's 2012 work program. He noted that during the Commission's
November 15, 2011, meeting he explained that Staff assigned responsibility for the BPs to the staff
member or Commission it thought should address the best practices. The ones that were assigned to the
Commission were assigned to the work program. During that meeting he suggested the Commission
consider if there are other action items it would like to have responsibility for completing and if the ones
that have already been assigned to the Commission are appropriate.
Commissioner Hasek took the conversation off topic and back to the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment
Study topic. He asked Director Nielsen how long it will take Nielsen to compile things for another
discussion about it. Nielsen stated the Planning Commission needs to tell him what additional information
it wants and what it wants to address. Hasek asked if it could be ready for the January 17, 2012,
Commission meeting. Nielsen asked if it would be helpful to the Commission if he drafted an outline of
changes he suggested be made to the Study earlier during this meeting. Hasek suggested a potential
redevelopment of the Minnetonka County Club be discussed as part of this.
After ensuing discussion between Commissioner Hasek and Director Nielsen about the Country Club
property, Commissioner Amst suggested this be tabled to a work session because this evening's agenda is
very full. She asked that the discussion return to this agenda item currently up for discussion.
Commissioner Arnst asked if this evening the Planning Commission is to be reviewing what BP action
items the Commission is responsible for and other items it may want to be involved with. She stated she
is looking forward to seeing what the Ad Hoc Trail Committee identifies as best bike and pedestrian
routes. That Committee is assigned a task to develop a map that shows them along with other things.
Director Nielsen stated the Commission endorsed the Trail Plan developed by that Committee. Arnst
asked if the map in the Trail Plan is that. Arnst explained in BP 12.(]).a states "Produce/distribute a
map(s) and/or signage and/or a web site that shows (by neighborhood if a larger city) key
civic%ommercial sites, best bike and pedestrian routes, and transit routes and schedules." She asked
what that would be. Administrator Heck noted that is existing bike and trail routes. Heck explained it
would be similar to the Three Rivers Park District's bike and trail map. He stated the City doesn't have a
bike / pedestrian map because there are not very many bike or pedestrian trails in the City. It would be
something that would be developed as part of a GreenStep Program BP action item.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 8,2012
Page 7 of 12
changing Section 704.09 Subd. 2.h to read "The number of chicken, ducks, geese, turkeys, guinea
hens, or rabbits shall not exceed sic (6). Anyone who currently has more animals than allowed by
the Ordinance could not replace animals in excess of the maximum number allowed." Motion
passed 6/0.
SMITHTOWN CROSSING
Commissioner Davis stated it was her recollection that the Planning Commission wanted to have a work
session devoted to the topic of additional discussion about the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study
(the Study).
Director Nielsen stated the minutes from the December 6, 2011, meeting reflect that. Nielsen noted that
he did not allow for that in the Commissions 2012 work program. He asked for direction from the
Planning Commission regarding some of the questions raised during the public testimony portion of the
public hearing held on this topic during that meeting. He stated if the Commission agrees with the list of
guiding principles he proposed during that meeting to be included in the vision statement he recommends
that he rewrite the vision statement prior to the next discussion about Smithtown Crossing.
Commissioner Garelick commented that he noticed there is another property, a vacant lot, for sale in the
Study area. He asked if any one knows what the asking price is. Director Nielsen stated the American
Legion has one of its properties located in the Study area up for sale and he thought the asking price is
$245,000. Nielsen noted that lot does have commercial zoning. Garelick asked how there can be a unified
redevelopment of the Study area when individual properties are being put up for sale. Nielsen stated the
City purchased the property at the west end of the Study area when it went on the market. The City was
advised by individuals in the real estate business that the asking price was probably not going to go any
lower. Nielsen then stated he assumes the Legion will use the money it would get from the sale of its
property for the construction of a new building. Nielsen stated is it somewhat bothersome that particular
property is up for sale based on its commonality with other properties in the Study area. Nielsen
commented there has been interest expressed for that for -sale lot and the lot with a house on it next door
to it as well as the City -owned property. Nielsen commented that the City can't purchase each individual
property in the Study area as they come on the market.
Commissioner Hasek stated from his vantage point one of the good things that could come out of the City
purchasing the piece of property that it did is it could be the swing property between residential and
commercial.
Director Nielsen noted that the gas station property at the County Road 19 and Smithtown Road
intersection is up for sale. He explained the Legion property that is for sale is close to 100 feet wide. But,
under the current zoning because it is the last commercial lot in that area one half of the lot will be for a
50-foot setback between commercial use and residential development. He noted the intent is to stick with
the City's regular zoning if the properties in the Study area are redeveloped individually. He stated the
for -sale property would be more valuable if it was combined with another property. In response to a
question from Commissioner Hasek, Nielsen explained the setback on the other side of that property is 10
feet.
Director Nielsen stated currently the Planning Commission doesn't have a second meeting scheduled for
March. He asked if March 20'h would work for having a study session on Smithtown Crossing. He stated
either the March 6`h Commission meeting or a March 20'h work session will be devoted to discussing
Smithtown Crossing.
•
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 8, 2012
Page 8 of 12
Nielsen asked the Commissioners if they have any input on the guiding principles. If there is none he is
going to rewrite the vision statement before the next discussion.
Commissioner Hutchins stated he thought the guiding principles addressed many of the concerns that
were raised about the Study during the public hearing. Such as concerns about the west -end buffer, how
the redevelopment would fit in with the surrounding area (in particular Gideon Glen), the size of
structures, and circulation. Commissioner Hasek expressed his agreement with Hutchins perspective.
Director Nielsen stated he will rewrite the vision statement to reflect the guiding principles.
Chair Geng stated that prior to the next discussion on this topic he suggested the Commissioners and Staff
give some thought to how the feedback on the Study should be summarized in the Study Report.
Commissioner Davis suggested it be in bullet point form so it is easy to read. Director Nielsen stated it
could be an appendix in the back of the Study Report. Nielsen noted a resident's suggestion to include a
summary of recommendations was discussed during the Commission's December 6'h meeting and he
suggested that summary be added to the Report.
Chair Geng asked Director Nielsen if he wanted anything from the Commissioners prior to that work
session. Nielsen stated he can't think of anything at the moment.
Director Nielsen recommended the Commission discuss each individual suggestion made and concern
expressed by residents.
Commissioner Hasek stated he thought the most difficult thing will be to take into consideration the
desires of all the City's residents and not just those near the Study area. The redevelopment of the Study
area has to consider future generations and an aging population in the City.
Commissioner Hasek asked if the Commission could be provided with a copy of the revised Study Report
at least a week before it is going to discuss it. Director Nielsen stated he will do that.
4. CITY CODE DISCUSSION — LIFE -CYCLE HOUSING
Director Nielsen stated he had attended a seminar about Communities of a Lifetime during the latter part
of 2011. He then wrote a memorandum dated December 1, 2011, about Communities of a Lifetime and
included with it some attachments regarding life -cycle housing. The Planning Commission was scheduled
to discuss the topic during its December 6, 2011, meeting but there was not time to do that. He explained
one topic discussed during the seminar was the goal to try to help keep people in their homes as long as
they want to continue to live there. If residents can't continue to live in their homes then there should at
least be the opportunity to continue to live in their community.
Nielsen noted the City currently has two senior housing projects with both of them being cottage -style,
independent living arrangements. There is no assisted living facility or care facility in the City. He also
noted that during its March 12, 2012, meeting Council is going to consider an amendment to the City
Code which has been recommended by the Planning Commission. Part of that amendment will allow
ramps and other devices for access to buildings and sites by disabled persons to encroach into any
required front, side or rear setback subject to certain regulations. That will help the elderly with access to
buildings and it might help them be able to remain in their homes a little longer.
Nielsen stated he has identified four topics related to life -cycle housing. The first topic is the review of
the City's existing zoning requirements relative to elderly housing.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ALANNING COMMISSION
February 21,2012
Page 7 of 8
Commissioner Amst stated the City went through similar discussions about 12 years ago. She then stated
from her perspective it will take political courage and money. She stated she agrees trails are not just
about the residents who live in a particular area.
4. SMTTHTOWN CROSSING
Director Nielsen stated he hoped that this task would have been done by now. He explained that in
October 2011 the Planning Commission had an open house to give residents an opportunity to comment
on the Smithtown Crossing Study Report (the Study) and it later held a public hearing on the Study. At
the end of the hearing the Commission decided it should take the time to discuss the comments made by
residents about the Study. The Commission does want to solicit feedback from residents outside of the
neighborhood near the Study area. The Commission had met with commercial property owners, then it
met with a panel of developers, and finally it had the open house. Concern has been expressed about
some elements of the plan. A Commission study session has been scheduled to specifically discuss them
and how to address them. He noted it is important to get this Study right.
Councihnember Siakel asked the Commission what type of support it wants from Council on this.
Director Nielsen explained that the American Legion has put its vacant piece of property up for sale; one
of three parcels it owns in the Study area. If the Legion is successful in selling that one property there
will be another property owner in the mix of people involved. He then explained he has had
conversations with a party interested in acquiring and redeveloping the gas station property located in the
southeast quadrant of that intersection. There is a senior housing developer who has been talking about
assembling some parcels on the northwest quadrant. Another developer is discussion the possibility of
senior housing in some of area of the City.
Commissioner Amst asked Director Nielsen if senior housing would be the exclusive use for the
northwest quadrant or are the developers considering mixed use. Nielsen stated the party he has been
talking with is senior housing only. He commented there does seem to be a market for senior housing. He
also commented that any redevelopment of the northwest quadrant would likely be done in phases.
Councilmember Siakel stated there is a mixed -use development that includes some senior housing that is
going to be done in the City of Wayzata. She asked if that along with senior housing in other
communities around the Lake might satisfy the need for senior housing in the Lake community.
Acting Mayor Zerby stated he would prefer to use the word affordable housing, noting seniors need
affordable housing. He then stated because he lives close to the Study area his biggest concern is the
transition from mixed -use or commercial to residential. He noted his neighbors have indicated they are
not opposed to affordable housing as part of the redevelopment, but they do not want massive structures
close to the residential area.
Commissioner Davis stated some of the Commissioners think that any housing should also allow for
housing for residents who can contribute to the area; residents of all ages.
Commissioner Hasek stated from his perspective a living community includes everyone; from the very
young to the very old. The very old residents are the ones that need assisted living. He noted that the
monthly costs for assisted living outside of the community for an elderly couple he knows are extremely
high. The costs are not affordable.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AOPLANNING COMMISSION
February 21, 2012
Page 8 of 8
Acting Mayor Zerby thanked the Planning Commissioners for coming.
Chair Geng noted that this is Commissioner Amst's last meeting as a Planning Commissioner. On behalf
of the Planning Commission he thanked her for all of her hard work and her contributions. He stated she
will be missed.
Director Nielsen stated he is trying to schedule a GTS training session for either March or April. As part
of that the Planning Commission has talked about a segment of that being about senior housing. If
Council would attend that segment it would be helpful. He noted that segment will be video recorded.
5. ADJOURN
Arnst moved, Hasek seconded, Adjourning the Work Session of the City Council and Planning
Commission of February 21, 2012, at 7:05 P.M. Motion passed 10/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBNHTTED>
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2012
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Charbonnet, Garelick, Hasek, and Hutchins; Planning
Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Hotvet
Absent: Commissioners Davis and Muehlberg
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Hutchins moved, Hasek seconded, approving the agenda for March 20, 2012, as presented. Motion
passed 5/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 6, 2012
Hasek moved, Charbonnet seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
March 6, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
1. DISCUSSION — SMITHTOWN CROSSING
Director Nielsen explained the Planning Commission has held two public meetings related to the
Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study). One was an open house and it was held on
October 4, 2011. The other was a public hearing and it was held during the Commission's December 6,
2011, meeting. During both meetings the Commission received a number of public comments about the
Study. Toward the end of the public hearing the Commission suggested making certain improvements to
the Study report and addressing the comments and concerns of the people that spoke during the two
meetings. The meeting packet contains a cover memorandum he prepared addressing some of the items, a
summary of resident comments from the October 0 meeting, a copy of the minutes from the public
hearing discussion, a copy of the table the Commission had prepared that lists the advantages of a unified
development as opposed to piece -meal development, a copy of a new Guiding Principles section that will
replace the Vision Statement per the Commission's direction, and a new Executive Summary in bullet -
point form.
Nielsen asked the Commission if a copy of the table should be included in the Study Report. He stated
people are still asking why the Study was conducted. Commissioner Hasek stated he supported including
an expanded version of the table. Hasek suggested the short bullet -point like statements in the table be
expanded to more clearly explain things. He thought the table is too simplified.
Nielsen asked the other Commissioners if they thought the comments in the table could be elaborated upon
and if it the table should be added to the Introduction section of the report.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PAING COMMISSION MEETING •
March 20, 2012
Page 2 of 11
Commissioner Charbonnet suggested the Executive Summary should be located in the beginning of the
report. He stated he agreed that the comments in the table should be expanded upon. Also, the comments
should include some clarification of why; not just what. He clarified he thought it would be best to keep
the sentences short and concise yet clear. He suggested placing a copy of the revised table in the
Introduction section and toward the beginning.
Chair Geng expressed his agreement with Commissioners Charbonnet's and Hasek's suggestions.
Director Nielsen noted the Commission specifically chose not to include the two illustrations of unified
versus piece -meal in the Study report. The Commission did not want to direct how the development may
look. He asked the Commission if it still thinks that is what it wants to do.
Chair Geng stated he did not think it was necessary to include a sketch in the report. It may be beneficial to
have a one short introduction that states the development of the Study area is going to occur in one of two
ways. It will either be redeveloped on a piece -meal basis (individual property by individual property) or it
will be redeveloped in a unified fashion, noting that following are what the Commission has determined to
be the pros and cons of those two development scenarios.
Commissioner Hasek stated he thought the tables in the Study report should be located in one place such as
the back. They can be referred to in the body of the report.
Director Nielsen stated a question was raised relative to the Study area boundaries and the amount of land
that is actually available for redevelopment. He is not sure where that question comes from because the
three diagrams in the report have the same boundaries. He noted that the Introduction section explained
that the westernmost boundary is left somewhat open and that boundary will depend on a particular
development. He also noted that based on the comments from residents living near the area the preference
is to keep the two westerly residential properties in the Study area as single-family residential properties.
Commissioner Hasek stated the house located on the property between the residential property the City
owns and the commercial property appears to be quite old. He commented that if the property owner
wanted to sell it as commercial it would be relatively easy to rezone it to commercial. He noted he does not
care where the westerly boundary is. Director Nielsen stated he would be reluctant to say the commercial
zoning could be extended that far west. Hasek withdrew his comment stating he thought there did need to
be a buffer between the two types of zoning.
Director Nielsen stated the two westerly residential properties could potential be used for transition.
Nielsen then stated it is quite possible that the City -owned property would remain vacant and be used as a
buffer with landscaping. He noted there is a height limitation on the two residential properties. He asked if
the desire for a transition area should be emphasized in the report. Commissioner Hasek stated he thought
it should. Commissioner Charbonnet stated he thought that should be kept fairly general. For example, it
could say the City encourages the developer to use the two lots at the westerly end of the Study area to
create a reasonable transition from commercial into the residential zoning area immediately west of the
Study area. Nielsen noted the height limitation is quite specific. Charbonnet stated he is not concerned
about that particular specific. Hasek stated he thought the report should specifically state that the two
westerly residential properties will be the transition from higher density to the east and residential areas to
the west. Nielsen clarified it should state "if the redevelopment goes on to those two residential properties"
because the redevelopment may not include them.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PIOING COMMISSION MEETING •
March 20, 2012
Page 3 of 11
Chair Geng noted that based on the comments the Commission received the most common oppositions
were regarding height, intensity of use and type of use. He stated he understands the residents in the
abutting neighborhood to be saying they do not want to have any commercial development on the westerly
end of the northwest quadrant Study area. Director Nielsen clarified the Commission has never indicated
there would be commercial development there. The properties would continue to be zoned residential.
Commissioner Hasek stated that should be specifically stated in the report. Geng stated it may be prudent
to be more specific about what the City means by transition. Nielsen suggested it must be made clear the
properties will remain residential and that they will satisfy the transition idea through height, open space
and landscape.
Commissioner Hutchins stated based on feedback received during the public meetings the most emotional
issue was related to the west -end buffer because it has the most impact on property owners closest to the
west end of the Study area. Therefore, he thought it prudent to clarify things as best as possible. He
questioned what would happen if that west end of the Study area became a natural park rather than single-
family residential housing. He stated that could be considered a buffer zone. He suggested that be clarified
in the beginning of the Study report.
Hutchins noted that Gideon Glen is included in the Study area, yet there is no intent to impact that area at
all. Director Nielsen stated that whatever happens to residential or commercial components of the Study
area it should take advantage of Gideon Glen and it should protect it. Hutchins suggested the report explain
the reason for including Gideon Glen in the Study area. Chair Geng noted that one resident indicated they
thought Gideon Glen is where the ponding would go. Geng stated that he agreed with Hutchins that the
rational for including Gideon Glen should be explained; it is the aesthetic value of the view. Nielsen noted
the goal is to also protect Gideon Glen. Geng suggested the report also clarify there is no intent to develop
Gideon Glen.
Commissioner Hasek asked if it would be helpful to put the boundary on the back side of the properties
that may be redeveloped. He stated he thought the acreages be shown for each parcel in Figure 1 (which
shows the Study area boundaries) in the report. Chair Geng suggested it specify Gideon Glen is not
developable and that Gideon Glen be shaded a different color. Commissioner Charbonnet agreed that it
should specifically say that Gideon Glen is not developable. Hasek suggested the border around Gideon
Glen also be made a different color.
Chair Geng suggested including a pie -chart graphic which depicts the relative size of the properties in the
Study area. Director Nielsen noted the acreages and addresses of the properties are included in the
Appendix. Nielsen suggested showing the acreages and addresses on Figure I in the report. Commissioner
Hasek stated from his vantage point the more information included on the graphic in the report the better.
Commissioner Hasek stated at one point there was a concept plan prepared for the Study area that included
a buffer. Director Nielsen asked the Commission if the concept plan, a schematic, should be included in
the report. Hasek stated he thought that would have helped residents understand things a little more.
Director Nielsen stated in the Study area graphics in the report he will pull the boundary in the northwest
quadrant down to the backs of the individual properties, and he will highlight Gideon Glen as being a
protected and undevelopable area. He noted the report should still address Gideon Glen as an amenity and
the need to protect it. He asked if the Commission wants to change the boundary on the northeast quadrant
as well. He explained the entire acreage of the public safety and public works facilities yet the boundary
only goes up to the back of the one residential property in that quadrant. He asked if those acreages should
be subtracted out. He explained the issue in that quadrant is what to do with that one residential property
and with what to do about a pedestrian crossing that would connect to Badger Park. Commissioner Hasek
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PIG COMMISSION MEETING •
March 20, 2012
Page 4 of 11
suggested color coding the property those facilities are on as public land. Nielsen clarified it is labeled as
such. Hasek stated the boundary of those areas could be color coded for clarification. Chair Geng
supported taking the public facilities out. Nielsen stated that boundary will be pulled in and the acreages
for the public facilities will be subtracted out of the total acreage.
Chair Geng stated the Study has not focused on the areas east of Country Club Road. The Study report
addresses the northwest quadrant of the County Road 19 and Smithtown Road intersection area. He
suggested the Commission focus on that for now. Director Nielsen stated from his perspective the same
concepts and principles should apply to the northeast quadrant. Nielsen expressed he agreed the focus has
been on the northwest quadrant. Nielsen stated the focus for the northeast quadrant will primarily be a
pedestrian crossing.
Commissioner Hasek suggested reducing the scale of Figure 1 in order to include more of the Echo Road
neighborhood, the Minnetonka Golf Course property and the Christopher Road neighborhood in the
graphic. He also suggested making Badger Park green on the graphic.
Director Nielsen asked the Commission if there would be value in having a site location map included at
the beginning of the report. He explained there has already been a suggestion made to add more
information and shrinking the scale down would not be conducive to that. Commissioner Hasek stated the
topography map could be modified to include the above areas and some of the detail information could be
eliminated. Nielsen stated he will have a site location map prepared that shrinks the Study area and that
shows more context, noting it would be included in the beginning of the report.
Director Nielsen asked the Commission if it wants the concept plan included in the report. Commissioner
Hutchins stated when people are given as little as a concept plan they tend to lock into it and they get hung
up on the concept. Hutchins noted the Commission has no idea what the concept would actually look like.
Hutchins expressed concern that a concept plan would generate more questions than it would answer.
Commissioner Hasek stated that depends on what a concept plan shows. For example, if it shows buildings
then he thinks Hutchins concern is very valid. If it is quite general he thought there wouldn't be a problem.
Nielsen noted photographs of different developments the Commission visited and liked were included in
the report. Nielsen stated the logical place to include a concept plan would be at the end of the report.
Nielsen suggested he write a lead-in to that graphic for the Commission to discuss. Hutchins stated it is
critical the explanation for why the concept plan is included is very clear, and it should explain what it is
intended to communicate. Nielsen stated it is intended to reflect the different components and their
relationships. He noted that he thought the concept plan was useful when speaking with people who
attended the open house on the Study.
Commissioner Hutchins suggested that this evening the Commission be cognizant that Councilmember
Zerby expressed his concern that it didn't appear that the Commission gave credence to the comments and
concerns expressed by the residents during the open house and in writing. He quoted the following excerpt
of Zerby's comments from the minutes of the December 60' Planning Commission meeting during which
the public hearing was held. The excerpt read as follows. "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." He encouraged the Commission to do everything it can to
at least consider the comments and concerns. He noted that to date the Commission has heard only from
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PL4kING COMMISSION MEETING •
March 20, 2012
Page 5 of 11
residents who have a specific interest because they live close to or in the Study area. It is an emotional
issue for them as well.
Director Nielsen reiterated that on the Figure 1 he: has put the property addresses and their acreages; will
pull the Study area boundary down to the backs of the individual properties; will highlight Gideon Glen as
being a protected and undevelopable area; will change the boundary on the northeast quadrant by taking
the public facilities out of the Study area; and, adjust the acreages in the text of the report.
Nielsen asked the Commission if the new proposed Guiding Principles section does what it was intended
to do. He explained as part of that section he took what had been the Vision Statement paragraph and
broke it apart into individual guiding principles. Commissioner Hutchins suggested adding the word
redevelopment in front of the words guiding principles throughout that that section. Chair Geng noted that
the last sentence in the section states "... these principles will likely evolve as they are subjected to public
input" while noting they have not evolved so far despite public input. Geng stated he did not think the
report should suggest something that Commission has not been delivering. Nielsen suggested adding
another principle regarding the specifics about the transitional portion on the west end of the northwest
quadrant Study area. Hutchins suggested replacing the current number 4 principle which states "Uses
within the study area shall be arranged to create a transition between higher intensity commercial
development and surrounding lower density housing." with the principle about that transition area.
There was consensus to replace the current principle number 4 with one regarding the specifics about the
transition portion of the west end of the northwest quadrant Study area. There was also consensus to delete
the last line of the section which reads "It must be realized that these principles will likely evolve as they
are subjected to public input."
Director Nielsen stated his plan is to publish a third draft of the Study report that does not track the
additions, changes and deletions in various colors. He noted the changes made in response to public
comment will be pointed out during the next public hearing on the Study. He noted he will revise the
Executive Summary to reflect the specifics about the transitional area.
Chair Geng asked if the public comments are going to become part of the Study report in the Appendix.
Director Nielsen stated he did not recommend they be included in the report, but the plan is to put them
along with the Study report on the City's website for people to access. Commissioner Garelick stated he
thought the comments should be kept separate from the report.
Commissioner Garelick questioned if the residents may act more positively to a duplex in the transitional
area rather than only commercial property. Director Nielsen stated he thought the Commission talked
about that area being lower intensity, lower buildings, and heavily landscaped but not anything more
specific than that.
Chair Geng stated that after the Commission has completed its work and the next draft of the Study report
is forwarded to the City Council for review and comment he assumes Council will at that time also be
provided with a copy of the comments received from the public. Director Nielsen stated that is correct.
Geng withdrew his suggestion to include the comments in the Study report. Nielsen reiterated the
comments will be made available on the City's website along with the report.
Council Liaison Hotvet suggested there be some reference made to having addressed the public's concerns
about their desire for a transitional area included in the Study report.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PAKING COMMISSION MEETING •
March 20, 2012
Page 6 of 11
The Commission now started to discuss public comments received during the October 4. 2011, open house
about the Study.
With regard to the public comment "I'd suggest a strong perspective on the "type" of housing which is
considered... top choice — single-family, 2nd choice — senior housing, 3rd — apartments", Chair Geng
stated the Commission has intentionally tried to avoid doing that. Director Nielsen stated the Study report
will specify to some extent that low intensity, low building housing would be considered for the most
westerly properties in the northwest quadrant Study area.
With regard to the comment "Can the American Legion be relocated? This would allow additional land
without the need of removing existing housing." Director Nielsen stated that is up to the American Legion.
With regard to the comment "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.", Director Nielsen stated the Commission has already discussed the
need to clarify that.
There were a few comments about pedestrian / bicycle circulation / connection. With regard to the
comment "Consider role of bike paths to the intersection of 19/Smithtown and public transportation needs
for planned development on the corner.", Director Nielsen stated the Commission has considered that.
With regard to the comment "There is already too much traffic on Smithtown Road. 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.", Nielsen stated the
current sentiment seems to favor bike and pedestrian passageways City wide. Nielsen explained this dove
tails with the Trail Plan Implementation Report. Nielsen suggested the City hold its ground on this.
Commissioner Hasek stated if a trail/bike path were to be constructed on the side of Smithtown Road
where there are two residential properties it would be right next to those properties and property owners
will likely not be supportive of that.
Commissioner Hutchins stated that circulation was one of the 4 — 5 items that the public brought up. He
did not think the Study report addresses circulation. It does talk about circulation within the Study area
itself. It does not talk about the impact of circulation or what the City might do about the impact the
circulation may have on County Road 19 and Smithtown Road. He asked if circulation and traffic patterns
and impacts should be discussed in more detail in the Study report. Director Nielsen stated the Study report
just talks about pedestrian and bicycle circulation.
Hutchins suggested the report talk about vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic and the impact of it in the
report. Nielsen noted that guiding principle number 7 states "Access to and egress from, and circulation
within Smithtown Crossing must be pedestrianlbicycle friendly". Nielsen stated he thought the report
included a reference to doing traffic studies. Hutchins explained there is a section in the report titled
Planning Issues and one of the bulleted items states `Access (vehicular) to and from County Road 19 and
to and from Smithtown Road." He stated total circulation around the area has been an issue for quite some
time. He suggested including a paragraph in the Study report about how circulation in general may be
addressed. Chair Geng agreed the concern about increased traffic was expressed frequently. Commissioner
Hasek stated he agreed with that and then stated that was another pro for a cohesive development approach
because there will be fewer access points into the northwest quadrant.
Director Nielsen stated that although he can't find it in the current draft of the Study report he does think it
should include a requirement to conduct a traffic study for the area and assess the impact of the proposed
redevelopment on traffic. He then stated that one of the reasons Staff had been pushing senior housing for
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLOING COMMISSION MEETING •
March 20, 2012
Page 7 of 11
increased density in the northwest quadrant was it would have the least impact on traffic. He noted that in
recent discussions the Commission has moved away from senior housing. He also noted that the City's
Comprehensive (Comp) Plan has recommended senior housing for higher density because of the lower
volume of traffic when compared to apartment traffic.
Chair Geng noted that throughout Study discussions the Commission has acknowledged that a developer is
actually going to drive how the northwest quadrant is redeveloped. It will be determined based on what the
market dictates.
Director Nielsen explained the current commercial zoning in the northwest quadrant goes up to the single-
family residential property. If a developer wants to include some type of housing in the redevelopment a
traffic study will have to assess traffic comparisons for housing versus all commercial. Nielsen stated it
will be prudent to explain to residents that the redevelopment options will somewhat be dictated by market
analysis and traffic studies. One of the reasons senior housing is recommended is because of the lower
traffic impact. Nielsen explained the City has some general traffic information. For single-family detached
homes it is 8 — 10 trips per day. For townhouses it is 5 — 8. Commissioner Hasek stated that high -end
residential generates more traffic than low -end residential because of there being more vehicles. Nielsen
stated he does not share Hasek's perspective based on his experience growing up. Nielsen then stated he
thought he could find general traffic comparisons for various types of housing and various density housing
and include that in the Study report.
Commissioner Garelick asked why some people are so strongly opposed to senior housing. Director
Nielsen stated one reason is people resist change. Nielsen then stated if an area next to a single-family
residential area was going to be something other than single-family residential he does not understand why
people would object to an office building or senior housing. Senior housing can be a great neighbor. He
noted that many fears were expressed about the Shorewood Ponds development. None of the concerns
came to fruition. He stated they are a law abiding group and very good neighbors. Commissioner Hutchins
stated a single-family property owner is going to be concerned about their property value if senior housing
is developed next to them.
Director Nielsen stated if something isn't done transitionally with the two residential lots on the west end
of the northwest quadrant Study area the commercial will happen at the existing commercial zoning line.
Council Liaison Hotvet commented that she and her husband sold a previous residential property located
near 50s' and France Avenue in Edina after owning it for seven years for an increase in value of 200
percent when that area was being developed commercially. Some people want to live close to a
commercial district for convenience purposes.
Commissioner Hasek stated that perception is often what gets people concerned. They may not be able to
back up their perception but that does not make any difference.
With regard to the public comment "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.", Director Nielsen stated it is appropriate to agree to disagree in this
instance.
With regard to the public comment "I'm also apposed 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 Highway 19
and obstructs views of commercial signage.", Director Nielsen stated the intent is to enhance the
landscaping. Commissioner Hasek stated if the person who made this comments lives farther north on
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PAING COMMISSION MEETING •
March 20, 2012
Page 8 of 11
Christopher Road there is nothing the redevelopment would do about that. Nielsen stated he did not know
who made this comment and noted there are still a number of residents who are upset about Gideon Glen
in part because some large trees were taken down. Residents forget about the improvements made there.
With regard to the comment "I support the redevelopment of the Legion properties (the gas station and the
existing Legion building). I do not support a senior housing complex and new retaillbusiness.", Director
Nielsen noted that entire area is zoned commercial.
Commissioner Hutchins stated that there were two other items that he thought stood out based on the
comments received at the open house and the public hearing. He thought they were addressed in the
redevelopment guiding principles and the rest of the Study report. One was building mass. People are
concerned a massive building will be constructed on the northwest quadrant Study area and that it will not
fit in with the character of the rest of the area. This is of particular concern if a taller building is allowed
than is currently allowed today. The other is the commercial. The City can't control what the specific
needs are. But, he thought it important to make it clear in the report that the City has to serve the needs of
the entire community not just the neighboring community. The concept is about community services. He
explained that principle 6 states "Commercial activities should serve not only the residents of the project
area, but the community as a whole. " Principle I 1 states "Reduction of building mass may be achieved by
using a combination of the following techniques: variations in roofline and form; use of ground level
arcades and covered areas; use of protected and recessed entries; inclusion of windows on elevations
facing streets and pedestrian areas; and, retaining a clear distinction between roof, body and base of
building."
Director Nielsen stated in the Design Section of the Study report there is a photograph of a building made
with natural materials that is over four stories tall and he has been told that people were disturbed by it. He
asked the Commission if it thought it should be removed. Chair Geng stated it is his impression that
residents are opposed to high buildings. Therefore, he supported removing that photograph. Commissioner
Hutchins stated he could understand people being concerned about a building of similar height being
constructed along side of County Road 19. Nielsen stated he will find a photograph of a building
constructed with natural materials that is not so tall to include in the report.
Nielsen noted that the current Ordinance for that commercial zoning district states a structure can be three
stories tall or up to 40 feet high whichever is less. Nielsen expressed his discomfort with allowing a future
development to be four stories high. He noted that height increase is included in the report as an incentive.
He stated that allowing a building with a height that extends above the tree tops is not something the City's
residents want. He commented that senior housing developers have indicated they build three-story
buildings all the time. He recommended removing that height increase incentive from the report. He
suggested going away from a number -of -stories regulation and having just a building -height regulation of
not to exceed 40 feet. He noted for a pitched roof it can be slightly higher.
Chair Geng suggested including in the Study report an acknowledgement of a common resident concern
expressed about building height. And, explain that based on the current zoning for the property the City's
Ordinance allows a developer to construct a pitched -roof building with a height of over 40 feet. Director
Nielsen stated if the possibility of increasing the height is taken out of the report he thought that would
help. The report could note that the Ordinance allows buildings to be constructed up to 40 plus feet high
and that the visual impact of that height can be mitigated in a variety of ways. Commissioner Hasek stated
it is important to refer to current City Code restrictions.
Geng then suggested acknowledging that there is a difference of opinion regarding building height
between developers and residents, and noting resident concern about height that is out of character with the
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PIG COMMISSION MEETING •
March 20, 2012
Page 9 of 11
area will be taken into consideration. Nielsen noted the current report states the City will consider
increased height as an incentive to get the developer to do some things the City would like to see. Nielsen
stated the reaction would be the same anywhere in the City. Commissioner Charbonnet stated he agreed
with Geng that it should be acknowledged in the report and explained that the Commission can't resolve it
because the Commission doesn't know what a developer is going to propose. Geng stated he thought it
appropriate to let developers know the residents' sentiments regarding height and to let residents know
their concerns are going to be taken into consideration. And, also acknowledging developers may want to
build buildings that would be taller than what the Zoning Code currently allows.
Commissioner Hutchins suggested including something about the desire to be consistent with the character
of the area while also considering current Zoning Code allowances.
Director Nielsen stated he will draft some preliminary language about height concerns and desires; both
developers' and residents'.
Nielsen noted the City has not committed to tax increment financing but it has acknowledged that it would
give it some consideration.
The discussion moved to the process used to date.
Director Nielsen stated he regretted that the City did not have a sign -in sheet for the open house. The City
does not know who came. He explained the plan is to have the revised draft of the Study report along with
residents' comments on the City's website for a period of 30 days. He noted as resident's comments come
in they will be added to the website. He asked if the next public meeting should be informal or a public
hearing. Commissioner Hasek stated he preferred a public hearing or at least some organized type of
meeting.
Commissioner Hasek stated residents have asked what will happen with the Minnetonka Country Club
property. He noted the City doesn't know the answer to that. He stated he doesn't know how that should be
addressed. Director Nielsen stated his preference would be to tell residents what the City approached the
owner of that property with. He noted the City would like to have a golf course remain in that vicinity. The
City has spoken to the property owner unofficially about the possibility of an opportunity coming along
where the housing development could be concentrated on a portion of the property and that a 9-hole golf
be located on the other part of the property. He noted he is not sure that is viable. Chair Geng stated he did
not think that should be addressed in the Study report. Nielsen noted it should not because that is not an
official City position. Geng stated if that comes up it should be explained that it is outside of the focus on
the northwest quadrant, the property is privately held and that no one knows when something will happen
to that property. Nielsen noted the property is zoned for single-family houses. Hasek commented that the
Commission had previously decided to exclude that from the Study report.
In response to a comment from Hasek, Director Nielsen explained the report will elaborate that if the
properties are developed on a piece -meal basis each property will have to have its own ponding based on
current watershed rules. A unified development would allow for the ponding to be consolidated. Also,
Gideon Glen was not sized to accommodate run off from the redevelopment site. Commissioner Hutchins
asked if the runoff from the Heartbreaker property flows into Gideon Glen. Nielsen explained it does while
noting if that property were to be redeveloped it would have to have its own ponding. Hutchins stated that
would reduce the flow into the pond at Gideon Glen. Nielsen said that the reason Gideon Glen cannot be
used for runoff should be explained during the meeting but not included in the report.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PIG COMMISSION MEETING •
March 20, 2012
Page 10 of 11
Director Nielsen stated he has to assess how much time it will take to revamp the Study report before he
can suggest dates for anything else in the process. He commented that the City and Commission will likely
still be criticized by residents.
Commissioner Hutchins asked if the process schedule will allow for the Commission to get feedback about
the revised Study report from Council prior to holding the next public hearing. Director Nielsen stated the
Commission could have a joint meeting with the Council once the third draft is finalized and before it is
publicized. Commissioner Hasek suggested that joint meeting be scheduled far enough in advance to
attempt to accommodate all of the Councilmembers and the Commissioners schedules so everyone can be
in attendance, noting that it was impossible to ask that. Hasek suggested having the discussion during a
Council work session. Chair Geng stated he did not think there needs to be a lengthy discussion. Nielsen
stated if it is held before the end of May more people may be around; possibly the work session before
Council's second meeting in May.
Chair Geng asked when the next public hearing will be held. Director Nielsen stated probably in July.
2. DETERMINE REMAINDER OF 2012 COUNCIL LISIAONS
Council Liaisons were selected as followed:
March 2012
Commissioner Garelick
April 2012
Commissioner Hutchins
May 2012
Commissioner Charbonnet
June 2012
Commissioner Hasek
The Liaisons for the remainder of the year will be selected during the next Planning Commission meeting.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented this evening.
4. OLD BUSINESS
None.
S. NEW BUSINESS
Director Nielsen noted the meeting packets for this meeting were delivered on Thursday evening instead of
the typical Friday delivery. He explained the process has been changed to ensure the Commissioners get
their packets on the Thursday before their upcoming meeting. He then explained that he will set aside time
on Mondays preceding the meeting (maybe from 11:00 A.M. to Noon) to take phone or email questions
from the Commissioners about the packet materials. If he can't answer the questions right away he will try
and have an answer available at the meeting. He noted that if the City receives comments from residents
after the packet is delivered there is nothing he can do about that.
Council Liaison Hotvet asked if anyone is aware of what the plans are for the commercial redevelopment
of the corner of County Road 19 and Water Street in the City of Excelsior. She noted Jon Munson is going
to develop the area. She stated she thought the Planning Commission should keep abreast of this.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 3, 2012
Page 5 of 12
where the air conditioner will be located while noting the City's Ordinance stipulates it cannot be located
in the side yard setback. Mr. Sharratt stated if it can't be it won't be. He explained the plans are sized
scale schematics. At this point in the process the focus has not been on mechanical systems.
Hasek asked if the hard surface cover includes the patio and the walls below it. Mr. Sharratt responded it
does. Mr. Sharratt explained the terrace retaining walls off the patio where the screened porch is would
also have planting bed between the walls. Hasek commented he would not count that as hard surface
cover.
Hasek then asked if the applicants are going to be required to have a cross -access easement for the
property to the north. Director Nielsen noted they have one already. It was done as part of the lot line
rearrangement. Hasek asked if there is an agreement between the property to the north and the subject
property for parking on the south lot. Nielsen responded yes.
Hasek stated the Staff report under Analysis/Recommendation Item B.1 states "The total area of
accessory building (1404 square feet) does not exceed the area (4449 square feet — upper two levels)
above grade of the existing home." And, Item B.2 states "The total area of accessory building does not
exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the R-IA/S zoning district (.10 x 40,000 = 4000 square
feet. " In reading through Code Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) states one thing (he thought 10 percent) and
then Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4xaxiv) indicates 7 percent. It's in a discussion about greenhouses. He
asked if greenhouses are somehow separated from other structures. Director Nielsen noted they are.
Nielsen explained Subd. 2.d.(4xa) was specifically added to the Code for someone with a greenhouse.
Item (a) does not apply to this application. He noted the 10 percent rule applies. Hasek questioned why it
is 7 percent for greenhouses and 10 percent for other accessory structures.
Chair Geng suggested the discussion come back to the topic at hand.
Commissioner Hasek stated he thought the applicants did a good job of trying to fit a structure on the lot.
He then stated he wanted to ensure that a situation wasn't allowed to happen that the Planning
Commission and the City will regret in the future. He noted he supports what is being proposed.
Commissioner Hutchins asked, out of curiosity, if the walls on the detached garage are going to be angled
as indicated on the schematic. Mr. Sharratt explained that both of the applicants grew up on farms and
that design is somewhat of a reflection of taking them back to their roots. They may very well have the
sloped sides.
Hasek moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of a conditional use permit to build a
single-family home on a substandard lot and a conditional use permit for accessory space in excess
of 1200 square feet for the property located at 28180 Woodside Road subject to Staff
recommendations.
Commissioner Hutchins asked if both conditional use permits can be addressed in one motion. Director
Nielsen responded they can.
Motion passed 6/0.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:39 P.M.
2. DISCUSSION — SMITHTOWN CROSSING
Chair Geng stated this is a continuation of a number of discussions and two public meetings related to the
Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study) the Planning Commission has had.
r
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 3, 2012
Page 6 of 12
Director Nielsen stated he doesn't have a lot for the Planning Commission this evening. He explained that
since the last discussion during the Commission's March 20, 2012, work session Staff has worked on a
two of the items the Commission wanted modified. The meeting packet contains a copy of the expanded
chart showing the pros and cons of a unified/coordinated versus piece -meal redevelopment of the
northwest quadrant Study area. This document will be included in the introduction to the Study report. He
noted that he took a lot of the language Commissioner Charbonnet provided him. The packet also
contains a copy of the revised Study Area Boundary map (the map). Per the Commission's request, Staff
pulled the Study area boundary down to the backs of the individual properties (including the removal of
Gideon Glen); the public works property was taken out of the northeast quadrant of the Study area; and,
the square footage and acreage of each property was added. He indicated that he will add a total acreage
amount for the northwest and southwest quadrants and for the 24250 Smithtown Road to the map as well.
He noted the appendix lists all of each property's details. Staff is continuing to work on revising other
maps (e.g., the Study Area Location map).
Commissioner Hasek stated he did not think it is necessary to include the square footage for each
property. He thought having just the acreage would be sufficient. He then stated he would prefer the lot
information of the map be located at the bottom of each property for ease of reading the map. He also
wants to have the word South Lake Public Safety put into the 24100 property location so people know it
is already developed. He suggested labeling the location of the Southshore Community Center (SSCC) on
the map. If a piece of Badger Park is located in the Study area it should be labeled as well.
Director Nielsen stated because a segment of trail was eliminated from the Trail Plan he suggests
removing the SSCC and Badger Park from the southeast quadrant of Study area. He noted that some of
the properties on the map may be too small to have the lot specific information print horizontally at the
current font size. Chair Geng stated for the lots that are too narrow to print the information horizontally
the print should remain vertical. Commissioner Hutchins agreed. Commissioner Davis suggested
lightening up the contours on the map, and if the map is to have contours the map should have elevations.
Chair Geng noted that Gideon Glen has been removed from the map. He stated he thought the map looked
good.
Commissioner Hutchins noted that the north edge of the 24620 and 24590 Smithtown Road properties the
yellow boundary line should be dashed. He stated he thought the map reflects what was discussed during
the March 20`s meeting.
Director Nielsen stated during the March 20th meeting there was discussion about including a site location
map in the introduction. The purpose of the map would be to show the context better next to the
surrounding neighborhoods. He displayed two options for the site location map. One is a plain, simple
map with the Study area shaded. The other would show more detail including the individual houses in the
surrounding neighborhoods. Commissioner Davis stated she prefers the one that shows the houses
because people want to see their houses. Commissioner Hasek suggested both be included, that the
boundary line around the two residential properties in the northwest quadrant being dashed, and making
the color of the dashed line blue to distinguish that those two properties may or may not be part of the
redevelopment.
Commissioner Hasek asked the Commission what it thought about including either a land use or zoning
map with area boundaries in the Study report. He stated the land use would be a projection of what it is
expected to be. Director Nielsen stated the land use and zoning are consistent. There was consensus to
include a zoning map in the report.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 3, 2012
Page 7 of 12
Director Nielsen asked if the Commissioners had any comments about the unified versus piece -meal
chart. Commissioner Davis stated she likes the chart as presented; it is not overwhelming and it says what
it needs to say. Chair Geng asked if it would be practical to include the page number in the Study report
where the items in the chart are primarily discussed. Nielsen explained some are discussed in several
locations in the report. Nielsen noted the Study report will include an executive summary and it will be
placed in the front part of the document. Geng stated that would be sufficient. Nielsen stated the chart will
be located near the list of issues. Commissioner Hasek stated for now it makes sense but once the
Planning Commission has the opportunity to see the complete revised report he may have a different
perspective. Geng stated he likes the improved descriptions on the chart. Nielsen stated he will ponder
including the page numbers by the descriptions on the chart.
Commissioner Hasek suggested changing "Each site provides its own separate pond for rate control and
volume storage; more land lost to ponding" to "Each site provides its own separate pond for rate control
and volume storage; more land consumed by ponding". He also suggested changing "Each site provides
its own parking, resulting in less efficient land use" to "Each site provides its own parking, resulting in
less efficient land use and circulation".
Commissioner Muehlberg stated that although he understands what constitutes an acre there are a lot of
people who don't think of property size in terms of acreage. Many people can relate to square footage
better. Maybe, if there is room to include square footage he suggests doing so. Chair Geng stated that
square footage information will be in the appendix along with other specific property information. Geng
suggested having an appendix notation on the Study Area Boundary map. He stated having both on the
map makes the map too busy.
Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission discussed having another joint meeting with the City
Council to talk about the revised Study report. The joint meeting is scheduled for June 11, rather than on
May 29t' as the Commission proposed. Chair Geng asked what the delay does to the overall timetable for
this Study. Nielsen responded it extends it out slightly.
Director Nielsen commented an architect and a developer have been working on development plans for
the northwest quadrant of the Smithtown Crossing Study area. He displayed a sketch to the Commission.
He explained that the sketch indicated there would be a two and a half story senior housing facility built
on two lots and then increase to three to three and a half stories on another portion of the structure. The
extra half story is the parking level. He stated he told the architect and developer he would show the
sketch to the Commission and he clarified approval is not being sought. He commented he thought the
concept is good. He stated he thought they needed to focus on considerably more landscaping.
Chair Geng stated based on comments made by residents he thought there would be concerns about
building a senior housing facility that far into the buffer zone [on the west end of the Study area]. Director
Nielsen stated he shares that perspective. Geng stated if they put the structure further east and north into
the Study area there may be less resistance to it based on comments heard.
3. ZONING CODE DISCUSSIONS
• General provisions — Section 1203.03 Subd. 2.a: f.
Director Nielsen stated this evening the Planning Commission will begin its discussions about the
General Provisions section of the Zoning Code Sections 1201.03 Subd. 2.a — f. What he refers to as the
nuts and bolts of the Ordinance. It contains provisions that apply to several zoning districts. He noted that
a copy of that part of the Code is included in the meeting packet.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLAAG COMMISSION MEETING
June 5, 2012
Page 5 of 9
Ms. Abramson stated that residents along the street welcome any public safety vehicle to turn around at the end of
the street where the unconstructed cul-de-sac is. The residents living along the street are loyal to the City and the
residents are committed to keeping people safe.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:34 P.M.
2. SMITHTOWN CROSSING 3Rn Draft
Director Nielsen stated there is a joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission scheduled for
June 11, 2012, at 6:00 P.M. During that meeting there will be discussion about the third draft of the Smithtown
Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study) Report (the Report). He explained that during the Commission's
March 20, 2012, and April 3, 2012, meetings the Commission suggested revisions to the earlier draft of the
Report. Many of the revisions were in response to feedback received from property owners who live near the
vicinity of the Study Area during an open house meeting and public hearing that was held after that.
Nielsen noted the Introduction page needs to have the acreage numbers corrected to reflect the numbers that are in
the revised inventory. He stated if any additional revisions are recommended this evening they will incorporated
into the Report and the Commission and Council will be provided a copy of the updated Report prior to the joint
meeting. A Zoning map with the Study Area overlaid on it will be included in the Introduction section.
Nielsen reviewed other revisions that will be included in the third draft of the Repot. They are as follows.
a. The Executive Summary will be placed at the front of the document. References to increased height and
densities have been removed from the summary.
b. A Site Location map (Exhibit B), using the aerial photograph of the area in question will go in the front of
the report. The two residential lots at the west end of the Study Area are shown with a dashed line.
c. Numerous changes were made to the Study Area map some of which include labeling and lightening of
the topo lines. The elevations seem to be lost in our system. They will be added once we find them.
Gideon Glen, the South Lake Public Safety facility property and the Southshore Community Center are
no longer included in the Study Area. Gideon Glen has been labeled as a conservation area. The map
reflects the properties for reference purposes.
d. Page 7 has been revised to reference the Unified/Coordinated versus Piece -meal table on Page 8. The
language revisions recommended by the Commission are included in the table.
e. Page 11 (Exhibit E) has been revised to include Redevelopment Guiding Principles instead of a Vision
Statement. The Principles include discussion about transitional lots.
f. Page 13 (Exhibit F) has been revised to address the transitional lots.
g. The bottom photograph on Page 15 (Exhibit G) has been replaced. The previous graphic had been of a tall
building at Glen Lake. The new graphic is of the Town Square in Golden Valley.
h. The Concept Sketch presented at the public meetings will be included at the end of the report. It shows
the relative locations of the various uses. A brief text explanation of the Sketch still needs to be written.
i. The Planning Inventory in the Appendix has been revised to update the City's ownership and include
acreages for all of the Study Area parcels. Each property is listed with its acreage and square footage. The
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PIG COMMISSION MEETING
June 5, 2012
Page 6 of 9
inventory reflects the actual land for potential redevelopment. The numbers in the Inventory will appear
on the Introduction page of the report.
Commissioner Davis recommended the soils comment be removed regarding property owned by the American
Legion at 5680'County Road 19. The soil testing has proven the property does not have soil contamination issues.
Director Nielsen stated he thought there was a caveat about that. Nielsen noted he will check into that and if what
Davis said is true he will remove the comment.
Chair Geng stated the Inventory reflects that the vacant property owned by the City of Shorewood has a structural
value. He questioned if that should be removed being there is no longer a structure on it. Director Nielsen agreed
it needs to be revised.
Commissioner Garelick stated next to the American Legion there was an empty lot that up until a week ago said it
was either for sale or lease. Now the sign only says for lease. He asked Director Nielsen if he knew what is going
on with that property. Nielsen explained the vacant lot owned by the Legion is up for sale. The Legion has
approached the City about purchasing the property. That lot is the last of the commercial properties in that zoning
district. It abuts residential property and therefore it has to have a 50-foot setback buffer from residential. That
takes out about one half of the property for use. The property up for lease has a pole barn on it and it recently
came up for lease.
Chair Geng stated that Exhibit F titled Smithtown Crossing — Plan states "From the very beginning of this study, it
has been realized that properties within the study area may develop or redevelop individually." He asked if may it
should be changed to "...may develop collectively or redevelop individually" or to "...may develop in a unified
fashion or redevelop individually". Director Nielsen explained that first sentence is just talking about developing
or redeveloping. Later on it talks about collectively or individually. Geng expressed his comfort with leaving it as
written.
In response to a comment from Commissioner Hasek about the Study Area boundary, Director Nielsen explained
the homes on the easterly side of Christopher Road back up to a long deep lot. Nielsen explained there are two
lots between the most westerly edge of the Study Area and the long deep lot.
Director Nielsen asked if the Planning Commission is ready to present the third draft of the Report which will
include the changes just discussed to Council.
There was Planning Commission consensus to incorporate the changes discussed into the Report as draft 3 and
then provide that to Council for discussion during the joint meeting on June 1 I s.
3. TRAIL PLAN— WALK COUNTY ROAD 19 TRAIL ALIGNMENT
Chair Geng recessed the meeting at 7:55 P.M. to allow the Planning Commission the opportunity to travel
to the site of a potential County Road 19 trail segment. The meeting will be reconvened at the site.
Chair Geng reconvened the meeting at 8:39 P.M.
Chair Geng asked the Planning Commission if it had any comments to make after touring the site.
Commissioner Garelick suggested the Commission take the opportunity to go to sites for substantial items of
consideration.