Loading...
Staff ReportsSmithtown Crossing Meetings The Shorewood Planning Commission has spent many months preparing the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study. Following is a list of Planning Commission meetings at which the Study was discussed. Some of the "milestone" meetings have been highlighted and summaries of selected meetings are provided below. It is worth noting that some of the early discussions referred to Planning District 3 from the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. February 17, 2009 April 7, 2009 January 19, 2010 February 16, 2010 March 2, 2010 March 16, 2010 April 6, 2010 April 20, 2010 May 4, 2010 May 18, 2010 June 29, 2010 July 20, 2010 Tax Increment Financing (T.I.F.) Vision Statement Joint Meeting with City Council Meeting with Landowners * Meeting with Developers (Forum) ** August 17, 2010 Discussion of Mobile Tour *** September 14, 2010 Mixed Use February 15, 2011 March 1, 2011 *The Planning Commission met with a number of owners of land within the study area. The purpose of the meeting was to get feedback from them on issues related to redevelopment and to illustrate to them the advantages of a unified, cohesive redevelopment versus a piecemeal approach. The consensus of those attending the meeting appeared to agree with the direction the Commission was proposing. "Early on it was determined that input from people who actually do projects was important to the ultimate success of the project. A panel of development professionals was asked to comment on the Vision Statement and the concept drawings that had been reviewed by the Commission. The panel members all commented on the materials and then answered questions from the Meetings (continued) Commission. The general consensus of the panel was that Shorewood's development regulations are in need of revision in order to make a redevelopment project viable. Four key points were made: 1) The site is not well suited for retail commercial. Rather, some sort of service commercial development (e.g. banking, personal services, possibly office, etc.) should be expected. 2) The City should consider allowing something higher than the three stories allowed under the current regulations. 3) Whether the housing element was market or senior, Shorewood's current density limits are too low. 4) In this economy, redevelopment may not occur for some time. ***The Commission spent an evening visiting mixed use and senior housing projects. There was consensus that two projects in Golden Valley, Town Square and the Commons, contained elements that would be desirable for Smithtown Crossing. A mixed use redevelopment project in Glen Lake (Minnetonka) illustrated how the impact of building height could be mitigated with construction materials, siting, and landscaping. Some of the photographs used in this report came from the mobile tour. E Planning Issues One of the first steps taken by the Planning Commission in its study was to identify planning issues associated with the study area. Following are a list of issues identified to date. These are also illustrated on Figure 2 on the following page. • Study Area west boundary (it was decided that this edge of the study area could remain somewhat flexible, in the event a developer chooses to acquire one or more of the single-family residential lots that lie west of the commercial area) • Land uses (considerable interest has been expressed in exploring mixed use for the Study Area • Buffering and land use transitions • Taking advantage of views into Gideon Glen while preserving natural views from across and within Gideon Glen • Access (vehicular) — to and from County Road 19 and to and from Smithtown Road • Internal circulation — vehicular and pedestrian • Phasing • Redevelopment of lots on an individual basis versus unified/coordinated development* • Future development of golf course property • Land use and zoning of single-familly residential property at 24250 Smithtown Road • Pedestrian connection from Badger Park to north side of Smithtown Road • Drainage** *The table on the following page sets forth the advantages of unified/coordinated redevelopment versus a piece -meal approach. **Note. This is a significant issue and supports the concept of a unified development effort. The City Engineer advises us that properties within the study area not only need to address rate control, but also the new volume of water that comes from redevelopment. This supports the concept of a coordinated redevelopment scenario versus piece -meal redevelopment of individual sites. Individually, the properties would have to come up with their own ponding for each site. 5 0 Page 7 a MIli a (a)Wim Mar • Unified/Coordinated versus Piece -meal Redevelopment Smithtown Crossing Unified/Coordinated Maximize exposure to County Rd 19 Maximize view of Gideon Glen Efficient drainage P.U.D. provides flexibility relative to internal setbacks - more efficient use of land Opportunity for joint -use parking Opportunity for 75% hardcover (site is large enough for on -site treatment) Consolidated access Project identity - "Smithtown Crossing" Possibility of City assistance (e.g. T.I.F.) Pedestrian access/circulation Piece -meal Only two properties front on County Rd 19 Two properties - no view Each site provides its own seperate pond for rate control and volume storage; more land consumed by ponding Strict adherence to setback requirements Each site provides its own parking, resulting in less efficient land use and circulation Maximum 66% hardcover (individual sites too small for treatment solutions) Potential congestion from multiple access points Each business on its own Each owner on its own Less attractive to pedestrians (crossing driveways and parking lots Efficiency of landscaping Each site on its own Page 8 • Redevelopment Guiding Principles Having identified issues associated with the study area, it was determined that a clear picture of what the City hopes to see for the subject area should be formulated — for lack of a better term, we will use `redevelopment guiding principles". This is the point where we step back and view the area as we would like to see it, say in the next 10-15 years. The redevelopment guiding principles should be a positive expression of what the City wants, rather than a list of what we don't want to see. The proposed redevelopment guiding principles starts with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan, which identified an interest in the following: • Unified/coordinated development; assembly of land parcels • Planned unit development • Possible mixed use — commercial/residential • Opportunity for additional senior housing • Predominant retail and office uses versus service commercial* *Since this was written, the Planning Commission held a meeting with real estate development professionals, the consensus of whom indicated that there may not be a strong market for retail. It was suggested that a stronger market may exist for personal service commercial (i.e. banking, health and beauty services, etc.). In addition to the above, the Planning Commission discussed other factors such as pedestrian/bicycle circulation and connectivity, architectural treatment (e.g. residential character and natural materials), natural landscaping, and compatibility with surrounding land use activities as parameters for the redevelopment of the area. From this, the following was derived: Redevelopment Guiding Principles — Smithtown Crossing The project will result in a unified/coordinated pattern of development. The use or mixture of uses of property in the study area shall be based on market needs and analysis of detailed traffic study. 3. Site design should take advantage of views afforded by existing natural areas and parks. C 4. Uses within the study area shall be arranged to create a transition between higher intensity commercial development and surrounding lower density housing. Any use of land not currently zoned for commercial development shall be limited in building height G to 35 feet or two and a half stories. The westerly edge of the project area shall be densely landscaped to enhance the transition. 0 E Page 11 Il (D) W T1 CE 0 5. Any housing component should add to and enhance the variety of housing choices in the community. 6. Commercial activities should serve not only the residents of the project area, but the community as a whole. Access to and egress from, and circulation within Smithtown Crossing must be pedestrian/bicycle friendly. 8. Useable, inviting outdoor spaces shall be integrated into the development. 9. Landscaping will be natural and substantial, diminishing parking lot massing and softening and framing buildings on the site. 10. Attractive and articulated architecture with pitched rooflines and natural materials will reflect the residential character and quality of the community. 11. Reduction of building mass may be achieved by using a combination of the following techniques: a. Variations in roofline and form. b. Use of ground level arcades and covered areas. C. Use of protected and recessed entries. d. Inclusion of windows on elevations facing streets and pedestrian areas. e. Retaining a clear distinction between roof, body and base of building. C ir �l 0 Il Page12 �MEIl future trails and sidewalk systems. Sidewalks built with the reconstruction of the intersection in 2005 will ultimately provide connection with the LRT Trail to the north and to the City Hall/Badger Field complex south and east of the intersection. The County Road 19 Corridor Study illustrates an entire network of pedestrian bicycle segments to the east of the study area. Smithtown Crossing should link to that system as well as extend west along Smithtown Road to the westerly extent of the project. Landscaping has long been recognized as an effective means of creating buffers, diminishing the impact of building massing, enhancing architecture and screening and cooling of parking lots. The County Road 19 Corridor Study, adopted in 2003 sets forth concepts for streetscaping along the corridor as it passes through Shorewood. These concepts should be implemented on both the County Road 19 and Smithtown Road sides of the project, converging at the northwest corner of the intersection. This public right-of-way area should be redone and incorporated into the Smithtown Crossing design. Current landscape practice focuses on natural designs that require low to no maintenance, minimizing sprinkling and conserving water. Developers hoping to achieve additional density or building height will want to substantially exceed the minimum landscaping requirements currently found in - the City's zoning regulations, both in terms of size and quantities of plant materials. Site planning and landscaping for Smithtown Crossing should incorporate some sort of public .T space or common area that invites visitors to spend a little more time in the area, relaxing or connecting with others. v. Example: Landscaping, public space Page 17 0 R 2Mni Ali (1)WIl 0 1] It is not the intent of this report to dictate a certain type of architecture. This does not, however, diminish the importance of this critical design element. Shorewood has in the past placed great value on buildings that are in keeping with the residential character of the community. While no formal definition of "residential character" exists, certain characteristics have been identified that begin to describe what the City is looking for. Well articulated buildings with pitched rooflines, tiered levels and interesting shadowing go far in mitigating the visual impact of larger, taller °"r`"rQdO" buildings. Similarly, features such as awnings, natural building materials, balconies and lighting help to diminish building masses and create a human scale for the project. And, as mentioned in the previous section, nothing does more to soften and enhance building than landscaping. One of the incentives that can be explored in Smithtown Crossing is allowing somewhat taller building height than what is allowed by Shorewood's current regulations. At present, the C-1 zoning district allows buildings to be three stories or 40 feet in height, whichever is least. It has been suggested that the right project could be built to a height of 45 feet, regardless of the number of stories. The visual impact of such a building can be mitigated by the means discussed above as well as by building placement on the property and use of the natural terrain. For example, the topography found in the northwest quadrant of the intersection may lend itself to partially below -grade levels or underground parking. building height with construction materials, landscaping 0 D n Page18 MIli�i'�®Wffi �� CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.d.shorewood.mmus • cityhall6d.shorewood.mmus Notice 27 June 2012 Re: 3`d Draft of Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study Available for Review and Comment Starting the first of July, the Yd Draft of the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study will be available for review and comment by residents. The report will appear electronically on the City's website: ci.shorewood.mn.us or, those interested in the report may view a paper copy at the Shorewood City Offices, 5755 Country Club Road. For nearly two years the Planning Commission has been working on a plan for the future redevelopment of the area surrounding the intersection of Smithtown Road and County Road 19. In spite of the current state of the economy, the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan has identified this area as being prime for redevelopment. The Study, in its final form, will become the guide for how that redevelopment occurs in future years as the economy recovers. The Yd Draft has been revised to address comments and concerns of people who attended the informal open house meeting and the public hearing that were held last year. Comments received will be posted on the website and will be available for others to view. As always, your participation is critical to a successful planning process. 0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER dURTIS LEE HANSEN •MARJORIE J YAEGER •EXCELSIOR FIRE DISTRICT 5020 PAGE AVE N E 5445 TIMBER LA 339 3RD ST ST MICHAEL MN 55376 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CHRIS & REBECCA FREDERICK 5570 SHOREWOOD LA 5625 STAR LA 305 SIBLEY ST SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CARVER MN 55315 CURRENT RESIDENT JOSHUA PATTERSON CURRENT RESIDENT 5515 SHOREWOOD LANE 2025 INNSBRUCK PKWY 5555 SHOREWOOD LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55421 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT J & L DEVELOPMENT CURRENT RESIDENT 5575 SHOREWOOD LA 15 BRENTWOOD AVE 24660 GLEN RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 TONKA BAY MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 J P & A M LUGOWSKI CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 24710 GLEN ROAD 24740 GLEN RD 24780 GLEN RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 24775 AMLEE RD 24745 AMLEE RD 24705 AMLEE RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT LAURA ROSE TURGEON CURRENT RESIDENT 24675 AMLEE RD 24670 AMLEE RD 24710 AMLEE RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT HANUS ENTERPRISES LLP 24740 AMLEE RD 24770 AMLEE RD 15801 WEST OAKS SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 MINNETONKA MN 55345 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 24775 GLEN RD 24735 GLEN RD 24695 GLEN RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT SHOREWOOD OAKS CURRENT RESIDENT 24645 GLEN RD PARTNERSHIP 5535 GIDEONS LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 3055 CASCO POINT RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 WAYZATA MN 55391 CURRENT RESIDENT 5525 GIDEONS LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 5495 GIDEONS LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 5465 GIDEONS LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 5440 GIDEONS LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 5480 GIDEONS LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 24600 GLEN RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 NSP PROPERTY TAX DEPT 414 NICOLLET MALL MPLS MN 55401 CURRENT RESIDENT 5580 CO RD NO 19 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 24620 SMITHTOWN RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 • CURRENT RESIDENT 5515 GIDEONS LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 5485 GIDEONS LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 5455 GIDEONS LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 5450 GIDEONS LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 5500 GIDEONS LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 5535 GIDEONS LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 5560 CO RD NO 19 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 5590 CO RD NO 19 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 24590 SMITHTOWN RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 •CURRENT RESIDENT 5505 GIDEONS LA #3 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 5475 GIDEONS LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 5445 GIDEONS LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 5470 GIDEONS LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 5510 GIDEONS LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 5535 GIDEONS LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 5570 CO RD NO 19 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 LAKE FELLOWSHIP UNITARIAN P O BOX 174 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 24450 SMITHTOWN RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SULCINER/DETERS REAL ESTATE ROGER N & FAYE M FEMRITE TRIPLE B EQUITIES LLCB. BURY 5660 CO RD NO 19 548 W BEACH BLVD #134 28160 BOULDER BRIDGE DR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 LONG BEACH MS 39560 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 AMERICAN LEGION POST 259 • EDNA A CONRAD isCURRENT RESIDENT 24450 SMITHTOWN RD 20470 OLINDA TR 5795 CLUB LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 MARINE ON ST CROIX MN 55047 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 24785 SMITHTOWN RD 24725 SMITHTOWN RD 24650 SMITHTOWN RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 24680 SMITHTOWN RD 5710 CHRISTOPHER RD 5690 CHRISTOPHER RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 5680 CHRISTOPHER RD 5670 CHRISTOPHER RD 5650 CHRISTOPHER RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 5640 CHRISTOPHER RD 5655 CHRISTOPHER RD 5675 CHRISTOPHER RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 5695 CHRISTOPHER RD 5705 CHRISTOPHER RD 24450 SMITHTOWN RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT FISH & SON PROPERTIES LLC 24010 SMITHTOWN RD 24050 SMITHTOWN RD 70 FLORENCE DR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 TONKA BAY MN 55331 MARGARET L & TIMOTHY C WASH N ROLL INC CURRENT RESIDENT HOWE 8794 HORIZON RIDGE 5670 ECHO RD 4730 CAVAN RD VICTORIA MN 55386 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 MOUND MN 55364 MARILYN J LINQUIST DENNIS INVSTMNT PROP CURRENT RESIDENT 6817 LANGFORD DRIVE MNGMNT 5675 ECHO RD EDINA MN 55436 1214 YALE PL SHOREWOOD MN 55331 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55403 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 5685 ECHO RD 5705 ECHO RD 5715 ECHO RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT • CURRENT RESIDENT • CURRENT RESIDENT 5725 ECHO ROAD 5735 ECHO RD 5720 ECHO RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 5730 ECHO RD 5740 ECHO RD 5750 ECHO ROAD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 5760 ECHO RD 5780 ECHO RD 5790 ECHO RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 5800 ECHO RD 5810 ECHO RD 5830 ECHO RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 TIMOTHY F MCGLENNEN CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 130 11TH AVE S 5745 ECHO RD 5755 ECHO RD HOPKINS MN 55343 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 TWIN CITIES STORES INC CURRENT RESIDENT THOMAS C WAGNER 1800 CLIFF RD E #2 24250 SMITHTOWN RD 6004 BONNIE BRAE DR BURNSVILLE MN 55337 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 EDINA MN 55439 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 24820 GLEN RD 24850 GLEN RD 24880 GLEN RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 5525 MANTTOU LANE 24925 AMLEE RD 24885 AMLEE ROAD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 24845 AMLEE RD 24825 AMLEE RD 24830 AMLEE ROAD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 24850 AMLEE RD 24955 GLEN RD 24925 GLEN RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT • CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 24885 GLEN ROAD 24845 GLEN RD 23890 ELDER TURN SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT NITA MORLOCK 23950 ELDER TURN 23830 SMITHTOWN RD 5020 PAGE AVE NE SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 ST MICHAEL MN 55376 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 24930 SMITHTOWN RD 24860 SMITHTOWN RD 24800 SMITHTOWN RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 24905 SMnHTOWN RD 5645 STAR CIRCLE 5655 STAR CIR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 5665 STAR CIR 5675 STAR CIRCLE 5695 STAR LANE SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 5715 STAR LA 5600 STAR LA 5605 STAR LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 5625 STAR LA 24845 SMITHTOWN RD 5810 CLUB LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 5830 CLUB LA 5765 ECHO RD 5775 ECHO ROAD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 5845 COUNTRY CLUB RD 5875 COUNTRY CLUB RD 5905 COUNTRY CLUB RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 5785 ECHO RD 5795 ECHO RD 5805 ECHO RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 UURRENT RESIDENT • CURRENT RESIDENT 5815 ECHO RD 5825 COUNTRY CLUB RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 24310 RIDGE POINT CIR 24320 RIDGE POINT CIR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB 5815 CLUB LA 24575 SMITITOWN RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 23970 SMITHTOWN RD 23930 SMITHTOWN RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 5435 TIMBER LA 5445 TIMBER LANE SHOREWOOD MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 5465 TIMBER LA 5485 TIMBER LANE SHOREWOOD MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 5515 TIMBER LA 5525 TIMBER LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 23770 LAWTONKA DR 23780 LAWTONKA DR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 23800 LAWTONKA DR 23810 LAWTONKA DR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT HENN CTY REGIONAL RR AUTH 23820 LAWTONKA DR 417 5TH ST N #320 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 MPLS MN 55401 CURRENT RESIDENT 24300 RIDGE POINT CIR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 24035 MARY LAKE TR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 24010 SMITHTOWN RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 5425 TIMBER LANE SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 5455 TIMBER LANE SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT 5495 TIMBER LA SHOREWOOD MN 55331 DONALD D BLUMBERG 701 JAMESTOWN LA NAPLES FL 34108 CURRENT RESIDENT 23790 LAWTONKA DR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 GIDEON COVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOC 18283 MINNETONKA BLVD STE A WAYZATA MN 55391 CURRENT RESIDENT 5695 MINNETONKA DR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CL7RRENT RESIDENT • CURRENT RESIDENT • CURRENT RESIDENT 5685 MINNETONKA DR 23825 SMITHTOWN RD 23875 SMITHTOWN ROAD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 KENNETH J SONDERUP CURRENT RESIDENT CURTIS LEE HANSEN 11315 MAPLEWOOD LA 23965 SMITHTOWN ROAD P 0 BOX 488 CHAMPLIN MN 55316 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 23980 CLOVER LANE 23950 CLOVER LANE 5680 MINNETONKA DR SHOREWOOD MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CARL & PATRICIA NIEMI CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 3475 ZIRCON LA N 5740 MINNETONKA DR 23885 CLOVER LA PLYMOUTH MN 55447 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT 23955 CLOVER LANE 5760 MINNETONKA DR 23880 SMITHTOWN RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 SHOREWOOD MN 55331 CURRENT RESIDENT METROPOLITAN SEWER BOARD 5425 TIMBER LN 390 ROBERT ST N EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ST PAUL MN 55101 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhaII@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 26 October 2011 RE: Smithtown Crossing — Resident Responses FILE NO. 405 (Sm. Crsg. Redev.) As you know, a public hearing has been scheduled for 15 November to consider a Comprehensive Plan amendment that would incorporate the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study into the Appendix Chapter of the Comp Plan. As of the last Planning Commission meeting we had only received one comment sheet from a resident who attended the open house meeting. Since then, a few more have trickled in. They are attached hereto for your review. One of the items on the agenda for Tuesday night (1 November) will be a discussion of the comments received and what, if any, revisions to the redevelopment study should be made prior to the hearing on the 15th. Any comment sheets that are received after this memo is sent will be forwarded to you by e-mail, with hard copies available at the meeting. . Cc: Brian Heck Dick Woodruff Lr6 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Smithtown Crossing Open House 4 October 2011 RESIDENT COMMENTS The Shorewood Planning Commission and City Council held an open house regarding the future redevelopment of the Smithtown Crossing Study Area on 4 October 2011. Residents were invited to submit their comments at the open house meeting, or return the comment sheet to City Hall at a later date. Below please find a tabulation of the comments that were received. Vision Statement "Good statement... great to understand what the ideafstrategy should be." "9n general, and within limits, I favor the idea of a comprehensive redevelopment of Smithtown Crossing." Piece -meal vs. Coordinated Redevelopment "Holistic is better. I'd suggest a strong perspective on the "Type" of housing which is considered... top choice — single-family, 2"d choice — senior housing, P — apartments." "Coordinated preferably." "Coordinated but smaller scale and confined to the intersection. Please try to retain neighborhood feel for those of us who live next to this proposed development." Planning Isspes "Can the American Legion be relocated? This would allow additional land without the need of removing existing housing." "Buffering and land use transitions were unclear at the meeting — some charts showed the housing in the buffer zone and some did not. There is not enough property to add senior housing or any multi -level housing." "No variance for taller buildings should be given." Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation/Connection "Good idea... the more pedestrian tie-in to the LRT the better!" "Consider role of bike paths to the intersection of 19/Smithtown and public transportation needs for planned development on the corner." "There is already too much traffic on Smithtown Rd. This redevelopment will make it even worse. It will also increase "turnaround" traffic on Christopher Road which is already a problem. It would necessitate a bike path on Smithtown which residents have opposed." "I favor this idea." Housin¢/Land Use (What is needed in Shorewood?) "I'm opposed to any plan that involves the removal of the single family home located at 24650 Smithtown Road as there needs to be a buffer between residential and commercial/multi-family use." "Do not need senior housing. I do not support a multi -level complex, including a variance to exceed the current height restrictions. I believe this portion of the redevelopment will decrease my property value." Other "It's great that the City is taking a holistic view of who we should be and what we should "look" like." "I'm also opposed to the thinning of the wooded area behind my home and that of my neighbors on Christopher Road as this area helps reduce traffic noise from Hwy. 19 and obstructs views of commercial signage." "I support the redevelopment of the Legion properties (the gas station and the existing Legion building). ] do not support a senior housing complex and new retail business. We should support our existing business! We have enough shops, dry cleaners, hair salons, insurance offices, banks, etc. nearby. We moved to Shorewood for the "woods". This redevelopment will require more destruction of green space. I do not have confidence that our green space will be protected, similar to the Gideon Glen debacle where too many trees were destroyed in order to preserve the trees." "As a resident whose property is adjacent to the proposed redevelopment zone I am very concerned about quality of life and property value impacts of a large development on my family and our neighbors." 0 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us Resident Comments Date: The Shorewood Planning Commission and City Council invite your comments and questions regarding the future redevelopment of the Smithtown Crossing Study Area. You may submit comments at the open house meeting, or take the comment sheet home and return it to City Hall later. We ask that all comment sheets be returned by Monday, 24 October 2011. Vision Statement Piece -meal vs. Coordinated Redevelopment Plannin Issues ssues Pedestrian/bicycle circulation/connection Housing/Land Use (What is needed in Shorewood?) Other Name: E-mail: (optional) www.ei.shorewood.mn.us Resident Comments Date: The Shorewood Planning Commission and City Council invite your comments and questions regarding the future redevelopment of the Smithtown Crossing Study Area. You may submit comments at the open house meeting, or take the comment sheet home and return it to City Hall later. We ask that all comment sheets be returned by Monday, 24 October 2011. Vision Statement v,3✓/ CW Piece -meal vs. Coordinated Redevelo ments/ l G-"7,z G✓ Off- �� ��'� Planning Issues Pedestrian/bicycle circulation/connection �' Z"� X'Z-� Housing(Land Use (What is needed in Shorewood?) 124 i Other /4i �� f (optional) E-mail: Gt' O www.ci.shorewood.mn.us Resident Comments Date: C q (t The Shor wood Planning Commission and City Council invite your comments and questions regarding the future redevelopment of the Smithtown Crossing Study Area. You may submit comments at the open house meeting, or take the comment sheet home and return it to City Hall later. We ask that all comment sheets be returned by Monday, 24 October 2011. Vision Statement - 25001, Piece -meal vs. Coordinated Redevelopment PlanningIssues ssues laud Pedestrian/bicycle circulation/connection / L`Otili1�LQ-2a Y:%& 07 Ij�t�'�r' ,0 Psa k a�4 HousinWLand Use (What is needed in Shorewood?) 7�, C �,o I �tltMv (o c-�cd 4 2,y 6 so Sn�1z -,, 29 nv A e Keck fo 6the�{ I bee �1iCy d.�Q CJ»L47 W&Atl/Zic�i>i*-�,"'J+'"�'aytV.AG.tb (optional) Addre; E-mail RECEIVED OCT 2 4 P011 211YOUHOREwooN 1ww.ci.shorewood.mn.us Resident Comments Date:- a3b The Shorewood Planning Commission and City Council invite your comments and questions regarding the future redevelopment of the Smithtown Crossing Study Area. You may submit comments at the open house meeting, or take the comment sheet home and return it to City Hall later. We ask that all comment sheets be returned by Monday, 24 October 2011. Vision Statement Piece -meal vs. Coordinated Redevelopment PlanningIssues ssues uf�2r 9 d IerVA W e o-e uv\ e I'ear.ArL +''t Somt Ck&rn shOWed 4hov 0x Ir• iL t buf 4;a' -2 o"e % Sw--Q c1`�I ne4. rvt41�,-1erPi ha-1 ev�wyk f�ptr+y iv W Mv\iov^ hour �y 6Us,� Pedestrian/bicycle circulation/connection [VL t i'S alr-Oy 'foo Iw.tl.I\ +rf�Ay- tr` SM(r -kjowr Od- s rPd¢v¢���a�f 1y�11 w4kC f ever LW'rse.Z+ tj()I Also tv.Creast ftfx",ae wrj`I b L �nr Y ro P)�r l� UHUL i'S a�reaG� y a Pvp 61�m. `� v1 n r l� NQ (ECsI.� d�F a We �-ri�j-o W.n U:'Y4 GI^ k'"- Housing/Land Use (What is needed in Shorewood?) �b no+ ►�¢e�l Sen'or dD no✓ s�Porf annul>'i-lee( �><c� curre.rF h.e.cq�rl Yf Sig �C I,b,,S . b¢I�evh 4u s Poi+ av of i t x eue(opv+^eN! u,11 o�creme Mq red2PnP��'I Other Ualu�, Z s�f 4 t. aelevelopwqn+ tie Ley,a� P�vpe�+�Ps�flt¢ gas cl- do rat SLjppal-t a Aaus,tj (V,1,*l�eX 4Y kvo re it I us�✓�esS, w� Sho tlD� S�tPPor1 0�+ toxiYf�lti9 6tAs,tt¢sSl Ij$ hpvt 'e Ou�'1 1 �oeS 0�y Ci ea-1 ri �a 1� fa �D�S� �115urctnGt otT'(?JSl �ak S�f ff • fQPLa��. Name: (optional) k;c qb✓4 * JYIwwoo['4i&, Ik4 �i�% re-dev-e(o,41I L.J"(l �"e^�tYlfuWe Ikk "t p�eJ1 �,c%B�, W 9ree✓\ SoacZ • Z olo rlo+ ham Ca.\i AkL?L 4tw�aw (g`f2ev) 50al.e` W1. It- �A-FeC�Jl jr iv q4e. (aib! a, &1evt olabad-e wk" *o Mary ` ,t-eS Wzr4 c4 s kv yfd (A ordK•- -f) PrQ&9"e- 41t 4rac . a 0 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us Resident Comments Date:/z d11 The Shorewood Planning Commission and City Council invite your comments and questions regarding the future redevelopment of the Smithtown Crossing Study Area. You may submit comments at the open house meeting, or take the comment sheet home and return it to City Hall later. We ask that all comment sheets bq returned by Monday, 24 October 2011. Vision Statement /eherS�CY7 �tivo� 75�e '22 T a� J /h •�iii6�vh � /"a3S� �tg �yyD� +�Y. v2 rec�a vC'./a fier+ O' Piece -meal vs. Coordinated Redevelopment `H �e)rse L�,B.�. / /eaT'e /TI�y 7e -/'cfa /,J",p /?C,9l6ar�sa��ee/Toy-pose 6f� Gt.S alJ+b / v3 yjtX��d 7%!'SV�YoPd /Scd 6-1-VIC le"o.�,e�.� Planning Issues Np r/-*-, /,'!!�+ t e T/�� ✓ (/ c 9,ve ►R Pedestrian/bicycle circulation/connection Housing/Land Use (What is needed in Shorewood?) Other iiS Q re 5 �ehf Gt/�dS e � ra p ! � �S 4 �jZe en7 Prropy�seai rep%✓../o/on��ri% 6?• //�Y�e ��re0er7�L� ��tc,e di-1t� aster' rle�/r,6�T'S o N ,'e �n`r ver- j/°n�g�Je?' 1C�-ale ve % r/ (optional) Ll� Address: Zy6�n Slrr-f �`� • )4 : " J Brad Nielsen From: chris lizee [chrislizee@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 7:22 PM To: Brian Heck Cc: Tim Keane; Brad Nielsen Subject: Fwd: Redevelopment of Smithtown Crossing FYI............ Chris ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Henry Miles <henry.miles&wavoointltd.com> Date: Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:50 AM Subject: Redevelopment of Smithtown Crossing To: clizee@ci.shorewood.mn.us Dear Mayor Lizee, My wife and I received the City of Shorewood's notice about the Open House to discuss the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study. Unfortunately, the notice came too late for us to rearrange our schedules to make room for this event. We would like to be there. Based on past actions by Shorewood, we are very concerned that such decisions while surrounded by the appearance of openness are in fact predetermined without due consideration to important factors. In particular, the decision to approve the Cub at Lake Linden Drive has increased the traffic on Country Club resulting in property damage and creating an unsafe environment for those near the street. Moreover, the street is not adequately patrolled for people speeding and running stop signs. Also, the Cub may have resulted in the degradation of runoff into Lake Linden, Mary Lake, and other ponds downstream to Lake Minnetonka. Our neighbors have engaged the State of Minnesota to consult with us on this matter. While we are not opposed per se to redevelopment at Smithtown Crossing, we expect to see more rigor around this development than has been Shorewood's practice in the past. Specifically, we expect the plans to include a comprehensive environmental impact assessment. Also, we and our neighbors will continue to press for the closure of Country Club to through traffic. Finally, we believe that all those on the Shorewood's payroll, Planning Committee, and City Council who may have potential conflicts of interests concerning this project recuse themselves immediately from any discussions or votes concerning the matter. Thank you. Henry Henry H. Miles, CEO Waypoint Associates (612)790-1552 u SMITFITOWN CROSSING COMMENTS ON 2'd DRAFT OF REDEVELOPMENT STUI October 23, 2011 Dear City Council, Planning Commission Members and City I Thank you for providing your constituents and neighbors with the opportunity to provide feedback on the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study. Vision Statement: The Vision Statement seems relatively well thought out, although a bit "idealistic." It is unlikely that any major mixed use development will be pedestrian/bicycle and neighborhood friendly. A commercial development will increase traffic volume in an area that already is NOT pedestrian/bicycle friendly. The shoulders along Smithtown are too narrow to safely use and although the traffic flow at the intersection of 19 and Smithtown is better controlled, it is still a bad intersection for non -vehicular traffic. Additionally, there is no good route of travel to safely get to the LRT to the north on 19, to the east on 19 or to the west on Smithtown. Keeping any proposed development more in line with the residential characteristics of Shorewood would be critical to its acceptance in the community. We don't need a big box retailer, developed by a national developer who will come in to take what they can in the way of municipal subsidies, make lots of promises, follow through on a few, and then sell it to an investor or group looking for a coupon to clip with no interest in how it contributes to or fits in with the community. It's all about the economics, and nothing more for those groups. In regards to landscaping, unless the City requires the planting of trees with 6" or larger trunks, which won't happen, it is unlikely that the landscaping will soften the impact of a larger development on the neighboring residential properties. As an example, of the twigs that were planted in Gideon Glen, some have not made it and those that have certainly have not grown in a manner that will provide adequate screening in most of our lifetimes, if similar landscaping were to be utilized for the proposed Smithtown Crossing Development it would be an injustice to those of us that call this area our home. piece Meal vs. Coordinated Redevelopment: Overall, a coordinated development makes a lot more sense and, if properly executed, should result in a significantly nicer mix of assets for our community. Planning Issues: Study Area west boundary, under no circumstances, should extend any further than 24620 Smithtown Road, if that far. The extension of a mixed use commercial development into a predominantly residential neighborhood has the potential to not only adversely affect the values of our homes, but also the characteristics of what has been our neighborhood for the past 23 years. Is there a reason that the site that the City acquired immediately south of City Hall on Country Club Road was not included in the Study area? It would seem to me that since the City is including virtually all of the other municipally owned property in the Study Area, that it would be prudent to include that site at this time as well. Land uses 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. Any commercial development should occur in and be limited to those areas that are immediately contiguous to County Road 19. Buffering and land use transitions will be critical to support from our neighborhood. Perhaps the bulk of the property located at 24620 Smithtown Road could be used to "buffer" our residential neighborhood from the impact of a larger mixed use development. Significant landscaping throughout the project would soften the impact of this development on our community. Perhaps there would be a way to route a bike/walking path through this property through Gideon Glen to get a safer route of travel to the LRT access point that is just to the North on County Road 19. Similar care should be taken with the property immediately east of the Senior Center as it abuts a residential neighborhood. Gideon Glen, when it was acquired was done so 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. In short, what was once beautiful woodland is now decimated. It would be nice to preserve whatever natural views of Gideon Glen are left. Quite frankly, I don't see the purpose of including Gideon Glen in the Redevelopment Study unless there is a plan to also allow a portion of this property to be rezoned and developed. Any competent developer will understand that any development should take advantage of the views of what woods are left and that they should plan to drain their property into the holding pond now located there. Vehicular access to and from County Road 19 should be pushed north of the existing intersection with Smithtown to provide for better ingress and egress from the proposed development. Access from the development onto Smithtown should be kept towards the center of the development so as to limit the traffic impact on the neighborhoods immediately to the west. I believe that internal circulation can best be addressed by the City's planning staff once there are real development proposals to consider. As previously stated it would be nice to have a bike/walking path that would provide better and safer access to the LRT to the north on County Road 19. Contaminated Soils should be and are the responsibility of the Landowner and their tenants. The City should proceed with caution when considering the acquisition of any property with contaminated soils. 0 As a tax payer, I would hate to see the City assume any liability for the costs associated with mitigating a contaminated site. Phasing — In reality, the study are really includes only three potential areas of redevelopment: 1) that area at the northwest corner of the intersection of Smithtown and County Road 19; 2) that area lying on the south side of County Road 19 and north of City Hall and Badger Park; 3) that area north of County Road 19 and South of the Public Works Building. In regards to area #3, there will in all probability be only one phase of development as the parcel is not really large enough for a multi phased development. Area #2 could be a phased development; however, it is a relatively small site that would likely be redeveloped as a small retail strip with one or to pads. My guess is that due to the current economic climate and the costs that would be incurred in acquiring the properties in this area that it will likely be well into the future, despite that fact that it probably offers the most retail potential as a site due to its visibility and direct access to County Road 19. This would be a better site for a moderate sized single tenant retail development as it is bordered on the north by retail and municipal uses, on the south by municipal uses, to the east by municipal uses and to the west by the buffer that is currently used by the Country Club. Area #1 is likely to be a phased development consisting one phase of commercial/institutional use in the area immediately adjacent to County Road 19 and a second phase of low to moderate multi- level housing to the west. Likely there will be different developers for each of these phases, and in all probability, these phases will not be developed simultaneously. Redevelopment of lots on an individual basis makes little sense. Future Development of the Minnetonka Country Club — If this is something that is anticipated to occur in the relatively near future, say in the next 3-10 years, then any redevelopment study should incorporate this property as well, and all residents in Shorewood should be notified, as redevelopment of the Country Club would significantly impact the broader community of Shorewood. Land Use and Zoning of 24250 Smithtown Road — This property appears to be a beautiful residential property that has, over time, become surrounded by commercial, retail and municipal uses. It is an island in an otherwise generally commercial district. Rezoning probably makes sense. Long terra, a municipal related use probably makes some sense, although it could probably accommodate a moderate to high density multifamily (rental) development or perhaps an institutional type of user, i.e.... Senior Center, VFW, Library, Community Center, Post Office, etc... Pedestrian Connection from Badger Park to the north side of Smithtown Road — Unless there is a connection to the LRT, what is the purpose of such a connection? Drainage — It is assumed that the bulk of the drainage from the northwest portion of the Study Area will flow into the holding pond in Gideon Glen, and then to the north until it turns back to the east and flows • into Lake Minnetonka. I am not as familiar with the drainage flows for the other portions for the Study Area. PedestrianBicycle Circulation/ Connection have been addressed elsewhere in these comments. Housing/Land Use (What is needed in Shorewood?) If this area is to be redeveloped, a comprehensive plan should result in a better overall development for our community than a parcel by parcel redevelopment. What we don't need is a box retail development; there is a vacant one nearby in Navarre at an intersection with higher traffic counts than those at County Road 19 and Smithtown Road. At the present time, we don't need a lot of strip retail development either. Some senior housing might be nice to add to our community. Service oriented businesses, i.e .... restaurants might be nice. Local ownership/Local Developers would be a big plus. Someone who will take some pride in what they develop because they live here (in the Twin Cities) would be a huge plus. There are plenty of qualified and capable local developers and investors to make something of this scale happen when the economics support it. Other: Potential Height of Potential Developments. Personally, I don't see a big difference between 40' and 45'in height. The most important consideration should be how the project fits into our community and that it is generally architecturally pleasing. Tax Increment Financing: While TIF is a popular tool employed by many municipalities and developers, personally, I believe that unless a developer can put together a development that stands on its own economically, that it shouldn't be built. Why does everything need to be subsidized by us the tax payer? Acquisition of Land by the City. Is the City prepared to utilize its power of eminent domain, if necessary to make this redevelopment happen? Is the acquisition of these properties the best use of the City's limited financial resources? How will the City offset the lost tax revenue from parcels it acquires if it ends up holding them for 3, 5, 10 or 15 years? As previously stated contaminated soils are the responsibility of the current (and former) Landowner's. The City should not get involved in assuming any liability associated with mitigation of contaminated soils. Although the 2nd Draft of the Redevelopment Study appears to suggest that the broader public/community has been involved in the process of developing this study, it was not until September 23`d that the City notified area residents of the proposed redevelopment. There have been no meetings with affected neighborhoods, public or otherwise, with the exception of the informal open house meeting that was held on Tuesday, October 4, 2011. It should be noted that several of the City Council Members or Planning Commission Members did not attend this meeting. The 2°d Draft of the Redevelopment Study references "The County Road 19 Corridor Study, adopted in 2003," but attendees at the open house were not, to the best of my knowledge, provided with this document. 0 In general, I believe that a comprehensive redevelopment of many of the properties situated in the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study could be a very positive thing for our community, although I have some concerns about the distance down Smithtown Road that the City is considering extending this district. Thank you for your consideration of these comments and observations. Respectfully, ae7C4 I Aar Brian L. Maghan Rhonda L. Maghan 5670 Christopher Road 5670 Christopher Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 bmaghan@4rmi.biz Rhonda.maghan@usbank.com CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 2 February 2012 RE: Smithtown Crossing — Review of Public Testimony FILE NO. 405 (Smithtown Crossing) At its 6 December 2011 meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study. At the conclusion of the hearing, the consensus of the Commission was that a study session should be scheduled to go over, in detail, the testimony from area residents relative to the study. Attached for your review is the excerpt from the 6 December meeting minutes pertaining to Smithtown Crossing. This item is scheduled for discussion at the 8 February meeting. Cc: Brian Heck Laura Hotvet try PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1. 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 15t° 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`s he had suggested the Hearing be continued and residents who live in a 1000-foot radius buffer area be notified individually. Nielsen displayed a graphic of the Study area. He explained it encompasses the land adjacent to the intersection of Smithtown Road and County Road 19. The boundaries of the Study area are as follows. The commercial area located on the south side of County Road 19. A portion of the land north of County Road 19 and east of the intersection where the City's Public Works facility and the public safety facility as well as a residential property are located. A lot of the Study focuses on the northwest quadrant of the intersection, primarily the commercial area. The commercial properties in the area are characterized as disjointed. The buildings are low value and under utilized, and many of them do not comply with the City's current zoning standards. The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan (the Comp Plan) has identified the area as being prime for redevelopment. The City considers the area to be somewhat of a northern gateway into the City of Shorewood. A great deal of time and money has been invested over the years to enhance the area. The City developed somewhat of a "civic campus" including the newly renovated City Hall, the Southshore Community Center (SSCC), the Public Works facility, the South Lake public safety facility (police and fire) and Badger Park. The intersection was redesigned and reconstructed in 2005. As part of that effort the City acquired, in conjunction with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Gideon Glen conservation open space property. Nielsen noted the Planning Commission has been working on the Study for the last two years. He explained one of the first things the Planning Commission did was identify planning issues associated with the Study area, noting that he will focus on the northwest quadrant. He reviewed the issues that have been identified to date. They are: ➢ study area west boundary — it was decided that this edge of the study area could remain somewhat flexible in the event a developer chooses to acquire one or more of the single family residential lots that lie west of the commercial area; ➢ land uses — considerable interest has been expressed in exploring mixed use for the study area; ➢ buffering and land use transitions especially on the west of the Study area; ➢ taking advantage of views into Gideon Glen while preserving natural views from across and within Gideon Glen; ➢ vehicular access to and from County Road 19 and to and from Smithtown Road; ➢ internal circulation — vehicular and pedestrian; ➢ possibility of contaminated soils; ➢ phasing the redevelopment; ➢ redevelopment of lots on an individual basis; ➢ future development of the golf course property even though it is not located in the study area; ➢ land use and zoning of the residential property located at 24250 Smithtown Road; ➢ pedestrian connection from Badger Park to the north side of Smithtown Road; and, ➢ drainage. The next thing the Commission did was write a vision statement that creates a clear picture of what the City hopes to see for the area in the next 10 — 15 years. The vision statement is a positive expression of what the City wants rather than a list of what the City does not want to see. He displayed a graphic of the desired concept for the area which shows a unified, coordinated development of both quadrants of the intersection with limited access points off of County Road 19 and Smithtown Road. The worst case scenario would be to let the parcels be developed individually with each having its own parking lot and pond. A unified, coordinated development would have a more efficient drainage system and joint parking that could be landscaped. After that, the Planning Commission met with the City Council in May of 2010. Later that month the vision statement and concepts were presented to the property owners. About one half of the property owners turned out for that meeting. There was consensus among them that a unified, coordinated development approach was better than developing the lots on an individual basis. During the summer of 2010 the Commission held a developer forum. It invited in a panel of developers that were experienced in redevelopment to weigh in on the potential for redeveloping. The developers were upbeat about the redevelopment of the area. They indicated it would happen over a period of time. They offered suggestions for making it a more viable redevelopment project from a developer's standpoint. After the Planning Commission held the developer forum it went on a mobile tour of development projects in the metropolitan area. The Commission liked some of the projects and not others. The Commission placed a lot of emphasis on architecture and landscaping. Photographs of some of the various projects were displayed with explanations of what the Commission did and did not like. A plan was then developed. The main points in the plan are as follows. It would be a mixed use development; both residential and commercial. Higher density for the residential component should be considered. The buildings could potentially be higher than what is currently allowed in the C-1 zoning district. All of this is tied to consistency with the City's vision statement for the area. The more a developer was in sync with the vision statement the more the developer might get density and height incentives. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation, both within the project area and connection to outside of the area, is considered to he extremely important. There is a high emphasis on natural and substantial landscaping requiring low maintenance. The Study does not dictate any certain type of architecture. It does include photographic examples of desired architecture such as pitched rooflines and articulation where there is some depth and relief that can diminish the appearance of height of buildings. Awnings, natural building materials, balconies and lighting help to diminish building masses. Parking lot landscaping to both cool them and buffer them is desired. Some sort of common area is also desired. Photographs were shown of examples of what is desired. The last part of the Study includes an implementation section. There are two main components to that. One is the use of tax increment financing (TIF) to encourage the assembly of the parcels. The second component is the City acquiring land within the redevelopment area when it becomes available on the market. The City recently purchased a residential parcel on the west end of the area. The Planning Commission held an open house style neighborhood meeting which was well attended to give the residents an opportunity to comment on the Study. The concept plan displayed during the open house was again displayed and highlighted. The Commission intentionally chose not to include a concept plan in the Study. Comment cards were made available at the open house for attendees to take and submit at a later time. - -2 0 Nielsen stated that during the November 15'b Public Hearing the Planning Commission asked Staff to clarify a few things. He explained there was some confusion about the boundaries of the Study area. The maps for the Study area are all consistent. There continues to be some confusion about what parts of the Study area are still developable. The report indicates there the study area contains over a total of 23.46 acres. That is a little misleading. The areas that really have redevelopment potential don't include Gideon Glen conservation open space property because there will not be any development there. With regard to the commercial portions of the area, there are two portions that are currently zoned commercial. He highlighted the properties that are zoned for commercial development on the northwest quadrant. They are: what used to be the gas station; the American Legion; the pole barn and storage (which used to be a car sales lot); the small apartment building; and, a vacant lot. He then highlighted the properties that are zoned for commercial development on the southeast quadrant. They are: the Oasis Market and Gas Station; an approved building pad that had been proposed for a Dairy Queen some time ago; and, some other commercial businesses as well. The area in the Study goes beyond that and shows the SSCC, the police and fire public safety facility, and the Shorewood Public Works facility. The acreage for the Public Works and public safety facilities are included in total in the Study; that needs to be clarified because they don't represent any redevelopment opportunities. The reason they are included in the report has to do with access and the relationship to Badger Park. The northwest quadrant of the intersection contains 4.52 acres which is all zoned commercial. The southeast quadrant is approximately 2.74 acres. There are two residential areas in the Study area for different reasons. There is a residential property located close to the public safety facility that is surrounded by higher intensity uses. The City needs to consider how that might be redeveloped in the future. That is slightly more than 1.5 acres in size. There are a westerly couple of lots in the northwest quadrant that may or may not end up as part of the Study area. The area is about 2.4 acres in size almost divided equally between the two lots. The acreage that can potentially be redeveloped needs to be clarified in the Study. Nielsen stated earlier in the day he received some good advice encouraging him to view this Study as a resident might when viewing it for the first time. He then stated if he were a resident trying to find information in the report for the first time it would be challenging. He thought there needs to be additional work done on the report. The background information could be elaborated on explaining what the various sites are currently used for, what their acreages are, and what their characteristics are. That would provide a clearer depiction of what is in the Study area today. There should be more information on the existing uses and zoning of the various land areas. The areas that are developable should be clearly identified. He suggested that the sketches be incorporated into the report in some fashion. Also, there should be some consideration given to incorporating the concept plan into the report. Earlier in the day someone told him that even more detail could be useful. Nielsen distributed a list of what will become the guiding principles stated in the vision statement and displayed it on the screen. They are as follows. 1. The project in this area will result in a unified/ coordinated pattern of development. 2. The use or mixture of uses of the property in the study area should be based on market needs. 3. Site design should take advantage of views afforded by existing natural areas and parks. 4. Uses within the Study area shall be arranged to create a transition between higher intensity commercial development and surrounding lower density housing. 5. Any housing component should add to and enhance the variety of housing choices in the community. 6. Commercial activities should serve not only the residents of the project area, but the community as a whole. - -3 7. Access to and egress from and circulation within Smithtown Crossing must be pedestrian/bicycle friendly. 8. Usable, inviting outdoor spaces shall be incorporated into the development. 9. Landscaping will be natural and substantial, diminishing parking lot massing and softening and framing buildings on the site. 10. Attractive and articulated architecture with pitched rooflines and natural materials will reflect the residential character and quality of the community. 11. Reduction of building mass may be achieved by using a combination of the following techniques: a) variations in roof line and form; b) use of ground level arcades and covered areas; c) use of protected and recessed entries; d) inclusion of windows on elevations facing streets and pedestrian areas; and, e) retaining a clear distinction between roof, body and base of building. Nielsen noted number 11 was not included in the vision statement. He stated because the Planning Commission had not seen the list of guiding principles until this evening he did not expect the Commissioners to comment on them this evening. Nielsen stated with respect to the Study he thought there needs to be a summary of the recommendations. One of the things he discovered as he has been talking with people about the report is he has to pick through the report to look for the recommendations. They need to be consolidated into one spot. A revised report should be publicized better and for a longer period of time. There is a link to it on the City's website but he did not find it easy to get to the report. He suggested having a longer period of time for comment. He then suggested people be provided the ability to comment on the report via the City's website. The responses should also be accessible on the website. Nielsen recommended that before a revised Study is sent back to the Council for consideration it should be reviewed and discussed by the Planning Commission during its January 17, 2012, meeting. He stated another public hearing could potentially be scheduled for March 6, 2012, to allow for a 30-day period of time for comment and publication. He recognized to the Commission that this is new information and a turn in direction. Chair Geng stated he thought Director Nielsen made this abundantly clear, but he would like to emphasize it. The Planning Commission undertook the Study because it recognized that at some point the area that has been identified as the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study area is going to be redeveloped. The Study was not undertaken in response to any specific proposal from any developer. It was in anticipation that at some point the area would be redeveloped and the Commission thought it prudent for the City to have voice in it to help guide it and direct it in a way that would benefit the entire community. He reiterated there is no plan. This effort was just a study. It's a work in progress. From the very beginning all of the Commissioners have been concerned about ensuring this was a very transparent process. Throughout the last two years the Commission has sought public input. Geng then stated he was speaking for all of the Commissioners when he expressed his appreciation for having so many residents in attendance to provide public input. Public input is very important to the Commission. The Commission wants to do the best job it can for the City. It's hard to do that in a vacuum. Geng asked those in attendance who want to comment to come to the podium, give their name and address, and keep their comments as brief as possible to provide everyone who wants to be heard with that opportunity. He noted there is a sign in sheet, and for those that have not signed in he asked them to do so before they leave this evening. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:55 P.M. He noted there were about 14 residents present. Steve Dietz, 24680 Smithtown Road, stated his property is just on the west end of the area under discussion. He commented that based on his professional career he understands the value of getting community involvement. He apologized for coming late to the game. He also apologized in advance for any misunderstandings and any mistakes he may make with regard to what he understands is being proposed. He commented he is only part way through the Comp Plan 2008 Update. Mr. Dietz then stated when people are asked if they prefer unified or hodge podge redevelopment they are going to respond unified. If they are asked if they would like to have the ugly eyesore commercial development upgraded or developed in a unified manner the exact same number of people will respond with a yes. But, if you ask them if they would like you to encroach on the existing, single family home residential area and build a forty -five-foot high block -wide multi -unit housing next to them the response would be very different. From his vantage point, the rezoning of the single family homes is required in order to make the commercial redevelopment possible. He noted he didn't think the report indicates that. Mr. Dietz noted that he thought it was useful to see the conceptual design. He stated the open space is primarily for people whom now live in the redevelopment area. People that don't live in that development are not going to bike to the space and have a picnic there. The City's character is primarily single family residential. The Comp Plan land use section states the City will strive to maintain this character. He noted the report doesn't make any case for converting single family property to multi -use housing independent of the commercial development. He recommended separating the residential lot in the northeast quadrant out. He questioned how the residential property located adjacent to the commercial property (which the City now owns) gets rezoned. That property abuts his property. He suggested a separate case be made for those two residential properties. Mr. Dietz stated he could not find the link to the Study on the City's website. He then stated by the City buying the residential property that it did before the zoning changes went into effect the City now has a vested interest in converting a single-family residential property into a multi -use property. That could potentially result in a conflict of interest situation for the City. He suggested making the City -owned property a park. Mr. Dietz explained that his well went dry a few years ago. In the past year his well has been identified as having dangerous levels of arsenic. He asked what this additional water use will do to the water table. He then asked if the City has researched if the water table can sustain that additional draw on water. He stated he applauded the desire for the City to figure out what to do in advance. But, if there is no pressing plan then from his vantage point there isn't a rush. He asked the City to separate out the commercial development from the single family home development. Chris Poison, who lives on the west side of Echo Road (which is the east side of the development area), asked if eminent domain will be applied to any of the commercial or residential sites in the Study area in this process. Chair Geng stated there has been no discussion of eminent domain by the Planning Commission over the last two years. Mr. Poison asked if it is possible that could happen. Geng responded anything is possible, but he doesn't see that happening. Geng clarified that the City isn't trying to drive this redevelopment. It is attempting to influence any future redevelopment of the Study area. The City has no interest in condemning properties in this area. Market forces will drive the redevelopment, and it's likely that it will not happen for years because of the state of the economy. Director Nielsen noted that the City has been loath to condemn land for any purpose in the past. Nielsen explained that recent OR developments over the past few years have made it more difficult to take properties through the process of eminent domain. Mr. Poison then asked what the probability is for high density housing or apartments and condominiums being part of any redevelopment of the area. Chair Geng responded he wouldn't hazard a guess. Geng stated it will be private development that will drive this redevelopment. If/when a developer comes forward the City will look at what they are proposing, if it will benefit the City and if there is a market for it. Mr. Poison asked if the Metropolitan Council will be involved in any redevelopment in some manner. Geng stated before the Study becomes part of the City's Comp Plan it does have to be submitted to the Met Council for review and comment under state law. Mr. Poison asked if the Met Council is pressuring to get something done with the Study area. Geng stated this came about from the City. Mark Flanders, 5695 Christopher Road, stated his property is located on the western side of any redevelopment. A redevelopment could impinge upon site lines and the wooded area which has already been thinned out as part of the Gideon Glen project. He understands that because the area is underdeveloped it doesn't create a very significant tax base. He then stated there may be some benefit for the City to explain to residents what the future tax revenue could be if the area were to be redeveloped. He noted that as a homeowner he would be opposed to taking out single family properties. He asked what the American Legion's role is in this. He stated if the intent is to have mixed use development (commercial and multi -unit housing) in the northwest quadrant, he asked if the Legion would be interested in moving to the southeast quadrant or some other part. He also asked if senior housing could be built in the southeast comer where there could be easy access to the SSCC. If so, he didn't see a need for taking out any single family properties. He suggested adding information about what the Legion may or may not want and add that to the City's website. Chair Geng explained that relatively early in the process the Planning Commission invited the affected land owners in the Study area to a study session. The American Legion was represented at that meeting. The Legion is interested in redeveloping its facility. It indicated during that meeting that it would be open to some type of collaboration. It expressed a strong desire to stay in Shorewood and be part of any redevelopment that occurs. Mr. Poison asked if the American Legion is opposed to relocating as part of a redevelopment. Chair Geng responded he did not know the answer to that. Director Nielsen stated he has had conversations with developers over the years even before the Study was started and one of the developers did explore the idea of relocating the Legion. He does not know what the Legions reaction to that was. Nielsen then stated the Legion wants to stay in the City, work with the City and see that corner redeveloped. Nielsen noted the Legion is a key player in any redevelopment of the Study area because it owns a good share of the land in the northwest quadrant. Mr. Poison asked that some consideration be given to focus more on the redevelopment of the southeast quadrant where it won't impact existing home owners. That would reduce the need for more acreage on the northwest quadrant. Scott Zerby, 5680 Christopher Road, noted he was speaking from the perspective of a resident and property owner this evening. He thanked the Planning Commission and Director Nielsen for the work they have done on this Study to date. He stated his issue is the two residential properties along Smithtown Road that could become part of the Study area. He expressed he disagreed with guiding principle # 5 which is "Any housing component should add to and enhance the variety of housing choices in the community." He stated it comes down to having a buffer between the residential area and the commercial area. He explained that basically all the residential properties to the west of the area are one -acre homestead lots. He noted that buried in the Study it states that in exchange for a developers concessions a one new building could potentially be as tall as 45 feet; 45 feet is measured to the midline of the roof. In theory the top of the roof could be 55 — 65 feet above ground. That's a stark contrast when compared to the house next to the area which he guessed could be about 20 feet tall. He expressed he had a concern about the process. The Planning Commission has solicited the concerns of residents, but it doesn't appear it has responded to them. He stated he reviewed the minutes of the first Planning Commission meeting held after the open house and he was disturbed to find very little discussion about the comments made by residents during the open house. He noted that Nielsen told him that no changes were made to the Study based on the feedback received. A word wasn't changed or added. He stated if the City is going to ask for resident feedback it should be recognized and acted on. Brian Meghan, 5670 Christopher Road, commented that his background is in real estate development. He stated that earlier this evening Director Nielsen suggested the Study be revised. Nielsen stated that is correct but the Planning Commission hasn't taken any action yet. Mr. Meghan noted that he knows Nielsen professionally and personally. Mr. Meghan stated he assumed the meeting with the landowners only included those who own land in the Study area. He noted that up until the open house input was not solicited from property owners who could potentially be impacted by a redevelopment of the area. Mr. Meghan highlighted comments made in the letter he and his wife wrote to the City and Planning Commission regarding the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study dated October 23, 2011. The highlights are as follows. The vision statement seems well thought out albeit a bit idealistic. It's unlikely that any mixed use redevelopment will be pedestrian or bicycle friendly or neighborhood friendly. The shoulders on Smithtown Road are too narrow to safely use, and although the traffic flow at the intersection of County Road 19 and Smithtown Road is controlled it is still a bad intersection for non -vehicular traffic. There is no good route of travel to get safely to the LRT to the north, to the east on County Road 19 or to the west on Smithtown Road. Keeping any proposed redevelopment more in line with the residential characteristics of Shorewood would be critical to its acceptance in the community. The City doesn't need a big box retailer, a developer who will come in to take what they want in the way of municipal subsidies, make lots of promises, follow through on only a few, and then sell it to an investor or group looking to clip a coupon with no interest in what is happening in the community. It's all about economics for most developers. With regard to landscaping, unless the City requires planting of very large trees (which is outside of the scope of most developers' budgets) it is unlikely anything will be done to the site lines. Coordinated redevelopment makes a lot more sense than a piece meal approach. If done properly it would result in a nicer mix of assets. The Study area intrudes further into a residential area than any other areas in the City with the potential exception of the area around CUB Foods. That commercial development stops before it really intrudes into a residential area. The homes along Lake Linden Drive across from that development were basically built after the development was done. When the CUB site was redeveloped a few residential properties were taken in the back. The Study area intrudes heavily to the west. The benefit of having taller buildings for commercial development is it's cheaper to have more space under a smaller roof in terms of cost to build and long term maintenance. Land use should focus on low to moderate density housing in the western most portion of the Study area with considerable open and heavily landscaped space buffering the properties immediately to the west. Buffering and land use transitions will be critical in gaining support from the residents in their neighborhood. Care should be taken with the property immediately to the east of the SSCC as it abuts a residential neighborhood. - -7 When Gideon Glen was acquired it was done to preserve the natural woodlands. It was promptly clear cut and serves as a drainage pond for the Smithtown Crossing Shopping Center located in Tonka Bay. He does not see the purpose of including Gideon Glen in the Study. That area has already been designated as a natural area by the City unless there is a plan to allow a portion of this property to be rezoned. Any competent developer or investor will know to take advantage of the site lines Gideon Glen offers in spite of the fact that it has been decimated. Vehicular access to and from County Road 19 from the northwest quadrant should be pushed north of the existing intersection with Smithtown Road to provide for better ingress and egress from that development area. The City's Planning Department is better suited to address those issues than he is. With regard to phasing the redevelopment, in reality the Study area actually includes only three potential areas of redevelopment — 1) the area at the northwest corner of the intersection of County Road 19 and Smithtown Road; 2) the area on the south side of County Road 19 and north of City Hall and Badger Park; and, 3) the area north of County Road 19 and south of the City's Public Works facility. Area 3 is quite small and can only be redeveloped in one phase. It won't be a multi phased development. Area 2 could be a phased development. It is a relatively small site that would likely be redeveloped as a small retail use or service use. Area 1 will likely be a phased development with part of it being for some commercial uses and potentially some housing. From his vantage point it would be better to build lower density housing. He thought it prudent for the City Council and the Planning Commission to consider the future redevelopment of the Minnetonka Country Club property as part of this Study if it's anticipated that it will have a change of use over the next 3 — 10 years. The 24250 Smithtown Road residential property is an island in an area that is generally commercial. It makes sense to rezone it. It could potentially accommodate a moderate to high density multifamily redevelopment or an institutional type of user (e.g., a senior center, a VFA, Community Center, library, post office). With regard to drainage, Gideon Glen already provides drainage for a shopping center that is not located in the City. He questioned why there is concern about requiring ponding on the northwest quadrant. Any ponding is going to involve Gideon Glen. It's not possible to hold that much water on that quadrant. Director Nielsen clarified that Gideon Glen is not sized to accommodate the drainage for the lots in that quadrant. The drainage for it has to be accommodated on site. Mr. Meghan stated that will be difficult to support economically. The 40 — 45 foot height restriction for any redevelopment of the northwest quadrant does not include the roof. In reality the height will be 50 — 65 feet. TIF may be a popular tool, but he doesn't think it's a prudent use of taxpayer dollars. He asked why taxpayers should partially 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. E3 Mr. Meghan concluded by saying he believes that a comprehensive redevelopment of many of the properties in the Study area could be a very positive thing for the community. The City Council and City Staff should take into consideration the residents who have been paying taxes to the City for a long period of time more than they have. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:33 P.M. Chair Geng thanked all of the residents for coming this evening. He also thanked those who addressed the Planning Commission. He assured them the Commission will take their comments into consideration. He noted this is a process and not a fait accompli. He stated that he felt bad that some residents felt they were excluded until recently. The Commission has attempted to be open and inclusive. He noted this has been an ongoing process undertaken by volunteers. He stated the process has not gone as quickly as the Commission would have liked, but that may ultimately be a blessing based on the feedback provided by residents. On behalf of the Commission he reiterated the Commissioners were thankful for the feedback they received this evening. Chair Geng stated the Planning Commission needs to consider the input the residents provided this evening. It also needs to consider the suggestions made by Director Nielsen earlier in the meeting about the Study. Commissioner Garelick stated on his way to this meeting he saw a for sale sign at the former gas station. He asked how that would impact the Study. Director Nielsen stated the Council has asked Staff to research that. Nielsen noted that it is in the Study area. Administrator Heck noted that property did go to Sheriff's sale and it was sold as a foreclosure in that sale. Nielsen stated Staff is researching who bought it. Chair Geng stated based on the public input received this evening he asked if it's realistic to be in a position to hold another public hearing in January 2012. He thought that could be ambitious. Director Nielsen stated he suggested getting a revised document back to the Commission for its January 17, 2012, meeting and holding a public hearing in March 2012. Commissioner Hutchins stated based on some of the comments made this evening that could be somewhat of an aggressive timetable. Hutchins then stated input from the entire community needs to be taken into account; not just those living in the area close to the Study area. Nielsen clarified that would be the quickest it could be done, but it doesn't need to be done by then. Commissioner Amst 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 Artist'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. W February 20, 2012 Edward Ehlinger, MD, Commissioner Minnesota Department of Health P.O. Box 64975 St. Paul, MN 55164-0975 Paul Aasen, Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road N St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 Ramona Dohman, Commissioner Minnesota Department of Public Safety 445 Minnesota Street Saint Paul MN 55101-5155 / Jerry Rosendahl, State Fire Marshal 445 Minnesota St., Suite 145 St. Paul MN 55101-5145 Re: Smithtown Crossing, Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Commissioners and State Fire Marshal, My name is Henry Miles and my family and I are lifelong residents of the State of Minnesota and the Lake Minnetonka area. The city of Shorewood is considering the redevelopment of an area known as the "Smithtown Crossing" including parcels to the north and west of the intersections of Manitou Road, Smithtown Road, and Country Club Road. We are concerned that the city may proceed in granting permits for this redevelopment without having done complete due diligence on environmental matters. Also, a property at that intersection known as the "Shorewood Market" is a derelict gas station. We are concerned that the underground fuel tank(s) and/or well(s) on that site may not have been abandoned according to State Laws and may pose contamination, pollution, fire, and other hazards to area residents and businesses including restaurants, and downstream into the Minnehaha Creek Watershed. Therefore, we ask that you investigate the area and the site of the Shorewood Market and, as you deem necessary, require environmental analysis, remediation, and follow-up testing. We also ask that you require an environmental impact study with respect to the proposed redevelopment. If possible, we would appreciate receiving your acknowledgment of this letter and copy of your findings and directives. Thank you. Henry Miles __6.1 24035 Mary Lake Trail Shorewood, MN 55331 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhaII@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 1 August 2012 RE: Smithtown Crossing Third Draft — Resident Comments FILE NO. Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study The Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study — Third Draft has been available on the City's website and at City Hall for resident comment during the month of July. The results are attached as Exhibit A. These comments, and the feedback we received previously, will be discussed at our meeting next Tuesday. The Commission should decide what, if any, changes should be made to the document and schedule a public hearing to adopt an amendment to the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. Cc: Bill Joynes Cry PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Overall I think the study is a good start. Everyone who has commented so far has some valid points, although the way a couple were worded makes you totally ignore any validity their statements might have. I do think the city needs to act like a business in this venture to make sure the project offers an economic advantage to the city. I do like the idea of planning the area --the Tonka Bay section of the city looks so nice and you look at Shorewood and it is really bad. As far as the study itself goes, I hope you will seriously encourage businesses that will take advantage of pedestrian (bike) traffic. We have an incredible resource right down the road with the LRT, plus many bike clubs use Smithtown Road as a main thoroughfare. The bus stops across the street, and, although not heavily used now, the demand of certain businesses to increase the use over the years. Eventually mass transit will improve in the suburbs --just not in my lifetime. I hope this project will utilize the construction to add a bike trail connection to the LRT. It was a waste of money that it was not done as part of the intersection project and I hope we do not overlook it. I am glad the building height has been scaled down. We really don't need buildings towering over our tree height in Shorewood. It defeats why we move to outer - ring suburbs. I will be interested to see the final draft and how financially you see it impacting the city. Thanks to you and City for your proactive efforts to get public review and 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: I. While a coordinated, unified approach has many benefits it raises questions about what will happen if not all landowners agree to participate. Although it appears the City is not planning on using eminent domain, that is not clear. Breaking the project into three chunks based on the existing road layout may reduce the risk that any given landowner that is not interested holds up other aspects of the project. It may also reduce the temptation for future City Councils to consider using eminent domain for the project. 2. I understand the rationale behind using Tax Increment Financing but am concerned about the potential fiscal impact on the City. While the City would forego increased tax revenues during the increment period, it would be paying out for additional service needs required by the development during the same period. Toward that end, I would encourage the City to require a Fiscal Impact Analysis as part of the project planning. Should the City decide to proceed with Tax Increment Financing, I would urge the City to consider basing any financing on the net fiscal impact of the project, not just gross increases in tax Public Comments from July 2012 -Smithtown Crossing V draft (City Website) Page 1 of 4 Exhibit A revenues. Further, I'd encourage the City to use a short window of time for the financing to limit medium -term impacts on the city. As an alternative to investing future tax revenue in the project, I'd ask the City to consider working with the developer and local banks to explore Community Investment Financing. This would allow local citizens that were interested to invest into the project via the bank who would provide financing at attractive rates. This approach could reduce bank risks, lower developer financing costs, reduce or eliminate the need for City Tax Increment Financing, and provide interesting local investment options for area residents that were so inclined. Another alternative to this approach would be to use the City's bonding authority to provide attractive financing via loans to the project as opposed to foregoing 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 references "connections to existing and future sidewalk systems." I strongly encourage the City to consider including access enhancements as part of the project to facilitate better pedestrian access. This should include better crossings across County Road 19 and extensions of sidewalks into the community such as down Smithtown Road. And yes, my property does front and Smithtown and we'd welcome a sidewalk. 7. Also on page 17 there is a reference to site planning and landscaping that would encourage "visitors to spend a little more time in the area ...." I suggest explicitly referencing the need to have design that encourages external access within the proposed development. 8. Page 18 references strategies for mitigating visual impact. I encourage the City to explicitly include strategies to reduce light pollution as part of the design requirements. Page 23 references possible City land acquisition. I understand the rationale for that and the flexibility it provides. St. Louis Park's award winning Excelsior and Grand project was made possible because the City proactively acquired the land and then sought developers that could implement the City's vision for the site. Of course that's a different scale project, but the process is worth noting. That said, the reference to selling to a developer "at cost" should be modified in the report to include carrying costs. Although, the City should probably sell "at market value." Further, the City should thoroughly plan out interim uses and associated holding costs and risks before embarking on any land Public Comments from July 2012 -Smithtown Crossing 3rd draft (City Website) Page 2 of 4 acquisition. Finally, I would urge the Cit not to buy any of the sites that have problem soils until they are corrected and cases are closed by the MN PCA. If the City comes into the chain of title prior to completing radiation, the City's risk profile increases dramatically. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important project. I look forwarding to seeing the final redevelopment study. Obviously you have become busy -bodies again and you are just looking for something to do. Why is it that these changes are never driven by the people but from the top down? Why impose this type of development on a community that doesn't want it? Stop letting staff drive change that your residents do not want. You are just going to start another political war in Shorewood. This is not democracy; this is expertism. I strongly oppose the use of tax payers' money for speculative development projects. The rationale that the private investment in the area hasn't kept up with the public investment is highly suspect. You may also want to ask whether residents are interested in having a civic campus. Stop spending! How much will this cost the residents of Shorewood? How can residents give valuable feedback without knowing the cost to the city? As a resident of Shorewood, I feel the explanation should include the "all in" expenses associated with the project. Since you appear to be underwriting a business venture, I think you should provide residents an objective report showing the costs of the project and the expected benefits. An assessment and an itemization of the financial risks should be part of the disclosure. The only financial information in the report is the inventory in the appendix. Does the city plan to take the properties? Are there plans to buy out the businesses? I am happy to see bicycle/pedestrian connections included in the plan document, as well as emphasis on landscaping and other elements that would help new construction blend in with the residential character of most of our community. I am a bit concerned about references to allowing a taller building. I rather like the existing limit of about 2 - I/2 stories. With regard to hardscape, I wonder if permeable paving could be included instead of solid pavement. It would be nice if development could be as green as possible - an example to be proud of. I like the mention of community gathering spaces - making the result people -friendly instead of just car friendly. And I am glad to see that a traffic study is included, since extra traffic at that intersection - which is an important route for folks trying to get from the neighborhoods to Highway 7 - could create problems for Shorewood residents. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Public Comments from July 2012 - Smithtown Crossing 3rd draft (City Website) Page 3 of 4 • 0 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 buildings reaching 4 stories in height, large parking lots, herding people into phony little courtyards, and all of the other artificialities that the developers come up with. I have a suggestion. Let us take an approach which will attract the many entrepreneurs among us. Yes, the gas station and former Bayt Shop properties need action. These are good locations for many different types of quality retail oriented businesses. Scrap this outlandish proposal — one which will create great noise, congestion and upheaval — while damaging the intrinsic nature of Shorewood. In its place, create the right environment — and let the free market work. My husband used to rent an apartment from those "small not to code apartments" referred to in the report. For over 30 years we have owned a home on Smithtown Rd. and have utilized services at this very convenient business location. I do like the idea of making biking/pedestrian access to a public commons area as illustrated in the proposal. It would be very useful to have a safer means of crossing this intersection when not in a car. Businesses which have left this area and we sorely miss are: the hardware store, a gas station/convenience store, a blue collar priced descent food restaurant - perhaps with views of the Glen? (Oh, we miss you Pizza Platter). I saw notes in the proposal for more health/beauty stores - really? Do we really need more of these in the area? I also would lament the loss of those apartments. In the past the rent was cheep, just the ticket for single people struggling to make ends meet especially in this economy. We should have options for this population. Public Comments from July 2012 - Smithtown Crossing P draft (City Website) Page 4 of 4 • . (/'tAI- f Michael Pressman 5670 Wedgewood Drive / Excelsior, MN 55331 952-470-0414 RFCFi mpressman@g•com C ✓(/� VFO July 26, 2012 �0F ,?fie \�Yn_ , 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 0 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. 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 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. 7. Also on page 17 there is a reference to site planning and landscaping that would encourage "visitors to spend a little more time in the area...." I suggest explicitly referencing the need to have design that encourages external access and not just internal access within the proposed development. 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, Michael Pressman CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhallOci.shorewood.mmus 23 September 2011 Re: Planning Commission Open House to Discuss the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study On Tuesday, 4 October 2011, the Shorewood Planning Commission will host an informal open house meeting to present the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study. For nearly two years the Planning Commission has been working on a plan for the future redevelopment of the area surrounding the intersection of Smithtown Road and County Road 19 (see location map — reverse side of page). In spite of the current state of the economy, the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan has identified this area as being prime for redevelopment. The Study, in its final form, will become the guide for how that redevelopment occurs in future years as the economy recovers. The informal open house meeting format has proven over the years to be one of our most successful ways of communicating with Shorewood residents. The format of this type of meeting allows people to come and go at their convenience. It also provides Planning Commissioners, City Council members, and staff a relaxed atmosphere to meet with residents in small groups and sometimes even one-on-one. The meeting will be held from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Shorewood City Hall, 5755 Country Club Road. A copy of the Study can be found on the Shorewood website or, you can view a copy at the City Offices. Please mark your calendars and plan to join the Planning Commission on the 4`' of October. Your participation is critical to a successful planning process. 0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Em F mjjy - „�. Sm'ilh town Csr0 '. ` Ilicdct�lopme errA Vi F- JUAN Aim o ;,t A It Air RI J / y f • h Mlima ►hip! "s $'�� _. tv i = F ' ```� u * Y r r sr N= r t g Yj ttk }'fIXV' 1'10 urc 2 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhall0d.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 31 May 2012 RE: Smithtown Crossing — Draft 3 FILE NO. Smithtown Crsg. Redev. Study At its 20 March and 3 April meetings, the Planning Commission reviewed a third draft of the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study and suggested revisions to the draft. The following Exhibits address the Commission's comments and suggestions: A The Executive Summary will be placed at the front of the document. References to increased height and densities have been removed. B A Site Location map, using the aerial photograph of the area in question will go in at the front of the report. Note, the two residential lots at the west end of the Study Area are shown with a dashed line. C Numerous changes have been made to the Study Area map, including labeling, lightening of the topo lines, etc. (please note that the elevations seem to be lost in our system — they will be added once we find them). D Page 7 has been revised to reference the Unified vs Piece -meal table on Page 8 E Page 11 has been revised to include Redevelopment Guiding Principles instead of Vision Statement. Note the discussion in paragraph 4. F Page 13 has been revised to address the transitional lots (see third paragraph). G The bottom photograph on Page 15 has been replaced. H The Concept Plan presented at the public meetings will be included at the end of the report. It still needs a brief text explanation. n t •PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 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. As of this writing, the acreages have not been updated in the text. These will appear on Page 1 of the report. If the Commission is in agreement with these revisions, they will be incorporated into a complete Third Draft and distributed in advance of the 11 June joint meeting with the City Council. Cc: Larry Brown Tim Keane Bruce DeJong Cl • Executive Summary While readers are encouraged to read the entire Study, following is a summary of the recommendations included therein: ➢ Encourage unified/coordinated redevelopment versus apiece-meal/individual approach. ➢ Consider various incentives to achieve coordinated and higher quality development. ➢ Utilize Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and establish parameters for mixed use (residential and commercial). ➢ Incentives and rewards will be tied to compliance with the City's redevelopment "guiding principles". • Consider use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to encourage land assembly, common open area and high quality architecture and landscaping. • Consider City acquisition of land as it becomes available to help facilitate land assembly. ➢ Require marketability and traffic studies for proposed activities. ➢ Provide for bicycle/pedestrian connections and circulation within the Study Area. ➢ Require substantial, natural, low maintenance landscaping in order to create buffers and achieve incentives. ➢ Include public/common open space internal to the project. ➢ Encourage well articulated architecture with pitched rooflines, tiered levels, interesting shadowing and natural materials. C 2 Exhibit A :mayjif ;} y ¢ •n ilkk!i� y��1 if.: r'•. -�'' SQ"+ - 4A lY •' i `yi -tl I s' a- a� � .,lSr+ tt iy�,� • � `"t.ta ��-� , ti'y� b�• "' � h� ��� y ,. .p, �a/.:4 - a r ♦ f ♦ �.i: �` „�M, r {'r :.-r S'i� 1,8 •� S `�. '.' : `+ ° •'•t. . � : ,,��a�Q R '� r o 1t:' _�, Ft• r RR�!!� �, .• r"''j.iF �• , Id'. i . € a • �-, l! - t ,.4 q_ r ice. ` / 2 �. t y. ` � ,. , 1 �" tr j " `. $ ; i '�(r r' •. .. ,� k1n f� �`+4. • B, �T '' , • ••f, .,:i, � " I "' �&r• ' .,. a� �,u y}}••{� �Fa A • �W�iF'• t v �' 6�pQ � 8. t � ' ,y� �Y.( F ir .y' t , O � }" - ..F�•~� t" ,}ab} 1 : A � ,< a ax� b^r.r �5 .�}�•�. I�w * / ��il:O1 "�•(-',.'i 'r �i`� a#��� }�•..'t�, ,•� �.ii'•�y. _t_,�.. M • t` 1 F7S! r / L 7 r �:t, ,a �•' d „*�•i � i� ti � r} (,. �' L �y , O r� �. , r iai r.i }•,, <k y •., m .rt" �! .'i +I i}. "••S 1� �_ r 7 . ♦„ '�1y ` ,� 1 ,•�`�.`c �,�'Q•6 4 }p �r �'�7igy�� -ttiiti ,Zt,v;y -,.1,�+^', z. �.' ��} �li `��' ♦,., � p� � �" !1 } r 1 le �- t1 a"1�, sr!,�N •+ k f+ ILy�, F r lEj- •��( �4 a,�„� , •�' ', 1VD�t 1 � f �. C�~ .. ��'• i ��c �Y ., �'lt�^.` Y` f ( CL 14, ' R e' yi 1 ti r yr' ' w it Smithtown Crossing Study Area r.: • . i � p - .��'•r � 1 � wit' f, '� b .t�t , i Y ra b a•- L. + kR,t `•,il"Ie �� J :.lown v R •3• t • �,�,.�GY. i l lA T �^li 11 s Y � C �• ti` ptS,:d iti � t 4.(� xr �' mod. 1 t'� �= � �`l � � ! `. io� 4 { a r .. a+ r Tn o - o00-..•.®-a. @- ,• ..... - .' ,`4 ,. na i .r�r,� `. A�. , �'' -'A rr.. 7— WE L' Planning Issues One of the first steps taken by the Planning Commission in its study was to identify planning issues associated with the study area. Following are a list of issues identified to date. These are also illustrated on Figure 2 on the following page. • Study Area west boundary (it was decided that this edge of the study area could remain somewhat flexible, in the event a developer chooses to acquire one or more of the single-family residential lots that lie west of the commercial area) • Land uses (considerable interest has been expressed in exploring mixed use for the Study Area • Buffering and land use transitions • Taking advantage of views into Gideon Glen while preserving natural views from across and within Gideon Glen • Access (vehicular) — to and from County Road 19 and to and from Smithtown Road • Internal circulation — vehicular and pedestrian • Possibility of contaminated soils • Phasing • Redevelopment of lots on an individual basis versus unified/coordinated development* • Future development of golf course property • Land use and zoning of single-familly residential property at 24250 Smithtown Road • Pedestrian connection from Badger Park to north side of Smithtown Road • Drainage** *The table on the following page sets forth the advantages of unified/coordinated redevelopment versus a piece -meal approach. **Note. This is a significant issue and supports the concept of a unified development effort. The City Engineer advises us that properties within the study area not only need to address rate control, but also the new volume of water that comes from redevelopment. This supports the concept of a coordinated redevelopment scenario versus piece -meal redevelopment of individual sites. Individually, the properties would have to come up with their own ponding for each site. a Page a Exhibit D �GT Unified/Coordinated versus Piece -meal Redevelopment Smithtown Crossing Unified/Coordinated Maximize exposure to County Rd 19 Maximize view of Gideon Glen Efficient drainage P.U.D. provides flexibility relative to internal setbacks - more efficient use of land Opportunity for joint -use parking Opportunity for 75% hardcover (site is large enough for on -site treatment) Consolidated access Project identity - "Smithtown Crossing" Possibility of City assistance (e.g. T.I.F.) Pedestrian access/circulation Efficiency of landscaping Piece -meal Only two properties front on County Rd 19 Two properties - no view Each site provides its own seperate pond for rate control and volume storage; more land consumed by ponding Strict adherence to setback requirements Each site provides its own parking, resulting in less efficient land use and circulation Maximum 66% hardcover (individual sites too small for treatment solutions) Potential congestion from multiple access points Each business on its own Each owner on its own Less attractive to pedestrians (crossing driveways and parking lots Each site on its own Page 8 Redevelopment Guiding Principles Having identified issues associated with the study area, it was determined that a clear picture of what the City hopes to see for the subject area should be formulated — for lack of a better term, we will use "redevelopment guiding principles". This is the point where we step back and view the area as we would like to see it, say in the next 10-15 years. The redevelopment guiding principles should be a positive expression of what the City wants, rather than a list of what we don't want to see. The proposed redevelopment guiding principles starts with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan, which identified an interest in the following: • Unified/coordinated development; assembly of land parcels • Planned unit development • Possible mixed use — commercial/residential • Opportunity for additional senior housing • Predominant retail and office uses versus service commercial* *Since this was written, the Planning Commission held a meeting with real estate development professionals, the consensus of whom indicated that there may not be a strong market for retail. It was suggested that a stronger market may exist for personal service commercial (i.e. banking, health and beauty services, etc.). In addition to the above, the Planning Commission discussed other factors such as pedestrian/bicycle circulation and connectivity, architectural treatment (e.g. residential character and natural materials), natural landscaping, and compatibility with surrounding land use activities as parameters for the redevelopment of the area. From this, the following was derived: Redevelopment Guiding Principles — Smithtown Crossine The project will result in a unified/coordinated pattern of development. 2. The use or mixture of uses of property in the study area shall be based on market needs and analysis of detailed traffic study. Site design should take advantage of views afforded by existing natural areas and parks. C 4. Uses within the study area shall be arranged to create a transition between higher Ir intensity commercial development and surrounding lower density housing. Any use of land not currently zoned for commercial development shall be limited in building height 0 to 35 feet or two and a half stories. The westerly edge of the project area shall be densely landscaped to enhance the transition. Page 11 5 Exhibit E 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. Access to and egress from, and circulation within Smithtown Crossing must be pedestrian/bicycle friendly. 8. Useable, inviting outdoor spaces shall be integrated into the development. 9. Landscaping will be natural and substantial, diminishing parking lot massing and softening and framing buildings on the site. 10. Attractive and articulated architecture with pitched rooflines and natural materials will reflect the residential character and quality of the community. 11. Reduction of building mass may be achieved by using a combination of the following techniques: a. Variations in roofline and form. b. Use of ground level arcades and covered areas. C. Use of protected and recessed entries. d. Inclusion of windows on elevations facing streets and pedestrian areas. e. Retaining a clear distinction between roof, body and base of building. 0 0 n Page 12 MM on (a) W ffi Smithtown Crossing — Plan From the very beginning of this study, it has been realized that properties within the study area may develop or redevelop individually. It is not the City's intent to stand in the way of property owners wishing to improve their land. Individual site development will be expected to adhere to the development regulations currently in place. What is the intent of this study is to encourage a higher level of quality than might occur with piecemeal development under the current rules. In this regard, there are a number of ways that the City can reduce regulatory obstacles and even incite or reward development built to the higher standards envisioned by this study. The greater a project complies with the City's vision for the area, the greater the incentive with respect to zoning flexibility and even City participation in the project. Zoning Parameters With the exception of the public facilities located north of County Road 19 and the three residential properties in the study area, all of the subject lots are zoned C-1, General Commercial. Individual lots must adhere to the standard of that zoning district, including height limitations. Any coordinated development of several or all of the subject properties should be done by Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.), using the C-1 District and the R-3B, Multiple - Family Residential District as the underlying standards for the project. Any use of currently zoned residential lots shall be residential with building heights not exceeding 35 feet and two and a half stories. The single-family residential property on the north side of County Road 19 is surrounded by commercial development in Tonka Bay and public facilities (public works, police and fire). The City should be open to a rezoning of this site to R-C, Residential/Commercial. Update Regulations While the City's current P.U.D. provisions could be used to process a mixed use type of project, involving a mixture of commercial and residential development, it is recommended that the Shorewood Zoning Code be amended to specifically address mixed use. This update of the Code would include provisions tying flexibility and reward to the level of compliance with City's vision for the area. One such provision might include an allowance for additional building height based on architectural design and extent and type of landscaping. For certain types of housing in a mixed use project, higher densities than what current regulations allow might be C considered where it could be demonstrated that the density would be compatible with surrounding uses and where resulting traffic volumes would not adversely affect existing streets. In this regard, a mixed use project would be required to submit a traffic study as part of its application submittals. Design Criteria Al Inherent to any mixed use development project is attention to pedestrian and bicycle circulation. 0 Site planning should include both internal circulation as well as connections to existing and Page 13 2 Exhibit F a It is not the intent of this report to dictate a certain type of architecture. This does not, however, diminish the importance of this critical design element. Shorewood has in the past placed great value on buildings that are in keeping with the residential character of the community. While no formal definition of "residential character" exists, certain characteristics have been identified that begin to describe what the City is looking for. Well articulated buildings with pitched roofiines, tiered levels and interesting shadowing go far in mitigating the visual impact of larger, taller articutadon buildings. Similarly, features such as awnings, natural building materials, balconies and lighting help to diminish building masses and create a human scale for the project. And, as mentioned in the previous section, nothing does more to soften and enhance building than landscaping. One of the incentives that can be explored in Smithtown Crossing is allowing somewhat taller building height than what is allowed by Shorewood's current regulations. At present, the C-1 zoning district allows buildings to be three stories or 40 feet in height, whichever is least. It has been suggested that the right project could be built to a height of 45 feet, regardless of the number of stories. The visual impact of such a building can be mitigated by the means discussed above as well as by building placement on the property and use of the natural terrain. For example, the topography found in the northwest quadrant of the intersection may lend itself to partially below -grade levels or underground Example. Architecture —diminish visual impact of building height with construction materials, landscaping parking. Page 15 2 Exhibit G R \ 'S ithto« n Crossing i Reduefopment � StudVA_i�ea. y 90 120 240 Feet Shorewood i South Lake i - -- r, i ;Public Vllorks Public Safety , I r Smithtown Crossing Planning Inventory Prop. Address Owner Use Zoning Area (Sa.Ft.) Area Ac. Land Val. Struct. Val. Tot. Val. Notes 24620 Smithtown Rd City of Shorewood Vacant R-IC 45731 1.05 $115,000 $60,000 $175,000 24590 Smithtown Rd Hirsch S.F. Res R-1C 43303 0.99 $115,000 $186,000 $301,000 24560 Smithtown Rd American Legion Vacant C-1 42107 0.97 $200,000 n/a $200,000 24530 Smithtown Rd Femrite M.F. Res C-1 14632 0.33 $90,000 $295,000 $385,000 Nonconforming use 24470 Smithtown Rd Triple B Equities (Bury) Auto Sales C-1 41258 0.95 $410,000 $190,000 $600,000 Substandard building 24450 Smithtown Rd American Legion Bar/Rest. C-1 51431 1.18 $264,000 $136,000 $400,000 5680 County Rd 19 American Legion Fuel Station C-1 15804 0.36 $195,000 $105,000 $300,000 Soils? 5660 County Rd 19 HopHerr Props (Heartbr) Ret./Office C-1 31694 0.73 $355,000 $45,000 $400,000 Subtotals 285960 6.56 $1,744,000 $1,017,000 $2,761,000 24365 Smithtown Rd T C Stores (Oasis) C Store/Fuel C-1 62970 1.45 $770,000 $170,000 $940,000 24285 Smithtown Rd Moore Auto Sales C-1 18199 0.42 $171,000 $169,000 $340,000 24275 Smithtown Rd Howe Auto Repair C-1 17871 0.41 $166,000 $154,000 $320,000 24245 Smithtown Rd Wash N Roll Car Wash C-1 20218 0.46 $177,000 $138,000 $315,000 Subtotals 119258 2.74 $1,284,000 $631,000 $1,915,000 24250 Smithtown Rd Justinak S.F.Res R-2A 69154 1.59 $216,000 $243,000 $459,000 24200 Smithtown Rd Exhibit I CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331.8927 • (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhallfti.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 29 March 2012 RE: Smithtown Crossing — Draft 3 FILE NO. Smithtown Crsg. Redev. Study Staff has been working on the revisions that were discussed at the last meeting. Attached are a couple of items we talked about: 1) elaborating on the Unified vs. Piecemeal spreadsheet to be included in the introduction to the report; and 2) the Study Area Boundary map, revising the boundary and including the sizes of properties. We continue working on the other maps (e.g. Study Area Location map, etc.). Please note that we had agreed that another joint meeting with the Council is in order. The Council work session scheduled for their second Monday meeting has already been filled. Consequently, we will meet with them on 11 June instead. Cc: Larry Brown Laura Hotvet n t • PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Unified/Coordinated versus Piece -meal Redevelopment Smithtown Crossing Unified/Coordinated Piece -meal *Maximize project area and access exposure to County Rd 19 *Only two properties front on County Rd 19 currently *Maximize view of Gideon Glen from greatest number of properties for *Two properties - no view/exposure to Gideon Glen aesthetics *Single stone water pond serving entire project for increased efficiency *Each site provides its own separate pond for rate control and volume and effectiveness storage; more land lost to ponding *P.U.D. provides flexibility relative to internal setbacks - more efficient *Strict adherence to setback requirements required for individual use of land developments *Opportunity for shared/joint-use parking for occupants of entire project *Each site provides its own parking, resulting in less efficient land use *Opportunity for 75% hardcover (site is large enough for on -site treatment) *Coordinated/Consolidated access and vehicular traffic flow control plan within project and on adjacent roads *Project identity - "Smithtown Crossing" *Possibility of City assistance (e.g. T.I.F.) *Ability to tie pedestrian access/circulation into existing and planned roads and trails *Efficiency of landscaping in terms of cost and unified aesthetics *Maximum 66% hardcover (individual sites too small for treatment solutions) *Potential congestion from multiple access points due to individual lot ownership • *Each business on its own - less opportunity to create a community center *Each owner on its own *Potentially less attractive or accessibleto pedestrians (crossing multiple driveways and parking lots *Each site on its own, less opportunity to create a community center • CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhaII@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 14 March 2012 RE: Smithtown Crossing — Draft 3 FILE NO. Smithtown Crsg. Redev. Study The Planning Commission directed staff to schedule a separate work session to discuss the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study. Specifically, the meeting is intended to go through the comments received from area residents at the 4 October 2011 Open House meeting (see Exhibit A, attached) and the 6 December 2011 Public Hearing (see Exhibit B). In brief discussions held after the public hearing in December, there appears to be a consensus on the Commission that certain improvements to the Study may be in order. Staff has prepared some material based on Commission comments and identified areas that need some further clarification. Introduction. While the introduction describes the project relatively succinctly, there has been some discussion of elaborating on the idea of unified vs. piece -meal development. Going back to the very early discussions held by the Commission, we found a table that laid out the advantages of unified development as opposed to piece -meal (see Exhibit C). The question is - should the table or something like it be incorporated into the Introduction section of the study? There has been some question relative to the study area boundaries and the amount of land that is actually available for development. It should be noted that the Study Area boundaries are the same on all three figures of the report. The introduction to the report explains that the westernmost boundary is left somewhat open and the boundary would depend upon a particular development. With respect to actual acreages of parcels, the table in the Appendix section of the report provides those. We recall some mention of possibly showing the acreages on the map. Would the Commission find it useful to show the acreages for each parcel on Figure I? 0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 0 Memorandum Re: Smithtown Crossing Draft 3 14 March 2012 Vision Statement. The Commission directed staff to revise the Vision Statement section (Page 11) to "Guiding Principles". Exhibit D shows changes to this section in strikeouts (deletions) and in red lettering (additions). Do these changes reflect the Commission's direction to staff? Executive Summary. One of the criticisms of the report offered by residents was that the recommendations are somewhat "buried" in the text of the report. Staff suggested that an executive summary be incorporated into the Appendix of the report. A preliminary draft of such a summary is provided for your consideration in Exhibit E, attached. For our study session next Tuesday, it may be useful to compare the summary of recommendations to the resident comments to see if there are additional areas that need clarification or revision. Does the summary capture the recommendations contained within the Study? As part of the discussion on Tuesday, we should talk about a date for a follow-up public hearing and how (besides the normal mailing) the hearing should be publicized. Cc: Mayor and City Council Larry Brown -2- • 0 Smithtown Crossing Open House 4 October 2011 RESIDENT COMMENTS The Shorewood Planning Commission and City Council held an open house regarding the future redevelopment of the Smithtown Crossing Study Area on 4 October 2011. Residents were invited to submit their comments at the open house meeting, or return the comment sheet to City Hall at a later date. Below please find a tabulation of the comments that were received. Vision Statement "Good statement... great to understand what the idea/strategy should be." Piece -meal vs. Coordinated Redevelopment "Holistic is better. I'd suggest a strong perspective on the "type" of housing which is considered... top choice — single-family, 2"d choice — senior housing, P — apartments." "Coordinated preferably." Planning Issues "Can the American Legion be relocated? This would allow additional land without the need of removing existing housing." "Buffering and land use transitions were unclear at the meeting — some charts showed the housing in the buffer zone and some did not. There is not enough property to add senior housing or any multi -level housing." Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation/Connection "Good idea... the more pedestrian tie-in to the LRT the better!" "Consider role of bike paths to the intersection of 19/Smithtown and public transportation needs for planned development on the corner." "There is already too much traffic on Smithtown Rd. This redevelopment will make it even worse. It will also increase "turnaround" traffic on Christopher Road which is already a problem. It would necessitate a bike path on Smithtown which residents have opposed." Housing/Land Use (What is needed in Shorewood?) "I'm opposed to any plan that involves the removal of the single family home located at 24650 Smithtown Road as there needs to be a buffer between residential and commerciallmulti-family use." "Do not need senior housing. I do not support a multi -level complex, including a variance to exceed the current height restrictions. I believe this portion of the redevelopment will decrease my property value." Exhibit A 0 0 Other "It's great that the City is taking a holistic view of who we should be and what we should "look" like." "I'm also opposed to the thinning of the wooded area behind my home and that of my neighbors on Christopher Road as this area helps reduce traffic noise from Hwy. 19 and obstructs views of commercial signage." "I support the redevelopment of the Legion properties (the gas station and the existing Legion building). do not support a senior housing complex and new retail/business. We should support our existing business! We have enough shops, dry cleaners, hair salons, insurance offices, banks, etc. nearby. We moved to Shorewood for the "woods". This redevelopment will require more destruction of green space. I do not have confidence that our green space will be protected, similar to the Gideon Glen debacle where too many trees were destroyed in order to preserve the trees." 1] Excerpt from 6 December 2011 Planning Commission Minutes Re: Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study 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 151h he had suggested the Hearing be continued and residents who live in a 1000-foot radius buffer area be notified individually. Nielsen displayed a graphic of the Study area. He explained it encompasses the land adjacent to the intersection of Smithtown Road and County Road 19. The boundaries of the Study area are as follows. The commercial area located on the south side of County Road 19. A portion of the land north of County Road 19 and east of the intersection where the City's Public Works facility and the public safety facility as well as a residential property are located. A lot of the Study focuses on the northwest quadrant of the intersection, primarily the commercial area. The commercial properties in the area are characterized as disjointed. The buildings are low value and under utilized, and many of them do not comply with the City's current zoning standards. The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan (the Comp Plan) has identified the area as being prime for redevelopment. The City considers the area to be somewhat of a northern gateway into the City of Shorewood. A great deal of time and money has been invested over the years to enhance the area. The City developed somewhat of a "civic campus" including the newly renovated City Hall, the Southshore Community Center (SSCC), the Public Works facility, the South Lake public safety facility (police and fire) and Badger Park. The intersection was redesigned and reconstructed in 2005. As part of that effort the City acquired, in conjunction with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Gideon Glen conservation open space property. Nielsen noted the Planning Commission has been working on the Study for the last two years. He explained one of the first things the Planning Commission did was identify planning issues associated with the Study area, noting that he will focus on the northwest quadrant. He reviewed the issues that have been identified to date. They are: ➢ study area west boundary — it was decided that this edge of the study area could remain somewhat flexible in the event a developer chooses to acquire one or more of the single family residential lots that lie west of the commercial area; ➢ land uses — considerable interest has been expressed in exploring mixed use for the study area; ➢ buffering and land use transitions especially on the west of the Study area; ➢ taking advantage of views into Gideon Glen while preserving natural views from across and within Gideon Glen; ➢ vehicular access to and from County Road 19 and to and from Smithtown Road; ➢ internal circulation — vehicular and pedestrian; Exhibit B ➢ possibility of contaminated soils; ➢ phasing the redevelopment; ➢ redevelopment of lots on an individual basis; ➢ future development of the golf course property even though it is not located in the study area; ➢ land use and zoning of the residential property located at 24250 Smithtown Road; ➢ pedestrian connection from Badger Park to the north side of Smithtown Road; and, ➢ drainage. The next thing the Commission did was write a vision statement that creates a clear picture of what the City hopes to see for the area in the next 10 — 15 years. The vision statement is a positive expression of what the City wants rather than a list of what the City does not want to see. He displayed a graphic of the desired concept for the area which shows a unified, coordinated development of both quadrants of the intersection with limited access points off of County Road 19 and Smithtown Road. The worst case scenario would be to let the parcels be developed individually with each having its own parking lot and pond. A unified, coordinated development would have a more efficient drainage system and joint parking that could be landscaped. After that, the Planning Commission met with the City Council in May of 2010. Later that month the vision statement and concepts were presented to the property owners. About one half of the property owners turned out for that meeting. There was consensus among them that a unified, coordinated development approach was better than developing the lots on an individual basis. During the summer of 2010 the Commission held a developer forum. It invited in a panel of developers that were experienced in redevelopment to weigh in on the potential for redeveloping. The developers were upbeat about the redevelopment of the area. They indicated it would happen over a period of time. They offered suggestions for making it a more viable redevelopment project from a developer's standpoint. After the Planning Commission held the developer forum it went on a mobile tour of development projects in the metropolitan area. The Commission liked some of the projects and not others. The Commission placed a lot of emphasis on architecture and landscaping. Photographs of some of the various projects were displayed with explanations of what the Commission did and did not like. A plan was then developed. The main points in the plan are as follows. It would be a mixed use development; both residential and commercial. Higher density for the residential component should be considered. The buildings could potentially be higher than what is currently allowed in the C-1 zoning district. All of this is tied to consistency with the City's vision statement for the area. The more a developer was in sync with the vision statement the more the developer might get density and height incentives. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation, both within the project area and connection to outside of the area, is considered to be extremely important. There is a high emphasis on natural and substantial landscaping requiring low maintenance. The Study does not dictate any certain type of architecture. It does include photographic examples of desired architecture such as pitched rooflines and articulation where there is some depth and relief that can diminish the appearance of height of buildings. Awnings, natural building materials, balconies and lighting help to diminish building masses. Parking lot landscaping to both cool them and buffer them is desired. Some sort of common area is also desired. Photographs were shown of examples of what is desired. The last part of the Study includes an implementation section. There are two main components to that. One is the use of tax increment financing (TIF) to encourage the assembly of the parcels. The second component is the City acquiring land within the redevelopment area when it becomes available on the market. The City recently purchased a residential parcel on the west end of the area. The Planning Commission held an open house style neighborhood meeting which was well attended to give the residents an opportunity to comment on the Study. The concept plan displayed during the open house was again displayed and highlighted. The Commission intentionally chose not to include a concept plan in the Study. Comment cards were made available at the open house for attendees to take and submit at a later time. Nielsen stated that during the November 15'" Public Hearing the Planning Commission asked Staff to clarify a few things. He explained there was some confusion about the boundaries of the Study area. The maps for the Study area are all consistent. There continues to be some confusion about what parts of the Study area are still developable. The report indicates there the study area contains over a total of 23.46 acres. That is a little misleading. The areas that really have redevelopment potential don't include Gideon Glen conservation open space property because there will not be any development there. With regard to the commercial portions of the area, there are two portions that are currently zoned commercial. He highlighted the properties that are zoned for commercial development on the northwest quadrant. They are: what used to be the gas station; the American Legion; the pole barn and storage (which used to be a car sales lot); the small apartment building; and, a vacant lot. He then highlighted the properties that are zoned for commercial development on the southeast quadrant. They are: the Oasis Market and Gas Station; an approved building pad that had been proposed for a Dairy Queen some time ago; and, some other commercial businesses as well. The area in the Study goes beyond that and shows the SSCC, the police and fire public safety facility, and the Shorewood Public Works facility. The acreage for the Public Works and public safety facilities are included in total in the Study; that needs to be clarified because they don't represent any redevelopment opportunities. The reason they are included in the report has to do with access and the relationship to Badger Park. The northwest quadrant of the intersection contains 4.52 acres which is all zoned commercial. The southeast quadrant is approximately 2.74 acres. There are two residential areas in the Study area for different reasons. There is a residential property located close to the public safety facility that is surrounded by higher intensity uses. The City needs to consider how that might be redeveloped in the future. That is slightly more than 1.5 acres in size. There are a westerly couple of lots in the northwest quadrant that may or may not end up as part of the Study area. The area is about 2.4 acres in size almost divided equally between the two lots. The acreage that can potentially be redeveloped needs to be clarified in the Study. Nielsen stated earlier in the day he received some good advice encouraging him to view this Study as a resident might when viewing it for the first time. He then stated if he were a resident trying to find information in the report for the first time it would be challenging. He thought there needs to be additional work done on the report. The background information could be elaborated on explaining what the various sites are currently used for, what their acreages are, and what their characteristics are. That would provide a clearer depiction of what is in the Study area today. There should be more information on the existing uses and zoning of the various land areas. The areas that are developable should be clearly identified. He suggested that the sketches be incorporated into the report in some fashion. Also, there should be some consideration given to incorporating the concept plan into the report. Earlier in the day someone told him that even more detail could be useful. Nielsen distributed a list of what will become the guiding principles stated in the vision statement and displayed it on the screen. They are as follows. The project in this area will result in a unified/ coordinated pattern of development. The use or mixture of uses of the property in the study area should be based on market needs. Site design should take advantage of views afforded by existing natural areas and parks. Uses within the Study area shall be arranged to create a transition between higher intensity commercial development and surrounding lower density housing. 5. Any housing component should add to and enhance the variety of housing choices in the community. 6. Commercial activities should serve not only the residents of the project area, but the community as a whole. 7. Access to and egress from and circulation within Smithtown Crossing must be pedestrian/bicycle friendly. 8. Usable, inviting outdoor spaces shall be incorporated into the development. 9. Landscaping will be natural and substantial, diminishing parking lot massing and softening and framing buildings on the site. 10. Attractive and articulated architecture with pitched rooflines and natural materials will reflect the residential character and quality of the community. 11. Reduction of building mass may be achieved by using a combination of the following techniques: a) variations in roof line and form; b) use of ground level arcades and covered areas; c) use of protected and recessed entries; d) inclusion of windows on elevations facing streets and pedestrian areas; and, e) retaining a clear distinction between roof, body and base of building. Nielsen noted number 11 was not included in the vision statement. He stated because the Planning Commission had not seen the list of guiding principles until this evening he did not expect the Commissioners to comment on them this evening. Nielsen stated with respect to the Study he thought there needs to be a summary of the recommendations. One of the things he discovered as he has been talking with people about the report is he has to pick through the report to look for the recommendations. They need to be consolidated into one spot. A revised report should be publicized better and for a longer period of time. There is a link to it on the City's website but he did not find it easy to get to the report. He suggested having a longer period of time for comment. He then suggested people be provided the ability to comment on the report via the City's website. The responses should also be accessible on the website. Nielsen recommended that before a revised Study is sent back to the Council for consideration it should be reviewed and discussed by the Planning Commission during its January 17, 2012, meeting. He stated another public hearing could potentially be scheduled for March 6, 2012, to allow for a 30-day period of time for comment and publication. He recognized to the Commission that this is new information and a turn in direction. Chair Geng stated he thought Director Nielsen made this abundantly clear, but he would like to emphasize it. The Planning Commission undertook the Study because it recognized that at some point the area that has been identified as the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study area is going to be redeveloped. The Study was not undertaken in response to any specific proposal from any developer. It was in anticipation that at some point the area would be redeveloped and the Commission thought it prudent for the City to have voice in it to help guide it and direct it in a way that would benefit the entire community. He reiterated there is no plan. This effort was just a study. It's a work in progress. From the very beginning all of the Commissioners have been concerned about ensuring this was a very transparent process. Throughout the last two years the Commission has sought public input. Geng then stated he was speaking for all of the Commissioners when he expressed his appreciation for having so many residents in attendance to provide public input. Public input is very important to the Commission. The Commission wants to do the best job it can for the City. It's hard to do that in a vacuum. Geng asked those in attendance who want to comment to come to the podium, give their name and address, and keep their comments as brief as possible to provide everyone who wants to be heard with that opportunity. He noted there is a sign in sheet, and for those that have not signed in he asked them to do so before they leave this evening. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:55 P.M. He noted there were about 14 residents present. Steve Dietz 24680 Smithtown Road, stated his property is just on the west end of the area under discussion. He commented that based on his professional career he understands the value of getting community involvement. He apologized for coming late to the game. He also apologized in advance for any misunderstandings and any mistakes he may make with regard to what he understands is being proposed. He commented he is only part way through the Comp Plan 2008 Update. Mr. Dietz then stated when people are asked if they prefer unified or hodge podge redevelopment they are going to respond unified. If they are asked if they would like to have the ugly eyesore commercial development upgraded or developed in a unified manner the exact same number of people will respond with a yes. But, if you ask them if they would like you to encroach on the existing, single family home residential area and build a forty -five-foot high block -wide multi -unit housing next to them the response would be very different. From his vantage point, the rezoning of the single family homes is required in order to make the commercial redevelopment possible. He noted he didn't think the report indicates that. Mr. Dietz noted that he thought it was useful to see the conceptual design. He stated the open space is primarily for people whom now live in the redevelopment area. People that don't live in that development are not going to bike to the space and have a picnic there. The City's character is primarily single family residential. The Comp Plan land use section states the City will strive to maintain this character. He noted the report doesn't make any case for converting single family property to multi -use housing independent of the commercial development. He recommended separating the residential lot in the northeast quadrant out. He questioned how the residential property located adjacent to the commercial property (which the City now owns) gets rezoned. That property abuts his property. He suggested a separate case be made for those two residential properties. Mr. Dietz stated he could not find the link to the Study on the City's website. He then stated by the City buying the residential property that it did before the zoning changes went into effect the City now has a vested interest in converting a single-family residential property into a multi -use property. That could potentially result in a conflict of interest situation for the City. He suggested making the City -owned property a park. Mr. Dietz explained that his well went dry a few years ago. In the past year his well has been identified as having dangerous levels of arsenic. He asked what this additional water use will do to the water table. He then asked if the City has researched if the water table can sustain that additional draw on water. He stated he applauded the desire for the City to figure out what to do in advance. But, if there is no pressing plan then from his vantage point there isn't a rush. He asked the City to separate out the commercial development from the single family home development. Chris Polson who lives on the west side of Echo Road (which is the east side of the development area), asked if eminent domain will he 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. Polson asked if it is possible that could happen. Geng responded anything is possible, but he doesn't see that happening. Geng clarified that the City isn't trying to drive this redevelopment. It is attempting to influence any future redevelopment of the Study area. The City has no interest in condemning properties in this area. Market forces will drive the redevelopment, and it's likely that it will not happen for years because of the state of the economy. Director Nielsen noted that the City has been loath to condemn land for any purpose in the past. Nielsen explained that recent developments over the past few years have made it more difficult to take properties through the process of eminent domain. Mr. Poison then asked what the probability is for high density housing or apartments and condominiums being part of any redevelopment of the area. Chair Geng responded he wouldn't hazard a guess. Geng stated it will be private development that will drive this redevelopment. If/when a developer comes forward the City will look at what they are proposing, if it will benefit the City and if there is a market for it. Mr. Poison asked if the Metropolitan Council will be involved in any redevelopment in some manner. Geng stated before the Study becomes part of the City's Comp Plan it does have to be submitted to the Met Council for review and comment under state law. Mr. Poison asked if the Met Council is pressuring to get something done with the Study area. Geng stated this came about from the City. Mark Flanders 5695 Christopher Road, stated his property is located on the western side of any redevelopment. A redevelopment could impinge upon site lines and the wooded area which has already been thinned out as part of the Gideon Glen project. He understands that because the area is underdeveloped it doesn't create a very significant tax base. He then stated there may be some benefit for the City to explain to residents what the future tax revenue could be if the area were to be redeveloped. He noted that as a homeowner he would be opposed to taking out single family properties. He asked what the American Legion's role is in this. He stated if the intent is to have mixed use development (commercial and multi -unit housing) in the northwest quadrant, he asked if the Legion would be interested in moving to the southeast quadrant or some other part. He also asked if senior housing could be built in the southeast comer where there could be easy access to the SSCC. If so, he didn't see a need for taking out any single family properties. He suggested adding information about what the Legion may or may not want and add that to the City's website. Chair Geng explained that relatively early in the process the Planning Commission invited the affected land owners in the Study area to a study session. The American Legion was represented at that meeting. The Legion is interested in redeveloping its facility. It indicated during that meeting that it would be open to some type of collaboration. It expressed a strong desire to stay in Shorewood and be part of any redevelopment that occurs. Mr. Poison asked if the American Legion is opposed to relocating as part of a redevelopment. Chair Geng responded he did not know the answer to that. Director Nielsen stated he has had conversations with developers over the years even before the Study was started and one of the developers did explore the idea of relocating the Legion. He does not know what the Legions reaction to that was. Nielsen then stated the Legion wants to stay in the City, work with the City and see that comer redeveloped. Nielsen noted the Legion is a key player in any redevelopment of the Study area because it owns a good share of the land in the northwest quadrant. Mr. Poison asked that some consideration be given to focus more on the redevelopment of the southeast quadrant where it won't impact existing home owners. That would reduce the need for more acreage on the northwest quadrant. Scott Zerby 5680 Christopher Road, noted he was speaking from the perspective of a resident and property owner this evening. He thanked the Planning Commission and Director Nielsen for the work they have done on this Study to date. He stated his issue is the two residential properties along Smithtown Road that could become part of the Study area. He expressed he disagreed with guiding principle # 5 which is "Any housing component should add to and enhance the variety of housing choices in the community." He stated it comes down to having a buffer between the residential area and the commercial area. He explained that basically all the residential properties to the west of the area are one -acre homestead lots. He noted that buried in the Study it states that in exchange for a developers concessions a new building could potentially be as tall as 45 feet; 45 feet is measured to the midline of the roof. In theory the top of the roof could be 55 — 65 feet above ground. That's a stark contrast when compared to the house next to the area which he guessed could be about 20 feet tall. He expressed he had a concern about the process. The Planning Commission has solicited the concerns of residents, but it doesn't appear it has responded to them. He stated he reviewed the minutes of the first Planning Commission meeting held after the open house and he was disturbed to find very little discussion about the comments made by residents during the open house. He noted that Nielsen told him that no changes were made to the Study based on the feedback received. A word wasn't changed or added. He stated if the City is going to ask for resident feedback it should be recognized and acted on. Brian Meghan, 5670 Christopher Road, commented that his background is in real estate development. He stated that earlier this evening Director Nielsen suggested the Study be revised. Nielsen stated that is correct but the Planning Commission hasn't taken any action yet. Mr. Meghan noted that he knows Nielsen professionally and personally. Mr. Meghan stated he assumed the meeting with the landowners only included those who own land in the Study area. He noted that up until the open house input was not solicited from property owners who could potentially be impacted by a redevelopment of the area. Mr. Meghan highlighted comments made in the letter he and his wife wrote to the City and Planning Commission regarding the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study dated October 23, 2011. The highlights are as follows. The vision statement seems well thought out albeit a bit idealistic. It's unlikely that any mixed use redevelopment will be pedestrian or bicycle friendly or neighborhood friendly. The shoulders on Smithtown Road are too narrow to safely use, and although the traffic flow at the intersection of County Road 19 and Smithtown Road is controlled it is still a bad intersection for non -vehicular traffic. There is no good route of travel to get safely to the LRT to the north, to the east on County Road 19 or to the west on Smithtown Road. Keeping any proposed redevelopment more in line with the residential characteristics of Shorewood would be critical to its acceptance in the community. The City doesn't need a big box retailer, a developer who will come in to take what they want in the way of municipal subsidies, make lots of promises, follow through on only a few, and then sell it to an investor or group looking to clip a coupon with no interest in what is happening in the community. It's all about economics for most developers. With regard to landscaping, unless the City requires planting of very large trees (which is outside of the scope of most developers' budgets) it is unlikely anything will be done to the site lines. Coordinated redevelopment makes a lot more sense than a piece meal approach. If done properly it would result in a nicer mix of assets. The Study area intrudes further into a residential area than any other areas in the City with the potential exception of the area around CUB Foods. That commercial development stops before it really intrudes into a residential area. 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 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. Commissioner Arnst stated from her perspective revisions to the Study area is a topic for a work session. It should be the only item on that agenda. Commissioner Hasek asked if the redevelopment of the Smithtown Crossing area was specifically addressed in the resident survey that was recently conducted. Administrator Heck responded the survey didn't contain any questions that specifically addressed Smithtown Crossing or the redevelopment of that area. Heck stated there were walk ability questions and general questions about services. Hasek then stated a January timeline is too aggressive. It should be included in the Planning Commission's 2012 work program. Chair Geng stated there appears to be consensus among the Planning Commissioners to take the time needed on this. There is no sense of urgency. He stated he endorses Commissioner Arnst's suggestion that a work session be devoted to discussing the comments received from the public to date. Chair Geng closed the public hearing at 8:43 P.M. Unified/Coordinated versus Piece -meal Redevelopment Smithtown Crossing Unified/Coordinated Maximize exposure to County Rd 19 Maximize view of Gideon Glen Efficient drainage P.U.D. provides flexibility relative to internal setbacks - more efficient use of land Opportunity for joint -use parking Opportunity for 75% hardcover (site is large enough for on -site treatment) Consolidated access Project identity - "Smithtown Crossing" Possibility of City assistance (e.g. T.I.F.) Pedestrian access/circulation Efficiency of landscaping Piece -meal Only two properties front on County Rd 19 Two properties - no view Each site provides its own rate control and volume storage Strict adherence to setback requirements Each site provides its own parking Maximum 66% hardcover (individual sites too small for treatment solutions) Potential congestion from multiple access points Each business on its own Each owner on its own Less attractive to pedestrians (crossing driveways and parking lots Each site on its own Draft 3/10 Exhibit C • r Vision Statem en Guiding Principles Having identified issues associated with the study area, it was determined that a clear picture of what the City hopes to see for the subject area should be formulated — for lack of a better term, we will use =" "guiding principles". This is the point where we step back and view the area as we would like to see it, say in the next 10-15 years. The visio�ent guiding principles should be a positive expression of what the City wants, rather than a list of what we don't want to see. The proposed vision statement guiding principles starts with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan, which identified an interest in the following: • Unified/coordinated development; assembly of land parcels • Planned unit development • Possible mixed use — commercial/residential • Opportunity for additional senior housing • Predominant retail and office uses versus service commercial* *Since this was written, the Planning Commission held a meeting with real estate development professionals, the consensus of whom indicated that there may not be a strong market for retail. It was suggested that a stronger market may exist for personal service commercial (i.e. banking, health and beauty services, etc.). In addition to the above, the Planning Commission discussed other factors such as pedestrian/bicycle circulation and connectivity, architectural treatment (e.g. residential character and natural materials), natural landscaping, and compatibility with surrounding land use activities as parameters for the redevelopment of the area. From this, the following was derived: Page 11 Exhibit D 0 Guiding Principles — Smithtown Crossin¢ 1. The project will result in a unified/coordinated pattern of development. 2. The use or mixture of uses of property in the study area shall be based on market needs. 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. 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. Useable, inviting outdoor spaces shall be integrated into the development. 9. Landscaping will be natural and substantial, diminishing parking lot massing and softening and framing buildings on the site. 10. Attractive and articulated architecture with pitched rooflines and natural materials will reflect the residential character and quality of the community. 11. Reduction of building mass may be achieved by using a combination of the following techniques: a. Variations in roofline and form. b. Use of ground level arcades and covered areas. C. Use of protected and recessed entries. d. Inclusion of windows on elevations facing streets and pedestrian areas. e. Retaining a clear distinction between roof, body and base of building. It must be realized that this visiR., statevA6-. t these principles will likely evolve as it -is they are C subjected to public input. Ir n N 3 0 H Page 12 M on ® W M NO 0 0 Executive Summary While readers are encouraged to read the entire Study, following is a summary of the recommendations included therein: ➢ Encourage unified/coordinated redevelopment versus a piece-meal/individual approach. ➢ Consider various incentives to achieve coordinated and higher quality development. ➢ Utilize Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and establish parameters for mixed use (residential and commercial). ➢ Incentives and rewards will be tied to compliance with the City's redevelopment "guiding principles". • Consider relaxation of height limitations (possibly increase from 40 to 45 feet) • Consider higher densities of residential use where compatible with surrounding uses. ➢ Require marketability and traffic studies for proposed activities. ➢ Provide for bicycle/pedestrian connections and circulation within the Study Area. ➢ Require substantial, natural, low maintenance landscaping in order to create buffers and achieve incentives. ➢ Include public/common open space internal to the project. ➢ Encourage well articulated architecture with pitched rooflines, tiered levels, interesting shadowing and natural materials. ➢ Consider use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to encourage land assembly, common open area and high quality architecture and landscaping. ➢ Consider City acquisition of land as it becomes available to help facilitate land assembly. C Exhibit E a CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331.8927 • (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474.0128 • www.cl.shorewood.mmus • cityhall6d.shorewood.mmus MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 10 March 2011 RE: Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study — First Draft FILE NO. 405(Sm Crsg) At its last meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the first draft of the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study, a copy of which is attached for your review. This report is the product of many discussions held last year. Following is a brief summary of key meetings at which Smithtown Crossing was discussed: • The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2009, identified the study area as being prime for development. • January 2010 — The Commission identified a study area and planning issues associated with the study area. • April 2010 — A "vision statement' was formulated, stating what the City might like to see there in the future. • May 2010 — The Commission mailed out notices and met with property owners within the study area. • June 2010 — The Commission met with a panel of real estate developers to discuss the vision statement and solicit opinions on what type of markets may exist for the area in question. • August 2010 — Several development projects in the western metro area were identified for a mobile tour by the Commission. The focus of the tour was mixed use development, design, senior housing and building heights. • Throughout the year the Commission has discussed topics related to the redevelopment: - Mixed use development - Tax increment financing - Urban design/landscaping 01, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study First Draft 10 March 2011 The Commission's reaction to the first draft was quite positive. Suggestions for the second draft included adding the following items into the Appendix of the report: 1. Elaborate on the recap of the year's study. 2. Summary of the landowner meeting. 3. Summary of the developer panel meeting. 4. Summary of the mobile tour. 5. A list of dates at which Smithtown Crossing was discussed. 6. More information on traffic volumes on County Road 19 and Smithtown Road. It was also suggested that photos included in the report have captions. Staff is working on these items and will have a second draft prepared prior to the joint meeting with the Planning Commission and Council on 5 April. The purpose of Monday night's meeting is to bring the Council up to date with the Commission's work so far. Cc: Brian Heck -2- CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331.8927 • (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhaI1@d.shorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 26 February 2011 RE: Smithtown Crossing — First Draft FILE NO. 405(Sm Crsg) The first draft of the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study is attached for your review. You will note that the City Participation page is blank. A couple of questions came up at the last minute that require input from the Finance Director. This page will be e-mailed to you Monday afternoon, with a paper copy available at the meeting. Enjoy your weekend! Cc: Deb Siakel G •PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhall®ci.shorewood.mmus TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 12 August 2010 RE: PC Meeting — 17 August 2010 FILE NO. 405 (Admin) There are two items on the agenda for next Tuesday (sorry — neither of them has to do with Brats!). The first will be a recap or post-mortem of our mobile tour. We are suggesting that the Commission document what it was about the various projects that we liked or didn't like and incorporate the information into our Smithtown Crossing study. To jog memories, we will show photos of the various sites. That discussion dovetails into the second item on our agenda — mixed use regulations. There are a number of questions that should be addressed before we draft an ordinance amendment, not the least of which is building height. Have a great weekend! Cc: Dick Woodruff Cr* PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER e,..;I*.,. 1 ('rneeinu Retlevelnnment Planning Commission — Mobile Tour 3 August 2010 1. Glen Lake — Excelsior Boulevard/Co Rd 4 • Mixed use — service commercial and multiple -family • Four story front, five story rear • 2.5 acres • 20,300 sq. ft. commercial 2. Golden Valley — 55/Winnetka • Retail redevelopment near Golden Valley Commons • Entry, landscaping, architecture • Multiple housing to the west 3. Sunrise — 55 east of 100 • Senior housing • 2.66 acres • units 4. Chanhassen —101/7 • Mixed use — retail/service commercial and senior housing 5. Victoria downtown redevelopment Ssrah _—.4:.: F TFiea� lake Wo/Jeltl L.k. Yrench Leke Ca 11 PLYMOUTH rel 0 INN k .. <. .... e... —. • �-vTl�EAC E;= f ..•U IfW N Gx. ��. Aue x / r £ r noaun C : -:Iw .. LOOMING ON a s. ♦?°• ror. v°.rw - O'G� [3 :B ` au«^ 1 I L e a • _ 1 J� � H r � h L tl<lo atllvn n°n1L 1 & y • 1 1._.1 0 � � Y � _ �� SY � A' � rr! BInLaNemx £ixA Lake � b �" q � Mer�mll �Pt [S2 / L.ke La 7 lygn � ., .•`+, sxr+..e o /xx r � � I -_ So L.xe 6e,m � � ° w ..�. �< F I F• I C"`9"� a �/ R - �G__e LaR u' v Y Jemk . S l.�,r. f k MCCuf� F g m an IHr. s.. 1 b 0.° m � INNFSOrA I! �nc L.xo a �•. � �r 101 � � LeMa ... I '���✓-'C ,4"ram I :: '�L k �/ �. e�-J � ki%'Xt A 'L CM1 in � r *n t'.'_" %"Ja ,� '•.m x..lean nfel)o� in �:. K r - �... i -1( xs .irV, d 1 .� : 300 0 � x9@ i � " r � Mc` � 13 •11., `)] h A Q K-A to _ l .0 ^ p "ro �. 7 •' +/ ,..._.i':`. _ 4V }iAKOPEE a, j r I , cG kke �1 I A C Zi S O N < -� SAVAGE _D4akv ell i ` Smithtown Crossing —Developer Panel Discussion 29 June 2010 List of Participants Frank Dunbar Dunbar Development Corporation 5000 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55422 www.dundev.com/ 763-377-7090 Greg Brock Lang Nelson & Associates 4601 Excelsior Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 5541 www melson.com/ 952-920-0400 lan Dennis Johnson Cooperative Housing Resources, LLC 639 Jackson Street St. Paul, MN 55101 denni si a ceni=0013s. corn 651-310-0235 6 Tom Wartman 28120 Boulder Bridge Drive Suite 650 Shorewood, MN 55331 tomwartmanagol com 952-470-9618 Colleen Carey The Cornerstone Group 7610 Lyndale Avenue South, Suite 200 Richfield, MN 55423 www t� c=m/ 612-746-0660 Terry Hartman Hartman Communities 1750 Tower Boulevard, Suite 201 P.O. Box 65 Victoria, MN 55386 www.hartmancommunities.com/ 952-368-4547 John Rask Hans Hagen Homes 941 Hillwind Road NE Suite 300 Fridley, MN 55432 iraskAhanshagWhomes.com 763-586-7202 CITY OF ' C SI4o,EW p OD OAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 ' 1g521980-790� FAX 1ss�1 474 0128 • www,6, shorewood.mn.us • ciryhall®ci.shorewood.mn.us 5755 COUNTRY CLUB R 24 June 2010 Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area Re: Shorewood Developer Panel Discussion— W1 d an area Smithtown Crossing) To: John Rask rime for redevelopment. of Shorewood has ide Road 19 as being p Comprehensive Plan for the City and Countythat our ers. The Comp fission, it was determined el of real estate developrea should e adjacent to the intersectionthe planning Smithtown d critique by a pan After initial study y downers an the meeting agreeing subjected to scrutiny by affected landowners make projects quite well, with a consensus of those attending that agtually ers went q from the people. sson proposes to conduct a very A meeting with' . , s roach. Now it is time to hear with the Commission's approach. 1 The Shorewood Planning C°iuIu d Use Coalition. happen. This is where you come in. ment area. You have been recommended to us by Pa Land informal Panel discussion relative to our redevelop Hall, 5755 t one of our Planning commissioners and Executive Director for the Sensible Arns > 29 June at 7:00 P.M• In the Shorewood City we are forwarding material we have considered to date: Our panel discussionscscheduled for Tuesday, Country Club Road• preparation, 11 February 2U10 • Staff Report — Planning lnventoryRssues, tement, 15 April 2010 • Staff Report —Vision Sea April 2010 Revised Vision Statement, 29 • t Sketches —Unified vs. Piecemeal Concepts Panelists' Thank You in advance for your • ConceP W e look forward to hearing your comments and those of other p attendance at our meeting. CITY OF SHORBwOOD Bradley J. Nielse Planning Director Cc: Pat Arnst Ci PRINTEO ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474.0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityha1I@ci.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 InventorylIssues, 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 • PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER cIT � 0 �D SHAREMINNESOTA 55331-s927 • (952) 960-7900 OAD • SHOR_\NOOD, of hall�ci.shorewood.mn.us 5755 COUNTRY CLUE �128 , w •ci.shorewood.mn.us • iY FAX (952) 23 June 2010 ussion— Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area Re: Shorewood Developer Panel Dtsc dan Terry Hartman area Smithtown Crossing) ent. To: rune for redevelopm for the City of Shorewood has ide Ro d 19 as being P area should be rehensive Plan oad and County d that our vision for the ar The Comp intersection of Smithtown ission, it was determineel of real estate developers. adjacent to theby, he Planning COS ers and critique by a Pan agreeing After initial study b affected landowners the meeting g subjected to scrutiny Y eo le that actually make protects quitewell, with a consensus of those attending rng with landowners went q from the p P to conduct a very A meeting Now it is time to hear fission Proposes ended to us by Sue fission, s approach. i The Shorewood Planning Conn' to with the Comm YOU come in' ment area. You have been res ed willingness happen' This is where y redevelop you have exp informal Panel discussion relative to our in Commissioners. Sue advises us that M in the Shorewood City Hall, 5755 Davis, one of our Plane g Participate in our discussion. 29 ]une at 7.00 p. vye are forwarding material we have considered to date: Our panel discussion is scheduled for Tuesday, Country Club Road, In Pr epaz 11 February 2010 Staff Report _ Planning Inventory/Issues, tement, 15 April 2010 • Staff Report — Vision Sta April 2010 Revised Vision Statement, 29 Sketches —Unified vs. Piecemeal Concepts anelists. Thank you m advance for your conceptd those of other p we look forward to hearing Your comments an attendance at our meeting. sincerely, F CTYSHOREwOOD CITY Bradley J. Nielsen Planning Director Cc: Sue Davis f: PRINTED 04 RECYCLED PAPER 7� cIT W p OD S+ —O�� MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960-7900 OAD • SHOREWOOD, Di hall®ci.shorewood.mn.us 5755 COUNTRY CLUB R Di.shorewood.mn.us • �' FAX (952) 474-0128 • Discussion — Smithtown CrossingRedevelopment Area 17 June 2010 Re: Shorewood Developer Panel r area (Smithtown Crossing) ment. To: Colleen Carey goad 19 as being prime for redevelop for the City of Shorewood has identified an Smithtown R°ad and County fined that our vision for the area should be The Comprehensive Plan it was determined of real estate developers - the intersection of Smith commission, ire by a p adjacent to th d by the Planning eeting agreeing After initial Stu y. b affected landpWIIers and critique subjected to scrutiny y maple that actually make projects quite well, with a consenftom the ppSe attending em downers went q it is time to hear ission pr°pp5es to conduct a very eeting with lan N°`� fanning Comm ended to us by Pat A m ission',approach.The Shorewood P ea You have been recomm Coalition. with the C° ou come in• ment ar Executive Director far the Sensible Land se happen. This is where y Hall 5155 informal Panel discussion relative and EP Artist, one of our Planning Commissioners 29 June at 7:00 P.M. in the Shorewood City scheduled for Tuesday, material we have considered to date: Road- In preparation, we are forwarding Our panel discussion is sched 2p10 Country Club R I I February Report_PlanningInventoryRssues.1 Vision Statement, 15 APri12010 Staffri12010 StaffReport— 29 AP meal Concepts cfor your Revised V ision Stat Un fied vs. Piecek ou in advane Cone Sketches — anell9ts. Thany ard We look forwto hearing your comments and those of other p meeting - attendance at our CITY OF SHORENVOOD Bradleynlelsen planning Director Cc: Pat Arnst Y • PAPER PRINTED ON REOVGLED CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhallfoi.shorewood.mn.us 23 June 2010 Re: Shorewood Developer Panel Discussion — Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area To: Tom Wartman 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 Terry Hartman, one of our panelists who was contacted by one of our Commissioners, Sue Davis. 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 y Bradley J. Nielsen Planning Director Cc: Sue Davis % • PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 3rad N1er' st at@arnst.net] Pat Arn IP From: Monday, tune 071 2010 9.29 AM sent: Brad Nielsen info To: FW: Filled in Missing Subject*. ether Brad, per my earlier e-mail, here are the names I've Pulled tog , 00 952.474.5726. ain I'm available to talk unti111:30 and then ag after er (good guy Very entertaining) poran —big commercial develop 1521- 94th Kelly anies.com construction e° le htt www•dOrancom a developer he is an attorney He is a very informative (besides being � rnen — BancOr Group — 792 8976 mobile: 612 599 727 55449 direct: 763-792-8975 � x:763- ` mneapolis, MN t! t d. ° } heavy into Lane NE M quiet guy who is well resp thoughtful q mall on 169/Londonderry] — " and France (also owns the strip Gene Haugland — developed 50 ro ernes and neighborhood concerns. team.html stevenscottdevelo ment.com ] commercial ha wanhowdcotcom al with smallP www htt : vow ment htt local Minnetonka person (Steven Scott Develop good communicator. some very, very Scott Bader — quite well. They are doing more residential, but very g I know Colley 4 Ian right at the front end of w.tc in. no She revised her business p hi group. aradigm. Cornerstone Group, htt ' any through into a new P innovative things, see theirweb pulled her comp p g 4547. Doingthe the downturn and calmly has 952 36B ro erty v�ww.hartmancommuniv1e a sign up for the HouseW-Hal and biker bar p unities, htt : now ha Hartman Comm ment, I see they downtown Victoria redevelop next more for a redo. Center nis an nest CBRE (someone familiar with Tonka Bay small retail, rental, all over the boardseh ous refocusing they Hans Hagen has had to do some are involved in housing a John Rask, Hans Hagen— great to work with. v guy, and I hear from many sources he is during the downturn, and seems to have weathered the storm. 1 Vernelle Clayton vernelle & Assooates (952) 9754)4447;ork verneNe/via.com • ]oe Smith Steiner Development Michael Korsh Kraus Anderson Realty Company Director of Reel Estate Development (952) 948-9421 ork (612) 396-6453 Mobile (800) 399-42200�e, w .lvausanderson.corn 4210 West Old Shakopee Rd. Mooniigton, MN 55437-2951 (952) 475-5122'C:ork 3610 County Rd 101 Wayzata, MN 55391 Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5173 (20100604) The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5173 (20100604) The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. htto://www.eset.com Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5179 (20) 00607) The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com cIT \V 0 0D SHOREMINNSOTA 55331-8927.1g52� �� 7900 7RY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, ci hall® ci.shorewood.mn.us 5755 COU FAX (952) q74-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • b M ,MORXNDUM Planning Commission TO: Brad Nielsen FROM 28 June 2010 DATE Developer Panel Discussion Smithtown Crossing — RE. 405 (Sin Crsg) Panel discussion FILE NO is scheduled to be a P ven developers t s meeting we had se rs. As of last Thursday, morning we found out that As you are aware, tomorrow ni scion. Personal family with several real estate de, e�th the Commission. to make it for p lined up to meet inforagyen Homes, will not be John Rask, with Hans reasons.I have advised all of the following the following Questions have arisen as to the format al meeeting meeting. participants that it will be a very each will take a few minutes to describe who do and give some examples of projects they have I Introduction of Developers - they are, what they or o erwise). worked on (successful ment Area (sue. Crossing Redevelop II Brief overview of the Smithtown for developers- Several sample questions 1 divide these up —feel Planning Conunission questions We can simply generate III, bit A, attached. that panelist answers may g are included on Exhibit it is likely each quest'on with e list. e h Ve tried to avoid starting free to add to th follow-up questions. We have ••Notwithstanding the current ecomomy have some refreshments for the meeting —cookies, coffee, cold beverages, We will h etc. Stacie Kvilvang Cc: Laura Turgeon Brjan Heck `* PRINTED CN RECYCLED PAPER r� u Sample Questions for Developers What type of project do you see working on the site in question? 2. Having seen the City's "vision statement" for this area, do you think it is reasonable? 3. Do you see any unique design or use opportunities for the area in question? 4. What "place -making" opportunities do you see? 5. With respect to senior housing, what is the minimum number of units (or beds in the case of assisted living or care facilities) you can build, and what is the minimum space you would require? 6. Please share your thoughts relative to vertical vs. horizontal mixed use projects in the Twin Cities Metro Area, particularly in the suburbs. 7. Short of purchasing the land and throwing away its zoning regulations altogether, what steps can the City take to encourage a high quality redevelopment that incorporates the elements of our "vision"? Exhibit A CITY OF SHOREW O OD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 ' (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474.0128' www.cl.shorewood.mn.us 0 cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.Us MEMORANDUM Planning Commission TO: FROM: Brad Nielsen 28 May 2010 DATE: Developer Panel Discussion RE: Smithtown Crossing — FILE NO. 405 (5m. CrsgJ is the developer panel discussion relative to the next Tuesday with Stacie The main event for our development study. Brian Heck and I have been be meetavaing with besides tax Smithtown Crossing a for some developers to meet Kvilvang from Ehlers & Associates to discuss what finance tools might increment financing• we have two names to share with � our discussions, Stacie offered to arrange with us in an informal panel discussion. As of this writing you: builds Nelson, a senior housing development firm that not only 0 Crreg Brock is with Lang es them as well. senior housing facilities of all kinds, but also owns an manages t bwlds offices, retail Frank Dunbar is with Dunbar Development, a company someone from Wellington Development which also develops development and various kinds of housing- • Stacie is trying to line up proects. various types of commercial p J Concern", Attached is a copy of the letter sent to our panelists. It went out to "Whom It May because at the time f was tte" writteon w the no several months. .The letter forwards material that the Commission has been studying Have a great Memorial Day weekend! Cc: Laura Turgeon Brian Heck C.) pRINTED ON RECYCLED RAPER • CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB UBaROAD SHOREWOOD, OR ro BOO , MANS ESO'TA 56331-89 7 1 (9 2 960-7900 AX -0128 - 25 May 2010 Re: Shorewood Developer Panel Discussion — Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area To Whom It May Concern The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shorewood has identified an area (Smithtown Crossing) Road and County Road 19 as being prime for adjacent to the intersection of Smithtown 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 mmission at ally make projects happen. This is where youcome anion a Shorewood to our Planning lanni redevelopment area. You proposes to conduct a very informal panel have been recommended to us by Stacie Kvilvang of Ehlers and Associates. at ewood City Our panel discussion Road'hIn preparat one weyare forwarding eOmaterial we haver all, considered to 5755 Country date: • Staff Report— planning hiventory/Issues, 11 February 2010 • Staff Report —Vision Statement, 15 April 2010 • Revised Vision Statement, 29 April 2010 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 16 J Bradley J. Nielsen planning Director Cc: Staci Kvilvang Ii PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER • • • • FILE COPY aITE DATA SITE AREA 191,M 84 MET 03ACF" BLYLD.M.FpCIFRI'II.AREA dALDNG'A' HA40 fif1 PF1RL MI%ED I19E� WLDM V SJSO S41 f f1,112 6 FT CCNECTMG LIM Ir TOTAL FOO7PR NT (64M DARNED)- 3.M2 SO. FEET GE OR90.104 SSN fla FT. FOOTPRINT (I& ASSISTED I,NW. MTS, 96 CCNVALESCEW BEDS) MAIL 23MILoa FEET RETAIL: I SPACE PER 200 `A FEET C'TPIDE: 3 SPACES . I SPACE FER 20V SO. FEET BANG: 1 SPACE FER 200 621NM FEET ASSISTED LIVINfs 2 SPACES PER )NIT COTNALMUT CARE: 4 SPACES • I SPACE PER 3 BEDS TOTAL. PAWM PROVIDED: 207 SPACES 0 I I � �L r(-,C?Are-0 �1 cle.�¢iat;Qr § I 4m.l W (n 7 Q Z Q t ©-Z8 �.LU K 0 > 0 0 O Q C N 0 ne C_ DATE:04/21M SHEET 1 of 1 JOB M 2803 0 `►���n C(oqKAr�) - Vwb k-.., PUBLIC MEETING rj -1 B ^ /00 SIGN IN SHEET (Opportunity to speak will be given in the order of the names listed below) (Please Print) 2 .gj-00 NAME/PRO ERTY E-MAIL ADDRESS/PHONE NO. QiS- a� gr`irF+�fy cttr�ury@Mt wrs Yin/�•n�} 6/136C3863 e aAll 7FRVISI� CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhall Oci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 29 April 2010 RE: Smithtown Crossing — Vision Statement Part 2 FILE NO. 405 (Sm. Crsg. Redev.) The Planning Commission reviewed a first draft of a proposed vision statement for Smithtown Crossing. Based on comments at the last meeting staff has elaborated on the statement to include a bit more background and rationale for the statement (see attached). This will be discussed at the Planning Commission meeting next Tuesday. Cc: Mayor and City Council Brian Heck to PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area 4/29/2010 Geographically, the intersection of Smithtown Road and County Road 19 (Smithtown Crossing) is relatively centered in the City of Shorewood. The City considers the area surrounding the intersection to be somewhat of a northern gateway to the community. As such, considerable time, energy and money have been invested to enhance the area. The City has developed a "civic campus" including the Shorewood Public Works Facility, the South Lake Public Safety Building, the South Shore Community Center, and a newly remodeled City Hall. Badger Park and the Gideon Glen Conservation Open Space area provide active and passive recreational opportunities for the area, and proximity to the Lake Minnetonka Regional LRT Trail provides pedestrian and bicycle access for South Lake Minnetonka residents. Finally, the intersection itself was redesigned and reconstructed in 2005. To date, private investment adjacent to Smithtown Crossing has not kept up with public investment. Commercial properties in the area are characterized as disjointed, with buildings that are low -valued and underutilized and, in many cases do not comply with current Shorewood zoning standards. In this regard, the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan has identified the area as being prime for redevelopment. In order to facilitate redevelopment that makes better use of land, better serves the residents of the community, enhances tax base, reflects the quality and character of the community, and is commensurate with the highly desirable, highly visible Smithtown Crossing area, the City has begun exploring options and incentives to assist the area in realizing its true potential. The first step of which is to develop a vision of what the area could be. That vision is summarized as follows: Vision Statement — Smithtown Crossing "The redevelopment of the area described as "Smithtown Crossing" will create a high quality, unified, planned mixture of residential and commercial uses that take advantage of views afforded by existing natural areas and parks, as well as the exposure to high volumes of vehicular traffic on the adjacent minor arterial street. The residential component should add to and enhance the variety of housing choices in the community. Commercial activities should serve not only residents of the project area, but the community as a whole. Access to, egress from, and circulation within Smithtown Crossing must be pedestrian/bicycle-friendly, to the point of encouraging little side trips from the LRT to the north or Badger Park to the south. Attractive and articulated architecture with pitched rooflines and natural materials will reflect the residential character and quality of the community. Landscaping will be natural and substantial, diminishing parking lot massing and softening and framing buildings on the site." L CITY OF � SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhallOci.shorewood.mmus MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 15 April 2010 RE: Zoning Code — Mixed Use FILE NO. Zoning (Chapter 1201.25) The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan identifies two sites as having potential for mixed use development (a combination of residential and nonresidential uses in one project). The Smithtown Crossings redevelopment area is one of those sites. Mixed use is typically handled as some sort of Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) which is addressed in Shorewood's Zoning Code in Chapter 1201.25. Subd. 2. (Permitted Uses) as that section of the Code already provides for a mixture of residential and nonresidential uses, as long as the site has at least four acres. Tuesday's meeting presents a good opportunity to discuss Planned Unit Development as a zoning tool. The Planning Commission should review Chapter 1201.25, particularly Subd. 1. and 2. Staff suggests that Subd. 2 be elaborated on to include criteria that would apply specifically to Smithtown Crossing and to mixed use in general. A preliminary list of criteria, based on our discussions of desirable features for the Smithtown Crossing project, will be made available at the meeting. Cc: Laura Turgeon is =` PRINTED GN RECYCLED PAPER ,A x CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhaII6ci.shcrewocd.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 15 April 2010 RE: Smithtown Crossing — Vision Statement FILE NO. 405 (Sm. Crsg. Redev.) Thus far the Planning Commission has identified issues related to the Smithtown Crossing redevelopment area, discussed the pros and cons of a unified versus piecemeal approach to the redevelopment and tossed around some general ideas of what the Commission might like to see in this area. The Commission has also agreed that we should meet with landowners and residents, then with development professionals before adopting some sort of more detailed plan for the area. At its last meeting the consensus of the Commission was to formulate a clear picture or description of what the City hopes to see for the subject area - for lack of a better term, we will use "vision statement". This is the point where we step back and view the area as we would like to see it, say in the next 10 —15 years. The vision statement should be a positive expression of what the City wants, rather than a list of what we don't want to see. It is often easier to say "we don't want a boring strip mall, like " than to actually describe what it is we are looking for. The vision should focus on "what" the area should be, rather than "how" we get there. We will get to the how after we decide what (e.g. rules, incentives, financial assistance, etc.). Once we have a consensus on what we want, we will meet with landowners and residents, then with development professionals. Based on those inputs, it is likely that the vision statement will be revised/updated. The proposed vision statement starts with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. Exhibit A, attached, is an excerpt from the text of Planning District 3, which is the area lying north of Smithtown Road and extending westerly from County Road 19 0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Smithtown Crossing — Vision Statement 15 April 2010 almost to Howard's Point Road. Since that was written, the Planning Commission has discussed a number of criteria for the proposed redevelopment area. Factors such as: mixing commercial and residential uses; pedestrian/bicycle circulation and connectivity; architectural treatment (e.g. residential character and natural materials); natural landscaping; and compatibility with surrounding land use activities have been suggested as parameters for the redevelopment of the area. With these in mind, staff has attempted to assemble a vision statement that paints a broad -brush picture of what the Planning Commission has discussed: Draft Vision Statement — Smithtown Crossing "The redevelopment of the area described as "Smithtown Crossing" will create a high quality, unified, planned mixture of residential and commercial uses that take advantage of views afforded by existing natural areas and parks, as well as the exposure to high volumes of vehicular traffic on the adjacent minor arterial street. The residential component should add to and enhance the variety of housing choices in the community. Commercial activities should serve not only residents of the project area, but the community as a whole. Access to, egress from, and circulation within Smithtown Crossing must be pedestrian/bicycle-friendly, to the point of encouraging little side trips from the LRT to the north or Badger Park to the south. Attractive and articulated architecture with pitched rooflines and natural materials will reflect the residential character and quality of the community. Landscaping will be natural and substantial, diminishing parking lot massing and softening and framing buildings on the site." This will be the starting point for the work session next Tuesday. A subsequent discussion later on that agenda will cover mixed use regulation, which is one of the "hows" that will help implement the vision. Cc: Mayor and City Council Brian Heck -2- Excerpt from Shorewood Comprehensive Plan — Plannina District 3 ........The Gideon Glen project is just one of several planning elements for the County Road 19/Smithtown Road area. The American Legion has indicated its desire to redevelop the commercial property in the northwest quadrant of the County Road 19/Smithtown Road/Country Club Road intersection. In addition to the Legion Post, this would likely include the nonconforming motor fuel station that exists on that comer today. In fact, the entire northwest quadrant of the "Smithtown Crossing" is considered prime for redevelopment, including all of the land currently zoned for commercial use. As mentioned in the Land Use Chapter, the City has expressed its interest in the following: • Unified/coordinated development; assembly of land parcels • Planned unit development • Possible mixed use — commercial/residential • Opportunity for additional senior housing • Predominant retail and office uses versus service commercial Redevelopment of the County Road 19 area has been enhanced by the realignment of County Road 19/Smithtown Road/Country Club intersection. Construction of this improvement was completed in 2005. Plans for this intersection include significant landscaping to create a northerly entry to the community. A Corridor Study, completed in early 2004 addresses commercial development, vehicular traffic, pedestrian circulation and the preservation and reforestation of the Gideon Glen site. The Study also sets forth a concept plan that provides guidelines for commercial landscaping along the corridor. Exhibit A CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD - SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • wwwxi.shorewood.mnxs • cityhaII@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 11 February 2010 RE: Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment — Planning Inventory/Issues FILE NO. 405(Sm Crsg Redev) At our last study session, we began discussing planning issues associated with the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area. Staff provided the Commission with a map of the Study Area (see Exhibits A and B), highlighting a number of issues to be considered, to which the Commission added others (see Exhibit C).. Following are those issues that have been raised to -date: • Study Area west boundary (it was decided that this edge of the study area could remain somewhat flexible, in the event a developer chooses to acquire one or more of the single-family residential lots that lie west of the commercial area) • Land uses (considerable interest has been expressed in exploring mixed use for the Study Area • Buffering and land use transitions • Taking advantage of views into Gideon Glen while preserving natural views from across and within Gideon Glen • Access (vehicular) — to and from County Road 19 and to and from Smithtown Road • Internal circulation — vehicular and pedestrian • Possibility of contaminated soils • Phasing • Redevelopment of lots on an individual basis • Future development of golf course property • Land use and zoning of s.f. residential property at 24250 Smithtown Road • Pedestrian connection from Badger Park to north side of Smithtown Road • Drainage* h �� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Smithtown Crossing — Issues and Inventory 11 February 2010 *Note. While this was not previously discussed, it is a significant issue and supports the concept of a unified development effort. The City Engineer advises us that properties within the study area not only need to address rate control, but also the new volume of water that comes from redevelopment. This supports the concept of a coordinated redevelopment scenario versus piece -meal redevelopment of individual sites. Individually, the properties would have to come up with their own ponding for each site. Staff has completed the planning inventory for the Study Area. Note that the Study Area has been extended slightly to the east to pick up the location of a possible pedestrian/bicycle crossing from Badger Field to the north side of County Road 19. The spread sheet on Exhibit D contains information one each of the properties in the Study Area, including ownership, area and values. We continue to work on an illustration of building and parking setbacks for individual properties. The zoning requirements for the C-1, General Commercial District are as follows: Buildings Front: 30 feet Side: 15 feet Rear: 30 feet Side Abutting Street: 30 feet Abutting Residential: 50 feet Parking Front: 15 feet Side: 5 feet Rear: 5 feet Buildings in the C-1 district can be three stories or 40 feet in height. Impervious surface coverage is limited to 66 percent. This may be increased to 75 percent in cases where on -site treatment of storm water runoff is provided. The Planning Commission agreed that the plans for redevelopment for the Smithtown Crossing area, should stop short of drawing up conceptual site plans for the study area. Rather, it has been proposed that the City express its preferences for various elements of the redevelopment, including, but not limited to, land use transition, buffering, connectivity, landscaping and architectural treatment. This will be the subject of next Tuesday's study session. Cc: Mayor and City Council Brian Heck James Landini Larry Brown 1pa r wf�-� I 004 I- ow "atp. Aw- tow Exhibit B • Smithtown Crossing Planning Inventory Prop. Address Owner Use Zoning Area Land Val. Struct. Val. Tot. Val. Notes 24620 Smithtown Rd Messenger S.F. Res R-1C 45731 $115,000 $60,000 $175,000 24590 Smithtown Rd Hirsch S.F. Res R-1C 43303 $115,000 $186,000 $301,000 24560 Smithtown Rd American Legion Vacant C-1 42107 $200,000 n/a $200,000 24530 Smithtown Rd Femrite M.F. Res C-1 14632 $90,000 $295,000 $385,000 Nonconforming use 24470 Smithtown Rd Triple B Equities (Bury) Auto Sales C-1 41258 $410,000 $190,000 $600,000 Substandard building 24450 Smithtown Rd American Legion Bar/Rest. C-1 51431 $264,000 $136,000 $400,000 5680 County Rd 19 American Legion Fuel Station C-1 15804 $195,000 $105,000 $300,000 Soils? 5660 County Rd 19 HopHerr Props (Heartbr) Ret./Office C-1 31694 $355,000 $45,000 $400,000 Subtotals 285960 $1,744,000 $1,017,000 $2,761,000 24365 Smithtown Rd T C Stores (Oasis) C Store/Fuel C-1 62970 $770,000 $170,000 $940,000 24285 Smithtown Rd Moore Auto Sales C-1 18199 $171,000 $169,000 $340,000 24275 Smithtown Rd Howe Auto Repair C-1 17871 $166,000 $154,000 $320,000 24245 Smithtown Rd Wash N Roll Car Wash C-1 20218 $177,000 $138,000 $315,000 Subtotals 119258 $1,284,000 $631,000 $1,915,000 24250 Smithtown Rd Justinak S.F.Res R-2A 69154 $216,000 $243,000 $459,000 24200 Smithtown Rd City of Shorewood Pub. Works R-2A 253429 n/a n/a n/a 24100 Smithtown Rd City of Shorewood et al Fire/Police R-2A 294115 n/a n/a n/a 40 Exhibit D CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.a.9horewood.mmus • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 14 January 2010 RE: Smithtown Crossing — Redevelopment Discussion FILE NO. 405 (Smithtown Crossing) At our last meeting it was agreed that we should start the discussion of a more detailed area plan for the Smithtown Crossings area. Staff had indicated that work should start with a planning inventory of the area adjacent to the intersection of Smithtown Road and County Road 19. We haven't gotten as far on that as we would have liked, but we have managed to put together some maps of the study area. On Tuesday night, it is our intention to begin the discussion by identifying planning issues within the study area. Have a great weekend! Cc: Brian Heck 1n 1� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER y � �♦ M i 11' f onka N eet FEake W , .r 42 At r A a s k. Gideon Glen rt 4 1 , 4k 1$} 0 1 ' Nv J e - b •t . w z, Smithtow, R *440 140.