05-108Council File # �Q�_
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented By
Refened To
Committee: Date
2 WfIEREAS, Lexington University LLC, on July 1, 2004, made application for a site plan
3 review in Zoning File No. 04-113-527, for a proposed 15,150 sq. ft. grocery store at the address
4 commonly known as 451 Lexington Parkway and legally described as set forth in the said zoning
5 file; and
7 WHEREAS, in a report dated July 28, 2004, City zoning staff prepared a report on said
8 application which recommended approval of the site plan, subject to conditions, and refened the
9 report and recommendation to the City's Planning Commission for a public hearing on the site
10 plan application and staff recommendation; and
11
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
WHEREAS, on August 5, 2004, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission,
having provided notice to affected properry owners, duly conducted a public hearing on the said
application and submitted its recommendation to the full Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. 04-83, dated August 27,
2004, moved to grant the application based upon the following findings and conclusions set forth
therein:
The city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for sub-
areas of the ciry.
Green Sheet# 3024931
��
The site plan is consistent with this finding.
The University Avenue Transit Oriented Development Framework encourages
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and looks at potential reuse of this site and
other sites on University Avenue. The applicant has prepared a plan showing how
the rest of the Lexington/LJniversity site might be developed as a mixed use
development in the future in response to the guidelines in the Framework.
However, this plan is intended to show potential development and is not under
review at this time.
The framework looks at several development scenarios for the
Lexington/University intersection and lists a number of goals. The site plan for
ALDI is consistent with most of these goals.
Removing blighted properties and redeveloping them soon. The project
would remove a portion of the blighted shopping center. Construction
would begn as soon as City approvals can be obtained.
2
0
�-�o�
- Intensifying the use of land as possible. The use would be a one story
retail business. A mulri-story, multi-use building could be built on the site
5 but ALDI, who will own the building, is not interested in owuing a multi-
6 use building.
7
8 - Maintaining the high quality parkway environment. The ALDI building
9 would not affect L,exington Pkwy.
10
11
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
49
50
2.
- Creating smaller blocks consistent with TOD principles, if the market
supports this development type. The site plan for ALDI does not create
any new blocks. Future development of adjacent pazcels may include a
new street that would create a new block.
- Creating paths within the new development for pedestrians moving
between buildings and transit stops. The entrance to the building would
be visible from University Avenue and linked to a bus stop by a large
landscaped plaza.
- Designing new development to be compatible with existing single family
neighborhoods. A grocery store at tkris location with a strong pedestrian
connection to University Avenue would be compatible with existing
single-family neighborhoods.
Section 5.5.2 (page 32) of the Land Use Section of the Comprehensive Plan says
that "The City will encourage more housing and jobs to locate along high service
bus routes. " No housing is proposed as part of this development. The applicant
says that the ALDI store will have 12-20 employees.
Section 6.3.2 (page 40) of the Land Use Section of the Comprehensive Plan says
that "development [on the University Avenue CorridorJ should contribute
through density and site design to the ridership base for public transportation on
University Avenue. " A grocery store located up to the street and neaz a bus stop
may encourage more people to ride the bus by making it more convenient for
people riding the bus to stop and buy groceries.
Applicable ordinaraces of the City of Saint Paul.
The newly revised zoning code contains a number of design standazds that "shall
be used in site plan review, as applicable, unless the appiicant can demonstrate
that there aze circumstances unique to the property that make compliance
impractical or unreasonable." (Section 63.110) These include:
a. New development shaZ1 relate to the design of adjacent traditional
buildings, where these are present, in scale and character. Thzs can be
achieved by maintaining similar setbacks, facade divisions, roof lines,
rhythm and proportions of openings, building materials and colors.
Historic architectural styles need not be replicated. The buildings in the
adjacent area have a mix of styles and setbacks. The design of the ALDI
Page 2 of 6
building is intended to reflect some of the elements of traditional �5� ���
Z
�
10
11
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
49
50
buildings. The building would be set back 4 feet from University Avenue
(enough room to provide some landscaping between the building and the
public sidewalk). The facade of the building would be faced with brick
and would be broken by accents and windows with awnings (although
most of the windows would use Spandrel and not cleaz glass). The height
of the building would range from between approximately 22 and 17 feet
on the side facing University Avenue.
b. Primary building entrances on a11 new buildings shall face the primary
abutting public street or walkway, or be Zinked to that stf by a clearly
defined and visible walkway or courryard. Additional secondary
entrances may be oriented to a secondary street or parking area. Entries
shall be clearly visible and identifiable from the street, and delineated
with edements such as roof overhangs, recessed entr-ies, landscaping, or
similar design features. The primary entrance to the building will not be
up to the University Avenue sidewalk but the proposed landscaped
courtyard is designed to provide a strong and visible link to the sidewalk.
c. This section deals with "pedestrian-oriented commercial dishicts
(generally characterized by storefront commercial buildings built up to the
sidewalk)" and encourages buildings in these districts to be up to the
sidewalk with doors and windows along the public sidewalk. However,
this site is not currently designated as a pedestrian-oriented commercial
district. The closest such district is located on University east of
Lexington.
d. AZI rooftop equipment shall be screened from view from adjacent streets,
public rights-of-way and adjacent properties. Rooftop equipment will be
screened as required.
e. If transit facilities are needed to serve existing or proposed development,
provisions shall be made, where practical, for location of a bus stop or
sheltered transit waiting area in a convenient and visible location. There
is currently a standard Metro Transit bus shelter on University Avenue at
this location. Staff has instructed the applicant to meet with Metro Transit
to discuss designs for a new bus shelter, including how big it should be,
what it should look like and where it should be located. No decisions have
been made but the applicant has said he is willing to provide a new bus
shelter.
f. The number of curb cuts shall be minimized, and shared curb cuts for
adjacent parking areas are encouraged. The site plan does not propose
any new curb cuts. ALDI would be served by one existing curb cut on
University Avenue and one on Lexington Parkway. The White Castle
immediately to the east has its own curb cut on University Avenue and
staff has suggested the applicant talk to White Castle to see if they are
interested in sharing a single curb cut.
Page 3 of 6
p5
3 In addirion, the proposed site plan meets all other zoning standards. The
4 use of the property for a grocery store is pemutted. The site plan provides
5 sufficient parking and landscaping. The building height and setbacks meet
6 zoning standards.
3. Preservation of unique geoZogic, geographic or historically signifzcant
characteristics of the city and environmentally sensitive areas.
10
11
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
49
50
The only unique lustorical aspect of the site is that the old home plate from
L,exington Pazk is located in one of the existing buildings. Staff has asked the
applicant to locate this and saue it.
4. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision
for such matters 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 land uses.
The site plan is consistent with this fmding. Drainage will be accommodated.
Loading will be screened from University Avenue.
5. The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in
order to assure abutting property and/or its occupants will not be unreasonably
affected.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The site is surrounded by other
commercial uses and the site plan will not unreasonably affect abutting property
and/or its occupants.
6. Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and location,
orientation and elevation ofstructures.
The site plan is consistent with cuxrent standards. Trees will be planted in the
parking lot to provide shade. The building entrance will be located to make it
easy for bus riders to use the store.
7. Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic both within the
site and in relation to access streets, including tra�c circulation features, the
Zocations and design of entrances and exits and parking areas within the site.
The site plan is consistent with this fmding. An existing driveway on University
Avenue will be the main access to the site. Access at tlus driveway is limited to
right-in and right-out because of the median in University Avenue. The site will
also have an easement to use an existing driveway on Lexington.
Public Works has asked the applicant to talk to the adjacent White Castle to see if
they are interested in sharing a single driveway on University. Public Works
would also like to see a driveway for the site on Dunlap, so cars could use the
break in the median at the Dunlap/LJniversity intersecrion, but building a driveway
Page 4 of 6
2
on Duniap is difficult because of grade changes that put the street six feet higher �� N�
than the parking lot.
3
4
5 8. The satisf¢ctory availability and capacity of storm and santfary sewers, ixcZuding
6 solutions to any drainage problems in the area of the development.
7
8 The site plan is consistent with this finding. Sanitary sewer is available in both
9 the adjacent streets (LTniversity and Dunlap). Storm water will drain to a ponding
10 area located on the adjacent pazcel to the south and from the pond it will drain to
11 an existing storm sewer. In the future, when the parcel to the south is developed,
12 this pond may be elunivated. If this happens, new provisions will have to be
13 made for taking care of the storm water from the ALDI site. This may require
14 underground storage if future development does not provide enough room for
15 surface storage.
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
9. Su�cient landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above
objectives.
The site plan is consistent with this fmding. Trees wili be planted in the
boulevazds on Dunlap and University and in the parking lot. The building will be
setback a few feet from the sidewalk to allow shrubs to be planted. A large
landscaped plaza is planned facing University Avenue. A retaining wall is
planned along Dunlap because the adjacent street is approximately six feet higher
than the site is.
10. Site accessibility in accordance with the provisions of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), including parking spaces, passenger loading zones and
accessible routes.
The site plan is consistent with this fmding. Handicapped pazking spaces and an
accessible route from the University Avenue sidewalk to the building entrance are
proposed.
11. Provision for erosion and sediment control as specified in the "Ramsey Erosion
Sediment and Control Handbook."
The site plan is consistent with tlus finding. There are no unusual erosion or
sediment issues raised by the plan and the methods proposed for dealing with
them are sufficient, including silt fences, street sweeping and use of the storm
water pond to trap sediment during construction.
44 WHEREAS, the Lexington Hamline Community Council and others, pursuant to the
45 provisions of I,eg. Code § 61.702(a), filed an appeal from the determinarion made by the
46 Planning Commission and requested a hearing before the City Council for the purposes of
47 considering the actions taken by the said Commission; and
48
49 WHEREAS, acting pursuant to L,eg. Codes §§ 61.702 and 704 and upon notice to
50 affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on October 6, 2004,
Page 5 of 6
where all interested parties were given an opporhxnity to be heard; and
2
0
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1�
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
C�,
WHEREAS, the City Council, having heard the statements made and having considered
the application, the report of staff, the record, the minutes and the Resolution of the Planning
Commission, does hereby;
RESOLVE, that the decision of the Plauuiug Commission in tlus matter is hereby
affirmed based upon the Council finding, after having heard all the testimony and having
reviewed the record in this matter, there has been no showing by the appellants of error in facts,
findings or procedure in the Plauning Commission's approval of the subject site pian
application; and, be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of the Lexington-Hamline Community
Council and others is hereby denied; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council adopts the Plauuiug Commission's findings
as its own; and be it
FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this Resolution to the
appellants I,exington-Hamline Community Council and University United, the Planning and
Zoning Administrators and the Planning Commission.
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet
��L.�����tio�.�a�� ;,�5�� I Green Sheet NO: 3024931
Contact Person & Phone:
Janeen E. Rosas
2669013
Must Be on Council Avert
ContractType:
RE-F2ESOLUTION
�
05'l0`�
' Devartrnent SentToPe(son InitiaUDate
- 0 " nseJl s 'oo/Enviroo Pr
Pssign 1 'cen s nviron �D artmentDir or
Number 2 ,G1roAtt rnev
For 3 a or•s ffi a odA ' t
Routing
Ordef 4 oune�
5 ' Cler ' Clerk
Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip NI Locations for Signature)
Action Requested:
Approval of a resolution memorializing wuncil action wlrich took place on October 6, 2004, denying an appeal of the Lexington
Hamline Community Council and adopting the Plauuing Commission's previous findings as that of the Council.
itlations: Appro�e (A) or F
Plannirg Commission
CIB Committee
Citil SeMce Commission
Service Contracts MustMswerthe Following
1. Has this persoNfirm e�er waked under a coMract for this department?
Yes No .
2. Has this persoNfirtn e�er been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/firm possess a skill nM nortnally possessed by any
cufreM city employee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach W green sheet
InUiating P�nblem, lssues, OQportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
Lexington Universiry LLC applied to build a proposed I5,150 square foot grocery store at 451 Lexington Pazkway. The proposal
approyal"from several Ciry �boatds. The Lexington Hamline Community Council filed an appeal and requested a Council Hearing.
Council hearing was held on October 6, 2004 and affumed the decision of the Planning Commission and denied the Commi
Council's appeal.
AdvanWgeslEApproved:
DisadvanWyes IfApproved:
Disadvantayes IF Not Approved:
Total Amount of
Trensaction:
Fundinp Source:
Financial Information:
' (Explain)
Cost/Revenue Budgeted:
Act'rviry Number.
January 31, 2005 1:14 PM Page 1
OFHCE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIILONMENTAL PROTECTTON ��_ 1 U�
Janeen & Rosas, Director �' V
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Randy C. Kelly, Mayor
September 16, 2004
Ms. Mary Erickson
Ciry Council Re&earch Office
Room 310 City hall
Saint Paul. MN 55102
Dear Ms. Erickson:
IAWRYPROFESS70NALBUILDING Tele�hoae: 651-266-9090
3�0 Si. Peter Stree1, Suite 300 Facsimile: 657-266-9124
SaintPaul,Minnesom57102-lSIO Web: www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/[iep
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the Ciry Council is scheduled for Wednesday,
October 6, 2004, for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision approving a site plan.
Appellant: LEXINGTON HAMLINE COMMUNITY COUNCIL AND UNNERSITY
UDIITED
Fyle Number: 04-143434
Pnrpose: Appeai of a Plamning Commission decision approving the site plan for a new
ALDI grocery store and parking lot.
Address:
Previous Action:
Southeast corner of University and Dunlap
Planning Commission approved the site plan 14-0-1 August 27, 2004
Zoning Committee approved the site planl; 4-1, August 5, 2004
I have confirmed this date with Councilmember Montgomery . My understanding is that you will
pubiish notice of the heazing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-9086 if you have
any questions.
Sincezely,
� �
( ���:�
Tom Beach
Zoning Specialist
H:\COMMOIV�Srte P1an�Big projects\Univers�Ty Lexington ALDncc heazing letter.wpd
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HSSARING
The Saint Paul" Council will�con-
duct a public heaiing on Wednesday, Oc-
tober 6, 2004, at 5:30 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers,'I'lilrd Floor, City Hall,
to consider the appeai �of Lexington Ham-
line Community Council and University
United to a decision of the Plann' g Com-
mYssion appmving the site plan for a new
ALDI grocery store and parking lot on the
southeast corner of t7niversity and,
Dunlap.
Dated: September 16, 2004
MARF ERICKSON,
Assistant City Councit Secretary .
(September ?A) -�-
_'-- — ST. PAUL IEGAL LEDGER =�--___
22U86024
OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECITONS ANA
ENVIRONMEN'TAL PROTECTlON
>mseen E Rosas; D'vector �� /� �
SAiNT
PAUL
�
AAAA
C�
CIT'Y OF SAINT PAUL
Randy C. KeZly, Mayor
September 29, 2004
Ms. Mary Erickson
Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hall
15 Kellogg Blvd.
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
LOY7RYPROFESSIONALBUILDITJG Tvlephane: 651-266-9090
350 St Peter Steeb Suite 300 Facsiraile� 65I-266-9724
Sa"nmtPau7,M"umesota55102-ISIO Web: www.cisipau(nm.vs/liep
RE: Site plan review for a new ALDI grocery store at the southeast corner of University and Dunlap
Zoning File 04-143434
Deaz Ms. Erickson:
A public hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday, October 6, 2004, to consider an appeal by University
United and the Lexington Hamline Community Council of the Planning Commission's decision to approve
the site plan for a new AI.DI grocery store at the southeast comer of University and Dunlap.
1`HE STTE PLAN
The site covers just over one acre. It was recently split from a lazger pazcel at the corner of University and
Le�ngton. That lot split is under appeal. There is a vacant shopping center on the lazger pazcel
The approved site plan shows:
- A new one-story retail buiIding with 15,000 squaze feet of floor azea. The building would be buik out
to the sidewalk along Univezsity Avenue. The first floor of the building would be about 5 feet below
the sidewalk on University Avenue.
- A pazking lot would be located behind the building.
- The entrance to the building would be on the east end of the building. It will be accessible from
University Avenue and the bus stop by a new landscaped plaza
- There would be windows on three sides of the building. Most of the windows would be spandrel glass
(not transpazent).
THE PLANNIl�iG CONINIISSIOl�i APPROVED'i'HE STS'E PLAN
On August 27, 20004, the Planning Commission approved the site plau on a vote of 14-0 subject to
conditions that final plans for utilities and landscaping must be submitted and that a new bus shelter must be
built by the developer to replace the existing shelter
On August 5, 2004, the Zoning Committee heid a public hearing, and recommended approval on a vote of
6-1. At the public hearing 1 person spoke in support and 3 people spoke in opposition.
Staff recommended approvai.
��
D5-lo�
AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FII.ED •
University United and the Lexington Hamline Community Council filed an appeat of the Planning
Commission's decision. The appeal states that the site plan should be denied because it is not consistent
witfi the University Avenue Transit-Otiented Development Fzamework. (See attached appeal letter detailing
the grounds for their appeal.)
Please notify me if any member of tfie City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public
hearing.
Sincerely,
�
Tom Beach
- � :11�1 �Y _
Appeal by University United
Planning Comuussion resolution and minutes
Zoning Committee minutes
Staff report for Zoning Committee
Application and Project Nazrative
FYCerpts from Transit Oriented Development Plan
Memorandum of Understanding
Lettets in support and opposition
Site plan and elevations
Photos
a:�coamaoDnsu� r1an�B;s vro�ects�vnivesirycwagmn.u.vM� cov¢ �e¢¢.wpa
page
page
page
page
page
page
page
page
page
page
AA Employer
1
4
9
14
19
23
30
34
38
41
�
�
SAINT
PAUL
�
�AA,
APPLICANT
�RaPERTY
_OCATION
Zoning Fite
APPLI
Deparhn
Zoning E
7400 Cih
25 West;
Saint Pm
(65I) 26l
Address / L
TYPE OF AppEAL: Application is hereby made for an appea! to the:
� Board of Zoning Appeals i �Q City Council
Under the provision of Chapter 64, Section Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to appeal a
decision made by the
_ � 2 � . File Num6er:
�(date of decision)
GR�UNDS FOR APPEAL: Expfain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement
or refusal made by an adminisVative officiai, cr an error in fact, p oc dure orsion
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission.
S��e
additional sheet if necessary)
�,� t ,
pplicant's Signature Date �1 City Agent
�1--
�
Attachment �
Appeal of Wellington/ Lezins on Project
"_ � � 0� tCk4
VJe are appeating to the City Council the actions of the City Pianning Commission
approving a site plan for an Aldi's grocery store, and a lot split which would result in the
creation of three separate land parcels at University Avenue and Le�ngton Pazkway.
Because these two actions aze so intertwined, our az�uments apply insepazabiy to both.
We believe there should be an approved master plan for the entire 83 acre site before any
individual pieces of the project aze reviewed, approved or implemented. We do not
accept the argument that because there is no specific city support requested for the Aldi's
project, or the lot split, that the City has no basis for involvemen� The Memorandum of
Understanding reco�zes.that there_ wiil likely be need for pubiic assistance in the form
of TIF, and indeed, a TIF Dis{nct encompassing the entire development area has already
been created. The City has in several of its official acfions already recognized this as one
dev8lopment project and will likely be considering a request for financial assistance in
the near future. In addition, the MOU describes other city actions being taken in the
context of one comprehensive project.
Even if there was no likelihood of public subsidy, we feel that the City has an obligation
� to review tlus proposed development in light of the recently amended Comprehensive
Plan which incorporates Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) principles. The Aldi's site
plan falis faz short of ineeting the key criteria of TOD. It has a very low Floor Area Ratio
— worse than the nearby Midway Shopping Centers. Its job creation of 12 to 20 posirions
is well below the recommended density of appro�mately 100 jobs per acre at a key
transit stop. It does not meet the recommended level of 40% transparency as it has no
transpazent windows or doors direcfly facing on University Avenue. Finaily, as a one
story sing�e use building, it is not in keeping with the vision for a mixed-use urban
village.
�
The proposed lot split would create a sepazate retail pad Por Aldi's on University Avenue,
and a second retaiU commercial pad on Lexington Parkway. This action, when taken in
contea�t of the-project descriprion in the M0U calling for ":.: at least one pad for a
restaurant that selis fast food..." , sets up a proposed land use w}uch is the antithesis of
the TOD envisioned in the City Comprehensive Plan. The mere sale of a lot(s) which by
virtue of its unique size and eonfiguration wili lead to a land use that is inappropriate,
should be prohibited. We also have a generai concem that the breakup and sale of the
most vaivable portions of this 83 acre site wouid greatly increase the level of subsidy
needed to support positive development on the remainder of the site. Iu addition, we think
that lining the perimeter of the site with single-story auto-oriented retaii projects seriousiy
diminishes the attractiveness of the remainder of the site, and therefore its market
feasibility.
2
vs—ic�g
We aIso haue technical concems about the Aldi's site plan. The properly lines created in
the lot split do not align with the pmposed site plan. Par�tg requited for the Aidi's
project spills over to a separaYe site to the south. The Wellington pmposai by btmdling the
parkiug piece onto another sepazate site has essentially predefermined the land use of a
future pmjecY. If a housing developer wished to build a project up to the Aldi's property
line he wouid be prohibited because of the pre-existing parlflng lot appmvals.
In addition to the above specific concerns, we have an overarching general concern. Over
the past three yeazs, hundreds of people in this community have been involved in shaping
a vision and a plan for the University Aveuue corridor. This proposed Wellington�roject,
and the previous CVS project at Snelling at University are not meeting the community's
desire for high quality TOD. If this development at Lexington Pazkway is allowed to
staad in its present fornz, it would be a significant rebuff to those who have worked so
hazd to bring about quality development that will enable the camdor to fulfiil its
historical potentiai. This becomes all the more critical as the City is promoting the
prospects of light rail along the Avenue.
Finally, becaase the Aldi's site plan and the Lot Split are technically two separ�te city
ac'tions, we have been charged ttie cost of two seQarate appeals. We have always
maintained tUat this project should be reviewed as part of one comprehensive Ciry action,
and therefore request that the second appeai fee be waived and refunded.
Thank you for your consideration.
�
r�
U
Sincerely,
�
i I / �i
� ` " �L '., ��
. � a
1' • 1 . It 1' � i1 �I � � 1
` i . �.
Brian McMahon
University IJNITED
�
�
• •�
City of Saint Pau1
anning Cor�rnission
ile Number 04-83
Da�e au�st 2�, Zoo�
Resolution
WHEREAS, We!lington Manageritient, �'ile � 04-�13-527, has submitted a site plan for review under the
provisior?s of 61.400 of the Saint Paui Legislafive Code, for fhe esfabJishmen# of a grocery store on properfy
lOCatedatd�_� Lexir}gfon P " as �rowrrandliaiTs7�adtion * Sae Hall & Brown'S Addition
To Hyde Park Subj To Ave The N 382 45/10o Ft On W L To 382 Ft On E L Of W 1.7o Ff Of Lots 35 And Lot 34;
and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committes of the Planning-Commission, on 8/5/04, held a public hearing at which all
persons present were given ar+ opportunity to be heard pursuant to said appiicatson in accordance with the
requiremenfs_of §6�.303 of the Saint Paui Legis(ative Code; and
W;-iEREAS, the Saint Pauf Pianning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at
the pubfic hearing as refleeted in the minuFes, considered and made the foilowing findings as required under the
provisio�s of §61.402(c) that tt�e site plan is consistent with:
The city's adopted comprehensive plan and deve/opmsnt or pro}ect plans for sub-areas of the city.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. .
The UniversityAvenue Transit Oriented Development Framework encourages Transit Oriented Devefopmenf
(TOD) and looks at potential reuse of this site and other sftes on University Avenue. The appiicant has
prepared a plan showing how the rest of the Lexington/University site might be developed as a mixed use
development in the future in response to the guidelines in the Framework. However, this pian is intended to
now potenfiai development and is not under review af this time.
he frameworic fooks atseverai developmenf scenariosforthe LexingtoniUniversityintersection and lists the
a number of goais. Tfie site plan for ALDI is consistent wifh most of these goals.
- Removing 6lighfed-properfies and redevetopfng them soon, The project would remove a portion of the
bfighfed shopping center. Cortstructionwouid begin as soon as City approvais can be obtained."
- fntensifying the use of land as possible. The use wouid be a one story retail business. A multi-story,
multi-use buiiding could be buiit on fhe site buf ADLl, who wifl own fhe buiiding, is not interested in owning
a mu(ii-use buiiding.
- Maintaining the high qua/ity parkwayenvironment The ALOf butlding would not affect Lexington Pkwy.
- Creafing sma{;e; biocks consisteni wiin TGu principies,, if the market supports this developmenf fype.
Thz site cla� for ALD! doas nct cr�afz any naw bt�cks. Fu�ure developmer.t of ad;ace.^.t parceis may
inciude a new street that would create a new bSock.
-_ CreaSng paths within the nsw developmenf for pedestrians moving between buildings and transit sfops.
The entrance to the building wouid be visible ftom tlniversity Avenue and finked fo a bus stop by a large
iandscaped piaza.
- Designingnewdsvelopmenftobecompa56lewithexisfingsingle-familyneighborhoods. Agrocerystore
at tfiis location with a sfrong pedesfrian connection to Universifij Avenue would be compatible with
existing single-famify neighborhoods.
noved by �o=toII
>econded by _
avor
ainst
14, with 1 'abstemion (Mardell)
�
D5-!Og
Zoning Fi{e #04113-527
Ptanning Commission Resotution
Page2
Secfion 5.5.2 (page 32) of tfre Land Use Section of the Comprehensiue Plan says thaf "The Cify will
encourage mors housing and jo6s fo locate along high service bus routes.' No housing is proposed as part
of this deve(opmenf. The apPlicant says #hat the ALDI store wi!! have 92-20 empioyees.
Section 6.3.2 (page 40J ofthe Land Use Section of the Comprehensive Plan says thaf development(on fhe
UniversityAvenue Corrido�Jshou/d contribute fh�ough densityand sife.design to the ndership base forpublic
transportafion on University Avenue." A grocery sto�e locafed up to the street and near a bus stop may
encourage more peopie to ride the bus by makiRg it more cortvenienf for peop(e riding fhe bus to stop anti_
buygroceries: . _ _
2. Appfrcable ordinances ofthe CifyofSaintPaul.
The newly revised zoning code confains a number nf design standards thaf "shail be used in slte plan review,
as app(icable, untess the appiicant can demonstrafe fhat fhere are circumstances unique to the property that
maka compiiance impractical or unreasona6le.° (Secfion 63.110) These inciude:
a. Newdeveloomentsh /! 1 t t t
�
c
�
e.
f.
a re a,e _o h.e desrgn ofad�acenf f.�diSor.af Bu:idings, v✓here these are present, in
scale and characfer. This can be achieved by_maintaining similarsetbacks, facade divisions, rooflines,
r/tythm and proportions of openings, building materials and cofors. Historic archifectural styles need not
be replicated. The buitdings in the adjacent area have a mix of styfes and setbacks. The desigrt of the
ALDI building is intended fo reflect some of the elements of fradi#inna[ bui}diflgs. TFie buiiding would be
set back? feet firom Uni:�ersEtv Aven��e �er.oug'i room ,o provi�e sorr:e landscaping oetween fhe buiid;rg
and the public sidewatk}_ The facade of the buiiding wo.ufd be faced with brick and would be broken by
accents and windows with awnings (although mosf of the wi�dows wouid use Spandre! and not clear
gtass). The height of the buitding wouid range from 6etween approximately 22 and 17 feet on the side
facing University Avenue.
Primary buildrng ent�ances on a1l new builo'i.ngs sha!! face the primary abutting pubiic sf��ef or walkway,
orbe linked to that.street by a clearly defined and visible walkway or courtyard. Additio�a/ secondary
entrances may be oriented to a secondary street or parking area. Entries shail be dearly-visib/e and
identifiab/e from the s2reet, and.delineated wifh e/ements such as roof overhangs, recessed entnes,
landscaprng, or similar design features. The primary enfr8nce to the buitding will not be up fo the
University Avenue sidewalk but the proposed landscaped courtyard is designed to provide a strong and
visibte link to the sidewa(k.
This secfion deais w�th °pedesfian-oriented commerciaf districts (generaity characferized by storefront
commercial buildings built up to the sidewalk)" and encourages buildings in these disfricts to be up to fhe
sidewalk with doors and windows aaong the pubiic sidewalk. However, this sife is not currenfiy
designated as a pedesfrian-oriented commercial disfict TnP Gi��o�f��,�ti �,S:��t;s ��;,�,«� �„'v'riv�rsiiy
east of LexingtoR.
Allrooffop equipmentsha!lbescreenedfrom viewfromadjacentstreets, pubiicrights-of-wayandadjacent
properties. Rooftop equipment w11t be screened as reqeired_
Iffrarrsiffacilities a2 needed to serve exis6ng orproposed developmen� provisions shallbe made, where
prac�tical, forlocation ofa bus slop orsheltered tra�sit waiting area in a convenienf and visrble IocaSon.
There is currenUy a standard Metro Transft bus shelter on Universify Avenue at this ioca6on. Staff has
insfructed the appiicantto meetwith.lAetrn Transftfo discuss designs for a new bus shetter, incfuding how
big it should be, what it shou(d look tike and where it should ba located. No decisians have been made
but the applicant has said he is willing fo provide a new bus shelter.
The.number of curb cuts shatl be minimized, and shared curb cu#s for adjacent parking areas are
encourageo'. The sife ptan does nof propose any new cdrb cuts. ,4LDI would be served by one existing .
curb cut on UniversityAvenue andone on Lexington Parkway. The W hite Castte immediafely to the eas#
has its owrr curb eut on Universi#yAvenue and sfaff has suggested the appticant taik to W hite Castle 10
see if #hey are interes#ed in sharing a single curb cut.
1rt addition, the proposed site pian mests a(! other zoning standards. The use of the propecty far a grocery
store is permitted. The sife ptan provides sufficient parking and landscaping. The building height and
t
•
��
�
U5��o8
Zoning File #04113-527
Pianning Commission Resolution
Page3
� seibacks meet zoning sfandards.
3. Preservation of unique geologic, geographic or hisiorically significant characterisffcs of ihe city and
environmentally sensitiue areas.
The only unique historica( aspect of the sife is fhat the old hame plate from Lexington Park is iocated in one
of the exisfing bui3dings. Staff has asked the applicant to tocate this and save if.
4, Protecfion of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision forsuch matters as suriace
water drainage, sound and sight 6uffers, preservaSon of views, light and ai�, and those aspects of design
which may have substantiai effects on neighboring land uses.
The siie ptan is consisteni witl, fhis finding. Drainage wi(( be accommodated. Loading wi}I be screened from
University Avenue.
5. The arrangement of buildings, uses and faciGfies of the proposed development in o�der to assu�e abutting
p�operty and/or its occupanfs �iil! not be unreasonably affected.
The site plan is corsistertwi:h :his firdir,g. The site is sur,ounded byothercommerciai uses and the sife plan
wii( not unreasonabfy affect abutting property and/or its occu.pants.
6. Creation of energy-conseiving design through landscaping and locaSon, onentation and elevation of
structures.
The site plan is consistent with current standards. Trees will be planted in the parking lot Yo provide shade.
The building entrance will be located to make it easy for bus riders to use the store.
7. Safefy and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian tra�c both wifhin fhe sife and in rela5on to access
streets, including traffic circulation features, the /ocations and design ofentrances and exits and parking areas
within the site.
� The site pian is consistent �.vith this finding. An existi�g driveway or Univeraity Avenue wi11 be the main
access to the site. Access at this driveway is limited to right-in and. righf-out because of the median in
University Avenue.. The site wif! also have an easement to use an existing driyeway on Lexi�gton.
Public Works has asked the appiicant fo taik to the adjacent Whife Castie to see ff tfiey are interested in
sharing a single driveway on University. Public Works wou(d also 1ike.to see a drivaway for the site on
Dunlap, so cars could use the break in the median at the DunfaplUniversity intersection, but.bui(ding a
d�iveway on Dunlap is difficalt 6ecause of grade changes that putthe street six feet higher than the parking
lot.
8. The safisfactory avaftabilify and capacity of storm and sanitary sewers, including solutions to any drainage
problems in the area of the development.
T �e s«a plar, is consisien4 with.tnis zmding. �aniiary sewer is availabie in both the ad}'acentstreets (University
2r.d Dun!ap). St OCPI W2t8f YVII dai^ fo a pcndiny a,ea lo�ated on the ad;acer?t pascei ;o±h SCL'!ll 2 nd fra„
the pond it will drain to an existing storm sewer. in fhe futuPe, when the parcel fo the south is developed, this
pond may be eiiminated. tf Yhis happens, new provisions wiil have to be made for taking care of the storm
water from the AL.DI site. This may require underground storage if future developmenf does not provide
enaugh,room fos surface storage.�
3. Suffcient landscaping, feRCes, walls and parking necessary to meef the above objecfives. .
The site pfan is consistent with this finding.
Trees wiU be_planted in the boulevards on Duniap anci Universiiy and in the parking tot. The buitding wiil be
setback a few feet from the sidewaik to aliow shrubs to be pianted. A targe (andscaped plaza is pianned
fac[ng Universfty Avenue.
A retaining wall is planned along Duniap because tfie acijacent s�reet is app�oximately six feet higher than
the sits is.
� ite accessibiGty fn accordance with fhe provisions of the Americans with DisabiliSes Act {ADA), including
arking spaces, passenger loading zones and aceessible routes.
The sifs plan is cansistent wifh this ftnding. Handicapped parking spaces and an accessible route from the
�
05-10 �
Zoning Fiie#p4-193-527
Pfanning Commission Resolution
Page4 •
Universify Ayenue sidewaik Yo the building enfrance are proposed.
91. Provision for erosion and sediment control as specifred in bhe "Ramsey Erosion Sediment and Coniro!
Nand600k"
The sfte pian is consisfenf wifh this finding. Tnere are no unusuaf erosion or sediment issues raised by the
pfan snd the mefhods proposedfordealing with them are sufficient, including sltfences, streetsweeping and-
use of fhe storm wa#er pond to frap sediment during construcfion.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RFS�LVEt?, by ttie Saint Paut Pianning Commission, under the authorify of the
Crty's Legisia6ve Code, fhatfhe appi9ca6on of We(lington Managementfor a site pian review to establish a new
grocery store at 451 Lexirtgton P.tcwy N is hereby approved, sabjecfto the following co�ditions �
1. A.final utility and storm water management plan is submitted and approved by staff.
2. A finai landscape plan that inciudes trees in the boulevards on llniversity and Duniap is submitted an
approved by staff. .
3. A new bus shelter musf be constructect at the applicanYs expense, This shelter rrtust be des+gned to
compfement tf�e design of fhe proposed ALDi 6uiiding, located so fiiat it is visibie and con4enient to the bus
stop, and large enough to meet user demands an6cipaYed by Mefro 7ransit
r �
L _J
•
7
�,���-
Saint Panl Ptanning Commissioa
City HallConference Cenfer
15 Kellogg Boulevard West
Minutes of Ang¢st 27, 2004
A meeting of the PIanning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, August 27, 2004,
at 830 am in the Conference Center of City Hail.
Commissioners Mmes. Donnelly-Cohen, Zimmez Lonetti, Lu, McCall, and Morton; and
Present: Messrs. Alexander, Alton, Anfang, Coletta, Fotsch,Gordon, Johnson, Kramer,
Mazdell, and Mejia
Commissioners Mmes. *Fazicy, *Porter, and �Trevino; and Messrs. * Dandrea, *Kong, and * Scott.
Absent:
*Excused
Also Present: Larry Soderholm, Planning Administrator; Allen Lovejoy, Donna Dzummond,
Patricia James, and Mary Bmton, Deparhnent of Planning and Economic Development
staff; Tom Beach, LIEP.
•
#04-127-01 l LexinPton Hamline/Universiri United An�eal- Appeal of a Planning Administrator's
Approvai of a Subdroision (lot spfit #04081-83'n of the vacant shopping center site at the
southwest corner of University Avenue and Lelcington Parkway (Larry Soderholm,
651/266-6575)
Commissioner Morton stated District 13L is appellant. Nine people spoke in support. Six people
spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed. The Zoning Committee recotnmends denia]
with conditions on a vote of 5-0.
M0130N: Commissioner Monon moved the Zoning Comminee 5� recontn:endation to deny the
appeal of a PlwnningAdministrator's approva! of a subdivision. The malion carried on a voice
vote of I¢0, with I abstention (Mardeli).
#04-113-527 ALDI Groc� Store - Site Plan Review for ALDI Grocery Store. 451 Lexingion
Pazkway N., IVE comer of University Avenne W, and Dunlap. (Tom Beach, 651/266-9086)
Commissioner Morton stated the Zoning Committee recommends approvai with conditions on a
vote of 5-0.
M01TON: Commissioner Morton moved the Zoning Committee's recommesdakan to approve
tlte sitepZan review. The mvtion carried nn a voice vnte of I4-0, with I abstention (Mqrde]j),
Commissioner Morton announced the agenda for the Zoning Committee meeting on
September 2'� -
Old Business
#04-069-907 Nene Shao Yane - Establishment of legal nonconfomvng use stams as a duplex.
441 Van Buren, NW corner at Amndel. (rt(lan Torterzson, 651/266-6519)
i{04-125-675 7anet 7ackson - Rezoniag from Bl I.oca1 Business to R4 One-family Residentiai. �
1160 Montteal, SE corner at 7'" S�eet W. (AIZan Tonenson, 651/266-6579)
.,.,. ,,,., .,�„ ,._ ...-- . . . . .,. . .. .. .
•
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF:
����
MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITfEE
Thursday, August 5, 2004 - 3:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 3rd Fioor
City Hall and Court House
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
Alton, Anfang, Donnelly-Cohen, Faricy, Kramer, Mejia, and Morton
Gordon
_ Tom Beach, Carol Martineau (Angela Simons) and Allan Torstenson
� �.
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Morton.
ALDI Grocery Store - 04-113-527 - Site Pian Review for ALDI Grocery Store. 451 Lexington Pkwy. N.,
NE corner of University Ave. W. and Dunlap.
Tom Beach presented fhe staff report with a recommendation of approval for the Site Plan Review.
Tom Beach stated that one letter was received yesterday in support of the project from the Chamber of
Commerce.
The area designated as the ALDI site was recently split off. There was a tot split to create the parcel. The
decision to approve the lot split has been appealed and will be coming to the Zoning Committee in a few
weeks. The appeal was filed by University UNITED and Lexington-Hamline Community Councii They
suggested that the hearing be delayed until lot split is resolved. However, staff feeis public hearing should be
� now since there are time limits and site plan is not dependent on a lot split. ALDI's couid still be built
out a lot spfit.
An additional piece of history shouid be noted, that he was not aware of when the staff report was prepared.
In March of this year, the City Council acting as the Housing and Redevelopment Authority approved a
Memorandum of Understanding with Wei{ington Management to develope the site witfi an ALDf store. The
memorandum describes the proposed use, as primarily retaii with some office space, although there is
potential for housing on the southwest corner of the Key Well Drilling site. The project would inctude one or
more smaller pads that would accommodate retaii shops from 25 to 16,000 sq. ft. Since that description of the
�roject has been put together, there have been efforts to get some more intense development.
University UNITED in District 7 and the Lexington-Hamline Community Councii passed out a letter at a
�eighborhood meeting in opposition to the site plan. They said they would like the development to be more
:ransit oriented and consistent with community based planning efforts thaf have been done. They aiso object
:o have the ALDI's site plan acted on separatefy, without a comprehensive plan for the entire site.
�ommissioner Faricy asked if the only entrance wii{ be off Lexington. Tom Beach repiied, entrances for
�edestrians would be on the east side of the building, not on Lexington. Primary way to get into the site wouid
�e from University Avenue. The bus stop is currently located on University Avenue. Lexington Avenue does
iot have a bus route, so it is not a transfer corner.
�ommissioner Alton asked about the signage on the elevation. Tom Beach replied that he asked the
ieveloper if that was all that was is being proposed, and the answer was yes. ALDI's does not want a large
amount of signage. Commissioner Alton asked if staff have reviewed the signage and if it is in compliance with
� de requirements. Tom Beach replied, that yes it is in code compiiance. Commissioner Alton asked about the
ber of parking spaces required and provided. Tom Beach replied thaf the required number of parking
ces for a grocery store would be 61 spaces, the site plan shows that many parking spaces, some wouid
sot be on their parcel, but there wou{d b� an easement to use those spaces. When future deveiopment comes
n staff would have #o revisi# the parking.
�
�'���
Commissioner Kramer asked if there was a zoning code basis for the objection to approving a partial site plan.
Tom Beach replied that staff is not aware of anything that says you have to have a master plan for the entire
site, to get a portion developed.
Chair Morton asked if the applicant wouid like to make a presentation.
�
Steve Wellington, Weilington Management stated that they are very excited about this project. They were
successful in negotiating a purchase agreement for the 6.5 acre site, which surrounds White Castle that they
ctosed on in Aprii. They are keenly interested in being able to begin development as soon as possib(e, they
are not interested seeing the site continue to be a an area for graffiti and weeds.
This project presents its own set of chattenges and they witf need the cooperation of fhe Planning Commission
and many segments of the community to be successful in their efforts. The as ire with the same qoais_as
University UtJITED, high quality transit oriented development on this comer. They feet that it is very important
for the Pianning Commission to approve the site plan, which is the first step of a$35 million dollar project.
Their initia! plans were for a more modest $92 mi!lion dollar single level retail center on the entire 8 acre site.
Their plans have changed. They are now committed and are working hard to accomplish a more intense plan
which is not in front of you today for action. That plan envisions four story construction for housing and/or
office over the major portion of the site. The objection that University UNITED has, is with the ALDI plan. He is
convinced that with jusf a couple more conversations with Brian McMahon, they could work things out. They
have been discussing with PED the finance loan investment that will be required to make the broader master
plan transpire. They have had the City Council take the first steps to establish a Tax Increment Financing
District for this area. They wiil be in ftont the Planning Commission for more sife plans as they proceed
through the project. They think they are consistent with what other major redevelopment projects have. The
ALDt grocery store is ready to proceed. This is not a start up, this is a 5,000 store chain based in Germany.
He thinks it wiil be a very popular and successful grocery store.
Commissioner Kramer asked abouf the additional height. What is the actuai building height. Mr. Wetlington
replied he believes it is 22 feef above the University Avenue frontage at Durtlap. The sight does slope along �
Universifij Avenue from Durtlap going east, so the height would approximately 22 feet above.
Chair Morton asked if anybody would like to speak in support of this item.
David Stokes, 145 Woodlawn, St. Paul, a Board Member with the Midway Chamber of Commerce. He wanted
to voice their support for this project. As an outside observer and a Board Member, the more he leams about
this project, he thinks it is exciting to have this type of development.
Cfiair Morton asked if anybody would like to speak in opposition of this item.
Brian McMahon, University UNITED, 1954 Universify Avenue, St. Paul. He stated fhat the project preserrted to
them today has less TOD criteria, then the CVS proposal, which in deed had less TOD then the Midway
Shopping Center. What is being seen here is a trend that is going in the wrong direction. He wanted to
express his appreciation to staff and Zoning Committee for holding this hearing, he knows that this is not an
automafic thing and it is recognized that there are some very important issues relafing to th+s particular
development. This is the first public hearing from what has now become a large project that is being
incrementally approved. They have seen a Memorandum of Understanding, a TIF District being created,
without any public input, there has also been a lot split that would separate off this ALDI piece, but also
separate off a retail pad from Lexington Parkway, they wiil be coming back to the Planning Commission in a
couple of weeks to voice their concems about thaf issue. They feel that this should not be looked at in
increments, but in a comprehensive way. Part of the reason for him saying that is because the pieces really
cannot be separated, it is one intertwined project.
Mr. Anfang asked Mr. McMahon about the parking. He stated that when they taiked about TOD in their task
forces, part of it was trying to minimize parking on sites and it seems to him that having a shared parking
agreement for fhe ALDI sife is consistent wifh thaf. Mr. McMahon replied that he supports the notion of shar
parking, his colleague Russ Stark will be addressing specificaliy some of the parking issues. Mr. McMahon
discussed other devel�Rment in the area that are TOD oriented and feels that if ft can't be done on this comer
�
�
0�-�08
and it can be done everywhere else up and down University. He feeis that they have to keep the direcfion
going in TOD. That is the trend. They are opposed ta this ALDI site pian, as it is presented because it does not
eet TOD criteria called for in the comp plan. They think that it is a very clear cut reading. Excerpfs from the
p plan; transit orients development; encourages compact pedestrian fsiend{y deveiopment with a high
sity of employment and housing within walking disfances of a major public transportation stop. Further into
it of a 6 page document, it talks about fhe Lexington development concepts and specificaliy on the southwest
comer, in ail the development scenarios shown basic TOD principies are applied. The ALDI's project is single
use, single story, not TOD, by a�ybody's definition. They don't think iYs TOD oriented, it is parking lot oriented,
auto oriented, that is the way customers are intended to get in and out of the store. They further believe the
surface parking lot that is being shown, is a horribie use for this pta�. There are no windows or doors on
University Avenue. He believes this is clear cut text book criteria for TOD, they believe there should be a
minimum of 40% transparency. The design standards in the new zoning code say fhat the buildinq should
have window and door openings facing the street. Most importantly, they don't believe this has su�cientjob
density. A key fransit known such as this, should have approximately 40, 50, perhaps a 100 johs per acre.
With the proposal there is only about 25% of that. They calculated the floor area ratio, it is approximately .21,
they believe and the standards would argue, that this should be at least a 1, 2 or perhaps even a 3 f.a.r. Mr.
McMahon asked that the Board not approve the ALDI's, and ask that it be tabled until it can be really looked
at, as an e�tire comprehensive project.
Commissioner Alton asked Mr. McMahon in a B3 zone, what uses would he propose for this site, that would
have the job density that he is looking for. Mr. McMahon stated that this is one of the probiems, this should not
be a B3 zone, they have been advocating for two years, that it be converted to, as part of their transit oriented
development planning study as part of an amendment to the comp pian, that it should rolled into the TN
zoning, which in fact would prevent a lot of the auto oriented development that is typically coming before the
area.
Russ Stark, 1500 Charles Avenue, 5t. Paul. He wanfs to follow up with Brian's comments with some specific
ments about transportation issues as they apply to the site plan. The City's transportation plan has a lot in
at encourages the City to look at developing infrastructure that supports alternatives to single occupant
icies. Infrastructure that supports transit use, bicycling, walking and pedestrian oriented areas. A couple of
:hings; po{icy 4, the City should guide land use and development of the City in ways that reduce trips and
�romote use of alternative modes of travel; and policy 80, the City supports the Central Corridor between the
wo downtowns, that's a top priority for developmeni of transit ways in the region. Locally and nationally, with
:he high cost of fuei, people are looking for transportation altematives. University Avenue already is one of the
�ighest transit rider corridors in the City, actuafly in the region. Study afiter study in the last ten years, has
�ound that the way City's and larger developments are designed, actuaily does impact what forms of
ransportation people use to get there. When a deveVopment is designed that is transit firiendfy, that is
�edestrian friendly, bicycle friendiy, you actually encourage those kind of trips. The ALDI's as designed meets
some of those criteria. The one where it is really lacking, is the size of the parking fot relative the actual
ievelopment itself. A higher density development creates a sftuation which you have more opportunities for
valking trips. The Met Council has found that tra�c congestion is the number one issue of concem for peopie
n the region. Met Council funded the planning study that led to the amendments to the Comp P�an, that have
�een talked about. He has specific points about the site plan: 1) the site plan incorporafes the cutrent parking
equirements for B3, TN zoning wouid aliow for a 25% reduction, down to about 46 spaces, this amount would
�e much more i� line with what is being seen for actual demand on University Avenue, one of the recent retail
3dditions was an Autozone store, with parking designed on both sides. The parking lot is usually never fuli. He
eels that we can't afford to waste valuable land with these sorts of high parking requiremenfs. 2)Pedestrian
�ccess to the entrance, there is a nice pedestrian connection around to the entrance, but one of the key
:riteria is actual access to the street. 3) The bus shetter, which was not known before, the development does
�ropose which does look like a substantial amount of bicycle parking which is a positive. His last point,
.exington and University are aiready very congested streets, particutariy during n�sh hour. The overall
evelopment of the shopping center is large enough to trigger, and shouid trigger a traffic impact analysis,
Ily in the TOD Framework, that is part of the Comp Plan, specifically states that any new specific
lopment should be analyzed for their impacts on traffc. ALDI's itseif may not be big enough to call for
iat, he believes that you have to look at the entire site is going to do, in terms of traffic, before you approve
�ieces of it.
I �,�
Pat Artnstrong, Board President for the lexingfon-Hamline Community Council stated she is not going to
reiterate alt the detai[s of the reasons befiind their support of the appeal of the lot split. She stated that she
hopes Commissioners have in their packet the Statement of Principles, that came out of their cooperation on
this issue. She would like to emphasize as a summary point and a particularly important point coming from a
district council, is that they are paying attention to the process here. Hundreds of hours of staff time, voluntee
time, community time have been spent, and thousands of dollars she is sure developing these TOD plans and
guidelines, and the Comp Plan, that is where they captured the community input, thaf is so beneficial to a
development of this size. She believes this work was done so that they would not have to be going through
this process now, this is where she gets frustrated and is concemed about this. Why has this suddenly flipped
around, why are they now having to fight for the guidelines that have been put in place that people sent lots of
time on and work on and have accepted. She feels that they should not have had to submit the appeal.
Cha7rlVrorton stafed fhat the appeal she is referring to is not whaf is being considered today. Ms. Armstrong
replied that the guidelines which are also affecting what is being considered foday should not be questioned.
She would like to emphasize the process has to be preserved that has already been gone through.
Chair Mortort asked if Mr. Wellington woutd like to respond. Mr. Wellington stated that with all due respecf to
the comments, he would first like to say, Wellington Management has a strong support of the district council
system. 7hey believe in neighborhood input, they wanf fo continue fhe dia(ogue, buf fhey can not stop the
project and continue the dialogue at the same time. They need to respect their beliefs and wanting to have
neighborhood input, but musf insisf on proceeding as fasf possib(e, which is going to present some tension.
He wouid challenge everyone, to think about what has not been a successful project. The Spru�e Tree
Projecf, fhat is TOD, multi-story, parking ramp, and it is not beautiful, it is successfui finally after a bankn�ptcy.
Where as Court Intemationai has been the most successful Office building in St. Paul, iYs not TOD, there is a
parking ramp in front of it. We ail aspire to good design, to make our City beautiful and aftractive, but it does
not come out of a text book, iYs a creative process that Commissioners have been a part of. He believes that
this ALDI project is the closest thing to TOD than he can imagine, there is not anotfier grocery store this size
that you can walk to from a bus stop in the entire City. He believes it is a very narrow and rigid interpretation �
and someone has another agenda. He believes that it is time for everyone to settle down, meet and discuss.
He believes that you're not going to get any more liberal innovative developer fhan him to tackle this site.
Community groups need to realize that what you're dealing with is encouragir.g the private sector to make an
investment. The government does not build buildings, they need to encourage the private secfor to do it. He
needs to persuade bankers, peopie buying the housing units to reside on this site, he has some experience,
he is putting his money down on the table to do this, and it needs to be recognized, that while community
collaboration is needed, this idea that TOD is some kind of definition that come out of some community
meetings that gives some guidelines, which is why the zorting code reads this way. He would reatly like to
continue the dialogue and involve the community in the very important site, but to label this very important step
not TOD is a mistake artd he would encourage Commissioners to agree with their position that fhis is a very
positive new investment, that is enfirely consistent as staff has concluded with both the existing zoning code
and guidetirtes that have been established. Ne woutd encourage Commissioners to approve fhe site plan so
they can proceed with the investment that this comer so desperately needs.
Commissioner Faricy stated that she is aware of Mr. Wellington's work and stafed that it is very good and she
appreciates what he has done, but she does want to say that in her opinion, this is an 8 acre site and to
incrementaliy do this, is rather d�cuit for her to understand. She would really appreciate it, if he could get
together with the neighborhood and figure this out, so that there wouid be one whole plan for 8 acres, or at
least a tentative agreement. ls there any possibility of that?
Mr. Weliington replied earlier today Commissioner approved a height variance on fhe Upper Landing. Upper
Landing has been discussed for a decade. This is a pretty typical situation for a major redevelopment to „
proceed step by step. He is not suggesting that the Upper Landing project and his project are parallel, you
continue to make adjustments as you go through. They do have a master plan in front of the community, they
have had a dozen meetings with community members. This is not something that they have sprurtg on peopt�
without a lot of effort to include them. Yes, they wilf continue to meet, they have been attempting to meet with
the Lexington-Hamline group since March, and they finally got a meeting tast week. There is a predisposition
to be quite resistant to want to be collaborative, he thinks that at this point they need to proceed and not wait
��
a5-lD�
to get another meeting to transpire.
� e public hearing was closed.
mmissioner Faricy stated that she wili be voting against this for the reasons she stated eariier. She feels
this enormous site should have a master plan, and she does not like the windows.
Commissioner Anfang stated that the reason he is going to support this. it is the start of a positive
development for this area. He thinks that a grocery store like this is a great piace to start with fhis, this project
will be bringing people into this site, that for years there has been absolutely no reason to go to this site. He
thinks this is a great place to sfart that is not taking up a gigantic portion of the site as a Home Depot would.
He sees people utilizing an ALDI's store or any kind of grocery store with its proximity to University Avenue,
carrying out bags of groceries far more than he would see 2x4's and sheets of plywood This is why he will
support this as a great start to this redevelopment.
Commissioner Alton stated that he would like to follow up on Commissioner Anfang's comments and he will be
supportive of the motion, because he thinks that they are faced with looking at fhis lot, the lot spiit has been
approved, if it is not final that is going to have an affect no doubt, but the lot split has been approved so
;,ommissioners need to look at a site plan approva! for this lot. Larger master pian is not in front of them. If a
�eveloper went out and bought several parcels of property and attempted to assemble them, there would be
ots of opposition to assembling a major parcel of property. By approving this site plan, he feels it is a good
start.
;,ommissioner Kramer asked Mr. Torstenson, he was under the impression the lot spiit was under appeal and
:herefore is not approved. Is he mistaken? Mr. Torstenson replied that lot split has been appealed and is
�cheduled for the meeting on the 19'".
missioner Kramer asked what does that mean? Mr. Torstenson repiied it means that the lot split is not
f, it is on appeal. lt was approved, but now not final. He stated that the City does not split the lot, the lot
> it happens at the County. Staff looks at the lot split for conformance with zoning code standards, staff feels
hat it meets those standards and ihey approved it.
�ommissioner Mejia moved approvat of the Site Pfan Review. Commissioner Anfang seconded the motion.
'�dopted Yeas - 6 Nays -1 (Faricy)
�rafted by:
:arol Martineau (Angela Simons)
2ecording Secretasy
�
Submitted by:
Tom Beach
Zoning Section
Abstained - D
Approved by:
Gladys Morton
Chair
�3
�� 1.
ZONfNG COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT
• FILE # 04 113527
1. APPLICANT: Lexington University LLC HEARING DATE: 8/5/04
2. TYPE OF APPLICA7{O{V: Site Pfan Review
�
3. LOCATION: 451 Lexington Pkwy N (The parcel is located at the southeast comer of
University and Dunlap)
4. PIN 8� LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 342923410003 Brown And Haiis Addition' See Hall &
Brown'S Addition To Nyde Park Subj To Ave The N 382 45l10o Ft Qn W L To 382 Ft On E L
Of W 17o Ft Of Lots 35 And Lot 34
5. PLANNING DiSTRICT: 13L
PRESENT ZONING: B3
6. ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 61.400.c
7. STAFF REPORT DATE: July 28, 2004
8. DATE RECEtVED: July 1, 2404
BY: Tom Beach
DEADLSNE FOfZ ACTfON: August 30, 2004
A. PURPOSE: Site plan review for a new ALDI grocery store and parking lot.
6. PARCEL SIZE: The area of the ALDI parcel is 52,500 square feet (350' x 150') (1.2 acres}.
This parcei was recently split from a larger parcel. (An appeai of the lot spiit was filed on July
28.) The larger parcel had an area of 262,000 square feet (6.0 acres) before it was split. The
appiicant also has an agreement to purchase an additional two acres to the south.
C. EXISTING LAND USE: The ALD( parcel contains part of an exist+ng retail building and a
parking lot. The existing retaii building will be tom to make room for the proposed ALDI store.
D. SURROUNDING LAND USE:
North: Commercial (B-3}
East: Commercial (B-3)
South: Commercial (B-3)
West: Commercial (B-3)
E. ZONING GODE CITATION: Sect+on 61.400.c lists criteria that must be met for tfie City to
approve a site plan. These are discussed below finding H.2.
F. HISTORY/DISCUSSIOfJ: The site was the home of the oid Lexington Ball Park untii it was
tom down and reptaced by the current shopping center in the early 1960s. The shopping
center had been underuti(ized and in deteriorating condition in recsnt years. The center has
been closed for the past few months in preparation for redevelopment of fhe site.
G. DiSTRiCT COUNClL RECOMMENDATION: University United, District 7 and the Lexington-
� kSamline Community Councii passed out a letter at a Jufy 28 community meeting that says ihe
development should be transit-oriented and consistent with community based planning. They
also object to having the ALDI pian acted on separately without an approved comprehensive
plan for the entire 6 acre parcel.
��
o5-Jog
H. FINDINGS: Section 61.400(c) of the Zoning Code says that in "order to approve the site •
plan, the planning commission shall consider and find that the s+te plan is consistent with" the
findings listed below.
1. The city's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project pfans for sub-areas of
the city.
The University Avenue Transit-Oriented Development Framework: SneUing and
Lexington Areas
The University Avenue Transit Oriented Development Framework encourages Transit
Oriented Qevelopment (TOD} and looks af potenfial reuse of this site and other sites on
University Avenue. jSee attached excerpts from the �ramework.) The applicant has
prepared a plan showing how the resf of the LexingtoNUniversify site might be developed
as a mixed use development in the future in response to the guide{ines in the Framework.
However, this plan is intended to show potential development and is not under review at
this time. (See attached ptan.)
The framework looks at several development scenarios for the Lexington/University
intersection and lists the a number of goals. The site plan for ALDI is consistent with most
of these goals.
- Removing blighted proper6es and redeveloping them soon
The project would remove a portian af the blighted shopping center. Consfrucfion
would begin as soon as City approvals can be abtained.
- intensifying the use of land as possible
The use would be a one story retail business. A multi-story, multi-use building could
6e built on ffie sife but ADLI, who will own the building, is not interested in ownirtg a �
multi-use truildirtg.
- Maintaining the high quality parkway environment
The ALDI building would not affect Lexington Parkway.
- Creating smaller blocks consistent with TOD principles, if the market supports this
development type
The site plan for ALDt does not create arty new biocks. Future development of
adjacenT parcels may include a new street that would create a new biock.
- Creating paths with�n the new development for pedestrians moving between burldings
and transit stops.
The entrance to the buiiding would be visible from University Avenue and linked to a
6us stop by a targe landscaped plaza.
- Designing new deve%pment to be compatibfe with exrsting srngle-family neighborhoods
A grocery store at this location with a strong pedesYrian connecfio� to University
Avenue would be compatibie with existing single-family neighborhoods.
Land Use Pian
Section 5.5.2 (page 32) of the Land Use Section of the Comprehensive Plan says that
°The City will encourage more housing and jobs to locate along high service bus �outes.'
No housing is proposed as paft of this development. The applicant says that the ALD!
store will have 12-20 employees.
Section 6.3.2 (page 40j says that development [on the Universify Avenue CorridorJ should
contribute through density and site design to the ridership 6ase fo� pu6lic transportation on
University Avenue. ° •
A grocery store located up to the street and near a bus stop may encourage more
peopfe to ride the bus by making it more convenient for people riding the bus to stop
and buy groceries.
��
05��0�
r1
�J
s
Z. Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul.
Design standards
The newly revised zoning code contains a number of design standards that `shail be used
in site plan review, as applicable, unless the applicant can demonstrafe that there are
circumstances unique to the property that make comp{iance impracticai or unreasonable.'
(Secfion 63.110) These include:
a. /Jew development sha!/ relate to the design of adjacenf fraditiona( bui�dings, where
these are present, in scale and character. This can be achieved by maintaining similar
setbacks, facade divisions, roof lines, rhythm and proportions of openings, building
materials and colo�s. Historic a�chitecturaf styles need not be replicated.
The buildings in the adjacent area have a mix of styles and setbacks. The design
of the ALDI building is (ntended to reflect some of fhe e4ements of traditional
buiidings. The building would be set back 4 feet from University Avenue (ertough
room to provide some fandscaping between the building and the public sidewalk).
The facade ofi the buiiding would be faced with brick and would be broken by
accents and windows with awnings (a{though most of the windows woufd use
Spandrel and not clear glass}. Tfie height of the building would range from
between approximately 22 and 17 feet on fhe side facing Universify Avenue.
b. Primary building entrances on aii new buildings shall face the primary abutting public
street or walkway, or be linked to that sfreef by a clearly defined and visible walkway or
courtyard. Additional secondary entrances may be oriented to a secondary street or
pa�king area. Entries shall be clea�ly visible and identifrable from the street, and
delineated with elements such as roof ove�hangs, recessed entries, landscaping, or
similar design features.
The primary entrance to the building witl not be up to the University Avenue
sidewalk but the proposed landscaped courtyard is designed to provide a strong
and visible link to the sidewalk.
This sectio� deals with "pedestrian-oriented commerciai districts (generatly
characterized by storefront commerciai buildings built up to the sidewa(k)" and
encourages buiidings in these districts to be up to the sidewalk with doors and windows
along ihe public sidewalk. However, fhis site is not currently designated as a
pedestrian-oriented commercial district. The ciosest such districi is located on
University east of Le�ngton.
r
d. All rooftop equipment shall be screened f�om view from adjacent streets, public nghts-
of-way and adjacent prope�ties.
Rooftop equipment wil{ be screened as required.
e. lf transit facilities are needed to serve existing or proposed development, provrsions
shall be made, whe�e pracfical, for location of a bus stop or sheltered transit waiting
area in a convenient and visible location.
There is currentty a standard Metro Transit bus shelter on University Avenue at this
location. Staff has instructed the appiicant to meet with Metro Transit to discuss
designs for a new bus shelter, including how big it should be, what it shoufd look
iike and where it should be located. No decisions have been made but the
applicant has said he is wil{ing to provide a new bus shelter.
The number of curb cuts shall be minimized, and shared curb cuts for adjacent parking
a�eas are encouraged.
The site pfan does not propose any new curb cuts. ALDI would be served by one
��
05-lDd
existing curb cut on University Rvenue and one on Lexington Parkway. The Whife
Casfle immediately to the east has its own curb cut on t}niversify Avenue and staff •
has suggested the applicant talk to White Castie to see if they are interested in
sharing a single curb cut.
Other zoning standards
The proposed site plan meets ail other zoning standards. The use of the property for a
grocery store is permitted. The site plan provides sufficient parking and landscaping. The
building height and setbacks meet zoning standards.
3. Preservation of unique geologic, geographic or historically srgn�cant characteristics of the
city and environmentally sensitive areas.
The on(y unique historical aspect of the site is that the old home plate from Lexington Park
is located irt one of the existing buildings. Staff fias asked the appiicant to locate this and
save it.
4. Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonab/e provision for such
matters as surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and
air, and those aspects of design which may have substantia! effects on neigl�boring land
uses.
T(�e site ptan is consistent with this finding. Drainage will be accommodated. Loading wili
be screened from University Avenue.
5. The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the propased deve%pment in order to
assure abutting property and/or its occupants will not be unreasonably affected. �
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The sife is surrounded by other commercial
uses and the site plan will not unreasonably affect abutfing property and/or its occupants.
6. Creatio� of energy-conserving design through landscaping and location, orientation and
elevation ofstructures.
The site plan is consistent with current standards. Trees wilt be planted in the parking iot to
provide shade. The buiiding entrance wiil be located to make it easy for bus riders to use
the store.
7. Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic both within the site and in
relation to access streets, including traffic circulation features, the Iocations and desrgn of
entrances and exits and parking areas within the site.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. An existing driveway on University Avenue wiil
be the main access to the site. Access at this driveway is limfted to right-in and righf-out
because of the median in University Avenue. The site will also have an easement to use
an existing driveway on Lexington.
Public Works has asked the applicant to talk fo the adjacent White Castle to see if they are
interested in sharing a single driveway on University. Public Works would atso like to see a
driveway for the site on Duntap, so cars could use the break in the median at the
DunlaplUniversity intersection, taut buiiding a driveway on Dunlap is difficult because of �
grade changes fhaf put the street six feet higher than the parking lot.
8. The satisfactory availability and capacity of storm and sanitary sewers, indudrng solutions
to any drainage problems in fhe area of the development.
(�
05-1og
The site pian is consistent with this finding. Sanitary sewer is avaiiable in both the adjacent
� sfreets {Univessity and Dun{ap). Storm water will drain to a ponding area located on the
adjacent parcei to the south and from the pond it wi11 drain to an existing storm sewer. In
the future, when the parcel to the south is developed, this pond may be eliminated. ff tfiis
happens, new provisions wiii have to be made for taking care of the storm water from the
ALDI site. This may require underground storage if future development does not provide
enough room for surface storage.
9. Su�cienf landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above objectives.
The site plan is co�sistent with this finding.
Trees wilf be planted in the boulevards on Dunlap and University and in the parking lot.
The building wili be setback a few feet from the sidewalk to aliow shrubs to be planted. A
large tandscaped plaza is pfanned facing University Avenue.
A retaining wafl is planned along Dunlap because the adjacent street is approximately six
feet higher than the site is.
�
10. Site accessibi/ity in accordance with the provisions of the America�s with Disabilities Act
(ADA), including parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessiBle routes.
The site pian is consistent with tfiis frnding. Handicapped parking spaces and an
accessible route firom the University Avenue sidewalk to the building entrance are
proposed.
11. Provision for erosion and sediment control as specified in fhe "Ramsey Erosion Sediment
and Control Handbook "
The site plan is consistent with this finding. There are no unusual erosion or sediment
issues raised by fhe plan and the methods proposed for dealing with them are suffcient,
including silt fences, street sweeping and use of the storm water pond to trap sediment
dusing consfruction.
!. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the findings above, the staff recommends approvai of the s+te plan to allow a grocery
store and accessory parking lot at 451 Lexington Pkwy N.
A final utility and storm water management plan is submitted and approved by staff.
�
Devefopment Framework
��
2. A final landscape plan that inciudes trees in the boulevards on University and Dunlap is
submitted an approved by staff.
3. A new bus shelter must 6e constructed at the applicanYs expense. This sfietter must be
designed fo complement the design of the proposed ALDt building, located so that it is
visibfe and convenient to the bus stop, and large enough to meet user demands
anticipated by Metro Transit
2
1
�!!4
^� �. w S
i ;. �
• Proiect Narrative
ALDI Retail Facitity at Lexington Park
Southwest Quadrant of Univenity Avenue West{Leacington Parkway North
(Northern Third)
Psepared By:
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd.
June 30, 2004
For
Application for Site Plan Review
Introduction
On behalf of ALDI, Inc. and Lexinb on University, LLC, RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. is pleased to submit the
enclosed plans and documents for the Application for Site Plan Review for the proposed ALDI Retail
Facility at Lexington Pazk for review, discussion and approval by the City of St. Paul. The plans and
narrative outline the site developmenUredevelopment P,LDI, Inc. and Lexinb on University, LLC are
proposing for the 2.0+ acre S-3 General Business District site. This applicarion package, submitted on
June 30, 2004 is anticipated to be processed as an administrauve staff review. Devetopment of the project
� is proposed under the B-3 Aishict guidelines,
Project Request
• Approval of Application for Site Plan Review.
Existing Conditions
The proposed ALDI Retail Facility and entire Lexington Park site is located within the B-3 General
Business District; no changes in zoning are proposed. The overall Lexington Pazk site, also known as the
Riley pazcel, is situated at the southwest quadrant of University Avenue West and Lexington Pazkway
13orth and encompasses 6.55+ acres. Per RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd.'s Apri129, 2004 Lot Split application, the
Lexina on Pazk site is broken into three pazcels. The proposed ALDI Retail Facility will be positioned on
the 1.2± acre Pazcel A, the northemmost third of the Lexington Pazk site. Development of Parcel A will
also include a portion of Pazcel C, .08+ acres, to accommodate additional pazking and a temporary
detention pond. A vacant retail center presently occupies a portion of both Parcel A and Parcel C; a car
wash is also present in the southeast corner of Pazcel C. As part of development of the ALDI site, a
portion of the e�cisting vacant retail center will be removed neaz the Parcel A/Parcel C lot line. A new
wail will be constructed on the north side of the existing center so that the entire existing building wi11 be
within Parcel C only. No changes to the caz wash structure aze planned at this time. A conceptual master
plan for the Lexington Pazk project has been included with this submittal for reference purposes.
C�
Project Narrative ALDI Retail Facility at Lexington Park June 30, 2��4
RLK-Kuusisto, �td, projed No. 2004-499-M Page 1 of 4
��
C�� ���
Conceptua! Master Plan �
The conceptual master plan shows development of both the Riley pazcel and the Keqs pazcel, which
adj oins the south side of th8 Riley pazcel. The master plan features a mixed-use c3evelopment providing
retail and restauranT space on the first floor and resideutial housing on the remaining upper floors ofthe
three to four story buildings. Residential pazking is provided underground and intemal circulation is
provided throughout the site from the existing access/cwb cut locarions in Univezsity Avenue West,
Lexington Pazkway North, and Dunlap Sh eeY Nortlz. Although the master plan has been included in this
submittal, please keep in tnind that it is conceptual in nature and no approva[s for the master plan or
modificarions to current zoning aze sought at this time.
Aroject Description
Overview
ALDI, Inc. proposes to construct a I5, I50 square foot A LDI store on the 2.0± acre site. ALDI is a
neighborhood grocer specializing in smaller scale stores. ALDI anticipates employing 8-12 staff
members, with hours of operation Monday through Friday from 9:Q0 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and Saturdays
from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.ra.; the t#LI?I store will be closed on Sundays.
Site Layout/Circulation/Access
T'he ALDI site layout has been planaed to accommodate safe access and circuIation for both vehicles and
pedesirians. The ALDI building wiII be pIaced tight to University Avenue West with primary vehicular
access via the ezcisting curb cut in University Avenue West; the ALDI parcel may also be accessed via
Lexington Pazkway North per a reciprocal easement agreement betcveen ALDI, Inc. and Lexington
University, LLC. A neighborhood pazk is planned on the east side of the ALDI site. Pedestrian access to
the ALDI store and the neighborhood park is provided from University Avenue West via a sidewalk �
between the ALDI store and the park. Tlze University Avenue vehicle access is east of the pazk thereby
providing additioaal pedestrian safety. Pedestrian sidewalks/waIkways aze planned throughout the
Lexina on Pazk site to link the future mixed-use development with the ALDI store and the neighborhood
pazk. Delivery access is planned from University Avenue West; uuck tuming movements have been
verified from this access.
Grading, Drainage, Utiliries
After removal of a portion of the e�sting vacant retaii building and bituminous azea, the site wi11 be
graded and utiliries wili be instaIled. Adequate utilities exist in the azea to accommodate the ALDI store
and the future mixed-use development. Because of existing street and site grades, the finished floor
elevation at the northwest corner of the t1LDI building will be approximately six to eight feet Iower than
street grades on ITunlap S�eet North and University Avenue West. Construcrion of the ALDI site is
planned in a single phase and will incorporate a teznporary detention pond area on the northem part of
Pazcel C. This temporary detenrion pond will later be relocated as part of the stormwater management for
redevelopment o£ the center,
Partdng/Landscaping
The pazking requirements for the ALDI redevelopment have met the required pazking ratios. Pazking has
been shown on both PazceI A and on the northem part of Pazcel C, north of the temporary detention pond.
An agreement between ALDI, Inc. and I,exington University, LLC allows for this pazkiag and pond
arrangemenT. The plan identifies the anticipated number of sta22s.
a
Project Narrative ALDI Retail Facility at Leacington Park June 30, 2004
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. Project No. 2004�99-M Pa9e Z of 4
��
�f''�-668
� In addition to the green space provided by the neighborhood park,landscape islands have been provided
throughout the ALDI site. Additional landscaping is featured around the perimeter of the site and also is
provided for screening of the loading dock area. Redevelopment of the ALDI site provides an impervious
rario of approximately 68%, affording a substantial green space ratio of appro�mately 32%.
Lighting/Signage/Architecfurai Features
Lighting of the AI,DI building and pazking has been designed to meet the City's photometric
requirements. Lighting will also be provided for the neighborhood pazk. Si�age for the ALDI site wiil
feature a simple ALDI si�/logo on each side of the building, as well as incorporation of the ALDI name
on the existing business center signage. Decorative lighting is provided along the ALDI building's
exterior. The building will also feature alutninum awnings and a brick/EIFS exterior face.
Conclusion
The Ciry of St. Paul's approval of the Applicarion for Site Plan Review for the ALDI Retail Facility at
Lexington Park will provide an image update for the e�cisting vacant retail center site and will result in an
energized redevelopment with improved landscaping, signage and building design. It is anticipated that
this Applicarion will be processed as an adminish�arive staff review.
Submittal Package
• Completed Application for Site Plan Review and $360.00 Filing Fee (Submitted under separate cover
directly from Lexington University/WeZlington Management on June 25, 2004)
• Legal Description
� Stormwater Management Worksheet
� • Project Narrative
• ALDI Retail Facility at Lexington Pazk Preluninary Plan Set (9-Full Sites Sets [foldedj / 1-11 x 17 Set)
• Building Elevafions (9-11 x 17 Color Copies)
• Conceptual Master Plan (9-11 x 17 Color Copies)
�
Project Narrative pLDI Retail Facility at Lexington Park June 30, 2004
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. Project No. 2004-499-M Page 3 of 4
�
1 ��
� Area Plan Summary
UniversityAvenue Transit-Oriented Development Framework:
SNELLING AND LEXINGTON AREAS
25 july 2003
Addendum to the Comprehensive Plan for Saint
Kecommended by the Planni� Co:
Adopted by the City Council (date)
�uly Z5�
Thit .rummary appendc to tbe Corrprzbenszve Plan tbe viJZan and ttrategie.r of tbe Usziver.sity Avenue Tranru Oriented
DevelopmentFramett�ark Snelling and Lexington�]reat_-
Copier of the full-dength j�lan.r arz available far nviesv at the Saint Paul Department ofPlanning and �conomic
Develapment and tfie offzcer of the Ha�nline Midmay Caalition, Thorrsar-Dale Planning Council, Summit Unzverrity
Di.rtrict Council, Lex-Ham Community Cazrnal, Snell-Ha�n Community Council, Merriam Pcrrk Cammunity
Counci� and St Antbony Park Conr�nurrity Cazrncil.
Put�ose of the Stud�
The Citp of Saint Paui in paztnecship with communitq stakeholdexs initiated a planning study to
identifp transit oriented development oppos�unities at tcvo key Univexsity Avenue intezsections:
� Snelling Avenue and Lea-ington Patk�vap. The goal of the study was to build off the zecent successes
and majox investments along the avenue and idenrifp sedevelopment oppoxtunities for a number of
kep ptoperties that have become run-down, vacant, os outdated.
Univexsity Avenue is the spine connecting the two downtocvns and has Iustorically been the main
commezciai street of the xegion. Univusitp Avenue is curtendy a major transit line with the highest
ridetship in the region. The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies Univessity Avenue as the
al�onm p2efexzed bp the City foi light xail transit in the Central Corridox. As tke xegion continues
to gxow and congestion increases, this central regional location is becomina increasingly valuable foz
xesidents and businesses. City, communitp and business leadexs axe eager to see these critical
intersectioas revitalized with new development that is transit-oxiented. Transit-oriented
development (fOD) encoutages compact, pedestaan-friendly development with a high densiry of
employment and housing within walking distance of a majos public transportation stop. Numexous
examples of TOD alteady exist along Univezsity Avenue.
The primary goal of the study is to provide the City of Saint Paul with a development fiamework
that identi$es potential foz new development in these azeas over the next 5-20 peazs.
Location and Current Land Use
The two focus azeas of this studp are Snelling Avenue f Univexsity Avenue and Le$ington
Parkwap/University Avenue. Thep wese chosen based upon the esistence of vacant and
undeiutilized land and theix pxoaimity to an esisting majar Twin Cities public txansportation xoute.
��
�
O�:-�6 � TOD P/an Sm�mmy (25 July 03)
Pa�e 5
azise, the City sfiouId act to implement the bsoad goals outlined in this framewoxk.
Lexington Development Concepts
The Le$ington/Univexsitp intessection concepts address tlaree coxe issues: the southwest supezblock;
creating a new libraxp; rhe nosthwest (BP/Amoco) and southeast comers. Overall goals for this
intexsection indude: •
' Removing blighted properties and xedeveioping them soon;
' Intenssifping the use of the Iand as possible; '
' n'Iaintaining tha laigh quatity pazkcvay envixonment;
• Impxoving the pubIic realm;
• Creating smallex blocks consistent with TOD principies, if the mazket suppoxts this
development type;
' Cseating paths within the new development for pedestrians moving between buildings and
transit stops.
• Designing new development to be compatible with exisiing single-familp neighborhoods,
such as along Central, Sherbume, and Aurora Avenues.
Southwest comer
The ov erarrh� goai is the redevelopment of this site. Tn all the scenarios provided, basic TOD
principles ate applied. No e�act breakdown of uses is pzovided because it will be deterinined by the
market The puxpose of tfiis $ameworli is to set goals fox how the azea functions, not the ega ct
uses. The options xemoce White Casde in otdex to demonstrate a TOD apptoach; however, it is
recognized that White Casde map temain as determined by the market Similarly, since the axea is
cuaendy zoned B-3 (genexal commezaal) a traditional big bo$ development may occuz such as the
fotmealy pzoposed Home Depot
Foz the puiposes of this siudy, four options were identified by rhe task foxce. Theq ate egamples of
how TOD pxinciples map be applied. Thep aze not listed iu any xank ordet.
PrimadlpHousing
Tl�is optioa assumes that housiag of at �east 60 units to the acxe is built based on new housing
c3ensities built elsewhere in Saint Paul. Additionatly, rhe model assumes primarity commezcial uses
on the frrst floor along Univessity Avenue. Housing is moxe I�kely to be successful on the first floo=
along I.exington tban Univexsity due to die pubIic amenity of the pazkwap. This option *+�aR+m+�es
zesidential use on the 93 acxe development site. A limited amount of zetail/commexciai is included
along Univetsity. Parking is mosdp accommodated below surface and undex building footpxints.
BwTdings aze shown as tlixee, fouz or five stozies with the middle block oL� ni�ed azound,a
neighborhood park.
Mix of Uses Inclucfing Housing
This option suggests capturing the commercial market appeal of locaring along the majoz streets
while pxoviding some housing bekind. Aa esact ratio of commercial to housing is not estimated
This option places a greater emphasis on commescial/retxit uses in the miged use building facing
ilniversitp, while sti12 accommodating as much residenrial as pracricaL parking LS undex buiIdiug
footprints, on-street and in limited sutface lots. The middte block may potentiatly indude a
�
��
�
i�iiYi
TOD Plan Summary (25 July 03)
Page 6
neighboxhood park.
� a
Siargle Commercral/OS".�tce Scenario
The intent of this option is to show how a lasge employer could use this site. This option dedicates
the site to a single use such as an o£fice campus oz sitnilai arsangement The site may accommodate
approxinaa.telp 170,000-180,000 sf of commeraal uses seroed bp surface paxking. Additional squase
footage may be accommodated with the use of sriuctured paxking.
Urban Big-BaYModel
Based on egamples occurring in other cities, it is possible to imagine one of the major cbains
building one of the newes "urbaa models." Typically these aze about half the saze of the largez big
boxes, za� ng in size from 40-60,000 s£ This option is similaz to rhe Single Commesciai/Office
Scenaxio in that it is a single use but includes a Iazge fomiat ietail facing LTniveLSity. This uzban
foxxnat would have a floorplate from 40,000 to 60,060 sf aaanged in a 2-story configusation. Sutface
pazl�ng would be located intemal to the block.
Northwest comez
The northwest comet cutxendy has significant vacant land. The pximary pxoperty ownexs aze Hoa
Bien zestauxant and BP/Amoco. The genesal goal is to cxeate a signatute building at the comez of
i7nivezsity and Lexington that suppoxts the Patkmay atmosphese. Community membezs utged a
builcling of at least 2 stories but no moze than 4 to pzevent shadQws fzom negatively impacting
residentaai pzopertp ownexs on the north side of the allep.
Library options
� The consttuction of a new libzary is a priority fox the coxnmunitp and the City. The libxary needs to
reinain neaz the intersection of Universitp and Lexington in order to sustain the partnership with the
Hubbs Centez and easq access to Central High SchooI. Due to the Iack of a specific proposal to
review including possible impacts, this framewoxk makes no site xecommendation. However,
community members believe tbe new facility should have a strong pxesence on Universitp or
Lexington.
Blocks south and west of Dunlap and U, ni �vetsitv
To the west of the vacant southwest superblock at Leun�ton axe two additional supexblocks with
xnany business pzoperties. These include a sexies of inedicai buildings, auto reiated uses, Bally's gym,
and the now vacant 3M building. In gen�al the TOD psinciples aze applicable heze, however
development should be phased in as appropriate without detrimental impact on vibrant businesses.
Blocks Between University and Sherburne
Most blocks between Utuvessity and Shexbume, and University and Auxoza, have aa alley behueen
xesidential and coxnnzercial uses. Fox yeazs, neighbors and businesses have stniggIed to addsess the
frequent pxoblems of dumping, crime, etc. that plague many of these alleys. Thexe has also been
occasional tension as businesses, despente foz laad to grow, have tried to gtow across the alley,
while sesidents tried to ptotect the xesidenrial chazacter of Shexbume and AuxoZa. One goal of this
study was to e�cploxe if it is possible to build new housing and/ox comtnesciat buiiciings that mould
pzotect and enhance the zesidential neighborhood and be oibsant on LJnivezsity. Whi1e no such
� developmeat is planned at this time, Citp staff who have seseazched gxowth tsends in other aties
� ��
�.eX313g�0IS �a
QPTtON A
C�5
5_ teX;r� L�7re:apr�;t i.a
Primarily Housing
���5�-�_�_-°_-'��"�
� �
.
�. ;� .
"ii ��i
'�•• �: �
u
���
� .!!�,,��=
�,� z;,.,� .
. � ' �
_ - . "�
r _ _ .�
��-• � -
r ------ - �� ; �'�;�-`
, �
�, �._._
� '
\ , �\ �\
sw+�--
\ m �
.� �\
�� � .
Option assu mes that jiousing of at least
6o units to the acre is built based on
f new housing densities built eisewhere
in Saint Pauf. Additionatly the model
assumes primarily commercial vses on
the fust floor along UaiversitqAvenue.
Housin� 'ss more likely to be success_
fui on the first floor along Lexington
than Universitp due to the public a�me-
nity of the parkway. This option
marimi>.-s residential use On thc 9•3
acre development site. A lunited
amount of retail/commercial is in-
cluded along LTniversitp. Pazking is
mosdp accommodated below surfacc
and under building footprints. Build-
ings are shown as three, four or five
stories with the middle block orga-
nized around a neighborhood park
Gross Area =9.3 acres
Proposed ROW � 2.5 acres
Devetopa b(e Area = 7.8 acres
Proposed Uses
Resi�ential: approx. 46s units (7.S
acres � 6p dweliing unitlac2)
Commercia1:3,00a5,00osf -
• Reference Frontage Types: 2, 3
• Reference Street Types: B, C, D
• Reference BWdingTypes:ll, I!I
�
s ���t�i , -
,<ax.M
� i
: x
� _ � � _
� � ;�
���� � L �
CiTYnFSSm;nzi� f Ifnivorci;u7E3fS�iftldV�T'dt732q(pp�i
YT! ! Fn
����^ �d�
ION B
u:�; �--� � ��
_ - w�` „�1 : �- -
,ai � � °s
� _
•�'• �: �
�—
V tsd�t�'�}'�€' -
��� � ���
��� �� �
.. . .�--�----
� � •• �_
. � .
PROPOSEDBLOCKPATTERN
en-r oFS.a�1 au,2 � ilniversity 30D SYUdy Frameww#c
. � ��
a, i.£T11�niS :J¢S=:G�Y2, ��tra.c,+w
Mir ot Uses !ncluding Housing
This option suggests capfuring the
commerdal mazket appeal of locating
along the major streets while pmvid-
ing some housing be�ind. Aa e:
mtio of cammexcial to housing is not
esYimaTed Thisoptionplacesagreater
empbasss on wmmercia2/retail uses in
the mised use building facing Univer-
sity, while still accommodating as
much residentiz! as practical. Pazking
is under building footprints, on-strxt
and in limited surfaca lots. The middle
block may potentiallp inc2ude a
neigborhood park.
Gross Area =9.3 acres
Proposed ROW =1.5 acres
Dev�fopable Area = 7.8 acres
Praaosed Uses
Commercia1:20,OW 30,000 sf
Resideritial: approx 320-380 units
• Reference Frorrtage Types: 2, 3
• Reference Sbeef Types: B, C, D
• RefererxeBuldingTypes:lt,itl
�. � 53
� 1
U
�
�
Lexingtatt �ti'ed
ORTiON C
�-S /v�
E� Lrxar.gioa �rea�me;;t r
Single Commercial/Office
Scenaiio
�—r-- ��
tcs� r��.s'si.'_=,. -a:.y ���:
a » , !,,
I� !� � 'i
� ! 1
'�-� !: •
��
Ler��' �rkvr�Y
- The inEent of this option is to show
how a lazge emp2oper wuld use this
site. Tlus option dedicates the site to
a siagle use svch as a office campus or
similaz arrangemcnt The site may ac-
commodate agpcaximately
i7o,000-t8o,00 sf of retait uses serc�ed
by surface pazking. Additionat square
footage map be accouwdated with the
use of structured parking.
Gross Area =9.3 acres
Proposed ROW =1.5 acres
Developabte Area = 7.8 acres
Proposed Uses
Commercia1:170-180,000 sf*
Commercial: 500-540, oo0sf*
"(surfaced parked at3/1000)
• Reference Frantage Types: l
PROP0.SED PttBLIC REALM
-- r .. . .. _-- --
i �
• Reference Streef Types: B
• Refe�ence Euidi�gTypes; I
�,
PROPOSED SLOCK FATTERN
� ���
gtOn lteeea
!ON D
�
�
�!�� �,:.
�.>_,.-
. . �
� � � %
' • '?�!
•�'i �: !
� t9�17�1?�`1!Re:• _
- :--
�_..
��rt.�s - - '�l
„: ��'
'
" y . + �i
�-, � �..
,i :aa�
.�.� � .
�OPQSED SLOCK PATiERt�
1.e�nS�° �kwa�l
�
o_ �ezur�cu � a.c> � ...... ........��.'�
U�ban B�g-Box Model
Bascd on �ampla ocauiing in other
cities, it is possible to imagine ono of
the major cI:ains building one of the
newer "urban models." Typicaliy
Yhese are about halE tke size of the
Iazger big boaes, ranging in siu from
¢0-60,00o sf. This option is similat
to Optian C in that it is a s[ngle use
but induc� an L�txge format rei�iI fac-
ing L3nivezsity. This urban format
wOt�lc3lxave a E�oorplate {rom 40,000
m 60,00o sf azranged in a z-story con-
figuration. Surface pazking would be
located interna! tb the b2ock.
Gtoss A2a = 9.3 actes
Proposed ROW =1.5 acres
Devebpable Area = 7.8 acres
PIO/.105Ed USES
Corrtmerciat Urban Format :
220,ODOsf
Commercial, other:40-50,OOOSf
'(surfaced parked af 3i1000)
• Reference FroMage Types: l
• Reference SVeet 7ypes: B
• Reference Suiding Types: !
�
��
�
cx:rass��°rraci i U:liaersityTODStudyFramevtork � ��J' �.� `-�
b5 -6��'
n ` I
u
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
3�L�194
This Memorandum of Understanding is made this day of , 2004 by
and between Wellina on Management, 7nc., a Minnesota corporation ("Wellington"), and the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota (the "HRA").
RECITALS
A. Wellington has obtained site control of approximately 8.6 acres of land located at the
southwest corner of Lexington Pazkway North and University Avenue in Saint Paul (the
"Property"), consisting of three separate parcels, one owned by Nighthawk Properties LLC (the
"Nighthawk Site"} and the other two owned by George and Mazcella Keys and Jeff and Paula
Keys, respectively (the "Keys Sites").
B. The e�sting buildings on the Nighthawk Site aze currently vacant and require demolirion.
C. Although not yet confunied by the HRA's blight inspectors, the buildings located on the
Properry appear to be blighted and structurally substandard within the meaning of Minn Stat
� 469.174 Subd. 10.
D. At least one of the Keys Sites' pazcels cunently contans enviren:uenYa� conditions
requizing remediation. �
E. Welling[on has proposed redeveloping the Property and has asked the HRA to assist
wiGh the redevelopment as set forth below.
F. The parties desire to set forth theu understanding of their respective toles in the
development of the Property, subject to the completion of a binding development agreement (the
"Development AgreemenY').
AGREEMENT
�
Section 1. Proiect Descri tn ion. Weilington proposes developing a complex of
commercial buildings on fhe Property with appro�mately 100,000 to 125,000 gross squaze feet
in the aggregate. The estimated cost of the project is approximately $15,000,000. T'he buildings
would be designed principal2y foz retail purposes with some office space, although there is a
potential for housing in the southwest corner of the Keys Sites. The project would involve
demolishing the buildings on the Nighthawk Site, and if the Keys Sites are included, the
substantial renovation of those e�sting buildings or demolition and new construction, or some
combination thereof. The project could include one or more smaller pads that would
acconunodate smaller retail shops ranging from 2,500 to 16,000 square feet. 'Fhe HRA will
assist Wellington with obtaining the platting or subdivision approvals needed for the project.
3�
(�
0
The HRA acknowledges that the project may include an ALDI-operated grocery store, which
store shall be designed, constructed aad equipped similaz to and comparable with the ALDI store
located in Champlin, Minuesota, and at least one pad £or a restaurant that includes fast food and
agrees to to support such uses.
Section 2. TTF Financine_
TIFNote. To assist with the ea7raordinary costs involved with redeveioping the
Property, such as demolition, stormwater management, repair or replacement of the
e�stiag pazking lot, relocation benefits, asbestos abatement, mold remediation, the
possible need for a retaining wall, and the environmental remediatiott of the Keys Sites,
the F3RA will use its best efforts to create a TIF' district for the Property and issue a paq-
as-you-go tax increment financing note to Welliagton 3n an amount determined by the
HRA as necessary for the project and that will satisfy the `but for' test.
Section 3. Environmental Remediation. The HIZA will consider applying for up to
$150,000 of environmentai grants to remediate the contaznination at the Keys Sites and for
asbestos removal and mold remediation for all buildings and a decision will be made in part on
the priorities the HRA establishes for all of its pending projects.
Section 4..IvIaster Landsca en Plan. The FIItA wili work witfi Weliington to develop and �
implement a Master Landscape and Public Improvement Plan for the intersection of Lexington
and University. Weliington will agree to pay for 100% of the cost of design for this plan, up to a
maximum of $10,000. Wellington will also agree to pay its pro-rata share of any special
assessments levied by the City to implement this plan.
Section 5. Project Schec3ule. Subject to execution and delivery of a Development
Agreemeat acceptable to both parties incorporating the tezms of tlus Memorandum, Wellington
e�ects to complete site acquisifion of the Property by Mazch 31 and September 30, 2004, begin
construction in November 2004, and complete the project by October 1, 2005,
Section 6. Construction. The project design will be subject to FiRA prior approval. T'he
HRA will approve a sire plan for the groject on or before the execution of the Development
Agreement aud approve &nat plans and specifications for the project prior to the commencement
of construction. Weilington may perform demolition and site work before approval of the finai
plans and specifications,
Sectiott 7. Contin�encv. The HRA's obligation to issue the TIF' Note and Wellington's
obligaYion to commence the Minimum Improvements under the Development Agreement will be
subject to Wellington providing evidence to tfie HRA of financing sufficiettt to complete the
project and other customary contingencies.
Section 8. Com lp iance. VJellington and its contractors and agents shall comply with all ,
3j
(�- l0�'
r�
LJ
federal, state and local iaws, ordinances and regulations applicable to the project including
without limitation the City's affiimative action requirements, vendor outreach program, labor
standards, relocation, and the Minnesota business subsidy act.
Section 9. Present Intent; D�osit The foregoing represents the parties present
intentions with respect to the development of the Property, but is not a legally binding agreement.
The parties understanding as to the development of the Properry is subj ect to the negotiation,
execution and delivery of a Development Agreement that will contain such additional terms and
conditions that aze usual and customary and will elaborate on the general terms and conditions of
this Memorandum and approval of such Development Agreement by the HRA's Board of
Comxnissioners. LTpon approval of this Memorandum by the HI2A Boazd of Coxnmissioners
Wellington agzees to deposit with the HRA the amounts required under the HRS's policy that
will be used to pay for the costs and expenses incuxred by the HRA in this project.
II3 WITNESS WE3EREOF, the parties have executed this Memorandum of
Understanding as of the date first above written.
WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT, INC.
�
Approved as to form:
Assistant City Attorney
� ML:3048263.Oi
By:
Its:
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
FOR TI� CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
By:
Its:
3 �
• i�
n
�J
� RESOLUTION APPROVIlVG Ai�� ATTT'HORIZING EXECUTION
2 OF A MEMORA.NDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH
3 WELLIri�GTON MANAGEMENT, INC.
4 (LEXINGTON AND i�'NIVEgSITY REDEVELOPMENT PROJEC�
RESOLiITION NO. 04-03/24-
��
•
5 WHEREAS, the staff of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Saint
6 Paul, Minnesota (the "Authority") has received a proposal from Wellington Management, Inc., a
7 Minnesota corporation (the "Developer") regarding the construction of a development consisting
8 of retail, restaurant and other commercial uses (the "ProjecY') at the southwest comer of
9 Le�ngton Pazkway North and University Avenue in the City of Saint Paul, which proposal
10 includes a request for tax increment financing for eligible costs of the Project; and
11
12
13
14
15
Sponsor Commissioner Mont2omery
WHEREAS, the Authoriry's staff and the Developer have negotiated a Memorandum of
Understauding for the Project (the "Memorandum") which Memorandum sets forth the proposed
preliminary agreements of the Authority and the Developer with respect to the Project, and which
provides a frame work for a final development ag�eement to be submitted at a later date to the
Boazd of Commissioners for consideration and appmval; and
16 WHEREAS, the Memorandum is on file in the office of the Executive Director and has
17 been presented to the Boazd of Commissioners at this meeting for approval.
18 IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AS FOLLOWS:
19 1. The Boazd of Commissioners hereby approves the Memorandum and authorizes
20 the Executive D'uector to execute the Memorandum in substantially the form submitted. The
21 execution of the Memorandum by the Executive D'uector of the Authority shall be conclusive
22 evidence of the approval of the Memorandum in accordance with the terms hereof.
23 2. The staff of the Authority is directed to proceed with a11 other action necessary to
24 implement the agreements of the Authority in the Memorandum including, but not limited to, the
25 prepazation of the final Development Agreement and the creation of a taY increment financing
26 district.
1379340v1
33
d5 �IO�d
'� T �AUL �q
BER OF COMMERCE
401 North Robert Street
Sni[e 150
Saiat Pan(, M'wnesom 55101
Phone: 651.223.5000
Far. 651.223.Sll9
snnurtzn serv;ces cenier
3262 Rice Street
Liale Canada, Atinnesoty 55126
Phoae: 651.256.4770
Fas: 651.256.4771
�
�
YOUR
BUSINESS
ADVOCAT'E
August 3, 2004
ZAning Conunittee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission
Attention: Larry Soderholm
Department of Planning and Economic Development
1400 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, IviN 55102
Dear Zorung Committee:
On behaif of the Saint Paui Area Chamber of Commerce, an
organization representing neazly 2,200 area businesses, we would like to
express our support for a new Aldi grocery store, which is a Wellington
Management project proposed for the corner of University and
Lexington in the Summit-University and Meiriam park neighborhoods.
This new store would be a great addirion to the Saint Paul
�ommnnity and the start of new development on a comer that has been
blighted and underutilized for 10 years.
In addition, the Chamber supports the site plan presented by the
developer for this project. This site plan meets city requirements and we
feel that it should be approved by the Zoning Committee.
Wellington Management is a well-known local developer who
has a strong track record and significant experience, and will produce a
high quality project. Recognizing the import�c of maintaining good
relations with the broader community, Wellington Management has been
a willing participant in discussions related to the scope and design of this
project.
The Saint Pau1 Area Chamber of Commerce strongly supports the
Aldi proposal and Wellington ManagemenYs coinmihnent to the
Midway area and Saint Paul.
Sincerely,
l' �� . , r'
Elien Wattets
Senior Vice President of Economic Development
3�f
s a i n t p a u 1 c h a m b e r. c o m
05-��8
�
LJ
Eiizabetn K. Leach
i 672 W. Minnehaha Avenue
Saint Paul, MN SS1Q4-1151
651-647-9595
Planning Commission
City of Saint Paui
25 W. 4"` St, Suite 1400
Saint Paul, MN 5�102
RE: Wellington Management's ALDI development proposai - Lexington and L3niversity
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing in opposition to the proposed development that includes a lot split and plan
for an ALDI's grocery at Lexington and i3niversity Avenues. Wellington Management
has cited its monetary investment in the blighted property at this southwest corner as a
reason why their design, contrazy to the Comprehensive Plan and coatrary to principles of
Transit Oriented Development, should be approved. They have cited the fact that AI,DPs
does not want to be co-located with another business as another reason their inadequate
plan should be approved, I would like to address these azguments in order.
� First, let me note that I have been a homeowner in this area for 26 years. Members of my
family of origin haue owned homes in the neighborhood for 36 years. F am a graduate of
both Wilson Junior High and St Paul Central High School. My sons have attended
Hancock Elementary, Expo Middle Schooi when it was housed in the Wilson Jr. High
building, and have either graduated from ar will graduate from Central High School. I
was the President af tiie Hancock Elementary PTA for a number of years, worked with
the city to implement the bike lanes on Minnehaha Avenue, am an advisory board
member of the Midway Transit Management Organization, am a steering committee
member of the Hamline Midway Neighbors for Peace and have worked with the Hamline
Midway Coalition and Universiry Uztited on a number of development issues. I have
picked up trash on Snelling Avenue, have planted flowers and tended them along
Snelling. I regularly patronize businesses along Snelling and University. In my
neighborhood, I have refurbished my home and yard, and have shared expertise and items
to help my neighbors do the same. I have voted in every electian, primazy and general,
since I haue been able to vote, and am an election judge for Ramsey County. My son has
worke@ for ECFE in our naighborhood and has worked in both the Hamline and
Le�ngton bxanch librazies.
AIthough I do not have five mitlion dollars to invest in a husiness tn this area, I have
invested my life and mp children's lives and well-being in this neighborfiood. F am not
alone in this investment, Many of my neighbors in iiamline Midway, in Le�rington-
HamIine, and in Snmmit University have done the sanie, many also investing their
� gtandchildren's }ives in this part of town. What we have always asked of our elected and
appointed public offtciats is that they, like we, look to the long-term best interests of our
3�
os -���
community. Those long-term interests are outiined, at least in part, in the Comprehensive �
Plau and in the city's stated commitment to Transit priented Development Wfiat I have
seen by attendiag community medings and the 2oning Commission's meeCings is that it
is only money that taiks, as far as flie city is concemed The city seems determined now
to look only to the immediate interests of Wellington ivlanagement and not to the interests
of our communities. Yes, we need monetary investment in our cominunity, but we need
those monetaiy investments to be made with an eye to our future. Light raii is coming to
the Central Corridor. Our neighborhoods are reliant on public transit Qur neighborhoods
aze degendent on good with benefits coming iato tiie community.
Wellington's cwrent pian does not meet these neeas.
Second, I haue visited the ALDPs store in Inver Grove Aeights. At that location, the store
is co-located with a second tenant - side-by-side. if Inver Grove Heights can get ti�is
company to take on a second tenant, why noY the Midway of Saint Paul? ALDPs has been
touted as a potentiat boon for neighi�ors because of ifs saie of Iow cost items, and its open
design. I found the store filled with cheap items that are not healthy. The "open design"
seemed temporazy and cheap. While I praise Wellingtoa's efforts Yo create some green
sQace at the entrance of the proposed ALDPs - our neighborhoods need green space and
public areas - the internal design of the store I visited was not one I want to see in this
neighborhood. It does nothing to promote pride in our community.
We can do better. I am as�ag you to look to the long-term interests of the community, as �
I and my fellow neighbors have doae, and reject the current Wellington proposai for #he
ALDPs store.
Thank you,
�"����`'�
Elizabeth K. Leach
�
3�
• We, the undersigned members of a spectrum of cammunity organizations and
business owners, share the following principies and values with regard to t6e
redevefopmerrt of Leuington and University, and aii major transit nodes along the
University Avenue Corridor.
05 -10�
We strenuousfy object to the manner in which the Cifij of St. Paui is incrementally
approving the Weliington Management development proposal_ The community
has nof had an opportunity to review a comprehensive plan. instead, the projecf
is being presented and approved in steps. We particulariy object to the pending
request by fhe developer for site plan approval to sell off part of the parcei for an
Aldi's. The projecf must be reviewed in its entire#y in a comprehensive way, with
a fufiy transparer,t community process befiore the developer can implement any
part of the project.
2. Any development on the site must be consistent with the community-based
pianning that has aiready 6een done and recognized by the City of St. Pau{,
including the Lex-Ham Tomorrow Plan, The University Avenue Transit-Oriented
Development Framework (Snelling and Lexington Areas), and the University
Avenue Developmenf Principles.
3. The development must be transit-oriented, as defined by the Metropofitan
Council Guidebook, meeting the measureble criteria for TOD inciuding street-
facing frontage, transparency, a mix of land uses, the piacement and orieniation
of parking, and density measures. Any development must include a job density
� of at least 4�lacre, andlor a housing density of at least 35/acre, or some
combination of the two.
4. The development must have a reasonable plan for pedestrian movement
throughout the site, and for secure bicycle parking for both the residences and
businesses.
5. The City must enforce and compiy with existing ordinances and policies
regarding living wages and fabor standards in City-subsidized devetopment
projects. The developmenYs tenants shouid meet or exceed tfie standards
outiined in these city ordinances and po4icies. Such assurances should be added
to the memo of understanding and development agreement as a condition of TIF
or other pubiic subsidies.
6. Housing developed on the sife must be mixed-income and must, at a minimum,
meet the City of Sf. Paui's overall housing affordabi(ity goal of 10% at 50% of
AMI and 10% at 30% ofi AMi, and every effort should be made to exceed this City
guideline.
University UNtTED; Lexington-Ham4ine Community Couna{;
District 7 Planning Councit; Jewish Community Action; Art Walzer— member, fsaiah;
United Food and Commerciai Workers, Locai 789;
Service Employees Intemationai Union, Locai 26;
, Transit for Livable Communities;
• Joe Claus - board chair, Alliance for Metropolitan Stabilify;
Mat Hollinshead — Sierra Club representative to the board, AIliance for Metropolitan
Stabiiity
E' J 7
, -� _ __..
g � � 3 � v ;:� � a _ i�«r� �
r'� � c °, �!} = - .. ` y! -.: , z sr.o �
' o '< W ' �? ` ' n`ca' r
b �� !— j � a< 6� _ �c_z ..<aW y �i v- „
' _ - < � a u �'L_ � _ �.�r.
4 s :
4 i s Q Z LL a Zo A � �..� _ S= _ �
_ " _ <' f�' :. � _� z ° azc ia _ _ " i
' � � � c = Z �`'< ' <`u� � ' ` c" .c < _
_ _ � �� � �g= : � _-- =�;,T _ �n
�i' z � ° � � `° � ==, ; x --- "�o ^ �- ^
a a �% i = �°� �t�s Z < w
- x z ' ' _° G a `'C 2 , . :�i dz zi ^�_ ��3� " _ .n __g..
p L� Q �
2 � �ii H r 'Y� �S Z �u�i �2 �+rt 1 j� �aF U>OD 2����
Z � � <�v_. ' = .� _
' r�i< z �.+ < <s dS 2 _ ' ��' _
Z s - 3 �� ^ s li.t -' - _ __ _ p�_. " - cG (r� "'w .,
gr '� c., Ll " :c� "" i x k�io �= z 2'� _
_; o : � � <. d ="'<' - z _ Qi '- os` �� �;� :, °
s� x �, � &"Q Z " a R _ <`� ,_o -���--z` ; s Y ;� � � �
., _ c=: v., � Fx < r
� J f� �} � �:� C ° � S J � Q
��^. c� �� a VC � �'� R X S �O � � �a � � 4• C
' � a.�+ � t.. _ _�x c. c_ <o� <�:i :.o C __ _ .
I
�
�
�
�
�
h
�
�
�
�.
z
•
M
�
�
i;
1;
�'
!
t
�
a C�'� �� '<
.. ,
; �
�
aa-<• a
i
, � �
!Zt! �;zss �§ � s
1 €ea>S�z�sh���us�83�
�
" �.�
Y ?
� �
¢ _
� c
� _
Z s
� _
!L =
� -
�� ST :L5 dT�3:,7t2CI �- � Q Lf't6.S
j ,�ss.z.at;�
��/ `J�r —_ �
: =�:-s�
o `£ ���
�i
�F
� �
t
a
.;
■
11�
li
��I .
4�
a�
(�
i �
�y
f�
I�
IS
t�
I
I
I���
I ���
I
t
�� ��
� � ��
�� �
��
�,
�
�
�. �
� �� r
t
- - ' { �"t.�+,z \
��_ �
}. ti
�
S:.
�
�'
� � " i � �� 4 � •
_ �� ��z
, _ :::;, . � 3:.
�>
�
��i �
I� �
�+& �&
r
��
�
L J
� ��
� ... , .......
�
: r � :
. '.:.- , .� _. :` �..
'-a-'
'_' '^���-�_.� .^-.P. +,�, . z, .c{��'S� a. �w�Gak x - � M > ..,,, .m�w.� A�' _ "
.. "--=.'�:.�...,- ��,�.,'���'�'^��"�s� � l � ��, .. `" .,- ea ,� ���
-_ .
. . . � a� --" ' �.. . �.
__
,_ . � F . � r.�3 - _�
_ .._ . � � . .. _ � '� �� - .
�'-�i" .'':: Z `�
��
_ y�
A :.:
i > 3 +w
�4 ?
. , � . . ' ' ' r � .
� _ _, ��_ •y , .
�. _ .., �, �.
. 6 +�'n��, - ' ^ ' .
. . . . . ' . _.. �y3 .'. .
'!
' �^��-j� .- j � ��iJ'-�'�!� ". f - _ �� '
_ _ � � . ri�
�� _... . .:. _ . � � �.
. . . . � _ � � . � _ . . _ _ : ���//� . � -.._ . ..' .
.. _�..�_._�.-...._.._._ .
. . . .. . .-....'�.��.- � .
. � . �r_��..���^ . . . _ .
��"h � F�������
�� ..� c � ..: , ', ��.�_ L . .. v , , •," . ._.. c:�..s�_S:.n'��"S� ''�{^�
� ws � � ,�. ��`"���� ���� 'c . 5 �.:�
� ' ,: -�_� : :_ "'µ ... � ^ .
' � • .�- � _ � ���`��
�.. � " .. � '�, _.._ . � .. .:� . �.-- . _ �?: _,.h ��
� , ;
<d. � �.�i ��" --����a
y .�- T. r �' � _ _`. �„ � � � . � � ��<q:
-, , -� . a _ �," ._. �- : '- " ^ - '
._ . .. .�. ... __--_:._, ��- .., . .. �'::, :.-�..�. `
,.—.._..-,. - � _- — _ _ ._._
-'-- ._ . . _ ,
. = _ .. .. . . , ..
_ .- c
' _ . � - . . —� ' ',, z'
..-._ _ ..._. .._--_. , .._., . . .:. w.,m,,.^:�! ; , . ..
x �, �a.'�„fe�.�"'"-r '' �
.�� < r
" � � a "' � �" "m � i ' P^ .,�".�34" ' '' e' '�"P�.�{'' t �-,
. �'° �� ,
.�+4. 4 a
.,
_1 � _
` , ' . _ � ° _"" _� _ ' 'vvr . � , ? ' �bE ,,:? D
�
. . �,.�.,.:�- �^,y.
_ {
. ' ,�.s-; --�- , a .ti�,l -; �� " .,_., .'„.-
� - ¢� ' /%" �-: a�� . �.:5 ._. `Erag .. - . —� . _ ._ . . , - . �-.. _.. '.� M,..._x
.Gr��� � �� t�� ���'°n'_`^� � :� ��� � " _ _
__.. _._ . . . ..r .:1. _� .' ^ i . ; . '_ ', :... ' .. . �. _ � . ._ _
:�� _ .
C�5-10�'
c,�k� F� �'a.r�te. �s�
s��.e, o& Lcx r. a�.z„
o�- � � �-u � •� �..
�
�s
From: "Triesta Brown" <triesta.brown@comcast.net>
To: <ward1@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, c,vard2@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, <ward3@ci.stpaul.mn.us>,
<ward4@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, <ward5@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, <ward6@ci.stpaul.mn.us>,
<ward7@ci.stpaul.mn. us>
Date: 10/6/2004 10:58:11 AM
Subject: development at Lexington and University
Council President Lantry and members of the St. Paui City Council,
Please enter this testimony in to the public record for the public
hearing regarding the development of the corner of Lexington and
University by Wellington Management.
As a neighbor and investment property owner in the Hamfine Midway
neighborhood, I am supporting the proposed development by Wellington
Management. The Aldi grocery store is an establishment that I will shop
at. My neighbors will shop at it. My tenants will shop there as well.
While it would be nice to have a proposal that was more in keeping with
transit oriented design standards, it is more critical to get this
blighted corner improved so it can be an asset to my neighborhood
instead of a liability. Mr. Wellington has shown himself and his
company to be competent and responsible with St. Paul projects over the
years. Everything done by this company has been an improvement over the
previous conditions, and Wellington developments have continued to be
assets to the community long after the iniGal fanfare has died down,
Please allow him to proceed. Viabfe businesses and the jobs created are
more desirable in my mind than waiting for a"perfecY' development
proposal to come aiong. I am confident that Mr. Weilington will do
everything he can to build a project that is architecturally appropriate
and provides convenient pedestrian and bicycle access for the customers
that will shop there.
Thank you, Mr. Wellington, for wanting to improve my neighborhood.
Thank you, members of the Council, for considering my testimony on this
issue.
Triesta Brown
1491 Blair Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55104
651-842-1145
From: "Wams, Benita B- Eagan, MN" <benita.b.wams@usps.gov>
To: <wardl@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, <ward2@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, <ward3@ci.stpaul.mn.us>,
<ward4@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, <ward5@ci.stpaui.mn.us>, <ward6@ci.stpaul.mn.us>,
<ward7@ci.stpaul. mn.us>
Date: 10l6/2004 10:53:37 AM
Subject: 10/6/04 Public Hearing Testimony -Aldi Grocery Store
To the Members of the St. Paul City Council:
Please enter this message into the o�cial record of the Public Hearing
concerning the Lot Split for the parcel located at the southwest corner
of Lexington and University Avenues, and the Site Plan for the Aldi
Grocery Store.
i wish to go on record in support of both the lot split and the Aldi
site plan. Our community has not had enough grocery stores for as Iong
as I can remember. When I first moved to the Hamline Midway
neighborhood, the only "low-priced" grocery store was the Rainbow at
University and Snelling. The management of that store did a very poor
job of stocking and maintaining the store. It was always dirty and
overcrowded, and I hated shopping there. Often my neighbors and I would
drive out of St. Paul to Roseville, N/est St. Paul, or Eagan to grocery
shop. Stores there were cleaner, less crowded, offered greater variety,
and had lower prices and better service. When the Cub store opened,
conditions improved somewhat at Rainbow, but the need was so great for
more grocery stores that both Cub and Rainbow were always very crowded.
Rainbow's recent management change to Roundy's has greatly improved
conditions in that store, but we still don't have enough grocery stores
to serve such a Iarge population center as the Midway. An Aldi store
will bring another comparabie grocery shopping choice to our community.
I have observed that there are severai identifying characteristics of
low-income neighborhoods. Some of these characteristics include the
presence of large numbers of check-cashing stores and pawn shops, as
weli as many smali storefronts having bars on the windows and doors.
Another key indicator is the lack of major chain grocery stores. People
in low-income neighborhoods typically must pay far more for food than
their suburban counterparts because most sfores located in inner-cify
neighborhoods are small convenience stores that carry a limited
selection of high-priced items. Most of these stores sell little, if
any, fresh produce or meats. It is very difficult to follow a healthy
diet for a transit-dependant inner-cify residenf.
The people who live near the Lexington/University intersection have
waited a long time for redevelopment. The 20 jobs that Aldi will add
may not be a lof, but these new jobs are far betfer than fhe alternative
- no new jobs.
My only concern about the Aldi store is that windows are placed on the
side facing Universifij Avenue so that there are added "eyes on the
street," and that the store provide a safe piace to park bicycles that
is right in front of the store's windows. The store's design should
encourage nearby residents to easily walk or ride bicycles to the store
to purchase food. Providing the windows and bicycle parking sends a
clear message that bicyclists and pedestrians are welcome, and people
who feel welcome wili choose to spend their money at Aldi. As far as I
am concemed, this store shouid have been buiit years ago. 1 urge you
to vote in favor of both the !ot split and the site plan.
Benita Warns
1440 Lafond Ave.
St. Paui, MN 551042438
(651)641-1037
CC: "Ella Thayer" <efia.thayer@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
■ .. .c• , c-
■ -
� �
`� .
..�. -� ��4� � -
�,=�.���. f��, .��,.";., :� � . . �
October 6, 2004
Jay Benanav, Counci(member
310-D City Hall
St Paul MN 55102
Dear Councilmember Benanav,
��I
-----•------ � _C�-1, D,g_ _ -
651 451 8227 P.05i08
Phone: 651-451-fi240
Fax: 651-451-8Z27
On behalf of our members that live and work in St. Paul we are communicaiing our
opposition to the proposed site pian for AIdPs and we are asking that the proposed lot spfit
be denied in conjunction to the Lexington/University Development. Local 789 is not part
of the appeal, but we support it, and we hope you will also be in support of it.
The issue seems qaite simple to us: the proposed Aldi's does not eve� come close to the
comprehens;ve plan; its job density islowarthan projeatad (ovith a grand fota/ ofonly 8 neur
jobs). We would like to see a plan in totality instead of this "cookle cutter" approach. Do
not get the wrong impression, we want to see development at this eomer, but development
which will benefit the neighborhood and bring `7iving wage"jobs to the area_
We appreciate the members of the council that have met with us and we are disappointed
with tfie members who confinue fo hide behind the c(aim of impending couRCit business.
Our intention was to meet and discuss our vision for the neighborhood and the potential
forthe sita in question. With several hundred Local 789 memhers in Ward 1, we feel an
obligation to help bdng the best development and hefp create the bast jobs we can for the
area.
We wilt continue to fighf for'7iving wage"jobs and fight for employers who respsct the right
fo organtze. We are opposed to a"cookie cuffe►"approached to deveiopment, and we
stand �eady to partnerwith a number of groups to build a vibrant gateway at Lexington and
University.
Re ectfuAy subm' ed,
�
Semie Nesse
Director of Orgaqizing
UFCW Loca1789
BH/hd(Opeiu #12
Emailc ofcw789�utcw789.org
s�; m
Website: w+ww.ufew784.org
� EIIa�Thayer�- Sierra Club Testimo� Lexington University � � � � � � �� � -j'=1� � Paqe 1 i
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Mathews Hollinshead <mathews.hollinshead@mac.com>
<vuard 1-7@ci. stpa u I. m n. us>
10/6l2004 4:13:54 PM
Sierra Ciub Testimony, Lexington University
�� 1
October 6, 2004
TO:
The Honorabie Debbie Montgomery, Ward 1
The Honorabie Dave Thune, Ward 2
The Honorabie Pat Harzis, Ward 3
The Honorable Jay Benanav, Ward 4
The Honorab!e Lee Heigen, Ward 5
The Honorable Dan Bostrom, Ward 6
The Honorable Kathy Lantry, Ward 7
Saint Paul City Council
Saint Paul, MN
FROM:
Mathews Holiinshead, 2114 Pinehurst Ave., Saint Paul, Minnesota 55116,
651-698-0260
Executive Committee member, North Star Chapter, Sierra Club;
Transportation Chair, North Star Chapter, Sierra Club; founding
president, University UNITED; founding Executive Director and current
Advisory Board member, Midway Transportation Management Organization;
past board member, Midway Chamber of Commerce; past board member,
Snelling Selby Area Business Association; Leadership in Neighborhoods
grantee feliow studying Urban TransportaGon and Communify, year 2000,
St. Paul Companies.
This tetter is written on behalf of the several thousand Sierra Club
members who live in the City of Saint Paul, the 12,500 who live in the
Twin Cities Metro Area, and the approximately 20,000 who live in
Minnesota. it is aiso written from my perspective of several years of
advocacy and work in the Midway/University Corridor area, a year of
travel and study focusing on similar corridors in more than 20 cities
in the year 2000.
The Notth Star Chapter, Sierra Club, opposes both the site plan and the
lot spiit for the southwest corner of the intersection of Lexington and
University avenues.
The Chapter has advocated environmental justice, conservational land
use, and effective, modem transit and muitimodai transportation for
several years. Ail ofi these needs are at issue in today's hearing
regarding the property at the southwest corner of Lexington and
University avenues.
TR,4NSPORTATION. The Central Corridor is likely to be the next link in
this network after the Northstar Corridor. Evidence ihat land use and
transit investment retum are interdependent is too abundant to need
itemization here. In virtuaily every city that has, is buiiding or is
�
Ella Thayer - Sierra Club Testimony Lexington Unwersity � �� � �� ���'�� — � �Page 2 �
piann+ng major transit corridors, the job and residential densi6es
along those corridors and especially at stafion stops, and the ease of
pedestrian access and use, are regarded as key charactis6cs. The
Federal TransitAdministrafion decision criteria affirtn that Given the
high cost and complexity of building transportation in our metropolitan
area, it is criticai thaY every effort be made to maximize benefits. in
the case of transit, that means ridership and destinations.
LAND USE. Recent growth along University Avenue has shown that
residenfial density is viable, and historic development pattems
provide ampie precedent forjob density. Saint Paui cannot compete with
suburbs by imitating suburban development pattems. Saint Paui's
current and future success depend on promoting and enhancing its urban
quali6es, the very ones that provide its comparative advantage in
attracting a growing market of residential customers looking for urban
lifesfyles.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. From a social and environmental justice point of
view, low density at University and Lexington, as opposed to mixed use
at higher density, moves the profile of those served by the development
up the income ladder and away from the immediate neighborhood, since
more people will drive to the resulting services with a low density
development. This may be the goal of the developer, although it seems
questionable to us whether it even fits the demographic of the proposed
grocery store tenant, a no-frilis vendor that specificaily targets low
income grocery shoppers. Even ff that apparent business contradiction
is not a concern to ihe developer or the merchant, it is not what is
best for the city in the long run. St Paui's shortage of affordable
housing is well established. IYs goal of building more housing is also
well established. The current site plan proposal and lot spiit may give
the developer an instant return to meet some business goai o# his own,
but does little or nothing for the viability of the neighborhood, the
city oi the transit carridor now or in the future.
The site pian and lot spii# proposals at issue, if approved, will do
exactly the opposite. You are familiar with the arguments and the many
similar cases here and around the nation that prove this. A half
century of urban core underdevelopment, due to many complex factors,
has made certain cities, and certain neighborhoods of aimost every
city, marquee examples of what not to do for the future.
We hope and urge that you deny the current proposals. The dividends of
adding several floors of housing to the grocery store, an entrance _
fronting the transit stop and corridor and simuitaneous m�ced-use
development planning for the entire site seem very obvious as compared
to the application at issue. In Minneapolis at Lake Street and
Hiawatha, this same developer is wrestiing circums#ances not unlike the
appiication he has made that is the subject of today's hearing. But in
the case of Hi-Lake, he is said to be interested in just the opposite
type ofi development — mixed use, high density, transit-oriented —
#han in his Lexington proposais. It is a mystery why he is pursuing
something so minimal and, given a 20-year lifecycle, counterproductive
in Saint Paul when, acwrding to some sources, he is most interested in
just the opposite at Hi-Lake and, indeed, is doing just the opposite at
Emera�d Gardens further west on University.
_ __ _. _ _ _ _ __ . u.. _ � . _._ ___
_� _�.
Ella Thayer Siefra Club Testimony,_ Lexington University _ _ _ Page 3:
Thank you for your aften6on to these comments.
Mary Erickson - Sierra Club Testimony, Lexington University — Page 1
From: Mathews Hollinshead <mathews.hollinshead@mac.com>
To: <�rd1-7Qa.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 10/6/2004 4:13:54 PM
Subject: Sierra Club Testimony, Lexington University
October 6, 2004
TO:
The Honorable Debbie Montgomery, Ward 1
The Honorable Dave Thune, Ward 2
The Honorable Pat Harris, Ward 3
The Honorable Jay Benanav, Ward 4
The Honorable Lee Helgen, Ward 5
The Honorable Dan Bostrom, Ward 6
The Honorable Kathy Lantry, Ward 7
Saint Paul City Council
Saint Pauf, MN
FROM:
Mathews Hollinshead, 2114 Pinehurst Ave., Saint Paul, Minnesota 55116,
651-69&0260
Executive Committee member, North Star Chapter, Sierra Club;
Transportation Chair, North Star Chapter, Sierra Club; founding
president, University UNITED; founding Executive Director and current
Advisory Board member, Midway Transportation Management Organization;
past board member, Midway Chamber of Commerce; past board member,
Snelling Selby Area Business Association; Leadership in Neighborhoods
grantee fellow studying Urban Transportation and Community, year 2000,
Si. Paul Companies.
This letter is written on behalf of the several thousand Sierra Club
members who live in the City of Saint Paul, the 12,500 who live in the
Twin Cities Metro Area, and the approximately 20,000 who live in
Minnesota. It is also written from my perspective of several years of
adv�acy and work in the Midway/University Corridor area, a year of
travel and study focusing on similar corridors in more than 20 cities
in the year 2000.
The North Star Chapter, Sierra Club, opposes both the site ptan and the
lot split for the southwest comer of the intersection of Lexington and
University avenues.
The Chapter has advocated environmental justice, conservational land
use, and effective, modem transit and multimodal transportation for
several years. All of these needs are at issue in todays hearing
regarding the property at the southwest comer of Lexington and
University avenues.
TRANSPORTATION. The Central Corridor is likely to be the next link in
this network after the Northstar Corridor. Evidence that land use and
transit investment retum are interdependent is too abundant to need
itemization here. In virtually every city that has, is building or is
Mary Erickson - Sierra Club Testimony, Lexington University . � D Page 2
planning major transit corridors, the job and residential densities
along those corridors and especially at station stops, and the ease of
pedestrian access and use, are regarded as key charactistics. The
Federai Transit Administration decision criteria affirm that. Given the
high cost and complexity of huilding transportation in our metropolitan
area, it is critical that every effort be made to mauimize benefits. In
the case of transit, that means ridership and destinations.
LAND USE. Recent growth along University Avenue has shown that
residential density is viable, and historic development pattems
provide ample precedent for job density. Saint Paul cannot compete with
suburbs by imitating suburban development pattems. Saint Paul's
current and future success depend on promoting and enhancing its urban
qualities, the very ones that provide its comparative advantage in
attracting a growing market of residential customers looking for urban
lifestyfes.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. From a social and environmental justice point of
view, low density at University and Lexington, as opposed to mixed use
at higher density, moves the profile of those served by the development
up the income ladder and away from the immediate neighborhood, since
more people will drive to the resulting services with a low density
development. This may be the goal of the developer, although it seems
questionable to us whether it even fits the demographic of the proposed
grocery store tenant, a no-frills vendor that specifically targets low
income grocery shoppers. Even if that apparent business contradiction
is not a concem to the developer or the merchant, it is not what is
best for the city in the long run. St. Paul's shortage of affordable
housing is well established. IYs goal of building more housing is also
well established. The current site plan proposal and lot split may give
the developer an instant retum to meet some business goal of his own,
but does little or nothing for the viability of the neighborhood, the
city or the transit corridor now or in the future.
The site plan and lot split proposals at issue, if approved, will do
exactly the opposite. You are familiar with the argume�ts and the many
similar cases here and around the nation that prove this. A half
century of urban core underdevelopment, due to many complex factors,
has made certain cities, and certain neighborhoods of afmost every
city, marquee examples of what not to do for the future.
We hope and urge that you deny the curcent proposals. The dividends of
adding several floors of housing to the grocery store, an entrance
fronting the transit stop and corridor and simultaneous mixed-use
development plan�ing for the e�tire site seem very obvious as compared
to the application at issue. In Minneapolis at Lake Street and
Hiawatha, this same developer is wresUing circumstances not unlike the
application he has made that is the subject of today's hearing. But in
the case of Hi-Lake, he is said to be interested in just the opposite
type of development -- mixed use, high density, transit-oriented —
than in his Lexington proposals. It is a mystery why he is pursuing
something so minimal and, given a 20-year lifecycle, counterproductive
in Saint Paul when, according to some sources, he is most interested in
just the opposite at Hi-Lake and, indeed, is doing just the opposite at
Emerald Gardens further west on Univereity.
Mary Erickson - Sierra Club Testimony, Lexington University Page 3
Thank you for your attention to these comments.