No preview available
04-77Council File # `11 Resolution # Green Sheet # 3�� f 2 �`� Presented By Referred To RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT,,PAUL, MINNESOTA Committee: Date 2 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SIIMMARY OF THE 3 MERRIAM PARK COMMi7NITY PLAN 4 AS AN ADDENDUM TO THE SAINT PAUL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 5 6 7 WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Section 462353, to carry on 8 comprehensive municipal planning activities for guiding the future development and improvement of the city; 9 and 10 11 Wf�EREAS, the City of Saint Paul, as a local government unit within the metropolitan area, is required under 12 Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.858, to prepare a comprehensive plan; and 13 14 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Section 462355, to adopt or 15 amend a comprehensive plan or portion thereof after a recommendation by the Planning Commission; and 16 17 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council adopted, by Council File 98-1133 on Mazch 3, 1999, the Land ZTse 18 Plan as a chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan; and 19 20 WFIEREAS, the Land Use Plan provides for the adoption of summaries of area plans as addenda to the 21 comprehensive plan; and 22 23 WAEREAS, the Merriam Park Community Plan is the product of a series of public meetings held between 24 1498 and 2000, a resulting draft plan developed by the Merriam Park Community CounciPs Building and ?5 Land Use Committee, and a subsequent final plan reviewed, updated, and approved by the Community ?6 Council in April, 2002, and August, 2003; and �7 8 WfIEREAS, a suinmary of the Merriam Park Community Plan was presented to the Planning Commission for its review; and WI�EREAS, the Planning Commission, after a public hearing on October 24, 20�3, and consideration of ? public testimony, recommended, by its Resolution 03-103 approved on November 21, 2003, adoption of the S suminary by the City Council; 4 p� --� 40 41 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the summary of the Merriam Park Community Plan is 42 adopted as an azea plan addendum to the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, replacing the Merriam Pazk portion of the 1979 District 13 Flan, contingent upon review by the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities. Requested by Department of: _ ..�, - o� "' � ' ��l � Poxm Approved by City Attorney BY: Adoption Certified by Council Secretaxy By: Approved by Hy: Adopted by Council: Date i "T� ��7�' DEPAR'I'MCNTJOFFICElCOUNCIL: � DATE INITIATED GREEN SHEET No.: 3009275 ��J'4 `� PED - SouthWest Team 12/16/03 CONTAGT PERSON & PHONE: �vtT�A��DATE INiTrni✓DATE Donna Drnmmond (6-6556) � Z nEen2�rngr�r D s cm courrcb MUSTBEONCOUNCiI.AGENDA BY(DATE) +��IGN 3 CITYATTORNEY 12-2C-o _CITYCLERK ja 'z,$� �qblrc(-�ea �0�� ��CIALSERVDIli. = FAIANCIALSERV/ACCTG 4 MAYOR (OR ASST.j Ii[1MAN RIGHTS ROUTING H�JMAN RIGH'LS DEPT. OItDER _1_ BOB SCFRtEIER � TOTAL # OF SIGNA'Pf3RE PAGES: 1(Plus Mayor's transmittal letter) (CIdP AI.L LOCATIONS FOR STGNA'PURE) � ncrtolv 1tEQUES�n: Approval of a City Council resolution adopting a snmmary of the Merriam Pazk Community Plan as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Merriam Pazk Community Council has requested that the City Council hold a public heazing prior to adoption of the snummary. Staff requests that a public heazing be scheduled for Jan. 28, 2004. RECOMMENDATfONS: Apptove (A) or Aeject (R) PERSONAI, SERVICE CON'1'RACTS M[7ST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: A PI,ANNING COMNIISSION 1. Has this personlfirm ever worked under a comract for this depaYUnem? CIB COMbA'ITEE Yes No CNII, SERVICE COMMISSION 2. Has ihis person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this persoNfirtn possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee?, Yes No Expiain aIl yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet INI'LIATING YROBLEM, TSSUE, OPPORT[JNITY (Who, What, When, Where, Why): The Merriam Park Community Plan is the product of a series of public meetings held between 1998 and 2000, a resulting draft plan developed by the Merriam Pazk Communiry Council's Building and Land Use Committee, and a subsequent final plan reviewed, updated, and approved by the Community Council in April, 2002, and August, 2003. The plan is a community effort to adopt policies and recommendations that will help suengthen and maintain Merriam Park as a unique, stable, and livable communiry. A swnmary of the Merriam Park Communiry Plan was prepared for adoption as part of The Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, and is intended to replace the Merriam Pazk portion of the District 13 Plan adopted in 1978. The Plam�iug Commission held a public hearing on the plan smm�xary on Oct. 24, 2003, and recommended four changes to the summary to make it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other relevant Ciry policies. These changes address: 1) Ayd Mill Road connections and unprovements; 2) the function of Mississippi River Blvd.; 3) overflow traffic on residential streets; and 4) a policy regarding owner-occupied and rental housing. The plan summary as amended is recommended by the Planning Commission for adoption as an addendum to the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. . ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: This will provide a longxange plan for the next ten yeazs for the Merriam Park portion of Planning District 13 _ DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: None. ntsanvnrrrnGES � xo1' nrrxovEn: The existing District 13 Plan will expire in 2005, and there wi11 be no long-range plan for this azea. TOTAL AMOUNT OF "PRANSACTION: $ Q CQSTlREVENUE BUDGETED: �� � � � � � w s� �md F[JNDING SOURCE: . ACTIVI't'Y NUMBER: D C C�� nno� 3 � LU v+,m,���n� ,r� �F�i'ti� FINANCIALINFORMATION:(EXPLAI� NA ��°°rpj n������ 3 d !°! ,�,�.�� � � ���� K Vvtemam Park PWn\Geen Shest of IYI6-o3 wpd a�l-�t� CI� ��' .S�T PA�. 390CttyHo71 Telephone: 651-266-8510 RmjdyC KeIIy, Mayor ISWut%I(oggBoulev�d Focsvmle: 651-218-8573 Saint Paut, MN 53102 December 22, 2003 Council President Dan Bostrom and Members of the City Council 320-B City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Deaz Council President Bostrom and Members of the City Council: I am pleased to transmit to you, for your review and adoption, the Area Plan Summary of the Merriam Park Communiry P7an. The Merriam Park Communiry Plan is the product of a series of public meetings held between 1948 and 2000, a resulting draft plan developed by the Merriam Park Communiry Council's Building and I,and Use Committee, and a subsequent final plan reviewed, updated, and approved by the Community Council in April, 2002, and August, 2003. The plan includes a vision and strategies for the Merriam Park neighborhood, bounded by Summit Avenue on the south, the Mississippi River on the west, Interstate 94-Cleveland Avenue-Universiry Avenue on the north, and Snelling Avenue on the east. Merriam Park is a mature community with established transit, commercial, and housing uses that complement each other. The recreational opportunities, walkable nature of the neighborhoods, and balance of uses give the community an"urban village" feel that makes it a great place to live, raise families, and invest. The plan is a community effort to adopt policies and recommendations that will help strengthen and maintain this unique, stable, and livable community. A sumtnary of the Merriam Park Community Plan has been recommended by the Plaiming Commission, afrer public hearing, for adoption as part of The Sccint Paul Comprehensive Plan, and will replace the Merriam Park portion of the District I3 Plan adopted in 1978. I r mmend this summary to you for your adoption and thank the Merriam Park Community Council fo it foresight and hard work in preparing this plan. Kelly Mayor Attachments. b�- city of saint paul pIanning commission resolution fi{e number p3-103 date November 21, 2003 RESOLUTION RECOibIl�1ENDING A,DOPTION OF T'HE SL?�Y+Yi_�I2I' OF l�IERAL9M PA?�L C��ILIJNITY PLA1V AS Ai�T ADDENDUM TO THE SAINT PAUL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WF3E?ZEAS, the Mer t Papk Co.m�!,�nity Pl�n is the product of a sexies ef pub?ic �:ee*.ings held between 1998 and 2000, a resulting draft plan developed by the Meniam Pazk Community Council's Building and Land Use Committee, and a subsequent fmal plan reviewed, updated, and approved by the Communiry Council in April, 2002, and August, 2003; and �%�-IEt�2t� the pIan includes a vision and strategies for the Merriam Park neighborhood, which is located on the western edge of Saint Paul, bounded by Suinmit Avenue on the south, the Mississippi River on the west, Interstate 94-Cleveland Avenue-University Avenue on the north, and Snelling Aveuue on the east; and WHEREAS, Merriam Park is a mature community with established transit, commercial, and housing uses that complement each other; and the recreational opportunities, walkable nature of the neighboxhoods, and balance of uses give the community an "urban village" feel that makes it a great place to live, raise fanulies, and invest; and WHEREAS, the plan is a community effort to adopt policies and recommendations that will help strengthen and maintaiu this unique, stable, and livabie communiry; and WHEREAS, a summary of the Merriam Park Community Pl¢n has been prepared far adopticn as part of The Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, and will replace the Merriam Park portion of the District I3 Plan adopted in 1978; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission is authorized under Minnesota Statutes Section 462.355(2) and Chapter 107 of the Saint Paul Administrative Code to recommend to the Mayor and City Council amendments to the comprehensive plan; and moved by Fotsch seconded by in favor unanlmo„S against r•�a Met Park Community Plan Page Two of Resolution WHEREAS, the Land Use Plan, adopted by the City Council on March 3, 1999, provides for the adoption of summaries of area plans as addenda to The 5aint Paul Comprehensive Plan upon fmdings by the Planning Commission that the plans aze consistent with adopted City policies; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on October 24, 2003, held a public hearing on the Area Plan Surnmary of the Merriam Park Community Plan, nouce of which was published in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger on October 13, 2003; and WHEREAS, testimony received at the public hearing was supportive of the plan summary, with the exception of concerns expressed by Ciry staff highlighting plan recommendations that conflict with City transportation policies related to Ayd Mill Road, traffic calming, and Mississippi River Blvd.; and WHEREAS the Neighborhood and Current Planning Committee has reviewed and approved language to modify the plan summary's traffic recommendations related to Ayd Mill Road, traffic calming, and Mississippi River Blvd. to be consistent with City policies; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Planning Commission finds that The Merriam Park Community Plan Summary, as amended, is consistent with The Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and other relevant Ciry policies and recommends the adoption of the plan summary by the City Council as an addendum to the comprehensive plan. (y.�-�t (Flrom Planniug Commiccion minutes for October 24, 2Q03.) PUBLIC HEARING: Merriam Park Communitv Plan Item from the Neighborhood & Cusent Planning Committee (DonnaDrummond, 651/266-6556) Ms. Donna Drmnmond gave a brief report on the Merriam Pazk Community Plan. She stated this azea plan smiunary would replace ffie Merriam Park portion of the District 13 Plan that was adopted in 1978. Ms. Drmnniond said the overall vision for the plan is that Merriam Pazk is a mature communiry with established transit, commercial, and housing uses that complement each other. The recreational opportunities, walkable narure of the neighborhoods, and the balance of uses, give the community a nice "uiban village" feel that the community would like to protect and preserve, and the community feels that these recommendations aze designed to do that. There are five sections to the plan that deal with land use, economic development, infrastructure, environment and transporta6on. Ms. Drumntond highlighted places where there is some concern on the part of Public Works staff about some traffic recommendations. She stated the Mexriam Puk Council does not support a connection between Ayd Mill Road and Interstate 94. The community opposes the expansion of Ayd Mill Road for any puxposes. The Public Works staff had commented that they felt it would be better if the Community Council had identified the concerns of Merriam Park in regard to any kind of expansion or connection rather than just the blanket statement in opposition. The Public Works staff also mentioned there was a one year test that was concluded in June, 2003, and further analysis of the resuks of that test will reveal some new information that the council should consider. Merriam Park considered the comments of the Public Works staff and would like to keep that recommendation as it is. Ms. Drummond said the plan also highlights concern about spillover traffic on residential streets and ways to implement traffic calming measures. One of the traffic calming measures ]isted was stap signs. Public Works has consistently said that stop signs do not slow down traffic, they are a way to assign the right-of-way at mtersections. Drivers tend to speed up between stop signs so they aren't really an effective way of calming traffia The community council said it was fine to take that out as a reference to tra�c calming measures and the Public Works staff had identified some other methods that would work to calm traffic. The Public Works staff had also mentioned that it would be helpful if perhaps the following language was considered, that "Measuzes should also be implemented that maintain a good uniform flow of traffic at a xeasonable speed on Marshall, Cretin, Cleveland, Fairview, and Sneiling to reduce the desire of vehicles to cut through on residential streets." But that change wasn't accepted by the Community Council. Ms. Druimnond stated the last point where there was some disagreement between Public Works staff and the Commun9ty Council was regazding Recomtnendation #{27, which recommends that Mississippi River Blvd. be protected as a recreational axea and not used as a route for commuter traffic. Public Works responded that it currently does carry commuter traffic, iYs identified as a collector street in the Transportation Plan and so by default carries commuter traffic. They pointed out that if that type of traffic isn't allowed on Mississippi River Blvd. it will increase traffic on streets like Cretin and Fairview, and those would have to be expanded to handle the capacity. Merx9am Park proposed some alternative language in response that states that Mississippi River Blvd. be grotected as a recreational asset and protected from changes that b�.-�� would increase motor vehicle traffic on that road. Public Works staff said they like to look at things on a case by case basis, because there may be changes that would be beneficial in the big picture and that Pubiic Works doesn't want a blanket statement opposing any changes that would increase traffic on Mississippi River Blvd. Chair Morton read the rules of procedure for the public heazing and announced that notice of the pubic hearing was published in the Saint Paul Legal I,edger on October 13, 2003, and was mailed to the citywide euly notification system list of recipiems and other inteiested parties. The following people spoke: James Marti, 214 Exeter Place, Saint Paul, MN. Mr. Marti stated he is a siz year resident of the Merriam Park neighborhood and has just joined the Merriam Park Community Council board and chairs the Zoning, Commercial, and Crune committee which took up this community plan and the revisions requized by the City staff comments. He stated this is the work of many people beguuung in 1998. The plan collected a great deal of public input and began to be put on paper around 1999-2000. Merriam Park Community CouncIl underwent a restructuring about that time and as a result there's very little overlap between the group that helped put together the plan and the group that now sits as the board. Nevertheless they think iYs a very solid document and does represent the will of the neighborhood and are proud to offer it as their neighborhood communiry plan. Mr. Marti said that where City departments pointed out some technical corrections, such as the suggestion by the Public Works Department that stop signs are an inadequate txaffic calming measure, they deferred to the Public Works DepartmenYs technical expertise. In addition, the recognition of Mississippi River Blvd. as a collector route is also accepted. The Community Councii however didn't want to water down its dedication to the Mississippi River Blvd. as one of the premiere recreational assets for the whole city as well as for the Merriam Park neighborhood. The prnnacy of that azea as not necessarily a car route but a multi-faceted, multi-purpose street and recreational corridor was kept in the plan. Commissioner Gordon raised a question about Recommendation #22 under Transportation, asking whether the reference to not supporting a connection between Ayd Mill Road and Interstate 94 applies to a direct freeway style connection or an indirect frontage road connection. Mr. Marti stated that the sentunerns expressed during the time of the crafting of this document wexe strong and unequivocal. The neighbors did not want that corxidor expanded or improved to serve a freeway function for a number of reasons; including concerns about traffic impacts on Merriam Pazk as well as sending the wrong message that the communiry wants to build more freeways rather than looking at transit options. He stated he didn't know the answer in particular to Commissioner Gordon's question which type of connection was favored, his understanding of the sentnnent of the group then and now is that the neighborhood did not favor transforming that coxridor into a major component of the highway system. Leaving it as a local commuting coute was the preferred option then as now. Commissioner Gordon stated that with respect to the opposition to expansion for any purpose, does that include repaving of Ayd Mill Road? Is that meant to be included in the opposition to expansion for any purpose? Mr. Marti stated he wasn't sure what the original o�k-�� intent was, but lus understanding of the board's sentiment now is that expanding the functional role of that street from its current local commuter status to a component, or link, between interstate highways is opposed by the group. Commissioner Gordon asked if expansion of Ayd Mill Road for any purpose includes expanding it to include a bicycle path, or a pedestrian path along the zoad. Mr. Marti said that they have decided not to radically alter that language in the pian regarding Ayd Mill Road without opening up another series of community hearings. They want to take the temperature of the neighborhood now especially in light of current conditions. Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. Marti if he wanted the Commission to understand that the community is opposed to adding a bike path or pedestrian path? Mr. Marti stated he didn't want the Planning Commission to ever think that Meniam Park is against non-auto transportation options. Commissioner Fotsch stated that in looking at theix plan with regard to housmg, looking at Section 1: Housing, 110, it states that rental housing is a significant part of the Merriam Pazk Community and should be encouraged. Commissioner Fotsch asked Mr. Marti if he was aware that 50% of homes in Merriazn Park are not owner-occupied homes, and asked if he is still encouraging more rental property? Mr. Marti said he is aware of that and said the intent of the plan is to encourage responsible rental property ownership and upkeep. He stated the document was carefully crafted to not be discouraging to existing business in the form of rental property management but there are other parts oF the document that do address the need to support home ownership and also responsible rental property management. Commissioner Fotsch said the mconsistency in item 1.3 where it says "the character of the neighborhoods as one of single family homes needs to be maintained", is inconsistent with the other isn't it? Mr. Marti said that was true, saying there could be some words that would better communicate the community's desire to support and grow home ownership in the neighborhood while supporting what is a vital component of that nei�borhood also, which is the rental community. 2. Chip Welling, 2157 Roblyn Avenue, Saint Paul, MN. Mr. Welling stated he has lived in Merriam Park for 13 years, has been on the Ayd Mill Road Task Force with Commissioner Gordon for 1'/z years, and recently joined the Merriam Park Community Council where he has served for 2 years. Mr. Welling referred to a hand out about the plan he received today, stating he sees some encouraging statements from Public Works about traffic calming measures in the neighborhood, including some measures he has seen in effect, such as bumpouts and txaffic circles. In the plan document it also says that Public Woxks will advocate for unproved bus service in Merriam Park and promote the development of LRT on University Avenue. He stated he realizes these positions are tough in the current political clnnate, but he thinks in the long run these are very important projects that are under consideration. With respect to Ayd Mill Road, one of his concerns all along has been that even though the study idenufied a geographic area to be considered, not just a nazrow corridor, the focus has been on moving cars and with really inadequate consideration being given to transit service in the whole area. This remains a concern. Mr. Welling said that if Ayd Mill Road is extended to the north as was considered in the study, that could be a very expensive proposition on trae order of 40-50 million dollars. In the current political and financial environment, he is concerned that ffie City not spend so much time trying to fmd those monies, and secondly, if the money is found, that would presumably mean other needed projects, including aiternatives to the automobile, would be delayed. Regazding � �� Mississippi River Blvd., Mr. Welling said it is a real asset both to Merriam Park, the City of Saint Paui, and rhe region. He stated he was originally from Baltunore, Maryland and that Baltimore doesn't have anything remotely as nice as that parkway, saying it is really unique among many cities in this country. He said one of the things he uses it for is bicycling. He stated that Mississippi River Blvd. is looked at, in connection with Minnehaha Parkcvay and River Road Parkway in Minneapolis, as part of a system, iYs a really unique amenity and asset. He thinks it makes life in the cities appealing to a lot of people. Tfie uniqueness of that should be recognized and supported by not allowing increases in vehicular traffic. Regarding the concern that if traffic were somehow limited there and expansion of Fairview or Cleveland would automatically be required is unfortunate. It just reflects this idea that traffic is unchanging and untamable, and that we can't do anything different, that we just have to accommodate it. He thinks that is an unnecessarily simplistic assessment of the situation. Mr. Welling also added a comment regarding the EAW for St. Thomas, stating that in that document there is extensive consideration of traffic and potential needs for parking, which is necessary, but he is disappointed that the treatment of transit in that document is very superficial, very limited, and he would like to see more thorough and serious consideration given to transit as an alternative way for students, faculty, and staff to come and go from the St. Thomas campus. Again, that is consistent with the overall concern he has about the lack of consideration of alternatives to driving in Saint Paul, which is reflected in downtown Saint Paul with another parking ramp going up at 7ackson and 7�' Streets. We see a continual expansion of money spent to serve parking and expansion of roadways, but when it comes to transit, unfortunately we hear about advocacy and promotion. He doesn't feel that we are making very much progress in that area at this time and he hopes that will change in the future. Commissioner Alton said that with respect to transit and comments regarding that area of the plan, there is a mention in here about mixed use development along University Avenue and promoting housing along Universiry Avenue, which is obviously a street that carries a tremendous amount of traffic, including a lot of truck traffic, and a]ot of industrial uses that aze in the neighborhood being served by that truck traffic. He asked if the communiry council, in the plazuiing grocess, considered whether that sort of intense vehicular use of Universiry Avenue is an appropriate area to be encouraging housing. Mr. Welling stated he didn't remember any discussion at the communiry council on that subject in particular. He also stated he serves on the board of University United, which is intezested in promating the development of housing on University Avenue. He hasn't been involved in any particular discussions about whether or not there is an incompatible use and if so how that issue might be addresses. MOTION: Commissioner Faricy moved to close the public hearing and refer the madter back to the Neighborhood & Current Planning Committee where it will be heard on November 12"`. Cornmissioner Gnrdon seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. Chair Morton stated that additional written testimony will be accepted until 4:30 p.m., on Friday (today), October 24, 2003. � o a Q 0 � Q rir�.0 ani.�. to c,� a� a 0 � Mer�iam Park � �� Comnr�un��� Council, Inc. 1573 SClby Aven�le • Suilc 31 I• S6 Paul - Minncsot2 •.55104 www.merriazn-park.org • ec:merriam�agiliFi.net tcL657.6-0S.GSS7 • Fax:!>SL917.9991 I1 December2003 .Tay 13cnanav St. Paul Czty Council 3l0 City l.lall I S West Kcllogg $oulcv�rd St. Naul, Mi�( 55102 pear Councilmemb ei�anav� "�j " !� �� On becetttber 10`�', ZUU3, The Mcrriam Park Community Council voted tv t�equcvt a public hearing at tbe St. Paul C:ity C'ouncif rcga�•ding the 1'lanning Comrnission's revasions' to the Merriam Part< Comn,unity Plaii, which the Commisszon adouCed on Novembcr 21, 2003. The motion passed aC MPCC'� Dcceinber l Oth meeting is as follows: "Ba,sed on fhe I and U�e Cbnamitlee's oppnsitipn tn ihe ti�ovrli�zg pf the Ptart, thp Merriant Park Conam.unity �'ouncif requesls a publit� Izearing with the Ci[y C��rrsci/ rc,,nr�''ng this rnaiter." Two kcy pvints triggcred rhe requcst Ibr t�e public laeaa�ing. (�n pagc 1& 2 of the attachcd Memorandunt from the Neighborhoorl � Cur�rent Planning Committce to the Planning Comrnission, thc langux�e in tt2? of MPCC:'s Community E�1an was revised. MPCC board members do not agrec with ehe ncw [nnguage, statin� that it does nof reFlect the original intcr:tie>n ofthc plan's directivc about Ayd Moil itoad. Numerous residential, institutiona] and commcrcial stakeholdcrs atrendcd multiple ptanning rz�ecYings to create the M.erriam Padc Commu�ity I'lan. nyd Mill Rnad was a subtitdatial concern. 'Che eurtent MPCC board wish�,s ro uph�id its original sfand that wat created in tl�at process. MPC;C opposes any cunaection to Ayd Mill Road. Thc second point is 827 on page 2& 3 of Che Memorancium that was also reviscd. The revised languagc weakem fhe intenr qf the otiginal statcmcnt tbat addr2sses thc ttniqne valuc of NZississippi Rivd. ' AleasE see attached documents: (;ity of St. Paul Planning Coiximission Resolution File number 03- f U�. nate: Novcrriber 2 t, 20U3; Novembcr 12, 2003 Mcmoranduan [o the Pianning Commission, and the l�rea Plan 5ummary - Merriam Park Community Plan — DraR 9/18/03. Please cunuict me if you have questions about our requcst or rhe Merriam I'ark Community p�an. Thank you (i>r your assistance. Best ds, � Rolf Na•d,aom Pnesidcnt Meniam k'ark Communi[y C,c�uncil cc; Donna Dnimmond, PLD Dr. Jamcs Marti, MPC<' Mike Madden o�,� _ R�nana�� �.acrt � _ D�-1 � Area Plan Summary Merriam Park Community Plan Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan for Saint Paul Recommended by the Planning Commission on November 21, 2003 Adopted by the City Council on Febmary 4, 2004 This summary appends to the Comprehensive Plan the vision and strategies of the Merriam Park Community Plan and replaces the Me»zam Park portion of the District 13 Plan, adopted zn 1978. The plan addresses ftve major areas, incZuding land use, economdc development, infrastructure, environment, and transportation. Copies of the full-length plan are available for review at the Saint Paul Department ofPlanning and Economic Development and the office of the Merriam Park Community Council. Location and Current Land Use Nelghborhoods of Saint Paul, Minnesota ,o. como 12.5l.ANTHONYPA fl. NANLINE-NIDYJAY cE:. " _ y �g�q��� p ..�= ELLINGJI0. ��� R�'?::'.:a� t' LE%-HAW =- = m _ ` B.SUb1Nl 16. SUMIOR 1C. 61ACALE STER.GROVEIAND 9.W1 15. NIGHIANO n M�E 3 6.NORTNEND I S.PAYXE-PHALEN � �•GREATEREASTSIDE d.DAttONSBLUFF I.TNONAS VALE 3. WESi SIOE 1.SUNPAY-BATfLECREEX� HIGHYeD00 Merriam Park is located on the western edge of St. Paul, bounded by Smmvit Avenue on the south, the Mississippi River on the west, Interstate 94-Cleveland Avenue-University Avenue on the north, and Snelling Avenue on the east. The community includes the four neighborhoods of Merriam Park, Desnoyer Park, Shadow Falls, and Iris Park. The primary land use is low-density residenrial, with commercial nodes located along Marshall, Snelling, and Selby Avenues. A larger concentration of commercial and industrial uses is located along University Avenue, and a portion of the University of St. Thomas campus is located north of Suuimit Ave. between Cretin and Cleveland Avenues. The parkland Merriam Park Community Ptan Summary Page 1 O�%_ �'� along the Mississippi River bluff is the community's primary recrearional area. Vision Merriam Pazk is a mature community with established transit, commercial, and housing uses that complement each other. The commercial uses serve Merriam Pazk's residents well, but aze not significant xegional draws. The recreational opportunities, the wallcable nature of the neighborhoods, and the balance of uses give the community an"urban village" feel that makes it a great place to live, raise families, and invest. The plan is a communiry effort to adopt policies and recommendarions that will help strengthen and maintain this unique, stable, and livable community. Policies and Recommendations Land Use 1. Merriam Park should maintain its neighborhoods as predominately residential. The community enjoys the environment of walkable neighborhoods with light commercial uses that exist throughout most of the community. 2. Major new development should be mixed-use and located along transit routes ar on underused or inappropriately developed sites. 3. Lazge, or regionally-oriented developments are not appropriate for the scale of the community. 4. The chazacter of the neighborhood as primarily one of owner-occupied single-family homes needs to be maintained while supporting opportunities for newly constructed rental housing. 5. Rehabilitation of exisring housing will be given priority over new construction of housing. Incorporation of energy-efficient technologies will be encouraged. 6. The Iris Park area should grow as a residential azea with supporting commercial uses. Reconsideration of industrial zoning in this area to facilitate proposed new residential and commercial development would benefit the community. However, the community does not want to discourage existing businesses by proactively rezoning property prior to receiving development proposals. 7. Land along University Avenue should support new mixed-use developments that include affordable housing units, locally-oriented commercial uses, and small to medium-sized employers. 8. Consideration of zoning changes to facilitate new mixed-use or residential development will be tempered by the desire not to negatively impact land values or business investment. 9. Design of new housing units should be appropriate to the surroundings. The community does not favor strictly "retro" or "traditional" design. Urban design and architecture is most pleasing when it adds to the mulfi-layered fabric of the community. 10. Rental housing is a significant part of the Merriam Park community. Landlords and universities will be encouraged to be more accountable in properry management. The City should help the community create a forum for finding solutions and aid for troubled properties. Economic Development 11. Development that includes small to medium-sized commercial uses that contribute to the local environment will be encouraged. Nafional retailers that promote big-box retail development will be discouraged as simply too big for the area. 12. New development should not damage the pedestrian environment or add significant traffic to residential streets, with the exception of new mixed-use developments. Preserving the pedesirian environment is critical to the character of Merriam Park. 13. New development should emphasize mixed uses. New mixed-use development is encouraged in Iris Park and at the intersecrions of Cleveland and Marshall, Fairview and Selby, and Snelling Merriam Park Community Plan Summary Page 2 ��-�� and Selby. 14. Business parldng will be protected, but addirional parldng for existing businesses will only be approved if it will qualitarively improve the neighborhood. 15. Merriam Park should be a friendly, encouraging place for small to medium-sized businesses to grow. Eacpansion of existing businesses will be favored over the establishment of new businesses, particulazly those that would have a negarive impact on the community because of congesrion, character, or use. Infrastructure 16. The City should support updating technological infrashucture for businesses and homes, particularly high speed cable wiring for communications. All new construction should be required to be built with current technology in place, with the capacity to accommodate future adaptations. 17. New extemal technologies, such as cell phone towers, should be incorporated into existing structures if possible. This is for aestheric reasons and also because of the quanrity of obsolete extemal infrastructure currently in place. 18. Overhead urility lines should be buried whenever possible, particulazly when new construcrion is proposed. Environment 19. The Mississippi River corridor must be maintained as a premier recreational area for the neighborhood. Changes that increase daily vehicular commuter traffic along the river will be opposed. The river as a pazk and green space must be maintained. 20. All parks and green spaces must be protected from non-park related development and/or neglect, particularly Aldine and Iris Pazks. 21. This plan supports the 5t. Paul Land Use Plan's definifion of green spaces, pazks, and the river as urban amenities. Crreen spaces and corridors should be encouraged in the community wherever possible, such as along railroad tracks and roads. Transportation 22. The Merriam Pazk community does not support a connection between Ayd Mill Road and Interstate-94. A future connecrion would negatively impact Merriam Pazk and the Snelling- Hamline neighborhoods. The community opposes the expansion of Ayd Mill Road for any purposes. Note: This recommendation expresses the position of the Merriam Park community and Merriam Park Community Council. The Transportation Policy Plan, Policy 20, states: "The City should complete environmental assessment of alternatives for the future ofAyd Mi11 Road and implement the resulting recommendations. " The final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Ayd Mill Road is scheduled to be completed in 2004. Adoption as City policy of a recommendation against any connection or expansion ofAyd Mill Road is therefore premature. 23. Speeding on residential streets, and an increase in overflow traffic from Marshall, Cretin, Cleveland, Fairview, and Snelling are increasing problems. Traffic calming measures should be considered to reduce speeding and cut-through traffic on residential streets. 24. The community supports initiatives that promote bildng, busing, and other means of transportation as alternatives to single-occupant vehicles. Bike lanes, and bikes racks in commercial areas and on buses should be added. Connecting St. Paul to the Midtown Greenway in Minneapolis is supported when feasible. 25. Bus service throughout the neighborhood needs to be improved. Merriam Park is ill-served by mass transit oprions. Improving transit will help address existing traffic problems resulting from increased traffic. The City should facilitate reassessing how the neighborhood can be better served by transit. Merriam Park Community Plan Summary Page 3 o�-� 26. University Avenue is the desired corridor for the development of light rail transit. LRT must be designed to coniribute to the neighborhood rather than just shuttle people through. 27. The Mississippi River Boulevazd is a recrearional asset to the community and to the City of St. Paul. It should be protected from transportarion changes that would increase motor vehicle traffic or otherwise negarively affect the boulevard's recrearional and residential value. Actions Reauirine Citv Leaderslun Pub[ic Works 1. Tmplement traffic-calming measures to reduce speeding and cut-through traffic on residential streets. 2. Support the addition of bike lanes where feasible, and installarion of bike racks on buses and in commercial areas (Public Works, PED, LIEP, Pazks). 3. Advocate for improved bus service for Merriam Park (Public Works, PED). 4. Promote the development of light rail iransit on University Avenue. Ensure that LRT design contributes to the neighborhood rather than just shuttles people through (Public Works, PED). 5. Protect Mississippi River Blvd. from transportation changes that would increase motor vehicle h�affic or othenuise negatively affect the boulevard's recreational and residential value. Planning and Economic Development 6. Encourage new mixed-use development along transit routes and on underused or inappropriately developed sites, particularly along University Ave, in the Iris Pazk neighborhood, and at the intersections of Cleveland and Mazshall, Fairview and Selby, and Snelling and Selby. 7. Require design of new development to be pedestrian-friendly (PED, LIEP). 8. Promote the rehabilitation of existing housing with the assistance of City-sponsored programs. Encourage incorporation of energy-efficient technologies. 9. Encourage all new development to include high-speed cable wiring for communications (PED, LIEP). 10. Encourage incorporation of technology infrastructure (such as cell phone antennas) into existing structures if possible (PED, LIEP). 11. Encourage new development to bury ufility lines whenever possible (PED, LIEP). Parks and Recreation 12. Protect all exisring public parks and geen spaces, particulazly Aldine and Iris Parks, and Mississippi River Blvd., from non-park related development and/or neglect. 13. Discourage transportation system changes that increase vekncular commuter traffic along Mississippi River Blvd. Actions Requiring Leadership by the Community CouncIl 1. Support new mixed-use development along transit routes and on underused or inappropriately developed sites, particularly along University Ave., in the Iris Park neighborhood, and at the intersecfions of Cleveland and Marshall, Fairview and Selby, and Snelling and Selby 2. Promote the rehabilitarion of existing housing with the assistance of City-sponsored programs. Encourage incorporation of energy-efficient technologies. 3. Recommend design of new development to be pedestrian-fi 4. Support design of new housing that is appropriate to the surroundings. Designs other than "retro" or "tradifional" will be supported if it adds to the mulri-layered fabric of the neighborhood. 5. Encourage all new development to include high-speed cable wiring for communications 6. Encourage incorporation of technology infrastructure (such as cell phone antennas) into existing Merriam Park Community Plan Summary Page 4 ��� sh if possible. 7. Encourage new development to bury utility lines whenever possible. 8. Establish a rental housing forum that is a service for landlords, tenants, neighbors, and universities to find solurions and aid for troubled properties. 9. Advocate for improved bus service for Merriam Park. Planning Commission Findines The Planning Commission finds that the summary of the Merriam Park Community Plan, as amended, is consistent with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and other adopted City policies. Planning Process The Merriam Park Community Plan is the product of a series of public meetings held between 1998 and 2000. 'I'hree community meetings attended by over 100 residents and business were held to gather input and generate ideas about the future of Merriam Park. The Building and Land Use Committee of the Merriam Pazk Community Council developed the draft plan based on the community meetings. The plan was reviewed and appmved by the Community Council in 2000, but then lay "dormanY' as major challenges and transirions in the council occurred. When new Council leadership was established in 2001, concem for foxmally adopting the plan as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan was raised again. Afrer fiuther review, the Merriam Park Community Council approved the plan at its April, 2002 board meeting, and revised it again in August 2003 in response to City staff comments. Merriam Park Community Plan Summary Page 5 by-�� MERRIAM PARK COMNIUNITY PLAN Egecutive Summary Memam Park is a community on the west side of St Paul and comprises four distinct neighborhoods. They are Merriam Park, Desnoyer Park, Shadow Falls and Iris Park. It is the conclusion of the residents of the area and the Merriam Park Community Council that each of these neighborhoods has unique qualiries, needs and visions. There are a number of issues that afFect and unite the entire community which are addressed in this azea plan. The ideas and concepts promoted here have been developed from a series of community meetings held in the period 1998-2000. These ideas were summarized in a series of Community Plans, which are noted at the end of this plan. The ideas are from the people who live, work and invest in the neighborhood. The essential character of Merriam Pazk is one of a well established community, a mixture of residential and commercial interests that compliment each other. The neighborhood is not overwhelmed by any single enrity or intersection. The neighborhood supports a few comxnercial nodes that serve its residents well, and it is not a significant regional draw. The recreational oppornxniries, the wallcability and the balance of interests are what make the neighborhood a great piace to live, raise families and invest. Merriam Park has the "urban village" feel that is supported by St Paul, and the community must be careful to maintain this. This communiry shares several concerns with the rest of St Paul. It is a mature community with established transit, commerciai and housing nodes. The concem of this plan is to anticipate the issues that will affect this neighborhood directly. The adoprion of these principles is a community effort to create a unique, stable and livable community. This is in accordance with the St Paul Land Use Plan. The concern of the community is primarily appropriate land use, good business/residential mix, transportation developments, future zoning changes, and housing issues-both with future and existing stock. This area plan will address specific sites of awareness and propose the Community Council's recommendation for future consideration. There will be areas and issues that this plan will not directly address. All issues that come before the Merriam Pazk Community Council need to be adequately reseazched with attenrion given to community concerns and neighborhood stability. Section 1: Housing 1.1 The Merriam Pazk community wants to maintain the neighborhood as predominately residenrial. The community enjoys the environment of wallcabie neighborhoods with light commerciai uses that exist throughout most of the neighborhood. This should be encouraged through new mixed-use development, where applicable, and careful expansion of any commercial zoning. The neighborhood is opposed to a large, or regional, commercial presence developing in the azea. oy--�� 1.2 Any new development should be mixed use. The neighborhood agrees with the St Paul Land Use Plan that new housing developments should be mixed use. The neighborhood also supports new development along transit routes. The neighborhood is opposed to lazge developments that change the essential character af the neighborhood. 13 The chazacter of the neighborhood as one of single family homes needs to be maintained. This must be done while supporting oppominiries for rental housing. To accomplish this goai, there must be cazeful attention paid to zoning of the neighborhood. With much of the neighborhood already zoned for rental units, expansion of these azeas must be carefully weighed and debated by the neighborhood. 1.4 Supporting the rehabilitation of housing is a priority over new construction. To accomplish this goal, the resources like the Pride in Neighborhood Housing Program should be expanded. Also, rehabilitation should be encouraged to vncorporate energy ef£cient technologies. Community outreach programs, like the Pride In Neighborhood Housing Program, should be encouraged and developed. Programs offering funding and resources need to be available to property owners that need it. 1.5 Industrial zoning north of I-94 should be reconsidered when possible. The neighborhood would like to see the Iris Park area grow as a residenfial area with some commercial activity. The reconsideration of the industrial zoning for residential or commercial uses would have a beneficial effect on the neighborhood. The neighborhood does not want to discourage existing businesses by pursuing zoning changes currently. 1.6 Merriam Pazk supports mixed use developments along University Avenue. They should include affordable housing units, locally oriented commercial uses and small to medium sized employers. This area is appropriate for these uses because of the access to transportation, post- secondary schools and both downtowns. All considerations would be in accordance with Section 5 of the Land Use Plan. 1.7 Specific areas that wanant future consideration: Pelham Avenue to Cleveland Avenue, I-94 to University. Should any parcel change operators or uses, the current zoning should be reconsidered for residenrial additions. The University of St Thomas area should be considered for traffic and parking concerns. The Cornei of Prior and University currently has two motels. Should any motel close or change uses, the site should be reconsidered for zoning changes. 1.8 The option for zoning considerations must be tempered by the Communit}> Council's desire not to negarively impact land values or business investment. Grandfathering uses is always an option. 1.9 Design of housing units should be thoughtful and appropriate to the surroundings. It is the hope of this area plan that any new consriucrion will work with the Council to create design that is appealing to the neighborhood. The Council does not advocate strictly "retro" or "tradirional" design. Urban design and architecture is most pleasing when it adds to the mulri-layered fabric of the community. ay-, 1.10 The residents desire more accountability from landlords and Universities in the area. Rentai housing is a significanf part of the Merriam Park community, and should be encouraged. In an effort to deal with probiems that affect the neighborhood, the City should help the community create a forum for fmding solutions and aid for troubled properties. This will be an accessible service to private landlords, neighbors, tenants and Universiries. 1.11 The City expects 4,500 housing units to be built in St. Paul by the year 2020. Merziaxn Park welcomes additional housing, but not at the expense of existing stock. The residents advocate underused or misused sites, like industrial uses, to be the first choice of development. The neighbors do not want large expansion of off-caxnpus University housing in current single family home areas. They do agree with expansion along University Avenue, which agrees with the St. Paul Plan to encourage growth along transit corridors. Section 2: Economic Development 2.1 The neighbarhood advocates development principles that encourage small to medium retaii and other commercial businesses. The businesses should contribute to the local environxnent, not ovenvhelm it. National retailers using a big-box development, such as Wal-Mart, are simply too big for the area. 2.2 Economic development should in no way damage the pedestrian environment or add to traffic on residential streets, with the exceprion of new mixed use developments. The pedestrian environment is crirical to the essential chazacter of Merriam Park. The family friendly qualities and the walkability of this neighborhood that exist currently are qualities that the City promotes in its Land Use Plan and must not be compromised. - 23 The residents are in agreement with the St. Paui Land Use Plan that new developments should urilize mixed uses. In Merriam Park, this has the biggest impact on Iris Park for new developments. The neighborhood would like to see the promotion of small nodes at existing intersections, such as Cleveland and Marshall, Fairview and Selby, Snelling and Selby. The neighbors would like to see ease of applications and licensing for family and neighborhood oriented businesses. If possible, sidewallc life should be encouraged. Multi-story buildings are prefened at commercial nodes. 2.4 Controlling access to parking spaces is a great tooi for encouraging the size and types of businesses desired by the neighborhood. The Community Council recommends that existing parking should be protected, but addirionai parking should only be allowed after it is . demonstrated that the neighborhood will be qualitarively improved by the business requesting new spaces. This includes existing businesses that may desire to expand. For example, Generic Hardware is requesting a permit to pave a patch of grass to provide five new spaces for its customers. The neighborhood may decide that it would be qualitatively improved by those spaces because there will be five less cars on the residenrial street behind the store. They would then recommend or oppose granting the permit after debate. Parking should be in the rear of retail and commercial buildings where possible. Oy-� 2.5 Merriam Park should be a friendly, encouraging place for small to medium sized businesses to grow. It is of the Council's opuuon that exisring businesses should be granted additional consideration for expansion in the neighborhood than new business. Merriam Park should be able to provide a wide variety of employment opportuniries to a wide variety of neighborhood residents and commuters. It is important to the Council to limit addition of new businesses that would have a qualitatively negarive impact on the community, through congestion, character or use. Section 3: Infrastructure Concerns A critical issue for economic development is the azea's incorpoiation of new technology infrastructure. Merriam Park is at a disadvantage because of its age of infrastructure. 3.1 The Council recommends that at the earliest possible opportunity the City support updating the technological infrastructure, particularly high speed cable wiring for communications. This is an unportant issue for the desirability of commercial and residential properties. All new construcrion should be required to be built with current technology standards in place and expandable for future adaptations. 3.2 New external technolagies, such as cell phone towers, should be incorporated into existing structures. The neighbors oppose the construction of new towers and overhead wiring �,vhen use of existing structures is at all possible. The opposition is because of aestherics and because of the quantity of obsolete external infrastructure in place currently. 3.3 The City should support the neighborhood in achieving the updating of technology concurrent with addressing overhead wires. The Community meetings articulated the residents desire for burying overhead cables. The community also supports underground cables for beautification of the neighborhood. This agrees with the St. Paul Land Use Plan. The neighborhood will only continue to attract new investxnent if it remains competirive in structure. Updaring the infrastructure is just as important as maintanung streets and housing. Section 4: Environment 4.1 The Mississippi River conidor must be maintained as a premier recreational area for the neighborhood. The neighbors opposed any measure that would increase daily vehicular commuter traffic along the river. The river as a park and as green space must be maintained. This has a direct impact of the quality of life in Merriam Park. 4.2 All parks and green spaces must be protected. It is a priority concern of the neighbors that all green space and parks be protected from non-park related development and/or neglect. The parks are very important to the beauty and recrearion in the neighborhood. Aldine and Iris Parks are of particulaz concern for protecrion. o�=�� 43 The neighborhood agrees with the St. Paul Land Use Plan that green spaces, pazks and the river aze urban ameniries. Green spaces and corridors should be encouraged in the neighborhood where ever possible, such as during the redevelopment or replacement of railroad tracks and roads. Secrion S:Signs MERRIAM PARK SPECIAL DISTffiCT SIGN PLAN IN1BNT AND PURPOSE The Merriam Park Special District Sign Plan, as provided in Secrion 66.216 of the Zoning Code, is being adopted to provide sign controls that build upon the unique character and idenrity of Merriam Park. This Sign Plan is intended to: (a) maintain and enhance the scenic view of unique architectural and natural features visible from the residential and commercial areas of Merriam Park; (b) protect and encourage investment and beaurification in the University Avenue, Marshall Avenue, Snelling Avenue and Selby Avenue conidors; (c) reduce the clutter and chaotic diversity of advertising sign age that impairs the effectiveness of signs identifying businesses and institutions in Merriam Park; (d) create a more aestherically pleasing fusion of residential and commercial areas in Merriam Park; and (e) protect property values in Meniam Park and reflect the pride its resi,dents, businesses and institutions place in the community. DEFTNITIONS AND INTERPRETATION The provisions of this Sign Plan are suppiementary to the provisions of Chapter 66, Signs, of the Zoning Code. The provisions of this Sign Plan that are more restricrive than provisions of Chapter 66 shall prevail and supersede any conflicting provisions of Chapter 66. All other provisions of Chapter 66 of the Zoning Code shall continue to apply to sign age within the Merriam Pazk Special Sign District. All words and terxns shall be defined as in this Sign Plan and in Chapter 66 of the Zoning Code. Provisions that use the word "shall" are mandatory. Provisions that use the word "should" or "recommend" are advisory to carrying out the intent and purpose of this Sign Plan but are not mandatory. SPECIAL SIGN DISTRICT AREA The Merriam Park Special Sign District Plan shall apply to the area defined as follows: Commencing at the center of the intersection of Snelling Avenue and University Avenue, the boundary shall extend south along the center-line of Snelling Avenue to the center-line of Summit Avenue, then west along the center-line of Summit Avenue extending to the western ciry 0�(-� limit, then northerly along the western city lnnit to the median of Interstate Highway 94, easterly along the median of Interstate Highway 94 until the center-line of Cleveland Avenue, then north along the center-line of Cleveland Avenue to the center-line of University Avenue, then easterly along the center-line of University Avenue until the center-line of Snelling Avenue. PROVISIONS (a} No advertising sign shall be permitted, except signs on transit sheiters and courtesy benches licensed or franchised by the city. (b) No free-standing or roof business sign which directs attention to a commodiry, service or entertainment shall be permitted, except business signs which identify the name, logo, and/or nature of the business or profession conducted on the premises. NON-CONFORMING ADVERTISING SIGNS Signs within the Merriam Park Special District which lawfully existed prior to the adoption of . this Sign Plan by the City Council, and which would be prohibited, regulated or restricted under the provisions of this Sign Pian or amendments hereto, may continue to exist as legal non- conforxning signs under the provisions of Section 66.300, Non-Conforming Signs, of the Zoning Code, subject to the following additional requirements: (a) No non-conforming advertising sign shall be: (i) altered in any way, other than changing the message on a painted ar printed sign; (ii) replaced by another non-conforming sign; (iii) relocated to any other location in the Merriam Park Special District; (iv) reconstructed after incuiring damage in an amount exceeding 50% of its display surface, as determined by the City; or (v) maintained through replacement of structural elements. (b) Any non-confonning advertising sign shall be immediately removed from the Merriam Park Special District at the cost of the owner: (i) if it incurs damage in an amount exceeding 50% of its display surface, as determined by the City; ar (ii) if use of such sign has been discontinued for a period of three consecutive months. Oy- Section 6: Ayd Mill Road 6.1 The community does not support a connecrion between Ayd Mill Road and I-94. A fixture connecrion would negafively impact Merriam Pazk and Snelling-Hamline neighborhoods. The community opposes the expansion of Ayd Mill Road for any purposes. Section 7: Transportation 71 The neighborhood is concerned about speeding throughout the residential streets in the area. There has been increasing speeds on all streets, but the problem is most dramatic on side streets. The neighborhood would like to see increased traffic calming measures. Throughout the neighborhood, there is a growing problem with overflow tra�c from Marshall, Cretin, Cleveland, Fairview and Snelling spilling onto surrounding streets. This has a negative impact on the quality of life on these streets. 72 Merriam Park supports iniriatives that promote biking, busing and other means of transportarion that are not single occupant autos. The neighborhood would like to see bike lanes, racks in commercial areas and on buses. Also, connecting St Paul to the Midtown Greenway in Minneapolis is supported when feasible. Look to the St. Paul comprehensive plan for bike lane placement. 73 Bus service needs to be improved and made more efficient throughout the neighborhood. Merriam Park is ill-served by current mass transit options. Bus service is difficult to get into or out of the neighborhood. This affects the overall traffic probiems that exist in the area. The City should help facilitate reassessang how the neighborhood could be better served. 7.4 University Avenue is the desired corridor for any light rail developments. Universiry Auenue is the busiest h corridor in the area and can be easily served by North-South transit connections. It is important that light rail contribute to the neighborhood rather than only shuttle peoplethrough. 7.5 The Mississippi River Boulevard is a recreational asset to the community and to the City of St. Paul. It should be protected from transportation changes that would increase motor vehicle traffic or otherwise negatively affect the boulevazd's recreational and residential value. Sources Merriam Park/Snelling-Hamline Community Council Community Plan 1998 Community Planning Catalyst for Merriam Park and Snelling-Hamline City of St Paul Land Use Plan t 0 � Q �a� tO ���e � y 0 � Merriam Park Community Council, Inc. 1573 Selby Avenue • Suite 311 • St. Pau] • Minnesota • 55104 www.mettiam-park.org • ccmerriamC�agiliti.net tel: 651.645.6887 • fax: 651.917.9991 Comments to the St. Paul City Council, Jarivary 28, 2004. James Marti Issue. Revisions have been made to the Merriam Park Community Plan by the Planning Commission that run counter to the wishes of the Community, as . We are here to explain why the Plan should be adopted in the form submitted to the City. Background. • Neighborhood volunteers began updating the Merriam Park Community Plan in 1998. � The updated plan grew out of three public meetings, attended by over 100 residents, business owners, and others with a stake in Merriam Park. • Updated Plan was submitted to the City in July 2002. Plan Revisions. • January 2003: comments on the Plan received from City staff • Pian revised in light of these comments, mostly technicat suggestions • Two areas of substantive disagreement: Ayd Mill Road and Mississippi River Boulevard Ayd Mill. • Plan as submitted expressed opposition to a direct freeway connection, based on resident input. • Revisions suggest changes to Ayd Mill be "reviewed", without suggesting by whom or to what end. • We feel this change abrogates the public input we received. Mississippi River Boulevard. • P/an as submitted expressed the strong commitment to protect Mississippi River Boulevard as a recreational asset to the community and the City by preventing increases in motor vehicie traffic. • Revisions suggest that the Boulevard is not an asset worthy of protection. Instead, the Boulevard is treated as just another street, subject to the same considerations. Vehicle traffc may be increased as with any othes City street. • We feel this change to be short sighted and against the interests of Merriam Park and St. Paul. Negation of citizen input. The Community Plan as submitted was the product of considerable public input, obtained through the efforts of dedicated neighborhood volunteers. The stated goals of neighborhood residents, businesses, and other stakeholders were summarily aitered by the Planning Commission at the end of the process. Having our work altered in this way does a profound disservice to neighborhood residents and community volunteers. We urge the City Council to adopt the original wording of the Merriam Park Community Plan, as revised and submitted to the City in October of 2003. 0�-27 SNELLING HAMLINE COMMUNITY COUNCIL 1573 SELBY AVENUE, SUITE 31 1• SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55104 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Tttnvis Snio[v Pv[Smervi o,.viv cowrvs�i FiPST V�CE PRESIDENT Dwn O'Gnvw SECOYO VICE-PaESlpEni Eeirc Ho�wrvo SecAElaAv JOE MqYO-CULLEN TPEAStinEF GEOR6EJVRGENSEN CITIZEN PT LqR6E CoR[v qnoeaso.0 Tim Cowa January 27, 2004 Councilmember Jay Benanav Office of the City Council 15 West Kellogg Blvd City Hall, Suite 310 Saint Paul, MN 55102 RE: Recommended language changes to the Merriam Park Community Plan Dear Councilmember Benanav: ME�„.„ �oa„ The Snelling Hamline Community Council learned in early January of the MEA�E �aEE�E Planning Commission's proposed language changes to the Merriam Park '°��E �°�„��� Community Plan. The recommended language changes effect how future °°" `"°`"""" development will impact both Mississippi River Road and Ayd Mill Road. ° "x""°p"'"""° `""`" The Meniam Park Community Council voted to reject the recommended ����� �"����" language changes made by the Planning Commission and a public hearing to ZPREL4 MOrv50N RE oaRE determine the exact language of their Community Plan is scheduled for ,E��,�app,�,„ January28'2004. Srvie�EV RemEa Ka15 ROBi50N Tom RoeisoH LiNOSPY 5<HWP6 EXECUTIVE DIPECTaR Arvrv[�i[se �Ei'wi�ER At the January 8, 2004, meeting of the Snelling Hamline Community Council, the Board of Directors passed a motion supporting the Merriam Pazk Community CounciPs or any other Community CounciPs prerogative to accept or reject the language used by the city to summarize the Council's community plan to be the official document read into the public record. Very truly yours, T is Snider Board President WWW.SNELLHAM.ORG 651-644-1085 SHCC@SNELLHAM.ORG �y_�� MERRIAM PARK COUMMUNITY PLAN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL TOPIC: MISSISSIPPI RIVER BOULEVARD ("MRB") Memam Pazk Community Plan (2003) states that MRB "should be protected as a recreauonal area and not used as a route for commuter traffic." St. Paul Public Works Departrnent traffic staff found this unacceptable; as was the revision, which called for "protection from transportation changes which would increase vehicle haffic, or, otherwise, negatively, affect the boulevazds recreational and residential value." So here we aze today. Let's quickly review the last 20-30 yeazs. In 1976, Minnesota law designated the "Mississippi River Comdor" within the Twin Cities metro area as a state critical azea. In the 1980's the US Congress designated the "Mississippi National River and Recreation Area" as a unit of the National Pazk Systen. Much fime, energy, money and planning have been directed toward the aesthetics and recxeational value of the riverfront as a result of these and other legislation. For the MRB these changes include: -Removal of snow emergency status -Speed limits reduced to 25 m.p.h. -Bikelanes -Paved wallcing and bike paths -Native landscape restoration -Scenic overlooks and many others These changes have brought an increasing number of non-motorized velucle users to the MRB trails. The MRB runs along the bluffs of the Mississippi River. All residents, streets and users are east of the parkland and must cross the MRB to access the trails/paths and lookouts. This adds to its uniqueness as compazed to other collector streets or pazkways. Most impoRantly, according to Policy 11 of the Pazks and Recreation Plan 2000 (refer to the map in your handout) three regional trails uniquely converge in Memam Park: The St. Paul Grand Rounds Mississippi River Tnil Capitol Route These three designations may place more demand on the MRB than on any other section of trail in Saint Paul. According to the Parks and Recreation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan (Objective 313), the City should "continue to enhance the parkway system through ... limitations on uses within and adjacent to parkways to ensure compatibility and preserve aesthetic chazacter, [and] limitations on traffic speed and vehicle access." The Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan projects increased traffic volumes throughout the City based on projections that the Twin Cities Metro Region will grow by up to 500,000 new residents by the year 2020. The Comprehensive Plan does not recognize the impact that these same residents will have on the parks and recreation azeas of this city. High density residential development along University Avenue will undoubtedly place a greater demand on the recreational assets of the MRB. Ciry Staff has indicated that the proposed la awage regarding MRB is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. But the Transportation Chapter specifically directs the City to "ensure that management of traffiq in accordance with the functional classificarion of streets, is done in ways that discourage increased volumes and speeds, and protect pedeshians and the neighborhood environmenY' [§9.13 (italics added)]. We believe the Planning Commission's proposed changes to our community plan lack the necessary limits, provisions or protections for the MRB as well as the long-term recrearional needs of our citizens. Therefore, we oppose the amended resoiurion number 27 and ask you to support this language. "Mississippi River Boulevard is a recrearional asset to the community and to the City of St. Paul. It should be protected from transportation changes that would increase motor vehicle traffic or otherwise negatively affect the boulevard's recreational and residenrial value." � 1�IERRIAM PARK COUMMUNITY PLAN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL TOPIC: MISSISSIPPI RIVER BOULEVARD ("_MRB") Merriam Pazk Community Plan (2003) states that MRB "should be protected as a recrearional area and not used as a route for commuter traffic." St. Paul Public W orks Department traffic staff found this unacceptable; as was the revision, which called for "protection from transportation changes which would increase vehicle traffic, or, otherwise, negarively, affect the boulevazds recreational and residenria] value." So here we aze today. Let's quickly review the last 20-30 years. In 1976, Minnesota law designated the °MississipQi River Corridor" within the Twin Cities meRO area as a state critical azea. In the 1980's the US Congress desi�ated the °Mississippi National River and Recreation Area" as a unit of the National Park System. Much time, energy, money and planning have been directed toward the aesthetics and recreational value of the nverfront as a result of these and other legislation. For the MRB these changes include: -Removal of snow emergency status -Speed limits reduced to 25 m.p.h. -Bike lanes -Paved walking and bike paths -Native landscape restorarion -5cenic overlooks and many others These changes have brought an increasing number of non-motorized vehicle users to the MRB h'ails. The MRB runs along the bluffs of the Mississippi River. All residents, streeTS and users are east of the pazkland and must cxoss the MRB to access the trails/paths and lookouts. This adds to its uniqueness as compared to other collector streets or parkways. Most importantly, according to Policy I 1 of the Parks and Recreatior. Plan 2000 (refer to the map in your handout) three regional trails uniquely converge in Merriam Pazk: The St. Paul Grand Rounds Mississippi River Trail Capito] Route These three designations may place more demand on the MRB than on any other secrion of trail in Saint Paul. According to the Parks and Recreation Chaptzr of the Comprehensive Plan (Objective 313), the City should "continue to enhance the parkway system through ... limitations on uses within and adjacent to parkways to ensure compatibility and preserve aesthetic character, [and] limitarions on traffic speed and vehicle access." D�-1� The Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan projects increased txaffic volumes throughout the City based on projections that the Twin Ciries Metro Region will grow by up to 500,000 new residents by the year 2020. The Comprehensive Plan does not recognize the impact that these sar�e residents will have on the puks and recrearion areas of this city. Aigh density residential development along University Avenue wi]I undoubtedly place a greater demand on the recreational assets of the MRB. ��-7Z Comments to the St. Paul City Council, January 28, 2004. James Marti This afternoon we are addressing the Merriam Park Community Plan, and the revisions made to that plan by the Planning Commission. The Merriam Park Community Council feels strongly that these revisions run counter to the wishes of the Community and to the long term health of our neighborhood. It is our hope that the tesrimony we present here today will make these points clear. First, some background. The current Merriam Park Community Plan dates from 1978. Neighborhood volunteers and intems began work on updating the plan in 1998. The process included a series of three public meerings held to gather input and generate ideas about the future of Merriam Park. These meerings were attended by over 100 residents, business owners, and others with a stake in the welfaze of Merriam Park. At the conclusion of the public input, revisions and updates to the plan were compiled by volunteers and forwazded to the Community Council. After some delay while the Meniam Park Board was reorganizing, the updated plan was approved by the Board and submitted to the City in .i�z��r 2002. In January of 20�3, we received a set af comments on tke Plan frcm City staff, and we began revising the Plan in light of these comments. Many of the comments were quite helpful, involving technical distinctions, questions of definirion, ar suggesting re-wording to clarify parts of the Plan. These technical suggestions were largely incorporated into a revised version of the Plan, which was submitted to the City in .�mz £sa�� of last year. However, there were two areas in which City staff had more substantive disagreements with the Plan. I will offer an overview of these two items, with more details to be offered by subsequent speakers. The first area of disagreement was on the matter of Ayd Mill Road. The Plan as forwarded to the City stated that the following: "The community does not support a connection between Ayd Mill Road and I-94. A future connection would negarively impact Merriam Park and Snelling-Hamline neighborhoods. The community opposes the expansion of Ayd Mill Road for any purposes." Comments from the City staff who reviewed our Plan suggested that this stance should be reconsidered. The Merriam Park Community Council Board decided to keep the original wording in our revised Plan submitted to the City. After much debate within the Council, we felt that this statement on the fixture of Ayd Mill Road was the product of substantial and legitimate input from concerned neighborhood residents. Imagine our surprise when we received a copy of the amended Community Pian as recently passed by the Planning Commission. That amended plan included a new statement on Ayd Mili Road: "Review proposed expansion or extensions of Ayd Mill Road, including any proposals for direct or indirect connecrions to Interstate-94, to determine the benefits or detriments that may result for the Merriam Pazk community. Include bicycle and pedesirian lanes in any reconfigurarion of Ayd MilT Road." I thivk you'll agree that this is a very different statement that the one that the Community submitted. A second azea in which City staff disagreed with our Plan concerned Mississippi River Boulevard. The Plan's original wording stated that Mississippi River Boulevard should be protected as a recreational area and not treated primarily as a commuter route. Staff from the Public Works Department pointed out that the Boulevard already carries commuter traffic, and that in future there may be changes to neighborhood traffic patterns that could result in more commuter ira�c being carried on the Boulevazd. In response, we drafted the following new language for our October submission: "Mississippi River Boulevazd is a recrearional asset to the community and to the city of St. Paul. It should be protected from transportation changes that woutd increase motor vehicle traffic or otherwise negarively affect the boulevard's recrearional and residential value." This section of the Merriam Park Community Plan as approved by the Planning Commission reads instead: "Transportafion system changes that would increase motor vehicle traffic (on the Boulevard) will be carefully evaluated to determine the impact on the boulevard's recrearional and residenrial vatue versus ihe benefits such changes may create for the neighborhood as a whole." The changes imposed on the Plan remove the norion that the Boulevazd is an asset worthy of protection. Instead, the Boulevazd is deemed just another street, subject to the same treatment as any other stretch of asphalt. We in the neighborhood disagree strongly with this view. We are here to contest these two changes to our Community Plan on several grounds. Two of my colleagues from the Merriam Park Board are here today to offer specific arguments on each question. I would only emphasize that the Coxnmunity Plan we submitted was the product of considerable public input, obtained through the efforts of dedicated neighborhood volunteers. Having our work substantially altered in this way at the end of the process does a profound disservice to those who are working to improve the quality of life in St. Paul. It sends the message that the efforts of the District Councils really don't matter all that much in the end. I hope that is not the feeling of this City Council, and urge the council to adopt the otiginal wording of the Merriam Park Community Plan, as revised and submitted to the City in October of 2003. � , ��-� � MERRIAM PARK COUMMLJNITY PLAN APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL TOPIC: MISSISSIPPI RIVER BOULEVARD ("MRB") Memam Park Community Plan (2003) states that MRB "should be protected as a recrearional area and not used as a route for commuter traffic." St. Paul Public Works Department traffic staff found this unacceptable; as was the revision, which called for "protecrion from transportarion changes which would increase vehicle kaffic, or, otherwise, negatively, affect the boulevards recreational and residential value." So here we are today. Let's quickly review the last 20-30 yeazs. In 1996, Minnesota. law designated the "Mississippi River Comdor" within the Twin Cities metro azea as a state critical azea. In the 1980's the US Congess designated the "Mississippi National River and Recreation Area" as a unit of the National Pazk System. Much time, energy, money and planning have been directed toward the aesthetics and recreational value of the riverfront as a result of these and other legislation. For the MRB these changes include: -Removal of snow emergency status -Speed limits reduced to 25 m.p.h. -Bike lanes -Paved walking and bike paths -Narive landscape restoration -Scenic overlooks and many others These changes have brought an increasing number of non-motorized vehicle users to the MRB trails. The MRB runs along the bluffs of the Mississippi River. All residents, streets and users are east of the parkland and must cross the MRB to access the trails/paths and lookouts. This adds to its uniqueness as compared to other collector streets or parkways. Most importantly, according to Policy 1 l of the Parks and Recreation Plan 2000 (refer to the map in your handout) three regional trails uniquely converge in Merriam Pazk: The St. Paul Grand Rounds Mississippi River Trail Capitol Route These three designations may place more demand on the MRB than on any other section of hail in Saint Paul. According to the Parks and Recreation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan (Objective 3.13), the City should "continue to enhance the parkway system through .., limitafions on uses within and adjacent to parkways to ensure compatibiliry and preserve aesthetic character, [and] limitarions on traffic speed and vehicle access." The Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan projects increased traffic volumes throughout the City based on projections that the Twin Ciries Mefro Region will gow by up to 500,000 new residents by the yeu 2020. The Comprehensive Plan does not recognize the impact that these same residents will have on the parks and recreation areas of this city. High density residential development along University Avenue will undoubtedly place a greater demand on the reczeational assets of the MRS. D�f�� City Staff has indicated that the proposed language regazding MRB is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. But the Transportation Chapter specifically directs the City to "ensure that management of tra�c, in accordance with the functional classificarion of streets, is done in ways that discourage increased volumes and speeds, and protect pedestrians and the neighborhood environmenP' [§9.13 (italics added)]. We believe the Planning Commission's proposed changes to our community plan lack the necessary limits, provisions or protections for the MRB as well as the long-term recreational needs of our citizens. Therefore, we oppose the amended resolurion number 27 and ask you to support this language. "Mississippi River Boulevard is a recreational asset to the communiTy and to the City of St. Paul. It should be protected from transportarion changes that would increase motor vetucle traffic or otherwise negarively affect the boulevard's recreational and residential value." � � Testimony to the Saint Paul City Council on Merriam Park Community Plan — Ayd Mill Road Chip Welling Representarive from Grid 5 to the Merriam Park Community Council 27 January 2004 My participarion in the Ayd Mill Road process began in April 1998 when I was appointed by the Merriam Park Community Council as an alternate representative to the Ayd Mill Road Task Force and attended a number of its meefings. I also reviewed various documents on Ayd Mill Road produced by the City and submitted written comments on them. On 8 February 1999, the Memam Pazk Community Council held a community fonun at which residents favored either the No-Build or Lineaz Park by a ratio of six to one versus a connection. This posirion was adopted by the Memam Pazk Community Council on 10 Mazch 1999. On 23 August 1999, I voted along with Scott Heiderich, a second rep from MP, and the other members of the Task Force on the alternatives. We voted for the No-Build, TSM-TDM, and Linear Pazk, and we voted against the Two- and Four-lane build options. During this period, the Merriam Park Community Council was working with residents of the neighborhood to develop its community plan, which included the following statement: Secrion 6: Ayd Mill Road 6.1 The community does not support a connection between Ayd Mill Road and I-94. A future connection would negatively nnpact Memam Pazk and Snelling-Hamline neighborhoods. The community opposes the expansion of Ayd Mill Road for any purposes. As Jim Marti described, the Merriam Park Community Plan went to the City in 2003. I attended the 24 October 2003 meeting of the Planning Commission at which they aceepted the plan for consideration. In a memo dated 12 November 2003 from the Neighborhood and Cusent Planning Committee to the Planning Commission, the Committee recommended a revision of the Merriam Park Community Plan in three azeas related to uansportarion. o�-� 7 T��..:..r..�6 LiTf.ii�a.c�fl.e.e��h.ile�Lr,....TAD Pl�., 9(1(14 i� A Teeti...n�. d..� � 77 In the case of Ayd Mill Road, City Public Works Traffic staff azgued that this policy of opposition to extension or expansion of the road should be changed and the Neighborhood and Current Plaiming Committee recommended the following revised policy: "[New 22] Review proposed expansions or extensions ofAyd Mill Road, i�cluding any proposals for d'uect or indirect connections to I-94, to determine the benefits or detriments that may result for the Merriam Pazk community. Include bicycle and pedestrian lanes in any reconfiguration of Ayd Mill Road." The basis for recommendation of these changes was the azgument that the Communiry Plan was inconsistent with the City's policies on fransportation as described in the Comprehensive Plan. In the Transportarion Policy Plan adopted by the City Council on 17 December 1997, policy 20 on p. 11 reads: "The City should complete environmental assessment of alternatives for the future of Ayd Mill Road and implement the resulting recommendarions." On 10 December 2003, I had a telephone conversation with Allan Lovejoy, the city staff person who is the lead on completion of the environmental assessment for Ayd Mill Road. He confirmed that current City policy on Ayd Mill Road is the same now as it was in 1997. The environmental assessment has not been completed and the city council has not decided on a definite course of acrion for this project. Consequently, the Merriam Pazk CommuniTy Council believes that the communiry's policy is not inconsistent with the City's policy on Ayd Mill Road. During 2003, the Merriam Pazk Community Council discussed the status of the road but decided not to change the language in our plan, which has not been opened for revision by the residents of the neighborhood. To accept the reversal by the Planning Commission of our policy on Ayd Mill Road would send a message to cirizens who volunteer to participate in Task Forces and Community Councils that, in the end, this investment of time and energy doesn't matter. So we ask that the City Council reject this change to our community plaa and retain the original policy, which was developed by residents of Merriam Pazk. Thank you for considering these comxnents. ne.,,.:.,.,...�, un.rr..e.....�,a.o,..,�,.na..v,,....nrtn m.,., onnn r., n�ro�r:..,,,.,,,,�,,,. �� �^ �P f �� 'P� o� P� �� � � P� 7 � � r � 6�f�7� Park R Trail Fon Snelling e Y � � ' �. . ; Larpenteur Ma�nger State Trail � SAINT PAU� PARKS AND RECREATION PLAN 13 �-�7 TRAIL SYSTEM POLICY 11 REGIONAL TRAILS The following [rails ;both existing and proposed) are designated as regional by the Me[ropoli[anCounal. ])IvfississippiRiver Trad; 2) Saint Paul Grand Round Loop aVe 0 (except for Jofinson Parkway}, 3i Phalen � Creek Trail; 4) English $t. mnnec[ion from � � Phalen Creek to the Munger State Trail; and � Beaver � � Si [he proposec! "Lafayet[e Trai!" mnnection � Lake � from Interstate 35-E ro E. 7th St. _ �i > � ¢ i 0 a` � KEY N m � � � � � Existing Proposed � ---..- ��������•������� Off-roadpaths I � •.•...••. ° • • . • On-street Bike Lanes �'sQ 1 Connecting Streets 1 � Saint Paul Grand Aound s�� � - — C/ � ° r � � Mississippi River Trail � per Afton Rd ' ' Capitol Route ." Bat•tle Creek � Regi,onal Park � '-. �° i..e� �. ° . P�on Ril • P , '` e 6'� '�'p�N : �O • � O � . � 9 PIgS v: Eye �: Lake . Y