The URL can be used to link to this page

89-301 WHITE - CITV CLERK / PINK - FINANCE I COU�1C11 /� / CANARV - DEPARTMENT I GITY OF SAINT PAUL File NO• �L f�OI BL`UE -vAAYOR - � } ouncil olution �F > C ��, � � Presented By .---�! � Referred To ; Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date r m an 5691 Geneva Avenue Whereas, Rich�lyd C. Ernst and Centu y Co p y, North, Oakdale, Mirhnesota 55109, as contract purchasers, applied to the Planning Commissio� of the City of Saint Paul for a special condition use permit under ; the provisions of Q60.534 (6) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code f�r the purpose of allowing the construction of a self- service gas stati n in conjunction with a neighborhood convenience grocery store lo�ated in a retail service and office building on property owned bylJoseph M. Klos at the southwest corner of Wilson and Ruth Streets, leg�'lly described as Lot 1 , Block 8, Hudson Road �ardens; and ion foll win ublic hearin s Whereas, Th� Planning Commiss , o g p g conducted by its oning Committee, by its resolution No. 86-54, adopted June 27 , 1986, de ied the application for the reasons as set forth in the said resoluti n, and the matter was then appealed to the Saint Paul City Council ; and� Whereas, The City Council , by its resolution C. F. 86-1295, adopted September 11 , 1986, following public hearings held on the said appeal , found and determ ned that the Planning Commission did not corrnnit any error of fact o procedure and upheld the decision of the Planning Commission in th� denial of the special condition use permit; and Whereas, Th actions of the City were made the subject of an appeal to the Ramsey C unty District Court where motions to grant summary judgment made by both parties were denied by the Honorable Edward S. Wilson, Judge of the District Court by order and memorandum dated August 17 , 1988. JudgelWilson, in his memarandum, suggested that, because an alternative site� plan had been submitted to the City Council on the date of its public he�aring without having the benefit of being reviewed by COUNCIL MEMBERS Yeas Nays ! Requested by Department of: Dimond � Long i [n Favor �� I Rettman Scheibel ; _ A ga i n s t BY Sonnen �Ison Form Appr ed by City torne Adopted by Council: Da�e Certified Passed by Council S�cretary By '� , i sy� ; � � b Nlavor: Date _ App ove by Mayor f Submission to Council dlpproved y �J gy By I • �c �9-�0 / . Planning staff o the Planning Commission, that Mr. Ernst and Century Company resubmit heir application together with their alternative site plan to the Planning Commission for a review and determination whether it complies with �the City's zoning requirements; and I Whereas, In considering the City's motion for Summary Judgment, Judge Wilson foun and determined that based upon the hearings held by the Commission an Council and the testimony submitted by all parties that " [T]he safet concerns raised by both the Planning Commission and the City Council are valid reasons to deny a special condition use permit. The Cour is concerned, however, that the Planning Commission and the Council h ve not had an opportunity to consider the plaintiffs' alternative site lan. As such, it appears that the plaintiffs have not had a f 11 opport�nity t have their proposals considered. Under these c7rcums�ances of easona�le concerns for safety on the one hand, and a plan which might address those concerns but which has not yet been considered, the C urt does not feel it would be proper to grant summary judgment for eith r side in this matter. " ; and Whereas, Cen�ury Company and Richard C. Ernst did resubmit an application for special condition use permit together with an alternative site lan to the Planning Commission, which site plan set forth a 3-story 80 foot by 108 foot commercial building. The 3rd floor would have four r tail tenants, one of which being a 3, 900 square foot convenience store that would have 2 self service gas pump islands located on the eas side of the building and would also provide 11 off street parking sp ces at this level . The 2nd level of the building would be leased as office space and the 1st or ground level would be a parking garage wi h 26 parking spaces together with an additional 34 parking spaces at he lower level ; and Whereas, The staff report submitted to the Planning Commission recommended approv 1 of the special condition use permit but expressed serious concern ab ut the design of the building and the location of the parking in relatio ship to the praposed uses, giving the example that the retail uses on he 3rd level requires provision of 39 parking spaces while the upper lev 1 only providing 11 of those required parking spaces with the other req ired 28 parking spaces being located at the 1st or lower level with a cess by means of the public sidewalk only; and Whereas, The lanning Commission, following public hearings held by its Zoning Committee, and based upon the testimony presented by all parties, found and determined that the alternative site plan did not adequately protect the public safety for the following reasons, as set forth in its Resolution No. 88-78, adopted October 21 , 1988: A. Although Ithe number of parking spaces required can be met, the 1 oca i on of park i ng i n re 1 at i onsh i p to the uses i n the building is inadequate. The retail uses, including the convenience st re/gas station on the top level , require 39 parking spaces� The upper parking lot provides only 11 spaces and the only p destrian access from the lower parking area to 2 I , . � ��-- �oi � w the retail us s is by walking a minimum of 140 feet in distance on an incline which rises about 30 feet. B. Comprehen ive Plan: The District 1 element of the Comprehensive Plan supports commercial development of this site, but rec mmends that the development be a low traffic generator. he proposed combination of uses would be considered a high-traffic generator. According to the Institute of raffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual , the proposed conve ience store/gas station combination alone would generate about 140 to 155 tri ps her hour i n and out of the site during th peak periods. C. Safety an convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic: The anticipated fuel tanker and delivery truck maneuvering ra ius shown on the site plan indicates that the site design is barely adequate for such maneuvers in perfect conditions. Since there is inadequate parking on this portion of the site, i is anticipated that the maneuvering area may be blocked by i properly parked cars. In addition, during the winter months the maneuvering area is likely to be constricted by snow. D. Landscapi g: Parking is not conveniently located where it will be dema ded on the site. During peak periods cars are likely to be parked in un-designated areas on the upper parking lot which will interfere with traffic circulation and truck deliveri s. In addition, it may result in spill-aver parking onto W lson which is a residential street. Whereas, The d cision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the City Council , and a public hearing on the said appeal was conducted before the Council n January 26, 1989, at which time the appellant was represented by his ttorney, John Daubney. On appeal from a decision of the Planning Comm 'ssion, the City Council is to determine whether the Commission committe any error in fact, procedure or finding (§64.206 (a) of the Legislative Code) ; and Whereas, The Co nci 1 heard a report f rom P1 ann i ng staff summar i z i ng the factors conside ed by the Planning Commission and the additional testimony that the hanges that have taken place at this intersection because of adjacent partment development and increased auto traffic has probably caused the accident rate at this intersection to increase 71 percent over the ac ident rate the previous year ( 7 accidents in 1987 and 12 in 1988) . Th appeliants' attorney argued in favor of granting of the appeal and overturning the decision of the Commission and concerned citizens also testified in support of the Commission's decision. Based up n the minutes of the Zoning Committee and the resolution of the Planning Commission, and upon the additional testimony, the Council does hereby 3 i N�MITE - C�TV CLERK � PINK - FINANCE GITY OF SAINT PAUL Council CANARV - DEP4RTMENT �i'�D 1 BLUE -i.�AVOR File NO. � - � ' Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date I Resolve, Tha� the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby find and determin� that the appellants have not presented evidence to support their co►itention that the Planning Commission committed any error of materia� facts, procedures or findings, and therefor the Council does hereby find and determine that the decision of the Planning Commission is sup{�orted by the evidence contained in the record; and be it Further Reso ved, That the decision of the Planning Commission is hereby affirmed i its entirety, and the appeal of Century Companies is hereby denied; an be it Further Reso ved, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to the appellants, the Planning Commission and to the Zoning Administrator. COUNCIL MEMBERS Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Dimond �� In Favor Goswitz Rettman Scheibel Q Against BY Sonnen Wilson FEB 2 �i 1�89 Form A oved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Pass ouncil Se tar BY/ � By � !J , t�pproved b- avor: Dat _ ��D 2 3 �70� Apprd�,Ed by Mayor for Submission to Council By BY pUg� MAR -41989 _ . . _ - . i,,f"4',!—�� _ �., � .�.U°_ 012787 � C DEPALtTI�ENT - CONTACT NAME . PHONE � DATE . ASSIGN NIIMBER FOR D (See reverse side.) � _ Department Direct _ Maqor (or Assistant) _ Finance aad Manag ent Services Director _ City Clerk_ _ Budget Director _ _ City Attorney _ T G (Clip all locations for signature.) G N T E T ? (Purpose/Rationale) Res��kr:.� - ct " �-�+i� 1�.� c�l�cln�� o�- ��- //�•�1 f . , • ' M! � <<,,�,w�;rr1 ow r� � ��at a� a� �,►.� ��%—•o� �c r-� /�r T �O' � f' S�a�"��w �rl��,t S�d7'� w�` �� '� ��"fly�' ��i'J"�.r'�^ �e,a�J I►�� v ,�xi��s Y �-�j �s� � C T BUDG PERSO M CTS D: N Q AND C VI B C G 0 DI (Mayor's signature not required if under $10,000.) Total Amount of Tran gction: Activity Nwnber: Funding Source: • ATTACHMENTS: (List an number all attachments.> Council Research Center. FEB � 1�8J D , T E PROCEDU S _Yes _No Rule , Regulations, Procedures, or Budget Amendmant required? _Yes _No If y s, are they or timetable attached7 DEPARTMENT REVIEW CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW _Yes �No Counci resolution required? Resolution required? _Yes �No _Yes _No Insura e required? Insnrance sufficient? _Yes No Yes No Insura e attached? � . ��i-�o� Planning staff or t e Planning Commission, that Mr. Ernst and Century Company resubmit the ' r application together with their alternative site plan to the Planning Commission for a review and determination whether it complies with the City's zoning requirements; and Whereas, In co sidering the City's motion for Summary Judgment, Judge Wilson found nd determined that based upon the hearings held by the Commission and ouncil and the testimony submitted by all parties that " [T7he safety oncerns raised by both the Planning Commission and the City Council a e valid reasons to deny a special condition use permit. The Court i�s concerned, however, that the Planning Commission and the Council have� not had an opportunity to consider the plaintiffs' alternative site plah . As such, it appears that the plaintiffs have not had a full opportunity to have their proposals considered. Under these circumstances of re sonable concerns far safety on the one hand, and a plan which might a dress those concerns but which has not yet been considered, the Cou t does not feel it would be proper to grant summary judgment for either � side in this matter. " ; and Whereas, Century Company and Richard C. Ernst did resubmit an application for s ecial condition use permit together with an alternative site pl n to the Planning Commission, which site plan set forth a 3-story 80 i�oot by 108 foot commercial building. The 3rd floor would have four ret�il tenants, one of which being a 3,900 square foot convenience store �,hat would have 2 self service gas pump islands located on the eastlside of the building and would also provide 11 off street parking spac�es at this level . The 2nd level of the building would be leased as pffice space and the 1st or ground level would be a parking garage wit 26 parking spaces together with an additional 34 parking spaces at t�e lower level ; and Whereas, The �taff report submitted to the Planning Commission recommended approv 1 of the special condition use permit but expressed serious concern abo t the design of the building and the location of the parking in relatio ship to the proposed uses, giving the example that the retail uses on he 3rd level requires provision of 39 parking spaces while the upper lev 1 only providing 11 of those required parking spaces with the other reqwired 28 parking spaces being located at the 1st or lower level with ac�cess by means of the public sidewalk only; and Whereas, The f�lanning Commission, following public hearings held by its Zoning Comm�ittee, and based upon the testimony presented by all parties, found andldetermined that the alternative site plan did not adequately protectlthe public safety for the following reasons, as set forth in its Resol�tion No. 88-78, adopted October 21 , 1988: A. Although the number of parking spaces required can be met, the 1 oca�i on of park i ng i n re 1 at i onsh i p to the uses i n the building s inadequate. The retail uses, including the convenience s�tore/gas station on the top level , require 39 parking space�. The upper parking lot provides only 11 spaces and the only edestrian access from the lower parking area to 2 � � � ��a� the retail us s is by walking a minimum of 140 feet in distance on an incline which rises about 30 feet. B. Comprehensive Plan: The District 1 element of the Comprehensive lan supports commercial development af this site, but reco mends that the development be a low traffic generator. T e proposed combination of uses would be considered a igh-traffic generator. According to the Institute of T affic Engineers Trip Generation Manual , the proposed conven 'ence store/gas station combination alone wauld generate about 140 ta 155 trips her hour in and out of the site during the peak periods. C. Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic: The anticipated fuel tanker and delivery truck maneuvering rad�lius shown on the site plan indicates that the site design is barely adequate for� such maneuvers in perfect conditions. Si ce there is inadequate parking on this portion of the site, it is anticipated that the maneuvering area may be blocked by i properly parked cars. In addition, during the winter months, the maneuvering area is likely to be constricted by now. D. Landscaping: Parking is not conveniently located where it will be dema ded on the site. During peak periods cars are likely to be arked in un-designated areas on the upper parking lot whi h will interfere with traffic circulation and truck deliveri s. In addition, it may result in spill-over parking onto Wilson which is a residential street. Whereas, The d �c i s i on of the P 1 ann i ng Commi ss i on was appea 1 ed to the City Council , an a public hearing on the said appeal was conducted before the Council o January 26 , 1989 , at which time the appellant was represented by his ttorney, John Daubney. On appeal from a decision of the Planning Comm ssion, the City Council is to determine whether the Commission committed any error in fact, procedure or finding ( g64. 206 (a) of the Legislati e Code) ; and Whereas, The Co nci 1 heard a report from Planning staff summarizing the factors conside ed by the Planning Commission and the additional testimony that the hanges that have taken place at this intersection because of adjacent partment development and increased auto traffic has probably caused the accident rate at this intersection to increase 71 percent over the ac ident rate the previous year ( 7 accidents in 1987 and 12 in 1988) . Th appellants' attorney argued in favor of granting of the appeal and overturning the decision of the Commission and concerned citizens also testified in support of the Commission's decision. Based up n the minutes of the Zoning Committee and the resolution of the Planning Commission, and upon the additional testimony, the Council does hereby 3 ��9��°� Planning staff or t e Planning Commission, that Mr. Ernst and Century Company resubmit the� r application together with their alternative site plan to the Planning, Commission for a review and determination whether it complies with the City's zoning requirements; and Whereas, In considering the City's motion for Summary Judgment, Judge Wilson found a�d determined that based upon the hearings held by the Commission and ouncil and the testimony submitted by all parties that " [T]he safety cpncerns raised by both the Planning Commission and the City Council ar� valid reasons to deny a special condition use permit. The Court i concerned, however, that the Planning Commission and the Council have not had an opportunity to consider the plaintiffs' alternative site plar� . As such, it appears that the plaintiffs have not had a full opportunity to have their proposals considered. Under these G� rcumstances of reasonable concerns for safety on the one hand, and a plan which might a dress those concerns but which has not yet been considered, the Cour�t does not feel it would be proper to grant summary judgment for either side in this matter. " ; and Whereas, Centu�y Company and Richard C. Ernst did resubmit an application for s ecial condition use permit together with an alternative site pl n to the Planning Commission, which site plan set forth a 3-story 80 f ot by 108 foot commercial building. The 3rd floor would have four ret il tenants, one of which being a 3, 900 square foot convenience store hat would have 2 self service gas pump islands located on the east side of the building and would also provide 11 off street parking spac s at this level . The 2nd level of the building would be leased as ffice space and the 1st or ground level would be a parking garage with , 26 parking spaces together with an additional 34 parking spaces at t e lower level ; and Whereas, The staff report submitted to the Planning Commission recommended approval of the special condition use permit but expressed serious concern abou the design of the building and the location of the parking in relation ' hip to the proposed uses, giving the example that the retail uses on t e 3rd level requires provision of 39 parking spaces while the upper leve only providing 11 of those required parking spaces with the other requ red 28 parking spaces being located at the 1st or lower level with ac ess by means of the public sidewalk only; and Whereas, The P1anning . Commission, following public hearings held by its Zoning Commit�tee, and based upon the testimony presented by all parties, found and Idetermined that the alternative site plan did nat adequately protect he public safety for the following reasons, as set forth in its Resolu�ion No. 88-78, adopted October 21 , 1988: A. Although he number of parking spaces required can be met, the locat 'on of parking in relationship to the uses in the building i inadequate. The retail uses, including the convenience st re/gas station on the top level , require 39 parking spaces� The upper parking lot provides only 11 spaces and the only pedestrian access from the lower parking area to 2 I l��o� the retail use is by walking a minimum of 140 feet in distance on an 'ncline which rises about 30 feet. B. Comprehens 've Plan: The District 1 element af the Comprehensive lan supparts commercial development of this site, but reco mends that the development be a low traffic generator. T e proposed combination of uses would be considered a igh-traffic generator. According to the Institute of T affic Engineers Trip Generation Manual , the proposed conven ence store/gas station combination alone would generate about ,140 to 155 tri ps her hour i n and out of the site during the' peak periods. C. Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic: The anticipated fuel tanker and delivery truck maneuvering radius shown on the site plan indicates that the site design is barely adequate for� such maneuvers in perfect conditions. Si ce there is inadequate parking on this portion of the site, it is anticipated that the maneuvering area may be blocked by i properly parked cars. In addition, during the winter months, the maneuvering area is likely to be constricted by now. D. Landscapin : Parking is not canveniently located where it wi 11 be dema ded on the site. During peak periods cars are likely to be arked in un-designated areas on the upper parking lot whi h will interfere with traffic circulation and truck deliverie . In addition, it may result in spill-over parking onto Wilson which is a residential street. Whereas, The d cision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the City Council , an a public hearing on the said appeal was conducted before the Council o January 26, 1989, at which time the appellant was represented by his ttorney, John Daubney. On appeal from a decision of the Planning Comm ssion, the City Council is to determine whether the Commission committed any error in fact, procedure or finding ( g64.206 (a) of the Legislati e Code) ; and Whereas, The Co ncil heard a report from Planning staff summarizing the factors conside ed by the Planning Commission and the additional testimony that the hanges that have taken place at this intersection because of adjacent partment development and increased auto traffic has probably caused the accident rate at this intersection to increase 71 percent over the ac ident rate the previous year ( 7 accidents in 1987 and 12 in 1988) . Th appellants' attorney argued in favor of granting of the appeal and overturning the decision of the Commission and concerned citizens also testified in support of the Commission's decision. Based up n the minutes of the Zoning Committee and the resolution of the Planning Commission, and upon the additional testimony, the Council does hereby 3 � ��q-�o� Planning staff or �the Planning Commission, that Mr. Ernst and Century Company resubmit t eir application together with their alternative site plan to the Planni g Commission for a review and determination whether it complies with t e City's zoning requirements; and Whereas, In �onsidering the City's motion for Summary Judgment, Judge Wilson found�iand determined that based upon the hearings held by the Commission andiCouncil and the testimony submitted by all parties that " [T]he safetyiconcerns raised by both the Planning Commission and the City Council �re valid reasons to deny a special condition use permit. The Courtiis concerned, however, that the Planning Commission and the Council havje not had an opportunity to consider the plaintiffs' alternative site pllan. As such, it appears that the plaintiffs have not had a full opportur�ity t have their proposals considered. Under these c� rcumstances of r�asona�le concerns for safety on the one hand, and a plan which might �ddress those concerns but which has not yet been considered, the Co�rt does not feel it would be proper to grant summary judgment for eithe side in this matter. " ; and Whereas, CentUry Campany and Richard C. Ernst did resubmit an application for pecial condition use permit together with an alternative site p an to the Planning Commission, which site plan set forth a 3-story 80 �foot by 108 foot commercial building. The 3rd floor would have four retlail tenants, one of which being a 3,900 square foot convenience store !ithat would have 2 self service gas pump islands located on the eastl side of the building and would also provide 11 off street parking spa¢es at this level . The 2nd level of the building would be leased as bffice space and the 1st or ground level would be a parking garage wit� 26 parking spaces together with an additional 34 parking spaces at t e lower level ; and Whereas, The �taff report submitted to the Planning Commission recommended approvah of the special condition use permit but expressed serious concern abo�t the design af the building and the location of the parking in relation�ship to the proposed uses, giving the example that the retail uses on t�he 3rd level requires provision of 39 parking spaces while the upper leve!1 only providing 11 of those required parking spaces with the other requ� red 28 parking spaces being located at the 1st or lower level with ac¢ess by means of the public sidewalk only; and � Whereas, The Phanning .Commission, following public hearings held by its Zoning Commi�,tee, and based upon the testimony presented by all parties, found and �etermined that the alternative site plan did not adequately protect tlhe public safety for the following reasons, as set forth in its Resolu�ion No. 88-78, adopted October 21 , 1988: A. Although �he number of parking spaces required can be met, the locatjon of parking in relationship to the uses in the building i� inadequate. The retail uses, including the convenience stc�re/gas station on the top level , require 39 parking spaces. i The upper parking lot provides only 11 spaces and the only pedestrian access from the lower parking area to 2 i � � ��—�o r � � the retail �uses is by walking a minimum of 140 feet in distance on �n incline which rises about 3� feet. B. Compreh�nsive Plan: The District 1 element of the Comprehensiv� Plan supparts cammercial development of this site, but re�ommends that the development be a low traffic generator. 'iThe proposed combinatian of uses would be considered a! high-traffic generator. According to the Institute of �iTraffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual , the proposed conv�nience store/gas station combination alone would generate abou,t 140 to 155 tri ps her hour i n and out of the site during t�e peak periods. C. Safety a�d convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic: The anticipated fuel tanker and delivery truck maneuvering r�dius shown on the site plan indicates that the site design i barely adequate for� such maneuvers in perfect conditions. S��ince there is inadequate parking on this portion of the site, �t is anticipated that the maneuvering area may be blocked by improperly parked cars. In addition, during the winter month�, the maneuvering area is likely to be constricted by� snow. D. Landscapi�ng: Parking is not conveniently located where it will be dem�nded on the site. During peak periods cars are likely to be �� parked in un-designated areas on the upper parking lot whlich will interfere with traffic circulation and truck deliveri��es. In addition, it may result in spill-over parking onto Wlilson which is a residential street. Whereas, The ecision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the City Council , a d a public hearing on the said appeal was conducted before the Council n January 26 , 1989, at which time the appellant was represented by his attorney, John Daubney. On appeal from a decision of the Planning Comr�ission, the City Council is to determine whether the Commission committe� any error in fact, procedure or finding ( g64.206 (a) of the Legislat 've Code) ; and Whereas, The Coiuncil heard a report from Planning staff summarizing the factors conside�-ed by the Planning Commission and the additional testimony that the Changes that have taken place at this intersection because of adjacent �partment development and increased auto traffic has probably caused thelaccident rate at this intersection to increase 71 percent over the ac�ident rate the previous year ( 7 accidents in 1987 and 12 in 1988) . Th� appellants' attorney argued in favor of granting of the appeal and ioverturning the decision of the Commission and concerned citizens �ialso testified in support of the Commission's decision. Based upan the minutes of the Zoning Committee and the resolution of the i Planning Commission, and upon the additional testimony, the Counc�il does hereby � 3 4 - ,�y t* ��,s :� �. . f . •::,'�� 't x � f F,,.�. _.�'�' T�+1't ;t c a° h' �`-�� M ' �;a � � � '` .^'. (�t :�� .a ,� 7 � t h� ., � "�` �? � a �� 7 � -' �:) Y o-t �_'+y �L.�� '4 � � x k y,�'.t� � s . �� < t +, "�'{"Y � ",�y ��ra?�#i"'l� ��"�= w� � i ` " J �' � ��t sj ,.s'. �: , �, �- . � ., � ' � � �,� . .. ' .,. i a ,�'� . . .! � ' � i T � \ � � � . ,�v y ' :...+y e . . 'T �1� � t � � . � � t t 1 r � � ''Y f' t � r + � ,. � 1 � �•� r F y , �,� r. � �'� - r, " r` f ;� ,� ' i - ' � J � � r y ; �l a #� i. A , Y �{ ;.. ) ;. � .,_r � � -. # ��q �a� � , Y.�. � ` , ` K t ., , ..! �t ' �� '�� v�' F' � � � t x � ( t,• "''' .k fy� e � �ti � �� ,� - - �" , , c , , � � �� { c� �i � '� 't ; ^r ' *� � x �� 1- C� "ly..,t J' r r ,� � 4� r� .`�f + , 8 / ;% ��r � 3.�t 5 i �a�. f� :� �F � , : �.�. r r�.. � �� .�. � t x{ F ,� { ' - W � f !I 1 � `'� J �� y t� �� "_ i �� t� � � �� .�� .'! " . .�: y s 4 � � r .�^�J�' �� r +^ �� tii r -_., � .as t,�"t��, f - �. - �`' � Yr'�' . �� l: � .l '� � ��.� � k ('}�,'Y�}� � �� ` ` CE3 J�.:�6�. I��t � I�� Q�� '" .* � ' { %, }�= "� �' � <��1��[1tl�11� #"+�+K�1 � �1'1�.Y� �y@ � { ±�J • f � , � �y x `�- , ,� �� '�F � ..»�� i�� '�� '�'�t� �M.�e1�l�ii��1�� . 9' �.�� < TT"s� ... ! :� � �• � . � ° �'i�; �;��[!• ..f��►�'.�1a }�;.'�� ,�.�i6 � - n.: �.' f ` �t � < �-.. .,.��. +��Ch. fi r• ' ` +�'�: z + - �� ': t r �� `� f � '{ � '' ,i '* i �� ?p� �._ � s � �#." �- ; � r �r,�� ; } 1 � s �� ++� � e4;'n� �i � ` �'4 5�K �r � 2 � �� ?rt� r ,.: ; _ . 1 ;,� �f � '��V', � �,' ��',�� 4 x �`s �`��p�� r . I.J .��t�� l�}�� d� � `.. \ a rl § � � ��.. ` �` _ `'4 �� ,��` • ' 'k � ��"��`. 4, -, � � .� � . , k i: � � ,:, !* , ��- � �; "++ '',�" ! �� f - 'r " ��'F�'� 1 � �'� � f f � � �,�� ,. � � � �' � �- a,:� � . > ' �� a � s �� #, ,,� 3-.� , t� � �6 4� � � ; xi y *� \ i q n .�� •�%'� K',�'T,t,� -: J .� $ .f,t � .� 1 < g.� ��f»-'t �'� ; � . � � . � . A,. r ' +. �.' r . t� ,. .. ., . i, - r � ,/� . '�`� 'i. � � x c � i _�� —5 �( y.. "6 �x �� Y�;,i S� 1� i . � �� € r � � `� 5 � l� � P. � 1.� '�'.,, % ��s``�'.� . . . f f ` � " [ .� 1`� t�`+�,�r' a sF - ` �1 � w• r r Y�i�,::'. '� . . .. . � e.� x y.�i"`'d 'r/ . ,."• {� � r,�'� ' �'"'�,�,�� . �.W r , �„4 j ,. : . �k � '�`F CM t��}��,:. � � � i� � � � �� '� � �� , r � �� ' r�,f/ � ; _ i } f ,1;1� .r(T �`� �3 k�`� �• ' � � M ' �t � w 4 p � $i R, ` } t.'( . . '.� \ . � �,'" 1�.�` �/i[ �- �' ST �. � � �� `' � J,-�n' �? §k`� S� J d k d } � y�y �� {� �' r � ;1+ '� ��"`,k �.} V f3°� y � l'k' �,�1 >' �;. r S `� � � � .s/° S �, t b!' �'� a y a � �, � r� ` .i.,� �� :,� r� � �" ��,� �,ri f � �' " ir ` ' ;i..e(�-'�wfi*�-',, 'r � .s �� ,�; � �,. � , v, � �� r'�„�* ��' 7 Y �� `��' � `� s' � � ��, r t� �, i � � a�� "s �< e , � � : t ;`F , {; � r t � a ,: ; : w�� t�, � �.� :.x°� �y� t s _: �� 7 c= '� .; � �' �,t i �. =� s _ � -�,�, t , �, `ti� �, e � n _ .i ' �: i�:t° r ,. !�' `t �t c � !, .�rt i E .�� '�. � �-�� t �'t � � ' }�^ � n ,� ' �r f � .y 1 � .-. �'- � _! tid � ;� !C , �^` s r P"'• � � 1�r , � �` i i,� 4,� � �&�,, Y � f . . .� �' � - �. , : . �C . � 8y �t .: . 1 1'�� 'd� . n.y ��x �y * ' '., , b y ;t � � �K 'r � " } r, i J '� „ : �€:kr .. .,1 , ,.-.: �. ::l,,. , e .:. �R`�\ ..... .;�.,. '.. ..:, .,�:�� r " .i'.: .. . .v,x.i6El1 n ... r.�.a...�'-'...y.�a .... . ... _ � � � � o: ;� • RECEWED CITY OF SAINT PAUL FEB A a 19�9 � INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM ' CI I Y �,�,c�� DATE: Janu ' y 25, 1989 T0: Council President Scheibel and Members of the City Council FROM: Lisa J. Freese �� RE: Staf� Investigation of Century Company Appeal 1. Design of Gas Pumping Facilities A. Pump Isla�ds - Meets r'quired distance between islands (20 feet) - Stackin� area does not block driveways B. Delivery - Adequat turning radius for fuel tanker - Adequat� loading area for convenience store C. Parking - Provide required parking - Design �f parking inadequate 2. Traffic Safe y at Intersection of Ruth and Wilson A. � Not a pro lem intersection from an accident rate standpoint (based 1982 thro gh 1988 statistics) B. Has seen 71� increase in the number of accidents from 1987 to 1988 (7 a�cidents in 1987, 12 accidents in 1988) C. Anticipat� that the convenience store will add 70 trips in and out of th intersection area during peak hours � • . D. Difficult to predict how these additional turning movements will . ' affect th accident rate 3. Other Concer s A. Handicap accessibility for office (site plan review question) B. Adequate parking (depends on the actual utilization of the � � • building) � C. Impact or� the adjacent park and recreation facilities I . . �.F 7 ,.. . , � . �� $ , ♦. $GiTY Op 1 � � � , .. . . . � f� . • �� ' �. I �` CITY OF SAINT PAUL 4 2 � ��;��,,,� ; DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT pm '�� hv' DIVISION OF PLANNING 25 West fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 �ss� 612-228-3270 GEORGE LATIMER I � MAYOR ' �, November 28, 198� Albert Olson, Ci �y Clerk `"`'a�� Room 386, City H 11 Saint Paul, MN 55102 ��1� � ; '(988 RE: Zoning File �k10403 - Century Company �:: :�f �6�{qj( (Southwest c�Orner of Ruth and Wilson) City CouncillHearing: December 1, 1988 PURPOSE: To a e 1 a decision of the Planning Commission denying a Special Condition Use Per}nit for a convenience store with gasoline pumps PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: Deny (12-0) ZONING COMMITTEE ECISION: Deny (5-0) STAFF RECOMMENDATtON: Approve SUPPORT: None. OPPOSITION: A rf�resentative of District 1 and six additional persons testified; one le ter received. Dear Sir: On October 13, 19�8, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this special condition use permit request to construct a convenience store with gasoline pumps in conjunction with a multi-tenant commercial buildir�g. The petitioner testified. At the close of the public hearing, the Commijttee voted 5 to 0 to deny the permit based on the staff analysis and the plublic testimony related to inadequate parking, traffic circulation and sa�fety, and site design. On October 21, 198�, the Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Committee's recommendation on �. unanimous vote. The applicant is a�pealing the Planning Commission's decision and the appeal is scheduled to be hefird by the City Council on December 1, 1988. Please notify me by November 30, 1988, if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the sitelpresented at the public hearing. Sincerely, ��.�.SZ. � II Lisa J. Freese Planner II LJF:rm Attachments I _ � _ ___ _ _ _ __ __ � . : � . � i AP►LICATION FOR APPEAL ZONING OFFICE U:.F ONLY CITY OF SAINT PAUL RECEIVED File � i �~ L��- �' �� 88 � Application Fee $ _I ' ` " �'� �,.._ . ZONING ; Tentative Hearing Date . ' � � � I Application is hereby mad for an Appeal to the St . Paul City Council under the provisions of C apter 64, Section64 . 2 , Paragraph a of the onina Code to appeal a decision made by the Board of oning Appeals � Planning Comnission on October 21 , 19g$ Zoning Administrator (date of decision) _ Planning Administrator _ Other _ � -- A. APPELLANT Name Century Compar�ies Daytime phone 777_4488 r Address 5691 GPnPy�,�.Avp N� Qakdal e, MN Zip Code 55109 6, DECISION BEING APPEAL D Zoning file name Ric ard C.Ernst/Century Companies Zoning File � 10377 Property Address/Loca ion Southwest corner, Ruth and Wilson, St . Paul , MN Legal description L t 1 , Block 8, Hudson Road Gardens C. GROUNOS FOR APPEAL ( se additional sheets if necessary. ) (txplain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by a administrative official , or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. ) The property is z�ned for this use • the staff re�ort r .co mPnr�� a roval • ade uat arkin is rovided con i t - ments (Sec . 62. 10� and 62 . 104(3) ; other similar stores in this area have not created �roblems . ' ��,�� ,��u'� If you have any questiolns, please contact: -- .�� A licant's signature St. Paul Zoning Of:fice 1100 City Hall Anr�ex � l� � g� 25 West Fourth Str�eet ; Saint Paul , Minre�ota 5�102 Da e � City agent (298-4154) + g/g2 I _ .T_ _ __ __ _—� _� .�_�; ___ _ � - _ _��? _�� - _ � - � ' � � �J . � � �� ' d / cit of saint � I v �� planning com ission resolution fiie number 88 78 �te October 211. 1988 ��iEREAS, Richard C. �rnst;Cen�urv �ompanv, file -103%? , has applied for a Special �.;n��:on iJse Permitlunder �he pro--�s'_ons of Sec�ior. 50. �3=�f5) oL the Saint ?au� �agislative Code, fo� the purpose oL �he construction of a seli-service gas s�a;.ion/convenience �tore in conjunction with an office/retail center on propertv iocated at the south�est corner of Ruth and Wilson (approximately 415 Ruth and 1994 Wilson) , legally des�ribed as Lot 1, Block 8, Hudson Road Gardens; and iJHEREAS, the Zoning �Committee of the Planning Commission on October 13, 1988, held a public hearing at wh�lich all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said app'lication in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul I,�gislative Code; and WHEREAS, Saint Paul �Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following �indings of fact: 1. The applicant, �entury Company, proposes to construct three-story 80' by 108' commercial buil ing at this location. The third floor would have four retail tenants, one be�ng a 3,900 square foot convenience store that would have two self service pu�p islands located east of the building. . 2. The second leve� of the building would be leased as office space and the ground floor would be � parking garage with 26 parking spaces. An additional 34 parking spaces ould be in the at-grade parking lot west of the structure. 3 . The site is sit ated on a slope which drops approximately 30 feet in elevation from its high oint at Ruth Street to the west propertq line. The proposed structure inco�porates the change in elevation into the design so that both �he first and thir levels are at-grade. �. Office and ret il uses are permitted in the B-2 zoning district; an auto se r�ice station is a p�rmitted use subject to the following three conditions: (a) The constr�ction and maintenance of all driveways, curbs, sidewalks. . .and other facil�ities used in conjunction with the operation of the auto service station sh�ll be in accordance with the current specification. Iicontinued) I Ir�O`� �/ � MORTON v�r�� •ri� SeCOrtded Z �N - �n �� us against—.�._ � z�� i _ _ � �__ : �� =.�- - -�_ �� :� , - � - �� , i i File �10377 i ?age Two I The site p�an submit�ed meets the technical requirements with respect to driveways, icurbs, sidewalks and pump island installations, but does not mee� the landsc�ping requirement. An additional 200 square feet of landscaped area wouldlbe required. Furthermore, the design of the site is not consistent �with all of the objectives required in section 62.108(c) of the zoning cod� for site plan approval. (b) A ten-footjbuffer area with screen planting and an obscuring wall or fence shall be r�quired along any property line adjacent to an existing residence or adjacent� to vacant land zoned for residential use. ; The site p an indicates a ten foot buffer with a four foot obscuring fence along the �estern edge of the property which abuts an RM-2 zone. i (c) Gasoline s�rvice stations which are intended solely for the sale of gasoline, il and minor accessories and having no facilities for incidental servicing f automobiles (including lubricating facilities) may be permitted on a lot o 10,000 square feet, subject to all other provisions herein required. The total �rea of the site is 35,677; the area which encompasses the convenienc� store/self service gasoline pumps is approximately 20,000 square feet. ' � . '�he zoning cod�e requires off-street parking to be provided at the rate of one for every 200 jsquare feet of usable floor area for business offices, one for every 150 squalre feet of usable floor area for retail and one for every 190 square feet of; usable floor area for convenience stores with gas pumps. � Based on the filoor plans submitted, the applicant proposes 5,980 feet of usabie iloor area for': offices, 3,808 square feet for retail, and 2,613 square feet for convenience re�tail with pumps or, 69 parking spaces. The site plan indicates that a total o� 71 spaces can be provided. (continued) �, _ _ � r __ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ � � _ _ _ __ ��; ; _ �:a �1037? ?a,e Three although �he numb r of parking spaces required can be �et, the location of parking in relati nship to the uses in the building is inadequate. The retail uses, including t e convenience store/gas station on the top level, require 39 parking spaces. e upper parking lot provides only 11 spaces and the only pedestrian access from the lower parking area to the retail uses is by walking a minimum of 140 fe{�t in distance on an incline which rises about 30 feet. 6. Section 62.108(c) enumerates nine objectives to be considered when reviewing a site plan. The p oposed site plan is inconsistent with the following three objectives: (a) The city's ad pted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for sub-areas of he city. The District element of the Comprehensive Plan supports commercial development o� this site, but recommends that the development be a low traffic gener tor. The proposed combination of uses would be considered a high-traffic enerator. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generati n Manual, the proposed coirvenience store/gas station combination a one would generate about 140 to 155 trips per hour in and out of the site d ing the peak periods. �b) Safety and co venience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic both within the site and 'n relation to access streets, including traffic circulation features, the locations and design of entrances and exits and parking areas within the site; and The anticipat d fuel tanker and delivery truck maneuvering radius shown on �he site pla�indicates that the site design is barely adequate for such maneuvers in perfect conditions. Since there is inadequate parking on this portion of t e site, it is anticipated that the maneuvering area may be blocked by i properly parked cars. In addition, during the winter months, the maneuver"ng area is likely to be constricted b: snow. (con�inued) I ___ g �_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . � �: _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. - _ _ ,. �. _- - _ �___ �� _ _ _ _ • , j `^��_ 1��j, c� . � � . . � , I � File �10377 Page Four i I (c) Sufficient la�dscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above objecti es. Parking is no� conveniently located where it will be demanded on the site. During peak p riods cars are likely to be parked in undesignated areas on the upper par�Cing lot which will interfere with traffic circulation and truck deliver es. In addition, it may result in spillover parking onto Wilson which s a residential street. NOW, THEREFORE, BE I� RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the authority of the City's Legislative Code, the application for a Special Condition Use Permi to allow the construction of a self-service gas station/com�enience store in conjunction with an office/retail center at the southwest corner of Ruth and Wilson (approximately 415 Ruth and 1994 Wilson) is hereby denied. I � I I I � � ` ."� ;_s�-�� __� ' _ � _ _� _ .-. _ :�_ _ - _- � - -_ . __ _ . _ _. -_. - __ _ _ _ • ' l 'I _ 1 � Ci/_ � ��/ CJ MINUTES OF THE ZONING COI�SITTEE CITY C UNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON OCTOBER 13, 1988 PRESENT: Mm s. Hirte, Morton, Tracy and Zieman; Messrs. Christenson, Levy, an Repke of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Segal, Assistant City At orney; Mr. Hardwick of the Building Inspection and Design Di ision; Ms. Freese, Mr. Grochala, Ms. Murray and Mr. Soderholm of th Planning Division staff. �BSE�TT: Mr.�i Neid* *E�cused. The meeting w�s chaired by Gladys Morton, Chairman. Ce tur Com a es # 03 A Special Condition Use Permit for property located at ap roximately 415 Ruth and 1994 Wilson to allow construction of a convenience s ore/office building with gas pumps. The applicant was present; there was opposition present at the hearing. Ms. Freese sh wed slides of the area and reviewed the staff report with a recommendatio for approval. Mr. Segal pre ented background information and stated that the previous case is presently n district court. Richard C. E st, 5691 Geneva Avenue, North Saint Paul, stated that after he received the oning Committee staff report, a third site plan was prepared. He distribute copies and explained the changes. Ms. Zieman in�uired about upper level accessibility for handicapped parking. Mr. Ernst res�onded that one handicapped space is available on the upper level and that the ain entrance to mid-level would be the sidewalk. I James Urick, 41 South Ruth Street, stated that he was opposed because of already exist ng heavy traffic in the area, the safety of children coming from Conway Park w o would be crossing busy intersections, inadequate parking and the number of service stations presently operating. Ann Cieslak, istrict 1 Community Council Community Organizer, 2121 North Park Drive, testif ed that District 1 Council is unanimously opposed to the granting of t e permit. She said that the District 1 Plan supports business development o that corner but not a business that will increase traffic substantially Ms. Cieslak stated that the site plan appears to indicate serious parki g problems and also described concerns of residents regarding traffic circu ation and safety of children. Mary Westlock 1968 Freaont, repreaantiag the Conway Booster Club and Coalition of eople in the Neighborhood, addressed concerns of area residents regarding saf ty of pedestrians, trsffic hazards and parking congestion. She said the prob ems are intensified because of new apartaent developments in the area plus thelproposed expansion of Caan►ay Park. i ; � , - -- -- -� �-�� . � File #10377 Page 1�wo Kr. Christenson as ed if there was opposition to the gas pumps or to the convenience store. Ms. Westlock replied that it is the combination of the two; that she has o problem with the office complex. Bruce Reichert, 41 Van Dyke, representing the Concerned Neighbors' :association, state that because of recent large business and apartment dtrvelopments their area is "ceasing to be a neighborhood. " He addressed the association's conc rns regarding traffic, the street inclines which are hazardous for driv rs as well as pedestrians, and traffic circulation. Gene Nassiff, 248 uth Street, cited concerns about traffic congestion, safety of chi�dren, and t e number of existing curb cuts on Ruth and Wilson. Larry Olson, 277 R th Street, stated that he owns a business similar to the applicant's propos 1 and questioned the site plan regarding allocation of maneuvering space or transport truck delivery and also space reserved for wintertime s�ow pi ing. He described incidents which he witnessed involving children in�ured i traffic accidents. Richard Ernst stat d that the revised site plan provides for additional truck maneuvering on sit and also addressed concerns regarding parking. Ms. Zieman made a otion to reco�end denial based on staff finding 6, the staff analysis and �he public testimony related to inadequate parking, traffic circulation and sa e .ry, and site design. Zoning Committee discussion followed regarding the inte i4y of the uses, inadequate tanker and delivery truck maneuvering area e pecially during peak hours and during the winter months, and insufficient p rking. Ms. Tracy seconded the motion which passed on a roll call vote of 5-0. Submitted by: Approved by: % � - ' � '/ � �/ � � �'/ - � � �,i,e�e,,� ��,�� /� / i�- `7� , - , Lisa Freese � Gladys Mo�on, Chairman I - - -r-- - -- - - - � - . , � • � � � � �/ , . � I � ZONING COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT � - -- - -�� __ _ - =-'�:._�3`:_ : .___..�ri� �. .._-�s� ��:-,��=•,- Compar._ ��_� _. ::�:�=tiG , _ _ _ _ _ _ . �;_..�SSIiICA':'��ti: iSpecial Condi�ion Use Permit . . LOCATION: Sou�hc�est corner oL Ruth and 'wilson (Approximately 415 Ruth & 1994 �i�son) � � �+. ?;�1.'VNING DISTRiC�': 1 �. LEGAL DESCRIPTIOI : Lot 1, Block 8, Hudson Road Gardens � 6. PRESENT ZONING; � B-2 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 60.534(6) 7. STAFF INVESTIGAT ON AND REPORT: DATE: 10/11/88 BY: Lisa J. Freese A. PURPOSE• To al ow construction of a self-service gas station/convenience store in conjunction ith an office/retail center. B. PARCEL SIZE: e parcel has 297.31 feet of frontage on Flilson and 120 feet on Ruth for a tota lot area of 35,677 square feet. C. EXISTING U E: The parcel slopes downward to the west and is vacant except for vegetation. D. SURROtJND N E: North: Single amily residential East and south: Commercial West: Multiple amily residential ... ZONING CODE CI TION: The property was rezoned from "A" :esidential to commercial in 972. In 1986, the P anning Commission denied a special condition use permit for a similar propos 1 by Century Company. The applicant appealed the decision to the City Council a d it was also denied. The denial was based on 3 factors: i) the extreme change � in topography of the site; 2) delivery of gasoline via the tanker would be unsaf ; and 3) the gasoline fumes would be detrimental to the enjoymer:= of the adjacen property. The applicant appealed this decision to District Court and the ourt issued a memorandum recommending that Century Company resubmit an am nded site plan for review by the Planning Commission. _ . FINDINGS: il : . The applicant, Century Company, proposes to construct three-story 80' by 108' commercial bu lding at this location. The third floor would have four retail tenants, one eing a 3,900 square foot convenience store that would have two self service ump islands located east of the building. = . The second le�el of the building would be leased as office space and the grour,c �loor would b� a parking garage with 26 parking spaces. sn additional 3w -irkir.g space� ;.;ou:� ~e _.. the a--grade parkir_e lot west .,_ _^.E ;�_•�;�__�. _:e s��e is s •�a�ac ,... � __o�e :,•..�cn drops approsimat�',-: �' =ee� -� e�eva�� _ -__... _�s r:g�: �c'_�� ;_ ?::�:= ��e�� ., �he west proper_-: =�=:�e . ��-;e�proposec_ .._ __..�_..re _.^.cbr�c_a_�� _..� �::ange �.. e�e-ra��e_^: �^t� _he �es_ - �� _. . -_ •• � � _ ^:a� bo- . _._ - -__- 3Z1Gj =:li�C _� .'?_� _�? 3�'_?�3G�2^ - I - ___�Ce 321C reltd__ 1St,'S 3f@ �@TM��ed lIl ��'12 B-� :OP.1Z1� C�S��:�_: 3P. 31:t0 Sc�"'-�-_ _,__.... _s z i�-_...___�� ;b,ec_ �o the �ol�owi^.s" ----�_ _„^��__or.s aj The const�ruction and maintenance of all driveways, curbs, sidewalks. . .and other fac lities used in conjunction with the operation of the auto service station s all be in accordance with the current specification. I I - - - - - . . File �t10377 � � ' Page 'hro j � I The site pla� as submitted is in accordance with ci�•� s�ecifica�ior.s , with ��e 2YCZ7�101�1 OF �".c _3"'CSCaD1P.� �2Clllrc:^2"�. �^ ��_='_OP.ai. ��'il �_ �3�2 '?J� �� ,��.��L.3�G�� _.1 �� G3'.� �.. _`.. �... 31�.1��.... � _ .�� :1C��., �J .... 1�.�.�:�_. �lanned =..�o�.:_'.^. _:e �___c�,.� a seccr.d �_�.,.. ..�. -=_- =::ouid b� _oc..;�.. =o �:�e eas� o� �:�e ou:__�:�� b) A ten-Loot bjuffer area with screen planting and an cbscuring wall or rence shall be req��uired a:ong anv property line adjacent �o an existing residence or adjacentjto vacar.� �and zoned for residen�iai use . The site pi�n indica�es a ten foot buffer with a fou� foot obscuring fence along the w stern edge ot �he property which abuts �n R"�-2 zone. (c) Gasoline se�vice stations which are intended solely for the sale of gasoline, o�l and minor accessories and having no facilities for incidental servicing o automobiles (including lubricating facilities) may be permitted on a lot ofj10,000 square feet, subject to all other provisions herein required. � The total a�rea of the site is 35,677; the area which encompasses the conveniencelstore/self service gasoline pumps is approximately 20,000 square feet. 5. The zoning cod requires off-street parking to be provided at the rate of one for every 200 quare feet of usable floor area for business offices, one for every 150 squa e feet of usable floor area for retail and one for every 190 square feet of usable floor area for convenience stores with gas pumps. Based on the f oor plans submitted, the applicant proposes 5,980 feet of usable floor area for offices, 3,808 square feet for retail, and 2,613 square feet for convenience re ail with pumps or, 69 parking spaces. The site plan indicates that a total 0 72 spaces can be provided. The traffic en�gineer, however, indicated that one of the parallel spaces in the garage would nleed to be eliminated. I 5 . The District Plan supports commercial development on �ais site, but zecommends �hat the deve opment be a low traffic generator. According to the Institute of Traffic Engin ers Trip Generation Manual, the addition oi the two gasoline pump islands to th"s type of development will increase trips into the site bv b to 10 percent durin peak periods. G. STAFF ANALYSI : The site plan with minor revisions is sble to meet the zoning code r quirements and special conditions imposed on facilities that seli gasoline, and accordingl�, staff is recommending appro��al. Staff, however, has serious conce ns about the design of the building and the location or the parking in re ationship to the uses. For eYampie, the retail uses on �he top level require 39 parking spaces. The upper lot provides oniy 11 spaces and the only access f om the lower parking area to the upper le�:e2s is via the public sidewalk. _.. STAFF REC ATION: Based on staff findings 4 and 5, s�aff recommends approval of e special condition use permit subject to �ollowing conditions : i) The appli ant must submit a revised site plan for cit�; review and approval: �; All 71 pa king spaces shall be provided on the site tiith not more than 50 percent compact spaces. �� A detail Ilandscaping plan with 2,700 square feet oi _andscaged area wi�I be provided. __ �edge s'.-:�-_ -_. _ecca�e� :�o^^ _.._ �c�`�: __�� - _� a�,�•c�-_a�= =�=2 d1S�`.�ci:CG ?IlH�..�<i-'---' _- -:c :-�c��cC��O.^.. _� ^"__:�_c . _:i2y�..�..__ _ =�BE COV�I� S:3�� c --_-_- '��' --- `-•-- -� ��:.��_ .«�3 --- -�-c ,;ES_ _.`.i:er'.J15C� :� �::d_- -_ - - --°-�-. -_ -3::�c� _., _ --__ - _-•'-' = _`__ ---"' =^e aDa_��e��s . .___ dri-:�s -��__ _� __..�__ �c�" _., �__- s=�r:ca�� __.� _-____�__-_--.- - -aide i . I ��rectio�al �ines ar.c sigr.ag=_ snal� be arovide _.. =_.� _o«er �ark��_ ____. :ze exte�:.o� cf �he �__;..�^.�, sna�� '�e ��_�{ or �ou�-- __-•___ _ . ,��_��_--_ �oncrete �block (somet:�es referred �o as sal�� ace __ �r=_ari �ace :.___. brick tr�m and must be specified on the si�e plan. .') Employee� for the retail shops and corrvenience store must park in the lower parking '�evel. _ _ • I � ' , ��- � � / � . . , . APPLICATION FOR SPEC�AL CONDiTION USE ZONING OFF[CE USE ONLY CRY OF SAINT PA�UL File �l ' ' � JNIjNOZ _ .� 1.JGi:C3':Oi: ,-�.� ` F �� r Z _^ '.AU i . ,�- ��1� Tenta:.ve He�r.T,g �ate �%� `1��. L'v'.�r d tiumber of L�ts or Size of Parce!: a�ni � �� ppii;:at.on :s �erebv ma�ie ior a �pec�ai �.��ndition use Permit�der the provisions of Chapter � �i , S�ction S:� '� , Paragraph 5 , of the 'oning Code to operate a -,� ,�. _<..�.�=x.� _� � . p, � /�,y�r-Q/"� . Li� .l•f_ ,'1.. K�f+�.� . A. APPLICAN - C �e�f/S,� ,�pjione (Daytime) 777�� Name _�T Address � - �/�"� ZiP .��/D 9 Property interestiof Applicant (Ow er, contract purchaser, etc.) �' _ _ _ Name of owner (i� differen4) � � B. PROPERTY DES RIPTION �* ,._, �� ="�-'r Address/Locatio J.:�-�. �-t' `�"`{�✓ �- Q�'�� x Legal Descripti : Lot,�_Block � Add. � �� ?resent Zoning � � ~� Lot Size �� 7 X , � 3 �, b � I C. SPECIAL CON ITIONS Explain how yo will meet eac� of the Special Conditions. Attach supporting materials (d�a ams, site lan, letters of support, etc.) d�� ' , • �� , .--�� a. !z' .�`� �� - �,� CL- (,�' .��-c.��n�-L-- �� .� �, � 5 , c- � z� � , - �� " I* you have any que�tions, please contact: �U� �� (�� ?J?t�� Saint Paul Zo�ing Office ' : 100 City Ha 1 Annex � 25 West Fou h Street ! �aint Paul, innesota 551�2 ; 4102 f298-4154) � 1�1/g2 I � � i � � � I CITY OF SAItiT P�UI .��,.: .;,.,� . I . ;�'� , � ';` � OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORVEY ��Itnn . . ; �!1!�� r i EDWAR� P. ST�RR. CITY �T'CRVEY . : _ W' C�t� Na I :�mt Paul �t^.r-. -, �i1d. _ c.+ - _ �`i �� ':� I • . � I - _ _ -- • - - _ � � � -_- - - -'-- --- -�. -�._._..�.. _ +..� v��I_...'' - ^�r I -- -•- - � -`' - �. _ � ::a_1 e�712"1�X �� : Century C�ompany v. City of St . Paul District �Court File No. 492383 Our FilelS-87-0945 Dear Mr. Sode�holm: Regarding th� above matter , as you will recall the Planning Commission ar�d the City Council denied application by Century Company for ia Special Condition Use permit for a self-service gas station and convenience store at Wilson and Ruth Streets. Century Comp ny had filed a lawsuit in District Court for the purpose of h ving the Court order the City to issue the Special ��ondition Us Permit. Both the Century Company and the City c� Saint P-ul filed motions for summary judgment requesting tnat the T ial Court determine that there were no material issues of f ct and that each party was entitled to judgment o^. tneir beh lf . �nc�osed is ; � copy o� �:�e Order of Judce bVilsor. deny�r�g eo�n �:ctions for i su.*nr��ary judgr.ient and also a memorandum �;nere the =udge indic��es :^is suggestion that �entury Company snould r�subr�i� tn�ir amended site plan to the Plar.ning Cor��,-�issior� _., -::a� � cou�� e de*ermined Nnether �his aiter^at= s�te _ _�_. :oe= no�•; ��%:pi� ;ai�'r_ -ne zoninc requiremen�s . ___ _ ==�cr.d�nic �o ��e �entur,� Company ' s motior. �or summar�� _acgmen;, _ ^ad ;^c, ,�e�' �na` at �:�e time of �ne �i*�y Counc;� ^earing �.. _..� app ai , �hat Cer.�ury Cornpany for the ��rs� _�.^:e had _ _c.:�it�2� a; :-�e:. site plar. snowina �he c?�anged loca��c:. o* the ___�r�nc° _ �'.:� �as staticr. and tha� Plann-;.^.c s�aF� ar.d ?�anninc _�:�.._ss�o� i:��,. nc� had a:-� opportl;nity �e study t..�� _ �ar. �� _°_ ,r;i-.crn`,-j, _•..c. GT'°'J1011S objec�10215 Wcrc c�atic�; cC . _' i� I � _..�.:._� .._ �.__� _:�a� .?udg� 'r�iisc:. :�as rec�m.n:ended �h�� en�ury - --::.a^_ r�s�:b�:_� �^ amer.deu =�'�e pian to tr:e Plann�r.c �c-�-__s_or_ _ - - �^e=- r�v��:. . - :at�e ��.�� : _ �o^na Da�.sko because Centu^• Com ar.�� h�� _..._ .,� � � � F _ - _ �_ _�__�� ..-�--- �::?ir �rcpesed a-�ended =_�e ^la:-. _- __ • - _. __=s�� .,.- ---- - -e'•=�_ ,� ��-.D'ariV .,� ��d vh�� _ _ �s:oa�� ..= -=�a�e� . _ _ -._.. Ya��_t.cL___. 1��_ _�E'C�c'^ ..L!'`_�1�10:� �+JC =cr;':_ _ V.__.. �^U1C I . II � I �� w.. . ' � '��u 1� 1988 STATE OF MZ SOTA - • � ' -• • � - • ' - DZSTRICT COURT ��--�;Tv p� ��y ��C�:� .:L'DTCL�L DISTRZC'=' �,,_ - Ce::�ur.� Ccmp ny a `��esc�a .,.,...__ _ __e Vo . =��2�� coz�oration, and �. C . ��s� , ?la:nL�;�s � OjtDER vs . T'�e City o� St. Paul , Defendant . e above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the undersi ned Judge of the District Court on May 25, 1988, at - � . 1 :00 p�m. , 'ursuant to the Motions for Summary Judgment brought by the plai tiffs and the defendant. J�hn E. Daubney, Esq. , appeared on be�alf of the plaintiffs . Jerome J. Segal, Assistant City Attorney, anpeared on behalf o the def endant. U�on all the files , records and proceedings herein, Z IS HEREBY ORDEP.ED: 1 That plai.-�ti�fs ' '2otion zor S»a� Judgment is denied. That derendan� ' s motion for s�a� judgment is � denied. � . '�hat tze memorand�;^. attached herzto �s mace a �art of tzi�s Oraer. - � BY TH� COURT: i , - , o /''' �atec: Au�ust � ;' , _.8n g war i son '� Judge of�District �aurt i I i ME.*�10RANDUM _ a�..__�=s �:oL_:�� _:.:s a:.�_or: �.;_ �ec�a�a��-_� �'1C=u:e_^.L a�a:zs� �:e de�endant City oz St. Paul to recuire �ha� the Ci�� '_ssue a spe ia? cor.d�tion use pe-�-mi� _to_ aliow �:�e cor.st=�c��or. �� a sei�-se��' ce gasoline station and convenience store a� the intersectio� of Wilson and Ruth Streets in the City of St. Paul . T�e subject property is zoned "B-2, " which permits automobile ervlce stations , provided that the owner obtains a � � . conditional use permit ,from the City Planning Co:Bmission. See Section 60. 34, St. Pau1 Legislative Code. e Planning Commission`s zoning committee staff . initially r commended approval of the special condition use permit subj ct to the plaintiff/applicant meeting certain con- ditions for parking, landscaping and construction additions , and final revie�a by the City. See Zoning Committee Staff Re�ort, deiendant ' s� exhibit 2. 0� June 27 , 1986 , however, the St. Paul City Planning Co�iss�on animously denied the application �or a special conditior. u e permit . The Planning Co�issior. made i�s decisior. after publ�� hearings before the zoning co�i�tee at wr.icz the pla=zti��/a�aplicant and opponents had an opDOr�:�i�� to �reser.t inter•natio-:!I to *he co�ittee . ihe Commission round that "�umes �ro� gasoline :�andling anc pur��in�; is det,imental to tne en�oy�en� o� adjacent reside*_:- " � ��a? proper�y, " and that �t would be difi'_cu�� fcr gaso?ine tanicer � , � 4 I _ _ . � , � 1- �v/ . . . _ __., �--� I �� - -- ^^�o �`.:e s�te ur.de� ��e �lar. �resented by ��:e �_ :�cks �� :�__�..ti e_ ..._ . -- __ - � - �e� ? . , , �-=� �- -=-- - _�- - -�==�--- ._, �-��==- _ _---------. . :-r�___._ . _ �eso' .�_br_ =' _e :�c 980= .'ur.e _, i936 , ce=endan� ' s 2�-:_5-= s�cr. _�� -- • � ' 2 . I . -=� � -----==-=s a��ea?ed �^e ::er.�a'_ c= tze cor.aiticr.al J use �e�� tc� tze S= . Pau1 Cit�J Co�.ci= as prov:ded bv Section 54. 300(g) ofilthe St. Paul Legislative Code . Qn August 21 , 1986 , the St. PauljCity Council held a public hearing on the plain- tiffs' appea�, and then denied plaintiffs ' appeal. The Covncil found that t�ie Planning Commission' s findings were supported by � substantial jevidence. Th�e plaintiffs submitted an alternative site plan just prior to the� Cit� Council meeting of August 2?, 1988 , which the City Planniz�g Coamission did not have an opportunity to consider . This plan a dressed the safety concerns raised by the original plan becaus� it provided for gasoline deliveries on Ruth Street rather than on Wilson Street . Both parties acirnowledge that this alter^_ative plan was not considered by the Planning Co�ission ar t�e Ci=v Co ci? :� denying the plaintiffs ' application. : e stancazd of review in zoning matters is "whethe� the zoning autha�--�°' s action was reasonable; whether there is a reasonab�e bas�s =c� the dec�sion; wnether the decision is ur.�eaSO?1aD�e , ar�«�ar�� cr capr'_cious ; or is �ze decision reasa^- a:;1-� ceba��ble?" �onn v. Cita of Coon Rapids , 3i3 N.W.2d 409 , . �17 t'_":inn.I I9 8I j . IT� ��e �^s�a:�t case , -- a�pears �ha� t�e Plannin� I"_' . __ I � I , I I � i _ . , • , . . i �,c�ission ar�d t�e C�_? Cou^c'_; eac:� neid pub:'_c '.:earin�s wi�z �O_�1:_^._ '� � _ -c_ _--�':'_ -_ _.... =� __. S_..t'� . _'� Sci?_7 ��..C°_�:.J - - ' =s�sed bv`botih ��e _ _��,.i^� C��_ss_cn azd �:e ��t.� �ounc�? a�e � va�id reason� to den-� a s�ec�a1 condition use ?e�it . The Cour� �s conce�:led _^c�e-.e= , �^a� -��e- -?'_�nn�^� C��'_ss:cn and �::e Ccur�cii nave not had an o�po:_:z:li�� o cons�der the �:ai:�t��=s ' alte^zative site plan. �s such, it appears that the plaintiffs have not had a full oppor�tunity to have their proposals considered. Under these circ��tances of reasonable conceras for safety on the one hand, and a tplan which might address those concerns but which has not yet beer� considered, the Court does not feel it would be proper to grant sum�mary judgment for either side in this matter. TY�e Court suogests that the plaintifis resubmit their application �to the St. Paul Planning Co�ission so that. it._might review plai�tiffs ' alternative site plan and determine whether it complies wi�h the Citv' s zoning requirements . i j �'SW � 1 : ! i i - _ - , , ,� I � i , _ _ ��- �� , . , . ' '� 'r�� =r i �� r �A .�. -- ----___---- -�_ _ � � � (1 ��, � 3 0.o��,ti y -� � ' - � ��----;, - -- --- � i - _ _-- — � \i , � _- � �c w �-��1_ � �,+ � , � �Z��.�, � ,-_--- . -_ - - � ( I , J '-, 4° � , �' �4--� L � Z 4 � �.o� 2�.0 5' .� 0`- 2� o' L'q'l � L ' �0.�v6 � Dli,✓E ` -1 i� �' � � � �-_— �--— - - 1 \ ,�`� y �` � jJ _ b � � �� I _ � _ _ _ � r � � Z` i t1 � � s � ��; �- � r� �`� �_� °� �I _ i ` �� , > � °- � _ _ � � r � 7 '� � L��- _ �-�- �.--� 4�..�� , T ; i � - �� _ � -- � S - ; � ! �� - - � � � - �o � : ! � �' �� ' A �� _, � :� rn � �C � � �� _ ' - � � £� �, ;ti- .. � — i u � - � V� s�� I f � li p �. 1 I �,� — - -- - —� �, � � � 7 �; �.O � T 1 �.• � \ _ � �IZ.� ..�'".� .�(' crS�1.0 O O IO_ I?•O � . — `- 7� `� - j . _ .�. - ` 1.��. M.c\ � i I i O_ �S . L �; . , , ,. �� j �� z � � i , � ,r . � � �, , ; � ��.o , � _ - - - - ..__ _ �_ __ , _ . _ _. _ . , � , � i °' �, 8 ,.� 1'' � �+ T , D _ i ! •,`• � � � I _'{ O 3� � � l . � P��.., . � � (' �� ' � �; �g � � p � � � . io � � �, "' ' �� 3 J+ I ` � ° �� I � � ' — — •:�t a ; _ .- --- �.s - -i.___�___- Zi �; � � � � � � ; �., � � � „� + � � � o � , i _ i ' ' °' z z� � " � z I �` i;1 ---- - - : t ; _ � � „1 .� � � � I � _ - - �° ,° � . �► ' S' � i� � � y � I -� � , . , � � � � � P � � � � i � le.� �j �o 'sPr- - b�.J:; ac o� ol ♦ ,�.o' � �O} � � I U I .i ;a �- ,I 7_r.--i_, i_ .__._.__.i._ -� �•---_J 4 � 6 ? �, X I � I 9 � m ° �- �I � ..1 w�y � Y � � L = N �►' �c x N I ; p -� D -� t� _ � ; � , . � � � ` � OB � o�� °�� ' ' � ! � I ' �� ., ; , , � � � Q N. 1 C r j, N � �14 �P>yc , ;.5 2'I x�='i(�.o � �, � � s t`� -1 X �` x `w � I � C j I 1 I � � 1 � • � I � � t c �, � � �r � i ;o_ — _ � _. : `- - . � C � � ' �� ,�t�N ' I I � � 7 Z P p i . - � .�.��-s.,.-�.r�-------_�°_- ��, b an J I i-:.u. � � � � y � � � ' ! � �� ' � � �_ � �� , r � � c � �� :. � l � � � v-'` 1t ' F I � �. - � � L� I � � � " __"_"__— . __�___ .. ; � T � . � rt ^ =I. � .�'. � ' � I ��A�f� �i�'�F�'� ��L✓ENC�' �Iot�TH 5 6 4 � �_�, Y Io�� j P�l1T}i M�O �/It��'�OIV °'�1�E�'T�s ,( �f.�!?r�c N' P' — �1f�('�►LA-i MI�.,N�'SOTi�► � -�'1^ �.4-.- --� — -- --—---- — --- --_ , � i — � � ► � � C 20� 10 r � j t� ' �3,c ,, - . � � � • J � ��'. I � i w t � � _ t � � ( � 1 S � � � � � N t i f � -,�. 0 � � .n ' � v = �' . �► � � ^.. �: � . � � � � , , ; i � - - ,. - ;: 0 _ - .� - � t � ) � Z � :'' r` � -_ ' � Z � � �j � o u' � 1 ; L .7'' -� . �.' � , p�� r m ji tr �_ � n 1 � P � . + � � ; �l' � - � � � ; � � f � i� 1 t Z , ► ; � � � � N � -^ � �1 8 � _ e v _` � C: { ��'1�� .- /- � •( � 1� Z Q T�1/ I � � , T� ! II � . � � � � � c - � � . II �� l �- D► ..� . � � � . v _ . .� - . �I , •. . � ti � ,?, :_. � — ._ :� �� . .� � wa ; i� o � t�- I a e � � • � . . !I } � � � � _� I � � �' f� �` � �r � _ � � �. - � b" • • `-� . • . _ ' M 11 r� � ' � p • 4 � � ' � j. � � � _ � � I '� , . . . ' . - - - -- _ -----f—= - _ _ ' _ _ _ . . • , � . . - i � i � i -�c' iG .� - � � ------- - ---- --- - - I ----- -- _ _ -- •-- -------- -- -- i - -- ; _�.' � — +1 j ,` , t� � � . ;c;� � �� j � �, - . - � � �� ' 1 � I� � •c �' ' � ',!1 v� C � t T _ _ , �T` �L' — ;� � � .. -+ � = R" = %�' �' �, m , g � ? I -` ,, ; -� � �, � �, � � J ''ti � �= � s .n 7� �t � � � 3 � � �, .r 4 ' � r +Z' �2 � �. D � -� � _ + ' � � � � � _ � p � � � , , 3 oo�r � _ � � _ �-�+ � o � l�f I R ' � � ' � � � i � -- � -- --- _ I �_rDQ, o J-i � o ; � ► 7° - ' T. io � �o' , � ^► _ � � �w � ' 7 � .n -1 �`' y � s u� ; C�- i ;� �, . ,�� ; � r ; _� � t� � ` � , m ' � i° � 3s � �� , �' ; 35 ' i � i � � � g '' ; � ' :� , I \ ' T I � � � �` �r - �r � m c t', ,-� � � ' '' b .. :1 ' T. . I tJ�� -` � � � , � ' � 'v � �� . : � � � W Vf'", 3 ; ro J► i .r .n ,� .r r �. � � ? i� � � 3 � - � .i , � _.._ �.. � I I�'�Y� � --,� � � . ., _ _. _ ' - , �fn 9` �v/ . � � . , � . I � � � i � � i i � � � i � z - - _ --- --------- — � � 8-O `1 I ; , i . _ I I .i � _ i � i �� e . 0 _ o_ � � L I — � � � i � � �j1 j �; i; (t' � i _,,• O � � ! � � � I '� � � �'_ � . y 1 � � �i � � � .�5. � V � �� I , � - � �l ` ,y � i ,, . �� - i � , , � ,� � � . - � .� ' r ,� _ _�� i i � i O �1 � I �� _ � � t , I �' � " - �i , . , „ { r �[�' - 1• I 1` , . 1� � . 1 i -O i ��-O � � -ir .� � � �•Q 1 � �� r i {�� i � i -— 1' ': i .,� J � ` �' I `�'�- ; �; �--�..-- �: , � o . � �—. �� .� _ u , x � . �. � � - � : � �� ; ! � ' . 3 � �. ��. � Y� . - � f i — ��" 7 - � , Ci�-1 �r � L " b__: i ��`�� Y " , _..��'��z ,�; � ' a' I �...:.»�- - —-.--—. _.,.. . ._ ,__ _ _ _ � - I � � ..: ,.�: . - -' y � I • � � D/STR/CT C I MMUN/TY . � , - C�l/NC/L ' O N _-S. ..- � ��m,.,�� _ E �a:;ie CreeK ,iunicr ,�,�.� _��= : 2'2' �'Vor!h ParN Drive. R.^,. "-_ ■ St. Pau�. M�nnesota 55?'.� 739-5881 � � i Cc�ober 6, i988 i Zoning Committee � St. Paul Plannin� Cortnnission 25 W. Fourth Str$et St. Paul , MN 55102 � Subject: Special Condition Use Permit for Ruth/Wilson gas pumps Dear Corranittee M�mbers: The Distri t 1 Community Council unanimously opposes the special condition use permit for gas pumps at the proposed office building and convenience store on the southwest� corner of Ruth Street and Wilson Avenue. The Distri�Ct 1 Plan refers to this site: "District supports commercial development on �the site. . .but recommends that the development be a low traffic generator." (qistrict 1 Plan, pg. 6, adopted by the City Council , Dec. 1985) . �bviously gas �umps and a convenience store do not qualify as a "low traffic generator. " i i :n additio the review of Century Companies ' plan raises many questions re- garding inadeq ate parking, the turning radius for tankers delivering fuel , a �uffe•r for ad acent residential property, the apprcpriateness o` yas fumes adjacent to re idences, and space for stacking of vehicles at the proposed gas pumps. The intersection of Ruth and Wilson has no traffic lights, no crosswalks and �top signs onl on Wilson Avenue. Drivers must also contend with the steep grade on i�ilson Aven e. Diagonally across the street is Conway Park, site of the Sun Ray L;brary an the soon-to-be constructed Conway Community Recrpation Center. :t is for' these reasons, especially traffic and safety, that the �istrict i � I ' � � i � I . � �� - ��f _ , . . . . � � Zonin Committee ! -2- �ctober 6 1988 9 � � .,v�;i��Ufl� .,�l �.:rUlli.' .i^d!':�TCJ� J v'�'DGSC� 3 .`,:'=:, . � ,�r'C�� =!1 '.:�2 �E!"'TI'T. '1�fiK 'ICI:. � 'f°1"' t�U �V `/�JUY'c I ,� � - ' ' , � = � 'F-�-%-c;LC -�:��•--�`-��-- Robert Joivnson�— � President � cc: R.C. Ernst � Council Memb�r Dimond Lisa Freese � I � i i i i � � i i i i i , �� i i � i T = . ` p I . . ( ♦ � I � i � � �l. `!Y� PiImqULS[ i �/�.}�� :.�� 410 �ay�e St �'� St. Paol MN 55119 ' /� J�C 2� �5C �c7�2.t'Z 4 �CS L cl E cz'�� c--� ��c..=-s f�Pc�c� r^'(r� w 'd.�� R l,.��►'[,C, [� Po7 5/�C c d L u I"2 ✓�!1 1� �'L t. �� r � G w�. 12ave er�� vy�. a �c��-d� ) w � �av� a 1�(�y � re` � ,-z� f{c2�5s � (.�.� � S-fReeZ� � �le�'�ty of �-y �ir� �"co�✓ .S'�a!'� s �� 5 S�a� r �t S ar� c1 u; � d �` � z rz � �t=9fz aLeas�fy ��d ��?c a i� 2 ��° E-,z -�� i�a � y � 1�- '3(d4s. C/os� /,��. �, :: a ��ea as ha� ��t -tt� � �-��c -�a��%= ty �jn�� y, i ,. ,� � i y�.� ;�;��:e�-.�-�� : i i I � � � � � i � i � � � � � I i _ _ __- _ - . " �� , . . . I N p _...... . 1 � -• - • / ' � 1 ` t 1� ' �� ''� ' � � , . � 12• ; - ti � . -� 6 i 5 � , _ _ • j . a� �... . i �... � � • � � • t � � l � ' � _- . .. . .., � . . '� �� . ' ' ' - • � ' -� - i - � � � . __ � . � . . �: � .- � � . _ . .....�. i ' • ' t � • . y � r� t � .� ; .. . , � � ... .. - . ... � / ` "� � �' . � �r � � ' n' • , f t 16t , . t . � „_ _ . �� . 3 : , � 14 �9 � � � ,� ''� � � _ ... ; ' �,,. � � ' ., , i / � ' / � � � • � . � � � i � �� ; T .� � � � � • „ � `�' ! / « • ' I � • , � --- ' 1. , 1 , . . . �� j � �` / \� 1, - �_� \ 1 � J� ■M • s � ��n �v CITIIFN PARTICI➢A?JON PIANNING DISTRItTS I I _ _ . i , 3.iiEST S10E • �.QAYTON'S dIUFF . S.PAYNE-P1�1ALElI - 6.NOR?M END . 7.TI��MAS•pALE 8.St�MIT-1�11 rE RS I T Y ' 9.YEST SE�pRH 10.�1 1 l.ilAlL�NE-NlOYAY �2.ST.,,:#IA�Y � 13.lE��.•lEX1NG?Oti HAT�L INE � 14.i�MD-MItC11LESTER �6:��« ZQN#�� FILE �� .= � � ,�.�o�� , � � � � i , � � l 1 1 l l l I 1 �J M � . � • � �. �. �.; -•: �.. -�,�, ,�,, ,. �,�..,�. f ...� . '�°.� y+ �^ '�, � R�_2 � o � � � ,� � ,... �� . �.._ , � ,•' � �' � C E.., "' `�, � .-• �;� rC.�'T 1. , � �.•. ,\� �, . Ov . � . � _� -- . ` , r' _ f�. �-. - - O O ��., ' _' ,'' '. , .F , �- - `, , ., ' f� ` -. ' -_ � �"- �_ � , f r _ 3 � C � r, ' t �'a1�l,�i�-Y, r ' ` �-�,f�` 1��"i!'Y O p � y ', ��-; `�� ,� �..,� .. ' �f'> . " �• ,- - ,- - � _ - � ��,� a�a�N � o �., . �, o:� - , , � �• � . , �-�,,. � � �. , , ,, ,,,� �, � . � .�; ,; T-. . -' . > , � • � � � . M - ._ � . � _ � � � R -� . 4 24 � � �, , , r'• ' � ' .. , - L � . _ � I � .� r--� _ O i � I Cr-. ` ^� � i. � ^ ,�•+ � , O O� O �- c � ' � _ , � �- � r_. '1 --� ,�, I � � ' �' � - � -� ',,, � � � � ��' � '•• `• � �` � � ^ ' r �i O O o O O O - . . � ,- �.. -^ � � ,. s � �, r� �� -� �,��-. � �, , t-y c. �, � � - - avE . � � _ � ; z� � Os� � 3� O - . G O � � � . MZ � . 36 21 � O O O f n U � � � � � � Zs W � Q � _ � �— � � , � 'I Zi W�. . � � �� o � �, � , i � —_ � � � • 1 2 � � � RM-2 � � � � i �2 � - i � � ' Z � ' � • a � �2 �, i I `,f i 2 R � AREA MAP � 3 ' •- n �t..`;i�:t, ,,-. _ r � ,,,M�VT ' "'" '_ . � � r�• .. . ._ '.� .i`.�+1� __---=�- --- '� � _ _ . . _ �+��r^.,!` _ � .. ". , . : = _ :.DOSE -� �-'-'-I - --_.. -- - ,,,�__ -- , V� _ .,� _„ -' �^��„- . � ; --, y��_ =QAAi' _ ` _� __ j � -Y -•'�tJf P.,., , ' -ti -- — , r �'.�,4L, � 4 `'1��; 'Q�i� " �.� - N i � r �� 0• : 11-10 I88 � MULTIPLE F � DATE � � AM�LY . , � • � � COMMERCIAL ; SCALE �" = 200` � : � � �► �. _ _ -- . _ _ •_ _ -- SAINT PAUL PI.ANN NG 80ARG V vACAN� 1�! �� - .��._„. n"j1¢•. . . _ � . �N. . . ... � • . : � � � � � �� - � ai • • A ST. f PAU.L CITY COUNCII. ` ' �. � lq G I PU �IC HEARING NOTICE --= ZONING RECEIV ED NOV 18 1988 I CITY CLERK T0: Property own rs within 350' ; F1L E N 0. 10403 Residents of Planning District 1 PAGE � PURPOSE To appeal a Plannning Commission decision denying a Special Condition Use Permit to establish a convenience store/office � building wit� gas pumps. LOCATION I Vacant lot at the southwest corner of Ruth and Wilson (approximately 415 Ruth and 1994 Wilson) P TITIONER � E � CENTURY COMPANIES � � HEARING ! �rt�ur�aay, �c�cer��: �, :�`� 9:0o A.M. . ; Cit Council Chambers, 3rd Floor City Hall - Court House QUESTIONS � � Zoning 298-4154 (Lisa Freese) Contact the Zoning Section of the Planning and Economic � i Development Department, Room 1101, City Hall Annex, -'- , 25 W. 4th Street, St. Paul, Minnesoia 55102 I Legal Description: On file I I Notice aent 11/��18/88 _ I