00-59851,�.F3�`Tf`�"t.�.T�" -
� � �
� o� a�
(�� �3� ��oo
RESOLUTION
Councit File # �O � 5g$
Green Sheet #
�
Presented
Referred To Committee Date
WHEREAS, Exeter Holdings, L.L.C., in Zoning File 00-1181511 and pursuant to the provisions of
Saint Paul Legislative Code § 62.108(c), applied on February 21, 2000, far approval of a site plan far the
purpose of constructing a three level structure with retail space on the flrst level and with parking on the second
and third levels for property owned by Victoria Plaza, L.L.C. on property commonly known as 864 Grand
Avenue and legally described as set forth in said zoning file; and
6 WH�I2EAS, on March 10, 2000, the Saint Paul Planning Commission (hereinafter "Commission"), after
7 having provided notice to affected property owners, conducted a public hearing on a Commission staff
8 recommendation to approve the site plan application. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Commission
9 moved to close tl�e public hearing but allowed for the submission of additional written comments until March 14,
10 2000 at which titne the matter would be taken up by the Commission's Zoning Committee during the Zoning
11 Committee's regularly scheduled meeting of Mazch 16, 2000; and
12 WHEREAS, on March 16, 2000 the Zoning Committee received the additional information submitted
13 after the March 10, 2000 public hearing. However, due to the volume of additional information submitted, the
14 Zoniug Comtnittee moved to refer the matter without a recommendation back to the full Commission for
15 coxisideration at the Commission's regularly scheduled meeting of March 24, 2000; and
16 WHEREAS, on March 24, 2000, the Commission, in its Resolution No. 00-25 which is incorporated
17 herein by reference, moved to approve the said application subject to certain conditions; and
18 WH�REAS, on Apri17, 2000 and pursuant to the pzovisions of Legislative Code § 64.206, a local
19 nei�borhood �roup, Neighbors Opposed to Victoria Plaza, inc. (hereinafter Neighbor's Inc.), duly filed an
20 appeal from the decision of the Commission and requested that a hearing be held before the City Council for the
21 purpose of considerin� the actions taken by the said Commission; a�id
22 WHER�AS, on April 10, 2000 and pursuant to the provisions of the Legislative Code § 64.206, the
23 Summit Hill Association and the East Mall Associates (hereinafter, respectfully, Summit Hill and East Mall) each
24 filed seplrate appeals from the Commission's decision and each requested that a hearing be held befare the City
25 Coiuzcil for the purpose of considering the actlons taken by the said Commission; and
26 WH�I2EAS, on May 10, 2000 and acting pursuant to Legislative Code § 64.206 -§ 64.208 with notice
27 to affected parties, a consolidated public hearing to hear each of the three appeals was conducted by the Saint
28 Paul City Council (hereinafter "the City Council") where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be
29 heard; and
30 WH�REAS, the Council having listened to the statements made and having considered the application,
31 the report of staff, the recoxd and minutes, the resolution of the Planning Commission and its Committees moved
32 on a 4-3 vote to find error by the Planning Commission and to grant the various appeals based upon the
00-598
following reasons which were reduced to writing and which were duly published in the Council's official action
minutes on May 11, 2000; and
3 WHEREAS, before the reasons for granting the said appeals were memorialized in resolurion form as
4 required by the Saint Paul City Charter, a series of ineetings was initiated by the Office of the Mayor between
5 Exeter Holdings, Neighbors, Inc., Stimmit Hill to determine whether revisions to the site plan for the project
6 could be agreed upon. These meetings were also attended by City stafF, and
7 WHEREAS, fhe City CounciI was advised by Exeter Holdings, Neighbors, Inc., and Suminit Hill that
8 revisions to the site plan for the project had been agreed upon between these parties and the terms of such
9 agreement were transmitted to the City Council. East Mall had not agreed to the site plan revisions; and
10 WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul reconsidered its previous decision to gant the appeals
11 by Neighbors, Inc., Sucnmit Hill and East Ma11 given the representation by Neighbors, Inc. and Sununit Hill that
12 they were in agreement with the revisions to the site plan for the development proposed by Exeter Holdings' at
13 the southwest comer of Grand and Victoria; and
14 WHEREAS, on July 12, 2000, the Council of the City of Saint Paul, moved to deny in all things the
15 appeals by Neighbors, Inc., Summit Hill and East Mall and to affirm the site plan contained in Pla.uniug
16 Commission resolution 00-25 and to adopt the said resolution o£the Planning Commission as its own by
17 reference except to the ea�tent modified by the revisions to the site plan agreed to by Exeter Holdings, Neighbors,
18 Inc., and Sununit Hill; and
19 WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul, acting pursuant to authority granted under Saint Paul
20 Legislative Code § 64.207 and upon the revisions to the site plan agreed to by Exeter Holdings, Neighbors, Inc.,
21 and Smmnit Hill, ordered in Council File No. 00-598, adopted July 12, 2000, that Plam�ing Commission
22 resolution 00-25 granting approval to permit conshvction of the development at 860 Crrand Avenue be upheld
23 subject to the revisions to the site plan agreed to by Exeter Holdings, Neighbors, Inc., and Suuimit Hill as
24 contained in Council File No. 00-598; and
25 WHEREAS, Council File No. 00-598 as adopted on Ju1y 12, 2000 was duly delivered to the Mayor of
26 the City of Saint Paul for approval; and
27 WFIEREAS, on July 24, 2000 and pursuant to Saint Paul City Charter § 6.09, the Mayor vetoed Council
28 File No. 00-598 and, pursuant to Saint Paul City Charter § 6.08, communicated his reasons for the veto to the
29 Council; and
30 WIIEREAS, on August 23, 2000 and pursuant to Saint Paul Ciry Charter § 6.10, the Council of the City
31 of Saint Paul moved to reconsider the matter of the Mayor's July 24, 2000 veto of Council File No. 00-598; and
32 WI3EREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul has been advised that certain revisions to the site plan
33 approved by the Plamiing Commission have been proposed by the developer and the neighbars. The Council,
34 hauing listened to the statements made at the public hearing, having considered the original application approved
35 by the City including the report of staff, the record and minutes and the adopted Platming Commission resolution
36 and having considered the Mayor's statement of reasons in his veto message and given the new revisions to the
37 site plan fmds that reconsideration of Council File No. 00-598 is appropriate;
38 NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul, by this
39 substitute resolution No. 00-598 and pursuant to its authority to reconsider vetoes as provided in Saint Paul City
40 Charter § 6.10 and acting pursuant to authority granted under Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.207, hereby
`a
00 -�98
amends Piaianing Commission resolution 00-25 which granted approval to permit construction of the
development at 860 Grand Avenue by modifying as follows the conditions of approval set forth therein:
4 1. The retail and pazking development at 860 Crrand Avenue (hereinafter, the "Vic I projecP') shall consist
5 of basement storage, street level retail and common azeas and two levels of structuted pazking above the retail,
6 subj ect to the conditions set forth in pazagraph 3 below. The structure will resemble a twastory building. The
7 ea�terior of the structure shall be traditional in design with facades of high quality, brick and sha11 have stone
8 accents along Crrand and Victoria. Spandrel glass windows shall mask the fust level of pazking. The bus shelter
9 will be relocated to either the Milton Mall east pazking lot or to another location as approved by the City.
10 2. The Vic I project will have at least 208 pazIdug spaces. Valet pazking may be used to add more parking
11 spaces during periods of peak parking demand.
12 3. The Vic I project shall be reduced in scale by appro�nately 20% through the following means:
13 • The Vic I project shall be reduced in height by re-engineering the method of construction.
14 Developer has agreed to tlus despite the increase in cost. Re-engineering the method of
15 construction will lower the top of the upper pazking level from 31 feet in the original site plan to
16 27.5 feet in this revised plan for a reduction of 3.5 feet. Re-engineering the method of
17 construction will lower the pazapet height from 35-38 feet in the original plan to 31.5 feet in the
18 revised plan for a reduction of 3.5 - 6.5 feet. These reductions will make the scale of the Vic I
19 project more compatible with nearby structures at Grand and Victoria. For example, the pazapet
20 height of the West Ma11 is 32.5 feet and the parapet height of the apartment buildings to the west
21 of the project is 37 feet.
22 • The elevator and stair towers for the Vic I project shall be moved to the center of the site, so as to
23 eluninate these building elements from being visible at street level.
24 • Developer has agreed that the a11ey setback shall be increased from Z feet to 14 feet, even fhough
25 no setback is required under City regulations. This increased setback will be accomplished by
26 narrowing the drive lanes within the parking structure to the m�iinuxn extent permitted by City
27 requirements, and by reducing street level floor area. However, the setback cannot be further
28 increased without losing one entire row of parking on both levels, which would eliminate
29 appro�mately 46 pazking spaces. The increase in a11ey setback will bring the Vic I project more
30 in line with the alley setbacks for nearby structures. For instance, the alley setback for the
31 apartment buildings to the west of the project is 19 feet. Within the Vic I project alley setback,
32 spruce trees, at least 6 feet high, sha11 be planted (except for an enclosed trash dumpster and a van
33 accessible handicapped parking sta11 adjacent to Victoria) for screening/softening purposes. The
34 trees shall be maintained and/or replaced as necessary in order to preserve their purpose.
35 4. There shall be no fenant loading or unloading in the alley except for trash pick-up.
36 5. During construction of the Vic I project, the City will pernut customer parking on the north side of
37 Lincoln Avenue between Avon and Chatsworth during weekdays between 11:00 am. and 6:00 pm.
38 6. Additional pazking is desirable in the Grand/Victoria neighborhood. The developer proposes a second
39 off=site parking facility, to be known hereinafter as the "Vic II project," for the purpose of providing additionat
40 parking in the neighborhood. The Vic II project will involve constnxction of a one-level parking deck above an
41 e�sting surface parking lot. The Vic II project will provide approximately 260 parking spaces (including
00-59$
1 approxixuately 90 spaces on the one-level parking deck). The Vic II project will resuit in a net gain of
2 approxixnately 88 pazking spaces over the present 172 pazking spaces. Valet pazking may be used to provide
3 additional pazking spaces at the Vic II project during periods of peak parking demand.
4 7. Provided that the Vic II project complies with City special condition use permit and site plan regulations
5 and the reasonable recommendations of City staff, staff will recommend variances from the reaz yard setback,
6 side yard setback, and 30% lot coverage ratio requirements.
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
8. Via a sepazate agreement and only for the purpose of inemorializing the spirit of compromise in this
matter which lead to this revised site plan approval, the Developer guarantees to proceed with construcrion of
the Vic II project, provided that it enters into an agreement with Saint Paul's United Church of Christ which
owns the easterly two-thirds of the e�sting Vic II pazking lot and is not prevented from constructing the project
by causes beyond its control. In exchange, the City, subject to the City approval process, will loan the Developer
$1,500,000 for the Vic II project under the following terms: the loan principal will be due in 30 yeazs; interest
will accrue at the rate of 2% per annum paid monthly; assignment will be fully pernutted; disbursement will take
place during construction of the Vic II project; the project nnprovements and third pariy contracts will secure the
loan. Of this $1,SOO,OOO loan, $1,000,000 will originate from the STAR Program, subject to the standard STAR
approval process; and $500,000 will originate from the Parking and Transit Fund, subject to the standazd City
Council approval process.
18 9. That the terms and conditions of this process aze subject to the final approval of the site design plans by
19 City staff.
20 AND, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to
21 Neighbor's Opposed, East Mall Associates, Suttunit Hill Association and Exeter Holdings, the Zoning
22 Administrator and the Planning Commission.
Requested by Department of.
�
Adoption Certified by Council Secretazy
By: 3 —�
Approved by or: Date
By: �
Form Appr by City Attomey
B 6./�w.v�-� 8I: s/ a�o
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
�
Adopted by Council: Date v�„ �'3 SOO o
SL1.��s�`�.�T ���0.��s p� 3� y ��y4y ltl. 6C1Q�
h
Q R l G 1 N A L '� ��•�,�•� �� -;•�\� � a,�000
„ RESOLUTION
OF
Council FIle # pp � SQ�'
Green Sheet # 103 q g'�
MINNESOTA
�' or•1
Presented By
Referred To
Committee:
l�
WHEREAS, Exeter Holdings, L.L.C., in Zoning File 00-1181511 and �
provisions of Saini Paul Legislative Code § 62.108(c), applied far approval of a
putpose of constructing a three level shucture with retail space on the first level
on the second and third levels for property owned by Victoria Plaza, L.L.C. o
commonly known as 864 Grand Avenue and legally described as set forth i the
and
to the
lan for the
with parking
said zoning file;
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2000, the Saint Paul Planning C ission (hereinafter
"Commission"), after having provided notice to affected propert wners, conducted a public
hearing on a Commission staffrecommendation to approve th site plan application. At the
conclusion of the public hearing, the Commission moved to ose the public hearing but ailowed
for the submission of additional written comments until ch 14, 2000 at which time the matter
would be taken up by the Commission's Zoning Co ' tee during the Zoning Committee's
regularly scheduled meering of March 16, 2000: and
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2000 the Zo ng Committee received the additional
information submitted after the March 10, 20 public hearing. However, due to the volume of
additional informarion submitted, the Zo ' g Committee moved to refer the matter without a
recommendation back to the full Comm� ion for consideration at the Commission's regularly
scheduled meeting of March 24, 2000: d
WHEREAS, on March 2 2000, the Commission, in its Resolution No. 00-25 which is
attached hereto and incorporate herein by reference, moved to approve the said application
subject to certain conditions; d
WHEREAS, on pri17, 2000 and pursuant to the provisions of Legislarive Code
§ 64.206, a local nei orhood group, Neighbors Opposed to Victoria Plaza, Ina (hereinafter
Neighbor's Inc.), d filed an appeal from the decision of the Commission and requested that a
hearing be held b ore the City Council for the purpose of considering the acrions taken by the
said Comsnissi ; and
REAS, on April 10, 2000 and pursuant to the provisions of Legislative Code
§ 6420 the Suinmit Hi11 Association and the East Mall Associates (hereinafter, respectfully,
S ' Hill and East Mall} each filed separate appeals from the Commission's decision and
eac equested that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the
ac ons taken by the said Commission; and
! r .
2 WHEREAS, on May 10, 2000 and acting pursuant to Legislarive Code § 64.206 -
3 § 64.208 with notice to affected parties, a consolidated public hearing to heaz each of the three
4 appeals was conducted by the Saint Paul City Councii (hereinafter °the City Council") where ail
5 interested parties were given an opporhiuity to be heard; and
6
7
8
9
10
il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
�9
WIiEREAS, the Council hauing listened to the statements made and having con
the application, the repart of staff, the record and minutes, the resolution of the Planning
Commission and its Committees moved to find error by the Plamiing Commission and t grant
the various appeals based upon the following reasons which were reduced to a writin d which
were duly published in the CounciPs official action minutes on May 11, 2000:
1. The mass of the proposed building is not in keeping with the
of other structures in the neighborhood. The overall size of the
proportion to the apartment buildings on Grand Ave. and is con
scale with the abutting residential structures along Victoria and
South elevation of ffie building does not use the same "three b
materials or window treatmenYs proposed for the North and asi
South elevation of the building lacks the same attempt to v sua1:
�harac r and size
�uil � g is not in
>1 ely out of
ncoln. The
ding" facade,
facades. The
v buffer the scale
of the building as is found on the North and East facade . The South elevation's
lack of a buffer presents a design aspect that will nega vely impact the residential
properties to the South.
2. The building's parking ramp entrance and exi oints will very 1ikely create
traffic conditions which will unreasonably aff t surrounding property. The traffic
study was too nanow in its focus to adequat y assess the overall impact of this
commercial building/parking ramp on sun unding vehicle and pedestrian traffic
patterns. Although the traffic study indic tes that ramp traffic will not exceed
local street capacity, the study failed evaluate the impact of the building's
commercial uses and ramp traffic on incoln Avenue or other streets to the South
of Grand or on the alleyways betw en Grand and Lincoln Avenues. The impact
of increased pedestrian and vehi laz traffic circularion in adjacent residenrial
neighborhoods due to the co erciai uses in the building and its ramp shouid
have been evaluated. The tr ic study also does not address any "ripple" effect
caused by the building's co erciai uses and ramp traffic on other nearby streets
such as Smvmit or Milto . The site plan did not evaluate the incremental increase
in noise, fiunes, lights other intrusions caused by an increase in vehicle and
pedestrian traffic.
3. The site plan a roval indicated a"significant" gain in available parking
spaces based up a"modest" real gain in new parking spaces. This significant
gain appears t e premised upon an assumption that valet parldng wiil assure a
"significanY' ain in spaces because the peak hours for retail uses are during the
afternoon 'le the peak hours for restaurant uses aze during the evening. The
site plan oval is premised on nothing more than an assumption that "properly
manage " valet parking will provide a significant gain in available parking
spac . The history of the site suggesis that valet parking has failed in the past. If
vai parking fails again, there will be no significant parking gain as called for in
Page 2 of 4
�� .
2 the Grand Avenue Small Area Pian. It is unreasonable to assume that the significant gain
3 in parking spaces called for in the Grand Avenue Small Area Plan will be achieved by
4 relying on valet parking. Ifbusiness customers elect to not park in the ramp, they will
5 pazk in the sutrounding area and fi�rther exacerbate the documented parking shortfall in
6 the neighborhood.
8 WfIE12EAS, before the reasons for granting the said appeals were mema
9 resolution form as required by the Saint Paul City Charter, Exeter Holdings, Nei€
10 Smnmit Hi11 and East Mail initiated a series of ineetings to deternune whether an
11
12
l3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
pian for the project could be agreed upon. These meerings were also attended by
WHEREAS, the City Council has been advised by Exeter Holdings,
�ea m
j� Inc-,
native site
staff; and
Inc, and
Suuunit Hill have now agreed upon a revised site plan for the project and th these parties have
transmitted the terms of such agreement to the City Council. East Mall h not agreed to the said
revased site plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul her y reverses its previous
decision to grant the appeals by Neighbors, lnc., Summit Hill an ast Mall given the
representation by Neighbors, Inc. and Summit Hill that they ar m agreement with a new site
plan for Exeter Holdings' proposed development on the sout est comer of Grand and Victoria;
AND, BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of t City of Saint Paul, denies in all things
the appeals by Neighbors, Inc., Sututnit $ill and East all and to affirm in principle the site plan
contained in Planning Commission resolution 00-25 d to adopt the said resolurion as ]ts own
herein by reference thereto except to the extent mo ified as noted below such modifications
based upon the mutual agreements
Smmnit Aill; AND, BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED, that
the authoriry granted under Saint Paul ]
agreements as xecommended by Exeter
Planning Comxnission resolution 00-
development and parking facility at 61
forth therein modified to read as f low
Exeter Holdings, Neighbors, Inc. and
the ouncil of the City of Saint Paui, acting pursuant to
e islative Code § b4.207 and upon the mutual
oldings, Neighbors, Inc, and Sutmnit Hill, orders that
granting approval to permit construction of a commercial
Grand Avenue shall have the conditions of approval set
2 story building on no erly 93 feet of site, 30 feet in height from average-finished grade
to roof deck (plus par pet and elevatorlstair structure), and footprint of approximately
23,250 square feet.
Building desi aditional in style with north, east, partial west, and partial south
building fac 's clad with high quality traditional brick with stone accents.
Retail us on first floar (plus common area) and office and storage uses on second floor
(plus c on areas). Retail space allocated 1 parking space far each 280 square feet,
offic space allocated 1 pazking space for each 400 squaze feet, storage space ailocated 1
par ng space for each 5,000 squaze feet, and common azeas (e.g., corridors, building
tries, elevator and stair azeas, etc.) allocated 1 parking space far each 5,000 square feet.
Page 3 of 4
cri-59�'
• Surface parking for approxixnately 30 cars south of 2 story building with ingress from
Victoria and egress to alley south of site.
• Under�ound pazking facility below entire 39,000 square foot site �t from lot lines to
lot lines) for approacimately 120 cazs with ingress from Victoria and gress to Victoria via
ramp adjacent to alley at south of site.
• To assist with cost of underground pazking, City will assist Dev loper with preparing a
tas abatement program with a goal of abating no more ihan mcremental portion of the
City's real estate ta�ces begiuuing in 2003.
• Developer to construct a sepazate parking facility to pro de 93 off street pazking spaces
in order meet pazking requirement for development be re building permits for
development may issue, provided that Developer re es agreement with City to provide
loan financing in the sum of 1.5 to 1.6 million doll s for the separate pazking facility,
receive all project approvals and that Developer i ot prevented from conshucring
project by causes beyond its control. City may 'thhold certificate of occupancy for
development if Developer fails to proceed wi the separate parking facility for reasons
other than those cited above.
• Developer and appellants to agree to
memorialized in a memorandum of i
this resolution in order to fulfili the :
AND, BE IT FINALLY RESOL�D, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this
resolution to neighbors opposed, East Ma Associates, Smmnit Hill Association and Exeter
Holdings, the Zoning Administratar and e Planning Commission.
�onal condirions as necessary, to be
standing for later incorporationlamendment of
of their compromises in this matter.
xequested by Department of:
By:
Adopted by
OOp
Fozm Approved by City Attozney
By:
Adoption G
Hy: 9 \ „__
Approved by Mayor:
By:
Approved by Mayor £ox Submissioa to Council
if�"Oo� ���I�O
� �
����
•� -'
July 13, 2000
Nancy:
Here is the GrandlVictoria Ramp
Resolution with the technical
amendments offered by CM Coleman.
I read in the pape to day hat the
Council had talke t a 15 year ta�
abatement program but I don't see that
in my notes as a technical amendment.
Would �ou double check vvith CM
Coleman on that. It could have
happened while I was redrafting the
other portion of the tax abatement
paragraph. Thanks. PWW
���
�
�
� �
�
��
��
� � .
oo-sq�
266-8710
June 21, 2000
����
7une 15, 2000
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES
GREEN SHEET No 1 C�°34
� �
u.,u,.�rowara� rnrmuca
❑ ananeaEV _
� ����.
a wroRroR�amr�trtf .
❑ 4rvmu -
❑ wuMw�mmeaao
(CUP ALL LOCATfONS FOR SIGNATURE)
Resolution memorializing City Council action taken May 10, 2000, granting the appeal of Neighbors
Opposed to Victoria Plaza, Inc., Summit Hill Association, and East Ma11 Association to a decision of
the Planning Commission approving the site plan for a commercial development and parking ramp at
864 Grand Avenue.
u
PIANNING COMMISSION
C18 COMMITTEE
CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION
(WM.
I��•753q�l�•7
Nas thib persoN6rm ever waked under a conhact for this departmeM'7
YES NO
Has mis peisavfirtn ever been a city empbycel
YES NO
Do� Nis Persanfirm 0� a sltill rwt rwmiallYP� bY �Y curzeM city emGioyee4
YES tJQ
Is Uria pnsavTi�m a taz0�ed ventloYl
YES NO
dein atl res anawe�s an aewiate slieet ana attach to areen sneet
OTALPM�UNTOFTRANSAC170N
JNDING SOURCE
COST/RkVENUE BUDGETED (GRCLE ON� VEE NO
ACTNI7Y NUMBER
lANCIFI INFORMATION (tJ6' W fQ
DEPARTNibNC OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVEI,OPMENT'
Brum Sweeney, Directar
CTTY OF SAII�IT PAUL
Norm Colem¢n, Mayor
25 West Faurth Street
Saint Paut, MN 55102
00-598
Telephone: 651-266-6655
FacsimiZe: 65I -228-3314
REPORT TO THE CITI' COUNCIL DATE: August 23, 2000
REGARDING: ANALYSIS OF REVISED VICTORIA PLAZA PROJECT AND
RECOMIVIENDED ACTION (WARD 2)
��i��Tu�r_�ez�
On May 10, 2000 the City Council reviewed a new commercial retail and parking development -
the "Victoria Plaza Project". The site plan for this project was unanimously approved by the
Planning Commission on March 24, 2000, but appealed by several neighborhood groups who felt
that the project did not provide enough new pazking and who objected to the scale and design of
the building. The project as reviewed in May did not require any financial participation from the
City.
The City Council voted 4-3 to grant the appeaL At the initiation of the Mayor's office a11 parties
engaged in a series of ineetings in order to see if they could agree on acceptable revisions to the
site plan. On July 12, 2000 the City Council reconsidered its May 10 action and passed a
resolution which denied the appeals and adopted the Pluming Commission's resolution with
revasions to the site pian that had been agreed to by the developer and two of the appellants. This
revised plan involved financial participation from the City in the form of tax abatement and loans.
It was vetoed by the Mayor on July 24, 2000.
The Developer has subsequently agreed to modify the original proposal by providing a decrease in
buiiding size, adding various higher-quality building finishes and landscaping, and creating a net
gain of eleven parking spaces - all without the need for any City subsidy. This modification to tlae
original proposal came about after many meetings with the concemed neighborhood groups, the
Developer, and the City over the past several months. In addition to the modifications to the
Victoria Plaza project, the developer has agreed to construct a one-deck pazking strueture ("Vic
II") across Grand Avenue behind the Milton Mall, provided that it enters into an agreement with
Saint Paul's United Church of Christ (which owns part of the underlying land), receives necessary
fmancing and other approvals and pernuts from the City, and is not prevented from constnzcting
the project by causes beyond its control. The construction of Vic II would provide an additional
88 new parking spaces for the area.
00 -598
T`he City's financial participation in the Vic II project would be to provide a$1.5 million loan at
2% interest with a thirty yeaz term, to be used for the construction of the Vic II parking struciure.
'I`he funding sources for this loan would be $500,000 from the Parking and Transit Fund (the
maximum available at this time), and $1,000,000 from the STAR Fund. The total public purpase
loan subsidy' for tius transaction would be approximately $772,000. All City financing wouid be
subject to the City's credit and approval process.
Additional details on the revised Victoria Plaza and Vio II pazking deck projects are attached.
Public Purpose:
The proposed alternative provides a significant increase in available pazking in an important retail
area of Saint Paul. It also addresses some of the design issues raised by the appellants.
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
The overriding issue for all three appeilants to the Planning Commission's recommendation was
that the project did not provide enough additional pazkutg in the area. PED staff felt that any
reasonable solufion involving public subsidy should address the parking issue. Altkough staff
agreed with the Planning Commission's fmding that the originai design was appropriate for the
azea, it was hoped that some modifications couid be made which would also address the
appellants' concerns about the projecYs size and design, Staff recommends approval of the
revised Victoria Plaza project because the modifications the Developer is proposing reduce the
building's size and enhance its design. Because the development of the Vic II parking deck would
provide a significant net gain in parking, staff also recommends that the City work with the
Developer toward the execution of a separate agreement for the construction of the Vic II
project.
Attachment A: Victoria Plaza Revised Aiternative 4 Detaiis
1 Defined as present value of the loan over its life, including expected loss of principal and interest rate
subsidy. This is part of the public purpose summary form for all Ciry loan transacuons.
2
co
�
lf�
1
fl
4
:
�R
az
c w
U
t fQ
a rn
N
� O
N ,,
V N
0 �
� 7
� W
Y
0
R
d S
a v,
Z
�
G
� � �
o� � o
e= Q� e�,
C i � N ti r C C
(�J O. � @ U �
�" a
l�6 � t6 � l 'O
N � �"Y N �
W � M � t6 �
O(u H� O N
N 0 � N �
� _
d � a � a�rn
N N � N � N
N
N c�J V � h N N
N 0. N r... � y�0
'n O �-
C 01 U� � C N
(p C � O _ N m
Y O .. "r
N
C C `
N � � N C N
�a ��� �n
a
m - a v >: w � d
s? coy .Qa
„' O V O � " >
O Q � � � O O
w v N N G
� M � �
w N � N � � O
d� d V C d N
3 o w m� � E
y a � N a y w
od ��m o'o
O j yY' O Y
-p y �
� N � � x �
o a� a
'°o ° NCO ap
� N � � O � N
.�
N¢ p� N d � N��
y o. �
��� vN � e- N Y
y Y N N � p_ �� O,
a $ fl- �c
N �. � N C� N tp �
y �> ` �E� N a�
c',�m c�m c�3
Y� a Y U a i� Q.
O. � � f�l'O � Q. � �--
rn0�... M ��� o�.-�
rn c- o <o o' co rn o
� o c � m� � o c
m � co m
.� �a� `�rn
O � .� � ` .� O �
R C � � C
N t6 N>� N R
tJ O U� y U �
�„" O fR — N l ` O
O. "r- 2 " 6 U d'
y O �j N C(3 N O y
�tO O V �t0 U N ��p O V
��o. ��'c ��fl.
v y �` v y
j � Ol > .. � > y j �
.� N � .. r a .. N '1C
N N� N�� d N�
N� C N a O W C� 2�
o �'y o m o, oY'�, >
�.°'�.. M d � o "� � °- a �
(") '�k
N y 0 N O� N y � �
(p � s (p Y O N N�- N
��� �a,� ��5 0
N� t6 y� m N p N (J
41 N d
n U U N� � (O D U �
(6 @ M � (6 (6 �
N N N N v0 n N y �
N �
+ � + Z Z
cO O N Q Q
N � N Z Z
LL LL LL
� � �
� O �
Z N M N Z
..
a? � a? :'. d
w
� N ��q � O
Q
Z
N
d
O
d
O,� w �.�- v�- N w w
K= M M P�') N N N
cs m
i .� `��-
a i c�
�
N w
w �
c�� M
d
yd N
h w
� �
C1 N
�
w-
�
N
M
� O
r N �
� .0 � �
� � C R i6
� � � 0 W C �
V � � O d U
ma ° ma� O 'a —� _o
�> p, ?a � n'a m" m a�
� 0 (4 m+�.. y C y � J �L y
�N N m `y �� i d 3� N.�.
m a� o
¢� O 4`�� U� tDU ��
+• :
a3
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
� �a�,=c� �s::}Pr
��� � � 2��0
TO: Council President Dan Bostrom and m bers of the City Council,
FROM: MayorNormColeman 1 ��_._—�
���.— �1tM
DATE: July 24, 2000
The decision to provide a tax abatement, or tax break, to a developer to construct a project
in one of the most prosperous neighborhoods in the nation is bad public policy.
The proposai that the council approved on July 12� that provides that tax abatement is also,
according to the City Attorney's Office, illegal.
It is for these two reasons that I am vetoing Council File 00-598.
I am a firm believer in the City playing an active role in partnering with the private sector to
develop those areas of our City which are not fully realizing the benefits of our strong
economy.
That being said, I have indicated to the Councii that I am prepared to supporC altemative
funding mechanisms for the Grand-Victoria project that would use a loan to replace the tax
abatement. The potential for good on this project as tremendous. Yet, I also need to stress
that the level of support for this project cannot exceed the coliective benefit for the
neighborhood, and the enfue City.
My office is prepazed to work with the Council to correct the legal and policy deficiencies
in this resolution. I am hopeful that we can, together, develop a gackage that realizes
tremendous benefits for the neighborhood and the City without providing an unprecedented
tax break for developers that is not only bad public policy, but iilegal.
�•
Or�-5�8
Interdepartmental Memorandum
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
DATE: July 20, 2000
T0: Office of the Mayor
FROM: O� e of the City�tomey
l� �-- /Yl - �L_ . �
RE: Grand Victoria Aevelopment Resolution
The mayorrequested information regarding the City's legal authority to abate taxes, what procedures
govem such authority and the legal effect of an abatement adopted without regazd for such
procedures.
CITY POSSESSES LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ABATE TAXES:
Minn.Stat. § 469.180 throu�h § 469.191 authorizes local govemments to undertake certain
"miscellaneous economic development powers" including authorization to abate taxes imposed on
a particular parcel of property in Minn.Stat. § 469.1813.
STATUTES GRANTING AUTHORITY TO ABATE TAXES ESTABLISA PROCEDURES
'� WHICH MUST BE FOLLOWED IN ORDER TO HAVE A VALID TAX ABATHMENT:
Minn.Stat. § 469.1813, Subd. i states "a governing body of a political subdivision may grant an
abatement of the taates imposed by the political subdivision on a pazcel of property or defer the
payments of the taxes and abate the interest in penalty that otherwise would apply, if:
a. It expects the benefits to the political subdivision of the proposed abatement
agreement to at least equal the costs to the political subdivision of the
proposed agreement; and
b. It finds that doing so is in the public interest because it will;
1. Increase or preserve ta�c bases;
2. Provide employment opportunities in the political subdivision;
3. Provide or help acquire or construct public facilities;
4. Help redevelop or renew flooded areas;
5. Help provide access to services for residents in the political
subdivision; or
6. Finance or provide public infrastructure."
r� :
THE COUNCIL'S APPROVAL OF A TAX ABATEMENT DID NOT FOLLOW THE
STATUTORY PREREQUISITES TO AiJTHORIZE A VALID TAX ABATEMENT.
The council resolution approving the site plan with a condition that the property receive a tax
abatement did not compiy with Minn.Stat. § 469.1813. There are no findings required in Minn.Stat.
§§ 469.1813, Subd. 1(a) or Subd.l(b). There was no resolution to authorize a taac abatement in
compliance with Minn.Stat. § 469.1813, Subd 2. There was no duly noticed public hearin� as
required under Minn.Stat. § 469.1813, Subd 5 or Subd 6.
Furthermore, a tax abatement also constitutes a"business subsidy" under Minn.Stat. § 116J.993,
Subd 3. Business subsidaes are regulated under Minn.Stat. § 116J.994. Those provisions require,
among other things, a finding that the subsidy is for a public purpose and that such subsidies may
not be granted until the criteria for awarding business subsidies have been adopted following a
public hearing.
APPROVAL OF THE TAX ABATEMENT USING PROCESS THAT DID NOT FOLLOW
STATUTORY PREREQUISITES IS VOID AS A MATTER OF LAW.
Failure to follow clear, unambiguous statutory procedures prescribed to undertake a delegated action
renders that action void. See Westem States Utilities Co. v. Citv of Waseca, 65 N.W.2d 255,
rehearin� denied (Minn.1954)(When legislature delegates certainpowers to cities, cities must apply
the standards set out in the statute delegatin� the power. City action that is inconsistent with
statutory standards is void). See also Hamline-Midway Neishboxhood Stabilitv Coalition v. Citv
of Saint Paul, 547 N.W.2d 396, 399 (Minn. Ct. App. 1496) (City's failure to hold required public
hearing or obtain council resolution voided city action).
THE MAYOR MUST VETO iN ITS BNTIRETY THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION APPROVING
THE VOID TAX ABATEMENT.
Saint Paul City Charter § 6.09 provides that the mayor must veto in its entirety any ordinance or
resolution unless the ordinance or resolution makes an appropriation of money,' The right of a
mayor to veto city council resolutions relatinJ to municipal zoning matters under authority of a city's
charter was upheld in A.C.E. Eau�ment Co. v. Erickson, 152 N.W.2d 739 (Minn. 1967). Saint
Paul City Charter § 6.08 provides that in exercising a veto thz mayor shall communicate in writing
to the city council the reasons for the veto.
cc: Council President Bostrom
Council Member Blakey
Council Member Coleman
Council Member Harris
Council Member Benanav
Council Member Reiter
Council Member Lantry
Charter Chapter § 6.09 provides mayor with "line item" ��eto power over appropriations of money.
cb-59g
THE TWO PART FINDING FROM MINN. STAT.§ 469.1813, SUBD. i(a) and 1(b) MUST BE
BY COUNCIL RESOLi3TION:
In order for the city to exercise its authority to abate taxes' Minn.Stat. § 469.1813, Suhd. 2 requires
in pertinent part:
"A governing body of a political subdivision may grant an abatement only by
adopting an abatement resolution, specifying the terms of the abatement. ... The
resolution must also include a specific statement as to the nature and extent of the
public benefits which the govemin� body expects to result from the agreement ...
The abatement may reduce all or part of the property tax amount for the political
subdivision on the parcel. A political subdivision's maximum annual amount for a
parcel equals its total local tax rate multiplied by the total net tax capacity of the
parcel."
THE RESOLUTION MAY CONTAIN OTHER CO�IDITIONS(RESTRICTIONS:
Minn.Stat. § 469.1813, Subd 2(b) provides: "the political subdivision may limit the abatement to:
1. To a specific dollar amount per year or in total;
2. Totheincreaseinpropertytaacesresultingfromimprovementoftheproperty;
3. To the increases in property taxes resulting from increases in the market
value or tax capacity of the property;
4. In any other manner the governing body of the subdivision determines is
appropziate; or
5. To the interest and penalty that would othenvise be due on taaces that are
deferred.
FINDINGS FORMING BASIS OF ABATEMENT RESOLUTION MUST BE MADEJ
IDENTIFIED AT A AULY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING:
Minn.Stat. § 469.1813, Subd 5, entitled "Notice and Public Hearing" provides:
a. The goveming body of the political subdivision may approve an abatement under
� 469.182 to § 469.1815 only after holdin� a public hearing on the abatement.
b. Notice ofthe hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the political
subdivision at least once more than ten days but less than 30 days before the hearing. The
ne�vspaper must be one of general interest and readership in the community and not one of
limited subject matter. The newspaper must be published at least once per week. The notice
must indicate that the goveming body will consider granting a property tax abatement,
identify the property or properties for which an abatement is under consideration, and the
total estimated amount of the abatement.
oo- 59 P
City of Saint Paul
City Council Research
310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
(651)266-8564
INTER-DEPARTMENTALMEMORANDUM
RECEIVED
JUL 1 8 2000
DATE: July 18, 2000
TO: Mayor Norm Coleman
FROM: Nancy Anderson "` I � �
SUBJECT: Mayor's Approval - City Council File.
MAYQR'S OFFICE
The following City Council file, which was adopted at the July 12, 2000, City Council
Meeting, is submitted for your approval:
C.F. 00-598
Please return to Council Research, Room 310, when signed. Thank you.
y � � n,2
� ����0���1'F �� �
�� �, ����" �
� ��� i�
NA
Attachment: 1 Council File
2 WI3EREAS, on May 10, 2000 and acting pursuant to Legislarive Code § 64.206 - �"
3 § 64.208 with notice to affected parties, a consolidated public hearing to hear each of the three
4 appeals was conducted by the Saint Paul City Council (hereinafter "the City Council") where all
5 interested parties were given an opporhxnity to be heard; and
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
l8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
WHEREAS, the Council having listened to the statements made and ving considered
the application, the report of staff, the record and minutes, the resolution of e Plauniug
Commission and its Committees; AOES, HEREBY
RESOLVE, that the City Council finds error in the decision of e Planning Commission
in this matter based upon the following findings of the City Council:
1. The mass of the proposed building is not in keeping with the aracter and size of other
structures in the neighborhood. The overall size of the buildin is not in proportion to the
apartment buildings on Grand Ave. and is completely out of ale with the abutting residential
structures along Victoria and Lincoln. The South elevatio of the buiiding does not use the same
"three building" facade, materials or window treahnents oposed for the North and East facades.
The South elevation of the building lacks the same atte pt to visually buffer the scale of the
building as is found on the North and East facades. e South elevation's lack of a buffer
presents a design aspect that will negatively impact e residential properties to the South.
2. The building's parking ramp entrance and ex� points will very likely create traffic conditions
which will unreasonably affect surrounding p perly. The traffic study was too narrow in its
focus to adequately assess the overall impa of this commercial buildingJpazking ramp on
surrounding vehicle and pedestrian traffic atterns. Although the traffic study indicates that ramp
traffic will not exceed local street canaci , the study failed to evaluate the impact of the
ic on Lincoln Avenue or other streets to the South of
building's commercial uses and ramp
Grand or on the alleyways between G
pedestrian and vehicular traffic <
commercial uses in the building
does not address any "ripple"
on other nearby streets such �
increase in noise, fumes, li�
pedestrian traffic.
and Lincoln Avenues. The impact of increased
in adjacent residential neighborhoods due to the
its ramp should have been evaluated. The traffic study also
caused by the building's commercial uses and ramp traffic
mit or Milton. The site plan did not evaluate the incremental
or other intrusions caused by an increase in vehicle and
3. The site pian approv indicated a"significanY' gain in available parking spaces based upon a
"modesY' real gain in ew parking spaces. This significant gain appears to be premised upon an
assumption that val parking will assure a"significant" gain in spaces because the peak hours
for retail uses is d'ng the afternoon while the peak hours for restaurant uses is during the
evening. The sit plan approval is premised on nothing more than an assumption that "properly
managed" valet arking will provide a significant gain in available parking spaces. The history
of the site su ests that valet parking has failed in the past. If valet parking faiis again, there will
be no signif ant parking gain as called for in the Grand Avenue Smalt Area Plan. It is
unreasona e to assume that the significant gain in parking spaces called for in the Grand Avenue
Small a Plan will be achieved by relying on valet parking. If business customers elect to not
park i e ramp, they will park in the surrounding area and fiu exacerbate the docuxnented
pazking shortfall in the neighborhood.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeals by Neighbors, Inc., Suininit
Hill and East Mall are hereby granted;
i
z
3
4
AND, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this b0 � S
resolution to neighbors opposed, East Mall Associates, Smsunit Hili Association and Exeter
Holdings, the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission.
ORiG1�1AL
Adopted by Council: Date _
P.doption Certi£ied by Council
By'
Appsoved by Mayor:
Requested by Department of:
By:
Form Approved by City Attorney
s ,�.�,1/��_ ��«. /'/ 2 oan
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
Hy:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Claytott M. Robinsors, Jr., City Aaorney
C)b' S4'??
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
Civil Divisinn
400 �ry Ha11
I S West Kellagg Blvd.
Sainf Paul, Minnuota 55102
7elephorse: 65I 26G8710
Facsimile: 6�1 Z98-5679
June 15, 2000
I�AND DELIVERED
Nancy Anderson
Council Secretaty
310 City Hall
15 West Kellogg Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55102
Re: Appeals of: Neighbor's Opposed to Victoria Plaza, Inc., Suminit Hill Assoc. & East Mall
Assoc.
Zoning File: 00-11851
Public Hearing Date: May 10, 2000
Dear Ms. Anderson:
Attached please find a signed copy of a resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul
Ciry Councai in the above-entitled matter. Please place this matter on the Council's Consent
Agenda at your convenience.
If you have any questlons, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
� �/��-�
Peter W. Warner
Assistant City Attorney
PWWlrmb
Enclosure
CTTY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm ColerrsaK, Mayor
AP27� I2, 2�
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Council Research O�ce
Room 310 City Hail
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTfONS AND �_�� Y
ENVA20NMENTAL PROTECTION
Robe�tKessler, DireC[or
BIIILDINGTNSPECTIONAA'D Telephone:6J2-26(r9001
DESIGN Facs"uniZe: 672-266-9099
350 St Pner Street
Suite 310
SaintPaut, Minnesota 55102-ISID � �
I would like to confirm that a pubiic hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, May
10, 2000 for the following zoning case:
Appellants: Neighbors Opposed to Victoria Plaza
Summit Hill Associauon
East Mall Associates
File Number: 00-123b16
Purpose:
Location:
Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve the site plan for a
commercial development and parking ramp.
864 Grand Avenue
T have conf'irmed this date with the office of Councilmember Coleman. My understanding is that this
pablic hearing request will appear on the agenda of the Ciry Council at your earliest convenience and
that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legai Ledger.
Please call me at 651-266-9086 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
IH��
Tom Beach
ZOR1Rg SCC[lOR
• �•xum •
ftQ34GE OF PUBLIC �RiN6- _`
11te SaIIiE.Paul GYty Council will mnduc[ a
public &ea[iug.on Wcdnesday, MaY 10. 20D0. ak
5:SU p.m �3n the.(1ty Council Chambeis.lYvrd
Floor CStY Hall. 15 West KeIlO(,+g Bo�ilevard, Saint'
1'ani, MN;. to com4ider the appeal ot NetglYbozs
OPPP^`� � �'lctaata Plaza. Snmmit Htll
Ass6ciah`on_.aad..East Me11�i1s.Snci'slas to a decF
sion 6{ the Planning Commi,esion �approving the
site p1� for -a co�emial ,dedelopment and
P���B �P,.?t' Grand Avenue. �. . �_ .
� Dated; -- .. -
NANQEA`NDELLS�N �- �z, ... , ._
Bss3stanTCity, Connc9l SecceYaij��, B_<„� i �:, c:
:r .:. .. ...:.....tMay S) _ ' _.
a- '�-eaeSL PlIIiL �18.'GAL IF.bGER-s'��v=s
02006�88- = , . - �
ATTACffiVIEN'1'S •
page 1..... Appeals from Neigfibors Opposed to Victoria Piaza, tfie Summit Hill Association, and the
East Mail Associates
page 39 .... Staff response to issues raised by the appeals
page 49 .... Letter received since the appeals were filed
page 50 .... Pianning Commission resolution approving the site ptan
page 59 .... Minutes from the Planning Commission and Zoning Committee
page 84 .... StafF report and recommendations
page 91 .... Parking study at Grand and V ictoria
page 92 . . . . Traffic study
page 102 ... P1ans and elevations of the proposed building
L__�
�
OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND w' ��
ENVIItONMENTAL PROTECTION
Ro6ert Xessles, Director
CTTY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayar
May 3, 2000
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
LOWRY PROFESSIONAL
BUBDING
5tdte 300
350 SY. Peter SYseet
Sav�t Pm�l, Miimesota 55102-I510
Te[ephane: 612-2669090
Fotsimile: 612-2669099
6I2-2669124
RE: Appeal of Yhe Planning Commission's decision to approve the site plan for a commercial
development and parking ramp at the southwest comer of Grand and Victoria
Date of public hearing at the City: Wednesday, May 10, 20U0
Zoning File: 00-118151
Deaz Ms. Anderson:
• THE PLANNING COMNIISSION APPROVED THE STl'E PLAN WITH CONDITIONS
On Marcy 24 the Planning Commission unanimously approved the site plan submitted by Exeter
Holdings LLC for a commercial development and patking ramp at the souYhwest comer of Grand and
Victoria. The proposed development would have retail space on the first floor and parking on the second
and third floors. The approval is subject to nine conditions dealing with traffic, parking, deliveries, the
appeazance of the building, landscaping and the existing bus shelter on the property. (See the attached
resolution.)
LIEP staff recommended approval with conditions.
�
There werel2 people who spoke at the public heazing in support of the project and one letter in support
was received . There were 24 people who spoke in opposition and 6letter were received.
'I'HREE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED
Appeals of the Planning Commission's decision have been filed by Neighbors Opposed to Victoria
Plaza, the Summit Hill Association, and the East Mall Associates. Their appeals raise issues about
whether the site plan conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, trafFic, pazking, deliveries, the existing bus
shelter, the appeazance of the building, and contractual obligations on the property. (See the attached
appeals and staffresponse.)
Please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have stides of the site presented at the
public heazing. You can reach me at 651-266-9086 (phone) or 651-266-9099 (fax).
Sincerely,
� ,G
Tom Beach
Zoning Specialist
ATTAC�NTS •
page 1..... Appeals from Neighbors Opposed to Victoria Plaza, the Summit Aill Association, and the
East Mall Associates
gage 39 .... Staff response to issues raised by the appeals
page 49 .... Letter received since the appeals were filed
page 50 .... Planning Commission resolution approving the site plan
page 59 .... Minutes &om the Planniug Commission and Zoning Committee
page 84 .... Staff report and recommendations
page 91 .... Pazking study at Grand and Victoria
page 92 . . . . Traffic study
page 102 ... Plans and elevations of the proposed building
�
�
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
. 1[� l �' Deparfinenr of Planning and Ecnnomic Development
� �� Zoning Section
1100 Cirt' Hal1 Axntx
25 W'e.st Fourth Street
Saint Pau1, MN SSIOZ
166-6589
APPELLANT
PROPERTY
LOCATION
Miy .'_ �
'.'_._:: _:
t8
r ��
�_
Name /Ver'y I.�Qo.--r �Pe+1a�%o Ni'c7?�., a_ kxZ �+-���
Address �SQ OSGP�s�� /g+��1�-v�
City ��p� � St.��ZipSSfoS'Daytime phone 2s�-oE,�6
Zon+ng File Name
Address/Location
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the:
� Board of Zoning Appeals
� under the provisions of Chapter 64, S
appeal a decision made by the f
Ot1 / l�i`'S�i 7 y- Z f'G+f�
(date o� '
.$�City Councii
ion' , Paragraph Ys of the Zoning Code, to
..e... Crn,......ss,on
File number:
� Z6-v
GROUIVDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feei there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusa{ made by an administrative o�ciat, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Soard of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission.
�-So� �TlR�I.G�G��
P����6��
�- ��--,��� ti�?
� � Attach additio�a7 sheef if
Appiicant's
City agent
/
Neighbors Opposed
�
Victoria Plaza, Inc.
859 Osceola Avenue
St Paul, MN 55105
651.224.0826
if�_��
To pzeserve the'umtegtity of
Grand Avenue and Crocus I�I(
according to the
East Grand Avenue Plan.
Ba3rdMemlxrs
Andxew Bar[cet
a�,a B,�a
na., Dobsoa
Joan Grarn
Made[aine Karwocstd
Russ Loo�s
Ruth b[eiady
Ruth Anne de Piiern
Dick Plap,ecs
Apri17, 2000
sr. raui c�cy co,�nciI Members _
Jay Benanav
Jerry Blakey
Don Bostrom
Chris Coleman
Pat Hartis
Kathy Lantry
Jim Reiter
St. Paul City HaII
Kellogg and Wabasha Streeis
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Deaz Council Members:
RECEtVED
APR 0 7 2000
zoNrNG
We the members of Neighbors Opposed m Victoria Plaza respectfully
appeal the decision of the St Pau2 Planning Commission of Mazch
24�, 2000 regarding the proposed deveIopment by Exeter Holdings
LLC at the southwest corner of Victoria and Grand.
W e feel this development will adversely impact the East Grand
Avenue, Crocus Hill and Summit Hill neighborhoods. At present,
there is a substantial shortEall of parking in the East Grand Avenue
area of close to 1000 parking spaces and this proposed development
wiIl not alleviate the pazking situation, it will exacerbate it There is
also the issue increased traffic poses to pedestrian and vehicular
safety. The proposed development violates the East Grand' Avenue
Small Area PIan as adopted by fhe St Paul City Council and the St
Paul Pianning Commission in 1989, as well as several provisions of
the St Paulzoning ordinances.
It is our contention that this project must not be approved because:
• Victoria Plaza faiLs to conform to the East Grand Avanue Small
Area PIan which requires a"substantial net gain° in pazking.
• Victoria Plaza faiLs to conform to the East Grand Avenue SmaIl
Area PIan which requires that ifs design be "apvropriate bo the
nei�hborhood".
2
�
�
r
�
c� -55�
• Victoria Plaza violafes several St Paul City Zoning Ordinances:
� 1) It does not provide adequate parking
2) It does not provide adequate visual screening
3) It has pazkumg in an alley facing residenfial property
4) It has prohibited loading dock adjacent to R-1 residential azea
5) It's Exit ramp is less than 2S feet from adjacent R-1 property
The Pro�osed Victoria P)aza dces not meet ti�e conditions set forwazd 'm the East _G_rand
Avenue Small Area Plan
Recommendation #11 of the East Grand Avenue Small Area Plan stated, "The City should
explore, with private developers, the opportunity to buiid a parking ramp or deck at the
southwest comer of Victoria and Grand. T'here should however be no surface expansion of the
lot. A iamp should be approved only if:
1} Its' design is appropriate to the neighborhood
2) New parking provides a significant net gain in spaces available for businesses
3) Traffic will not exceed local capacity
4) Future spin-off development at Victoria Crossing is controlled"
(Exltiblt 1- East Grand Avenue Small Area Plan - City Counct� Resolution 89-2053, daied 11-21-89�
The recommendation for the southwest corner of Grand and Victoria makes no meniion of retail
space and talks exclusively about a new parking deck or ramp. The developer however
� proposes to build 37,245 feet of new retail space, the first floor virtually covers the lot,
property line m property line. Additionally there is 9500 square feet of storage in the basemen�
This is the equivalent of adding a new Caffe Latte, Ciatti's, Bread and Chocolate, Billy's and
Aveda with no net gain in pazking. The Developer states this is necessary to pay for the
parking.
City staEf in their proposed resolution for this project wrote, "Grand Avenue has a parking
shortfaIl that has been well documented. City staff did a parking survey this year and
determined there is cunently a parking shortfall of 296 off-street spaces on Grand between
Milton and Avon (one block either direciion from Victoria)." (Exhibit 2} This shortage has been
caused by repeated grandfathering of new businesses that were not required to provide
sufficient parking.
Even though 13�is project will add less than a hundred new spaces, they will be more than
consumed by the proposed new retail. A carefixI analysis reveals that this proposal does not
have adequate minimum parking, as required by St Paul zoning ordinances, mnch less meet
the requirements of the East Grand Avenue Small Area Plan, for a substantial net increase in
parking.
Any new construc6on in the City of St. Paul, displacing an existing parking lot must replace all
of the existing spaces, in addition to creafing sufEiciene spaces for any new businesses. The
exisiing parking lot at Grand and Victoria presendy is striped for 106 parking spaces, although
108 cars are routinely aUowed to use the lot. In 1997 the lot consisted of 145 parking spaces
(Exhibit 3} and in 1990 the lot had 131 parking spaces. (Exhibit 4). In 1497 the City Zaning
Depariment stated that the number of spaces could not be reduced. However, sometime
zoc n�� �o crcy coma e� asoo.ao� }?
betcveen 1997 and 1999, the number of spaces was reduced from 145, to the present 106 without
notice to the City, or to the neighbors.
The deveIoper and ciiy staff now state that the developer must only replace the present 106
existing pazking spaces and not replace the 145 spaces that the City required in 1997 or the 231
spaces in 1990. Furti�er the City Licensing Department is only requuing that there be 102 new
pazking spaces for the 37,245 feet of new retail development, numbers we dispute.
Using,the develope�'s own numbers,
Victoria Plaza does not have the reqnired mutimum number of Parkin Sg� vaces.
and actually t�as a net deficit
IIsing fhe developefs own numbers, City Staff found there was only a net inaease of five
pazking spaces. °The plan provides 213 pazking spaces puking self-park spaces and would get
credit for 2 more spaces providing bicycte racks (per section 621Q3j) for a total of 215 pazking
spaces. This would exceed the zoning code requirement for pazking by 5 parking spaces.° (Sic)
(Exhibit 5- Tom Beach sraff Report Ma:ch zl, z000) However, �n a"Staff Response" dated March 16�
City Staff wrote °two stacked pazking spaces shown on the site plan cannot be counted toward
meeting ihe parking standards." ..."the number of spaces for the project that can be counted
towazd meeting the parking requiremenhs set by the zoning code is 213 and not 215 as
previously reported." (Exhibit 6)
However, City Staff, failed to take several other facCors into mnsideration.
EiQht Svaces promised to Cashill/Spaald"m�properties
The developer, Exeter Properties LLC, in their final packet to the Planning Commission,
produced a letEer from Cashiil/Spauiding Properties, the owner of the apartrnent building
immediately to the west of the proposed ramp. This revealed that Exeter has promised 8
parking spaces to Cashill/Spaulding, in exchange for their support of the parking ramp.
(Exhibit 7 2-4�00 Letter from Aian Spauding to Rob Stolpestad)
Since fihese 8 spaces will not be available for retail uses or for the general public, they must be
excluded or deducted from the total number of 213 spaces. This reduces the totaZ number of
spaces from 213 to 205, creating a net shortage of 5 spaces. (Developer s figures)
Three S�aces in Alley are not allowed
In caiculating the 213 spaces, the developer also counts three parking spaces in the alley, next to
a loading dock, over 150 feet from the street Sec. 62.144(4)F) of the zoning code prohibits aIley
access for parking of a mmmerdal nature in an alley abutting a residential neighborhood. City
staff inentions this in their parking calculations, when writing about the previous 25 spaces
accessed from the alley and concedes that a vaziance is needed. "...('1�his required a zoning
variance for the parking spaces along the alley because the zoning code no longer permitted alley
access. The parking lot operator applied for the variance to pemlit aIIey access but it was denied
by the Boazd of zoning AppeaLs." (E�chibit 8 Pazking Calculaiions - Fax March 7,1900 (sic)
from Tom Beach to Dan Dobson}
City staff siates fhat a variance is needed for the spaces in the alley, which the developer did not
apply for, but then aIlows and counts the three spaces. If the dtree spaces in the alley are
`J
�
�
2ac a�� w c;cy ca��a s�w u�o.aa y
t
. , s :
�
excluded from the total of 215 spaces, along with tile 8 sgaces promised to CashiIlf Spaulding
Properties, the developer is short 6 of the required net spaces.
Developer Fails ta Calculafe in, the loss of three�arkin2 spaces on Victoria, re: Net PazkinQ
Numbers
Part of the plan pue forward by the city, fo reduce congesiion, is to remove 60 feet of parking on
the east side of Victoria, south of Grand. This will eIiminate 3 parking spaces outside CafFe
Latte. While City Code does not require the replacement of pazking spaces removed on public
streets for a project, they still must be inciuded in the overall caIculation of net parking spaces.
City staff and the developer failed to indude the removal of the three parking spaces on
Victoria, when calculating net parking. The removal of these three spaces increases the net
parking shortfall to nine (9} spaces, when included with the eight spaces promised to
CashillJSpaulding, and the three spaces that must be excluded in the alley.
Developer's Numbers are inadequate
Replacement Spaces needed
New Spaces for Retail (developers ciaim)
Total Spaces needed {developers claim)
Actual Parking Spaces
&icycle Credit
� Developer s Claim of Total "Spaces" Proviv�ad
-$ spaces promised to CashillJ Spaulding
- 3 spaces in alley not permitted
- 3 spaces on Victoria to be e3uninated
Actual Spaces provided
Shortfall in Pazking
108
102
210
213
2
215
- 3
3
201
- 9 Spaces
As can be seen, using the developers own numbers, a new deficit of 4 spaces is created by the
construction of this parking ramp.
However, we claim that the sectians of the city code the deveIoper uses are inconect. If the
praper code sections aze used, the deficit in parking becomes much more substantial.
Really, there are several ways to examine these shortfalls. We show one example below and do a
more in-depth analysis of the parking shortfalls in the attached Pazking Calculation Supplement
DeveIoper uses incorrect "Multi-use retail centers' to caIculate new parkinQ
instead of the more approvriate "ftetail Stores in e� neraI°.
Saint Paul Zoning Code section 62.103/Parking Requirements requires that all new construction
have suEficient parking to accommodate the particular use of the new consfiruction. Under
section 62103(g) "retail stores in general" are required to have one parking space for each 225
gross square feet of retail space. "Muiti-use retail center" are pezmitted to have one space per
280 square feet, assuming large common areas. Victoria Plaza has only three individual stozes,
zoc appeai ro cnv co�mN sna� a-bm.aoc
�
with no common entrance, atrium, or common public areas, yet, the developer desires to use
the more liberaI 280 square foot " Multi-use retail center requirement "Multi-use Retai2
Cenler" catculation would be appropriate, for the other three developments on the carners of
Grand and Victoria. Victoria Crossings—East, West and South—aIl have Iarge common
atriums, and hallways that then lead into stores. There are no outside entrances for Cafe Latte,
Ciatti's, or ti�e Lotus Restauran� On the other hand, the entrances to ali the stores in Victoria
Plaza wilI be from the street only, with na common area.
Exeter claims that only 99 new spaces are required (27,750 sq. ft/280} using the u�appmpriate
multi-use retail requirement and 3 spaces for the stores storage area. If fhe more appropriate
°refail stores in general" standazd is used,124 new spaces are required (27,750 sq. ft/225}.
Develo�ers Calculafions
"Multi-Use Retail"
27,745 Square FeeE (Retail Only}
T 280 Sa. Ft per Parkin S� pace
99 Spaces for 1� Floor
3 Spaces for Stora�e & Common
202 New Spaces Needed
108 Repiacemen�aces
210 Total Spaces Needed
Actual Calculation '
"Retail Stores in General"
Leaseable Space - i� Floor Refiail Ontv
(280 sq ft per svace)
27,745 Leaseable Space - Street Level
= 225 S_g,. Ft. per Parking Space
124 New Spaces Needed for 1� Floor
3 Spaces for Storage & Common
127 New Spaces Needed for retaii
108 Replacement spaces
235 Total Spaces Needed
215 Gross spaces provided
-8 spaces promised to Cashill/ SpauIding
-3 spaces in alley not permitted
-3 spaces on Victoria to be eliminated
201 actual nee spaces provided
235 Totat Spaces Needed
201 actual net spaces�rovided
-34 shortfali m zequired parking
As can be seen from the chazt above, if the correct code section is used, there is a shorffall of at
least 34 parking spaces.
We have shown eramples above of how this projecY does not meet minimum requirements
necessary for approval under the city code. We have also shown how it does not meet the
requirement laid out in the East Grand Avenue SmaIl Area Plan. We have shown how the
developer is adding a large retail development with no net gain in parking. On ihis basis alone,
this project mustbe rejected.
�
�
ZOC Appeat ro Cuy ComN ficd 4400.doc �j
rI `•
_J
Additional City Code Violafions
PazkinQ Ramp does not provide adequate Visual ScreeninQ as requued
Visual screens are required under St Paul City Code Sec. 62.104 (12) which states that "for off-
sireet parking facilities which adjoin or abut across an alley, a residential use or zoning district,
a visual screen shall be provided and maintained, as required in section 62.1�7."
St. Paul City Code Sec. 62107 (a) states that °wherever a visual screen is required by this code, it
shall be of sufficient height and density to visually separate the screened ac�viry from adjacent
property. The screen may consist of various fence materiaLs, earth berms, plant materials or a
combination thereof." "The land between the screen and the properry line shall be landscaped
and maintained so ti�at all plant macerials aze healthy and that the area is free from refuse and
debris'. 62.107(5)
This project is not adequately screened as designed and required by city code. The proposed
development goes to the edge of the alley. Tfiere is no screening of any kind, but merely a
blank wall, which the developer and City Staff call a screen. They propose a few vines on this
huge wall. Tf the developer wishes to build the project withoue a visual screen he must obtain a
variance.
� Neighbors contend that the only way to adequately screen this project is to have a setback as
required by the code. This setback should be a minnnum of 2Q feet which will allow room for
proper screening including earth berms and columnar trees. (Exhib9t # 9) (Neighbors plan for
setback and visual screening)
Loadin�Area notpermiited in Alley across from Residential ZoninQ Area
The developers plan shows a loading area backing onto the alley, across from an R1 residential
area. This is not allowed under St Paul City Code. Sec. 62105 (2) which states," no off-street
loading space shall be located in any yard adjoining any residential use or zoning district "
The required visual screen as mentioned above, "shall have no openings for pedestrians or
vehicles except as shown on an approved site plan'. b2.107 (6)
This loading area needs to be relocated to conform to the city code or a variance needs to be
applied for and granted.
Exit is less than 25 feet irom residential property as required bv citv code
St. Paul City Code Sec. 62.104 {4)c requires that entrances and exits from all parking facilities in
land zoned other than resideniial shall be at least 25 feet from residential property. The exit
from the Victoria Plaza property development is less than 25 feet from the neighboring
` residence. This exit ramp needs to be relocated to conform to fihe city code or a variance needs
to be applied for and approved.
20C Appeel w City CounN SnaV 4b-0O.doc �
A second and third story,parkin�ramp "1s not appropriate to the neighborhood".
The first requirement of a parking facility at Victoria and Grand, under the East Grand Avenue
Comprehensive Plan is ti�at it be"appropriate to the neighborhood" A parking ramp that will
pIace cars 20 and 30 feeY in the air less than 25 feet from historic residential properties is not in
chazacter with the neighbarhood. It is not unforeseen that car noises, air pollution and lights
would be seen and heard for blocks away. At present patrons Ieaving bars Iate at night from
faciIities to be served by fhis ramp create substanfial noise and problems. These problems
wo�id only be significantly multiplied with cars driving around 30 feet in the air.
There must an environmental impact study done to determine the effects of noise, light and air
pollution from a second and third story parking ramp
Parldng Studies
Three parking studies have been conducted on Ehe Grand Avenue pazking shorf#all over the
past ten years. Pazking study of Grand Avenue - Milton to Oakland, October 2,1991 shows a
shortEall of 981 parking spaces.
A second study by the Grand avenue Parking Task Force, Avon to Dale street 7/ 1992 shows a
shortfall of 756 parking spaces. 1990 memorandum to Larry So@erholm and Peggy ReicherE
from Tom Harvey regazding ihe Victoria Crossing parking ramp states "the e�sting shortEall in
"required" parking is 319 spaces".
Project Eshbiishes a Dangerous Precedent
The proposed Victoria Plaza Project establishes a dangerous precedeat for Grand Avenue, fihe
Crocus Hill/Summit HiII neighborhood and the rest of the City of Sk Panl that is not in
comp&ance with the East Grand Avenue Plan. If a three story parking gazage is perniitted here,
what is to prevent the next developer from building fihe same size or larger projecfs at fhe Italian
Pie Shoppe, Grand Avenue Specfacle, Caribou Coffee, SuperAmerica, Edina Realty, old Ctark gas
station, and USBank sites on Grand Avenue?
These developments are totally incompatibie with the nature of Grand Avenue and the Crocus
Hill/Summit Hill neighborhoods. But if Victoria Plaza is permitted to proceed, how can the
City deny future developers?
The aeighbors want assurance from the City that pertinent zoning codes wilI be foIIowed, that
past parkutg shortages wiIl be addressed, that fraffic and safety studies be completed prior to
approval of ANY Grand Victoria project. The proposed Victoria Plaza development is clearly in
violation of several existing city zoning codes, as well as the East Gzand Avenue Small Area
PIan.
Respectfully submitted to the St. Paul City Council by Neighbors Opposed to Victoria Ptaza,
Inc.
�
�
_
zoc n�� �o cay co�a s� asoo.m� �
(SO-59�
.
Farldng Calculation Supplement
Developer uses base of 27 745 sauare feet of retail space to calcuIate pazkinQ
Conect foota�e is 37 245 "leaseable' squaze feet under 62.103(e)
�based on 280 squue feet per space)
T'he developer and the City staff state in numerous pIaces that the new parking
requirements should be based on the 27,745 squaze feet of new retail space in Victoria Plaza.,
exciuding the 9500 square feet leased in the basemenk
Section 62.103 (e) of the St PauI Zoning Code— Change in use ofparking areas states,
"Designated or iden 'fif"iable existing off-street parking Eacilities, ....may be changed to
another use when the remauung off-street parking meets the requiremenfs that this section
would impose on new buildings for all farilities, stxuctures or uses including the new use..."
Since there is a"Change is use of parking areas," Section 62103(e) clearly must be
applied.
Section 60.206.F of the definitional section of the Zoning Code— Floor Area, gross leaseable (for
the purposes of computing shared parking under section 62103(e)) states:
� The total floor area of a buIlding or structure designed for the tenanYs occupancy
and exclusive use, inciuding basements, mezzanines and ugper floors, expressed
in square feet and measured from the outside face of the exterior walls and from
the centerline of the common walls or joint parLitions. All that area for which
tenants pay rent, including saIes and integral stock areas, but excluding
stairwells, elevator shafts, mechanical rooms, space related to the operation and
maintenance of the building, and lobbies and bathrooms located for common or
public use rather than for tenanf or internal use.
The developer and the City rely on the incorrect definition of Floor Area, gross under Sec.
60.206.F. which excludes "unfinished basemenis," On page 3 of the developefs summary of the
site plan, it states, under "project description° that "the retail space will consist of 43,145 square
feet of gross building area with 27,745 square feet of leaseable space on the sfreet levei, 9,500
squaze feet of Ieaseable space on the lower level, and 5,900 square feet of shared space on the
street and lower levels." (E�ibit 10)
2(IC APDeaI to Cm Cu�mcil fina4 4b-0Q.Qoc �/
�
�
Using the developer's inappropriate "multi-use retail" requirement of 280 feet, and 37,245 sq. ft
of new retai1,133 new spaces are required. 108 replacement pazking spaces are needed for the
existing lot Plus, ll additional spaces - 8 for the CashilI/Spaulding property and 3 for fihe
spaces in the alley. A totaI of 252 parking spaces aze required. The 215 proposed pazking
spaces, not only does not provide for a significant net gain in new spaces available for
businesses as required under the East Grand Avenue Small Area Plan, it does noY even meet
,,,Gn;mum zoning code requiremenfs. It creates an additionaI shortfalI of 42 parking spaces.
If the more appropriaEe requirement of "retail stores in general° is used, l pazking space per 225
gross sq. ft, then 164 new spaces aze required for the new retail portion,lQ8 replacement spaces
are needed for the existing lot (again using the 1999 number), and 7 spaces are needed for the 9
spaces being vacated on the east side of Victoria, for a tofiai of 277 spaces. Again, this does not
provide for a significant net gain in new spaces available, again does not meet muumum rnde
requiremenfs and creates an additional shortfaIl of 56 spaces.
Developers Calculations
" Multe-Use Refiail"
27,745 Square Feet (Retait Only)
= 280 Sq_Ft per ParkingSpace
99 Spaces for ln Floor
3 Spaces for Storage & Common
102 New Spaces Needed
108 Replacement spaces
210 Tofal Spaces Needed
Actual CalcuIation
' Retail Stores in General"
Total Leaseabie Space - 37,245 sct. ft.
� alculated at 280 sq_ft. (� space
37,245 Leaseable Space - Sfreet Level
= 280 Sq_Ft per Pazkin�,Space
133 New Spaces Needed for 1� Floor
108 Replacement spaces
241 Total Spaces Needed
215 Gross spaces provided
-8 spaces promised to Cashill/ Spaulding
-3 spaces in alley not permitEed
-3 spaces on Victoria � be elimina�d
201 actual net spaces provided
241 Total Spaces Needed
201 acfua] spaces provided
-40 shortfall in required pazking
�
�
20C Appeal w City Co�mN final d6-00-doc �
c�-5 t�
�
Conect foo�e of 37,245 squaze feet retail
�based on 225 square feet per space)
�
�
If the above calculations are combined, f.�e full reiail space of 37, 245 new square feet of refiail, is
then combined with the "retail stores in general" requ'uement of one gazk space per 225 feet of
retail space, the shorifall in parking, increases even further.
Develovers Calculations
°Multi-Use Retail"
Actual Calculation
"itetail Stores in General"
Total Leaseable Svace - 37,245 sca. ft.
27,745 Square Feet (RetaiI Only)
= 280 Sct. Ft. per Parking Space
99 Spaces for 1� Fioor
3 Spaces for Storage & Common
102 New Spaces Needed
109 Re,�lacement spaces
211 Total Spaces Needed
20C Appeal ro Ciry Coimc�l fi�i 4-6-0O.�c
37,245 Leaseable Space - Street Level
= 225 Sct. Ft per Parking Space
165 New Spaces Needed for ln Floor
108 R�lacement spaces
273 Totai Spaces Needed
215 Grossspaces provided
-8 spaces promised m CashillJ Spaulding
-3 spaces in alley not permitted
-3 svaces on Victoria m be eliminated
201 actual net spaces provided
273 Total Spaces Needed
201 actualnetspaces provided
-72 shortfall in required parking
�
��
�
DeveIoper uses 106 Darkin�spaces to be replaced
when City required 145 spaces as recen@v as 3 vears a�o.
If the ncimber of spaces to be replaced from the existing lot is based upon the 131 spaces
required in 1990, or the 145 spaces, fhe city required back in 1997, the shortEall, only becomes
more substantial, increasing by 29 spaces using the 1990 figure and 43 using �e 1997
requirement
Using the 145 spaces required in 1997 to replace e�sting parking, using the "retail in general"
requiremen� 165 new spaces aze required for the new reiail portion, and excluding the spaces in
the aIIey and promised to Cashill/Spaulding for a total of 316 required spaces. Subtracting the
221 spaces claimed by the developer, tkere is a shortfalI of 95 spaces. Subtracting Ehe 206
spaces, actvally shown on the site pian, there is a shortage of 110 spaces.
Develovers Calculations
" Multi-Use Retail"
27,745 Square Feet (Retail Only)
= 280 Sq. Ft. Qer Parking Space
99 Spaces for ln Floor
3 Spaces for Storage & Common
102 New Spaces Needed
110 Replacement spaces
212 Total Spaces Needed
Actual Calculation
" Retail Srores in General"
37. 245 Leaseable SUace
131 Svaces Eo be replaced
37,245 Leaseable Space - Street Level
= 225 Sq. Ft per Parking Space
165 New Spaces Needed tor Retail
145 RepIacement spaces
310 Total Spaces Needed
215 Gross spaces provided
-8 spaces promised m Cashill/ Spaulding
-3 spaces in alley not permitEed
-3 svaces on Victoria to be eliminated
201 acEual net spaces provided
310 Total Spaces Needed
201 Actual Netspacesprovided
-109 shortfaII in recZuired pazking
�
�
zoc n�at m crty co�ma s�t a.c.ao.� 1�
�� .
�il'1'Y Uf'
C'ouncil
:; .
�AIPi'C ��Atll.
Resolution
�. �!: � . .!;�:�� —
--_,� i _t[,.:.L•Y;_�� •l..a:<!�_ Commitlee
,, �, _ �
� , �N0.�7 - lS�.L' ' �
- ; i' . .
1 -- _!j
Date � -_'-' -- - —
_ -- r' n��� �
�mmittce [3y-------- _ — �
���I�
EAST CRANU A4"F:�tik: PI.�1!1 ACPBUYAL ��
YHF.RF.A3, lhr t:nst Grnnel avenue TaAk F'orca, cospoaed of cepresentalivea of thr
Sue�it Hill Axxocintion/Distcicl !6 Planning Council and the GranA Acemic
Buniness �RAOC1RC1011� aet witli PED etsif end prepnred e tnnk force report to
Che Planning Conaian�on; and
�' M1IERPA3, !he task iorce conaidr.red co��en[a on the report Cro■ city ataff�
6 aadifiPd so�e pulicIra� nnJ appruved a s�nll-nrea p/en sa an eiendrettt to the
i land ux�� chepter ot tt�e Co�prehr.naive Plan to eddresa land uae, tuning, and
� ynrl.in6 iaauex on GrnnJ Avenue 6etwcen Ayd Mill Road and O4kland 9treel; and
�
' NI�F.R6A8, the �ua�it ilill AeaoctaLion an1 ihe Grand drenue Uusi�eas Asaocietion
� 6eld a nclgl�borhuod oaetiu$ on Septee6er 14, 1989. Lo discues the plan; end
�'•, MI(F,RF.A9, the Planning Cosmisalon haa reviewed the East Grand Avenue Saatl-Area
� Plan in iigt�t uC eilywid�e plana, City depertw«nta, Planning Divleion atsCt,
ai�d i��Dle wl�u Kpoke at u Plenaing Cuaeieslon puUlic hearing; and
NNF,REAS� the Ylanning Lowminsion is in aqree�ent with all �n,joc Enat Grand
Avenue Snalt-Area Plan recowAendationa; and
NIIF.RP.A9, tLc Planning CoAaisnlon certified ihe East Grand dvenue S�all-Area
Flan on Octobnr fi, 19R9, And recoAUended [ta edop[ion to the Clly Councll;
NON, 7716REFbRE, C^ IT Rt:90GVED� Lhat the Cily Council adopLs the EnaL Gsnnd
.1�•euue 9Aa11-Area Plan wn an aeen+lnet�t to Ifie citywide Gand Uae Plan.
COUS�1Cl1, FtFMF�F.RS
Yta� NaS�
n���e
--;«,..
Yhw+4s,
R<uman
CeMihe4
iGmatn
'H'WM
Adaptrd Fp Council: I�a��
'tr � 2 � 198�
E Ccrld�rd y k r,�l hy Cnunrff 1 Src�riary
' —_ �� �� � �( ) `'
�y a {�'1•
DEC=���'i'"�
��prtfv.•d hY Havor`-. f)nle_ _' ._.. ____ �._._.--' _
�`f"•. ` �.. ==�-- _ 11.
- Ri = ----_-----� ----_—
puctµ� , � �: �:, ,; � 1989
.. .._.. . . . • . . � �,�-� .�_t. �. /
/ /
_� In fa��or
� ARainst
�3
. ' I �.. .. �:e�:��.� .�/1 :i..1�t�ott'
�++„�!:
ReQuested by DepartmetA of:
Planning and Economfc Oevelopment
ny �
�
EAST GRA\D Av£tiUE SAfALL-�lREA PLA\
Adopted by the Saint Paul Planning Commission on Oc[ober 6, 199ti
Adopted by ch< Sainc Paal City Counci� n December 21, l989
�l� �' �'�,Qfj�j �
�
1 �(
/!.R
9 � < <h�rcd u1�k+^41Qrccments.
dL���•
Thc Summit Hill Associstt�n, the Grand
pvcnuc Busincss Associatio�,µndS �o c�ch
should work W��h DtoPerty
parking agreemcnts foc shstcd usc of com-
metcial p�rking, and sharcd parkiag op.
tions should be fuf1Y �zD�O«a 35 Pat� �f
a �y apAliCff110° for a Pa�kin8 v1riancc and
before any remov�t oE buildings foc park-
�ng is aCP��ved. �C.S.R)
f0. ilow �n encour e shared eomm r
c�al arkine in institutionat {o s. 7hc City
should develop land use mechanisms short
oC rozoning to allow thc use of institu
tional lots foc sharedThe Z ni
residential parking.
should be amended to ��imits (C,S,R)
• Speciaf condition use p _
�
/
SR.qP3SYOR
�g, ncourago �k and-ride u t of IT.�
v � e . 7he Grn=3 .�venue Bus�ness As
sociatio� erchan:iupQo«t�si0�ens�t m
plore � m _ usc. IC,S.R)
to encoura3e bu=
- ienaf or � ur �
14, d8 a [raCC'..
.. rroito and Grzod. In {ight oC the
qcoQosed deY<<oRmeats at Grotto aad
Gcsnd, thc Cicy Public ltibrks should
monitor traCfic �: thc cerner �nd instali 3
traf[ic SiSna� o� iour•µa}' StoP signs. �
CStI1�R CTOSSI04 I ViC�
20. aciticatc = � ictoria Cross-
tor_ia. The traECic signal a[ eriod
��g should be set to allow' a long�jk hours.
Cor pedestrian �r�s5in8 during P
Public �'orks shc�id tcy co coo�d(o S�g
nais along Gra�� .'�`:enue to imp
pedestcian Iloµ.:5l
i•,:
�Z �SC P � zonin¢ For �commercial
parceis adjacent to ezuting arkin8•
uSts 3cc propos�d for tczoning (a� P
P-� Datkfng zonts are pceierced over ex-
pansion oC B-2 and B-3 commereial zoning.
(S,R1
{3. R�strict arkin loc Er m onserva
a�ccls are dhauld�ba
cio�5• iC zo n� 1ots, chcy
solclt• (or new P
limiced to'no soe=n�daCcom the
should be app P
strtu snd ailey. �C)
��. Rtstrict buildin rcmov�� ��� a ��'�� '
- [hc rcmoval oI historic or residentiai
buildin8s solclY to P��vide additional
parRing ss discouragcd• (C,S,ft)
ecmov1ti ot css��.�s �- _
cours3cd µichuu[ substi�titc p��king bc1n�_5�
P�ovided. (C.S.RI
.� arkin wh rc co -
f6. imit em 1 lovices oC
tomcr dcmand �s h�eh�s�• Emp
G� pvcnuc busincsscs ar� a�jCCS r in- �
from using on-strect p��k�ng n
ttuding those oo tincoln A��nuc, snd thc
north-south S�o`erssho ld tncou�age�
Summ<<• EmP
emPt�Yees co us: ins�icucionalC 5 R� her<
agteements ean te cesched. (
existin arkin lc�cs.
17, p�ovidc sian• � �ovcd co direcc shop•
$tgnage sfiould be imP
Qers to ezisting lots. The Gr�nd Avenue
Busincss Associauon, the Summit H�11 As'
sociation, and the City should devetoP mn-
sistcnt sign�ge to assist eustomecs. ���,S.R)
f S. hti anu �• ^... w•ith Private
"fhe CitY should ezDlose, to build a
develoQ�rs, the oppo�tunity
parkia8 «mP or dcck at the southw�s� �°r
ner of Vi«oria and Grand. Thece should,
how'��'er, be no sur[ace �Yp o S cd only 1;
lot. A ramP shau4d be aPP
its dcsign is apD�aPriate [o the neigh-
borhood, 2) new' par��ng prov'sdes a sig-
n ��1 i3 � t n�c gain in spaces available for
businesses, i) traEEie wi11 no< <tiCCed local
c�pacicy, and 4) future spin-ofC develop-
ment at Y'sctoria Crossing is coo«otled.(�
GRa�D �1E�L"E AESiG� G1lIDELl�ES
(C,S,R)
2l. Line Grand A�'enuc �'ith trtes. Gr3nd
�vcnue should t: lincd W'ich trees [or its
eotire Ieng�h. including the commercial
areas wherc �recs arc �urren�iy missing•
, �
i �
� � �
y �YQ .�r� rG:� �av+atl � Q I � roY G .����� � �
WHEREAS, EXETER HOLDINGS LLC, file # 99-001 J 8I51, has applied for a Site Pian �
Review under the provisions of Section of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, for the purpose of
cottstructing a commercial devetopment and parking facility at 860 Grand Avenue, legally
described as SEE FILE; and
WHEREAS, ihe Planning Commission on 3/10/00, held a public hearing ai which al! persons
present �vere given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the
requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Pau1 Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented a[ the pubiic
hearing on 3/10/00 as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact:
1. Traffic Concerns have been raised about tra�c congestion at Grand Avenue and
Victoria and the impact of additional development.
The developer hired the Pazsons Transportation Group to do a traffic study. They used
traffic counts that had previousiy been done by Public Works and conducted their own
counts of ttuning movements at the intersection of Grand and Victoria during a weekday
PM rush hour and on a Saturday. Their study conctuded that:
- "The impact of the iraffic from Victoria Plaza will be minimal, with post-
development conditions expected to be similar to existing conditions."
— "The proposed access to the new parking ramp would be further away from the
intersection of Grand Avenue and Victoria S[reet and further inside the site, which
would minimize the spill back queues onto Victoria Street and wouId reduce the
potential for queues to spillback into the intersection at Grand Avenue."
— "The Saturday peak-hour counts are essentially equivalent to the weekday PM
peak-hour counts...."
— "While the proposed project would add traffic to the street system in the vicinity
of the site, the amount added would noi be sufficient to impact traffc operations.
Intersection operations are shown to be good (Level of 5ervice B} and to remain
at Level of Service B with the added tra�c."
Staff from Saint Paul Pubiic Works Traffic Engineering Sec[ian reviewed the site plan:
- They said that the anticipated increase in auto traffic can be handled if three
garking spaces are removed on the east side of Victoria to provide more room for
tuming movements.
- They have concems that the Iocation of the stairs on the Victoria side of the ramp
could encourage pedestrians To cross Victoria in the middle of the block instead of
crossing at the crosswalk. They woutd like to see the stairs from the ramp on
Victoria moved c[oser to the intersection to discourage people from ctossing at
mid-block or have a barrier such as a fence or bollard and chain installed along the
r,vest side of Victoria to discourage pedestrians from crossine at mid-block.
�
Siaff also recommends that a"Ramp Full" sign should installed at the intersection of �
Grand and Victoria so that drivers couid find out if the ramp was full before they drove
down Victoria. This sign might also provide information on other parkin� lots in the
azea.
�
�'S�t �
� 2. Parking Grand Avenue has a parking shortfall that has been well documented. City
staff did a parking survey this year and determined there is currently a parking shortfail of
296 off-street parking spaces on Grand between Milton and Avon (one block either
direction from Victoria). The zoning code would require 798 pazking spaces for the uses
in this area if they were new uses and there 502 off-street parking spaces available for a
shortfall of 37%. {There aze also 111 on-street parking spaces availabie. If these are
counted, the deficit becomes 185 parking spaces for a shortfall of l4%.)
The property is currentiy used as a parking lot with 106 spaces that serves the nearby
Grand Avenue businesses.
The pazking standards found in Section 62.1Q3 of the Zoning Code require the project to
provide at least 210 off-street parking spaces. This is based on 108 spaces to replace the
spaces and the bicycie rack in the existing lot plus 102 parking spaces tequired for the
proposed new retail space.
The plan provides 213 parking spaces self-park spaces and wouid get credit for 2 more
spaces for providing bicycle racks (per Section 62.1Q3.j) for a total of 2]> parking
spaces. This�wo.uld exceed the zonina code requirement for parking by S parking s ap ces.
Public Works has recommended that 3 existing on-street parkin� spaces be removed on
� the east side of Grand Avenue to accommodate the anticipated increase in traffia (On-
street spaces are not included in zoning calculations for determining parking.)
The applicant is proposing to use valet parking during peak hours. Given ihe history of
valet parking when it was tried her before on the surface lot, staff told the applicant ihey
cannot count valet spaces toward meeting the minimum parking requirement. However
valet parking, if it couid be properly managed, would provide a total of 288 spaces for a
net increase of 80 spaces compared to the existing lot.
An important consideration in looking at the parking situation is hours of peak demand.
The peak parking demand for Grand and Vicioria appears to be in the evening primarily
because of the sestaurants. All of the new commercial space in the proposed development
would be for retail. According to the Urban Land Institute the pazking demand for retail
tends to be highest in the afternoon, especially during the weekend. This means that the
afternoon geak parking demand for retait complements the evening parking demand for
the restaurants and that a good share of the 102 parking spaces required for the new retail
space may be available for restaurant customers during the evening hours.
3. Urban design Concems have been raised about ho�v the buiiding �vould fit with the
existing architectural character of Grand Avenue, especially its height and mass.
� The buildin� would be 3� feet tall (measured to the top of the parapet). This is calter than
the other commercial buildings on ihe comer hut aimost the same height as the �djacent
agartment buildings. (For another comparison with another new building, the Mississippi
Market at Dale and Selby is 32 feet tail to the top of the parapet and �42 feet tall to the top
of the tower at the corner of the building.}
�2
�
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Nonn Colcman, 6layo�
Apri1 ]6, 1997
Mike D'Agostino
APCOA
I55 FiftU Avenae South
Minneapolis, MN 5540t
RE: Grand and Victoria lot
Dear Mr. D'Agostino:
! am �vriting ns a follow up to our phone conversation earlier today about your ideas for restriping the
existing parking lot nt the soutinvest corner of Grand and Victoria.
The lot current�provides a total of 145 parking spaces: 97 setf-parking spaces and 48 valet Qarking
spaces. Your plan to restripe tlie lot wo�dd result in a total of 1 I S parking spaces: all of tliese spaces
would be selFparking with �o vale[ parking spaces.
Under the zoning code, all 145 parking spaces in the lot as it is currently configured are needed to meet
the parking requirements for businesses on the other three corners of Grand and Victoria. Therefore tl�e
number of spaces cannot be reduced belu�v its current level oF 145.
!f you have any questions, ptease call me at 266-9086.
Sirtcerely,
Tom Beach
Zoning Section
�x�6;f
�
������«_�� �.�<<.���:.�..�;�.<<,,,,.,,,,.,,
FN V! RONM1UiM'A1.19tU�PLC"(lON
Hobc�t Atisle�. !br¢�'mr -
LDII'RY PROFESSfON.i1 TelrpLone:6f2-?66-9�
BUILDIVG £acsimik: 6(2-766-9
SuNe 300 61b?66•9f IJ
3SO S�. Purr S�rrd
Salnl Pa+d, Alin+urota SS10?-lSIO �
cg
C
�
�
_ --_ - � �A
'� . �o �� �
• /�, , �� ._- ± ,.
Y� � • , � ' `
�
1
/
parkinq.xs 319 spaces.
to apar�ment residents•
Cost is estimated at $ 3.A ^ 3.7 million�
The existing shortfall in "re4uired
parkinq Would be available at night
��
" \`
DATE�
� � �� •� ,� ` L �
� � � t .
� 1 `-
pISMO�
TO;
March 14, 1990
p Reichert
Larry Soderholm
t
'-.!
FROM: Tom HaTVeY
12E •
Victoria Crossing parking ramp
131
• ou in on the status of the parking XamP PrOPos
et together again soon (with the appropriate
I wan� to fill y
I sugges� that we 9 � ge t a ju�P on the anticipublicshearingnon
xoning section staff)
erud Wants to start constructifln in
review. The Summit Fiill Association will ho a
the issue on March 27• BeTg lan review if a traffic
early June. That is tight for site p
analysis is required. lans
goward Bergerud and Rathy Vekich have presented preliminary P
f a parking ramp
at Victoria Crossing to the Land Use Committee
• of the Summ to ttt� somawhat confusing article in the
it Hill Association and to the Grand Avenue 9us nes
Contra do not "formally" include any change in
Association. about the SouthWest
Grand Gazette, the P �! they are talking
„ the lot at Milton Mall
corner lo� only. (But see discussion below of Xelated issues .
r os 1 about 24 feet high
The ra�P would be a three-level, spl�t'level ( 2 h e street facade
in the back) structure with 276 parkinq spaces.
along Grand would include several small shop
s with ab lanned on
�,.,,are feet of retail s�ace. Entrance and exit are p
V 1.C1
�
Existing spaces
Kew spaces
xew required"
n
I,ose victoria spaces
c�-5G�
. �.. ��,;.
_,
•� 4 `
' � i
�� .C�
I ._
� . .. `%F ;�
` � �
:
.,
. � _
i
.' . , .` ;
,, .
;
+ 195
- 37
_ s
100
NET NEW� SPACES�
ti ..; . -
�� � : �.�� �
Z. Parking Grand Avettue has a parking shortfall that has been well documented. Citv
staff did a oarkinQ survey this yeaz and de�P*m�ned there is currentiv a narkinE shortfall o
296 off-street arkin s aces on Grand between Nfilton and Avon (one block eether
direciion from Victoria). The zoning code wou require paz ing spaces for the uses
in this azea if they were new uses and there 502 off-street parking spaces available for a
shortfalt of 37%. (There aze aiso i l i on-street parking spaces availabie. If these are
counted, the deficit becomes 18� parking spaces for a shortfali of 14%.)
The property is currently used as a parking lot �vith 106 spaces that serves the nearby
Grand Avenue businesses.
The pazking standards found in Section 62.103 of the Zoning Code require the projeci to
provide at least 210 off-street pazking spaces. This is based on 108 spaces to replace the
spaces and the bicycIe rack in ihe existing lot plus 102 pazking spaces required for the
proposed new retail space.
The plan provides 213 pazking spaces self-park spaces and would get credit for 2 more
spaces for providing bicycle racks (per Section 62.103.j) for a totai of 215 parking
spaces. This woutd exceed the zoning code requirement for parking by 5 parktng spaces.
� J
Public Works has recommended that 3 existing oa-street parking spaces be removed on
the east side of Grand Avenue to accommodate ihe anticipated increase in traffic. (On- •
street spaces are not inciuded in zoning calculations for determining parking.)
The appiicant is proposing to use valet pazking during peak hours. Given the history of
valet parking when it was tried her before on the surface Iot, stafftotd the appticant they
cannot count valet spaces toward meeting the minimum pazking requirement. However,
valet parking, if it could be properly managed, would provide a total of 288 spaces for a
net increase of 80 spaces compared to the existin� lot.
An important considecation in looking at the parking situation is hours of peak demand.
The peak parking demand for Grand and Victoria appears to be in the evening primarily
because of the restaurants. All of the new commercial space in the proposed developinent
would be for retail. According to the Urban Land Institute the parking demand for retail
tends to be highest in the af[emoon, especially during the weekend. This means that the
afternoon peak parking demand for retaii complements the evening parking demand for
the restaurants and that a good share of the 102 parking spaces required for the new retaii
space may be availabie for restaurant customers during the evening hours.
3. Urban design Concerns have been raised about how the building �vould fit �vith the
existing architectural character of Grand Avenue, especially its height and mass.
�,/ /� �� i �
���'�( Yr
�` �
zg would be 3� feet tall (measured to the top of the pazape[). This is talter than
�mmercial buitdings on the corner but aimost the same height as the adjacent �
>uildings. (For another comparison ���ith another new buiiding, the Mississipp
�ale and Selby is 32 feet tall to the top of the parapet and 42 feet tall to the top
at the comer of the buiiding.}
2s
t� a
� STAFF RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAiSED AT THE PtlBLIC HEARI{VG
The memo submitted by Neighbors Opposed to Vicforia Plaza says that there are a
number of inaccuracies in the staff report about how parking requirements were
caiculated and otherissues.
The parking should be based on at( fhe floor area on the first floor - bofh the refai! area and the
shared space.
Staff response: Section 62.102(c) states that for multi-tenant buildings'any shared space,
such as an atrium, common area, ufi{ity area, unfinished basement, pubiic or shared restrooms,
staircase or elevator area shalf be considered, for purposes of determining parking
requirements, the same as storage areas ' Statf is treating the shared space on the first floor
as storage which requires 1 parking space per 5,0000 square feet.
The parking standards for generai retail should be used insfead of fhe requirements (or mulfi-
use retail center.
Staff response: This project meets the definition of "multi-use retail" which is'a single, unified
development on one (1) zoning lot which provides commercial space to a variety of retaif uses
and has at least twenty th�usand (20,000) square feet of gross leaseabie area". The definition
does not require common atriums etc. and staff has in the past applied this definition to'strip
mails" and other retaii devetopments that do not have common atriums.
Two stacked parking spaces shown on the site plan cannot be counted toward meefing fhe
� parking sfandards.
Staff response: This is correct. The number of spaces for the project that can be counted
toward meeting the parking requirements set by the zoning code is 213 and not 215 as
The three pa�king spaces in the allay cannot be covnted because they are not sc�eened or
would block trucks using the loading dock.
Staff response: Screening is required by the zoning code for "parking facilities" which is
defined as more than three spaces. Since this is not more than three spaces it is not covered
by screening requirement. The parking spaces wiff not block truck using the foading dock.
There is 60 feet of clear space between the laading dock and the nearest parking space.
No bicycle racks provided.
5taff response: The site pVan does not show bicycte racks 6ut there is room at the west end of
the site to provide the required bi�ycle racks and the developer has stated he witl provide them.
(StafE was also toid after the pubiic hearing that the existing parking lot has bicycle racks. Staff
could not find the racks but if they a�e there, the existing iot wouid get credit fos one or two
parking spaces, depending on how many bicycles can be parked at the rack. This would make
the number of parking spaces that must be replaced either 107 or 108.)
Lass oi on-street pa�king is not factored in.
Staff response: Parking requirements are based on o(f-street pasking and do not count on-
, street parki�g. However, the stafif report did note that three parking spaces will be Iost on the
east side of Victoria to meet requirements from Pubiic Works to accommodate increased traffic.
������ ` � vGr
�j 2 �.
2/9/00
Rob Stopetstad ���'
Exeter Holdings, L.�.C. C��ll/Spauiding
1080 Montreal Ave. Ste. 400 properties, Inc
St. Faul, MN 55116-2311
�-. i��
It was enjoyabte meetaig with you the other day. Mike and I remain two of your
biggest supporters. We feei you are doing a very thorough and tasteful
3evetcpme :i. Ir. respense to y�ur questions c�acaining cur input over ihe R�,:st-
facing waii of your project, we have ihe fo(lowing ideas:
i
I. A lighter cotor in the beige/earth tone woutd be prefereutial for both light and
aesthetica! purposes. A two-tone design with a smali amount of the second
color used as a border or accent would be attractive.
2. A wrought iron fence beriveen our properties at the Grand Ave. end wouid be
most helpfut as a deterrent to wallcing traffie neact to our residents' windows. �
3. Minimai amounts of light should project over your parapet wall on the deck af
your ramp into our apartments.
4. Landscaping similaz to what is currently there is acceptable ta us.
5. We would accept respoasibility for maintaining the lawn and landscaping
between our buildings, as I betieve that is the only lawn area in your
development.
Lastly, we mentioned ihe issue of pazking. VJe woulc3 be thrilled To receive e�t
s�aces for our residents. We are not looking to make money on the parking, but
rather use it as a tool to attract quality residents. I believe market rates for parking
to be $SQ.00/mo. for futl use of a space, or �35.00/mo. for a space with time
restrictions during your peak hours. We would be comfortable paying yoa direcdy
instead of t�aving you collect from our residents. ACH or a monthly check is fine
with us.
Thank you for taking the time to asic our opinions on you project, and for taking
our concems into account.
Sincerely,
�� ����
Alan Spauidin�
� �. �, f � �
2L
�'�HK 1b�43 rrtJ�" ...� i� ur �� rr..� �.�
�
PARKING CALCULATIONS
�,
r . �
208 OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED BY ZONITIG
The amount of parking required for the project is equal to the number of parking spaces in the
existing parking lot plus the number of parking spaces required for the proposed uses in the
new development.
'
106 existing parking must be repiaced.
There are currentiy 106 parking spaces in the lot. Sut the number of spaces in the lot has
changed during the past decade.
At one time there tivere 130 self-park 5paces in the lot. 8ut 25 of these spaces could. only be
accessed Nom the alley. In 1994 when the lot was converted to a pay lot, the parking lot
operator did not want any spaces off of the alley since it would be di�cult to control access to
them and therefore to charge for them. To eliminate these spaces he proposed to build a fence
on the south property line along the ailey. But the City told him that he could not build the fence
if it eliminated these spaces since they were required parking for the businesses at Grand and
�ctoria.
The operator built the fience on ihe south side of the iot to eliminate the spaces that used tha
ailey but at the same time he initiated a parking system with stacked spaces and vatet parking
so that he would not tose any parking spaces. In fact, this system actually increased the
number of cars that could be parked in the lot to 145.
�
However, the operator could not make the system of stacked parking with valets work�so�lk�ee� ��-�_�
operator told the City he wanted to go back to the old system of self-serve parking. Bu�th�'is,_
required a zoning variance for the arkin s aces alon the 1 se the zonin code no
longer permi e a e access. The arkin lot ra or a lied f r the variance to ertnit alla ���.�� �
access ut it was denied by the Board of Zonina Appeals. : soarn�or %c�+�� �
The operator then asked the City for permission to restripe the tot with fewer spaces saahat her�riss�or
could eliminate the valeUstacked parking system without having cars use the aNey. �f�rfElilB:sy.stem ��
staff sent a letter sa in in the fot could not be reduced beyond tks§°r ?>c� •c_=
145 ar in s that were currentiy in the lot. But tfie operator went ahead an sestriped�� �-n? �-
the fot to provide as many par ing spaces as possfble meeting the minimum size standards:i�ces�:: �cs�� _
the zoning code without using stacked spaces or alley access. This pravided 106 spaces. •?��• �aacez
4n reviewing the situation again last year, staff detertnined that the City could not require more
than 106 spaces since it was not physically possible to provide more spaces than this without
either going back to vaiet/stacked parking (which did not work) or alley access (which was not
possible because the City had denied a variance for this).
r
� 02 additional parking spaces must be provided for the new development.
The retail space must meet the parking requifements for'multi-use retail cente�' which is one
space for every 280 square feet of gross floor area. This project meets the definition of "mutfi-
use retail" which is "a single, unified development on one (1) zoning lotwhich pravides
commercial space to a variety of retail uses and 'nas at least iwerttY thousand (20.000) sauare
feet ofi gross leasable area". De •,,, � r „
Post-tt' Fax Not¢ 7671 _ oases
�x� ��.��
�
23
t� L
612 266 9124
Qac,�. ai
x
m
n
0
A
A
N
O
� ae
�
��i � � ���
i i l i �' I �
f�
0
�{il� i � i
i �
.g a
a
i
� � 0
�� �
� �
a ��
i_�� c �,�' � 1`
��� �
���,�� ��� N ,� \
��Sg�Y� 3 9��� � V`
:�€ $ �=a �� ...,.�
��4�� ; —• ,�,
. (\
V �
V�
�
�
N ;r' b'�t'
v ,
�
��
�
� V
�' \
�
H
`� ., � a ��\��\\
��
t�.r �c.a��-..:c �:.w�w:�.�.-.�
��`����\"`�`�
.
� � D
� an' " �i
iOo
P i
� �h
z�.� �. ;
: o ; �•. ^'; ,;
�
! ��'x �
(T— � .Z1A��<�
U i�� X� i:
s Ni
� , 4! _
i ' / ���
�
o '�
.
.....,..., -
9 �
wCTORIA 5T,
�
"'�r
�'
24
� �
\ ,
� �
(�
I
�
� �
7 �
I I
�� � I
���
�j
�� �
�A
2
�� I
<
m �
� I
l;
li
�i
�l-
9
a f?�
'��I
- -T
�
I
(
�
�
i
�
�
�
C
�
1
I
�
1'
not require any re-zonings, variances or special use permits. See City of Saint Paul zoning letter,
zoning memo, and zoning code provisions :n Exhibit 2.
There are no material adve�se environmental conditions affecting the property. See letters
from American Engineering Testing, Inc. and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in Exhibit 3.
The parcel has been used as a pubtic packing !ot since approximate{y 1960, and as a pay
parking lot licensed by the City of Saint Paul since 1994. APCOA, Inc. operated the lot from 1994
through August of 1999, and Allright Parking has operated the lot since September of 1999.
Proiect Descriation
A four-level building is proposed for the property. It wi{t consist of fower level storage space;
street level retail space and accessory areas; and two levels of parking above the retail space. The
retail space wi(I consist of 43,145 square feet of gross building area with 27,745 square feet of
{easa space on the street level, 9 ,500 square feet of leasable space on the tower levet, and 5,900
� ._____-_�—�
square feet of shared space on the street and lower levels. The retail space wil! be leased to locai and
national retailers but not to restaurant or other food and beverage businesses. See location maps,
building elevations, and site plan review application documents in Exhibit i.
Economic Impact of Proiect
Victoria Plaza has city-wide importance because of Grand Avenue's position as a premier
retail street in the Twin Cities. The project will have a substantial positive economic impact on the
entire City in terms of new business for Saint Paul companies and labor unions. The project will
provide substantial numbers of construction jobs, new permanent jobs, additional retail sales, added
�ales tax revenue, and added real estate tax revenue.
The Developer's architect, engineer, and three principaf contractors are major Saint Paul
companies with over 1,000 empioyees, substantial numbers of whom live in the Citv. ThP .,r��A�+
will be built by members of the Saint Paul construction trades, many hundre
$G
�XhI ��`k-
�O
�
ATTACHMENT TO APPLICATION
FOR StTE PLAN REVIEW
VICTORtA PLAZA
GRAND AVENUE AND VICTORIA STREET
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 2, 2000
a�-5Sr8
�,xh� b� �-
10
2S
�,,, �_
,.� �
�
AAAA
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
Depanment of Planning and Economic Development
Zoning Section
1100 Ciry Ha11 Annex
2S West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
266-6589
APPELLANT`Name Sunmit riill Association
� a,,,,,e�� 860 St. Clair c�ve
Saint raul �uZ 55105 651-222-]
City St^ Zip Daytime phone
�
�
PROPERTY Zoning File Name "" `" '
LOCATION Address/Location �64 Grand evenue
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeai to the:
❑ Board of Zoning Appea{s (� City Counci!
appeal a decision made by
on riarch 24
under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section �, Paragraph � of the Zoning Code, to
.�,. Saint Ya Flanning Gommission
(dafe of decis
S�` Z���ile number: 00-11 8151
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Expfain why you feet there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appea4s or the Ptanni�g Commission.
See attached letter.
.� L�
�� . �Sa
�-1�--� 1�..�
Attach additiona/ sheet if
AppiicanYs
2
zoco City agent
27
ao- 5g 8
Hill As
April 10, 2000
Distriet t6 Pianning Counci
860 Saint Ciair Aven�
SainY Paul, Minnesota 551
Telephone 651-222-1222
Fax 65i-222-1558
e-maii summit.hillC�stpaul.gov
Saint Pau( City Council
C/O Tom Beach, Planning Administrator
1400 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55i02
RE: File # 00-778751 Site Plan Review for 864 Grand Avenue
Dear Members of ihe Saint Paul City Council:
Tfie Summit Hill Association/Districi 16 Planning Council appeafs the decision of the
Saint Pau( Pfanning Commission on the Site Plan Review for the property at 864
Grand Avenue based on the following grounds:
The Easi Grand Avenue Plan ("P{an"} was adopted by the Saint Paul City Councif on
December 27, 1989 by resolution #89-2053 as an amendment to the Cfty of Saint Paul
Comprehensive Plan. It is worth noting and remembering that the "Problems �
Necessitating a Pian" were "primari(y...increased traffic and parking" and that the
"Development ConcepY' was, in addition io maintaining the ambiance of Grand
Avenue, "protecting the neighborhood from parking and traffic probiems."
The Plan repeaiedly acknowledges the special character of Grand Avenue and
specificaily discourages development which wou(d "spill over onto Lincoln Avenue,
Summit Avenue, or into apeys."
The southwest corner of Grand and Victoria (ihe "Site°) has been used as a surface
parking lot for more than 30 years. !t is zoned B-2. The site is one of only two
identified "Potentia! Redevelopment Areas" in the Plan. The Plan calis for the site to
be rezoned P-1.
The Plan cieariy calls for the development of a parking deck or ramp on this corner to
address the existing parking shortfall.
This existing parking shortfaA is well documented. City Staff state ihat there is
currently a parking shortfall of 296 off-street parking spaces on Grand Avenue
between Milton Street and Avon Street--one block in either direction from Victoria
Street.
The plan permits and recommends that a two level parking ramp be constructed on the �
Site only if "new parking provides a significant net gain in spaces available
for bus+nesses."
24
c�o-5��
Saint Paul City Council
� April 10, 2000
Page 2
The project approved by the Saint Paul Planning Commission only provides for a net
gain of 5 spaces. After deducting the loss of three existing on-street spaces on Victoria
Street, this project provides a net increase of two off street parking spaces.' A net
increase of less than one percent of the existing shortfafl cannot reasonably be
deemed significant.
The Saint Paul Planning Commission abused its discretion in finding that the�
construction of this parking building is consistent with the Pian as the overriding issue
is significant net gain in parking and this project wholly fails to address the parking
shortfall.
The Saint Paul Planning Commission is not permitted to ignore the Pian. (Vor is it
permitted to ignore blatant inconsistencies between the Plan and the project. It has
done both.
First, it has ignored the conflict between the existing B-2 zoning and the recommended
P-1 zoning. The developer wants to construct a building with 43,145 square feet
devoted to retail on a 39,024 square foot lot to service three new retai! tenants. B-2
• zoning permits retail uses and accessory parking. It does not permit a public parking
ramp. P-1 zoning permits public parking only--not retail.
Second, the Commission has ignored the P(an's requirement that a parking ramp may
be constructed only if there is a significant net gain in off-street parking. The deveioper
relies on the weli-documented existing parking shortfall to support his proposai to
construct a"parking building." However, the developer goes on to argue that because
the plan does not for6id retail on the site, that he is therefore permitted to construct a
"parking bui{ding" to address the Plan's concerns with park+ng to address the Plan's
concerns with parking shortfall.
Here's the flaw: a parking ramp--however named or disguised--is only permitted if
there is a significant net gain in off-street parking. As there is no significant gain, it
cannot be approved. lt would be difficuit to propose a more intensive use of this
property. This is so because the project is a mixture of B-2 and P-1 uses.
' The Saint Paul Planning Gommission rationaiizes this contradiction (a net gain of only 2 spaces versus
the requirement ot a significant net gain) by requ+ring valet parking during peak times and by specuiating
that the peak hours ofi the three new retaii tenants wiil vary with the peak hours of nearby restaurants.
� Regarding valet parking, as Mr. Beach noted, there is no city mechanism for the enforcement of vaiet
parking a�d, significantly, that valet parking cannot be counted toward meeting the minimum parking
requirements. Furthermore, Mr. Beach stated that valet parking had been tried on this Site previously and
that it proved unsuccessfui. If valet parking were reafly workable, why isn't the owner and developer usi�g
it now? With regard to peak hours, David Unowsky, owner of Ruminator Sooks, testified that his Grand
Avenue bookstore was busy on Friday and Saturday nights. There is absalutely no competent evidence
to support fhe speculation that the new retai! stores w+ll not be busy on Friday and Saturday nights.
Z °C
Saint Paul City Councii
April 10, 2000
Page 3
The developer does not have the legal right to both B-2 and P-1 uses. The developer
is under a written legai obligation to provide up to 145 parking spaces to ihe owner
and tenants of the North East corner of Grand Avenue and Vicforia Street (East Mail
Associates, hereafter EMA).
The developer can only propose a public parking ramp on this corner because the
plan calls for one. Therefore, he has proposed one because he needs to address his
contractua! obligations to EMA, not to address ihe well-documented parking shortfall
recited in the P(an.
In rea(ity there wili be four businesses operating on this Site. There will be three retai!
businesses permitted under B-2 together with accessory parking for tfiose three
businesses. The fourth business is a public parking business providing paid public
parking for the benefit of nearby businesses and apartment buildings?
The Saint Paui City Council should not permit a mixed use B-2 and P-1 development
to go forward when the proposed development does not meaningfully address the
parking probiems relied upon to justify the mixed use.
Conciusion
The Saint Pau( City Councii has ample factual and legal basis to decline the project as
proposed. They are:
1) The project does not provide a significant net gain in parking.
2) The project cannot be built unless the pubiic alley is vacated. The owner
does not have a Iegal right to demand its vacation to construct a parking ramp
and a 43,000 square foot retail building. The city is welf within its rights to
require that any development preserve the dedicated alleys or to condition
vacation upon modifications to the site plan. This is not an estoppel situation. It
is hornbook law Yhat a private party cannot acquire city property by adverse
possession.
3) There is a bus shefter which occupies the northeast comer of the Site. It was
built with public and privaie funds. The previous owner of the Site granted
rights to the public to use this space as a public space untii December 1, 2004.
The project if approved would result in the removal of the bus shelter and
pedestrian plaza contrary to the plain terms of the license agreement. Abseni a
binding order by a court of competent jurisdiction declaring the license
agreement to be null and void, the developer has no legai right remove the bus
shelter and pedestrian plaza.
2 If parking ramps are permitted under B-2 Zoning, why is a P-1 zoning district necessary?
\ J
•
r�
L�
gfl
C'ap- 55�
�
Saint
Aprii
Page
Paul City Council
10, 2000
4
4) The zoning B-2 is inconsistent with the Pian's call to re-zone the property P-t.
MSA 473.858 does not permit approval bf the project without prior resolution of
this conflict.
5) The project will exacerbate well-documented traffic and parking problems
and these traffic and parking problems will "spill over" into adjacent alieys and
onto Lincoln Avenue. This is inconsistent with the Plan. Therefore a parking
building is not permitted.
6) The magnitude of the project is inconsistent with the P{an. Its design, while
possibly appropriate to other sites, is not appropriate to this one. The design
does not address any of the Plan's concerns inciuding parking, traffic,
ambiance, "spili over effects," preservation and enhancement of Grand Avenue,
and the like. Rather, it disguises, as best it can, the targest mixed-use
development arguabfy permitted under B-2 and P-1 designations of the zoning
code. This is not consistent with the P{an.
For all of the reasons recited herein, the Summit Hill Association respectfully requests
� that the Saint Paul City Council find that the Saint Paul Planning Commission's
findings were in error, arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to fact in that the project as
proposed is inconsistent with the Plan.
Sincerely,
�
���
ames Njus
f'resident
3(
:y ' O� - � �r_
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
� Departmenr ojPlweaing and Ecoxomic Deve[opme6t
Zoning Seciioa
'"��� 11110 City AaU Ann�
�+�y� � 25 Wesr Fowth Saeu
Saint Pan[, hlJV 35102
266.6589
APPELLANT
PROPER7Y Zoning Fik
LOCAT(ON ... _
i%L �'1 v"fi � - C
�1�� t-
�p � ��d Daytime phon�
i lf,�/l�fii'� l'�= Tf/�� .
?G.:l .✓i���: � St�
.
�
TYPE OF APPEAL: Applica}ion is hereby made for an appeal to the:
Q Board of Zoning Appeals � City Counal
under the provis'rons of Chapter 64, Seetian(t!-Zi'E�, Paragraph /�'�� of the Zoning Code, tu
appeal a decision made by tfie �1.`'/�k�/�� LC�%/s'CS>_':Y�
on _ N'c%1Z�+ z�' n �
File number: G'0 - Z>
(date of decrsion)
GROUNDS FOR APPFAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative offiCial, or an error in fad, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission.
��"C4/ �'fv.f j C/r?,%/ f�`� ,/:`-� � �'-� d�G- �i''� �` �''C �"l ftL'L. �C�
c9� , J / ���az 55= '� Lt��JL/�lr c�L`e�f ,i`/�+f%'!� ,�l'''�; ult���� t"s
�c"s!y4?;;� �t�l'�� G:4Y /�lJ2tiz� G �'✓r� �C?f;.';'t,
RECEIVED
APR 1 �J 2000
ZONING
Attach addifionat sheet if
Applicant's
�'�J , �S C�O
_�
��:
Qate �/:= ' -�" City agertt
� Z
i
�
_—�
_' � -
-;�� �oo� �f,t'. �
:f 1 '.
Oa-S� P
•
Ja�s s. LYrrnErr
Attorney at Law
april io, 2000
�
Mr. Daniel Bostrom, President
St. Paul City Council and
Members of St. Paul City Councii
do Zbning Section, St. Paul PED
1400 City Hall Annex
25 West Faurth Street St.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55102
Re: Planning Commission Case No. 00-118•151
Applicant Eseter Holdings LLC
APPEAI, OF PLANNf1vG COiVIIVIISSION RESOLUTION 00-25
Dear Mr. Bostrom and Members of the St. Paul City Council:
With respect to the above-reFerenced matter, I represent the interests of East Mall Associates ("EMA"),
a partnership comprised of James J. Wengler and William T. Wengler, which owns the retail shopping mall
located at the northeast cornet of the intersection of Grand Avenue and Victoria Street in St. Paul
("East Mail") and the interests of all af the commercial tenants therein who have signed a letter attached
hereto and made a pazt hereof. An Affidavit of Mailing is also attached hereto and made a part hereof.
East Mall is located diagonally across the intersection of Grand and Victoria from the site which is the
subject of this proceeding (the "Lot"). EMA appeals Resolution No. 00-25 (the "Resolution"), adopted by
the St. Pau] Planning Commission on March 24, 2000, on the following grounds:
1. Finding of Fact No. 2 Asserting that the Parking Component of the Project Meets the
Zoning Code Requirement is Erroneous. Finding No. 2 of the Resolution finds, in pertinent
part, that:
"The par]dng standatds found in Section 62.103 of the Zoning Code require the project to
provide at least 210 off-street parking spaces. This is based on lOS spaces to replace the
spaces and the bicycle tack in the existing lot plus 102 parking spaces required for the
proposed new retail spaces.
The plan provides 213 parking spaces seif-park spaces [sic] and would get credit for
providing bicycle racks (per Section 62.103 j.) for a total of 215 parking spaces. This would
exceed the zoning code requirement for parking by 5 parking spaces."
u
The foregoing calculations should have as their starting point the number 147 rather than 108.
145 is the number of spaces Applicant is required to maintain on the Lot pursuant to the
February 10, 1984 long term lease (the "Lease") between EMA and the then owner of the Lot--
which is binding upon the Agplicant--as modified 6y a July 7, 1984 Modification Agreement. 2
additional spaces should be added to the 145 spaces for the bicycle rack for a total beginning
figure of 147. Significantly, Tom Beach of the Planning Commission staff, who presumably
fashioned the Resolution, stated in a letter dated April 17, 1997, that the magic number of
parking spaces for the Lot was 145. That number, he said his letter, was the number of parking
spaces necessary to meet the zoning code parking requirements for businesses on the other three
corners of the Grand and Victoria intersection (i.e., East Mal1, West Mall and South Mal1)) as of
that date. It, of course, coincides with what the Lease requires. If one uses 147 as the beginning
599 Grand Avenue • St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 • Tei. (651) 224-1962 • Fas (651) 224-2467
E•MailAddress: jimlynden�hotmail.com
33
point and adds to that the 102 spaces required for the retail component of the project, the sum of
249 is the number of pazking spaces required by the zoning code, and this pzoject is deficient at
lesst 34 spaces rather than exceeding the requirement by 5 spaces as found by the Planning
Commission.
I would be temiss if I did not also point out to yon that the Lease--which is binding upon
Applicant--allows Applicant to construct a parking ramp structure on the Lot ptovided the
structure contains a sufficient number of spaces to meet the parking requirements for not only
the building in which the sttucture is located but also East Mall, South Mall, West Mall (i.e.,
249 spaces)- plus "any contempZafed additions thereto". Applicant's proposal--and the Resolution--
fail to take into account 30 additional spaces required For East Malt as a result of a 9,000+ squate
office addition EMA contemplates constructing on its property (27 spaces) and parldng spaces
required to maintain the Billy's patio liqvor license {3 spaces). I delivered a schematic drawing of
the otfice addition to Weady Lane and Tom Beach on Mazch 9, 2000.
Thus, Applican: is required by the City's Zoning Code and by the Lease (which is recorded
against the title to the Lot) to provide at Ieast 2'7S spaces in the ramp to be buitt_ Applicant's
proposal for 215 spaces is deficient by 64 parking spaces. The existing 296 parking space
shortfall mentioned in the first paragraph of Finding No. 2--rather than being lessened by this
project--is increased by 64 spaces so that the shortfall would become 360 spaces if this project were
built. The Zoning Code hardly contemplates that ldnd of result.
2. Finding No. 2 Regarding Peak Demand is iJncorroborated by Facts and is Fallacions. In
the last paragraph of Finding No. 2, the Planning Commission finds--based upon some report of
the Urban Land Institute--that the afternoon peak parking demand for retail so complements the
evening parking demand for restaurants that "a good share of the 102 parking spaces required for
the new retafl space may be available for restaurant customers during evening hours:' No faztual
evidence was adduced W corroborate t6is so-called "fact". What Applicant did advise the
Planning Commission was that two prospective tenants for the retail portion of the project have
given Applicant letters of intent. They are Pottery Barn and Bound to be Read.
To underscore how fallacious this peak demand finding is, I contacted Pottery Barn and asked
when its store at the Mall of America usually closed. I was told 9:30 P.M. every day of the week
except for Sunday when closing is at 7:30 P.M. I also called a number of bookstores around S�
Paul and was advised that the normat closivg was 9:3Q P.M. or 10:00 P.M.
3. Finding No. 4(a) Regarding the Retail and Parking Being Permitted Usesin B-2 Zoniag
District is Erroaeous. The parldng ramp portion of Applicant's proposed project is going to
be a profit center for Applicant. Customers parking in it will be charged parking fees. �1s such,
the ramp is a"commercial parking facility" within the meaning of Section 60216P of the Zoning
Code which defines the term as follows:
"An offstreet parking facility, nof accessory to any prsncipal use, for which a fee is charged
for the privilege of parldng." Italics supplied.
Thus, such a parking facility must be a principal--not an accessory--use in order to established in
a B-2 District. "Commercial pazking facitity" is not listed as one of the principai uses permitted in
Section 60.531 of the Zoning Code which specifies the permitted uses for B-2 Zoning Districts.
Moteover, because it is designed to be a public ramp serving not just the retail businesses to be
built on the Lot but also the other malls, it dces not even fit the definition of "accessory" as
contained in Section 60.201A which says, among other things, that it must be "located on the
same zoning lot as the principal use to which it is related:' The ramp would be an appropriate
principal use in a P-1 Zoning District.
4. Finding No. 4(b) Stating the Applicant's Proposat is Consistent with the East Graad
a
�
�
3y
r+ ' =
�
Avenue Small-Area Plsn is Erroneous. The Planning Cummission's finding that the new
parking afforded by Applicant's proposal provides "a significant net gain in spaces available for
businesses"—as called for in the East Grand Avenue Small-Area Plan (the "Plan") adopted in
1989—is palpably false. Using the best case for Applicanb-i.e., the Planning Commission s figure
in Flnding No. 2 that the net gain is 5 parlring spaces--cleazly a significant net gain has not been
demonstrated by the Applicant. In Fact, in Finding No. 4(b), this gain--in an interesting
concession by staff who drafted the Resolution--is referted to as a"modest net gain'. I£ one looks
at the proposal through the prism of reality, not even a"modest" net gain wi11 be produced.
Instead, the project will result in a significant net jg.�,� in parking, exacerbating the already
enormous pazking shortfall which exists at this intersection. None of the calculations, moreover,
takes into account that the new retail establishments wi11 have lots of employees who will park in
the ramp. _
The 'peak demand"--as pointed out above--and "stacked parking" findings in Finding 230. 4(b) are
spurious ones, failing to lend credence to the finding that the "significant net gain" threshold
requirement of the Plan has been met.
.
�
S. Finding No. 4(d) Determining No Substantial Effect oa Views and Light is Erroneous.
The establishment of this project wi13 substantially and unreasonably affect light and view for
the north side of Grand Avenue.
6. Finding No. 4(j) and Condition No. 3 Fail to Take into Account that Applicant Does Not
Own the "Church" Lot. Applicant dces not own the "church" lot. He has a telatively short
term lease on it.
7. Condition No. S Offers No Consolation to EMA and Is Arbitrary. The Zoning Code is
replete with objective standards for determining the parking requirements for zoning lots yet
Condition No. S allows for sub'ective determinations to be made by City staff which is an
unsettling prospect for EMA which has contractual rights that will be abridged if the City
arbitrarily approves the project in its current form and likewise if it arbitrarily apporrions
parking space minimums for the malis at the intersection of Victoria and Grand. EMA is very
concerned by this prospect because various incarnations and �liates of the Agplicant own West
Mall, South Mall and Milton Mall (one block away).
8_ Condition No. 9 Overlonks License Rights Concerning Bus Shelter. The bus shelter is the
subject of great neighborhood pride having been built under the auspices of the Summit Hill
Association by means oF two separate STAR grants totaling $35,000. It is an architectural gem.
This condition—Condition No. 9--implicitly calls for its destruction and the establishment of some
"vanilla" bus shelter of th_ same size. Applicant has an opinion from Bill Cosgriff af Briggs and
Morgan--a former partner of Mr. Stolpestad when he was an attorney at Doherty, Rumble &
Butler--which opines that the license is revocable by Applicant at will. That opinion is simply
not true. The license has very explicit circumstances under which Applicant can revoke the
license--none of which euists right now. This condition is arbitrary and capricious and an affront
to the neighborhood which is so proud of the bus shelter.
9. No Mention in Resolution of EMA's "'Grand Old Days' Rights" IInder the Lease. For the
term of the Lease, EIDfA has the annual exclusive right--on "Gtand Old Days" (i.e., the one day
per year "Grand Old Days" is conducted)--to devote all of the Lot to "...purposes consistent with
and as contemplated by Grand Old Days". EMA received this concession in teturn for giving up
other valuable rights under the original Lease. EMA will be deprived of this concession if
Applicant is aliowed to build its proposed project. Its recourse, oF course, is a�ainst Applicant for
6reach of covenanticontract.
For the reasons stated above, EMA respectfully requests the City Council to disapprove the Planning
Commission's Resolution or to approve it only if the project is so substantially modified as to significantly
^L-a
increase the parking capacity of the tamp. For Applicant to do so, it would have to scale down the retail �
component of its plan significantly or make the basement available for parldng, or Ewth.
Sincer y yours, i' y
, ��u ��C�G�
_�J Ja7�es S. L den
f
JSIJhs
cc: James J. Wengler
William T. Wengler
James A. Stolpestad
�
�
`��
c�o - 59 �
�
AFFIDAVIfi OF SER.VICE BY MAII.
�
STATE OF NNVNNNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF RAMSEY 3
JAMES S. LYNDEN, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that on
April 10, 200Q, he served the attached Appeal to the City Council of the City of
St. Paul upon James A. Stolpestad, General Manager of Exeter Holdings, LLC,
1080, by placing a true and correct copy thereof in an envelope addressed as
follows:
Mr. James A. Stolpestad
General Manager
Ezeter Hoidings, LLC.
1080 Montreal Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55116
and depositing the same, with postage pregaid, in the United States mails at
St. Paul,)YIinnesot�.
l_ � l�
s.
3`ubscribed and sworn to before me
t's lOth day of April, 2000.
.&�.v�-�
otary Public, , SY" '�County, MN
My Cpmmicsion Espires: 1/31/20(15
r - v ?� v^Lf1R.Q Itit. MCFARLANE
� _� t�otary auwic
� ���; 0.Ainnesota
Yi Comnussmnfzp"v�esJan 31 2W5
lJ
37
pPR-10-00 04:21 PM JRMES 5. LYNDEN. ESR. 1 632 224 2467 P-t'
Merchants of Victoria Crossing East Mall
To: lim Lyndcn
Re: Proposed Victoria Plaza
VVe as tenants of Victoria Crossing East Maii, urge you co appeal the decision of t}ie
Planning Commission with regard to the proposed parking ramp/retail complex,
Victoria Ptaza,
VVe do not think the proposed plan for Victoria wi1! sign�ficantly increase par[cing.
Considering the 100 or so employees of the new retail sgaces, the avai[ability of
parking wil! most likely be decreased.
Most importantly, we as tenanis have an interest itt the site of the Plaza with parking
included �s the major expense in our C. A. M. through otrr leases. It is the prime space
for our customer pazking. Furthermore, we as tenants have aot been informed of how
the new parking shortage will be remedied after camptetion or during constructivn.
Thank you for Iooking out for our 6est interests,
/�.�.�.�I��
Bill Wengler
Bil(y's on Grand
f��ifxt
Roxanne Suilivan
Tradewinds
�d �
Dav't� agner
)uut Salonspe
- _ ��
� �
J tillman
Books for Travet, Etc.
�
Mazie Farsell`
Hawaiien Tan
��,�;'. h��
Susen Nelson
Initielly Yonrs
�
�
�
��
OPFSCE OF LICENSE, INSPECIIONS AND c? o' S 9 a'
ENVIltONMENY'ALPROTECT70N -
Robert Kessler, Disecfor
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
No�m Coleman, Mayor
i
DATE: May 3, 2000
TO: City Council
FROM: Tom Beach, LIEP � •
BUILBR'G INSPECZYONAND
DESIGN
350 St Peter Street
Suite 300
SaintPaul, Minnesota 55702-I570
Telephane: 672-266-9090
Facsimik: 612-266-9099
RE: Staff response to issues raised in the appeals
The appeals state that the Planning Commission made errors in a number of areas, including whether the
site plan conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, pazking, tr�c, deliveries, the e�sting bus shelter, the
appearance of the building„ and contractual obligations on the property. This memo attempts to address
each of these azeas. Most of the information in this memo is an abbreviated version of what was
presented to the Planning Commission in the staff report.
�
COMPREHENSIVE PI.AN
The site plan is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, in particular the 1989 East Grand Avenue
Small-Area Plan:
Staff response: The site plan is consistent with the East Grand Avenue Plan as explained below. The
site plan is also consistent with the more recent 1999 Land Use Plan that says buildings in pedestrian-
oriented areas should be built out to the sidewalk with windows facing the sidewalk. The 1999 plan also
discoutages large parking lots (which is what there now) because they"erode the chazm of haditional
neighborhoods that were developed in the streetcar era". The plan says the City should support the
provision of "just enough commercial parking" in pedestrian-oriented areas and calls for "reducing
pazking requirements for new development, perhaps by 20 percenP' in these azeas.
The development does not provide a significant gain in parking as called for in the 1989 East Grand
Avenue Plan.
Staff response: There would be a significant gain in pazking. Although there will only be a modest
net gain in self-serve pazking spaces, it is also important to consider hours of peak demand for parking.
The peak parking demand for Grand and Victoria is in the evening, primazily because of the restaurants.
All of the new commercial space in the proposed development would be retail. According to the Urban
Land Institute the parking demand for retail tends to be highest in the afternoon, especially during the
weekend. This means that the afternoon peak packing demacid for retail complements the evening
pazking demand for the restaurants and suggests that a good share of the 102 pazking spaces required for
the new retail space would be available for restaurant customers during the evening hours.
The developer is also proposing valet pazking during peak hours. Valet pazking, if it can be properly
managed, would provide a tota] of 288 spaces for a net increase of over 80 spaces above what the zoning
code requires.
The East Grand Avenue Plan calls for the property to be reaoned to P-1 (Parking}. This zoning does not
� permit retail uses.
Staff response: The East Grand Avenue Small-Area Plan contains a section with "Development
Concepts" for the soutitwest comer of Grand and Vietoria. This calls for rezoning the property to P-1 for
a two-level pazking deck. However, in the 1990s the City tried to develop a deck on the site but wuld
not get the neazby properiy owners and businesses to agee on how to pay for it. After a decade of work
on it, it appears that a parking shvcture without retail to suppor[ it is not economically feasible and could
be built only if with a lazge City subsidy. (The attached March 16 memo from Larty Soderholm to the
Planning Coaunission goes into this issue in more detail.)
The design of the project, in particular the height, mass and facade materials, is no2 appropriate to
neighborhood..
Staff response: The height would be almost the same as the apartmeni buildings immediately to the
west. There aze also a number of other buildings t[us tall on Grand Avenue. .
The building would be have a lazger foot print and mass than other buildings in the azea and so the
building has been designed to look like three different buildings by using differenY materials, heights and
window treatments. The facade would use precast concrete (similaz to what was used on the Lawson
building) and brick_
Saint Paul's Downtown Design Center was asked to review tha project and said that it "is a very good
example of a mixed-use bccilding combining pazking and commercial uses. When parking ramps are
proposed in Saint Paul [the Design Center] would not hesitate to use this project as a model of good
desigtt."
PARKING AND DEI.IVERIES
The appeals raise questions aboat whether the pazking for the project complies with specific zoning
regulations:
The parking should be based on all ihe floor area on the first floor - both the retail area and the shared
space.
Staffresponse: Secrion 62.102(c) states that for multi-tenant buildings "any shared space, such as an
atrium, common area, utility azea, vnfmished basement, public or shared restrooms, staircase or elevator
area shal( be considered, for purposes of determining pazking requirements, the sazne as storage areas:'
Staff is treating the shazed space on the first floor as storage which requires I pazking space per 5,0000
square feet.
The parking standards for general retail should be used irrstead of the requirements for mulli-use retail
center.
Staff response: This project meets the defmition of "multi-use retail" which is "a single, unified
development on one (1) zoning lot which provides commercial space to a variety of retail uses and has at
[east twenty thousand (20,000} squaze feet of gross leaseable area". The defmition does not require
common atriums etc. and staff has in the past applied this deFmition to "strip malls" and other reTail
developments that do not have common atriums.
The lhree parking spaces in the alley crmnot be counted because they are not screened or would block
irucks using the loading dock.
Staff response: The zoning code requirement for screening is not applicable here since it is for
"puking facilities" which are defined as more than threes spaces. The parking spaces are located so that
they will not interfere with tra�c in the alley or trucks using the loading dock.
�
�
-
O�-5�i �
• other existing businesses at Grand and Vietoria. Accessory parking is permitted by the zoning code. The
fact that the ramp will charge for parking dces not affect this. There is an existing ramp in Highland
Village that charges for pazking and the ezcisting lot at this locaUOn already chazges for pazking.
TRA�'FIC
The increased traffic that wi11 be generated by this development is unacceptable.
Staff response: Saint Paul Public Works Traf�ic Engineering Secrion reviewed the site plan and
determined that the level of traffic is acceptable but required that pazking spaces on Victoria neaz the
intersection be removed to facilitate turning cars.
A private consultant hired by the developer did a traffic study and calculated that the impact of the traffic
from Victoria Plaza would be "minimal, with post-development conditions expected to be sirnilaz to
existing conditions". (A copy of the report is attached.)
BUSSHELTER
The existing bus shelter on the property was built with private and publicjunds and the developer
cannot remove the shetter.
Staff response: The Planning Commission's approva] is subject to the condition that a new shelter of
comparabie size be constructed on the site at a locarion acceptable to the City and the develoger. Staff
and the developer have talked about a location and agree that the shelter should go neaz the intersection.
However, the ezcact location and design have not determined yet. The applicant is also looking for a new
� location elsewhere no Grand Avenue for the e�sting bus shelter.°;
ALLEY VACATION
There is a right af way for a public altey that runs through the properry. The proposed development
encroaches over that alley and so it cannot be constructed until the aZley has been vacated.
Staff response: The right of way must be vacated before the development can be built. However, the
City Council has scheduled the a(ley vacation for the same meeting as the site plan review. So if the site
plan is considered first and the City Council were to deny the appeal, a condition could be added making
it explicit that the alley must be vacated.
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
The site is subject to a private contractual agreements, including providing additional parking for arry
contemplated expansions of the Victoria East and providing space for activities on Grand Old Days.
Staff response: The City Attorney's office has advised that these matters are private contractual
agreements and aze therefore not a matter for appeal to the City Council.
G\COMMOtJ�Site Pian\00118357ganvic\appealstresponse
�
Loss of on-street parking is not faciored in parking calculations. �
Staff response: Three pazking spaces will be lost on the east side of Victoria to meet requirements from
Public R'orks to accommodate increased traffic. This was discussed at the public hearing. Aowever,
parking reqnirements in the zoning code aze only based on off-street pazking: projects do not get credit
for on-street pazking and aze not penatized if it is removed.
The m�mber of spaces in the existing lot that must be replaced should be counted as 145 spaces cmd not
106.
Staff response: There aze currently 106 pazking spaces in the Iot. All of these spaces aze "self-pazk"
spaces and do not require a valet pazking system. The PIanning Commission compazed this to the
number of self-pazk space proposed in the new development.
There were 145 pazking spaces in the lot a few years ago but this was based on a system of stacked
spaces that used valet pazking. In comparison, the site plan under review couId provide approximately
180 parking spaces beyond what is needed for the proposed new retail space if valet pazking is used.
Exit ramp is closer to adjacent residential property than is permitted by the zoning code.
Staff response: The zoning code requires that the entrances and exits must be at least 25' from
adjoining residential property and the site plan shows the ezcit is 25'-7" from the nearest residential
property. (This section dces not technically apply in this case because it deals with "adjoining" proper[y
which is defined as having a common properry line. In this case the affected property is across the a$ey
and is not considered adjoining by the defmitions in the zoning codeJ
Londing docks are not permitted in an alley across from residential. •
Staff response: Limits have been placed on the loading azea to minimize its impact on the neighbors
across the ailey. The size of the loading azea was increased to accommodate bigger trucks and hours for
the dock aze restricted to between SAM and SPM.. (Again this section does not techreically apply
because it deals with "adjoining" property which is defined as having a common property line rather than
across an alley.)
The parking facility is not adequately screened.
Staff response: The parking spaces wi11 be iuside the building and will be screened by Yhe walls of the
bnilding. The zoning code does not require that building be screened.
Parking spaces in the ramp have been promisedfor the adjacent apmtment building
Staff response: The developer states that he has discussed the project with the owner of the adjacent
apaztment but has not entered into any agreements to allow tenants to park there. The developer told
staff that he will not provide any parking for the apartment if this does not meet zoning requirements and
that if he is permitted to provide pazking, the hours would be limited to when neazby businesses aze
closed.
Assumptions about peak hours for retail and restaurant uses are in error.
Staff response: The assutnptions on peak hours aze based on figures from the Urban Land Institute.
They use these numbers in a computer progam that models pazking demand for developments with
mixed uses. The figures show that restaurants have peak hours for pazking demand in the evening and
retail fias peak hours in the aftemoon, especially on weekends.
Use as a public ramp is not permizted �
Staff response: The pazking wil] be accessory to the businesses in the new development and to the
DEP�RT�fE\TOFPLY��i�G ^n��CQ�
RECO�O}[ICDEVELOP\f�\T C,JV TQ
Br:an Sueeney, Dvutor
�
�
CITY OF SAINf PAUL
h'onn Col�man, Afacor
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
March 16, 2000
Planning Commission
?StlestFourthStreet Tetephone:651-266-b6i:
$aint?auI,.NN55J02 Facstmde:651-2?3-33t�
Larry Soderholm I L�
V✓
Victoria Piazn Site Plan: The "P-1" Zoning Issue and Comprehensive Plan
Consistency
At the Planning Commission's public hearin� on March 10, 2000, we heard testimony that the
East Grand Avenue Small Area Plan, in the final version approved by the City Council, contains a
phrase referrin� to the subject property in a summary tabie that says "rezone to P-1 for parking
deck." This statement �vas also mentioned in the Tom Beach's staff regort. Opponents of the
Victoria Plaza development claimed at the hearin� that, based on a subsequent change in state
la�v, the City should regulate the Victoria Plaza site as P-1 even though our zonin� maps have
long shown it as B-2. This memo gives the City staff's understandin� of the questions and the
stafPs responses re�ardin� the P-1 zoning issue in this case.
First. ho�v did the East Grand Avenue Plan come to ha� e the P-1 comment reiatino to this
�'ictoria CrossinQ parkina tot?
Some people testified that the P-1 comment shoutd control development on the site. Other
peopie, including the co-chair of the East Grand Avenue Plan Task Force, testified that they never
heard of the P-1 zoning proposal.
The chronology of the East Grand Avenue Smali Area Plan is as follo�vs
1938-1939 Last Grand Avenue Plan Task Force--with representatives from the Grand
Avenue Business Association (GAB.A) and the Summit Hill Association
{SHA) and co-chairs David Lanegran and Anne Geisser from the Planning
Commission--worked to�ether and developed a plan based on consensus.
June `89 "A P1an for East Grand Avenue" was approved by the East Grand Avenue
Task Force. It is I 1 pages of text plus 12 pa�es of maps and dra�vings.
R: Sh�mJSODLRIiOLVi'i:mriapiauand P-l.mem
"1 �
The plan includes drawings ofa tcvo level parking deck at the southwest �
comer of Graad and Victoria (as proposed, apparently, by owner Howard
Bergerud) but makes no reference to P-1 zoning for ihat parcel.
July `89 A draft summary of the plan was done by PED planner Tom Harvey under
the supervision of Pe�gy Reichert, «�ho was the PED Deputy Director for
Planning, and me. The summary had four pages of text and "Table I: East
Grand Avenue Development Concep[s." The tabie shotivs that two sites
should be redeveloped, the subject property and three pazcels on the north
sic3e of Grand between Grotto and Avon. In Tabte I, the development
concept for the southwest corner of Grand and Victoria is to `rezone to P-
t for parking deck," "desi�n 2-level ramp to provide �isual infill at corner,"
and "double existin� parkin� at site for shared use by mails."
The EasY Grand Avenue Plan was the prototype for the many smalI area
plans done by PED and the Plannin� Commission durin� the 1990s. We
wanted to adopt amendments to the Land Use Plan that tivere short and
sweet with ciear action recommendations.
The Planning Commission set a pubIic hearin� date on ihe drafr for
September.
September `89 Planning Commission held its public hearin� on the East Grand Avenue
Plan Summary.
Late Sept. `89 Based on public hearing comments, Tom Harvey recammended that
Recommendation 11 in the plan summary, which is zbout Victoria Crossing
parkin�, be changed is two ways: {a) strike the referznce to a`two tevel"
deck, since more than two leve]s miaht be considered sometime in the
future (ho�vever, this change �vas not made in Tabl; 1). and (b) add the
four criteria for a parkin� ramp, which �vere coataiaed in the longer version
of the East Grand Avanue Plan.
October `89
December `89
Planning Commission approved the plan summary �.ith Tom Harvey's
reco�nmended chan�es.
City Council held a pubiic hearing and approved th: plan summary as part
of the Comprehensive Plan.
1990 to 1944 PED files shoiv tivork on several attempts to desi�n znd finance parkin�
ramps for Victoria Crossin� One Ietter summarizine a meetinv with the
SH.A Zoning and Land Use Cte. in 1990 says, `Thz committee likes the
idea of incorporatin� retail on the street level as it ze;.heticalh� enhances
�J
F::�ShucJISODERFIOL�C�,:ariap(�taandP.L ? �
� J
tao- 5��
. the project." Drawin�s sho�r a smali amount of retail, 5,000 square feet.
Staffwork ceased in 1994 after the property �vas acquired by Kurt
Woodhouse.
Second wh�t w1s the chan�e in st�te 1aw and horr• does it relate to the pronosed
deveiopment?
Prior to 1995, the Municipal Plannin� Act said, "If the comprehensive municipal plan is in
conflict with the zonin� ordinance, the zoning ordinance supersedes the plan." (462.357,
Subd_ 2) This was ihe law in effect at the time the East Grand Avenue Plan was written.
Recommendations in the plan on zonin� were advisory and were intended as such. They
were not intended to have the force o£law, �vhich the Zonin� Code has.
2. In 1995 the state le�islature substantially revised this provision and added language to the
Metropolitan Land Plannin� Act to Qrovide that municipalities submit new comprehensive
plans to the Metropolitan Council, that zonin� shall be brou;ht into conformance with the
comprehensive plan by the municipality, and that old plans and zoning shall remain in
effect until they are amended or superseded. (473.8�5 subd. 1 and 4) Since I am not an
attorney, I �vill not try to unravel the current 1a4v in any more detail.
3 The City has made no chan�es in zonin� ehpressly for the purpose of makins the cuttent
� zonin� maps to zoning recommendations contained in plans done before 199�. PED has
operated on the premise that we would finish the ne�i� citywide Land Use Plan (finally
approved by the Metropolitan Council in February• `00) and then be;in a series of zonin�
studies to make our zoning consistent �vith the ne�� plan. �
Third shouid the City now trent the propertv as being zoned P-i or B-2.'
The P-1 Vehicular Parkin� zone is for parkinQ onl}�, no retai] is permitted. In the B-2
Community Business zone, parking is permitted as accessory to nei�=hborhood businesses.
2 There was no reasonable way for the property to be rezoned to P-1 in 1939 and there still
is no reasonable way. To rezone property� in cities of the first class (�Iinneapolis, Saint
Paul, Duluth), state la�v requires that either the applicant for the rezonin� submits a
consent petition signed by t�vo-thirds of the property owners within 100 feet of the
propeny to be rezoned or the City initiates a 40-acre zonine study, ��here so much land is
rezoned that it would be impractical to require consent petitions. To rezone by petition
the Saint Paul Zonin� Code requires that a rezonin� petition be initiated by 67 percent of
the owners of the property to be rezoned. The o���ners of the propem have not wanted
to chan�e the zoning from B-2 to P-1, at least not in the absence of a f rm plan to build a
parkin� ramp. The East Grand Avenue Plan did not include a 40-acre zoning study; not
enou�h rezonings were proposed to make consent petitions impractical.
� S:� Sliarod SOULRF[OL\Ciaonaplsxsand P-Lmem
��
3. I[ is very doubtful that the East Grand Avenue Plan intended to do��nzone the property in
the absence of a feasible ramp proposal. l�tembers of the task force that developed the
ptan, includin� both Planning Commission co-chairs David Laneeran and Anne Geisser, do
not remember the P-I comment in the table; they da remember discussions about ramp
aiternatives �vith retail frontages, which would not be atlowed in P-I. The P-I rezonin� is
not contained in the actual recommendation about parkin� for Victoria Crossin� but is
found only in The table on development concepts. Tom Harvey, six months later, worked
on a ramp proposal that included retail frontage. How shoutd Table I be interpreted?
Tfie opinion of City staffis that the ptan intended that rezonin; to P-1 would be part of a
development package if a ramp without any retail space proved to be feasible. .
4. Mr. Stoipestad coul@ not reasonabiy have known that he was buying property with P-1
zonin� restrictions. No current City staffworking in plannin� and zonin� remembered [he
P-1 commeat in the table. (�Ve �vere familiar with the plan and shoned Mr. Stolpestad
Recommendation 1 t.) No zonin� application or process has ever been considered to
chan�e the zoning map for the parcel. The leaders of the task force ihat �vrote the plan
�vere not aivaze of the P-1 comment. No map contained in the plan or the Zonin� Code or
elsewhere in City fcles shows P-1 zonin� on the parcel. This is not a case �vhere the City
clearly designated a pianned land use that is inconsistent with Yhe zoning and where people
commonly knew that the zonin� needed to be chan�ed. The planned iand use is
commercial parkin� and it is, in fact, permitted by the current B-2 zoning.
Fourth. is the ro osed Victoria Plaza develo ment consistent with the Com rehensive
Plan?
The City staff believe that the desi�n of Yhe development is consistent with the 1999 Land
Use Plan recommendations about pedestrian-oriented commercial areas and �vith
Recommendations 24 and 2� in the East Grand Aeenue Plan, which relate to buildin�
details and landscaping_
2. The Cit}' staffalso believe that the proposal is consistent with Recommendation ll in the
East Grand Avenue Plan, though we realize that the frndin�s about a significant net
increase in parkin,; and the appropriateness of the desi�n are debatable. In particular, we
�vish the development could be smaller and less massive as a structure. But �ve are
persuaded that the parkin� ramp cannot be buiit without the ne�v retail space.
�. The City staff believe that the P-1 comment in Tabie 1 of the East Grand Avenue Plan is
primarily illustrative of the "development concept" at the time. The City devoted a
significant amount of ener�y to tryin� to implement the parkin� deck o��er at least four
}�ears, and it was never feasible. Since the comment in Table 1 is not part of the actual
recommendation for parking a[ Victoria Crossing in the body of ihe p1an, a e do not
beliere it should be treated as the guiding City policy for The propem.
F::S6arcct�SODLl2ISOL�'ictortxplxzvm.tP-i.mcm 4
��
�
�
.
� From: Tom Beach
To: Soderhoim, Larry
Suhject: Re_ GABAs Vctoria Plaza Questions
�
.
Thanks for taking care of this. {Your numbers agree with mine.)
»> Larry Soderholm OSl01l00 05:02PM »>
Scott is responding to a letter firom GABA which asks three questions. Here are my (short) answers:
1. What number of parking spaces are legalty required?
210 spaces. The 210 spaces is based on replacing the exis6ng 106 vehicular spaces plus a 2-space
credit for the existing bike rack and then adding 102 new spaces for the new retaii floor area in the
proposed bui4ding. The Victoria Plaza proposal has 215 self-park spaces, inGuding a 2-space credit for
bike racks, pius 73 valet parking spaces that will be used during peak business hours. However 3
on-street spaces will be removed. Accounting for all of these changes, the net parking increase will be 75
spaces (during peak hours).
(Tom Beach can correct me if I've miscalculated anything. If I have, it would not involve any significant
change. The big point is: - With valet parking during peak business hours—reaily the restaurant
peaks—there is a significant increase in parking even thaugh the City won't accept the valet parking as
required parking.
- Without the valet parking, the development slightly exceeds the parking requirements for replacing the
existing lot and providing for the new stores.
2. Which takes precedence--the B-2 on the zoning map or the P-1 in the appendix of the E. Grand
Ave. Small Area Plan?
It is the opinion of the pianning staff and the Pianning Commission, after discussion with the City
Attorney's O�ce, that the zoning is B-2 and B-2 takes precedence. The P-1 is found in a chart of
"devefopment concepts" in the appendix of the plan. The body of the plan has an explicit recommendation
for the site: to explore the feasibility of a parking deck, with no mention of changing the zoning. The City
activety explored parking deck alternatives over the next four or five years. Some of them included some
retail space, whcih would not be permitted in P-1. There was (and stiii is) some neighborhood support for
a more limited amount of retail frontage than is currentiy proposed. But this wouid not be allowed in a P-1
zone. The explorations stopped when Kurt Woodhouse bought the lot and rebuiit it around 1995, Neither
co-chair of the small area planning task force remembers any community discussion of rezoning to P-1.
No rezoning process was ever initiated. It appears that the P-1 would have taken piace through a petition
by the properly owner at such time as a feasible ramp aiternative was undertaken.
A four-page memo I wrote to the Planning Commission on this subject is attached.
3. What is the City's positio� on the existing bus shelter, which was built with STAR funds and
contributions from GABA and the Summit Hiit Association?
The Pianning Commission action requires the developer to provide a bus shelter on the site that is
consistent in size with the current shelter and that is located in a place that is acceptable to the develper
and to the City. In addition, the developer has offered to move the existing shelter to some other location
that is recommended by the community.
Ky
April 25, 2000
�,.�YT �AUL �,Q�.� Council President Dan Bostrom
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Saint Paul City Council
15 West Kellogg Boulevazd
3I0 F City Hall
Picst Nacional Bank Building, N-205
332 V[innesoca S[rett
Saia� Paul, hfinnesoca 5�101
Phane: 651223.5000
Fae: 65 L223J I [9
.�z.z.aaintpaulchambescom
Dear Council President BosYrom,
�
The Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce and its nearly 1,700 member
businesses and professional associadons requests that the Saint Paui City Councii
deny the appeal of Neighbors Against Victoria Plaza, Inc. as it relates to their
oppositivn to development on the southwest comer of Grand Avenue and Victoria
Street.
The developer has accepted specific Planning Commission recommendations for
adequate screening of parking, and limitations on times that restdct delivery
acrivity. Furthermore, the developer has agrced to incorporate into the design of
the building, at their own cost, the communities' bus shelter.
For the foilowing reasons, ihe Chamber supports the recommendations of city
staff, the developer and the Plaztning Commission:
» The $9 miIlion doltar project is privately financed.
» The project will add nearly $175,000 to the city's taac base. �
» The property is zoned B-2, permitting a pazking / retail facility.
» The proposed development satisfies aII legal requirements of the city.
When the Public Hearing in May 10 concludes, we request that you allow Exeter
Realty Company to move forward with their development plans without fiu�ther
delay. Please feel free to call me at 651.265.2771 if you have any questions.
�13I11C }'011�
Director of Public Affairs
Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce
Cc: Mayor Norm CoIeman
Saint Paul City Council
Saint Paul Planning Commission
James Stotpestad, Exeter Realty
Bev Erickson, Grand Avenue Business Association
YOUR
BUSINESS
�
L ,
ADVOCATE 1� �
ao- 5��
�
u
�
city of saint paul
ptanning commission resolution
fife number o0-25
date March 24 z000
W HEREAS, EXETER HOLDINGS LLC, file # 99-00118151, has applied for a Site Plan
Review under the provisions of Section of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, for the purpose of
constructing a commercial development and pazkina facility at 860 Grand Avenue, legally
described as SEE FII.E; and
WI-�REAS, the Planning Commission on 3/10/00, held a public hearing at which all persons
present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the
requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented at the pubiic
hearin� on 3/10/00 as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the followin� findings of fact:
l. Traffic Concerns have been raised about traffic con�estion a[ Grand Avenue and
Victoria and the impact of additional development.
The developer hired the Parsons Transportation Groug to do a traffic study. They used
traffic counts that had previously been done by Public Works and conducted their own
counts of tuming movements at the intersection of Grand and Victoria during a weekday
PM rush hour and on a Saturday. Their study concluded [haC
- "The impact of the traffic from Victoria Plaza will be minimal, with post-
development conditions expected to be similaz to existing conditions."
— "The proposed access to the new parking ramp would be further away from the
interseciion of Grand Avenue and Victoria Street and further inside the site, which
would minimize [he spill back queues onto Victoria Street and would reduce the
potential for queues to spillback into the intersection at Grand Avenue."
— "The Saturday peak-hour counts are essentially equivalent to the weekday PM
peak-hour counts...."
moved by Faricy
seconded by ��=dan
in favor
against.
Unanimous voice vote with one abstention
so
Zoning File # 99-00118151
Pa�e Two of Resolution
— "While the proposed project would add traffic to the street system in the vicinity
of the site, the amount added wouid not be sufficient to impact traffic operations.
Intersection operations are shown to be good (L.evei of Service B) and to remain at
L.evel of Service B with the added traffic."
Staff from Saint Paul Public Works Traffic Engineerin� Section reviewed the site pian:
- They said that the anticipated increase in auto traffic can be handled if three
pazking spaces aze removed on the east side of Victoria to provide more room for
turnina movements.
- They have concems that the location of the stairs on tfie Victoria side of the ramp
could encourage pedestrians to cross Victoria in the middle of the block instead of
crossing at the crosswaIk. They would like to see the stairs from the ramp on
Victoria moved closer to the intersection to discourage people from crossing at
mid-block or have a barrier such as a fence or bollard and chain installed along the
west side of Victoria to discoura;e pedestrians from crossia� at mid-block.
�
Staff also recommends that a"Ramp Fuli" sia should insta�led at the intersection of
Grand and Victoria so that drivers could find out if the ramp was full before they drove �
down Victoria. This si�n migh[ also provide information on other garkin� lots in the
azea.
Parking Grand Avenae has a parkin� shortfall that has been well documented. City
staff did a pazking survey this year and determined there is currently a parking shortfall of
296 off-street parking spaces on Grand between Milton and Avon (one block either
direcdon from Victoria). The zoning code would require 798 parkin� spaces for the uses
in this area if they were new uses and there 502 off-street parkin� spaces available for a
shortfall of 37%. (There are also 111 on-street parkin� spaces availabie. If these are
coanted, the deficit becomes 185 parking spaces for a shortfall of 1490.)
The property is cunently ased as a parkin� lot wiih 106 spaces that serves the neazby
Grand Avenue businesses.
The parking standards found in Section 62.103 of the Zonin� Code require the project to
provide at least 210 off-street parkina spaces. This is based on lOS spaces to replace the
spaces and the bicycle rack in the existin� lot plus 102 pazking spaces required for the
proposed new retail space.
The plan provides 213 parking spaces self-park spaces and would set credit for 2 more
spaces for providing bicycle racks (per Section 62.103 j) for a total of 215 parking �
spaces. This would exceed the zoning code requirement for parking by 5 parking spaces.
S(
Oo- 59�
• Zoning File � 99-00118151
Pa�e Three of Resolution
Public Works has recommended that 3 existing on-street pazking spaces be removed on
the east side of Victoria to accommodate the anticipated increase in uaffic. (On-street
spaces are not included in zoning calculations for determining parking.)
The applicant is proposing to use valet parking during peak hours. Given the history of
valet parkin� when it was tried her before on the surface lot, staff told the applicant they
cannot count valet spaces toward meeting the minimum parking requirement. However,
valet parking, if it could be properly managed would provide a total of 288 spaces for a
net increase of 80 spaces compazed to the existin� lot.
An important consideration in looking at the parking situation is hours of peak demand.
The peak parking demand for Grand and Victoria appeazs to be in the evening primarily
because of the restaurants. All of the new commercial space in the proposed development
would be for retail. According to the Urban Land Institute the parkinL demand for retail
tends to be highest in the aftemoon, especially during the weehend. This means that the
afternoon peak parking demand for retail complements the evening parking demand for
the restaurants and that a good share of the 102 pazkin� spaces required for the new retail
space may be available for restaurant customers during the evenin� hours.
• 3. Urban design Concerns have been raised about how the building would fit with the
exisiing architectural character of Grand Avenue, especially its height and mass.
The buildin� would be 35 feet tall (measured to the top of the parapet). This is taller than
the other commercial buildings on the corner but almost the same hei�ht as [he adjacent
apartment buildin�s. (For another comparison with another new building, the Mississippi
Market a[ Dale and Selby is 32 fee[ tall to the top of the parapet and 42 feet tall to the top
of the tower at the corner of the buildin�.)
The buildino would be have a larger foot print and mass than other buiidings in the area.
In response, the building has been desi�ned to look like three different buildings by usin�
different materials, heights and window treatments.
Openin�s must be provided for the pazkin� ramp to meet buildina code requirements for
air circulation. The openin�s facing Grand and Vic[oria have been kept to a minimum
and desia ed to look like windows.
Lishtin� fixtures will not be visible from nearby proper[ies and have been desiD ed to
minimize any spill-over li�ht or glare. The top level of the ramp will be lit primarily by
li�hts located in the middle of the parkin� area that are mounted 12 feet above the
• surface of the parkin� (compared to 25 to 30 feet for most pazkin� lots). They will be
supplemented by li�hts mounted on the inside of the parapet and aimed into the center of
the ramp.
SL
Zonin� File # 99-00118151
Pa�e Four of Resolution
The developer asked the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Design Center to comment on
plans for the building. The Desia Center did not address the issue of whether this was
an appropriate land use but they provided su�gestions on how to improve the design of
the building. The cusent plans reflec[ a number of these suagestions. The Desia Center
wrote that the desia "is a very good example of mixed-use buildin� combining parkin�
and commercial uses and when parking ramps are proposed in Saint Paul I would not
hesitate to use this project as a model of good desib "(See attached memo.) .
Given the requirements to provide parking, a smaller building is not possible without
undera ound pazking which is not economically feasible without a large City subsidy
which does not seem likely. That leaves only two alternatives for the site: a development
like the cusent proposal or the existing surface pazking lot. A well desia ed building is
preferable to a pazking lot at an urban, pedestrian-oriented corner like this.
4. Required findings Section 62.108(c) of the Zoning Code says that in "order to approve
the site plan, [he plannin; commission shall consider and find [hat the site plan is consistent
with" the foilowin�:
(a) Applicable ordirzances of the City of Saint Pat�l.
The site pian is consistent with this findin�:
- The proposed use as retail and accessory parkin� are permitted uses in the B-2
zoning district.
- The building meets the height limits for buildin�s in the B-2 zoning district.
- The project meets the pazkin� requirements.
- The zonin� code requires that cars in parking facilities be screened from view.
The current desi�n for the ramp meets these requirements on three sides but the
west side of the ramp must be redesisned to provide additional screening on the
second levei. y
(b) The ciry�'s adopted comprehensive plan and developmerzt or project plans for sa�b-areas of
the cih.
The plan is consistent with the 1999 Land Use Plan. This plan says:
— Designs for new projects in pedestrian-oriented areas should include buildings out
to the sidewalk, pazking that is not in front of the buildin� and screened, human
scale li�htin�, windows facin� the sidewalk and archi[ecture that respects the
nei�hborhood context. (Pa�e 27)
— Lar;e parkin� lots erode the charm of traditional neighborhoods that were
developed in the streetcar ear.
— In pedestrian-oriented neighborhood commercial centers, the City will support the
provision of just enou�h commercial parking.
�
•
�
53
cx�-5��
• Zoning File # 99-00118151
Paae Five of Resolution
— At existin� urban villa�e (neighborhood) centers ... reduce parkin� requirements
for new development, perhaps by 20 percen[.
The pian is consistent with the East Grand Avenue Small-Area Plan and its
recommendations for this site. On page 3 the plan says that "a ramp should be approved
[on this site] only if it meets four criteria":
— Its desio is appropriate to the neighborhood.
The design of the building addresses concems about its height and mass. The
building with retail space at sueet level is more appropriate than the existing
surface parking lot or a smaller deck with no retail space alon� the street fronta�e.
— New parking provides a sia ificant net gain in spaces available for businesses.
Although there will only be a modest net gain in self-serve pazking spaces, it is
also important to consider hours of peak demand for parking. The peak parking
demand for Grand and Victoria appears to be in the evening primarily because of
the restaurants. All of the new commercial space in the proposed development
wouid be for retail. Accordin� to the L3rban Land Institute the parking demand for
retail tends to be hi�hest in the afternoon, especiaily during the weekend. This
• means that ihe aftemoon peak parkin� demand for retail complements the evenine
parking demand for [he restaurants and that a good share of the 102 parking y
spaces required for the new retail space may be available for restaurant customers
during the evening hours.
The developer is also proposin� valet parking during peak hours. Given the
history of valet parking when it was tried here before on the surface lot, staff told
the applicant it cannot count valet spaces towazd meetin� the minimum pazking
requirement. However, valet pazking, if it can be propetly mana�ed, would
provide a total of 288 spaces for a net increase of 80 spaces above what the zonin�
code requires.
— Traffic will not exceed locai capacity.
Analysis by Saint Paul Public Works and the private traffic consultan[ indicates
that traffic will not exceed local capacity.
— Future spin-off development at Victoria Crossin� will be controlled.
Additionai sgin-off develogment would not be possible under the zoning code.
The East Grand Avenue Small-Area Plan contains another section with "Development
Concepts" for the southwest comer of Grand and Victoria. This section intended that thas
• groperty should be rezoned from B-2 to P-1 as part of the 1989 development concept for
a parkin� deck but did not intend that [he parcel should be rezoned to P-1 if the
development concept for the deck proved infeasible. Since the adoption of this section,
Sy
Zoning File # 99-00118151
Page Six of Resolution
the City uied to develop a deck on the site but could not get the neazby property owners
and businesses to aoree on how to pay for it. After a decade of work on it, it appeazs that
a parkin� structure without retail to support it is not feasible and could be built only if
with a large City subsidy.
(c) Preservation of unic�ue geologic, geographic or historically signiftcant characteristics of
the city and environmentally sensitive areas. �
The plan is consistent with the character of Grand Avenue. The height of the building is
comparable to the adjacent apartment buildings to the west. The design uses a variety of
materials and window treatments to break up the mass of the building and make it look
like three buildinos.
(d) Protecrion of adjacent and neighboring propenies througlt reasonable provision for such
matters as stcrface tie�ater drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light
and air, and those aspects of design which may have substantial effects on neighboring
land uses.
�J
The site plan will improve storm water draina�e. The size of the building is consistent •
with the apartment buildings on the block and will not unreasonably interfere with views,
li�ht and air. The site plan is consistent with this finding if additional sound and sight
buffers are added to the second level of the buildin� on the west side.
(e) TF:e arrangement of buildings, i�ses and facilities af the praposed development in order to
assz�re abutting property and/or its occupants will not be unreasonably affected.
The site plan is consistent with this findin�. The loading dock is Iocated at the back of
the buildins on the alley. The loading area has been modified so that it will be able to
accommodate trucks up to at least 3� feet lon� so that they do not interfere with the alley.
Res[rictions must be put in the tenants' leases sayin� that trucks lazger than this will not
be permi[ted except to initially stock stores when tenants first move in.
(fl Creation of energy-conserving design through (andscaping and location, orientation and
elevatio�t of stn�ctures.
The site plan is consistent with this Finding.
(a) Safetv and convenience of both vehiczclar and pedestrian traffic both within the sire and
in relatiai to access streets, induding traffic circulation features, the locations and
design of enrrances and exits and parking areas within the site.
The site plan is consistent with tfiis finding. Based on the anaiysis of the project by the S
3S
Qo-55�
�
�
Zonin� File N 99-001181�1
Pa�e Seven of Resolution
private traffic consultant and Saint Paul Public Works:
- The intersection can handle the increased level of traffic. However, 3 parking
spaces on the east side of Victoria shouid be removed to provide addidonal room
for cazs tuming onto Grand.
- The ramp will sio ificantly increase queuina space for cars waitin' to enter the
ramp. In addition, a"Ramp Full" sia should be installed by the applicant at the
intersecaon of Grand and Victoria so that drivers can find out if the ramp is full
before they drove down Victoria.
- Visibility for drivers exiting the ramp onto Victoria was raised as a concern but
this can be addressed with some minor modifications to open up the southwest
corner of the building.
- The location of the stairs for the parking ramp could encourage people to walk
across Victoria at mid-block. However, this can be addressed by moving the
stairs cioser to the intersection or providing a barrier such a fence or bollard and
chain along the west side of Victoria to discourage pedestrians from crossing at
mid-block.
(h) The satisfactory availability and capaciry of storm and sanitary sewers, including
solutions to any drainage prob[ems in the area of the development.
The site plan is consis[ent with this finding. Storm water that falls on the top parking
level will be sent directly to the storm sewer in Victoria. This is an improvement over the
existing surface parkin� lot that drains to the alley.
(i) S«fficie�:t landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above objectives.
The site plan is consistent with this finding if additionai screening and landscaping are
provided on the west and south side of the buildin�.
All of the traffic entering and ]eaving the ramp would use the drive lane on the second
level of the ramp. But the plan shows that the west side of the ramp would be open and
this would not provide adequate screening for liaht and noise for the apartment building
immediately to the west. The top of the parapet on the west and south sides of the ramp
on the third level is 3' 8" above the surface of the parkin� deck. The height must be
increased to 4'6" to meet zonin� standards for screeninJ parking facilities.
S
�ew boulevard trees with grates and sidewalk paving is proposed on the Grand and
�"ictoria sides. The landscape plan is not detailed about what would be planted on the
�� est or south side of [he building. The site plan should be revised to show a combination
of vines and columnar trees planted on the west of the building and vines planted to the
south of the building in a raised/protected planting area alon� the alley to soften the visual
impact of the building on the adjacent apartments and houses.
SL
Zonina File # 99-00118151
Page Eight of Resolution
(j) Site accessibility in accordance with tlze provisions of the Americans with Disabiliries
Act (ADA), including parking spaces, passenger loading Zones and accessible routes.
The site plan is consistent with this finding if one additional van accessible parking
space is provided at the "church" lot north of Victoria Crossing West.
(k) Provision for erosion and sediment control as specified in the "Ramsey Erosion
Sediment and Controt Handbook. "
The site plan is consistent with this finding.
NOW, THEREFORE> BE TI' RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Piannina Commission, that under
the authority of the City's LeD slative Code, the site plan be approved to permit construction of a
commercial development and parking facility at 860 Grand Avenue, subject to the followino
conditions:
1. The following chan�es must be made to site plan [o improve traffic safety:
— Saint Paul Public Works must remove on-street pazkino on Victoria for a distance of 60
feet south of Grand Avenue to improve traffic circulation and provide more room for
tumin� movements
— The site plan must be modified to discoura;e people crossing at mid-block on Victoria.
The stairs from the ramp on Victoria must be moved closer to the intersection to
discouraoe people from crossing at mid-block or a barrier such a fence, railinD or bollard
and chain must be installed along the west side of Victoria.
— A siQn telling drivers when the ramp is full must be installed at the comer of Grand and
Victoria.
— The exit from the ramp must be modified to improve visibility for drivers leavin� the
ramp.
2. The deveioper must use vaiet parking to increase the number of parkin� spaces available
durin� peak demand hours.
3. One additional van accessible parkin� space must be provided at the "church" lot north
of Victoria Crossin; West.
4. A revised landscape plan must be submitted showin� a combination of vines and
columnaz trees plan[ed west of the buildin� and vines planted to the south of the buildin�
in a raised, protected planting area along the alley to soften the visual impact of the
buildine on the adjacent apartments and houses.
The west side of the ramp must provide additional screening on the second level and all
parapets on the third level must be at least 4.5 feet above the surface of the parking deck.
•
�
•
s�
�s :
• Zonin� File # 99-00118151
Page Nine of Resolution
6. The loading area must be desia ed to accommodate trucks up to 3� fee[ long. Trucks
larger than 35 feet will not be permitted except to initially stock stores when tenants First
move in. All deliveries must use the loading dock. Hours for deliveries or pick up of
merchandise must be restricted to between 8 AM and 5 PM. These restrictions on the
size of trucks and hours for the loading dock must be included in the tenants' leases.
7. The building must be constructed:
— Substantially as shown on the plans submitted to give the appeazance of three
separate buiidings on Grand Avenue, which is compatible with uaditional
storefront desigrt on Grand.
— To minimize, as much possible, the floor eleva[ion of the second level of the
building (the lower parking level) in order to minimize the overall height of the
building.
8. The parkin� spaces in the new ramp beyond those needed to meet zoning requirements
for the new businesses proposed in this developmen[, will be considered required
parking for [he businesses at other corners of Grand and Victoria. Ciry staff will allocate
these pazkin� spaces on a pro-rated basis, based on an analysis of the number of parking
� spaces ihat would be required to meet current parking standazds for each buildina and
the number of parking spaces provided at each building.
9. A bus shelter tfiat is consistent with the size of the current bus shelter must be provided
on the site at a location that is acceptabie to the City and the developer.
.
sa
Saint Paul Planning Commission
City Hatl Conference Center
15 Kellogg Boulevard West
Minutes of March 24, 2000
A meeting of the Planning Commission of the CiTy of Saint Paul was held Friday, March 24, 2000, at
830 a.m. in the Conference Center of Ciry Hal1.
Commissioners Mmes. Donnelly-Cohen, DuaRe, Faricy, Zimmer Lonetti, and Morton
Present: and Messrs. Alton, Anfang, Corbey, Dandrea, Field, Fotsch, Gordon, Johnson,
Kramer, and Mardell
Commissioners Mmes. *Engh and McCall and Messrs. *Gervais, Kong, Margulies, and Shakir
Absent:
*Excused
�
Also Present: La�ry Soderholm, Planning Administrator; Tom Harren, Richelle Nicosia, Lucy
Thompson, Allan Torstenson, and James Zdon, DepaRment of Planning and
Economic Development staff.
I.
Approva! of Minutes of Febraary 25, 2000
MOTION: Con:missioner A[ton moved approva! of t/te minutes of February 25, 2000.
Commissioner Duarte seconrled t/te motion and t/ee n:inutes were approved on a
�
II.
III,
unanimous voice vote.
Chair's Annouttcements
Chair MoROn stated the Plannin� Commission Retreat witl be next Friday, Mazch 31
from 8:00 a.m. to I 1:00 a.m. There will be a tour of Pha(en Village after the meeting
and tive wi11 also be ordering box lunches for Yhose tivho wish to have one. She stated at
nest Frida}•'s retreat she witl have a Iist of committee assignments available for you.
Planning Administrator's Announcements
Tiie City Council approved the City Housing Action Plan. Gary Peltier of PED
coordinated the preparation of the Housing Action Plan and he will have a presentation
here this moming to talk about PED's work on it. This plan is done annua[ly and is
required by the Metropolitan Council for all municipalities to become eligibfe for
Livab(e Communities grants. We have received four grants under the Livab(e
Communities Pro�ram this year, one for the North Quadrant, one for Urban Village
Zonina and nvo for soil clean-up. It is an important program for us and it is important to
achieve metropolitan coordination to distribute affordable housin� throushout the region.
ivlr. Soderholm said tliat Land Use ai�d Zoning \1'orkshops are offered b� the
Government Trainina Service and he passed around their brociture. PED has a budget
•
E�1:
po-5��
�
u
�
#00-118-151 James Stolnestad for Exeter Holdinas LLC - Site plan review for
proposed commercial development �vith retail space on the first lecel and a parking
ramp on the second and third levels. South�cest corner of Grand and Victoria.
Commissioner Field stated tlte public hearin� nas held here ritio weeks ago, at which 12
peop4e spoke in support of the deve(opment and I 8 people spoke in opposition. The
Summit Hitl Association adopted a resotution opposing any land uses inconsistent with
bast Grand Avenue Small Avenue Plan or any changes in the plan �vithout public
participation. Due to the extensive amount of��ritten testimony which was submitted
after the Planning Commission meetin„ the Zoning Committee took no action on this
case. The Zoning Committee did have some limited discussion but is referring the case
back to the fiill Commission today with no recommendation. This morning the staff
Qassed oat the draft minutes of the public hearino of two weeks ago; Mc Soderholm
su��ested the Commissioners might like to take a little time to look over the minutes.
Chair Morton concurred that a chance to look at the minutes would be a good idea and
this was done.
Commissioner Field stated that in a packet of matersals dated March 21, 20�Q, the staff
provided a draft resolution based on Tom Beach's staff report. Typically �vhen a case
comes to the Planning Commission from the Zoning Committee, the draft resolution is
based on the committee's recommendation. This time, since no committee action was
taken, Mr. Beach prepared a resolution consistent with the staff findin�s so the
Commission would have a document to work �cith this mornino.
MOTIOti Comntissioner Fartcy n:oved approva! of t/re stafjresolertio�: wit/t tJte
coet[lltioets otte t(trol[g(t e%a/tt. Convnissioner Gardoi: seconded the n:otion.
Commissioner Gordon stated ile would Iike to address the issue of compliance with the
East Grand Avenue Small Area P{an because it has been mentioned repeatedly in the
materials subm itted. It is addressed in the findinss dea{ina �vith traFfic and parking.
Comm issioner Gordon feels this deveiopment is consistent with the Small Area Plan.
The plan does not require that parking should be the only use permitted. The Small Area
Plan stated that "the City should explore with private developers the opportuniry to build
a parking ramp or deck at the southwest corner of Victoria and Grand," and that
esploration has taken place. In fact, in the materials, there was a previous developer
�vho had a proposaf that did not work. The Small Area Plan did not require that a tamp
be coiistructed at this corner, it said the possibility or opportunity should be explored.
The land has no[ been rezoned to P-1 for parking only. [t is zoned B-2, �chich permits
retait �� ith accessory parkin;, which is what this application proposes. Commissioner
Gordon has noted before that when the bus shelter �vas put in, no one objected that it �vas
inconsistent with the Small Area Plan because it wasn't parking. IFyou look at the
detailed �uidelines for a ramp—for exampie desian, parkin�, and traffic--this proposai
reasonabl� meets those �uidelines. The Commission has a considerable amount of
information provided by staff and others dealins with the parking issue, the traffic issue.
v�d the desien issue. Could the de� elopment proposal be better? Perhap;. but �vhat
���rk that ��e do couldn�t he better? Could it be ��orse? Yes, it could prob161y be �vorse
� •
The bohom line is, this is reasonab(e development for this (ocation and reasonably meets �
alf oft(ie guidelines and requirements. That is �chy Commissioner Gordon is seconding
the motion and why he is voting in favor. Commissioner Gordon stated that he also
intends to offer at least one amendment to make the site plan better.
MOTIO�: Commissioner Gordon raoved tn add a cnndition nrrn7ber 9, that a bus
shelter consisteut witG the size af 1ke civrent brrs slreller must be included on tJ:e site
at a lncation acceptable to 1ke City and tJ:e rleveloper. Con:missione� Done[!y-Cahen
secorrded 1lae mntiorr.
Commissioner Gordon stated ffiere is a bus shelter there now. It serves an extremely
useful function and there is a considerable amount of bus traffic. The Planning
Commission shouldn't approve a plan that adversely effects Metro Transit and bus
service in this area. We need to keep the bus shelter tliere. Whether it is built into the
buildine or is a free standing structure doesn't mal:e much difference. But we do need to
preserve and accommodate bus service. That is the purpose of the amendmenz, to
require That a shelter be preserved, leaviag it up to the devetoper and the City to
determine exactly how it is done.
Commissioner Field aareed with Commissioner Gordon's motion escept for the words
"the same size." Commissioner Field goes to «ork do�vn Grand A� enue every moming
beriveen 7:00 and 8:30 a.m. and he does not see a lar�e numbers of people using the bus
shelter. It is a beautiful structure, but he questioned whether we need to prescribe the
size of the structure. He anreed completely with the need to keep a bus sheiter on the .
site.
Chair Morton asked Commissioner Gordon if he �vould consider tliis a friendly
amendment. Commissioner Gordon stated that the motion says "consistent with the
size." It does not require that it be the same sizz. The motion as presently wocded
contemplates a bus shelter that may not be exactly the same. He fe(t tfie motion a(Iows
some flesibility.
Commissioner Faricy stated that she thinks diis bus shelter is an intesral part of Grand
Avenue since it was paid for by the City, the Summit Hifl Association. and GABA_ It is
important to the nei�hborhood to keep tUe shelter. Commissioner Faric}� stated she is
not in facor of chanaing the shelter, only in fa��or in moving the shelter «herever the
City and the developer find a suitable location.
Coimnissioner Fietd stated that he had �vatched that shefter go up because he thought it
was an inceresting project. He remembered tfie footin�s are cemented in
the ground and the shelter probably cannot be moved as a whole. The materials wou(d
be salva,ed for a reconstructed shelter.
Nlr. Soderhohn stated he also had watched the shelter beins buill. I[ icas built with
concrete blocks and then stuccoed. He asreed it �tiould be likel} thai the e�pper parts
iwu)d be rzused and the base would be reconsiructed.
6
�
� �
�• :
� Commissioner Gordon stated that the intent and the wordin� of this motion is to require
that there be a bus shelter at this location �� ithout imposing specific requirements on how
tliat be accomplished. It is intended to �ive the City and the developer some flexibility
tivith respect to ho�v it is accomplished.
Co»m:issioner Gordnn read the n:otion nne n:ore time and it carried unanimously on a
roice vote. Commissioner Alton abstained.
Commissioner Corbey asked if the issue of garba�e trucks and truck traffic in the alley
had been addressed. Were these questions answered as far as the committee was
concemed? .
Commissioner Field stated tliere was some discussion, but not a lot. The biggest
question was tlie adequacy of ingress and egress for 35-foot trucks at the loading dock.
Mr. Beach provided information at the Zoning Committee that they �vere going to set up
barriers matching the site plan to see if a truck could actually get in and get out of there.
Mc Beach stated that they did not do the test, but instead the architect talked with the
structural engineer for the building and determined they could move one of the columns
alon� the alley. -By movin� one of the columns by ten feet there is no�v an open span of
forty feet which should be more than adequate for a 35 to 40 foot truck to get to the
loadin� dock.
� Commissioner Corbey stated there were a nwnber of nei�hbors concerned about their
�araQes bein� blocked. Mr. Beach stated there is nothing in the resolution that stipulates
when deliveries can or cannot be made. Mr. Beach said he called Pier One Imports,
�chich �aotdd be similar to a Pottery Barn. They said they had one or hvo trucks a day
that were about the size of UPS tnicks or a little bit big�er. If each of the stores has that
number of deliveries, it would be infrequent to have one truck waitine for another truck
to finish unloadina. Trash pick up is also to be handled at the dock so the trash truck
�vilf be out of the alley as well.
Comntissioner Faricy stated she wanted to answer a question resardina deliveries. She
had spoken to Mc Stolpestad about this. He said the leases with the merchants at this
site would require that merchandise would have to be delivered in 3�-foot trucks.
Commissioner Lonetti asked Commissioner Faricy if she had asked Mc Stolpestad if
specific hours for deliveries �vould also be established. She espressed concern about
alley usaQe and ho�v often trucks would be comin� and goins, includina sarba�e pick
up? , .. � �
Commissioner Faricy asked Mr. Beach to come back to address those questions. Mr.
Beach stated the current resolution does not address hours of deliveries: ho�vever, it is
somethin_ that could be added. Similar conditions have been put on site plan reviews
before. The deliveries would lo�ically be made when someone «ould be in the store.
This ��ould eliminate the possibilit� of someone try'in_ [o make a delicen at 6:00 a.m.,
� ��hich is something that ma�' happeo at restaurants but not so much at retail
7
� 2
establishments. The trash pick up could be a different story. Trash trucks are notorious �
for coming at odd hours. Commissioner Faricy asked Ivir. Beach if the trash containers
will be inside the buildin�. Mr. Beach stated there is an enclosed trash room at the back
of the buildin�. The trash and recpcling �vill be taken from the room, down a hal(way
and out to the loadina dock.
Commissioner Lonetti said she wanted to offer a motion about defiveries. She asked Mr.
Beach what mi�ht be reasonable hours for deliveries. Mr. Beach conferred a moment
with Mr. Stolpestad in the audience and then replied that the hours for deliveries could
be 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon.
Commissioner Corbey stated there should be hours for pick up in the afternoon and
defiveries in the morning. That is how these delivery companies operate.
Commissioner Anfane offered a friendly amendment to Commissioner Lonetti's motion
to aliow pick up and deliveries until 5 p.m. He feels tltis time «on't be any more
intrusive than 12:00 noon. Commissioner Lonetti accepted this friendly amendment.
MOTION: Commissioner Lanetti n:oved to add a condition tkat pick trp and deliveries
be permitted on[y between tlee kours of 8:00 a.nr. and 5:00 p.»a Comntissioner
Kran:er seconded the n:otion. Tke ntotion carried trnanimously an a voice vote.
Commissioner Alton abstained.
Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. Beach to explain condition eieht of his drafr �
resolution. He wanted to know �vhat it was and �chy it is there. �It has to do with parking
spaces and allocating them amon� the various businesses. Mr. Beach stated the intent is
to formalize �vhat the zonins staff has been usina to calcu(ate parkin� requirements at
Vic[oria Crossin� for a number of years. The intent is to ensure that «e are providing
enough parking for the new businesses and the parkin� that �ve are replacin� here is
allocated to the other businesses at Grand and Victoria.
Mr. Soderholm stated he wanted to give the Commission some backeround on this
condition. Originally there were six houses on this corner, the� were demolished and
that is why there is a remnant of an alley that remains le�ally throueh this property. Ia
the late 1970's when the conversion of auto dealerships to retail beoan, there was just a
small buildin�. That is �vlrv this became a parking lot for the V ictoria Crossing malls.
At that time the Wen�ler's o�vned or leased tlie buildin�s and used the lot for parking.
Then Howard Be�erud bousht the �vest and south malls, and he bousht this property.
That is when a lease was created for the northeast corrter to park on this lot as welL City
staff reoarded this as required accessory parking for the retail development. However,
Nir. Bereerud defaulted on this property and it «en[ back to tlie bank. The bank sold this
lot to Curt Woodhouse, a separate owner. When this happened. the City staffmaintained
that tlie lot �vas still required parkin� for the malls even thoueh it didn't belong to the
peop(e �ctio o�vned tlie malls. That scared City scaff, �vho feared that Cur[ �Voodhouse
«ould come in and apply to build a ne�v retail de�elopinent thzre. ���e thousht we mi�ht
end up «ith no parkin? to pro�•ide for the needs of the e�istins malls. ��'e are thrilled
that this property has come back into the o�vnership of someonz �cho o��ns the malls.
•
�3
i• ��
• «"e �vant to make sure that parking at this location is le�al(y tied to the malls forever.
«'e want to say the noRh mal( has X number of parkin� spaces and the south mall has Y
number of spaces. As changes happen, we want to kno�v ho�c man} parking spaces are
tied to each malt and to know if we are meetin� parking standards or not meeting
parkina standards.
Commissioner Mardell stated he had called Dr. Anne Geisser for her opinion on this
project to get clarification on a few issues. Dr. Geisser was the co-chair of the East
Grand Avenue Small Area Plan. Based on the information that she has, she said that the
Stolpestad project conforms to the plan. Commissioner Mardell stated that Anne's
opinion had an influence on him and on how he was goin� to vote on this today.
Chair Morton stated in your packets is a letter from Dave Lanegran, who also co-chaired
the small area plan. In his letter he clarifies a few points also.
T/+e n:otion carried tananin:ously on a voice vote. Commissioner Alton abstained.
Commissioner Fie1d announced the zoning cases to come before tlie Zoning Committee
at the next meeting on Friday, April 7, 2000.
V. Housing Development Opportunities - Informational presentation by Gary Peltier,
PED staff
� hlr. Soderholm announced one of the most important initiatives of the City is to try to
take advanta=e of the risin� housina market in the city. As part of the Saint Pau(
Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan Planning Committee created a
subcommittee that worked specifically on the Housing Plan. Thec came up with three
main themes. One is the �reat opportunity over the nest decade to build more housing in
Saint Paul. The second bio theme is preservin� esisting housin� throu�h rehabilitation
and reim�estment in neighborhoods throu�hout the ciry. Third, ��'e are having an
increasing crisis with affordability of housin�. Meeting our share of the region's need
for affordable housin� is the tliird main goal of the housine plan.
�tr. Soderholm stated that housin� is the main topic for the Commission's retreat next
«eek. At the retreat �ce will have speakers who represent private development and non-
profit development, and who are experts on demo�raphic chanaes in the metropolitan
area and on affordability issues. To help prepare us, Gary Peltier is �oins to brief us on
«hat the City is doing about housina. �
Garv Peltier, PED staff, addressed the commission. He recently completed work with
the Cih Council leadin� to the adoption of the Housin� Action Plan 2000. This plan
helps to implement the lon� range goals that are in the Housing Plan chapter of the
Canprehensive Plan. This year the Ciq-'s ooal is to produce 7�0 ne�v housin� units
includino the rehabilitation of vacant structures. Ne�v liousin� �cill provide a�vide range
of housine opportunities for households at all income levels. The'000 �oa(s adhere to
thz Hou>ine Plan policg on affordable units, which is that ZO percent of the ne«� units
� �� ill bz affordable to households at �0 percent of the area median income induding 10
9
� �
MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE
Thursday, March 16, 2000 - 3:30 p.m.
City Councii Chambers, 3' Floor
City Hall and Court House
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
PRESENT:
OTHERS
PRESENT:
Engh, Faricy, Field, Gervais, Gordon, Kramer, and Morton
Peter Wamer and Tom Beach of LIEP
Carol Martineau, Allan Torstenson, and Richelle Nicosia of PED
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field.
James Stolpedstad -00-118-151 -Site Plan Reviewfora commercial building and parking ramp.
SW comer Grand and Victoria.
Commissioner Field noted the public hearing was closed at the Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, March 14, 2000.
Tom Beach passed out written information received after the public hearing was cfosed. He also
summarized the new information contained in the packet.
At the question of Commissioner Faricy, Mr. Beach stated Mr. Stolpestad will procure a 35-foot
truck to ascertain the accessibility of the loading dock. Mr. Beach aiso stated the tenants would
inform their suppliers that semis cannot use the loading docks.
Upon further question of Commissioner Faricy, Mr. Beach declared that disabied people, who own
vans, would park across the street in the °church° parking iot. Mr. Beach also explained that no
decision was made concerning the bus stop in front of the proposed building (that was financed by
the City, Summit Hill Association and GABA). The developer stated they would pay to move the
bus shelter once the decision was made.
At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Beach stated the Zoning Committee does have the
authority it impose reasonabie conditions in approving a site plan. If the preservation of the bus
shelter was determined to be a reasonable condition it could be added.
Mr. Soderholm stated there are no other circumstances in the City when a bus shelter has been
a condition of the site plan review. The bus shelters are done through negotiation and purchase
of the right-to-use the space. Mr. Soderholm also stated the city does not have the authority to
impose the bus shelter as a reasonable condition on the site pian.
Mr. Warner stated the question is one of degree if the condition that is considered is to carve out
a space for the bus shelter in a private area wouid be an unreasonable condition, however, if the
facility was persevered in a public right-of-way; or a modification of their private property; to
accommodate the present location orsome other location; the fact remains there is a publicfacility
there and they are asking for a site plan approval and part of that approval insures that there are
accommodations made in that review that protects public health and welfare which include bus
stops, depending on what it entails is shouid be within reason to ask that the bus shelter be
throughly explored.
Upon inquiry of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Beach stated the applicantwas reluctant to have a bus
stop incorporated into the building.
�
�
r
is
c�-5�r8
Zoning Committee Minutes
• March 16, 2000
File #: 00-118-151
Page 2
Upon question of Commissioner Engh, Mr. Wamer stated he would have to look at the original
agreements to determine if the financiers of the bus shelter could be reimbursed.
Commissioner Faricy moved to send the recommendation back to the Planning Commission
without a Zoning Committee recommendation. Commissioner Engh seconded it.
Commissioner Gordon stated he would support the motion. He also stated the Zoning Committee
should have the opportunity to make changes if it is appropriate. The Zoning Committee did not
get the chance to review the materials that were submitted and would not get an opportunity at the
Planning Commission to make any revisions to the staff recommendation ie in respect to the bus
shelter or the valet parking.
Commissioner Faricy stated it was essential to go over all the materials before the Zoning
Committee could make a decision.
After further discussion a vote was taken of six yeas and one nay. Commissioner Engh voted
against the motion.
Mr. Soderholm stated that on March 17, 2000 the staff wiil send out all new testimony together with
� memos the City staff will prepare relating to some of the issues that have arisen. A resolution witi
be drafted with a few more conditions and sent out with the Planning Commission Packet which
shouid give the Planning Commissioners time to make any needed changes.
Adopted
Drafted by:
Nays -1 (Engh)
Yeas -6
��7 � oni��
Caroi Martineau
Recording Secretary
�
Submitted by:
��
Tom Beach
Zoning Section
Approved by:
Litton Fiel
Chair
��
Saint Paul Planning Commission
City Hall Conference Center
15 Kellogg Boulevard West
Minutes of March 10, 2000
A meeting of the Pianning Commission of the City of Saint Paul �vas held Friday, Mazch 10, 2000, at
8:00 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall.
Commissioners
Present:
Mmes. Donnelly-Cohen, Duarte, Engh, Faricy, Zimmer Lonetti, McCall, and Morton
and Messrs. Alton, Anfang, Corbey, Dandrea, Field, Fotsch, Gervais, Gordon,
Johnson, Kong, Kramer, Mardel(, Mazgufies and Shakir.
Commissioners Mmes. * and Messrs. *Gervais, *Johnson and *Kong
Absent:
*Excused
Also Present: Larry Soderholm, Planning Administrator; Nancy Frick, Tom Harren, Nancy
Homans, Richelle Nicosia, Joel Spoonheim, Lucy Thompson, Allan Torstenson, and
James Zdon, Department of Planning and Economic Developrnent staff.
I.
II.
III.
Swearing in of Brian Alton
Brian Alton was s�vorn in by Lucille Johnson. Commissioner Alton stated that he has
been on the Board of Zoning Appeals for several years. He is a practicin� attorney with
a£rm on Grand Avenue in Saint Pau( and he also lives in the Grand Avenue area. He
stated that in the past he had been active with the District 16 Planning Council as well as
the Grand Avenue Business Association. He has lived in Saint Paul for a number of
years.
Approval of Minutes of January 28 & February 11, 2000
bIOTION: Comn:issioner Engl: moved approval of tl:e minutes ojJanuary 28 &
February 11,1000. Commissioner Fotsck seconded the motion and tlee minutes were
approved on n una�:imous voice vote.
Chair's Announcements
Chair Morton stated that she fias no announcements. She said she ��ould revise the
aaenda order to comptete as much business as possible before the public hearing at 8:30
a.m.
� J
�
i
��
�-5�r8
�
IV. Plannine Administrator's Announcements
Mr. Soderholm reported on City Council actions for the last week. They requested the
Planning Commission and PED to work on a downtown sign plan. The tezoning on
Feronia Street in Iris Park to OS-1 for the rehab of a mixed use office/residential
building �vas approved. City Councit gave final approval to a gun shop moratorium
while the Planning Commission is looking at minor amendments to the regulations for
the location of gun shops.
Pvir. Soderhofm asked Planning Commission members to reserve the moming of March
31 for our fifrh Friday meeting. The Planning Commission will have a three.hour
retreat. We pian to talk about housing for half the meeting and about commission
procedures and expectations for the remaining half of the meeting.
Commission Engh asked Mr. Soderholm what type of downtown signs does City
Council want in this plan? Mr. Soderhotm stated this would be primarily on business
signs. We have granted variances on the Kincaid's and Paualuna signs. It would be
desirable to allow projecting signs provided that there aren't too many on one block and
they aren't too big. Our current zoning requires that signs be flush to the building wall.
The CapitolRiver Coimcil may also wish to address advertising signs but that can be
handled by the amendments that are comin� fonvard citywide.
Commissioner Field asked Mr. Soderholm how the drafting of the citywide billboard
� ordinance is coming along. Mr. Soderholm responded that he is stiil working on it and
apologized forthe delay.
Commissioner Gordon reminded everyone of the deadline for applications for small
STAR grants on Thursday, March l6, which is for grants of $2Q000 or less. The STAR
Board has scheduled meetings for Thursday, April 6 and April 13 to revie�v and mal:e
recommendations with respect to those small grants.
Commissioner Kramer reported the White Bear Avenue Smalt Area Plan Task Force met
��'ednesda}. March 1 to discuss intersection configurations on White Bear Avenue. At
their next mee[in; they will be getting the �vritten results of the market study that the
City of Saint Paul and Maple�vood ftmded jointly. That meeting �vil1 be Wednesday,
April 5 at An�elo�s Pizza in the Hillcrest Center on White Bear Avenue. All
commissioners are welcome to come.
Commissioner Field encouraged new members who have not Qarticipated in a small area
plan to consider attending to get a flavor for the process, which is an important part of
the �vork that we do.
�
VI. PtiBLIC HEARING -#00-118-151 3ames Stolpestad for Eseter Holdina LLC - Site
plan re� ie« for a proposed commercial development with retail space on the first
le�el and a�arking ramp on the second and third levels. (Tom Beach, LIEP, 266-
9086)
��
Commissioner Margulies announced that he would abstain from participating in the �
public hearin� due to a conflict of interest, He stated that he does this with regret as it is
an important issue to the neigh6orhood and tlie developer. He stated that he feels that
this may be a great oppoRUnity io make improvements to Grand Avenue that will work
for both sides and there is an opportunity to facilitate a win-win result. Commissioner
Margulies stated tfiat fie wiit not be participatina, but will look on with great iaterest and
concern as the rest of the commissioners make their decision.
Commissioner Alton a(so stated that he will need to abstain due to a conflict of interest.
Chaer Morton asked Tom Beach to give the report of the City staff.
Tom Beach from tiie Zoning Section with LIEP addressed the commission. Mr. Beach
stated that the applicant proposes a commercial development on the southwest corner of
V ictoria and Grand Avenues. The property is currently used as a paved parking 1ot that
serves nearby businesses at Grand and Victoria. The development calls for retail stores
on the first level, storage in the basement, and a parking ramp on tfie second and third
levels. The building has been designed to look like three separate buildings to fit into
Grand Avenue and to give the appearance of a two-story building. Mc Seach showed
the commissioa slides to give everyone an idea of what the area looks like now.
Mr. Beach continued with a history of the propert}�. It has been used as a parkin� lot for
nearby businesses since the 1960's. There were some proposals in the late 1980's to
build a parkin� structure. [n I989, the City adopted the East Grand Avertue Small Area �
Plan which contains recommendations for Grand Avenue in general and also some
specific recommendations for this piece of property. During the I990's City staff from
PED worked on developing more parkin� at this location. They initially looked at a two-
level deck with no commercial space. PED afso looked at acquirin� this property and
operatin, a municipal lot. At that time, no one «as able to put together an agreement
�vith area property o�vners about how to finance these proposals so they never got past
tlie ptanning stage. [n 1994, the lot was converted by a new oi�'ner to paid parkina.
Initiall} they used vatet parkins to do stacked parkino spaces. The valet parkin� was
discontinued afrer aw6ile, however, the lot has remained a paid parking lot. Some area
businesses use voucher parkin� passes for this lot. In July 1999 the applicant purchased
the lot. The Summit Hill Association has looked at the project and t6e} adopted a
resolution in January that says they oppose any chan�es to the East Grand Avenue Small
Area Plan as it relates to the southwest corner of Grand and Victoria or any land use that
is inconsistent rvith the East Grand Avenue Small Area Plan.
Mr. Beach said that there are three key issues for this project—traffic, parking and urban
desian. On traffic, the de��eloper hired the Parsons Transportacion Group to do a traffic
stud}. Thaz eroup has a representative here today to answer an} questions. Parsores used
traffic counts that had been previously done by Saint Paul Public Works and they also
conducted their own counts of actual turning moeements at the intersectfon of Grand and
Victoria. Thev did their counts twice, initiall}' durin_ a«eek da} p.m. rush hour and
also on a Saturday. Their main condusion statei the traffic from V ictoria Plaza will be
minims! t� ith post development conditions espected to be similar to esistinR conditions. �
S
�`I
� -598
• The proposed access to the new parkino ramp ��ould be further a�va} from the
intersection of Victoria and Grand a�d further inside the site. This �vil{ eliminate spill
back queues onto Victoria Street and ���ould reduce the potential for queues to spill back
into the intersection at Grand Avenue. They are referring to cars �caiting to get into the
lot during peak hours, which now spill out into the street and the intersection. They also
stated in their report that Saturday peak hour counu are equivalent to weekday p.m. peak
hour counts. Finally, although the proposed project would add traffic to the street
system in the vicinity of the site, the amount added would not be sufficient to impact
traffic operations. [ntersection operations are shown to be good, a level B with A being
the best and F being the worse. They expect traffic to remain at a level B with the added
traffic. Staff from Public Works looked at the plan and did their o��n review ofthe site
and they concluded the anticipated increase in auto traffic can be handled. They
recommend that three parking spaces on the east side of Victoria closest to Grand
Avenue be removed to open up an extra Iane at the intersection for turning movements.
They had concems about the location from one of the stairs from the ramp down to the
street level. It may encourage people to jaywalk across V ictoria to get to Cafe Latte or
Ciatti's. Public Works would like to have tlte stair moved, but the developer said it
would not be practical to do that. As an alternative, Public Works recommended a
barrier along the curb Qike bollards and chain or decorative fencino) on Victoria along
the street edge. The also recommended putting up a sion at the intersection of Grand and
Victoria that would say whether parkin� in the ramp is available or fu1L This would save
people from driving to the parkin� ramp, finding it full, and then driving through the
neighborhood looking for parkina etsewhere.
� The second issue is parkin�. Grand Avenue has a parking shortfall. It has been well
documented in several studies. City staff did a parkin� survey a few weeks a�o for the
area one block on either side of Victoria alon� Grand Avenue, from Milton to Avon.
The survey showed a shortfall of about 296 parkin� spaces. That is comparin� the
number of spaces actually there (not coimting on-street parking) verses ho�v many spaces
the Zonin� Code would require if these were ne« uses and would have to meet the
current parking requirements. The shortfall translates into a deficit of 37 percent. There
are 1 1 I on-street parkin= spaces. Countin� those eives a shortfall of 18� spaces. The
current parking lot has 106 spaces. The parking standards, accordin� to Zonin� Code,
require tha[ the project provide 208 off stree[ parking spaces. This is based on rep(acing
the spaces that are there no��� (106) plus l02 additional spaces for thz new businesses that
are proposed for the center. Right now the proposed ramp has 313 spaces. For zoning
purposes, bicycle racks count as parkina spaces. The developer is proposing to put in a
couple of bicycle racks, this tvould sive them t«o additional parkinQ spaces bringing the
total ro 215. This would esceed the zonin� requirements by se�en spaces. Zoning
requirements don't count on-street parking, but three on-street spaces ��iil be removed
on Victoria. The applicant is proposin� to use calet parkin� durins peak hours. Given
the history on valet parking when it a�as tried at this loi a feu �ears back, stafftold the
applicant we can�t count the calet parkina towards meetin, their minimum zoning
parkin_ requirement. However, if [hey can get �alet parkin, to �cork, it «ould add a
sienificant nwnber of parkin� space; to the project. The} «ould Qet «p to a total of281
parking spaces, which �could be a net increase of 7� o�er �vhat is there no��.
u
'� U
Mr. Beach went on to say that the peak parking demand for Grand and Victoria appears •
to be in the evening because of the restaurants in the area. All of the commercial space
in the proposed devetopment wilt be retail space. According to the Urban Land Institute
the parkin� demand for retail tends to be highest in the afternoon whereas the parking
demand for restaurants is in the evening. This is especialfy true on the weekends. The
afternoon parking demand for retail complements tfie evening parking demand for
restaurants.
The third and last issue is Urban Desi�n. There have been concerns raised about the
building. [s it going to be taller and more massive than the other retail developments on
the corner. The buildin� would be 35 feet ta(I; it is approsimately the same height as the
apaRment building immediately adjacent to the �vest. 'I�he buildinL would have a lazger
footprint and mass than other buildin�s in the area. The facade of the building has been
desi�ned to look like tfiree separate buildings. They have used different building
materials, different window treatments, different architectural detail to give that
appearance. There wil! be some openings on the second parkin� level of the buifding.
They are required because the Building Code requires air circulation in parking ramps.
They have minimized the openings as much as possible to mal:e them look like windows
that fit into the architecture.
There have been concerns about (i�htin� on top of the ramp spilling over into the
neighborhood. There wiil be rivo types of lighting fixtures. Some lights �vill be on poles
hvelve feet above the top level in the middle of the ramp. The}� shouldn't be seen from
the street. Around the edge of the parkin� ramp alon� the top floor wil( be lights �
mounted into the parapet that will shine down to li�ht up the edge of the lot but wi(l not
be visible from outside the ramp.
The developer asked the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Desian Center to look at his plan
and sive him comments. The Desien Center said they were not goins to address whether
the land use was appropriate or not�They said this was up to the Plannine Commission.
The� did comment on the design and some modifications were made. �Vhen the design
center looked at it a second time, the} said it looked like a eood project. The head of the
Desisn Center �vrote a memo calling the project "A ven� �ood erample of a mixed-use
buildin� combinin� parkina and commercial uses. When parkine ramps are proposed in
Saint Paul 1 would not hesitate to use this project as a model of eood design."
vtr. Beach said that �iven the requirement to provide parking. a smaller building is not
possible without usins underground parkin=. There is a question about economic
feasibility without a cit} subsidy and there is the issue of where ro have another access
goins to the basement. If basement parking is infeasible, that leaves rivo alcernatives:
To ha� e a surface lot like «e have now or a development very similar to this. The staff
recommends that a well-desiQned buildinR like this is preferable as opposed to a large
surface parkin_ lot in an urban pedestrian-oriented area like Grand and V ictoria.
�1r. Beach nest turned ro the required findings i�z the Zoni�s Code. There are eleven
findin,s that the PlanninR Commission needs to make in order to apprm e a site plan.
Fict. the Commission needs to find that it is consistent �� ith applicab(e ordinances for •
�
1�
do-5�8
� the City of Saint Paul. The uses for retait and accessory parking are permitted. The
deve{opment meets the height limit and the parking requirements. The Zoning Code
requires that parking be screened from view. The �vest side of the building needs to be
modified on the second level as that wall is too open to the apartment buildings next
door. That would be a condition that siaff would add to an approval.
The second finding is [hat the site plan is consistent with the City's adopted
Comprehensive Plan and smaii area plans. The 1999 citywide Land Use Plan and the
1989 East Grand Avenue Small Area Plan apply. The staff found that the p}an was
consistent with those plans.
Mr. Seach concluded his staff report by recommending the site plan to be approved with
the following conditions: (I) Public 4Vorks must remove on-street parking on V'sctotia
for a dietance of 50 feet south of Grand Avenue to improve traffic circulation and
provide more room for turning movements. (2) To discourage people from crossing in
mid-block on Victoria, the east stair shou(d be moved and, if that is not possible, some
type of bollards or decorative fence should be installed along Victoria. (3) A sign te((ing
drivers wiien the ramp is full should be instafled at the comer of Grand and Vicioria. (4)
The exit from the ramp must be modified slightly to improve visibility when drivets exit
Hie ramp. (5) The developer must make a best faith effort to make valet parking work
during peak hours (6) One additional van accessibte parking space musi be provided in
the church parkin� lot behveen Grand and Summit. (7) A revised landscape p{an must
be submitted. (8) The �aest side of the ramp must provide additional screening. (9) The
� loadin� area must be desi�ned to accommodate trucks up to 35 feet long and restrictions
must 6e placed on the ienants' leases saying that trucks larger than that will not be
permitted escept to initially stock stores when tenants first move in. (IQ) The building
must be constructed substantially as shown on the pian submitted to aive the appearance
of three separate buildinas that are consistent wit{7 traditional store front design on Grand
Avenue. �
Commissioner Faricy asked Mc Beach if there will be 213 parkino spaces for cars and
vans plus the two bicycle racks. Mc Beach replied �Gith a"yes." Commissioner Faricy
asked where the handicapped pa�kin; «ould be. Mc Beach stated that there are going to
be se� en handicapped parkinQ spaces in the ramp. Commissioner Faricy asked if there
were one or rivo proposed elevators. Mr Beach stated diere is onl� one elecator, which
is at the west end of the buildin,. and Rco stainvells, one with the elevator and the other
on Victoria. �
Commissioner Enoh asked Mr. Beach about die bus stop. Mr. Beach stated the bus
she{ter �vould need to be removed, but the bus stop «oufd remain �chere it is.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the parking space issue. He understood the argument
on peak usa�e that distin_uishes betwee�i the restat�rant use and commercial use, and he
understood the ar;ument based on va(et parking. Hi; question for �1r. Seach and the
applicant and those speakin, in opposition «as—if }ou ��ere told to substantia!(y increase
the number of parkin� spaces in this project by 30, �0, or 100, ho« tould �ou go about
doim* this? 4ir. Beach stated there �wuld be tno optio�is, to Qo up one more level, or to
, 8 _
72
go down into the basement. If another fevel were to be added to the top, you would be
adding another 12 feet to the hei�ht. Going down into the basement would be expensive.
Mr. Beach stated that he could not give any numbers on ho�v much that �vould cost. The
developer is ptanning on excavating a partia( basement as storage space for the retail
area. One problem for basement parking is access. Right no�v yoa have one entrance to
the parkin� ramp that goes up. To get into the basement you woutd need a second
separate entrance. The question is where would you put that second ramp. Grand Ave
�vould not be a aood. If another entrance were put on Victoria, there would be two
entrances there. The last altemative would be in the alley and tivould raise issues about
alley access. There would also be an operational consideration-with two separate
parkinb facifities, how would you control who is parking where? How woald people
knuw which driveway to enter if they are lookin� for a parkin� place. You would almost
need hvo staff people for rivo sepazate parkina faci(ities.
Commissioner Gordon asked if parking �aere developed in Yhe basemenT, how many
spaces would that produce? Mr. Beach stated if the entire basement were avai[ab[e for
parking, you could get about as many as you get on one of the upper levels which would
be about l00 partcing spaces. If they tried to put parking in the proposed basement
storaQe area, there might be about 50 parking spaces available. Mc Beach thought a
ramp to the basement offthe al(ey would be steep, but probably physically possible.
Commissioner Gordon asked if the Planning Commission can approve atley access. Mr.
Beach stated the Commission would have to grant a variance since the Zoning Code
prohibits access for a facility this big from an a[ley shared by residential property.
Commissioner Fotsch stated there was reference to vacatine an alley. �Vhat is the
situation there? Mr. Beach stated that technical(y there is an a(ley that runs through ihis
parkin� lot. The city owns an alley easement through Yhe propem,�. The applicant has
asked that alley be vacated. The City Council is holdina up on a decision to see how the
site plan review goes. As long as the City owns t[iat al[ey, it slo«s do�cn the
development of the project.
Commissioner Corbey asked in tl�e future, if some of the retai[ space is not rented, coutd
t6ere be any parkina in the rear of t[�e main level? Mc 8each stated the �cay the site and
floor pfans are set «p no�v, it would be difficult to get any si�nificant number of parking
spaces inside the first floor.
Commissioner Gordon asked aboc�t the valet parkine recommendation. �chich is phrased
in terms of making a"best faith effort." It is subjective. Would staff ha� e a problem
�vith revisin� that to make it mandatory durin� peak demand hours? Mr. Beach stated
that he borrowed "best faith effort" from a recent City Council action on Dawes
Truckina on Minnehaha Avenue, rvhere there were of conditions about rentin� to certain
t} pes of tenants and other actions. Mr. Beach said it was put in because, unlike a
requirement iike plantina a tree or puttin� up a screenin� fence, i� e won�t really know
until the buildin� is up and in operation �vhether valet parking titiill titirork. So �ve said
the� need to make an honest best faith effort to make it work. [f «e made it a
requirement and the} detennined that it didn't «ork, they ��routd have to come back and
ask for a modification of that conditioi� at the Plannin, Con�miscion. ]f the�
�
u
�
`13
00-5� �
• discontinued it unilaterally, lie couldn't say what the City's recourse woutd be--perhaps
an action a�ainst the license of the parking operator or other business licenses.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the bus shelter on this properry. Mr. Beach replied
that the bus shelter is on private property. Commissioner Gordon asked when the bus
she(ter was constructed, was there any apposition to the bus shelter as conflicting with
die East Grand Avenue Pfan? Mr. Beach stated the bus she(ter did not take up any
parking spaces and it tivas a project done by the neighborhood and the business
association to put it there.
Commissioner Dandrea asked about the types of businesses and what parking standards
apply, particularly between retaii stores in general verses multiuse tetaif. Mr. Beach
stated that the proposed development meets the Zoning Code definition of a multiuse
retaii center, 4vhich requires one parkin� space per 280 square feet of retail space. The
theory being if you have multiple stores at one location, someone might stop to go into
the dru� store and then go next door to the video store.
Chair Morton read tfie rules and procedures for public hearings. Notice of the public
hearin� was sent to all property owners within 350 feet of the proposed development and
to organizations Iisted on the early notification system.
Chair Morton asked the applicant to make his presentation.
� 1. 3im Stolpestad, 1 Ed?ecombe Place, addressed the Commission. Mr. Stolpestad
stated his presentation �vill be brief because Mr. Beach did such a thorouoh job in his
staff report. First Mr. Stolpestad stated that he accepts a!i of the conditions in the staff
repoR. Then he said the presentation today is going to be from people �vho are the
members of the project team--Steve Doughty, Architect from Pope Associates, Tom
Vevea from McGough Construction, Michael Lander from Town Planning
Collaborative, Don Studor from Allright Parkins, Dave Abbey from Parson's
Transportation Group, and Peter Beck, who is a Iand use iawyer from Gray Plant Mooty.
Mr. Stolpestad stated that he is pieased to have commercial tenants for two of the three
stores. They have a letter of intent from Pottery Barn and a lease commitment from
Bound To Be Read, a bookstore owned by the Hubbard family of Saint Paul. Mr.
Stolpestad stated that we will Iater be hearing about the bookstore from David Jones and
Tom Fable.
2. Phil Ordway, tead partner of the o�vnership group of Stolpestad Properties, addressed
the commission. Mr. Ordway stated that they are a sma{{ group of o�vners committed to
IonL term ownership and to preserving the unique and wonderful character that
distinouishes Grand Avenue from a(! other gathering places in the Twin Csties. This is a
Saint Paid project. The o�vners are from Saint Paut, the architecis are from Sai�t Paul,
tlie contractors are from Saint Paul, the major sub-contractors are from Saint Pauf, the
constniction will be done by members of the Saint Paul consiniction trades, the
financins ��i11 be provided by Saint Paul's largest bank. $175,000 of real esiare taxes
��ill benefit Saint Paul and the lar�est tenant «ill be a business o��ned and operated by a
� lon�-time Sai�it Paul famil}. Best of all, they plan to construct t1�is ninz million dollar
10
�Y
buildinL, which is very much in character with Grand Avenue, without a subsidy from
the City of Saiat Paul or any other public entit}.
3. Michael Lander, To�vn Plannino Co(taborati�e, addressed the Commission. Mr.
Lander stated that his group was asked ro join the team to provide urban design
guide[ines and work with the neighborhood. He has been doia� ne�c residential
development on S¢mmit Avenue and has gotten to know the neighborhood. He advised
the development team on the urban design, the building contest, the public tea[m, and
pedestrian arnenities. He recommended many of the design features that make this
buildina an example of New Urbanism which is appropriate for Grand Avenue.
4. Steve Doughty, Architect for Pope Associares, 2150 Bayard Avenue, addressed the
Commission. �[r. Doughty staced they started the design process in August 1999. They
worked with the owner, the project team, the contractor, the material suppliers, and the
Desi�n Center. Mr. Doughty feels they have come up evith a solution that is very
complementary to the adjacent nei�hborhood and commercial buildings. This has been
a difficult project to design, havin� to accommodate 215 parking spaces in a building
that is not meant to read as a parkin� ramp. They went through variaus parkina
scenarios. They fooked at parking in a tower le��et, but it �vas very• difficult and
e.cpensive. Tfie materiais are cast stone in two colors, and modalar brick. There are lots
of �vindows to see in and out of the stores.
5. Peter Beck, attorney for the de�•eloper, addressed the Commission. Mr. Beck stated
he has been working with Mr. Stolpestad and fiis team as he works his �vay through the
city approval process. Mr. Beck stated they agree �vit[t staff and feel this plan is
consistent with the City's p[ans. t�tr Beck stated there is conflict benveen the 1989 East
Grand Avenue Plan where they �vant to increase parkin� significantl}� aad the newly
adopted 1999 Land Use Pfan where they want to minimize parkine. Mc Beck stated that
in this project they have minimized the impact of parking while ma�imizina its
ava+lability. The parkin� demand for retail and restaurants ha��e different peaks, so
sharin� of the spaces increases availability. All the parkin� is screened behind brick
walls, minimizinQ its impact.
Commissioner Gordon asked if the devetoper has fi�ures on the cost of adding parking
in the basement. Mr. Beck stared he prefers to direct this question to blr. Stolpestad and
ti�e architect. Mr. Stolpestad stated Lhey cannot Qive us a proforma today, but in genera[
term the stalls proposed for this project cost eight to ten thousand do[lars a piece. Going
down would brin� that cost up to $30,000 and above. There �cou(d be additional
excavation and shoring around the perimeter of the property, «'hich lenathens the time
frame for construction and lengthens the time the parking ramp is oe�t of commission
durins construction. Also, basement parkin� �� ould need to be ventilated and it is very
espeasive.
Commissioner Gordon asked Mc Stolpestad if he were asked to accommodate an
additional �0 spaces, ho�� ��oiild he do it? Mr. Stolpestad stated thz most practical
solution for additional parkintr o� er and above «hat is being proposed. is to put a one-
leve! deck behind the �Vest lvtall. He o«ms part of that propem and long-term leases
1[
.
�
�
7S
� • �
• part of it. His architect look at that and it can fzasiblely be done to add an additiona( 100
stalls there.
Commission Gordon asked where this location is. Mr. Stolpestad srated that it is along
tfie al{ey north of Grand Avenue from Victoria to Miiton Street. It lends itself to a two-
level parking deck.
Commission Gordon asked bir. Stotpestad to provide the Planoine Commission
information on the cost of what tl�ey are currently planning to spend on the basement and
tfie cost of fuRher developing that basement into more parking. �y'hat �vill that cost
differential be? Mr. Stolpestad said that they �citi develop that and get it inio the record
by next Tuesday. Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. Stotpestad if he would object to
making vafet parking a mandatory requirement? Mr. Stolpestad asked in hours of peak
demand? Commissioner Gordon said "yes". Mr. Stolpestad said he would not object.
Commissioner reiterated that Mr. Stolpestad �could not have a problem making valet
parking mandatory during hours of peak demand. Mr. Stolpestad stated he feels that
would be the only time that he sees valet parking being needed; he �vould have no
probfem with that.
Commissioner Faricy asked if anyone was working on plans for temporary parking if
this buiiding is built. Mr. Stolpestad stated they have had comersations with Wil(iam
Mitchell Law Schoo{ about usin� their parkino iot ai the southeast corner of Summit and
Victoria; their preferred plan is to do the construction during the time the school is
� closed during tlie summer. They close May 7 tlirough the end of Ausust. There is at
least as much parkina there as there is at Grand and Victoria. �
Chair Morton stated at this time the Commission will be activating the three-
minute clock and will be caifing upon people in support of the application iu the
order they signed in.
6. Tom Fable, of Lindqirist and Venmim spoke as the attomey for Hubbard Broadcastin�
Company and Bound to Be Read, which is a bookstore that has entzred an agreement to
lease the western retail space in the proposed project. Bound to Be Read is an
independent bookstore owned by the Hubbard family of the 7win Cities. They current(y
ha�e one store in Albuquerque and they have seVected Grand Avenue as a piace where
they �vouid like to open another store. He said this development is a can't-lose
proposition, the type of thin� he al���ays looked for a couple of years ago �vhen he was
the Depury Mayor. It's good for the tar base, for the vitality of this important street, and
it's consistent with the Ciry's plans. This proposai meets the code requirements, the
planning goals, and the policy objectives ofthe City.
7. David Jones, seneral counsel of the Hu66ard Broadcastin� Company, 34 ( 5
Unicersity Avenue. Bound To Be Read is an independent bookselfzr o�vned by Hubbard
Broadcastine. Their e�isting store is in Albuquerque. It provides a comfortable
em vonment For peopfe who love books to bron se. He explained «h} the bookstore
��anted to lease space in the proposed development.
LJ
12
��
1" tape ended here (gap in recordine of pubiic hearine)
8. ftob Stolpestad, l0:cx Lincoln Avenue and Eseter Holdings, introduced himself as a
member of the development team who lives within a few blocks of the proposed
development. He works on leasing for Exeter Holdings, LLC.
9. Billy Young, 15 Crocus Hill, 30 year resident of Saint Paui, epoke u a long-time
neighborhood resident, a fortner Grand Avenue businessperson, and the co-author of a
book on ihe revitalization of the avenue. She ur�ed the commission to recognize the
importance of change. Twenty years ago the avenue was a very high-risk investment.
Almost all the changes on Grand Avenue in recent years have been positive. In a
canmercial area, noY to change is to die.
] 0. Ed Caffrey, 598 Summit Avenue, said that he is a member of the Summit Hill
Association board, but he disagrees with the board's position. He delved into the
background of this site and this proposal, and he believes the property o�tiner has a right
to build retaif and parking on the site and that this specific proposal wi[( 6e good for the
oeighborhood and the broader Saint Paul community.
1]. Dan Parker, of the White Way Cteaner near Grand and St. Albans said that he
supports commercial growtli on the avenue and be(ieves this project, which increases the
parkin� supply for Victoria Crossing, should be approved.
�
12. Phi! Danford, 850 Grand Avenue, spoke on behalf of Ciatti's Restaurant and said •
that he supports the development. Ciatti's lias been in the Victoria Crossing South Ma1l
since it was redeveloped for commerciat space. At that time it �vas a risky investment;
he is pleased that the location has been successful.
13. Tom Vevea, 2737 Fairvietv Avenue, represented McGough Construction, which is
schedu(ed to build the project. He said that McGou�h has been im o[ved in planning the
project so that construction problems can be averted and construction time can be heid to
a minimum. He said it is unusual, and more expensive at the front end. for a developer
to tirork this closely �vith a construction company. McGough is a local company and
they look for�vard to doin� this project.
14. Dave Abbey, Parson�s TranspoRation Group, said that their firm did the tra�c and
parking ana(ysis in the developers application. They desianed the project to improve
traf6c flo«' at the intersection in comparison to the cunent situation. Hz said the City
staffs report summarized their findintrs.
1�. Don Studor, Aliri�ht Parkins, said that their compan}� has participated in planning
the project and they have very extensive kno�i led�e of pay parking lots and valet
parkin_. ��'hen the project is built, the} wi11 be hired to mana�e thz ramp and do the
valet parking during peak demand periods.
16. Efeanor Ostman. 8�3 Lincoln Avenue, said she has tived ia thz neighborhood a long
tnne and her house is across the a[[e}' from the Victoria Crossin� SoaBi �IaIL The trash
13
�
7�
p��59�
pickup and delivery trucks frequently block her eara�e and alle}. They are a great
frustration. She would support the proposed development if it is seen as an opportunity
� to improve the situation regardin� use of the alleys.
17. Jim Seabold, 821 Grand Avenue, said he is a realtor in the nei�h6orhood and he
supports investment in both commercial and residential propem� in the area. This is
�chat wifl continue the positive trends of the last decade.
�ezt Chair Morton asked for testimony from those opposed to the application:
Daniel Dobson said he will be testifying as a member oFNeighbors Opposed to Victoria
Plaza. He has detailed parking numbers that can't ba presented in three minutes. He
requested eight minutes. Commission members, after discussion, a�reed to grant Mr.
Dobson's request.
18. Ruth Anne dePitera, 859 Osceota Avenue and a member ofNei�hbors Opposed to
Victoria Plaza, addressed the Commission and said the neighborhood organizatiott had
collected a petition with 300 signatures of neighborhood residenis who oppose this
development. They have a ser+es of speakers who would like to speak in order. She felt
the procedure was unfair imposing time limits on opponents of the pro}ect aRer the
Commission has spent all this time listening to support. She objects to the project
because it is too big and too trafficky, and has too {ittle additionaf parking for existing
businesses. The neighbors believe it is impoRant not to tip the balance between
commercial and residential property.
� 1 S. Russ Loomis, 889 Lincoln, Nei�hbors Opposed to Victoria Plaza, addressed the
Commission and showed overheads to highii�ht his points. He li�es kitty-corner behind
the development and �vil( be directly impacted by the truck loading and parking spaces in
the soutlnvest comer of the proposed 6uildins. The Neighbors Opposed group supports
the 1989 East Grand Avenue Plan for preservin� the iniegriry of Grand Avenue. This
decelopment does not meet the four conditions for developing the site that are specified
in the plan-appropriateness to neiohborhood, parking gain, traffic. and spin-off
de�elopment. This upsets the residential-commercial balance. No other Grand Avenue
structures are this big. Grand Avenue is at capacity for traffic. Victoria is no wider than
the residential streets. "The alley will often be blocked just as it is noti� east of Victoria.
The de�eloper's information has kept changing as the neighborhood tried to work with
him. The proposaf violates several zoninQ provisions otii location of loading, distance
bet��een the ramp exit and residential propeRy, and visual screenin�. Parking should not
be off the alley. There are too many compact spaces. If the correct parking standards
are appfied, the developme�it is short of requirements rather than supplvin� a surplus.
2n tape started here
Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. Loomis if he has provided am spzcifics with respect to
ho« the project should be changed to make it appropriate? Mc Loomis stated in their
mee�in_s with the developer they have �'oiced some concerns re�ardine the setbacks.
11'hzn the} a•ere first approached �ve G�ere told that the setback in the aller� side would be
� 14
��
ten feet. Commissioner Gordon asked again if Mr. Loomis had made any specific �
su�gestions in writina, are they in the record, if the}' are not in the record could you pat
tfiem in the record? Mc Loomis said he �vould be happy to put them in the record.
Commissioner Gordon asked �vith respect to parkina, have you taken a specific positiort
�vith respect to how many should be added to this project to make it consis[ent with how
you view the plan. Mr. Loomis stated alt people feel that more parkirtg tivould be better
and what he has not seen is any reductions in the square foota�e of retail space that
would allow for more parkin�. Commissioner Gordon asked if he had put a number on
that? Mr. Loomis said that he couid do that. Commissioner Gordon stated the record is
going to be kept open and he said he is goin� to encourage everyone who speaks in
opposition to be specific with respect to offerin� soiutions to problems either'today or in
writing before the public hearing record c(oses. Mr. Loomis stated in 1989 there was a
proposed devetopment that had 7,000 square feet of retail space and 276 parki�g spaces
on a nco level parking ramp, so that woufd be one solution.
20. Cofleen Dwyer Tyson, U4 Victoria Avenue South, addressed the Commissioa Ms.
Tyson stated her opposition to the project is because the scale and design are inconsistent
with the historical character of the neighboring residentiat and commercial buildings in
the area. Ms. Tyson also feels that since the bus shelter was built with a STAR Grant
that ii should not be moved.
2L Katherine Patterson, 170 Victoria Avenue Soi�th, addressed the Commission. Ms.
Paiterson stated that she thinks this proposed development is going to worsen an a[ready
bad situation. Ms. Patterson is unsure as to �vhat to read in the staff repores, she said the �
current proposed plan is different from the original staff report. She is most concemed
aboirt the traffic problems.
22. Rosalyn Gotdberg, IO23 Grand Avenue �6, addressed the Commission. She said
she is adamantly opposed to tlze retail comple�. The City is usina old and inaccurate
data that has not 6een updated and and tf�e staff are too lazy to bring that data "up to
code." She quote from the Saint Paul phone book, "This quaint Vicmriaa Street is lined
�cith tum of the century residences and store fronts offering vintase shoppin� and
restaurants." She does not feel that this project fits this descriptio� and this area witl
(ose its uniqueness. There needs to be a balance benceen businesses and residential.
�3. Dee Pla�ens, 88� Lincoln A�•enue, a 20-year resident, addressed the Commission.
Ms. Plagun's garage sits direct(y across from the loadin� dock of the proposed parking
ramp. Ms. PlaQuns stated that City Code Section b2.10� is bein� violated at V ictoria
PIaZa project. The City Code resulates a loadin� dock opposite residential property.
Ms. Plaeans fee(s this code is meant to protect her riohts.
24. Jessica Plagens, 885 Lincoh� Avenue. said she is a senior at Central EiiQh School and
has lived in this nei�hborhood afl her life. Siie loves the neighborhood and wants to
preser� e it as it is. She is opposed to the development because it tcill increase tra�c,
attract national chain stores, block the alle}, and be too big for the esisting sca(e of
buildin,s on Grand A�enue. This is not the way to preserve the nei�hborhood for the
ne�t gcneration. �
1�
•1 ��
00
� 2�. Larry Peterson, 8j 1 Goodrich Avenue, said he has been a neighborhood resident
smce 1972 and has served on several neighborhood task forces. The Summit Hill
Association supports the East Grand Avenue Plan of 1989, �chich says this property
should be zoned P-1 for a parking deck �vith no commercial development. In 1995 the
state le�islature flip-flopped and required that zoning be brou�ht into conformance with
comprehensive p(ans by the end of 1998. The Planning Commission needs to reconcile
the cunent application, which is consistent with B-2 zoning, with the East Grand Avenue
Plan, which would prohibit this development in a P-1 zone, in li�ht of state law, which
says that an adopked plan supersedes the Zoning Code. The Summit Hill Association
asks that the Planning Commission either delay action on the application and restudy
Grand Avenue with public paRicipation or else deny the application. Commissioner
Gordon asked for the citation in the East Grand Avenue Plan. Mr. Peterson responded
tliat the citations are Recommendation 1 I on page 7 and Table 1 attached to the plan.
26. Valerie Stoker, 806 Linwood Avenue, said she is a member of the Summit Hill
Association board and she provided the results of a neighborhood survey contained in
tlie February issue of the newsletter. 298 persons responded. The responses were 79
percent opposed to the project. Ms. Stoker discussed the results and some of the
residents' comments and passed out a 21-page repoR ofthe results.
27. Daniei Dobson, an attorney who resides at 801 Goodrich Avenue, challenged the
City staffs use of the parkin� requirements in the Zonin� Code. He thanked the
Commission for granting him eight minutes to present his overhead tables on the parking
� calculations. He said the proposed development does not meet parking requirements.
First, ihe development shou(d not 6e considered a mu4tiuse retail center. Multiuse retail
has a lower parkina requirement than regular retail property. But this development has
no central corridor and no common atriutn, un(ike the buildinss at the other three corners
of Grand and Victoria. All of the interior space in the new building is being leased just
as if it �vere three individual store buildings. Second, retail parkino requirements are not
beins applied to the leasable basement space. The City staff should be referring to the
definition in the code for aross leasable floor area, �viuch relates to shared parking,
instead of to the definition for eross floor area. Third, the City staff uses too low a base
number for replacement of tlte esistine parkin, spaces. Before the lot �vas converted to a
pa} lot it I�ad 145 spaces. In 1994 Nir�Beach wrote to the owner at that time that the
o��ner had to preserve the 145 spaces throu�h valet parkin�. But the staff never
followed throush and enforced that. So now the staff says that ihere are oniy 106 self-
park parking spaces and they are tellin, Mc Stolpestad that he needs to replace only 106.
Moreover, many of the developer's spaces don't meet code standards and shouldn't be
counted; t�vo in the ramp are inaccessib{e except as stacked parl:ing. The three alley
spaces shoidd not be permitted under the code because they abut residential land. The
bic}cle racks are not sho�vn on the site pfan, so the t�vo-space bic}cle parkin� credit
should not be �iven: and an e�istino bike rack is bein? removed. Hz asked the
Commission to send this to a committee «�here the parkina requirements can be
discussed in detail. y
23. James Njus, 7S=t Fainnount Avenue and President ofthe Summit Hil( Association,
. said that a nci�,hbnrhood committee met �� iih Mr. Stolpestld and h;; team members in
16
��
November and December to consider the proposed devetopment. The association
believes that the proposal is inconsistent with the East Grand Avenue Plan. Either the
developer should bring in a different site plan that is consistent with the East Grand
Avenue Plan or else the Planning Commission shoutd institute appropriate proceedings
to revise the smal! area plan. To amend the smali area plan, residents, small business
owners, commercial property owners, the Summit Hill Association, and the Grand
Avenue Business Association should all have an opportunity to participate. This is what
the Summit Hill Association requests. This position was adopted by the board on a vote
of l5-I, and the ione dissenter stated his reasons earlier in this hearing. If doing this
causes a one-year delay in construction, we should bear in mind that the proposed
structure wil! be there for a hundred years. Mr. Nas also asked the Commission to keep
the record open for written testimony for a week.
Commission members and staff briefly discussed the request to extend the publec
comment period. However, by consensus the members decided to foilo�v normal
procedures and close the written record on Tuesday, March 14 at 4:00 p.m. so that
material can be cotlected and copied in time for the Zoning Committee meeting on
March 16.
29. Wiiliam Cooper, 846 Linco(n Avemie, said he has worked in Saint Paal for 26 years
but has lived in the city for only five years. He moved in from the suburbs because of
the charm of this historic neighborhood. He is concerned that the propose@ building is
massive and not appropriate for the scale of the nei�hborhood. He said he is rea((y here
to talk about traffic and safety. His daughter �vas run over in the crosswalk at Grand and
Victoria by a truck and is still recoverine. She �vas walking on a�reen &�ht. Drivers aze
distracted lookin� for parkino and looking at the stores. While paramedics were treating
his dau�hter, anozher driver ran into the fire truck because she was not looking where she
was driving. Grand Avenue should grow and develop, but not in the way the devetoper
is proposintr today.
30. RobeR Casselman. 794 Lincolii. said he had (ived in the nei�hborhood for 26 yeazs
and was a member of the East Grand Avenue Plan Task Force. The plan's
recommendation for a parking deck in 1989 ccas a compromise to alloi� for more
parking without allowins further commercial intensification as we see proposed today.
A previous proposal for commercia! intensification by Mr, Stolpestad through rezoning
on the noRh side of Grand Avenue was rejected by the City as inconsisten[ with the
small area plan. This proposal is also inconsistent.
31. David Unowsky, 1918 Ashland Avenue, said he is a(ifetime resident of 5aint Paul
and a Grand Avenue business owner for 30 years. He said that Mr. Stolpestad's
im�estment will require doing ii-1 � miflion doltars of business per year. There will be
100 fiill-time employees, or man,� more part-time. [Fthe avera�e sale is S40 per
customer, diere w ill need to be about 1,000 sales per day, which means more than 7,500
customers per da}. 312 parking spaces �cill not be enou�h to meet the needs of a
business plan of this ma�nitude. Cars �re =oin� to be backed up: customers �vill not
��ant to use the ramp. This proposai pits the interests of the developer a�aiRSt the
intzrests of the nei�_*hborhood. This is not a model for Grand Avenue businesses
17
�
�
�
g�
r � • ►
� any�vhere along the avenue.
32. James Lynden, 599 Grand Avenue, said his has tive in the neighborhood since 1968
and is the attorney for the Wen�lers �vho o�vn the Victoria Crossing Eut MaIL In 1984
he wrote a 40-year lease to allow I 15 spaces for East MaII parkina on the subject
property. The Wenglers have made tlie lease pa}�ments ever since. There is a crying
need for parking, not for additiona( retail. Yesterday the Wengiers submitted a plan to
the City for office space development at the East Mall that would require an additional
27 spaces, which should be provided through the 1984 lease agreement. More retail
development at this corner puts Mr. Stolpestad in conflict with other commercial
property owners and with tl�e residents in the area. .
33. Peg�y Reichert, 6(7 Goodrich Avenue, said tfiat she has been a resident of the
neighborhood since 1978 and for 1 1 years, includin� when the East Grand Avenue Plan
�vas done, served in PED as the Deputy Director for Planning and staffed this
Commission. This Commission has a glorious history of�vorking with neighborhoods
on challenging prob{ems. She is now on the district council and finds it very frustrating
because the planning staff doesn't have enoush time to hefp citizen groups. Citizens
need the Iielp and leadership of ihe Commission. This is what you're here for. The
Summit Hill Association recognizes that ihe 1939 plan may need revisions. The City
should be thoughtful about the aiternatives and help the various interest groups
participate in reexamining the East Grand Avenue Plan.
� 34. Rachel Hannegan said that she o�vns a business at 841 Grand Avenue and her
parking lot accommodates 20 cars but she has to fieht on a daily basis to keep her spaces
available for her customers. Customers generally avoid tlie pay lot and don't want to
turn their cars over to a valet. Instead they take the free spaces provided by businesses
like hers. A development this large wilf puslt Grand Avenue to become like a suburban
canmercial location and the old houses will be torn down for more devetopment and
more parking.
3 i. Joan Grant, 881 Lincoln Avenue, said she has been a resident for 41 years. She lives
rieht beh+nd the proposed development. Mc Stolpestad calls ihis proposed development
"Victoria Plaza." She asked jokingly tha[ Commissioners look up the definition of
"pVaza." Accordin� the American Heritage dictionary, a plaza is an open area or a broad
paved area for automobiles.
Chair Morton asked �Ir. Stotpestad if he �ti�oufd like to offer a rebuttal.
36. Mc Beck spoke for Mr. Stolpestad and said that in 1i�4�t of the lensth of the hearing
and the Commission's a�enda, his team would be �aillin� to forego any rebuttal now and
submit their rebuttal, «f�ich Fvi(t be estensive. in «riti�i�, wid� a summary sheet, by next
Tuesday if that is what the Commission �vould prefer.
�
18
�
NIotion: Commissioner Field moved that the pubtic hearing be closed, that the
reco�d remain open for written testimony until Tuesday, March 14, 2000 at 4:Od
p.m., and that this matter be reterred to the Zoning Committee. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Gordon. Mr. Gordon repeated his request that people
sabmitting written testimony should try to sua�est solutions to the problems they raise.
He thanked people for coming down to testify today. Mr. Field asked peop(e who
sho�ved overheads at this rtceeting to submit hard copies for the hearing record, The
motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.
XI. Old Business
No Report.
XII. New Business
No Report.
XIII. Adjournment
The meeting was adjoumed at ] 1:10 a.m.
�
�
Recorded and prepared by
Richelle Nicosia, Planning Commission Secretary
Planning and Economic Development Department,
City of Sain[ Paul
Respectful l}' subm itted,
Approved
(Date)
Larry S de holm
Plannin� dministrator
Jennifer Engh
Secretary� of the Plannin� Commission
\pllnning�minutes.tim I9
CL
�
�
•
�
•
1. APPLiCANT:
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
FILE# 00-'118151
James Stoipedstad for Exeter Hofdings LLC DATE OF HEARING: 3l'IU/00
2. CIASSIFICATION: Site Plan Review
3. LOCATION: 864 Grand Avenue (southwest corner of Grand and Vicforia)
4. PLANNING DISTRICT: 16
5. LEGALDESCRIPTION: Seefife
6. PRESENT ZONING: B-2 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 62.108.c
7. STAFF INVESTIGAT�ON AND REPORT: DATE: 3/1/00 BY: Tom Seach
8. DATE RECEIVED: 2/2/00 DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 4l3/00
A. PURPOSE: Site pian review for a proposed commercial development with retai! space on the first
level and a parking ramp on the second and third feveis.
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The propose deveiopment calis for a building with 27,745 square feet of
retail space on the first floor divided inio thee stores that would have separate entranCes on Grand
Avenue. There wouid also be 15,400 square feet of storage and common space on the first floor and
basement. There would be 215 self-serve parking spaces on the second and third level. More
spaces could be provided during peak hours if a valet parking system with stacked spaces could be
made to work. The enFrance to the samp would be from a singie driveway on Victoria. The facade of
the building wouid be designed to resemble a two story building.
C. EXIS7ING LAND USE: Pay parking lot serving nearby businesses at Grand and Victoria
D. SURROUNDING LAND USE:
North: Commercial (B-2)
East: Commercial (6-2)
South: Sing(e-famify residential (RT-1)
West: Apartments (RM-2)
E. HiSTORY
— This property has been used as parking for the nearby businesses at Grand and Victoria since
the 1960s.
— There was a proposal in the late 1980s to build a parking structure at this location.
— in 1989 the City adopted the East Grand Avenue Small-Area Plan. This plan contains
recommendations about Grand in general and about this lot in particular. (See Section G below)
— During the 199�s City staff worked on developing more parking at this location. The initialiy
wosked on a twatevel deck with no commerciai space or a minimai amount of commercial space
along the front of the ramp. The City also looked at acquiring the lot and operating it as a
municipai parking lot. However, neither of these proposals was successful because an
agreement couid not be reached with area property owners and businesses on how to finance it.
As a result of this, it became ciear that despite the fact that Grand Avenue is the most vital retail
district, it still couid not support the development of a free-standing parking facility without either
new retaii or a large City subsidy.
� �f
— In 1994 the lof was converted to pay parking. Initially the pay parking lot �sed a valet system
with staeked parking spaces. The va(et/sfacked parking arrangement was discontinued buy ihe
lot has continued to be a pay lot. In July 1999 the appiicant purchased the lot.
F. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION; The Summit Hill Association adopEed a resotution on
January 27 opposing "any changes to the East Grand Avenue Small-Area Plan as it relates to the
southwest corner Grand and Victoria or any land uses inconsistent with the East Grand Avenue
Smali-Area Plan."
s
G. FINDWGS:
1. Traffic Concems have been raised about traffic congestiort at Grand Avenue and Victoria and
the impact of additional deve(opmenf.
�
The developer hired the Parsons Transportation Group to do a traffic study. (See atfached copy
of the study.) They used traffic counts that had previousiy been done by Pubiic Works and
conducted their own counts of tuming movements at the intersection of Grand and Vctoria
duri�g a weekday PM rush hour and on a Saturday. Their study concluded that:
- "The impact of the traffic from Vctoria Piaza will be minimai, with post-development
conditions expected to be similar to existing conditions."
—°The proposed access to the new parking ramp would be further away from the intersection
of Grand Avenue and Vctoria Streef and further inside the site, which would minimize the
spili back queues onto vctoria Street and would reduce fhe potentia( for queues to spiii back
into the intersection at Grand Avenue."
—"The Saturday peak-hour counts are essentiatly equivalent to the weekday PM peak-hour
counts...."
— "While the proposed projecY would add tra�c to the street system in the vicinity of the site,
the amount added would not be su�cient to impact traffic operations. Intersection operations
a�e shown to be good (Level of Service B) and to remain at Level of Service B with the - �
added traffic.°
Staff from Saint Paul Public Works Tra�c Engineering Section reviewed the site pian:
- They said that the anticipated increase in auto traffic can be handled if fhree parKing spaces
are removed on the east side of Vctoria to provide more room for tuming movements.
- They have concems that the location of the stairs on the Victoria side of the ramp couid
encourage pedestrians to cross Uctoria in the middle of the block instead of crossing at the
crosswaik. They would like to see the stairs fram the ramp on Victoria moved closer to the
intersection to discourage people from crossing af mid-biock or have a barrier such as a
fence or 6oliard and chain irtstalled along the west side of Victoria to discourage pedesfrians
from crossing at mid-b(ock.
Staff also recommends that a"Ramp FuII" sign shoutd insfafted at the intersection of Grand and
Victoria so that drivers could find out if the ramp was fuli before they drove down Victoria. This
sign might aiso provide information on other parking lots in the area.
2. Parkirtg Grand Avenue has a parking shortfall that has been well documented. City staff did
a parking survey this year and deYermined there is currently a parking shortfall of 296 off-sVeet
parking spaces on Grand between Milton and Avon (one block either direction from Vctoria).
The zoning code woufd require 798 parking spaces for the uses in this area if they were new
uses and there 502 off-street parking spaces available for a shortfall of 37%. (There are aiso
111 on-street parking spaces available. If these are counted, the deficit becomes 185 parking
spaces for a shortfail of 14%.)
The property is currentiy used as a parking lot with 106 spaces that serves the nearby Grand
Avenue businesses.
The parking sfandards found in Section 62.103 of the Zonirtg Code require the project to provide
�
�
�� !
�
�
at least 208 off-street parking soaces. This is based on 106 spaces to replace the spaces in the
existing lot ptus 102 parlting spaces required for the proposed new retail space.
The pian provides 215 parki�g spaces seif-park spaces. The developer is proposing to provide
bicycie racks and would get credit for 2 additionai parking (per Section 62.103.j) for a total of
217parking spaces. This wouid exceed the zoning code requirement for parking by 7 parking
spaces.
Pubiic Works has recommended that 3 existing on-street parking spaces be removed on the east
side of Grand Avenue to accommodate the anticipated increase in VaSfic. (On-street spaces are
not included in zoning caiculations for determining parking.)
The applicanf is proposing to use valet parking during peak hours. Given the history of valet
parking when it was tried her before on the surface lot, staff told the appiicant they cannot count
valet spaces toward meeting the minimum parking requirement. However, valet parking, if it
could be properly managed, would provide a totai of 288 spaces for a net increase of 80 spaces
compared to the existing tot.
(See the attached section on parking that discusses the parking history and numbers in more
detail.)
An important consideration in looking at the parking situation is hours of peak demand. The peak
parking demand for Grand and Victoria appears to be in the evening primari{y because of the
restaurants. Ali of the new commercial space in the proposed development wouid be for retaii.
According to the Urban Land Institute the parking demand for retail tends to be highest in the
afternoon, especially during the weekend. This means that the afternoon peak parking demand
for retail complements the evening parking demand for the restaurants and that a good share of
the 1�2 pa�king spaces required for the new retail space may be availabie for restaurant
customers during the evening hours.
3. Urban design Concerns have been raised about how the building would fit with the existing
architeetural character of Grand Avenue, especially its height and mass. .
7he buiiding wouid be 35 feet talf (measured to the top of the parapet). 7his is taller than the
other commercial buildings on the corner but almost the same height as the adjacent apartment
buildings. (For another comparison with another new buifding, the Mississippi Market at Dale
and Selby is 32 feet tail to the top of the parapet and 42 feet tall to the top of the tower at the
corner of the building.) .
The building would be have a larger foot print and mass than other buildings in the area. ln
response, the building has been designed to look like three different buildings by using different
materials, heights and window treatments.
Openings must be provided for the parking ramp to meet building code requirements for air
circuiation. The openings facing Grand and Victoria have been kept to a minimum and designed
to look like windows.
Lighting fixtures will not be visible from nearby properties and have been designed to minimize
any spill-over light or glare. The top level of the ramp will be fit primarily by lights located in the
middle of the parking area that are mounted 12 feet above the surface of the parking (compared
to 25 to 30 feet for most parking lots). They will be supplemented by lights mounted on the
inside of the parapet and aimed into the center of the ramp.
�
The developer asked Saint Paul's Downtown Design Center comment on plans for the building.
The Design Center did not address the issue of whether this was an appropriate land use but
tfiey provided suggestions on how to improve the design of the building. The current plans
°d C
reFlect a number of these suggestions. The Design Center thinks that the design "is a very good
exampie of mixed-use buitding wmbining parking and commercia! uses and when parking ramps
are proposed in Saint Paul I would not hesitate to use this project as a model of good design " �
(See attached memo.}
Given the requirements to provide parking, a smaller building is not possib(e without underground
parking which is not economicaily feasible without a large City subsidy which does not seem
likely. That leaves only two alternatives for the site: a development like the current proposal or
the exisYing surface parking lot. A weli designed building is preferable to a parking lot at an
urban, pedestrian-oriented corner like this.
4. Required findings Section 62.108.c of the Zoning Code says that in °order to approve the site
plan, fhe planning commission shall consider and find that the site plan is consistent with" the
following: �
{a) Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul.
The site pian is consistent with this finding:
- The proposed use as retaii and accessory parking are permitted uses in the B-2 zoning
disVict.
- The buiiding meets the height limits for buildings in the B-2 zoning district
- The project meeis the parking requirements.
- The zoning code requires that cars in parking faciiities be screened from view. The current
design for the ramp meets these requiremertts on three sides but the wesY side of the ramp
must be redesigned to proved additionai screening on the second levei.
(b) The city's adopted comprehensive plan and development o� project plans for sub-areas of the
city. �
The pian is consistent with the 1999 Land Use Pian. This plan says:
— Designs for new projects in pedestrian-oriented areas should inciude buiidings out to the
sidewalk, parking that is not in front of the building and screened, human scale lighting,
windows facing the sidewalk and architecture that respects The neighborhood context. (Page
27)
— Large partcing lots erode the charm of traditional neighborhoods that were developed in the
streetcar ear.
— In pedestrian-oriented neighborhood commercial centers, the City will support the provision
ofjust enough commercial parking.
— At existing urban viilage (neighborhood) centers ... reduce parking requiremenfs for new
development, perhaps by 20 percent.
The plan is consistent with the East Grand Avenue Smalf-Area Plan and its recommendations for
this site. On page 3 the plan says that "a ramp should be approved [on this site] only if it meets
four criteria":
— Its design is appropriate fo the neighborhood.
The design of the buifding addresses concems about its height and mass. The buiiding with
retaii space at street Ievei is more appropriate than the existing surface parking Iot or a
smalier deck with no retail space along the street frontage.
— New parking provides a sign�cant net gain in spaces available for businesses.
Although there wiil only be a modest net gain in seif-serve parking spaces, it is also important
to consider hours of peak demand for parking. The peak parking demand for Grand and
Victoria appears to be in the evening primarily because of the restaurants. All of the new �
commercial space in the proposed development would be for retail. Accordmg to the Urban
Land tnsfitute the parking demand for retail tends to be highest in the afternoon, especially
during the weekend. This means that the aftemoon peak parking demand for retail
�7
c�o-59 b'
comQlements the evening parking demand for the restaurants and that a good share of the
102 parking spaces required for the new retail space may be available for restaurant
• customers during the evening hours. �
The developer is also proposing valet parking during peak hours. Given the history of valet
parking when it was tried here before on the surface lot, staff told the applicant it cannot
count valet spaces toward meeting the minimum parking requirement. However, valet
parking, if it can be properiy managed, would provide a total of 288 spaces for a net increase
of 80 spaces above what the zoning code requires.
— T2�c wilf not exceed locaf capacity.
Analysis by Saint Paul Public Works and the private traffic consultant indicates that traffic will
not exceed local capacity.
— Future spin-off development at Victoria Crossing will be controlled.
Additional spin-off development wouid not be possible under the zoning code.
The East Grand Avenue Smali-Area Pian contains another section with "Development Concepts"
for the southwest corner of Grand and Victoria. This cails for rezoning the properry to P-'I for a
two-Ievei pa�king deck. However, in the 199�s the City tried to develop a deck on the site but
couid not get the nearby property owners and businesses to agree on how to pay for it. After a
decade of work on it, it appears that a parking structure without retail to support it is not
economically feasible and could be buiit only if with a large City subsidy.
(c) Preservation of unique geologiq geographic or historicaliy significant characteristics of the city
and environmentaily sensitive areas.
The plan is consistent with the character of Grand Avenue. The height of the buiiding is
� comparable to the adjacent apartmenf buildings to the west. The desiga uses a variety of
materials and window treatments to break up the mass of the building and make it look like three
buildings.
(d) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for such mafters
as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air, and
those aspects of design which may have substantial effects on neighboring fand uses.
The site plan will improve storm water drainage. The size of the buiiding is consistent with the
apartment buildings on the block and wiit not unreasonably +nterEere with views, light and air. The
site plan is consistent with this finding if additional sound and sight buffers are added to the
second levei of the building on the west side.
(ej The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed deve/opment in order to assure
abutting property and/or ifs occupanfs will not be unreasonably affected.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The loading dock is located at the back of the
building on the aliey. The loading area should be able to accommodate trucks up to 35 feet long
so that they do not interfere with the a11ey. (The dock may need to be modified to hand{e 35 foot
long trucks. The architect is taking another look at the loading dock at the time this report was
written.) Restrictions must be put in the tenants' leases saying that trucks larger than this will not
be permitted except to initially stock stores when tenants first move in.
(� Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and focafion, orientation and
elevation of structures.
� The site plan Is consistent with tinis finding.
(g) Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian tra�c both within the site and in
��
relation to ac�ess streets, includrng tra�c circulation feafures, the locations and design of
entrances and exits and parking areas within the site.
The site pian is consistent with this finding. Based on the anaiysis of the project by the private �
traffic consultant and Saint Paul Public Works:
- The intersection can handle the increased levei of traffic. However, 3 parking spaces on the
east side of Victoria shouid be removed to provide additional room for cars turning onto
Grand.
- The ramp wili significantly increase queuing space for cars waiting to enter the ramp. in
addition, a"Ramp Fuf(" sign should be instafted by the applicant at the intersection of Grand
and Victoria so that drivers can find out if the ramp is full before they drove down Vctoria.
- Vsibility for drivers exiting the ramp onto Victoria was raised as a concem but this can be
addressed with some minor modifications to open up the southwest comer of the building.
- The iocation of the stairs for ihe parking ramp could encourage people to waik across
vctoria at mid-block. However, this can be addressed by moving the sfairs cioser to the
intersection or providing a barrier such a fence or boilard and chain along the west side of
Victoria to discourage pedestrians from crossing at mid-block.
(h) The satisfacfory availability and capacity of storm and sanitary sewers, including sotu£ions to any
drainage problems in the area of the developmenf.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. Storm water that falis on the top parking level witi be
sent direcUy to the storm sewer in �ctoria. This is an improvement over the exisfrrtg surtace
parking lot that drains to the ailey.
(I ) Su�cient landscaping fences, walls and parking necessary to meet fhe above objectives.
The site plan is consistent with this finding if additional screening and landscaping are provided �
on the west and south side of the buiiding.
All of the tra�c entering and leaving the ramp would use the drive lane on the second level of the
ramp. But the plan shows that the west side of the ramp would be open and this wouid not
provide adequate screening for light and noise for the apartment building immediately to the
west. The top of the parapet on the west and south sides of the ramp on the third levei is 3' 8"
above the surface of the parking deck. The height must be increased to 4'6" to meet zoning
standards for screening parking facififies.
New boulevard trees with grates and sidewalk paving is proposed on the Grand and Yctoria
sides. The landscape plan is not detailed about what woutd be planted on the west or south side
of the buiidirtg. The site plan shoutd tre revised to show a combination of vines and columnar
trees planted on the west of the building and vines planted to the south of the buiiding in a
raised/protected planting area along the alley to soften the visual impact of the buiiding on the
adjacent apartments and houses.
Q) Site accessi6ility in accordance with the provisions of fhe Americans with Disabilities Acf (ADA),
including parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible routes.
The site plan is consistent with this finding if one additional van accessible parking space is
provided at the "church" lot north of �ctoria Crossing Wesf.
(k) Provision for erosion and sediment controi as specified in the "Ramsey Erosion Sediment and
Confrol Handbook."
The site pian is consistent with this finding.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1-11, staff recommends approval of the site pian
i
��
Q�'
subject to the following conditions:
1. The foilowing changes must be made to improve traffic safecy:
� a. Saint Paui Public Works must remove on-street parking on Vctoria for a distance of 50 feet
south of Grand Avenue to improve traffic circulation and provide more room for tuming
movements
b. The site plan must be modified to discourage people crossing at mid-biock on Vctoria. The
stairs from the ramp on Yctoria must be moved cioser to the intersection to discourage peopte
from crossing at mid-block or a barrier such a fence or railing or boilard and chain must be
instalied along the west side of Vctoria.
c. A sign telting drivers when the ramp is full must be instailed at the comer of Grand and vctoria.
d. ?he exit ftom the ramp must be modified to improve v+sibility for drivers leaving the ramp.
2. The developer must make a best faith effort to make valet parking work during peak demand
hours.
3. One addftional van accessib{e parking space is provided at the "church" lot north of Victoria
Crossing West.
4. A revised landscape plan is submitted showing a combination of vines and columnar trees planted
west of the building and vines planted to the south of the buiiding in a reised/protected planting
area along the aNey to soften the visual impact of the buifding on the adjacent apartments and
houses.
5. The west side of the ramp must provide additional screening on the second Ievei and all parapets
on the third ievel must be at least 4.5 feet above the surface of the parking deck.
� 6. The loading area must be designed to accommodate trucks up to 35 feet long. Restrictions must
be put in the tenants' ieases saying that trucks iarger than this wili not be permitted except to
initially stock stores when tenants first move in.
7. The building must be constructed substantiaily as shown on the plans submitted to give the
appearance of three separate buildings on Grand Avenue which is compatibie with traditional
storefront design on Grand.
�
y�
L' Z�f 1 Vlt 1��1�
MILTON TO AVON
BLOCK PARKING PROVIDED PARKING REQLTIRED
Off-Street On street
Victoria to Milton (North) . . . . . . . . 229 . . . . . . . . . . 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
Victoriato Miiton (South) . . . . . . . . 136 . . . . . . . . . . 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14�
Victoria to Avon (North) . . . . . . . . . . 90 . . . . . . . . . . 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Victoria to Avon (South) . . . . . . . . . . 47 . . . . . . • • • • 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Totai.................••••... 502 ......... 111 ................ 798
Inventory completed in Mazch of 2000
�J
�
�
�[ I
00-598
_ -- - -
� - - - - -. - - - -
Victoria Plaza
■ Traffic & Parking Analysis
�
Prepazed for
Exeter Holdings LLC
' 1
� J
By
PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP
1'11 Third Avenue South, Suite 350
Minneapolis, MN 55401
January 25, 2000
�j' Z
Introduction
The Victoria Plaza project is proposed to be located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Grand
Avenue and Victoria Street in the City of St. Paui, bfinnesota. The project is expected to irtclade retai!
stores and a parkin� ramp. The existin� land use on the site is a surface pazking (ot. Exeter Hofdings LLC
retained Parsons Transportation Group to evaluate chan�zs in traffic operation and parkina demand
associated with the proposed deveiopment. 'Che fotiowin� tasks were inciuded in the analysis:
• Data Development—weekday P.M. peak-period traffic and pedestrian counts were used as the basis for
the analysis. Existin� count data was acquired from the City of S[. Pau1 and used to the extent possible.
New counts of turning traffic and pedestrians were made to supplemen[ the available counis. Because
the existin� surface pazking demand will be accommodated within the proposed development, demand
pattems for that Iot were acquired from fieid observations and historic parking use daia.
• Trip Generation—a trip �eneration anatysis was conducted to establish the amount of new traffic for the
proposed development. The analysis used rates from the ITE Trip Generation Nfanual� adjusted for
local conditions and movemznt pattems. Trips were assigned to the street system for use in the traffic
analysis.
• Tra�c Analysis—traffic operations were evaluated at the intzrsection of Grand Avenue and Victoria
Street usin� Highway Capaciry �bfanual' methodolo�y. Operations were evaluated at the driveway on
Victoria and on Victoria south of the site.
. Parkin� Demand—the peak parking demand for the new uses on the site were calculaTed and compared
to the amount of proposed parking.
Existing Conditions
Historic traffic count data for both Grand Avznue and Victoria Street were acquired from thz City of St. Paul
and evaluated to detzrmine the pattem of traffic demand. The count data (graphed below), which showed
hourly traffic volumzs by
direction oftravel on the two Hourly Distribution of Tre�c Volumes
streets, was used to deteanine
peak demand pzriods during
which intersection turnina
movemznt tra�c would be
countzd.
Initial analysis of the data
sho�ved thatthe evening
commute peak bet�veen 4:00
and 6:00 P.M. had the hi�hzst
tratfic volumes. Intersection
tuming movements were
counted on a [ypicaf weekday
( W zdnesday, October 27.
t 999) and provided the values
�
�
�
m
0
�
�
0
>
m
3
3
r
1,400
�,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
(Source: City of Saint Paul)
�
�
��
��
��
�/ilb�
� � � � � � �
o, Q Q q ¢ ¢ $ a c a a a
a ° o o ° o 0 o Z ° o o ° o ° o 0
� N < iD m O i�i C <O m O
-� Grand West of Dale �- Grand West of Vctoria �- V�ctoria South of Grand •
� Institutz of Transportation Eneinzers. Trip Generation, Sirth Edition. 1997 and Trip Generation
Flandbook.=1 Proposed Reconnnendecf Practice. March 1999.
' Transportation Rzsearch Board, Hi�lncay Capacity _�lanual, Special Report 209, Third Edition, Updated
1993
�
CARSONS TRANSPOqTATION GROUP 43 Victoria Plaza
r
CX�-$4�
� Exlsting Traffc
Weekdav P.M. Peak
m
.
U
�
c�� L 63
f� 38a
�114 r � Grand
�i 1
4,a .�, h t
a� �, fi ��
6dsting
Parking Lot
•
shown belocr. The count data and intersection conditions
are shown in detail in the Appendix of this report.
Evaluation of the peak-hour volumes usinQ 1997 HCM
methods sho�vs that the intersection operatzs in generally
�ood conditions with an overall Leve( of Service of B, even
with the hiah numbzr of pedestrians present. Level of
Service is a scale of traffic operations based on the averaQe
delay encountered by vehicles at the in[enection. The LOS
scafe ranges from A(free-flow, low delay) to F(jammed,
hi�h delay). Levet of Service E describes thz upper t'units of
traffic flow and is used to cepreseat capacin' of the
intersection/movement. Levels of Service A, B, and C
describe low to modzrate delay conditions and are
characterized as good operations. Level of Service D
represents acceptablz conditions for urban ueas.
Because the existin� parking Iot func[ion will remain on the site, fuRhzr evaluation was conducted of the
access patterns associated with the lot and overall parking patterns in the lot were reviewed. Traffic entering
and exitina the lot was observed during a weekday afrernoon. The graph below shows the r:sulting pattems
of arrival and depaRure from the lot. Only about 15 percent of the traffic uses Victoria Stre�t south of Grand
Avenue. About 25 percent uses Victoria north of Grand and the majority uses Grand Avenue to and from
the parkina lot.
Parking Lot Traffic Distribution
50%
40°l0
30%
20%
10%
0%
� Entering
■ Exiting
❑ Total
Victoria VicToria Grand Grand
3o/From Grand To/From Victoria
u
Approach Direction
PARSONS TRAN5PORTATIPN GROL7P
Victoria Plaza
i�
6st of West of North oi South of
Overall, an avera�e of 520 vehicles per day use the pazking lot, which has a capacity of 106 spaces. �
Volumes on Sundays and Mondays are slightly lower than the rest of the days of the week. Atmost 40
percent of the pazkers stay for two hours or less and about 60 percent stay for one hour or less. The traffic
associated with the existin� activity at the lot is included in [he existin� traffic counts made for the
intersection oY Grand Avenue and Victoria Street.
Future Conditions
Trip Generation
A trip generation analysis was conducted to establish the amount of new traffic that the proposed
development would generate. The analysis used rates from the 1TE Trip Generation Nfanual, which
contains studies of land uses from around the country. Cate�ory 814, Speciaity Retaii, matches the proposed
development very closely and those rates were used For the analysis.
On the basis of thz ITE rates, the 27,000 sqaare feet of proposed retail azea in Victoria Plaza would generate
about 1,080 daity trips on a typical week-day (includes trips that are new to the area and existing traffic
passina throu�h the azea; see discussion of pass-by trips below). On a daity basis, these trips would be 50
percent inbound and 50 percent outbound. For the aftemoon pzak hour, the proposed development wou[d
oenerate approximatzly 70 trips, of which 30 would be inbound and 40 would be outbound. About 1,i3�
daily trips would be generated on a typical Saturday, which is not ait that different frorrt the typical week-
day.
Because of ihe specialty naYure of the retail and the azea, it is likely that some pass-by trips will occur and
that some these pass-by trips will be made by walking from neazby stores and restauranu, rather than in
vehiclzs. Pass-by trips (or oppodunity) are trips that aze already on the street that wou(d stop at the new
retail and, thus, would be a new trip to the site, but not a new trip on the street_ According to ITE, pass-by
trips could account fa ZO percent of the aftemoon peak-hour trip generation, dependin� upon the type of
retaif proposed. However, to provide a conservative (wone case) approach, no reductions have been made to
account for pass-by trips and all of the uips { 1,080 daily and 70 peak hour) have bzen assumed to bz new.
�
Tra�c Analysis
Thz traffic generated by the proposed deve�opment was
a;si�`ned ro tumino movements on Grand Avenue and
Victoria Strezt on the basis oFthe existin� arriva( and
departure pattzms observed at the parkin� lot. The fi�ure
to the teft shows the traffic £o be added by Victoria Plaza
durin<= the afremoon peak hour.
Overall, abou[ 10 vehicles per hour at the peak would be
added to Victoria Street south of the site. On a dai[y
basis, thz proposed deve(opment woutd add up to 1�Q
trips to Victoria south of the site, if the existing travel
pattems to/from the site continue into the future
unchan_ed. Currently there are about 4.000 vehicles per
Added Treffic
P.M. Peak Hour
(No Pass-Bv)
m
0
U
�
'6.
«�t4 rs
� ht�'
dav on Victoria Straet_ l�0 added vehicles represent an �3 ••s
inerea;: of four percent. �
Victoria
Traftic addzd co [he interseccion approach durin� the ?.�t. p�aza �,
paak hour �co¢Id rtot be sufficient io chanae the overall 6
PAR�.�ONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP
h
Q
Victoria Plaza
�
��
rI ":
� Level of Service at the interseciion (see calculations in the Appendix). Conditions would remain at LOS B _ }
with an average delay of about I S seconds per vehicle, which means that vehic{es wouid encounteri ttt�o
no change from current conditions.
Added traffic approaching the site from the north wouid add to ex'isting queuing conditions that aze ereated
by cazs waiting to enter the parking Iot. Curb pazking has already been eliminated from the west side of
Victoria to accommodate this queue. This queue occasionally spills back into the intersection at Grand
Avenue and Victoria Street.
W ere the entrance to the site to remain at the same place, the added traffic from the project would worsen
conditions during peak arrival times. It is important to note that the development pian moves the pazking
entrance further away from the intersection and places the entry gates further into the site, which wi11 allow
eight to ten vehicles to queue off-street as opposed to the existing condition that only allows one to two. The
added on-site queue space serves to minimize the amount of on-street queuing that witl occur, once the
development is in place. Overall, queue conditions should improve during much of the day and remain about
the same during peak amval periods.
On the basis of the above, the impact of the traffic from Victoria Plaza will be minimal, with post-
development conditions expected to be similaz to existing conditions.
Parking
The proposed development is proposed to have 221 parking spaces in a pazking ramp that would be accessed
� at the south edge of the site from Victoria Street. Of the 221 spaces, 106 would be replacement for the
surface lot and 1 I S wou{d be new. The new retait uses in the project are expected to genemte peak pazking
demand of 100 spaces, which is equivalent to 4 spaces per 1000 squaze feet of buitding azea The proposed
parking to be included in the project would satisfy the new demand and the existing demand with a slight
surplus in space, as shown below:
Existing demand ] O6 spaces
New demand 100
Total 206 spaces
Supply 2?1
Surplus/(deficit) 15
Findings
The above analyses have shown that while the proposed project would add traffic to the street system in the
vicinity of the site, the amount added would not be sufficient to impact traffic operations. Intersection
operation are shown to be good (LOS B) and to remain at LOS B with the added project ttaffic. The project
would increase daily traffic volumes on Victoria Street south of the site by about 150 vehic{es per day (an
increase of tess than fonr percent of the existing 4,000 ADT) or about ] 0 vehicles in the peak hour. The
3 Parsons' experience in the Chicago metropolitan area has shown that retail of the type in the proposed
• project in an environment like Grand Avenue (urban core with transit) will generate demand for between
3.8 and 4.0 spaces per 1000 square feet of floor uea. This level of demand generation is consistent with
the findings of arialyses using the Urban Land Institute's Shared Porking methodology.
PARSONS TFtANSPOii7ATICSN GROUP
Victoria Plaza
l�
amount of parking proposed for the site would be adequate to accommodate the new demand and to repLace �
the existing surface parking lot with a sligltt surQlus of spaces. The proposed access to the new parking
ramp would be further away from the intersection of Grand Avenue and Victoria Sueet and fuRher inside the
siie, which woald minimize the spillback of queues onto Victoria Street and would reduce the potential for
queues to spillback into the intersection at Grand Avenue.
�
�
pqq9plV5 TWANSAOFI7ATION GFIOUP
Victoria Plaza
5`7
Mar-02-00 09:13A EXETER HOLDINGS - 6516902003 P-�z
�
00-59�
Victoria Plaza
■Traffic & Parking Analysis
■ Saturday Conditions
�
Prepared for
Exeter Holdings LLC
�
PACiCsQNS TRAlVSPOFtTATIGN GRQUP
111 Third Avenue South, Suite 350
Minneapolis, MN 55401
�
Febrvary 9, Z000
�g
Mar-02-00 09=14A EXETER HOLOINGS
6516902003
P.03
•
Comparison of Saturday to Weekday Conditions
As a supplecncnl to the 7raTfic and Parking Anah•sis t'or Victoria Pln�n (Parsons, January 25, 20U0), a seri�
of Satarda�• trafTic counts ��rere wMucted end wmpared to thc ���cckdm� dntn ihat was used as the basis for
flie a�saiys�s.
Jnfersectian Traffic/Operallons
Thc inlcrscction of (irartc! Aven� and Victoria Sueet was couttkci on Sahvday, Fcbruary �, 2000 bct��cn
die hours uf 1 t:QU A.M. ar�d t:QO P.M. 2'he peak huur oltraffic I�om this period �vns evaluated using 1997
HCM meihods and compared to the ncckday:malysis. Thc lib�se beiow sho�es thc wunt datn from both
periods.
Existing Traffic
Weekday P.M. Peak Hour
e�
•c
0
�
�
� 8 � L �
�lt► r �
�� SI'ITf'
<,a� �
8, -
Existing
Parking
Lot
Grand
Existing Traffic
Saturday Peak Hour
�R' i= �`o t 47
�1i1► r
,���htt'
�3z ���
Existing
Packing
Lot
Grand
The count pattarns shrnr xpproximakly the sante traffic rolume le��els un Salurdays as on weekdays.
Anah�sis of the intersection operations sho�rs lhut 5aturday also operates in generali}• good condilions µ•ith an
o�•erall I.ct�d ot Scn-ice of B. "1'he Saturdae� columes sre slighUy loti� cr on Vicroria Strzet Uian for U�e
��eef:dac P_M. peal: condiUOn$, which rwults in sIighUy low'er averagz delay (I 19 seconds per vehicle vcrsus
15.3) on Saturdays.
Approach Direction
Trat�fic entering und exiting ihc par};ing lot ti� as obscrvcd during the mid-day period on Sat�day at the same
ti�n� Uic intersxlion wa.i bcing ��untcd. Thc graph on thc foiloFt-ing page shotics flu�t the resulting pattems of
amca! and dcparlurc Crom lhc lot on �-eekda}�s wd Saturd�•s are equivalent On Saturdays, about 12 percent
of the parkin� loi vatlic uses Vietoria Strc�i south of Grand Avenue companxl W I S'io during lhe �ceekdny
P.bf. pc:ak hour
�
u
pwcfwNS'rqqN3PORTATION GROUP 1
Victoria Plaz�z
I�
Mar—�2-00 09:14A EXE7ER HOLOINGS
�
6516902003 P-04
00 'S9�
Parking Lot Traffic Distribution
�
�
�
L
�
�
0
F-
Q
e
d
�
d
a
�Weekday
■ Saturday
Findings
Thc Saturday pcnk-h�ur wunts are sha�en to bc csscntially equivalcnl 4o the wezl:day P,M. pwk-hour counts
used in thc ori��inaf anatcsis.
10�%
9 0 °lo
80 °lo
70°�
6�%
50%
40%
3 0 °lo
2 0 °lo
10%
b °Ja
Entering Ezrtmg Total FEnteriny Exiting Total
i
To/From North �
Appraach Di�ection
.
pqpf TAANGPORTATIOIV OflOUa 2
Victoria Plara
� a 6
i
)
�
1
)
)
1
)
)
)
APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAIV REVIEW
OFFICE OFLICENCE, INSPECTIONS, AND
ENVIXONIYIENT�4L PROTECTION
350 St Pe1er Sdeet, Suite 300
SainlPau� MNSSIOZ-ISIO
266-9086
APPLICANT/
CONTACT
PERSON
Nart1e James A. Stolpestad Cp �eter Holdi.ags LLC
Add�eSS 1080 Montreal Avenue, Suite 400
' City Saint Paa1 State M� ��P 55116
Daytime phone 651-690-I598 Fax 651-690-2003
Name of owner (if difFerentj vtctoria Piaza LLc
Address same as above Phone s�
PROJECT Project name/description dictoria rlaza
INFORMATION Address/Location SW corner Gra dvenue and victozia Street
Legal desCription: see attached sheet
(attach additional sheef if necessary)
Estimated project cost S7 million
App(icanYs
�
j6 �
�r :
�
�
.
��
< t
o i
�
�
m
�
a
.�
U
�
Do" 5 ��
�
�. .J
� � � i i ' � � � � Q � ' ' � �n� % � � i� r-r
i `, ,�
� i i• w � 3 � � �� �� � '# � � ' ,' I �
•y� �� U p_. p3 g� � ;E �� i � � ? �� . �� ,i
; W G�m � E w
�� F � �
` 3 i
� € 4i 9 �� � 4 �e ,
� � �� � '� � I
� ; � -, �
6
"N
i
�
�
a
�
J
�
�
�
ll'J
I
i
�
i
�
i
i
i
i
i
f
1
�
�
�
�
s
.
i
t
7
7
S
3
6
�
i
�
t
S
�
,
I
i
� �.�
I � �� 1
r l�:.1
� �
�
-;,:,
�� ��
e�
i�
iS
L
V ��
!f
f 5
I
4:
�t
�i�
t�
�
�
�
�
�
a
� �
� t
W �;
�> \
�
r
�� ls��� W �
d
g � �
€ � $�
W ��'m
�-.
S
�
0..�
_ �'�ll
� a
��
�_
-� � a
�
�
�
§��ffi� �iEi�l
� -
itS� + a
!;H �/
£•�� �
` �!3 f • �
!t
° Y �. i
�"�S i '
$ 3i; ; � i: 4+ ° :
3 • i'&•b; t"2f
;�� i ? (e� Nf f ' ! a
rf; �'i j�;; �:
�3_ = �,: , t�:
a.� a��..e.�.�
� �''s3 � : � s; f '
�S'F� b � �=
' �s���:��'
9 �;= r'1 ? _� �f
:.l;.:�::4e:�.i1
0 00o v o00
� •
i
$
5 ±
���I
�I `st99��;e�;
.....,, ,
I�€si;saa:i;,
L 0000000000
Q
�N ��
O� ��
�� �
�
r
�
S f 1�
� � �
�'� tL_
!
� —�
� 3�
�� ;
1
w
Ob
�I8
�
• �'a
:.
Q�
3
d
�P
•�a
� ��
�
�
Sb
�
L�
L L�
�
i
�
..oa.c�17—TiV '�M
�
0
� �
V Q.,
0 �"
� � Q �
� ; � �
2
�
�,� o �
�� ��
�
� �, e '�
� �\ � �
��i
V 1 .� � �
O ~ �
V
� � � �
a
o��,�
�� o
� � � K
Lti V
�
5q
�
� �
�
�
— M _-..' I .13AHRS 31J.I1 Q\YI HS7Y/tli'[tl
.�w.a� nwam. nu� o.n .�+�s..n.m a..
_ �rw.or ....w.. ...e s�n �n .m ...oa. �o.
iD'S 9\IH7iVd 9;11SSOK� �'[�503J[A
�
r i ac
� � \
� �
I (
I I �
i 1
�� �
1 �a �
I (�: �
� ! • �
i � ," F
� ���
� ��a
�,
4i
� � �_
j� P
�i f
N V; M 00'(
� Q
-� �v iY ' 4
�! YL�
� Wi� i N� �
d d ����'S� , Z { [
. __�__4 .A � ;1t2 �_.
i
�J
Q
� h
0
:�
. ,
v� �1w
� .
'_"_'H.."'_"'"_"_"'"' "
�
am ; ,
�
.,;�
.
'-'-- g- -'°--'-'-
z q F
a p i g
� _ 1; ;
; m� :
a:
N
� ' i �
_"_"_�"__"'_' ____'_'�'"_"_"'
-=a
a �
� z
�.�� ._ �;_..� .
�r , �
jo 5
�
�
,�� ;:
_
d
S�L' Y ��42
��_g �e�e_
� a� ° s �b
3 �E €.'s_i�
e 3���ex
�i��d ^�i'i�i
Y
;;, _
-`e a� ;
� � � F � f d �
a O° �' `�
w �"
W } � ; t5
i� '�
i T p p I � j s
EE� � �;-
oo �.,
a
�_
�
e � � g'
i
R�:
r
_ � �
!f �•
:;E�= � �
r �
� ���
� J ��
d. 3
� a
�� �
a�
� �.
W �(�'�i
� �j
r
i���
� 1:3d
i ;i
�i1n
Y �
f
.
...
..�
�
�—
�—
s
�
�
�
� '
�
�
�=
� '
I
o-_ I
�
�
.n
��
�
0
�
4
�
a
i
�
�
��
�
�
�
� l��
GRAND AV�NUE
Sainf Paui, Minnesota
s
�
Bbelot Shop
Q�ico's
Geative Kidswff
The Lexington
Sexc'lis
Wudlet
ViCTOR1A PLAZA
Retail Shops
Parking Ramp
YICTORIA CROSSING SOUT4
tafe Latte
Garo's
7ust G2nd
�
�
�
�
Z
v
.
8cueggerz8agek
Wdd Onion
Walgreens
�
Tavem on G2nd
To Down�own 5ain+ Paul `�
�
Z
�
C
C
{` •
ao-59�
� �o I-94 and down4own Minneapolia
I,EXINGTON --�-
Blad�umr Ydeo
Can'bou Coffee �
Geat Harvat &ead Co.
Images Under Glazs
PaiirtYaurPiate
OXFDRD
T2dNOis
�,u�.rSwoRru
n•am�w s sans
MILTON mi1TO� �au
-�-�.-_ - Btue & Wfiite Gallery
�e:s,-ci.
,_, ___..,,, Aanore Cuffee Cn.
----- Craaa H7I flowerMarket
Depth of Feld
�.,:�.-; Leeann Chin
'"-�-' ParkDendl
�=="'�` � hoex Photo
VIGTORIL� T�� � fe
Aveda/HOrst
Starbudcs Coffee
�V�
" - AVON PU10E
- _._� Smitli 8 Hawken
Restwation Hardware
a
Cadbou CoBee
GROTTO
Rerl
D'aie's Smokehouse GriII
kji-Ya
5T. /s�(.BANS
+01-94
DA�l.E --�
�
NCTORIA CROSSING WEST
Mnette's
Bead Monkey
&ead & Chocofate
Garden ot Eden
Grand Orienwt Rugs
Lee's Books
Irrto The Woods
InYsion
lack & lill
LoNs
Tapisserie
O 1999 Exeter Aeaity Company
��1
�
�
�F
�
�
e
�
�
s
■
•
'�' ���
� � � �
� _�
� �
��
.
.
r
�
s
I ���� �
�
���1� �
�l:.�l��� a
e��A��! ��i����
� .����
' • .
� �.
o I � �� „
•
a�-ss�
�
�
�
--, -..,. . . ,
, _ _. .,,. , °� - _..._� � � .._�n_ ..� .
- - --
,_...---._...._., _. �___._ �--�� -
3 �fi1 � - -�
-
w ��
..�.. . --=-. -- -�--� ^-- � =
-___-
� � - � ��rrolf� � �« - ���- _ �_-
Jhai �ff IF FIfiO .w . ,_ _.e -� �j � �- �t� � _�
...�.� . �. _ t�,farshal��;�ste==� � ��=� --- .-. . �.� � .._�, ��_� :�
D&t�t�n €Sve _ m 1z i � � �..m w T ' _ �� ".
._.� z � �� o _ -
_� �
� �.. ,..__� . � 4 � �Selk�y �',uP _ � ...�. a,_ � F .
�-. �"'f, m� �: �+a}ae �.r+� _.�_ � Q � � � � L�ure4 Aue - � �'-� �=� :
_r� _ � � � � r _ �` : r"s�htafld ��e -" � �
_ �, � �
�` -.� t ` � 860 Axre �-�t"��,r ��C , .
�: � _._�_ _ ���. , � :
� £, ``' ° ` � St Paui MN 5�1U� ; `
�� �Sum�rt�-��re ��� ��. �� � �o ��
� . .: 1- J F '�`1?
. �� � �"at""dtld �LV9 , �' _� � � :t-3 E � ,
E �#'lGb�- �'�� � :
j. ..
� �-�`�___._
�, :� :___..� -� S# Pau1 � ,�-��.��� .�.� :
r � .� � " ." �" c� 3 r f; ';-- ----� a
�,.,� � ,._ � _.-•� Fatr�toE�rst Aue � � = s 1 ��E �t x,�
. 1
� ,F = � � ' ���° E�i�'�C�� . � �, .
,r �� � ,= a --�x �s��ofa ����P � � `
t�'7.,.��,`,Pai, �Ts�-� ._ � :?��'� ; � w.:�_ ��.� v:
� _;�=.
� . _, ' .:;,,�,..�
� _.�, , ..
r:f�ve ~ G'1 <_
"� r"�.VB
?�oft.Curp. Ci 1:�9?�F7
�:.�C�D P�F�� ;M 13�;
.....� �'� '" ;
3`'E- �PY:L�',�E.;
x�.1Q;� k'��5E+�
. G GT. Inc ._. .: tamak.=,
f � � � ,
�+��� � .
.� �� .
� � .
� �� :
� }�. �
� -, r'n _
Q �tit` a� -
.3c = --` �
.`. � . _ _�_�_. ._ _ � ��,��:
`pa
MRY=09-00 TUE 1'a:41 THE RED BRLLOON BOOKSHOP 2249568 P.01
♦r �
i�
Page l of 4
CHIL D R Eti'3 SOOK3, ETC_
$91 �RAN� AVENUE
ST_ PAUL, MN 55'105
6 5 1 - 8 2 4- 8 3 2 O
Tou rree 1 -H98-224-6320
Fax 7 -657 -224-9508
May 9, 2000
Saint Paul City Council Members
Saiat Paul City Hall
75 West Kellogg
Ssint Paul, MN SS102
Fax 651-266-8574
Aear Council Members,
We oppose the Victoria Plaza developmcnt as proposed. While we are not opposad to the
dcvclopment of this prope�ty, which is across Grand Avenue £com ow bookshop, the scsle is
totally out of propanian in retation to surramdiag businesses and svuctures. We, i.e., the Cicy of
Saint Paul, risk "kitlis� the golden goosa" if ws do swt foster the main street aimosphere, wixich
has bccn the hallmark of onr averaie. Grand Avenue has beea� hailcd as the "gem" within thc City
of Sairrt Paul. iet's not jeopardize this economic boon to the City.
8ecause the plan includes so much addiiioual tetail spaee we feel that iraffic and congestion wi11
be exacert�ated. The existing perception of our cuswmers reflects a current reluctance to drive to
Grflnd Avcnuc. If tbis buildiag is built as proposed we feel that although more peaple will come
ta the Victoria and Grand area, fewer customers wiii oome to each of the stores. Negative
parkiag issves wiil supersede the positive attitudes of customers.
Plcasc rcad t6e attached documents: tha postec entitied "This business supports" which hangs in
storefronu along the avenue and a copy of Michele's letter to t�e Planuius Commission regarding
thc developmeat. Addirionally, there is a peution to the Saint Paul C'sry Council s'sgned by Grand
Avonue busincsscs, which will ba presented to the Council an May 1Q 2004.
tiVe sincerely hope that eac3a of yon will rcatize that our core customers from the nei�s,hborbood
ar,d we aze citiaens and voten. We, as business pe.ople, are inte�ally linked to our naghborhood.
The dcvclopme�t that occurs at the southwest comer of Grand aad �etoria should be in keeping
with the flavor of Grand Avenue and enhanec its status as We "gem" of Saiat Pau1. It would be a
crime to miss the oppomutiry to signiScantly increase the availability ofpazlang spaas in our
arca. A redcsigned buitding which increased the number afpa�ciag spaces and whose scale and
dcsign enhanced the esthetic of Grand Avenue's main street afmosphere would be weleozned.
Sinceraty,
`�����.���.�, ��..�.
Michcle Cromer-Poire' aad Carot Erdahl, co-ovmers
- YOUR LOCALLY OWNED /NDEPENDENT BOOKSELLER S/NCE 1984 -
� � q� 1 � � �
1 � , 1 �
.. .
THIS BUSXN�SS
SUPPORTS
Suminit Hill Association &
Neighbors Opposed to Victo�ia �Pla.za
Did you know...
♦ Tha building will ocaupy $ city lots.
� It will be tailer than the adjacent 3 story apartmeut buildings.
♦ New employees for the new 27,745sq. ft. of retail space will number
approxinnately 100 per day. VJhexe will TI�Y park?
+ Parking on two levels WILL NOT ALI.EVIA�'E the existing parking
space shortfall.
+ Parking will have a fee, which exacezbates congesdon as drivers look for
free p�rking. Even validated parking does not promote the "eat and
shop" habiY of customers because validations aze limited.
• 27,745sq, ft, of retail equals the space o£ these business combined: Cafe
I,atte; Aveda, Bread and Chocolate, Billy's, and Ciatti's.
+ 1'he East Grand Avenue Comprahensive Plan was co-devetoped by
Summit TTill Association, City of Saint Paul Dept. of Plaruung and
Economic Development, and Grand Avenue Busiaess Association in
1989. Zt was approved by the City Council and signed by the Mayor.
The Plan specifically addresses the SW corner of Grand and Victoria
dcsignati.ng it as 1'AItKINGr ONLY.
VdI-�T CAN �OIJ� DO?
♦ Cal�, write, or email city council members &
Ma�or Coleman -- voicing your opposition to the
project as proposed.
WE NEED YOUR SUPPt�RT NOW!
'V�TE NEED Y(�UR. VOICE TO BE HEAR.D!
For more info: www.novictoriaplaza.com or calt 651-224-0$26
.
CHtLDREN'S BOOKS, ETC.
69� GAANt� AVENiJE
^-uT. PAl3l,.. MIV 55105
6$ 1- 2 2 4- 8 3 2 O
Totttrae '1-888-224-8320
Fax 1 -65'1 -224-9508
Mazch 14, 20D0
Larry Soderholm
Saint Aaut Planning Commissior� Administrator
$aint Paul Planning Commission
City T�iali Annex
25 West 4'� SYreet
Saint Paut, MN 55102
Re: Victoria Crossing Plaza Development
Mr. SoderhoJm and Commissioners:
T am co-owner o�The lted Balloon Booi;shop, located across the street t'orm the proposed
development, at 891 G�and Avenue, (fuunded in 1484), and was the owner of Odegard
Books Saint Paul which was located in Victoria Crossing from 1978-]996. I am cunently
and have becn a board mem6er of the Grand Avenue Business Association for most of
the last 22 years. When 1 moved back to Saint Paul in 1978 T 3ived on Grand Avenue at
Avon fo� ten ycars and then moved to 1017 portland Avenue, 1 have always livad wifIuu
five blocks of the intersection of Victoria and Grand Avenue. I have a unique vantage
pnint from which to view the proposed devefopment since I wear the hats of ihree types
of interested persons: I am a neighborhood �esident, a Victoria Crossin� merchant, and a
Grand Avenue property owner (891 Giand Avenue).
The proposed development woul�l negatively impactthe neighborhood and the business
community. The �ast Grand Comprchensive Plan of 1989 was developed cooperarively
by residents of Summit Hil! A,ssociation, members o£the Grand Avenue Business
Association, and the City of Saint Paul PED. The proposed developmem is not in
koeping with the d'arectives of the Plan. Nezthar the spirit nor the "lette�' of the Plan
would be served by the development as proposed.
The tlavor of Grand Avenue wouid be altered by such a targe building housing large
footprint stores. The proposed bui(ding would dwasf thc existing buildings at Victoria
and Grand. Tt woutd be talier than any buiiding nearby. The footprint of tha
development woutd be lazger than any other Grand Avenue building. '
♦i ,
- YOUR LOCAt�LY OWNEO tNDEPENDENT BOOKSELCER SlNCE t 984 -
� � M4 1 ' < <
1 1 1 1 �
r� ��
Farkin� and traffse have been issues for Cmnd Avenue £or a very long time. We have sn
opportunity to address this issue positively by signifitantly in�reasing the nun2ber of frce
parking spaces. A two level, roofed ramp would sigsrificantly increase the pazking
spaces, if the sasnp were free for customers and had a 3 hour limit, both the businesses
and residenis would benefit. Glx�tomers couid always find a free parking spot. 'Ihis
wnuld deerease the traffc and pollution which we currentty experience as customers
drive arot�nd trying to Tind a free parking spot. Neighbors wouid not experience light
poi3ution at nighi. (This issue is huge for residents who live adjacent to the site.) The
city woutd recoup iPs investment throuah ta�c-increment fenancing. This model has
worked beautifully at 50�' attd France £or yeazs. Why shouldn't Saint Paul use this tried
and true method to alleviate the parking space shortfall at this imersection? PED had a
plan for just such a development. There were even PED drawings of the proposed ramp
which were in keeping with the �ast Crrand Avenue Comprehensive Plan Unfortunately,
this whote pzoposal died when Saint Faul elected a new mayor who was not in favo� of it.
Now, Mayor Norm Coleman has encouraged pubiic parricipation in parking facilities i.e.
thc shared lot on Grand Ave�nue at Snelling. Mayor Coleman could encourage a win-win
situation i� he were to come forward in favor of a taa-iacrement financed two lcvel
roofed parkin$ ramQ. The city's investment would repaid by neazby businesses through
tax-increment financing. The neighbors, C�zand and Victo�a businesses, and the city
would ail win!
Orand Avecnze is successful and distinctive because of it's main street atmosphere -- iYs
many owner-operated shops with personnel who "go the extra mile" for their cnstomers.
Tlic inf2ux of larger and national chain stores threatens this very ambiaece which znakes
Gs•and Avenue so special. The city of Sairn Pau1 aoutd kill iYs golden goose by ignoring
the Bast �3rand Avenua Comprehensive Pian, �lowing the Victoria Crossing Piaza
development to be built.
Sincerety
/ y1 / i
{ P � ..�t.e�u.�..c/ d•."2/
Michele Cromer-Po'ue'
00-59�"
May l, 2000
PETITION:
T4: ST PAUL CITY COUNCIL
The following Grand Avenue businesses aze opposed to the Victoria Plaza Project as
currenkly pianned. A building of this size is out of scale with the rest of the avenue and
will exacerbate existing ttaffic and parking problems from Fairview to Dale and beyond.
While we would grefer that this project not go forward at all, we would ask, at the least,
that it be deferred pending a comprehensive study and a series of pubiic hearings
regarding the future of Grand Avenue and the impact of such developments on all
businesses and neighborhoods on or near Grand Avenue.
Business Name Address Authorized Signature
�i '
L oc,t�la� �'. ��i a�
j Q��^-ez; R�Y �ii-t�..+�.f /Qz`C ,C�Jc�{i �,,. �.n
��,r , ,,, /I _ . �,� ,r ,�.r�-�-� ? 5� t-fvzc r--�l �c,t�e . -1f� wor �� i � r� �
... '.
May 1, 2000
PETITION:
TO: ST PAUL CITY COUNCIL
The following Grand Avenue businesses are opposed to the Victoria Plaza Project as
cunently planned. A building of this size is out of scale with the rest of the avenue and
will exacerbate existing traffic and parking problems from Fairview to Dale and beyond.
While we would prefer that this project not go forward at all, we would ask, at the least,
that it be deferred pending a comprehensive study and a series of public hearings
regarding the future of Grand Avenue and the impact of such developments on all
businesses and neighborhoods on or near Grand Avenue.
- --�
�
? e,`{rmn.z�
��`�
�l �
Business Name Address Authorized Signature
c�- 59a
May l, 2000
PETTTION:
TO: ST PAUL CITY COUNCIL
The following Grand Avenue businesses are opposed to the Victoria Pia2a Project as
currently planned. A building of this size is out of scale with the rest of the avenue and
will exacerbate existing traffic and parking problems from Fairview to Dale and beyond.
Wfiile we would prefer that this project not go forwazd at all, we would ask, at the least,
that it be deferred pending a comprehensive study and a series of public hearings
regazding the future of Grand Avenue and the impact of such developments on all
businesses and neighborhoods on or near Grand Avenue.
Business Name Address A,uthorized Si n� ature
r� i
May 1, 2000
PETITION:
TO: ST PAUL CITY COUNCIL
The following Grand Avenue businesses are opposed to the Victoria Plaza Project as
currently planned. A building of this size is out of scale with the rest of the avenue and
will exacerbate e�cisting tra�c and parking problems from Fairview to Dale and beyond.
While we would prefer that this project not go forwazd at all, we would ask, at the least,
that it be defened pending a comprehensive study and a series of public hearings
regazding the future of Grand Avenue and the impact of such developments on all
businesses and neighborhoods on or near Grand Avenue.
.
� j � ` ' / �
,. . � _ �/ i i .r/ ,,:v.�
��!� <� , !�!`-
� �-' rl� � ����
� r i / r� � � � �� -
' '��
�—
1 ��
Business Name Address Authorized Si nature
May l, 2000
PETITION:
TO: ST PAUL CITY COUNCIL
�o-5y�
The following Grand Avenue businesses are opposed to the Victoria Plaza Project as
currently planned. A building of this size is out of scale with the rest of the avenue and
will exacerbate existing traffic and pazking problems from Fairview to Dale and beyond.
While we would prefer that this project not go forward at all, we would ask, at the least,
that it be deferred pending a comprehensive study and a series of public hearings
regarding the future of Grand Avenue and the impact of such developments on all
businesses and neighborhoods on or near Grand Avenue.
Business Name Address Authorized Signature
May l, 2000
PETITION:
TO: ST PAUL CITY COUNCII.
The following Grand Avenue busi sed to the Victoria Plaza Project as
currently planned. A bui�g of-thissiz�is,out of s with the rest of the avenue and
wili exacerbate exi�Etg tr�c and parking problems fro Fairview to Dale and beyond.
While we would efer that this project not go forwazd at a, we would ask, at the least,
that it be defe d pending a comprehensive study and a ser s of public heazings
regarding the uture of Grand Avenue and the impact of suc developments on all
businesses a d neighborhoods on or neaz Grand Avenue.
r
�s;t���
� ��
� sr
L,,��er
�� .
-�
C.n� 59?
May 1, 2000
PETITION:
TO: ST PAUL CITY COUNCIL
The following Grand Avenue businesses are opposed to the Victoria Plaza Project as
currently planned. A building of this size is out of scale with the rest of the avenue and
will exacerbate existing traffic and puking problems from Fairview to Dale and beyond.
While we would prefer that this pro}ect not go forward at all, we would ask, at the least,
that it be deferred pending a comprehensive study and a series of public hearings
regarding the future of Grand Avenue and the impact of such developments on all
businesses and neighborhoods on ox near Grand Avenue.
Business Name Address
����
s. L��, �`� ��
; y.
,� � . � _ . , ��iI�111i��
� ��
May 1, 2000
PETITION:
TO: ST PAUL CITY COUNCII.
The foilowing Grand Avenue businesses are opposed to the Victoria Plaza Project as
currently planned. A building of this size is out of scale with the rest of the avenue and
will exacerbate existing traffic and parking problems from Fairview to Dale and beyond.
While we would grefer that this project not go forward at all, we would ask, at the least,
that it be deferred pending a comprehensive study and a series of public hearings
regarding the future of Grand Avenue and the impact of such developments on all
businesses and neighborhoods on or neaz Grand Avenue.
Business Name
Address
Authorized Si nature
✓ I i �/
�
TCc.✓l4l- �l�f �- JS�'+ �aYtAn� i'��'�.
�• " :
Interdeparhnental Memarandum
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
DATE: 7une 19, 2000
TO: City Council Members and Nancy Anderson
FRoM: Peter Warner
RE: ConsentAgendallo.27,ResolutiongrantingappealoverGrandfVictoriaRamp
Attached please find Planning Commission Resolution No. OQ-25 which is to be attached to and
incorporated into the Council Resolution granting the appeal of the various parties appealing the
Planning Commission decision to approve the site plan of the proposed development.
Attachment
•Y �
city of saint pau!
planning commission resotution
fife number o0-25
date March 24 z000
WHEREAS, EXETER HOLDINCS LLC file � 99-Q01181�1, has applied for a Site Plan
Review under the provisions of Section of the Saint Paui Leaislative Code, for the purpose of
constructin� a commercial development and parkino facility at 860 Grand Avenue, Iegally
described as SEE FII..E; and
�VI-�REAS, the Piannin� Commission on 3110100, held a public hearing at w•hich all persons
present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the
requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul I.eoislative Code; and '
�VHEREAS, Saint Paul Plannin� Commission, based on the evidence presented at the public
hearin� on 3110l00 as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the follo�ti in� findings of fact:
1. Traffic Concems have been raised about traffic con�estion at Grand Avenue and
Victoria and the impact of additional development.
The developer hired the Parsons Transportation Groug to do a traffic study. They used
traffic counts that had previously been done by Public �Vorks and conducted their own
counts of turnin� movements at the intersection of Grand and Victoria during a weekday
PVI rush hour and on a Saturday. Their study conciuded that:
- "The impact of the traffic from Victoria Plaza Fvill be minimal, with post-
development conditions expected to be similaz to existin� conditions."
— "The proposed access to the new parking ramp would be funher away from the
intersection of Grand Avenue and Victoria Street and further inside the site, which
wouid minimize the spill back queues onto Victoria Screet and would reduce the
potential for queues io spiltback into the intersection at Grand Avenue."
— "The Saturday peak-hour counts are essentially equivalent to the weekday PM
peak-hour counts...."
moved by Faricy
seconded by Gordon
i n tavor Unanimous voice vote with one abstention
against_
so
Oo-5S8
Zoning File � 99-00118151
Pa�e Two of Resolution
— "`Vhile the proposed project would add trafFic to the street system in the vicinity
of the site, the amount added would not be sufficient to impac[ traffic operations.
Intersection operations are show•n to be aood (I.evel of Serrice B) and to remain a[
Level of Service B with tfie added traffic"
Staff from Sain[ Paul Public Works Traffic En�ineerin� Section reriewed the site plan:
- They said that the anticipated increase in auto traffic can be handled if three
parking spaces are removed on the east side of Victoria to provide more room for
turnina movements.
- They have concerns that the location of the stairs on the Victoria side of the ramp
could encoura�e pedestrians to cross Victoria in the middle of the block instead of
crossing at the crosswalk. They would like to see the stairs from the ramp on
Victoria moved closer to the intersection to discourase people from crossing at
mid-block or have a barrier such as a fence or bollard and chain installed along the
west side of Victoria to discouraQe pedestrians from crossins at mid-block.
Staff also recommends that a"Ramp Full" sign should installed a[ the intersection of
Grand and Victoria so that drivers could find out if the ramp �vas full before they drove
doGVn Victoria. This sien misht also provide information on other parkin� lots in the
area. � y
2. Parking Grand Avenue has a parkin� shorcfall that has been w�e11 documented. City
s[aff did a parkina survey this year and detemvned there is currently a pazkin; shortfail of
296 off-street parkin� spaces on Grand between Niilton and Avon (one b]ock either
direction from Victoria). The zonin� code would require 798 parking spaces for the uses
in this area if they were ne�v ases and there 503 off-street pazkin� spaces available for a
shortfali of 37%. (There are also 111 on-street parkin; spaces available. If these are
counted, the deficit becomes 18� parkin� spaces for a shortfail of 1�90.)
The property is cunently used as a parkin� lot with 106 spaces that serves the nearby
Grand Avenue businesses.
The parkin� standards found in Section 62.103 of the Zonin� Codz require the project to
provide at least 210 off-streei parkino spaces. This is based on lOS spaces to replace the
spaces and the bicycle rack in the existin� lot plus 102 parkino spaces required for the
proposed ne�v retail space.
The plan provides 213 parkin� spaces self-park spaces and would get credit for 2 more
spaces for providing bicycle racks (per Section 62.103.j) for a tocal of 21� parkin�
spaces. This woutd exceed the zonin� code reguirement for parkine by 5 parkin� spaces.
S(
Q�- 59a
Zonine File � 99-00118151
Pa�e Three of Resolution
Pubiic Works has recommended that 3 existing on-street parking spaces be removed on
the east side of Victoria to accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic. (On-street
spaces are not included in zonino calculations for determining parkin�.)
The applicant is proposing to use vale[ parking during peak hours. Given the his[ory of
valet parkin� when it was tried her before on the surface lot, staff told the applican[ they
cannot count valet spaces toward meeting the minimum parkin� requirement. However,
valet parking, if it could be groperly managed, would provide a total of 288 spaces for a
net increase of 80 spaces compazed to the existin� lot.
An important consideration in looking at the parking situation is hours of peak demand.
The peak parking demand for Grand and Victoria apgears to be in the evening primarily
because of the restaurants. All of the new commercial space in the proposed development
would be for retail. According to the Urban Land Institute the parkin� demand for retail
tends to be hi�hest in the aftemoon, especially during the weekend. This means that the
afternoon peak parking demand for retail complements the evenino parkin� demand for
the restaurants and that a �ood share of the 102 pazkin� spaces required for the new retail
space may be available for restaurant customers durin� the evenins hours.
3. Urban design Concems have been raised about how the buildinQ would fit with the
existin� architectural character of Grand Avenue, especially its heiQh[ and mass.
The buildin� would be 3� feet tail (measured to the top of the pazapet). This is taller than
the other commercial buildings on the corner but almost the same heieht as the adjacent
apartment buildings. (For another comparison with another new building, the Mississippi
Market at Dale and Selby is 32 feet tall to the top of the parapet and 42 feet tail to the top
of the tower at the comer of the buildine.)
The buildin� would be have a larger foot print and mass than other buildin�s in the area.
In response, the buildin� has been desi�ned to look like three different buildings by usin'
different materials, hei�hts and window treatments.
Openino-s must be provided for the parkin� ramp to meet buildin� code requirements for
air circulation. The openinas facina Grand and Victoria have been kept to a minimum
and desi�ned to look like windo�vs�
Lishtin� fixtures will not be visible from nearby properties and have been desio ed to
minimize any spill-over li�ht or glare. The top level of the ramQ �vill be lit primarily by
fi�hts located in the middle of the parkin� area that are mounced 12 feet above the
surface of the parking (compared to 25 to 30 feet for most parking lots). They wili be
supp(emented by li�hts mounted on the inside of the parapet and aimed into the center of
the ramp.
SL
�- 59$
Zonin� File � 99-00118151
Pase Four of Resolu[ion
The developer asked the Saint Paul on the Mississippi Design Center to comment on
pians for the building. The Desia Center did not address the issue of whether this was
an appropriate land use but they provided sugoestions on how to imQrove the desia of
the buildin;. The cunent plans reflect a number of these su�Qestions. The Desia Center
wrote that the desi�n "is a very good example of mixed-use buildin� combining parkin�
and commercial uses and when pazkina ramps are proposed in Saint Paui I wouid not
hesitate to use this project as a model of good desi;n." (See attached memo.) �
Given the requirements to provide parkin�, a smaller building is not possible without
underground pazking which is not economically feasible without a]arge City subsidy
which does not seem likely. That leaves only two altematives for the site: a development
like the cuirent proposal or the existing surface parking lot. A wel] desi�ned building is
preferable to a pazking lot at an urban, pedestrian-oriented corner like this.
4. Required findings Section 62.108(c) of the Zonin� Code says that in "order to approve
the site plan, the plannin� commission shall consider and find that the site plan is consistent
�vi[h" the followin�:
(a) Applicable ordina�:ces of the CiN of Saint Paul.
The site plan is consistent with this findin�:
- The proposed use as retaii and accessory parl:ing are permitted uses in the B-2
zonin� district.
- The buildin� meets the hei�ht limits for buildin�s in the B-2 zonin� district.
- The project meets the parkin� requirements.
- The zonina code requires that cars in parl:in� facilities be screened from view.
The cuaent desisn for the ramp meets these"requirements on three sides but the
west side of the ramp must be redesi�ned to pro�•ide additional screenin� on the
second level.
(b) The city's adopted compreltensive plari and developrr:eitt or project plans for sub-areas of
the cifi.
The plan is consistent with the 1999 I.and L3se Plan. This plan says:
— Aesians for ne�v projects in pedestrian-oriented uzas shoutd include buildings out
to the sidewalk, parkin� tha[ is not in front of thz buildin� and screened, human
scale liehiina, windo�vs facin� the sidewalk and azchitecture that respects the
neiQhborhood context. (Pa�e 27)
— Laree parl:in; lots erode the charm of traditional neiahborhoods ihat were
developzd in the streetcar ear. y
— In pedestrian-oriented neishborhood commercial centers, the City will support the
provision of just enouah commercia] parkino.
53
c�- 59 S
Zonin� File # 99-D01181�1
Pa�e Five of Resolution
— At existin� urban villa�e (nei�hborhood) centers ... reduce parkin� requirements
for new development, perhaps by 20 percent.
The plan is consisten[ with the East Grand Avenue Small-Area Plan and its
recommendations for this site. On pa�e 3 the plan says that "a ramp should be approved
[on this site] only if it meets four criteria":
— Its desi�n is appropriate to the nei�hborhood. •
The design of the buildin� addresses concerns about its height and mass. The
buitdin� with retail space at street level is more appropria[e than the existing
surface parking tot or a smaller deck with no retail space alon� the street fronta�e.
— New pazkina provides a significan[ net gain in spaces available for businesses.
Althou�h there will only be a modest net gain in self-serve parking spaces, it is
also important to consider hours of peak demand for parking. The peak pazking
demand for Grand and Victoria appeazs to be in the evenin� primarily because of
the restaurants. Ail of the new commercial space in the proposed development
would bz for retail. Accordin� to the Urban Land Institute the parking demand for
retail tends to be hi�hest in the afternoon, especially durin� the weekend. This
means that the aftemoon peak parkin� demand for retail complements ihe evenin�
parkino demand for the restaurants and that a good shaze of the 102 parking
spaces required for the new retail space may be available for restaurant customers
durin; the evening hours.
The developer is also proposing valet parkin� durin� peak hours. Given the
history of valet parkin� when it was tried here before on the surface lot, staff told
the applicant it cannot count vale[ spaces tow•ard meetin� the minimum parkino
requirement. However, valet parking, if it can be properly mana�ed, would
provide a total of 288 spaces for a net increase of 80 sgaces above what the zonin�
code requires.
— Traffic �vil1 not exceed local capacity.
Analysis by Saint Paul Public �Vorks and the private traffic consultant indicates
that traffic will not exceed local capacity.
— Future spin-off development at Victoria Crossins will be controlled.
Additiona! spin-off development would not be possible under the zoning code.
The East Grand Avenue Small-Area Plan contains another section with "Development
Concep[s" for [he southwest comer of Grand and Victoria. This section intended [hat this
proper[y should be rezoned from B-2 to P-1 as part of the 1989 development concept for
a parkin� deck but did no[ intend that the parcet shou(d be rezoned to P-1 if the
development concept for the deck proved infeasible. Since the adoption of this section,
5�
..�
�
Zoning File � 99-00118151
Pa�e Six oE Resolution
the City tried to develop a deck on the site but could not get the nearby property owners
and businesses to asree on how to pay for it. After a decade of work on it, it appears that
a parking structure without retail to support it is not feasible and could be built only if
with a large City subsidy.
(c) Preservation of unique geoiogic, geographic or historically signifzcant characteristics of
rhe ciry and environmentally sensitive areas. .
The plan is consistent with the chazacter of Grand Avenue. The height of the building is
comparable to the adjacent apartment buildin�s to the west. The desia uses a variety of
materials and window treatments to break up the mass of the building and make it look
like three bnildings. .,
(d) Protection of adjacent and neigJt6oring properties tFzro[egh reasonable provision for such
marrers as surface warer drainage, soa�nd and siglst be�ers, preservation of viervs, light
and air, artd rhose aspects of design which may have saibstantial effects on neighboring
far:d uses.
The site plan will improve storm water draina�e. The size of the buiiding is consistent
with the apartment buiidin�s on the block and will not unreasonably interfere with views,
li�ht and air. The site plan is consistent with this findin� if additional sound and si�ht
buffers are added to the second level of the buildin� on the west side.
(e) The arrangement of b:titdings, ttses and facilities of the proposed development in order to
assttre abturing property and/or its occi�pants witl not be unreasonably affected.
The site plan is consistent with this findin�. The loadin� dock is located at the back of
the buildino on the alley. The loadine area has been modified so that it will be able to
accommodate trucks up to at least 3� feet long so that they do not in[erfere with the aliey.
Restrictions must be put in the tenants' leases sayinQ that trucks larger than this will not
be permitted except to initially stock stores when tenants first move in.
(fl Creation of energy-cor:serving design t3:roi�gJ: landscaping and location, orientation and
elevatiat of stn�ctures.
The site plan is consistent with this findin�.
(�) Snfesv and conver:ience of both vehicutar and pedesrrim: tra�c 6oth within the site a�td
i�t relatioi: to access streets, including tra�c circutation features, tl:e locations and
desi�n of entra�tces and exits and parking areas witliin tlte site.
The site plan is consistent wi[h this findin�. Based on the anaIysis of the project by the
3S
rJ
r �
Zonin� File � 99-001181�1
Pase Seven of Resolution
private traffic consultant and Saint Paui Public �Vorks:
- The intersection can handle the increased level of uaffic. Ho�vever, 3 pazking
spaces on the east side of Victoria should bz removed to provide additional room
for cars tumina on[o Grand.
- The ramp wiil significantly increase queuin� space for cars waitin� to enter tfie
ramp. In addition, a"Ramp Full" sio should be installed by the applicant at the
intersection of Grand and Victoria so that drivers can find out if the ramp is full
before they drove down Victoria.
- Visibility for drivers exitin� the ramp onCO Victoria was raised as a concern but
this can be addressed with some minor modifications to open up the southwest
corner of the building.
- The loca[ion of the stairs for the parking ramp could encourage people to walk
across Victoria at mid-block. However, this can be addressed by moving tfie
stairs closer to the intersection or providin� a barrier such a fence or bollard and
chain along the west side of Victoria to discourage pedestrians from crossing at
mid-block.
(h) The satisfactory availabi[ity a�zd capacity of stonn mid sanitary sewers, incli�ding
solurions to any drainage problems in the area of the developme�:t.
The site plan is consistent with this findin�. Storm water that falls on the top parking
level wiil be sen[ directly to the s[orm sewer in Victoria. This is an improvement over the
e:cistin� surface parkin� lot that drains to the alley.
(i) Si�cienr lmtdscaping, fences, tivatls and parkin� necessary to meet the above obJectives.
The site plan is consistent with this findino if additional screenin; and landscaping are
provided on the �r•est and south side of the building.
AIl of the traffic entering and leaving the ramp would use the drive lane on the second
level of the ramp. But the plan sho�vs that the west side of the ramp would be open and
this would not provide adequate screenins for lisht and noise for the apartment buiiding
immediately to the west. The top of the parapet on the west and south sides of the ramp
on the third level is 3' &" above the surface of the parkinQ deck. The hei�ht must be
increased to 4'6" to meet zonins standards for screenin� parkino facilities.
I�ew boulevard trees with grates and sidewalk paving is proposed on the Grand and
�'ictoria sides. The landscape plan is no[ detailed about what w•ould be plan[ed on the
«est or south side of the buildin�. The site plan should be revised to show a combination
of vines and columnar trees planted on the west of tnz building and vines planted to the
south of the buildin� in a raisecVprotected planting area along the alley to soften the visual
impact of the buildin� on the adjacent apartments and houses.
SL
Y I •
Zonin� File � 99-00118151
Pa�e Ei�ht of Resolution
(j) Site accessibitisy in accordance with tF:e provisions of tF:e Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA), including parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible routes.
The site plan is consistent with this finding if one additional van accessible parking
space is provided at the "church" lot north of Victoria Crossing �Vest.
(k) Provision for erosion and sediment control as specified in the "Ramsey Erosion
Sediment and Control Handbook."
The site plan is consistent with this finding.
I�O�V, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Ptanning Commission, that unzler
the authority of the City's Le�islative Code, the site plan be approved to pernu[ construction of a
commercial development and parkinJ facility at 860 Grand Avenue, subject to the following
conditions:
The followin� chan�es must be made to site plan to improve traffic safety:
— Saint Paul Public �Vorks must remove on-stree[ parl:in� on Victoria for a distance of 60
feet south of Grand Avenue to improve traffic circulation and provide more room for
turnins movements
— The site plan must be modified to discouraae people crossing at mid-block on Victoria.
The stairs from the ramp on Victoria must be moved closer to the intersection to
discourage people from crossing at mid-block or a bazrier such a fence, railing or bollazd
and chain must be installed along the west side of Victoria.
— A sian tellin� drivers when the ramp is full must be installed at the corner of Grand and
Vicroria.
— The exit from the ramp must be modified to improve visibility for drivers leavin� the
ramp.
2. The developer must use valet parkin� to increase the number of parkin� spaces available
durin� peak demand hours.
3. One additional van accessible parkin� space must be provided at the "church" lot north
of Victoria Crossin� West.
4. A revised landscape pian must be submitted showine a combination of vines and
columnaz trees planted west of the building and vines planted to the south of the buildina
in a raised, protected plantino area along the alley to soften the visual impact of the �
buildina on the adjacent apartments and houses.
5. The west side of the ramp must provide additional screenin� on the second level and all
parapets on the third level must be at least 4.5 feet abo�•e the surface of the parking deck.
s�
,
rr
Zonin� File � 99-001 1 8 15 1
Pa�e Nine of Resolution
6. The loadin� area must be desio ed to accommodate trucks up to 3� feet lon�. Trucks
larger than 3� feet will not be permitted except to initiaily stock stores when tenants first
move in. Ali deliveries must use the loading dock. Hours for deliveries or pick up of
merchandise must be restricted to between 8 AM and 5 P�i. These restrictions on the
size of trucks and hours for the loadin� dock must be included in the tenants' leases.
7. The buildin� must be constructed: .
— Substantially as shown on the plans submitted to give the appeazance of three
separate buildings on Grand Avenue, k�hich is compatible with traditional
storefront design on Grand.
— To minimize, as much possible, the floor eleva[ion of the second level of the
buildin� (the lower pazking level) in order to minimize ihe overall height of the
building.
S. The parkin� spaces in the new ramp beyond those needed to meet zoning requirements
for the new businesses proposed in this developmen[, will be considzred required
parkin� for the businesses at other comers of Grand and Victoria. City staff wiIt allocate
these parkina spaces on a pro-rated basis, based on an analysis of the number of parkina
spaces that would be required to meet current pazkin� standards for each buildin� and
the number of p�rking spaces provided at each buiiding.
9. A bus shelter that is consistent with the size of the current bus shelter must be provided
on the site at a location that is acceptabte to the Ciry and the devetoper.
s�
�, �
; _..
;.
`.
�
�.
;.
�L
�
�,
s
f
� �
�:
: ;
i i ,
� i'
' ;.
,,
` ;
' ; -.
, i'
�•
;
��
}�
�
i
,�
�'.
�:.
.�
., .
�, .
Summit Hill.
.; , .� �� �'� : ��. . . . _
. . . ��. � ��'
;; .
cr�y59� : �
,. ;
: . f � . �.
,��a;�«� :
' 860 Saint
Saint Paul; Minr
Telephone E
�� Fax 6s�
� DATE: � June 28 , 2000 �' - �. � e summR.hi{I(�;
� � . ' . _ . , � • .
#TO: � - ,Participants in Discussions` about.VicTOria.Plaza � �
i '. � - -�� . . � :- ..
� FROM: Charies Skrief : " . . , . . . .
, SHA President�
� : Devetopment and Grand Avenue and Victoria $treet "
t . .
1 .. . • . . . .
'The Board of the Sammit lii{I Association/District�l6 Planning Council (SHA) voted on
;durie 27, 2000, to support oontinued efforts by the developer of the property at the
� Isouthwest comsr of Granc! Avenue and Victoria 8trset to improve upbn and seek St.
P�µl City Council appiovaf of "Aftemative 3" as described in ihe developer's June 26,
+2000 hantlout. This support is expPessly contingeht upon the foilowing condition's
;being met: � � � , � .
}1. �Construcfion on VIC 1 will not begin before construction of3he parking facility at V1C
�U is corripieted. .
� � , ' . . ', , • .
p Net gain iri parking spaces will be no less than 50, as detined by city of Saint F'aui
arking requirements: The devetoper wi!! malie every reasonable effort to inctease
t he'�umber of parking spaces. �
� . , , .
3. �Any het gain in parking spaces shall be applieci to the existing shortfaii of parking .
,bn,Grand Avenue and shall not be "banked" for appiicaiion to future development.
�4• . Because it is important to �elate ciiy parking rsguirements, to !he actual number and
Lse of parking spaces on VIC 1 and VIC fi, each parking space resulting from
Eon'struotion of V1C i and VIC il will be assigned (fQr this purpese) to a specific �
�usiness. _ . • , .
; �• . .
�. :Tfie developer.withdraws "Aliemate 1" from�consiiie�ation. •
�. ,�he $HA does not support the award of any city grants for the completion qf this .
�ro�ect. � � ' � . ; • . . .
� , . . .. . • . .' - .
The developer agreed on June 26, 2000, to alf iterns en SHA's list circulated June 26,
20¢0, with;he exception�df 2; 3,:and 10 on that Iist (see aftachment).. • .
: � . . ; . ,
The deve4oper aiso has agreed to move the existing bus shQlter on VIC i to any '
toc�fion tfie SHA requests and has indicatcd there is rootn�for it at iVlilton Mail. ,
t ! •
1 ; � ' , � : ". .. .
, • � �
,.
� :, : � . � , �
S�
�;
` '.
f !
� `,
�:
'� :
; �.
i:
t;
a=
t �
;�
;.
; :.
s�
,
��
; .i
,:
i
�'
.'
a �.
i:
; ,.
; �.
�, ,:
2 � .i:
8: j
v ��
1 �.
'.;
�j ;
:I : ,
� '�
i
' :.
�j
1 .
i
.�
.
;:
. ;.
• . t
= DATE:
j TiO:
t
! FROM:
�
�
RF�:
June 21, 200Q �
Participants in Discussions abouT Victoria Plaza
Charies Skrief
SHA President
Development and Grand Avenue and Victoria Street
�- 59�
i
f
� Wanting to help negotiaiions proceed quickly an Monday, we are circulating the
� at�ached list. qs ifie SIiA fias consisiently stated, we wiii apply the criteria outlined in
� thQ Easi Grand Avenue Plan to any proposed development. The East Grand Avenue
; Pl�n includes four criteria:
, 1) Appropriate design;
� 2);Significant net gain in parking;
� 3) Tra�c congestion; and,
i •
�4j Spin-otf development.
The attached list fias been developed by ihe executive committee of the SHA.
;
'1 •! Developer wiil present the design of each facility to the SliA for its review and
co Developer agrees to accommodate reasonable requests for change.
Z•:! Nei gai� in parking spaces will bs no less than 700, as defined by city of Saint
Pau! parking requirements. The devetoper witl make every reasanabie effort to
inotease the number of parking spaces.
Any net gain in parking spaces shall be appiied to the existing shortfafl of
ng on Grand Avanue and shaii not be "banked' for application to future
i,,.;.,,e...
4• ,; At ieast 40°!, of the net gain in spaces wiii be assigned to free empfoyee park'sng.
In a!I new leases and in aii re-negotiations of existing leases, tenanis of the developer
wili,be required to use al! rsasanable efforts to ensure employees use these spaces.
Ali employees in the developer's properties on Grand Avenue will be required to
apply an identifying decat to fheir vehicles. The devaloper shaJl prepara an annual
}
� i .
. �
- -1 . - .
.i
; .
� i i
., '=
• � report to PED and SHA tlescribing the use by employees ot the ramp, the inctusion of
; erjiptoyee par�cing provisions in tenant leases, and the use by employees of decais.
. �
5.; The devetoper witl maintain a system of parking vafidation consistent with the
� current vaiidation system for tenants in its propert+es an Grand Avenue.
; �
i 6•j The cify wi11 enforce parking rules in the area. The ciry witl assign a parking
4 er�forcement officer to East Grand Avenue and the immediatefy surrounding area 7
� days a week betwesn the hours of 8:00 -10:00 p.m. .
. 7. � No spaces in any parking faoility shail be leased for residential parking before
: � th� issue is addressed in a new Fast Grand Avenue Plan.
` i .
i i 8• ; The city commits to developing a traffic plan for the area, in consultation with the
parties. The plan may include turn lanes, removal of on street parking, and signage.
. 1 i
, ; 9. � The, developer wiii educate visitors to Grand Avenue to usa the ramps and to avoid
. °"ci'rcling" on residential streets. Education through distributed written materia►s and
: si�nage will occur at aU parking faciliiies, in the developer's properties, and at
, bu�inesses contained within the developer's properties.
. i ; ..
� 10, Construction of Vicioria Plaza wiil not begin before the construetion of the
spa�king facility at VIC il is completed.
' � i
. `11 � The "Rule ofi Five" will not be apptied to Grand Avenus before the creation of a
: neyr East �rand Avenue Pian or two years, whichever is sooner.
. ,
' �12! A71 parties will support the creation of a new small area pian for East Grand
�AVgnue: The cfty wil! assign adequate staH and doliars io support the effort. Afi the
f ;parties wiil support the estabfishment of a moratorium on new development {inciuding
thei issuance of demolition permits, variances, or rezoning) on Grand Avenue uniil
adqpiion of tha plan by the city councii or two years, whichever is earlier.
.;
�
i
i
.i
�
i
t
;
�
�
;
i_
�
1
1
�
i-
i
�
�
�
�' INT �AUL �EA
CI-IAMBER OF COMMERCE
LEADERSHIP SAINT PAUL
F�rsc Nadonal Bank Buildin�, N-205
332 Nunnuora Stteet
Sainc Paul, Mmnesota 55101
Phoae:651.223500p
Pax: 651.2235119
www saincpaulchambencom
DEVELOPII�G
SAINT PAUL'S
pa-5�B
August 23, 2000
Council President Dan Bostrom
Saint Paul City Council
I S West Kellogg Boulevard
310 F City Hall
Dear Council President Dan Bostrom,
RECE�yED
AUG 2 � ZQ00
�ANIEL ��STRp�
The Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce and its nearly 1,700 Member
businesses and professionai associarions would like to express their support for
rivo issues facing the City Councii today.
First, The City Council has the opporiunity to pass a resolution that would allow
Exeter Holdings LLC to move forwazd with the development at Crrand and
Victoria. After months of deliberafions and attempts at compromise, the Chamber
has confidence in a plan to be brought forth by Councilmember Pat Harris. The
developer has also agreed to continue the previous commihnents Yo the
neighborhood, negotiated by Councilmember Jay $enanav.
(Please find Exeter Holdings LLC letter attached)
We urge you to let the 100% privately financed project at Grand and Victoria to
move forward. Coupled with the potential of an additional parking ramp at a later
date, we find that this plan benefits not only the business community, but the
neighborhoods as well. We urge your support for Councilmember Pat Harris'
plan.
Second, the matter of the advertising signs on the exterior of the Xcel Energy Inc.
Arena. We feel that your support to allow the proposed signage is not only
nnportant to the success of the facility, but also to protect the investment of Saint
Paul Taxpayers, from Downtown to Merriam Park to Dayton's Bluff. We are a11
proud of the agreement that brought the NHL to Saint Paui, the advertising sign
revenue is an important piece to the lease that many of you agreed to.
Please support the Ordinance to allow these signs to be installed. In the near
future the Chamber will be working with the City, Planning Commission, your
Council, and the advertising sign industry to address the issues of advertising
signs throughout the rest of Saint Paul.
Thuik you far your support on these matters. Should you have any questions,
please cali me at 651.265.2771.
� Sincer ,
�%sYtJ
J ete
Director of Public Affairs
Cc: Mayor Norm Coleman
Saint Paul City Council
FUTURE LEADERS
rr ':
EXETER HOIDINGS LLC
Ail�:U$2 22, Z�H)0
Council Memhe� Patricic Harric
City of Sairt Paul
City I lall
Saint i�aul, MN 55 i02
Re. Victoria P1ara
�
i ono MottSaEAi. AvrNUe
$qn.rr Pwi, MN ss� is-za� �
PMONt: l6511 6UU 1W I
Fwx: l6S�) ti9U�1UO3
Counci] Member Jay Benanav
City of Saint Yaul
Cixy Hali
Saint Paul, MI�! 5�L02
Dcar Counci! Mcmbcrs t larris and Rcnanav.
�
Awsn:;maN
OeVELAPMENT
INVE57MEM
!•'ax Nn 657- ?6(>-Ki73
During the course o!'severaI meetings hetd carlicr this summcr with representatives c�f the Sui:unit
! lil! Association and Neighbors Opposed to Victvria Ptaza Tnc., we agreed, as Developer, to compiy
with certain requests of the Summit Hili Associati�m wncerning the Victnria Pla�a project and our
othcr propertics on Grartd Avenue. Assuming we haue the cooperadon of the Summit Hill
Association and Neighbors Opposed to Victoria Y(a�z Tnc. going fonuard, we agree tn stand by our
carlicr statcments, �vhich are summarized as foltows:
2
3
4,
$.
I)cvcto�cr wilt not use the net �ain in parkin� created by the Vic 1 and Vic il prajccts for
additic+nal ncw dcvclopmcnts in zhe future
Devel�per will not use the `Rule c�f 5" (iyr its propenies on Grand A�en��e in thc fvturc
Developer wil! work with City staf2 to allocate Vic UVic il parkin� spaces among its
buildin�s at Grand and Victoria.
Developer wilt provide 3? Vic I/V'ic Ii parking spaces Cor employecs Dcvclaper will rePott
artnualiy to City as to employee use c�f'suc:h faeilicies.
Uevetoper will not lease Vic TlVic iT parking spaces Cor overnir�.ht residential parking withnu[
thc approval of City s7aff after wnsultation wiih the Summit Hill Association.
G. Ucveloper will cooperate with the Ciiy and the Summit llill Assoc�ativn in devel�pin� a
traf�ic p(an, an on-street parking entbrcement prograzn, and an ot3-strcet empl��Yee parkin�
prpgra�n ft�r F.ast Cnand Avenue.
Z DcvclopCr wi!! 5uppoR a�lanning prc�cess that would tcad to Thc adogtio�, uf' an updatcd Fa.ct
Grand Avenue Plan, provided that such plannin� pr«certi is conducted by C=ity s�aff under lhc
attspiccs of the Ptanning (:ommission aad that Dcvcloper and repre�entatives of fia�t MaII
Associates, the Summit Hill Association, Ne�ghbors Opp�ised to Victotia P�aza, Isa, and tbe
Grane! Avenue Business Associatron have meaningful representaUOn and �a�'licipation �n the
deveiopment of such plaa
E�ETE�
S Dcveloper will inttall signage zo "cducatc" custumers as to the Iocation pf parking facilities in
che Grand nnd victoria area and tv diswusage customers from vsing nci,,rhbc�rhood residemial
strccis
9. Durint; canstruction, the ailey serving l.incoln Avenue residenu wi11 remain accessibfc, and
con,truction park+ng will not bc permittcd on residential :.-trees
Wc hope this letter wil( assist in your dciiberuions on the rcmaining Vicioria Piaza projeet
alternative
Very trufy ours, �
�� y�� � � �
i�mes a. Stuipescad�
Yresident