The URL can be used to link to this page

Draftsr , 4 ' BRAD NIELSEN PLANNING DIRECTOR r planning @ci.shorewood.mn.us CITY OF SHOREWOOD www.cj_slhorewood.mn.us 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD OFFICE: 952 960-7912 SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 FAX: 952 474-0128 SMITHTO WN CROSS ING 'o. Lah=_f: Poke 8. 5 F`3dgef F,ir, REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 3rd D' A T June 20 2 Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study Table of Contents Page Introduction...............................................................................I PlanningIssues...........................................................................7 Redevelopment Guiding Principles.............................................11 Plan..........................................................................................13 • Zoning Parameters - Commercial: C-1 - Residential: R-313 • Update Regulations - Mixed Use - Building Height - Senior Housing Density • Design Criteria - Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation - Landscaping - Architecture/Materials ConceptSketch....................................................................................19 CityParticipation...................................................................................23 • Tax Increment Financing • Land • EDA Appendix • Planning Inventory • List of Meeting Dates • Traffic Volume Map C if 3 0 0 R lMn L ® W M I 7 IN Executive Summary While readers are encouraged to read the entire Study, following is a summary of the recommendations included therein: ➢ Encourage unified/coordinated redevelopment versus a piece-meal/individual approach. ➢ Consider various incentives to achieve coordinated and higher quality development. ➢ Utilize Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and establish parameters for mixed use (residential and commercial). ➢ Incentives and rewards will be tied to compliance with the City's redevelopment "guiding principles". • Consider use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to encourage land assembly, common open area and high quality architecture and landscaping. • Consider City acquisition of land as it becomes available to help facilitate land assembly. ➢ Require marketability and traffic studies for proposed activities. ➢ Provide for bicycle/pedestrian connections and circulation within the Study Area. ➢ Require substantial, natural, low maintenance landscaping in order to create buffers and achieve incentives. ➢ Include public/common open space internal to the project. ➢ Encourage well articulated architecture with pitched rooflines, tiered levels, interesting shadowing and natural materials. 0 0 h � Il1`�l Ili��ll a W M 0 Ik '�'. . �� ♦ .• I ♦f ! �♦ +!. � aril 1� �� a. O.� V • 0 � ! U U l��V' ,A:1, a :.:_ +y' ^� , �. ►� , i � rf /��rdr y��5r' ��(��y C% 1 •� � k, i. • • � re r��VU c'�. A'a •� lei �� 1 � •! e • .•�A JJ i� jo iown Crossingmudy Area Uj R L 1 tyr� •ILY :ri• I� �y. b IJt • ��~••• _ - /i ''I'll.: r kL r ki,;•h'{r r� • � r I f � y�iL �� ..yg •_ -� •n Ir 1 ` _ _ 4 Introduction Geographically, the intersection of Smithtown Road and County Road 19 (Smithtown Crossing) is relatively centered in the City of Shorewood. The City considers the area surrounding the intersection to be somewhat of a northern gateway to the community. As such, considerable time, energy and money have been invested to enhance the area. The City has developed a "civic campus" including the Shorewood Public Works Facility, the South Lake Public Safety Building, the South Shore Community Center, and a newly remodeled City Hall. Badger Park and the Gideon Glen Conservation Open Space area provide active and passive recreational opportunities for the area, and proximity to the Lake Minnetonka Regional LRT Trail provides pedestrian and bicycle access for South Lake Minnetonka residents. Finally, the intersection itself was redesigned and reconstructed in 2005. To date, private investment adjacent to Smithtown Crossing has not kept up with public investment. Commercial properties in the area are characterized as disjointed, with buildings that are low -valued and underutilized and, in many cases do not comply with current Shorewood zoning standards. In this regard, the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan has identified the area as being prime for redevelopment. In order to facilitate redevelopment that makes better use of land, better serves the residents of the community, enhances tax base, reflects the quality and character of the community, and is commensurate with the highly desirable, highly visible Smithtown Crossing area, the City has begun exploring options and incentives to assist the area in realizing its true potential. The Planning Commission began working on the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study in early 2010. The study area boundary was established as shown on Figure 1, preceding, and Figures 2 and 3 in the following pages. The study area contains a total of 10.9 acres and consists of three locations: 1) the northwest quadrant of the intersection; 2) the southeast quadrant of the intersection; and 3) the area north of County Road 19, just west of Shorewood Lane. The study focused primarily on the northwest quadrant of the intersection, which contains anywhere from 4.52 to 6.56 acres, depending on how far west a project might extend. The southwest quadrant of the intersection contains another 2.74 acres. The area to the north of County Road 19 has 1.59 acres. A brief planning inventory, examining the various uses in the district, property ownership, zoning and values was prepared and is contained in the Appendix of this report. With the exception of the American Legion, a retail/office building and a small, nonconforming apartment building, the area is predominantly occupied by auto -oriented uses (sales, auto repair, fuel station, car wash, etc.). Two single-family homes are also included in the study area. ir OI 11 0 Page 1 Il � MR, W Im + J11 WGideon Glen� (Conservation Open Space) .18 n -- -T z (.33 ac.)�I`�� , (97 ac.) (.99 ac.) (1.05 ac.) - r41 o i. --s + + 60 120 —240� / rewood Planning.Depaitment 2 - rM Tonka Bay Smithtown Crossin _ g, Redevelopment ` a n� + Study Area --� (See Appendix -"for detailed lot information)- o,Shorewood SouthlLake, Public Works Public -Safety 2` _ �df � 1__24250 «L (1.59 ac.) 0 IN shore � unity/,Centerl' Figure 2 S' W.. w t1 Figure 3 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. I O Page 7 H r` 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 pedestrianibicycle circulation and connectivity, architectural treatment (e.g. residential character and natural materials), natural landscaping, and compatibility with surrounding land use activities as parameters for the redevelopment of the area. From this, the following was derived: Redevelopment Guiding Principles — Smithtown Crossing The project will result in a unified/coordinated pattern of development. 2. The use or mixture of uses of property in the study area shall be based on market needs and analysis of detailed traffic study. Site design should take advantage of views afforded by existing natural areas and parks. 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 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 Il Page 11 1M on M cOR Any housing component should add to and enhance the variety of housing choices in the community. Commercial activities should serve not only the residents of the project area, but the community as a whole. 7. Access to and egress from, and circulation within Smithtown Crossing must be pedestrianibicycle friendly. 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 O E Page 12 M Il� Hn t®'0 ffi (�l Smithtown Crossing — Plan From the very beginning of this study, it has been realized that properties within the study area may develop or redevelop individually. It is not the City's intent to stand in the way of property owners wishing to improve their land. Individual site development will be expected to adhere to the development regulations currently in place. What is the intent of this study is to encourage a higher level of quality than might occur with piecemeal development under the current rules. In this regard, there are a number of ways that the City can reduce regulatory obstacles and even incite or reward development built to the higher standards envisioned by this study. The greater a project complies with the City's vision for the area, the greater the incentive with respect to zoning flexibility and even City participation in the project. Zoning Parameters With the exception of the public facilities located north of County Road 19 and the three residential properties in the study area, all of the subject lots are zoned C-1, General Commercial (see Figure 4). Individual lots must adhere to the standard of that zoning district, including height limitations. Any coordinated development of several or all of the subject properties should be done by Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.), using the C-1 District and the R-313, Multiple -Family Residential District as the underlying standards for the project. Any use of currently zoned residential lots shall be residential with building heights not exceeding 35 feet and two and a half stories. The single-family residential property on the north side of County Road 19 is surrounded by commercial development in Tonka Bay and public facilities (public works, police and fire). The City should be open to a rezoning of this site to R-C, Residential/Commercial. Update Regulations While the City's current P.U.D. provisions could be used to process a mixed use type of project, involving a mixture of commercial and residential development, it is recommended that the Shorewood Zoning Code be amended to specifically address mixed use. This update of the Code would include provisions tying flexibility and reward to the level of compliance with City's vision for the area. One such provision might include an allowance for additional building height based on architectural design and extent and type of landscaping. For certain types of housing in a mixed use project, higher densities than what current regulations allow might be C considered where it could be demonstrated that the density would be compatible with surrounding uses and where resulting traffic volumes would not adversely affect existing streets. T In this regard, a mixed use project would be required to submit a traffic study as part of its application submittals. Design Criteria 23 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 R Page 13 ME, ti n i o W IM 9 it C-1 ftftftft 1Smithtown Crossing Study Area S MENOW C-1 10 I Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Zoning Districts RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS R-1A Single -Family (40,000 sq. ft.) 17R-1 B Single -Family (30,000 sq. ft.) R-IC Single-Family(20,000sq. ft.) ,�� R-ID Single -Family (10,000 sq. ft.) as R-2A Single/Two-Family (20,000130,000 sq. ft.) R-2B SinglelTwo-Family (15,000120,000 sq. ft.) R-2C Single/Two-Family (10, 000/15, 000 sq. ft.) R-3A Two-Family/Multiple (20,000130,000 sq. ft.) R-3B Two-Family/Multiple (15,000120,000 sq. ft.) COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS C-1 General Commercial C-2 Service Commercial SPECIAL DISTRICTS u L-R Lakeshore -Recreational u PUD Planned Unit Development i P int VS Shoreland GD General Development L RD Recreational Development NE Natural Environment N R=1 A * FL Fire Lane A 0 200 400 800 �� U Feet / Shorewood Planning Department 10112 Figure 5 future trails and sidewalk systems. Sidewalks built with the reconstruction of the intersection in 2005 will ultimately provide connection with the LRT Trail to the north and to the City Hall/Badger Field complex south and east of the intersection. The County Road 19 Corridor Study illustrates an entire network of pedestrian/bicycle segments to the east of the study area. Smithtown Crossing should link to that system as well as extend west along Smithtown Road to the westerly extent of the project. Landscaping has long been recognized as an effective means of creating buffers, diminishing the impact of building massing, enhancing architecture and screening and cooling of parking lots. The County Road 19 Corridor Study, adopted in 2003 sets forth concepts for streetscaping along the corridor as it passes through Shorewood. These concepts should be implemented on both the County Road 19 and Smithtown Road sides of the project, converging at thewtt:� northwest comer of the ExanWk Landscaping, screening/cooling parking Iota 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 Example: Landscaping, public space Page 17 minimum landscaping requirements currently found in the City's zoning regulations, both in terms of size and quantities of plant materials. Site planning and landscaping C for Smithtown Crossing should incorporate some sort of public space or common area that invites visitors to spend a little more time in the area, relaxing or connecting with others. 0 R ay MI1gDn�®WEn LESS 95 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"kidOq 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. :Architecture —diminish visual impact of height with construction materials, landscaping M ir 0 n Page 18 Il ®� Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Concept From the beginning of this study the City has deliberately avoided trying to dictate the design of the site or the buildings to be located within the project area. Rather, this plan is intended to convey the character of development the City wishes to see in the Study Area. During various public meetings at which the study was presented, it became clear that those interested in the project wanted more visual depictions of what was being described. Preceding pages include photographic examples of the types of buildings and landscaping the City desires. While no attempt has been made to produce an illustrative site plan for the Study Area, the Concept Sketch on the following page attempts to show the potential functional relationships of the various elements of future development. 0 Il Page 19 MR, ® W ZQ 0 s 1 � 1 a '-� it "� � ��"✓] � � '� ,� r \ r /may �lI 7.1 66 Cl J, Feet \ , �� r: �5a Bay C Smithtown Crossing - Redevelopment Concept Sketch Sblitli�� i `GVor :�i pli oaf —_I \�'�X \'`��_ vI c, ��— �O �'Yadge,rPark1 1 i //� Figure 6 City Participation While the plan for the redevelopment of Smithtown Crossing includes reducing regulatory obstacles, that alone may not be enough to entice the type of development envisioned in this study. Since the City's vision for the area requires development to substantially exceed current regulations (e.g. extra landscaping, architectural standards, acquisition and combination of land parcels), it will likely take some investment on the City's part. The greater the City's involvement, the greater say the City has in how the property develops. Following are possible ways in which the City can be involved. Tax Increment Financing Early on in the conversations about redeveloping the Smithtown Crossing area, tax increment financing (TIF) was mentioned as a possible tool for enticing developers to invest in a project. TIF is a financing tool that uses future gains in tax revenues to finance the cost of current improvements, including - in some cases- writing down the cost of land. Shorewood has used TIF successfully in the past when building the intersection at Old Market Road and Highway 7. In that case, the City opted for a "pay-as-you-go" method where any future risk is assumed by the developer. This is what is recommended for Smithtown Crossing. While there are projects done involving cities assuming some or all of the risk, this method is not recommended for the Smithtown Crossing redevelopment project. Acquisition of Land One of the most difficult obstacles to overcome in a redevelopment project is assembling land for a unified, cohesive development. It is strongly suggested that, as parcels within the redevelopment area become available on the market, the City consider acquiring them. These properties should be viewed as an investment in the redevelopment and could be sold to an ultimate developer "at cost" as a demonstration of the City's commitment to the project. This would also provide leverage toward the City having more input on the type, quality and design of the project. Economic Development Authority Shorewood already has an Economic Development Authority (EDA) which has been used successfully in the redevelopment of the property currently occupied by the South Lake Public Safety facility. The EDA can be useful with regard to tax increment financing as well as in the acquisition of property. Assisting in the correction of problem soils is yet another function of an EDA. T (0 0 23 0 R Page 23 MR, ® W M 5 Appendix 0 0 E � II1711Ili �11 � ® wim cL Prop. Address Owner Use 24620 Smithtown Rd City of Shorewood Vacant 24590 Smithtown Rd Hirsch S.F. Res 24560 Smithtown Rd American Legion Vacant 24530 Smithtown Rd Femrite M.F. Res 24470 Smithtown Rd Triple B Equities (Bury) Auto Sales 24450 Smithtown Rd American Legion Bar/Rest. 5680 County Rd 19 American Legion Fuel Station 5660 County Rd 19 HopHerr Props (Heartbr) Ret./Office 24365 Smithtown Rd T C Stores (Oasis) C Store/Fuel 24285 Smithtown Rd Moore Auto Sales 24275 Smithtown Rd Howe Auto Repair 24245 Smithtown Rd Wash N Roll Car Wash 24250 Smithtown Rd lustinak S.F.Res 24200 Smithtown Rd Smithtown Crossing Planning Inventory Zoning Area (Sq.Ft.) Area Ac. Land Val. Struct. Val. Tot. Val. Notes R-1C 45731 1.05 $150,000 $150,000 R-1C 43303 0.99 $115,000 $186,000 $301,000 C-1 42107 0.97 $200,000 n/a $200,000 C-1 14632 0.33 $90,000 $295,000 $385,000 Nonconforming use C-1 41258 0.95 $410,000 $190,000 $600,000 Substandard building C-1 51431 1.18 $264,000 $136,000 $400,000 C-1 15804 0.36 $195,000 $105,000 $300,000 C-1 31694 0.73 $355,000 $45,000 $400,000 Subtotals 285960 6.56 $1,744,000 $1,017,000 $2,761,000 C-1 62970 1.45 $770,000 $170,000 $940,000 C-1 18199 0.42 $171,000 $169,000 $340,000 C-1 17871 0.41 $166,000 $154,000 $320,000 C-1 20218 0.46 $177,000 $138,000 $315,000 Subtotals 119258 2.74 $1,284,000 $631,000 $1,915,000 R-2A 69154 1.59 $216,000 $243,000 $459,000 .0 Smithtown Crossing Meetings The Shorewood Planning Commission has spent many months preparing the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study. Following is a list of Planning Commission meetings at which the Study was discussed. Some of the "milestone" meetings have been highlighted and summaries of selected meetings are provided below. It is worth noting that some of the early discussions referred to Planning District 3 from the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. February 17, 2009 April 7, 2009 January 19, 2010 February 16, 2010 March 2, 2010 March 16, 2010 April 6, 2010 Tax Increment Financing (T.I.F.) April 20, 2010 Vision Statement May 4, 2010 Joint Meeting with City Council May 18, 2010 Meeting with Landowners * June 29, 2010 Meeting with Developers (Forum) ** July 20, 2010 August 17, 2010 Discussion of Mobile Tour *** September 14, 2010 Mixed Use February 15, 2011 March 1, 2011 *The Planning Commission met with a number of owners of land within the study area. The purpose of the meeting was to get feedback from them on issues related to redevelopment and to illustrate to them the advantages of a unified, cohesive redevelopment versus a piecemeal approach. The consensus of those attending the meeting appeared to agree with the direction the Commission was proposing. **Early on it was determined that input from people who actually do projects was important to the ultimate success of the project. A panel of development professionals was asked to comment on the Vision Statement and the concept drawings that had been reviewed by the Commission. The panel members all commented on the materials and then answered questions from the Meetings (continued) Commission. The general consensus of the panel was that Shorewood's development regulations are in need of revision in order to make a redevelopment project viable. Four key points were made: 1) The site is not well suited for retail commercial. Rather, some sort of service commercial development (e.g. banking, personal services, possibly office, etc.) should be expected. 2) The City should consider allowing something higher than the three stories allowed under the current regulations. 3) Whether the housing element was market or senior, Shorewood's current density limits are too low. 4) In this economy, redevelopment may not occur for some time. ***The Commission spent an evening visiting mixed use and senior housing projects. There was consensus that two projects in Golden Valley, Town Square and the Commons, contained elements that would be desirable for Smithtown Crossing. A mixed use redevelopment project in Glen Lake (Minnetonka) illustrated how the impact of building height could be mitigated with construction materials, siting, and landscaping. Some of the photographs used in this report came from the mobile tour. (— NORTH �'/� T NKA _ �0 ��V I a Solberg EXCELSIOR PLEA '`�4 / BLUFF u 0 ASANT Point B1aCH W n AVE' \ Duck Frog VA EW ORCHARD ?� \ Island Island aR. Ct^ RD. oo v CIR. I R /0 Qk,o' O p• o o� < p OP1 OAR, N v �O VALLEYOD LA. 3�0 ! v! y 9p Z AMLEE R J\ \ dry P� NELSINE v O a d /j SUNNYW VALE _ DR GLEN �' m z h D ROSES LA•LA. ¢ a ¢ ¢ 0 1 1 a v AR w o w -, JO ¢ -� o i w ✓ W <q ¢ 19 � EK O CR EK mo N o < ¢ 43 ONKA u ROINC A E. a J o u o LA. O ..� o" 10/ "��(/ STAR '- m �n RD. 6 J 82 1 ¢xo , o c + MITH TOWN LL N CIRIC) SMITH TOOV -" R GILLETtE o I 19 RD. l u i s AP q�/ I I t y CL CU VE g i w I Y"oo LA. O¢ H(0) a MCC41 3 ECHO EL R g w J SMITHTOWN w o CADD jR, "RD• I J l 150 a LA. Cal I � WB -' �G�Q t' w RIQ7,E POINT A ACADEMY AVE. G A ERRY G N a > MANN LA. C T, > QS'P �. SR• ' PARK r ® z w a 10 C) ri u z 7(�(��JJ(\Q�J. 110 W zo W i J a TI m J '4 G W �CLLYf>j�a O OV W W U Z Q U C Q• J C�� a w �W000 x(�] ,� i < u '� RRACKETT m J ,,, t„ W A �O Q J a; 2 GALPIN CA. 3ERRY u~i a .y j CT• VIEW -z MAPLE u m 2 OR. W ] v2� N P u pOfNCy Ay S VP MURRAY ST. u AVE. WOOD OAKS o v� d j �• Q, m�rd�3 'Ofl HO rE• c FCOII'ER r o SHOR OAK LEAF A TR. �P• N '��, u ��ff cP0 OR `�`�a g o M r- �Q.4?TRA IT e PARK !^ WILTSEY LA. s W PO' AV o u mm O`"�p�' C y P W. (� / \ it PS P !WashEa o 41 o l��a~a�' m R23W R23W 3 11 3313q 34 u q 2009 Traffic Volumes i, Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation 1 SMITHTOWN CROSSING REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 2NDDRAFT E n u Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study Table of Contents Page Introduction...............................................................................1 PlanningIssues...........................................................................7 Vision Statement........................................................................11 Plan........................................................................................................................13 • Zoning Parameters - Commercial: C-1 - Residential: R-313 • Update Regulations - Mixed Use - Building Height - Senior Housing Density • Design Criteria - Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation - Landscaping - Architecture/Materials CityParticipation...................................................................................17 • Tax Increment Financing • Land • EDA Appendix • Planning Inventory • List of Meeting Dates �Ii11111��Illf�A '.)l�Lnll I Introduction Geographically, the intersection of Smithtown Road and County Road 19 (Smithtown Crossing) is relatively centered in the City of Shorewood. The City considers the area surrounding the intersection to be somewhat of a northern gateway to the community. As such, considerable time, energy and money have been invested to enhance the area. The City has developed a "civic campus" including the Shorewood Public Works Facility, the South Lake Public Safety Building, the South Shore Community Center, and a newly remodeled City Hall. Badger Park and the Gideon Glen Conservation Open Space area provide active and passive recreational opportunities for the area, and proximity to the Lake Minnetonka Regional LRT Trail provides pedestrian and bicycle access for South Lake Minnetonka residents. Finally, the intersection itself was redesigned and reconstructed in 2005. To date, private investment adjacent to Smithtown Crossing has not kept up with public investment. Commercial properties in the area are characterized as disjointed, with buildings that are low -valued and underutilized and, in many cases do not comply with current Shorewood zoning standards. In this regard, the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan has identified the area as being prime for redevelopment. In order to facilitate redevelopment that makes better use of land, better serves the residents of the community, enhances tax base, reflects the quality and character of the community, and is commensurate with the highly desirable, highly visible Smithtown Crossing area, the City has begun exploring options and incentives to assist the area in realizing its true potential. The Planning Commission began working on the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study in early 2010. The study area boundary was established as shown on Figures 1 and 2 in the following pages. The study area contains a total o 2f 3.46 res (not including the Gideon Glen open space property) and consists of three locations: 1) the northwest quadrant of the intersection; 2) the southeast quadrant of the intersection; and 3) the area north of County Road 19, just west of Shorewood Lane. The study focused primarily on the northwest quadrant of the intersection, which contains anywhere from 4.52 to 6.56 acres, depending on how far west a project might extend. The southwest quadrant of the intersection contains another 2.74 acres. While the area to the north of County Road 19 has 14.16 acres, 12.56 acres of that is occupied by the Shorewood Public Works Department and the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety facility (police and fire). A brief planning inventory, examining the various uses in the district, property ownership, zoning and values was prepared and is contained in the Appendix of this report. With the exception of the American Legion, a retail/office building and a small, nonconforming apartment Ir building, the area is predominantly occupied by auto -oriented uses (sales, auto repair, fuel station, car wash, etc.). Three single-family homes are also included in the study area. 0 5 0 �} �j E Page l � M Il U �® W im E err y � IF k " ' y 1• �r" r •ems • t Or low ccr P 4.i1p- Figure 2 Ar_ - " 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 • ed-sails • Phasing • Redevelopment of lots on an individual basis V1p ,4A • 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* *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. 'The'l't: cr 4 kC tv1�u .v� c�LJJl �O pr^-,,A vwoi 6- e'1Cr-=-,v^ed, { l� OR Page 7 M Il ® W IM 9 il I Vision Statement 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 "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. The proposed vision statement 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* �/ 5 I On *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: 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 We side trips from the LRT to the north or Badger Park to the south. Attractive and culated 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." It must be realized that this vision statement will likely evolve as it is subjected to public input. IW 1 • 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 % 1 With the exceptio the public facilitie ocated north of County Road 19 and the three residential pr ies in the study area, all of the subject lots are zoned C-1, General Commercial. dividual 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-I District and the R-311, Multiple - Family Residential District as the underlying standards for the project. The single-family residential property on the north side of County Road 19 is surrounded by commercial development in Tonka Bay and public facilities (public works, police and fire). The City should be open to a rezoning of this site to R-C, Residential/Commercial. Update Regulations While the City's current P.U.D. provisions could be used to process a mixed use type of project, involving a mixture of commercial and residential development, it is recommended that the Shorewood Zoning Code be amended to specifically address mixed use. This update of the Code would include provisions tying flexibility and reward to the level of compliance with City's vision for the area. One such provision might include an allowance for additional building height based on architectural design and extent and type of landscaping. For certain types of housing in a mixed use project, higher densities than what current regulations allow might be considered where it could be demonstrated that the density would be compatible with surrounding uses and where resulting traffic volumes would not adversely affect existing streets. In this regard, a mixed use project would be required to submit a traffic study as part of its application submittals. Design Criteria Inherent to any mixed use development project is attention to pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Site planning should include both internal circulation as well as connections to existing and C4 Ir 0 H Page 13 2II1�E, ht®�Dil X � 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 Example. Landscaping, public space Page y4 ` i. 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 space or common area that invites visitors to spend a little more time in the area, relaxing or connecting with others. 3 0 H �IIff11ll®WIM cON 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 an far in mitigating the visual impact of larger, taller articulation buildings. Similarly, features such as awnings, natural building materials, balconies and lighting help to diminish building masses and create a human scale for the project. And, as mentioned in the previous section, nothing does more to soften and enhance building than landscaping. One of the incentives that can be explored in Smithtown Crossing is allowing somewhat taller building height than what is allowed by Shorewood's current regulations. At present, the C-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 VU Page 15 C 0 O Il �MIlt�Ih�®�r� ( lly City Participation While the plan for the redevelopment of Smithtown Crossing includes reducing regulatory obstacles, that alone may not be enough to entice the type of development envisioned in this study. Since the City's vision for the area requires development to substantially exceed current regulations (e.g. extra landscaping, architectural standards, acquisition and combination of land parcels), it will likely take some investment on the City's part. The greater the City's involvement, the greater say the City has in how the property develops. Following are possible ways in which the City can be involved. Tax Increment Financing Early on in the conversations about redeveloping the Smithtown Crossing area, tax increment financing (TIF) was mentioned as a possible tool for enticing developers to invest in a project. TIF is a financing tool that uses future gains in tax revenues to finance the cost of current improvements, including - in some cases- writing down the cost of land. Shorewood has used TIF successfully in the past when building the intersection at Old Market Road and Highway 7. In that case, the City opted for a "pay-as-you-go" method where any future risk is assumed by the developer. This is what is recommended for Smithtown Crossing. While there are projects done involving cities assuming some or all of the risk, this method is not recommended for the Smithtown Crossing redevelopment project. Acquisition of Land One of the most difficult obstacles to overcome in a redevelopment project is assembling land for a unified, cohesive development. It is strongly suggested that, as parcels within the redevelopment area become available on the market, the City consider acquiring them. These properties should be viewed as an investment in the redevelopment and could be sold to an ultimate developer "at cost" as a demonstration of the City's commitment to the project. This would also provide leverage toward the City having more input on the type, quality and design of the project. Economic Development Authority Shorewood already has an Economic Development Authority (EDA) which has been used successfully in the redevelopment of the property currently occupied by the South Lake Public Safety facility. The EDA can be useful with regard to tax increment financing as well as in the C acquisition of property. Assisting in the correction of problem soils is yet another function of an EDA. Ir 101 N D Il Paget? M Il ��l Smithtown Crossin Meetin s The Shorewood PlanningCo Crossing Redevelopment Commission has spent many months re the Stud Pment Study. Following is a list ofplannin preparing the Smithtown Y was discussed. Some of the "milestone" summaries of selected meetin s are g C°nun hi n meetings at which discussions referred to pl g provided below. It is worrtha been highlighted and arming District 3 from the Shorewood Comprehensive noting atS Some e of the early 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 August 17, 2010 September 14, 2010 February 15, 2011 March 1, 2011 Tax Increment Financing (T.I.F.) Vision Statement Joint Meeting with City Council Meeting with Landowners * Meeting with Developers (Forum) ** Discussion of Mobile Tour *** Mixed Use *The Planning Co Purpose of nmussion met with a number the meeting was to get feedbacfrof owners ss land within illustrate to there the advantages them on issues related t the redeveloazea. The approach. The consensus of h s of a unified, cohesive redevelo those attendin Pment versus Pment and to Commission was proposing attendingthe meeting appeared e a a piecemeal to agree with the direction the **Early on it was determined the ultimate success of the project. A ut from people who actually on the Vision Statement Panel of development si Projects was important to The panel members all commented othe tdrawings that had been reviewed b asked to comment materials and then answered y the Commission. questions from the LI Mugs (cot Commission. The general consensus of the panel was that Shorewood' develo me regulations are in need of revision in order to make a redevelopment Points were made; P nt pment project viable. Four key 1) The site i not well suited for retail commercial. Rather, some sort of service commercial development (e.g, bank{n should be expected. g>Personalse 2) The City mOQs> Possibly office, etc.) ty should consider allowing under the current re g somethinns.g higher than 3) Whether the housing ge ement was the wee stories allowed limits are too low. market or senior, Shorewood's current density 4) In this economy, redevelopment may not occur for some time. ***The Commissions pent was consensusP an evening visiting mixed use and senior housing that two projects in Golden Valley, Town S elements that would be desirable for S g Projects. There in Glen Lake (Minnetonka) illus Smithtown Crossin A mixed and the Commons, contained Crated how the impact g °' mixed use redevelopment construction materials, siting, and landscaping. Pact of buildingtig project came from the mobile tour, ping• Some of the height could be Photographs used in mitigated with this report n u Prop. Address Owner Use 24620 Smithtown Rd Messenger S.F. Res 24590 Smithtown Rd Hirsch S.F. Res 24560 Smithtown Rd American Legion Vacant 24530 Smithtown Rd Femrite M.F. Res 24470 Smithtown Rd Triple B Equities (Bury) Auto Sales 24450 Smithtown Rd American Legion Bar/Rest. 5680 County Rd 19 American Legion Fuel Station 5660 County Rd 19 HopHerr Props (Heartbr) Ret./Office 24365 Smithtown Rd T C Stores (Oasis) C Store/Fuel 24285 Smithtown Rd Moore Auto Sales 24275 Smithtown Rd Howe Auto Repair 24245 Smithtown Rd Wash N Roll Car Wash 24250 Smithtown Rd Justinak S.F.Res 24200 Smithtown Rd City of Shorewood Pub. Works 24100 Smithtown Rd City of Shorewood et al Fire/Police Smithtown Crossing Planning Inventory Zoning Area Land Val. Struct. Val. Tot. Val. Notes R-IC 45731 $115,000 $60,000 $175,000 R-1C 43303 $115,000 $186,000 $301,000 C-1 42107 $200,000 n/a $200,000 C-1 14632 $90,000 $295,000 $385,000 Nonconforming use C-1 41258 $410,000 $190,000 $600,000 Substandard building C-1 51431 $264,000 $136,000 $400,000 C-1 15804 $195,000 $105,000 $300,000 Soils? C-1 31694 $355,000 $45,000 $400,000 Subtotals 285960 $1,744,000 $1,017,000 $2,761,000 C-1 62970 $770,000 $170,000 $940,000 C-1 18199 $171,000 $169,000 $340,000 C-1 17871 $166,000 $154,000 $320,000 C-1 20218 $177,000 $138,000 $315,000 Subtotals 119258 $1,284,000 $631,000 $1,915,000 R-2A 69154 $216,000 $243,000 $459,000 R-2A 253429 n/a n/a n/a R-2A 294115 n/a n/a n/a-- NORTH Solberg EXCELSIOR Point \ "Y vashfa 2009 Traffic Volumes Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation SMITHTOWN CROSSING REDEVELOPMENT STUDY Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study Table of Contents Page Introduction...............................................................................1 PlanningIssues...........................................................................7 VisionStatement........................................................................11 Plan........................................................................................................................13 • Zoning Parameters - Commercial: C-1 - Residential: R-313 • Update Regulations - Mixed Use - Building Height - Senior Housing Density • Design Criteria - Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation - Landscaping - Architecture/Materials CityParticipation...................................................................................17 • Tax Increment Financing • Land • EDA Appendix — Planning Inventory 5 0 Il �IT1T1Ili��i�®�JIIl r Introduction Geographically, the intersection of Smithtown Road and County Road 19 (Smithtown Crossing) is relatively centered in the City of Shorewood. The City considers the area surrounding the intersection to be somewhat of a northern gateway to the community. As such, considerable time, energy and money have been invested to enhance the area. The City has developed a "civic campus" including the Shorewood Public Works Facility, the South Lake Public Safety Building, the South Shore Community Center, and a newly remodeled City Hall. Badger Park and the Gideon Glen Conservation Open Space area provide active and passive recreational opportunities for the area, and proximity to the Lake Minnetonka Regional LRT Trail provides pedestrian and bicycle access for South Lake Minnetonka residents. Finally, the intersection itself was redesigned and reconstructed in 2005. To date, private investment adjacent to Smithtown Crossing has not kept up with public investment. Commercial properties in the area are characterized as disjointed, with buildings that are low -valued and underutilized and, in many cases do not comply with current Shorewood zoning standards. In this regard, the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan has identified the area as being prime for redevelopment. In order to facilitate redevelopment that makes better use of land, better serves the residents of the community, enhances tax base, reflects the quality and character of the community, and is commensurate with the highly desirable, highly visible Smithtown Crossing area the City has begun exploring options and incentives to assist the area in realizing its true potential. The Planning Commission began working on the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study in early 2010. The study area boundary was established as shown on Figures 1 and 2 in the following pages. The study area contains a total of 23.46 acres (not including the Gideon Glen open space property) and consists of three locations: 1) the northwest quadrant of the intersection; 2) the southeast quadrant of the intersection; and 3) the area north of County Road 19, just west of Shorewood Lane. The study focused primarily on the northwest quadrant of the intersection, which contains anywhere from 4.52 to 6.56 acres, depending on how far west a project might extend. The southwest quadrant of the intersection contains another 2.74 acres. While the area to the north of County Road 19 has 14.16 acres, 12.56 acres of that is occupied by the Shorewood Public Works Department and the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety facility (police and fire). A brief planning inventory, examining the various uses in the district, property ownership, zoning and values was prepared and is contained in the Appendix of this report. With the exception of the American Legion, a retail/office building and a small, nonconforming apartment building, the area is predominantly occupied by auto -oriented uses (sales, auto repair, fuel station, car wash, etc.). Three single-family homes are also included in the study area. V 3 0 E Page l M on Im I r+1raT • . 0 0. 1 4 A: a I �Snnt�h"town Crossing .•�r., �� 7F ,ARedevelopment ti A#eriaiiew s f J! Yt J .. 'Wm. i' -0= . OF UP a Figure 2 AL 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 morof 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* *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. �IN li 0 Page 7 g R �MfloAIM Vision Statement 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 "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. The proposed vision statement 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: 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 Ir natural and substantial, diminishing parking lot massing and softening and framing buildings on the site." It must be realized that this vision statement will likely evolve as it is subjected to public input. 0 0 R Page 11 Mn, ® W IM n 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-313, Multiple - Family Residential District as the underlying standards for the project. The single-family residential property on the north side of County Road 19 is surrounded by commercial development in Tonka Bay and public facilities (public works, police and fire). The City should be open to a rezoning of this site to R-C, Residential/Commercial. Update Regulations While the City's current P.U.D. provisions could be used to process a mixed use type of project, involving a mixture of commercial and residential development, it is recommended that the Shorewood Zoning Code be amended to specifically address mixed use. This update of the Code would include provisions tying flexibility and reward to the level of compliance with City's vision for the area. One such provision might include an allowance for additional building height based on architectural design and extent and type of landscaping. For certain types of housing in a mixed use project, higher densities than what current regulations allow might be considered where it could be demonstrated that the density would be compatible with surrounding uses and where resulting traffic volumes would not adversely affect existing streets. In this regard, a mixed use project would be required to submit a traffic study as part of its C� application submittals. �f Design Criteria G Inherent to any mixed use development project is attention to pedestrian and bicycle circulation. 3 Site planning should include both internal circulation as well as connections to existing and �O Ll Page 13 HL-@ Il it f (c) W M future trails and sidewalk systems. Sidewalks built with the reconstruction 2005 will ultimately provide connection with the LRT Trail to the north ant Hall/Badger Field complex south and east of the intersection. The County ] Study illustrates an entire network of pedestrian/bicycle segments to the eae Smithtown Crossing should link to that system as well as extend west alon€ the westerly extent of the project. Landscaping has long been recognized as an effective intersection. This public right-of-way area should be redone and incorpora Smithtown Crossing design. Current landscape practice focuses on natural low to no maintenance, minimizing sprinkling and conserving water. Devc achieve additional density or building height will want to substantially exc( F--*Ao ;7cblt� f the intersection in to the City oad 19 Corridor of the study area. Smithtown Road to into the ;igns that require ers hoping to the minimum ie reouirements SPac.>✓ Page 14 It is not the intent of this report to dictate a certain type of architecture. This does not, however, diminish the imnortance of this critical design ar in mitigating the visual impact of larger, taller buildings. sings, natural building materials, balconies and lighting help to ;reate a human scale for the project. And, as mentioned in the piovwus NO LIVll, uuuuiig uuca 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 hsraisseA ahnve as well ac by hnildino 1�� co,,h-troGi',�� r„��reria�i (�ndtic Page 15 CC O 0 Il �Il��WIM City Participation While the plan for the redevelopment of Smithtown Crossing includes reducing regulatory obstacles, that alone may not be enough to entice the type of development envisioned in this study. Since the City's vision for the area requires development to substantially exceed current regulations (e.g. extra landscaping, architectural standards, acquisition and combination of land parcels), it will likely take some investment on the City's part. The greater the City's involvement, the greater say the City has in how the property develops. Following are possible ways in which the City can be involved. Tax Increment Financing Early on in the conversations about redeveloping the Smithtown Crossing area, tax increment financing (TIF) was mentioned as a possible tool for enticing developers to invest in a project. TIF is a financing tool that uses future gains in tax revenues to finance the cost of current improvements, including - in some cases- writing down the cost of land. Shorewood has used TIF successfully in the past when building the intersection at Old Market Road and Highway 7. In that case, the City opted for a "pay-as-you-go" method where any future risk is assumed by the developer. This is what is recommended for Smithtown Crossing. While there are projects done involving cities assuming some or all of the risk, this method is not recommended for the Smithtown Crossing redevelopment project. Acquisition of Land One of the most difficult obstacles to overcome in a redevelopment project is assembling land for a unified, cohesive development. It is strongly suggested that, as parcels within the redevelopment area become available on the market, the City consider acquiring them. These properties should be viewed as an investment in the redevelopment and could be sold to an ultimate developer "at cost" as a demonstration of the City's commitment to the project. This would also provide leverage toward the City having more input on the type, quality and design of the project. Economic Development Authority Shorewood already has an Economic Development Authority (EDA) which has been used successfully in the redevelopment of the property currently occupied by the South Lake Public Safety facility. The EDA can be useful with regard to tax increment financing as well as in the C acquisition of property. Assisting in the correction of problem soils is yet another function of an EDA. jp (1) 0 0 Il Page 17 M Il ®� 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-IC 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